If clearing that particular sample would've been cheap for 50 Cent, he would've done it, don't you think? Poindexter either didn't want to license it, or, more than likely, would only license it to the likes of 50 Cent for a highly inflated price. So yes, we support millionaire artists who don't throw away their money on extortion attempts by poorer artists who haven't created anything in 40 years.
If 50 Cent asking nicely and enclosing a check for a few thousand would've resulted in a license to use the sample, then why is there a lawsuit? The parties are certainly free to broker such a deal on their own, even right now. Clearly, Mr. Poindexter would never have accepted such an offer. He would've held the sample for a fat ransom, especially knowing it was millionaire 50 Cent who wanted to use it. So if, by your moral compass, 50 had done the "right" thing and asked permission, the answer would've been either a loud "hell no," or, as evident by Poindexter's reaction, "sure, you can have the sample, as long as you give me a cool million, rich guy, because I haven't had a hit production in 39 years, and I don't intend to start working for a living now. You just did the work for me. Thanks, sucka!"
The Roots would like to be able to play 20 seconds of "Johnny B. Goode" on late-night TV when certain guests walk on the set, but they can't, because Chuck Berry won't clear it for less than $2 million. Consequently, you do not hear that song, ever. In fact, the last place I think I heard it was in Back to the Future, in 1985. Like Poindexter, Berry can say it's legally his prerogative to treat his music like a reusable lottery ticket, but it doesn't make him any less of a dick.
You are a fool if you think the asking price for a Persuaders sample would have been less than the cost of a settlement in a copyright infringement lawsuit, especially if it was 50 Cent doing the asking. 50 Cent made a business decision: ask and be charged millions, or don't ask, and either never have to pay anything, or at worst, settle for a few hundred grand? I guarantee you he is not being blindsided by this lawsuit.
Google lady gaga spotify for news reports. You're basically right; DanZee doesn't know what he's talking about. In 2009, a Swedish newspaper reported that Lady Gaga only got $167 for 1 million Spotify plays of one song ("Poker Face"). This wasn't even correct, and it got blown up into something it wasn't. As far as I can tell, what happened was this: Spotify pays labels for the use of recordings, and it pays collection societies for the use of the underlying compositions/songs. Actual royalties are distributed by these entities according to their contracts with the artists. "Poker Face" was co-written by Lady Gaga and RedOne, a Swede, and we don't know what their split was; maybe it was 50-50, maybe it was 99-1. Whatever it was, his share for the composition, as distributed by the Swedish collection society STIM, worked out to $167 for that particular time period. I believe it was only for a few months'-worth of plays of "Poker Face" in Europe; Spotify had just launched in late 2008, after all. Meanwhile, Spotify surely paid out gobs more money to Universal for the recording and to ASCAP for Lady Gaga's share. And then as the song went on to sell 8 million more copies and as Spotify expanded, we can assume tons more went out. Who knows how much Lady Gaga herself got from all of that, but I'm betting it's way more than $167.
I still don't get it. Are you under the impression that if the CRB uses this private license agreement as the basis for statutory licensing, then everyone would be forced to agree to those rates and terms, with no opt-out? IANAL, but that scenario would only just expand the options, and it'd be opt-in.
For example, this exact kind of option is already there in the law for streaming audio recordings; webcasters meeting certain, feasible but not entirely reasonable criteria, can elect to just report to and pay standard fees to SoundExchange, and they get an automatic, blanket license which keeps them from having to negotiate with each label separately for a license to use each recording. It's compulsory for the copyright owners, meaning they can't opt-out. If the webcasters choose not to use this system for whatever reason, there's no penalty, they just have to get their own licenses, which was the default situation anyway.
Likewise, right now, you can run a music store that offers any kind of music downloads (DRMed or not), as long as you have license agreements worked out with each and every copyright owner (publishers and labels both), for every song and for every territory you sell to. That's option A and it's always there. What would change, if the CRB adopts the aforementioned agreement as the standard, would be you'd have an Option B: If you so desire, and provided all the well-defined criteria are met, you could offer DRM-laden downloads of any copyrighted music (no matter who the copyright owners are)...you'd only just have to pay the standard "limited download" rates. But if you don't like those rates or can't meet the criteria, e.g. because you're not stupid and you know nobody wants DRM, you still have option A.
So again I have to wonder what the freak-out is about. If there is to be a compulsory option that applies to all copyright owners, it seems to me (again, IANAL) that it must be in the law, and it must have very well-defined terms and rates.
The agreement defines/reiterates categories of music offerings for the purpose of saying what the rates are for each one. For example, if an online music store wants the 'limited download' rate for the files it lets people download, they can only get it if the files have certain DRM and related restrictions. This doesn't mean that stores only need to offer only restricted downloadables. It just means that those offerings are beyond the scope of this agreement; the rates for them have to be negotiated separately. So, I don't see what the problem is. If you make downloads available and you want to pay the 'limited download' rate, then you'd better have a 'limited' download. How could it possibly work if everyone gets to come up with their own definition of 'limited'? Am I not seeing the forest for the trees, or what? What's the alternative?
You rightly point out that Teller has a registered copyright on the work. I guess you are saying that this means the issue of whether this stage act is copyrightable is moot?
I think it's correct that courts generally accept such registrations as prima facie proof of copyright ownership. But ownership of what, exactly? Masnick is correct when he says it's unclear how much of the act depicted in Teller's drawing is actually protected. Certainly the drawing itself is protected. But is the depicted act and its (presumably) unfixed-in-tangible-form, secret implementation covered? This isn't a case like with a musical composition, where the law explicitly covers the abstract composition, not just its tangible, printed or recorded form.
You also mention that the lawsuit isn't just about copyright; it also contains an Unfair Competition claim. That is, if I understand correctly, Teller says he was (or will be?) harmed by the Dogge's business practices, which are based on the copying of Teller's act. These kinds of claims get mixed results in court, don't they? I can see how it might be worth a shot, but I also see how it's standard operating procedure nowadays to attach a Lanham Act claim to every copyright claim.
You could've maintained your composure, spoken matter-of-factly about the issues Masnick raised, and argued for the relevance of issues Masnick overlooked. I mean, if you have a credible, contrary point of view, you should be confident enough in your position to express it in a way that simply and succinctly counters Masnick's spin, and casts seeds of doubt among his readers. Instead, you resort to couching your unsupported argument in ad hominem, sarcasm, and arm-flailing, and the tone of your post indicates you're rather worked up about the fact that Masnick has a following, of sorts. At best, your antics are amusing, but they still undermine your cause.
I think the point is that they're hell-bent on changing the law, both statutory and common, in ways that preserve/boost their profit, at the expense of civil liberties.
Neil Young's pronouncements are pretty roundly dismissed over at the Hydrogenaudio forums, but I think everyone can agree to the question posed here: of course there's a market for it! Give someone a knob that goes to 11 and they'll believe it has to be better than one that goes to 10, it just has to! Even if they're proven to be indistinguishable, better safe than sorry, you know! And then show them one that uses different technology and has numbers going to 1000, well, that's the best of all, right?
Hm? Breyer "misses the mark" when he concludes author reward has no place in copyright law, whereas Masnick doesn't say any such thing. And Stevens' selective quoting of previous majorities who said author reward is "not the primary objective of copyright law" merely "understates" the issue; the majority clarifies, without contradicting those previous positions, that the reward's secondary status doesn't mean that it's necessarily outside the scope of copyright law; just that it's (as said) secondary. Or as Mike clearly said, it's part of the method, it's not the purpose. No contradiction there.
I'll have a go. The quoted footnote doesn't reject the notion that reward to the author is secondary. That notion is the Court's position. Stevens' statement is merely quoting the majority opinion in United States v. Paramount (1948), as requoted in Mazer v. Stein (1954).
In defense of what I admit is his dubious assertion that copyright law mustn't serve private ends at all, Breyer cites the Constitution, the Court, the papers of Jefferson and Madison, and Congress's own statements about the purpose of the laws it was drafting. These sources, as cited, agree that author reward isn't the primary objective. But in the footnote, the majority points out that such reward isn't precluded, either. (Implicitly:) The law can still grant it, such as through copyright term extension, as was at issue in Eldred...so long as the primary purpose is achieved. Whether term extension actually achieves the primary purpose is another matter.
So I don't think this footnote contradicts Mike's points at all. Pallante was wrong. Reward to the author is secondary, and it's a means rather than an end. The Court doesn't seem particularly conflicted.
"Fail." Since you seem to have trouble understanding, I'll simplify it for you. You implied that copyright was a crucial factor in Lennon-McCartney being full-time musicians. But copyright clearly isn't what inspired them to collaborate or remain together or be full-time musicians; certainly if it was the glue that you seem to think it was, they wouldn't have parted ways when they did. And copyright didn't confer riches upon them; they were getting gobs of royalties because their contracts demanded it and their official product was well positioned in the market. The onus is on you to explain how and why copyright law kept them out of the factory when they were together, because frankly, I just don't see it.
Hmm, so your argument, basically, is that there weren't very many Beatles bootleggers because people were afraid of being sued or charged with a crime for copyright infringement; and if that fear wasn't there, then the Beatles would've been bootlegged so heavily that hardly anyone would've bought their official product, gone to see them on tour, performed their music in public, or done any of the other things that got them royalties in that era...and the end result would be they would've had to work at the factory and only play at the pub on weekends.
Well, Lennon & McCartney started their wild ride as teens; they never had real jobs to quit. And I'm not sure they'd admit if they were in it for the copyright, but I don't recall them ever implying as much, or that they were only going to stay together as long as it was profitable for them as songwriters. Is that why the Beatles broke up—because they couldn't sue enough bootleggers? Too many cover bands selling records and too many publishers selling sheet music without paying royalties? No, I think people really loved the songs, the recordings, and the band; the public bought Beatles product in absolute droves, and this was long before the sound recordings themselves had copyright (mid-1964 UK, 1976 US). Almost all of what people bought was official, licensed, songwriter-royalty-earning product, because Apple Records, EMI, Capitol, and Northern Songs made darn sure that official Beatles music was widely available for a long, long time, in formats people wanted, at affordable prices. The market was so saturated with the real deal, bootleggers generally couldn't compete. I'm sure copyright helped stymie would-be bootleggers to some small degree, but it's silly to say it was responsible for the Beatles' success, or that Lennon and McCartney ever would've worked at a factory. Ostensibly they had the choice to get a real job or take their rock'n'roll cover band on tour in Europe. Which did they choose, and how did it work out for them?
Typo in article: "startups that work with user generated comments are going to have to lawyer up at an earlier stage" ... that should read "user generated content", not comments. I'd also hyphenate user-generated.
If the law has been broken, and the copyright owners have no intention of making it right on their own, then it needs to be made into a painful experience for them, such as by pursuing a lawsuit against them.
I'm sure that from MLS's point of view, getting shamed on a few blogs is a very small price to pay to help keep an embarrassing clip of their misbehaving employee from going viral. Is anyone pursuing any false/unjustified DMCA takedown cases in court? If not, why not? If no lawyers will take such a case, or if they always lose, then there needs to be some kind of legislative advocacy, not just a gripe on Techdirt every 4 years.
Sorry, I'm just kind of in a "sh*t or get off the pot" mood today...
Hmm, this strategy for success is dependent on either being honest when there is integrity to be honest about, or else on being utterly deceptive. I mean, I don't think we really want brutal honesty from most businesses, or from very many of our commercial artistic heroes, when it means they're going to say something like "I really only did it for the money, I was a cog in a machine, I put on a good show and pretended to care about my customers, er, fans, but really if I wasn't getting paid, I wouldn't have done it, and I'm not ashamed of that fact, suckers."
So, it doesn't seem like the kind of strategy that would work for the big copyright/content industries, because the people running them would have to be lying through their teeth in order to come off as human and awesome and worthy of support.
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re:
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re:
The Roots would like to be able to play 20 seconds of "Johnny B. Goode" on late-night TV when certain guests walk on the set, but they can't, because Chuck Berry won't clear it for less than $2 million. Consequently, you do not hear that song, ever. In fact, the last place I think I heard it was in Back to the Future, in 1985. Like Poindexter, Berry can say it's legally his prerogative to treat his music like a reusable lottery ticket, but it doesn't make him any less of a dick.
You are a fool if you think the asking price for a Persuaders sample would have been less than the cost of a settlement in a copyright infringement lawsuit, especially if it was 50 Cent doing the asking. 50 Cent made a business decision: ask and be charged millions, or don't ask, and either never have to pay anything, or at worst, settle for a few hundred grand? I guarantee you he is not being blindsided by this lawsuit.
On the post: Are New Streaming Royalty Rates A Way To Backdoor DRM Into Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Artists?
On the post: Are New Streaming Royalty Rates A Way To Backdoor DRM Into Copyright Law?
Re: Re:
For example, this exact kind of option is already there in the law for streaming audio recordings; webcasters meeting certain, feasible but not entirely reasonable criteria, can elect to just report to and pay standard fees to SoundExchange, and they get an automatic, blanket license which keeps them from having to negotiate with each label separately for a license to use each recording. It's compulsory for the copyright owners, meaning they can't opt-out. If the webcasters choose not to use this system for whatever reason, there's no penalty, they just have to get their own licenses, which was the default situation anyway.
Likewise, right now, you can run a music store that offers any kind of music downloads (DRMed or not), as long as you have license agreements worked out with each and every copyright owner (publishers and labels both), for every song and for every territory you sell to. That's option A and it's always there. What would change, if the CRB adopts the aforementioned agreement as the standard, would be you'd have an Option B: If you so desire, and provided all the well-defined criteria are met, you could offer DRM-laden downloads of any copyrighted music (no matter who the copyright owners are)...you'd only just have to pay the standard "limited download" rates. But if you don't like those rates or can't meet the criteria, e.g. because you're not stupid and you know nobody wants DRM, you still have option A.
So again I have to wonder what the freak-out is about. If there is to be a compulsory option that applies to all copyright owners, it seems to me (again, IANAL) that it must be in the law, and it must have very well-defined terms and rates.
On the post: Are New Streaming Royalty Rates A Way To Backdoor DRM Into Copyright Law?
On the post: Disappointing: Teller Sues Other Magician For Doing The Same Trick
Re: Re:
I think it's correct that courts generally accept such registrations as prima facie proof of copyright ownership. But ownership of what, exactly? Masnick is correct when he says it's unclear how much of the act depicted in Teller's drawing is actually protected. Certainly the drawing itself is protected. But is the depicted act and its (presumably) unfixed-in-tangible-form, secret implementation covered? This isn't a case like with a musical composition, where the law explicitly covers the abstract composition, not just its tangible, printed or recorded form.
You also mention that the lawsuit isn't just about copyright; it also contains an Unfair Competition claim. That is, if I understand correctly, Teller says he was (or will be?) harmed by the Dogge's business practices, which are based on the copying of Teller's act. These kinds of claims get mixed results in court, don't they? I can see how it might be worth a shot, but I also see how it's standard operating procedure nowadays to attach a Lanham Act claim to every copyright claim.
On the post: Disappointing: Teller Sues Other Magician For Doing The Same Trick
Re:
On the post: Why Do Copyright Industry Profits Get To Be The Yardstick For Civil Liberties?
Re: Re:
On the post: Is There Any Merit To Neil Young's Plan To Improve The Quality Of Digital Music?
On the post: MPAA Just Won't Quit: Jumps Into Legal Dispute To Argue Links & Embeds Are Infringing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
Re: Generally speaking...
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
Re:
In defense of what I admit is his dubious assertion that copyright law mustn't serve private ends at all, Breyer cites the Constitution, the Court, the papers of Jefferson and Madison, and Congress's own statements about the purpose of the laws it was drafting. These sources, as cited, agree that author reward isn't the primary objective. But in the footnote, the majority points out that such reward isn't precluded, either. (Implicitly:) The law can still grant it, such as through copyright term extension, as was at issue in Eldred...so long as the primary purpose is achieved. Whether term extension actually achieves the primary purpose is another matter.
So I don't think this footnote contradicts Mike's points at all. Pallante was wrong. Reward to the author is secondary, and it's a means rather than an end. The Court doesn't seem particularly conflicted.
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
Re: Re: Re:
Well, Lennon & McCartney started their wild ride as teens; they never had real jobs to quit. And I'm not sure they'd admit if they were in it for the copyright, but I don't recall them ever implying as much, or that they were only going to stay together as long as it was profitable for them as songwriters. Is that why the Beatles broke up—because they couldn't sue enough bootleggers? Too many cover bands selling records and too many publishers selling sheet music without paying royalties? No, I think people really loved the songs, the recordings, and the band; the public bought Beatles product in absolute droves, and this was long before the sound recordings themselves had copyright (mid-1964 UK, 1976 US). Almost all of what people bought was official, licensed, songwriter-royalty-earning product, because Apple Records, EMI, Capitol, and Northern Songs made darn sure that official Beatles music was widely available for a long, long time, in formats people wanted, at affordable prices. The market was so saturated with the real deal, bootleggers generally couldn't compete. I'm sure copyright helped stymie would-be bootleggers to some small degree, but it's silly to say it was responsible for the Beatles' success, or that Lennon and McCartney ever would've worked at a factory. Ostensibly they had the choice to get a real job or take their rock'n'roll cover band on tour in Europe. Which did they choose, and how did it work out for them?
On the post: DailyDirt: No Refrigeration Necessary...?
On the post: Viacom Didn't Actually 'Win' Against YouTube, But The Appeals Court Ruling Is Still Dangerous
On the post: UMG Watermarks Audiophile Files, Pisses Off Paying Customers
On the post: Major League Soccer Abusing The DMCA To Censor Controversial Clip Of Player Misconduct
I'm sure that from MLS's point of view, getting shamed on a few blogs is a very small price to pay to help keep an embarrassing clip of their misbehaving employee from going viral. Is anyone pursuing any false/unjustified DMCA takedown cases in court? If not, why not? If no lawyers will take such a case, or if they always lose, then there needs to be some kind of legislative advocacy, not just a gripe on Techdirt every 4 years.
Sorry, I'm just kind of in a "sh*t or get off the pot" mood today...
On the post: Finding Success In A Wasteland By Being Open, Human And Awesome
Re: Re:
So, it doesn't seem like the kind of strategy that would work for the big copyright/content industries, because the people running them would have to be lying through their teeth in order to come off as human and awesome and worthy of support.
Next >>