Comments on: Is this BusinessWeek or The Enquirer ? http://blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/ the mark cuban weblog Sat, 13 Mar 2010 04:24:34 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: …and they say bloggers are amateurs — Shooting at Bubbles http://blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-63999 …and they say bloggers are amateurs — Shooting at Bubbles Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:08:40 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-63999 [...] in Robert Tur’s company; who is currently suing GooTube, but I felt that from reading his posted response to what Businessweek had written that this also pointed to another underlying story that dogs all [...] [...] in Robert Tur’s company; who is currently suing GooTube, but I felt that from reading his posted response to what Businessweek had written that this also pointed to another underlying story that dogs all [...]

]]> By: Shawnte\'e McCoy http://blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26900 Shawnte\'e McCoy Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:41:50 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26900 Hello, Mr. Cuban<br><br> I am a film maker in Detroit a partner an I shot a film called Envy. We have gone the conventional way in putting the film out but, there method is to take what we have worked so hard to make and give us nothing. We have a young man that has done some work in your studio in Dallas this is why I write you. I am reaching out to you to see if you can help us in the release of our film. It is evident that you are a great buisness man. So if there is some way you can help we would be greatful. Hello, Mr. Cuban

I am a film maker in Detroit a partner an I shot a film called Envy. We have gone the conventional way in putting the film out but, there method is to take what we have worked so hard to make and give us nothing. We have a young man that has done some work in your studio in Dallas this is why I write you. I am reaching out to you to see if you can help us in the release of our film. It is evident that you are a great buisness man. So if there is some way you can help we would be greatful.

]]> By: izmir nakliyat http://blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26899 izmir nakliyat Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:46:30 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26899 I love it. I love it.

]]> By: Jason Brown http://blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26898 Jason Brown Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:35:25 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26898 If you make judgement based on one source you are in trouble. You had best gather information from multiple sources and draw your own conclusions. This blog is a great alternative... If you make judgement based on one source you are in trouble. You had best gather information from multiple sources and draw your own conclusions. This blog is a great alternative…

]]> By: basketball tips http://blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26897 basketball tips Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:08:45 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26897 You really never know the whole story. That's one of the reasons I love reading this blog: Mark has a lot of information and insight that we don't get from reading the regular media. And he's interested in sports and the like, so it makes it even more interesting to read. But it's true: whenever you read a story, you really have to wonder what the truth is behind it, or what the peopl's motivations are for writing it. You really never know the whole story. That’s one of the reasons I love reading this blog: Mark has a lot of information and insight that we don’t get from reading the regular media. And he’s interested in sports and the like, so it makes it even more interesting to read. But it’s true: whenever you read a story, you really have to wonder what the truth is behind it, or what the peopl’s motivations are for writing it.

]]> By: Soren Gordhamer http://blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26896 Soren Gordhamer Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:31:48 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26896 On a separate issue, it seems you were right Mark about aspects of the Google/Youtube deal, and Eric Schmidt was not truthful initially when asked about it, at least according to John Battelle: <a href="http://battellemedia.com/archives/003112.php" rel="nofollow">http://battellemedia.com/archives/003112.php</a> On a separate issue, it seems you were right Mark about aspects of the Google/Youtube deal, and Eric Schmidt was not truthful initially when asked about it, at least according to John Battelle: http://battellemedia.com/archives/003112.php

]]> By: jim http://blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26895 jim Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:34:53 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26895 Mark, your take on the sound recording complement is not exactly accurate. The restrictions on the number of sound recordings (you say "songs," but the restriction actually applies to "sound recordings"; "musical works" have two distinct copyrights not necessarily held by the same person or entity -- copyright in the arrangement of the actual words and musical notes, and copyright in the actual sound recording) is related to a "statutory license" granted to certain public performances of digital audio transmissions of sound recordings. It's called a "statutory" or "compulsory" license because if the transmitting entity complies with the terms of the license (among them, the sound recording complement that you mention), the entity can then pay one "reasonable rate" negotiated between the entity and copyright holders (in this case a non-profit org called SoundExchange, a performing rights organization that essentially negotiates and collects royalties and then distributes the money to the various copyright holders), or if negotiations are unsuccessful, determined by a Copyright Royalty Judge, for the type of digital transmission that the entity offers. <br><br>This is a long way of saying, the digital transmitters follow the terms of the license and then all of the sound recordings are covered under one rate (instead of, in the alternative, having to negotiate each sound recording, and inevitably paying a lot more to publicly perform a sound recording of a widely popular group such as the Beatles than an emerging indie group such as Annuals).<br><br>So. It is true that a digital transmitter cannot publicly perform the sound recording of an entire Beatles album UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTORY LICENSE. However, there is nothing that would prevent the digital transmitter from entering into negotiations with the copyright holder for a separate license that would allow such a performance.<br><br>The DMCA might have its shortcoming, but the system you seem to be suggesting, i.e., allowing a digital transmitter to play LedZep's entire catalog under a compulsory license, would almost certainly both destroy the digital transmission industry (because the negotiated price would be so exorbitant that only a limited number of players could/would enter the market) or implicate the Fifth Amendment ("no private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation").<br> Mark, your take on the sound recording complement is not exactly accurate. The restrictions on the number of sound recordings (you say “songs,” but the restriction actually applies to “sound recordings”; “musical works” have two distinct copyrights not necessarily held by the same person or entity — copyright in the arrangement of the actual words and musical notes, and copyright in the actual sound recording) is related to a “statutory license” granted to certain public performances of digital audio transmissions of sound recordings. It’s called a “statutory” or “compulsory” license because if the transmitting entity complies with the terms of the license (among them, the sound recording complement that you mention), the entity can then pay one “reasonable rate” negotiated between the entity and copyright holders (in this case a non-profit org called SoundExchange, a performing rights organization that essentially negotiates and collects royalties and then distributes the money to the various copyright holders), or if negotiations are unsuccessful, determined by a Copyright Royalty Judge, for the type of digital transmission that the entity offers.

This is a long way of saying, the digital transmitters follow the terms of the license and then all of the sound recordings are covered under one rate (instead of, in the alternative, having to negotiate each sound recording, and inevitably paying a lot more to publicly perform a sound recording of a widely popular group such as the Beatles than an emerging indie group such as Annuals).

So. It is true that a digital transmitter cannot publicly perform the sound recording of an entire Beatles album UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTORY LICENSE. However, there is nothing that would prevent the digital transmitter from entering into negotiations with the copyright holder for a separate license that would allow such a performance.

The DMCA might have its shortcoming, but the system you seem to be suggesting, i.e., allowing a digital transmitter to play LedZep’s entire catalog under a compulsory license, would almost certainly both destroy the digital transmission industry (because the negotiated price would be so exorbitant that only a limited number of players could/would enter the market) or implicate the Fifth Amendment (“no private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation”).

]]> By: CaptiousNut http://blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26894 CaptiousNut Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:54:08 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26894 Hah, last year I cancelled my subscription and started calling them Anti-Businessweek.<br><br><a href="http://marginalizingmorons.blogspot.com/2005/05/anti-businessweek.html" rel="nofollow">http://marginalizingmorons.blogspot.com/2005/05/anti-businessweek.html</a><br><br>They are nothing but dissembling, scheming socialists.<br><br>Mark, but then again so is your comrade Alex Berenson.<br><br>Sorry, that was a cheap shot. I decided to keep The Number, though it took me a while to tear out every page except the foreword. Hah, last year I cancelled my subscription and started calling them Anti-Businessweek.

http://marginalizingmorons.blogspot.com/2005/05/anti-businessweek.html

They are nothing but dissembling, scheming socialists.

Mark, but then again so is your comrade Alex Berenson.

Sorry, that was a cheap shot. I decided to keep The Number, though it took me a while to tear out every page except the foreword.

]]> By: Uranus Rocks http://blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26893 Uranus Rocks Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:47:28 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26893 <br><br>Hey Mark,<br><br>GooTube works best with GOOGLube. Anal-yst recommended!! Hey Mark,

GooTube works best with GOOGLube. Anal-yst recommended!!

]]> By: Timir! http://blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26892 Timir! Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:11:45 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/is-this-businessweek-or-the-enquirer/#comment-26892 Where new themes? Where new themes?

]]>