MAC
Quote:

And a company such as PGMusic is not gong to be inclined to get into the middle of such a situation, whether behind the doors of emails or not, simply because I'm fairly sure that any competent attorney would advise them against such action. The finger would naturally be pointed towards those who have the most money available for settlement, duh. [quote/]

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (an amendment to Title 17, U.S. Code...commonly known as "The Copyright Act"...and the Napster and Grokster cases there just ISN'T any exposure to web domain owners...like PG...or ISPs/OSPs...like AOL/YAHOO0 ect. whose services are not PRIMARILY INTENDED to facilite the copying and distribution of copyrighted works due to "safe harbor" provisions in the DMCA.

If the owner of a DOMAIN like PG could get busted for e-mails sent by the registered members of their forums then there would be no more domains and therefore, no more internet.

All they have to do is NOT permit the posting of or links to copyrighted material on their own sites.

In fact, the DMCA safe harbors are so broad that such links can be posted so long as A) the domain's PRIMARY PURPOSE is NOT to facilitate infringement and B) they block the link or take it down AFTER being notified to do so.

www.copyright.gov/legislation,dmca.pdf

I'm not suggesting it would be a good idea for PG to openly encourage the copying/distribution of copyrighted material...but when is it EVER a good idea to encourage the violation of the law?

But PG has ZERO legal risk* if one of its software licensees without any knowledge by PG...sends an e-mail to someone with a BIAB file containing the melody line of a copyrighted song. Zero as in none...nada...zip...zilch. (-:

And it appears that PG isn't all that worried about this matter because if they were, there would be no User Showcase. How does PG KNOW that those works don't rip off copyrighted material?
Answer...they don't.



*Of course any fool can sue anybody for anything. I'm talking about suits with at least a shred of merit.

And for those worried about the copyright in Happy Birthday to You...not to worry. The copyright expires in 18 years! (-:

As for the difference on protection of patents vs. copyrights...roughly 20 years for the former and 70+++ years for the latter...that has been a controversial subject for many years.

But the main issue is that patents...and especially drug-related patents can SAVE LIVES and also can cost thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars annually per individual user.

And people HAVE TO buy air bags...because the law requires the car companies to supply them and many people HAVE TO buy drugs...or die in many cases. Conversely, not one HAS to buy music/books/art etc. covered by copyrights.

AND...the royalty on a given recorded song is a stinking 9.1 CENTS per copy so publishing isn't any path to massive wealth except for the VERY VERY few who have huge hit singles!!

I think...just my 2 cents...that BOTTOM LINE the legislators feel that it is WAY in the "public good" to limit patent protections in order to walk the fine line between adequately compensating the companies who profit from them (no compensation...no inventions/drugs) and getting them into unprotected production so as to bring the prices down substantially.

FINALLY for those who think that the drug companies are "Robber Barons", Merk...is a typical example and its Return on Assets is around 10% so because of the MASSIVE expenses of bringing new drugs to market, that business is hardly "wildly profitable."

Conversely, Apple's ROA is around 27% and people camp out days in advance to VOLUNTARILY buy its new products...so, who's zoomin' who???



(-:

Best,

Jim