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."

Comments

People send takedown notices almost randomly

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed a bunch of home-filmed performances of amateur pianists playing various Mozart stuff had been taken down, because some random publishing company claimed ownership, just to plaster them with ads -- and the company gets the ad revenue.

Anybody with a brain would realize that the work is hundreds of years old, and the performance in question is owned by the poster (the guy sitting at the piano), but apparently forcing your ads onto other peoples youtube vids in this manner has become a trendy revenue stream for cocksuckers. Almost as trendy as the sucking of the cock in the first place.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly

[HermMunster]

Those Mozart pieces of music are in the public domain. If someone performs a musical piece from that era that works then automatically becomes copyrighted--only that performance and not the actual work that it was based on.

There are penalties for false DMCA claims but no one goes after the abusers. This should have been established up front and tremendous penalties should be levied against those making false claims. The impact of a false claim has a much larger impact than some individual violating copyrighted materials, IMHO.

The purpose of the monopoly ownership of these types of works of art was to encourage creativity. They were granted monopoly over these works for a limited time knowing it would be put into the public domain afterwards.

Back then the content creator's claim were that if they didn't have monopoly rights and all things went to the public domain there'd be no reason to create. So, the government, in an effort to ensure everything went to the public domain to help ensure culture survived, granted them this right, not the other way round.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly

[Wordplay]

The original compositions are in the public domain. Simplified adaptations for amateur piano are derivative works that probably are not.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Or maybe

[enderjsv]

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.

We're through the looking glass, people.

Youtube link

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual program in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vz7Z42Fl9s

Re:Youtube link

[boarder8925]

As of 19:37 Eastern Time, part two is still down, at least in the U.S.

Re:Or maybe

[enderjsv]

Only it won't work. I just learned about the Streisand effect from the recent article about officer Bubble, and I already have a situation in which to apply it. That's convenient.

Has anything really changed?

[Stregano]

There is always something that is putting the music industry on its "last leg". As technology advances, they just continue bitching and it obviously has not stopped today. I do not think the music industry is hurting too bad. Have you seen an episode of MTV cribs lately where they have musicians on there? The musicians don't seem like they are very poor (except for Redman, but nobody can predict Redman, that guy is crazy).

When you have an indoor pool and an outdoor pool, I highly doubt you are hurting from money. If the musicians are getting enough money to afford that, just think of how much is going to the company seeing as the musician only takes a small cut of what the industry makes (that is, of course the musician gets endorsements from Nike and Wheaties and stuff).

Seriously, after mp3's and torrents have faded out and the new technology has come into play, the music industry will bitch and moan again about how they are, again, on their last leg, but then we get to see the newest episode of MTV Cribs where artists show off their new Benz and Ferraris

In other news...

[Infonaut]

... the Carriers Of Milk In Cities (COMIC) today lashed out at refrigerator manufacturers and cardboard container manufacturers for "killing the milk industry".

Ferb Nordquist, the head of COMIC said in a statement that was hand carried to every major news outlet, "We, the milk carriers, bring milk to the masses. Without us, there would be no milk. The refrigerator and cardboard manufacturers are putting a stake in the heart of the milk industry. This is really the beginning of the end for milk."

No cows were available for comment.

Improper Takedown?

[Courageous]

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//

Re:Improper Takedown?

[JesseMcDonald]

You have to attest, under penalty of perjury, that you own or hold rights to the work that you're reporting as infringing.

That's not quite true, although the difference is subtle:

US Code, Chapter 5, Title 17, Section 512(c):

(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION-

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Note that the only part of the notice actually subject to penalty of perjury is "a statement .. that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" (emphasis added). They can ask for material to be taken down which is not related in the slightest to the exclusive privilege they are claiming it infringes without committing perjury under the rules established here. Of course, there may be other consequences for filing false takedown notices.

Re:Or maybe

[HermMunster]

The video that was DMCA'd down was the 2nd half of a 20/20 news segment about the issues befalling the music industry back in the 1980s.

There's enough time between the "failure of the music industry's disdain for the player piano and the radio" as to make points on both sides moot.

But, a DMCA notice to take down something that occurred in the 80s which pinpoints the exact same reasoning we have today for the alleged destruction of the music industry is telling. This segment wasn't even owned by the music industry, it was owned by 20/20 the news magazine. The content within clearly falls within the fair use doctrine, which, should be considered the default rather than the exception--meaning we should make them prove that it isn't fair use before they can prevail with a DMCA or in court, rather than the way it is now where fair use has to prove itself.

More damning than that

[rudy_wayne]

I recently came across an old copy of Modern Recording magazine from early 1981. There is an article about how cassette decks are evil and home taping is hurting the record industry and the RIAA commissioned a study that that they hoped to take to congress as proof that new laws were need.

But a funny thing happened. The report was shelved when it revealed that people who owned home recording equipment spent 75% more money buying music than people who didn't own an evil cassette deck.

Time to poorly execute a meta-joke.

[icannotthinkofaname]

the Streisand effect

Well, that's just great. If you hadn't said anything, this phenomenon could have remained in relative obscurity. However, because you brought it up, now everyone's gonna know about the Streisand effect. Way to go.

Re:Time to poorly execute a meta-joke.

[enderjsv]

You're right! My mistake. Let's try to suppress it. That should work.

Re:hmm

[wierd_w]

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.

Re:++good

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't that be good+1? Like a counter...

no, ++good increments the value of good, _before_ you miss the joke

Mirrors

[boarder8925]

I managed to find a copy of the second part of the video, combined the first and second parts, and put the video online again:

1. FileFront
2. DivShare

Download and mirror!