RSS
IFPI Forces Music Offline, Even Though Copyright Holder Wanted It Shared
from the all-about-the-musicians,-huh? dept
When challenged on what they're doing, organizations like the RIAA and the IFPI will often claim that they're just trying to help musicians. That's obviously untrue, as they represent the record labels -- who have a long history of an antagonistic relationship with the musicians they work with. We're seeing more and more cases where this conflict is being made quite clear as the RIAA and IFPI attacks fan actions that the musicians in question would prefer be left alone. Reader Xavier sends in this example of a music blogger who received a cease and desist from the IFPI that not only contained numerous mistakes, but was disputed by the musician himself.
When the blogger received the cease-and-desist (which named the wrong song, but pointed to a specific URL on his blog), he sent the band a note via their MySpace page, to which the lead singer of the group responded:
"You definitely have my blessing as one of the 4 holders of the copyrights to that specific recording. I actually think this is bogus. Anyways thanks for posting that on your site. It was lovely to see it out there doing the rounds. We didnt take it to radio so your helping with the pollenation of the nation."Of course, the blogger was (rightfully) worried that the IFPI might have his hosting company take down the site and/or charge him with a lawsuit, so he took down the song anyway. Nice to see the IFPI looking out for the best interests of the musicians, huh?
10 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Sony Says Raising Prices On Whitney Houston Music Was A 'Mistake'
- Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
- Sony Music Raised Prices On Whitney Houston's Music... Less Than 30 Minutes After She Died
- Music Industry Wants To Put 'Red Lights' In Google For Sites It Says Support Infringement
- PayPal Agrees To Help IFPI Cut Off Funding For Sites IFPI Doesn't Like Without Judicial Oversight
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Can anyone explain to me clearly why...
Is not The Copyright Act of 1976 an act of overt tyranny by forcing copyright upon creators?? Why do creators not have a choice?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
wtf
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Can anyone explain to me clearly why...
Our entire system of government is corrupt.
EtG
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Can anyone explain to me clearly why...
Copyright is not the problem, copyright is a great thing if used properly. For example google "copyleft" or look at the GPU that exists with a lot of the open source software today. People can use their copyrights to share. Copyright gives me the ability to give away music to the masses yet still prevent the Fox Network from using it in advertising I do not wish to support or be associated with. As a copyright holder you can do what ever you want. But copyrights can also be used for evil. See the RIAA and IFPI.
As for this case, unless the band was signed to a label, and in that signing gave their copyrights for either the compositions or the sound recordings to the label, then the IFPI has no right whatsoever to make a demand to remove the song.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ha
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
UK/US
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UK/US
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment