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..."

Comments

Another case of "do what i say, and not what I do"

[starworks5]

Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society

Just goes to show

[detain]

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

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[BitHive]

Thank you, the record will benefit immensely from your important ideas about law and government.

DVD Ad

[Bigby]

So there was a DVD advertisement that pirated music about not pirating music?

According to the FBI it is "THEFT"

[kotku]

So we don't need to discuss this anymore. Copyright infringement is "THEFT"

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr

Preventing intellectual property theft is a top priority of the FBI’s cyber program. We specifically focus on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers’ health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts. Key to our success is linking the considerable resources and efforts of the private sector with law enforcement partners on local, state, federal, and international levels.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT"

[h4rr4r]

When did the FBI get to decide that?

Under US law it is clearly not theft.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT"

[mcgrew]

Don't get your definitions from a law enforcement agency. I mean, the none of the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers are in LEO. In fact, don't let government define anything; PATRIOT act, anyone?

Here's the difference between stealing music and infringing copyright.

Sealing music: you walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD. WalMart is out the value of the CD. If you're caught, it's a misdemeanor and a small fine.

Copyright Infringement: You BUY that CD form WalMart and put it on the Pirate Bay. Nobody has lost anything, and the label may actually gain sales from your "piracy". If caught, it will cost you thousands of dollars and maybe jail time.

Not the same at all. I wouldn't steal a car, but I'd accept a copy of a car someone GAVE me.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT"

[kotku]

RTFL before replying buddy. They clearly claim music and media as theft.

everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies and music and software.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT"

[mark-t]

Copyright Infringement: You BUY that CD form WalMart and put it on the Pirate Bay. Nobody has lost anything

Correction... nobody has lost anything that anyone other than the copyright holder may perceive as valuable. Or, to be more specific, nobody has lost anything tangible.

The point of copyright is that it is supposed to be an *exclusive* right to control copies of the work. If somebody just goes any makes copies of such a work without getting that permission, then that exclusivity has been compromised, and is actually lost to the copyright holder.

Whether you want to argue that this exclusivity should be of no value is immaterial to the notion that it is not an inexhaustible resource (it runs out completely once the work has reached a saturation limit that is specific to both the nature and widespread appeal of the work), and so can arguably have some financial value associated with it.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[starworks5]

Your welcome, but they were not originally my ideas, i copied them from others.
We all stand on the shoulders of giants ;-)

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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!"

This doesn't surprise me at all.

[wierd_w]

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.

Re:Not to be annoying, but...

[InvisiBill]

Irony can be either "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning" or "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result". While /. might not be surprised by a musicians' rights group violating their client's music rights, it could generally be said that this is an ironic situation since the claimed protector is one committing the violation.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[wonkey_monkey]

We all stand on the shoulders of giants ;-)

Not me. I stand on a stack of midgets.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

1 gazzillion Euros

[houghi]

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.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[cpu6502]

>>>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).

Re:Musicians only get paid once work is profitable

[Anubis IV]

I can't find a single thing you said that is factual. His music was sold with copies of Harry Potter DVDs, which I'm fairly certain were rather profitable.

Writers Guild of America members do not get paid exclusively based on profit, but rather based on the size of the budget of the production. See pages 1-4 of the document specifying their pay scale. They get a minimum pay for specific tasks for works with a budget under $5M USD, and a higher minimum pay if the budget is over $5M USD. They can negotiate a contract that additionally includes profit-sharing, of course, but they are guaranteed the minimum amounts, regardless of profitability of the work.

Similarly, actors who are in the Screen Actors Guild have a similar document with similar terms. Profit-sharing comes in addition to it, meaning that they should not face a situation where they go unpaid because the work was a flop.

And at this point, I'm too lazy to correct you for musicians, but it's the same deal there too. In fact, something like 90% of musicians lose money for the studios, yet they still get paid anyway. That's part of the cost of being a studio.

Now, that's not to say that all of those folks can't get screwed over by Hollywood accounting and other legalese, but that has to do with any pay that's in addition to the minimums specified in those documents. Their minimum pay is always guaranteed, and they always get paid.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[Joce640k]

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.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[drkstr1]

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.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[next_ghost]

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.)

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[ghostdoc]

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.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[nedlohs]

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.