Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Artist Not Allowed To Stream His Own Music

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-can't-get-there-from-here dept.

Music 423

the_arrow writes "Scottish artist Edwyn Collins wanted to stream one of his own songs on MySpace, but it seems that copyright misunderstandings make him unable to do so. According to the article, 'Management for the former Orange Juice frontman have been unable to convince the website that they own the rights to A Girl Like You, despite the fact that they, er, do.' Collins said, 'I found a nice lawyer guy at Warners, very apologetic, promised to get it sorted, but all these months later it isn't.' His wife added, 'MySpace are not equipped to deal with the notion that anyone other than a major [label] can claim a copyright.'"

cancel ×

423 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Think (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670521)

Wasn't it the major labels that implored us to think of the artists?

Yeah.

Re:Think (5, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670679)

Friends don't let friends join MySpace....

Re:Think (3, Informative)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670983)

So true, so true.

That, and the competence of the developers there has to be some of the worst on the web. Why should the competence of any of their other divisions be any better?

Re:Think (3, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671225)

Friends don't let friends join MySpace....

This is true. But what I find a bit curious about this case is that rather than doing something about the situation - like finding another hosting service or hosting the material himself (well, Hello! Maybe that's too obvious), the guy seems to prefer spending months whining about MySpace's policies.

Seems to me that if you don't like MySpace, you can always just dump it, and tell everybody why.

Re:Think (4, Informative)

conureman (748753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671427)

Considering that MySpace purports to be a musician's site (or used to), and it seems to be the leader in it's niche, perhaps he thinks that it would benefit others if they could be convinced to remove their head from their ass.

Re:Think (3, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670757)

Wasn't it the major labels that implored us to think of the artists?

Yeah.

Only if there is money in it for them.

Seriously though, someone please tell this guy that myspace is done.

Re:Think (4, Interesting)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671023)

That said, if MySpace decides to remove content every time a party comes and claim copyright to the content, it's a MySpace problem, nothing more.

We all know the Majors care about their artists, not THE artists, and only because it makes money. They don't give a rat's *ss about art, music or any concept like this. They care about their wallet, art and artists be damned.

Re:Think (0, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671119)

The flaw here is that these artists (and people in general) still think they own rights. They don't. The rights have been transferred to the corporations who, with the cooperation of Congress and other corporations, control everything. The artist doesn't own the song in the view of either WB or myspace, and that's why he can't stream it.

Re:Think (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29671233)

The flaw here is that these artists (and people in general) still think they own rights. They don't. The rights have been transferred to the corporations who, with the cooperation of Congress and other corporations, control everything. The artist doesn't own the song in the view of either WB or myspace, and that's why he can't stream it.

No, the flaw here is you didn't reading the article before posting.

"He owns the copyright," Maxwell underlined, "as he does for most of the music he's recorded in his life (preferring to go it alone than have his music trapped 'in perpetuity' to use the contract language of the major record company)."

Eventually, after HUGE difficulty, I was told Warner Music Group were claiming it. I found a nice lawyer guy at Warners, very apologetic, promised to get it sorted, but all these months later it isn't.

Re:Think (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671237)

But (if I RTFA correctly), Edwyn Collins does own the rights.

Re:Think (4, Informative)

wastedlife (1319259) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671363)

Erm, while it is usually the case that the artist(s) will sell the rights to the label to get a record deal, if you had read the summary even, you would have seen that Mr. Collins does in fact own the rights, and the label does not. Warner Music is illegitimately claiming copyright, and MySpace is taking their word over the actual owner's.

Re:Think (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671355)

P.S.

You say myspace is the problem, but do you think this artist would get different results on other sites like youtube or googlevideo? Youtube's pulled-down every song owned by WB per their request, and that would include this song "A Girl Like You". If Scottish artist Edwyn Collins tried to post his song on youtube, that too would get yanked. The problem is not the dot-com site but the DMCA law which requires the dot-com to take action, or else be fined.

Re:Think (5, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671169)

If it were up to the RIAA, artists wouldn't be allowed to stream their own urine.

Re:Think (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671219)

>>>If it were up to the RIAA, artists wouldn't be allowed to stream their own urine.

Tyrants need to be shot before freedom can be restored.

Let's get the car analogy out the way quickly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29670533)

It's like denying Henry Ford access to the Model T!

Re:Let's get the car analogy out the way quickly.. (4, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670859)

This comment is written by gnick and is therefore copyrighted. Since it was written at work and it took me approximately 1.5 hours to write/edit/Preview/Submit and I make approximately 1 bazillion dollars an hour, this comment is worth $1.5 bazillion (US).

At my incredibly modest royalty fees, replicating this comment (e.g. downloading, printing, etc) costs only $5. If you've read this comment, please contact me for PayPal information to submit your payment.

But I own the patent on car analogies (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670939)

Therefore, please send a royalty of $5 USD for each infringement (aka view) to my papal account www-data@localhost.

Re:But I own the patent on car analogies (3, Funny)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671177)

Therefore, please send a royalty of $5 USD for each infringement (aka view) to my papal account www-data@localhost.

I had no idea His Holiness was a Slashdot user....

Re:But I own the patent on car analogies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29671343)

not only that but he has pictures of my wife on his mail server!

Re:But I own the patent on car analogies (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29671431)

Must have been Him as that was a lot of bull.

Jews (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29670539)

This type of stuff happens because Jews have so much influence over the music industry.

The sooner we get rid of all the Jews the better off we will all be.

Re:Jews (-1, Offtopic)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670775)

LMJAO

Not always a problem (3, Interesting)

DeeVeeAnt (1002953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670541)

I have several friends in small unsigned bands who have posted their music to MySpace. Has the policy changed, or is this guy just unlucky?

Re:Not always a problem (5, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670743)

You must not have RTFA;

"I naturally blew my stack and wrote to MySpace on his behalf demanding to know who the hell was claiming copyright of Edwyn's track? ... Eventually, after HUGE difficulty, I was told Warner Music Group were claiming it. I found a nice lawyer guy at Warners, very apologetic, promised to get it sorted, but all these months later it isn't."

Once again this shows the REAL reason the majors don't want P2P, even though it has been shown to increase sales -- it also increases indies' sales. Opposition to P2P is part of the majors' war against the indies.

Does Britain have a law that would allow him to sue Warner? I would think they must.

Re:Not always a problem (4, Insightful)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670957)

This sounds like Warner needs to be sued. Big money lawsuit!

Re:Not always a problem (4, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670979)

You must not have RTFA;

Attempting to make them cease and desist would use up the rest of my life. Because this is what they do and what they've always done.

Re:Not always a problem (2, Funny)

DeeVeeAnt (1002953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671127)

Of course I didn't RTFA, this is Slashdot isn't it? Cheers for reading it for me, that salient fact wasn't in the summary.

Re:Not always a problem (3, Informative)

sarahbau (692647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670787)

MySpace didn't just assume that someone else owned the copyright. In this case, it seems Warner Music Group was trying to claim they owned it, when they didn't. Perhaps at some point, Warner sold his CDs, while he retained copyright, or something.

Re:Not always a problem (5, Insightful)

grahammm (9083) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671307)

Which, unlike illegal copying and sharing, actually is copyright theft.

Warner Music Group claims copyright (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29670553)

So this isn't a story about MySpace. They have been notified of a copyright conflict, so they don't allow distribution of the song. The real story is that labels claim copyrights they don't have, for commercial gain, and are not paying $150000 per song.

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (2, Insightful)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670665)

The Ruttles [wikipedia.org] had it right - "All You Need Is Cash".

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (5, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670671)

"So this isn't a story about MySpace."

It is about MySpace. Sure the label started the problem by claiming a copyright on a song it did not hold. However, it is now a MySpace problem because the site apparently has no mechanism or system to fix the problem the label created.

Now that the label has admitted it has no copyright claim, it's MySpace's job to fix it and allow the song to be streamed. The label certainly cannot fix that problem. The fact that MySpace has not done so in three months makes it pretty clear that this story is about MySpace.

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (1)

spydabyte (1032538) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670781)

From the Summary,

Collins said, 'I found a nice lawyer guy at Warners, very apologetic, promised to get it sorted, but all these months later it isn't.'

It appears that MySpace wasn't even contacted...

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670791)

Well, ostensibly Warner Brothers won't commit fraud, because it's a major record label. Though obviously they have, it's reasonable for Myspace to assume that they haven't, because that sort of thing is really bad press.

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (2, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670913)

Slander of title, perhaps.

Fraud implies intent.. I think this is just a case of horrendous negligence.

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (2, Interesting)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671385)

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

That should be amended to: "Tend to assume incompetence and not malice, unless it involves money."

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (2, Interesting)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670837)

unless the label admitted it in private correspondence with the author, but "neglected" to inform MySpace.
We don't know if the case is stalled due to MySpace ignoring Warner's disclaimer, or whether Warner failed to send such disclaimer despite claiming to do so.

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670941)

However, it is now a MySpace problem because the site apparently has no mechanism or system to fix the problem the label created.

Or obligation.

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (4, Funny)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670695)

Anonymous Coward,

The phrase "So this isn't a story about MySpace." is a copyright held by the MySpace corporation. We urge you to cease and desist using said phrase for the next 70 years. If you fail to comply with our...request...we will be forced to take legal action. And possibly destroy your feeble world with our battle station.

Best Wishes,

MySpace
Subisidiary of MyGalaxy
Antares, Antares 20010

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (3, Interesting)

skammie (802503) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671147)

MySpace would rather delete and account then do ANY fact checking. This happened to me and my music. Everything was fine for about a year, and then *poof* the page was gone. I asked why, and I got a generic response about violating the TOS. I asked for more specifics, but I was not given any more details. I was told touch luck, build a new page. It goes without saying I didn't build a new page. The previous page I set up didn't get that many hits anyway.

Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (4, Informative)

IDtheTarget (1055608) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671405)

It is most definitely about MySpace. It doesn't matter what Warner claims (even if it was illegal and they could be sued for theft), MySpace has the duty to investigate the claim of copyright. It's not even that hard! Go to the U. S. Copyright Office Search Page [copyright.gov] and type in "Collins Edwyn" [loc.gov] and the sixth link to return is "Girl Like You". If I can find it in 2 minutes, how long should it take MySpace?

Wait, I'm confused - (4, Funny)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670569)

There are people who still use MySpace?

Re:Wait, I'm confused - (3, Funny)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670643)

In South Korea, myspace is for old people.

Re:Wait, I'm confused - (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29670723)

For better or worse (mostly worse); It's rare to find a recording artist or band without a myspace page.

Re:Wait, I'm confused - (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670857)

Are they hard to find because they aren't on mySpace then?

Re:Wait, I'm confused - (2, Insightful)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671029)

It's all about how seriously you take your doucheness.
Say if you're a moderate douche you've moved on to something like Facebook or Twitter, but if you're a hardcore oldschool douche accept no substitute to MySpace.

MySpace (1)

_PimpDaddy7_ (415866) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670585)

People are actually still using MySpace???? I don't mean to troll, but seriously, people are still using MySpace? I assume it's mostly for music artists? Surely there's a better way to get your music out?

Re:MySpace (2, Insightful)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671001)

Surely there's a better way to get your music out?

Yes, there are other ways and better ways. However, MySpace is free. Why not take advantage of all free options for advertisement?

Re:MySpace (1)

dhaines (323241) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671271)

Well, GeoCities is shutting down and I had to go somewhere.

EH? (0, Troll)

Gridpoet (634171) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670589)

Whats a "myspace"?

great (1, Interesting)

jjeffries (17675) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670591)

This song kicks ass. I haven't heard it in years, but the guitar part will probably be in my head for weeks just from reading this story. He should have won awards for this song.

Might as well mention that I just lost the game.

Good day.

Re:great (1)

ukbazza (1232802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671061)

It's a great riff for sure, with a brilliant dirty guitar sound. Also, Edwyn Collins deserves a break after all of his recent health problems.

Re:great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29671173)

The only thing I hate more than monospace posts for no good goddamned reason is losing the game. Thanks a lot.

Simple Solution (4, Insightful)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670593)

Stop. Using. MySpace.
Find someone who understands what you're about, and use their service instead. If your business depends entirely on you having a presence on MySpace, you're doing something wrong. Especially now that this may (has?) cost you attorney's fees to sort it out.

Re:Simple Solution (5, Funny)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670861)

"Find someone who understands what you're about, and use their service instead."

Probably Google since they know more about you than any other web entity.

Re:Simple Solution (0, Flamebait)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670971)

If your business depends entirely on you having a presence on MySpace, you're doing something wrong.

If you're an indie rock musician, you were already doing something wrong. Get a job and a haircut.

Re:Simple Solution (3, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671255)

That's really a pissy attitude. IANAM, but my Pa was. He could make music with anything, if he could pull a string tight across it. He and his friends actually recorded some decent music, over the years. They all had haircuts and jobs - they all raised families - they were all respectable people.

None of them ever expected to "make money" - they played music together because they loved music, they loved performing for people, and they just loved being together. They did sell a little music - a dozen tapes at a nursing home, a couple dozen at a church, another dozen at a corner store somewhere. Enough to pay for gasoline sometimes, to offset costs.

Something like Myspace would have been cool, back in the '60's up through the early '80's. They might have sold a little more music, and they certainly would have been better known outside their home counties. You may have even heard of them, if there had been a means to distribute their music for free!

Indies. Those are the REAL musicians. The labels? They know how to pry money out of fool's pockets, but they don't know music.

facepalm (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29671289)

Yeah. Stop using the most popular and widespread social platform for promoting music; use niche services that no one knows about instead. Just look at how MySpace screwed over that one guy who has a recording contract. *facepalm*

If you make music, you'd be a fool to not take advantage of MySpace. The only reasons I can see for not doing so are 1) your music sucks, you know it, and you don't want people to hear it; or 2) you're a pretentious prick who thinks his music is too good for MySpace. I agree your business shouldn't depend on MySpace, but it's still a great way to promote your band. And if MySpace refuses to let you stream your music, why pay attorney fees when you can just cancel your account?

Time for an indie-myspace (2, Interesting)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670609)

Yes, it started out as a good thing, and even promised to help people track bands and discover new music.

But it's a mess now, and it's owned by the same company that runs FoxNews, so don't expect it to get any better.

Time for a young, fresh upstart to pull something better together.

Or are there already better alternatives?

Re:Time for an indie-myspace (2, Interesting)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670769)

Google Wave?

Re:Time for an indie-myspace (2, Informative)

Again (1351325) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671179)

When I want to check out a band, I search Purevolume [purevolume.com] before resorting to Myspace.

Anyone keeping track of this? (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670617)

This is yet another example of how present-day copyright rules and legislation has harmed the general condition of the market and made to favor a select few who have even more control over the market.

When law does not serve and/or protect the interests of all evenly and equally, there is something wrong with the law.

When making a case for having the law changed or removed, it is useful to create a list of examples of how exactly others are unfairly harmed by it.

Registered? (3, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670647)

In the US this would be a non-issue; here one can register a copyright with the Library of Congress for a very small fee, and your certificate is proof you hold copyright.

Is there anything like that in Britain? TFA doesn't say if the song's copyright is registered, or even if it can be in Britain.

How would that work (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670813)

How, exactly, does one register copyright at the Library of Congress on a piece of music?

I'm not trolling. How would you do it? The score? How would a bureaucrat, exactly, identify that a performance is indeed the same as the score - without expensive lawyers getting involved? The title? Easily changed. The composer? Need to go to law to force $evil_corporation to admit they don't have title.

I suspect this is more about Myspace=US corporation, Warners=US corporation, where is Scotland?

Registering a musical work with a lead sheet (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670981)

How, exactly, does one register copyright at the Library of Congress on a piece of music? [...] How would you do it? The score?

Yes. A common way to register a musical work (as opposed to a recording of that work) is to submit a lead sheet or other score.

How would a bureaucrat, exactly, identify that a performance is indeed the same as the score

One who registers a copyright in a derivative work, such as a recording of a musical work, has a duty to disclose the underlying works on the form. In the case of fraudulent registration, you probably will need attorneys and expert witnesses.

Re:How would that work (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671135)

It's simple, you get a registration form, fill it in, send it with two copies of the work (you could send two copies of the score and two copies of the recording and cover both at the same time). It's not like a patent, it only costs $30 (unless they raised it again; I paid $20 for my copyrighted computer programs back in the early eighties). No lawyer is needed unless someone infringes your copyright.

About a year after you send the forms and copies you get your certificate.

Re:How would that work (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671315)

It's $35 now, you do it all online, and it only takes you about 6 months to get your certificate. It's really cheap and really easy. There is no reason not to do it if you have anything that has even a remote chance of being infringed by somebody.

Re:Registered? (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670891)

The copyright office actually is a british invention (where every work of art had to be registered before it was allowed to be printed).

Re:Registered? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671181)

In the US this would be a non-issue; here one can register a copyright with the Library of Congress for a very small fee, and your certificate is proof you hold copyright.

The law doesn't allow someone else to copyright your material if you don't. Also, in the US you do not have to register it to own the copyright. Placing a copyright notice on the work is sufficient. Even if he didn't, that does not give the label ownership of his works. Since they caused the mess, they should be the ones who have to clean it up. He may have to go to court to push the matter to some conclusion.

Re:Registered? (4, Informative)

LihTox (754597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671313)

Also, in the US you do not have to register it to own the copyright. Placing a copyright notice on the work is sufficient.

You don't even need the notice; every bloody thing you write is copyrighted unless explicitly released into the public domain. That's one of the many screwed-up things about US copyright law; you can have copyrighted material which gives you no indication as to who owns the copyright, let alone how to contact them. If you want to sue for damages, though, then registration will get you a better payoff; and registration serves as proof of ownership, in case there is a dispute over who actually wrote a particular song.

Re:Registered? (2, Informative)

IDtheTarget (1055608) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671421)

His ownership of that particular copyright is showing up in the U.S. Copyright Office online search [loc.gov] , so there's no excuse for MySpace not knowing who owns it.

Re:Registered? (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671439)

Does not help in this case.

The guy HAS the copyright, but warner is claiming (via DMCA takedown notices) that they have the copyright. MySpace has to obey unless the artist can get warner to stop sending the notices and admit that they do not have the copyright.

And as the OP pointed out, forcing warner to offically admit they are infringing would be expensive and time consuming, all to get someone what they already own.

Corporations have more rights than individuals (4, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670661)

This is yet another example of Corporations having more freedoms and rights, than people do. People can vote, but corporations can lobby. People go to jail when they break the law, corporations maybe pay a fine at most -- some in fact, seem to get money from the government for breaking the law.

I urge everyone in the United Corp.. uh States of America, to incorporate themselves so that they finally have rights.

Remember that faxed letterhead carries more weight than actual legal precidence....

Re:Corporations have more rights than individuals (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671065)

This is yet another example of Corporations having more freedoms and rights, than people do.

Not really. People can vote, but corporations can lobby.

People can lobby, too.

People go to jail when they break the law, corporations maybe pay a fine at most -- some in fact, seem to get money from the government for breaking the law.

I don't really see how you can jail an abstract legal entity like a corporation. They certainly do jail corporate officers for actions taken on behalf of their corporation. They also shut down corporations, too--look at Arthur Andersen, or any number of stores/real estate developments that are shut down because of health code or environmental violations.

Sue Warner Brothers. (4, Interesting)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670753)

If people had been able to stream this over the internet, he could easily have lined up dozens of concerts paying tens of thousands of dollars each, all because Warner Brothers fradulently claimed copyright to his work.

Throw in some pointless punitive damages, and that ought to net him a good 6 million dollars, right? I mean if it works for the RIAA...

Amazon sells the track (3, Interesting)

SiChemist (575005) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670793)

I found "A girl like you" on Amazon's mp3 downloads. Sent them an e-mail asking about the rights with a link to the Guardian article. If I get a reply, I'll post it here.

It's from a "Greatest hits" album, so I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that the label has rights to it.

Re:Amazon sells the track (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671015)

The label may have non-exclusive rights to distribute it. That does not mean they can stop the copyright holder from doing anything with it.

Re:Amazon sells the track (4, Informative)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671207)

The Record labels DON'T have rights to sell the track (their rights to sell ran out years ago!)

The Blog post said:

A Girl Like You is available FOR SALE all over the internet. Not by Edwyn, by all sorts of respectable major labels whose licence to sell it ran out years ago and who do not account to him.

So the music label is basically stealing Edwins work and not paying him.

Re:Amazon sells the track (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671311)

So? They labels have already established that they consider $150,000 a perfectly reasonable fee for distributing a work without a license, so send them a bill.

Re:Amazon sells the track (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29671101)

I love how people here on Slashdot who clearly have no idea how convoluted various licensing and distribution deals (especially ones concerning multiple entities in various countries) try to pretend that there are always simple questions that can be answered by totally uninvolved third parties. Let us know what Amazon's response is, as well as how you try to tell them that they should stop selling the song, even though you have ZERO knowledge of what exactly is contained in those licensing/distribution contracts between Edwyn Collins, his management company, his publishing company, and the record labels, both in the UK and in the United States.

sample licensing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29670877)

This isn't mentioned in the article and I doubt MySpace's music copyright system is sophisticated enough to be aware of this, but the drumbeat in "A Girl Like You" is a sample from the Len Barry song "1-2-3."

It is likely that Collins got permission to use that drumbeat sample for records and CDs and stuff, but to release online might require renegotiation.

Re:sample licensing? (1)

kthejoker (931838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671193)

Assuming that it was a standard sampling royalty contract, then no, whoever holds the copyright to Collins's song can do with it what they please, via physical or electronic media.

So... (1)

UncHellMatt (790153) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670883)

...in effect, what this is suggesting is that MySpace is run by people of roughly equal intelligence to the majority of it's users?

Standard operationg procedure? (2, Insightful)

Dotren (1449427) | more than 4 years ago | (#29670949)

It seems like I've read previously somewhere a case where the record industry had claimed copyright on something they didn't actually own.

I'm starting to wonder if they don't train their watchdogs to send out DMCA notices for any music they see online thinking it's better to risk a simple apology later if they don't own it than it is to leave potentially copyright infringing music online.

Re:Standard operationg procedure? (2, Informative)

The Moof (859402) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671417)

It'd just be nice if they actually enforced this:

I swear, under penalty of perjury consistent with United States Code Title 17, Section 512, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(taken from a boilerplate DMCA takedown notice)

Finally, not a problem for the little guy! (1)

mattwrock (1630159) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671009)

My band (The Stone Bunnies, if you care) has their original stuff on both MySpace and Facebook. While I don't expect it to get us a label, it is good to a site to show to fans and bar owners. It gives us people who are doing it for fun a place to demonstrate our creativity. The system has long been set up that studio music is the "calling card" for the artist, and any real money is made in live performance. Since he has a label, why doesn't he just create his own site and link it on MySpace or Facebook?

Is so simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29671019)

Ignore the copyrights, and kill the lawers if they go to your house. Do not obey stupid laws like DCMA, simple that

So... can he claim damages? (2, Insightful)

eepok (545733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671053)

People are getting charged $150,000 for every song they allow to be uploaded. Well, this guys is being denied the opportunity to advertise his music... for months. And the involved parties know about it. He's even sent his version of a "cease and desist". So what's the formula for damages? When does he get to collect.

He can already claim (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29671309)

See this post:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1395955&cid=29671207 [slashdot.org]

They are still selling illegal copies of his work.

Re:So... can he claim damages? (2, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671425)

Zero. Damages scale proportionally to the ratio of capital available to the plaintiff compared to the defendant.

It takes about 10 minutes to fix this... (3, Interesting)

herojig (1625143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671077)

1. Post the song on a hosted website of your choosing (other then myspace). 2. Link to the song from the myspace page to the hosted file. 3.Get these articles of /.

Yup... (4, Informative)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671123)

Many years ago I had a myspace profile entirely removed for uploading one song that I created using 'cat [textfile] > /dev/audio'. Yea. Apparently the title I decided to give it was too close to a song that they had listed in their database as being copyrighted or something so they killed my entire profile immediately. I sent a couple emails to the address they had given to contact in such cases and I never got a response. I'm amazed he even managed to get in contact with anybody...

Re:Yup... (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671357)

Actually, his wife/manager got in contact with somebody from Warner Music, who were claiming to own the copyright. There's nothing in the article that says he's ever had any contact with MySpace at all. If he had tried, I suspect it would have been similar to your experience.

Why Warner Brothers and not EMI (2, Interesting)

Holi (250190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671187)

Well aren't the Smithereens signed with Warner, they have a song from 1989 called "A Girl Like You". Is it possible that due to identically named songs this is actually a misunderstanding?

Or just use your own streaming player? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29671305)

If you just HAVE to use myspace:

1. Hide the myspace player with CSS.
2. Upload your own mp3 and use your own flash player or one of the many easily available ones.
3. ??????
4. Profit??

Especially since myspace has recently started with popup ads WITHIN the built-in myspace mp3 player.

Label it (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671321)

Obviously he needs to start a label called "Major".

Well of course! (3, Informative)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671391)

"MySpace are not equipped to deal with the notion that anyone other than a major [label] can claim a copyright"

Do you think that's by accident? The major labels have gone out of their way in the past 10 years to convince the governments and public that they are the sole gatekeeper for music. It's to their benefit to create that thought so that passing laws to codify their position and become the sole gatekeeper for music actually seem reasonable.

myspace (1)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 4 years ago | (#29671423)

Myspace? Nobody goes there anymore... it's too popular.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?