• NevOn
    NevOn is the archive weblog of Neville Hobson, a British business communicator based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, a record of commentary and conversations from December 2002 until 22 February 2006. This site is no longer updated - please visit www.nevillehobson.com.
  • About Neville Hobson
  • Gmail email


  • For Immediate Release
    For Immediate Release: The Hobson & Holtz Report - A bi-weekly podcast for professional communicators from Neville Hobson, ABC, and Shel Holtz, ABC.

    Subscribe to podcast RSS feed

    Subscribe via iTunes

    Subscribe via Yahoo! Podcasts

    Enter your email address* and click "Vote" to cast your vote for FIR at Podcast Alley:

    *email used for vote verification.

2006 Public Speaking

  • Delivering The New PR – How Blogs, Podcasts and RSS Can Work For You - Manchester, UK, February 15, 2006

    New Communications Forum 2006 - Palo Alto, USA, March 1-3, 2006

    Blogging for Business - London, April 4, 2006

    Summit for the Future on Risk 2006 - Amsterdam, May 3-5, 2006

    IABC International Conference 2006 - Vancouver, Canada, June 4-7, 2006

2005 Public Speaking

  • Les Blogs 2.0 - Paris, December 5-6, 2005

    IABC EuroComm 2005 - Paris, Nov 30 - Dec 2, 2005

    Melcrum workshop on New Media - London, November 29, 2005

    Making the News: Blogging, Really Simple Syndication and The New PR - Sunderland, UK, November 18, 2005

    Emerce E-Day - Amsterdam, October 12, 2005

    Global PR Blog Week 2.0 - September 19-23, 2005

    PodcastCon UK - September 17, 2005

    The Communication Directors' Forum

    New Communications Forum 2005 - Napa, USA, January 26-27, 2005

Corporate Blogs

  • Comprehensive list of corporate blogs on The New PR Wiki. Also there: list of CEO blogs, product blogs, podcasts and more.



  • Listed on BlogShares
  • Blogarama - The Blog Directory
  • The British Bloggers Directory.
  • FeedDemon RSS & Atom Reader
  • Kinja, the weblog guide
  • Get Firefox!
  • Powered by TypePad
  • We're Not Afraid
  • Download iPodder, the cross-platform podcast receiver

« An online order that exceeds my expectations | Main | Three success measures for podcasting »

31 December 2004


Rafael Venegas

The LLRX article starts with the word "misinformation". This is regretable because the entire article is meant to misinform by giving one limited scope legal side of an argument, like politicians and salespersons do but scientists and businessmen (at least internally) are not supposed to do. After all shortest way to the truth is to look at all sides of the issues. The arguments for copyrights have also a moral and political side, not just a legal side. After all, the inquisition was legal,so was the Hitler political ascendancy. Certainly more myths could have been raised in the LLRX article if a more balanced and objective discussion had been presented. For example:

Myth: Copyright laws work. The fact is that they work in an opposite way as they should. It destroys the created works. It destrous the arts. It destroys the artists. This is because they were written to favor the copyright industries or cartels. This is expalined in detail in the article THE COPYRIGHT FUNNEL (read at THE COPYRIGHT DOG blog: http://chocoweb.blogspot.com/).

Myth: Copyright claims are valid. Nonsense. I have recordings of Beethoven symphonies made in the USA before 1950 that say "all rights reserved,,blah, blah. when in fact the recording is in the public domain per US law for being pre 1978 and the music is in the public domain per the law of Germany, the composers's homeland and international law). This type of claim is incredibily common and tolerated by the governments that now appear to be so concerned about copyrights. The biggest scam of false claims is the ownership claims that music publishers make. The article BIGGEST COPYRIGHT SCAM: RENEWAL RIGHTS APPROPRIATION (read at THE COPYRIGHT DOG blog: http://chocoweb.blogspot.com/) .
Myth: Copyright laws protect the creators. Nonsense.

Myth: The money collected by music publishers and performance rights organizations reach the songwriters. Nonsense. There are some exceptions, but that is it. The vast percentage of author royalties, over 90 percent, is retained by the publishers.

Myth: Sony (and RIIA by extension) is anti-piracy. Nonsense. A lawsuit against Sony was filed by the children of one composer because it makes and markets 16 records with songs owned by the composer's children without any license and without paying any royalties. By their action Sony has saved a bundle in royalties. The details can be read here: http://www.gvenegas.com .

Myth: Buying blank CDs and DVDs is criminal. This is because they are used to infringe. Then why are they sold by the truckload, at a rate 1000 greater that what would be need to backup self created works? Then we are all criminals.

Myth: The works of Shakespeare are in the public domain. The truth is that nothing is ever in the public domain. There are a variety of trick available to publishers that allows them to claim copyrights. Added artwork and footnotes are great tools in literature and music scores, for claiming copyrights. Remastering and removing sctraches of old records can justify a new copyright claim. Arrangements of public domain songs are registered, then included in the catalog of the performace rights societies. And so on.

Myth: Songs are licensed by the performace "composer" societies. The truth is that these societies are not composer societies but publisher societies and no one knows what songs are licensed because the catalog of songs is not know by the licenesee. For example a barber shop may be licensed so that they can play the radio in the barber shop. But the barber shop owner has no idea what songs are played on the radion, let alone if they are included in the non existing catalog he has licensed. Actually what the barber shop acquired is a blackmail license, meaning that he will no be sued by the performance society that issed the license to the barber shop. And the legislators now not of this openly ongoing licensing farce/blackmail? There you have anothe myth.

Etc. Etc.

Rafael Venegas

Rafael Venegas

Link correction to previous post




Post author web page:

Sory for the clerical errors.

Neville Hobson

Rafael, thanks for such a thoughful and lengthy comment. From visiting your website, I think I can understand why you have such strong views on this subject.

I'm not really wholly sure how I can give comment directly to what you say. I can't comment on the detail re any issues with record labels, music downloading, etc - hot topics, all! - as I have little knowledge on the specifics in those areas. Plus I'm not a copyright lawyer.

One comment you made, though, is one I'd agree with - copyright laws work (in the sense that they don't, which is what you're pointing out). In this age of being able to get hold of just about anything from a website, blog or whatever, and wherever it is, and then go ahead and use it just isn't right, in my view. That's actually at the heart of what the LLRX story, and my post, is addressing.

Indeed, all the points you make illustrate how current geography-based copyright laws are so weak today.

I think the the idea I mentioned in my post re Creative Commons is worth exploring - and they have detailed information relating to rights for audio material (http://creativecommons.org/audio/).

The comments to this entry are closed.

New Blog

  • Go to www.nevillehobson.com

Google Search Nevon

Corante Network

Content Syndication


  • Verified Member of the AttentionTrust



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 07/2004