Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK
from the you-need-a-seriously-large-staff-to-get-nothing-done dept
"Just ask for permission."When it comes to dealing with the "permission culture" that goes hand-in-hand with copyright these days, there's really no way to win. Certain rights holders claim they just want to be asked, but the actual process involved makes it seem like you'd save a ton of time just assuming the answer is "no."
Hugh Brown (a.k.a. Huge), an Australian recording artist and music business coach, experienced this circuitous process firsthand when he attempted to craft a parody of Adam Lambert's "If I Had You," entitled "If I Had Stew." Parodies are handled a bit differently in Australia, despite recent concessions in Australian fair dealing laws. According to APRA (Australasian Performing Rights Association), "lyric changes and parodies of works must [be] cleared directly with the copyright owner."
"If I Had You" wasn't written by Lambert, but by Swedish songwriting team Maratone (Max Martin, Shellback and Kritian Lundin). But Huge couldn't approach Maratone directly as its website indicated that all the trio's songs were owned by the writer's respective labels. So he emailed Maratone and sent another form asking RCA/Jive Records for permission to make this recording.
Huge heard nothing from Sony but did hear back from Maratone... who told him to contact Kobalt Music Publishing and clear it with EMI as well. Quick count of players involved: There's Maratone, the trio of songwriters behind Adam Lambert (who's likely off sleeping the undisturbed sleep of successful angels). Sony Music. RCA/Jive Records. Kobalt Music Publishing. And EMI. That's four labels and not a single person willing to discuss clearing Huge's parody.
A couple of weeks pass and Sony still hasn't responded. Kobalt UK and EMI Australia have... sort of. The two labels directed Huge to yet another set of forms to fill out, despite him having given them all this information in his initial emails. The new forms aren't even for requesting permission to record a parody. All they do is assist the labels in compiling a price quote on the as-of-yet unrecorded song. And even if permission is granted, it likely still won't be enough. EMI only owns one-third of the track in question. Songwriter Savan Kovetchka, an EMI signee, contributed to Lambert's track, along with Max Martin and Shellback. This means Huge still needs permission from the other two songwriters and some sort of answer from Sony.
It's now nearly a month since Huge first made contact and no progress has been made. Sony appears to be ignoring his requests. If anything, he's further behind than he was 27 days ago, when this whole thing kicked off. The "good" news is that Kobalt Media (representing Kotecha) said "yes," giving Huge one-third of a "permission" -- pending EMI's approval... and when it comes to getting written permission, one-third of a permission slip is worth approximately one-third of nothing. Huge did the right thing and asked (and asked... and asked) for permission, but despite the ever-growing list of interested parties, it looks as if "permission" might be something they simply can't give. And then... things go completely off the rails.
Huge opens his last post on the debacle with, "Well, I'm gobsmacked! No wonder the major labels are in so much trouble." Kobalt has given their blessing but EMI begins a long process of royalty-related correspondence so twisted it would make Joseph Heller proud.
It starts out with a simple request for clarification by EMI.
What is your main goal for this use?Huge responds:
In your original enquiry you have noted that you intended to make a video for the song but have said "maybe" in your request form. Is this principally for release as an mp3 single?
To be honest, my main intention is to make the song for my own amusement.Gauging the market before putting the song up for sale is just common sense and YouTube's a pretty good place to get quick feedback. But as soon as YouTube is mentioned, EMI fires off a preliminary standard contract for sync rights, showing that its share of any money generated would be 33.34% and a guesstimated one-time fee of $1000.
If I play it to few people who agree with me that it's fun and good, then I'll think seriously about making a video as cheaply as possible and releasing it on YouTube. I have a few people who are interested in helping with that, though they wanna hear it first.
If it gets any traction on YouTube, then I'll think about releasing it as an MP3 and via iTunes, etc ... I just wanted to clear everything properly first.
Huge forwards EMI his approval letter from Kobalt, which sends the label off on an entirely different tangent.
I just want to clarify with you that we are the licensing department of EMI Publishing, so we are quoting you on the synchronisation rights if you intend on using the work in a video clip. If you want to request approval to record and release this song you will need to get in contact with our copyright department.So, Huge has been talking to the wrong people. He sends a letter back acknowledging the fact that he (obviously) can't sync the video until after he's recorded the song. He asks EMI for a contact name in the copyright department and receives this in response:
Will you be getting a mechanical license from AMCOS before putting this song on youtube or will you be putting it on youtube before you get a mechanical license?This a question that can't be answered. According to APRA/AMCOS rules, Huge needs to secure permission before he can worry about uploading it to YouTube. He tries again to get EMI to follow his line of thinking: get permission, record, upload.
That depends on whether I am allowed to use Sony's backing music or whether I have to completely re-record it myself ... still no word from Sony.EMI takes this clear statement of ducks-in-a-row and it decides that the mechanical license question needs to be clarified before anything else can proceed, except that other stuff (getting permission) also needs to happen first and perhaps simultaneously.
My instinct is to clear everything before I do anything. If I know what it's all gonna cost me I can do up budgets and set targets and so on. I just figured that securing permission was the first step ...
So does this mean that you do not intend to release the song with a mechanical license prior to putting a video on youtube?At this stage, Huge is still waiting for permission from two more writers. EMI, however, only seems to be concerned with properly licensing a song that a.) doesn't exist and b.) quite possibly won't exist if permission is denied. It's also given Huge the "opportunity" to pay an upfront fee of $1000 for a track he might not even make. Huge (once again) points out his thought process: permission, record, YouTube/mp3. This repeated clarification makes no difference. EMI is still hung up on the mechanical license for syncing when it's not trying to just punt the whole thing over to the copyright department. EMI also insists that its previously mentioned $1000 "contract" is valid for only four weeks, after which it will need to issue a new contract. Huge points out (again) that he still is waiting on permission to record.
If you intend on getting a mechanical license first you will need to get approval to record and release an adaption but if you do not intend on releasing the song first you will need a synchronisation license.
EMI responds with this amazing statement, which baldly states that the label doesn't particularly care whether or not Huge ever gets a chance to record this parody if he's not willing to throw some cash its way:
We can not give you permission to do anything with the song until you commit to a sync license (internet video) or a mechanical license (release) so please confirm if and when you are ready to proceed.Huge attempts to wrap his mind around this:
OK, so let me get this straight: EMI will not contact the writer and ask for permission for me to make a parody unless I fork out $1000 upfront and possibly also a mechanical license ... for a song I might not be given permission to make and that might turn out to be unreleasable ...Precisely. If you want artists to play nice within the confines of your system, then you need to have a workable system, not just a set of loosely-related entities all acting independently and in their own best interests. Having multiple layers of corporate bureaucracy standing between two artists only hurts those who are actually trying to do the right thing. If Huge had gone the other way and decided that it was easier to ask forgiveness than permission, I can guarantee that any sort of takedown or cease-and-desist would come from a single source. When it comes to saying "no," you generally only need one person. But to get a "yes?" That's a "team" effort, apparently.
Alternatively, they won't ask for permission for me to record the parody until ... I've recorded it and know what I'm gonna do with it. No wonder people are just breaking the rules and doing what they want with recorded music!
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: culture, huge, hugh brown, impossibility, licensing, mashup, music, parody, permission culture, remix
Companies: emi, maratone, sony
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Some black peeps moved in next door to me a couple days ago so while I was high last night I fired up an extra router and named the network FUCK YOU CRACKERS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let it go already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Hehe, look I made it look like they are the ignorant fucks, hehehe"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040319h.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trying (and failing as they do at everything including the music business) to derail the conversation...
Lord, how many times must Sony, EMI and Universal try to push unwanted topics off-track before they realize people will just vote them down into obliteration?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, quit belly-achin'!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, quit belly-achin'!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, quit belly-achin'!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, quit belly-achin'!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
NO? didn't think so....have a lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, this is the only way to win. Ignore the system entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I support your view.
Fuck The Corporate A-Holes !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know a lot of people who don't see a problem with downloading a copy of content they've brought. A friend of mine pointed out that it's easier and quicker for him to go torrent a rip of old album his owns rather than go digging around to find the CD and to rip the content off it.
The way people live day to day is becoming more and more illegal and tipping point will be reached when we'll be faced with the question "Do we keep living as we feel we should and have a moral right to in the face of breaking the law and being taken to court for doing do?" That's when I think the term Intellectual Disobedience will actually start to become meaningful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refactoring.
They could save a lot of money if they just hired one guy to answer the phone and tell people "No."
..unless their plan is to waste other people's time, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refactoring.
Just record whatever you want. The worst thing they'll do is takedown your Youtube video (hint: try Vimeo). They'll only sue if you're actually making money/getting noticed, which 99% of all musicians aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This.
Btw, wtf is a mechanical license and a sync license? How the heck can I respect something that doesn't make sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This.
your description would seem to mean I need one of each?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step 1: Try to play by the rules and ask for permission
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Despair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And you showed your movie before you even had permission. Guess you don't care about other people's property rights. No big surprise there. He's trying to get permission. He may never get it. Life goes on. But you, Nina, you're super special. The rules don't apply to you, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hint: it is NOT promoting creativity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but it goes on without "If I Had Soup". A condition that would not apply if Huge didn't need to ask permission to make fun of someone's song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except...
It's not property, so the "owner" can put it out there for people to consume and enjoy, and, yes, make parodies thereof...
You can't have it both ways. Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The "way it works" is that the people who play by the rules get shafted and the people who say "fuck the system" are successful.
How about we meet in the middle, though? If you pay taxes on your property, people have to ask permission to use it. Deal? (hint, you don't know what property means)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The issue of paying property taxes for intellectual "property" was discussed in the LA Times more than 4 years ago in an opinion piece by Dallas Weaver, which was a response to an earlier opinion article by Jon Healy
Mr. Weaver's observed that if it was necessary to pay property taxes for IP, then there would be incentive to release non-performing instances of IP to the public domain. This would be a very laudable outcome, although I remain quite conflicted about this because it would be acknowledging that IP is actually property in the first place. As has been discussed at great length here, intellectual property has considerable differences from all other forms of property as it consists of nothing more than a government ordained right to operate a monopoly.
On the other hand, further discussion of property taxes for IP is worthwhile because it would bring the inconsistency of IP maximallist arguments into the public focus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed.
When I started my first business, this was what surprised me more than anything else. Chairs, desks, etc., are all taxable property. I even had to pay property taxes on certain office supplies.
Although IP is not, in fact, property and so I don't think that property taxes should apply to it, the maximalists often make the argument that it is property. I wonder if they realize that's a sword that cuts more than one way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
until you just mentioned it, i didn't think about the flip side of the 'rights' the MAFIAA insists upon, and that is the 'responsibility' part which they are avoiding...
IF so-called "intellectual property" is a 'real' thing, AND it confers benefits, AND we 99% have to pay real taxes on real property; why don't patent holders, copyright holders, music rights orgs, and all the rest of the parasites have to PAY TAXES on this 'valuable' 'property' ? ? ?
i pay taxes on my property, why don't they ? ? ?
oh, they want all the (made-up) 'rights' and privileges without ANY responsibility (WE even get to pay for enforcing THEIR 'rights' ! ! !)...
nice 'work' if you can get it...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then we can start the petitions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Um, if you don't get the permission you need, then you don't get to use the property you don't have permission to use. Just like everything else in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except most everything else in the world does not involve the Kafkaesque process above.
Seriously: read the article once more and think for a second (I know you can do it) about what exactly you're defending here. You can defend copyright without defending this. That you still choose to defend this... well... that says a hell of a lot about what sort of person you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except I am entitled to do what this guy was asking permission for. Parody is fair use in America, which means that I can do this without fair of retribution:
Bad laws, bad laws, bad laws, bad laws
They cripple innovation, they make singing a sin
If you aren't a corporation then you just can't win
They need evaluation, but so much money's coming in
A heinous crime? Rewriting songs,
Unless you suck EMI's dong
Bad laws, bad laws, bad laws, they're bad
Electric and Musical Industries is watching so beware
There are no parodies that they will let you share
So just pay them and say please,
Or you will know true fear
They're lawyered up, they'll find your flaws
There's no saving you
Signed, bad laws.
See that drivel I just whipped up in half an hour? That's what Huge was trying to do. It's what he was being asked a thousand dollars for the honor of doing. If this post had been written by an Australian, they could be taken to court for this, but it's cool since I'm posting from the other side of the ocean. That doesn't seem the least bit silly to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They might extradite!
Don't try to make a funny
Cos when it comes to money,
They'll find an excuse
To tie the noose
From near or far
So put your cash in their jar.
(Etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Don't do business with that company" is clearly not working out, despite the fact that it should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"and think for a second (I know you can do it)"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously: read the article once more and think for a second (I know you can do it) about what exactly you're defending here. You can defend copyright without defending this. That you still choose to defend this... well... that says a hell of a lot about what sort of person you are.
First of all, there's obviously more to this story that you guys aren't reporting. You're doing what you usually do: Take an anecdotal story and say, "See! The whole system is broken!" Common sense tells me that if they're into the business of licensing content, then they don't make licensing content some labyrinth that no one can figure out. Something tells me the market would have weeded out such self-destructive companies. Give me a break. I'd love to hear their side of this. Of course, we won't get that from TD. We get only yellow journalism and stories about the bogeyman. You don't have a right to license someone's property. If you don't like doing business with someone, don't do it. But please stop whining. Don't you get tired of whining about copyright every single day? If the "sky is rising" and the business is at an all time high despite the copyright cartels, then why isn't your friend using all that great music that isn't so locked up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Excellent, so if you could just point out what that is...
*crickets*
No, didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because he wants to make a parody of THIS FUCKING SONG!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. pardon me, but your extreme deference to authority is showing... 'oh, i cain't nebber ebber bewieve that masters of the universe would ebber do nuthin' untoward; must be those dirty fucking freetards...'
3. u r a dick, and an authoritarian one at that... get your nose out of the collective butts of the MAFIAA, and maybe the world will smell a little better...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you get permission to act like a jackass on this blog?
No? Well STFU & GTFO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Imagine if you had to wait a year or more for permission to make a garden bed that was similar to your neighbors in your own yard. First you need a mechanical license to operate a shovel. Get permission to use the same mulch as him, add curves to your planting bed.. remember he did it first, and if you choose the same species of flower... bam Synchronization license so that both plants can grow at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Say you have some gunk clogging up your roof gutters, and you want to clean it out, but you don't have a ladder.
Of course you ask your neighbour for permission to borrow his ladder for half an hour. However, when you ring the doorbell, an unknown person opens and says that you cannot talk to your neighbour. You cannot borrow the ladder from this unknown person but he can redirect you to someone that might be able to. He gives you a phone number and sends you on your way.
The phone is not answered for days and when you do get someone on the line, he first wants to know what you will be using it for. He can borrow you the ladder if you provide a photo of the ladder in its intended use.
Oh, and of course, while you would then have permission to use the ladder, you are not allowed to go and *take* it. For that, you will need permission from two other people, one to go to the shed where the ladder is, and one to move the ladder from the current location to the location of use. The first is unavailable for comments right now, but his representative knows that he'll most probably happily give you permission if the second one agrees.
The second one first wants a sample of the roof gutter, to prove that you are actually going to use the ladder for the purposes you claim.
So, the steps involved are:
1. take ladder
2. use ladder to get gunk
3. take photo
4. put back ladder
5. show gunk to person in charge of ladder movement
6. receive permission for ladder movement
7. show permission for ladder movement to persion in charge of ladder acquisition
8. receive permission for ladder acquisition
9. show photo from step 3 to person in charge of general ladder-borrowing
10. receive permission to perform step 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Didn't think so. You only attack independent artists, as shown here. Try not being an asshole and a hypocrite, it helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And like all mistakes, it'll be fixed, eventually.
And we'll all be better for it.
* * *
Entitlement?!?!...I'm a producer of culture as are all (even you trolls) people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's bullshit. Once you publish it, it's the "property" of the world. Got a problem with that? Don't publish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's bullshit. Once you publish it, it's the "property" of the world. Got a problem with that? Don't publish."
This. A million times, this. Copyright is an agreement WITH THE PUBLIC. You HAVE to give SOMETHING back in order to have this GRANTED privilege, and then eventually you MUST also give it ALL back.
Any copyright-defender or ShillTroll(tm) must accept this as reality, or they are being disingenuous liars who are willfully attempting to twist and subvert this constitutionally granted privilege through misleading deception and outright falsehoods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We are trying to have an adult conversation here - something that could not possibly interest you. Run along, sonny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except it's *not* their property. It's they property of the public, and they're just allowed a limited ability to charge rents.
Nothing is created in a vacuum. All art is built out of existing material.
"Oh, but they built it! Of course they own it!"
Suppose you were going to build a house. You had all the materials delivered one day, with the plan to start the following week. You show up, but lo and behold, I had used the materials to build my own house. Do I own it because I built it, or do you own it because you owned the stuff it was made out of?
No, that would be you. You're using "property" that belongs to everybody, and then claiming that because you built something new out of it, it belongs to you. Sorry, that's not the way it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You were around during the 1800? Are you Abe Simpson?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, assuming the other labels responded similarly, does this mean Brown would have to pay 100.2% of money generated + $3000 for the privilege of putting his track on YouTube?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yes, that is accurate before you ask, $99k really did disappear like Shadow on acid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Surprise
They deliberately frustrated the artist by wriggling through a long, stupidly worded legalistically defensive e-mail chain. They did this to send a message: This might be a waste of time, and we want money right now, up front to do ANY work. That includes talking to you. At all.
None of them smell blood in the water, so they aren't looking to feed. What else is new?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently this division of permissions makes it even more difficult for artists to be paid a fair amount of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldy going where no hariy man has gone before.
So, they stated this without hair?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Baldy going where no hariy man has gone before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Baldy going where no hariy man has gone before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How the heck did copyright get so fucked up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe we should help rising THEIR awareness that they are not the center of the world and that copyright is broken?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now imagine what would happen if he wanted to let his parody be seen world wide....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes perfect sense
The legacy music industry is not in the business of selling music.
Music is not the product. What they are in the business of is selling promotional and related services to artists. And by selling, I mean doing a bait-and-switch and strongarming by whatever means necessary to get the artists to sign away their "rights" - and then doing a completely shitty job providing those services to 99% of those that signed.
They only care about sales and licensing in as much as it is how their artists pay them - but that is money they can funnel into their own coffers without much work since they've got their whole infrastructure of lawyers, accountants, affiliated businesses and industry contacts already built to do it.
Hugh is not their customer. At best, he is a potential small scale revenue source, but they'd have to do a bunch of extra work for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes We Can't!
It's like this:
Yes, We Can!
No, You Can't
As soon as someone has to decline something, it's no longer "we" but "I". What a shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By funny i mean sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so simple, right? I need a permit from the city for those sort of works. I also need to clear it with the gas, the phone, and the electric company. I may need to get clearance from the city's water and sewer department depending on how the drainage goes out. I may need permission from my neighbors (if the drainage comes close to their property, or might drain onto their land), and I may need insurance for the workers and so on.
Real life is complicated. Get use to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is also very likely, depending on local laws, that a permission response is required to be given within a certain timeframe from receiving the request, and permission can only be denied for a list of reasons that can be discovered before you apply.
All of that is the complete opposite of the copyright permission debacle in the OP, where there is no way to find out who to speak to before you start, where there is no requirement for them to respond to you, and each respondent is free to make up their own rules and they can have different sets of rules depending on who is asking.
And that's not even the point. It's perfectly valid for a copyright-holder to withhold permission just because they feel like it, that is exactly the right that copyright gives them! And THAT is the point. Arguments that copyright is required to encourage people to create new things should not ignore the fact that copyright ALSO prevents things from being created. We should be able to have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of the current (or proposed) copyright systems, or other alternatives, and look at what makes the most sense for artists, and what makes the most sense for consumers... and with luck they may even intersect.
If that happens to also benefit gatekeepers, then that's fine... but they shouldn't be the priority, even if they have the loudest voices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It expires, got it? E-X-P-I-R-E-S. Property doesn't expire, a monopoly does, in recognition that it is indeed a government granted monopoly. Not natural, artificial. Not saying bad or good, but it is an artificial monopoly on OTHER people's property. Get that though your thick scull. In life, there property, and then there is a monopoly. Copyright is a monopoly. You can't change that fact, no matter how much you try.
Real life is complicated. Get use to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
forgiveness & permission
-- RADM Grace Hopper (July 1986)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: forgiveness & permission
Why don't you just go ahead and do it? Remember, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."
-- RADM Grace Hopper (July 1986)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: forgiveness & permission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Culture
IP protection is such a hot topic for this industry that no-one wants to risk permitting use of their material, in case it turns out that they shouldn't have (for whatever reason).
The irony that this discredits the institution of copyright, and prevents it from being a workable system, scarcely needs pointing out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
intelectual copyright is broken, by the internet
the genie is out of the bottle
these are merely echoes of its impending demise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would ensure that:
1. There is a list that people can access to find out who to get permission from.
2. The people/parties who have the copyright actually care that they have it, and it's an active, not passive, right.
3. There is a simple way to ask permission.
4. The small sum isn't out of the reaches of everyday folks.
This won't stop people from saying no, just because they don't want to share - but this is their right as a copyright holder. It might, however, make it a little bit easier to get permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]