Chris Hadfield's "Space Oddity" Removed From YouTube

[Alterego-X]

And this kids, is what's wrong with capitalism.

Because nothing says capitalism like extensive regulatory government-granted monopolies. /s

 

[Vegosiux]

And this kids, is what's wrong with capitalism.

Because nothing says capitalism like extensive regulatory government-granted monopolies. /s

Indeed. After all, the eternal council of darkness government merely became another subject of the market that can be bought, and since it's in a short supply, the price is so high only the disgustingly wealthy can afford to buy it. Capitalism.

 

[Alterego-X]

Indeed. After all, the eternal council of darkness government merely became another subject of the market that can be bought, and since it's in a short supply, the price is so high only the disgustingly wealthy can afford to buy it. Capitalism.

Yeah. My point was, that saying copyright demonstrates "what's wrong with capitalism", is like saying that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea demonstrates what's wrong with democracy.

No, it doesn't, because even if it might be presented with a bunch of capitalism associated buzzwords (market, profit, corporations), it is very blatantly anti-capitalistic in it's principles.

 

[Vegosiux]

Indeed. After all, the eternal council of darkness government merely became another subject of the market that can be bought, and since it's in a short supply, the price is so high only the disgustingly wealthy can afford to buy it. Capitalism.

Yeah. My point was, that saying copyright demonstrates "what's wrong with capitalism", is like saying that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea demonstrates what's wrong with democracy.

No, it doesn't, because even if it might be presented with a bunch of capitalism associated buzzwords (market, profit, corporations), it is very blatantly anti-capitalistic in it's principles.

And I point was that I find it increasingly irritating how people seem to refer to "the government" as if it was some otherworldly entity, removed from the actual dynamics of how societies work.

Or maybe you meant "current administration" when you said "government". The concept of government has existed as long as people have had to deal with other people to get through their lives. It evolved and got more complex, naturally. But we're drifting into semantics here.

And yes, administrations and governments can be bought.

 

[Clovus]

first grade bullshit right here. His song is a cover of existing song, thus legally no permission is needed as long as he acknowledges the original author.

...

theres also the fact that any radio could have taken Chris version and broadcast it for free due to it being a cover and thus no need tyo pay David Bowie or Chris for it.

No, that's not how Copyright works with cover songs. You don't have to simply "acknowledge the author". From wikipedia:

"Since the Copyright Act of 1909, United States musicians have had the right to record a version of someone else's previously recorded and released tune, whether it's music alone or music with lyrics. A license can be negotiated between representatives of the interpreting artist and the copyright holder, or recording published tunes can fall under a mechanical license whereby the recording artist pays a standard royalty to the original author/copyright holder through an organization such as the Harry Fox Agency, and is safe under copyright law even if they do not have any permission from the original author." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version#U.S._copyright_law

I'm guessing he got special permission to not pay any royalties at all. I don't know how the royalties would work with YouTube, but I wouldn't be surprised if even the "mechanical license" would cost him more than he would earn through ads or whatever.

You can definitely create a cover version of a song without the permission of the author, but you absolutely cannot do it for free.

Fair use is fine, even if i agree it could be done much better. Its just that both the lawyers and the judges seems to prefer their opinions than fair use laws nowadays. This is a cover of a song and is protected under fair use. see how "fair" that ended? Well, more precisely it falls under "mechanical license", but the holder actually has no right to refuse mechanical license, the only power it has is to "release it first", and in this case it certainly was released earlier. decades earlier

Fair use and the laws for cover songs aren't really related. Covers do not qualify for "fair use" since the replicate the entire product and could clearly have a direct economic impact on the original version. Like you said, why pay more for the original when you could use a cheap or even free version? Fair use hasn't been distorted or anything, it was never meant to cover something like this, nor should it. Covers fail all aspects of fair use unless they aren't done for profit. For some reason, that prong is the one that is always considered the most important by the public, but all four have to be considered.

The main problem with copyright is that it now lasts basically forever and newer laws have created penalties that are completely insane.

 

[kanetsb]

And this kids, is what's wrong with capitalism.

Because nothing says capitalism like extensive regulatory government-granted monopolies. /s

Are you aware, that the biggest monopolies in the world, are actually capitalist creations? You know, stuff like Kraft Foods etc.?

Also, whenever someone mentions extensive regulations as something bad - I just say one word... Enron.

 

[Alterego-X]

Are you aware, that the biggest monopolies in the world, are actually capitalist creations? You know, stuff like Kraft Foods etc.?

Yeah, and Hitler was elected through democratic means. This doesn't mean that he was a democratic leader.

Also, whenever someone mentions extensive regulations as something bad - I just say one word... Enron.

You can think of them as good, in which case you have no reason to complain about what copyrights are doing (after all, they are extensive regulations, yay), or you can think of them as bad, in which case you have no reason to blame "capitalism" for copyright. (after all, the free market should reward artists, not the Man in Washington handing them over monopoly control).

Or more reasonably, we might admit that it's depending on the context, that in some situations UNREGULATED corporations have caused problems to the free market through forming monopolies and trusts and syndicates, while in other cases, the government itself created anti-capitalistic monopolies such as the copyright regime, because it was in a a few corporations' interests.

 

[kanetsb]

Are you aware, that the biggest monopolies in the world, are actually capitalist creations? You know, stuff like Kraft Foods etc.?

Yeah, and Hitler was elected through democratic means. This doesn't mean that he was a democratic leader.

Nice Godwin there, sir...

Also, not sure what the reasoning behind bringing ye'olde Hitler into the mix is. Because free market will eventually lead to a one massive monopolistic mega corp... Hitler wasn't democratic?
Also, living in a regulated state (EU/Poland), I can tell you that regulations are there to prevent monopolies from forming most of the time, not making them. Making monopolies - that's communism, state owned stuff, i.e. something entirely different.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Tragic. Perhaps the best rendition of the song I've ever heard. Copyright laws are bullshit.

 

[Alterego-X]

Nice Godwin there, sir...

No, there isn't. Analogies are not the same as equivalence.

You are saying that anti-capitalistic regulations are "what's wrong with capitalism", on the account that the corporations supporting it were formed by capitalism.

This is analogous to saying that Hitler's regime was "what's wrong with democrarcy". Or to use another analogy if that makes you feel better, it's like saying that present day China demonstrates "what's wrong with communism". No, it doesn't, because it is very explicitly not an example of it, even if it's called that and started out that way at some point.

You can't call it an example of capitalism, where the government picks winners and losers, hands over so much control to certain people (IP holders) that they are allowed to censor other people's self-expression, and gain privileges in controlling the flow of information.

Also, living in a regulated state (EU/Poland), I can tell you...

Hi, Welcome from Hungary.

Polak, Węgier, dwa bratanki, i do szabli, i do szklanki.

Making monopolies - that's communism, state owned stuff, i.e. something entirely different.

Exactly. So the government making extensive monopolies such as copyright, is not "what's wrong with capitalism", it's what's wrong with communism.

Well, not really, actually it's more of an oligargchy, (the state doesn't hoard the IP control for itself just gives it away a handful of interested parties), but you get the point.

 

[kanetsb]

Nice Godwin there, sir...

You can't call it an example of capitalism, where the government picks winners and losers, hands over so much control to certain people (IP holders) that they are allowed to censor other people's self-expression, and gain privileges in controlling the flow of information.

Isn't it though, that this is primarily a US issue as the DMCA (and forwards) regulation was muscled into law by lobbyists?
AFAIK, these people embody the ultimate capitalist achievement, of being able to actually create law that suits them...
Lobbying in Poland for instance is strictly prohibited and there have been quite a few scandals when this happened. In US though, it seems it's perfectly legal to destroy net neutrality for instance, just because some companies want to make an extra buck. Just slip some money into the party accounts and you're set.

Again, going back to Enron and the banking crisis - the regulations lobbied that allowed for these financial disasters were put there just to satisfy the basis of capitalism, making as much money as possible.

--

Also, who exactly is the claimant here? It's not that Hadfield is somehow taking Bowie's profit by singing his songs on the web. I mean, if I was Bowie, I would be proud to have someone sing my song in SPACE! Apart from the privilege, this has to be one of the best kind of advertisement in history...

 

[Alterego-X]

Isn't it though, that this is primarily a US issue as the DMCA (and forwards) regulation was muscled into law by lobbyists?
AFAIK, these people embody the ultimate capitalist achievement, of being able to actually create law that suits them...

Capitalism by definition involves a free market system, where prices are determined based supply and demand.

When lawmakers are limiting the free market in favor of benefiting particular competitors, that's anti-capitalistic, even if it can be phrased as being done for "corporations increasing their profits", because that would be a childishly crude definition of capitalism.

Hence my Hitler analogy: You could define democracy as a system where "whoever gets the most votes is in charge", in which case the Nazies reached the Ultimate Democratic Achievement. Or you could look up a more substantive definition, involving checks and balances, Rule of Law, constitutionalism, and Human rights, all of which they have actually dismantled.

It's the same deal with capitalism: US corporations might be using vaguely capitalistic-sounding principles like profitability, yet actually dismantle the more substantial principles of capitalism.