Slashdot Mirror
Prince DMCAs YouTube To Block Radiohead Song
Enigma2175 writes "CNN is reporting that videos from the Coachella music festival showing Prince covering Radiohead's 'Creep' have been removed by Prince's label, NPG records. Thom Yorke of Radiohead, when told of Prince's action, said 'Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our... song.' No comment from YouTube or Prince yet. Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually the copyright holder and this seems to be just another example of DMCA abuse." As the article points out, Prince seems to have a love-hate relationship with the Interwebs.
The performer of a song has a copyright protecting that performance, although obvs. not in the underlying song. Unlike a songwriter (who cannot block covers because of the compulsory license) a performer can block reproduction of the performance. So it seems as if Prince is acting within his rights to assert a copyright over the performance, at least under U.S. law. Whether that copyright trumps fair use, etc., I don't know. But it's not correct to say that Prince has no copyright because he didn't write the song. Like most Slashdotters, I hate the DMCA, and I think it's madness for Prince to try to block this stuff, since it's good advertising and he'll sell more albums if he doesn't, but there it is.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
I do believe that DMCA claims can be contested, but if a site wants to make sure they're not liable, they have to immediately comply with DMCA requests.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Falsifying a DMCA claim is a federal offense - you really don't want to get caught doing that.
I never said he did, but he DOES own the rights to his performance, which the recorder apparently didn't license. Almost ANY ticket you buy these days for anything of this sort prohibits you from this.
Radiohead owns the copyright of their original copy of the song (if they own the master media onto which it was recorded, and didn't release it from copyright control). That gives them "performance copyright", which lets them require permission from the first other person to "perform" their original recording (either a reenactment of producing the song using new instruments, or just playing back the original recording over speakers in the air to a large crowd or over other broadcast media like radio or TV soundtrack). But after they release the first public performance, anyone can perform the song, provided they pay the pre-set "mechanical" royalty rate (determined by the number of listeners in the venue's capacity, not necessarily those actually hearing the performance, though webcasting is per actual listener). The mechanical rate is low, like under $0.001 per listener, designed for repeated broadcast at rates recoverable by whatever commerce is operated using the performance.
But Prince does own his own performance of that song. He owns the copyright of his own performance, though not of the song he's performing. He's merely performing a song that copyright law lets him perform so long as he's in compliance with the royalty laws that pay Radiohead. Unless Prince was the first person other than Radiohead to perform it publicly, Radiohead doesn't have control over the public performance of the song, just the right to collect the royalties when it is played by whoever wants to.
Copyrights are fairly simple, if taken step by step. That doesn't stop them from being bullshit, especially when practiced by musicians, who always use copyrighted content from other artists without respect to the "original's" copyright.
When someone does something in public, I have the right to see it. I have the right to remember it. I have the right to record what I see and remember, even if the law these days is wrong and can stop me (like most copyright laws, and of course the Hollywood-written DMCA). And if I recorded it, I have the right to show it to anyone I want. This is a freedom of expression that copyright infringes. And since YouTube promotes Prince's commerce much more than it competes with it, no copyright is promoting "progress in science and the useful arts". In fact, this DMCA abuse is killing that progress, right when it could be exploding, but instead miserly copyright owners are pretending they represent "progress", when all they represent is profit.
--
make install -not war
They could, but the part of a takedown request where you assert that you are the copyright holder or their agent is made under penalty of perjury. A mass DMCA DoS would be legally actionable.
A performance cannot be copyrighted. A record of it may be (such as a script, transcript, or video recording), in which case the copyright is owned by whomever created the record.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
.... doesn't mean they don't also own copyrights in the US.
That deserves to be emphasized. The copyright convention says "affixed to a tangible media" or words to that effect.
So prince is pretty much full of... something or other.
They ARE allowed to verify, but only AFTER they remove the clip, then they can verify whether or not it's actually a legal problem, and 9if not, they can put the clip back up.
Problem is, they probably get dozens, maybe hundreds of these requests per day, so they probably just comply and delete, because hiring people to verify these (they WOULD need new full time staff) would be stupid.
To say a performance cannot be copyrighted is to ignore the issue entirely. The whole reason that videos get pulled from YouTube is because they are unauthorized distribution of recordings. in which case the copyright is owned by whomever created the record. Only if that person had the right to prepare the recording in the first place.
1) YouTube is American, based in America, subject to US copyright law. It doesn't matter a damn where Radiohead is from, because the jurisdiction that counts is the one where the law is being applied. The DMCA is a 'merkin invention, being used on a 'merkin site. Ergo, Radiohead's country-of-origin is irrelevant.
2) Performance right is recognised in UK copyright law. So Prince is entitled to copyright in his performance of the song, even though he does not hold the copyright in the lyrics or the musical score.
If Prince failed to get the appropriate licence to perform the song, as others have noted Radiohead have a course of action for breach of copyright in the lyrics and/or score. They have no grounds to get the video restored, because they don't hold the copyright in the performance and that's the right that the video infringes.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
> Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually
> the copyright holder and this seems to be just another example of DMCA abuse.
Under the DMCA the person who put the material up can file a counter-notice asserting that they have the legal right to distribute the item. YouTube can then put it back up with complete impunity and the only way Prince can get it taken back down is to file a copyright infringement suit (within 30 days) against the person who put it up and convince a Federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction. There are criminal penalties for filing a false DMCA takedown notice, and the target could also claim damages.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
No, the law does not require material to be taken down just because somebody asks. In fact, the law quite explicitly states that a takedown notice is only valid if it comes from a duly authorized party. If you read the synopsis carefully, you'll see that it does not say anything about what YouTube is required to do, rather it says what they are not required to do. They do not have to verify whether a takedown notice is legit. They could choose to do so, but it would seem they don't.
This approach is probably a safe and prudent practice. IANAL, but by my cursory examination of the law's text, I see nothing granting a service provider the time to validate a claim. Hence, if YouTube left the content online while they investigated a takedown notice, and that notice turned out to be legitimate, they might be held liable for everything that transpired during that interval. Thus, to be safe, they take the material down straight away and only put it back once they've refuted the complaint.
just to be clear...you are correct, DMCA claims can be contested. Actually, under 17 USC 512 (c), the internet service provider (here youtube), after receiving a notice of the potentially infringing material must respond expiditiously to remove the material. However, the ISP must also send notice to the person who had placed the recording on youtube, under 512(g). Then, if that person sends counter notice to whoever sent the first request for removal, the ISP must put the potentially infringing material back on line unless the first person files a court action. If the person files a court action, then the material will be removed until after it. If the first person does not, then the material should be placed back online, i believe.
to be clear on this as well, under 17 usc 512(f), anyone who knowingly materially misrepresents a claim under the DMCA is liable for any damages, includign attorney's fees. So it is a bad idea to make a false claim under the DMCA.
It's actually perjury that you'd get charged with if you falsify a DMCA request.
Bigger clarification: NO, the copyright is not owned ab initio by whoever paid for the recording, it is owned ab initio by the creator; however, it is often ASSIGNED to whoever paid for the recording under the contract between that party and the creator.
"...If Prince didn't ask if it was ok to perform it, and if Radiohead still owns the copyrights, then it sounds like Radiohead gets to say what happens to any recordings made, even if Prince (or anyone else) made them..."
You're wrong on this.
Radiohead owns the songwriting copyright. Having a songwriting copyright does not entitle the songwriters (Radiohead) to distribution or production rights over musicians (Prince) who cover their material in a performance. Prince needs to get the permission of the songwriters (Radiohead) if he tries to commercialize his performance of the song that Radiohead wrote. That usually comes down to paying royalties.
The people who shot the videos own their videos but because they do not have the permission of Prince to redistribute Prince's performance, the DMCA take down notice, whether you like it or not, is legally correct since Youtube is located within the territorial boundaries of the U.S. and therefore must abide by U.S. laws.
As ridiculous as it sounds, you don't have to be performing a "published" version, i.e., reading form sheet music, to owe royalties. You owe royalties every time you sing Happy Birthday, in fact.
:q!
learn to convert monies properly ploxkthxbai