RIAA = Rat bastards Jordan Willms on Wed, 2006-06-14 09:58
Seriously. These RIAA bastards just never stop do they? One thing after another after another after another. I stopped pirating music years ago, but it looks like I may start again just to spite them. YA BASTARDS!
Seriously, artists are even starting to revolt against them. The only entity that likes them are labels...
(I jest -- Pay for music. Support your artists)
There are always alternatives dbsanfte on Wed, 2006-06-14 14:50
Download the music, and send an anonymous money order to the artist in question for the price of the CD. They get a much bigger share, you still support your artist, and you stick it to the labels.
Oh, and downloading music is perfectly legal in Canada. Private copying and all that.
UMG CydeSwype on Wed, 2006-06-14 14:52
Did you mean to say Universal Music Group rather than United Music Group?
Correction Stephen Abbott on Wed, 2006-06-14 14:58
It is Universal Music Group, not United. Sorry for the confusion.
Giving them the finger isn't very sustainable James on Wed, 2006-06-14 16:09
Quote:
Download the music, and send an anonymous money order to the artist in question for the price of the CD. They get a much bigger share, you still support your artist, and you stick it to the labels.
Oh, and downloading music is perfectly legal in Canada. Private copying and all that.
Though giving the RIAA the finger is fun it isn't a long term solution for everybody. The RIAA / MPAA and all the lesser known middle men are giant, lumbaring, old corperations. They are very established and set in their ways.
Supporting sites that give you a direct link to your artists is the best, sustainable, way to move away from the middle man.
James Andres
The alternative is Gidol... everyvote on Wed, 2006-06-14 17:36
In March I launched Gidol (googleidol.com ). A series of online competitions encouraging people to 'ham' it up to their favourite songs and submit their entries to be voted and judged by the public. The winning videos progress through the rounds until a finalist is announced and inducted into the Gidol Hall of Fame. It's a wonderful world at Gidol, as we provide endless thrills for those involved in making the movies, as well as entertainment for the upwards of 2 million visitors that have passed through the site in just over 3 mths.
We've received publicity all around the world from newspaper articles to television specials to prime time news-spots. And as we gather momentum, one thing is clear; this is a new frontier in amateur entertainment shared by the entire globe. Is it my site that has influenced this action by the RIAA?
The issues that the RIAA raise open up an enormous can of worms that the industry of internet video has been quietly avoiding thus far. The simple fact is that if these videos are breaching copyright, by playing streaming music in the background of an amateur video, then I would guess that almost every film that is uploaded to YouTube or Google Video is in some way in breach of these same copyrights. Can you find me an amateur film that does not have some music playing in the background at some point? If the RIAA was to exert the full force of their might, then goodbye Internet Video for good.
The alternative that I have developed is Original Gidol . The promotion of Original Artists who would do just about anything to have their music be heard on my site, being played to over 15,000 new visitors per day. This music is given to us by the artists and often by their record companies to 'compete' in the competition.
Original Gidol is currently in its infancy, but after reading more and more about the action by the RIAA, I see this as a very effective solution to the copyright problems. Allowing the artists themselves to provide us with their music, and the community of many thousands of people around the world to enjoy it, and 'ham' it up to their heart's content. All the while sleeping in peace without the fear of a 'cease and desist' by the big corporations.
WTF??? drsparks on Wed, 2006-06-14 22:23
I realize that this is an artist site, but seriously, your comment:
The very last thing they need is someone defending their tactics. As was mentioned in a previous response, RIAA is a dinosaur. Besides, it's difficult to see how they can make a credible claim of loss in these cases. Yes, yes, I know. just because it doesn't cause any harm doesn't mean its right. And we all wait for the light when we cross the street, don't we? It isn't about following the letter of the law, but the spirit. Bleh. I'm done.
In my own defence Stephen Abbott on Wed, 2006-06-14 23:32
Like it or hate it, the mandate of the RIAA is:
"The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies.
In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists ...and monitor and review state and federal laws, regulations and policies."
I don't like their extreme tactics, but they are doing what they said they would do, and interpreting the law the way they need to. Misguided? Sure. Corporately abusive? Often. But they are a business trying to protect an industry they need, and they can't roll over and say "oh well, I guess we've become irrelevant."
The RIAA's actions are petty, which is typical of a dinosaur corporation. They need a serious shake-up of their mandate. But just because I don't agree with their strong-handing doesn't mean that they are not within their rights.
If you think you can cross against the light, go for it. Don't complain if you get hit. If you use a song that doesn't belong to you, don't complain when the owner wants you to pay for it. Harm is subjective, so please don't throw the "spirit of the law" at me. Almost any artist who has signed a record deal has given the RIAA the power to act on their behalf. Crossroads: they sold their soul. Some win, many lose.
There are a few who are working hard to break this cycle, and give more power back to the artists. Check out the Canadian Music Creators Coaltion . At least they are trying. They are also trying to make it easier for fans to access the music.
I try to write short articles that still offer balanced commentary. There are plenty of others out there that simply call the RIAA names. Just like being pissed at the cop that gets you for speeding on a lonely highway, that serves no purpose, and I hope you can appreciate that.
Two incorrect defenses Shade_Jon on Wed, 2006-06-14 23:54
You said:
In the RIAA's defence, people are using copyrighted songs without permission.
Copyright does not control content, it only prevents copying or derivation. You don't need the RIAA's permission to make a video of yourself dancing to a song. Copyright does cover public performance. It is highly questionable whether a poorly recorded video of someone dancing to a song could be considered public performance.
Even if it were, fair use and parody laws would probably cover this. If the makers are not selling the content, and the video will not substantially impact on sales of the song, then there is no case. I would bet 100 to 1 that there is no case here.
However, people are frightened of ceases and desist letters, and the RIAA can throw a lot of money around, causing people to lose battles just becaus they can't pay the costs.
If the RIAA doesn't pursue it, they set a nasty precendent that will haunt every other case moving forward.
No, not at all. You are thinking trademarks, which require active pursuit to establish precedent. Copyrights do not have to be pursued, and there is no precedence if they are not prusued. The copyright holder can let a thousand people violate their copyright and then sue the next one, or even go back and sue the first one.
Yehuda (IANAL, but I have read a lot on these subjects)
Diffidult to claim loss Stephen Abbott on Thu, 2006-06-15 00:15
One more thing, drsparks. Sure, it's almost impossible to understand the real loss as a result of these amateur video skits. So flip it around and judge the gain. Write a song yourself, dance around singing it, and see how much attention the video gets. I predict it would be not nearly as much, because part of the fun (the value!) comes from the known song's original popularity.
So who loses? Well, YouTube (for example) makes money because 500,000+ people saw some advertising while the video plays. The song helped that.
More defence than the Oilers Stephen Abbott on Thu, 2006-06-15 01:22
Okay, Shade_Jon. I trust that you have read up on this, so I am not challenging you on your knowledge. However, when it comes to Fair Use and Parody in music, the burden of proof lies with the defendant. In that respect, the RIAA is only using its legal muscles to do what it is mandated to do. If they were on our side, we'd appreciate their tenacity. But they are not, so it sucks to be us.
As for commercial gain, the quality isn't the issue. Bad is just as entertaining as good. While the intent may not be to create such a large amount of attraction, the RIAA can't ignore it.
I can't find proof about the precedent aspect, so I will concede that point for now. However, the courts are still not firm on this type of judgement. I can't help but believe that a judge would look at a list of copyright infringements that were unchallenged and hold them against the plaintiff, and that is likely what they RIAA is thinking. New technologies have put them on a slippery legal slope, and the industry already missed the mark on music.
Cheers,
What are you all doing here? uberbelly on Thu, 2006-06-15 03:08
After taking the time to sift through all of your bullshit, I have to wonder what the fuck are you all doing here on Project Opus?
#1, Stephen never said "United" music group. Is it that tough to read the comment before sending a reply?
#2, Mr. Gidol, your arrogance is astounding. Do you honestly think that what you're doing is anything more than fucking over every musician that is on Project Opus? We are breaking down your door to have some twat do something stupid with our music in the background?
#3, and Shade Jon, copyright IS intended to control content.
You do not need permission to dance around to someone's music on a cheap home video, but once that vid hits the real world, someone should pay for the use of that music!
#4, I have noted that not one of you dorks has in any way commented on the music here on Project Opus. You have no info in your bios, no pics for us to see, no playlists of any music you have heard here, so I ask again, What the fuck are you doing here?
Stephen, uberbelly Shade_Jon on Thu, 2006-06-15 05:56
You are perfectly right that one should not just post without learning about where one is posting.
No, I've never been to project Opus. I found this thread this morning. I can't remember if it was through a specific link to the article or via a search on the topic which pulled it up. I jumped directly to the discussion, read the article, and thought that it would be helpful to correct two errors written by the poster.
All that without even thinking, really, about the web site itself. In this day and age, discussion forums, posts, pictures, and so on are often so interlinked that I can forget that a page is hosted on a site altogether. It just seems to be another page.
In any case, I have no particular relation to the music industry, but I am a game designer who has had to think about this issue regarding games that I send to publishers and so on. So at least I am a content creator, in some form.
I am not a lawyer, but I poured through hundreds of documents, the copyright web site, the uspto web sites, wikipedia, various other legal site, blogs, news, and so on, and I have consulted with a patent lawyer.
So you can feel free to ignore what I wrote, or not. I can supply evidence to back up what I said. But what the courts actaully do is another matter.
I am not interested in arguing facts, or upsetting musicians. I meant no disrespect with my posting, and I'm sorry that I have caused you offense. I don't think that what I wrote was in error, however.
It is true that fair use and parody are defensive arguments. If I am not mistaken, it then becomes the prosecution's job to prove that the items are not fair use or parody, owing to substantial infringement, malicious intent, intent to derive income, possibility of loss of income, and so on.
The quality can be used as a defense to prove that the production has no commercial value, which is in favor of the fair use argument. Remember that the "quality" of the reproduction matters as to why recording songs from radio broadcasts was protected under fair use.
And no, copyright is not intended to control content. According to the US copyright office and the constitution, copyright it a limited form of protection intended to balance the rights of free epxression, which includes copying and performances, versus the benefits that will be gained to society by encouraging artists to produce and make royalties off of their work.
It is limited to: copying, dervitive works, and public performance (in a nutshell). If someone wants to make fun of you, associate your song with garbage and pornography by playing snippets against a pornographic video, play it a thousand times, sell it, lend it, recite speeches about it, and any of a thousand other activities, he can do so whether you want him to or not. The copyright holder cannot control how, when, or where the copyright owner listens to the content. The copyright holder does not control the content; only the rights to copy, create a derivative, and perform it.
The copyright holder is not even granted the right to make money from the work. You do not automatically have the right to sell content to which you own the copyright. State or govermental laws may require you to obtain a separate license for that. All of this is clearly spelled out in the copyright laws on the US copyright web site.
Yehuda
trademarks Shade_Jon on Thu, 2006-06-15 06:15
Oh, yes, I forgot.
The reason that there is a difference between copyrights and trademarks is due to the different intents for both of them.
Copyrights are inherent rights, automatically assigned. They do not require any proof that you have been vigorously protecting them, because it is a right. There are no precedents required. That's why you don't have to pursue them.
Heck you can even encourage people to violate them if you want. If a year later you change your mind, you can then ask everyone to stop doing so, and the court will back you up, so long as you give reasonable cease and desist notification.
Trademarks are a different balliwack. They exist ONLY to avoid consumer confusion. If I use the name Microsoft on my product, people might think that I represent that other company as well. Trademarks are not automatic rights, they have to be filed for. You have to prove that the consumer can be confused. Once the market has been accustomed to my product and your product for a length of time, and you knew about it, the confusion issue no longer exists.
That's why trademarks DO require constant and vigorous timely defense. If it can be shown that you knew that I was using a trademark that you owned, but didn't prosecute, then that is evidence that you don't consider it to be a confusion issue for the customer. If you come by a year later to sue me, the court can use the year that you didn't to show that the consumer either isn't confused, or that you didn't considered it to be a problem.
Yehuda
Quote:#1, Stephen never said fishplums on Thu, 2006-06-15 14:10
Quote:
#1, Stephen never said "United" music group. Is it that tough to read the comment before sending a reply?
he edited the article after making the mistake.
Clarity Stephen Abbott on Thu, 2006-06-15 14:17
I didn't edit the comment - someone else must have. Hence, my correction comment.
This topic has gone way too far off the essence of the story. Can we move on? I would love to hear from someone who has had a song used this way, without permission but doesn't care, ...or from someone who makes these odd videos, ...or from the RIAA, if they are so inclined to comment.
Posting a video in youtube yog on Mon, 2006-06-19 19:10
Posting a video in youtube is not private, even if it is produced privately. Radio stations and MTV pay royalties for every song they play to a member of BIEM, if I remember correctly. If I offer some streaming music on my web site, I have to pay a) royalties and b) get the permission from the copyright holder. My web site is not 'private', because everyone can access it. 'Private' in this regard means that something is restricted like a fence on a private property: I have to restrict access to my site, e.g. only a limited number of friends are able to log on.Angie during the election campaign.
Copyright Perceptric on Tue, 2006-06-20 01:15
Just to clarify a number of misconceptions that have been stated above:
Public performance of a song live is not controllable in terms of who sings, where they sing it etc, of a song that has been commercially released. It is covered by what is called an ephemeral license.
However, public performance of a piece of music on a video first requires that the music is 'synchronized'. In order to synchronize music you absolutely have to have a license from the various copyright owners. In the case of the song, from the publisher in the case of a recorded performance of a song, from both the publisher and the owner of the recorded performance - in other words two synchronization licenses. Don't confuse putting a song into a video as fair use. It is not. It is a synchronization fair and square.
There is a very clear right by the copyright owner to determine if his or her song is going to be permitted to be used in conjunction with a piece of video content.
Will the various rights owners come after You Tube and others? I am certain they are at least doing a cost benefit analysis to determine whether the best way to get money out of the various on line businesses that benefit from showing video is to sue them or to license them.
PS I spent 25 years in the music business as a songwriter, musician, record producer, publisher and was on the boards of various industry associations.... Also have produced TV, ran an Internet radio station. So have dealt on both sides of the table... And when you get down to it, why should people not be prepared to pay other people for their work when they use it? (That doesn't mean that I agree with the historic tactics adopted in the US by either the MPAA or the RIAA - but the principle of fair pay seems reasonable to me).
Quote:There is a very clear proforma on Tue, 2006-06-20 03:56
Quote:
There is a very clear right by the copyright owner to determine if his or her song is going to be permitted to be used in conjunction with a piece of video content.
Which is ok given commercial use, but should be changed (in the furture) for private use, even when it is as public as on the internet.
Quote:
Will the various rights owners come after You Tube and others? I am certain they are at least doing a cost benefit analysis to determine whether the best way to get money out of the various on line businesses that benefit from showing video is to sue them or to license them.
The whole internet community would be great enough to create and publicse enough music and film content for free, to keep everyone happy. Industry opposes that motion by putting everything not especially licensed in a "grey area". So of course they will. Abusing and twisting their old rights is a good idea for now, but when that won't suffice they lobby for new rights.
Quote:
And when you get down to it, why should people not be prepared to pay other people for their work when they use it?
I am. I have and I will. But music industry is taking monopoly prices when they could sell for peanuts. And they intend to keep that monopoly even when they have to piss everyone off. Restrictions on selling 2nd hand music on eBay is next on their list - wait for it.
Copyright Perceptric on Tue, 2006-06-20 20:20
The issue of selling second hand CD's is much more clear cut. From a publishing point of view, the mechanical copyright was paid for when the CD was first sold. So as and when it is resold, why should the publisher and the songwriter be paid a second time? Same for the record company, so I think that going after EBay second hand CD sellers is a non-starter. What is more interesting is the growing phenomenon of CD sales and then buy-back from bricks and mortar stores such as Amoeba Records. Clearly this is a model that is designed to enable people to buy music, rip it, and then sell it back to the store at a marginal price. And as far as I know this model is legal everyewhere (in some countries CD rental is not allowed under copyright legislation).
As far as the major record companies being stuck in the dark ages... absolutely agree... One thing I believe is that music companies have not come to terms with the total commoditization of content. When you can buy DVD's at the supermarket for less that CD's you have to wonder!
My personal view is that you can't stop people from sharing anything that has been digitized. So what you have to do is to make it possible for people to not steal.... That means charging a fair price.... and what is a fair price? That is the dilemma. I would suggest that it should be a sliding scale based on market demand. The day a song is released maybe it should be worth $1.99 and a month later maybe it would only be worth 20c - or less...
Music companies are now starting to grapple with the impact of digital technologies. And the irony is that they are now making more from selling ring tones, ring back tones and downloads - all of which are supplied at a lower quality bit rate than CD's - than they do from selling the high quality bit rate CD's!
And of course we shouldn't forget that music companies have always built into their financial plans contingencies for piracy.... and of course there are all the stories from the old days of how vinyl records were sometimes deleted from company release schedules virtually simultaneously with their releast so that they could then become listed as cut outs, and sold through the back door without having to pay artist royalties.... this and other scams like it enabled record companies to pay off the "indie" promotion men with cash so that it didn't appear on the books....
If you lie with the dogs, you wake up with fleas. That is what has happened to the record companies...
So what is a song worth? Stephen Abbott on Tue, 2006-06-20 21:38
Perceptric - you add a different twist to this thread. (thanks!). So what is the value of a song, and who gets to decide?
Does it diminish over time as you suggested? Would that mean that Let It Be (Beatles) is less valuable than the new Paris Hilton tune? What about letting the artist decide value and leave it at that? Does the popularity of the artist make a difference, so U2 would be worth more (or less) than your local bar band? Should dedicated fans get first access and better prices than everyone else? Is a digital song free, but a CD (or something tangible) still holds value?
The only thing I know is that it shouldn't be an executive whose only concern is "return on investment".
RIAA, Copyright etc Perceptric on Wed, 2006-06-21 02:28
Stephen - I can't give you a clear answer on the worth of a song right now... but here is one thing that I found crazy when I was in the record biz, and before P2P and downloads. The catalogue music was what paid everyone's salary - in general terms, but it was also discounted the most! New music was sold at the full price, except for the hits which were discounted.... So this practice, which still goes on in terms of pricing goes like this:
If you are an established act that was around in the 60's or 70's and had a few hits, your records are sold cheap, and back then artist royalties were low anyway, and the record company is fully recouped on this stuff so it is doing fine thanks.
If you are a new artist and you are hot, your record goes in the chart, and your CD's are now discounted to encourage sales. What do you care? Even with the much higher royalty rate that you have compared to the guys in the 60's you will probably never recoup based on the amount of money that was spent on the 3 videos that were shot to market your CD - of which probably 50% of the cost was recoupable. But you figure you will make it up on the touring.
If you are neither of the above - a new struggling artist, who got a deal, but are not a priority act - like most - your CD is sold at full price and it gets hardly any promotion. So no one knows you have a record out unless you have a dedicated fan base....
My belief is that record companies should release edited tracks to the Internet for free to seed sales. They should forget about DRM. They should sell CD's for a price that is only incrementally higher than blank CD's - say $4-5 for an album for new artists and try to make up their short term losses with volume.
But that is not about to happen....
What will happen is that there will be more and more content distributed on line via P2P and Bit Torrent some of which will be paid for.
The place where the future is in terms of selling CD's in my opinion is in mixes. Buddah Bar where the album features many artists - where most of them you haven't heard of - to me are the future. Good DJ's who can capture the mood of the listener and build a brand around finding the right music for the right occasion will be the new artists. As content on line increases exponentially it is going to be harder and harder to find what it is you really want to hear. The people who take the time to listen and then compile the music into pieces of programming are going to be golden. Content is not king. Context is king.
RIAA muzikdudenc on Thu, 2006-06-29 03:19
As an Active Member of the Entertainment & Recording Industry I must Publicly say I have seen the RIAA take our industry from GREAT to GREED.
Confirmation of Cease and Desist orders Splunt on Fri, 2006-07-28 09:15
Hello Stephen,
Hope you're still checking these comments. I'm trying to find specific cases of Youtube users getting cease-and-desist notices for posting these videos. As far as I could tell, you were the first one to break this story. Is there a way I could get in touch with you to discuss the possibility of getting in touch with some of these users or getting more concrete info on the incidents?
Thanks,
I will find it Stephen Abbott on Fri, 2006-07-28 12:27
Hey Martin,
I have to go back and find the orginal source. Give me a bit and I will follow up. However, I didn't "break" the story. I likely read it on Digital Music News , verified it from second source, and then was fortunate enough to be one of the first to post it with a bit more commentary. I just searched DMN on their archives but the story isn't readily available.
delicious | 
digg