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!

Universal Sends DMCA Takedown On 1980 Report

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-see-what-you-did-there dept.

Music 189

An anonymous reader writes "For many, many years, every time some new technology has come along, the music industry has insisted that it's going to "kill" the industry. The player piano was supposed to kill live music. So was the radio. And, of course, every time this happens the press is willing to take the industry's word at face value. In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done. Someone posted that 20/20 episode to YouTube a few years back, where it sat in obscurity until people noticed it a couple weeks ago. And suddenly, Universal Music issued a takedown notice for the show. Universal Music does not own 20/20, and there were only brief clips of music in the show. It appears the only reason for Universal to issue the takedown is that it doesn't want you seeing how badly it overreacted in the past."

cancel ×

189 comments

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

Or maybe (2, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954636)

...there's no "cover up" here at all, and the big media companies send takedown notices to just about every video on YouTube.

Re:Or maybe (3, Funny)

ubergeek65536 (862868) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954682)

The script for the cease-and-desist letter is part of the submit button

Re:Or maybe (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954886)

Know why they call it a "submit" button? Because it cc'd the recording industry.

Re:Or maybe (4, Insightful)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954702)

Or maybe sending take down notices to ALL videos on youtube is just a way to cover up the ones they REALLY want to take down.

We're through the looking glass, people.

Lenz v. Universal (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954864)

Or maybe sending take down notices to ALL videos on youtube is just a way to cover up the ones they REALLY want to take down.

That wouldn't be the best strategy for Universal Music. It has previously been hit with a lawsuit in the Northern District of California, Lenz v. Universal [wikipedia.org] , in which Judge Fogel held that OCILLA requires a copyright owner to make a fair use analysis in good faith before submitting a notice and that Universal may not have made such an analysis.

Re:Lenz v. Universal (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#33956242)

Conveniently, Universal adopted a clever scheme to dodge that by not being the copyright owner... (which, of course, should make them even more culpable; but somehow that little bit of symmetry seems to be missing in practice)

Re:Or maybe (2, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954742)

Except rick astley's stuff.
Seriously, media companies are very interested in web trend so it's likely they noticed the video when it got popular. Since they also sue people for unreasonable amount of money I think they are perfectly capable of using DMCA takedown to avoid eggs in the face.

Re:Or maybe (4, Insightful)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954784)

Only it won't work. I just learned about the Streisand effect from the recent article about officer Bubble, and I already have a situation in which to apply it. That's convenient.

Time to poorly execute a meta-joke. (4, Funny)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955606)

the Streisand effect

Well, that's just great. If you hadn't said anything, this phenomenon could have remained in relative obscurity. However, because you brought it up, now everyone's gonna know about the Streisand effect. Way to go.

Re:Or maybe (0)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954938)

There's no 'cover up' because there's no truth the the summary's statement that " In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done."

I watched the video and it does no such thing. It mentions home taping once and mentions that sales had 'levelled' but the substance of the programme is the new development of video and music, specifically laser discs, and the music industy's hopes that this would allow them to gain ever greater profits.

This is a bogus /. story. I wish I could say it was the first. Utterly misleading and a waste of your time, dear reader.

Re:Or maybe (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33955042)

There's no 'cover up' because there's no truth the the summary's statement that " In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done."

I watched the video and it does no such thing. It mentions home taping once and mentions that sales had 'levelled' but the substance of the programme is the new development of video and music, specifically laser discs, and the music industy's hopes that this would allow them to gain ever greater profits.

This is a bogus /. story. I wish I could say it was the first. Utterly misleading and a waste of your time, dear reader.

RTA?

The video posted in the article is the 'first half' of the 20/20 piece. The second half was no longer available when the author went to view it a second time.

Re:Or maybe (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33955228)

I watched the video and it does no such thing.

You clueless fuck. The video in question has been removed. It's not rocket science to figure that out, buddy.

Re:Or maybe (4, Insightful)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955110)

The video that was DMCA'd down was the 2nd half of a 20/20 news segment about the issues befalling the music industry back in the 1980s.

There's enough time between the "failure of the music industry's disdain for the player piano and the radio" as to make points on both sides moot.

But, a DMCA notice to take down something that occurred in the 80s which pinpoints the exact same reasoning we have today for the alleged destruction of the music industry is telling. This segment wasn't even owned by the music industry, it was owned by 20/20 the news magazine. The content within clearly falls within the fair use doctrine, which, should be considered the default rather than the exception--meaning we should make them prove that it isn't fair use before they can prevail with a DMCA or in court, rather than the way it is now where fair use has to prove itself.

In other news... (0)

DemonicMember (1557097) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954656)

I changed my underwear today. Seriously this isn't news, this is happening everyday to lots of people from lots of companies

Re:In other news... (3, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954848)

Seriously this isn't news, this is happening everyday to lots of people from lots of companies

The fact that somebody else shits my underwear while I'm not looking is interesting to me.
The fact that you keep changing your underwear and chose to not care who shits in it is is, indeed, of little relevance to me.

Re:In other news... (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955016)

Humorous analogy parse error.
Too much humor at line 3, near somebody else shits my.

Re:In other news... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955254)

Let me explain, then.
I think I have the right to see news report, and this right is as strong as the right to wear my underwear clean.
I consider the takedown notice from Universal (who is not the owner of the copyright) as breaching my right and very similar with shitting my underwear while I'm not looking. Therefore, the post on /. is a signal to me that "Maybe somebody is shitting your underwear?"

Clearer now why I consider this fragment of news worthy to be posted on /., in disagreement with the OP?

Re:In other news... (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955898)

crystal.

I get it, but your chosen analogy was too awesome.

see also: mad props.

Re:In other news... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#33956250)

I get it, but your chosen analogy was too awesome.

Thank you for the compliment, but it is not me to take the merit for the analogy. The OP made it, by commoditizing her/his rights and selling them cheap for the potential bit of excitement brought in by fresh news.

I think that what OP fails to understand is that, unlike underwear, one doesn't have enough rights to trade them cheap and, when one loses a right, is not as easy to regain it as it is to wash the underwear.

Re:In other news... (2, Funny)

clampolo (1159617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955284)

It's only funny until it happens to you

Re:In other news... (2, Funny)

shermo (1284310) | more than 3 years ago | (#33956238)

This would make more sense if you put the missing N back on the end of your username.

Re:In other news... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#33956300)

My sincere opinion on your contribution to /. above: -1 Flamebite
(I admit my current post as being irrelevant/redundant as well, but FYI the second char of my nick is a 'zero').
Have a nice day.

so far so good (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954660)

Looks like YT hasn't taken it down yet, so that bodes well I guess.

Re:so far so good (1)

severoon (536737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955828)

omg omg omg ... this is the most awesome summary in a long time. +1umg-hypocrisy +1funny +1umg-getting-theirs... To properly note all the +1's here would require a sigma and an index variable.

Re:so far so good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33956244)

Try the second half.

++good (3, Funny)

retech (1228598) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954670)

double plus good say I.

Re:++good (1)

Wilson of Waste (1909510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955542)

Wouldn't that be good+1? Like a counter...

Re:++good (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955604)

try reading Orwell's "1984", it will vastly improve your understanding of this world.

Re:++good (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33955702)

Wouldn't that be good+1? Like a counter...

no, ++good increments the value of good, _before_ you miss the joke

Re:++good (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#33956184)

You win.

Malware warning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33954680)

Does anyone else get a malware warning from Chrome when visiting the link to techdirt.com?

Re:Malware warning? (1)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954804)

Nope

Re:Malware warning? (1)

RebootKid (712142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954822)

Confirmed. I get the same warning. I suspect one of his advertisers went rogue

Re:Malware warning? (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955124)

Absolutely not. Techdirt.com is a long standing news entity which critiques the dirt of our digital industry.

People send takedown notices almost randomly (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33954686)

I noticed a bunch of home-filmed performances of amateur pianists playing various Mozart stuff had been taken down, because some random publishing company claimed ownership, just to plaster them with ads -- and the company gets the ad revenue.

Anybody with a brain would realize that the work is hundreds of years old, and the performance in question is owned by the poster (the guy sitting at the piano), but apparently forcing your ads onto other peoples youtube vids in this manner has become a trendy revenue stream for cocksuckers. Almost as trendy as the sucking of the cock in the first place.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33954820)

And on porn sites you get ads about cock-sucking when viewing cock-sucking videos.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954824)

What do you bet they use a program to scour the net with the Shazam [shazam.com] engine (or something like it), detect the music content, and automatically generate a form based takedown notice. All without ever needing a first person review.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (5, Interesting)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955264)

Those Mozart pieces of music are in the public domain. If someone performs a musical piece from that era that works then automatically becomes copyrighted--only that performance and not the actual work that it was based on.

There are penalties for false DMCA claims but no one goes after the abusers. This should have been established up front and tremendous penalties should be levied against those making false claims. The impact of a false claim has a much larger impact than some individual violating copyrighted materials, IMHO.

The purpose of the monopoly ownership of these types of works of art was to encourage creativity. They were granted monopoly over these works for a limited time knowing it would be put into the public domain afterwards.

Back then the content creator's claim were that if they didn't have monopoly rights and all things went to the public domain there'd be no reason to create. So, the government, in an effort to ensure everything went to the public domain to help ensure culture survived, granted them this right, not the other way round.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (3, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955410)

That doesn't stop them from trying to rape you with licensing fees if they think there's any connection to the sheet music. If one industry pisses me off more then the music industry, it's the sheet music industry.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (4, Informative)

Wordplay (54438) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955736)

The original compositions are in the public domain. Simplified adaptations for amateur piano are derivative works that probably are not.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33956266)

Are you kidding? Mozart probably scribbled alternate arrangements to his stuff on the dinner napkins.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (4, Informative)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955860)

Well it is high time to start aggressively campaigning for an amendment to the DMCA setting out substantive penalties for false claims with significant payments to the party who were defamed and who had their constitutional rights to free speech infringed.

There has been a lot of complaints about abuses of the DMCA but as yet seemingly little action to force an amendment for false claims.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (2, Interesting)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955924)

easy penalty, loss of the right to utilize the DMCA takedown mechanism, and addition to a registry of banned entities. any person who uses the DMCA takedown when banned from doing so is subject to up to 366 days in prison. the persons considered responsible would be both the chief officer of the responsible corporation and the cheif officer of any majority stakeholders, recursively. so no shenanigans with forming shell corporations to file DMCA takedowns.

If only life were only so simple. (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955906)

Those Mozart pieces of music are in the public domain. If someone performs a musical piece from that era that works then automatically becomes copyrighted--only that performance and not the actual work that it was based on.

The score you are using is probably not a facsimile in Mozart's own hand.

If it was, you might not be able to read it correctly.

You might not have the period instruments needed to play it correctly.

What you are more likely to have is a scholarly edition for the professional musician or a fairly modern transcription or arrangement for the amateur - both still under copyright.

Re:If only life were only so simple. (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#33956282)

It's still the work whether it was written in Hebrew or Orchish/Goblin. The copyright has expired whether we can read the original or not.

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (3, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955310)

This sounds quite interesting. Is there a way I can randomly claim ownership of YouTube videos, and derive revenues from their viewers? Or do you have to be someone special to get in on that?

Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33955762)

Mostly because copyright owners are in fact Cock-Sucking Assholes.

I gave up on "being legit" yearsa go when they started this shit when they shoved their hands up the asses of metallica and proved to the world that they were the shittiest band ever.

I now ONLY steal music. I record from radio, I record from Sattelite radio. I record from last FM. I download files. I SHARE THEM WITH FRIENDS.

If I make a overpaid duchebag musician poor, I'm a happy guy. Make music, get paid performing. Fuck off and die if you think you deserve to make $90,000+ a year because you are an "artist"....

Youtube link (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33954762)

The actual program in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vz7Z42Fl9s

Re:Youtube link (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33954792)

Re:Youtube link (1)

sockman (133264) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955168)

We're no strangers to suites
We make the rules, they let us lie
Massive fees are what we wet-dream of
You wouldn't take this, even from Jobs!
I just wanna see you in court
Gotta steal your every dime
Never gonna let it up
Always gonna request takedown
We use the runaround
To HURT you

Re:Youtube link (5, Informative)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954958)

As of 19:37 Eastern Time, part two [youtube.com] is still down, at least in the U.S.

Re:Youtube link (2, Informative)

RichardDeVries (961583) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955416)

It's available in The Netherlands. I don't know if it has been down here. v=E9KRtuEttIQ [youtube.com]

Re:Youtube link (2, Informative)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955676)

Both parts are down in Germany. "This video contains content form UMG. It is unavailable in your country."

Re:Youtube link (1)

RichardDeVries (961583) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955980)

I tried mirroring it, but Youtube tells me the video is 'blocked in some countries'. Not that it would be of much interest, as there's hardly anything said about hometaping killing music.

It seems to me this video was blocked due to some automated process that recognized footage of Meatloaf or Kiss.

Mirror? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955608)

Is there a mirror of it? It doesn't have to be on YouTube either. :P

Hmm, this video story reminded me of Boing Boing [boingboing.net] 's mention of a two parts YouTube [youtube.com] video story (about 18.5 minutes in total; #1 (here [youtube.com] , here [youtube.com] , or here [youtube.com] ) and #2 (here [youtube.com] or here [youtube.com] ) showing "60 Minutes [cbsnews.com] " on video piracy from 1978.

Re:Youtube link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33955244)

Mod parrent down.. this is NOT the program in question.
The one linked to is about how music videos are going to all change the industry and be the next big selling thing... not exactly what OP posted :-P

Re:Youtube link (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955274)

The first part is not the part in question. It is the second part.

Re:Youtube link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33955842)

god that was boring, I say let them take it down.

Has anything really changed? (5, Insightful)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954798)

There is always something that is putting the music industry on its "last leg". As technology advances, they just continue bitching and it obviously has not stopped today. I do not think the music industry is hurting too bad. Have you seen an episode of MTV cribs lately where they have musicians on there? The musicians don't seem like they are very poor (except for Redman, but nobody can predict Redman, that guy is crazy).

When you have an indoor pool and an outdoor pool, I highly doubt you are hurting from money. If the musicians are getting enough money to afford that, just think of how much is going to the company seeing as the musician only takes a small cut of what the industry makes (that is, of course the musician gets endorsements from Nike and Wheaties and stuff).

Seriously, after mp3's and torrents have faded out and the new technology has come into play, the music industry will bitch and moan again about how they are, again, on their last leg, but then we get to see the newest episode of MTV Cribs where artists show off their new Benz and Ferraris

Re:Has anything really changed? (2, Funny)

Wocka_Wocka (1895714) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955446)

Have you seen an episode of MTV cribs lately where they have musicians on there?

To be quite honest, I haven't seen any musicians on that show.

The more things change... (3, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955590)

There is always something that is putting the music industry on its "last leg". As technology advances, they just continue bitching and it obviously has not stopped today.

And the retarded thing? Advancing technology makes them money.

Consider the 90s, which they seem to conveniently peg as their baseline for normal. Putting their cries of poverty from today and the 80s together, they've been going out of business constantly from 1985 until now, except for the mid 90s. What happened then? The CD came out. And people replaced a helluvalot of vinyl and tapes with CDs. People did that because the product was significantly superior in nearly every way (with apologies to audiophiles who love vinyl).

So what's different now? Well, they've been fighting digital distribution tooth and nail to combat privacy (ostensibly), preferring to stamp out piracy even if it means killing themselves. As a result they've made a lot less money than they could have, and have allowed a robust black market to blossom. That's bad for them, not just because of the lost revenue (let's concede they lose some money for the sake of argument), but they also lose control over distribution. This is completely different from their mistakes before.. Previously, people bootlegged tapes to make illegal tapes, but it was an inferior product to the legit copies, and probably made little dent in sales. Now, people can bootleg CDs to make digital copies, shifting media as well as creating a potentially superior product. The black market can now fill a market they've chosen not to compete in. Bad news for them.

So what's the upshot? If they want to make money like in the 90s, they need to give people a reason to re-buy music. That will be very hard since the last iteration was digital and easily turned into other media - how do you improve on that? They need some way of adding actual value to the product that people bought or shared/stole. Otherwise, the level of sales growth seen now and in the 80s is the norm, and we shouldn't expect anything different.

Re:The more things change... (3, Interesting)

grantek (979387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33956144)

The cool thing is their greed is being eaten away from the other side as well - home recording, powerful computers/software, and the internet is making it easier and easier for artists to get a quality product to an audience, bypassing the "music industry" altogether - at least for recorded music.

I don't think the **AA-type organizations have any coherent picture on what the future of media should be, other than "everyone should buy every release of the same shit over and over again".

Go and download it (2, Insightful)

vivin (671928) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954880)

Go to keepvid.com and download [youtube.com] a copy of that video. If YouTube does take it down, we can always post it again (on another note, I can't seem to find part 2).

The Internet Never Forgets.

Also, Universal Music are douchebags, but what's new? The douchebaggery and the lies are so obvious that it's not even worth going into it.

Re:Go and download it (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954920)

Also, Universal Music are douchebags

Say I'm a recording artist, and I want to vote with my dollars against Universal Music, but I don't want my audience limited to just geeks with smartphones. What label with FM radio clout that isn't evil do you recommend?

Re:Go and download it (2, Informative)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955024)

Epitaph

The E in EMI (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955170)

Wikipedia's article about Epitaph Records claims that Epitaph is about to land a distribution deal with EMI. Is EMI noticeably less evil in this respect than Universal? Has it cleaned up its act since the "DIY not EMI" days?

Re:Go and download it (1)

vivin (671928) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955050)

Independent radio stations?

Re:Go and download it (2, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955068)

Specifying FM radio clout is somewhat unfair, as that mentality is tied into the idea that the style of marketing performed by the big labels is the only valid style of marketing. If you believe that, then you're pretty much tied to Universal or someone of their ilk - if you're lucky you'll get very rich with their help, and I certainly see the appeal of that, but signing one of those contracts is a major gamble. Depending on your connections and your style of music, that gamble may or may not have the best odds for you; sure, you'll be stuck playing by the rules of those asshats for a while even if it does pay off, but to be honest I'd probably take those terms myself if I thought they were going to throw enough resources my way to make me a major seller.

The other option, also a gamble, is to promote yourself and/or employ a good PR firm. Viral videos (the kind people actually like to watch - think OK Go; although they may have had a major label behind them, the idea doesn't require one), gigs in the right places, low-cost high-volume sales on iTunes, and the right kind of image could be plenty to earn you the notoriety that leads to a very decent living. The maximum win probably isn't as high as that which you might get with the major labels, but the freedom is greater and the chance of some success, rather than either tens of millions or abject failure, may well be higher.

Funny. (1)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954888)

They always complain about "hurting the little guy" for whatever reason, but they hate the little guy, whether it's a new artist or a smaller publishing company. I just didn't know they had always been that way. I guess their dogma won't change until they go the way of newspapers.

Pretty obvious (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954894)

The music industry, like the musicians who make it up, are a bunch of lazy douchebags who wish to get paid for plunking some strings and getting all funky and such, but mostly sitting on their collective asses doing next to nothing until time to record some new caterwauling. I used to want to be in a band and wish to get paid for nothing, then I grew up and got a real job. Let's be frank; you're batshit lucky if you every got paid to make music. For every good band, there are a million shitty ones all trying to get a recording deal. The world needs ditch diggers too, and playing drums and/or guitars builds upper body strength. So, come on you long-haired douchebags, pick up a shovel and get to fucking work!!1! Metallica must be rolling over in their graves!
And now the prayer scene from National Lampoon's Vacation; "O God, ease our suffering in this, our moment of great dispair. Yea, admit this kind and decent woman into thy arms of thine heavenly area, up there. And Moab, he lay us upon the band of the Canaanites, and yea, though the Hindus speak of karma, I implore you: give her a break."

Penalty for frivolous takedown notice? (1)

L3370 (1421413) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954914)

Why isn't there a penalty for this? There should be--and it should be equivalent to the inflated valuations they give their own content...( 25k per downloaded song, movie, etc...)

In other news... (4, Funny)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954916)

... the Carriers Of Milk In Cities (COMIC) today lashed out at refrigerator manufacturers and cardboard container manufacturers for "killing the milk industry".

Ferb Nordquist, the head of COMIC said in a statement that was hand carried to every major news outlet, "We, the milk carriers, bring milk to the masses. Without us, there would be no milk. The refrigerator and cardboard manufacturers are putting a stake in the heart of the milk industry. This is really the beginning of the end for milk."

No cows were available for comment.

Improper Takedown? (4, Informative)

Courageous (228506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33954940)

It is perjury (a criminal act) to issue a DMCA takedown request when the requester is not the rights holder or their designated agent.

So what content are they saying they are a rights holder/agent of?

C//

Re:Improper Takedown? (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955004)

So what content are they saying they are a rights holder/agent of?

I'm guessing it's the music in the show, even if it's only "short clips."

There have been plenty of instances where movies are held up from home video release because of rights disputes over the music in the film. The animated film Heavy Metal could only be seen on cable TV for many years for that reason. The film Bad Lieutenant cannot be seen in its original version on DVD because a Schooly D song in the movie sampled music without licensing it. Schooly got sued and the filmmakers were forced to pull the song from all video releases, present and future. This stuff happens all the time.

Simply put, neither YouTube or the poster have licensed the music in question.

Re:Improper Takedown? (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955292)

Someone needs to clarify "fair use". Someone with a big baseball bat.

Re:Improper Takedown? (2, Interesting)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955750)

I think you already know this, but to clarify for others: Even when the shows/movies DO license the music, the license was often only for the original medium. That's why many shows (e.g. WKRP, 21 Jump Street) have messed up music on the DVD releases.

My favorite counter-example: The last episode of "The Prisoner", which has a Beatles song in it. At the time, they got a perpetual license, that has AFAIK covered home video, DVD, streaming, etc., usage too.

Re:Improper Takedown? "the signifying rapper" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33955770)

I have that song on casette-- bought it used from a brick and mortar store. Great song. The movie is not the same without it.
Perhaps I'll rip and post at some point ;)

Re:Improper Takedown? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33955382)

It is perjury (a criminal act) to issue a DMCA takedown request when the requester is not the rights holder or their designated agent.

No. It's perjury if you respond to the request by saying falsely that you have the right to distribute it, but it's not perjury to issue a DMCA takedown request under false pretenses. The law was written this way for a reason. (Probably a few million reasons, on small pieces of paper.)

(IANAL, of course.)

Re:Improper Takedown? (2, Insightful)

Karunamon (1845630) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955650)

Um... yes it is. Go look at any DMCA request form online (even YouTube's). You have to attest, under penalty of perjury, that you own or hold rights to the work that you're reporting as infringing. The only reason that Universal and the other MafiAA jagoffs can get away with this is because countersuing is long and expensive.

Re:Improper Takedown? (5, Informative)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 3 years ago | (#33956202)

You have to attest, under penalty of perjury, that you own or hold rights to the work that you're reporting as infringing.

That's not quite true, although the difference is subtle:

US Code, Chapter 5, Title 17, Section 512(c):

(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION-

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Note that the only part of the notice actually subject to penalty of perjury is "a statement .. that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" (emphasis added). They can ask for material to be taken down which is not related in the slightest to the exclusive privilege they are claiming it infringes without committing perjury under the rules established here. Of course, there may be other consequences for filing false takedown notices.

Re:Improper Takedown? (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955816)

To knowingly do so. How do you prove that they knew it was fraudulent?

Re:Improper Takedown? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955948)

they took the time to prepare the court documents.

that would cover them if, for example, Major band X ripped off Indie band Y, then Major Label Z sent a takedown to indie band Y because they own the rights to major ban X's music, but X actually stole Y's song.

Re:Improper Takedown? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955824)

Laws only apply to the poor.

Honestly, are you new to this country? the MPAA and RIAA as well as other rich groups regularly violate laws daily without recourse. This is how America works.

Laws are for putting the trouble making poor in Jail. They have no other use.

Artist's web site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33954998)

Maybe this already exists, and if it does I would like to know about it. What about a site where you can download music, and the artist directly gets the proceeds from the sale? We download from Amazon right now, and my assumption is there are more than one "middle man" skimming from my 99 cents. A site such as this would allow artists to get paid more for their work and begin crippling superfluous organizations such as the RIAA, etc...

Thoughts?

Re:Artist's web site (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955344)

Music Forte provides 100% of digital music sales to the artist. There is not a split imposed. Music Forte does not participate in ad-sharing either. Artists are required to have a minimum of $20 before receiving payment. However, money is accrued without any loss regardless of how long it takes to meet the minimum requirement.

http://www.musicforte.com/ [musicforte.com]

Don't know how exactly they make money.

More damning than that (5, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955116)

I recently came across an old copy of Modern Recording magazine from early 1981. There is an article about how cassette decks are evil and home taping is hurting the record industry and the RIAA commissioned a study that that they hoped to take to congress as proof that new laws were need.

But a funny thing happened. The report was shelved when it revealed that people who owned home recording equipment spent 75% more money buying music than people who didn't own an evil cassette deck.

Re:More damning than that (1)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33956104)

...people who owned home recording equipment spent 75% more money buying music than people who didn't own an evil cassette deck.

That makes sense. What good is a cassette deck if not to make copies of music for your friends?

If only we had Video and Youtube in 1910 (3, Interesting)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955138)

Then you'd see first hand from the late Mortimer I. Luddite III with his frantic pleas to stop those infernal horseless carriages from destroying his buggy-whip business he made just days before being struck down and killed by a Model T going a whopping 10 miles an hour through the town square.
Innovation and progress is only good so long as the established powers that be profit by it.

hmm (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955150)

The player piano was supposed to kill live music

Live music used to be all around; families and friends would gather in the living room and listen; saloons and restaurants would have pianists in the corner. After the player piano, hardly anyplace has that.

Re:hmm (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955376)

Live music used to be all around; families and friends would gather in the living room and listen; saloons and restaurants would have pianists in the corner. After the player piano, hardly anyplace has that.

Your joking, right? Ever hear of this thing called Radio?

Re:hmm (4, Informative)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955660)

Radio is canned music. You cant ask the radio disc jockey to change the key, because you are a baritone instead of a tenor.

That is what OP meant by "Live" music. That it is played live, by a living person, for you, in real time. And yes, the player piano did a grand job of putting corner store pianists out of business. By the same token, the tractor put many farm hands out of business. Technology does that. It reduces the amount of labor invested, and makes things easier; the downside is that it also puts people out of work in the process-- the people that did the jobs the technology replaced. Computers put whole accounting firms under, or at least resulted in huge reductions in the numbers of humans working for those firms.

The tired "Buggy whip" trope used on /. is very apt here.

Re:hmm (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955836)

The little musicians in my radio suck lately. They have lost all talent and play the same crap over and over and over...

Re:hmm (1)

hokeyru (749540) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955888)

The player piano predates radio broadcasting by a few decades.

And you misspelled "you're".

Mirrors (5, Informative)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955784)

I managed to find a copy of the second part of the video, combined the first and second parts, and put the video online again:
  1. FileFront [filefront.com]
  2. DivShare [divshare.com]

Download and mirror!

Re:Mirrors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33956216)

I managed to find a copy of the second part of the video, combined the first and second parts, and put the video online again:

  1. FileFront [filefront.com]
  2. DivShare [divshare.com]

Download and mirror!

it's infected. don't download. repeat: DO NOT DOWNLOAD.

Re:Mirrors (1)

jbgroup1 (560422) | more than 3 years ago | (#33956278)

Thanks!

How is this a copyright violation (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#33955800)

Can someone please explain to me how a news story is copyright circumvention device? This is censorship and most courts would view this action as illegal. Posting Decss a decade ago I can see is an actual device because it can be compiled (still pushing it since its code) but this is just going to far. Sigh

Industry falling apart or passing them by? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33956072)

Every few years the industry is falling apart only to reinvent itself. People in the industry think everything is in decline when really styles and experiences are passing them by. The industry has continually reinvented itself. There are no more supergroups of the 1960s (think Beatles or Monkeys) for example but there have been echos of that in the boy bands. So if you are still trying to make a boy band you missed the train. The new business strategy is to capitalize off of VEVO and iTunes while getting another income stream through Live Nation. If you are a music exec still counting CD sales you are a dinosaur - extinct. That being said, we are in a lull between new music genres as hip hop has matured and the next 'big new thing' for the 2010s hasn't emerged like hip hop was for the 2000s, alternative was for the 1990s, new wave was for the 1980s or disco was for the 1970s.

Mirror (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33956090)

Mirror:

http://plunder.com/bfe00c693f

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?