• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 2 of 2

My comments

• Ther is nothing to get -- literally!
  It doesn't matter if he/she/it demands or expects, or even considers payment. Use of third-party creativity diminishes such work, and creates impressions on the property the owner expects to be safe under the laws, otherwise there would be no fretting from the owner as we have here who is right. Private use is OK, to a certain extent, but any public publication in any manner can never be, as it lowers the econcony in this pervasive digital age we live in now. Sorry to burst your bubble, but is fact, and there can be a better way that supports authors. In reply to: "Mother protects YouTube clip by suing Prince"

  October 30, 2007

  0 replies

• This is wrong! [read how and wherefore] .... beware YouTube, your time is
  coming....
  
  Why?> Any owner of I.P. (intellectual *Property*) should be able to control access to songs or video works created by the entity, and expect payment .... if there isn't a standard system or due-process enabled by commonlaw, or if publishers don't consider all background 'sounds' *before* publishing, then this can and will be abused by unethical partners, who think they can push the boundaries, or assign discrete words to assign to "evidence" of the fact, or otherwise. Everyone must be paid. Otherwise, a poverty mentality and lower standard of living and economy will always continue to exist, until the next president comes into power and changes that fact. best wishes.................. In reply to: "Mother protects YouTube clip by suing Prince"

  October 30, 2007

  3 replies