Slashdot Mirror
Senate Bill Could Make It Illegal To Upload Lip-Synced Videos
An anonymous reader writes "According to Copyright lawyer Ben Sidbury, Senate bill 978 could make it a criminal act for someone to lip sync to a song and post the said video on Youtube, even if credits are given. 'The way the statute is written... It would now criminalize anybody that performs a copyrighted work, which is essentially nowadays any song under the sun. In theory at least, the record companies or the Department of Justice could go after a 9-year old or a 12 year old or a 30 year old for publicly performing a song.' said Sidbury."
Pretty soon I won't be able to smoke or sing in my car!
Whatever happened to fair use? I mean really come on now, how does this help protect anything?
For really going after what is a problem in our country.
Not the job market.
Not the national debt.
Not the continued housing crisis.
Not any of the three wars we are actively participating in (Libya, Iraq (yes, still), and Afghanistan).
Not healthcare.
Not the tax system.
Nope, it's little kids or adults showing their support for artists by lip syncing. We really have to protect those artists from such stealing! Those poor, underpaid artists (and their leeches that lobby for them, AKA the RIAA).
Seriously what will all the pop singers do?
Good thing this isn't Japan!
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
No matter how famous and how many hits the band on stage had, they played at least 1 or 2 cover songs.
Shit like that is why you go see bands live in the first place. Is that illegal now too?
Or has it always been illegal and it's just that nobody gave a damn?
If the law criminalizes PERFORMING a song, might this put an end to karaoke? If so, maybe it's not all bad. ;)
Lets make it illegal to read out loud from any copyrighted work... even if you're reading a story to your child as he or she goes to sleep. The child should need to purchase its own copy of the book.
This is already a violation of copyright. As is taping a wedding dance. As is singing "Happy Birthday" in public or on tape. Contrary to public opinion, you do not need to make money to violate copyright law. You only need to capture any non-public domain song on any recordable medium, or "perform" it in public, and you've broken copyright law. It's so ridiculous, that violation has become common - and real law violators (people who download music) get away with it. The law needs to be changed to allow common use, while punishing pirates and those who actually are causing damage.
With me, sing along.
C for Corrupt. M for Moron. F for Fail.
Yours in Dagestan,
Kilgore Trout
Well how long till a Cop er I mean a department of Homeland security agent pulls me over for singing to a song I've on my Mp3 hooked up to my car stereo on my way to work. Because that's the direction this is going.
No more Numa Numa
Given his history on covers and far use, it wouldn't surprise me.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/prince-wants-laws-changed-eliminate-181477
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/documents-show-prince-crazy-youtube-63454
The way the statute is written... It would now criminalize anybody that performs a copyrighted work, which is essentially nowadays any song under the sun.
I'm mystified how this works with a copyrighted song released under a CC-SA license that explicitly permits that soon to be criminal act...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Give me a break - how far are these people willing to stick their noses into business not theirs. cover songs give the artist exposure, lip-syncing gives the artist MASSIVE exposure - it's all done in fun, no profilts are being made off the song itself - get a life people!!!
So, does this make all the pop musicians who lip-sync to their own music illegal too?
Wait... that's a good thing, right?
But . . . but . . if we can't throw people in jail for singing along to songs they enjoy, how will artists get paid?? Why do you all hate art?? Won't somebody think of the poor, starving artists??
Would this just be on video, or would just about every pop act out there be locked up and have the key thrown away for "singing" (ie, miming, or lip syncing) to a backing track at a "live" show?
Tosh.0 will have nothing to put on the air!!!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Could someone create a federal bill to be voted into law to criminalize the singing of 'Friday', even by the originator's of this song?
That would be a law I could get behind.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
You are correct in that this is already against copyright law. And if you do it, you are in danger of getting a civil lawsuit against you.
But this new thing would make it a *criminal* offense, where the police slap the handcuffs on you and toss you in prison. Completely different.
I'm sure it's not what the bill was focused on, but when I read this article, I can't help but think of videos like Sigur Rós Shreds.
Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
Please tell me that this bill will make American Idol go away.
Nathan
ASCAP and BMI already charge businesses (nigh clubs/etc) that earn revenue from live bands covering music and even music being played in a jukebox. Since this is already in place I wonder why ASCAP/BMI wouldn't go after youtube.com rather than try and make the performers responsible.
Here are their respective links:
http://www.ascap.com/
http://www.bmi.com/
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
It would now criminalize anybody that performs a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner
FTFY. This law is absurd, but it would be even more absurd if it were criminal for copyright owners to perform their own work.
It's a shame that we're getting all of the government that we're paying for.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
But the whole performance was out-of-sync!
Let us observe a moment of silence, please, for the death of the knowledge on how to use a hyphen properly.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Doesn't this make like 95% of choir/piano/symphony performances illegal? (the other 5% being classics that are thankfully beyond copyright) Owning sheet music != owning the copyright so they are obviously infringing, right?
The solution is to record a version of the song yourself. Its called a compulsory license. Stop playing Guitar Hero and learn how to play a real instrument.
Thie whole Idea is just wrong... Playing/singing along to recorded music is how every musician I have ever met/seen/played with has gotten their start and found their passion for music. Furthermore, Performing songs that everybody already knows is how most bands learn to play with each other, Cover band is the next progression. Many a high-school garage band I have seen belt out "Classics" Cover bands is the way to go, if said musician actually believes s/he can make a career, or even money at all, playing music. The next wedding you go to, ask the band if they paid their royalties... Is every musician going to have to pay royalties for performing these songs? What about music teachers? I took lessons for 6 years on the drums, maybe a third of the time was spent on rudimentary things, the rest was "see/ hear that?, watch me do it, and then you try" Learning how to adapt was everything, and this cannot be done without examples.... are they too stealing the recording? Although TFA might be a bit off, would like to see the actual wording used. If it is only stuff uploaded to the web, I dont necesarrily agree, but I can understand the concept. If you upload a video on YouTube, you are, as far as the way most of these laws were written, a broadcaster, and subject to those terms. Though it seems they can't keep up anyway, so it may be a moot point, You are not profiting from the theft of Intellectual Property, but Google is, for every song/video that they don't have an agreement to host. Of course they have no problem deleting videos to stay within the law, someone else will upload it or something nearly the same very soon and it will be online till the cycle repeats.
So what's next? Playing an air guitar?
Of course, a law that would have put Milli Vanilli in jail can't be all bad.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I sang Forever by Drake (feat Kanye, Eminem and Lil Wayne). I also acted it out. I took the backing track and then redid their verses and mixed them and everything. I put it on Youtube for my friends (I did it tongue in cheek, not seriously). Youtube recognized immediately that I had used copyrighted works (they recognized it as Forever which I took as a complement that I did it well enough to trick the machine) but they let me keep it up. They show an ad at the bottom of my video and presumably some of that money goes to paying the record industry for the right for people like me to use Youtube as a venue for music whether in lipsyncing, remixes, covers, background tracks or what have you. Ultimately none of these things are illegal, people just need to be paid and do they have the right to be? Well if all of Youtube is using copyrighted music, then maybe the industry should get a bit of licensing money since it may just be little guys but it's a ton of little guys. If this can be settled by placing unobtrusive ads in the offending content's lower part of the video, then great. Seems like everyone wins.
Seriously what will all the pop singers do?
Easy: they will continue to obtain permission from the songwriter and/or publisher to perform the works. The difference is that these publishers are more accustomed to licensing these performance rights to established media corporations rather than to individuals.
But the RIAA would NEVER missuse their power for profit.
Bush built copyright prisons for children so now they need the laws to fill them! It's just business as usual.
A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or
(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;;
"Electronic means" seems fairly vague. Also, there seems to be both a minimum occurrence threshold, and a requirement for some monetary gain here.
Still, this has only been introduced to a committee, the majority of bills never make it past that stage. But it made me wonder, if at some point, congress will ever attempt to crack down on your average local cover band. For years I played in bands doing top 40 tunes, and never paid a penny royalties to the artists. It's a good way for aspiring musicians to get their feet wet.
Also, I didn't see this mentioned, the Bill was introduced by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D), and co-sponsored by Senator Christopher A. Coons (D) and Senator John Cornyn (R), if anyone feels like writing to them.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I've seen some of those lip-sunk videos, and if not criminal, they are societal transgressions. I'm on the fence on this one.
This is already illegal under copyright law. From what I gather from the article, the "news" is that the bill seeks to criminalize unlicensed public performance of a copyrighted work. The summary is totally misleading. Also, giving "credit" in a YouTube video is irrelevant to whether it's licensed or not. Actually I'm surprised more of these aren't scooped up by YouTube's content filtering system right now.
As for fair use, it'd be a tough case to make, but I guess in theory you could argue that... tough because you typically use the whole song, but that's mitigated by the fact that it's non-commercial use, and hardly a replacement - people don't listen to YouTube lip-syncs instead of the original...
I think criminalization of unauthorized public performance is probably a bad idea in general, even if not applied to lip-syncing kids... but don't let the summary fool you, this isn't suddenly making things that are currently legal illegal.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
You think the senators actually do this? No way. The lobbyists write the bills for them. You can't leave jobs like that up to politicians. It's too important. You draft the bill, you send it to your lackey... errr... senator's office, with a cover letter extolling the virtues of it. Then your l...senator's staff "reviews this recommended legislation" which means they putz around on their FaceBook pages for a while with the PDF open in the background so they can punch it up in case anybody walks by. Then it gets voted on. That's how it works.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I know that for over 15 years on playing in bands .. when we did covers we ALWAYS, ALWAYS had copies of the sheet music. ALWAYS!. Our manager would not let us perform a song if we did have the copies of the sheet music or "Written Permission" to preform those songs. When we made a CD we had to pay mechanical licensing fees to put a cover song on the disc.
that is why http://www.harryfox.com/ exists as well as others.
I wanted to put a cover of We're not gonna take it by Twisted Sister on an album. Guess what .. I ended up having to get permission from Dee Snider himself to do so. Since he actually owns the rights at least then (5+ years ago) was not allowing places like harry fox to handle his licenses.
Likewise we wanted to do a cover of "What I Like About You" from the Romantics. We couldn't do it .. why .. because we could not obtain mechanical licensee for the song ... and why .. because NO ONE KNEW WHO ACTUALLY OWNED THE SONG!!!
I agree that if someone is trying to make money with your work .. then they should have to pay for it .. these lip sync videos ... PROMOTE THE ARTISTS far better than ANY record label could.
That's one strange bunch of clowns.
The recording industry cartel, of course, wants you to pony up every time you even hear a few seconds of a song. The artists have nothing to do with it-- this is just their way of saying "We 0wn these songs, bitch".
This is just them testing the water. If it passes, they will increase the pressure to criminalize sharing of every song regardless of whether one of their labels published it, and that will include creative remixes, covers, and mashups.
I am sure people lipsyncing on youtube is costing recording artists literally tens of dollars per year in lost revenue.
This just highlights the fact that IP law is broken. The object that the information reach the public domain has somehow been corrupted into permanent income for the creator. The repair begins with a proper understanding of the purpose of IP protections.
loyalty above all, save honor
All the article says is that some new law will make lip syncing illegal. That would make every music video illegal, even the ones made by the record companies, since artists don't perform live while recording them. It doesn't provide a reference to check this claim, although I suspect it's incorrect.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Dear Senator Klobuchar, Please feel free to explain to me how Senate Bill 978, protects the American middle class. Oh wait. It doesn't. It protects 1 tenth of 1 percent of the richest people in America. Thank you. I'm sure that they need that protection. I'm sure that little kids posting videos of themselves lip-syncing their favorite songs need to worry about infringing copyright. I'm sure that kids practicing songs with their band in their garage need to count the number of friends that they have listening to make sure that not more than TEN people are listening. "BUT OH, it's not meant to go after people like that," I'm sure is your likely response. WELL RIGHT THE BILL THAT WAY! Let the American people know that you are not the lackey of big business. Copy right law is outdated and draconian as it is and here you are proposing a Bill that makes it Orwellian! Why not label copy right infringers "enemy combatants" and throw them in Gitmo? Your website has all of these little feel good snippets about Americans, veterans, seniors, reducing the size of government, cutting through red tape. But yet, here you are introducing MORE RED TAPE!! More government and harsher penalties on laws that are meant to protect the RICH. Again, please feel free to explain to me, to us, to America WHO exactly this Bill is designed to help.
"No one will really be free until nerd persecution ends."
Also known as the "Milli Vanilli Billi" Yeah, it's a slow day.
Now you won't be able to post American Idol clips - the whole show is lip synced.
The senators that proposed this gem: Klobuchar (D-MN), Cornyn (R-TX), Coons (D-DE).
Coons is famous for being a Republican and then changing to Democrat, so this is truly a bipartisan offering. Isn't great when the two parties can stop fighting and agree on something?
I just wish they could start agreeing on something, you know, useful, and not blatantly supporting the MAFIAA's antiquated 20th century business models. Frankly, it should be in everyone's best interest that nobody who touches this bill get re-elected. If this doesn't completely show how deep the lobby is up the US government's ass, I'm not sure what actually would.
Seriously, how is this in anyone's best interest except the RI/MPAA? "We the people" should be "We the corporation" i guess...
today is spelling optional day.
ditto
I mean, come on, the whole world knows how messed up the copyright laws are in the US of A and the whole world knows what a litigious country you people have created for yourself. Next up will be a bill to make singing in the shower a public performance for which royalties should be paid.
if you can't lipsync in videos, then a whole list of stars will be out of work. www.awkwardengineer.com
Honestly! Isn't this just a little silly? This copyright stuff has really gone too far. Do the record companies really think they're losing money by little billy singing his favorite song to the world????
IANAL. If you are recording and distributing copies of someone's copyrighted song (that is, a song that is not in the public domain and for which you do not hold the copyright), you must get a mechanical license for the composition. A mechanical license is arranged with either the song's publisher, or (in the U.S.) the clearing house Harry Fox Agency. If you'll be performing such a song - by playing a recording on the radio or performing live in public, for example - you need a public performance license from ASCAP, BMI and/or SESAC. Clubs that regularly host live music typically have these licenses in place; without them, the club must limit music acts to performing original material (for which the performer holds the copyright) or works from the public domain. I would be surprised if the licensing agencies didn't have staff that regularly visited non-licensing venues to look for business.
‘(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
‘(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or
‘(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;’; and"
It looks to me like this bill simply provides a punishment for profitable public performances of a copyrighted work. Lip-synching only qualifies here because presumably you're playing the song while you mime the lyrics. It's distribution of a copyrighted work. It has nothing to do with Lip-syncing. That's merely an example of one possible infringement. IMO, this is pretty poor journalism. Also, (again as near as I can tell) this applies to work where there is actual retail profit. B and C lay it out: "Total retail value", "Total economic value" or "Total Fair Market Value" greater than a few thousand dollars. This keeps people from riding their way up the fame wave on someone else's song without some sort of compensation.
All that said, I don't think we need to further enable IP abuse. I hope this one gets thrown out in committee.
Considering the ease in which the entertainment industry (lobbyists) are able to write our laws these days, pretty soon you will be financially responsible for getting a tune stuck in your head.
Who gives a shit?
So, dance teams often perform to music. If they happen to move their mouths to the music, will they be put in jail? What about sign language? Interpretive dance? Toe tapping?
What about karaoke? By this definition even karaoke will be illegal.
This is really just a Chicken Little story by someone who apparently didn't bother to read the statute before freaking out.
The bill amends 18 USC 2319(b), which refers specifically to violations of 17 USC 506(a)(1)(A), which reads:
So this doesn't apply to little Susie lip-synching her favorite Bieber song and posting it to YouTube.
Aren't ALL music videos lip-synced?
For their constituents, well for their corporate masters. Take a look at the supporters of this bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-978
Anyone in Texas, DE or MN call your senator up and tell them to focus on the economy.
There's a good discussion of the issue below. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110609/23171814649/people-realizing-new-anti-streaming-criminal-copyright-bill-could-mean-jail-time-lip-synchers.shtml As usual, the broad language of a bill like this creates the possibility of many unintended consequences. Here's my comment from that discussion:
OK, say a mother is recording her kid's fifth birthday party along with the whole gang singing "Happy Birthday to You!". A mishap occurs that makes it particularly funny, so the uploaded YouTube video goes viral and her personal web page with the embedded movie gets a lot of hits and ad impressions.
Doesn't sound too far-fetched huh? Oops, the song "Happy Birthday to You" is under copyright protection. Looks like Momma is heading to the Big House for a five-year stint. Don't worry, she'll be out just in time for junior's 10th!
I see people running for office, getting their name out there, sometimes making platform statements, promises... I never see them talk about how they'll turn the state's resources against us for their corporate masters. But that is what they do. It is what they are paid to do. It's completely transparent that law is for sale to the highest non-human bidder, and tax dollars will be used towards those interests. The human-level debates must be focused on emotional issues that the government really has no rightful jurisdiction over in the first place, to distract from this open secret.
Disenfranchised. Every man and woman in the United States.
I may not be a huge fan of democracy, nor of representative systems like a republic, but I laugh sorrowfully at any and all who claim this country still has such a form of government.
What about dancing or miming to a song????
That's the intent of the law. But what if Susie's mother embeds that movie on her own web page for all her friends to see? And what if Susie's mom has a few Google Ads on that web page (private financial gain)? And then, for whatever reason that these things happen, Susie's cute video goes viral, Mom's web page gets hundreds of thousands of hits, and those ads get clicked on generating a few thousand dollars? Well guess what? Mom is now a potential felon.
Ever since the media consolidation rules were changed one hand has been washing the heck out of the other.
Fair Use is an affirmative defense against a charge of copyright infringement, and must be decided on a case by case basis.
It's not carte blanche to do what you want with someone else's work.
EG. You can't just say "That's Fair Use so I can do that." If you are sued for Copyright Infringement, you can make an argument of Fair Use in your own defense, and the merits of your particular usage will be tested.
I think we're still just cotton pickers! Slavery wasn't abolished, it was ordered to be done more carefully!
I want somebody to write a copylefted song about the virtues of beating up politicians, how about it?
Could be a hit!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
It used to be that if you were broke and homeless, you could drop your hat on a street corner and make some cash playing music. I guess now being a performing artist is going to be illegal, and you'll just have to beg.
Ok, That's it. So would it be illegal to lip sink your own music.... I know... dumb question, but think about it. Just fired up! I'm going to have to do it just to fuel the fire!
As the headline reads, technically, this could also be used to prosecute an artist who is lip syncing the original video, right? Say I upload, without authorization, Milli Vanilli lip-syncing, it is the lip syncer and not the uploader? If not, and only the person who does the unauthorized upload is responsible (and not the lip syncer), then the headline (or the legislation) is truly off key. It assumes the kid lip syncing is the guilty party, when as always it was the unlawful distributor (uploader) and lip syncing has nothing to do with it.
Gently reply
Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you...*CRASH* FBI, ATF, NSA! This is copyright infringement!
Between the EU trying to ban "hacking tools" and the US trying to ban lip-syncing it's hard to figure out just which government body has the more idiotic legislators.
Welcome to the land of the free!
Under this bill, that Romanian band with that goddamned song made popular by that jiggly fat kid would still be languishing in obscurity.
Is it no surprise that America has the largest prison population in the world? It's because US lawmakers are making everything a crime so that it's impossible to live without being guilty of one infraction or another. It seems that the goal is to have everyone in prison. And they want the rest of the world to believe America is a 'free' country.
"One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ... create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt." (Dr. Ferris, in Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand).
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Does this mean Britney will get sued for her performances?
Hopefully that ugly fuck in the thumbnail will go extinct. I thought the talking heads on the news networks were shit, the ones on Youtube are a lower form of life completely.
Release the Lulzsec! sick 'em guys :P
when law and common sense fails, then retribution is required. Little spanking and sent to the corner and perhaps they'll get the message if not then molotov everything
In order to lip synch you most remove your lips from the cock of your corporate sponsor, and I expect the Senate to be sucking strong, long after I'm dead.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Numa Numa Guy is a threat to O-Zone's bottom line. Damnit all to hell!
A group of people gathers in front of a MAFIAA HQ. At the precise time, they start singing "We are the champions" and then they vanish into fin air. For CCTV reasons, they'll all cover their faces during the performance so you can't prove who sang and who sat quiet.
Who wrote this bill and can we get video footage of them singing "Happy Birthday"?
Were they on the steps of the Senate building singing "God Bless America" without getting permission first?
Maybe its time someone started asking their Senators if they knew they were pirates too.
It seems that this proposed law is trying to fix something that has already been resolved. When a video is uploaded to YouTube, Google's computers compare the sound to a huge archive of licensed music. If there is a match then the up-loader gets a notice that reports the match and tells them that their video will still be shown but that the content owner can show ads with it and receive the ad revenue. This works for most music publishers with a few exceptions Warner Music Group was blocking the sound of their songs. This may have changed recently with WMG not blocking but it now appears that UPMG may be blocking sound. This solution by the majority of content providers seems eminently logical allowing content owners to receive income and YouTube viewers to see creative performances with recorded but unlicensed music.
Don't they have any better bills to write anymore? Democracy at work, ladies and gentlemen. I can't say that I can walk down the street without someone complaining or protesting the existence of lip synced videos.
Just wondering if it is fair for a Senate member shooting to taxpayers, who pay his wage. OK, lobbists are paid more... With these dark ages laws, he could certainly make his CV fatter too.
0. Be n == 0 (MOD 365.25) days old.
1. Go to restaurant to celebrate.
2. Begin to sing: "Happy Birthday To You... Happy --"
3. Get sued for public performance of Warner Bros. copyrighted song: "Happy Birthday"
4. Realize why all restaurants sing a different crappy song for birthday parties...
Seriously -- If an artist wants to be so flipping famous that everyone is singing their songs, or quoting their books, then their work now belongs to everyone.
To such artists: Mission Accomplished, you have added a small piece to our culture. However, you used our language, our instrument inventions, our literary concepts, our "rhyming" techniques, our aesthetic tastes for melody -- You have never owned the totality of your work, you were leasing it from us. We have chosen to grant you a short monopoly over such works, for the betterment of society. Now you have used your wealth to harm society with the very laws we chose to grant you protection under. You have gone too far. We choose to revoke your monopoly rights.
DOWN WITH ALL COPYRIGHTS -- They are a disease that humanity must not bear. We exist as leaders of this world above all other creatures due to our ability to share knowledge and culture -- To outlaw any such conveyance is to outlaw human nature. We do not welcome the police state you are building for us. We will now commence to tear it apart those constructs we find offensive.
-- Yours Truly,
We, the people.
- Happy Birthday To Me
The whole concept behind IP laws has been so ignored and distorted that it isn't even funny. Corporations are stealing from our society's culture and then selling it back to us at the highest possible price they can get legislated. The whole idea of IP law was to allow the public domain and culture be expanded by content creators sharing their work rather than hiding it. That is absolutely no longer an issue. People will create content, products, songs, books, movies basically everything protected by IP law regardless of IP protections. We have stunted science and technology more in the last 40 years, even more in the last 20 years, due to fights over copyrights and patents than the fields have advance, let alone could have advanced.
Content creators should be thrown in jail because the agreement was **LIMITED** time protections and then it would go into the public domain for all of society to use and build upon and become part of the culture. Our culture is dying and soon we won't have any culture to bind us as a society. Instead it will be groups who have the money to purchase culture grouped around the corporations who are selling culture at the highest price they can get.
I have a very simple test to see if content corporations are screwing the public over and stealing from us. If your company is over 50 years old, how many copyrights did you file for this year, and exactly how many copyrights held by your corporation expired this year and the content entered the public domain? If the answer is none or some insanely low number then they are thieves and should be thrown in jail and all their copyrights revoked. Anyone who takes public money and then copyrights or patents the work should jailed for theft. The public paid for it it belongs to the public and so it belongs in the public domain so that society that paid for it can use it freely with no restrictions.
Disney is by far the most public offender of this. I would bet that nothing or damn close to nothing Disney has ever created is in the public domain now. That is a crime.
Every book publishing house and every record company and almost every movie company should be having their products fall in to the public domain every year. It should be a fairly significant amount because they do not product tiny amounts in a year to stay in business. Most publishing houses actually own the copyright because they buy the novel from the author and then attempt to make money off it, the big authors are the exception to this. The music studios work the same exact way. Movie studios are the same they end owning the copyright on the movie even though they have investors for the film. All of them should have products falling in to the public domain every year but they don't and that is crap. That isn't the agreement for IP laws. They are stealing from the public and stealing on a massive scale and then repackaging that material and trying to sell it to us again.
Personally I think 10 maybe 15 years should be the length of copyrights and patents. If you can't turn a profit in 10 years on your material then you have a problem and society shouldn't be stolen from just because you can't get your act together. I think patents on drug should only be 3-5 years. They can easily recover R&D costs in that time and make a large profit, a lot of which are paid by government grants. Drug companies spend more on advertising than they do R&D or drug production. R&D is even less than drug production costs annually. Drug R&D costs are just not that particularly high. There are drug products never brought to market not because they won't make money but because they won't make as much money as if they put those production costs into something else. Clearly drug companies are not starving for money or they would market everything and try and to make every possible penny of profit they could. Just look at their SEC filings. Government regulations have help to create that messed up system. It's criminal how corporate America abuses the IP system.
W
Seeing this bill pass might be a bit challenging.
If it does, however, I guess that german guy in the bunker will object furiously and publish it all over youtube again.
I can't help but think that this is ripe for a little civil disobedience. Lets all choose a song. Maybe the same song, say "Barbra Ann" by the Beach Boys and post lip syncs of it. That would thoroughly clog the federal courts.
Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
I think we need a law that makes it a criminal offense to make new criminal offenses (of course not applicable to itself). And this law should be quite retroactive.
Wierd Al Yankovic
Also be on the lookout for Dragon Boy Suede.
Would this make the cover bands that play in bars criminals? I doubt that they have licenses from the artists whose songs they are playing. Unless they fall in the "fair use" category?
~Syberz
Everything you do now in the US is illegal. You are born and will die a criminal and only your political donations will determine if you end up with a record or jail time reflecting your criminality.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
...make the act a felony punishable by fine and imprisonment where before it was a civil matter that required the rights holders to sue. This is an end run by the studios in an attempt to apply a different criminal standard to infringement that they have failed to quash with civil action.
you used our language, our instrument inventions, our literary concepts, our "rhyming" techniques, our aesthetic tastes for melody
Brilliant! Something to that effect needs to be placed at the foundation of the copyright laws such as "forms of derivative". Add something like, "can not exceed base time period if it doesn't expand on the forms of derivative". if someone invents a spoken language and or instrument they can extend a copyright. If they do not expand the forms of derivative then the patent expires into public domain.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Cover bands would be no more (since it would be illegal to perform the copywritten work). Karaoke would be no more (you are performing copywritten work again). It would be cool in a way since you would not have weird looking midget people getting famous and lip synching with 50 cent and other famous people (the dude got internet famous and performed with 50 cent for lip synching for Pete's Sake). There are upsides like no more of that kid, but there are also very bad downsides. I have heard many bands that ended up getting signed that started as cover bands. Being a cover bands when you start is just a good way to get to know song structure better and performing better. I also have a friend that got a record contract from singing karaoke. These people who are not lip synching, even though they are not using their own work, but still have talent to do other people's work, will be no more since it will be illegal. Some of these people have amazing skill and use it like porn. You know a very slim few can transition to the real industry, but still some are transitioning to the real industry. I am hoping this fails or else it may be the start of the "no more happiness" initiative where the government slowly takes away our happiness since big corporations do not get paid when we are happy. Those dirty, money grubbing bastards
The world is how you make it
The gov't cannot know whether the song was purchased illegally or legally. Because they can't prosecute based on assumptions they must accept that the individual purchased the song legally. Therefore the said individual has now purchased rights to...what exactly? Did they pay for the song to simply look at that file on their computer. Technically, under the current laws, it is illegal to transfer that song anywhere. It has to stay put on your Hard drive or on its CD. The gov't has no idea what they're getting into. This law will cause us to question all 21st century data technology. is a ringtone illegal if you recorded it? Are songs played during movies illegal? (No they're not). So why is this going to be illegal? And why are they singling out YouTube? There are other video sharing websites out there aren't there? How about they pass a law saying that the Senate isn't allowed to pass laws unless they pertain to over 50% of Americans, e.g. - the freakin' economy? Get your priorities straight or get out of the way.