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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?...
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*
I guess Hershey's hooks 1000's of new addicts. Or did you mean coca? I'm confused.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
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.
Dude has been snorting cocoa powder all these years. Wondering what all the fuss is about.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
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"
Dude has been snorting cocoa powder all these years. Wondering what all the fuss is about.
Ah, that explains it. The employees didn't get the higher wages through collective bargaining. They were all brown-nosing.
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.
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.
But I make the very best buggy whips!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Metallica's gotta eat
Do we get to vote on that?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
That's what's the silver lining on the ruling that Congress can retroactively increase copyright length.
"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."
Why would any one bother wasting their efforts to create when they're not compensated?
Because their love of music exceeds their love of money. It's not hard to tell the musicians who are performing for the love of music from whose who are only in it for the money.
Contrary to popular belief, musicians have to eat, put a roof over their heads, and provide for their family, just like everyone else. Unless you're suggesting that no one make music their livelihood, this is an empty reply from non-reality.
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.
Who doesn't?
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.
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"
(Slips, slides down looooooong slippery slope...)
For (insert deity of choice) sake man! Don't give them ideas!!!
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
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.
We'll compromise, and let only Lars starve to death.
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.
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.
I tend to work on making new games for old consoles. I know I can't put a roof over my head doing that no matter how much I enjoy it. That doesn't stop me from doing it in my spare time while I work a REAL job.
But that doesn't mean you have to allow other people (including "incorporated" people) to make money off your work.
Wait, what just happened there, did I advance the argument for the music industry?
That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
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.
The thing is, I have practically zero interest in seeing live music. So people like me will be free-riders if we don't have to pay for downloads.
If you're a young, passionate music fan who goes to gigs every night it's easy to forget that not everyone else is that bothered.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
The TV companies have to pay for the right to show the games. Advertisers have to pay for the right to advertise during the game.
It's only "free" to the consumer because the money is made elsewhere.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"Contrary to popular belief, musicians have to eat, put a roof over their heads, and provide for their family, just like everyone else. "
Contrary to popular belief, if a person can't make ends meet with their current job, they're actually free to rethink their career choices. They aren't OWED a paycheck just because they (claim to) love doing something.
I tend to work on making new games for old consoles. I know I can't put a roof over my head doing that no matter how much I enjoy it. That doesn't stop me from doing it in my spare time while I work a REAL job.
But say your games were played by millions of people, wouldn't you think it reasonable that you got some sort of remuneration? And big budget games and movies need to be funded from somewhere.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'll agree with you on a single point. The length of royalties is obscene....I'm no fan of RIAA, MPAA, or any other monopoly.
So, do the video without that music if it's of such relatively insignificant value. Guests at a wedding are, by law in public, and they're not dancing to make money. Fair use is fine, but fair use doesn't allow you to make money off of other's work. You can use it for educational, news, or parody purposes. And seriously, please learn the difference between copyright and patented material. The internet and nearly everything else you use today, that was built off of the system that allows for patents. Please don't go off on the whole patent troll tangent...that should IMO be outlawed.
For the mods...Please point to anything he said that's "Informative". Anything at all that you didn't really know? Yeah, didn't think so.
Just another day in Paradise
Fair use is fine, but fair use doesn't allow you to make money off of other's work.
In the U.S. fair use is not clearly defined (the best the courts have come up with is a 4-factor test). Whether you "didn't profit" is one of the factors, but it is not a requirement. I.e. Siskel and Ebert can show clips as fair use and also profit on it.
He effected a bored affect.