The Insanity Of Copyright Law: When Even Professionals Have No Idea They're Breaking The Law

from the is-it-so-easy? dept

Wed, Jan 4th 2012 5:42am — Mike Masnick

My cousin works (year round) for a summer camp. Her husband (who, technically, is also my cousin, but not by blood), works in film & TV production, doing all sorts of work in and around the entertainment industry. He's worked on various movies and TV shows. To help his wife out, he helped set up a website for the camp, and posted a slide show video the camp put together of campers, which he uploaded to YouTube. The video... was set to the music of a very famous major label recording artist. This is the kind of stuff that people do all the time. Because it feels normal and natural and if the music is a part of their lives and was what they experienced when the photos/video were taken, it seems totally natural to include it as backing music for the video.

I received an email from him, however, after he got a note from YouTube about how the video infringes on content from Universal Music. His concern -- and remember, he works in the industry -- was that he knows the camp has an ASCAP license, and he couldn't figure out why that didn't allow him to post the video. He was asking what he should do and if there was any way to make sure the video was legal.

The problem (well, one of many) here is simply that the ASCAP license only covers a limited set of rights under copyright law, and does not cover things like putting music to a video. In fact, without knowing the details, I'd bet that the ASCAP license his camp has really just covers performances at the camp. But, still, here's a guy who works in the industry who naturally assumes that what he's done shouldn't violate copyright law. Because it seems ridiculous to think that it does, especially when the camp that the video is for has "an ASCAP license."

The idea that anyone should need to understand the differences between performance rights and reproduction rights and performance licenses and sync licenses, just to post a fun slide show of a summer camp, doesn't make any sense at all. It's a serious problem borne out of a history of copyright law that was designed for an entirely different purpose. It's supposed to be for commercial infringement, not personal use, and copyright law has been built by simply duct taping on new or different rights every few years as the technology changes. What you get is a hodge podge mess that's impossible for most people to understand, even those who work in the entertainment industry and who that same industry insists only wants ever more draconian copyright law.

The system is hopelessly broken. But rather than looking to fix it, we have Congress trying to duct tape on another batch of rules and rights. What a shame.

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: copyright, infringement, videos

161 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 5:19am

Any system broken as badly as copyright (and the patent system) should just be scraped. Enough "patching", it doesn't even do what it was designed to do in the first place: To support the Public Domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 5:59am
  
  Re: Moar?
  More than scraped, scraped harshly!
  Perhaps even scrapped.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:45am
    
    Re: Re: Moar?
    Scrape it until it bleeds! Then keep scraping until it stops!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Spaceboy (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Moar?MOAR!
      I scraped my knee once and it was the worst pain ever...until I took an arrow to the knee. Had to scrap my knee after that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Moar?MOAR!
        Nooo, techdirt has taken an arrow to the knee! Well, its over now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        :Lobo Santo (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moar?MOAR!
        Well, at least there's always a job guarding something...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:17am
    
    Re: Re: Moar?
    I once thought copyright was sensible. But then I took am arrow to the knee.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:32am
  
  Re:
  For some reason your comment sparked a big image of the Windows logo inside my head. Go figure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Careful your brain in infringing the Mighty Microsoft
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 5:54am

It's not broken
It's all about control. If the law was easily understood by the mass populous, then people would know what they could/could not do. When you want total control, you need to have people feeling they cannot do anything and that's exactly where we are at now.

What feels normal is irrelevant because copyright owners don't care what you feel, they want control over everything you see and hear, how you see and hear it, and who creates it.

We won't fix it unless we remove the current congress-persons who are in the pockets of lobbyists, which would mean there would be what, 5 people in congress? And that would take people FIRST understanding the currently confusing law and considering those who vote are apathetic and too lazy to think for themselves... don't count on them understanding the law enough to push congress to remove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Someantimalwareguy (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:06am
  
  Re: It's not broken
  We won't fix it unless we remove the current congress-persons who are in the pockets of lobbyists, which would mean there would be what, 5 people in congress? ...
  The problem here is that the 5 I might consider good would not necessarily be the 5 you are thinking about. Scale that out to the entire US voting population and you get...no change or very little change overall.
  
  The system is rigged until/unless we can break up the major parties and find a way to open the system up so that it can become more directly representative. While I do not think something as drastic as going to a parliamentary (Europe) or direct democracy system (ref: Switzerland) would be wanted or welcomed, the simple fact that it results in greater participation in governance by most factions within a society leads to better results for all when balanced properly.
  
  With that said, something needs to be done because the status quo is a complete disaster...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:26pm
    
    Re: Re: It's not broken
    Scale that out to the entire US voting population and you get a congress with national approval ratings in the low to mid teens but incumbency ratings in the mid to high nineties. Just to attach some very real numbers to the point you're making.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:59am
  
  Re: It's not broken
  What feels normal is irrelevant because copyright owners don't care what you feel
  
  And I know longer care what copyright owners feel in return. So now were even. I'm not even willing to compromise to rolling copyright back to it's original 14 years now. Complete abolishment is the ONLY thing I'm willing to concede to at this point.
  
  They want to be beyond reasonable, I can play that game too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nina Paley (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:28am
    
    Re: Re: It's not broken
    Copyright abolition is eminently reasonable, though. It's not a game, it's simply a good idea.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Crosbie Fitch (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
      When you've eliminated the impossible, then what remains, no matter how unthinkable, must be the right course of action.
      
      But, not only should copyright be abolished, but it should never have been enacted in the first place. See: Questioning Copyright.
      
      Even William Patry (with my persistent nudging) has had to conclude that "To deny people the right to copy, intimately, from others, is to deny the essence of what it is to be a creative person."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        Citation to Patry's comment, please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BigKeithO (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        He did include the link, it is buried in the word "conclude". Here is the entire link;
        
        http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-28/creativity-springs-from-copy-making-part-2-comm entary-by-william-patry
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        Thank you. As I suspected, Bill Patry is directing his comments to the narrow application of fair use, and not to copyright being somehow an antiquated concept that has outlived its usefulness.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Crosbie Fitch (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        To paraphrase Thomas Paine: "The right to copy a work is inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling that right, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. The privilege of copyright is consequently an instrument of injustice."
        
        William Patry cannot help but betray his recognition that the right to copy is natural, and that the Statute of Anne that annuls it is the unnatural interloper. No-one can know as much about copyright as he does and stop the truth of its corruption spilling from his pen.
        
        "To deny people the right to copy, intimately, from others, is to deny the essence of what it is to be a creative person."
        
        Copyright is coming to an end.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        Are you ever not whining about natural law and the Statute of Anne? Super boring, dude.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        Are you ever not whining about natural law and the Statute of Anne? Super boring, dude.
        
        There's a convincing rebuttal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 4:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        Pot, meet kettle.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        Let me suggest that your definition of "charters" and Paine's definition are light years apart.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Crosbie Fitch (profile), 5 Jan 2012 @ 1:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        You can suggest it, but it would be helpful if you also suggested precisely how our definitions differ. Given you believe they "are light years apart" it should be pretty easy.
        
        For the purposes of argument take my definition of 'charter' as 2a and/or 2c from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charter
        
        For your reference see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man#Arguments
        
        Can you define what you believe Thomas Paine meant by 'charter', and why you feel such things as the Statute of Anne and the US Constitution did not meet that definition?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2012 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        Perhaps it would be useful to reflect upon the fundamental differences between the then form of government in England and that in the United States. The latter rejected the former, and that rejection is reflected throughout the US Constitution by its separation of powers in Articles 1, 2 and 3 (though, admittedly, it took Marbury v. Madison to make clear the role of #3).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Crosbie Fitch (profile), 5 Jan 2012 @ 4:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        Reflect away. :-)
        
        Can I take it that you now recognise that "light years apart" may be somewhat of an exaggeration?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not broken
        Copyright is coming to an end.
        
        oh look, it's that L00ny zealot Crosbie tilting at windmills again...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:51am
  
  Re: It's not broken
  The problem is that you have a system that allows for companies to donate to politicians. You're probably used to it, but over here (europe) that is seen as corruption.
  
  If a person wants to donate, that's a different matter, because then that person's name is on the list, and everyone knows who made the decision to donate. If it's a large corporation, it could be anyone, and you'll be passed on from person to person until you give up and go kill yourself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2014 @ 3:50pm
  
  Re: It's not broken
  The problem isn't that people don't understand the stupid laws. It's that the stupid laws exist in the first place. People not understanding is the cause of all the lawsuits. But the laws are so ridiculous and broken they should be scraped. The were designed to stop piracy, all they do is cause problems and 50%+ of the population still get most of their music illegally so it's clearly not working. Scrap the crap laws
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jonathan Hutter, 4 Jan 2012 @ 5:58am

Professionals should know
As a pro, your cousin (by marriage) should have known what uses are covered by the ASCAP license. Video of the camp promotes the camp, and therefore is for commercial purpose. Generally, if you use a music track as a soundtrack to a video for a commercial purpose, you'd better have a license for that.

On the other hand, if the video just recorded an event at the camp, and music was playing at the event, and got recorded on the posted video, then...??

Ok, the law is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:15am
  
  Re: Professionals should know
  Certainly not knowing the rules brings professionalism into question.
  
  But what about a blogger who writes "In fact, without knowing the details, I'd bet that the ASCAP license his camp has really just covers ...". Surely placing such bets without checking the details is just gambling and doesn't evidence expertise ?.
  But maybe the real purpose is just to raise outrage so facts don't matter !.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:21am
    
    Re: Re: Professionals should know
    Amusing, but uncertainty shouldn't be in law. Any law that has uncertainties should be either rewritten or abolished.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
      How is the law uncertain?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Vague definitions of infringement, fair use as a defense only, vastly disproportionate fines between Joe Q Public and Megacorporate Inc.
        
        Need I go on?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Which uncertainty led to this "professional" into thinking his license for singing songs at camp also allowed him to post whatever music he wanted to anywhere on the internet? This isn't a problem of uncertainty, it's a problem of a "professional" acting unprofessionally. And more likely, it's another example of Mike stretching the truth in a desperate attempt to make copyright seem difficult. Sure, copyright at times is complicated, but this isn't one of those times. If this "professional" was smart enough to secure a license for singing songs at camp, then surely he was sophisticated enough to know that he just can't post whatever he wants on the internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        That's assuming said professional is actually a lawyer, most musicians understand... music, not copyright. That's like expecting every person who pays taxes to fully understand everything to do with taxes, which they don't!
        
        And you're assuming said professional actually purchased the licenses, no where does it say that the cousin-in-law actually arranged the ASCAP license for the camp. It only states he is aware the camp has an ASCAP license.
        
        Nice twist on words though, and given you've repeated it in so many posts you clearly have no other value to offer to this thread.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        According to Masnick, using someone else's work, for whatever you feel like using it for, is ok because, y'know, "it feels right".
        
        lol. what a total buffoon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Except that's not what he said at all. But, you knew that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        According to Masnick, using someone else's work, for whatever you feel like using it for, is ok because, y'know, "it feels right".
        
        Well, the invention of the wheel was someone else's work too. You must enjoy the hexagon wheels on your car, because having round ones would be "using someone else's work, for whatever you feel like using it for".
        
        You really don't understand how culture works, do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Tires are now "culture"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Tires are now "culture"?
        
        Nope, but ideas are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        
        Tires are now "culture"?
        
        Nope, but ideas are.
        
        What is Culture?
        
        [F]or anthropologists and other behavioral scientists, culture is the full range of learned human behavior patterns. The term was first used in this way by the pioneer English Anthropologist Edward B. Tylor in his book, Primitive Culture, published in 1871. Tylor said that culture is "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society." Of course, it is not limited to men. Women possess and create it as well. Since Tylor's time, the concept of culture has become the central focus of anthropology.
        
        (Emphasis in original.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Tires are now "culture"?
        
        Characteristics of Culture:
        
        Culture is learned
        Human infants come into the world with basic drives such as hunger and thirst, but they do not possess instinctive patterns of behavior to satisfy them. Likewise, they are without any cultural knowledge....
        
        Every human generation potentially can discover new things and invent better technologies. The new cultural skills and knowledge are added onto what was learned in previous generations. As a result, culture is cumulative....
        
        Cultural evolution is due to the cumulative effect of culture. We now understand that the time between major cultural inventions has become steadily shorter, especially since the invention of agriculture 8,000-10,000 years ago....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Apparently this guys steals his tires, too...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Who uses the word buffoon?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        :Lobo Santo (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Shills with thesaurus? ...thesauri? ...thesaureses?
        _sigh_
        never mind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Thesauri or thesauruses are both perfectly acceptable.
        
        Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        fiestachickens (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        "Which uncertainty led to this 'professional' into thinking his license for singing songs at camp also allowed him to post whatever music he wanted to anywhere on the internet?"
        
        That, I think, is the crux of Mike's point: It isn't that he was trying to "post whatever music he wanted to anywhere on the internet"; it's that he was trying to post a video of pictures from the camp, that happened to be using the copyrighted music.
        
        Are you suggesting that for every video anyone uploads, if there is any music whatsoever in the background, they have to make sure it isn't copyrighted or that they have rights to upload it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        That is precisely what industry shills like average_joe is suggesting. They live in a world where all property, even intellectual property, has been snatched up by big corporations, much like land by feudal lords, and if you want to do anything with "their" property, you have to pay for it or sit in silence in your mud hut and don't participate in your own culture.
        
        Money is the only language they speak and if you don't have much, they can't hear you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        LMAO! The entertainment value on TD never ends!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Touche! Your point-by-point refutation of my statement is astounding and impressive! I am glad to be so thoroughly proven wrong...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        And more likely, it's another example of Mike stretching the truth in a desperate attempt to make copyright seem difficult.
        
        Copyright is difficult. I've read your posts on this site and you can't seem to understand it so how can you say it is simple. Your ideas about the law have been regularly proven wrong (see - all of your previous posts).
        
        I had hope that you were one troll that would just stay under your bridge but once again you've reared you hideous head.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        Yeah, trying to figure out whether you can use a copyrighted recording without permission in your commercial video is tough stuff. Copyright is hard! OMG!
        
        And really, I'm "regularly proven wrong"? Links please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        It says profile next to your username. Try clicking on it an reading the BS you constantly post.
        
        Also, go to the homepage of ASCAP. It says:
        
        "ASCAP licenses the public performances of its members musical works...
        A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or social acquaintances). A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public, for example, radio or TV broadcasts, and via the Internet."
        
        Yeah, how could he possibly be confused. I mean the licensing company outright states that he can use the song but obviously that isn't what they really mean.
        
        You're such a douche, climb back under your rock or go chase an ambulance for some "work" you're not welcome here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        So your proof that I'm "regularly proven wrong" is to say click where it says "profile" next to my name and read my "BS." Convincing!
        
        And, yeah, copyright is so hard! I mean, how could one ever figure out what their license permits? Certainly, one should just go to the ASCAP homepage and assume that they're covered. That's what any "professional" would do, right?
        
        Chase ambulances? LOL! Good one! So fresh!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 4:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        I'm literally trying to process what you wrote above, to see if it makes ANY sense! So, are you trying to laugh at someone who looked up ASCAP licensing, and based on what is on ASCAP's OWN WEBSITE, thought they were okay? So what...was he NOT supposed to look on ASCAP's site? What is it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        You can't argue with an idiot....
        
        They drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience...
        
        Who knew being obtuse would be a benefit in professional trolling.... Wierd Harold, is that you out there? Not quite as random and obscure, but definitely as obtuse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 4 Jan 2012 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        It is impossible to show you that you have been proven wrong because you are incapable of seeing it. And even if you were capable of seeing it, you'd never admit to it. So it's pointless to ask for evidence you will never examine and to which you will only respond, "haha, this site is hilarious..." without actually addressing the criticism of your statements.
        
        You are a troll, sir, and sadly, one of the least entertaining trolls here. Try being absurd with a bit more gusto, if you will.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        khory (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 1:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        What is sad is that you need a license to sing songs at a camp.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        No difference between commercial and noncommercial uses, disproportionate license fees, and an out of touch Copyright Board with little to no public hearings on fees.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        It's uncertain that it has any real purpose other than the facilitation of extortion and freakishly overarching control. The current implementation and codification of it should be scrapped completely, and rewritten in terms the general public can understand completely, and not only the rights holders lawyers. Anyone who thinks the current system is workable is either a liar, a thief, or an idiot. Or all three. Screw copyright laws, the lawyer and courts that "enforce" them, and the brain-dead apologist shills who show up here daily trying to make their case that everything is alright, and we should not worry. I don't pirate, and neve have or intend to, but the first time I ever get some bullshit legalese letter from one of the scumbag lawyers about a YouTube video I may create, I will pay them a personal visit, and solve the problem right then and there. That's the way the law works for me right now. When it comes to copyright, I am the law, and I interpret it my way, and the one that is written is a bunch of intentionally obfuscatory bullshit, and thus completely invalid, unenforceable, and unconstitutional. Let's see how the shysters and apologists respond now. I could not care less.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        How is the law uncertain?
        
        It is uncertain in ways that make you uncertain about where it is uncertain.
        
        Otherwise you would not have asked the question.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:29am
    
    Re: Re: Professionals should know
    "But maybe the real purpose is just to raise outrage so facts don't matter !."
    
    Ah. In that case, it's kind of like the "studies" and "data" and "evidence" and "facts" about how rampant piracy is and how it's causing $200 billion in damages/losses and tens of millions of workers are being laid off due to it and artists are literally starving in the streets and so on and so forth. Am I right?
    
    All of that (THOSE studies) being completely untrue, debunked regularly or flat out having no basis whatsoever in anything even remotely resembling fact.
    
    I guess it's only okay when YOUR side does it.
    
    "Surely placing such bets without checking the details is just gambling and doesn't evidence expertise ?."
    
    Is this the same kind of non evident expertise that leads to laws like SOPA? You know, laws that IT experts, Constitution experts and so on and so forth are saying are violating Constitutional rights, technically impossible to implement (without causing damage to current infrastructure) and so on and so forth.
    
    Again, it's okay when YOU and YOUR KIND do it. But heaven forbid anyone else do the same thing, or not even that, just voice their opinion on their own opinion blog. You cry to the heavens, without noting your evident hypocrisy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:30am
    
    Re: Re: Professionals should know
    Nice try, but given Mike's tenure in the IP field I imagine he is going on an educated guess here.
    
    Regardless of the licensing, what the guy was doing is something the vast majority of the people would consider ok. Any law that criminalizes the vast majority of people is a bad law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:44am
    
    Re: Re: Professionals should know
    But maybe the real purpose is just to raise outrage so facts don't matter !.
    
    Ding, Ding, Ding! Winner!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_ioe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
      you should have picked a better anti stance. Seeing as the other forms of licensing are assigned for singular products, it's not too far fetched that when speaking about a general "ASCAP license" it refers to the public performance shakedown.
      
      And the outrage should come from the fact they felt the need to have an ASCAP license in the first place, its a gd summer camp.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ninja (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        It's commercial use. They should pay for it. The outrage is that the law is so damn patched and broken that you have 83256299232209650266829523857929387653293258762978 ways to license stuff and that doesn't cover any new technology that will require either smaller cords (Zediva honorable mention) or new patches that will break it even more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_ioe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        summer camps needing performance licenses to sing songs is r-e-t-a-r-d-e-d, imho. And one of the shining examples of keeping all eyes on the money and away from the ridiculous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 5 Jan 2012 @ 5:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
        It's not for singing, they played the song at the caps if my reading comprehension helped. I might be wrong though. But if they use songs at the camp and it is a commercial operation (contrary to the Girl Scouts case where they are mainly a non-profitable service) then yes, it should pay to play the musics. Not for singing obviously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:36am
    
    Re: Re: Professionals should know
    Certainly not knowing the rules brings professionalism into question.
    
    Why doesn't it bring the rules into question?
    
    Surely placing such bets without checking the details is just gambling and doesn't evidence expertise ?.
    
    When someone who's been writing about copyright issues for years isn't sure what the rules cover, don't you think there's at least a possibility that says more about the rules than about Mike?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:53am
  
  Re: Professionals should know
  I think that was his point. The rules are so complicated that you have to be a professional to know them. You shouldn't have to be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:01am

I wrote this over at Dvorak's blog a few years ago. It's relevant to repost it again.

There was recently a post on Techdirt about how even those who fight for stricter copyright laws end up accidentally infringing copyrights themselves.

The reason it�s so incredibly easy to infringe copyright law has to do with how out of control copyright laws have become.

As copyright was originally enacted, it was next to impossible to accidentally infringe. In the good old days in order to infringe on a copyright you had to physically publish a song or a book without permission by printing it onto paper via a printing press. There was no other way to copy or infringe on a song or a book and there was no such thing as a performance right protected by copyright.

Nowadays we infringe copyrights numerous times throughout the day without even thinking about it. Watching an unauthorized SNL clip on YouTube. Playing the radio in the background at work where customers can hear. Loaning a copy of your Finding Nemo DVD to play at your kids� daycare. Downloading clip art to use in a personal scrapbook. Scanning your own wedding photos. Forwarding a funny photograph to a friend. Loaning a co-worker some software. Etc., etc., etc�

Copyright laws are so utterly pervasive in our lives that we simply cannot reasonably function without at least some innocent infringement. I personally think it�d be easier to avoid jaywalking and speeding than it would be to avoid infringing.

[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- robin, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:21am
  
  Re:
  +1 for Fish.
  
  It's supposed to be for commercial infringement, not personal use...
  
  This, imho, goes to the heart of the efforts of copyright maximalists, very knowingly transforming commercial law into criminal law.
  
  Combined with the parallel effort to transform a communications technology into a broadcast technology equals a very knowing assault on citizens' Constitutional rights, about which the maximalists don't give a rats ass.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve R. (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:03am
  
  Its a Moving Target
  Just as an add-on. The laws keep getting revised to further protect the "strong" copyright crowd. They get what they want but then whine even louder how they are not protected.
  
  If we went back to copyright as originally envisioned infringement would be greatly diminished. Shouldn't that make the "strong" copyright crowd happy? I doubt it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:12am

Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
My brother posted up a couple videos of his girls singing at their church's Christmas play. He got an automated email from YouTube that the videos may be using copyrighted music. They probably are but so what? That should be fair use. The more stuff like this hits every day people, the sooner they will wake up to the issue and hopefully finally stand up to the government and copyright bullies. The copyright industry better slow down because when they start affecting common people doing stuff like this, they will wake up and their efforts will backfire on them.

It all goes back to trying to stop piracy and in the end only affecting paying customers and normal people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:24am
  
  Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
  This will all cause more and more intrusion into what Joe and Josephine Q Public consider to be their own business and perfectly acceptable, normal, human behaviour.
  When the intrusion becomes too much, the **AA's and their ilk will be wiped out, the only question is, how long will it take them to get to the top of mount stupid, how much damage will they do along the way and how many people will be hurt when they eventually go over the edge and crash down on the innocents below.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:28am
  
  Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
  My brother posted up a couple videos of his girls singing at their church's Christmas play. He got an automated email from YouTube that the videos may be using copyrighted music.
  
  How so. If they were singing themselves I don't see how content ID could have flagged it - do you have any more details?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:37am
    
    Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
    I'm curious of the Church has paid the ASCAP license in order to sing said songs, as clearly it constitutes a public performance (even if it was during a mass). Church's do take donations from patrons or parishioners, is a portion of said donations given to ASCAP for performance rights for everything vocalized during said mass?
    
    It's a crock! They'd never go after a Church because that would be the spark that lights the fire inside the sheep who know nothing about copyright laws, let alone SOPA/PIPA/ACTA.
    
    Too bad the **AA groups are not stupid enough to go after Church's as that would just be so awesome. I believe THAT would wake people up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
      I'm curious of the Church has paid the ASCAP license in order to sing said songs, as clearly it constitutes a public performance (even if it was during a mass). Church's do take donations from patrons or parishioners, is a portion of said donations given to ASCAP for performance rights for everything vocalized during said mass?
      
      Is there some kind of exemption for non-profit entities?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AzureSky (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
        not here in the states there isnt, and honestly, I dont feel there should be, At least not for churches, IMHO Churches should pay licensing and taxes, they are there to bilk kind hearted people out of their money after all.
        
        Look at the people in charge of most denominational churches, they live in luxury, hell the I think organized religion has to be one of the longest running scams out there, getting people to pay money to feel better about themselves and feel forgiven for the wrong they did....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DH's Love Child (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
        In short, no.
        
        Now I've been a church choir director and never had to get licensing from ASCAP, our CCLI covered music purchased and presented as part of the church service. This was yeas ago and may have changed...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
      I'm curious of the Church has paid the ASCAP license in order to sing said songs, as clearly it constitutes a public performance (even if it was during a mass). Church's do take donations from patrons or parishioners, is a portion of said donations given to ASCAP for performance rights for everything vocalized during said mass?
      
      Don't know what the situation is in the US - but in the UK the PPL and PRS do not require licenses for places of worship (although that is no longer backed by the law).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris, 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
      I don't know about that particular church, but I am certain the one I attended paid both ASCAP and CCLI. http://www.ccli.com
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
        Churches don't need to use new music - there's plenty in the public domain.
        
        Collection agencies that charge churches should be ashamed of themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:42am
    
    Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
    The only factual details to be forthcoming on that is that his story is made-up bs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Doe, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
      Say what? Fortunately, only the copyright maximalists play loose with the facts, I do not. After seeing all the take down notices for a baby dancing to a Prince song in the background, music at weddings, so on and so forth, why is my story so hard to believe?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2012 @ 12:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
      Not BS. I had a video flagged, and all that is on the video is the camera sitting on a picnic table, pointing out at the ocean, not even on American soil. Oh, but there was music playing in the background ......
      
      If the congress people opposing SOPA had any brains, they would take these examples with them, to give those people a clue about what's being considered 'infringing'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:49am
    
    Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
    There was music being played as well. I believe it was recorded music but don't know for sure.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
      And of course you left out that fact in your original post, didn't you? How convenient.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Doe, 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
        Yes, because I knew it would get under your skin. It is a conspiracy actually. Mike, through several dummy corps and off shore accounts paid me to draw you out.
        
        My point still stands, recorded music or not, this is fair use. He did not post a cut from MTV of the music video. He did not post up a video with just the song playing. He posted up a video of his kids singing in a church play. There was no monetization on his part and there was no harm done to the market for the song being sung. The more people get their videos taken down, the more they are going to wake up to what is going on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
        DM;FU
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:53am
    
    Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
    Well Richard, someone wrote and distributed the sheet music and song lyrics they used, so unless they themselves wrote the music and lyrics they are infringing on someone's copyright.
    
    It may be hyperbole to imaging someone demanding compensation in this example. But this illustrates the idiocy of infringement claims.
    
    I do not think it is okay to copy and re-sell someone else's copyright, but I do think the copyright holder actually benefits when the general public hears, performs and reuses their works in non-commercial i.e. profit seeking ways.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:57am
      
      Re: clarify
      I meant that to read that by non-commercial ways I meant they were not trying make money from the works or the "dirivitives".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: clarify
        My question was not about the ins and outs of the legality of what was done - but rather the mechanism that produced an automated response.
        
        Simply singing a cover version of a copyrighted song is infringement but can't trigger content ID - because that mechanism is built around the audio fingerprint of a particular recorded version - and is fairly dumb - you can easily circumvent it if you know how.
        
        Of course you may get a non-automated response (try covering anything by the Eagles on Youtube) - but that is pretty unlikely for this type of case.
        
        John Doe has suggested that there may also have been recorded music playing (ie they sang along to a pre-recorded track) - that seems a plausible explanation to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: clarify
        point taken.
        
        Its a sad use for Shazam �
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: clarify
        but ofcourse the eagles are all for maxing out copyright laws and enforcement, its part of why I wont buy my father the eagles cd's hes wanted, because I dont support their attitude...
        
        read an interview with a band member who actually was touating the company line that ripping cd's you own to put on your mp3 player for on the go use was piracy because you should buy a seprae copy for each form of use you plan to put the song to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Can't even post videos of your kids singing at church
      I disagree, if someone else goes on to perform any music he should be the one ripping the benefits that comes with it, financially or socially, if someone makes a better copy of something he should be the one ripping the benefits not someone whose only contribution was to have it done it first.
      
      I would have a problem if somebody claimed it has done it first and it was a lie, but for copying it and making it use of it even for commercial purposes no.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:33am

again
Mr. Masnick, Another poignant and lucid post. Clearly, your critics are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:41am

LOL! Don't put songs you don't have the rights to in your videos that you upload to YouTube. It's not that hard. Give me a break with the FUD. That said, I agree that personal use and fair use rights should be expanded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:48am
  
  Re:
  Don't have rights to?
  
  The average_joe knows only that they have purchased the song. They have no idea about what rights they did or did not purchase.
  
  And, frankly, they shouldn't have to worry.
  
  When I was a kid, I had no idea that making copies of my cassettes for anyone who wanted one wasn't within my rights. Of course, back then no one seemed to care much and artists realized that tape networks got their music distributed all over the world.
  
  Ahh...how time's have changed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    The average_joe knows only that they have purchased the song. They have no idea about what rights they did or did not purchase.
    
    He's a "professional" but he couldn't grasp that his license was (presumably) for singing songs at camp and not for posting professionally recorded music on the internet? Yeah, right.
    
    Of course, this is all Mike's take on it. And given his admission that he has no journalistic integrity and the fact that he often leaves out inconvenient truths, we can rightly assume we're only get part of the story in another effort to manipulate and to slam IP law.
    
    And, frankly, they shouldn't have to worry.
    
    Yeah, because "professionals" just get licenses and don't worry about the details. Right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hmm interesting way of inserting rhetoric, let's see if I can do the same:
      
      "Of course, this is all average_joe's take on it. And given his admission that he has not a lawyer and the fact that he often leaves out inconvenient truths, we can rightly assume we're only get part of the story in another effort to manipulate and to promote overreaching, out of touch IP law."
      
      You're doing the same!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Of course, this is all Mike's take on it."
      
      He's claimed nothing else.
      
      "we can rightly assume"
      
      Yeah, this is the sort of thing that makes me giggle. You attack Mike for a story lacking details (which is presented as a commentary on an anecdotal personal story, not the investigative journalism you seem to crave), then admit that you're just assuming stuff yourself.
      
      As ever, no details from your "side". Just personal attacks and an avoidance of the central point of the story. Four comments, and nothing other than attacks and your own opinion ("of course he should have known") in lieu of facts of even acknowledgement of the ongoing idea being addressed.
      
      It's no wonder you're the only person here with a dedicated parody account of your usual comments.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There's needs to be a confirmation here. Either he bought a song or he bought a license. Both contend that this legal purchase can be used without a need to buy a license. It's not up to the extortion company to tell this guy his legal rights.
      
      Unless you promote ASCAP going for the girl scouts as well...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You know, if laws were that clear we wouldn't need lawyers or lawsuits. Copyright is specially true. If the law was really well written we wouldn't have shitloads of lawsuits with different outcomes.
      
      That's precisely what happened here. I'm no real expert on copyright nor I intend to be (I'm still sane, these laws are for the insane to understand - no offense meant) but when I saw they had a license for ASCAP I automatically assumed the copyright holder made yet another mistake on the takedown issue. But no, it's just like Zediva. You can lend your DVDs but you can't stream them. The very same physical DVDs, one user at a time for one DVD player at the 'data center'.
      
      But it was well explained and proven in the Zediva case. IT's the length of the cord that's the issue. Surely if the camp was located besides any Youtube server or mirror it would be fine. /sarcasm
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Perhaps it never occured to this individual that a voice over extolling the virtues of the facility would have perfectly fine.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No doubt. I do understand where he was coming from, to a point. My wife loves to take videos of our kids, and she creates montages which she sets to copyrighted music (which we've purchased/licensed from iTunes). We watch these from the comfort of our living room, but she knows better than to post them on YouTube. We have hundreds of videos on YouTube, but none with copyrighted music. My wife knows next to nothing about copyright, but she knows you can't just take tracks you bought off of iTunes and upload them to YouTube. She doesn't have to be a "professional" or read the details of the iTunes license to know this. It's basic, common knowledge, and Mike pretends like it's the hardest thing in the world. It's "insanity!" LOL!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Basic common knowledge to your wife? Well then, I guess that is that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did you miss the part where it was said that the guy has the rights for public performances, just not that specific kind of public performance?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 6:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My wife loves to take videos of our kids
        
        Someone MARRIED YOU? Holy crap do I feel bad for the person that made that choice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AzureSky (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 10:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you dont like it, heres some advice, rather then make a total and complete arse of yourself, just dont read it, then you wont have to reply and make a total and complete arse of youself.
      
      simple and will remove our need to downrate your posts :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The details that says you only can play a song if the wind blows in one specific direction, the air temperature is 80 degrees, the alignment of the planets must be right and so on.
      
      Yep people all over will memorize the entire history of copyright jurisprudence just to get the details right LoL
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:09am
  
  Re:
  Try and stop me. I won't give you FUD, but if anyone wants to make me pay extortion for innocent use of music for personal, non-commercial entertainment, or prevent me from doing such activity in the first place, I can readily make them see the error of their ways in a manner that they will never, ever forget. I am sick and tired of this lawyering bullshit, and if it takes a little directed violence to make it stop, I am perfectly OK with that. The time for pointless debate and legal bantering is long since past, and a few parasitic lawyers in wheelchairs makes a far more persuasive argument for reform. By the way, I have never even posted a video to YouTube, but if I want to, I will do it my way, and anyone who has a problem with that will learn what a problem really is, very quickly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    If you can't make up your own music for your own videos, why should you just be able to take someone else's?
    
    You think music is worthless, yet apparently it's so difficult to produce that you must take someone else's.
    
    Certain obvious economic realities of life are escaping you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So if I played the music with my own instruments and did my own thing it would be ok right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If musicians can't make up their own music instruments for their own videos, why should they just be able to pay the instrument makers once?
      
      You think instruments are worthless, yet apparently they're so difficult to produce you must pay someone else only once for it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Try and stop me . . . I can readily make them see the error of their ways in a manner that they will never, ever forget.
    
    ROFLMAO! You guys are the best!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 1:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      [quote]
      
      [personal attack]
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:47am
  
  Re:
  LOL! Don't put songs you don't have the rights to in your videos that you upload to YouTube.
  
  You first AJ.
  
  Stop using an "Officially licensed Dodgeball Average Joe's Gym" image as your icon. I'm pretty sure you don't have the rights to do that either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ouch. Right in the kidney.... Wonder if he'll reply.
    
    "It's obviously fair use!" Uh-huh, obviously...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ouch. Right in the kidney.... Wonder if he'll reply.
      
      "It's obviously fair use!" Uh-huh, obviously...
      
      I would primarily argue de minimis, with fair use in the alternative.
      
      "If the allegedly infringing work makes such a qualitatively insubstantial use of the copyrighted work . . . it makes more sense to . . . find no infringement, rather than undertake an elaborate fair use analysis." Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, 126 F.3d 70, 76 (2d Cir. 1997).
      
      It's hilarious how you guys want this to be infringement. LMAO!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you do not have the FORMAL WRITTEN CONSENT of the content creators, you are infringing. It does not matter whether it is fair use or not: fair use is a defense against infringement in the US, and NOT the default position.
        
        Even in. Your cited case, infringement is mentioned in the suit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Um, consent doesn't have to be in writing (there is no writing requirement for a nonexclusive license). Moreover, I don't need consent to exercise my fair use/personal use rights. But other than that, you're totally correct.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How is appropriating an image without consent fair use?
        De minimis doesn't exist anymore in copyright, so you are claiming personal use and that is ok to not pay the original artist?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How is appropriating an image without consent fair use?
        De minimis doesn't exist anymore in copyright, so you are claiming personal use and that is ok to not pay the original artist?
        
        Huh? Fair use doesn't require consent. You are very confused.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 5 Jan 2012 @ 5:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, you are the one confused. While your avatar case has certainly been exaggerated it is an issue. The rights holder CAN sue you.
        
        They don't sue over these trivial things and consider it as fair use because it wouldn't be feasible to sue the whole world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is no de minimis in copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is no de minimis in copyright.
        
        Huh? The Second Circuit case I quoted above was about exactly that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Stop using an "Officially licensed Dodgeball Average Joe's Gym" image as your icon. I'm pretty sure you don't have the rights to do that either.
    
    LOL! I love how you copyright abolitionists suddenly become maximalists when it comes to my avatar. Bring on the lawsuit--I'd enjoy the opportunity to clarify personal/fair use rights. De minimis non curat lex.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greg G, 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, we're not suddenly becoming maximalists.
      
      I guess you don't understand irony and hypocrisy much.
      
      Ironia latens te, te hypocrisis.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 10:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      LOL! I love how you copyright abolitionists suddenly become maximalists when it comes to my avatar.
      
      Dude, I am neither of those. I don't believe copyright should be abolished, it just needs to be dragged into the 21st century and the bargain between creators and the public needs to be adjusted for fairness.
      
      As for my comment, you missed the point, I was indicating that you feel using a copyrighted image is fair use, but someone using a song to augment a video is obviously infringement (and basically calling them stupid for doing so).
      
      Why the disconnect?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dude, I am neither of those. I don't believe copyright should be abolished, it just needs to be dragged into the 21st century and the bargain between creators and the public needs to be adjusted for fairness.
        
        Fair enough. Sorry if I "broad-brushed" you.
        
        As for my comment, you missed the point, I was indicating that you feel using a copyrighted image is fair use, but someone using a song to augment a video is obviously infringement (and basically calling them stupid for doing so).
        
        I don't have all the facts, but it appears they were using a copyrighted song for a commercial purpose (promoting the camp). There's not a strong fair use argument there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't have all the facts, but it appears they were using a copyrighted song for a commercial purpose (promoting the camp). There's not a strong fair use argument there.
        
        Yeah, I have to agree that there doesn't look like a strong fair use argument there.
        
        To be fair though, this thread started with a generalization ("...Don't put songs you don't have the rights to in your videos...") by you that wasn't just limited to this particular case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh please. This was just more of Masnick's intellectual dishonesty.
        
        More copyright hatred, which of course is designed to defend the piracy he loves so much; the piracy environment he boneheadedly has based his business model on exploiting.
        
        Snore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh please. This was [bias][blatant lies][strawman]'s [baseless argument].
        
        [blatant lies][incorrect], which [bias] is [blatant lies][digital piracy is evil][strawman]; [non-sequitur fallacy]
        
        Snore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 4:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        IMO you should have called him the Masnick, and you didn't even say "freetard". Overall, pretty good satire though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 10:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      My Latin is rusty. Does that say 'The law does not concern itself with my small penis'?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My Latin is rusty. Does that say 'The law does not concern itself with my small penis'?
        
        LMFAO!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm glad someone enjoyed that :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:28am
  
  Re:
  Unfortunately, far too many believe that personal use rights extend far beyond immediate family and friends, and that fair use rights apply to virtually every use.
  
  By the way, the provisions is Title 17 concerning fair use are not the only criteria that may be used by a court presented with such an issue. The four have to be considered, but then again a court is free to augment them with other criteria that it believes is appropriate under the circumstances of a case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's for sure about personal/fair use rights. And good point about the four factors being illustrative and not exhaustive. I'm not sure I've seen a court actually identify and apply any other factors though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  The lesson here is that, you don't listen to nobody that don't use a copyleft license ever, the "product" is not useful and thus has no value.
  
  Jamendo is a good alternative.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2012 @ 12:09pm
  
  Re:
  The problem is right now there are videos that are very much fair use that are being swiped off the Internet under bogus infringement claims. We are tired of it.
  
  We, the people that DON'T infringe, we PAY for our entertainment, we PURCHASE the dvd, mp3, iTunes, etc.
  
  You are tossing the baby out with the bathwater......and this baby got up, gave you the finger, and moved on to a new form of entertainment that doesn't treat PAYING customers like a criminal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:41am

How dare you sully the glorious name of Duct Tape(tm)! Duct tape fixes everything, even SOPA. Just completely encase all existing copies of SOPA in duct tape and you could retire and take up fishing, secure in the knowledge that duct tape will protect us from bought politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ken (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:01am

When ever something is abused or treads into the realm of extreme ridiculousness there comes the inevitable backlash. The more copyright holders push to the extremes the more the pendulum will swing back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:18am

All I know is that if a movie producer wanted to include a song of mine in his movie he would have to pay me, which is really cool, because if people like the music they hear in the movie, chances are they'll buy my disks so I win two ways there. Which is why the law is reasonable, and amateurs, doing what people have always done but now more publicly visible thinking that they don't have to pay me to promote my music are simply foolish.
It's the fundamental law of advertising, if you want to boost my business, you have to pay me. That's why television stations have shows and movies those companies that make them pay the tv station to show them and it helps recoup the costs of advertising car manufacturers, special ointments and some brand of cola*.**

*All of whom also pay me for using my music*** (obviously only if they actually use it,there's currently a loophole, where if they don't actually use something that I have rights to then they don't have to pay me, but hopefully that loophole will be closed in the future)

** Someone pointed out I might have gotten it backwards about shows and adverts, but as I pointed out to them, it doesn't matter to me, I get paid anyway.

***Well, when I say my music, I am not actually a musician, but a long deceased relative of mine, who actually come to think of it also wasn't a musician, but did write poems and some of those were put to music and while he's dead, and the generation after him are also dead, I share ownership of the rights with a couple of other people and we all get paid thanks to copyright and I have to say I find it a real inducement to be related to people who created stuff in the past and I will obviously go out of my way to be related to many more if at all possible.

(Btw this is partially honest truth, I do indeed, currently "technically" benefit from works that were written 100 years ago and more, which I think is insane and once certain legalities are settled I will be distancing myself from that kind of nonsense.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:34am

Perhaps what is "broken" is the public perception that they have the right to copy/use things without permission. Why would he assume that it was ok to do this? If you want background music on your slide show request permission or create your own music. This seems like common sense to me and I'm not in the entertainment industry like your cousin-in-law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  Oh, you must have been great fun at family parties or around the campfire.
  
  Are we to presume from this that you've never told anyone a joke you heard, never told a story, never sung a song or whistled a tune without getting permission to do so from the "original artist" or current rights holder?
  
  You know, I kind of think you probably have, but you have those in a locked off segment of your mind where you think of them as being somehow "different" for no reason other than it's you doing it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:45am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 4th, 2012 @ 7:34am
  So, let's shackle millions of years of biology to give people more money!
  
  Baka.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 8:27am
  
  Re: What is broken
  What is broken is copyright law.
  
  Here is a link to a recent post that describes why I hold this opinion. posted by Anonymoose Custard (profile), Jan 3rd, 2012 @ 2:28pm
  
  it starts out:
  The problem is that Copyright came with a promise similar to the promise that Patents have: That once the creator has profited from the work, the work enters the collective cultural domain. The reasoning is that then the Public will always have access to the works.
  
  I'm sure there will be arguments that this is/is not true; Either way it should be if we have any desire to have a healthy growing society, much less a healthy growing economy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steve R. (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:01am
    
    Re: Re: What is broken
    Copyright and Patents have been perverted. As you point out, the intent of these privileges is to make the content accessible to the public while allowing, for a limited time, the holder to make some money. Unfortunately, these privileges have been bastardized to constrain the public and to become a "toll-booth" for the collection of revenue. Now it is all about the rights holder not the public.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:57am
  
  Re:
  He should have used Jamendo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re:
  erhaps what is "broken" is the public perception that they have the right to copy/use things without permission. Why would he assume that it was ok to do this? If you want background music on your slide show request permission or create your own music. This seems like common sense to me and I'm not in the entertainment industry like your cousin-in-law.
  
  It may seem like common sense but it is sand in the machinery of progress. Unless we give up the addiction to this permission culture our civilisation is doomed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:53am

Creating Bogus Rights
Instead of competing on price, product quality, and customer service we have phony capitalists and shyster lawyers who create bogus property rights to shutout the competition and to deprive the consumer of their property rights.

As most people know, who visit this site, copyright was meant to be for a limited time as a means of encouraging the creation of content. The content industry along with their lawyers have unfortunately corrupted copyright to be treated as property right.

Not only that, but the property rights of the consumer to the use of content continue to be extinguished and criminalized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:53am

"My cousin works (year round) for a summer camp."

Where does you cousin live? Year round summer sounds great!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Barclay (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:19am

You need a synch license -- but you can't get one
In order to record and upload a video to YouTube containing someone else's music, you need a synch (synchronization) license. This is even true if you are performing the music yourself (such as the Church example in these comments) and not using the author's own recording.

Problem is: you can't get a synch license! When I started learning the guitar and posted my own recording of "Brown Eyed Girl" on YouTube, I got an email from Van Morrison's publishing company. The company said that I needed a synch license to post the video -- but they wouldn't give me one. They did kindly agree to let my video stay up if I gave Morrison's publishing company credit in the video's comments, which I did. But without a synch license, the publisher has the right to send a takedown notice (absent fair use arguments).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keroberos (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:42am

As much as I hate current copyright law, and as much as I hate to side with the copyright maximalists, this video as a promotion for a business (a summer camp) is clearly not personal use and would fall under commercial infringement.

That being said. Is copyright law complex and confusing? Of course it is, it's a complex and confusing subject. All laws are, take a look at contract or rental laws, those don't make any sense to the average person either. But they need to be complex because they describe complex subjects. It's almost impossible to write laws on complex subjects that make sense to a layman but aren't so vague as to be meaningless and open to multiple interpretations. Which is exactly the complaint we have with SOPA/PIPA, are you saying you want copyright law to be made that vague? How would that help?

An example in this case would be, if I make a video of my kids dancing to current pop music, that would be personal use, if I give that video on a disc or e-mail to my friends and family, that would also be personal use, but if I post it to YouTube is it still personal use? One could argue that YouTube as a for profit business, all videos on the site are used for commercial purposes (to make YouTube money from advertising).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I-Blz, 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  "...are you saying you want copyright lay to be vague? How would that help?"
  
  The problem is that they're already vague, with the added bonus of being written in legalese. Precise language is not "Herinwith lies the agreement of both parties connected to this work to allow the exclusive useage of the unadulterated, complete, unchanged manuscript of..." yadda, yadda, yadda, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
  Precise language does not have to be complex, and many examples of complex language are built from the ground up to be imprecise, and say very little while taking up 500+ pages.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 9:57am

Feeble
This sounds to me like... Everyone is doing this on YouTube and so will I. One hidden amongst the masses.

Then once caught out it is then a feeble justification attempt by quoting ASCAP license.

Then again these matters can be confusing and his professional knowledge can have been based much on assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanZee (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:24am

Copyright-free Music
I would have thought the cousin would have had access to copyright-free tracks specifically made for the video production industry. You buy the CD, you buy a license to use the music for videos. He shouldn't have even thought about using a consumer track. There are also Creative Commons songs he could have used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 5 Jan 2012 @ 1:09pm

Copyright
I am very opposed to the current attitude of "pegging" on an extreme position (a major problem in Congress as well as generally), however, here I agree with you.
Copyright is so horribly broken perhaps it should be abolished, even if an innocent few are harmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]