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."
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.
The actual program in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vz7Z42Fl9s
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
The world is how you make it
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.
Wouldn't that be good+1? Like a counter...
no, ++good increments the value of good, _before_ you miss the joke
Download and mirror!
Keep your eyes to the sky.
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.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat