Slashdot Mirror
The Music Industry Is Begging the US Government To Change Its Copyright Laws (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader shares an article on The Verge: Christina Aguilera, Katy Perry, deadmau5, and dozens of other musicians are asking the U.S. government to revamp the Digital Millennium Copyright act (DMCA), the piece of law that governs access to copyrighted work on the internet. Musicians, managers, and "creators" from across the industry co-signed petitions sent to the U.S. Copyright Office arguing that tech companies -- think YouTube and Tumblr, sites with vast reserves of content that infringes on some copyright -- have "grown and generated huge profits" on the backs of material that's illegally hosted. "The growth and support of technology companies should not be at the expense of artists and songwriters," reads the letter signed by Aguilera, Perry, and their peers. "The tech companies who benefit from the DMCA today were not the intended protectorate when it was signed into law two decades ago."
They want people to pay for background music on tv, streaming, sporting events, movies and more. And to have auto take downs expand.
I feel soooo bad for them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0wXeN6_FY
Same Music Industry that sues bars and arcades as they have pinball and video games that have there music in them and they want to double dip on the fees.
"The tech companies who benefit from the DMCA today were not the intended protectorate when it was signed into law two decades ago."
Well, the music industry that benefit from copyright now were not the intended protectorate when copyright was signed into law, but I guess that doesn't fit with the narrative.
Why don't they bring up some struggling artists instead of those who the record industry didn't screw over? Oh right, no-one actually cares about those.
Well the article was published on April 1st, that's more or less the one sensible explanation.
Employees have succeed in their demands for higher wages for harvesting cocoa plants used in the production of Cocaine.
False copyright claims are never actually false, or we would get jailed over this. We do not, therefore they were never false nor in error.
Anything shown to anybody for any reason belongs to the industry, as silence is copyrighted as well. Fair use is theft, and soundless videos of your deafmute grandfather are literally raping our rights at knifepoint, because the silence belongs to us, the idea of moving pictures or still pictures both belong to us, and your grandfather belongs to us as well.
So do you, traitor scum.
So, the music industry is complaining that technology is killing them? How much money do they make from all those tunes stores?
"not the intended protectorate" ?
neither were the artists. the intended protectorate of copyright law, from the VERY BEGINNING has been the PUBLIC GOOD
public good only comes from encouraging creation of useful arts and sciences by granting a monopoly for a SHORT TIME and then releasing the content into the public domain.
copyright terms need to go back to 14 years, and in the internet age, even that might as well be a billion years.
They just admitted to cronyism and are now upset that it did not work out in the way that they intended...
she have to wait a few months to get that gold plated shark tank installed in the bar next to her pool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Does anyone have a link to the actual signed letter? I can't even find it on the RIAA's site, or the copyright.gov. With some 400 songwriters and recording artists listed, I want to know whose music I should personally boycott.
Some details to keep in mind as this unfolds.
Yes, a hundred or two "creators" such as those in the list above have asked the copyright office to expand the DMCA to remove more of our rights and to take more from the public than they already are.
But *hundreds of thousands* of "creators" that produce content on youtube using nothing but content they create themselves and is copyright to themselves have asked the copyright office to fix the DMCA by providing evidence how it is illegally used to harass, steal money from people with no audio what so ever in their videos, restrict opinions of those using nothing but their voice, and otherwise game the system to cause harm to them.
Hundreds of thousands of people vs a couple hundred.
It will be very telling to see how this latest DMCA petition plays out.
Some videos on the subject for those interested:
Doug Walker
MundaneMatt regarding Jim Sterlink vs Digital Homicide
The game studio started an attack against Jim for his unflattering* review, threatened a DMCA take down as revenge, and proceeded to do so.
Jim is now one of only 12 youtube channels "protected" so any copyright claim is handled by a human being.
Brad Jones video that is long and you don't need to watch more than a few seconds of - that got a copyright strike that stole his ad revenue.
Note that it is three people sitting in a car in a parking lot talking. Nothing else.
And these are only the big subscriber base channels that can complain and be heard.
Uncountable small channels are taken offline with zero recourse for not using copyright material they didn't make themselves all the time, and nearly no one hears about it due to their small size.
These couple hundred artists claim "The growth and support of technology companies should not be at the expense of artists and songwriters" ?
How about the artists and songwritters, harassers, trolls, and people who don't like what you say shouldn't be protected at the expense of the rights of everyone else.
So Katy Perry who earned between 30-50 million every year between 2009 and 2014 (sorry not verified, but I suspect ball-park is not far off) thinks she's losing out because of the modern internet.
There are so many things wrong with this. Firstly, it's the record companies that are suffering. But they are suffering because artists don't really need them nowadays. They used to have a monopoly on the recording studios and publicity, but with modern electronics and software that allows you to find music you might like on spotify, soundcloud, youtube, what role do they play now? If they can get the artists on their side to help them with their profits, bonus to them, but sorry artists - you're being fooled.
Secondly, I frankly don't think Katy Perry deserves the multimillions of dosh, when I spend more time listening to and appreciate more the artists who put up their music for free on soundcloud. Don't get me wrong, I like the odd track from Katy Perry, but there's some great stuff being made by people who I don't think are doing it to be multimillionaires.
I think we're at a golden age of music precisely because of sites like soundcloud and youtube. It's important that money flows from listeners to the artists, but less should go to Kate Perry and more to the great and many artists I actually listen to.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/200...
and finally
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...
From one artist to another
http://www.gerryhemingway.com/...
http://www.gerryhemingway.com/...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The law was to give host systems safe harbor by allowing them to escape a lawsuit as long as they took down infringing stuff in a timely way when complained to. Other coutries allow lawsuits, and to their detriment as it hampers their Internet industry.
Be very careful if you want to mess with this law.
One solution would be to direct the copyright black market profits for that infringement to the rightful owners when a successful copyright notice is made.
This should all be easy and automated, and will not endanger hosting companies with near infinite lawsuits.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
In what reality is this happening?
Last I checked YouTube is run as a net loss of money. Have they ever made a profit?
The days of making money on copies of music is over. Let it spread freely so more people will see you live. You're going to have to work for your income. The middleman industry? Technology has made you obsolete. Go die now.
It's all about getting as much money as possible. They aren't content with being multi-millionaires, they want more. Greed destroys lives, countries and eventually the planet.
That being said i'm sure more than one of them is being pressured (read threatened) by the RIAA.
I feel so bad for Christina Aguilera, Katy Perry, deadmau5 and all the other starving artists of this world. And at the same time I feel anger directed towards all those illegal downloaders that are responsible for their poverty! So let's all chip in and donate to their food banks. Just have the interviewer ask which food bank they go to (and what bus route they are on in case someone wants to donate a bus pass).
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
A simple video of it, not even the whole dance, sits on YouTube right now. You can hear people shuffling their feet, etc.
But someone's song is playing. You'd do away with that video?
Fuck you.
you vultures are already claiming copyright on all videos that dared including a small snippets of your awful songs, what more do you want!? For the creator to also have to pay you a hefty fines on top of you taking their livelihood as well?
"The tech companies who benefit from the DMCA today were not the intended protectorate when it was signed into law two decades ago."
Neither are the artists. It was intended to protect the recording industry, and specifically (among other intents) to protect their ability to rob the artists blind at every opportunity.
If it gets updated, it will be to expand the protections of the industry, at the expense of the artists, same as before.
Personally I'm all for this since none of them are entertainers I support. The entertainers I support don't really give a damn about a few more million since they care about the fans. I'm inclined to think a large majority of the internet population feels the same way. Particularly if it comes to light that these entertainers are on the brink of bankruptcy and this is the motivation.
Sure the labels and their employed entertainers will see a small bump in net sum, but my guess is a large majority of the fans this affects will vocally oppose their entertainer of choice and it'll create a stink fest for them.
Either way I don't care, greed is the way of life now, let them have it at their own peril.
Well, i am still waiting for the first case of wrongfull DMCA take down. The part of the DMCA the courts mysteriously keep ignoring...
"The tech companies who benefit from the DMCA today were not the intended protectorate when it was signed into law two decades ago."
In other words "The god-awful changes we paid congress for two decades ago didn't work out the way we thought. Do something different!"
I won't argue that there are problem with Copyright law and the DMCA, but this quote tells us everything we need to know about the people signing the petition.
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
Your failed business model is not my problem.
Especially YouTube. $1 million per infraction would send Googol a pretty clear message.
Advertiser pays Youtube/Spotify, Youtube/Spotify pay artist/rights holder. How about sharing some of that revenue with the people that actually click on your stuff?
You people have been making way too much money for what you do anyway. As far as I know, baseball is still
free to watch on TV and the players still make bazillions so content protection is not the problem. A lot of
people don't have that much money any more, and there are cheaper alternatives that are just as good for
lots of types of entertainment. If I can't afford what you produce, I'll find something else to watch. Or maybe
you could change that law too?
"The growth and support of technology companies should not be at the expense of artists and songwriters," Nor should your song and dance prohibit the growth and development of the greatest technological achievement since Gutenberg.
Irony is Deadmau5 signing this bullshit. YouTube made him more than just another shitty club DJ, and stealing content via "remixing" and "sampling" is how he "made" music in the first place.
Its just proof those who get on top want to cut all the ladders so no one else can join them.
Google and their ilk have done exactly what most here loathe Patent Trolls for doing. That is, taking some older technology and simply saying: "Oh, bla, bla is now on the internet. It's all new. We ain't paying."
It's time for one of the world richest corporations, including, Apple and Amazon, et cetera to pay up. They no longer need the corporate welfare they have been receiving. (Please do not even bring up iTunes.) ~Enjoy.
Maybe if they didn't make it so bloody difficult to use stuff legally. They should get a share and not demand so much up front. Here's your share of the $Â¥â£0.0000001 for a single view. It'd be more but you're getting publicity as well. Enjoy the viral!
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
the pirated content doesn't last 5 minutes unless it's so heavily modified as to be junk. And the most popular videos on youtube are all legit ones. Still, I suppose it doesn't hurt for them to ask for more and more. If you keep giving it to them why would they stop taking it?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't see a complete list of the signatories in the linked article, but if the named three stopped inflicting their "music" on us, I might dance a jig.
But these musicians are on target here. DMCA is protecting entities like YouTube, which you have to admit has a ton of infringing content. You can pretty much download any song you want from YouTube without paying for it, or compensating anyone. And Google is raking in the advertising dollars. I personally don't even see a point to using other illegitimate means to acquire music. Everything is on YouTube now and easily converted to MP3 format for download.
Sadly, we have to admit to ourselves, this is a problem. Why would any one bother wasting their efforts to create when they're not compensated? Seems an easy enough fix would be: Let musicians get a substantial piece of the advertising revenue. Trying to take down all the infringing content is foolhardy at best, so let the musicians get a slice of the pie (and a big slice, they deserve it!) Seems like that would be fair.
There are certainly huge problems with copyright infringement on the internet. Though not the way this shameless plug is suggesting.
First, some background on music: The artists are usually paid in the single percentages of the revenue. The label gets a huge cut, some goes to retail and some covers expenses. Artists get around 3-5% of a sale from a CD at a store. I think it is less (half?) for downloads. The overwhelming majority of people that produce music can't live off record sales. If people earn money, then they do it through playing live, commissioned work or sales of merchandise. Which is why most artists happily give a way their recorded music in the hopes that people will listen to it. Those 0,000001% of artists you see that earn a good living (or are even rich) through sales of their music are a tiny exception. Why should laws be crafted for them anyways? Because it isn't even about them. The whole thing is about the record industry itself, of which those 'artists' are just the front. Behind each sold recording are countless technicians, pencil pushers, lawyers, office workers, managers and marketing people that earn money. And those companies are the ones behind the lobbying. They set up this campaign and probably told their 'talent' to simply sign on the dotted line.
So this letter isn't from or about artists. This is about a couple large companies that are fighting for a greater control of their product. It's not even that they lose so much money on Youtube. Someone who plays a song on Youtube is actually more likely to buy something from the record company than someone who doesn't. It is mostly marketing. And the companies make use of that. But they would like even greater control and the option of sending out more bills to people.
But we have a huge problem with copyright on the internet. Just not with music or movies. Small time artists get ripped of all the time. Especially photographers. How much stuff is shared on Facebook and Imgur every day? A lot of that is done by artists, whose copyright is trampled on very frequently. But those photographers are just small people and not companies. Hence no one gives a damn about them and their rights. In fact companies like Google, Facebook and other new media companies largely built their empires on these infringements. The latest blatant example would be Facebook video, where some scumbags rip videos off Youtube and upload them to Facebook to make a little money. The original Youtube uploader gets nothing. Even if they produce content and live off that.
In Germany we have a startup (heftig.co), which is producing clickbait in the purest form. They are a heralded startup that have grown exponentially over the last year. They simply take content from places like Reddit, make up a clickbait title and deliver it via Facebook.
There are tons of examples like that.
The whole copyright debate is taking place in the entirely wrong field, because it is about large companies and their fight for more control of distribution channels (and some fights over money, they would surely like Google to cough up more) and money, instead of creators.
The vast majority of songs composed and written and their performances are not owned by these people. Most of them sold away their rights somewhere in the process of signing up with a record label.
So the aggrieved party for most of these songs is the record label. They should pursue it if they wish.
By the same token, these artists won't make much or even any money at all off this. Whatever you might pay to Spotify or other services, and the fees radio stations and internet services pay ... almost none of that money gets back to the artists. It goes to the owners of the material, which is often the record labels.
Here's an analogy. You work for Acme Hammer company and you make hammers all day. Acme pays you for this, a buck a hammer. They even paid in advance for 1000000 hammers so life is good. You make a lot of hammers and soon Acme has a warehouse full of hammers.
Somebody breaks into the warehouse and takes all the hammers. Empties it out. Do you get mad? No. because YOU got paid. The hammers don't belong to you. You sold them to Acme. Acme is screwed, or hammered, but you cannot go file a police report or insurance claim. It wasn't your property at the time it got taken.
Sig for hire.
After it went of the air, have you noticed you can't really find DVD's, or, reruns on the air. Those that you do, are overwritten with phony music because of the stupid laws.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Most of the music I stumble across these days are on sights like Youtube and when I find something I like I head over to Amazon or iTunes and pick it up. Well guess what, if I'm not being exposed to your music then I have no idea that it or you even exist and I'm certainly not going to head over to a digital storefront to buy your wares.
So guess they are trying to save me a bunch of money? That's really kind of them :D
And they would listen... why?
As gross and mainstream as they are, what would you think if you put out a song or album and YouTube earned more from it than you?
Start with reducing the copyright length for music and series videos ("TV") to 5 years, Change movies to 10 years.
You've just eliminated a lot of claims. Simple, straightforward, and easy to implement. No more of this death + so many years crap that does not promote anything but corporate profits.
Christina Aguilera, Katy Perry, deadmau5
Also known as the RIAA's crappy AIs that generate "instant hits" from analyzing market formulas.
What are you gonna do if your childish tantrum "but I wannawannawanna!" doesn't accomplish your wishes? You're gonna stop making music?
I really fail to see the threat.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I am unfamiliar with the use of these three letters in this context.
Wich is they need to buy some politicians and maybe a recording company or two.
That's what's the silver lining on the ruling that Congress can retroactively increase copyright length.
Fuck yourself priceless.
"Dear Christina, We're sorry that you feel that we are using your name and your content on YouTube against your best interest. Unfortunately, our business model doesn't allow to pay you any more than we already do through the licensing organizations set up for that purpose. However, to eliminate any questions of improper use of your likeness, your voice, or your other creations, such as they are, we have simply eliminated you from all our search indexes. That means that users of our services searching for 'Christina Aguilera' or variants thereof, will now simply receive no results. Likewise, we will remove stories about you from our news channels as much as we can. Of course, you are still free to pay for advertising and self-promotion on any of our services. Sincerely, etc. etc."
Who doesn't?
As I would say to the music industry and their protectionism. I am not responsible for your failed business model. Instead of fighting this. They should be looking for other alternatives instead of seeking new ways to not compete with new technology.
I wonder how many GPL violations the music industry will make manipulating the rights of the artists, to monopolize the rights of consumers.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I think... in very strained English pub= advertiser
he is trying to say that he buys things from vendors that advertise on slashdot, and advertising pays for slashdot, so he has paid for it. But many people buy things from those vendors who don't frequent slashdot.
So he is kind of proving he is the exact thing he hates, as he is profiting from the other buyers who don't frequent slashdot, but whose same money went to that vendor to pay for advertising
Else if partial and indirect financial contributions count, then, I guess we all can claim we have paid for the entire economy since it is the same money that flows continuously from one party to another.
Either way both arguments say he cannot legitimately complain about others "profiting from others work"
Any whiny musician who has Google remove snippets of their music from YouTube should also have their music removed from the Google Play store.
Who the fuck are "Christina Aguilera, Katy Perry, deadmau5 and dozens of other musicians"? Should I know them? Are Bach or Beethoven among them?
The problem with that is that ruling is inconsistent with the Constitution, etc. No ex-post-facto stuff, remember? Any ruling that comes that way is void out of box because it flies in the face of the Constitution (with little doubt if you'd read the sonofabitch...) and as such, per Marbury v. Madison (which they're not going to be able to "reverse" because they lack the authority to do so...) you don't have to abide by it (Void rulings are just that...)
Somehow I doubt this initiative will be backed by the artists who need every album to sell a little better than the one before, the ones who beg for full venues every night on tour, the ones who are living and breathing the life of an artist, and the ones who don't just sit in their mansions while watching the money roll in.
Eat the rich.
need to stop IP / trademark trolls also need to do something about abandonware.
There are to many places who buy up IP / trademarks don't really sell them but they do sue others who try to stuff with the old stuff.
Just think if the car manufacturers sued people makeing replacement parts and 3rd party repair shops.
"Cry me a river."
Under current law a site can be seized by the federal government on allegations that it is illegally hosting copyright material. If someone records their child dancing to music and places it on YouTube or a social networking site, the artist who wrote the song can legally sue to have the video removed. The DMCA is already overkill and doesn't need to be strengthened. Can they provide proof that they are still losing money because of piracy?
This whole thing has been fought already in the 90's and these idiots need to go away. There are companies in place who provide the takedown service. If their label is not already doing it, or they aren't themselves, I'd be surprised. If they are claiming anything else at all, it is already covered under fair use and they should go away. I find it entirely more likely that these people are feeling the record industry squeezing their profit margin rather than the general public.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
Well it's true that sites like You Tube are "profiting" from others work, im the same way that these file sharig companies made money off sharing copyrighted work.. Problem is, it's *already* illegal. What they are askung is for companies to pay millons because of profits made from conducting illegal business, and that's not legal in and of itself. Try to see it this way.. if a thief is stealing from everybody in the neighborhood, the government can't simply tax him out of all his profits and distribute it to0 0the citizens.That's making money off an illegal act. And anyways You tube does do takedowns alll the timeanyways. The artists just need to be on the ball about their own product.
I do think they should stop going after the little people here and JUST focus on those larger companies..
Under the DMCA, a company can get your post deleted if you take a photo of a companies intellectual property. For example if you take a photo of you riding a train and post it on facebook. The railroad can have your photo taken down if it features one of their locomotives or rolling stock because they can legally claim that locomotives and rail cars are their intellectual property. If you take a photo of a city landscape, an owner of a stadium or other building in the background can claim you violated their intellectual property, copyright, or trademark by having their building in the background of a photo you took. Trump successfully argued his name is intellectual property in order to shut down web sites that sell "Dump Trump" T-shirts. Technically someone like Trump can use the same argument to silence critics by saying that you cannot publish an article about them without their consent and obviously they won't give consent to someone who plans to criticize them. If you take a video and post it on youtube, facebook, etc and you forgot or didn't realize there is music in the background, it gets deleted. If your video contains the logo of a corporation in the background, technically the company can sue you or have your video deleted. The funny thing is this law doesn't protect people from having their work stolen who are not big corporations. For example, someone could steal a photo taken by me or someone else and publish it on Facebook. Since I'm not a big company and there may not be absolute proof that this was indeed a photo taken by me and copyrighted, I cannot have it taken down. Technically photos you take are copyright protected but Facebook says in their terms of service that you legally give up your copyright when you use their services so they can legally take your photo and publish it without your consent and even claim copyright ownership of the photo that you are the author of.
That is absolutely right! The recording industry is exceptionally shortsighted. The more they tighten, the less they are going to get. Why? Because their efforts are alienating anyone with the need or desire to listen to anything their artists are producing. In the past, when I watched a video on youtube that I liked, I would go to iTunes and buy the song -physical media just collects dust; I ought to know, that is what the 100+ CDs that I have bought over the years are doing! Now, in trying to make the DMCA more of the travesty that it already is, they squeeze a little more and they think they are going to get more money but clearly, they failed whatever, if any, course in economics they took: having sold me a large volume of music over the years, it gets progressively harder to sell me anything because the likelihood that I will be listening decreases (there is only so much time and even if I listened constantly, I would be listening to stuff I already own so when would I listen to any of the new stuff they would like to sell me?) Moreover, having created my own soundscape; a soundscape filled with the music I already like, what possible incentive do I have to listen to any outlet; particularly, any outlet under the control of the RIAA? Then there is the issue of the music itself: anyone that listens to country music can enjoy the classic works of Patsy Cline or Brenda Lee but it is a very big, unwanted, and uncomfortable stretch to the rap/hip hop like work of Florida-Georgia Line and without youtube, there is simply, NO CHANCE AT ALL.
In fact, I could easily stop listening to anything written or performed after 1939 and suffer no ill effects and might even enjoy the increased productivity and concentration. However, in the spirit of fair warning, I would like the RIAA to know that the only reason I even know about Miranda Lambert or ever heard any of her songs was a video produced by students in what I imagine was a drama class. Had their video not been available or had the sound been muted I would have had no knowledge of her existence. Similarly, I became aware of Gretchen Wilson's work through a video on youtube -it's not like I want or have "wanted my MTV" for decades and I was there when it all began (I was similarly hopeful when VH1 and CMT began but the speed with which they turned into garbage makes MTV seem careful by comparison -when was the last time anyone saw a video on MTV?) so having killed four outlets for new music (radio has been gone for me for a long time), the RIAA would seem to be desperate to kill another one. Does anyone at the RIAA think that they are going to sell more music when there are fewer people listening?
One last thing -and the reason for my post beyond the upvoting of the comment by ooloorie- the demographics of the nation are and have been changing for some time now. It is absurd to think that anyone would cross beyond what they know from the people around them without some sort of exposure that transcends the aforementioned outlets that are already dead and are only yet to get the message. American Idol or America's Got Talent are not the answer anymore than selling laundry detergent during the Super Bowl would result in increased sales of Tide. Yes, some women watch football and some men watch American Idol and its ilk but the crossover is such that GM would go bankrupt (AGAIN!) if it advertised the towing capacity of its heavy duty pickups during a show like The X factor. Kill the use of your product on youtube and you might as well be delisted from Google, Bing, Yahoo, and their ilk. The only advantage left to the recording industry is that someone can send someone a link to a youtube video and maybe they will like the song or the artist. Otherwise, the day of the troubadour will come back and it will be no different than performing on a street corner both in terms of remuneration and audience.
The demographics of the country are changing at another level, the venues that now serve as outlets for the artists to promote themselves are dying
They've managed to make it happen the other way. That is, extending copyright on already existing works that were created under previous rules, and even managed to retroactively restore copyright back onto works that had fallen into the public domain. So I don't see why it couldn't go the other way for a change.
Did they seriously think the DMCA was created to protect them?
Every time I hear "think of the artists", I laugh, because I know the entity saying it sure doesn't give a flying fuck about them.
I own the physical CD of the Black Album, and I don't recall Metallica ever sending me a bill or drawing funds from my bank account.