Music Industry Lawyer Upset That Sites Are Able To Point Out The RIAA Took Down Content
from the a-look-inside... dept
Here's another quick little look into the way the minds of certain entertainment industry lawyers think, courtesy of Chris Castle, a music industry lawyer who we recently discussed concerning his views that only musicians can discuss music industry business models. Now he's got a post complaining about how internet sites respond to a takedown notice:Note to self: Next time you do a content license for an online company, make sure that when the content owner terminates the deal the content can't be replaced with some inflammatory cutesey-ism. Down means down. Gone. Vanished. Not there. Not replaced with: "Hey idiot, the running dogs of the RIAA made us take down stuff because they wouldn't take our hillbilly deal."(Update: It appears that some time between me opening Castle's post in a tab and writing and posting the story, Castle took down the post. I guess he's trying to demonstrate what he means by "Down means down. Gone. Vanished. Not there.") Now, I'm sure that this is Castle just venting after yet another bad move by one of his clients has backfired into a public relations nightmare (something like this perhaps?). If he actually thinks that simply pulling content down with no explanation whatsoever will make users happier then he's completely lost -- and I don't think he is.
But the key is that this does give yet another glimpse into the mindset of the typical legal professionals at work on some of these issues. It's not about openness, it's about secrecy ("Down means down. Gone. Vanished. Not there.") It's not about working out a reasonable deal that benefits everyone, it's about trashing the service provider for offering a "hillbilly deal." And, of course, it's never about the user at all. Who cares if they're wondering what happened to their content? The user doesn't matter at all.
And that is why the entertainment industry is in trouble.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chris castle, takedowns
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Anyone have an archive or mirror of it somewhere? :p
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I guess he's true to his word. LOL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Then let's use this instead
I've never seen another industry that is so intent on keeping its products away from consumers who are practically begging for it. Only the entertainment industry does this, yet they think there's something wrong with the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cache
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here's a variant...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple answer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gone from Google's cache, too
Guess the gentleman really means to disappear his embarrassing remark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gone from Google's cache, too
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Irony comes in many flavors
Thinking that you're going to be able to make it happen through innuendo and name-calling takes it to a whole other level.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Simple answer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Once something is on the net, it's never truly gone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Still in Google Cashe
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:rnAA9jYpbyAJ:music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/+http://music -tech-policy.blogspot.com/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gone from Google's cache, too
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:rnAA9jYpbyAJ:music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/+http:// music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lost
He just needs to go croak like a large majority of the previous generation that refuses to get it. You could tell the man the solution to his face, and he will just think you're full of it.
Thus, we can only pray that Castle gets disbarred or ceases to be a lawyer. Around 75% of the population is as ignorant as him and not just about music policy, and it is why we have so many problems on so many levels in the US (corporate politics, law, etc).
We have accepted that the generation born in the 80's is basically not going to see the problems of TODAY go the right way until all of the previous generations (born in the 50's) has bit the dust. We're basically 30 years behind on policies because all the people in power are. Good riddance to all of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's all about who the consumer blames
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: lost
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gone from Google's cache, too
Especially the "t shirts" reference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
What is a takedown?
Note to self: Next time you do a content license for an online company, make sure that when the content owner terminates the deal the content can't be replaced with some inflammatory cutesey-ism. Down means down. Gone. Vanished. Not there. Not replaced with: "Hey idiot, the running dogs of the RIAA made us take down stuff because they wouldn't take our hillbilly deal."
posted by Chris Castle at 4:25 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
on that site could have reasonable grounds for getting it taken down, and getting you taken down with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's all about who the consumer blames
But wait. Aren't licensing agreements managed by the same people (Entertainment Attorneys) who negotiate them? If not, there's another problem.
How do they manage this? Is the entire business model run on paper? That's a lot of trees! The whole schebang needs to be replaced with an automated system where business rules are applied with an impartial technology solution (not letting it escalate to an impartial judge). After all, if the attorney doesn't feel well, had a bad day because they had a tire blow out on their BMW, or decided to partake in libations which included bad scotch the night before, they are more prone to send you a hillbilly deal. Hope you have gold in them thar hills!
But because lawyers are the only engagable cog in the entire entertainment machine, they by proxy, become the face of the company and industry they serve.
Don't believe it? Try sending a $100 or even a $200 check directly to the Accounts Receivable or licensing department at Warner, BMG or Sony Music for a license to a 20-second clip in a 20-copy wedding video. You'd be surprised (or probably not) at what happens. An attorney will contact you, and knowing your luck, they probably had bad scotch the night before, and want to take their headache out on you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's all about who the consumer blames
But wait. Aren't licensing agreements managed by the same people (Entertainment Attorneys) who negotiate them? If not, there's another problem.
How do they manage this? Is the entire business model run on paper? That's a lot of trees! The whole schebang needs to be replaced with an automated system where business rules are applied with an impartial technology solution (not letting it escalate to an impartial judge). After all, if the attorney doesn't feel well, had a bad day because they had a tire blow out on their BMW, or decided to partake in libations which included bad scotch the night before, they are more prone to send you a hillbilly deal. Hope you have gold in them thar hills!
But because lawyers are the only engagable cog in the entire entertainment machine, they by proxy, become the face of the company and industry they serve.
Don't believe it? Try sending a $100 or even a $200 check directly to the Accounts Receivable or licensing department at Warner, BMG or Sony Music for a license to a 20-second clip in a 20-copy wedding video. You'd be surprised (or probably not) at what happens. An attorney will contact you, and knowing your luck, they probably had bad scotch the night before, and want to take their headache out on you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: lost
Education is the best protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cache
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
just in case the mirrors go down, here is the article:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
just in case the mirrors go down, here is the article:
Note: This is post is not legal advice and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship.
Question: What are the standard writer splits for a song?
Answer: The question presupposes that a song has more than one writer, a very common scenario. (For a more detailed discussion of why Creative Commons "audio" deeds do not work for (a) songs (separate from sound recordings) and (b) co-writes see "Carefully Co-Writing Without Creative Commons" and "Common Understanding: 10 Things Every Creator Should Know About Creative Commons Licensing" by ASCAP's Joan McGivern).
There really aren't any "standard" song splits, i.e., a standard division of the musical composition copyright between or among co-writers. The general rule of thumb is that if you have two writers, one of whom JUST rights music (or melody), and the other of whom JUST writes the lyric, then the copyright in the song should probably be divided 50/50.
Everyone has their own method for creativity, but in my experience it is not common for a songwriting team to divide up the duties that specifically. As long as you have an agreement as to who gets what share, it is less important what the "standard" is than what you agree. For example, some writing teams have an agreement that they're going to split everything they write together 50/50 because it's too much hassle to go through each song. They may write alone or with others, too, so those songs are separate from the team splits.
For group artists, dividing up songs can be one of the most contentious meetings the band will ever have. It's a good idea to have some ground rules established for the band before you do any writing.
Also a good idea to have a split agreement with anyone you co-write with so that there are no questions about who owns what.
posted by Chris Castle at 1:59 AM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: just in case the mirrors go down, here is the article:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
What is a takedown?
Note to self: Next time you do a content license for an online company, make sure that when the content owner terminates the deal the content can't be replaced with some inflammatory cutesey-ism. Down means down. Gone. Vanished. Not there. Not replaced with: "Hey idiot, the running dogs of the RIAA made us take down stuff because they wouldn't take our hillbilly deal."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dumb lawers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We need a new word...
I think it should be "castleisim"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reducing "disappearing" pages
This works fine for pages posted by assclowns who will have sense beaten into them eventually and will try to cover their tracks, and also for ephemeral pages like daily newspapers who sometimes move articles into their paid area after a short time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]