Why Everyone Stopped Playing Lassus Trombone

[Bach5G]

https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php? ... us#p150595

[Posaunus]

Please don't encourage this poster by watching his videos or responding.

[TromboneTallie]

[Posaunus]

Please cease and desist. Time to close this thread.

[TromboneTallie]

Please cease and desist. Time to close this thread.

Those videos show that his channel was demonetized and his videos were taken down. YouTube finally acted on the copyright and intellectual infringement on that channel.

The second video is of him trying to convince himself that it was OK to infringe on Doug Yeo after he plagiarized and Doug asked him to stop.

[Posaunus]

Those videos show that his channel was demonetized and his videos were taken down. YouTube finally acted on the copyright and intellectual infringement on that channel.

The second video is of him trying to convince himself that it was OK to infringe on Doug Yeo after he plagiarized and Doug asked him to stop.

Thanks. It's about time. I didn't want him to profit from my looking at his plagiarized nonsense.

[Posaunus]

The second video is of him trying to convince himself that it was OK to infringe on Doug Yeo after he plagiarized and Doug asked him to stop.

I watched some of it. Pretty pathetic. Good riddance!

[LeTromboniste]

The comments are pretty insane, too. Everyone is a scholar, apparently...

[TromboneTallie]

It's pretty telling. The confusion and pure ignorance over intellectual property, and acting as if he has been victimized. I'm sure the real reason was from the blatant rips from Disney movies, but it is fun to think that this is from him slandering both Doug Yeo and Joe Alessi, both of whom asked him to stop or remove content that put them in a bad light or ripped off their work.

[X200]

It's pretty telling. The confusion and pure ignorance over intellectual property, and acting as if he has been victimized. I'm sure the real reason was from the blatant rips from Disney movies, but it is fun to think that this is from him slandering both Doug Yeo and Joe Alessi, both of whom asked him to stop or remove content that put them in a bad light or ripped off their work.

Other issues aside, 'intellectual property' is a nebulous term designed to sow confusion and is devoid of real meaning, legally or otherwise. Worth reading: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

[TromboneTallie]

It's pretty telling. The confusion and pure ignorance over intellectual property, and acting as if he has been victimized. I'm sure the real reason was from the blatant rips from Disney movies, but it is fun to think that this is from him slandering both Doug Yeo and Joe Alessi, both of whom asked him to stop or remove content that put them in a bad light or ripped off their work.

Other issues aside, 'intellectual property' is a nebulous term designed to sow confusion and is devoid of real meaning, legally or otherwise. Worth reading: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

"The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws."

Perfect article. That's exactly what I was talking about. Various different, unrelated legal situations, like copyright,
sync licenses, and the need to cite authors, lumped into one term. All the things that the channel ignored. Thanks.

I particularly like that the article doesn't even properly define "intellectual property", which is the idea or product that the laws protect, and not the laws themselves. That would be "IP Laws".

Let's look at a real definition of the term:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property

"In general terms, intellectual property is any product of the human intellect that the law protects from unauthorized use by others. The ownership of intellectual property inherently creates a limited monopoly in the protected property. Intellectual property is traditionally comprised of four categories: patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets."

Which is what I was talking about, and what the OP channel did not even try to respect or try to understand.

[X200]

Other issues aside, 'intellectual property' is a nebulous term designed to sow confusion and is devoid of real meaning, legally or otherwise. Worth reading: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

"The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws."

Perfect article. That's exactly what I was talking about. Various different, unrelated legal situations, like copyright,
sync licenses, and the need to cite authors, lumped into one term. All the things that the channel ignored. Thanks.

I particularly like that the article doesn't even properly define "intellectual property", which is the idea or product that the laws protect, and not the laws themselves. That would be "IP Laws".

Let's look at a real definition of the term:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property

"In general terms, intellectual property is any product of the human intellect that the law protects from unauthorized use by others. The ownership of intellectual property inherently creates a limited monopoly in the protected property. Intellectual property is traditionally comprised of four categories: patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets."

Which is what I was talking about, and what the OP channel did not even try to respect or try to understand.

Stallman has it correct. Cornell has fallen into and is perpetuating the fallacy.

[spencercarran]

Those videos show that his channel was demonetized and his videos were taken down. YouTube finally acted on the copyright and intellectual infringement on that channel.

The second video is of him trying to convince himself that it was OK to infringe on Doug Yeo after he plagiarized and Doug asked him to stop.

Thanks. It's about time. I didn't want him to profit from my looking at his plagiarized nonsense.

It's a small channel with, as others have noted, quite poor quality videos. It's odd that he would make a fuss over YouTube demonetizing the channel when the ad revenue involved would have been pretty negligible anyways.

[TromboneTallie]

Stallman has it correct. Cornell has fallen into and is perpetuating the fallacy.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... l-property

Poor Oxford got it wrong too, in their most basic dictionary to boot.

Come on man. It has the word "property" built into it. It's a term that describes the ideas, not the laws.

[X200]

Stallman has it correct. Cornell has fallen into and is perpetuating the fallacy.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... l-property

Poor Oxford got it wrong too, in their most basic dictionary to boot.

Come on man. It has the word "property" built into it. It's a term that describes the ideas, not the laws.

Which tells me that Cornell and Oxford suffer from intellectual laziness.

[musicofnote]

content deleted by author

[musicofnote]

content deleted by author

[LeTromboniste]

Awesome, another thread resurrect to regurgitate the same tired old insensitive arguments. Here we go again...

[atopper333]

I am reminded of an old quote of debated origin…

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”