Anti-Piracy Group Caught Pirating Song For Anti-Piracy Ad… Corruption Scandal Erupts In Response

from the wow dept

The Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is one of the most aggressive of the anti-piracy groups out there. So there’s some amusement in watching as it gets caught up in a scandal that started when it pirated music for an anti-piracy campaign. BREIN had asked musician Melchoir Rietveldt to compose a song for a video that was only to be used at a local film festival. The terms of the deal were strict: the song was only for that one anti-piracy video at that one film festival. However, Rietveldt later discovered that the anti-piracy ad was being used all over the place — a fact he discovered when he bought a Harry Potter DVD and noticed the video… with his music.

After determining that the music had been used tens of millions of times in such an unauthorized manner, he contacted the local music collection agency, Buma/Stemra, asking them to seek somewhere around $1.3 million owed from BREIN. Buma/Stemra ignored him. Eventually, however, apparently a Buma/Stemra board member, Jochem Gerrits, reached out, and said he could help Rietveldt get paid… but with some questionable conditions. According to TorrentFreak:

In order for the deal to work out the composer had to assign the track in question to the music publishing catalogue of the Gerrits, who owns High Fashion Music. In addition to this, the music boss demanded 33% of all the money set to be recouped as a result of his efforts.

The conversation between Gerrits and the composer’s financial advisor was recorded by Pownews, and during the conversation the financial advisor confronts Gerrits with his unconventional proposal.

“Why do you have to earn money?” he asks, as usually all of the money goes directly to the artists.

“It could be because a lot of people in the industry know that they are in trouble when I get involved,” Gerrits responds, adding that he can bring up the topic immediately in a board meeting next week.

Once again trying to find confirmation for the proposal, the composer’s advisor later asks if the music boss indeed wants one-third of the money.

“Yes, that’s the case, but then [the composer] would make 660,000 euros and now he has nothing,” Gerrits responds calmly.

This is apparently making news across the Netherlands, and Gerrits has resigned. As for BREIN, it’s insisting that the whole thing is “a contractual issue” and that it is “not involved.”

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: brein, buma/stemra

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Anti-Piracy Group Caught Pirating Song For Anti-Piracy Ad… Corruption Scandal Erupts In Response”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
122 Comments
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: He didn't resign

I don’t think he will survive.
He claims it was just a misunderstanding, until they pointed out the conversation was taped.
The Dutch public didn’t want to believe it, then they listened to it.

It makes one wonder how many other artists have been strongarmed into handing over their rights to get what is owed to them.

Lisa Westveld (profile) says:

Re: Re: He didn't resign

Maybe, then again, I live there. Corrupt politicians, board members and other top people seem to be supporting each other a lot so he won’t disappear. He’ll probably end up with a different job somewhere else. He’ll have to stay low for a few years but then this will probably forgotten ot some other board member will be exposed.
Problem is, no one knows if what he did breaks the law. If it didn’t then people will soon forget again and he’ll be back. Besides, he has his own company and plenty of financial resources and at times of a financial crisis he’ll will be welcome everywhere…
No matter how corrupt he is.

Anonymous Coward says:

So an idiot musician, who ought to know better, throws in his lot with an antipiracy group to create for them a song for use against piracy, but just one time.

Was he only against piracy for that one time?
Is he normally for piracy?

What the hell is wrong with these people?

“I want to send an antipiracy message, but not a lot and not all the time, otherwise I’m losing money”

Oh and there is corruption in music collection agencies, who knew?

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“So an idiot musician, who ought to know better, throws in his lot with an antipiracy group to create for them a song for use against piracy, but just one time.

Makes perfect sense to me. If you’re that worried about people using your stuff without authorization, you would make sure your agreements stipulate exactly how many times it’s used.

BREIN probably didn’t want to pay royalties so they put a one time payment into the contract for a one time use.

Lisa Westveld (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Actually, he’s getting 1.3 million for a single tune that’s heard in the anti-piracy jingle on each and every DVD published by the Dutch market. It’s a few seconds long, probably less than a minute and the narrator talking through the jingle isn’t part of the song.
And no, not Dutch movies, but any movie that’s sold after 2007, possibly all over the world too. As long as it has been produced in the Netherlands. It’s been proven that his music was used in at least the anti-piracy spots of over 77 DVD’s but more likely even more songs.

Rietveld has his own website at http://www.mbrproducties.nl/ where he explains (in Dutch, sorry) what’s exactly going on.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

You’re traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s the signpost up ahead ? your next stop, the Twilight Zone.

Welcome to bizaro world… where ootb flips all of the arguments to support big media robbing an artist.

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

@That Anonymous Coward (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 8:21am

You’re traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s the signpost up ahead ? your next stop, the Twilight Zone.

Welcome to bizaro world… where ootb flips all of the arguments to support big media robbing an artist.
——————–

No, fool, I’m merely /pointing out/ that Mike and you pro-pirates admit in this piece that an artist IS being robbed, while at other times you guys maintain that piracy doesn’t “cost” anyone anything. — TELL ME: what has this guy LOST? Where is he robbed? He still has his song, right?

But all you have is an ad hom attack, reactionary to sight of my handle like an ankle-biter dog.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

@Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 8:36am

He’s asking for his royalties, he isn’t screaming blue murder over piracy
————

This is just ONE instance of piracy that’s valued at $1.3M, while you guys daily maintain that ALL of the movies on The Pirate Bay only make the industry miss $60M. The latter figure is clearly off by orders of magnitude by this example.

To be consistent, you’ll have to say that Big Media is also asking for ITS royalties. I agree that Big Media is too Big and greedy, but the principle holds, regardless.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

You’re ignoring the fact that this is commercial infringement, not some kid downloading the newest Jay-Z track off the Pirate Bay. You know the same kid that will probably buy a ticket to a concert, or a t-shirt. You’re also ignoring the hypocrisy of the situation where an anti-piracy group is using unauthorized music for their anti-piracy campaign. Good work with the cherry-picking.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

“you guys daily maintain that ALL of the movies on The Pirate Bay only make the industry miss $60M. The latter figure is clearly off by orders of magnitude by this example”

I agree, I’m not even sure supposed piracy causes the industry to miss any money, there’s even a chance it makes them money.

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Re: Re:2 No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

@Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 8:40am

There’s a big difference between downloading song in your living room and using a song for commercial publicity.
——————

Already anticipated. I’ll just quote myself from above:
“No, fool, I’m merely /pointing out/ that Mike and you pro-pirates admit in this piece that an artist IS being robbed, while at other times you guys maintain that piracy doesn’t “cost” anyone anything. — TELL ME: what has this guy LOST? Where is he robbed? He still has his song, right?”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

You seem to be missing the fact that what they are actually pointing out is the sheer hypocrisy and no one other than the artist is claiming that the artist has actually lost out.

People are of course, rather enjoying that the anti-piracy Brein group are being hoisted with their own petard.

I don’t believe you are really that stupid, but hey I guess if you want to be perceived as being that stupid, then that is quite clearly your own choice.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

TELL ME: where in the article does it say the artist lost something? Where does it say he was robbed?

The article actually says: “the music had been used… in… an unauthorized manner.” No where does it say he lost anything. No where does it say he was robbed. Absolutely no where does it make a value judgement on the 1.3 million the artist is asking for. It factually reports the song was used in an unauthorized manner and it factually reports the artist wants 1.3 million.

The anonymous Privateer says:

Re: Re: Re:2 No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

The artist asked for 1.3 million Euros as is his due. The contract on the song was for a specific instance and a specific, single use.

By using the content created outside of the terms of the contract, not only have they violated Copyright laws by not negotiating a proper licensing fee for more than the initial use, they have also violated the terms of their contract with the artist and he is legally able to not only pursue copyright infringement litigation, but breach of contract litigation.

A copyrighted work,regardless of a contract, is a copyrighted work. The contract specified licensing use for a specific instance or event. They continued to use the work outside of the terms of the contract, breaching their contract and violating copyright laws by using a copyrighted work, without license for the specific use(s) it had been put to, regardless of prior contracts regarding said work.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

Awww pookie you care…
The artist is being robbed, the portion that you seem to be unable or unwilling to parse is what was done to this artist was COMMERCIAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. The infringement being made that much worse because it was done by the Dutch champions of stopping piracy. BREIN was enriched by what they infringed.

You rail against us evil freetard pirates stealing from artists, and when the people who do battle against us do the same thing you accuse us of doing you support them and try to make it sound less evil.

Your flip flopping simply to support the big interests, and I called you on it. I obviously touched a nerve because you called me out by name, this was a mistake on your part.

Try to get your message into 1 cohesive train of thought… we’ll be here waiting.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

*blink*
Your gonna try and convince me your new to the internet as well?

But teddy bears like it when you laugh, they want you to be happy. Be strong and reclaim pookie in your mind.

As for your childhood, lemme just leave these here…

http://verydemotivational.memebase.com/2011/09/16/demotivational-posters-rule-82/

http://verydemotivational.memebase.com/2011/04/20/demotivational-posters-your-childhood-2/

Drew (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

What anyone “admits” here is that an anti-piracy group which believes that any ‘unauthorized’ use/acquisition of content by people should be fined millions upon millions of dollars/euros. Yet when the same group has the opportunity to use a song without a license, etc. they did not even hesitate to break their agreement. Then when the artist calls them on it he gets the run around, and then runs into an extortion attempt.

Without this fairy world of copyright law, the artist would have created his work and gotten paid for it. Then the same company, or people, etc could use that same performance/track however they wanted, and the artist would not have lost anything.

All I ask is for a company/organization to play by their own rules, but I know that is too much to ask.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

The “fairy world” doesn’t matter; THEY HAD A CONTRACT AND BROKE IT. If you make a contract saying that a work for hire is only to be used for ONE purpose and ONE time, and then you go and violate that contract, then the artist actually does lose something since they aren’t getting the additional royalties that they should have gotten. Pirating for personal use and commercial copyright infringement are two TOTALLY different things.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

Read the article again. The artist had a contract for one performance of a song/video at a film festival. One only. Clearly spelt out in the contract. With an anti-piracy group.

Who then turned around and broke the contract. The irony is delicious, even you have to admit that.

Requested restitution for a deliberate violation of a legal contract? Royalites and accounting. He then gets leaned on to back off.

The conversation gets out verbatim because it was reported. Leaner runs and hides after behaving less like someone interested in stopping piracy than a typical gatekeeper music company/recording company/movie company. “Yeah, we broke a contract, so shut up already and here’s a few (worthless) euros to keep you quiet. Not that we haven’t been doing this for years, you know. Now be a good boy and go away.”

Nothing pro or anti piracy about it. Not a hint of it.

Still, if all you’re left with is your ad homineum argument of “respect for the law” so let me ask, once again, how do you respect a law that allows this sort of activity and has for decades?

And please, no “what about the artists” arguments. We’ve just seen what use the recording industry and music publishers think of “the artists” out of their own mouths.

And how do you square this with your claimed dislike of the current copyright regime and the behaviour it allows gatekeepers to indulge in like this, not to mention, their seeming notion that they have a divine right to mega profits each quarter.

It’s a question you seem unable to answer. I can’t see one as it would require tying yourself into logical and moral gordian knots and then somehow getting out to type your response.

That said, there is no copyright issue here one way or another.

There is, however, the far more important question of contract law and the little detail that BRIEN clearly violated better than a thousand years of English and Dutch contract, civil and common law. Something they don’t deny when Gerrits called the composer.

Instead Gerrits attempts to pressure the composer to give up one third of what he’s owed, under contract, for them to make it right. At best it’s a dodgy negotiation tactic at worst illegal, totally lacking in the principle of “good faith” in contract matters and utter hypocrisy of the highest order.

He wasn’t, technically, robbed of anything as contract law isn’t criminal law unless it gets elevated to that status by a judge or prosecutor it’s civil and common law. That alone is enough for restitution which is demanded under contract law. Under civil (written) and common (unwritten, precedent) law both. And given that they are an anti-piracy group passing themselves off as working in the interests of artists the restitution ought to be substantial just in case a similar organization tries something similar in the future. You see, contract law does not just concern itself with real or potiential loss of income, though it may, what it would concern itself with in this case is the behaviour of BRIEN and the penalty that needs to be extracted based on the behaviour and clear and deliberate breaking of an in force contract.

Yes, he still owns the song, yes he still can make money from the song and likely will even if that does mean a change in lyrical content (and I bet it will!) so in that sense he’s lost nothing and been robbed (theft a criminal offense) of nothing.

BREIN, on the other hand, particularly after the conversation repeated here could be found civilly guilty of breaking the contract deliberately and with malice of forethought (a phrase with particular meaning in contract law) which would increase the restitution the artist would receive as the wronged party in this case. That may, as I said, or may not include loss of income in the award. On balance of probability, how civil actions are judged, I’d say there’s a very good chance of that.

So, to clarify, we’re not talking copyright law here, we’re talking contract law here, a far more important section of civil and common law that copyright ever has or will be as trade and commerce are dependent on signatories to contract to act in good faith towards on another and notify one another where possible of planned or accidental variances to the contract.

Piracy doesn’t enter into it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

” that Mike and you pro-pirates admit in this piece that an artist IS being robbed”

Ignoring the “pro-piracy” idiocy for a second – yes, he is being robbed. He entered into a contract where he was promised X amount for the use of his material. Then, his material was used again, so he should rightly expect X for his material as he was promised. This is down to a contract where both parties signed and agreed monetary compensation.

What contract did people downloading enter into?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

“where ootb flips all of the arguments to support big media robbing an artist.”

Actually, if you read any article where it’s the RIAA and their cronies doing the robbing, you’ll find OOTB and his AC brethren fully supporting their actions. It’s like the US’s stance on torture, fascism and censorship – it’s not wrong as long as it’s *them* doing it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

His “one tune” that was supposed to be aired only once, got inserted on millions of DVDs, WITHOUT his permission.

BUMA/STEMRA and BREIN should be glad that he hasn’t flagged them with a million or so copyright infringement offenses.
For a company that touts itself as being against piracy, they should know better than to abuse the copyright of another. Hypocrites are hypocrites.

I know what you are trying to do here, blue, but it’s not working, as in this case, it’s the artist rightfully asking for his royalties, not suing people into submission for using his music on those dvds. And then you have a scumbag working for these jackbooted thugs called BUMA/STEMRA and BREIN, who tries to swindle the artist out of his royalties after ignoring him for several months.

Oh and go fuck yourself, out_of_the_blue.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

OK I’ve hone after o_o_t_b about this not being an issue of copyright law but one of contract law so I’ll do the same, briefly, with you. Copyright has nothing to do with this. From the conversation the artist never signed over his copyright so while he can go after them on that score he has a much more powerful set of arguments under contract law. Much more powerful.

I don’t know about the artist but I’d be far more interested in suing them into non-existence over damages as the result of them deliberately breaking an in force contract and not notifying the other party to the contract that they were about to terminate it (as required by law). If money’s all he wants there’s much, much more in that. Even if he just wants to make an example of them I’d still sue them for all their worth and settle for less, because, at a guess, he has a clear case here of a deliberate breaking of an in force contract and that lovely phrase malice of forethought can get tossed about legally and accurately to describe it.

If there are copyright damages they can come later or as part of the restitution.

In any event, nothing strips away the “for the creator” argument about IP better than this does. For that reason I love it.

Applies to certain people in the US Congress. too.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

IANAL… but while you may ‘feel’ that contract law is stronger and he has more options, last time I checked there was no ‘statutory fine’ of $150,000 (3x for ‘willful infringement, as this case obviously is, since they willfully used music on multiple DVD’s that they only had a contractual right to use once at a film festival…. if this doesn’t qualify as willful infringement I’m not sure what would).

So while it’s nice to claim that contract law should be relied upon, I would personally hit them with their own bat…. Statutory damages for each willful infringement….

Lets see, $150,000 * 3 is $450,000 per willful infringement * “tens of millions of times in such an unauthorized manner” = roughly 4.5 bazillion dollars (give or take a couple billion) that BRIEN just STOLD from this artist and the world economy… They should be taken out behind the woodshed and ‘dealt with’…..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

Yes, factually reporting the amount the artist is seeking is obviously embracing copyright…

I mean even assuming your characterization is 100% correct, that the writers and editors of this site are are huge hypocrites, that doesn’t refute any arguments at all even if that’s true. That’s what is commonly known as an ad hominem, when you attack the speaker and not the argument itself. It shows nothing at all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

The issue the article points out isn’t simply that the group made unauthorized copies. As others have pointed out, this is commercial infringement and breach of contract, which is a very different than just some random downloaders who may or may not have paid otherwise.
More importantly, however, is that this shows extreme hypocrisy on the part of agencies which claim that any unauthorized use is wrong and that they support artists.
Anyone claiming that “piracy is wrong” and that “artists should be paid” has no business committing commercial copyright infringement and then trying to cheat the artist out of money. Given their actions, it’s clear they’re just fine with piracy and cheating artists, so why should I listen to them when they say it’s wrong.

anonymous says:

Brein knew exactly who was involved over what and that the guy wasn’t getting a damn thing for his work. they call ‘file sharers’ ‘pirates’ when, because of the position they are in, can and do a whole lot worse than any ordinary member of the public. if they were after someone who denied doing anything wrong, they wouldn’t let go, they would be on that person like a fly on a piece of shit. now the table has turned, let them face the full wrath of the law! let them (and especially Kuik) find out exactly what it’s like to be on the receiving end of a law suit. they should receive the same amount of understanding and mercy as they give, ie, ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL!!!! karma can be such a bastard, cant it!

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: @"let them face the full wrath of the law!" -- Amen!

I’m with ya there “anonymous”, SO LONG AS you also agree that “pirates” should “face the full wrath of the law”. But I’ll bet that you somehow make an exception for file-sharers.

This piece says and commenters uphold that the artist has been robbed by mere digital duplication. Yup! Agree with you! — But you can’t then say that Big Media and/or other artists aren’t being robbed in the same way by “pirates”. That’s the hypocrisy: when laws don’t apply to you and your pals.

DCX2 says:

Re: Re: @"let them face the full wrath of the law!" -- Amen!

blue, do you understand the difference between commercial infringement and non-commercial infringement?

In one instance, an entity is making money off of someone else’s work.

In the other instance, no one is making money off of anyone else’s work.

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Re: Re: @"let them face the full wrath of the law!" -- Amen!

@DCX2, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 8:43am

blue, do you understand the difference between commercial infringement and non-commercial infringement?

In one instance, an entity is making money off of someone else’s work.

In the other instance, no one is making money off of anyone else’s work.
—————–

Do you seen what COMMON between commercial infringement and non-commercial infringement? — INFRINGEMENT. The “full wrath is by law less for non-commercial, but you guys want to escape even that, maintain that the law doesn’t apply to you AT ALL.

By the way, I’ve long maintained that file-sharing hosts and links sites ARE commercial interests because GRIFTING off the content indirectly via eyeballs on advertising. Glad to see someone agree with me that MONEY changes everything, so we need to shut down file hosts and links sites.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 @"let them face the full wrath of the law!" -- Amen!

Do you seen what COMMON between commercial infringement and non-commercial infringement? — INFRINGEMENT.”

Do you seen what COMMON [sic] between killing a man and killing a mosquito? — KILLING.

This is actually fun. Anyone else wants to try?

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Re: Re:3 @"let them face the full wrath of the law!" -- Amen!

@Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 9:07am

Do you seen what COMMON between commercial infringement and non-commercial infringement? — INFRINGEMENT.”

Do you seen what COMMON [sic] between killing a man and killing a mosquito? — KILLING.

This is actually fun. Anyone else wants to try?

————–

Willful stupidity is the only level of “fun” that’s open to you. Enjoy it, fool.

I’ve indulged you vacuous, carping, willfully stupid fanboys enough on this thread. All that’s missing is bizarre sexuality from “Dark Helmet”, but I foxed myself there. When I leave, you’ll have no foil for your one-liners.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 @"let them face the full wrath of the law!" -- Amen!

“All that’s missing is bizarre sexuality from “Dark Helmet”, but I foxed myself there.”

No, all that’s missing is some kind of halfway intelligent reply from you, which will never come about, because you’re a simple waste of space and air that would be better served going away in the biblical sense….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 @"let them face the full wrath of the law!" -- Amen!

When I leave, you’ll have no foil for your one-liners.

This, again. Like you’ll ever leave. This is the same bitching and moaning little kids use against parents and other children. ‘You’ll be sorry when I’m gone! You just wait and see!’ DO IT! GET THE FUCK OUT!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“You wouldn’t download a car.”

Fuck you, I would if I could.

“You wouldn’t download drugs.”

see above for medical necessary drugs, I’m not into drugs otherwise

“Violating a contract to use a song more than you licensed it for is STEALING.”

No its infringement and breach of contract, we are not sinking as low as the hypocrites by mislabeling, now are we?

“Stealing is against the law.”

its still infringement and it is still against the law.

On a different matter, at this point I don’t give a rats ass about the law anymore

“Unless you’re an anti-piracy group. Then you just buy a new law.”

And *this* is precisely, why I don’t give a rats ass about the law anymore

out_of_the_blue says:

Problem is that Melchoir Rietveldt got greedy!

“[the composer] would make 660,000 euros and now he has nothing,? — HE SHOULD GRAB THAT! Good heavens, a LIFETIME’S income for ONE song? Investing it conservatively will bring him at least 20,000 euros every year for the rest of his life, or around median income. That’s plenty. So I think he just can’t bear to “lose” 330,000 that he hasn’t actually got!

===================
NOW. You fanboys try to mis-interpret what I wrote in every way possible, so I’ll sum up a bit:

The artist had a contract with a commercial entity and it was violated. (What’s fun for Mike here is the anti-piracy angle; leave that aside.) — But the public gives other artists an exclusive contract that YOU PIRATES are violating! That’s my point. You can’t pick and choose which contracts you’ll honor. That piracy is in your direct interest to get the content is your motive; that you don’t thereby get any /money/ from it — except by what you SAVE — isn’t really relevant.

You’re simply being hypocritical to rant about THIS instance of piracy while justifying others.

I’m not for BREIN or Big Media. (It’s Mike who wrote that he’s NOT against RIAA/MPAA at all, though he edited it away without notice…)

But none of you will take up the challenge to show me where this artist has LOST anything — which is a standard defense for pirating digital files — you willfully overlook the point in common between commercial and non-commercial piracy so that you won’t be gigged on WHAT he’s actually lost. — Which is nothing, while he can apparently immediately GRAB a million bucks for one (throw-away) song if he foregoes the theoretical other part!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Problem is that Melchoir Rietveldt got greedy!


The artist had a contract with a commercial entity and it was violated. (What’s fun for Mike here is the anti-piracy angle; leave that aside.) — But the
public gives other artists an exclusive contract that YOU PIRATES are violating! That’s my point. You can’t pick and choose which contracts you’ll honor.

As usual, you are full of bs.

Copyright law is not a contract. When the government legislates criminal and civil remedies it is acting in its capacity as sovereign.

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

Re: Problem is that Melchoir Rietveldt got greedy!

I don’t see any pirates signing contracts with artists to create new work.

Is the contract you’re speaking of copyright law? A law is not a contract. The laws can be changed without the consent of the artist, or without consent of the public. Perhaps the public would be interested in getting rid of copyright law altogether?

This case illustrates the whole purpose of copyright law. It’s to keep big companies from taking an artist’s work and profiting from it without paying the artist or without the artist’s permission.

You’re confusing contracts with law. You’re accusing everyone here of condoning piracy, and you seem to believe that all laws are right and just and must be upheld without question.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Problem is that Melchoir Rietveldt got greedy!

You’re missing the point.

OOTB clearly stated, that if we leave aside the parts of the story that are the reason why this story has been reported on this site, then what we are left with is an absurdly idiotic attempt to equate a commercial contract with legislation, for some reason.

Again for some reason, which is just as unclear, you are supposed to pretend that what is interesting about this story is how we’ve all said how much money the artist has lost as a result of this (although no one has) and how we have utterly failed to back that up.
But if we had said it, and had backed it up then that would completely undermine the arguments of some that piracy causes no quantifiable losses.

A total slam dunk for OOTB who has clearly outreasoned himself and will next attempt to extract himself from a wet paper bag, with only the assistance of a chainsaw and the NYC fire department.

hothmonster says:

Re: Problem is that Melchoir Rietveldt got greedy!

You know OOTb you are right. That song was used on tens of million of DVD, he shouldn’t be asking for a million dollars by MPAA math he is owed 1 trillion dollars, we should get that straightened out.

And seriously “one (throw-away) song” is their any content creator you wont insult? Every time an artist, musician, or director is mentioned on this site you find some way to call them a hack, loser, and insult whatever they created. You are letting your colors bleed through ootb

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Problem is that Melchoir Rietveldt got greedy!

In roughly the same way you’ve never demonstrated any real monetary loss to Big Media (or “those poooooooorrr artists) in your posts when you come out against piracy. Fair enough.

There IS a difference though between contract law and copyright law. Copyright is NOT a contract signed between two equal parties one of whom does something or performs a service for the other party for pay and both agree to abide to the terms of the contract. One use, one place is fairly easy to understand and doesn’t include a single word about copyright. See?

The contract was violated by BREIN and/or one of its agents which everyone is agreed on. So the artist, as a signatory to a contract, is entitled to restitution under contract law. Nothing to do with copyright as there’s no dispute over that. The artist, in this case, still holds the copyright and both sides agree on that. (They have to otherwise the bully routine wouldn’t have been pulled to have him sign over his copyright in return for a small amount of restitution.)

So this has nothing at all to do with piracy or copyright is has everything to do with BRIEN, supposedly an antipiracy activist group, honouring a signed contract and performing their part within terms of that contract. Which they didn’t.

The usual way restitution is made in contract law is the payment of a monetary award or settlement. Sorry you don’t understand that. It does, however, open the door to my questioning your understanding of civil, common and criminal law whatsoever and coming to my own conclusions that you don’t so your opinions on piracy are nothing but self serving, trolling, gibberish.

I’ll leave it to DH to add the more colourful language that I’m straining not to use. I’ll leave you with mange la merde, to quote Pierre Trudeau and let it go at that. DH can correct or translate if necessary.

Andrew (profile) says:

Re: Problem is that Melchoir Rietveldt got greedy!

I don’t think anyone saying he has lost anything. But as many others have pointed out, non-commercial vs commercial and it was under contract.

As far as I know, no pirate makes money off the things they sell and have no contract to deal with. This does not mean I condone piracy and Mike has said time and time again he does not condone piracy and I am pretty sure most people on this site don’t condone it. You are so quick to jump and call everyone a pirate. Personally I find that offensive but thats just my view.

In this story we have a case where a company who regularly come down harsh on people for copyright infringement and they are caught infringing on copyright on a massive scale. I think everyone should be accountable for what they do and that includes the big companies. We can’t afford to keep on using a different measuring stick when it comes to a large coorperation.

Another thing too is if a coorperation can’t obey the rules how do we expect them to even do the same when stronger laws come into place?

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re:

But BRIEN deliberately broke a contract so it is involved. Whether they like it or not. They are a party to breach of contract, never denied. They can issue all the press releases they want but that’s where they are. So they are involved in restitution, recompense or, probably more accurately, “making the plaintiff whole” which is an often used phrase when awarding breach of contract awards.

Anonymous Coward says:

Mike,

Do you see the hypocrisy of this? This is EXACTLY what you are telling the MPAA companies, that they should take a portion (digital distribution) and be happy about it rather than bitch about not getting it all.

And I find it funny that you use the word PIRATE now but when you want to paint piracy in a favorable light you use the word INFRINGE. I am not even sure you are consciously aware of how biased your posts really are.

I think the composer should sue the organization for infringement and seek the full penalty. It would be a big public relations gain for them to actually admit a wrong doing and pay the fine or negotiate licensing with the composer.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I think the composer should sue the organization for infringement and seek the full penalty. It would be a big public relations gain for them to actually admit a wrong doing and pay the fine or negotiate licensing with the composer.

Really? The way I see it the gain would be to those who argue that the laws are so ridiculous that even the anti-piracy groups are getting caught up in infringement.

JMT says:

Re: Re:

“And I find it funny that you use the word PIRATE now but when you want to paint piracy in a favorable light you use the word INFRINGE. I am not even sure you are consciously aware of how biased your posts really are.”

Actually Mike used the term anti-piracy, because that’s exactly how BREIN describe themselves and their video. And it’s not even copyright infringement, it’s a breach of contract, so you fail twice.

It’s ironic that you accuse Mike of bias (on an opinion blog) but in fact do a better job at highlighting your own bias.

Anonymous Coward says:

This is the best story I have heard in months, As my grandfather used to say. ” If you lay with dogs, you will get fleas.” I Love it. I hope the composer, never gets paid, he is getting what he deserves, Burned by the cause he tried to support. another Quote from grandfather comes to mind. “Don’t throw your pearls to SWINE”. Hahaa.

Mr. Oizo says:

Commercial ?

Hello,

Everybody finds it necessary to make a distinction between commercial and non commercial infringement. I believe this is a shitty argument. I don’t think in this case the artist _should_ ask more money that the work and time he spent on making the music, but then again. I’m also someone who believes that intellectual ‘property’ doesn’t exist and leads to the problem that people are figthing the natural order of things. A bit like fighting the laws of thermodynamics. If you spend enough energy on it you might do it. But is it useful ?

Anyway, because BREIN acts more as an inquisition, intersted mainly in bookburning rituals and drawning evil witches, I find that there would be some poetic justice in seeing them hurt. How about offering them a 1500 EUR settlement per infringement ?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Commercial ?

“I don’t think in this case the artist _should_ ask more money that the work and time he spent on making the music”

The artist obviously worked out prices and whatnot according to the situation the organization said they would use the music for. If that same organization goes ahead and breaks that contract, the artist has every right to sue them for breaking the contract and for any royalties they should have been due. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if YOU were the one that got screwed over like this at your job.

Anonymous Coward says:

Breindamaged - so many ways to have avoided this

Brein are complete morons. They could have avoided this in so many different ways that going down the list just shows how fractally wrong they are.

1. They could have gone with a contract that gave them the rights indefinitely. If the guy asked for too much go with someone else cheaper.
2. They could have used the public domain – ironic but ‘not important enough to justify new content’ is a well established used for it.
3. They could have not used a jingle at all.
4. They could have no used anti-piracy warnings that only legitimate customers would see.
5. They could not be parasitic default representation
‘artist groups’ in the first place.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...