Music Industry Lawyer Upset That Sites Are Able To Point Out The RIAA Took Down Content
from the a-look-inside... dept
Here’s another quick little look into the way the minds of certain entertainment industry lawyers think, courtesy of Chris Castle, a music industry lawyer who we recently discussed concerning his views that only musicians can discuss music industry business models. Now he’s got a post complaining about how internet sites respond to a takedown notice:
Note to self: Next time you do a content license for an online company, make sure that when the content owner terminates the deal the content can’t be replaced with some inflammatory cutesey-ism. Down means down. Gone. Vanished. Not there. Not replaced with: “Hey idiot, the running dogs of the RIAA made us take down stuff because they wouldn’t take our hillbilly deal.”
(Update: It appears that some time between me opening Castle’s post in a tab and writing and posting the story, Castle took down the post. I guess he’s trying to demonstrate what he means by “Down means down. Gone. Vanished. Not there.”) Now, I’m sure that this is Castle just venting after yet another bad move by one of his clients has backfired into a public relations nightmare (something like this perhaps?). If he actually thinks that simply pulling content down with no explanation whatsoever will make users happier then he’s completely lost — and I don’t think he is.
But the key is that this does give yet another glimpse into the mindset of the typical legal professionals at work on some of these issues. It’s not about openness, it’s about secrecy (“Down means down. Gone. Vanished. Not there.”) It’s not about working out a reasonable deal that benefits everyone, it’s about trashing the service provider for offering a “hillbilly deal.” And, of course, it’s never about the user at all. Who cares if they’re wondering what happened to their content? The user doesn’t matter at all.
And that is why the entertainment industry is in trouble.
Filed Under: chris castle, takedowns
Comments on “Music Industry Lawyer Upset That Sites Are Able To Point Out The RIAA Took Down Content”
Apparently, “the page you were looking for in the blog Music • Technology • Policy does not exist.”
Anyone have an archive or mirror of it somewhere? :p
I notice the blog entry is removed. “Down means down. Gone”
I guess he’s true to his word. LOL!
Then let's use this instead
“Hey music-loving consumer, the running dogs of the RIAA made us take down stuff because we wouldn’t let those hillbillies butt-fuck us.”
I’ve never seen another industry that is so intent on keeping its products away from consumers who are practically begging for it. Only the entertainment industry does this, yet they think there’s something wrong with the rest of us.
Cache
For now, Google’s cache of http://music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/ has it. Type the website into a Google search, then click Cached.
Re: Cache
That works. I have now saved the page as a pdf.
Here's a variant...
http://musicdownloadsformp3.musicanalysissite.net/Beat/ISM/
Music • Technology • Policy: What is a takedown?
Note to self: Next on occasion you do a significance permit for an online callers, provoke unflinching that when the gratified proprietor terminates the sell the cheerful can’t be replaced with some seditious cutesey-ism. Down means down. Gone. …
The link is gone though.
Simple answer
Then they probably need to proactively contact licensor to see if they can agree to a license extension.
Re: Simple answer
There’s more billable hours to be had in a reactive litigation suit than trying to pursue a license extension!
Gone from Google's cache, too
All you get now on a search is the site link, no cache.
Guess the gentleman really means to disappear his embarrassing remark.
Re: Gone from Google's cache, too
he probably reads techdirt.
Re: Re: Gone from Google's cache, too
I got the cache alright.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:rnAA9jYpbyAJ:music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/+http://music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Re: Re: Gone from Google's cache, too
He does. If you notice, there are quite a few quotes he spouts taken, word for word, from Techdirt.
Especially the “t shirts” reference.
Irony comes in many flavors
The idea that you can somehow stuff the future back into a box labeled “The Good Old Days” is pretty pathological.
Thinking that you’re going to be able to make it happen through innuendo and name-calling takes it to a whole other level.
Dear Lawyers.
Once something is on the net, it’s never truly gone.
Re: Re:
Yes. One thinks one might be more careful about what one says on one’s blog…
Re: Re: Re:
LOL. So true.
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-takedown.html
Still in Google Cashe
Still there
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:rnAA9jYpbyAJ:music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/+http://music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
LOL, you know, for someone that’s supposed to be smart, he sure acts like a hillbilly. I’ll just go merrily on getting my music for free. NOT ONE RED CENT!
lost
he is lost Mike. The man needs a slap in the face to be awoken to reality. Instead, he would slap people back in the face.
He just needs to go croak like a large majority of the previous generation that refuses to get it. You could tell the man the solution to his face, and he will just think you’re full of it.
Thus, we can only pray that Castle gets disbarred or ceases to be a lawyer. Around 75% of the population is as ignorant as him and not just about music policy, and it is why we have so many problems on so many levels in the US (corporate politics, law, etc).
We have accepted that the generation born in the 80’s is basically not going to see the problems of TODAY go the right way until all of the previous generations (born in the 50’s) has bit the dust. We’re basically 30 years behind on policies because all the people in power are. Good riddance to all of them.
Re: lost
I’ll one up you, I say everyone born before ’69 needs to die.
Re: Re: lost
I disagree that they need to die, because then there’d be a lot of children without grandparents to babysit and spoil them. But, I couldn’t agree more that they need to step aside and let the world progress as it should, instead of holding on to their historically broken values and beliefs.
Education is the best protection.
It's all about who the consumer blames
The reason they want it pulled with no explanation or reason, is so that the end user won’t know who to blame for the content getting pulled. If the end user just doesn’t see it anymore, they won’t know it was pulled at the RIAA’s request. Which means that the RIAA isn’t likely to be blamed by the consumer. Rather the consumer is more likely to blame the service provider who pulled it.
Re: It's all about who the consumer blames
Probably right!
But wait. Aren’t licensing agreements managed by the same people (Entertainment Attorneys) who negotiate them? If not, there’s another problem.
How do they manage this? Is the entire business model run on paper? That’s a lot of trees! The whole schebang needs to be replaced with an automated system where business rules are applied with an impartial technology solution (not letting it escalate to an impartial judge). After all, if the attorney doesn’t feel well, had a bad day because they had a tire blow out on their BMW, or decided to partake in libations which included bad scotch the night before, they are more prone to send you a hillbilly deal. Hope you have gold in them thar hills!
But because lawyers are the only engagable cog in the entire entertainment machine, they by proxy, become the face of the company and industry they serve.
Don’t believe it? Try sending a $100 or even a $200 check directly to the Accounts Receivable or licensing department at Warner, BMG or Sony Music for a license to a 20-second clip in a 20-copy wedding video. You’d be surprised (or probably not) at what happens. An attorney will contact you, and knowing your luck, they probably had bad scotch the night before, and want to take their headache out on you!
Re: It's all about who the consumer blames
Probably right!
But wait. Aren’t licensing agreements managed by the same people (Entertainment Attorneys) who negotiate them? If not, there’s another problem.
How do they manage this? Is the entire business model run on paper? That’s a lot of trees! The whole schebang needs to be replaced with an automated system where business rules are applied with an impartial technology solution (not letting it escalate to an impartial judge). After all, if the attorney doesn’t feel well, had a bad day because they had a tire blow out on their BMW, or decided to partake in libations which included bad scotch the night before, they are more prone to send you a hillbilly deal. Hope you have gold in them thar hills!
But because lawyers are the only engagable cog in the entire entertainment machine, they by proxy, become the face of the company and industry they serve.
Don’t believe it? Try sending a $100 or even a $200 check directly to the Accounts Receivable or licensing department at Warner, BMG or Sony Music for a license to a 20-second clip in a 20-copy wedding video. You’d be surprised (or probably not) at what happens. An attorney will contact you, and knowing your luck, they probably had bad scotch the night before, and want to take their headache out on you!
Here is a copy of the post in case it leaves google cache
http://pastebin.com/f501fea1c
Anonymous coward, you’d better take that text out of the paste bin. Because whoever wrote
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
What is a takedown?
Note to self: Next time you do a content license for an online company, make sure that when the content owner terminates the deal the content can’t be replaced with some inflammatory cutesey-ism. Down means down. Gone. Vanished. Not there. Not replaced with: “Hey idiot, the running dogs of the RIAA made us take down stuff because they wouldn’t take our hillbilly deal.”
posted by Chris Castle at 4:25 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
on that site could have reasonable grounds for getting it taken down, and getting you taken down with it.
just in case the mirrors go down, here is the article:
just in case the mirrors go down, here is the article:
Reader Question of the Week For 2-2-09: What are the “standard” songwriter splits?
Note: This is post is not legal advice and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship.
Question: What are the standard writer splits for a song?
Answer: The question presupposes that a song has more than one writer, a very common scenario. (For a more detailed discussion of why Creative Commons “audio” deeds do not work for (a) songs (separate from sound recordings) and (b) co-writes see “Carefully Co-Writing Without Creative Commons” and “Common Understanding: 10 Things Every Creator Should Know About Creative Commons Licensing” by ASCAP’s Joan McGivern).
There really aren’t any “standard” song splits, i.e., a standard division of the musical composition copyright between or among co-writers. The general rule of thumb is that if you have two writers, one of whom JUST rights music (or melody), and the other of whom JUST writes the lyric, then the copyright in the song should probably be divided 50/50.
Everyone has their own method for creativity, but in my experience it is not common for a songwriting team to divide up the duties that specifically. As long as you have an agreement as to who gets what share, it is less important what the “standard” is than what you agree. For example, some writing teams have an agreement that they’re going to split everything they write together 50/50 because it’s too much hassle to go through each song. They may write alone or with others, too, so those songs are separate from the team splits.
For group artists, dividing up songs can be one of the most contentious meetings the band will ever have. It’s a good idea to have some ground rules established for the band before you do any writing.
Also a good idea to have a split agreement with anyone you co-write with so that there are no questions about who owns what.
posted by Chris Castle at 1:59 AM
Re: just in case the mirrors go down, here is the article:
Wrong article I believe you reposted for us. A for effort though.
I thought it was a sample of the post, but the entire post is:
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
What is a takedown?
Note to self: Next time you do a content license for an online company, make sure that when the content owner terminates the deal the content can’t be replaced with some inflammatory cutesey-ism. Down means down. Gone. Vanished. Not there. Not replaced with: “Hey idiot, the running dogs of the RIAA made us take down stuff because they wouldn’t take our hillbilly deal.”
Dumb lawers!
They just don’t seem to understand that nothing that hits the internet is ever really gone. They can rant all they want but somewhere a copy remains only to resurface, just like a bubble it floats to the top and when it bursts it is replaced by another.
We need a new word...
We need a new word to describe the condition wherein a person or group is convinced that their point of view is the only possible acceptable one even in the face of the entire world is changing around them, AND expects the world to put things back the way they were, by law if necessary.
I think it should be “castleisim”
Reducing "disappearing" pages
Any time I see a page that might disappear, I call up http://www.webcitation.org and have the page permanently archived (not a cache that will eventually empty). An advantage is that if you use the “resurrect page” plugin on Firefox, webcitation.org is one of the options to search.
This works fine for pages posted by assclowns who will have sense beaten into them eventually and will try to cover their tracks, and also for ephemeral pages like daily newspapers who sometimes move articles into their paid area after a short time.