Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "What Makes This Song Great? \"Don’t Fear The Reaper\" Blue Oyster Cult" video.

@mattjones366 It wasn't right before youtube. It never fails that you law-illiterates who have contempt for the rights of others can never generate an "argument" that comports with morality, or ethics, let alone logic and law. "Those artists" have the exclusive right to determine the uses of their work -- especially when those who didn't do the work of creating those works PROFIT from that work. How many of these MONETIZED youtubers send a cut of their profits to those who CREATED the work from which they are profiting?
3
@JTLaser1 When a record is played on the radio, there are royalties paid for each play. Do these MONTIZED youtubers making money from SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY PAY A CUT to the creator of the music? We get it: if you covet someone else's property, you'll steal it; and if challenged will spew bullshit "arguments" that have no grounding in morality, ethics, reason or law.
2
@JTLaser1 It remains the fact that exclusive control over the use of a copyrighted work belongs to the copyright owner. As I've made clear, your "argument" has no merit. The law -- and other rights -- need not take a "chill" to your contempt for both.
2
@michaelkonomos I have an education in law and am also a published author. I know copyright law. And I note that the attacks on artists haven't mentioned companies but rather present their weaselly "arguments" against the arguments themselves. That indicates that they actually don't know anything about the arrangements between record labels and their recording artists or about copyright law. Their lawless "information should be free" view applies to others' property, and they have contempt for copyright law and the rights it protects. That's why I make the point that they'd squeal like stuck pigs if it were THEIR property that OTHERS were exploiting for their own ends and profits. Why I make the point that they are hypocrites.
2
@GutzmanK Yes, that's why you ignore facts Glenn is also ignoring in order to perpetuate the bashings. As I've said: the legal profession has an OBLIGATION to educate the general public as to the workings of legal process. But it doesn't do so because there's no PROFIT in it. Bashings draw a crowd but do not enlighten.
2
@GutzmanK I'll bet those who insist that their songs not be used don't feel any shame about it. Yes: those who are arguing against the copyright owner's exclusive control of their property ARE arguing against that exclusive control. Any yada-yada after that isn't a DEFENSE of that right; it is the injection of the bullying, the excuse, for the attack on that exclusive control. The next step is to simply steal use of the property. While, of course, claiming to "love" the person from whom one is stealing. Beato has also been criticized for using his videos as advertisements for the books he sells. Thus a criticism can be raised about the COMMERCIAL -- profit-making -- use of that "borrowed" material. All, of course, based on "love" . . .
2
@GutzmanK It's your OPINION that they are "foolish". Perhaps they have different values than you. There were whiners and bashers who complained that "The Beatles" didn't release their work IMMEDIATELY on CD. The concern was protecting the integrity of the whole work rather than see the value of the work dissipated. But I do love those who affirm "my" property rights, and "my" exclusive control of them, while at the same time bashing "my" protection of them. Weasel, weasel, weasel. Currently I'm confronted with a health care system that REFUSES to NOT REQUIRE that I surrender patients rights that are secured in written law -- such capitulation required in order that I then be provided necessary care that does not meet my medical needs. Which needs necessarily include NOT violating my rights as secured in written law. Their "arguments" (actually they have none; but they have POWER to withhold needed health care) are as self-serving as those who attack those who protect their copyrights according to their own prerogatives. The constant attack on established RIGHTS should be disturbing to anyone who professes to be a legal professional: after all it is the existence of the rule of law itself that puts bread on their table.
2
You don't know me.
1
It's the "greatest of all time" if you ignore all the others.
1
If the copyrights being violated were yours you'd scream like a stuck pig. Fundamanetally you reject the fact that others have rights that are to be respected.
1
@JTLaser1 Some of us take risks by trying new music we've not already heard. Why not ask people why they would bother to read a book they haven't already read?
1
@mattjones366 It is a question of what those who create works in which they own copyright -- it is their property -- want, not for those who use someone else's work for their own profit.
1
@FC-cz6zd But it is their decision to make, not yours. I wonder if you would blow off someone else exploiting your work -- property -- for their profit.
1
@michaelkonomos And they represent the artist's interests. Get a clue: if the corporations are stolen from, that is taken out of the artist's royalties. Interesting how free some are with the use of other peoples' property -- about which they themselves would scream like stuck pigs if exactly the same were done with their property. Ask yourself: what does "love" mean when one steals from those one "loves"?
1
@mattjones366 There are no LEGAL two ways about it: the owner of the copyright -- the property -- has exclusive say about how it is treated. All the "arguments" against that are specious -- and hostile to that exclusive right. Those who make that "argument" and don't like being rebuffed in their greed, their covetousness toward others' property -- tend then to look for ways around that right. They are sleazy scumbags who present "arguments" just like yours based upon some implied FALSE "moral" ground. If you were able to create copyrightable works, you'd scream like a stuck pig if someone else were to put your "argument" in your face. But you would be free to ALLOW OTHERS to profit from your work. That would be stupid, but that too is a potential personal decision.
1
@JTLaser1 I have an education in law, know the Copyright Act, and am a published author. I adhere to fact and law -- only a "closed mind" to those who reject both.
1
@whyyeseyec If he doesn't make any money, then what money goes where?
1
@whyyeseyec Copyright infringement is not limited to making money from someone else's property. It is also the unauthorized use of someone else's property.
1
@whyyeseyec Jackass: don't take my word for it: READ THE COPYRIGHT ACT.
1
@GutzmanK I agree: it is BLASPHEMY -- perhaps even ANTI-AMERICAN -- to forgo profit-making. And that "losing proposition for the intended audience" -- how is the audience "intended" opposite the wish of the copyright owner? "[I]ntended" by whom?
1
@GutzmanK Will you be allowing others to put it online for free? Or will you be standing by your property rights?
1