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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
"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."
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.