Artist Not Allowed To Stream His Own Music

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.'"

Comments

Think

[whisper_jeff]

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

Yeah.

Re:Think

[cayenne8]

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

Re:Think

[suso]

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.

Re:Think

[ByOhTek]

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?

Re:Think

[Pieroxy]

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.

Re:Think

[tverbeek]

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

Re:Think

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.

Re:Think

[BrokenHalo]

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.

Re:Think

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Think

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:Think

[wastedlife]

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.

Re:Think

[conureman]

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.

Re:Think

[Pieroxy]

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....

Re:Think

[spun]

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.

Re:Think

[NoodleSlayer]

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.

Re:Think

[jaraxle]

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

Re:Think

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Think

[Locke2005]

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.

Re:Think

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Not always a problem

[DeeVeeAnt]

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?

Re:Not always a problem

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:Not always a problem

[sarahbau]

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.

Re:Not always a problem

[InsaneProcessor]

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

Re:Not always a problem

[Rogerborg]

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.

Re:Not always a problem

[grahammm]

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

Warner Music Group claims copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright

[Anita Coney]

"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.

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright

[lymond01]

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

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright

[nomadic]

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.

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright

[skammie]

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.

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright

[IDtheTarget]

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?

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright

[Stoutlimb]

And the corollary is:

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

Wait, I'm confused -

[RevWaldo]

There are people who still use MySpace?

Re:Wait, I'm confused -

[AHuxley]

In South Korea, myspace is for old people.

Simple Solution

[j00r0m4nc3r]

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.

Re:Simple Solution

[ClosedSource]

"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.

Re:Simple Solution

[Runaway1956]

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.

Anyone keeping track of this?

[erroneus]

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.

Registered?

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:Registered?

[LihTox]

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.

Corporations have more rights than individuals

[tekrat]

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....

Sue Warner Brothers.

[FlyingBishop]

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...

Amazon sells the track

[SiChemist]

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.

Re:Amazon sells the track

[s0litaire]

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.

Re:Let's get the car analogy out the way quickly..

[gnick]

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.

It takes about 10 minutes to fix this...

[herojig]

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 /.

Yup...

[Urza9814]

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...

Re:But I own the patent on car analogies

[Stanislav_J]

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....

Well of course!

[tkrotchko]

"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.

Re:iFail

[Mister Whirly]

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.

Required by Law

[spun]

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.

Re:Required by Law

[spun]

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

Re:Required by Law

[spun]

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.

Re:iFail

[TheGreenNuke]

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