Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Bill Could Make It Illegal To Upload Lip-Synced Videos

Posted by samzenpus on from the numa-numa-no-more dept.

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."

25 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. sigh... by wired57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever happened to fair use? I mean really come on now, how does this help protect anything?

    1. Re:sigh... by flibuste · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It helps your government avoiding YOU spreading culture around, thus keeping people dumb and low so they can control them more easily. And keep their election campaign funds topped off with bribes from the RIAA and other "Copyright holders"?
      I mean, a 12 year old girl singing the latest Lady Gaga song on her piano is very harmful to major companies, and could make you smile. Last thing your government want is you to be happy without them ordering you to be.
      Or am I too much in conspiracy theories lately?

    2. Re:sigh... by blair1q · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lip-syncing is fair use?

      Lip-syncing is using the exact recording someone else made, over a picture of you making no sound and maybe dancing funny with your pets.

      Fair use would be excerpting a line or two of the original recording, or singing a verse or two as part of a larger work, or parodying it with different lyrics or music, although there are exceptions to this for things like using sound clips in movies or sampling in records where there's huge money involved, or where it's clear you're leveraging the work for profit without adding much to it yourself.

      I don't think that playing most or all of someone else's recording as the primary basis for your work is fair use. You can't change something slightly and call it "derivative," either. You can't even steal the hook accidentally and claim it's not someone else's property. Just ask George Harrison. No, he isn't; Beatles never really die.

    3. Re:sigh... by durnurd · · Score: 2

      Numa numa

      --
      --Edward Dassmesser
    4. Re:sigh... by camperdave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Parody is also fair use. However, some mashups, are too too awesome to allow petty bickering about ownership stand in the way of worldwide enjoyment, even if they aren't parodies.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  2. Thank you Senate by PickyH3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

  3. pretty much every concert I've ever been to by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:pretty much every concert I've ever been to by Bovius · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ostensibly, bands that play cover songs are supposed to pre-arrange the rights to record or perform said songs with a performance rights organization, and then pay royalties for the performance or pay for a license to record and distribute the song. The PROs make their money off of this, so they can be pretty aggressive about hunting down people who play or perform the music of the copyright holders they represent. The question of who actually pays the fee can get complicated depending on how the music is performed; in a traditional live performance, the location hosting the performance would likely be paying the performance royalty, not the band.

      That being said, I'm betting a lot of local performers and garage bands often don't have enough visibility to show up on the radar.

      That's how it works, though; legally, you have to pay a fee to get your guitar out and perform a song so common any random stranger could hum the tune along with you.

    2. Re:pretty much every concert I've ever been to by QRDeNameland · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think usually the bands get permission to do cover songs. Or rather, they have their manager do it for them.

      In terms of live performance, virtually all venues have blanket licensing that covers songwriting royalties for any song played in the establishment, either by a soundsystem or by a performing band. So a band can pretty much play any song live without needing permission.

      The only time a band needs to be concerned about licensing a cover song is if they release a recording of it.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    3. Re:pretty much every concert I've ever been to by Mass+Overkiller · · Score: 2

      I'm in a band. Technically, if we "sell" our material (CDs, tapes, video, etc) with other people's copy protected work (ie: cover songs) then we must have permission to do so. This occasionally results in the original copyright holders getting a piece of our sales. In reality, our band is not popular enough to have anyone at RIAA (or other bands) care, plus we don't sell our stuff (giveaways). So we don't bother with permission. For popular bands, they need permission and there is usually a financial component to that permission. If you perform live and cover a song (and sell tickets to your live performance) you also need permission (and sometimes financial compensation). Garage and bar bands cover songs all the time. Some bars charge a fee to see the band. This is TECHNICALLY not legal under copyright law. But who is going to sue the Jack Dicks for playing "Freebird" in a biker bar? Most cover music is simply credited to the original writers and that is that. You are allowed under music copyright to play a cover and change it to be something else, as long as you credit the original source. Playing Led Zeppelin's "Black Dog" with an acoustic guitar and crediting yourself as the writer would be illegal under music copyright. Playing the same song and crediting Jimmy Page and Robert Plant would be fine, legally, assuming Led Zeppelin didn't care that you sold your CD and made some money for yourself. Have you heard the announcers on Football games say "this televised broadcast is intended for private use only. Any attempt to rebroadcast or otherwise disseminate this program without the expressed written consent of the NFL is strictly prohibited"? TECHNICALLY, a bar that shows a football game cannot charge you to watch it nor use the football game on TV as an incentive to get you to come to their bar and buy their food or drinks. TECHNICALLY. I don't think the NFL would waste time suing Joe's Shady Bar for promoting the Dolphin's game, but they COULD. If this law were to actually be enacted and enforced, technically playing a cover song would be illegal outright. Technically READING A BOOK OUTLOUD could be construed as a "public performance" and thus be subject to the law. Imagine the feds raiding a kindergarten school and arresting a teacher for reading "My First Day at School" to a bunch or 5 year olds?

  4. Re:Karaoke Kriminalz! by Denogh · · Score: 2

    Curses! You beat me to it. I've got no problem with criminalizing Karaoke. There are other elements in the bill that might be bad, but we've got to look for the silver lining here.

  5. Re:Why stop there? by Volante3192 · · Score: 2

    Goodnight Moon - $18.00
    Goodnight Moon with bundled performance license - $180.00

    I smell a marketing scheme!!

  6. Re:Great! by Moryath · · Score: 2, Informative

    Didn't Trump try to trademark "You're fired"?

    Didn't Disney try to trademarn "Seal Team 6"?

    Government of the corporations, bought by the corporations, fuck the people. Current agenda: Koch brothers buying out governors everywhere. Scott Walker is open for busine^h^h^h^h^h^bribery.

  7. ASCAP and BMI charge for covers / jukebox music by mrnick · · Score: 2

    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...
  8. Hyphen by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2

    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?
  9. TFA is unclear, but this is blasphemous if true by lunchbox134 · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Re:Great! by trum4n · · Score: 2

    That's actually a good idea.

  11. Um, this is already illegal... by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  12. You think the Senators actually do this? by istartedi · · Score: 4, Informative

    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"?
    1. Re:You think the Senators actually do this? by PickyH3D · · Score: 2

      I don't believe that most Senators are smart enough to use Facebook. The rest, I do.

      And there's something seriously unnerving about that.

  13. The Horror! by senorpoco · · Score: 2

    I am sure people lipsyncing on youtube is costing recording artists literally tens of dollars per year in lost revenue.

  14. Licensing musical works for public performance by ZipK · · Score: 2

    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.

  15. Re:Place the bill in context of the current statut by Jim+Buzbee · · Score: 2

    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.

  16. Re:Great! by dleemaas · · Score: 2

    I hope you mean they ruined your generation by making everything a matter of law, versus letting them be matters of common sense.

  17. Laws Can Be Changed. We can Give or Take them away by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

    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.

    According to the 1998 Guinness Book of World Records, "Happy Birthday to You" is the most recognized song in the English language, followed by "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" and "Auld Lang Syne". The song's base lyrics have been translated into at least 18 languages.
    ...
    In 1998, the rights to "Happy Birthday to You" and its assets were sold to The Time-Warner Corporation. In March 2004, Warner Music Group was sold to a group of investors led by Edgar Bronfman Jr. The company continues to insist that one cannot sing the "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics for profit without paying royalties: in 2008, Warner collected about $5000 per day ($2 million per year) in royalties for the song.[2], pp. 4,68 This includes use in film, television, radio, anywhere open to the public, or even among a group where a substantial number of those in attendance are not family or friends of whoever is performing the song.

    - Happy Birthday To Me