Slashdot Mirror
Universal Sends DMCA Takedown On 1980 Report
An anonymous reader writes "For many, many years, every time some new technology has come along, the music industry has insisted that it's going to "kill" the industry. The player piano was supposed to kill live music. So was the radio. And, of course, every time this happens the press is willing to take the industry's word at face value. In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done. Someone posted that 20/20 episode to YouTube a few years back, where it sat in obscurity until people noticed it a couple weeks ago. And suddenly, Universal Music issued a takedown notice for the show. Universal Music does not own 20/20, and there were only brief clips of music in the show. It appears the only reason for Universal to issue the takedown is that it doesn't want you seeing how badly it overreacted in the past."
The actual program in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vz7Z42Fl9s
Or maybe sending take down notices to ALL videos on youtube is just a way to cover up the ones they REALLY want to take down.
That wouldn't be the best strategy for Universal Music. It has previously been hit with a lawsuit in the Northern District of California, Lenz v. Universal , in which Judge Fogel held that OCILLA requires a copyright owner to make a fair use analysis in good faith before submitting a notice and that Universal may not have made such an analysis.
It is perjury (a criminal act) to issue a DMCA takedown request when the requester is not the rights holder or their designated agent.
So what content are they saying they are a rights holder/agent of?
C//
Epitaph
The world is how you make it
There's no 'cover up' because there's no truth the the summary's statement that " In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done."
I watched the video and it does no such thing. It mentions home taping once and mentions that sales had 'levelled' but the substance of the programme is the new development of video and music, specifically laser discs, and the music industy's hopes that this would allow them to gain ever greater profits.
This is a bogus /. story. I wish I could say it was the first. Utterly misleading and a waste of your time, dear reader.
RTA?
The video posted in the article is the 'first half' of the 20/20 piece. The second half was no longer available when the author went to view it a second time.
That doesn't stop them from trying to rape you with licensing fees if they think there's any connection to the sheet music. If one industry pisses me off more then the music industry, it's the sheet music industry.
Om, nomnomnom...
Radio is canned music. You cant ask the radio disc jockey to change the key, because you are a baritone instead of a tenor.
That is what OP meant by "Live" music. That it is played live, by a living person, for you, in real time. And yes, the player piano did a grand job of putting corner store pianists out of business. By the same token, the tractor put many farm hands out of business. Technology does that. It reduces the amount of labor invested, and makes things easier; the downside is that it also puts people out of work in the process-- the people that did the jobs the technology replaced. Computers put whole accounting firms under, or at least resulted in huge reductions in the numbers of humans working for those firms.
The tired "Buggy whip" trope used on /. is very apt here.
The original compositions are in the public domain. Simplified adaptations for amateur piano are derivative works that probably are not.
Download and mirror!
Keep your eyes to the sky.
I assume 2020 Report on music video 1980 - Part 2 of 2 must be what they wanted to take down.
Well it is high time to start aggressively campaigning for an amendment to the DMCA setting out substantive penalties for false claims with significant payments to the party who were defamed and who had their constitutional rights to free speech infringed.
There has been a lot of complaints about abuses of the DMCA but as yet seemingly little action to force an amendment for false claims.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Mirror:
http://plunder.com/bfe00c693f
I invite you to come visit Austin or Denton where the live music scene in restaurants is well and alive
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
What's more important, a short time after the interview, the music industry got what they wanted in order "to survive": they got a tax on all recordable media that woudl cover presumed piracy. So they could credibly say that what they say in the video was completely true, that they would have died if they didn't tax everyone that bought a tape (even if it was to record their own voice). Instead of taking down the video they should use it to say that, since that tax saved the industry before, a tax on Internet access and storage devices would save it again. But those dumbasses don't know how to steal even if they have been doing it for decades.
The original compositions are in the public domain. Simplified adaptations for amateur piano are derivative works that probably are not.
Back then sheet music was not standardized, so pretty much any rendition of classical works is technically a derivative work, adaptation, etc.
But you are especially correct with regards to piano music- most of the modern piano solo pieces labeled as Mozart, etc. were at least a chamber orchestra if not a full symphony. In addition, during Mozart's time the "standard" piano was only 5 octaves, not the eight of the modern versions of the instrument, so even works that were written as a piano solo have been modified. The point being, almost ANY time you see someone performing a solo piano piece of a Classic work it is almost certainly an interpretation or derivative work.