German Kindergartens Ordered To Pay Copyright For Songs

BBird writes "Deutsche Welle reports: 'Up until this year, preschools could teach and produce any kind of song they wanted. But now they have to pay for a license if they want children to sing certain songs. A tightening of copyright rules means kindergartens now have to pay fees to Germany's music licensing agency, GEMA, to use songs that they reproduce and perform. The organization has begun notifying creches and other daycare facilities that if they reproduce music to be sung or performed, they must pay for a license.'"

Comments

this is not idle.

[unity100]

this is the apex of copyright bullshit, and it is a serious issue. "humming a song ? you need to pay us !"

Re:this is not idle.

[MightyMartian]

UNtil the citizens of each and every country make their vote contingent on putting the recording industry back in its place via new laws, this crap will continue to happen.

What I'm sure will happen in the meantime is one of those crappy little solutions where the German government calls in recording industry executives, hashes out some little exception for children six years and under, and everyone walks away feeling really good about themselves.

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is not new laws, it is fewer. Copyright should be scaled back and the state should get out of the business of helping to collect licensing fees (and should use existing anti-cartel laws to prevent companies from banding together to collect royalties). If recording company A wants money from 4 year-olds for singing a song they should have to sue to school and take all the bad press that comes along with their actions. Fear of a competitor gaining an advantage this way would stop the the most ridiculous suits then.

Re:this is not idle.

[zn0k]

Well, humming doesn't require paying. Neither does singing.
Reproducing sheet music does.
> The new rules came into power at the beginning of this year, but have only recently drawn attention as daycare centers have received letters reminding them that they need to sign contracts with GEMA before distributing sheet music to children to sing.

> If copies of music are made, the fee needs to be paid.
> GEMA said that the need for licenses would not have any effect on singing in kindergartens.
> "It doesn't cost anything to sing in kindergartens," said Peter Hempel. "If a school does not make any copies of music, then of course they don't need to pay anything."

While GEMA is bullshit, much like the RIAA, photocopying sheet music is a far cry from kids singing a song.

Re:this is not idle.

[peragrin]

Expect it will have an effect on singing in kindergartens as childern that young won't know the words, so the words have to be spelled out for the child.

it is really hard to teach simply by talking about a given subject.

Re:this is not idle.

[Sonny Yatsen]

While I agree that GEMA is going over the top by sending letters to kindergartens, there's a world of difference between humming a song to yourself and performing (in public) or reproducing a song (copying a recording of a song or copying the sheet music of a song).

Re:this is not idle.

[MrLint]

No, I have to disagree. The apex is really one of the things we learned from Wikileaks. The big media companies are misusing the diplomatic weight of the american people to try to force other countries (Spain), to accept the corporate written copyright laws. And at the same time, the govt is hiding this from the citizens it claims to be doing diplomacy on their behalf.

Re:this is not idle.

[ColdWetDog]

Expect it will have an effect on singing in kindergartens as childern that young won't know the words, so the words have to be spelled out for the child.

it is really hard to teach simply by talking about a given subject.

Kindergarten age kids in Germany can read sheet music? I'm impressed...

Re:this is not idle.

[cdrudge]

Expect it will have an effect on singing in kindergartens as childern that young won't know the words, so the words have to be spelled out for the child.

Your typical preschooler or kindergardener isn't going to know how to read very much, let alone sheet music. They learn songs by repetition and memorization.

Re:this is not idle.

[Q-Hack!]

Actually, I do consider this in the idle category... Or at least in the non-news category. There is plenty of music available for kindergarten kids to sing that isn't copyrighted. Ok, so they can't sing the latest song by a current artist. Oh-Well. A good teacher will not rely on what is current or popular and still be able to provide an outstanding education.

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe where you come from, but isn't Germany the home of the super muscle bound kid? German kids are far more advanced than any previous generation.

In modern Germany, kids read bed time stories to their parents!

Re:this is not idle.

[zn0k]

> What's next, should Dr. Suess's estate begin sueing kindergartens because they read his books aloud? Clearly this is a performance of his written work. What about when teachers show movies in class? Presentation of those films outside of home use is not allowed. (We're talking about showing movies on half days / Christmas time not the educational ones).

What about photocopying Dr Seuss books?

Again - performance of sheet music is free. Reproducing it costs a license fee.

Reading a book would be free. Reproducing it would cost a fee.

Re:this is not idle.

[TapeCutter]

"Expect it will have an effect on singing in kindergartens as childern that young won't know the words, so the words have to be spelled out for the child. it is really hard to teach simply by talking about a given subject.

My grandaughter who has yet to turn 2 can sing "twinkle, twinkle, little star", no sheet music required.

Re:this is not idle.

[Ghengis Khak]

UNtil the citizens of each and every country make their vote contingent on putting the recording industry back in its place via new laws, this crap will continue to happen.

Your post highlights one of the major problems with representative democracy. People can't be expected, and rightfully so, to use the single tiny/weak signal they can send to their government (their vote) to take up a cause like this since they might be more concerned about, say, the economy. So it goes unchecked.

Re:this is not idle.

[jc42]

... there's a world of difference between humming a song to yourself and performing (in public) ...

Ah, but the kids aren't likely to be humming the songs to themselves. They'll be singing the songs loudly (and out of tune) in a very public setting (the school room). It was only a matter of time before the publishing and recording industries began to "think of the children", and classify this situation as a public performance. A few years ago, we were laughing at the suggestion that such things would eventually become illegal unless the people involved have paid for a license. Now it's "eventually", and while it may be funny in a sick sense, few of us are probably laughing as they read this.

(Actually, I did laugh. I guess that tells you what a sicko I am. ;-)

How long now until someone walking down the sidewalk humming a tune is arrested and charged with unlicensed public performance of copyrighted material? Will this first happen to an adult or a child? Should we be setting up a site for the public to bet on this?

Re:this is not idle.

[zn0k]

Performance is free. Only reproducing sheet music (and, I guess, copying tapes or CDs) is not.

Re:this is not idle.

[Dunbal]

Excuse me while I laugh at your continued belief in a democratic system that was subverted a long, long time ago by : Money.

Yeah, uh, "voting" is going to fix things. Here's a song for ya: "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss". Oh and to the RIAA - bite me.

Re:this is not idle.

[oldspewey]

How did reading a Dr. Suess storybook enter into this? TFA is about making copies of music not singing or reading out loud. You are arguing a point that isn't even in dispute in this case.

You know what? Several decades ago I sang in a children's choir. Every kid in the choir had copies of the sheet music, and every single one of those copies was purchased from the publisher, not photocopied. Most of them had a big "copying prohibited" watermark across every page. So whether GEMA is exactly as big a bunch of douchebags as the RIAA, or only somewhat as big a bunch of douchebags as the RIAA, this story is about something that has been going on since the invention of toner - music publishers expecting that people won't photocopy their work even if it's just a bunch of kids singing.

The summary of this article is deliberately inflammatory.

Re:this is not idle.

[oldspewey]

Nowhere in the article does it state that the kids can't sing whatever they want, whenever they want to.

Re:this is not idle.

[eyrieowl]

Yes, like those recent tunes, "This Land Is Your Land", or from any Disney movie or any Broadway musical or any of those other songs that kids sometimes sing in school. You're right. We shouldn't rely on the latest songs by current artists like Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Peter Paul & Mary, Judy Garland, or any of those other faddish folk.

Of *course* you can still provide an excellent education without those songs, but if your school doesn't have lots of money to spend on copyrighted music (which few schools do), that education is going to be lacking in some important cultural touchstones of the past 70 years. It's not just trendy stuff the way you make it out to be.

And yes, I know all my exact examples probably wouldn't be a problem in Germany, what with them being English songs and all, but I've no doubt there are comparable German language examples that someone better versed in German music for the past century would be able to refer to instead.

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big difference between the statements made by GEMA, and the actual written rules.
Singing out loud in a class is performing, which is covered, even if they don't ask for a fee today.
And we're not talking about just current music. We're talking author's life + 70 years, so stuff written a hundred years ago is covered.
It's small steps. It's just copying, and the fee is low. Today. Once you're used to that there will be another small step - a bigger fee or more activities covered. The copyright term extended by 10 years.
Don't be complacent or naive.

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the sheet music. It's still bullshit, but it allows a workaround. Producing a variant, possibly simplified or in a different key, and placing that sheet music into the public domain, might solve the problem.

Re:this is not idle.

[zn0k]

Got a link for that? Sorry to ask for citation, but this: https://www.gema.de/presse/aktuelle-pressemitteilungen/presse-details/article/singen-erwuenscht-illegales-kopieren-verboten.html press release by GEMA (in the original German) explicitly says that in this case they have been tasked by the VG Musikedition (an entity completely separate from GEMA) with enforcing the licensing of reproduction of song lyrics and sheet music. VG Musikedition has absolutely nothing to do with performance, which contradicts your statement that singing out loud in class is performing, and that performing is covered by the same rules. Since VG Musikedition doesn't deal with performances at all, performing cannot possibly be covered by the same rules, and it would be impossible to ask for a fee for performance tomorrow under the same statutes.

I'd appreciate any corrections.

Re:this is not idle.

[TaoPhoenix]

Oh, won't someone think of the seven year olds!

Re:this is not idle.

[Antisyzygy]

All the same, why target the education system? I guess it was the same for me in band class as we all had unique copies of sheet music. I guess it keeps it cheap for the average consumer, like some dude in his garage who plays sax.

Re:this is not idle.

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

this is the apex of copyright bullshit...

I think "nadir" is the word you're looking for here.

Re:this is not idle.

[MobyDisk]

Sounds like the German's don't have fair-use exceptions for schools.

From Fair Use and Copyright for Teachers:

Fair use explicitly allows use of copyrighted materials for educational purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Rather than listing exact limits of fair use, copyright law provides four standards for determination of the fair use exemption:

Re:this is not idle.

[cheekyjohnson]

the economy

The economy is, without a single doubt, the most important thing in existence. If something helps the economy, it's instantly good. If something hurts the economy, it's instantly bad. I have the economy to worry about! I don't have time to be worrying about silly things such as my freedom.

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do realize that this is not the recording company or one of their groups. This is the equivalent of the US ASCAP; it is a song writers / composers association and collects performance fees from people performing those copyrighted words / compositions. Should they curtail their greediness? Absolutely. Should they be going after schools? Hell no. In the US, should restaurant staff be able to sing "Happy Birthday" without some jack ass coming out of the woodwork asking for money? Damn right. But, it isn't correct to conflate groups like ASCAP and GEMA with the RIAA.

Re:this is not idle.

[zn0k]

According to https://www.gema.de/presse/aktuelle-pressemitteilungen/presse-details/article/singen-erwuenscht-illegales-kopieren-verboten.html they are not targeting the education system as a whole.

Kindergartens in Germany aren't part of the education system as such, and are funded by churches, communities, NGOs, and other entities. They do not fall under the umbrella of the education system in relation to the government.

Schools aren't targeted for these reproduction fees because a "general contract" has been made between the Ministry of Culture (which is at the upper end of the education system) and the copyright holder, so everything is blanket covered.
Since Kindergartens are not under the Ministry of Culture they are not covered by the blanket contract, and have to pay 56 Euros for every 500 copies, or 44.80 Euros after the rebate if they are carried by a church or community.

Of course that's a GEMA press release, so it's going to paint things in their favor.

On a sidenote, typing Kindergartens feels stupid. Kindergaerten doesn't seem right in English, though. What's the proper plural here?

Re:this is not idle.

[Renraku]

The way the copyright people play things out, just remembering a song is copying it so move along to the nearest paystation, citizen.

Re:this is not idle.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What about when teachers show movies in class? Presentation of those films outside of home use is not allowed. (We're talking about showing movies on half days / Christmas time not the educational ones).

In the USA, for either case, the answer has long been yes a license is required.

Re:this is not idle.

[Mashiki]

Fucking people over with 'sheet music' is the biggest pile of bullshit you'd ever believe. Here in Canadaland, our city orchestra's regularly get screwed over by it.

Hey what's a mere 10k-20k to allow performances? On songs that were made 250 years ago.

Re:this is not idle.

[Fnordulicious]

> On a sidenote, typing Kindergartens feels stupid. Kindergaerten doesn't seem right in English, though. What's the proper plural here?

The “proper” plural is the English regular plural with -s. The word has been completely borrowed into English, resulting in, according to the OED, such derivations as “kindergartening” (1893), “kindergartenize”, “kindergartener” (1889), and “kindergartenism” (1872). Using the German plural would be an affectation, given that the term has been firmly anglicized since the late 19th century. It worked its way into English relatively quickly from German, given that Friedrich Froebel coined the word in 1840. OED gives the first English citation as 1852, and it seems to have been fairly thoroughly ensconced in English by the 1870s or 1880s. You are of course free to use the German plural, but English speakers unfamiliar with German will find it strange and perhaps incomprehensible.

Re:this is not idle.

[GooberToo]

this is the apex of copyright bullshit, and it is a serious issue. "humming a song ? you need to pay us !"

Why is that? Most artists originally made their income from performing. Largely, that's still true even today. In this case, they are being denied income for their intellectual property and by an usurped performance. So really, its a double whammy on their income.

What you're really arguing is that creative people should not be compensated for their work. Someone I doubt you would agree you should not be compensated for YOUR income. I honestly can not understand how anyone can come to that concussion. Oddly enough, to date, I've never met anyone willing to give up THEIR income to validate their point of view. Which seems to loudly argue, your position is a lot of hypocritical, loud air.

Seriously, think about this. If its such a big deal, why not simply create your own music to perform. Then, you don't owe anyone anything and you're free to allow or disallow anyone from using your work.

Now if you want to argue you're not a hypocrite, let me know and we'll make arrangements so you can starting sending my your paychecks from now on.

Re:this is not idle.

[Marcika]

this is the apex of copyright bullshit...

I think "nadir" is the word you're looking for here.

Nonono, just imagine a mountain of steaming bovine dung, with a GEMA executive on its apex...

Re:this is not idle.

[danomac]

When I read this, I immediately thought of them shooting themselves in the foot. Chances are that they're not going to use their songs anymore, so the teachers will find other songs not restricted by royalties.

You'd think at that point they'd want exposure to the young'uns to get them hooked to their music, not the other way around... not saying that's right either, but hey.

Re:this is not idle.

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

I was imagining a deep pit of bovine dung with a GEMA executive at the bottom.

Re:this is not idle.

[Frosty Piss]

While GEMA is bullshit, much like the RIAA, photocopying sheet music is a far cry from kids singing a song.

While I think it is a bit odd that they are singing "Far Cry" by Rush in German day cares, it *is* a copyrighted song, so they'll have to get the sheep music from an approved source...

Re:this is not idle.

[hrdo]

Well..... do you think it would help the artist's with their declining CD sales to start sueing kindergardens? If you are a satanic rocker I'm sure it rocks, but otherwise it may make a slight scratch in image... :-)

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell any jokes you didn't invent either, it's a crime.

Re:this is not idle.

[HiThere]

Actually, things written 100 years ago will probably not be covered. But things written today will be covered 100 years from now.

The difference is that most works written 100 years ago probably had the copyright lapse at some point during that century. And from that time forwards they were not covered. The laws changed sometime after 1980. (In the US...different times elsewhere. After WWII, I believe, everywhere.)

N.B.: In the US works written in 1923 may still be within copyright, depending on how the copyright was handled. (Renewals, etc.), but things written in 1915 aren't. On the years in between, I'm not certain. (But notice that the "Lord of the Rings" was out of copyright in the US in the 1970's because it was published first in Britain. And US law at that time required that for a work to be copyright in the US it could not have been published earlier in another country. (Read the back of the Ballentine Edition of the Lord of the Rings. I'm not sure about the current editions, but the first ones made a point that Ballentine had chosen to pay Tolkien royalties, where Ace had not.

Re:this is not idle.

[HiThere]

I think in the US the form Kindergarden is preferred, though my spell-checker disagrees.

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA you'd be SOL. The democrats like to "protect the creators" and the republicans like to "protect the businesses".

In Canada we have the archaic first-past-the-poll system (If you win the election in a "riding", you automatically win as if you had 100% of the votes in that riding - yes, Federal elections are ran as a concerted bunch of municipal elections) which ensures smaller parties like the Pirate Party of Canada don't stand a chance in Federal Elections.

The Big Parties have only a disincentive to switch to a proportional election system, since when you're in power, you only stand to lose.

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I already did, while I was masturbating. Little German boys are sexy!

Re:this is not idle.

[zn0k]

Thanks. Didn't know English usage of the word went so far back - Kindergartens it is.

Re:this is not idle.

[Stregano]

Sorry kids, everybody has to gather around one piece of paper to learn Scarborough Fair since it is $500 per printout we make

Re:this is not idle.

[sco08y]

Should they be going after schools? Hell no.

Why should schools be able to stiff all the people who work to produce a song and release it? Because of "the children"? Really?

They seem to be going about it like assholes, and there are certainly plenty of problems with copyright and IP law as it is. But the fact that they're treating schools like everyone else isn't a problem.

Re:this is not idle.

[Sulphur]

Your typical preschooler or kindergardener isn't going to know how to read very much, let alone sheet music. They learn songs by repetition and memorization.

"We know you can't read music; turning the pages is fooling no one." Bernstein

I haven't celebrated a birthday since that fruitcake incident; however, birthday singing is mostly predictable. All the GEMA or RIAA need to do is to charge for singing annually.

Re:this is not idle.

[chichilalescu]

photocopying sheet music is a far cry from kids singing a song.

really? Mozart "stole" music from the church, without having a written version, by remembering the notes. so, under this law: would it be legal for him to sing said stolen music? (I realize it would be illegal to distribute written copies).

in the end, I find it idiotic that teachers have to worry about this kind of thing. They should be able to distribute as many copies as they pleased, when it comes to learning material (any learning material). I mean... the point of teachers is to teach kids something, and society should value that more than some greedy idiots who want their pension plan to be "I wrote this song once". Sorry: greedy idiots who want their pension plan to be "I introduced this songwriter to this singer once".

Re:this is not idle.

[Foobar of Borg]

What you're really arguing is that creative people should not be compensated for their work. Someone I doubt you would agree you should not be compensated for YOUR income. I honestly can not understand how anyone can come to that concussion. Oddly enough, to date, I've never met anyone willing to give up THEIR income to validate their point of view. Which seems to loudly argue, your position is a lot of hypocritical, loud air.

I'm not going to be compensated for 70 years past my death for something I do today. Why shouldn't artists/recording companies have to accept a more reasonable term for copyright? Having such a ludicrously long copyright term is the reason so many people have no respect for copyright at all. Well, that and the fact that record companies try any and all ways to force people to buy one piece of music *multiple times*, thus guaranteeing even greater profit without requiring any more extra work (you know, that "work" thing that the rest of us "little people" have to keep doing to earn a living).

Re:this is not idle.

[bzipitidoo]

What you're really arguing is that creative people should not be compensated for their work.

No.

We are offended that an artificial and totally unnecessary scarcity that costs everyone is being imposed and extended, and litigated shamelessly, all because "creative" people somehow aren't creative enough to come up with any other system of compensation that they're willing to use. No one said artists do not deserve compensation. But their need for compensation, particularly in the face of their unwillingness to try other ways, is NOT a good excuse for holding us all back. The world has changed. Now copying is easy. They must come to terms with the new reality. Don't coddle them.

you're free to allow or disallow anyone from using your work.

No, reality does not work like that. Despite the law, there is no practical way for anyone to enforce such control over what anyone else does with a copy of a work. What a warped idea of freedom: the "freedom" to take other's freedoms away. Nor should we try, as it limits and costs us all. You think it's the other way around, of course. That enforcing property rights on ideas encourages more production of ideas. But it's not. It is far more common to be forced to wait for copyrights and patents to expire-- patents that should never have been granted because they are too obvious and fundamental. We'll never know what we didn't see years sooner thanks to all this frantic effort to lock up every conceivable melody, story, idea-- cures for cancer, obesity, Herpes, Malaria, and worse diseases, perhaps the solution to our energy woes, fantastic new transportation methods....

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

"They're treating the schools like everyone else" - and the fact that you don't see the problem with the way they are treating people means that you can only be a psychopath.

Re:this is not idle.

[chilvence]

Music has always been free. It is going to naturally reject the futile attempt to monetise every aspect off it because the next generation of people aren't stupid enough to respect your sort of logic. All musicians are buskers, just some on a larger scale, and much as its right to show appreciation to a busker by tossing a note his way, its wrong for the busker to stop playing, break his guitar over a cheapskates head and then steal his wallet and run off.

Re:this is not idle.

[icebraining]

For fucks' sake, kindergartens aren't undercutting their sales and making them lose profit!

The schools aren't even distributing to outside members, they're making a couple photocopies of sheet music for the students to practice!

"Oh, I won't buy that CD, I'll just listen to a bunch of five-year-olds with a couple of hours of training instead."

Re:this is not idle.

[icebraining]

Here in Portugal (and the rest of the EU, from what I can tell) it's more specific than that: you must appease "the markets," like a Mayan god.

The latest phrase was "Insulting the markets hurts the national economy."
Apparently, "the markets" have feelings now.

Re:this is not idle.

[BluBrick]

However comforting your imaginary image may be, Marcika's is more realistic.

Re:this is not idle.

[sco08y]

"They're treating the schools like everyone else" - and the fact that you don't see the problem with the way they are treating people means that you can only be a psychopath.

You seriously missed the previous sentence which started with, "they seem to be going about it like assholes"?

Re:this is not idle.

[sco08y]

For fucks' sake, kindergartens aren't undercutting their sales and making them lose profit!

Arguing that it's a trivial amount of money works both ways. If it's so trivial, it's also not a big deal for the schools to pay. They're just being cheapskates.

Re:this is not idle.

[sco08y]

Music has always been free. It is going to naturally reject the futile attempt to monetise every aspect off it because the next generation of people aren't stupid enough to respect your sort of logic.

My logic? All I'm saying is that everyone involved in getting a song on the radio, or as sheet music or however, at some point, has to pay their bills. (And the fatcats, really, are a drop in the bucket of the overall costs.) And not just once or twice, people want to start families and save for retirement, so for most of them it needs to work pretty consistently.

Those are just the constraints of reality. And I'm just observing that wailing about the children doesn't change that.

its wrong for the busker to stop playing, break his guitar over a cheapskates head and then steal his wallet and run off.

I'd hope he didn't run off too quick; I'd have a fucking 20 for him if I saw that.

Re:this is not idle.

[yog]

Who says it's a trivial amount of money? $74 for one song is a lot of money. If a school teaches its children, say, about twenty songs a year, this starts to be serious money.

The net effect is that schools will tend to avoid modern songs and stick with traditional repertoire. In a country as old as Germany, that should be no problem. They have hundreds if not thousands of trad songs. So the music from the past 70 years or so will get passed over. Big deal. The net effect will be that fewer children will learn the modern songs, and thus the song writers will become less well known. Too bad for them.

Re:this is not idle.

[magus_melchior]

1. If the government got out of regulating copyright (it does a pretty crummy job of it at the moment), what makes you think the music industry wouldn't use their legal goons aggressively in this fashion?
2. What competition? The music industry is a gaggle of cartels, each making damned sure that the consumer pays only them in their respective markets.
3. By telling the government to get out of copyright, you're chucking the baby out with the bathwater. Suppose an indie artist makes a cool and popular song? What's going to happen is that an RIAA artist will proceed to steal it and make his label very wealthy. Of course, I would not be surprised in the slightest if this happens anyway, but by putting the government out of the picture, the indie now has near-zero recourse.

If the answer is not more laws, fewer laws doesn't seem to be very sensible either. What must happen is that better law, without the undue influence of interested parties, should replace what we have and be enforced consistently. That's a far cry from what we see in governments today, many of which are set up to extract power and wealth from their respective countries.

Re:this is not idle.

[hairyfeet]

Riiiight. And every house my dad has ever built should have to pay money to me for utilizing his artistic expression. hey that is a GREAT idea! Where is my money bitch?

Or maybe, just maybe, they should have to get off their asses and work instead of getting checks for 150+ years because some song made the top 200 sometime somewhere.

The problem as it is now is that music "business" is nothing but a parasite on the ass of society. Think the "artists" are getting more than a pittance? Nope, it is the leeches, all these record companies that have bought the airwaves and hold them hostage, that are the REAL money makers.

Look up "Hollywood Accounting" and know that it is about 100 TIMES worse for musicians. I should know because I am just a skip away from Memphis and have actually held these contracts in my hands. The only way an artist makes shit is to either make it on the road or SURVIVE their first contract and hope to get a better deal on the second. Hell even with Metallica sucking the record execs they only get about $0.89 cents on a $22 CD. Anyone who thinks the money in music is being made by the artists needs their heads examined. It is nothing but leeches as far as the eye can see, and that is ALL this bunch is, leeches.

Re:this is not idle.

[kyrio]

Make good music that can sell without some "fatcat" selling it for you and you won't have any issues with getting money.

Re:this is not idle.

[seekertom]

how do little kids sing a song? do they memorize it first? don't they have to read it from sheet music in order to memorize or sing it? I suppose if the kids are driving down sales of the commercial distribution of 'little mary had a lamb...' by going into the record publishing business and making a million dollars for each child, well then I might could understand the concern.

Re:this is not idle.

[asamad]

mod this up, my words

Re:this is not idle.

[rastoboy29]

No fair use for four year olds?  Are you insane?

If nothing else, it is for educational purposes.

I think you are insane.

Re:this is not idle.

[1u3hr]

Why should schools be able to stiff all the people who work to produce a song and release it? Because of "the children"? Really?

Because the schools (I assume) don't have any audiences, and they don't earn any income from the songs. To describe this sitation as "stiffing" the creators is pretty ludicrous, especially as it's been the situation forever, up till these assholes thought they could get away with it. And the songwriters should and I'm sure do get a cut from any songbooks used in the classes already.

Re:this is not idle.

[testadicazzo]

You seriously missed the previous sentence which started with, "they seem to be going about it like assholes"?

As far as I can see, the only "asshole" behavior that they are engaging in is treating the kindergartens like everyone else. They aren't accusing the kindergartens and creche's of being theives, they aren't trying to jail anyone, they're just sending them letters that say, in the future they (the kindergartens) too must pay a license to sing any songs under their control. In other words, it's not how they are going about, it is the fact that they are going after kindergartens that makes them assholes (or, well, you know, bigger assholes).

If you are trying to make the point that trying to squeeze every bit of profit out of the world that they can, regardless of the social impact is the underlying asshole behavior, then I'm inclined to agree with you. On the other hand, I do see this case as being particularly egregious, and here's why: Teaching children songs and using music and culture as part of the education process of future generations of humanity is about as worthwhile a use of music and culture as one could possibly imagine. It's something that should be encourages, and it's one of those instances where our gut, emotional reaction is completely valid. Making it harder for creche's and kindergartens to operate is simply abysmal behavior. It's an order of magnitude worse than requiring an office party to do the same thing, and that is in turn an order of magnitude worse than requiring a club owner to do, which in turn is a bit worse than requiring someone making a commercial film to do so. All these things rob our culture and profit greedy assholes who don't contribute anything to that culture. Going after kindergartens is the logical extreme, which in its extremity points out the fallicies in the system. You may also be unaware that kindergartens and creche's in Germany are in short supply, and are often organized by parents on a volunteer basis because there just aren't enough (my cousin has organized one for example). So yeah, it's fucking terrible that they are placing an additional burden on people trying to make a positive social contribution.

If copyright is going to be a positive influence in society, and I believe an argument can be made in its defence, it requires us to differentiate between cases. So selling copies of a song I wrote without my permission is a case where I see copyright law having merit. Kids singing a song I wrote in kindergarten is a case where applying copyright law is meritless. Copyright law should not be applied to every situation where it might possibly be applied... it's for this reason that we (used to?) have the concept of fair use.

Attention copyright apologists: please don't give me that tired old line about artists having to pay their bills. Copyright law in the modern world benefits giant corporations, not artists. See www.questioncopyright.org for detailed investigations and examples. See "Sitka sings the blues" and the lectures of the creative artist responsible, for an example which categorically disproves the faulty assumption that copyright is necessary to encourage or support artists. There is plenty of evidence to encourage questioning the very existance of copyright, and there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that current copyright law needs, at the very least, massive reform.

Re:this is not idle.

[Ghengis Khak]

I wasn't very clear with the point I was trying to make, so I'll take another shot. Guessing from the tone of your post I will say that I think we agree that personal freedom is an important issue. I was just using the economy as an illustration of the fact that, when voting, a person may have to choose one issue or set of issues from among many to choose how to cast their vote. To the unfortunately few number of people who don't strictly or closely follow party lines, this can lead to a choice where I disagree on seemingly-small (though arguably large in its implications) issues such as whether 6 year olds or their caretakers should be forced to pay for the songs they sing, opting instead to cast a vote based on some other issue that more directly affects my own freedom (eg, reigning in the TSA). I didn't mean to imply that I think the economy is the only important issue around, nor that it is more important than issues of personal liberty.

Re:this is not idle.

[arisvega]

this is the apex of copyright bullshit

I agree, but you have to understand how thorough Germans are in this and see it in context

"humming a song ? you need to pay us !"

This is not the context; the context is "using our song as teaching material? You need to pay us" (at least I hope it is)

Don't flame me! I also think this is too much.

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the only solution is to just use the music anyway and teach the children that society's creative legacy cannot be owned. I can't imagine anything worse for the publicity of the the copyright owners than to go after a bunch of kids.

Re:this is not idle.

[marcello_dl]

I have nothing against paywalled content as long as it is always paywalled. Once you promote a song on the radio and tv and new marketing scams, you should not be able to demand royalties when it becomes popular and it's used non commercially. This is akin to a submarine patent.

Re:this is not idle.

[ista]

Kindergarten age kids in Germany can read sheet music? I'm impressed...

The sheets are not for the children but their parents, so they may sing songs which have been taught their children.

Re:this is not idle.

[Triv]

You're laboring under the faulty assumption that classical scores don't ever change. That can't be more untrue.

Think about it like a literary translation: a copy of "The Clouds" translated in 1850 is going to be drastically different from one translated last year - the contemporary translator has another 150 years of scholarship to draw on to interpret the work; classical music works the same way.

10k for a version of a score in the public domain is ridiculous, I agree, but 10k to update, rescore, reinterpret, and rearrange a work from 200 years ago that hasn't be touched since? That isn't at all a waste of money.

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

very well said. I am in complete agreement.

Re:this is not idle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you pay your plumber everytime you flush your toilet? Thought not. Does he not have bills?

Those little...

[oldhack]

Pay up, you little bastards.

Dear GEMA,

[thisnamestoolong]

Go fuck yourselves. Sincerely, The World

Re:Dear GEMA,

[Mitchell314]

Sad thing is, it's more like "Dear Gema, please teach us your ways. Eternally Grateful, the World"

Re:Dear GEMA,

[Nursie]

Yes, how about you all fuck off and die, the world would be a better place.

No, really, it would, how the fuck do these people sleep at night?

Re:Dear GEMA,

[SnarfQuest]

Go fuck yourselves.

Sincerely,
The World

Hey, that happens to be the name of my newest song. Please send me my copyright fees.

Re:Dear GEMA,

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Citizen,

We will fuck you first to line our pockets.

Sincerely,

GEMA

Re:Dear GEMA,

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourselves.

Sincerely,
The World

Hey, that happens to be the name of my newest song. Please send me my copyright fees.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Re:Dear GEMA,

[davester666]

Clearly, you are basing the name of your song from samples from my previously written song. Just forward the checks to me.

Re:Dear GEMA,

[oldspewey]

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

That's Neil Young's newest song. Please send him the copyright fees.

Re:Dear GEMA,

[sorak]

Go fuck yourselves.

Sincerely,
The World

Go fuck yourselves is a registered trademark of the world. If you use this phrase, we will sue your ass into oblivion. If your kindergarten-aged children use it, we will laugh and move on...We have some standards, and suing children falls below them.

Re:Dear GEMA,

[Anonymous Coward]

Sociopaths never have any problem sleeping.

Re:Dear GEMA,

[bemymonkey]

These are the same people who quadrupled their fees for Christmas background music on the Christmas market here in Aachen this year.

Jumped from 3000 to 12000...

Your reaction is far too measured...

Re:Dear GEMA,

[substance2003]

No, really, it would, how the fuck do these people sleep at night?

With a huge pile of cash in their bed to comfort them.

Re:Dear GEMA,

[bemymonkey]

WTF, Slashdot ate my Euro-symbol.

! ! !

Before each of those exclamation marks was a Euro symbol... :|

Re:Dear GEMA,

[DMUTPeregrine]

On soft, soft piles of money.

Re:Dear GEMA,

[Xyrus]

No, really, it would, how the fuck do these people sleep at night?

Hellspawn need no sleep. At best they need a little rest, usually in a warm bath of blood from babies, kittens, and puppies.

Re:Dear GEMA,

[Anonymous Coward]

On a BIG pile of money...

Re:Dear GEMA,

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies?

Re:Dear GEMA,

[Anonymous Coward]

No, really, it would, how the fuck do these people sleep at night?

On satin sheets, exhausted by "high class" hookers.

Just stick with the public domain

[MillionthMonkey]

Didn't the Nazis leave behind a bunch of drinking songs?

Re:Just stick with the public domain

[couchslug]

"Didn't the Nazis leave behind a bunch of drinking songs?"

The Allies spent vast amounts of treasure and millions of troops to ensure no one in Europe would resist corporate serfdom. Don't make us do it again.

Re:Just stick with the public domain

[Dunbal]

Tell me about it.While I don't consider myself to be a "neo nazi" it certainly puts things in a new light when you actually sit down and think about history a little instead of repeating back what you're told like a parrot. Germany suffered the same fate as France did under Napoleon. While yes, they pursued an aggressive policy of expansion into the East until attacked by the West, they can hardly be called out for it by a country that at the time was occupying 1/4 of the Earth's land surface and all of its seas. Napoleon never declared war on anyone. And WW2 was started by Britain - on the excuse of Poland being invaded, nothing more. Certainly Britain wasn't obligated to honor the treaty with Poland - just like they failed to honor the guarantees to Czechoslovakia. Britain wanted war for its own interests (certainly not to save that absolute angel Stalin and his communist hordes), but broke the Empire in the process.

I just think it's funny how that new Muslim island colony is working out now, though.

Re:Just stick with the public domain

[MillionthMonkey]

Geez, I knew I should have left the Nazi part off.

Go along with it

[TheL0ser]

The schools should go along with it. Make the parents send money with their kid every time they're going to sing in class. Charge admission to recitals to make it clear that you have to pay for licensing to hear your kid sing. In fact, make the kids hand the money over themselves, and tell them that every time they want to sing something they have to give money away. Maybe if it gets ridiculous enough people will notice.

Re:Go along with it

[BarryJacobsen]

Do not have the kids pay. They will grow up thinking this is normal.

Re:Go along with it

[Anonymous Coward]

.... Or it is the first steps to teaching kids that this is acceptable behaviour. And that is a scary thought.

Re:Go along with it

[Drakkenmensch]

Maybe if it gets ridiculous enough people will notice.

What do you mean, "gets"?

Re:Go along with it

[sjames]

A better option is let the kids choose. They can either sing some recent pop tune OR they can sing a public domain folk song AND have a piece of candy.

Re:Go along with it

[Anne_Nonymous]

The Germans have a name for this exact process - kindersingengeld.

Re:Go along with it

[Dynedain]

Great idea, unfortunately "Happy Birthday" and other common songs are not recent pop tunes, and aren't public domain.

Re:Go along with it

[sjames]

Then that doesn't get offered with candy. Do some other birthday song instead.

Re:Go along with it

[ortholattice]

The schools should go along with it. Make the parents send money with their kid every time they're going to sing in class. ... Maybe if it gets ridiculous enough people will notice.

However, this might have the opposite effect of indoctrinating the children (and their parents) into mindlessly accepting such draconian enforcement as the status quo.

Re:Go along with it

[noidentity]

In fact, make the kids hand the money over themselves, and tell them that every time they want to sing something they have to give money away. Maybe if it gets ridiculous enough people will notice.

If what I've been told is true, then it's the only right thing to do, otherwise the kids would be stealing whenever they sung. They should know that stealing is wrong, since it deprives people of their belongings.

Re:Go along with it

[ausrob]

It's ridiculous enough right now. Stop giving them ideas!

Re:Go along with it

[Av8rjoker]

Well, they are going to find out some time. Unfortunately, it is normal.

Re:Go along with it

[snowgirl]

True, "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted, however, fortunately for Kindergartner in Germany, "Hoch Soll Er/Sie Leben" is not under copyright.

Re:Go along with it

[BluBrick]

Schadenfreude seems to fit pretty well, too.

Predicted future news:

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

German Kindergartens told to pay copyright fees for every song, regardless of copyright status or ownership. Failure to do so will be fined on a level that makes stealing Humvees look cheap.

Re:Predicted future news:

[Mitchell314]

Failure to do so will be fined on a level that makes stealing Humvees look cheap*.

* which costs $243.85 btw.

Good thing

[mseeger]

I have to confess, i am very happy about this. This created a lot of waves and even the most conservative media outlets reported very critical about it. I think the copyright mafia used this time a shotgun for volley fire into their own feet. Though i am sorry for the kids, i am thankful for the allies this generated. The evil demasked itself...

CU, Martin

Re:Good thing

[plcurechax]

I helps to show how viscous those "pirates" who abuse copyright really are. Now that people might realize that pre-school children are being labelled pirates, people might start to think that the RIAA and friends (GEMA, CIRA, etc.) are really mobsters. Though a fresh case of the industry screwing the actual artists would help too. Maybe screwing over the now ancient Tina Turner or Leonard Cohen out of their royalties. Hopefully they go after unlicensed performances of music at senior centres next.

Re:Good thing

[oldspewey]

I have to agree with the part about kindergarten kids being viscous. Have you ever tried to force a group of them through a narrow doorway?

Re:Good thing

[hobo sapiens]

'I helps to show how viscous those "pirates" who abuse copyright really are'

Pirates are pretty gooey. They ooze right through the cracks in the legal system.

Re:Good thing

[misexistentialist]

Strip-search machines got a lot press too. So they bought more machines and added punitive groping for opt-outs.

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

No, and you cant proove anything.

Re:Good thing

[nospam007]

Even if you think she's ancient, Tina Turner lives in Germany and her copyright holder will happily sue them senseless.

Itsy Bitsy Spider

[MFDoom]

... is still safe to sing

Re:Itsy Bitsy Spider

[Anonymous Coward]

... is still safe to sing

Only as a "parody" Andrew Dice Clay style.

The license is for copying sheet music.

[ephraimX]

Note that this only applies to making copies of sheet music, not merely singing the songs (or arranging, or performing, or anything else). Same sort of thing is in effect here in Canada, and I'm sure many other places. Not a wonderful policy, but not the culture-destroying terror that the summary implies.

Re:The license is for copying sheet music.

[Registered Coward v2]

Note that this only applies to making copies of sheet music, not merely singing the songs (or arranging, or performing, or anything else). Same sort of thing is in effect here in Canada, and I'm sure many other places. Not a wonderful policy, but not the culture-destroying terror that the summary implies.

You obviously are new to /. Actual RTFA, comprehending what it says and making a rational comment are not the norm. You need to read the sensational headline, and then post a diatribe about the evils of copyright, the music cabal, and anyone that actually wants to make money of what they create; and make a bad car analogy and then rant against anyone who violates the GPL.

I think we will see more of this - as traditional revenue streams dry up, companies will look to extracting money from areas they previously ignored or didn't worry about because they weren't that big.

Re:The license is for copying sheet music.

[eshbums]

You obviously are new to /. Actual RTFA, comprehending what it says and making a rational comment are not the norm. You need to read the sensational headline, and then post a diatribe about the evils of copyright, the music cabal, and anyone that actually wants to make money of what they create; and make a bad car analogy and then rant against anyone who violates the GPL.

I think we will see more of this - as traditional revenue streams dry up, companies will look to extracting money from areas they previously ignored or didn't worry about because they weren't that big.

You forgot the obligatory "do you even know what a strawman argument is?" post.

Re:The license is for copying sheet music.

[genfail]

I was totally about to fly off the handle on this one too complete with a call for revolution and painting the streets with the blood of the bourgeoisie. *sigh* Maybe next time. This is actually a pretty common practice and compared to the same copyrights in the US the fees are actually rather reasonable.

Re:The license is for copying sheet music.

[oldspewey]

I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.

Please subscribe me to your newsletter.

Re:The license is for copying sheet music.

[MagikSlinger]

It's been a while since I even thought about this, but I thought (at least in Canada), you could simply write to the publisher and get an educational exemption for reproducing lyrics. My elementary school choir had to do this.

School bands aren't affected by this because when I was in band (Oblig: "this one time, at band camp...") we each had to buy our own copy of the music book. The few times we had copies, the band teacher did have to get permission from the publisher or she bought the special "band" edition of the book which included the right to make copies.

But going after kindegardeners... Where's Chris Hanson where you need them?

Chris Hanson: "So, RIAA, what brings you here today?"
RIAA: "Um... To collect royalties from 5 year olds..."

Re:The license is for copying sheet music.

[lilo_booter]

Think you're missing the larger picture here - this isn't sane, no matter what precedent has been set before. Seriously - what revenue is affected by a bunch of 3 year olds singing a copyrighted song? What revenue is due?

Re:The license is for copying sheet music.

[nospam007]

Yes, actually _singing_ the songs in class is a public performance and will need additional payments.

Re:The license is for copying sheet music.

[rjstanford]

It's been a while since I even thought about this, but I thought (at least in Canada), you could simply write to the publisher and get an educational exemption for reproducing lyrics. My elementary school choir had to do this.

What makes you think that a similar option isn't available in this case? Its quite possible that asking nicely would get them the right to reproduce the sheet music; that fact, even the if the permission was always granted, doesn't absolve them of the requirement to ask.

Besides, isn't kindergarten all about saying please and thank you?

Re:The license is for copying sheet music.

[zn0k]

> what revenue is affected by a bunch of 3 year olds singing a copyrighted song?

None

> What revenue is due?

None. You're missing his point that there are absolutely no fees due when they are singing the songs, only when they're photocopying the sheet music.

Re:The license is for copying sheet music.

[geekoid]

Fine, how about this:

hat revenue is affected by a bunch of 3 year olds getting photo copies of sheet music?

lolMAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

good. the more obnoxious they are the quicker they die

Devil's advocate

[Andy Smith]

Let me play devil's advocate:

Daycare centres are busineses. Carers are professionals earning a living from their work. If they want to use a musician's song as part of their work then why shouldn't they have to pay? Why should this beneficial material be provided freely to them?

Re:Devil's advocate

[cptdondo]

Every culture out there in recorded and unrecorded history has had music and song. Heck, they even dug up a bone flute from 35,000 years ago. It's only in the last 70 years or so that it's become a business.

Song and dance is innate to human existence, just like food or breathing. Heck, animals sing and dance. Watch any mating pair of herons.

So now you're teaching those kids that singing a song is a business proposition, not a joyous thing. You pay to play. Talk about taking the fun out of something. And, maybe, just maybe, there won't be as many musicians because a lot of schools will eliminate music. It's just plain stupid.

Re:Devil's advocate

[olivierva]

Because it's just as ridiculous as you having to pay royalties for a clothing design every day you go to work smartly dressed

Re:Devil's advocate

[ClioCJS]

By your logic, if I built a bridge, I would be owed royalties every time someone drove over it. If I built you a chair, I would be owed royalties every time you sat on it. If I wrote software, I would be owed royalties every time it's run (oh damn do I wish that was true, haha). Amazing concept: People get paid for working, not for past work that they already completed.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Andy Smith]

Nobody's saying that the teachers can't write their own songs for the kids to sing for free. But if they (the teachers / daycare centres) want to use someone else's songs as part of their profession then they're being told to pay. Just like they pay for books, videos, class trips, etc.

I totally get the "oh my god this is awful telling those poor little kiddies that they must pay to sing" reaction. But that isn't what's happening. What's happening is that professional people (teachers) and for-profit businesses (daycare centres) are being told that they can't use someone else's professional work for free.

Re:Devil's advocate

[alen]

it has been a business for a long time. you really think all the medieval traveling musicians played for free? how did they buy food?

big difference in the last 70 years is RECORDED MUSIC. you no longer need a band to play music live. that's the reason for copyright

Re:Devil's advocate

[operagost]

By your logic, if I built a bridge, I would be owed royalties every time someone drove over it.

That's called a toll, and our governments pretty much have a monopoly on the highway system and almost never remove a toll once it is imposed for any reason.

Re:Devil's advocate

[cptdondo]

So are you saying that the kids should be paid for signing? I'm confused.

Signing for the joy of it should be free. Playing music for the joy of it should be free. Just as dancing is free. I can copy a ballet and dance without royalties. What makes music special?

Education is a different business from any other; your product is not measured in profitability but rather in making better kids and citizens.

Re:Devil's advocate

[ClioCJS]

You missed my point. Instead of cherry picking the one example that you could poke a hole in (which, by the way, has nothing to do with copyright, which is what the discussion is about), look at both examples I provided and try to understand the mentality of the point I was actually making.

This is the problem with points. They are illustrated better with metaphors -- the more the better -- but each metaphor introduces an opportunity to poke holes in the example [instead of what it is a metaphor of]. I've been wondering if there's a better way to communicate. Throw out all metaphors and just make a point? But then people often don't get it. Provide too many metaphors? But then people get caught up in the minutiae of the metaphor instead of the actual point.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Rysc]

Copyright's purpose is being abused, that's what's happening here.

It's not like the teachers are trying to produce pirated sheet music to undermine the legitimate owners' monopoly, or to make a profit themselves. Traditionally educational purposes have always been exempt or less restricted than personal and commercial enterprises when it comes to copyright. The reason is that educating children is more important than the petty profit of today. Education isn't a competing business interest, it's a complementary service which supports and enhances all other aspects of life and business.

This is really just short sightedness on the part of GEMA. There's plenty of time to milk the children for all they're worth once they reach adulthood.

Re:Devil's advocate

[dnahelicase]

Let me play devil's advocate:

Daycare centres are busineses. Carers are professionals earning a living from their work. If they want to use a musician's song as part of their work then why shouldn't they have to pay? Why should this beneficial material be provided freely to them?

Just because you create something doesn't mean that you own it, especially if you expect to be paid for something when you don't do any additional work.

They should pay for sheet music they are using, CD's that are played, or videos that the kids watch. However, groups of people have been singing songs together since time immemorial.

Do you want your teachers spending time trying to write their own songs? Do we need advertisers to sponsor the kids singing times, so that your kids are always singing about the latest toys?

No new good is created except an feeling of community between 5 year-olds. Somewhere in the debate you must insert reason. Kindergarten teachers aren't getting rich, nor do you choose a preschool, because of the songs that they sing during singing-time.

If it is going to be that ridiculous, then there are going to have to be some serious provisions about derivative works. I don't know if you've been to a kindergarten class lately, but very little of the actual song is being sung resembles anything that a songwriter wrote.

They should structure the fee based on the number of correct notes or words that the kid sings as a fraction of a whole.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Volante3192]

So are you saying that the kids should be paid for signing? I'm confused.

Solved!

So we'll make preschoolers pay to licence their singing...but we'll also make the GEMA pay royalties for them singing their songs.
Not only is that a win/win, preschoolers get a free economics lesson on top of it all!

Re:Devil's advocate

[WillAdams]

Giuseppe Verdi would argue against that --- he was prominent in the formation of the Societa Italiana Degli Autori Ed Editori (SIAE) in 1882 --- which was scarcely the first such effort ~128 years ago --- GEMA itself was formed in 1915 (95 years ago) out of an organization which started in 1903 (107 years ago).

If you want music to be free, limit yourself to public domain stuff (Roger McGuinn's Folk Den http://www.ibiblio.org/jimmy/folkden-wp/ is an excellent source which often includes sheet music) or write something of your own and release it to the public domain, but if you want to use something which someone else has written and copyrighted one should adhere to their wishes.

William

Re:Devil's advocate

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Daycare centres are busineses. Carers are professionals earning a living from their work. If they want to use a musician's song as part of their work then why shouldn't they have to pay? Why should this beneficial material be provided freely to them?

In most countries around the world freedom of speech/expression is an inherent right. Copyright law is a restriction on that right enacted in order to encourage the production of new works of art and science, i.e. if you make up a new song, you can make money off of it because we will restrict the free speech of others until you are paid.

So, since the only justification for copyright in the first place is its benefit to society, benefit that must outweigh the restriction on inherent freedoms, don't you think the question should ALWAYS be the other way around? How does this restriction on children's free speech benefit society? Does stopping the children from singing what they want really benefit society by giving slightly more money to people creating works?

Re:Devil's advocate

[cheekyjohnson]

So, since the only justification for copyright in the first place is its benefit to society

I wouldn't say that artificial scarcity is a benefit to society. I think society would benefit far more from attempting to change itself so that criminalizing people for victimless crimes just so someone can make a profit is no longer needed.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Karlt1]

Traditionally educational purposes have always been exempt or less restricted than personal and commercial enterprises when it comes to copyright. The reason is that educating children is more important than the petty profit of today. Education isn't a competing business interest, it's a complementary service which supports and enhances all other aspects of life and business.

Should teachers then be allowed to copy textbooks? educational DVD's? Commercial software?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditionally educational purposes have always been exempt or less restricted than personal and commercial enterprises when it comes to copyright. The reason is that educating children is more important than the petty profit of today. Education isn't a competing business interest, it's a complementary service which supports and enhances all other aspects of life and business.

Should teachers then be allowed to copy textbooks? educational DVD's? Commercial software?

Warning: I'm now going to talk about schools, not kindergartens.

Coming from a third world country...

Sometimes I'd rather have that than nothing at all.

Now, I don't know what's the state of other countries public schools but in Argentina money is scarce and usually used for more important endeavors such us, preventing infrastructure from collapsing over the children and stuff.

Re:Devil's advocate

[geekoid]

How do you know people where enforcing rights to music they created with that flute?

Re:Devil's advocate

[geekoid]

Call the jackass for there stupid behavior.

But don't forget, if someone misses your point, it's probably do to a poor metaphor.

Re:Devil's advocate

[geekoid]

SO what you are saying is everyone who worked on that bridge gets a piece of that toll? the operator? engineer? crane operators? the spec writers? Or maybe your just being myopic and a jackass because you don't have a real argument?

Re:Devil's advocate

[bzipitidoo]

Yes, yes, and yes.

Monopolies are bad. Period. Pay the creators through a levy, or tax, or give them a portion of ad revenue, or something. But don't give them absolute control, and then expect them to use that control solely for making a living. Asking for permission or charging to copy sheet music is like having to get permission to pee, or charging for toilets.

they can't use someone else's professional work for free.

Why? What's wrong with that? It didn't cost the professional anything. What's next, shut down school libraries? Lot of professional work in there, being used over and over, for free.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, in the logic of patent/copyright, only the inventor of the first ever chair/bridge would be paid "royalties" by all subsequent copycats; i.e.: not every imitator who made a chair/bridge would be paid a fee every time someone used his construction.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Karlt1]

Monopolies are bad. Period. Pay the creators through a levy, or tax, or give them a portion of ad revenue, or something. But don't give them absolute control, and then expect them to use that control solely for making a living. Asking for permission or charging to copy sheet music is like having to get permission to pee, or charging for toilets.

Why would I as an author, musician, etc. invest the time in something without getting paid? You want the government to decide how much a creative work is worth, collect taxes, and apportion it out?

So if you believe in freedom of copying, does that mean I should be able to take GPL source code, make changes, compile it, distribute it and do with it as I wish? What if I then make the modified GPL based software only work with my proprietary hardware (i.e. "Tivoization")?

Re:Devil's advocate

[bzipitidoo]

I did not say the government should take on the duty of deciding how much compensation is fair. Though that is an option.

Perhaps a good model is Underwriter's Laboratories. A similar model is a firm like J D Powers. UL is not a government entity, yet no one dares sell a consumer product that is not approved by some agency, and UL is a popular choice. So we have both competition, and some security against cheating since the UL's masters are insurers who will have to pay damages if UL gets it wrong and approves an unsafe product.

We could have many privately held agencies similar to the UL, but for art and science rather than product safety. They could take in funds from various sources, and apply their own brands of weighting to various statistics to determine how much to pay out to various artists. Each one could do it differently, so that every worthy artist stands a good chance of getting something. The organizations would all be competing with one another, which should severely limit opportunities for cheating and favoritism.

A big part of why classical music really flowered between the Renaissance and WWI is the competition between all these tiny political entities all vying to have the best orchestras, players, and composers. Today, the US tends to have the best orchestras because it is so competitive, but we don't have lots of great new orchestral music. From where do you suppose orchestras' support comes? The taxpayers of large cities, and philanthropic donations from many of the inhabitants and businesses. Instead we have a music industry that is obsessed with control and piracy. Consequently, these days we're not even getting much good pop.

And we won't get there as long as the industry keeps screwing around playing whack-a-mole with alleged pirates, instead of setting up these organizations. When someone sets up yet another venue for trading music, it could be the seed for just such an organization. Could provide valuable statistics. But instead of working with these new organizations, they come storming in, in high dudgeon, trying to wreck everything. Not productive. The Naspters, Kazaas, and Pirate Bays of the world may be killable on an individual basis, but killing them all off will not stop people from sharing.

Now,as to your comment on the GPL: The thing about the GPL is that it turns copyright upside down. Uses copyright backwards, so that anyone can demand the code, rather than the rights holder being able to demand that no one else can have the code. That's why it is often called "copyleft". Distributors just can't have it both ways, that is, change the software and sell the changed software, yet keep the exact details of the changes to themselves. You can change it all you want, and even keep the changes secret as long as you don't sell or otherwise distribute it. If there was no copyright law, there would be no need for the GPL, at least, not in its current form. But, sure, you can do almost all of that right now with GPL code. Almost.

Re:Devil's advocate

[tepples]

SO what you are saying is everyone who worked on that bridge gets a piece of that toll?

That falls under "work made for hire". The person in charge of the bridge, the "author" in the analogy, would have the power to collect tolls.

Re:Devil's advocate

[bky1701]

Because the cost foist upon society by creating laws to enforce that musican getting paid is far too high. It leads to censorship and business control of media, exactly the things copyright was created to avoid. Yes, that's right, copyright had nothing to do with some vague concept of a right to profit. Learn your history.

It is time we do away with copyright, as it has obviously failed.

Children should be seen, not heard

[Anonymous Coward]

This ought to help shut the little bastards up. In fact we should do the same with words. I'm sure by now that they've all been copyrighted.

Excellent opportunity

[future assassin]

for song writers to create children's songs as free marketing material, license them CC or free for school usage.

Re:Excellent opportunity

[cdrudge]

for song writers to create children's songs as free marketing material, license them CC or free for school usage

If GEMA is anything like ASCAP or BMI, it won't matter. They will just insist on paying for licensing anyways even if it's original content or permitted reproduction.

Re:Excellent opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, any sane person would insist on ignoring such a request.

Re:Excellent opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

The GEMA is an abomination. If an artist is a member (e.g. for things he produces for his job), EVERYTHING he produces falls into their hands. He or she cannot create free works anymore. If you perform music from a non-GEMA artist, you have to prove you don't have to pay them. They may actually assume that you have to pay and send out invoices without checking if the works in questions belong to their repertoire. Hell, even artists have to pay to perform their own songs (no joke).

The world would be a better place if people like those who work for GEMA would drop dead.

Re:Excellent opportunity

[Foobar of Borg]

In that case, any sane person would insist on ignoring such a request.

Unfortunately, you cannot simply ignore a civil suit. Otherwise, they get a default judgment against you, even if their case is merit-less.

Thoughtcrime 2.0

[windcask]

I had a song I heard on the radio going through my head a few minutes ago. I feel guilty now. Maybe the RIAA should implant lobes in my head and charge my credit card automatically whenever I think about a song. It's only fair.

Re:Thoughtcrime 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a rather sad state of affairs that I can't tell whether I'm supposed to laugh at that or be thankful that such technology isn't available.

Because, look people - they WILL do this as soon as they have the ability.

Re:Thoughtcrime 2.0

[denis-The-menace]

It sound funny now but in a future when implants could be a popular as an iPhone, this could happen.

The only reason we see this ludicrous use of copyright is because the music business is saturated and is competing amongst other distractions (e.g. Internet, TV, sex, drugs, etc). As the competition increases, so will the abuses by useless middlemen.

As Indiana Jones once said

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nazis........I hate those guys."

Re:As Indiana Jones once said

[RevWaldo]

"Nazis........I hate those guys."

This is derivative of The Blues Brothers from ten years earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2EoOZKjAjlk#t=90s

Please send a royalty payment to Universal Studios - $1.00 per page view.

.

Re:As Indiana Jones once said

[Vinegar Joe]

Jake and Elwood Blues are Indiana's illegitimate sons.

Everything Old is New Again!

[MarkvW]

Doubtless many of the "copyrighted" songs are derivative from earlier folk works that are long out of copyright. This is utterly silly.

Pirates to the rescue!

[silanea]

People affiliated with the german Pirate Party have created and published a song book (sorry, no english translation available) with several popular Christmas songs. They created the sheet music themselves and used only lyrics whose copyright protection has expired, so the song book can be freely used and distributed.

GEMA motto

[Anonymous Coward]

"We have ways of making you pay."

strike back

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pirate Party reacted by releasing a song book of freely licensed notesheets and song texts. That's basically a big "fuck you too" to the content cartels and their fee-squeezing lackeys. The more they're doing that sort of bullshit, the more the people are willing to rebel.

http://musik.klarmachen-zum-aendern.de/nachrichten/gemeinfreie_notenblaetter_fuer_advents-_und_weihnachtslieder_3_update-588

Re:strike back

[cpghost]

Good move from Piratenpartei. However, knowing the Copyright Crartel's ways, it looks like a retroactive extension of Copyright is about to come to your Kindergarten, very soon now...

Old McDonald..

[mswhippingboy]

wants his long overdue royalties, after all he's had to feed all those damn noisy animals all these years....

Unlimited Greed

[b4upoo]

Now if I can just get a copyright on prayer. Think of the income from the Lord's Prayer alone. Why should corporations be limited in their right to beat down the public and take every cent from their pockets?

Re: Unlimited Greed

[Antisyzygy]

If you make up your own prayer you could copyright its written word, but if you really want to make big bucks put the prayer to music.

Re: Unlimited Greed

[Deep Esophagus]

Too late, the bible publishing cartel beat you to it. And as a bible-thumping Baptist, it irks me that these folks want to charge royalties for me beating you over the head with words written ~2000 years ago.

WTF????

[sshirley]

Seriously?!?!??! C'mon!!

Bad publicity?

[dragonhunter21]

Nobody at GEMA looked at this lawsuit and said "Holy shit, guys, we're suing toddlers!" and had second thoughts?

No publicity is bad publicity, I know, but this is pushing it just a bit too far.

Re:Bad publicity?

[Xyrus]

Being a sociopath means never wanting to say you're sorry.

Re:Bad publicity?

[Sinn3d]

Even worse, its not feeling the need to say sorry.

Turkish National Anthem

[volkanh]

GEMA allegedly attempted to collect royalties on Turkish National Anthem too http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=national-anthem-to-be-made-public-property-2010-12-07

Kindergarten teachers might do

[fantomas]

Some kindergarten teachers might play the piano, or guitar, and provide music for the kids to sing along to. Not all of them will throw a CD on and play music through a sound system.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[Bassman59]

Some kindergarten teachers might play the piano, or guitar, and provide music for the kids to sing along to. Not all of them will throw a CD on and play music through a sound system.

If the sheet music was legally purchased, then there's no reason the teacher can't play the song on the piano in the classroom. Usually, when such sheet music is purchased, the price includes such a license. I remember from grade- and high-school band that the charts we used were specifically licensed for our use (including performance).

I suspect the real issue is that the sheet music is being photocopied and handed out -- and that's the copyright violation.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[tolkienfan]

IMHO copying sheet music for in-class use should be fair use and should be exempted from licencing requirements.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[icebike]

You assume German law has a Fair use clause?

I don't know. Just sayin...

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[Antisyzygy]

What stops a world class symphonic orchestra from doing the same and making money off of ticket sales for this music they perform in concert?

Sincerely,

-Devils Advocate

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[Gulthek]

Why? Sheet music costs money to produce just as much as a textbook does.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[cheekyjohnson]

Yeah, that would be bad. That's why we utilize artificial scarcity to take care of that problem. That way, when someone commits a crime of which there are no actual victims (or the supposed victims remain the exact same as they did before), we can say that they deprived someone of potential future gain by not adhering to our artificial scarcity laws, and they can subsequently be punished. It's a good thing that society runs on scarcity, forced or otherwise, right?

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[fishbowl]

>You assume German law has a Fair use clause?

USA law doesn't, contrary to popular belief. "Fair use" is a tradition of *defense* against charges of copyright infringement. That's wildly different from being a law.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[icebike]

USA law doesn't, contrary to popular belief. "Fair use" is a tradition of *defense* against charges of copyright infringement. That's wildly different from being a law.

So Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107 is a figment of my imagination then?

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[foobsr]

>You assume German law has a Fair use clause?

USA law doesn't, contrary to popular belief. "Fair use" is a tradition of *defense* against charges of copyright infringement. That's wildly different from being a law.

In the upper left corner they say U.S. Code???

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

CC.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[kurzweilfreak]

It would be bad because the next time that world class symphony wants to perform, they won't have any place to get their music from because no one would be publishing music anymore. Or it would cost them thousands of dollars to get that single copy for one instrument since they're just going to copy it for everyone else anyway.

It's interesting that you think that other people's time and investment isn't worth anything since the final product can be reproduced so easily. Either you fail to grasp the concept of what the actual product is (the music that took time to create and distribute, not the paper it's printed on), or you just don't care because you're a greedy bastard that thinks laws are bad because you just want shit for free. Which is it?

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[DRJlaw]

IMHO copying sheet music for in-class use should be fair use and should be exempted from licencing requirements.

Because then single copies of sheet music won't be priced as if they will be photocopied 10x-100x times, but stay exactly the same? The music publisher may not be able to catch individuals copying the then "overpriced" works, but they can certainly catch educational institutions that haven't purchased even one copy of the work.

Your proposal won't happen in any case. How do you propose to distinguish between sheet music, music books, music textbooks, and music software? If one, why not the others? It's been clear for at least the last decade (in the US) that copying substantial portions of a commerical work, even for "educational purposes," is not a fair use.

If your opinion is not based in reason or economics, but merely a knee-jerk reaction to your own perception of fairness, you'll quickly find that things are not going to work out in the way that you had hoped.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[Anonymous Coward]

no, but ignoring all those 34 years of case law that removes "fair use" bit by bit is not a figment of your imagination either.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[cheekyjohnson]

they won't have any place to get their music from because no one would be publishing music anymore.

Yes, and that is only because of how our current capitalistic society works. If it is required of artists to demand money from people for goods that are in an infinite supply (and punish those that don't conform with artificial scarcity), then, through no fault of the artists, that is a flaw in our capitalistic society.

When someone violates someone else's copyright (such as downloading a song, for example), there are very few cases in which the person who owns said copyright is actually affected in the least. They never had the copyright infringer's money to begin with, so you can't claim that was stolen. They didn't lose the money, either, because as I said, they never had it. They remain completely the same as they were before. The only thing they 'lose' is an opportunity to have more money, but since they never had the object in the first place (and in almost all cases, they had no idea they even had such an opportunity to begin with), they haven't lost anything. Not time or resources (except the time and resources to build the initial product, but not only are those costs only incurred once, but it is not the fault of the copyright infringer).

It's interesting that you think that other people's time and investment isn't worth anything since the final product can be reproduced so easily.

The time and investment costs are only incurred once. However, I never said anything about their time being worthless, so that was a nice assumption (and this isn't the only assumption you made, either).

Either you fail to grasp the concept of what the actual product is (the music that took time to create and distribute, not the paper it's printed on), or you just don't care because you're a greedy bastard that thinks laws are bad because you just want shit for free. Which is it?

Nice assumptions and false dilemmas. I don't even listen to music, so I wouldn't download it or infringe upon copyright for it to begin with.

There is also more than two possible reasons I could have for making such an argument. I believe that artificial scarcity (and relying on scarcity to profit) harms society as a whole. I believe that we should not criminalize people who do not harm or even interact with the supposed 'victims' (for reasons stated above). That's not to say that I believe that artists don't deserve money. I believe that if someone likes a product (and they have the money to pay for it), they should, whilst in this capitalistic society, buy it.

Now, do I believe that we should just remove copyright laws and claim that the problem is fixed? No. That would just shift the suffering to the artists instead of the people we are currently criminalizing. I do suggest, however, that either society finds a business model that works so that we don't need to criminalize people who do no harm to others, or that we rid ourselves of our capitalistic practices.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[MattskEE]

Is it also your humble opinion that textbooks can be photocopied for free for in-class use? Exactly where you draw the line on fair use is a tricky thing. Suppose a teacher buys one copy of a sheet music book and photocopies it for 30 students. Maybe that's okay. Now maybe a school buys one copy of the book and photocopies it for 5 classes of 30 students each. Next maybe the school district buys one copy and photocopies it for dozens of schools, ending up with hundreds or thousands of photocopies of the original.

I don't think there is any question that a line must be drawn between fair use and infringement in these cases. Is there a specific number of copies that you would draw it at? One copy, one class's worth of copies, 50, 100?

For a book of sheet music of children's songs, schools may comprise a big portion of their customer base. The money from sale of the book must go to many people/entities after the retailer makes their cut: composer, arranger, editor, graphic designer, book layout, and ultimately a cut to the publisher as their profit for licensing the work and hiring the necessary people and managing them to a finished product. Maybe in this day and age it could be made more efficient with artists selling their sheet music online, but if you buy a book then you are taking the work of all those people I mentioned, and those people deserve compensation for their work. If you don't want to compensate them just don't use their work, use somebody else's.

I know that in the USA there are some fair-use copyright exemptions specifically for academic use, this seems like it can be solved in one of two ways: the German government can enact a specific law governing how fair use applies to this situation, such as purchasing one song book per class of up to 40 students which the teacher can then copy up to 40 times per year; Or the publishers can sell an edition of their songbooks which may cost more and is specifically licensed to be copied for classroom usage. I know that some teacher's editions of textbooks, solution manuals, and the like typically contain some language about what constitutes fair-use copying.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[kurzweilfreak]

Yes, and that is only because of how our current capitalistic society works. If it is required of artists to demand money from people for goods that are in an infinite supply (and punish those that don't conform with artificial scarcity), then, through no fault of the artists, that is a flaw in our capitalistic society.

Perhaps so, but what is the alternative? The government providing all artists a fixed income and demanding a certain turnout of music from them within a fixed time period? What do you suggest? I hear lots of "it's broken, it's a bad business model!" but no realistic suggestions of what's a better alternative.

When someone violates someone else's copyright (such as downloading a song, for example), there are very few cases in which the person who owns said copyright is actually affected in the least.

Except for the fact that it's a direct infringment against their Constitutionally-granted rights. The purpose of these rights is to grant a temporary monopoly over the ability to distribute and copy someone's own created work so that there is enough monetary incentive for those people to continue to do creative stuff like writing music or inventing things for the common good of the People, otherwise no one could make a living at it and there would be far, far less enjoyable material out there for everyone. So by violating someone's copyright, you aren't only affecting the original creator, but you're also affecting society as a whole by removing the incentive for people to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

They never had the copyright infringer's money to begin with, so you can't claim that was stolen. They didn't lose the money, either, because as I said, they never had it. They remain completely the same as they were before. The only thing they 'lose' is an opportunity to have more money, but since they never had the object in the first place (and in almost all cases, they had no idea they even had such an opportunity to begin with), they haven't lost anything. Not time or resources (except the time and resources to build the initial product, but not only are those costs only incurred once, but it is not the fault of the copyright infringer).

The infringer also didn't have a product to consume before either. So what you're asking for is a very one-sided transaction: a creator invests time and money into a product that is legally under his/her control, a right granted to them by the United States Constitution (obviously, only talking about the law as it stands in the United States), and you seem to be saying that since you don't agree with copyright law, you feel it ok to take it upon yourself to tell a creator that his creation has zero value while still consuming said product anyway.

The time and investment costs are only incurred once.

That investment may be a significant portion of someone's life that they can never get back. Who are you to say what value they can place upon that?

However, I never said anything about their time being worthless, so that was a nice assumption (and this isn't the only assumption you made, either).

You don't have to say it, it's a logical inference implicit in your entire argument. Can you not see that?

Nice assumptions and false dilemmas. [wikipedia.org] I don't even listen to music, so I wouldn't download it or infringe upon copyright for it to begin with.

Now who's making assumptions? The original argument was regarding printed sheet music and photocopying, not downloading songs on the internet. But how does you personally infringing or not infringing copyright have any bearing on the issue at hand, at all? The "you" is a general "you", not you specifically. I've never heard an argument against copyright that didn't ultimately boil down to "I just want shit for free."

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[geekoid]

It's written into Copyright law. So, shut up.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[geekoid]

Your first paragraph is a logical fallacy. as such, I did not read your entire post, I recommend others do the same.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[cheekyjohnson]

Perhaps so, but what is the alternative?

I'm not here to talk about alternatives. The first step is realizing that there is a problem.

However, here is a possible solution (as in, an alternate solution that people came up with). Whether it would work or not remains to be seen.

Except for the fact that it's a direct infringment against their Constitutionally-granted rights.

Mentioning that is completely pointless, as that is a 'right' that many are arguing against.

you aren't only affecting the original creator

As I mentioned, you aren't affecting the creator. They've lost nothing that they already had (and again, that 'right' is what we argue against).

The infringer also didn't have a product to consume before either.

Yes, and they've taken nothing to get it.

a creator invests time and money into a product that is legally under his/her control

That's not the fault of the copyright infringer (who didn't even interact with the artist or take anything from them).

Who are you to say what value they can place upon that?

I didn't say anything about that. I said that we shouldn't force people to conform to artificial scarcity laws and instead admit that there is a problem and actually work on finding an alternate solution.

You don't have to say it, it's a logical inference implicit in your entire argument. Can you not see that?

No, I can't. There time may indeed be worth something, but that doesn't mean that we should criminalize people who don't even interact with the artist (or harm them).

Now who's making assumptions? The original argument was regarding printed sheet music and photocopying, not downloading songs on the internet.

Both are forms of copyright infringement, correct? I was speaking of copyright infringement in general. I never assumed anything about you.

I've never heard an argument against copyright that didn't ultimately boil down to "I just want shit for free."

I'll also generalize and say that I've never heard an argument against copyright infringement that didn't ultimately boil down to "loss of potential future gain can be equated to harm." This is especially foolish because that would mean that you're 'harming' someone merely by not giving them everything you own (of course, they never had it in the first place, so no harm was done, but that was just an example).

I think that artificial scarcity is a perfectly acceptable way for someone to make a return on their investment because you are buying the time it took to make the end product.

I'd say it would benefit society more to drop poor capitalistic practices in general. Use things that are in unlimited supply or in great abundance properly and efficiently.

Violating the social contract hurts the creator

How does it hurt the creator when they've lost nothing? The actions of the copyright infringer hasn't incurred any additional time, resources, or monetary costs upon the artist. Initial costs are not the fault of the infringer.

So if artists deserve money, where should it come from?

Apparently I didn't make it clear enough that I (but that's not to say that there's not alternate solutions other than mine) actually argue against the use of currency in general. Also, no matter how much you oppose any alternate solutions I or others propose, that was not my original point. My original point was to demonstrate that people should not be criminalized for committing victimless crimes.

Why should we not criminalize people who break the law and hurt all of society in doing so?

You don't hurt society by breaking

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[tolkienfan]

I assumed no such thing. Just stating the way I think things should be.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[tolkienfan]

In my perfect world that would not be fair use. If kindergarteners sell tickets and perform, I wouldn't place it under fair use.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[cheekyjohnson]

Your first paragraph is a logical fallacy.

Which one, and why? I can't improve myself if you neglect to mention such important details.

as such, I did not read your entire post, I recommend others do the same.

You disregarded my entire argument because you believe that I used a logical fallacy instead of just disregarding the actual fallacy?

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[tolkienfan]

My gut reaction is to have the law assume fair use, and make copy protection a limited exception.
You can sell licenses, but only in limited circumstances. Then the profiteer has the cost of trying to recover moneys from those they accuse of infringing.
Copyright was supposed to be a limited monopoly, but it's gone way beyond its original intent. In my opinion, far too far.
But that's my gut, my head may have a different opinion, and they're both subject to change. :)

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[fishbowl]

>It's written into Copyright law. So, shut up.

It's enumerated as a defense in section 107. Its purpose is to establish a rough guideline for courts to use when distinguishing between fair use and infringement. It never applies to any situation except when someone is already accused of, and is making a defense in court for, copyright infringement.

And who the fuck are you to tell me to "shut up?"

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[Obfuscant]

It's enumerated as a defense in section 107.

Which means it is written in the law.

It never applies to any situation except when someone is already accused of, and is making a defense in court for, copyright infringement.

Except for all those times when the lawyers get together prior to trial and sip their coffee and chat about the weather and mention to each other that if you take my client to court we'll have a positive, affirmative defense that you aren't going to break, so either your client can waste his money and time paying us when we win or he can just walk away and then he does. Or when the potential plaintiff realizes that fair use will almost certainly apply and never wastes his money and time to start with. Yes, other than all those times, the law about fair use only applies when you are in court.

Much like many of the other civil laws.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[twocows]

I'm relatively certain Fair Use is a clause in American copyright law and has no bearing in Germany.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[mywhitewolf]

Heaven forbid that the symphony would have to come up with something original? also, would the world really be a worse place if Britney Spears didn't release another album?

It's interesting that you think that other people's time and investment isn't worth anything since the final product can be reproduced so easily

You're wrong, i think their time is just not worth anything to me. i put time and effort into making my lawn look nice, should i be able to charge people to be able to view a picture of this artistic creation? how would this be different?

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[ks9208661]

It's funny that there's no direct translation of the English word 'fair' (in this context) in German. The closest I know is 'gerecht', which means 'lawful' or 'just'. 'Fair' appears in the German dictionary as a "German" word now, but I don't hear it used a lot in everyday conversations in Germany. My observation is that in Germany, gray areas are avoided. You're either allowed to do something, or not, in clearly defined situations, so the concept of 'fair' doesn't get used often. This tightening of the copyright rules is just another way of removing gray areas.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[BraksDad]

on the contrary, it should be encouraged. The alternative is a future generation that does not know what sheet music is or why it is in need of protection.

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[kurzweilfreak]

Heaven forbid that the symphony would have to come up with something original?

A symphony is a piece of music. An orchestra performs music. (just being pedantic ;)

An orchestra, however, doesn't write music, it just performs it. Music is written by a composer. Which is then published, by a publisher. Which is then bought by a symphony, so that they have something to play so they can sell tickets. If they don't buy the music, the publisher makes no money and in turn, neither does the composer, who then has to get a day job to feed himself and then has little or no time to continue composing complicated pieces of music for orchestras to play. So now where does the orchestra get music to play?

The argument could be made that with this age of the internet, the whole "publisher" step could be eliminated, but that's a different argument...

also, would the world really be a worse place if Britney Spears didn't release another album?

Your or anyone else's subjective opinion of the quality of a creative work is irrelevant to the argument of who has the right to copy or distribute it. Replace Britney Spears with some artist that you really enjoy but that someone else thinks is shit and see if you still agree.

You're wrong, i think their time is just not worth anything to me.

Maybe not, but is the end product of that labor worth anything to you? Do you still feel entitled to enjoy their product for free just because you say it has no value to you?

i put time and effort into making my lawn look nice, should i be able to charge people to be able to view a picture of this artistic creation? how would this be different?

If your wanted to sell your picture (which is copyrightable) of your lawn (which isn't copyrightable), then yes, you should be able to charge whatever you want for that picture. Many people do; the entire stock photography industry is based on being able to control the sale of copies of images and the permission to use those images. It's your picture, why shouldn't you be able to charge people to use something that you created if you want to? If you want to give your picture away for anyone to see and use, that's great, that's your perogative. That doesn't give you the right to tell someone else what they can do with their creations.

Would you be ok if at the end of the work week your boss told you that he didn't think your work the past week was worth anything, therefore he wouldn't be paying you for it? How is that different?

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[Anonymous Coward]

They should just have the kids memorize/sing from an overhead projection of a single copy - should keep the costs down...

Re:Kindergarten teachers might do

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it also your humble opinion that textbooks can be photocopied for free for in-class use?

That would actually be an interesting situation. It would mean textbook makers would have to make their profit from economies of scale (profit=[cost of school making copies, aka price they are willing to pay]-[cost of them making copies]) instead choosing some arbitrary price.

Can we charge for ear worms?

[mostlyDigital]

When I was a kid we brought in milk money. And we got nutrition. Now it's payoff money and we avoid litigation. "Tommy, you forgot your music money? Go sit in the corner with the noise canceling headphones". "No, Mary. Being tone deaf doesn't mean you get a discount". ROTFLMFHO Next- a charge for singing hymns in church.

Re:Can we charge for ear worms?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck trying to collect for hymns. Many of them date back to the 13th century or earlier. Copyright terms may be obscenely long, but not that long. Yeah, there are some newer ones, but some churches refuse to use them already - apparently a 200-year-old hymn is "too modern" by their standards. It wouldn't be hard to find alternatives.

Re:Can we charge for ear worms?

[gweeks]

Almost all churches already pay a license fee to display the music on the overhead projector. It's the CCLI number in the corner of the projection. They've been doing this for years.

http://www.ccli.com/

Not the first time

[lavagolemking]

We all knew this would happen again sooner or later, what with all these new anti-consumer copyright laws either already enacted or pending legislation around the world.

For those who don't remember, ASCAP threatens to sue girl scouts for exactly the same thing: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html

Well, apparently GEMA...

[Dahamma]

...thinks Horst Wessel's family needs to get their royalty checks.

Hmmmm

[X.25]

We'll soon reach the point of no return.

Sooner than expected, though, but considering what these idiots are doing - it's not really a surprise.

It won't be pretty :(

Epitome of Greed

[hemo_jr]

Charging copyright fees for teaching children to sing is the epitome of greed.

Don't give the RIAA any more ideas

[arhhook]

Next thing you know, I'll have to pay royalties next time my damn blinker in my car matches the beat of a song on the radio.

Again with the little girls

[Drakkenmensch]

What is it with copyright lawyers consistently suing kids ten years old and younger?

how do they come up with this..

[houbou]

I would steal this idea for a stand up sketch, if only it wasn't real..

Future government agency.

[Anonymous Coward]

So how long before both the RIAA and MPAA be granted as an official agency of the US Federal Gov. How soon after would there be yearly random anti-piracy audits of businesses and peoples homes? Better yet, how soon will we be taxed to subsidize those agencies regardless if you buy their shit or not?

What's another one added to the list? http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

Re:Future government agency.

[Anonymous Coward]

Audits? Shirley you mean raids.. For a couple of downloaded songs, expect a visit that makes the BATF effort at the Branch Davidians in Waco look like a Sunday school outing...

Re:Future government agency.

[n9hmg]

Shirley you mean raids.. For a couple of downloaded songs, expect a visit that makes the BATF effort at the Branch Davidians in Waco look like a Sunday school outing...

Don't call me Surely.

Re:words

[TaoPhoenix]

Weird Al stands on a gold mine!

"Oh, you mean those are not the 'real' words? Sorry, but his were free and yours were not."

Re:read to the parents

[TaoPhoenix]

I thought that was In Soviet Russia.

I hope they're not allowed to back down

[n9hmg]

That's a way to make sure your songs are forgotten by future generations, and they deserve oblivion.

HAHA!

[Anonymous Coward]

They all called me crazy when I bought the copyright license for "Head Shoulders Knees and Toes." Said I'd never make anything with it. Well now I'm going to be rich in German franks, or bagels, or whatever monies they use over there!

Gross misunderstanding

[Antisyzygy]

Many people are basing their response on a gross misunderstanding. They are not charging kids to sing, they are charging for each kid to have their own sheet music. This is a common practice for all sheet music in band class, orchestra class, professional symphonic orchestras, church bands, ect. You could be outraged that they are targeting education or young kids, but not over the singing part unless you already disagree with the aforementioned common practice.

Re:Gross misunderstanding

[Arlet]

For the little amount of sheet music that gets distributed to preschoolers, they could have turned a blind eye.

Re:Gross misunderstanding

[Antisyzygy]

Agreed, but people are getting all pissy about something that isn't true. "THEY ARE CHARGING KIDS TO SING MUSIC IN CLASS OMG!@!!" Is not productive and clouds the forum with drivel.

Re:Gross misunderstanding

[Mashiki]

I mentioned this before, but companies fuck people over hard for sheet music. They even try when you write your own based on non-copyrighted work.

Re:Gross misunderstanding

[metacell]

I still don't get it... why would each child need their own sheet music? Can they all read notes?

It serves them right!

[Sean_Inconsequential]

Fuck those little bastards. They think they can sing whatever song they want and get away with it? What gives them the right? They are pretty much stealing from music industry executives. I say make them pay, retroactively even. And if I ever hear any of you so much as hum a single bar of the theme song for the show The Greatest American Hero, I will be reporting you to the proper authorities! A free education while they leach off the system and their parents isn't enough for them, oh no, they will not be satisfied until they are able to sing any song they wish without paying the publishing company that owns the song. You see, the world isn't going to end now, it is going to end when those little rug rats grow up and it will be all because they thought they could sing someone else's song for free. Well guess what, not on my watch!

Re:It serves them right!

[Anonymous Coward]

the theme song for the show The Greatest American Hero,

Look at what's happened to me,
I can't believe it myself.
Suddenly I'm up on top of the world,
It should've been somebody else.

Believe it or not,
I'm walking on air.
I never thought I could feel so free-.
Flying away on a wing and a prayer.
Who could it be?
Believe it or not it's just me.

It's like a light of a new day-,
It came from out of the blue.
Breaking me out of the spell I was in,
Making all of my wishes come true-.

Believe it or not,
I'm walking on air.
I never thought I could feel so free-.
Flying away on a wing and a prayer.
Who could it be?
Believe it or not it's just me.

Aformentioned SONG lyrics JUST FOR YOU my good sir. Enjoy!

The Listener's License

[RevWaldo]

From Sean Kennedy's Tales From The Afternow ( http://rantmedia.ca/afternow/ )
(from transcript http://thinkforyourself.vaillife.net/assets/afternow/01tota.streamjack.doc ) -

It was a few years later when the REAL crackdown came. The Listener’s License. What a fantastic concept. I can’t believe it. See it happened like this. There was this - there is all this piracy, see everybody was - piracy was - Uh, piracy is now what they now consider a theft. See in order to combat piracy which was getting really rampant, all this information was flowing around nobody really liked that so they wanted it gone. And they wanted to get rid of piracy. But they couldn’t stop it.

The Internet was growing everyday. No one could stem the flow so they created the Listener’s License. Started real easy. See music, legitimate music to purchase, was, you know, say 20 bucks. And then what they did was, if you signed up to get this card, you know like a loyalty program card of the day. You’d get 75% percent off. So a 20 dollar CD became a 5 dollar CD. And you could buy it legitimately. For 20 bucks you would walk out of there with 4 CD’s. Amazing.

Of course people were signing up for it in droves, I mean why wouldn’t ya? You could go buy a pirate CD for 6 bucks or you could buy the reall thing for 5. Consumers are such mercenaries. So they signed up en masse.

2 years went by, 2 years. Then it became mandatory. See if you didn’t have your listener’s license, if you couldn’t present your card, well you weren’t able to buy music. Part of the licensing agreement came when you got the card. And all of sudden people were out in the cold.

But it wasn’t just the music you know. The listener’s license was created by the conglomerates. They all got together. If you wanted to see a movie, hey if you had your listener’s license you could get in for 2 dollars. (chuckle) 2 bucks. Oh you don’t have a listener’s license, well you can’t get in. See they couldn’t control the piracy so they stopped it at its source.

If ever you were found to be a pirate or if your computer was ever found to have MP3s that weren’t appropriate on it you were eliminated, your listener’s license was revoked and you were out of the loop. It's all private enterprise, you don’t have a right to music, you never had a right to it. It's all private.

No more movies no more shows. Can’t even buy art. Cause you can scan it. What if you scanned that picture? So, regulation of course is always the first step to total domination. But we didn’t see that either. We weren’t ready for the horror.

At that time the listener’s license had huge power. Not the power it has today, I mean now. If you do not have a valid listener’s license. I mean - well in our time you can’t do anything, I mean, you’re a pirate. If you can’t present, that is part of your paperwork. It’s part of your identification. See the listener’s license, after they came out with that. That was a huge step one.

But everyone was so focused on the listener’s license they didn’t see where the REAL power play was made. See everyone was so whipped up, and the media again, you know the corporately controlled media. Got everyone focusing on the benefits and the drawbacks, a big debate over the listener’s license. But then what they didn’t see was, was the regulations that went into play on the recording equipment. See that was the one that really came back. They started putting these standards on microphones and any kind of recording media. You wanted to record, well you gotta adhere to this standard. Because this is the future. Got to make sure the quality is there.

Chips were put into place. All recording med

Re:The Listener's License

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that meant to be scary?

A world without pre-recorded media would be bliss. People would have to TALK TO EACH OTHER.

Re:The Listener's License

[soroka]

I did read the comment to the end and could summarize it as "licensing copying in any form may generalize into licensing any activity in every form".

What seems to be overlooked here is the possibility to charge on any commercial use of copyrighted material. For the case in hand that could take a form of a tax on kindergarten fees giving them a license to copy whatever sheet music they might need.

This is the scheme that is being instated in Russia under the new civil code, where copyright payments have taken a form of a tax collected by a private company under a contract with the government (more or less as parking fees are collected in Britain and elsewhere). At the moment the fee applies to sales of any recordable media: CDs, flash memory cards, etc. and is payable by the producer or an importer. It is expected to be extended to the sales of performing equipment, such as media players, audio or video equipment. It is easy to envisage this to continue as a tax on tickets for public performances.

Think of the childr...!

[MoxFulder]

Oh, wait.

Do the copyright mafias really have no shame?

It's as easy

[boristdog]

Hey, they heard that taking candy from babies was easy. Everyone likes easy.

Ist das nicht ein good business model?

Mr Burns.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I normally give content producers some benefit of the doubt.

However, now they just look like Mr. Burns trying to take candy from a baby.

How do they get caught?

[fishbowl]

To me this story is less about copyright infringement, and becomes entirely about the creepy aspect of a bunch of German lawyers and media executives being interested in, and somehow becoming aware of what goes on in a *kindergarten classroom.*

How in the hell do they even KNOW about it? What else are they snooping on, with these kindergarteners?

Not just the USA

[valnar]

While this is just dumb on every level, I for once am happy a story of this stupidity is not from the USA. In a twisted way, I'm glad it happens over in Europe too.

Well, as I imagine it

[Korbeau]

German children probably listen to Kraftwerk to learn all about radioactivity, vitamins, telephones, computers, autobahn, neon lights and such. In fact, in the summary's picture I believe they are dancing to The Robots. Seems fair for the band to receive some kind of royalties.

public perception

[Tom]

It should be noted that there's quite a bit of public outrage against this, most of the media wrote about it very critically, sometimes with front page headlines.

So every uro they get, they pay dearly for in reputation capital.

Look on the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an excellent opportunity to teach the little ones about Creative Commons!

They probably got the idea in Belgium...

[SirClicksalot]

Since last year, SABAM (Belgium's RIAA) charges day cares and schools for the music they play in class:
see here
Youth organizations, neighborhood parties and small businesses that play radio during work already had to pay for this (or risk being raided by the copyright cops).

Wouldn't surprise me.

[Kizeh]

My first grade song book from my Finnish elementary school had staves and notes, and I distinctly remember being shown how to read sheet music for extracurricular pre-school recorder lessons. Why wouldn't you teach kindergarterners the basics of sheet music, pitch and note duration seem to me a lot simpler than trying to teach reading the alphabet.

German courts aren't corrupt enough for this...

[hrdo]

German courts tend to have judges with common sense, as seen from previous outrageous demands by copyright holders being rejected. I believe this would happen in this case too, should the German version of RIAA take this to court... seriously - "we think kindergardens should cut down on the food budgets such that they can pay us whenever they sing Schnappi". Bah :-).

Are we getting too far yet?

[frps25]

I think that maybe we're getting way too far in this copyright and patents thing, to put it on other terms I'm seeing the catholic church all over again forbidding people to do that or this and it's got to the point that it has started to block human knowledge and grow. The problem is that in order to solve this problem a LOT of people must change their minds first and what's more troublesome: we have to start doing things because it benefits us all and not because it benefits our income. The bottom line is that money sucks big time

You are correct...

[bradley13]

...yes, they want paid specifically in the case that child-care centers make copies of sheet music. They claim that this is a great "savings opportunity". Right. While child care centers may technically be commercial enterprises, in fact, this is an absolutely pathetic and stupid idea. The amount of money they will make will be trivial compared to the good will lost.

Publishers Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a music educator, and I teach high school kids aged 14-18. My kids can't keep track of or care for their own music, and I can't imagine what preschoolers would do with sheet music.

The problem is that publishers make it extraordinarily difficult to replace a single "part." If my string bass player loses the last copy of a part to a piece, I can't go out and buy just that one part. I would have to pay the replacement price for the ENTIRE piece- and these prices have been skyrocketing in the last couple of years.

If publishers made it easier to replace a single lost part, I would give out originals and sell my copier at the pawn shop. Until then, I'm going to keep passing out photocopies in order to preserve my full sets.

Copyrighted material!

[CrunchyGammaRays]

This post is published under copyright by the author. By reading this material you agree to pay a fee of $25.00 US each month (Euros, Pounds ETC... gladly accepted as well!). OH BOY! Now all I need to do it sit back and collect! Not funny? How long before individual web pages start following the music/movie industries lead? I wonder if I can copyright the English language and alphabet.... hmmmm......

How Long is German Copyright?

[Nom du Keyboard]

How long does German copyright last? Shouldn't the good old songs that you learn in kindergarten have a good choice of public domain songs by now?

Re:How Long is German Copyright?

[Husgaard]

Copyright in Germany lasts until the end of the 80th year after the last of the authors (or composers or lyrics writers) died. In the last 100 years copyright duration in Germany has been extended about 100 years. All extensions have been retroactive.

You get what you pay for!

[kawabago]

The entertainment industry has spent so much money on lawmakers world wide so they can lock culture up and charge access in perpetuity. When the copyright runs out they refuse to release the material to the public domain. Politicians world wide are all jointly responsible for this assault on culture by taking money from the industry and in turn giving them everything they want. This is what the entertainment industry paid for. This is not the way a free society should function.

Meh

[ben_kelley]

In Australia we already need a license to reproduce copyright material (including copying song words, and sheet music). Fair use includes reproducing stuff for educational purposes, but it imposes a limit on the proportion of a work that you can copy. e.g. I couldn't publish a song book of copyright works and claim that it was fair use.

No big deal IMHO.

Sheet music is for parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheet music is usually handed out to parents, so that they can sing along, e.g. for St. Martin's day processions.

It kinda ruins kid's songs when...

[RexDevious]

they all end with the lyrics, "All rights reserved".

Though it is adorable to see them start each school play with a 3 minute copyright infringment warning sketch in 15 different languages.

Jeopardy !

[da5idnetlimit.com]

So next time your hear the question "But who will think about the children ?" you will have the answer...

Copy protection not a conservative problem

[Troll-Under-D'Bridge]

Sorry, to blow up your bubble. But copyright isn't a conservative problem, as implied by your qualifier "even the most conservative media outlets". If anything, it's liberals that favor a stronger copyright regime (I'm not talking about the more radical elements that choose to label themselves "left" or even, horrors, "socialist") since IP laws tend to favor the supposedly less traditional industries that pollute less, exploit the "working" (middle or lower) classes less, etc. With a few notable exceptions, media and software companies should be more liberal than oil companies or banks. And guess what, to stay afloat, these "progressive" companies need copyright protection for better or worse.

Re:Copy protection not a conservative problem

[mseeger]

Maybe in the US. Here in Germany, the liberals and the greens are currently the better ones (which does not mean a lot). The conservative media is in the bed with the content mafia because they both share some thoughts (Internet threatens our business model).

GEMA is spinning the news

[Husgaard]

It is quite interesting to compare this press release with the article exposing this. Technically GEMA is correct in their press release, but they do a lot of spin, and do not tell the entire story.

GEMA wrote to kindergartens, demanding:

1. Payment for any sheet music copied. Price per sheet is similar to the price of a song on iTunes.
2. Payment for any copying of lyrics. Same price per sheet.
3. Reporting of any song performed in the kindergarten, complete with title, name of composer, name of publishing company currently publishing the song in Germany, and the time the song was performed. No payment was demanded for this in the letter.

In the press release GEMA is backtracking on the bad publicity this gave them when the press took up the story and adding their own spin by saying the reporting about payment for song performances was wrong (which it was) and not mentioning that they still require all kindergartens to report all song performances. Also they do not mention that a requirement of reporting performances to GEMA almost always is a precursor for a demand of payment.

VG Musikedition is not an entity completely separate from GEMA. In fact they are so tightly connected and what they do is so similar that it is hard to explain why they are not the same organization. Unless when you think of the extra administration having two entities cause. When the two organizations both funnel some of the money through the other organization, they can both take a piece of the cake before distributing the rest to the artists. And this is probably the real reason why VG Musikedition asked GEMA to collect the money for them instead of doing it themselves, as they were supposed to.

Re:GEMA is spinning the news

[zn0k]

That definitely puts a very different spin on it.

However, the Spiegel article also mentions that VG Musikedition is expecting a retroactive blanket contract be available soon - though it is a little ambiguous whether they are going to do so for all Kindergartens (which the GEMA press release calls impossible), or by community/church/otherentity that runs multiple Kindergartens. That seems unfeasible, but then why would Spiegel mention a blanket contract if it were to only affect a few Kindergartens in Hamburg?

The reporting of songs sung is definitely bullshit. Wish I had seen the Spiegel article earlier, and that I could mod you up.

Copyright babies

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyright babies are abusing their toys, so it's time to take them away.

Copyright was meant to inspire creators to create, not stupid, ignorant, braindead corporate scum to claim ownership of every last fucking thing on the planet.

Copyright no longer serves the purpose it was meant to. It's time to scrap it and rebuild it from scratch.

Good idea UNTIL...

[Y-Crate]

...the Germans retaliated by asserting a trademark on the term "kindergarten", and claimed back roaylties and damages from the whole world.

CA already do this

[Anonymous Coward]

One of CA's charging model's (see: Computer Associates) is to charge per number of times a program has been run

Of course, their other charging model is based on CPU capacity.. (figure this one out.. if you can)

Re:CA already do this

[tepples]

One of CA's charging model's (see: Computer Associates) is to charge per number of times a program has been run

Nothing new. I know of at least one warehouse management SaaS supplier that charges per order processed. Likewise, eBay charges a fee every time a product is added to a store.

How to rewrite patent and copyright law?

[beachdog]

Here goes. Yes it is sort of a screed written today:

How to organize for a political push to restructure copyright and patent law?

Advocating for changes in copyright and patent law is basically a sharks versus minnows problem. The sharks are the relatively few businesses who are able to write laws and lobby for their passage. The minnows are the 200 million plus people who buy material covered by copyright and patent protection.
At the level of Federal law, the sharks have been winning by arguing for and lobbying for broader laws and longer terms of copyright and patent protection.
I write here about the problem by cutting it into three parts. One part is “How do you organize the minnows.” Part two is: “How do you argue for less restrictive copyright and patent laws? Part three is: “What law do you write and what do you ask elected representatives to vote for?”

On the problem of “How do you organize the minnows?”

I recently discovered an article that shows how and why an organization effort could plausibly employ a social network site like Facebook. The kind of action group that is plausible is: A loose social network.
The article title is “Small Change Why the revolution will not be tweeted.” by Malcolm Gladwell, published in The New Yorker magazine, October 4, 2010.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell

1. Copyright and patent reform needs to be a non-partisan movement.
2. As an issue for the large numbers of “minnow” advocates, this will be a relatively small commitment activity that does not require the intense friendship and hierarchical structure of the American Civil Rights movement. The Malcom Gladwell article above eloquently disassembles the presumption that a Facebook type advocacy program can create a disciplined, hierarchical organization. Instead of an institution, a Facebook advocacy program tends to create a loose network.
3. The hundreds of thousands of reform advocates need a set of winning arguments.
4. Money and rhetoric: In the absence of a better rule of thumb, the lobbying and campaign donation dollars deployed needs to match or exceed by a factor of two the lobbying and campaign donation dollars spent by the “shark”advocates. The movement needs a well documented estimate of the shark lobby hours and dollars and shark campaign spending and a matching tally for the “minnow” advocates.
Unless something changes, let's assume that money talks in politics. The movement needs both money and quality talk. The copyright and patent reform activity needs both a coherent rhetorical argument and matching donations.

On the problem of “How do you argue for less restrictive copyright and patent laws?”

There are many instances where copyright and patent protections are an encumberance and annoyance. For instance:

German Kindergartens Ordered To Pay Copyright For Songs http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/12/29/169253

Several legal arguments are of great importance to the development of an effective advocacy argument. Some thinkers are:
Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation.
http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society-2/
Lawrence Lessig, law professor and copyright lawyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

The intellectual property and entertainment industries have a very strong argument for more restrict

mentioned it once

[Hognoxious]

In a country as old as Germany, that should be no problem. They have hundreds if not thousands of trad songs.

Just for starters...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYIU09o1gsI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_D1mYBBHgM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEIm3pe5wbA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY86ADsJvcY

crap reporting

[spongman]

this is just crap reporting.

from the article (in case you didn't read it):

they have to pay for a license if they want children to perform certain songs

completely contradicts this:

It doesn't cost anything to sing

Nothing New, move along

[Dabido]

At the risk of being modded down.

"... if they reproduce music to be sung or performed, they must pay for a license."

In other words they are treating Kindergarten, Daycare etc like any other organisation. This is a matter of GEMA having ignored something they could have been charging for a long time ago. The rest of the world hasn't been so kind to kindergartens etc. Other Kindergartens etc around the world have needed to purchase licenses (and they don't cost that much) in order to do the same for decades already. If it is a chain of kindergartens or daycare centres, then the head offices will purchase the licenses for the entire chain.

If this is all shocking to some people, just remember, it is probably (like a lot of other things) bringing Germany in line with other members of the European Community, (like Spains new anti-smoking laws are doing in Spain). Why the sudden shock of it happening in Germany when it is already the standard practise everywhere else? It hasn't caused kindergartens in the rest of the world to shut their doors, nor will it do it in Germany. So far German kindergartens have had a free run on something that GEMA could have enforced many many years ago.

Note, that I haven't said whether copyright should be strictly enforced in kindergartens/daycare centres etc, (I'll let you all fight that one with whomever your local copyright agency is), but this is for a license for a kindergarten/daycare centre to use music NOT for incidents involving kids walking around the place humming or singing to themselves. It is strictly for when the music is used in 1. teaching, 2. performances, 3. daycare/kinder/school discos (in the case of 2 & 3 the school/daycare etc often raise money off the canteen and admission etc).

Ways around it include 1. not playing more than 10% of a copyrighted piece in a music/singing class (covered by copyright law as fair use in most parts of the world for learning purposes ONLY), and 2. also using only pieces outside of copyright (public domain tunes such as "twinkle twinkle little star"). In fact, a lot of children tunes do lie in the public domain. It would be a matter of possibly doing what they used to do when I was at school and have a teacher perform the songs on a piano whilst the students sing etc (as opposed to using someones recording on a tape deck or ipod etc which may be covered by copyright on the recording).

My point here being that in spite of the rhetoric being bandied about here, this is hardly a hiccup in the copyright debate. The daycare centres/kindergartens will pay the licenses each year (less than a dollar a kid) and life will continue as usual. This is the same license required by all schools, clubs, associations, DJ's etc etc that have any sort of music being played whether it is a school band performing Louie Louie, or background music in a club where you go to socialise. This law has been around for over forty years. I think the only question relevant here is, 'Why enforce it now?' and the answer is, 'To bring Germany in line with other European Union nations.' Nothing new to see here. Move along.

Copyright in translation

[tepples]

And as a bible-thumping Baptist

Jesus wasn't baptized by John the Catholic, or John the Lutheran, or John the Methodist. He was baptized by John the Baptist, no matter how much Jehovah's Witnesses want to change it to "John the Baptizer" in their translation.

it irks me that these folks want to charge royalties for me beating you over the head with words written ~2000 years ago.

No, they're charging you for an English interpretation of manuscripts in ancient Greek translated from what Jesus probably said in Aramaic. The problem in the article you linked is that there wasn't much of a retranslation scene prior to 1923. Beat people over the head with your World English Bible.

My Sweet Lord's advocate

[tepples]

Giuseppe Verdi would argue against that --- he was prominent in the formation of the Societa Italiana Degli Autori Ed Editori (SIAE) in 1882

If the organization really wanted to promote itself as "for the authors", it might drop the "ed Editori". But then it would become SIdA, which is the acronym in multiple European languages for what we call AIDS.

If you want music to be free, [...] write something of your own and release it to the public domain

If I write something, how do I know whether I have the authority to release it to the public domain or under a similarly permissive license? The incumbent music publishers might argue that I subconsciously copied something copyrighted. George Harrison lost a million dollar lawsuit (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music) over accidentally copying something into "My Sweet Lord".

Shoot their foot

[darkonc]

Produce a list of non-GEMA songs and distribute it to kindergartens. Tell them that they should only teach non-GEMA (PD and Creative Commons) songs to their children, and explain to them how they have to use their allowance money if they want to use commercial music. Also teach them (to the extent to which they understand, which is often pretty extensive) about Creative Commons and how that works ...

then see if that bites into GEMA's income stream.

... and don't forget about the children!

[ista]

VG Musikedition (the other "club" represented by GEMA), sums up this issue and
VG Musikedition on photocopies in Kindergarten outlines their "new" offer. You may want to give e.g. Google Translate a try if you don't understand the german language.

Until recently, Kindergartens weren't permitted at all to copy single song sheets, their only option were to buy the books of those song sheets, but those books again didn't permit copies at all. However, Copyright expires 75 years after death of the writer; and those songs may be freely copied.

Now, there's also the option for Kindergartens to pay a fee of 56 Euros (plus 7% VAT) per year (€44,80 for Kindergartens operated by churches or cities) which permits up to 500 copies of song sheets. For example, for 112 Euros (plus 7% VAT), up to 1000 copies are permitted.

The odd thing with this option is, that kindergarten teachers then do have to keep an account on the amount of copies being taken for songs whose writer is dead for at least 75 years: bureaucracy at its best.

dont be a wuss

[BlackBloq]

How about waiting for the pussies to charge you then deal with them in court. What's the problem?>

pwuffesuh haiwypheet BLOWN AWAY, 5x? LMAO!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34719276

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34665368

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924664&cid=34669668

ROTFLMAO! I wouldn't listen to "professor hairyfeet" guys, he's only an ITT Tech student.

The verdict...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad news for German kindergarten students.... great news for David Hasselhoff!