Thread: Provider of Free Public Domain Music Shuts Down

I think this is one of the first times the same law that in one country that's different in another country actually works for artist.

Yes but you missing 1 keyword Sami, International. Which would seem to have either some agreement or business in that country, which means they have the follow each country law. Think about some stores you can buy from online, notice how some states don't get sales tax. If they don't have a store in that state then there is no sales tax. Kind of the same principle.

International vs Domestic laws are kind of stupid when it comes to the internet SamiJo. Copyright law more then anything because it can differ so much from country to country (in Canada you are allowed to have a backup of any media you own, which means you can DL any song or movie you already own a copy of, however you're not allowed to share your copies)

Public domain songs laws - much support for music internationally
commercial songs laws - less support internationally

I do find that actually wierd.

Canada gives up copyrights after artist death at 50 years. Disney pushed american congress to move that to 70 (technically Snow White is public domain in most of the world now)

If you hange coutries for many things you can really pull one over on anything. You can legally buy full albums for 99cents in russia. Ethically you shouldn't since I don't think none of that money goes to the artist. In alot of asian countryies you can legally buy software for cheap. Get Vista for 50cents legally, but if you want it illegally you can buy the actually cd for under 25cents. Hsoolien told us before that in canada a Radio DJ has to pay the artist each time they play a song, in the US we don't have anything close to that, in the UK you can buy a license and play all you want. Its all wierd like that.

Countries with sub 5$ ip products (CD's, DVD's Software etc) just don't enforce IP's legally. Most are (or were) communist as well, where the idea of one person owning anything is against their beliefs.

IP law to one form or another protects a persons ability to sell something that does not have a definite physical representation, or an idea that they may have poured hundreds to billions of dollars into and would like to re-coup some of that cost (after all they like to eat as well)

You know I always thought it was funny that when consumers pull a fast one on companies and stuff its called stealing, when a companies does the same thing its call good business.

I heard about snow white being public domain. It was being blasted every where about it. But it was only for about a day or 2. There was some arguement about what could be made from it.

Originally Posted by Raven

You know I always thought it was funny that when consumers pull a fast one on companies and stuff its called stealing, when a companies does the same thing its call good business.

This isn't some companies pulling a fast one to steal from the consumer, this is someone somewhere trying to get the most money they can out of an investment of time and resources (millions on media, billions on other IP items). But that's where the issue of copyright law sits. They set a time limit till something becomes public domain (or patent law expires) because there is a certain limit of what went in to it, and you're likely to recoup with decent business practise. Companies try to extend this amount as far as they can is good business sense, and as long as they don't take it too far. 50-70 is fair really (7 for patent, you can make a lot of money past patent expiry do to brand recognition, like say Band-Aids).

If you can't see the difference between that and stiffing a company to their loss, then you cannot tell me there is a difference between raping a hooker and paying her. (extreme, brutal, excessive even, but the moral grounds are exactly the same, only the ethical extent is different)