Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Artist Not Allowed To Stream His Own Music

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-can't-get-there-from-here dept.

the_arrow writes "Scottish artist Edwyn Collins wanted to stream one of his own songs on MySpace, but it seems that copyright misunderstandings make him unable to do so. According to the article, 'Management for the former Orange Juice frontman have been unable to convince the website that they own the rights to A Girl Like You, despite the fact that they, er, do.' Collins said, 'I found a nice lawyer guy at Warners, very apologetic, promised to get it sorted, but all these months later it isn't.' His wife added, 'MySpace are not equipped to deal with the notion that anyone other than a major [label] can claim a copyright.'"

103 of 423 comments (clear)

  1. Think by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wasn't it the major labels that implored us to think of the artists?

    Yeah.

    1. Re:Think by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Friends don't let friends join MySpace....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Think by suso · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wasn't it the major labels that implored us to think of the artists?

      Yeah.

      Only if there is money in it for them.

      Seriously though, someone please tell this guy that myspace is done.

    3. Re:Think by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Informative

      So true, so true.

      That, and the competence of the developers there has to be some of the worst on the web. Why should the competence of any of their other divisions be any better?

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    4. Re:Think by Pieroxy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That said, if MySpace decides to remove content every time a party comes and claim copyright to the content, it's a MySpace problem, nothing more.

      We all know the Majors care about their artists, not THE artists, and only because it makes money. They don't give a rat's *ss about art, music or any concept like this. They care about their wallet, art and artists be damned.

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    5. Re:Think by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      If it were up to the RIAA, artists wouldn't be allowed to stream their own urine.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:Think by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>If it were up to the RIAA, artists wouldn't be allowed to stream their own urine.

      Tyrants need to be shot before freedom can be restored.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Think by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Friends don't let friends join MySpace....

      This is true. But what I find a bit curious about this case is that rather than doing something about the situation - like finding another hosting service or hosting the material himself (well, Hello! Maybe that's too obvious), the guy seems to prefer spending months whining about MySpace's policies.

      Seems to me that if you don't like MySpace, you can always just dump it, and tell everybody why.

    8. Re:Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The flaw here is that these artists (and people in general) still think they own rights. They don't. The rights have been transferred to the corporations who, with the cooperation of Congress and other corporations, control everything. The artist doesn't own the song in the view of either WB or myspace, and that's why he can't stream it.

      No, the flaw here is you didn't reading the article before posting.

      "He owns the copyright," Maxwell underlined, "as he does for most of the music he's recorded in his life (preferring to go it alone than have his music trapped 'in perpetuity' to use the contract language of the major record company)."

      Eventually, after HUGE difficulty, I was told Warner Music Group were claiming it. I found a nice lawyer guy at Warners, very apologetic, promised to get it sorted, but all these months later it isn't.

    9. Re:Think by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      P.S.

      You say myspace is the problem, but do you think this artist would get different results on other sites like youtube or googlevideo? Youtube's pulled-down every song owned by WB per their request, and that would include this song "A Girl Like You". If Scottish artist Edwyn Collins tried to post his song on youtube, that too would get yanked. The problem is not the dot-com site but the DMCA law which requires the dot-com to take action, or else be fined.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:Think by wastedlife · · Score: 4, Informative

      Erm, while it is usually the case that the artist(s) will sell the rights to the label to get a record deal, if you had read the summary even, you would have seen that Mr. Collins does in fact own the rights, and the label does not. Warner Music is illegitimately claiming copyright, and MySpace is taking their word over the actual owner's.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    11. Re:Think by conureman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Considering that MySpace purports to be a musician's site (or used to), and it seems to be the leader in it's niche, perhaps he thinks that it would benefit others if they could be convinced to remove their head from their ass.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    12. Re:Think by Pieroxy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, one would think the DMCA gave the site owner the right to get proof thet the plaintiff is the actual copyright holder before doing anything. I don't think the DMCA is the problem here.

      That said, you get a point in that any other website would do the same. And it's a problem between these sites and the contents publishers.

      I remember a story in europe where a magazine did get free blog hosting from ~40 providers. They published a novel by Victor Hugo - ie: In the public domain for centuries. There was a note at the bottom of the page stating this.

      Then they contacted formally all of the hosting companies demanding that the BLOG be shut off because it infringed their copyright. The results: 1 hosting company did its job, read the copyright notice, double checked the fact and sent an email back saying it was bullsh*t. 7 did ask for more proof, the rest did just shut the blog down, no questions asked.

      Customer service is a thing of the past....

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    13. Re:Think by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is not the dot-com site but the DMCA law which requires the dot-com to take action, or else be fined.

      If WB is issuing DMCA notices, the artist just has to issue a counter notice. If WB fails to file suit in 14 days, the service provider must restore access to the copyrighted material.

      Note that the ISP doesn't know or care who actually owns the copyright. That's for the courts to decide.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:Think by mini+me · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the guy seems to prefer spending months whining about MySpace's policies.

      It is called marketing. It is how an artist becomes rich and famous.

    15. Re:Think by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The copyright owner's rights are being abridged by a fraudulent copyright claim from WB. Like if I showed up at your house, said I owned the place, and everyone simply agreed with me and kicked you out of your home. Please tell me you are going for some kind of rhetorical approach to a larger argument, and that you are not actually confused on the issue of whose rights are being abridged how.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    16. Re:Think by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wow. You can't even read the quote? Warners has admitted that they incorrectly asserted copyright on the song and in fact don't own the copyright. This guy has never worked with a major label, does in fact own all his copyrights, and has only licensed the song for time-limited, non exclusive publishing in the past.

    17. Re:Think by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seems to me that if you don't like MySpace, you can always just dump it, and tell everybody why.

      MySpace is huge. It's not like if he just set up his own webserver it'd be a seamless transition for him.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    18. Re:Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seems to me that if you don't like MySpace, you can always just dump it, and tell everybody why.

      And the five people that visit your site will find that it's having issues because you didn't pay your hosting bill, or went over bandwidth, or since you don't know jack about admin'ing a website just plain doesn't work right, and they'll go back to MySpace where things are familiar, and everybody else is going.

      It's not a matter of whining about their policy. The problem is that they have one policy towards large companies with powerful lawyers, and a different "fuck you" policy towards everyone else, but still claim to only have one policy for everybody.

    19. Re:Think by jaraxle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow. You can't even read the quote?

      Neither can you, apparently.

      The artist holds rights to his own works. A major label has laid claim to his works, saying they hold the rights to it. After getting hold of an actual lawyer with said major label, the artist is told "Sorry" and that it will be sorted, but after months it still isn't.

      In trying to publish works that the artist owns the rights to, he is told he can't, nor can he apparently rectify the situation with the label causing the problems. He effectively has no rights to his own works at this point.

      ~jaraxle

    20. Re:Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, one would think the DMCA gave the site owner the right to get proof thet the plaintiff is the actual copyright holder before doing anything. I don't think the DMCA is the problem here.

      One would "think"?

      The DMCA REQUIRES the site to take down the offending content when they get the takedown notice. IF the person who put it on the site has a legal right to do so, they have to then submit a counter-claim, at which point the site CAN (but does not HAVE to) put it back up. However, once a counter-claim is filed any repeat takedown notices do not have to be acted upon and it's up to the two parties who filed notice to resolve it in court.
      Failure to immediately take down the content makes the site liable, failure to re-instate it when they get a counter-claim does NOT make them liable.

      So YES, the DMCA IS EXACTLY the problem.

    21. Re:Think by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Like if I showed up at your house, said I owned the place, and everyone simply agreed with me and kicked you out of your home. What?!? That could never really happen! Oh wait... it could.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    22. Re:Think by xous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm, I handle the abuse desk at a large hosting company and this is how it should have gone:

      1. WB sends DMCA complaint
      2. MySpace takes down content
      3. Artist goes WTF and sends in a DMCA counter notice
      4. MySpace restores the content.

      (Not MySpace's problem anymore) ...
      X. WB takes Artist to court

    23. Re:Think by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      whining about MySpace's policies

      MySpace is breaking the law, or at least acting as an accessory to Warner's fraudulent claim of copyright. They are also failing to provide a service which they claim to provide. It's not "whining" to bring this to public attention.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    24. Re:Think by omnichad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you go over your bandwidth limit with only 5 users, you might want to rethink your content.

    25. Re:Think by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you would be unable to give a specific law that they are breaking. My assumption is that they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at all, and that a misunderstanding of a copyright claim does not fall into the usual actionable exceptions (race, gender, religion, handicap).

      It's different if the artist actually has a negotiated contract, where consideration (e.g., money) changed hands for the purpose of executing such a contract. If that's the case, and the refusal puts MySpace in breach, then it's not a copyright matter at all - it's a contract dispute.

      Unfortunately for the artist, this is more a case of MySpace saying "we don't have to do anything for you and you have to accept that" and I think they are right. Solution: Don't use MySpace.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    26. Re:Think by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So publish the song. If WB sues you, enjoy the triple damages when you point out to a judge that they were given notice of this error long before they filed suit. If WB doesn't sue you (which they won't), then there's not a copyright case here.

      MySpace is irrelevant. They are just refusing service for their own reasons. You can't force them to give you service unless you can prove they are in breach of a contract.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    27. Re:Think by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >The real question is why WB doesn't owe him several billion dollars for piracy.

      They haven't distributed his work.

      What they have done is to persuade MySpace to refuse to stream his work. Unless someone can show otherwise, MySpace doesn't violate any law or abridge any rights by not streaming his work. They don't need a reason, but they have one (WB is inconvenient).

      It would be completely different if he had a contract with MySpace (or with WB) but he doesn't.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    28. Re:Think by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative

      >The real question is why WB doesn't owe him several billion dollars for piracy.

      They haven't distributed his work.

      Yes they have. Allow me to quote because you're obviously too busy to RTFA (but not too busy to render an opinion, obviously):

      While Collins has worked to make A Girl Like You freely available to his fans, [his wife/manager] alleges that the same track is sold illegally "all over the internet". "Not by Edwyn, [but] by all sorts of respectable major labels whose licence to sell it ran out years ago and who do not account to him."

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    29. Re:Think by jaraxle · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know why I'm bothering to reply, particularly so late in the discussion, but here goes...

      Of course he still actually retains the rights, and of course the rights are being infringed.

      However, what it boils down to is what fucking good is having the rights to your own works if a big corporation is blocking your ability to distribute said works? At that point, it's like you don't have the rights to your works at all (hence why I said He effectively has no rights).

      ~jaraxle

  2. Not always a problem by DeeVeeAnt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have several friends in small unsigned bands who have posted their music to MySpace. Has the policy changed, or is this guy just unlucky?

    --
    Home fucking is killing prostitution.
    1. Re:Not always a problem by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Informative

      You must not have RTFA;

      "I naturally blew my stack and wrote to MySpace on his behalf demanding to know who the hell was claiming copyright of Edwyn's track? ... Eventually, after HUGE difficulty, I was told Warner Music Group were claiming it. I found a nice lawyer guy at Warners, very apologetic, promised to get it sorted, but all these months later it isn't."

      Once again this shows the REAL reason the majors don't want P2P, even though it has been shown to increase sales -- it also increases indies' sales. Opposition to P2P is part of the majors' war against the indies.

      Does Britain have a law that would allow him to sue Warner? I would think they must.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    2. Re:Not always a problem by sarahbau · · Score: 3, Informative

      MySpace didn't just assume that someone else owned the copyright. In this case, it seems Warner Music Group was trying to claim they owned it, when they didn't. Perhaps at some point, Warner sold his CDs, while he retained copyright, or something.

    3. Re:Not always a problem by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This sounds like Warner needs to be sued. Big money lawsuit!

      --

      Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    4. Re:Not always a problem by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Informative
      You must not have RTFA;

      Attempting to make them cease and desist would use up the rest of my life. Because this is what they do and what they've always done.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Not always a problem by DeeVeeAnt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course I didn't RTFA, this is Slashdot isn't it? Cheers for reading it for me, that salient fact wasn't in the summary.

      --
      Home fucking is killing prostitution.
    6. Re:Not always a problem by grahammm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which, unlike illegal copying and sharing, actually is copyright theft.

    7. Re:Not always a problem by Kabuthunk · · Score: 2, Informative

      That implies that "the little guy" is capable of winning against "the big guy". Which as we all well know is false. Warner would keep it in the courts until either an out-of-court settlement, or until "the little guy" is bankrupt.

      --
      Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
    8. Re:Not always a problem by Pax681 · · Score: 2

      As Edwyn lives in Scotland it would be Scottish law, there is no such thing as British law. English law covers England and Wales

      Scottish law...Scotland

      Northern Ireland also has it's own laws.

      therefore checking under Scottish law would be the thing to do.

    9. Re:Not always a problem by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, this is what is wrong with a free market system of distributing justice. Those with money can buy it, those without can not.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:Not always a problem by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're both ways for musicians to get their music in front of prospective fans. Archive.org is the same; I have friends with music posted there.

      The RIAA labels have radio, so they'd like for MySpace, archive.org and P2P to all go away, because those are Indie Radio. It's about killing their competetion.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  3. Warner Music Group claims copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So this isn't a story about MySpace. They have been notified of a copyright conflict, so they don't allow distribution of the song. The real story is that labels claim copyrights they don't have, for commercial gain, and are not paying $150000 per song.

    1. Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright by lobiusmoop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Ruttles had it right - "All You Need Is Cash".

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    2. Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "So this isn't a story about MySpace."

      It is about MySpace. Sure the label started the problem by claiming a copyright on a song it did not hold. However, it is now a MySpace problem because the site apparently has no mechanism or system to fix the problem the label created.

      Now that the label has admitted it has no copyright claim, it's MySpace's job to fix it and allow the song to be streamed. The label certainly cannot fix that problem. The fact that MySpace has not done so in three months makes it pretty clear that this story is about MySpace.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    3. Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright by lymond01 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anonymous Coward,

      The phrase "So this isn't a story about MySpace." is a copyright held by the MySpace corporation. We urge you to cease and desist using said phrase for the next 70 years. If you fail to comply with our...request...we will be forced to take legal action. And possibly destroy your feeble world with our battle station.

      Best Wishes,

      MySpace
      Subisidiary of MyGalaxy
      Antares, Antares 20010

    4. Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      unless the label admitted it in private correspondence with the author, but "neglected" to inform MySpace.
      We don't know if the case is stalled due to MySpace ignoring Warner's disclaimer, or whether Warner failed to send such disclaimer despite claiming to do so.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    5. Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Slander of title, perhaps.

      Fraud implies intent.. I think this is just a case of horrendous negligence.

      Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

    6. Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, it is now a MySpace problem because the site apparently has no mechanism or system to fix the problem the label created.

      Or obligation.

    7. Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright by skammie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      MySpace would rather delete and account then do ANY fact checking. This happened to me and my music. Everything was fine for about a year, and then *poof* the page was gone. I asked why, and I got a generic response about violating the TOS. I asked for more specifics, but I was not given any more details. I was told touch luck, build a new page. It goes without saying I didn't build a new page. The previous page I set up didn't get that many hits anyway.

      --
      "Fortunately, I'm adhering to a very strict drug regimen to keep my mind limber..."
    8. Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright by lorenlal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

      That should be amended to: "Tend to assume incompetence and not malice, unless it involves money."

    9. Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright by IDtheTarget · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is most definitely about MySpace. It doesn't matter what Warner claims (even if it was illegal and they could be sued for theft), MySpace has the duty to investigate the claim of copyright. It's not even that hard! Go to the U. S. Copyright Office Search Page and type in "Collins Edwyn" and the sixth link to return is "Girl Like You". If I can find it in 2 minutes, how long should it take MySpace?

    10. Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright by Stoutlimb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And the corollary is:

      "Sufficiently advanced forms of incompetence are indistinguishable from malice."

    11. Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wouldn't MyGalaxy be a subsidiary of MySpace??

  4. Wait, I'm confused - by RevWaldo · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are people who still use MySpace?

    --
    Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
    1. Re:Wait, I'm confused - by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Funny

      In South Korea, myspace is for old people.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Wait, I'm confused - by EnsilZah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's all about how seriously you take your doucheness.
      Say if you're a moderate douche you've moved on to something like Facebook or Twitter, but if you're a hardcore oldschool douche accept no substitute to MySpace.

  5. Simple Solution by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stop. Using. MySpace.
    Find someone who understands what you're about, and use their service instead. If your business depends entirely on you having a presence on MySpace, you're doing something wrong. Especially now that this may (has?) cost you attorney's fees to sort it out.

    1. Re:Simple Solution by ClosedSource · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Find someone who understands what you're about, and use their service instead."

      Probably Google since they know more about you than any other web entity.

    2. Re:Simple Solution by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's really a pissy attitude. IANAM, but my Pa was. He could make music with anything, if he could pull a string tight across it. He and his friends actually recorded some decent music, over the years. They all had haircuts and jobs - they all raised families - they were all respectable people.

      None of them ever expected to "make money" - they played music together because they loved music, they loved performing for people, and they just loved being together. They did sell a little music - a dozen tapes at a nursing home, a couple dozen at a church, another dozen at a corner store somewhere. Enough to pay for gasoline sometimes, to offset costs.

      Something like Myspace would have been cool, back in the '60's up through the early '80's. They might have sold a little more music, and they certainly would have been better known outside their home counties. You may have even heard of them, if there had been a means to distribute their music for free!

      Indies. Those are the REAL musicians. The labels? They know how to pry money out of fool's pockets, but they don't know music.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  6. Time for an indie-myspace by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, it started out as a good thing, and even promised to help people track bands and discover new music.

    But it's a mess now, and it's owned by the same company that runs FoxNews, so don't expect it to get any better.

    Time for a young, fresh upstart to pull something better together.

    Or are there already better alternatives?

    1. Re:Time for an indie-myspace by Abreu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google Wave?

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    2. Re:Time for an indie-myspace by Again · · Score: 2, Informative

      When I want to check out a band, I search Purevolume before resorting to Myspace.

  7. Anyone keeping track of this? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is yet another example of how present-day copyright rules and legislation has harmed the general condition of the market and made to favor a select few who have even more control over the market.

    When law does not serve and/or protect the interests of all evenly and equally, there is something wrong with the law.

    When making a case for having the law changed or removed, it is useful to create a list of examples of how exactly others are unfairly harmed by it.

  8. Registered? by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the US this would be a non-issue; here one can register a copyright with the Library of Congress for a very small fee, and your certificate is proof you hold copyright.

    Is there anything like that in Britain? TFA doesn't say if the song's copyright is registered, or even if it can be in Britain.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
    1. Re:Registered? by LihTox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, in the US you do not have to register it to own the copyright. Placing a copyright notice on the work is sufficient.

      You don't even need the notice; every bloody thing you write is copyrighted unless explicitly released into the public domain. That's one of the many screwed-up things about US copyright law; you can have copyrighted material which gives you no indication as to who owns the copyright, let alone how to contact them. If you want to sue for damages, though, then registration will get you a better payoff; and registration serves as proof of ownership, in case there is a dispute over who actually wrote a particular song.

    2. Re:Registered? by IDtheTarget · · Score: 2, Informative

      His ownership of that particular copyright is showing up in the U.S. Copyright Office online search, so there's no excuse for MySpace not knowing who owns it.

  9. Corporations have more rights than individuals by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is yet another example of Corporations having more freedoms and rights, than people do. People can vote, but corporations can lobby. People go to jail when they break the law, corporations maybe pay a fine at most -- some in fact, seem to get money from the government for breaking the law.

    I urge everyone in the United Corp.. uh States of America, to incorporate themselves so that they finally have rights.

    Remember that faxed letterhead carries more weight than actual legal precidence....

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  10. Sue Warner Brothers. by FlyingBishop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If people had been able to stream this over the internet, he could easily have lined up dozens of concerts paying tens of thousands of dollars each, all because Warner Brothers fradulently claimed copyright to his work.

    Throw in some pointless punitive damages, and that ought to net him a good 6 million dollars, right? I mean if it works for the RIAA...

  11. Amazon sells the track by SiChemist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I found "A girl like you" on Amazon's mp3 downloads. Sent them an e-mail asking about the rights with a link to the Guardian article. If I get a reply, I'll post it here.

    It's from a "Greatest hits" album, so I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that the label has rights to it.

    --
    God is imaginary
    1. Re:Amazon sells the track by s0litaire · · Score: 4, Informative
      The Record labels DON'T have rights to sell the track (their rights to sell ran out years ago!)

      The Blog post said:

      A Girl Like You is available FOR SALE all over the internet. Not by Edwyn, by all sorts of respectable major labels whose licence to sell it ran out years ago and who do not account to him.

      So the music label is basically stealing Edwins work and not paying him.

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    2. Re:Amazon sells the track by s0litaire · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Blog post was written by his Manager (and Wife) so it's safe to say she knew what she was talking about.

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    3. Re:Amazon sells the track by SiChemist · · Score: 2, Informative

      Amazon's reply:

      Hello,

      Thank you for your interest in the Amazon MP3 Music Downloads store.

      The content available in our Amazon MP3 Store is provided by record labels and their distributors. The agreements to provide this content were arranged with these companies. Any questions you have regarding content should be directed to record label or distributor.

      For additional information and a list of partners we work with, please visit our MP3 Music Labels and Artists Guide at this URL:

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200212210

      Thank you for your interest in Amazon MP3 Music Downloads.

      Please let us know if this e-mail resolved your question:

      --
      God is imaginary
  12. Re:Let's get the car analogy out the way quickly.. by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

    This comment is written by gnick and is therefore copyrighted. Since it was written at work and it took me approximately 1.5 hours to write/edit/Preview/Submit and I make approximately 1 bazillion dollars an hour, this comment is worth $1.5 bazillion (US).

    At my incredibly modest royalty fees, replicating this comment (e.g. downloading, printing, etc) costs only $5. If you've read this comment, please contact me for PayPal information to submit your payment.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  13. Standard operationg procedure? by Dotren · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems like I've read previously somewhere a case where the record industry had claimed copyright on something they didn't actually own.

    I'm starting to wonder if they don't train their watchdogs to send out DMCA notices for any music they see online thinking it's better to risk a simple apology later if they don't own it than it is to leave potentially copyright infringing music online.

    1. Re:Standard operationg procedure? by The+Moof · · Score: 2, Informative
      It'd just be nice if they actually enforced this:

      I swear, under penalty of perjury consistent with United States Code Title 17, Section 512, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

      (taken from a boilerplate DMCA takedown notice)

  14. Re:MySpace by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Surely there's a better way to get your music out?

    Yes, there are other ways and better ways. However, MySpace is free. Why not take advantage of all free options for advertisement?

    --
    Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  15. So... can he claim damages? by eepok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People are getting charged $150,000 for every song they allow to be uploaded. Well, this guys is being denied the opportunity to advertise his music... for months. And the involved parties know about it. He's even sent his version of a "cease and desist". So what's the formula for damages? When does he get to collect.

    1. Re:So... can he claim damages? by selven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Zero. Damages scale proportionally to the ratio of capital available to the plaintiff compared to the defendant.

  16. It takes about 10 minutes to fix this... by herojig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Post the song on a hosted website of your choosing (other then myspace). 2. Link to the song from the myspace page to the hosted file. 3.Get these articles of /.

    --
    I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
  17. Yup... by Urza9814 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Many years ago I had a myspace profile entirely removed for uploading one song that I created using 'cat [textfile] > /dev/audio'. Yea. Apparently the title I decided to give it was too close to a song that they had listed in their database as being copyrighted or something so they killed my entire profile immediately. I sent a couple emails to the address they had given to contact in such cases and I never got a response. I'm amazed he even managed to get in contact with anybody...

  18. Re:But I own the patent on car analogies by Stanislav_J · · Score: 3, Funny

    Therefore, please send a royalty of $5 USD for each infringement (aka view) to my papal account www-data@localhost.

    I had no idea His Holiness was a Slashdot user....

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  19. Why Warner Brothers and not EMI by Holi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well aren't the Smithereens signed with Warner, they have a song from 1989 called "A Girl Like You". Is it possible that due to identically named songs this is actually a misunderstanding?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  20. facepalm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah. Stop using the most popular and widespread social platform for promoting music; use niche services that no one knows about instead. Just look at how MySpace screwed over that one guy who has a recording contract. *facepalm*

    If you make music, you'd be a fool to not take advantage of MySpace. The only reasons I can see for not doing so are 1) your music sucks, you know it, and you don't want people to hear it; or 2) you're a pretentious prick who thinks his music is too good for MySpace. I agree your business shouldn't depend on MySpace, but it's still a great way to promote your band. And if MySpace refuses to let you stream your music, why pay attorney fees when you can just cancel your account?

  21. Well of course! by tkrotchko · · Score: 3, Informative

    "MySpace are not equipped to deal with the notion that anyone other than a major [label] can claim a copyright"

    Do you think that's by accident? The major labels have gone out of their way in the past 10 years to convince the governments and public that they are the sole gatekeeper for music. It's to their benefit to create that thought so that passing laws to codify their position and become the sole gatekeeper for music actually seem reasonable.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  22. Re:But I own the patent on car analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Must have been Him as that was a lot of bull.

  23. Never met a girl like you before by hoover · · Score: 2, Funny

    If he tried streaming "never met a girl like you before", I guess the Geneva convention was considered applicable for the abysmal guitar solo... good riddance and hats off to the guys in The Hague! ;-)

    --
    Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
  24. Hope this gets resolved soon by jd80026 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dozens of fans are eagerly waiting to hear this song again.

  25. The lables own the artists by bobjr94 · · Score: 2, Informative

    That happens all the time. The band Streetlight Manifesto spend their own money making their first official video, there label forced them to remove the video saying it was a copyright infringement. The band had no rights to use their own music for any purpose.

    1. Re:The lables own the artists by dfxm · · Score: 2, Informative

      With all due respect, you don't know the details of Streetlight Manifesto's record deal (and maybe they don't either). I wouldn't be surprised if they don't own the copyright to their music, but their record label does.

      Courts will side with the law no matter silly it is. You just have to hope that these cases get enough attention so that people realize we need to change these laws!

  26. Re:iFail by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, MySpace originally started out as a way for bands to get their stuff out there, and maintain contacts lists easily. It is why I signed up for it about 4 years ago. Facebook started out as a way for high school and college friends to find each other easily. I remember way back I think you even needed a school email to sign up for Facebook.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  27. Required by Law by spun · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Majors are required by law to care only about shareholder profits. Any publicly traded corporation can be sued if they put anything else but the bottom line first. They have a fiduciary responsibility to make money for their shareholders. If they use shareholder money to promote art, make music, and support artists without making money for said shareholders, they are breaching that fiduciary responsibility.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Required by Law by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      That should be easily solvable by putting appropriate language in the charter before incorporating and issuing common shares.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Required by Law by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporate apologists consider justice to be something like groceries, i.e. something you send someone out to purchase when you need it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Required by Law by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't break the law to make money, yet. But if you, say, ship your manufacturing off to a country that where there are no environmental regulations, then you are doing right by your shareholders. If many companies start doing this, and seeing a profit, then shareholders can successfully sue companies that don't, or replace the boards.

      Many people who would never think to throw trash in their neighbor's yard will, essentially, hire someone to throw trash in their neighbor's yard, and they will sleep like babies at night, believing they are good people.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Required by Law by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not much in the way of joint stock limited liability corporations before the the East India Company, was there? Maybe a few Dutch corporations. But I'd say, back to the early days of the US, when corporations like the EIC were seen as despotic enemies, and all corporations were limited to only perform the business for which they were chartered, could not own stock in other corporations, were limited in duration, were limited in geographic scope of business, and had no human rights as a legal person.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  28. Re:Let's get the car analogy out the way quickly.. by houghi · · Score: 2, Funny

    This comment is written by gnick and is therefore copyrighted. Since it was written at work and it took me approximately 1.5 hours to write/edit/Preview/Submit and I make approximately 1 bazillion dollars an hour, this comment is worth $1.5 bazillion (US).

    At my incredibly modest royalty fees, replicating this comment (e.g. downloading, printing, etc) costs only $5. If you've read this comment, please contact me for PayPal information to submit your payment.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  29. Re:iFail again! by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, neither site is currently pursuing what they started out as. Both have morphed into the generic social sites that are near impossible to tell apart by features or stated purpose these days...And when the next Facebook comes along Facebook will be the new MySpace.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  30. Re:iFail by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Facebook started out as a way for high school and college friends to find each other easily. I remember way back I think you even needed a school email to sign up for Facebook.

    I believe Facebook was originally only for college students. It was a bit of a big deal when they started adding high schools as well (that was before it opened to the general public, of course). Originally, yes, you did need a .edu email address from a college that Facebook had added to their system. I even still have my email/password saved in Firefox from when you still accessed http://schoolname.facebook.com/

  31. Umm... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't the DMCA provide penalties for falsely claiming ownership of copyright to get content taken down? It would be pretty easy to set up a phony corporation, claim copyright of all the content on Warner Brothers' website, and order them taken down, wouldn't it? If the ISPs actions are any different when the shoe is on the other foot, it pretty much proves that it is an unjust law, doesn't it?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  32. Corporations provide abrogation of responsibility by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe I'm dense here, but how does what you said relate to what I said? Having chairs and desks are necessary to make money. Paying artists, and otherwise acting in a moral fashion is obviously not. I never said that corporations have to make the most money they can, this week, at the expense of long term profitability.

    But corporations have been sued for not taking advantage when they could. Corporations are a tool for abrogation of responsibility. They let otherwise moral individuals use proxies to engage in immoral activities those individuals would never, themselves, engage in. If one man murders another, it is clear who is to blame. If a corporation does it, the corporation will not face the de3ath penalty. More than likely, it will just face a fine. Was any human even jailed for the disaster at Bhopal? No. If I poisoned thousands of people, though, I would likely be put to death. The corporate form creates immortal, immensely powerful psychopathic entities.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  33. What about SoundExchange fees? by davek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How does this fit in with the SoundExchange Rules of Extortion? Doesn't that "agreement" mean that the media cartels claim default ownership of all music? Therefore, this guys claim is moot because he needs to pay a fee to stream any music on the internet anyway.

    --
    6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
  34. Re:iFail by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You young whipper snapper, I remember when it was still THEfacebook.com as shown in this Orginal Facebook layout. Now get off my lawn.

  35. This will get fixed by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't worry, folks. "Tom" will straighten this out immediately.