Actually the house owner doesn't own the ground the house is build on. But the city remains owner ("leasehold"). Hence they can add restrictions and terms before you are allowed to build/use the land.
I remember that 199X trend, where you would re-create an FBI warning: orange tape, gif of a spinning warning light, etc. Expect this to be the same era joke.
"Workflows can be triggered by GitHub platform events (i.e. push, issue, release) and can run a sequence of serial or parallel actions in response. Combine and configure actions for the services you know and love built and maintained by the community."
We're building several projects, and looking for a key team member to be responsible for (early) growth. A hacker mentality, previous experience to show off, passion for the web, fun & social person.
Well back in 2004 there was no way to get an actual license. Most lyrics sites claimed to be safe under DMCA or "Educational Use".
Only up until the publishers stood up for themselves, the industry shifted slowly.
A more apt comparison is downloading an image that is still under Copyright (Mona Lisa is public domain, though photos of it may not be), getting a high quality print made at a local print shop, hanging it in your living room, and charging people $5 to come look at it.
In this example, there is a tangible personal gain from violating the intellectual property rights of somebody else.
It ain't theft, true, but it ain't a legal business model.
Except he wasn't charging them to see it. He had a huge neon sign in the background that he was being paid to have in his house, and they got to see the mona lisa for free. If they happened to see the neon beer sign as well, then awesome.
Right, intent matters, so if host-homeboy knows he can profit then he's in on the graft. Your logic reminds me of people who try to defend themselves in court without any legal background.
The outcome of your hypothesis, legally speaking, is that the person thinking they're winning is going to lose their fucking house as an accessory. Game, set, match IP infringement.
So it goes without saying that you're not one of those people who has committed the monstrous act of singing Happy Birthday without paying to license the performance rights?
Or have you perhaps also lead a less than pure life (as viewed by the RIAA)?
> So it goes without saying that you're not one of those people who has committed the monstrous act of singing Happy Birthday without paying to license the performance rights?
But, none of the copyright claims on that were valid so, how is that a monstrous act, even in an absolutist view of adherence to legal copyrights?
This is great to see! After 80 years a key piece of shared culture is finally free. I hadn't realized this news.
It is kinda insane that it took until 2015, though. I still somehow doubt that people who get on a high horse about lyrics sites and IP waited until someone with deep pockets was able to fend off a lawsuit in 2015 to sing the song, though.
Yes, I have sung Happy Birthday but I don't remember starting a business making money off of it and then bragging.
Yes, I have downloaded music in the past but I knew it was wrong and never used mental gymnastics to justify it. I simply did it because I didn't want to pay. Haven't done it in about a decade though.
IMO it takes greater mental gymnastics to justify the current copyright laws which extend far past the life of the author than it does to justify a lyrics site. The current law is almost exactly what Jefferson was worried about when writing about US copyright in its initial form—it locks up vast swaths of modern culture and even that of nearly a century ago.
It's absolutely crucial to understand that law and "right" from an ethical standpoint are not necessarily the same, though that is the ideal state to strive for.
It's actually pretty aligned with the traffic graph shown.
Exceptions are months (e.g. around Christmas) where my advertising partner would be able to attract up to 3x revenue from the same amount of traffic as the month before.
It was pretty clear that others would be next. Hence unlicensed wouldn't be maintainable.
Next to that, I wanted to sell advertising to big brands. My advertising partner insisted we needed to be licensed for the Coca Cola's of this world to spend money on my traffic.
So for me it was an opportunity to increase revenue, at the costs of lower profit margin.
I think the commenter's question was more about _how_ you did it :) (Thanks for answering questions here btw)
Did publishers just reach out to say "hey, pay this fee"? Or did they straight up start with lawsuits/C&D? Or did you reach out to them and say "hey I got this site, how much do I pay you to become licensed?"
So I went out and found licensing pro-actively. I wasn't contacted before in a formal way. But I know they (NMPA) did sent C&D letters to over 40 domains eventually.