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."
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.
"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.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people profiting off of other's work.
Then you should really hate capitalists.
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.
But they go more then just that say NBC in that football game our song was played in the background (not by you but it was picked up) and you did not pay use for that use.
Or they take to make BS like we own E-flat.
"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.
And why shouldn't they? You use someone else's property, you should pay them for it. End of story.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people profiting off of other's work.
Then they need go bring copyright terms back to a reasonable length of time. Copyrights need to be retroactively returned to pre 1972 terms, if not further.
#freemickey
--- Keep the choice with the user..
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.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people profiting off of other's work.
Then you must hate all musicians.
The "creators" did not invent harmony, the mathematics of musical scales, nor did they discover the act of rhyming or pleasant lyrical composition and accompaniment themselves. They are using languages, instruments, culture nor even pentameter or tempo that they are using to appeal to those of Earth's culture. Indeed, if they were to make something truly original it would be so alien that it would have little to no cultural relevance and thus not be valued by any of Earth's peoples (except a vanishingly small minority of xenocultural researchers).
Nearly all of the content in a "new" musical creation has been taken from the public domain. Musicians merely remix the existing themes and sounds of our culture and are thus truly and primarily "profiting off of other's work".
Your opinions are cancerous and destructive to the culture which gives new creations a basis for existence. Humans are information duplication machines, as indeed Life itself is. We are born with the purpose to carry forward and duplicate the information of our ancestors and current culture so that we may all survive into the future. Your foolish standpoint is counter to your very existence, nay contrary to the existence of life itself.
I suggest you jump in a tarpit, lest your ill conceived shortsighted tendency towards greed further hinder the herd.
I'm fine with us paying more for their music if they are willing to pay me and everyone I know for advertising their music. Every time I olay a song other people around me hear it and I advertise it. Every time I share a song or comment on a video I am helping to promote their music. If I talk to my friends about an artist guess who is benefitting from the free advertising? They should have to pay royalties to me for advertising their product the same way they want me to lay royalties everyone I hear their suck ass music.
That's total bullshit. Christina Aguilera is signed with RCA records, and RCA has an agreement with Google for all her content. Therefore, she and her record label are both being compensated. In fact, RCA has has been trying to scam Google out of money through generating fake views.
No, the actual problem is that gullible people like you are letting themselves be manipulated by wealthy "artists" like Christina who are in bed with big record labels. And together, jerks like her and their record labels screw over both the public and smaller artists.
Not do away with, just require Google to pay a licensing fee if they intend to show it.
Keep in mind Google makes money off your videos via advertising. They absolutely should pay for music used in that content.
So why should music be singled out? Why not pay the guests at the wedding for appearing in the video? What about the creator of the wedding dress? What about the 15 million other people and things that went into making that dance possible? Everything is built on everything else. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants. I have no problem with the people who write music getting paid but there should be large areas of fair use and even with that, I'm not sure perpetual royalties are the best method. The creator of C++, the pc, ram, harddrive, the internet, etc.... don't get perpetual royalties and if they did it would probably break the internet. In order for society to advance we need to be able to build from and expand on what came before.
Neither is the average file sharer making any money whatsoever on what they download.
The only thing harsher laws will net the content industry is next-generation youtube-esque infrastructure untouchable by the law (see, for example, zeronet).
One must start to rethink this entire information business. Control of copies does not matter anymore. Control of distribution does not matter anymore. Internet has made both of these obsolete. Control of publishing (the act of making private information public) is more important than ever though.
So start there. :)
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
Sorry, these are NOT capitalists. They are monopolists. Their whole business model is based around a government granted monopoly on the production and distribution of creative materials - and in NO WAY reflects any of the principles of capitalism. What they want is for their monopoly to be complete and without recourse by a public forced to purchase their wares at what ever rate and pricing scheme they have dreamt up in some drug induced haze in sleazy Thai brothel. There is not one ounce of competitive spirit within these organizations and never has been. They have fought against every technological advancement since the invention of the printing press (which is how we were saddled with copyright in the first place) and have waged a centuries long campaign to convince everyone that our very language, music, and art should be owned by someone - usually a king or giant company.
Capitalist have their own problems, but these are not capitalists.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons