**Did You give focusrite permission to enter your home or studio???

miroslav said:
All of that ^^^ is not different than song copyright. Intellectual property is not like buying a toaster oven. :)

When you buy a CD...your rights are basically limited to being able to play/listen to the CD.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't.
I really shouldn't.
But in for a penny; in for a pound.
There is no debate. There is only talk and all of that in places like this and none of it in places like courtrooms.

When you buy a CD, you bought a CD and it's yours and all yours. That's what retail means. All else is Restraint of Trade. You can play it. You can melt it. You can throw it in the air and shoot it with a shotgun. You can sell it to the used CD store. You can sell it to your friend. You can trade it for a watermelon. You can glue it to your satellite dish. The list is endless. And you can make all the copies you want. IOW, it's almost exactly like buying a toaster oven in almost every respect. Your ownership is sacrosanct and sovereign above all other claims to that point.

But... when you "re-enter the revenue stream" with the CD, the plastic, the case, or any program material, now things change. NOW you've created an encroachment that can be held liable against you.

Using the toaster oven example: You can pound out a new metal box, no one cares. You can make the dial bigger, smaller, or the same, no one cares. But when you use West Bend or Black&Decker or whatever name, then you're in deep do-do. We all know this. That same do-do applies to the CD except unlike the toaster oven, it applies to almost all of it because almost all of it is IP.

And just like the toaster oven, if you sell it at a garage sale, it's not that they WON'T come after you, it's that they CAN'T come after you. They have no legal standing and no case of merit. It's somewhat like they, the posturing playground bully saying, "I'd beat him up but it's not worth my time." In reality it's more like me, the karate instructor saying, "Come beat me up and let's see who gets their butt kicked." They have no case.

So i'm not treading on thin ice nor am i transacting under some benevolence grant. Once they went retail, and for that matter, once their song appears on the public airwaves or in the CD bin at the public library, all kinds of legal subtleties kick in. And yes, you're right there. THAT debate is endless when those rabbit trails are explored.

Their agreements are worded in such a way as to say, "this is totally ours and if you don't like it, go do something else." But as your Momma taught you long ago, just because some bully says so doesn't make it so. In reality, the law has uniformly told them, "you don't get to control all you say you can. If you don't like it, go do something else."

Like an "FBI Warning" on the front of an old VHS tape, people will read it and think they understand because, hey, they couldn't say it if it wasn't so, right? In the Real World, that's just not how things are.

Okay, I gotta bow out. All yours.

P5
 
The licensing agreements aren't about what you can do with the physical CD...but what is on it.
Sure...you can make a thousand copies of a CD and decorate your house with them, but start selling them, and you violate copyright of the intellectual property that is on the CDs.
Same thing with software, thought in many cases, you are often only entitled to a single licensed copy...so you can't install some applications on multiple systems without paying for multiple licenses.

I really don't see why that seems odd or confusing or upsetting to some people...the fact that agreements have clauses about how the owners of the intellectual property chose to protect it.
 
I have never used or owned a toaster oven. But if I did, I would respect it's rights as any law biding toaster oven owner should. I can't imagine a world where a toaster oven didn't have the same rights a I do

Oh shit, there is a clause?

LMAO!
 
Music is very different from software.

Would you agree if some publisher told you you could not play your CD on Sony CD players? I don't think so.

Yet, in the software arena, there could be valid technical reasons to prevent an enduser from using the software with some machines. Like in life-threatening danger, fi. And there's not always a technical way to prevent the enduser from doing just that. Since the software provider shares responsibility with the manufacturer of the machine, there is a good reason to put it in the license to limit liability.

Unless you create lethal (to humans or CD players) music, there's absolutely no reason to limit it's use in the license. That includes second hand CD resale. And courts allover the world have repeatedly confirmed that.

It gets blurry with downloaded or streamed music. I'm sure courts would need to revisit that principle.

And even with software, you have a legal right to resell it. Just as the software publisher has a legal right not to support secondhand software. But they can't legally block you from reselling it. Why do you think a lot of software publishers are moving to a subscription model? Right, problem of legal and illegal resale gone.

However, a software publisher can block you legally from modifying their software. Again, there could be valid technical reasons. Just like a car manufacturer can refuse to carry out service and warranty on a modified car. That's also the reason most open source software allows copying/modifying software, as long as the original open source license is included and (usually) you provide source code of the modifications. The main reason is it allows the enduser to pedal back to the original, should you decide to end development.
 
Just watched "Operation Finale."
"Going along to get along" can lead to some pretty horrendous consequences in the long run.
When "experts" make our decisions, we are slaves.
When the "experts" pay people to turn their decisions into law, we call it "government."
 
cyrano said:
Unless you create lethal (to humans or CD players) music, there's absolutely no reason to limit it's use in the license. That includes second hand CD resale. And courts allover the world have repeatedly confirmed that.
Click to expand...

Second hand resale is not what's being discussed...it's about illegally making/selling copies of the single CD you purchased....or software.

AFA the conspiracy theory "what ifs" that people are tossing out as some sort of argument against the licensing and control of intellectual property...whatever...you can make up "what ifs" endlessly....but they are not the reality that exists.

What if Martians invaded earth and stole all our software and music... :D :facepalm:
 
No, it isn't. But if you are unable to understand, I'll leave it at that. I'm sure others are capable of understanding what I write.
 
All I know is this;
Some of the music I've heard, I WISH Focusrite or whatever hardware or software company, WOULD come into that studio and confiscate everything.
:D :D :D
 
miroslav said:
What if Martians invaded earth and stole all our software and music... :D :facepalm:
Click to expand...

That's probably actually covered by most modern ToS in the section where it specifies that the license extends to the entire universe and that it's governed under the laws of whatever country.

Granted, refusing to acknowledge Martian jurisdiction after they've conquered us won't do much but under current law, it holds sway.
 
alterman said:
Many courts allover the world indeed have repeatedly confirmed that private persons can do much more with unregistered software than businesses because personal privacy is much more protected. Like i explained that a business has to keep his physical door open which a private person doesn't have to do for start.
Yet again, why should you use illegal versions as most software suppliers have freeware options to start with and many other good options are available. Some suppliers even make older versions available for downloading a full version.
Click to expand...

When a private person decides to bootleg software or music for profit...they've basically gone into business.
Even if they are not "selling" the copies...but instead are giving away thousands of these copies for free...they are indirectly stealing sales away from the actual owner of the licensed/copyrighted material.

Anyone that can't see this, and insists it's OK to do...well, you're part of the problem of why intellectual property has been devalued or will eventually have no value at all.
At that point...what's the motivation for the creation of new intellectual property if it's just going to be robbed without any restitution....?
 
VomitHatSteve said:
That's probably actually covered by most modern ToS in the section where it specifies that the license extends to the entire universe and that it's governed under the laws of whatever country.

Granted, refusing to acknowledge Martian jurisdiction after they've conquered us won't do much but under current law, it holds sway.
Click to expand...

LOL! Thirty Seconds To Mars Thirty Seconds To Mars may already own the rights to Martian invasion. We need to be rescued! :)
 
jimmys69 said:
LOL! Thirty Seconds To Mars may already own the rights to Martian invasion. We need to be rescued! :)
Click to expand...

:p

Speaking of them...if you ever catch their rock-umentary "Artifact"...it show another side of intellectual property rip-off. That said, I can't offer much sympathy because Jarred Leto wasn't/isn't some green garage band kid who didn't know anything about contracts and what have you.
I mean...he's got plenty of film credits and managers and lawyers, so in some respect, throughout "Artifact" it sounds like they just suddenly woke up and realized that they should be worth more, etc...and wanted to renegotiate. I just think they should have known better considering his acting experience.

Still...the label was being extremely dick-ish to them...so I think it was basically a standoff situation.
I think they are probably close to finally being out of that contract...I'm not sure how many years they were stuck in it...though of course, the lable wants ALL the intellectual property they may have created while waiting for their contract to end.
It's hard to see who really is at fault or fucked up in their situation...but of course, the label is always going to be bigger "bad guy".
 
jimmys69 said:
Lets try then. I have no idea what you want me to understand. Make me capable. :)
Click to expand...

There is a definite difference between software and music. Music has never killed or physically harmed anyone*.

Software could harm users, if you consider gear like CNC routers, laser- or waterjet cutters could be connected.

That's why courts see resale of music different from software. If a software vendor limits it's liability in an enduser license, courts wil generally agree. But courts won't accept license agreements for consumer music sales. It is different for music licenses for broadcast, of course, but these generally don't come in a clickable or hidden license agreement, but in real life contracts signed by lawyers.

*Now I come to think about it, music has been used to torture people, in Guantanamo Bay. Maybe artists should exclude that from their license?

And that leads to a third example: pharmaceutical companies excluding use of their products to carry out the death penalty.
 
cyrano said:
There is a definite difference between software and music. Music has never killed or physically harmed anyone*.

..........

That's why courts see resale of music different from software..
Click to expand...

What left field are you in? :confused:
You're not even in left field...you're out somewhere in the parking lot, wandering around, trying to find the entrance to left field.

THAT is the difference...???....because music doesn't kill...???...and THAT'S why it's OK for people to steal your intellectual property and make profits off it or take profits away from you by devaluing it through illegal distribution of "free" copies....???

:facepalm:
:laughings:
 
So if it isn't about piracy...then what's it about...?
Are you saying licensing agreements are about preventing software from killing...? :p

Well fuck...I never considered that my plugins or converters could kill me, and the software companies just want to protect me by including a clause that allows them to come inspect the premises for any rogue/rebel software with murder routines buried in its code.

Great point. :rolleyes: :facepalm: :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top