It's exactly what the NY Times complains about when they complain about HuffPo.
The observation isn't that the Times really did anything wrong but that it does what all other news outlets do. Cut, copy, rewrite, remix for their audience. So the Times article, while it contains the same facts the one on Techdirt did it is written in the style of the Times and for the Times audience.
It would have been wrong, VERY wrong had the Times and Associated Press among others had been successful in reviving an interwar concept called Breaking News which would have meant the the story on Techdirt couldn't be remixed like this. In effect, though never pitched that way, a special form of copyright. It would have prevented the Times from writing it's own copy around the same facts that make up Techdirt's story. Basically making facts subject to copyright though facts can't be copyrighted.
The other point is that it illustrates the hypocrisy of organs such as the Times. Not surprising but it's always nice to come up with clear examples.
I'm not at all surprised. Nor would it surprise me to find out that law enforcement agencies have had access to the data collected by CarrierIQ whether directly from them or not.
Then, I want to know if said agencies have actually been using it for a legitimate investigation of to go fishing.
The FBI loves to fish. So, in fairness, does the RCMP.
Re: MADE UP irrelevance: "Imagine a new hot-dog selling venture."
Back to the movie again?
Piracy is HUGE. Not that I'm denying its there, has been since the first pair of computers connected with each other across 4kb/s dial up modems and discussed where dinner would be and what Sinatra film and album they'd pirate fo accompany it.
But, pray tell, HOW HUGELY HUGE that you need to break a moral gasket or three on? As long as you want facts how about coming up with some of your own that withstand some analysis and investigation?
And some minor bit or realism would actually help, just a wee bit. Accusations of theft without any tangible evidence sounds more like a quasi-religous cult chant than a fact. And, a minor quibble, is that copyright infringement is NOT theft. Even at the supposed criminal level. If it was Criminal Codes would do away with the copyright infringement nonsense and just call it Theft.
Meanwhile, Hollywood and the general entertainment industry are still profitable, amazingly profitable for an industry under such incredible stress as you emotionally say they are. (Oh yeah, and find so dangerous in between posts defending them or shilling for them.) Not to mention Bollywood who are more "pirated" than Hollywood ever will be but still net more than Hollywood does in it's wildest of wildest dreams.
Why pay for a product when you can get if for free? Guess you gotta ask those who line up at crafts sales this time of year who do just that by the thousands.
Ask Deadheads who support a band that encourages "infringement" theft from the stage yet who still sell records by the boatload, live an extremely comfortable life and just love what they've done and are doing. (The Dead have encouraged recording and distribution of bootlegs of live shows for decades.) Sure sounds like what you call piracy to me.
"Just stick to facts, you WEENIES." At this juncture I have to ask the Blue Meanie to produce some real, actual, verifiable facts of his own.
Put up or shut up it's called. And I think you need to take some meds.
That just follows through to the ridiculous extent of your posited argument about why we and this site MUST be pro-pirate.
It's actually really easy to follow that logic to where he went.
The only dumbass here is one who would then equate "piracy" with alcoholism and addictions when it is clear you know less than nothing about either of them.
That's what makes it so hard to have a reasonable discussion with you.
"Paul, it isn't an attack on the consumers, it's just stating facts. I would love a new, 2014 Ferrari. I would love it NOW. Should I be allowed to go and steal the prototype because they aren't actively selling it yet?"
Actually they haven't finished designing it yet, Ferrari keeps their prototypes and designs under lock and key in their plant or on their testing grounds. Both are massive places controlled by card locks and with enough camera's around that they could count the blackheads in your nose.
Not only that but a prototype for a 2014 vehicle when the 2012 vehicle year has just started is likely missing some important things like an engine, real brakes, seats, wheels and so on.
You can't buy or steal what doesn't exist yet. Dumbest argument I've heard here in a coon's age and a false analogy as has been endlessly explained to you.
By the same token you can't "pirate" a partially completed recording. Make that dumbest argument in several coon's ages.
"You miss the point. Nobody is making product specifically for this market because there isn't any more in it." Any more in it that what? Exactly what. Please fill me in as I look for nonexistent record stores to sell the product be it recordings or films. People buy on line these days. Legally where they can, or can afford, from iTunes or Amazon and "illegally" when they must. The product IS there. The demand IS there. The idea is to connect the two right? Ohhhh, I see now!
"f you can't get the "hollywood" product you want, go to someone else and try their product instead."
Try Bollywood. Perhaps the most pirated entertainment products that exist. And guess much, they make money hand over fist, churning out some (by North American standards and tastes) some of the most god-awful movies and music in creation but their profits are enormous and rising. They pack theatres around the world, release on CD and DVD, and finally on their own download sites at reasonable prices which quickly cuts off the pirates by basically having better quality and reliability of product and pricing. They've also watch the "grey market" (pirates) if you like to see what has traction and that's what makes it into their online stores. Really really cheap market research, no?
That and Bollywood has been smart about it all.
The same can't be said for Hollywood, mind you.
"Quite simply, you can buy it when it's on sale. I would hope you can be grown up enough to wait until it's actually on the market."
So now we get to the nub of the matter. It's not about copyright, it's not about the poor starving artists and crews, it's not about much of anything they say it's about
Its about CONTROL OF THE SUPPLY CHANNEL so they can charge maximum prices at minimal effort. Just as they always have. They don't have to change, it seems. WE do.
Except. those days are gone.
Because they wouldn't supply the product in any digital form on line they gave birth to Napster, who would. They were dragged kicking, screaming and hollering into iTunes and Amazon. Though pricing is reasonable there some of the restrictions they extorted out of Apple and Amazon make the product very very annoying.
I'd dispute, strongly, that making what is essentially a political statement on a political issue can be considered "creating new content' in any way shape or form.
In that way, you're saying copyright trumps free speech. That would prevent an artist from saying or doing anything in the political realm that a label couldn't leap on claiming (wrongly) copyright. (Actually the creation of new content would legally offend will.i.am's music publisher not the label. If it's in violation of a contract then, both, together, could sue will.i.am for damages and THEN claim copyright in the new performance (UMG) and the new content (the music publisher). Remember, legally, the two parties are entirely separate persons (entities).
Incidentally performances can be copyright which is what that P with the circle around it means on recordings. That replaces the verbage that used to appear on 78s dating back to the 1930s which went "Performance copyright RCA Blister Music copyright Great Southern Songs Not for radio play or public performance."
IF will.i.am created new music/material then it's his music publisher who is offended, in law, as they have the exclusive copyright on his creations.
All UMG can do is prohibit will.i.am from recording for a competing label (his contract with UMG is essentially an employment contract remember) or by invoking a performance exclusivity clause prohibit him from performing in any way, time, location or for any entity without UMG's permission. Though I can't see how that can stop will.i.am from making a public statement regarding a polticial issue. Keeping in mind that a recording is, technically, a performance.
Of course, Kimber is jerking the label's chain. That's part of what HE's paid for. So what?
If anyone is actionable here, on the surface, it appears to be will.i.am for violating whatever contract and exclusivity clause is in it with UMG and then violating it by signing another contract with Megaupload that MAY violate that contract for one public statement which makes what is essentially a political statement on a hot political issue.
To add to the fire: Censorship anyone?
No matter how you slice it UMG has no grounds for a DCMA notice as they don't own the copyright. If anyone does, on the performance in the ad, Megaupload does.
Nope, if will.i.am or his agent neglected to inform Megaupload of an exclusivity clause in his contract with them then it's will.i.am who is liable and actionable for that by BOTH Megaupload and UMG.
None of that affects in any way the separate contract will.i.am has with his music publisher who, it seems, aren't complaining.
You're right, the contract with Megaupload would be null and void IF and only IF UMG has an specifically and carefully set out exclusivity clause covering where, when and for whom will.i.am and the black eyed peas could perform. (Jointly and severally.)
Either way, that doesn't trigger a DCMA takedown notice. At worst it triggers a letter or two between lawyers and will.i.am gets edited out of the ad.
IF though, all will.i.am is repeat statements he's made publically prior to the ad being recorded, even if he used different words to that effect, the exclusivity clause itself, should one exist, is in question. He's on the public record as saying this so UMG still hasn't a leg to stand on. Well, not a good one, anyway.
Complex, isn't it? Now, pay attention and drop your prejudices at the door, please.
The issue STILL isn't copyright. Get that in your head.
It's contract law, specifically employment contract law, a strange enough entity to start with but that's what it is. When an artist consents to an agreement with a label that's employment contract eve if the artist works "part time" for the label.
Unless that contract specifially spells out exclusivity in that will.i.am can only perform when and in locations and for causes etc that the label preapproves then it's will.i.am that is in breach of his contract with UMG not Megaupload and will.i.am who is liable and, perhaps, they ought to sue him.
No matter how you cut it the takedown notice is still bogus and that's what Megaupload is suing UMG over, not will.i.am's performance. Got it?
What the record company owns is the copyright to a particular performance on a particular record not the song itself.
You see, in the strange world of the RIAA copyrights get scattered left right and centre and all the label really gets from all of this is the copyright to the performance on a particular CD.
Unless UMG is now claiming to be a music publisher, of course, which, in that case they might, just might, have an itty bitty claim on the music itself. I doubt it though. You see it's the music publisher that has the rights to the music itself, signed over to them so the artist could get a recording contract so that the likes of BMI and ASCAP could wander around telling barber shops and mechanics that they had to pay a royalty each time the song is played anywhere where the public can hear it.
There's an additional problem here. As will.i.am is the composer then neither the label or the music publisher, strictly speaking, can stop him from performing a song or playing it blasting out of his boom box car or in his barber shop or whatever. The label is on extremely thin ground in that no two performances are ever the same so it's next to impossible to say what will.i.am did on a small stage behind the garage is protected by the same copyright as the performance on a CD is which is, invariably, different.
It MAY become a contractual issue if UMG is claiming that they have an exclusive on appearances and performances of will.i.am or the black eyed peas (jointly or severally) in their contracts. In that case produce the contract. But it's not liable in terms of a take down notice based on copyright but on exclusivity. That's remotely possible. And if will.i.am signed a contract with megaupload to take part in a song that is original and NOT covered by outside copyright then his performance there is an issue for UMG to take up with will.i.am's agent for him breaking his contract with THEM.
See?
You're the one who needs to pay attention and you're the one who needs to become familiar with the web that is artist contract (a form of employment contract), exclusivity, and then copyright, preferably in that order.
One way or another this becomes contract law and the takedown become bogus.
I beg to differ. I HOPE the days of draconian enforcement of copyright are nearing an end. If that doesn't happen then you'll be right.
As with patents there's nothing wrong with the central notion of copyright but the way it's applied and enforced now is far from the orgininal notion in both cases.
And ONE MORE TIME creative people don't need copyrights or patents to be creative. Humans were creative for 200,000 years or more since we figured out how to plant seeds and "genetically modify" (breed) crops we could eat and domesticate animals we could use for food, clothing and just about anything else you can think of. (Except for the domestic cat, of course, which either domesticated us or, more properly, self-domesticated because they found us useful.)
Re: So? Pirates always assume that they can plunder others!
If as you blithly assume the poor are the only ones likely to pirate or do so as a protest against the "1%" or some kind of revolt I'd think you'd support that.
As for your definition of "fair use" you might want to talk to George Harrison about that who was sued over a single guitar lick on "My Sweet Lord", surely minor. He lost. Badly.
Also,see below about the Grateful Dead. May it drive you as crazy as the Band's slack attitude towards IP drives their label. (Who are bright enough not to do anything about it.)
I'd argue that remix culture is embedded in a number of Boomers as well as we would take records and remix for the car, for dances and for other activities and even, horror of horrors, to actually SHARE!.
Of the last group people either recorded over what I gave them or bought the album or both. As with mp3's, they recognized that compared to the album a cassette recording was sonic garbage. Not only that but they tended to fail after a few too many runs through the cassette player in the car.
It was through this "sharing" that I introduced a number of friends and acquaintances to things like punk and new wave, stuff that wasn't getting a whole lot of radio airplay when it first hit the shores of North America. Untalented louts like Nick Lowe and Elvis Costello, you know, or bands like The Clash.
Of course, during the years when we boomers were buying and listening to music on the grand scale sales only went up.
I suspect that, as a whole, boomer music purchasing declined with the rise of "classic" rock radio, an event I like to think of as the onset of program manager terminal laziness and the spread of consultants sending out playlists they'd come up with to hundreds of stations at once. Same thing, really.
It should surprise no one that the favourite genre of music amongst we boomers now is what passes for country on play lists but is really country rock, electric folk and light blues. Stuff we listened to in the 70s before the rise of corporate rock and then "classic" rock. Goodness, we've become our parents listening to "old folks music!!!" when the heck did that happen?
Speaking of the Dead, there's one band that couldn't get airplay but make a great living on gigging and encouraging bootlegs of concerts and mixes of their music. A lot of Dead fans, young and old were introduced to the band that way. They are a case study of what Mike talks about when he talks about reaching out to fans, giving them what they want from the band and connecting with them. They drive their label nuts. But they still sell records. A lot of records. Not to mention t-shirts by the truckload, posters and other paraphernalia sold at shows.
By the way, for copyright purists, the Dead encourage this kind of sharing and if the label goes after me they'll be haunted by the ghost of Jerry Garcia as he plays a 20 minute solo in their ears while they try to sleep.
And no, I'm not apologizing for sharing here. Deadheads to this. All the time.
This one of the things about things like SOPA and IPA that really bug me. Along with censorship (inexcusable in any form), it would stop a band from promoting themselves in the way the Dead have for years.
To quote the song: "Lately it occurs to me, what a long, strange trip it's been."
To be effective a black out of Wikipedia needs to be no longer than 24 to 48 hours. Weeks is overdoing it and it loses impact that way.
Maximum impact means hit fast, hit hard then back to normal as if nothing happened. By then the discussion would be so widespread that it would be impossible for Big Media to ignore and then it gets out more to the public.
I'm sure Wikipedia knows this, if nothing else they're very media savvy.
The legislation is of vital importance to those of us outside the United States as well. So a universal shut down in protest would be preferable. There won't be mere flow on but damage to the rest of the world as a result of this. (Provided anyone in Congress can remember there is a world out there as well a an America outside of DC).
By all means get ahead of the game. It may be necessary as it appears more and more that the game is rigged and the outcome bought and paid for from the lowliest page in Congress to the White House.
The following release says several of them will be promoted and cited for going "above and beyond" in their activities to ensure that the administration of justice will continue to be of the high standards it has always been and always will be.
Five years from now the statement will be busted as a myth by Mythbusters, immediately followed by the arrest of the hosts, production company, production staff, promotional stuff, the pizza delivery person and the next door neighbours of the base of the show and, finally, the idiot the blew up that cement truck all those years ago and disturbed a few endangered nesting crows.
On the post: Justice Department Hanging Onto Torrent-Finder Because It Doesn't Like How Search Engines Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Got the slightest bit of evidence of that? Any studies of that? Or mere speculation?
In short, can you back that statement up beyond the "they gotta cause the RIAA says so" bull.
Put another way, do you have an original, independent thought in your head?
Take your time. I don't need to know this year.
On the post: Righthaven Keeps On Losing; Court Grants Receivership Request
Re: Stop lying, Mike
Could be lots of fun. :)
On the post: When The NY Times Builds On Other's Work, I Guess That's Journalism [Updated]
Re:
The observation isn't that the Times really did anything wrong but that it does what all other news outlets do. Cut, copy, rewrite, remix for their audience. So the Times article, while it contains the same facts the one on Techdirt did it is written in the style of the Times and for the Times audience.
It would have been wrong, VERY wrong had the Times and Associated Press among others had been successful in reviving an interwar concept called Breaking News which would have meant the the story on Techdirt couldn't be remixed like this. In effect, though never pitched that way, a special form of copyright. It would have prevented the Times from writing it's own copy around the same facts that make up Techdirt's story. Basically making facts subject to copyright though facts can't be copyrighted.
The other point is that it illustrates the hypocrisy of organs such as the Times. Not surprising but it's always nice to come up with clear examples.
On the post: FBI Admits That It Uses Carrier IQ For Law Enforcement Purposes; Won't Say How
Then, I want to know if said agencies have actually been using it for a legitimate investigation of to go fishing.
The FBI loves to fish. So, in fairness, does the RCMP.
Sigh.
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Do your fingers want early retirement? :)
On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts
Re: Re:
On the post: A Problem Worse Than Piracy? The Ridiculous Structure Of Online Music Licensing Deals
Re: MADE UP irrelevance: "Imagine a new hot-dog selling venture."
Piracy is HUGE. Not that I'm denying its there, has been since the first pair of computers connected with each other across 4kb/s dial up modems and discussed where dinner would be and what Sinatra film and album they'd pirate fo accompany it.
But, pray tell, HOW HUGELY HUGE that you need to break a moral gasket or three on? As long as you want facts how about coming up with some of your own that withstand some analysis and investigation?
And some minor bit or realism would actually help, just a wee bit. Accusations of theft without any tangible evidence sounds more like a quasi-religous cult chant than a fact. And, a minor quibble, is that copyright infringement is NOT theft. Even at the supposed criminal level. If it was Criminal Codes would do away with the copyright infringement nonsense and just call it Theft.
Meanwhile, Hollywood and the general entertainment industry are still profitable, amazingly profitable for an industry under such incredible stress as you emotionally say they are. (Oh yeah, and find so dangerous in between posts defending them or shilling for them.) Not to mention Bollywood who are more "pirated" than Hollywood ever will be but still net more than Hollywood does in it's wildest of wildest dreams.
Why pay for a product when you can get if for free? Guess you gotta ask those who line up at crafts sales this time of year who do just that by the thousands.
Ask Deadheads who support a band that encourages "infringement" theft from the stage yet who still sell records by the boatload, live an extremely comfortable life and just love what they've done and are doing. (The Dead have encouraged recording and distribution of bootlegs of live shows for decades.) Sure sounds like what you call piracy to me.
"Just stick to facts, you WEENIES." At this juncture I have to ask the Blue Meanie to produce some real, actual, verifiable facts of his own.
Put up or shut up it's called. And I think you need to take some meds.
On the post: EU's Advisor On Supporting Net Activists Previously Forced From German Government...By Net Activists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's actually really easy to follow that logic to where he went.
The only dumbass here is one who would then equate "piracy" with alcoholism and addictions when it is clear you know less than nothing about either of them.
That's what makes it so hard to have a reasonable discussion with you.
On the post: A Problem Worse Than Piracy? The Ridiculous Structure Of Online Music Licensing Deals
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Paul, it isn't an attack on the consumers, it's just stating facts. I would love a new, 2014 Ferrari. I would love it NOW. Should I be allowed to go and steal the prototype because they aren't actively selling it yet?"
Actually they haven't finished designing it yet, Ferrari keeps their prototypes and designs under lock and key in their plant or on their testing grounds. Both are massive places controlled by card locks and with enough camera's around that they could count the blackheads in your nose.
Not only that but a prototype for a 2014 vehicle when the 2012 vehicle year has just started is likely missing some important things like an engine, real brakes, seats, wheels and so on.
You can't buy or steal what doesn't exist yet. Dumbest argument I've heard here in a coon's age and a false analogy as has been endlessly explained to you.
By the same token you can't "pirate" a partially completed recording. Make that dumbest argument in several coon's ages.
"You miss the point. Nobody is making product specifically for this market because there isn't any more in it." Any more in it that what? Exactly what. Please fill me in as I look for nonexistent record stores to sell the product be it recordings or films. People buy on line these days. Legally where they can, or can afford, from iTunes or Amazon and "illegally" when they must. The product IS there. The demand IS there. The idea is to connect the two right? Ohhhh, I see now!
"f you can't get the "hollywood" product you want, go to someone else and try their product instead."
Try Bollywood. Perhaps the most pirated entertainment products that exist. And guess much, they make money hand over fist, churning out some (by North American standards and tastes) some of the most god-awful movies and music in creation but their profits are enormous and rising. They pack theatres around the world, release on CD and DVD, and finally on their own download sites at reasonable prices which quickly cuts off the pirates by basically having better quality and reliability of product and pricing. They've also watch the "grey market" (pirates) if you like to see what has traction and that's what makes it into their online stores. Really really cheap market research, no?
That and Bollywood has been smart about it all.
The same can't be said for Hollywood, mind you.
"Quite simply, you can buy it when it's on sale. I would hope you can be grown up enough to wait until it's actually on the market."
So now we get to the nub of the matter. It's not about copyright, it's not about the poor starving artists and crews, it's not about much of anything they say it's about
Its about CONTROL OF THE SUPPLY CHANNEL so they can charge maximum prices at minimal effort. Just as they always have. They don't have to change, it seems. WE do.
Except. those days are gone.
Because they wouldn't supply the product in any digital form on line they gave birth to Napster, who would. They were dragged kicking, screaming and hollering into iTunes and Amazon. Though pricing is reasonable there some of the restrictions they extorted out of Apple and Amazon make the product very very annoying.
On the post: Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too
Re: Re:
I'd dispute, strongly, that making what is essentially a political statement on a political issue can be considered "creating new content' in any way shape or form.
In that way, you're saying copyright trumps free speech. That would prevent an artist from saying or doing anything in the political realm that a label couldn't leap on claiming (wrongly) copyright. (Actually the creation of new content would legally offend will.i.am's music publisher not the label. If it's in violation of a contract then, both, together, could sue will.i.am for damages and THEN claim copyright in the new performance (UMG) and the new content (the music publisher). Remember, legally, the two parties are entirely separate persons (entities).
Incidentally performances can be copyright which is what that P with the circle around it means on recordings. That replaces the verbage that used to appear on 78s dating back to the 1930s which went "Performance copyright RCA Blister Music copyright Great Southern Songs Not for radio play or public performance."
On the post: Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too
Censorship anyone?
IF will.i.am created new music/material then it's his music publisher who is offended, in law, as they have the exclusive copyright on his creations.
All UMG can do is prohibit will.i.am from recording for a competing label (his contract with UMG is essentially an employment contract remember) or by invoking a performance exclusivity clause prohibit him from performing in any way, time, location or for any entity without UMG's permission. Though I can't see how that can stop will.i.am from making a public statement regarding a polticial issue. Keeping in mind that a recording is, technically, a performance.
Of course, Kimber is jerking the label's chain. That's part of what HE's paid for. So what?
If anyone is actionable here, on the surface, it appears to be will.i.am for violating whatever contract and exclusivity clause is in it with UMG and then violating it by signing another contract with Megaupload that MAY violate that contract for one public statement which makes what is essentially a political statement on a hot political issue.
To add to the fire: Censorship anyone?
No matter how you slice it UMG has no grounds for a DCMA notice as they don't own the copyright. If anyone does, on the performance in the ad, Megaupload does.
On the post: Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too
Re: Re: Re:
None of that affects in any way the separate contract will.i.am has with his music publisher who, it seems, aren't complaining.
You're right, the contract with Megaupload would be null and void IF and only IF UMG has an specifically and carefully set out exclusivity clause covering where, when and for whom will.i.am and the black eyed peas could perform. (Jointly and severally.)
Either way, that doesn't trigger a DCMA takedown notice. At worst it triggers a letter or two between lawyers and will.i.am gets edited out of the ad.
IF though, all will.i.am is repeat statements he's made publically prior to the ad being recorded, even if he used different words to that effect, the exclusivity clause itself, should one exist, is in question. He's on the public record as saying this so UMG still hasn't a leg to stand on. Well, not a good one, anyway.
Complex, isn't it? Now, pay attention and drop your prejudices at the door, please.
On the post: Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too
Re: Re: Re:
It's contract law, specifically employment contract law, a strange enough entity to start with but that's what it is. When an artist consents to an agreement with a label that's employment contract eve if the artist works "part time" for the label.
Unless that contract specifially spells out exclusivity in that will.i.am can only perform when and in locations and for causes etc that the label preapproves then it's will.i.am that is in breach of his contract with UMG not Megaupload and will.i.am who is liable and, perhaps, they ought to sue him.
No matter how you cut it the takedown notice is still bogus and that's what Megaupload is suing UMG over, not will.i.am's performance. Got it?
On the post: Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too
Re:
What the record company owns is the copyright to a particular performance on a particular record not the song itself.
You see, in the strange world of the RIAA copyrights get scattered left right and centre and all the label really gets from all of this is the copyright to the performance on a particular CD.
Unless UMG is now claiming to be a music publisher, of course, which, in that case they might, just might, have an itty bitty claim on the music itself. I doubt it though. You see it's the music publisher that has the rights to the music itself, signed over to them so the artist could get a recording contract so that the likes of BMI and ASCAP could wander around telling barber shops and mechanics that they had to pay a royalty each time the song is played anywhere where the public can hear it.
There's an additional problem here. As will.i.am is the composer then neither the label or the music publisher, strictly speaking, can stop him from performing a song or playing it blasting out of his boom box car or in his barber shop or whatever. The label is on extremely thin ground in that no two performances are ever the same so it's next to impossible to say what will.i.am did on a small stage behind the garage is protected by the same copyright as the performance on a CD is which is, invariably, different.
It MAY become a contractual issue if UMG is claiming that they have an exclusive on appearances and performances of will.i.am or the black eyed peas (jointly or severally) in their contracts. In that case produce the contract. But it's not liable in terms of a take down notice based on copyright but on exclusivity. That's remotely possible. And if will.i.am signed a contract with megaupload to take part in a song that is original and NOT covered by outside copyright then his performance there is an issue for UMG to take up with will.i.am's agent for him breaking his contract with THEM.
See?
You're the one who needs to pay attention and you're the one who needs to become familiar with the web that is artist contract (a form of employment contract), exclusivity, and then copyright, preferably in that order.
One way or another this becomes contract law and the takedown become bogus.
Clear?
On the post: No Copyright Intended: The Coming Generation Who Intrinsically Assumes Remix & Sharing Makes Sense
Re:
As with patents there's nothing wrong with the central notion of copyright but the way it's applied and enforced now is far from the orgininal notion in both cases.
And ONE MORE TIME creative people don't need copyrights or patents to be creative. Humans were creative for 200,000 years or more since we figured out how to plant seeds and "genetically modify" (breed) crops we could eat and domesticate animals we could use for food, clothing and just about anything else you can think of. (Except for the domestic cat, of course, which either domesticated us or, more properly, self-domesticated because they found us useful.)
On the post: No Copyright Intended: The Coming Generation Who Intrinsically Assumes Remix & Sharing Makes Sense
Re: So? Pirates always assume that they can plunder others!
As for your definition of "fair use" you might want to talk to George Harrison about that who was sued over a single guitar lick on "My Sweet Lord", surely minor. He lost. Badly.
Also,see below about the Grateful Dead. May it drive you as crazy as the Band's slack attitude towards IP drives their label. (Who are bright enough not to do anything about it.)
On the post: No Copyright Intended: The Coming Generation Who Intrinsically Assumes Remix & Sharing Makes Sense
Of the last group people either recorded over what I gave them or bought the album or both. As with mp3's, they recognized that compared to the album a cassette recording was sonic garbage. Not only that but they tended to fail after a few too many runs through the cassette player in the car.
It was through this "sharing" that I introduced a number of friends and acquaintances to things like punk and new wave, stuff that wasn't getting a whole lot of radio airplay when it first hit the shores of North America. Untalented louts like Nick Lowe and Elvis Costello, you know, or bands like The Clash.
Of course, during the years when we boomers were buying and listening to music on the grand scale sales only went up.
I suspect that, as a whole, boomer music purchasing declined with the rise of "classic" rock radio, an event I like to think of as the onset of program manager terminal laziness and the spread of consultants sending out playlists they'd come up with to hundreds of stations at once. Same thing, really.
It should surprise no one that the favourite genre of music amongst we boomers now is what passes for country on play lists but is really country rock, electric folk and light blues. Stuff we listened to in the 70s before the rise of corporate rock and then "classic" rock. Goodness, we've become our parents listening to "old folks music!!!" when the heck did that happen?
(See "Touch of Grey" Grateful Dead. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l38YXrGJxx0 )
Speaking of the Dead, there's one band that couldn't get airplay but make a great living on gigging and encouraging bootlegs of concerts and mixes of their music. A lot of Dead fans, young and old were introduced to the band that way. They are a case study of what Mike talks about when he talks about reaching out to fans, giving them what they want from the band and connecting with them. They drive their label nuts. But they still sell records. A lot of records. Not to mention t-shirts by the truckload, posters and other paraphernalia sold at shows.
The Dead's only other "Top 40" hit was Casey Jones way way back when. 1971, I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQF8CILMt8c&feature=related
A near top 40 was Truckin' though some stations that listened wouldn't play it cause it mentioned cocaine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQF8CILMt8c&feature=related
By the way, for copyright purists, the Dead encourage this kind of sharing and if the label goes after me they'll be haunted by the ghost of Jerry Garcia as he plays a 20 minute solo in their ears while they try to sleep.
And no, I'm not apologizing for sharing here. Deadheads to this. All the time.
This one of the things about things like SOPA and IPA that really bug me. Along with censorship (inexcusable in any form), it would stop a band from promoting themselves in the way the Dead have for years.
To quote the song: "Lately it occurs to me, what a long, strange trip it's been."
On the post: Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA
Re: no, no, no
Maximum impact means hit fast, hit hard then back to normal as if nothing happened. By then the discussion would be so widespread that it would be impossible for Big Media to ignore and then it gets out more to the public.
I'm sure Wikipedia knows this, if nothing else they're very media savvy.
DO IT!!!
On the post: Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA
Re: Woah, woah..
By all means get ahead of the game. It may be necessary as it appears more and more that the game is rigged and the outcome bought and paid for from the lowliest page in Congress to the White House.
On the post: Congressional Investigations Into Dajaz1.com Censorship Begin
Re: Re:
Five years from now the statement will be busted as a myth by Mythbusters, immediately followed by the arrest of the hosts, production company, production staff, promotional stuff, the pizza delivery person and the next door neighbours of the base of the show and, finally, the idiot the blew up that cement truck all those years ago and disturbed a few endangered nesting crows.
Oh, crows aren't endangered? Whoops, scratch that!
Trials are expected to begin in 2115. Until then the alleged offenders will be held in custody in an unknown location.
Our country is once more saved.
Signed. J. Edgar Hoover, Guardian Ghost of America.
Next >>