It never ceases to amaze me how few industry people and especially how few attorneys are aware of the following statute. Maybe because it (red text) is buried deep within millions of words (copyright laws).
However, the law is the law.....why argue anything else? In the case of Robin Thicke v. Gaye (Blurred Lines).......the case would have been dismissed had this statute (best kept industry secret) been pointed out.
§ 114 . Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings 48
(a) The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording are limited to the rights specified by clauses (1), (2), (3) and (6) of section 106, and do not include any right of performance under section 106(4).
(b) The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 106 do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio programs (as defined in section 397 of title 47) distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities (as defined by section 118(f)): Provided, That copies or phonorecords of said programs are not commercially distributed by or through public broadcasting entities to the general public.
Hey Mike, long time no argue...I am happy to see you are paying attention to this precedent setting case. You laughed at us last summer mainly because you said the carriers had safe harbor. Did you see that defense presented by them? File sharing may be a push or pull model. Either way it is still file sharing. If you know about law then you would know that the Appellate Court is where most case law is established. If you really knew what you were talking about (the facts) you would know that the carriers have already begun to change their public policy through our efforts. We are a pro copyright organization while embracing technology. Why is it that you say "come up with new business models" and as we are doing just that you try to tear it down? Because it is not YOUR idea of a business model? Stay tuned buddy, you've got a lesson coming.
So, does that mean you would do IT consulting free (as that would fall under an intellectual process) and then sell advertising and t-shirts to those clients to feed your family?
The question is, do you have a better way to monetize creativity and human intelligence that doesn't force intellectuals to sell advertising and t-shirts to survive? A copyright system is critical to our capitalist economy. This is not China.
Domain seizures will prove problematic to the democratic process. I'm sorry to see we have come to this point. There are more productive solutions available but if the "community" doesn't support them and just continues to whine and complain - we can expect more of this........
Domain seizures will prove problematic to the democratic process. I'm sorry to see we have come to this point. There are more productive solutions available but if the "community" doesn't support them and just continues to whine and complain - we can expect more of this........
Your perspective is valid and gets to the root of what creators need~support to sustain those efforts as who knows how long the "process" would take. Therefore, there would have to be some sort of system in place to ensure the creator is provided with some sort of security to continue up that road. A creator IS a publisher. Step one is for creators to learn what that means and stop assigning their rights to others.
Supporting the "finished product" would be the most sensible and obvious thing to do for respecting one's creativity/intellectual effort. However, the establishment screwed up the concept of copyrights a while back by not understanding technology better. This can and will be fixed.
The question is, do you have a better way to monetize creativity and human intelligence that doesn't force intellectuals to sell advertising and t-shirts to survive? A copyright system is critical to our capitalist economy. This is not China.
Copyrights/Intellectual property protection helps monetize human intelligence and creativity, resources that we will NOT run out of as we will most other "material" resources. This is VERY important to a capitalist economy. Used correctly copyrights empower the people/individual much more than corporate monopolies.
VERY good points about negative early reactions to new ideas that eventually became winners. We the people are the best possible filter process and that's because the truth is - we're ALL works in progress!
Very good observation except that multimedia is not the only copyrighted materials available on the net. Images, printed publications etc were all available from the start.
Since the Library of Congress and Copyright offices are branches of the gov it is more likely that it was a gross oversight. Left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing etc........
Yes, the right to assign is fine. Exploitation is fine too = Capitalism. The problem is how to move forward productively based upon the Constitution, which to date is the root equation. That equation starts with the root principle-CREATORS. Once we move ahead you can be sure big business will be back to get those assigns and exploit them as usual. But Congress has no obligation to make laws on behalf of big business, however they ARE obligated to do it for the CREATORS. read the following please........
Rowena, our organization is focused on multimedia via mobile networks as a new revenue stream so we will have a perspective that supports those copyright initiatives going forward. However, you bring up an interesting scenario that can be resolved. The existing business model in the music industry is where the creator/writer/publisher are considered as one. So when a creator signs or shares rights with a publisher they share the revenue generated. The revenue is usually generated from sales/performances of the materials that are usually produced/manufactured by a recording label, (one example of big business is a recording label). The recording label has to pay the creator/writer/publisher a statutory rate for the copyrighted material used in its sound recording. It has been an accepted business practice for recording companies to also have a publishing company. Herein lies the “coerced or forced” scenario. Big business is not doing anything illegal but they use this in the make or break a deal negotiations. They pay publishers the statutory rate mainly because they are at the “collection point of a sale”. In the strategy that we advocate, “the collective” would be at the point of sale and therefore be in a position to pay the statutory rate directly to the creator/publisher and it’s assignees in that order. The assignees could be the recording company, production company and any other participants in the exploitation of the materials. Now this scenario could only work in a situation where a statutory rate was set that would include considerations for assignees, (as datarevenue.org is proposing for mobile networks) but it would be set on behalf of the creator/writer/publisher, not big business. The creator/writer/publisher can make their deal with big business to share in that revenue but won’t have to depend on big business to administrate and/or pay it to them. Please keep in mind that we are only advocating for the future of multimedia via mobile networks as a new revenue stream.
Now, to be included in this futuristic but necessary scenario you as a book/print author would have to find a way to convert your materials to multimedia. There are a number of ways that you may do that but you must think creatively about the options and understand that this would be a new revenue stream and not a replacement for your current model.
That is the same preamble in the Constitution that we reference. But did you notice that the Constitution is for the people as individuals NOT big business. Big business legally rode the principles of this as they started their own publishing companies and coerced CREATORS into signing some or all of those CREATOR's rights to them. Which they then exploited. Big business was only doing what businesses do..make money legally anyway they can. But that caused conflict when the gov prematurely unleashed the Internet so now all those copyrights that big business invested in were in jeopardy of NOT making money anymore and so they rose up defensively and turned the Internet generation off. All the time they were dong this they were carrying the banner of CREATOR'S rights and causing confusion upon the Constitutions real intentions, CREATOR'S RIGHTS.
ur exactly right...the middlemen, (BIG BUSINESS) should NOT be involved in setting new policy, they have abused the system and that's why the Internet generation is justified in resenting their efforts to maintain control.
BUT........new revenue streams for creators of songs and similar content should be backed by the government on behalf of creators because that is in the Constitution. And it shouldn’t require that a creator/writer turn into a merchandiser etc. Reasonable use of statutory rates will work fine in the background and the collective can consist of a democratically administrated group representing the members, industries and entities involved.
As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
So, it is the government that should help fix this mess on behalf of CREATORS of copyrighted materials which is protected by the Constitution of the U.S. Although our government may have missed this opportunity via the “first edition” Internet they can get it right this time with the “second edition” Internet - Mobile Networks. After all, in time there will be many more Internet transactions done via mobile networks and devices than tethered Internet transactions. Now’s the time to put these measures in place. Can we get some help? DataRevenue.Org has been unsupported in these efforts and its about time we reached out for help from those that are about actions beyond words. Can you hear us now?
The Internet generation is right...big business HAS abused the copyright system that was intended for CREATORS. But, new revenue streams for creators of songs and similar content should be backed by the government on behalf of creators because that is in the Constitution. And it shouldn’t require that a creator/writer turn into a merchandiser etc. Reasonable use of statutory rates will work fine in the background and the collective can consist of a democratically administrated group representing the members, industries and entities involved. The CREATOR in this scenario will be at the top of the food chain.
As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that a CREATOR/rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
So, it is the government that should help fix this mess on behalf of creators of copyrighted materials which is protected by the Constitution of the U.S. Although our government may have missed this opportunity via the “first edition” Internet they can get it right this time with the “second edition” Internet - Mobile Networks. After all, in time there will be many more Internet transactions done via mobile networks and devices than tethered Internet transactions. Now’s the time to put these measures in place. Can we get some help? DataRevenue.Org has been unsupported in these efforts and its about time we reached out for help from those that are about actions beyond words. Can you hear us now?
I used to blame the music industry for being asleep at the wheel when this Internet thing came about.....but now afer much research and soul searching I realize its not really their fault. All businesses affected by digitization had no clue of what was coming. Here's the truth...........
"As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
Basically, a statutory rate should have been established. Whereas, whenever copyrighted materials were downloaded, (this is a form of distribution and publication), via an ISP the rate would kick in to be deposited with a designated collective that represented the interests of ALL rights holders.
It is my guess that The Library of Congress was not privy to the conversation."
The law
It never ceases to amaze me how few industry people and especially how few attorneys are aware of the following statute. Maybe because it (red text) is buried deep within millions of words (copyright laws).
However, the law is the law.....why argue anything else? In the case of Robin Thicke v. Gaye (Blurred Lines).......the case would have been dismissed had this statute (best kept industry secret) been pointed out.
§ 114 . Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings 48
(a) The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording are limited to the rights specified by clauses (1), (2), (3) and (6) of section 106, and do not include any right of performance under section 106(4).
(b) The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 106 do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio programs (as defined in section 397 of title 47) distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities (as defined by section 118(f)): Provided, That copies or phonorecords of said programs are not commercially distributed by or through public broadcasting entities to the general public.
Re: Re:
Yeah, well it is too bad you only have a few choices - respect the laws, change the laws or break the laws. What is your choice?
Hey Mike, long time no argue...I am happy to see you are paying attention to this precedent setting case. You laughed at us last summer mainly because you said the carriers had safe harbor. Did you see that defense presented by them? File sharing may be a push or pull model. Either way it is still file sharing. If you know about law then you would know that the Appellate Court is where most case law is established. If you really knew what you were talking about (the facts) you would know that the carriers have already begun to change their public policy through our efforts. We are a pro copyright organization while embracing technology. Why is it that you say "come up with new business models" and as we are doing just that you try to tear it down? Because it is not YOUR idea of a business model? Stay tuned buddy, you've got a lesson coming.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: problematic
Aren't books, recordings, software discs etc. equal to "the physical technology" that you speak of?
Re: Re: Re: Re: problematic
So, does that mean you would do IT consulting free (as that would fall under an intellectual process) and then sell advertising and t-shirts to those clients to feed your family?
Re: Re: problematic
The question is, do you have a better way to monetize creativity and human intelligence that doesn't force intellectuals to sell advertising and t-shirts to survive? A copyright system is critical to our capitalist economy. This is not China.
problematic
Domain seizures will prove problematic to the democratic process. I'm sorry to see we have come to this point. There are more productive solutions available but if the "community" doesn't support them and just continues to whine and complain - we can expect more of this........
problematic
Domain seizures will prove problematic to the democratic process. I'm sorry to see we have come to this point. There are more productive solutions available but if the "community" doesn't support them and just continues to whine and complain - we can expect more of this........
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Music tax vs blanket license
Your perspective is valid and gets to the root of what creators need~support to sustain those efforts as who knows how long the "process" would take. Therefore, there would have to be some sort of system in place to ensure the creator is provided with some sort of security to continue up that road. A creator IS a publisher. Step one is for creators to learn what that means and stop assigning their rights to others.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music tax vs blanket license
Supporting the "finished product" would be the most sensible and obvious thing to do for respecting one's creativity/intellectual effort. However, the establishment screwed up the concept of copyrights a while back by not understanding technology better. This can and will be fixed.
Re: Re: Music tax vs blanket license
The question is, do you have a better way to monetize creativity and human intelligence that doesn't force intellectuals to sell advertising and t-shirts to survive? A copyright system is critical to our capitalist economy. This is not China.
Copyrights/Intellectual property protection helps monetize human intelligence and creativity, resources that we will NOT run out of as we will most other "material" resources. This is VERY important to a capitalist economy. Used correctly copyrights empower the people/individual much more than corporate monopolies.
VERY good points about negative early reactions to new ideas that eventually became winners. We the people are the best possible filter process and that's because the truth is - we're ALL works in progress!
Re: harbinger
Very good observation except that multimedia is not the only copyrighted materials available on the net. Images, printed publications etc were all available from the start.
Re:
Since the Library of Congress and Copyright offices are branches of the gov it is more likely that it was a gross oversight. Left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing etc........
Re: Re: lisa
Yes, the right to assign is fine. Exploitation is fine too = Capitalism. The problem is how to move forward productively based upon the Constitution, which to date is the root equation. That equation starts with the root principle-CREATORS. Once we move ahead you can be sure big business will be back to get those assigns and exploit them as usual. But Congress has no obligation to make laws on behalf of big business, however they ARE obligated to do it for the CREATORS. read the following please........
Rowena, our organization is focused on multimedia via mobile networks as a new revenue stream so we will have a perspective that supports those copyright initiatives going forward. However, you bring up an interesting scenario that can be resolved. The existing business model in the music industry is where the creator/writer/publisher are considered as one. So when a creator signs or shares rights with a publisher they share the revenue generated. The revenue is usually generated from sales/performances of the materials that are usually produced/manufactured by a recording label, (one example of big business is a recording label). The recording label has to pay the creator/writer/publisher a statutory rate for the copyrighted material used in its sound recording. It has been an accepted business practice for recording companies to also have a publishing company. Herein lies the “coerced or forced” scenario. Big business is not doing anything illegal but they use this in the make or break a deal negotiations. They pay publishers the statutory rate mainly because they are at the “collection point of a sale”. In the strategy that we advocate, “the collective” would be at the point of sale and therefore be in a position to pay the statutory rate directly to the creator/publisher and it’s assignees in that order. The assignees could be the recording company, production company and any other participants in the exploitation of the materials. Now this scenario could only work in a situation where a statutory rate was set that would include considerations for assignees, (as datarevenue.org is proposing for mobile networks) but it would be set on behalf of the creator/writer/publisher, not big business. The creator/writer/publisher can make their deal with big business to share in that revenue but won’t have to depend on big business to administrate and/or pay it to them. Please keep in mind that we are only advocating for the future of multimedia via mobile networks as a new revenue stream.
Now, to be included in this futuristic but necessary scenario you as a book/print author would have to find a way to convert your materials to multimedia. There are a number of ways that you may do that but you must think creatively about the options and understand that this would be a new revenue stream and not a replacement for your current model.
lisa
That is the same preamble in the Constitution that we reference. But did you notice that the Constitution is for the people as individuals NOT big business. Big business legally rode the principles of this as they started their own publishing companies and coerced CREATORS into signing some or all of those CREATOR's rights to them. Which they then exploited. Big business was only doing what businesses do..make money legally anyway they can. But that caused conflict when the gov prematurely unleashed the Internet so now all those copyrights that big business invested in were in jeopardy of NOT making money anymore and so they rose up defensively and turned the Internet generation off. All the time they were dong this they were carrying the banner of CREATOR'S rights and causing confusion upon the Constitutions real intentions, CREATOR'S RIGHTS.
ur exactly right...the middlemen should NOT be involved in setting new policy
ur exactly right...the middlemen, (BIG BUSINESS) should NOT be involved in setting new policy, they have abused the system and that's why the Internet generation is justified in resenting their efforts to maintain control.
BUT........new revenue streams for creators of songs and similar content should be backed by the government on behalf of creators because that is in the Constitution. And it shouldn’t require that a creator/writer turn into a merchandiser etc. Reasonable use of statutory rates will work fine in the background and the collective can consist of a democratically administrated group representing the members, industries and entities involved.
As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
So, it is the government that should help fix this mess on behalf of CREATORS of copyrighted materials which is protected by the Constitution of the U.S. Although our government may have missed this opportunity via the “first edition” Internet they can get it right this time with the “second edition” Internet - Mobile Networks. After all, in time there will be many more Internet transactions done via mobile networks and devices than tethered Internet transactions. Now’s the time to put these measures in place. Can we get some help? DataRevenue.Org has been unsupported in these efforts and its about time we reached out for help from those that are about actions beyond words. Can you hear us now?
big business has abused the system and the Internet generation is right!
The Internet generation is right...big business HAS abused the copyright system that was intended for CREATORS. But, new revenue streams for creators of songs and similar content should be backed by the government on behalf of creators because that is in the Constitution. And it shouldn’t require that a creator/writer turn into a merchandiser etc. Reasonable use of statutory rates will work fine in the background and the collective can consist of a democratically administrated group representing the members, industries and entities involved. The CREATOR in this scenario will be at the top of the food chain.
As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that a CREATOR/rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
So, it is the government that should help fix this mess on behalf of creators of copyrighted materials which is protected by the Constitution of the U.S. Although our government may have missed this opportunity via the “first edition” Internet they can get it right this time with the “second edition” Internet - Mobile Networks. After all, in time there will be many more Internet transactions done via mobile networks and devices than tethered Internet transactions. Now’s the time to put these measures in place. Can we get some help? DataRevenue.Org has been unsupported in these efforts and its about time we reached out for help from those that are about actions beyond words. Can you hear us now?
Internet versus Copyrights - a classic conflict of interests
I used to blame the music industry for being asleep at the wheel when this Internet thing came about.....but now afer much research and soul searching I realize its not really their fault. All businesses affected by digitization had no clue of what was coming. Here's the truth...........
"As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
Basically, a statutory rate should have been established. Whereas, whenever copyrighted materials were downloaded, (this is a form of distribution and publication), via an ISP the rate would kick in to be deposited with a designated collective that represented the interests of ALL rights holders.
It is my guess that The Library of Congress was not privy to the conversation."
Max Davis - we can fix this for all