German Copyright Group To Collect From Creative Commons Event

bs0d3 writes "In Leipzig, Germany, an 8 hour music/dance party event was organized to play nothing but creative commons music the entire time. A German copyright group called GEMA told the organizers that to be certain that no rights were infringed, it would need a list of all artists including their full names, place of residency and date of birth. After the event GEMA sent an invoice for 200 euros. They claim that behind pseudonyms some of their artists may be hidden and produce things that they would not earn anything from. According to German law, you are required to prove that an artist is not with GEMA. So even though GEMA probably does not have rights to any of the music, they are not required to prove that they do."

Comments

At this point

[unity100]

It has become necessary that we all ignore copyrights from this point on, in civil disobedience. This has really gone too far. Take a look - an organization that represents a minority of the population's interests, can have more privileges than all other citizens, and other citizens are obliged to that minority. this is against democracy. property rights, cannot come before democracy.

Re:At this point

[Calos]

No, I think you're wrong. Property rights are a requisite to a functioning democracy.

This has nothing to do with property rights. It has to do with the legislation that basically assumes guilt and requires payment lest you be able to fully prove yourself innocent, and that the system allowed such a law to get on the books.

These things, they are not "privileges," they are fundamental rights. Seems to be a pretty basic right that one should not be punished for a crime unproven. A democracy which fails to protect this is a failing democracy.

Your path to declaring this undemocratic is troublesome, though. Simply because a minority has the rights to something the majority does not, does not imply a failing of democracy. That would be more akin to communism. That the minority can maintain their (rightful) claim to their rights despite the tyranny of the majority trying to take it away, that is a functioning democracy. Simply saying a minority appears to have "more" "rights" than the majority is therefore not necessarily a failing of democracy.

This has nothing to do with minorities and majorities. It is a law that violates fundamental rights. It would not matter if it was a majority impressing this same law on a minority, it would be just as offensive. It is only a failing of democracy insofar as that democracies are, in general, supposed to protect these rights, something not true of all other governments. It is a failing of any legitimate government, which claims to protect the rights of the governed.

Re:At this point

[damburger]

"Property rights are a requisite to a functioning democracy"

Well, thats a nice sweeping statement, shame it doesn't mean anything. If you think it does, define the words "property", "functioning" and "democracy" - as precisely as possible.

Does the emergence of property rights in China make it more democratic? Does the fact that many EU countries have a larger public sector than, say, Russia mean that they are less democratic? Is it democratic for the population to vote for an inheritance tax?

This is the problem with ideological rhetoric. It all sounds very good, and is carefully phrased to be almost impossible to disagree with, but is devoid of any useful underlying meaning.

Re:At this point

[pla]

It seems you don't understand the words "democracy" and "republic". It would probably help your case if you did.

It seems you don't understand the word "corporatocracy". It would probably help your case if you did.

Re:At this point

[Luckyo]

Swiss as well as entire nothern part of Europe would like a long word with you about things like economic competitiveness and quality of life.

Re:At this point

[rollingcalf]

Of course you have the right to your own creations. You write a book or build a widget, you have the right to keep that specific book or widget and do whatever you want with it.

But when you want to take it a step further and use government force to block other people from making similar books or widgets using their own tools and materials on their own land, that's not a property right, that's a ban on certain uses of other people's property.

"By claiming that copyrights are anti-property rights - therefore an infringement of property rights - your argument logically has to consider the material that copyrights cover as property."

No. If I own a pen and a piece of paper, that pen and paper is my property, and that includes the right to write whatever I want on that paper. If somebody steps in and with government force they tell me I can't write certain sequences of words on it because they have a copyright on those sequences of words, they're banning specific uses of my property. That doesn't imply those words are anybody's property, it's just a ban. Like a ban on smoking in certain areas, or a ban saying that white SUVs cannot be driven on Sunday.

That's not to say that copyrights and patents shouldn't exist altogether. Heck, I'm a software developer and what I create needs copyright protection. I'm saying copyrights and patents are not property, they're bans. It just happens that the industries that profit from copyrights and patents have been successful in drumming the phrase "intellectual property" into society's collective heads so that they can leverage concepts from physical property to get laws that expand the reach of copyrights and patents.

Re:At this point

[mcgrew]

But as I said to another poster - should one not have the right to one's creations? What gives you the right to claim them as your own or as the public's?

Because they're not 100% your creation. Nothing comes from a vaccuum. Like science and technology, all art comes from what came before it. "If I see farther than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." Here's a story that would be far weaker had it not incorporated a forty year old song that should have passed into the public domain long ago; a song that is part of our heritage and part of our public awareness. Tell me, do you honestly believe that "Happy Birthday" should be under copyright?

Imagine how technology would stagnate if patents lasted as long as copyrights. That's how art is stagnating now.

You can indeed own your own thoughts and words and art -- but once you let them loose, they no longer belong to you.

And I say this as someone who has painted, written computer programs, artices, stories, poetry, and music, and have a book floating around BitTorrent (I seeded it myself). Once someone hears my words, those words no longer belong to me.

The US Constitution says that I don't own my words; "we, the people" do. I merely have a "limited" time monopoly on their publication.

Re:At this point

[Archtech]

You're just making stuff up.

HE's making stuff up? Apparently it takes one to know one.

The word "Republic" comes from REPresenting the PUBLIC.

Rubbish. It comes from the Latin words "res publica", roughly translated "the concern of the people" or "the public interest". Look it up in a dictionary, if you have one. Failing that, try a library.

As previous replies have made clear, a republic was originally the alternative to a monarchy. Arguably, a dictatorship is more like a monarchy; but note that the term "dictator" itself is another Roman word, originally meaning a military ruler with all power in his hands. In the Roman republic, a dictator was appointed only in times of critical danger for the state, and only for the shortest possible time.

The bottom line is that we have an impressive menagerie of colourful terms for political dispensations, but they overlap a good deal. Moreover, there is often a very great difference between what a polity is called and what it really is. If a state were to elect a dictator for life, would that be "representative democracy"? If not, why not - that scenario would differ from ours in the USA and UK only in the number of elected representatives and their length of tenure.

Personally, I think that what we have in both countries (and in most other so-called democracies) is a plutocracy - rule by the rich - with cosmetic elements of democracy to keep the masses quiet.

No rights infringed

[Muros]

A German copyright group called GEMA told the organizers that to be certain that no rights were infringed, it would need a list of all artists including their full names, place of residency and date of birth.

So, to be sure no rights are violated, they need to be given private details about 3rd party individuals that they have no right to know?

Yes

[Alan R Light]

I have long opposed extreme copyright terms and bad copyright law, and supported the public domain and creative commons licensing - but I have also supported paying artists for such work as they have copyrighted. I have always tried to buy a legitimate copy of music I like, where it has been available, and encouraged others to buy legitimate recordings.

But this is simply too much. If the copyright organizations are going to insist on collecting money for works they do not own nor represent, then they can go to hell. Really, this is just extortion. They deserve no more sympathy.

Re:Copyrights aren't property

[Sique]

The main problem with "your own creation" is the part, that is not your own creation. As all creations are cultural creations, e.g. only possible with a cultural and social background, and any (theoretical) creation that isn't founded in the social and cultural background, is non-understandable for any other than the creator and non-distingushable from random noise for everyone else, every creation is 95% background and 5% original creation. But it gets protected as if 100% of it was solely the accomplishment of its creator. A property has its welldefined limits, where it is easy to say where the property begins and what belongs to the environment around the property. Patents at least attempt with the claims system to point out the limits which distinguish between background and creation, but normal works of Arts don't. There is no claims list where the artist points out which of the work is reference, quote, copied from somewhere else, taken from nature etc.pp., and of which part the artist thinks to be actually his original creation. Persiflage and satirical usage can further muddy the water
If you look into court cases of plagiarism, you'll notice how complicated the differentiation between "original" and "non-original" can get, and how it depends on the actual argument of lawyers and quoted precedences, which part of a work is "creation" and which is not.

The idea of "give the creator the right to his creation" is well intended, but often very naive and unworkable. Sadly though, I have no solution how to improve on the idea to make it workable.

Re:Germans bought way too much into the Arteest th

[GauteL]

No. It is a terrible idea.

What if you buy a BMW 1201Whatever and later on this car becomes a classic collectors car, making it worth more money than it originally was? Shouldn't BMW get some of the money?

What if you buy a designer shirt from Le Whatever and later on this shirt becomes a "vintage" collectors shirt, making it worth more money than it originally was? Shouldn't Le Whatever get some of that money?

What if you buy a house and later on property prices go up and the house becomes worth more than what it was. Shouldn't the person who sold you that house get some of the money?

No. When you sell something, you've sold it. Meaning you've lost all claims to it. That is the risk of selling something. You may lose future income, but you have also protected yourself from the item losing value by realising its value in cold hard cash.

If the artists want to profit from future price rises, they should sell a share of the paintings. They can then still profit from future price rises, but obviously they have to take the risk of the painting actually decreasing in value over time.

The artist having the cake and eating it too is not fair. Not fair at all.