My impression is that they have (at least in a few Swedish court cases) seen that a particular user has shared a particular file, checked the IP number of that user and then bullied the broadband provider to release the name of that customer.
They are not “immune from prosecution.” A plaintiff might just have to use a different means of proving that unauthorized copying is going on.
Yes, if it is without authorization of the copyright owner.
YouTube’s responsibilities are defined by the notice-and-takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. If YouTube knows or should know that a particular uploaded clip infringes on a copyright owner’s rights, then YouTube must take it down. If a copyright owner discovers such infringing content then, the copyright owner serves notice to YouTube pursuant to the D.M.C.A. and YouTube must take it down. I believe there are several copyright holders, including NBC Universal and Fox, who routinely give such notice to YouTube. It’s pretty common to find YouTube content that has been taken down pursuant to such notice.
Yes.
You are right, I’m not a computer geek, and I DON"T know. I DO know that if you put a file in one of those neat flash boxes, that you can disable the save function. Surely something along those lines ought to be enough to frustrate the average non technical user. The problem will be that users are clever, motivated, and always going to be one step ahead, so maybe the RIAA needs to find a compromise. There is no real solution to the problem technically, since just like cassettes and the radio, I can simply record a song I hear with my microphone; and using my recording software encode it as an mp3/4/ whatever.
The Riaa has made that cost prohibitive for the average guy. I can’t afford to pay them several thousand dollars a song just to do a cover. You can get around it by asking for permission from the band, but usually that Isn’t worth doing since most bands don’t actually check or respond to e-mail or letters.
I cannot and will not argue that point. I agree that the nature of music is different, but i don’t think that it warrants the same solution, BECAUSE it is different.
There is no argument, it’s just extremely annoying. The cover artist gets nailed financially either way, when all they are trying to do is pay a little respect to a band they like, and give their fans a little something extra. The compromise here is uncomfortable but acceptable, since i haven’t heard of anything better.
THe point of a copyright is to protect you against someone else stealing your material and **claiming it as their own work **. That is a world away from someone explicitly stating that it is not their material, and that they are performing the song out of respect to a fellow musician. I really, really, doubt that someone would buy my album soley to hear a cover, without knowing my material.
Tough titty to them. At least CP’ ing a disc makes it a clear case of piracy, hacking etc.
I don’t. If you put a song out there on the radio free to listen to, then you ought to lose intellectual rights to it. YOU GAVE IT AWAY to the people. The RIAA is counting on people buying up the albums for that single, and that’s why people have gotten so pissed recently. The rest of the album sucked wind, and they were out 17-20.00 dollars, when they COULD have bought the single for a buck on I-tunes.
That doesn’t make my work any less valid then theirs, It just means that I’ve found alternate ways of securing an income.
I don’t think your point is valid here. The problems you are talking about above are obvious breaches of contract. Music should be fun, and those involved in it ought to have some passion for their field. People have an expectation that you do it for the love of music, and while that doesn’t mean you ought get screwed, it does mean that they might expect more than a phoned in performance. They came to see YOU play! They came to enjoy the energy of your performance. If they just wanted to hear the songs, they would stay at home and listen to the discs. When you perform you aren’t a songwriter, you are a performance artist! While like you say, I play for fun, I make certain that encores, overtime, etc are spelled out in my contract, and that the venue owner understands the procedures. Let him make the call to run me off the stage to save cash, but never piss off the audience.
They hedge about it, but basically that’s true. They go after the so-called ‘distributors’ of the pilfered piece as, at least theoretically, there are fewer of them, and the direct threat to their margins lies with the people who actually ‘intend’ to steal music and then profit from the theft, leaving them out of the loop. Certianly no one is ‘immune’ from the ensuing civil suit, but not even the RIAA has enough resources to look at everyone on the entire internet to see if they’re stealing songs.
The problem with their methodology to date comes when home-bound people with disablities and children who don’t know any better become accidental ‘distributors’ of the almighty product sometimes by ignorance and sometimes by software default.
The RIAA doesn’t draw a distinction between a 10 year old girl and a career criminal, they sue everybody, because in their eyes we’re all guilty.
No, the point of copyright law is to grant someone the exclusive right to copy a work. Hence the name.
Copyright protection for musical works has been around since before there were sound recordings. It existed for sheet music and piano rolls.
(1) There are at least three rightsholders involved here:
- The composer
- The recording artist/performer (musican)
- The producer/distributor of the sound recording (record company)
(2) There are at least two kinds of rights at issue
- Duplication right: The composer has a right to royalties when a work is copied in any way (such as sheet music). The composer and the recording artist each have a right to royalties when a sound recording is duplicated.
- Performance right: The composer has a right to royalties each time someone publicly performs a work, either by playing it live or by playing a recording of a particular performance of it.
(3) No composer, recording artist, or record company “put[s] a song out there on the radio free to listen to.” They are paid by radio stations for the right to publicly perform the works. In fact, in the United States, this is a compulsory license. Once a recording is made and distributed to the public, the rights holders cannot refuse permission for it to be played in public, so long as royalties are paid pursuant to the terms of the compulsory license.
In the eyes of the law, “we” are all guilty. Copyright infringement is sort of a strict liability. If you did it, you’re guilty and subject to remedies set forth in the law. “I did it on accident” or “I didn’t know it was illegal” is rarely a complete defense in the law, although it can often mitigate penalties.
It seems, in the course of this discourse, while we’ve contrived, contorted and otherwise convoluted the collection of crass, crude and consistently cheap and churlish conjecture concerning the curtailment of consensus on the conduct of certian citizens, we have missed the point entirely.
Music makes money. Pounds and pounds of the prized papyrus, does the simple stoke of the string subsequently supply.
It is not about enjoyment, it is not about hearing that perfect song at the perfect moment in time, it is not about the power of music to change minds, heal hearts soothe souls, or just for 3 minutes and 30 seconds, allow someone in a horrible situation to forget about that situation.
In this, our new reality, it is about how much money the artist and more importantly, those who represent the artist make. It is about luxury cars, hilltop mansions, lavish parties, illicit drugs, expensive jewelry, nameless, meaningless sex, excess alcohol consumption and heartless, yellow tabioid journalism that is the eventual media feeding frenzy following the decline of the same artists who just wanted to make music to change minds, heal hearts, soothe souls and allow someone in a horrible situation, to, if only for three minutes and thirty seconds, forget that the cancer eats them alive, that AIDS is destroying their immunity, that the mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle or child they lost, is never coming back.
When you take the humanity from the music as they have, all we’re left with is what the industry is today, a giant machine producing mediocre shit for people who just want a little happiness and are made to pay, pay, pay for that happiness, whether they can afford it, or not.
How does that work?
Here’s the compulsory licensing provision of the copyright act:
§ 115. Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords
How Current is This?
In the case of nondramatic musical works, the exclusive rights provided by clauses (1) and (3) of section 106, to make and to distribute phonorecords of such works, are subject to compulsory licensing under the conditions specified by this section.
(a) Availability and Scope of Compulsory License.—
(1) When phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work have been distributed to the public in the United States under the authority of the copyright owner, any other person, including those who make phonorecords or digital phonorecord deliveries, may, by complying with the provisions of this section, obtain a compulsory license to make and distribute phonorecords of the work. A person may obtain a compulsory license only if his or her primary purpose in making phonorecords is to distribute them to the public for private use, including by means of a digital phonorecord delivery. A person may not obtain a compulsory license for use of the work in the making of phonorecords duplicating a sound recording fixed by another, unless:
(i) such sound recording was fixed lawfully; and
(ii) the making of the phonorecords was authorized by the owner of copyright in the sound recording or, if the sound recording was fixed before February 15, 1972, by any person who fixed the sound recording pursuant to an express license from the owner of the copyright in the musical work or pursuant to a valid compulsory license for use of such work in a sound recording.
(2) A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner.
(b) Notice of Intention To Obtain Compulsory License.—
(1) Any person who wishes to obtain a compulsory license under this section shall, before or within thirty days after making, and before distributing any phonorecords of the work, serve notice of intention to do so on the copyright owner. If the registration or other public records of the Copyright Office do not identify the copyright owner and include an address at which notice can be served, it shall be sufficient to file the notice of intention in the Copyright Office. The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
(2) Failure to serve or file the notice required by clause (1) forecloses the possibility of a compulsory license and, in the absence of a negotiated license, renders the making and distribution of phonorecords actionable as acts of infringement under section 501 and fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509.
(c) Royalty Payable Under Compulsory License.—
(1) To be entitled to receive royalties under a compulsory license, the copyright owner must be identified in the registration or other public records of the Copyright Office. The owner is entitled to royalties for phonorecords made and distributed after being so identified, but is not entitled to recover for any phonorecords previously made and distributed.
(2) Except as provided by clause (1), the royalty under a compulsory license shall be payable for every phonorecord made and distributed in accordance with the license. For this purpose, and other than as provided in paragraph (3), a phonorecord is considered “distributed” if the person exercising the compulsory license has voluntarily and permanently parted with its possession. With respect to each work embodied in the phonorecord, the royalty shall be either two and three-fourths cents, or one-half of one cent per minute of playing time or fraction thereof, whichever amount is larger.
(3)
(A) A compulsory license under this section includes the right of the compulsory licensee to distribute or authorize the distribution of a phonorecord of a nondramatic musical work by means of a digital transmission which constitutes a digital phonorecord delivery, regardless of whether the digital transmission is also a public performance of the sound recording under section 106 (6) of this title or of any nondramatic musical work embodied therein under section 106 (4) of this title. For every digital phonorecord delivery by or under the authority of the compulsory licensee—
(i) on or before December 31, 1997, the royalty payable by the compulsory licensee shall be the royalty prescribed under paragraph (2) and chapter 8 of this title; and
(ii) on or after January 1, 1998, the royalty payable by the compulsory licensee shall be the royalty prescribed under subparagraphs (B) through (E) and chapter 8 of this title.
(B) Notwithstanding any provision of the antitrust laws, any copyright owners of nondramatic musical works and any persons entitled to obtain a compulsory license under subsection (a)(1) may negotiate and agree upon the terms and rates of royalty payments under this section and the proportionate division of fees paid among copyright owners, and may designate common agents on a nonexclusive basis to negotiate, agree to, pay or receive such royalty payments. Such authority to negotiate the terms and rates of royalty payments includes, but is not limited to, the authority to negotiate the year during which the royalty rates prescribed under this subparagraph and subparagraphs (C) through (E) and chapter 8 of this title shall next be determined.
(C) Proceedings under chapter 8 shall determine reasonable rates and terms of royalty payments for the activities specified by this section during the period beginning with the effective date of such rates and terms, but not earlier than January 1 of the second year following the year in which the petition requesting the proceeding is filed, and ending on the effective date of successor rates and terms, or such other period as the parties may agree. Such terms and rates shall distinguish between
(i) digital phonorecord deliveries where the reproduction or distribution of a phonorecord is incidental to the transmission which constitutes the digital phonorecord delivery, and
(ii) digital phonorecord deliveries in general. Any copyright owners of nondramatic musical works and any persons entitled to obtain a compulsory license under subsection (a)(1) may submit to the Copyright Royalty Judges licenses covering such activities. The parties to each proceeding shall bear their own costs.
(D) The schedule of reasonable rates and terms determined by the Copyright Royalty Judges shall, subject to subparagraph (E), be binding on all copyright owners of nondramatic musical works and persons entitled to obtain a compulsory license under subsection (a)(1) during the period specified in subparagraph (C), such other period as may be determined pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C), or such other period as the parties may agree. Such terms and rates shall distinguish between
(i) digital phonorecord deliveries where the reproduction or distribution of a phonorecord is incidental to the transmission which constitutes the digital phonorecord delivery, and
(ii) digital phonorecord deliveries in general. In addition to the objectives set forth in section 801 (b)(1), in establishing such rates and terms, the Copyright Royalty Judges may consider rates and terms under voluntary license agreements described. The royalty rates payable for a compulsory license for a digital phonorecord delivery under this section shall be established de novo and no precedential effect shall be given to the amount of the royalty payable by a compulsory licensee for digital phonorecord deliveries on or before December 31, 1997. The Copyright Royalty Judges shall also establish requirements by which copyright owners may receive reasonable notice of the use of their works under this section, and under which records of such use shall be kept and made available by persons making digital phonorecord deliveries.
(E)
(i) License agreements voluntarily negotiated at any time between one or more copyright owners of nondramatic musical works and one or more persons entitled to obtain a compulsory license under subsection (a)(1) shall be given effect in lieu of any determination by the Librarian of Congress and Copyright Royalty Judges. Subject to clause (ii), the royalty rates determined pursuant to subparagraph (C) or (D) shall be given effect as to digital phonorecord deliveries in lieu of any contrary royalty rates specified in a contract pursuant to which a recording artist who is the author of a nondramatic musical work grants a license under that person’s exclusive rights in the musical work under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 106 or commits another person to grant a license in that musical work under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 106, to a person desiring to fix in a tangible medium of expression a sound recording embodying the musical work.
(ii) The second sentence of clause (i) shall not apply to—
(I) a contract entered into on or before June 22, 1995, and not modified thereafter for the purpose of reducing the royalty rates determined pursuant to subparagraph (C) or (D) or of increasing the number of musical works within the scope of the contract covered by the reduced rates, except if a contract entered into on or before June 22, 1995, is modified thereafter for the purpose of increasing the number of musical works within the scope of the contract, any contrary royalty rates specified in the contract shall be given effect in lieu of royalty rates determined pursuant to subparagraph (C) or (D) for the number of musical works within the scope of the contract as of June 22, 1995; and
(II) a contract entered into after the date that the sound recording is fixed in a tangible medium of expression substantially in a form intended for commercial release, if at the time the contract is entered into, the recording artist retains the right to grant licenses as to the musical work under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 106.
(F) Except as provided in section 1002 (e) of this title, a digital phonorecord delivery licensed under this paragraph shall be accompanied by the information encoded in the sound recording, if any, by or under the authority of the copyright owner of that sound recording, that identifies the title of the sound recording, the featured recording artist who performs on the sound recording, and related information, including information concerning the underlying musical work and its writer.
(G)
(i) A digital phonorecord delivery of a sound recording is actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and section 509, unless—
(I) the digital phonorecord delivery has been authorized by the copyright owner of the sound recording; and
(II) the owner of the copyright in the sound recording or the entity making the digital phonorecord delivery has obtained a compulsory license under this section or has otherwise been authorized by the copyright owner of the musical work to distribute or authorize the distribution, by means of a digital phonorecord delivery, of each musical work embodied in the sound recording.
(ii) Any cause of action under this subparagraph shall be in addition to those available to the owner of the copyright in the nondramatic musical work under subsection (c)(6) and section 106 (4) and the owner of the copyright in the sound recording under section 106 (6).
(H) The liability of the copyright owner of a sound recording for infringement of the copyright in a nondramatic musical work embodied in the sound recording shall be determined in accordance with applicable law, except that the owner of a copyright in a sound recording shall not be liable for a digital phonorecord delivery by a third party if the owner of the copyright in the sound recording does not license the distribution of a phonorecord of the nondramatic musical work.
(I) Nothing in section 1008 shall be construed to prevent the exercise of the rights and remedies allowed by this paragraph, paragraph (6), and chapter 5 in the event of a digital phonorecord delivery, except that no action alleging infringement of copyright may be brought under this title against a manufacturer, importer or distributor of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or against a consumer, based on the actions described in such section.
(J) Nothing in this section annuls or limits
(i) the exclusive right to publicly perform a sound recording or the musical work embodied therein, including by means of a digital transmission, under sections 106 (4) and 106 (6), (ii) except for compulsory licensing under the conditions specified by this section, the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the sound recording and the musical work embodied therein under sections 106 (1) and 106 (3), including by means of a digital phonorecord delivery, or
(iii) any other rights under any other provision of section 106, or remedies available under this title, as such rights or remedies exist either before or after the date of enactment of the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995.
(K) The provisions of this section concerning digital phonorecord deliveries shall not apply to any exempt transmissions or retransmissions under section 114 (d)(1). The exemptions created in section 114 (d)(1) do not expand or reduce the rights of copyright owners under section 106 (1) through (5) with respect to such transmissions and retransmissions.
(4) A compulsory license under this section includes the right of the maker of a phonorecord of a nondramatic musical work under subsection (a)(1) to distribute or authorize distribution of such phonorecord by rental, lease, or lending (or by acts or practices in the nature of rental, lease, or lending). In addition to any royalty payable under clause (2) and chapter 8 of this title, a royalty shall be payable by the compulsory licensee for every act of distribution of a phonorecord by or in the nature of rental, lease, or lending, by or under the authority of the compulsory licensee. With respect to each nondramatic musical work embodied in the phonorecord, the royalty shall be a proportion of the revenue received by the compulsory licensee from every such act of distribution of the phonorecord under this clause equal to the proportion of the revenue received by the compulsory licensee from distribution of the phonorecord under clause (2) that is payable by a compulsory licensee under that clause and under chapter 8. The Register of Copyrights shall issue regulations to carry out the purpose of this clause.
(5) Royalty payments shall be made on or before the twentieth day of each month and shall include all royalties for the month next preceding. Each monthly payment shall be made under oath and shall comply with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation. The Register shall also prescribe regulations under which detailed cumulative annual statements of account, certified by a certified public accountant, shall be filed for every compulsory license under this section. The regulations covering both the monthly and the annual statements of account shall prescribe the form, content, and manner of certification with respect to the number of records made and the number of records distributed.
(6) If the copyright owner does not receive the monthly payment and the monthly and annual statements of account when due, the owner may give written notice to the licensee that, unless the default is remedied within thirty days from the date of the notice, the compulsory license will be automatically terminated. Such termination renders either the making or the distribution, or both, of all phonorecords for which the royalty has not been paid, actionable as acts of infringement under section 501 and fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509.
(d) Definition.— As used in this section, the following term has the following meaning: A “digital phonorecord delivery” is each individual delivery of a phonorecord by digital transmission of a sound recording which results in a specifically identifiable reproduction by or for any transmission recipient of a phonorecord of that sound recording, regardless of whether the digital transmission is also a public performance of the sound recording or any nondramatic musical work embodied therein. A digital phonorecord delivery does not result from a real-time, non-interactive subscription transmission of a sound recording where no reproduction of the sound recording or the musical work embodied therein is made from the inception of the transmission through to its receipt by the transmission recipient in order to make the sound recording audible.
The only royalty that is tied to revenue is the additional one for rentals.
WHAT? IN THE EYES OF THE LAW WE ARE ALL GUILTY? NO!! YOU HAVE IT ALL WRONG!!!
We are INNOCENT until we are PROVEN guilty! We are NOT automatically guilty of something that we could one day potentially do given the correct circumstances. I am not liable for something I am ABLE to do, I am liable for the things I have DONE. We don’t ASSUME guilt, we ACCUSE guilt, then PROVE it later.
Jesus, what a frightening statement.
Utter horsefeathers.
People always have and have always been free to make their own music to soothe their troubled minds. No one is stopping anyone from humming a favourite tune while sweating at the brow in a coal mine or letting loose at full throat at a warm gathering of friends. No one is stopping anyone – as people have done from centuries – from taking up music as a hobby and singing or playing for pure enjoyment at home for oneself or for friends and family.
No one has taken music from the human soul. No one is charging money for doing something that people have always done.
:dubious:
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you genuinely misunderstood.
I was speaking in the context of your earlier statement. That’s why the “we” was in quotes. It stood for “we who have infringed on someone else’s copyright, regardless of whether ‘we’ might be a 10-year-old girl or a career criminal.” The law punishes you for your acts, not for your identity.
Cool your buttons, jockey.
I did indeed misunderstand. Consider the previous statement retracted, apologies, consider the buttons cooled.
Oh come on now. If everybody could make the music that speaks to them, the RIAA would be operating out of a basement. Musicians make the music, and deserve to get paid for it, but once they engage the consumer and call it a commodity, good business requires them to keep up with the trends of the market. That hasn’t happened, or at least it didn’t in the beginning, and now they (meaning the RIAA) is trying to put the cinders of Rome out with a squirt gun.
You should give up being a magician…and become a teacher.
I think that the problem that the RIAA has with the new technology is that none of the new business models offers as much potential profit as the old ones did. They got used to margins liek they had back when the baby boomers were amassing huge record collections, and then when they were replacing many of their albums with CDs.
Now the boomers have slowed their purchasing way down, and there are no bands that define the following generations, the way say The Beatles and The Stones did. The market is not just less profitable, but it’s more splintered than ever, and when you add in the loss the companies take from piracy, they see themselves in a precarious position. Of course they can’t figure out what to do about the first two problems, so they become such pricks over filesharing.
The RIAA loves the old systems that allow them to collect ten dollars from the consumer and pay one dollar to the artist. The problem they’re facing is that technology is going to make it possible to actually do what the RIAA is claiming is its goal; consumers will be able to pay the artists - but they’ll be able to do it without the RIAA. The artists will still get their dollar (and maybe more) but the RIAA won’t get the other nine.
I just thought of a point that hasn’t really been addressed yet (well, if it has, I’ve missed it) - in our world of vast over-consumption of resources, an mp3 file is a hell of a lot less resource-wasting than all those physical cds. I move that we do away with physical cds completely!
Okay.