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.
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
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.