The record label has a contract with the artist. The artist is paid by the label based on sales. When you cheat the artist he/she doesn't get paid.
This poster's comments are pretty old now but just to clarify - the issue isn't someone dancing alone to their music on a video - the issue is youtube, a for profit company making money off of the content uploaded by their users. The video becomes an asset of youtube and is monetized - so the song becomes part of the income generated by youtube (profits). So the music creators are asking to be compensated by youtube.
It isn't about the content of the video, it's how the video becomes an asset of a billion dollar distribution company.
The video itself is obviously fair use. Posting it to YouTube is what makes it an issue. Now it becomes an asset of YouTube. YouTube is a commercial enterprise, that makes money from streaming videos. Traditionally commercial broadcasters have had to pay royalties to use music aired on their channels. Everytime someone sang Happy Birthday on Johnny Carson, the owner of that copyright got paid. Was that fair use? It was probably a spontaneous thing however the argument would be that it contributed to the show which was a (highly successful) commercial endeavor.
Universal going after the creator of the video is perhaps unfair but on the other hand Google/YouTube have been absolutely hands-off regarding copyright infringement on their channels and have made it the responsibility of the copyright holder to police the usage of their copyrights. So the copyright holder really has so recourse except to issue a DMCA takedown to the poster. It's not in YouTube's interest to police copyright infringement so they don't.
Limited copyright protects the creator's idea for his/her lifetime and somewhat beyond. But legislators have realized that there has to be a limit to the inheritance's claim on the idea. At some point the idea enters a greater world beyond the individual called "the public domain". Once there, the idea is free to all. Once there, you're in pretty good company too. The works of Shakespeare are there, so is Beethoven, Mozart, Mark Twain.
A permanent copyright isn't good for a free society. Having works or "thought" enter the public domain promotes new works, promotes artistic freedom - it basically grows society.
The limited copyright law that is now in place offers a lot of protection.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by John Bickerton.
Re: Re: You are Idiots
The record label has a contract with the artist. The artist is paid by the label based on sales. When you cheat the artist he/she doesn't get paid.
This poster's comments are pretty old now but just to clarify - the issue isn't someone dancing alone to their music on a video - the issue is youtube, a for profit company making money off of the content uploaded by their users. The video becomes an asset of youtube and is monetized - so the song becomes part of the income generated by youtube (profits). So the music creators are asking to be compensated by youtube.
It isn't about the content of the video, it's how the video becomes an asset of a billion dollar distribution company.
YouTube's broadcasting of the video is the issue
The video itself is obviously fair use. Posting it to YouTube is what makes it an issue. Now it becomes an asset of YouTube. YouTube is a commercial enterprise, that makes money from streaming videos. Traditionally commercial broadcasters have had to pay royalties to use music aired on their channels. Everytime someone sang Happy Birthday on Johnny Carson, the owner of that copyright got paid. Was that fair use? It was probably a spontaneous thing however the argument would be that it contributed to the show which was a (highly successful) commercial endeavor.
Universal going after the creator of the video is perhaps unfair but on the other hand Google/YouTube have been absolutely hands-off regarding copyright infringement on their channels and have made it the responsibility of the copyright holder to police the usage of their copyrights. So the copyright holder really has so recourse except to issue a DMCA takedown to the poster. It's not in YouTube's interest to police copyright infringement so they don't.
Limited Copyright is good - just ask the public do
Limited copyright protects the creator's idea for his/her lifetime and somewhat beyond. But legislators have realized that there has to be a limit to the inheritance's claim on the idea. At some point the idea enters a greater world beyond the individual called "the public domain". Once there, the idea is free to all. Once there, you're in pretty good company too. The works of Shakespeare are there, so is Beethoven, Mozart, Mark Twain.
A permanent copyright isn't good for a free society. Having works or "thought" enter the public domain promotes new works, promotes artistic freedom - it basically grows society.
The limited copyright law that is now in place offers a lot of protection.