killing music

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Email	22338
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Captcha Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1702249910157.jpg ( 10.46 KB , 404x300 , copyreaper.jpg )

killing music Anonymous 2023-12-10 (Sun) 23:11:50 No.477181

https://www.billboard.com/pro/reggaeton-lawsuit-copyright-infringement-entire-genre/

<When the case was first filed, few people took notice. But the lawsuit quickly grew. By September 2022, the lawsuit had ballooned: More than 150 total defendant-artists, accused of releasing a staggering 1,800 infringing songs. In the most recent version of the complaint, filed in April, it takes a full 25 pages to list out all of the defendants

<“This case is jaw-dropping — the plaintiffs are suing over a hundred artists for over a thousand songs, 30 years after the release of their song,” says Jennifer Jenkins, a professor at Duke University School of Law who has written a history of musical borrowing and regulation. “If they win, this would confer a monopoly over an entire genre, something unprecedented in music copyright litigation.”

Tldr: there's a copyrape lawsuit where 2 copy-rapists are trying to copyrape a rythm. There aren't that many possible permutations for rythms in Music, so copyraping something like that can grant legal terror against an entire music-genre.

This lawsuit would at first only kill a genre called reggaeton, but if the precedent is set it might infect the rest of music as well. Worst case scenario is a single copy-rapist claiming most permutations of musical rythms and thus copyraping all music to death.

I wonder if this behaves like a rubber-band, and if they stretch it to far it will snap.

Anonymous 2023-12-12 (Tue) 05:23:35 No.477194

As much as I hate reggaeton, this is some fucking bullshit and those claimants can go to hell.

Anonymous 2023-12-13 (Wed) 01:16:12 No.477211

>>477194
>this is some fucking bullshit
That it is, indeed.
Also a mask-off moment, it clearly demonstrates that Intellectual monopolies are born from malicious intent.

>those claimants can go to hell.
They just might.
If this goes far enough and makes enough waves, many more people will wake up to the fact that so called """copyright""" is in reality, intellectual liberty infringement.

Anonymous 2024-02-04 (Sun) 15:28:31 No.478397

>>477211
>They just might. If this goes far enough and makes enough waves, many more people will wake up to the fact that so called """copyright""" is in reality, intellectual liberty infringement.

Idk. People will still see copyrught as potential revenue generators.
But they will reb against bullshit loke "copyraping."

Anonymous 2024-02-05 (Mon) 07:32:12 No.478415

>>477211
>intellectual liberty infringement.
we have to meme this concept into existence

>>478397
>Idk. People will still see copyrught as potential revenue generators.
Even from a capitalist perspective it's shit.

The best business-model is ransom-release.
Step_1 split your piece of "content" into demo/teaser-material and main-material.
Step_2 upload the demo/teaser online
Step_3 lock the main-material behind a ransom-pay-bucket
Step_4 When enough people have contributed to the ransom-bucket to cross your revenue-threshold, the main-material releases as creative commons or public domain.

The benefits are
- No need to fuss with copy censorship mechanisms or legal bullshit
- Predictable income
- Once you get a reputation for delivering, people will fill up your ransom-pay-bucket before you start production, removing all financial risk for the producer.

>But they will reb against bullshit loke "copyraping."
I don't know what that means, are you objecting to the terminology ?

It's appropriate to call it copyrape because it's not about economics, it's about exerting control over people.
Even the ideological story about the musician making money from selling copies of music recordings, is bullshit. Musicians make more money by releasing the recordings for free and then charging people money for tickets to their live shows (because that shifts leverage from distributors to authors and to an extend show-technicians). Don't forget that small authors are frequently the victim of copyrape. It's grown into an industrial protection racket that scans through the releases of authors to find a "content-component" they can copyrape and use it for extorting authors.

It's a mafia that has infiltrated parts of states to attempt to institutionalize their terror.
Maybe copy-racket would be better terminology than copy-rape

The copy-racket does not benefit creators. The internet has weakened the grip of the copy-monopoly-mafia and as a result the income and business opportunities for creatives increased dramatically, that is not a coincidence. This is the classical story of a monopoly getting broken causing a virtuous economic cycle.

Unique IPs: 5