Slashdot Mirror
Anti-piracy Group Fined For Using Song Without Permission
zacharye writes "Oh, the irony. A musicians' rights group in the Netherlands was fined this week for stealing music from a client, using it without his permission and failing to pay royalties. Music royalty collection agency Buma/Stemra approached Dutch musician Melchior Rietveldt in 2006 and asked him to create a composition that would be used in an anti-piracy advertisement, which the group said would be shown exclusively at a local film festival. One year later, Rietveldt purchased a Harry Potter DVD only to find that his piece was being used on DVDs around the world without his permission..."
What a name, Melchior.
Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society
the music industries attack on piracy is often about a new way to extort easy money more than an actual concern for the musicians they are supposed to represent
http://interserver.net/
For the record i would also like to say that both intellectual property law and current forms of governance are out dated.
...that's not irony.
Irony is when you say something and mean the opposite.
Thank you, the record will benefit immensely from your important ideas about law and government.
That seems low for when someone steals music. Shouldn't that be more like €100,000,000 by the MAFIAA calculating ways?
So there was a DVD advertisement that pirated music about not pirating music?
So we don't need to discuss this anymore. Copyright infringement is "THEFT"
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
Your welcome, but they were not originally my ideas, i copied them from others. ;-)
We all stand on the shoulders of giants
They refer to a Creative Commons pilot program on their website, but it's in Dutch, and the translation is a little hard to understand. Can someone describe what this is about a bit more clearly than Google Translate?
The MAFIAA would follow this up with a major lawsuit, so I would encourage this guy to do the same. Start an online donation drive for legal fees - I'd kick in $5-10 bucks.
Musicians only get paid when the music makes a profit. Since his music on an anti-piracy promo will never be "sold" and thus never make a profit, he will never get paid. Sucker -- for working with the music/movie industry.
Similarly writers and actors only get paid once a movie is profitable. (aka Never)
The most successful movies and records of all time strangely never seem to be profitable and thus royalties are not owed.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Clap clap
My welcome? Hardly.
Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society
Eh... I cannot say I agree with you. I mean if the IP system was being used properly, the composer would be getting paid for the use of his work.
That said, would totally agree that cases like this prove that people are abusing it. I mean, if you're going to hoot and holler over people using your content without permission, you should be the last person to do the same. This example doesn't really exlcaim "IP is bad for everybody!"
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Just so long as you're not Yurtle.
Its real simple to understand these asshats. They hold the following constellation of views:
1) if we have licensed it, it's ours.
2) if we comission it, it's ours.
3) if one of our signed artists makes it, it's ours.
--
4) if it's ours, we can do whatever we damned well want with it.
5) if somebody is violating their limited license for something that is ours, we will squash them.
The conflict between "You were given limited rights. You may not redistribute however you like!" And their internal rose-colored view of how copyright should work never crosses their mind. They operate under the blanket policy that anything they license, comission, or sponsor is their full, exclusive right. That's why they make stupid blunders like this, time and time again.
It's also why they get cranky like a baby with diaper rash when they can't get full, exclusive rights to properties. Their business model revolves around having exclusive power, and dolling out highly nonexclusive licenses.
To defeat them, we need to cut off their supply of exclusives. Nothing short of oxygen deprivation will kill them. Like ants though, they have quite a bit of bottled air, and will take decades to kill off.
Big media was a bad idea for everyone involved except government, middlemen, and lawyers.
Well said. "Yertle the Turtle". Dr. Seuss's take on Mussolini, but for kids!
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I am confused. This is a case of IP law working very well. Are you suggesting that this person should receive no payment for their music?
...live by the sword, die by the sword, "thieves!"
They deserve to be tried for their theft in a sharia court and their hands removed for it. :P
One year later, Rietveldt purchased a Harry Potter DVD only to find that his piece was being used on DVDs around the world without his permission.
I can't access the TorrentFreak link from my office. How did it wind-up on a Harry Potter DVD? Did the anti-piracy group get their message as a special feature on the DVD somehow?
We all stand on the shoulders of giants ;-)
Not me. I stand on a stack of midgets.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I am confused. This is a case of IP law working very well. Are you suggesting that this person should receive no payment for their music?
I believe this to be a case of a person making a generalization based upon what they perceive to be popular opinion (Ugh think copyright/IP/patents BAD, Ugh no need know reason why), with zero regard for reality or logical thought processes. Common practice on the 'net these days, what with the apparent obsession with peer acceptance and approval as a means of self-realization.
Otherwise, one would assume they would have realized, prior to posting, that the concept of "not in the best interest of society" is a completely subjective opinion, not fact, and as such, is non sequitur at best and a blatant straw-man argument at worst.
One could posit the argument that the right to free speech is "not in the best interest of society," because bigots use that right as a platform for spreading hate, but you won't see any rational folks calling for its repeal.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
There is a second extra-classy angle in this story.
When the composer discovers his song has been used more widely than agreed, he goes to his music royalty collecting agency, an entity ostensibly representing those starving artists out of whose mouths pirates are stealing delicious crumbs.
They stonewall him. Hard.
Then, in a conversation that turned out to be recorded, causing a bit of a scandal, "The case caused a scandal in the Netherlands last year following discussions Rietveldt had with Buma/Stemra[the collecting agency] board member Jochem Gerrits about getting the money he was owed. In order to help, Gerrits suggested that the composer should sign his track over to High Fashion Music, a label owned by Gerrits himself and one that would take 33% of Rietveldt’s royalties for its trouble."
So, yeah, if he was merely willing to play ball with the label owned by a board member of the collecting agency, his little problem could be made to go away, for a modest price. If he preferred not to sign, well, perhaps he might continue to have trouble?
This isn't exactly news; but the de-facto Intellectual 'Property' system appears to operate on the basis that peasants might have the right to sell their little scraps of it; but only people who matter are accorded any serious protection.
Anyone surprised by this is truly clueless.
I'm sure it's a misunderstanding because these agencies are just so concerned about those poor starving artists.
The composer should have been paid for the of work he performed, as the function of the investment it takes to perform the work and value, not for how useful the work ended up being. He may be hired to work again if it was a good performance, otherwise you tax and unempower other people and musicians, so you get to be fat and lazy off of their hard wor.
Likewise I have a hard time developing devices without running afoul of someone's patent, even though what I did was developed in a clean room process, so they can sit fat and lazy off of my hard work. The problem with finding funding for the work is another social problem, but perhaps that means that we should reward people like farmers and factory workers, more than we reward the creative class who don't have it so bad anyhow.
Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society
Oh, it is, it is! You just have to be a big company to try to get away with it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
One with a more open mind might consider that groups of content distribution businesses just like this one have always been behind every "advance" in copyright law; when creating copyright, they demanded that it should be vested in the publisher, not the author. They have at every turn tried to enrich themselves at both consumers' and creators' expense. And this is far from the first time we've heard of them flagrantly violating copyright.
Maybe, just maybe, all those bits about it being "in the interest of society" (which is why the concept was created and promoted by society at large, not the content-distribution industry... oh wait.) and the supposed extent to which content creation (not distribution!) depends on copyright, could be a lie? No, no, businesses would never tell a lie to make more profit, and legislators would never pass laws to help their friends in business if they had such a facade to hide the intent from voters.
Or it could be based on a nuanced study of capital flows to IP thugs, and the lack of investment in other human resources (people), which in turn harms the ROI on other human labor (farming, manufacturing). Thereby reinforcing a class system in which people are unable to escape.
Hardly as subjective as your subjective analysis of "he probably just wants free stuff".
That is what they should pay.
Take their own calculation and use that on how much he should get. So how many billion copies have been sold? Those were clearly missed sales for him. Then add the number of illegal downloads that they made possible by putting it on those DVDs and you get to a gazillion pretty quickly.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
>>>This example doesn't really exlcaim "IP is bad for everybody!"
Yeah it does. It shows how the law is used for the benefit of the rich, not the people it supposedly protects. WE steal money, we get punished. MF's Jon Corzine steals money, he gets called "the honorable" in Congress and that's about it. RIAA/MPAA get caught pirating songs and selling them to the tune of 1.5 billion dollars, but nothing happens. WE do that and we get hit with multimillion dollar fines that make us lifelong wage slaves (see Jamie Thomas).
Ultimately We the People would be better off without these laws, since they don't benefit us. They only benefit the fucking rich (corporations/CEOs) and/or the well-connected (politicians and polticians' friends).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
The composer should have been paid for the of work he performed, as the function of the investment it takes to perform the work and value, not for how useful the work ended up being.
Why? His unique contribution helped bring in a good deal of money, so much so that they enter into agreements that basically equate to profit sharing. Your approach would just mean the big nasty corp gets all the dollars.
Likewise I have a hard time developing devices without running afoul of someone's patent...
This really is a different topic from patents and, as such, a separate discussion. I would like to point out, though, that it's implied that the people you're accusing of sitting fat and lazy off your work did that work before you got to it. You're being encouraged to either license their work or try another approach. That means rewarding the inventor who sunk the time into it (like you do for a living) or developing the technology even further by trying other approaches. That actually is how the patent system is supposed to work and I'm willing to bet that's helping the company you work for out. Getting back on topic, if your complaint about their patent is that it's overly broad, then we're back to the problem not being with the system, but how its enforced. That is a legitimate complaint, but it takes a different approach to get something done about it.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Fuck You.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I generally believe that if his work was important enough to be made, than he should have been paid for the amount of work performed, not based on how much it benefited society.
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
Ultimately We the People would be better off without these laws, since they don't benefit us. They only benefit the fucking rich (corporations/CEOs) and/or the well-connected (politicians and polticians' friends).
Tell that to the composer this article is about.
Should come with a short summary of the difference between Malum in Se and Mallum Prohibitum.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
I hope they are ordered to pay maximum damages per Harry potter DVD sold!
Why? His unique contribution helped bring in a good deal of money, so much so that they enter into agreements that basically equate to profit sharing. Your approach would just mean the big nasty corp gets all the dollars.
Not really, because they would not get to make any money off the content! A better model would be a set of 501c3's that are highly regulated and donated to. People can send money to these 'creative' charities if they want to, who then have an obligation to spend the money on creative endeavors, and of course a world where personal income is capped at some reasonable level.
This really is a different topic from patents and, as such, a separate discussion. I would like to point out, though, that it's implied that the people you're accusing of sitting fat and lazy off your work did that work before you got to it. You're being encouraged to either license their work or try another approach. That means rewarding the inventor who sunk the time into it (like you do for a living) or developing the technology even further by trying other approaches. That actually is how the patent system is supposed to work and I'm willing to bet that's helping the company you work for out. Getting back on topic, if your complaint about their patent is that it's overly broad, then we're back to the problem not being with the system, but how its enforced. That is a legitimate complaint, but it takes a different approach to get something done about it.
That's supposing that
A) they actually did any work whatsoever, or its non trivial work "one click", "round corner tablet device"
B) they are willing to license the work at all, instead of suing me to an oblivion.
C) that people should be rewarded from ideas, instead of the labor time they spent in implementing ideas.
Good for him, he is getting hundred of thousands of dollars for a very minimal amount of work!
Bad for everyone else, that are expected to pay $25 + his royalties for a harry potter DVD.
Chelsea, is that you?
It's not always that it's overly broad either. A lot of times, they're mind-numbingly obvious to the point that it should never have been granted in the first place, frequently boiling down to "doing something the same way it's been done for hundreds, if not thousands of years...on a computer."
Those Lilliputians are really useful in the lab for crawling inside my devices and debugging those teeny-tiny parts.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
A) they actually did any work whatsoever, or its non trivial work "one click", "round corner tablet device"
B) they are willing to license the work at all, instead of suing me to an oblivion.
C) that people should be rewarded from ideas, instead of the labor time they spent in implementing ideas.
A) "Getting back on topic, if your complaint about their patent is that it's overly broad, then we're back to the problem not being with the system, but how its enforced. That is a legitimate complaint, but it takes a different approach to get something done about it." ... try reading more carefully.
B) "Getting back on topic, if your complaint about their patent is that it's overly broad, then we're back to the problem not being with the system, but how its enforced. That is a legitimate complaint, but it takes a different approach to get something done about it." ... try reading more carefully, AGAIN.
C) Your opinion. Can't say much here. This is a valid discussion point.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
People can send money to these 'creative' charities if they want to, who then have an obligation to spend the money on creative endeavors, and of course a world where personal income is capped at some reasonable level.. ...
C) that people should be rewarded from ideas, instead of the labor time they spent in implementing ideas. .
What exactly is better about this model? Now the little guy still doesn't get rewarded and the entire content industry would get dunked into the toilet, taking lots of employed people with it. What is the problem you're trying to solve and why would it be better than just shortening the length of copyright?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't exactly news; but the de-facto Intellectual 'Property' system appears to operate on the basis that peasants might have the right to sell their little scraps of it; but only people who matter are accorded any serious protection.
I thought this rule applied to most things in life.
So now that they have been caught stealing the music, did they return the music to the artist they stole it from?
No?
Because they used the music without the proper permission, the artist no longer had their music anymore...
Oh hang on, what I just said makes no sense at all.
Thats because COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT STEALING!!!
Why do people perpetuate this fucking insidious myth?
So what's the big deal? Obama says he didn't write that song himself, it took the whole government to enable him to do it, so it's not really his.
Actually, "on a computer" prevents a patent from being overly broad. That's why the puzzle game you wrote for the iPhone wouldn't get you sued because Nike has a patent on threading needles to mass-produce shoes.
You actually do want that "on a computer" distinction in there more than you don't.
So did they get fined a million, billion dollars? HA thought not.
There are entire industries that are dunked into the toilet, many of the employees of whom live in tiny huts/dorms with hardly more than the clothes on their backs, why should your industry benefit at the expense of all others?
Because your from the bourgeois class, which is able to force the balance of power your way, and thus keep out the competition?
Or it could be based on a nuanced study of capital flows to IP thugs, and the lack of investment in other human resources (people), which in turn harms the ROI on other human labor (farming, manufacturing). Thereby reinforcing a class system in which people are unable to escape.
Yea, no.
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to claim that the current iteration of IP/copyright/patent law is fucked, namely because it is. But that is by no means a blanket condemnation of the tools themselves; in fact, to claim the tools are the problem is to show an abject lack of critical thinking ability, as any child could tell you it's not the hammer which ultimately drives the nail, but the man holding the hammer. Yes, the system is oft abused by powerful groups, but that doesn't mean the system itself in inoperable - there are also instances, such as that brought forth by TFA, in which IP/copyright/patent law actually does work to protect the artist/inventor from whom the product originated.
Hardly as subjective as your subjective analysis of "he probably just wants free stuff".
Funny, I don't recall making that statement... *re-reads previous post* Nope, nothing even close to the assumption you've made here. In fact, you're the only one who has broached the idea of wanting something for nothing... perhaps you yourself are unaware of your actual agenda? One has to wonder why a person would be so adamantly opposed to the mere concept of IP, especially when discussing a rare instance in which IP law actually works out in the best interest of the creating artist...
What's your angle here? If you're not attempting to posit the idea that you should have access to other people's creative works without payment, then what are you trying to say?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Good for him, he is getting hundred of thousands of dollars for a very minimal amount of work!
The studio is getting millions of dollars for mass-producing content people wish to buy. His 'minimal work' assisted in reaching those earnings. You're saying you'd rather Warner Brothers just get more money rather than spreading that amongst the people who made it possible. The oddball thing is you're proposing a greater harm to society!
Bad for everyone else, that are expected to pay $25 + his royalties for a harry potter DVD.
Those people pay the $25 regardless of whether or not that royalty is paid.
Some day you need to learn that hours on a time-card do not reflect value of the work.
A fine is not royalties. A fine is a fine.
There are entire industries that are dunked into the toilet, many of the employees of whom live in tiny huts/dorms with hardly more than the clothes on their backs, why should your industry benefit at the expense of all others?
We can't have this conversation yet until you answer the question I originally posed: What exactly is better about your model?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society
Intellectual property is in the interests of society, it stops big companies from using people's music on top-selling DVDs all around the world.
The problem with intellectual property is when individuals are being fined millions of dollars for sharing half a dozen songs, when the internet is being wrecked in the name of preventing piracy even though anybody with half a brain knows it can't be stopped, when consumers are being screwed over by DRM, when young artists are being ripped off by experienced con-men in suits, etc.
ie. There's no sense of proportion in the laws, they're going way too far in the direction of the corporations instead of towards the consumers.
No sig today...
The composer should have been paid for the of work he performed, as the function of the investment it takes to perform the work and value, not for how useful the work ended up being.
Well, I think it's reasonable to most people that you should be paid for the work you performed. The question is how to value that work. I take that you you prefer a labor theory of value over a subjective theory of value, right?
Yea, no. Look, it's perfectly reasonable to claim that the current iteration of IP/copyright/patent law is fucked, namely because it is. But that is by no means a blanket condemnation of the tools themselves; in fact, to claim the tools are the problem is to show an abject lack of critical thinking ability, as any child could tell you it's not the hammer which ultimately drives the nail, but the man holding the hammer. Yes, the system is oft abused by powerful groups, but that doesn't mean the system itself in inoperable - there are also instances, such as that brought forth by TFA, in which IP/copyright/patent law actually does work to protect the artist/inventor from whom the product originated.
What IP/copyright/patent law actually does is protect the artist/inventor, at the expense of both the consumers, producers and competition, and that is whats inherently unethical about it. Any laws that exist should be applied universally (Immanuel Kant), tractor manufacturers should be alllowed to license and charge royalties on food production, production workers should be able to license and charge royalties as well.
Funny, I don't recall making that statement... *re-reads previous post* Nope, nothing even close to the assumption you've made here. In fact, you're the only one who has broached the idea of wanting something for nothing... perhaps you yourself are unaware of your actual agenda? One has to wonder why a person would be so adamantly opposed to the mere concept of IP, especially when discussing a rare instance in which IP law actually works out in the best interest of the creating artist...
What's your angle here? If you're not attempting to posit the idea that you should have access to other people's creative works without payment, then what are you trying to say?
Yes. I am saying that the person who created the work should be paid according to their labor or skill, and the results of their labor should be available for free because it increases the utility of their work. It also disincetivizes them from working, because they are able to live comfortably without doing so, and deprives others of the fruits of their labor. A good example of this: college textbooks.
Yes, i believe in labor theory of value, I just didn't use the jargon. That is not to say subjective value theory is wrong, but subjective value theory doesn't work on intellectual property.
Yes. I am saying that the person who created the work should be paid according to their labor or skill, and the results of their labor should be available for free because it increases the utility of their work. It also disincetivizes them from working, because they are able to live comfortably without doing so, and deprives others of the fruits of their labor. A good example of this: college textbooks.
So...keep people hungry so they have to keep working for the general benefit of others? Sounds like slavery to me.
The studio is getting millions of dollars for mass-producing content people wish to buy. His 'minimal work' assisted in reaching those earnings. You're saying you'd rather Warner Brothers just get more money rather than spreading that amongst the people who made it possible. The oddball thing is you're proposing a greater harm to society!
Those people pay the $25 regardless of whether or not that royalty is paid.
Some day you need to learn that hours on a time-card do not reflect value of the work.
I'm saying that warner brothers model is broken as well, and they should work on the charity/patron/client model. If his work isn't worth the amount he wants for it, then the "content distribution 501c3" will choose someone else, and if "content distrubtion 501c3" doesn't produce work I like (emo metal hiphop) I'll donate to someone else who does.
Intellectual property is in the interests of society, it stops big companies from using people's music on top-selling DVDs all around the world.
Except that they wouldn't be able to actually sell the content all around the world
For the record companies i would also like to say that both intellectual property law and current forms of governance are out dated.
ftfy.
You stereotypers are all the same...
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
No, but we're talking about creative works here, not labor. If the company makes an improvement in the tractor that increases its usefulness they should benefit from the idea. A perfect example is the three point hitch which Harry Ferguson invented. It revolutionized how tractors were used.
He spent his entire life developing a unique skill in creating and performing music. If all they wanted was a fifteen minute studio session of crap sounds they could've bought a porn backtrack..
Whats better about it:
The intellectual property realizes maximum utility
It increases competition in the market place by removing protectionism
It cant be used as economic/geographical/class warfare
Intellectual property cannot be leveraged to help increase wealth inequality
Wealth inequality causes inherent economic inefficiencies
Where wealth inequality is less efficient because:
1. The law of diminishing returns occurs, say for example the ROI on college education VS a traditional investment vehicle.
2. The utility per opportunity cost is lower, for example a Lamborghini vs several entry level sedans.
3. The total factor productivity of labor time falls, because what good is a bunch of factories, when nobody even knows how to read the instructions.
4. It increases levels of crime, stress, health problems, lack of trust, social malaise.
5. The amount of time performing work decreases, for example its hard to find time for school or work, when your sick or dumpster diving.
6. It increases the amount of non productive consumption, poor people spend money on things they need, wealthy on things they want.
Posted to grandparent.
"on a computer" is still overly broad, your not entitled to money, just because you had a good idea.
"we currently do this thing, so im going to patent doing it on a computer".
Yes. thats what college textbooks and the college loans to pay for them, have done to the college students and people who cant afford it, thereby creating a class division of "haves" and "have not's"
Or not. If a person gets paid the same for working at Wally World as they do for making an album you won't have anything to pirate.
What is the difference between creative works and labor ? And by patenting it or some other benefit, does it prevent it from realizing its maximum usefulness?
And the payment should reflect the amount of labor or investment went into creating and performing the music, not as the means to live without having to work ever again, and not as a means to extract wealth from other creative types wanting to enjoy/learn from his work.
God is an Iron ... Spider Robinson
We are at a point in time where the sharing of ideas is almost instantaneous, and internationally reaching. Eliminating the concept of idea ownership will allow people to innovate at a faster pace, creating a richer (not necessarily wealthier) society. This of course would happen at the expense to business models that rely entirely on the concept of IP, and do not create any actual value in the process.
Artists, inventors, and creators, would still provide a service like any other profession. They can choose to start a business that utilizes their skill set, or go work for a company that knows how to efficiently capitalize on those skills. Your claim is that in either model, these people would [get the shaft]. If they are getting screwed in either model, why not choose the one that allows society to progress faster?
I would even go as far to say that without IP ownership, more artists would be able to earn a living wage. Why you ask? Because their sole means of income would no longer be in the hands of a monopolistic media empire which controls the entirety of mainstream distributions channels. That's a doubleplusgood for the model without IP.
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
I always found labor theory of value to be silly because it implies that inefficient people make more valuable products (i.e. it takes an inefficient person more work to make the same thing) Why do you think subjective value theory doesn't work on IP? Are you saying a video clip put together in a day by a five year old is going to be as valuable as a video clip put together in a day by a professional artist? The value of creative works lies in how other people collectively judge the work, no?
While I agree with some of your sentiment, some of your argument smacks of fallacy. While it is undeniably true that a lot of the benefit accrues to the rich folks who put money into the development and production, there are also a lot of other benefits that you are not capturing. Since you brought the MPAA into it, let's give an example there since there is more involved in a major studio production there than there currently is with music. So, you want to make a movie. OK, you need funds. Get those from some company / some individual who want to be a "producer". Those folks expect ROI. Now, comes the benefits. Folks like craftsmen get hired to build sets. Craft services gets hired to bring in food. Makeup artists, property managers, casting people, legal folks, hell even the pet people that make sure animals weren't harmed. All of these folks owe their jobs to the fact that there are IP laws here. Yes, hollywood accounting is bogus and seems shady. But - the honest truth is that you would never get anything better than The Blair Witch Project if you didn't have copyright protecting movies. I may be the only one, but I do like going to the movies and seeing something like Star Trek or The Avengers. Complain about them all you want, but production like that - and ALL of the non-rich people that they support with jobs would not be around without copyright. Is copyright too long? Damn right it is. Is it currently slanted too far? Sure enough. Should people like Jamie Thomas Rassert have to pay millions? Hell no, that is a miscarriage of justice and calls out that our laws need to change. But copyright needs to remain around - just in a modified form with smaller penalties for individual offenders, shorter terms, etc.
wow. You need smarter people to cheat off of. Consider finding new friends.
If they are getting screwed in either model, why not choose the one that allows society to progress faster?
Because they can still elevate themselves to 'not get screwed'. Go look up the author of Harry Potter some time.
This is a case of IP law working very well
No, this is a case of someone forcing the MAFFIA a eat their own dog food.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society
Yo Ho, Yo Ho, the pirate life for me. Take everything you can, give nothing back. Arrrgh!
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
No, that is the opposite of overly broad. You accidentally supported my point so you may wish to re-read the example.
> your not entitled to money, just because you had a good idea.
The money from that good idea is still coming in, so where does it go?
I am confused. This is a case of IP law working very well. Are you suggesting that this person should receive no payment for their music?
As long as the copyright law stands, the composer should be compensated for the use of his music.
However, I think the copyright law should be abolished. Then, the composer wouldn't be entitled to a compensation but anybody would be free to copy anything without restrictions.
I stand on a stack of recording artists. Who give me lots and lots of your money,
when Rietveldt bought a Harry Potter DVD in 2007, he discovered his music being used in the anti-piracy ad without his permission
Now it makes a bit more sense.
By the way, pretty sure this is not the one they're talking about but I have to post it. I HAVE TO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
You would be higher on Tyrion Lanister's cock.
This example doesn't really exlcaim "IP is bad for everybody!"
The example screams this: "The copyright system is so ridiculously complicated that even its biggest supporters can't follow the rules properly." (Or worse, they don't even bother to.)
I heard you wanted to sue pirates so I put I pirated song on this DVD so you can sue us while we sue them.
If I swiped one of your napkin doodles and sold it for a million dollars, would you just want me to pay you for five minutes at your hourly rate?
IP laws do not provide 'protection' for anyone, they just provide the grounds for a court case.
Because court cases are generally won by the side with the best lawyers, unless they're complete idiots as in TFA, laws generally favour corporations rather than consumers, and larger corporations rather than smaller ones.
This, obviously, is a generalisation and there are always counter-examples of the little guy winning. But if IP laws can be said to protect anyone, then they generally protect the rich against the poor.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
No, his payment should reflect whatever he agreement he and the buyer agreed to.
If they can't come to an agreement then they should fall back to the ever popular: have the other guys find and destroy every single unauthorized copy they created in existance.
Well no, that's theft and you should be charged as such.
If he sold you the doodle for five minutes of his hourly rate then you went and sold it for a million bucks, that's his problem and he needs to suck it up: obviously you were a better salesman.
Yes because not creating things is obviously in the best interests of society.
So what you are saying is there is a problem with the justice system. Not sure I see how this equates to "IP is bad for everybody"
Copyright is simple. Do you have permission to copy it? No... then you can't copy it. It isn't complicated. Does it last too long? yes, but it isn't complicated.
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
Well, do you think it should be illegal for me to buy some tractors and lease/rent them out to farmers, charging either for time or miles driven or both? Maybe I want to run some kind of Tractors as a Service (TaaS) system providing tractor capacity on demand the way I find best and charging by the food produced. Maybe that's the only kind of service the tractor company wants to offer. You make it sound like you have to sell your work and I disagree, you just shouldn't be able to have it both ways. Today you have licenses that look and act like a sale except the consumer gets less rights and the corporation selling it more rights. Why should we move away from an age-old, balanced, simple and understandable form of commerce towards one where we're constantly forced to agree to 100-page EULAs full of incomprehensible legalese?
The courts actually beat down the "this book is licensed, not sold" bullshit and they ought to do the same for CDs, DVDs, software, ebooks and whatnot else too. If it has the characteristics of a sale then it's a sale and the laws governing sales apply and nothing else. It's not going to happen but it's one of the things that makes me want IP reform and a return to when you owned your own stuff. Or if you didn't, well then it was at least blindingly obvious that it was someone else's. They've sold people on a false sense of ownership which there is no longer any legal reason to say they have and it's probably the biggest ripoff of the digital age.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
>
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
So what you are saying is, if I'm a farmer and I rent a tractor for a week... Then I can just keep using that same tractor forever?
That is basically what happened here. He made a song, they could use it for a week. But then they kept using it.
If they are getting screwed in either model, why not choose the one that allows society to progress faster?
Because they can still elevate themselves to 'not get screwed'. Go look up the author of Harry Potter some time.
More artists would be able to do so if we took the power away from the media monopolies (EG. get rid of, or severely limit the scope of IP).
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
Hmmm... okay. So let me ask you this: If your way suddenly happened overnight, what all do you think we would lose?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright is simple. Do you have permission to copy it? Maybe, I'm not sure... then you possibly can't copy it. It isn't complicated. Does it last too long? yes, but it isn't complicated.
FTFY
The composer should have been paid for the of work he performed, ....
I don't think you understand what a composer does. Composers WRITE music, like authors write books. Now musicians perform music like voice actors read spoken word books.
Like an author the composer gets paid royalties for every copy made IE every performance performed.
Whats better about it:
The intellectual property realizes maximum utility It increases competition in the market place by removing protectionism It cant be used as economic/geographical/class warfare Intellectual property cannot be leveraged to help increase wealth inequality Wealth inequality causes inherent economic inefficiencies
Where wealth inequality is less efficient because:
You know, I believe they tried this a couple of times - Russia, China, N Korea, Vietnam.... There's only one system left out of those still using it - N Korea, and they're just the most productive group of people ever. </sarcasm>
There has to be a degree of wealth inequality, otherwise most people won't expend the extra effort. There will be some, but as history has shown, they cannot compete with a society that rewards its creative and innovative elements. I'll repeat here what others have stated - your problem isn't with IP, but how it's been mutated from its original intentions and the current enforcement. Our current problem is that the inequality has exceeded all reasonable levels, which is another problem not directly related to your initial point, but influential to it.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Don't bother, he's a nut. Notice that he honestly believes that personal income should be capped?
Yeah, we're better off in a world without his ideas.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Actually, lots and lots and lots of companies work that way. For example: Suppose that the tractor is so good it costs $250,000 to build: parts and labor. And the R&D to develop it was $50 million. No farmer could afford that. But they might be able to afford paying a per-crop fee so long as they used the tractor. And it might still wind-up with them saving money because it cuts their work down.
Medical devices work this way, as one example. So do inkjet printers & ink. And movies. And restaurant franchises.
Turtles. It's turtles all the way down.
actually, that music royalty collecting agency has gone on record that they do not come up for the artists right, they are only there for the publisher.
Which means that you have to be an publisher (a big one) before you can collect from this agency.
Did you know that by law this specific agency is the only one allowed to collect royalties on songs?
Did you know that all songs made in the Netherlands are by default entered into the catalogue of this agency (also by law), you will need to explicitly take it out of the catalogue (before it enters it) by saying that you will collect royalties by yourself (the only exception on the monopoly of collecting royalties).
Did you know that if you play a song that you have written that is in their catalogue, you as the artist will have to pay this agency, which they are then supposed to give back after taking some 'administration' costs of the top.
That's what all laws do. Ownership, the principle of capitalism and common law is most relevant when you have something everybody else has to keep their hands off.
That creates two positions: I have this and nobody else can have this. Or, I don't have that and you have to share.
And as everyone knows, nothing was ever created before the advent of copyright.
Actually, the problem with this is not so much that they violated his copyright, but that they signed a contract and they violated the terms. Without copyright, the situation would not have been any different.
With most ideas, the money isn't coming in because someone came up with a good idea, but because someone sat down and worked out the details, came up with a business plan, invested capital, hired the right people, laid down many hours of hard work organising it all, etc.
Ideas are over-rated -- even the non-obvious ones.
True, if copyright was removed, a lot of the traditional Hollywood studios might disappear, and a lot of people could be out of jobs.
But you're forgetting that people still have a need for entertainment, and the money they don't spend on Hollywood films would be spent on something else. Like low- and medium-budget films. Or live performances. Or tv shows distributed directly over the Internet. And those also require writers, actors, sound tecnicians and so on.
In the end, it'd be like when horse carriages were replaced by automobiles. All the people who made buggy whips were out of a job, but they got jobs in the automobile industry instead. In the end, just as many people were employed, but they were making more useful products.
The practical reality of copyright compliance lies far, far from that.
First, every copyrighted work potientially has a different license agreement, that specifies how many copies you may make, which geographic region you may distribute them in, for what purpose you may do it, during which time period you may do it, how and when you're allowed to display the work publicly, etc.
Second, different countries have different copyright terms, different rules for fair use, and so on.
Third, a work may have several creators, and it may not be clear which of them have a claim to the copyright, and which of them you need to get permission from. This is frequently the case with film and music.
Fourth, a single work may consist of a large number of works by other authors. In the case of documentaries, there may be hundreds of phographs and film clips from different sources, all of which you have to get the realease rights for.
It's not strange that even the anti-piracy origanisations sometimes slip up and think they have "permission to copy" something, just because at one time they paid the creator for it.
That's different, because if you keep the tractor, you're depriving the tractor company of one tractor.
On the other hand, if you COPIED the tractor, the tractor company would be no worse off than before, and you'd be richer by one tractor.
It is capped, for the lower end. I'm a manager, I work for a multi-million dollar organisation. I'm paid for 40 hours a week, but I have to work until all the work is done - which is illegal, I might add, but only for non-multi-millionaires.
They did pay him for the work he did, but they attached that it would only be played at one event to the terms and conditions, ostensibly to keep the price down.
They could have negotiated an agreement to be able to reuse his composition as often as desired, anywhere in the world for a flat initial fee. Obviously that would have been more expensive, but it was an option they decided not to take.
In lieu of such a world wide reuse as needed agreement, the default is that they pay royalties. There is nothing and has been no restriction against groups hiring musicians and composers for work that is signed over to the payee for a flat fee. But since in most cases they don't know if it will be worth the investment, the companies involved generally don't and instead opt for paying royalties. After all what would have been the point of paying a significant fee for a worldwide infinite reuse (sign over copyright) on his work if it did only end up being used at a small event.
How and why is that my concern? Nobody else was concerned when my last workplace went under, nor was anybody else particularly concerned when my investments were lost by businesses going under. When one rich guy invested in a bad business and lost $168 million, the tax payer thought it was enough to give him his $168 million back, though...
IP is a broad category of legal powers.
Some of it is clearly in the public interest, some is not.
Some concepts have been stretched and expanded over time so the balance is no longer in our favour.
Lets say you want sustainable seafood, you can look for the appropriate marking, IP prevents others from using the same or similar marking on their product.
Or they thought the rules did not apply to the people that write the rules.
The anti-piracy advertisements are so misleading. I'm still waiting on this car that I can supposedly download...
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
Copyright is simple. Do you have permission to copy it? No... then you can't copy it. It isn't complicated. Does it last too long? yes, but it isn't complicated.
That's until you realize that a CD is first copied to memory before being sent to your speakers.
According to your model, only the copyright holder can listen to his own songs, because we underlings do not have the permission to "copy" the information.
Copying of information (we can also call it transmission of information) is something that has become universal and ubiquitous with the internet. Remove that ability and the internet dies right there.
BTW, do you know I violated your copyright by quoting you on the top of my comment? I should be sent to jail...
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Your [sic] giants need better grammar/spelling before they are out dated [sic].
Ah, that old chestnut. Yes, same here. I'm not a manager (nor would I want to be) but my pay also halts at 40 hours worth. Strangely, they still require us to submit timesheets - so they can bill the customers for our actual hours worked while not paying us past the salaried hours worked.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
On the other hand, if you COPIED the tractor, the tractor company would still be out R&D, engineering, prototyping, mass production, and so on, with nothing to show for it, and you'd be richer by one tractor.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Same here, but what annoys me the most is that no matter how many hours I work this week I still am required **by law** to work 40 or more hours next week if I want to get full pay for both weeks. My employer isn't even allowed to give me extra time off since I'm salary, unless it's in the form a a vacation day or some such (and the bookkeeping for something like that is a nightmare). Yet another thing we have St. Ronnie Raygun to thank for, along with essentially legalizing the busting of unions that might have been able to get that changed to make comp time legal again.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
the same way it's been done for hundreds, if not thousands of years
one might assume that as a manager they have set your salary to actually pay for the "extra" time you put in or that you delegate some stuff down (or should be). now if you are being required to put in 90 hours a week (does your actual WALL time cause you to be paid less than your people??) then i would say you need to object.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
what is being lost in the dust is
He agreed to create a song FOR A LIMITED DISTRIBUTION and they then used his song for a wider distribution.
if you rent a car FOR IN TOWN USE and then drive that car to Alaska (and back) expect to see a rather large bill when you bring that car back (assuming you don't have to tow it back).
in this case being fined for 150% of the correct scope of distribution is correct
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
No, his payment should reflect whatever he agreement he and the buyer agreed to.
If they can't come to an agreement then they should fall back to the ever popular: have the other guys find and destroy every single unauthorized copy they created in existance.
You forgot the part where the organization should be sued for criminal copyright infringement (copyright infringement with the intent to profit). This includes some horrendous fines, per count, and possible jail time, per count. I wonder just how many of those DVDs they sold...
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
So we don't need to discuss this anymore. Copyright infringement is not "theft"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)
Supreme court case law trumps FBI internal policy.
No I'm saying there's a problem with the LAW, because it's supposed to benefit the people but is instead harming the people, and only benefitting the corporations/CEOs/rich. Therefore the copyright law is unjust and should be abolished, because it's causing more harm than good. (Just as saner countries have abolished the death penalty from the law, because it caused more harm than good.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Burn 'im!
You're also easily replaceable, which is why you accept your cap.
Yes, because all creativity will screech to a halt if these laws were revoked, or more reasonably, overhauled to be more like they were originally intended *rolls eyes*
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Still no mention of a policeman's helmet.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
You really should learn about a topic before posting about it. You clearly have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.
is time to jail these assholes that do this. perhaps some bubba time in a crowded cell will make these a$$hole music execs think twice before trying to extort.
Ok, well I definitely thank the deities that I am not in your country and/or state then. Around here there is no bookkeeping considerations to that sort of thing, and even if there were, most employers just do it off the books anyway.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
By quoting you provide context to the discussion and it can be argued it falls under fair use.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Yes. But the tractor company would be first to market and have an effective monopoly until its competitors had reverse engineered their design, incorporated it into their own design, and modified their production lines to make the new type of tractor.
During the time it took for the competitors to catch up with the new design, the tractor company would have the opportunity to do more R&D and fine-tune their design (or cut production costs). They'd be forced to keep investing in R&D to keep their lead.
Under the current system, a company that makes a highly profitable innovation can sit on its ass for almost 20 years, since the competitors are legally prohibited from catching up.
I agree completely that the American patent and copyright system is nuts, and needs an overhaul. It is, however, utter bullshit to state that a company suffers no loss if you magically duplicate their goods, and thereby have them without paying for them.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Your missing an important point of labor theory of value. The price/value of the good is based upon the socially necessary labor time, as in the average amount of time it takes to create the product. If you can create in less than the socially necessary labor time, you can sell it at the same price and make more profit, and the other people may lose money on unsold goods once the price lowers.
I agree in the case of competitors duplicating your goods and competing with you on the market. That forces you to lower your prices and gives you a shorter time frame in which to recover your development costs.
However, there's evidence that illegal file sharing has no impact on music sales, or maybe even a small positive impact. (Industry Canada)
If that seems paradoxical, consider that the money people don't spend when they download a pirated song must go somewhere -- like buying another song. And indeed, there are numerous studies showing that the people who pirate the most, are also the ones who buy the most music. (TechDirt)
It seems like people pirate music to get access a wider selection for the same amount of money, not to save money.
Being a musician I am certainly happy for my intellectual property rights, but I am a little uncertain that they were conceived with my interests at heart - given that the majority of western music utilizes a VERY select set of chordal relationships it becomes a bit difficult to justify that any artist can really say that their particular handling of chords I , IV & V warrants such exclusive compositional rights. Reading between the lines, intellectual property sounds like something the labels dreamt up to ensure the above chords continue to pay. Maybe slightly cynical and definitely generalist but it begs the question.