When in Rome, I must do as the Romans do. When in America, make Bikram copyright and trademark.
No one has a copyright on working-class struggles.
If we're talking about someone creating something new, those rights are fairly well defined (in the United States, at least) under existing copyright law. But then there's often discussion about the rights of people who produce works under work-for-hire arrangements, which can be far more subtle and nuanced.
Music copyright and licensing laws haven't kept up with technology or the times. The Music Modernization Act fixes that with a comprehensive set of reforms that will help musicians receive royalties they are owed while ensuring the public has access to that music.
Napster was predicating its business model on violation of copyright.
Napster's only alleged liability is for contributory or vicarious infringement. So when Napster's users engage in noncommercial sharing of music, is that activity copyright infringement? No.
The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years.
I believe in copyright, within limited precincts. But I also believe in fair use, public domain, and especially transformation.
If I'm seeing you, you're going to influence me. I'm sorry - I'm just that way. I'm a big sponge. You can't copyright an aesthetic.
I am outraged that the Gorillaz have infringed the copyright of my song 'Time Warp,' claiming their song 'Stylo' to be an original composition.
