As Hollywood Sues Over Copyright Infringement, Hollywood Celebrates Copyright Infringement In Glee

from the mixed-messages dept

Sage Ross points us to an interesting writeup by Christina Mulligan at the Yale Law School's Information Society Project, noting the somewhat mixed messages Hollywood gives people on derivative creativity. Specifically, she talks about the TV show Glee, which I have to confess to never having watched (nor even knowing anything about the show other than that it exists, and people talk about it). Apparently, however, it's about a fictional high school chorus, and while the show takes on all sorts of meaty social issues, it also displays regular acts of remixing and other forms of derivative works, many of which might get folks sued in the real world, but which never mention copyright issues:
...a video of Sue dancing to Olivia Newton-John's 1981 hit Physical is posted online (damages for recording the entirety of Physical on Sue's camcorder: up to $300,000). And let's not forget the glee club's many mash-ups -- songs created by mixing together two other musical pieces. Each mash-up is a "preparation of a derivative work" of the original two songs' compositions -- an action for which there is no compulsory license available, meaning (in plain English) that if the Glee kids were a real group of teenagers, they could not feasibly ask for -- or hope to get -- the copyright permissions they would need to make their songs, and their actions, legal under copyright law. Punishment for making each mash-up? Up to another $150,000 -- times two.
So here we are with a hit TV program, showing off how kids are doing all sorts of almost certainly infringing derivative works... at the same time we're told (by the same Hollywood folks) that such works are illegal. And, this isn't some random "well, they could sue but they don't" situation:
You might be tempted to assume that this tension isn't a big deal because copyright holders won't go after creative kids or amateurs. But they do: In the 1990s, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) asked members of the American Camping Association, including Girl Scout troops, to pay royalties for singing copyrighted songs at camp. In 2004, the Beatles' copyright holders tried to prevent the release of The Grey Album -- a mash-up of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles' White Album -- and only gave up after massive civil disobedience resulted in the album's widespread distribution. Copyright holders even routinely demand that YouTube remove videos of kids dancing to popular music. While few copyright cases go to trial, copyright holders like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) don't hesitate to seek stratospheric damage awards when they do, as in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset filesharing case.
As the article notes, these mixed messages may be confusing, but in the end, most people know which side actually makes sense, and it's not the side that the law is on right now:
These worlds don't match. Both Glee and the RIAA can't be right. It's hard to imagine glee club coach Will Schuester giving his students a tough speech on how they can't do mash-ups anymore because of copyright law (but if he did, it might make people rethink the law). Instead, copyright violations are rewarded in Glee -- after Sue's Physical video goes viral, Olivia Newton-John contacts Sue so they can film a new, improved video together.

So what should you do in real life if you and your friends, inspired by Glee, want to make a mash-up, or a new music video for a popular song? Should you just leave this creativity to the professionals, or should you become dirty, rotten copyright violators?

Current law favors copyright holders. But morally, there's nothing wrong with singing your heart out. Remixing isn't stealing, and copyright isn't property. Copyright is a privilege -- actually six specific privileges -- granted by the government. Back in 1834, the Supreme Court decided in Wheaton v. Peters that copyrights weren't "property" in the traditional sense of the word, but rather entitlements the government chose to create for instrumental reasons. The scope and nature of copyright protection are policy choices -- choices that have grown to favor the interests of established, rent-seeking businesses instead of the public in general.

The Constitution allows Congress to pass copyright laws to "promote the progress of science" -- a word often used in the 18th century to mean "knowledge". The stated purpose of the original 1790 copyright statute was to encourage learning. So you tell me -- what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines?
It's a good post and well worth reading the whole thing. But what I find interesting is that Mulligan doesn't even touch on the fact that these mixed messages are coming from the same place. The same folks who produce, distribute and broadcast Glee are the folks who insist copyright is property and that the current laws are just and good. But, even they must know, conceptually, that there's a mismatch between what the law says today and what people actually do.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Mike C. (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 11:42am

    Glee as evidence in the next trial?

    The mixed messages have struck a chord of curiosity in me. I wonder if an enterprising defendant and attorney in the next mashup lawsuit could point to Glee as the driving reason why they started their mashup in the first place...

    "We were just following the plaintiffs examples, your honor!"

    /would love to see the plaintiffs lawyers after that one

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:25pm

    Right...

    "Specifically, she talks about the TV show Glee, which I have to confess to never having watched"

    Don't lie. It's right underneath Gossip Girl on your TiVo....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:33pm

    In the Madonna episode, one of the main characters actually said that Madonna's work was in the public domain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Rick, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:36pm

    Olivia Newton-John

    Not sure you realize this, but Olivia Newton-John was actually IN that episode - performing, so I'm guessing she authorized any use of her work or image.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:41pm

    Fair use is fiction; just like the events in the show Glee. I don't see a problem here. /sarc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:42pm

    so what you are saying is that hollywood movies that feature scenes shot "in da hood" should show a clean, neat place, with flower boxes, nice new cars, swept streets, and of course, no passed out crack hoes on the ground, no drug dealers on the corners, and no random police violence?

    yeah. nice idea there mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:47pm

    Hollywood doesnt care about mixed messages when the songs from Glee regularly make the iTunes top downloads list the day after the show airs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Olivia Newton-John

    Mike is not saying the actual TV show is using unauthorized material. He is talking about the story depicting the characters of the show doing things that would violate copyright in real life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Josh (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:53pm

    Copyright promotes knowledge

    Without all these copyright issues many of us would not have to learn a whole slew of legal issues, the nuances of fair use as it's definition erodes to be nearly meaningless, what popular torrent sites to get unauthorized material from, and so on.

    I'd say that copyright is doing a great job at spreading knowledge.

    What? That isn't what you meant?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    RD, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:53pm

    Re:

    "so what you are saying is that hollywood movies that feature scenes shot "in da hood" should show a clean, neat place, with flower boxes, nice new cars, swept streets, and of course, no passed out crack hoes on the ground, no drug dealers on the corners, and no random police violence?

    yeah. nice idea there mike."

    What the F? The HELL does this "I must criticize anything Mike says at all costs" nonsensical spew have to do with the topic, or even Mike's positions?? This is nothing more than crack-pipe fulled reactionary drivel. You are so far beyond the pale in your desperate need to attack Mike and anything having to do with anti-copyright issues that you have proven you are a drug user. Please, put down the crack pipe and give up the hate, its only making you look like a fool.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Glee as evidence in the next trial?

    "If they truly were following our example, Your Honor, they would have secured the requisite licenses as we did."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Damian Byrne (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:56pm

    This is their plan

    Get people hooked on Glee. Get them to do mashups etc and then sue. Not only does Hollywood get the profits from the show, they can get the money from the lawsuits

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Olivia Newton-John

    Not sure you realize this, but Olivia Newton-John was actually IN that episode - performing, so I'm guessing she authorized any use of her work or image.

    Oh, I'm sure that the *show* cleared all the usage. The point is that *in the show* none of the characters clear the usage...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:59pm

    Fair Use?

    Isn't use for educational purposes, such as in a school choir, one of the biggest areas covered by Fair Use?

    I would think that because this is a school-sponsored event, the kids' use of the songs fall under Fair Use, and negate the need to seek out permission.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 12:59pm

    Could we get Glee investigated and charged with inducing and promoting copyright infringement?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:05pm

    Re:

    You're really pulling shit out of your as for this post, yes?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re: Olivia Newton-John

    Thanks for this article. One of the most interesting I've seen on Techdirt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Fail

    > so what you are saying is that hollywood movies
    > that feature scenes shot "in da hood" should
    > show a clean, neat place, with flower boxes,
    > nice new cars, swept streets, and of course,
    > no passed out crack hoes on the ground, no drug
    > dealers on the corners, and no random police violence?

    That doesn't even make any sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Fair Use?

    > I would think that because this is a school-sponsored
    > event, the kids' use of the songs fall under Fair Use

    You would think that, and it would be nice if it were true, but my high school orchestra and university band routinely had to clear rights issues to perform various contemporary pieces. (Try performing "Rhapsody in Blue" without the permission of Gershwin's estate and see what happens!)

    As a result, when the budgets were tight, we tended to program a lot of Beethoven and Mozart and the like-- stuff that's so old it's in the public domain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:17pm

    Re:

    "...investigated and charged with inducing and promoting copyright infringement?"

    You beat me to that ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Duderino, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:22pm

    it's all cleared

    The show just doesn't randomly select songs to sing and then poof, they infringe on copyright. They actually get the permission for everything they do. Madonna gave them complete access to her discography and most other copyright holders gave their stuff to them to use for free because they knew Glee is a good medium to tap into the younger generations. Rhianna was one of the few copyright holders to charge the a (very reduced) fee for her song.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Duderino, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

    From wikipedia

    "Murphy was surprised at the ease with which use of songs was approved by the record labels approached, and explained: "I think the key to it is they loved the tone of it. They loved that this show was about optimism and young kids, for the most part, reinterpreting their classics for a new audience."[13] Composer and musician Billy Joel offered many of his songs for use on the show,[15] singer Rihanna offered her single "Take a Bow" for use at a reduced licensing rate, and other artists have offered use of their songs for free.[16] Madonna granted the show rights to her entire catalogue, and the first season episode "The Power of Madonna" features Madonna performances exclusively.[17]"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glee_%28TV_series%29#Music

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:27pm

    Re: From wikipedia

    Duderino, I think Mike is referring to the characters' use of songs in the fictional world of the show, rather than the actual producers of the show.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re: Fail

    It's a severely flawed analogy, but it contains a small kernel of since.

    I think he's arguing that, just because Hollywood depicts something, it doesn't mean Hollywood is endorsing it.

    It's flawed, though, because the Glee kids are clearly protagonists and their infringing acts are depicted pretty positively.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:31pm

    Re: Re: Glee as evidence in the next trial?

    Except there's no suggesting that the Glee kids (i.e., the characters) are getting the required licenses (or that it's even feasible for a school group like that to get such licenses).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Fail

    *sense

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:33pm

    Re: Fair Use?

    Some school uses might be considered fair use, but not all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:33pm

    Re: Fair Use?

    Some school uses might be considered fair use, but not all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:34pm

    Re: it's all cleared

    But, you see, the argument presented here is that the show demonstrates the duplicitous nature of the entertainment industry by failing to incorporate into the plot scenes depicting one or more of the characters requesting and receiving such licenses.

    Of course, if such a scene had been incorporated, then almost certainly the general thrust of this article would have shifted to make points such as "more Hollywood 'teaching' propoganda", "it shows that having to deal with licensing issues chills free expression and limits the freedom of culture to evolve", etc.

    Quite frankly, I have observed scenes in the show where one or more characters are behind the wheels of cars. Did these characters actually have drivers licenses and should not a subplot have been included to show they honored the law by securing one? In the absence of such a showing it could be construed that mixed messages are being sent about teenage driving.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:34pm

    Re: it's all cleared

    The point is that the *characters* don't get such rights, so the story they are telling is one of copyright infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re: Fair Use?

    Were your H.S. and university just being taking precautions, or was there some legal obligation for those actions?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re: it's all cleared

    I see your point, but I think the valid point of the article is that there really isn't any mechanism for securing the type of rights needed for the Glee kids to do what they do.

    Sure, you can get an ASCAP/BMI/SESAC blanket license, but that doesn't cover preparation of derivative works, and it's unrealistic to think that a high school glee club is negotiating for such licenses directly with the publishing companies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?

    I can guarantee you that a university band performance in front of 70,000 ticket-purchasing football fans (and many more in the television audience) is not going to be considered fair use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Duderino, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:39pm

    Re: Re: it's all cleared

    ah, i see now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re: From wikipedia

    exactly

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    interval (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:41pm

    WAIT! I think the big story here is, as Mike said, that people talk about Glee.

    All I know about the show is what I get from the billions of compacted hours of promos that Fox pushes out in front of my aching eyes. I don't know ANYONE who watches it. What fantastic entertainment am I missing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:43pm

    Re: Re:

    nope. what hollywood portrays in movies (and on tv) isnt saying they support or agree with the content, just that they are attempting to portray real life. mike would be all up their behinds if the show mentioned piracy as bad, evil, whatever. he would lecture them on and on about not portraying the world as it really is. yet, when they do it properly and admit some people have different opinions about copyright, he is slamming them for being two faced?

    hollywood is in a no win situation with techdirt, unless they decide to just fold up their tents and put everything immediately in the public domain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:43pm

    Re: it's all cleared

    you're missing the point.

    its not a matter of the show getting clearance and pretty much everyone is in agreement that yes, in fact, the show did get approval for use of the songs it used.

    the point is, this show regularly shows these kids doing this stuff and leaving out any and all references to the legal hassles that most schools would be faced with if they did the same thing. leaving out the legal hassles that a group of kids doing this stuff on their own would be faced with if they did the same thing.

    my own personal opinion is that this is pretty much inducement to infringe based on the latest inducement arguments that have been won. reason being is that they are showing that you can go out and do all this, but never indicating that doing so would pretty much result in a lawsuit against you should you actually try it. Even if the argument of "we had the rights do do it" were put forth in that argument, the fact that you dont put up some kind of warning saying "doing this is going to get you sued so dont try this at home kids" creates the inducement.

    /someone else can use the soapbox now thanks...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That would be so amazing!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:46pm

    Re:

    from what i gather, you're not really missing much unless you like watching kids dance to pop music mashups?

    which to be honest i rather doubt most people that post on this site would be into (i hope?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 1:52pm

    Re: it's all cleared

    The show just doesn't randomly select songs to sing and then poof, they infringe on copyright. They actually get the permission for everything they do. Madonna gave them complete access to her discography and most other copyright holders gave their stuff to them to use for free because they knew Glee is a good medium to tap into the younger generations. Rhianna was one of the few copyright holders to charge the a (very reduced) fee for her song.

    Again, we know that the *show* cleared the uses. That's not what we're saying at all. We're saying that the characters *in the show* never clear the rights themselves, within the Glee fictional universe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    So, in the show, Olivia Newton-John issues a DMCA takedown notice, then sues them for 150,000 dollars? I agree, that would portray real life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 2:10pm

    Re:

    Moulin Rouge did it better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 2:18pm

    Re: Re: it's all cleared

    Anyone arguing contributory/vicarious liability based on this would have a *very* hard time (and might run the risk of sanctions for a frivolous suit).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Damian Byrne (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 2:38pm

    They don't cover their asses

    Take shows that many kids/teens/adults etc watch that are physically dangerous for non-professionals to do. They always slap a disclaimer on those shows - "Don't try this at home". That way, if someone gets hurt imitating the show, the show executives can point to the disclaimer and say "Well ,we warned ya" and get off scot free.
    However, in this Glee example, we have a bunch of high school kids mixing and mashing up music, all without a single disclaimer or character mentioning the difficulty (or impossibility) of getting the required licences. The kids or their coach just pick the music or songs they want, and do what they will with them.
    However, the effect this has on the shows fans is clear. Many teenagers will start to imitate their idols, all without knowing that by IMITATING THE SHOW, they can be sued. Remember, Glee does not have any disclaimers. It does not say "Any unlicensced use of music in a manner similar to what is depicted in the show can leave you open to lawsuits"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 2:45pm

    Re: From wikipedia

    "Murphy was surprised at the ease with which use of songs was approved by the record labels approached, and explained: "I think the key to it is they loved the tone of it.

    OK let's try it, someone should try approaching these acts "in the real world" and see how far they get....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 2:49pm

    Fiction

    You nailed it with the fiction part. The show is fiction, they can portray anything as legal/acceptable - doesn't matter its fictious. What happens inside your TV stays inside your TV.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Bubba Gump (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 2:50pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "hollywood is in a no win situation with techdirt"

    Yes, until they start doing something RIGHT.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    DS, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 2:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I might actually watch that show.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Phil (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 3:05pm

    The Gleeful Journey of Arnel Pineda

    I think this issue(of how the characters never seek clearance) is a really interesting one. The fact that one of the characters then goes on to meet Olivia Newton John (thanks to her viral video) also got me wondering about how this might work out in real life. Well Glee also covered Dont Stop Believin by Journey (licensed no doubt) but that got me thinking...

    I bet Journey are really glad that Arnel Pineda felt he was able to flout copyright and perform covers of Journey songs (as well as other artists) or their career wouldnít currently be enjoying a major reprise. After all Journey discovered Arnel singing covers of their songs in the Philippines via YouTube. Luckily for Journey they saw videos of Arnel breaching their copyright before their record company issued a takedown notice or sued him. Now Journey (and their record company) are making lots of money because someone seemingly flouted copyright law.

    Of course many successful artists have conveniently ignored copyright law. In fact one could argue this has been essential to the existence of the music industry. How so? Well how many famous musicians began their careers by performing covers of previous generations of artists? Many began life by busking or performing in pub (bar) covers bands. So bands in the 80s were often covering the hits of the 70s, bands of the 90s covering hits of the 80s and so on. Thatís how many people learnt to sing and play before they learnt how to write their own songs. Of course many never went on to do that because writing songs can be the hardest part and a lot of people just want to hear covers of already famous stuff. I know I did as a teenager and guess what? Some of those copyright infringing cover bands introduced me to new artists. I then went out and bought the official albums etc. As I spent my teenage years in a little backwater town that the big groups didnít visit cover bands acted as unpaid but highly effective promotional agents for artists and record companies.

    Speaking of famous artists Ė loads of them performed unauthorised covers before they became famous themselves and were probably sometimes talent spotted by record companies while performing those covers as part of their sets. As noted in the original posting the mixed messages are coming from the same place. Perhaps Arnel Pinedaís discovery by Journey, is another example of a mixed message as the band have done lots of interviews all about Arnels success story etc in the mainstream media and to think the RIAA would have just wanted to sue him.

    So I will summarise by saying that some of my favourite bands began their careers by playing covers without permission. The record companies must have sometimes known this but they seem to have selective amnesia and in the rush to crush copyright infringement in the digital era they are in danger of decimating their own longer term future. If girl scouts cannot sing copyrighted songs, and if parents cannot video their children miming to hits of the day, and if aspiring musicians cannot learn their trade by performing classic covers then it will be the record industry that will ultimately be responsible for the day the music died.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 3:18pm

    Re: They don't cover their asses

    I think more copyright holders should get their lawyers to sue children. Not because I like copyright or lawyers but because I hate children.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 3:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?

    Traditionally if it is purely used in a classroom then it is fine. The second that it is used for an after school activity or as a performance then permission must be sought.

    So fair use really is still trying to be fair. The fuzzy parts gets into after school activities, due to the fact that most of these activities are building up to a performance of some manor they are considered to be performances of the work, and not just used for education.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 3:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    the only right thing they could do is become charities. anything that makes them money is not acceptable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 3:53pm

    Re:

    Huh? I don't even think you understand whats being talked about here. I didn't see anything in the article talking about how they need to be less real. If anything you are agreeing with Mike. In your (from what I can tell, completely unrelated) discussions parameters, he's be asking the Glee producers to have Sue's Olivia Newton video served with a take down notice. Good attempt at the straw-man there though, 1 1/2 stars.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 4:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Or, you know, STOP FREAKING SUING PEOPLE for fair use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 4:30pm

    Oh boy, I can see the series finale to the show now.

    Cary Sherman shows up with his goon squad at the school. With spittle flying from his copious jowls, he viciously rants and raves at the children, decrying them as thieves and comparing them to terrorists. The SWAT team swarms in and all the characters are arrested.

    A farce of a trial is granted. Testimony is taken from a series of american corn farmers about how the children are responsible for the impending demise of their industry. Everyone is found guilty and 80 trillion in damages are awarded.

    What? That's a great episode!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 5:46pm

    Re: They don't cover their asses

    It's a trap! Trick kids into infringing, then, wham!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 6:21pm

    Re: Fiction

    "What happens inside your TV stays inside your TV"

    Not with 3DTV :p

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 7:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?

    What about a stock person humming a tune whilst putting products upon the shelves ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 7:19pm

    Re: From wikipedia

    So then, I guess all these artists are overjoyed about a show that positively depicts copyright infringement.

    That's good news... assuming they even thought about it. A "teaching moment," perhaps?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 7:54pm

    Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    Actually Glee is very reflective of reality.


    This is not a "gotcha" situation. There are many many videos on YouTube where the creators have covered other people's songs or used actual recordings of songs, either in their entirety or as part of mashups, and they are not sued or asked to take down the songs.

    There is more bending of the rules than there is suing, so the situation in Glee is reflective of reality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 7:54pm

    Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    Actually Glee is very reflective of reality.


    This is not a "gotcha" situation. There are many many videos on YouTube where the creators have covered other people's songs or used actual recordings of songs, either in their entirety or as part of mashups, and they are not sued or asked to take down the songs.

    There is more bending of the rules than there is suing, so the situation in Glee is reflective of reality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 8:03pm

    Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    I was trying to edit my comment and it posted instead.

    What I wanted to add was that I know many musicians who cover other people's songs on YouTube as a way to get attention. They aren't asked to take those songs down. Search for any popular song on YouTube and you will find multiple versions. These are unauthorized versions but they are allowed to stand.

    Similarly, there are people who use music as background for videos they make and I'm sure most of them do not ask for permission.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 8:37pm

    Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    And lots of innocent people aren't sent to jail but some are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 8:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    And lots of innocent people aren't sent to jail but some are.

    I'm just saying that Glee is being realistic when it shows students creating videos and mash ups without regard to getting sued.

    Should every film that shows someone speeding also show that person getting a ticket?

    Should every film that shows someone smoking a joint then show that person getting busted by a cop who happens to catch the smoker in the act?

    When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 9:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The only right thing they can do is go to jail for destroying our culture. They stole from the public domain with retroactive extensions, copyright law is ridiculous thanks to them and they, and MSM, have managed to acquire an unearned media monopoly outside the Internet on both media outlets and content so that competitors can't feasibly deliver their own non copyright content if they wanted to. These people are criminal, their accomplishments are a crime to humanity. Restaurants can't even play indie music or have live bands without either paying unowed licensing fees or being sued under the pretext that someone might infringe. This is a crime to humanity, I hope these people are sincerely punished for their nefarious behavior.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 9:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    At least according to the RIAA if you smoke marijuana in a movie there should be negative consequences.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 9:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    err... MPAA *

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 9:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The only right thing they can do is go to jail for destroying our culture. They stole from the public domain with retroactive extensions, copyright law is ridiculous thanks to them and they, and MSM, have managed to acquire an unearned media monopoly outside the Internet on both media outlets and content so that competitors can't feasibly deliver their own non copyright content if they wanted to. These people are criminal, their accomplishments are a crime to humanity. Restaurants can't even play indie music or have live bands without either paying unowed licensing fees or being sued under the pretext that someone might infringe. This is a crime to humanity, I hope these people are sincerely punished for their nefarious behavior.

    You obviously feel passionately about this. But in terms of what the average person cares about, what happens with music copyright is very low on the priorities. That's why I keep saying that I think the music industry in its present form will disappear before the laws themselves will be changed. It will be a de facto copyright-free industry before it becomes a legally copyright free industry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 9:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, the law needs to change ASAP. There are many good out of print books and discontinued content that will be lost in history serving a complete loss to our culture and knowledge and for the ability of future cultures to learn a whole lot about us if copyright law is not retroactively corrected. Tons of out of print and discontinued content that serves tremendous historical and educational value that we can't access anymore because it's out of print and still copyright. This is absolutely unacceptable. I do not see how this can possibly promotes the progress.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 10:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Tons of out of print and discontinued content that serves tremendous historical and educational value that we can't access anymore because it's out of print and still copyright.

    Have you tried libraries? There are ways to get hold of books.

    The used book market is helpful, too.

    And out-of-print may not be as important as books are digitized. Also, with new technology that allows for older titles to be printed on demand, it becomes much more cost-effective for a copyright holder to meet individual requests.

    I'm just trying to be pragmatic here. Technology is likely to find solutions to your concerns much faster than the laws will change. You can certainly mount a crusade to get the laws changed, but there may be faster ways to get accomplished what you want.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 11:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?

    That wouldn't be a public performance, and therefore not copyright infringement in the first place, so fair use never enters the picture.

    Unless he's got an audience.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 11:06pm

    Re: The Gleeful Journey of Arnel Pineda

    Playing covers (usually) isn't copyright infringement because venues (usually) get blanket licenses that cover almost all popular songs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 11:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    "When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway."

    Don't hold your breath

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 11:32pm

    Re: Re: Fiction / Not with 3DTV :p / What happens inside your TV stays inside your TV.

    actually ,, my TV married my microwave, and begot a cyborg machine life form ,that eats pirates. ( any , land , sea, on line.
    0

    my landlord is not happy withe the noise, with all those pirates screaming.

    sue me

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 11:34pm

    Or, you know, STOP FREAKING SUING PEOPLE for fair use.

    Or, you know, STOP FREAKING SUING PEOPLE for fair use.

    ANS : the courts decide fair use on the facts of law.

    settle out of court, please.

    saves everyone money.

    why feed lawyers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 11:39pm

    No, the law needs to change ASAP.

    YOU : "No, the law needs to change ASAP."

    Ans : welcome to democracy .

    checks and balances.

    Law is slow sometimes.

    but eventually

    democracy do Ok,

    Perfect no.

    Ok just , Ok .
    ---------------

    vote.

    Lobby.

    Organize..

    debate,

    Learn,

    read.

    THINK.

    Live,

    Love.

    don't be a pirate
    =======================

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 11:45pm

    That's why I keep saying that I think the music industry in its present form will disappear before the laws themselves will be changed.

    "That's why I keep saying that I think the music industry in its present form will disappear before the laws themselves will be changed. "

    Suzanne , you are VERY Smart.

    Listen to her words you Pirates.

    --------

    but I ask you Suzanne: **do artist still keep control of their art** -- in your very probable future?

    how ?

    really curious about what u think there.

    Best

    TP

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 11:50pm

    Re: Fair Use? // What about a stock person humming a tune whilst putting products upon the shelves ?

    "I'm singing int the rain"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmCpOKtN8ME

    "I'm Singing in the rain", Gene Kelly

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 11:55pm

    Re: Re: Fair Use?

    Look up the law . cite that . why guess?

    Yes I know ,, why should I do your homework for you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 11:58pm

    But, you see, the argument presented here is that the show demonstrates the duplicitous nature of the entertainment industry by failing to incorporate into the plot scenes depicting one or more of the characters requesting and receiving such licenses.

    "But, you see, the argument presented here is that the show demonstrates the duplicitous nature of the entertainment industry by failing to incorporate into the plot scenes depicting one or more of the characters requesting and receiving such licenses."

    ME :Ladies and gentlemen ! The Longest sentence ever!!

    but your point is fairly good.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 12:13am

    When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    "When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway."

    >> Serious question:

    >> How will Artist keep "control" of use , if then it will be free anyway.

    >> $$$ ,, who cares,, i am an Artist.

    >> People will always give me food,, even a bed.

    >> But I still want to control my art.

    Even in poverty.

    It is an "artist-spiritual-ego-thing" on my part.

    I will share my art for free-- as long as I ALWAYS control its use. When , how , where , who . why.

    (i.e. - Bruce Springsteen told the McCain 2008 campaign to stop using his songs, or he would drag Mac down "Thunder Road" under his lawyer's car.)

    >>> Can I in your vision ,Suzanne, still control my art ?

    how ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 12:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    Don't hold your breath

    Oh, the changes are already happening. For example, it used to be that the major labels could make good money allowing songs they owned to be used on TV, film, and commercials. Then music supervisors discovered they could get good music virtually for free from unsigned artists who wanted the exposure. In response, the major labels dropped the price of their music to little or nothing, too. In fact, that's why they support having shows like Glee. It's exposure.

    There is so much competition in music now that the price gets driven down for everything. When the major labels go out of business, no one will be left to pay for those lawsuits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 12:24am

    Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    >>> Can I in your vision ,Suzanne, still control my art ?

    how ?


    I'd like to see a culture where we at least credit people for their contributions. So everyone who contributes gets recognition for their part.

    In terms of "stealing," I think we'll skip right over that. Technology will allow everyone to make their own art so there will be less incentive to grab someone else's.

    On the plus side, we'll all be artists to one degree or another. On the down side, we'll all need day jobs to pay our bills.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 12:29am

    Un -Fair- Use ,,, w/o permission is wrong,, and illegal.

    "You might be tempted to assume that this tension isn't a big deal because copyright holders won't go after creative kids or amateurs. But they do: In the 1990s, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) asked members of the American Camping Association, including Girl Scout troops,"

    Me : It is an "artist-spiritual-ego- control-thing".

    I may not like the Puritan Girl Scouts,, so they can' t use my song.

    But the Spice Girls can.
    As long as they rehearse in my house naked , and then ......

    My Art, My control.

    I do not legally, have to explain why. EVER to anyone.

    Un -Fair- Use ,,, w/o permission is wrong,, and illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 12:38am

    Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    It is an "artist-spiritual-ego-thing" on my part.

    I will share my art for free-- as long as I ALWAYS control its use. When , how , where , who . why.


    I can totally relate to that. I used to write sports marketing and management newsletters. My goal was educational. The newsletters were free. But I put on the newsletters that if someone wanted to reproduce them, I'd like to have my name on them and that they reproduce each newsletter as a whole rather than editing it.

    I'd like to think that people who want to use someone else's art in a way that goes beyond fair use would check with the artist and let him/her know. In fact, respecting the artist and having a real conversation is a great way to show appreciation.

    Most of us don't have the money to sue anyone if they do use our art without permission, but I'd like to see a culture where respect is shown. I suppose if you hate the artist and the art, you might take it out of spite and not treat it respectfully, and there's not a lot we can do, but I think artists, as a rule should be respected. It's a shame that what we have instead is American Idol where we mock people trying to be creative in their own fashion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    ed (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 12:49am

    copyright wrongs righted

    I too have never seen the television series "Glee". However, if the students in the programme were in the UK, the law would make provision for them and/or the teaching staff to use material in exactly the way that appears to be shown in the programme, and in exactly the same way as material is used IRL. The Text of the Copyright and Patents Act (1988) states:

    Copyright in a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme is not infringed by its being copied by making a film or film sound-track in the course of instruction, or of preparation for instruction, in the making of films or film sound-tracks, provided the copying is done by a person giving or receiving instruction.
    http://tinyurl.com/CPA-1988

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 1:03am

    The Grey Album -- a mash-up of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles' White Album

    "In 2004, the Beatles' ++copyright holders++ tried to prevent the release of The Grey Album -- a mash-up of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles' White Album -- and only gave up after massive civil disobedience resulted in the album's widespread distribution."

    Me: But I do not think it was "Paul and Yoko and Olivia and Ringo" who were involved.

    I cannot find any reference to their personal statements -- if there even were any.

    But ,,,,,,Abbey Road (side two vinyl) -- Golden Slumbers-- was a nursery poem that the Beatles copied and mashed.

    Now Golden Slumbers was public domain then ** -- but Artist do not think in time and space when creating art.

    I doubt Paulie had a problem with Danger Mouse's Grey Album.

    I am am gonna guess he loved it.

    Mike , score an interview with the "cute one", see what he says.

    (With six -degrees of separation , you must know someone who can score Paul for you. Even by email interview at least. diversity of thought is also good when you are a journalist, or blogger, or whatever techdirt the heck is)
    ===========

    "Golden Slumbers" is based on the poem "Cradle Song", a lullaby by the dramatist Thomas Dekker. The poem appears in Dekker's 1603 comedy Patient Grissel. McCartney saw sheet music for Dekker's lullaby at his father's home in Liverpool, left on a piano by his stepsister Ruth McCartney. Unable to read music at the time, he created his own melody and arrangement.[1][2] McCartney uses only the first four lines of the original poem, with minor word changes.[4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Slumbers

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 4:27am

    Re: Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    thank you,, Suzanne.
    You are always a good read here.

    But ( i know always a but,,, ).....

    .>> BUT in practical terms real world terms:

    For example:: A struggling artist , a middle class artist , let us say,, who puts his kid through school, and pays his bills 100% through his Artist fess & copyright royalties .. a writer of niche , but respected novels.

    In Practical terms, in your vision , Suzanne , do you view this writer as needing to have a lawyer on retainer , to make sure he gets paid , when any is $$ due from an "infringers", "un-fair-users", or any other "non-respectful pirate types"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 4:33am

    hollywood is in a no win situation with techdirt, unless they decide to just fold up their tents and put everything immediately in the public domain.

    "hollywood is in a no win situation with techdirt, unless they decide to just fold up their tents and put everything immediately in the public domain."

    ME : Touchdown. for that Mr. Anonymous Coward.

    Your "ball" now mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 4:41am

    any mechanism for securing the type of rights needed for the Glee kids to do what they do.

    "the valid point of the article is that there really isn't any +++mechanism for securing the type of rights needed for the Glee kids to do what they do."+++

    there is . there must be. if not by law , by court -- for free fair use.

    If you loose on fair use in law or court -- the mechanism for securing the type of rights needed-- are by using pictures of Presidents , & Ben Franklin , & A. Hamilton that are on U.S. government issued paper products,--

    ----- YOU PAY !!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 4:46am

    Re: Re: it's all cleared

    write your own script. submit it to Glee, really ,, it might make a good episode,

    ( I rarely watch TV , except Buffy on hulu,,
    , and never really new of Glee , till here.
    Thought Glee sounds interesting as ART.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 4:54am

    all without a single disclaimer or character mentioning the difficulty (or impossibility) of getting the required licences.

    "all without a single disclaimer or character mentioning the difficulty (or impossibility) of getting the required licences."

    If they are smart Artists, the Glee producers & writers

    , will mention "the difficulty (or impossibility) of getting the required licences.", ,,,

    ,,,next season.

    and if they are really smart ,

    , they are reading this thread,

    to get a pulse on the "TV viewing techno-public" that is here at techdirt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 5:05am

    Re: Re: Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    In Practical terms, in your vision , Suzanne , do you view this writer as needing to have a lawyer on retainer , to make sure he gets paid , when any is $$ due from an "infringers", "un-fair-users", or any other "non-respectful pirate types"?

    Actually I'm not good example because I hate dealing with contracts, legalities, etc. And there have been times I've found that by not having a written agreement beforehand, I've been disadvantaged.

    A lot of musicians have learned, after getting screwed out of money they had been promised by a club owner or a promoter, to get a contract even if in the end they still don't get the money they are owed.

    And enough musicians have signed bad record and publishing deals that the standard advice to any musicians is don't sign a contract until a lawyer looks it over.

    There are enough horror stories at all levels of the music business that musicians probably should have access to lawyers. Can a lawyer stop someone from using your music or your writing? Yes. Is it worth it to bring in a lawyer? Yes, probably, at least in the big cases (some things probably aren't worth pursuing). If I found out that someone had copied a book I had written and was selling it under his name as his writing, I'd probably seek legal recourse.

    I'd like to think everyone is honest, but unfortunately I don't think everyone is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 5:07am

    Of course many successful artists have conveniently ignored copyright law.

    Phil :"Of course many successful artists have conveniently ignored copyright law. "

    ME : ARTIST CONTROL. part of the law.
    ----------------------------

    Great post Phil. very accurate write on music culture,

    Chuck Berry himself never sued The Rolling Stones.

    Woody Guthrie ( or his estate ) , never sued Bob Dylan .

    ( As most may know , Dylan held vigil next to Woody's death bed.)

    MUSICIAN CULTURE -- Copyright laws are often suspended Musician to Musician.

    Yes is a corp - slime -biz -- now owns the "Songs",, they sue musicians,, but other musicians , rarely sue , other good faith Musicians,

    ------------

    again : George Harrison, 'This Song'
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsUkACDSIZY.

    One of the first real rock videos. a blazing tune , well played. by serious pros.

    watch enjoy. very relevant to our discussion.

    Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord
    -------------------------

    and while we are here :
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGbRHxM4X2g&feature=related

    Eric Idle & George Harrison's -- "The Pirate Song"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 5:14am

    Re: Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    "Technology will allow everyone to make their own art so there will be less incentive to grab someone else's."

    Ans : But I ain't a Beatle. I ain't Shakespeare.

    Ques: How does the rare Super-genius art -- that is sooooo rare,
    fit into your vision Suzanne.

    thanks .

    This is very interesting thought you offer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 5:17am

    Re: Re: Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    Actually let me clarify my Question:

    "Technology will allow everyone to make their own art so there will be less incentive to grab someone else's."

    But if I make mega-super - respected - sell-able Beatle type ART -- that billions want to buy with $$$,-------

    How do I fit into your vision Suzanne?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 5:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    thanks. I agree.

    I hope the Pirates understand you too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 5:38am

    Actually I'm not good example because I hate dealing with contracts, legalities, etc.

    "Actually I'm not good example because I hate dealing with contracts, legalities, etc. "

    Me tooo !!! , i actually cannot think of one major -lawyer musician.

    George , again ; Sue Me, Sue You Blues by George Harrison.

    ((((( why did he make it the blues? Melodies and chords--public domain. The Blues. You cannot copyright the Blues. Thee chords by nature,, (( yes there are often 7ths , 9 flat sharps, in the blues,, and in George songs, those "naughty chords", he invented,,--- but ---I know you pirate geeks all knew that fact -- I write for the children watching at home))- )))))

    http://s0.ilike.com/play#George+Harrison:Sue+Me%2C+Sue+You+Blues:800676:m8392747
    --------------


    ps. Brian May of Queen, has Phd. in astronomy stuff. But still no musician lawyers of note.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 5:48am

    "The Osgood File," CBS Radio: on that Dan Pink book. today

    Hey Mikey:::: just here on the "The Osgood File," CBS Radio, a piece , on that Dan Pink book.

    Try to get a listen. You might like the spin.

    but might not too

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 5:55am

    Re: "The Osgood File," CBS Radio: on that Dan Pink book. today

    Re: Pink ( Dan)
    http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_pink_shirky/all/1

    "Cognitive Surplus: The Great Spare-Time Revolution"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 6:01am

    So you tell me -- what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines?

    Re copyright law today:

    "So you tell me -- what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines? "

    Ans. by Me: maybe.

    Suzanne ? your take please. (thanks )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    jsf (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 6:54am

    Re: Glee as evidence in the next trial?

    Go with inducement, then you can use their own arguements against them. You could also try entrapment. ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 7:22am

    Re: hollywood is in a no win situation with techdirt, unless they decide to just fold up their tents and put everything immediately in the public domain.

    "
    ME : Touchdown. for that Mr. Anonymous Coward.

    Your "ball" now mike."


    Three can play that game. The more the merrier. /holds-both-hands-over-ears LA LA LA LA LA LA LAAAA!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 7:32am

    Re: So you tell me -- what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines?

    Suzanne ? your take please. (thanks )

    Dude, would you please get off your ass and start showing real and useful advocacy for IP by directly supporting pharma patents.

    Thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    identicon
    richard, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 7:57am

    TV clears everything....

    What's with the assumption that the Glee staff didn't "clear" (get permission from the rightsholders) all the content appearing on the show.

    It's standard practice.

    You don't even know whether what you *say* happened, happened

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 7:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    You set up a donate button on your website. It is really quite easy to have done. Then people can send you money! Not hard to do.
    These days the only way I ever buy music is from an independent where I know they are getting most of the money. If they are on any sort of label that has anything to do with the RIAA, then they get nothing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 8:34am

    RE:again : George Harrison, 'This Song'

    and if you watch the companion "making of video" ,, you will find his record company staff ,, were most of the cast for the video,

    times have changed

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 8:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    And lots of innocent people aren't sent to jail but some are.


    Abolish the criminal justice system!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 9:54am

    Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    >>> Can I in your vision ,Suzanne, still control my art ?

    how ?


    Don't release it. People who want to make art to share it should do so. People who want to make art to control it should keep it to themselves. Seriously, if your goal is to control your art, don't let anybody else see or hear it. Mission accomplished.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 10:27am

    I think more copyright holders should get their lawyers to sue children.

    "I think more copyright holders should get their lawyers to sue children."

    ANS : While I think this following point is obvious , never underestimate a techdirt reader:


    No one suing children.

    They are suing the adults who make the biz decisions ,

    who employ the kiddies ,

    or are their Girl Scout den mothers and their corp supervisors.. ( Girl Scouts is big,)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 10:30am

    Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    very insightful -- again -- Suzanne.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 10:33am

    I know many musicians who cover other people's songs on YouTube as a way to get attention. They aren't asked to take those songs down.

    "I know many musicians who cover other people's songs on YouTube as a way to get attention. They aren't asked to take those songs down. "

    I do at My space. ,, but the Pirates ( Karl esp) here, have been screaming I am some infringe monster for weeks now.

    thank you for setting then strait Suzzanne.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 10:39am

    useful advocacy for IP by directly supporting pharma patents.

    i don't do patents.

    Darn it , Jim , i am a guitarist , not a bio-engineer. Get Spock to do it !!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    "Don't release it. People who want to make art to share it should do so. People who want to make art to control it should keep it to themselves. Seriously, if your goal is to control your art, don't let anybody else see or hear it. Mission accomplished."

    ans: very true , for the home poet , who write for his own soul.

    but i make ART to eat --also. It is my job. Society needs art,

    most people will pay ,,,over and over even ,,, to support my art and me.

    copyright now . copyright forever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    good point.

    but i was thinking more of control over "unfair" use after purchase , if there even was a purchase to start.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?

    I know U.S. copyright law well enough not to need to look it up in this scenario.

    There is not going to be a case or statutory citation that answers his question regarding whether H.S. or university band use is "fair use," because the question is too broadly conceived.

    Thus, my answer that "some school uses might be considered fair use, but not all."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 11:50am

    Re-read the article and the comments, then get back to us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 11:59am

    Re: any mechanism for securing the type of rights needed for the Glee kids to do what they do.

    Dude, is English your native language?

    Anyway, as I said before, "it's unrealistic to think that a high school glee club is negotiating for such licenses directly with the publishing companies"

    The amount of work involved in getting the rights would likely cost more than the licenses themselves (assuming the copyright holders would be wiling to grant such licenses).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    My position: not for or against

    In case there is any confusion, I'm not for or against any IP laws.

    I think there have been been some abuses in the system (I agree that some of the patents issued these days shouldn't have been), but for the most part I don't argue pro or con these things. I vote for issues that matter to me, but IP legislation isn't my main concern.

    I will sometimes bring up info on the subject in my comments, to further the discussion, but I won't argue the rightness or wrongness of it all.

    I am very interested in the overall concept of artists and content providers making a living in the world. And I like to discuss the economics of it. Not necessarily how things should be. Just how things are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 8:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Fiction / Not with 3DTV :p / What happens inside your TV stays inside your TV.

    You so crazy!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 9:02pm

    Re: I know many musicians who cover other people's songs on YouTube as a way to get attention. They aren't asked to take those songs down.

    Don't you have some concepts that need "raping"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 9:03pm

    Re: TV clears everything....

    You should learn to read harder.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 9:04pm

    Re: Un -Fair- Use ,,, w/o permission is wrong,, and illegal.

    I used some of your art and made $30. It's all mine. You'll never see a dime of it. Poor artist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 9:57am

    Re: I think more copyright holders should get their lawyers to sue children.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing

    The RIAA's methods of identifying individual users have led to the issuing of subpoenas to a dead grandmother,[27] an elderly computer novice,[28] and even those without any computer at all.[29] The RIAA has also brought lawsuits against children, some as young as 12.[30]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    Or reform it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: Re: When the labels disappear, the problem will likely take care of itself, so I don't think music licensing will continue to be an issue. It will all be free anyway.

    "All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 9:34pm

    Re: Re: I think more copyright holders should get their lawyers to sue children.

    no one like lawyers. I doubt the RIAA like theirs,, but lawyers are paid pit bulls. The courts job is to keep then in check

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    identicon
    Jerod, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 3:11am

    Re: Olivia Newton-John

    The article's point is in the shows universe, Hollywood says copyright infringement means you get to meet Olivia Newton-John and you become famous and make money. However, in the real world Hollywood says copyright infringement means you get hit with a lawsuit and have to pay out a quarter of a million dollars or more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    icon
    Joe Perry (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 9:22pm

    Re:

    I think your argument is that just because Hollywood portrays something that doesn't mean it thinks it's a good idea. It's true that there are many movies and shows about illegal activity, but it's always clear. There are no movies where the moral is selling drugs and shooting people is a great lifestyle that everyone should aspire to. It's the message which is the thing we have to look at, not the portrayal. The message of Glee (I assume) is that these kids are creative and awesome and having a fun time doing something constructive at school. It gives viewers something to aspire to and look up to.

    But of course, you probably have a hard time looking beyond the face value of anything you watch and looking for a message or meaning.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    identicon
    JC, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 1:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    Should every film that shows someone speeding also show that person getting a ticket?

    If the film were made by traffic cops who were regularly featured on hour long TV specials about the evils of speeding ... yes, you bet your behind the person better get a ticket in their film.

    The point is that Glee is IRONIC because the same people talking about the evils of copyright infringement are making a show about people were their wildest dreams come true when they infringe copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    ... the same people talking about the evils of copyright infringement are making a show about people were their wildest dreams come true when they infringe copyright.

    Have we established that all TV show producers/writers speak with one voice? Do all singer/songwriters need to address copyright in the same way because the RIAA approaches it a certain way? Do all novelists have to speak the same way about copyright because some publishers complain about illegal downloading?


    Do Americans have to be consistent on their viewpoints? Do blacks?

    I realize people are trying to suggest this is ironic, but I see it as artistic license. And YouTube has gone on record that you can make mashups and upload them without you personally checking with the copyright holders.

    I have a friend who is a featured artist on YouTube this week and she has performed and uploaded music videos using songs written by others without obtaining permission first. I think there is more flexibility in what people can upload on YouTube than many realize.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 2:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    .... the same people talking about the evils of copyright infringement are making a show about people were their wildest dreams come true when they infringe copyright.

    Have we established that all TV show producers/writers speak with one voice? Do all singer/songwriters need to address copyright in the same way because the RIAA approaches it a certain way? Do all novelists have to speak the same way about copyright because some publishers complain about illegal downloading?

    Do Americans have to be consistent on their viewpoints? Do blacks?

    I realize people are trying to suggest this is ironic, but I see it as artistic license. And YouTube has gone on record that you can make mashups and upload them without you personally checking with the copyright holders. So what is happening on Glee IS happening in real life, with the music copyright holders allowing it.

    I have a friend who is a featured artist on YouTube this week and she has performed and uploaded music videos using songs written by others without obtaining permission first. I think there is more flexibility in what people can upload on YouTube than many realize.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 5:00pm

    Re: They don't cover their asses

    Exactly. That's why shows with lots of dangerous stunts and explosions, like Myth Busters, have disclaimers on them after the commercial breaks.

    And Glee lacks any of said disclaimers that remixing culture, similar to what the characters on the show are doing, could get you sued for big bucks by the greedy corporate suits. I'm really surprised considering the network the show airs on is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a greedy corporate type that has insisted at least once that "fair use does not exist."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 5:23pm

    Re: Re: They don't cover their asses

    Exactly. That's why shows with lots of dangerous stunts and explosions, like Myth Busters, have disclaimers on them after the commercial breaks.

    And Glee lacks any of said disclaimers that remixing culture, similar to what the characters on the show are doing, could get you sued for big bucks by the greedy corporate suits.


    You know, I haven't seen any disclaimers when characters are drinking alcohol that there can be consequences for that. People still smoke in movies but we don't see warnings at the end of the show that smoking has been linked to health problems. I don't think I have seen any disclaimers that sex might lead to STDs or pregnancy. And what about all those people in movies who are overweight and continue to eat too much. Risk of diabetes?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 5:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    And YouTube has gone on record that you can make mashups and upload them without you personally checking with the copyright holders.

    Can you point me to that record?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 6:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    Margaret Gould Stewart: How YouTube thinks about copyright | Video on TED.com

    You can either watch the video or read the transcript.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 10:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    Margaret Gould Stewart: How YouTube thinks about copyright | Video on TED.com

    You can either watch the video or read the transcript.


    Are we watching the same video? I'm very familiar with YouTube's ContentID system. I spent nearly 2 hours at YouTube's headquarters a couple weeks ago with them explaining all the details of how ContentID works.

    Nothing in that video says that "you can make mashups and upload them without personally checking with copyright holders." In fact, it says the opposite. It says that Content ID can catch the use and block it.

    In fact, Youtube is quite clear that if you put up other's content, and the copyright holder decides to DMCA you, you can lose your account and face legal liability.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    Nothing in that video says that "you can make mashups and upload them without personally checking with copyright holders." In fact, it says the opposite. It says that Content ID can catch the use and block it.

    You can put it up. Then the content rights holder has the option to ask YouTube to take it down. But that's what many of the real life equivalents of Glee teens are doing. They are creating mashups without obtaining permission, and those mashups are staying up, and in some cases the teen creators are launching careers as a result.

    Suggesting that Glee should warn viewers that you can't put mashups on YouTube is unnecessary, because you can. I know people who have done so very successfully, and without first obtaining permission to do so. In fact, YouTube has promoted them heavily. They are being held up as models of musicians successfully using YouTube to promote themselves.

    Glee is more accurate than the article writer suggested. Teens virtually never ask first. They just do it, and in many cases the video stays up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 12:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    Once again, Suzanne, you amaze me.

    You can put it up

    Of course you can. Doesn't make it legal. And in NO WAY does YouTube condone doing so, despite you false claim that they did.

    Then the content rights holder has the option to ask YouTube to take it down.

    Yes. The content rights holder ALSO has the option to file a DMCA notice, and you risk a lawsuit and losing your YouTube account and everything you uploaded. Why do you skip over that point?

    But that's what many of the real life equivalents of Glee teens are doing.

    Of course. No one denied that many kids are doing this. What was said -- accurately -- was that it was hypocritical for the industry to insist this is "stealing" and then show it off on their own TV shows as if it were perfectly legal. You seem to be arguing something totally different, which you do a lot.

    They are creating mashups without obtaining permission, and those mashups are staying up, and in some cases the teen creators are launching careers as a result.

    Indeed. All at great legal risk to themselves, and all while the very same industry is saying that what they're doing is illegal. Why are you skipping over that detail?

    Suggesting that Glee should warn viewers that you can't put mashups on YouTube is unnecessary, because you can.

    Not legally. Yes, many content creators will allow it, but you also RISK some pretty serious consequences in doing so. That was the point of the article. No one said Glee should "warn viewers that you can't put mashups on YouTube." You seem to be arguing a totally different point again. People call you on stuff and you move on to arguing something different.

    I know people who have done so very successfully, and without first obtaining permission to do so.

    The fact that many do it and get away with it does not respond to the key points of the article that (1) the industry still insists this is illegal and (2) there are very real legal risks to doing so, despite your false claims otherwise.

    In fact, YouTube has promoted them heavily. They are being held up as models of musicians successfully using YouTube to promote themselves.

    Again has nothing to do with the point.

    Glee is more accurate than the article writer suggested.

    Suzanne. No one said that Glee wasn't "accurate" in portraying what kids actually do. Why make up such a myth? What was said was that this was the same industry that CLAIMS that doing this is illegal, and then celebrates it in the TV show.

    Teens virtually never ask first. They just do it, and in many cases the video stays up.

    *Bangs my head against the wall*. Yes. No one said otherwise.

    You amaze me. Constantly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 12:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    What was said was that this was the same industry that CLAIMS that doing this is illegal, and then celebrates it in the TV show.

    I guess I am a bit confused. The show is created by producers and writers, not the industry per se. The show creators speak for themselves, so there isn't really any true connection between story lines and industry organizations.

    I guess it's just one of those things where I think, "This is a bit of a stretch as an example."

    There are good examples, but citing Glee? Really? It's a funny parody. In fact, maybe that's the whole point. It is an inside joke and Christina Mulligan has taken it way too seriously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 1:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    I thought I would go ahead and upload a bit of that transcript. It might be of interest to some of you.

    Transcript for Margaret Gould Stewart: How YouTube thinks about copyright Margaret Gould Stewart: How YouTube thinks about copyright: "YouTube cares deeply about the rights of content owners. But in order to give them choices about what they can do with copies, mash-ups and more, we need to first identify when copyrighted material is uploaded to our site. ...

    Well, it starts with content owners delivering assets into our database, along with a usage policy that tells us what to do when we find a match. ... When we find a match, we apply the policy that the rights owner has set down.

    If you have content that others are uploading to YouTube, you should register in the content I.D. system, and then you'll have the choice about how your content is used. And think carefully about the policies that you attach to that content. By simply blocking all reuse, you'll miss out on new art forms, new audiences, new distribution channels and new revenue streams."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 2:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    I thought I would go ahead and upload a bit of that transcript. It might be of interest to some of you.

    Are you still not willing to admit that it does not actually say what you claim it says?

    Really?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 2:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    The best way for me to respond is to let Stewart speak for YouTube. That's why I uploaded the link and the quotes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 2:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    The best way for me to respond is to let Stewart speak for YouTube. That's why I uploaded the link and the quotes.

    Suzanne, this is why we have so much trouble talking to you.

    You made a declaratory statement: "YouTube has gone on record that you can make mashups and upload them without you personally checking with the copyright holders."

    That is demonstrably false. YouTube has not gone on the record saying that at all. The video that you posted simply details their ContentID system which is AIMED ENTIRELY AT CONTENT PROVIDERS -- NOT USERS. The presentation does not say what you claimed it said.

    And now that we've called you on it, rather than admit you were wrong, you just post part of the transcript which still doesn't say what you claimed it said.

    Unbelievable.

    Just admit that you were wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 3:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    From the transcript:

    "Here we can see the original reference file being compared to the user generated content. The system compares every moment of one to the other to see if there's a match. Now this means that we can identify a match even if the copy used is just a portion of the original file, plays it in slow motion and has degraded audio and video quality. And we do this every time that a video is uploaded to YouTube."

    YoTube says nothing about requiring proof from the uploader that permission has been obtained. Rather they say that they compare content to identify the copyright holder and then check to see what permissions the copyright holder has given. I would say YouTube is operating, in essence, as a licensing service, not unlike CC, where the copyright holder spells out what can or cannot be done with the copyrighted material.

    It would be great if ASCAP/BMI/SESAC adopted something similar.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 3:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    From the transcript:

    Which part do you not understand. This is NOT DIRECTED AT USERS. Content ID is a tool for copyright holders. The entire presentation is directed at copyright holders.

    You FALSELY interpreted it to mean that this is directed at users.

    YoTube says nothing about requiring proof from the uploader that permission has been obtained.

    Because that's not the point. This is directed at copyright holders, not users.

    Rather they say that they compare content to identify the copyright holder and then check to see what permissions the copyright holder has given.

    Yes, that is how the system works, but none of that is what you claimed.

    Suzanne, it's okay to admit you were wrong and totally and completely misinterpreted this video. What you suggested was YouTube saying "it's okay" to upload others content does not say that at all.

    Seriously. Admit you were wrong and move on. The fact that you continue to pretend this video says something it does not is really, really stunning.

    I would say YouTube is operating, in essence, as a licensing service, not unlike CC, where the copyright holder spells out what can or cannot be done with the copyrighted material.

    I don't disagree with that statement, but I will note that it has nothing to do with your original claim or what this article was discussing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 5:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of people AREN'T getting sued

    Here's my take on YouTube policy.

    If all the YouTube videos had already had their licenses cleared, there would be no need for Content ID because the copyright holders would already know about all the videos to be uploaded.

    And, in fact, YouTube is saying to the copyright holders, "You will have more promotional opportunities if we encourage lots of users to use your copyrighted material."

    In essense, YouTube has created a crowdsourced model where users create videos, then YouTube and the copyright holders benefit.

    You're focusing on the fact that Stewart was speaking to an audience of copyright holders. However, I'm saying that it doesn't matter. YouTube knew very well that the speech would eventually filter out to beyond that audience. This speech speaks to everyone who has anything to do with YouTube.

    Copyright law is not going to change anytime soon. So what is going to have to happen is that copyright holders are going to have to willingly move into a new world on their own. Musicians have already done this, for the most part, and YouTube is advancing that cause. YouTube is the music industry's biggest promotional tool right now, for both major label artists and unsigned, unknown artists.

    Now that YouTube has established its clout as a promotional too, it's making its pitch to major labels, movie studios, and TV networks, showing them the benefits of allowing their copyrighted material in unlicensed videos. Susan Boyle is its biggest example. "Think how much more money you would have made if you had listed her performance with us."

    The reason I don't take much of a stand one way or the other on copyright is that it is evolving. The older style copyright holders are disappearing. The economics are not favoring them. The system will likely self-correct before the actual laws are changed. You've got to look beyond what is happening at this moment to what will be happening a few years from now.

    That doesn't necessary mean I think creative types will make more money under the new system. But I don't think people will fight it forever. We'll just all adjust to a new world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This