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!

Anti-piracy Group Fined For Using Song Without Permission

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the what-a-twist dept.

Music 220

zacharye writes "Oh, the irony. A musicians' rights group in the Netherlands was fined this week for stealing music from a client, using it without his permission and failing to pay royalties. Music royalty collection agency Buma/Stemra approached Dutch musician Melchior Rietveldt in 2006 and asked him to create a composition that would be used in an anti-piracy advertisement, which the group said would be shown exclusively at a local film festival. One year later, Rietveldt purchased a Harry Potter DVD only to find that his piece was being used on DVDs around the world without his permission..."

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

Top points (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678077)

What a name, Melchior.

Another case of "do what i say, and not what I do" (5, Insightful)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678087)

Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (2)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678111)

For the record i would also like to say that both intellectual property law and current forms of governance are out dated.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (5, Funny)

BitHive (578094) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678147)

Thank you, the record will benefit immensely from your important ideas about law and government.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (4, Funny)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678225)

Your welcome, but they were not originally my ideas, i copied them from others.
We all stand on the shoulders of giants ;-)

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678263)

Clap clap

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678275)

My welcome? Hardly.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678301)

Just so long as you're not Yurtle.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (2)

gnick (1211984) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678335)

Well said. "Yertle the Turtle". Dr. Seuss's take on Mussolini, but for kids!

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (5, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678385)

We all stand on the shoulders of giants ;-)

Not me. I stand on a stack of midgets.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678895)

Chelsea, is that you?

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678903)

Those Lilliputians are really useful in the lab for crawling inside my devices and debugging those teeny-tiny parts.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678267)

But not from your useless post.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (5, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678299)

Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society

Eh... I cannot say I agree with you. I mean if the IP system was being used properly, the composer would be getting paid for the use of his work.

That said, would totally agree that cases like this prove that people are abusing it. I mean, if you're going to hoot and holler over people using your content without permission, you should be the last person to do the same. This example doesn't really exlcaim "IP is bad for everybody!"

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678455)

There is a second extra-classy angle in this story.

When the composer discovers his song has been used more widely than agreed, he goes to his music royalty collecting agency, an entity ostensibly representing those starving artists out of whose mouths pirates are stealing delicious crumbs.

They stonewall him. Hard.

Then, in a conversation that turned out to be recorded, causing a bit of a scandal, "The case caused a scandal in the Netherlands last year following discussions Rietveldt had with Buma/Stemra[the collecting agency] board member Jochem Gerrits about getting the money he was owed. In order to help, Gerrits suggested that the composer should sign his track over to High Fashion Music, a label owned by Gerrits himself and one that would take 33% of Rietveldt’s royalties for its trouble."

So, yeah, if he was merely willing to play ball with the label owned by a board member of the collecting agency, his little problem could be made to go away, for a modest price. If he preferred not to sign, well, perhaps he might continue to have trouble?

This isn't exactly news; but the de-facto Intellectual 'Property' system appears to operate on the basis that peasants might have the right to sell their little scraps of it; but only people who matter are accorded any serious protection.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678973)

This isn't exactly news; but the de-facto Intellectual 'Property' system appears to operate on the basis that peasants might have the right to sell their little scraps of it; but only people who matter are accorded any serious protection.

I thought this rule applied to most things in life.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (2, Interesting)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678489)

The composer should have been paid for the of work he performed, as the function of the investment it takes to perform the work and value, not for how useful the work ended up being. He may be hired to work again if it was a good performance, otherwise you tax and unempower other people and musicians, so you get to be fat and lazy off of their hard wor.

Likewise I have a hard time developing devices without running afoul of someone's patent, even though what I did was developed in a clean room process, so they can sit fat and lazy off of my hard work. The problem with finding funding for the work is another social problem, but perhaps that means that we should reward people like farmers and factory workers, more than we reward the creative class who don't have it so bad anyhow.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (5, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678583)

The composer should have been paid for the of work he performed, as the function of the investment it takes to perform the work and value, not for how useful the work ended up being.

Why? His unique contribution helped bring in a good deal of money, so much so that they enter into agreements that basically equate to profit sharing. Your approach would just mean the big nasty corp gets all the dollars.

Likewise I have a hard time developing devices without running afoul of someone's patent...

This really is a different topic from patents and, as such, a separate discussion. I would like to point out, though, that it's implied that the people you're accusing of sitting fat and lazy off your work did that work before you got to it. You're being encouraged to either license their work or try another approach. That means rewarding the inventor who sunk the time into it (like you do for a living) or developing the technology even further by trying other approaches. That actually is how the patent system is supposed to work and I'm willing to bet that's helping the company you work for out. Getting back on topic, if your complaint about their patent is that it's overly broad, then we're back to the problem not being with the system, but how its enforced. That is a legitimate complaint, but it takes a different approach to get something done about it.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (0)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678813)

Why? His unique contribution helped bring in a good deal of money, so much so that they enter into agreements that basically equate to profit sharing. Your approach would just mean the big nasty corp gets all the dollars.

Not really, because they would not get to make any money off the content! A better model would be a set of 501c3's that are highly regulated and donated to. People can send money to these 'creative' charities if they want to, who then have an obligation to spend the money on creative endeavors, and of course a world where personal income is capped at some reasonable level.

This really is a different topic from patents and, as such, a separate discussion. I would like to point out, though, that it's implied that the people you're accusing of sitting fat and lazy off your work did that work before you got to it. You're being encouraged to either license their work or try another approach. That means rewarding the inventor who sunk the time into it (like you do for a living) or developing the technology even further by trying other approaches. That actually is how the patent system is supposed to work and I'm willing to bet that's helping the company you work for out. Getting back on topic, if your complaint about their patent is that it's overly broad, then we're back to the problem not being with the system, but how its enforced. That is a legitimate complaint, but it takes a different approach to get something done about it.

That's supposing that
A) they actually did any work whatsoever, or its non trivial work "one click", "round corner tablet device"
B) they are willing to license the work at all, instead of suing me to an oblivion.
C) that people should be rewarded from ideas, instead of the labor time they spent in implementing ideas.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678947)

A) they actually did any work whatsoever, or its non trivial work "one click", "round corner tablet device"
B) they are willing to license the work at all, instead of suing me to an oblivion.
C) that people should be rewarded from ideas, instead of the labor time they spent in implementing ideas.

A) "Getting back on topic, if your complaint about their patent is that it's overly broad, then we're back to the problem not being with the system, but how its enforced. That is a legitimate complaint, but it takes a different approach to get something done about it." ... try reading more carefully.

B) "Getting back on topic, if your complaint about their patent is that it's overly broad, then we're back to the problem not being with the system, but how its enforced. That is a legitimate complaint, but it takes a different approach to get something done about it." ... try reading more carefully, AGAIN.

C) Your opinion. Can't say much here. This is a valid discussion point.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678965)

People can send money to these 'creative' charities if they want to, who then have an obligation to spend the money on creative endeavors, and of course a world where personal income is capped at some reasonable level.. ...

C) that people should be rewarded from ideas, instead of the labor time they spent in implementing ideas. .

What exactly is better about this model? Now the little guy still doesn't get rewarded and the entire content industry would get dunked into the toilet, taking lots of employed people with it. What is the problem you're trying to solve and why would it be better than just shortening the length of copyright?

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (2)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40679071)

There are entire industries that are dunked into the toilet, many of the employees of whom live in tiny huts/dorms with hardly more than the clothes on their backs, why should your industry benefit at the expense of all others?

Because your from the bourgeois class, which is able to force the balance of power your way, and thus keep out the competition?

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40679175)

There are entire industries that are dunked into the toilet, many of the employees of whom live in tiny huts/dorms with hardly more than the clothes on their backs, why should your industry benefit at the expense of all others?

We can't have this conversation yet until you answer the question I originally posed: What exactly is better about your model?

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678901)

It's not always that it's overly broad either. A lot of times, they're mind-numbingly obvious to the point that it should never have been granted in the first place, frequently boiling down to "doing something the same way it's been done for hundreds, if not thousands of years...on a computer."

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40679025)

Actually, "on a computer" prevents a patent from being overly broad. That's why the puzzle game you wrote for the iPhone wouldn't get you sued because Nike has a patent on threading needles to mass-produce shoes.

You actually do want that "on a computer" distinction in there more than you don't.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678527)

One with a more open mind might consider that groups of content distribution businesses just like this one have always been behind every "advance" in copyright law; when creating copyright, they demanded that it should be vested in the publisher, not the author. They have at every turn tried to enrich themselves at both consumers' and creators' expense. And this is far from the first time we've heard of them flagrantly violating copyright.

Maybe, just maybe, all those bits about it being "in the interest of society" (which is why the concept was created and promoted by society at large, not the content-distribution industry... oh wait.) and the supposed extent to which content creation (not distribution!) depends on copyright, could be a lie? No, no, businesses would never tell a lie to make more profit, and legislators would never pass laws to help their friends in business if they had such a facade to hide the intent from voters.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678557)

>>>This example doesn't really exlcaim "IP is bad for everybody!"

Yeah it does. It shows how the law is used for the benefit of the rich, not the people it supposedly protects. WE steal money, we get punished. MF's Jon Corzine steals money, he gets called "the honorable" in Congress and that's about it. RIAA/MPAA get caught pirating songs and selling them to the tune of 1.5 billion dollars, but nothing happens. WE do that and we get hit with multimillion dollar fines that make us lifelong wage slaves (see Jamie Thomas).

Ultimately We the People would be better off without these laws, since they don't benefit us. They only benefit the fucking rich (corporations/CEOs) and/or the well-connected (politicians and polticians' friends).

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678691)

Ultimately We the People would be better off without these laws, since they don't benefit us. They only benefit the fucking rich (corporations/CEOs) and/or the well-connected (politicians and polticians' friends).

Tell that to the composer this article is about.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (1)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678859)

Good for him, he is getting hundred of thousands of dollars for a very minimal amount of work!
Bad for everyone else, that are expected to pay $25 + his royalties for a harry potter DVD.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40679147)

Good for him, he is getting hundred of thousands of dollars for a very minimal amount of work!

The studio is getting millions of dollars for mass-producing content people wish to buy. His 'minimal work' assisted in reaching those earnings. You're saying you'd rather Warner Brothers just get more money rather than spreading that amongst the people who made it possible. The oddball thing is you're proposing a greater harm to society!

Bad for everyone else, that are expected to pay $25 + his royalties for a harry potter DVD.

Those people pay the $25 regardless of whether or not that royalty is paid.

Some day you need to learn that hours on a time-card do not reflect value of the work.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40679163)

A fine is not royalties. A fine is a fine.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678345)

I am confused. This is a case of IP law working very well. Are you suggesting that this person should receive no payment for their music?

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678451)

I am confused. This is a case of IP law working very well. Are you suggesting that this person should receive no payment for their music?

I believe this to be a case of a person making a generalization based upon what they perceive to be popular opinion (Ugh think copyright/IP/patents BAD, Ugh no need know reason why), with zero regard for reality or logical thought processes. Common practice on the 'net these days, what with the apparent obsession with peer acceptance and approval as a means of self-realization.

Otherwise, one would assume they would have realized, prior to posting, that the concept of "not in the best interest of society" is a completely subjective opinion, not fact, and as such, is non sequitur at best and a blatant straw-man argument at worst.

One could posit the argument that the right to free speech is "not in the best interest of society," because bigots use that right as a platform for spreading hate, but you won't see any rational folks calling for its repeal.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (2)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678533)

Or it could be based on a nuanced study of capital flows to IP thugs, and the lack of investment in other human resources (people), which in turn harms the ROI on other human labor (farming, manufacturing). Thereby reinforcing a class system in which people are unable to escape.

Hardly as subjective as your subjective analysis of "he probably just wants free stuff".

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40679073)

Or it could be based on a nuanced study of capital flows to IP thugs, and the lack of investment in other human resources (people), which in turn harms the ROI on other human labor (farming, manufacturing). Thereby reinforcing a class system in which people are unable to escape.

Yea, no.

Look, it's perfectly reasonable to claim that the current iteration of IP/copyright/patent law is fucked, namely because it is. But that is by no means a blanket condemnation of the tools themselves; in fact, to claim the tools are the problem is to show an abject lack of critical thinking ability, as any child could tell you it's not the hammer which ultimately drives the nail, but the man holding the hammer. Yes, the system is oft abused by powerful groups, but that doesn't mean the system itself in inoperable - there are also instances, such as that brought forth by TFA, in which IP/copyright/patent law actually does work to protect the artist/inventor from whom the product originated.

Hardly as subjective as your subjective analysis of "he probably just wants free stuff".

Funny, I don't recall making that statement... *re-reads previous post* Nope, nothing even close to the assumption you've made here. In fact, you're the only one who has broached the idea of wanting something for nothing... perhaps you yourself are unaware of your actual agenda? One has to wonder why a person would be so adamantly opposed to the mere concept of IP, especially when discussing a rare instance in which IP law actually works out in the best interest of the creating artist...

What's your angle here? If you're not attempting to posit the idea that you should have access to other people's creative works without payment, then what are you trying to say?

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (2)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678629)

I generally believe that if his work was important enough to be made, than he should have been paid for the amount of work performed, not based on how much it benefited society.

Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678491)

Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society

Oh, it is, it is! You just have to be a big company to try to get away with it.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40679031)

So did they get fined a million, billion dollars? HA thought not.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40679183)

Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society

Intellectual property is in the interests of society, it stops big companies from using people's music on top-selling DVDs all around the world.

The problem with intellectual property is when individuals are being fined millions of dollars for sharing half a dozen songs, when the internet is being wrecked in the name of preventing piracy even though anybody with half a brain knows it can't be stopped, when consumers are being screwed over by DRM, when young artists are being ripped off by experienced con-men in suits, etc.

ie. There's no sense of proportion in the laws, they're going way too far in the direction of the corporations instead of towards the consumers.

Just goes to show (5, Insightful)

detain (687995) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678105)

the music industries attack on piracy is often about a new way to extort easy money more than an actual concern for the musicians they are supposed to represent

Re:Just goes to show (2, Insightful)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678261)

Which is a secondary function of all forms of governance, corporate and civil.

Re:Just goes to show (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678517)

the music industries attack on piracy is often about a new way to extort easy money more than an actual concern for the musicians they are supposed to represent

Music & Entertainment Industry are their own worst enemies.

Re:Just goes to show (2)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40679261)

If it were us, we would be looking at "infringment penalties" of many, many dollars for every copy we "distributed".. yet they have to pay a 20k Euro fine, and his court costs.. Wow.. the downside is really not a downside, is it?

Not to be annoying, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678139)

...that's not irony.
Irony is when you say something and mean the opposite.

Re:Not to be annoying, but... (1)

teaserX (252970) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678161)

Thought that was sarcasmny

Re:Not to be annoying, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678209)

GP was obviously being sarcastic.

Re:Not to be annoying, but... (1)

teaserX (252970) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678277)

GP was obviously being sarcastic.
No way! Really?

Re:Not to be annoying, but... (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678353)

How ironic...

Re:Not to be annoying, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678437)

I, for one, revel in the irony of people arguing that "irony" is misused.

Re:Not to be annoying, but... (4, Informative)

InvisiBill (706958) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678327)

Irony [merriam-webster.com] can be either "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning" or "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result". While /. might not be surprised by a musicians' rights group violating their client's music rights, it could generally be said that this is an ironic situation since the claimed protector is one committing the violation.

Re:Not to be annoying, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40679143)

Correct, just as the original poster was being ironic in his subject line.

Re:Not to be annoying, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678545)

Goddamn I hate the fucking irony threads on Fark, goddamn pedantic fucks need to SHUT THE FUCK UP BECAUSE NO ONE FUCKING GIVES SHIT!

If you care about the proper use of irony, strap a lot of bombs to you and find someone in marketing and blow yourself up.

Thank you.

€164,974? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678185)

That seems low for when someone steals music. Shouldn't that be more like €100,000,000 by the MAFIAA calculating ways?

Re:€164,974? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678205)

Every infringing DVD should probably also be hunted down and destroyed by armed ICE agents or their local equivalents....

Re:€164,974? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678497)

That seems low for when someone steals music. Shouldn't that be more like €100,000,000 by the MAFIAA calculating ways?

Actually? A problem there. The **AAs see TEH INTARNETS as some vast, infinite, uncontrolled wild. Focus on "infinite". Since they can't track how many times someone downloaded something and they can assert an infinite potential for intarnetting (largely by waving their hands frantically to distract people from paying attention to anyone who protests this assertion), they figure the $4.8 skrumillion or whatnot they're suing for is actually a really huge bargain compared to infinity, especially when brought up with stupid judges on the take.

But, when it comes to DVD sales, they most likely have chillingly meticulous statistics on how many discs they pressed, how many each store got, and exactly how they can Hollywood Account their way into claiming they lost $9.8 fuckdillion on the bestselling DVD of all time, thus they don't have to pay any lowly artists for their bottom-feeding noise-making. The nerve of some people, thinking they can get PAID for doing work!

So, unfortunately, without the vast scariness of infinity to count on, they probably can knock the payout down a lot.

Re:€164,974? (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40679161)

That seems low for when someone steals music. Shouldn't that be more like â100,000,000 by the MAFIAA calculating ways?

No. Such high damages are only appropriate in cases involving non-commercial infringement.

DVD Ad (4, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678197)

So there was a DVD advertisement that pirated music about not pirating music?

Re:DVD Ad (2)

OldSport (2677879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678237)

Haha, yeah, I was going to ask, did the pirated song appear before or after the three unskippable anti-piracy ads?

Re:DVD Ad (2)

tapspace (2368622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678617)

Well, that's the problem. A lot of terms are lobbed around which insight more emotion than understanding. Did they pirate it? Not really. They had permission to exhibit the song in a specific way and broke the terms of the license. Constantly using analogues to physical things ("piracy", "property", "theft") is just dumb. We need to realize that this stuff isn't property and this isn't theft. Should content creators be protected? Yes. Are they currently? IMO way more than is necessary.

Re:DVD Ad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40679009)

We need to realize that this stuff isn't property and this isn't theft

Wait, what? If it is created by someone, and that someone can say, "HEY, I MADE THAT." Then doesn't that really make it property? Even if it's a song, or a collection of electricity?

According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (3, Interesting)

kotku (249450) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678215)

So we don't need to discuss this anymore. Copyright infringement is "THEFT"

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr

Preventing intellectual property theft is a top priority of the FBI’s cyber program. We specifically focus on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers’ health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts. Key to our success is linking the considerable resources and efforts of the private sector with law enforcement partners on local, state, federal, and international levels.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (0)

Transkaren (1925482) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678343)

So we don't need to discuss this anymore. Copyright infringement is "THEFT"

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr

Preventing intellectual property theft is a top priority of the FBI’s cyber program. We specifically focus on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers’ health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts. Key to our success is linking the considerable resources and efforts of the private sector with law enforcement partners on local, state, federal, and international levels.

No, according to the FBI theft of trade secrets is theft. Trade Secrets are on a completely different (and pretty much reasonable) level than simple copyright infringement. In fact, infringement on movies & music isn't even listed there - counterfeit parts are again a legitimate concern. Not that I believe they won't go after music & movie infringers, but that claiming that they call it "theft" is incorrect.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (3, Informative)

kotku (249450) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678389)

RTFL before replying buddy. They clearly claim music and media as theft.

everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies and music and software.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678359)

When did the FBI get to decide that?

Under US law it is clearly not theft.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (4, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678369)

Don't get your definitions from a law enforcement agency. I mean, the none of the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers are in LEO. In fact, don't let government define anything; PATRIOT act, anyone?

Here's the difference between stealing music and infringing copyright.

Sealing music: you walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD. WalMart is out the value of the CD. If you're caught, it's a misdemeanor and a small fine.

Copyright Infringement: You BUY that CD form WalMart and put it on the Pirate Bay. Nobody has lost anything, and the label may actually gain sales from your "piracy". If caught, it will cost you thousands of dollars and maybe jail time.

Not the same at all. I wouldn't steal a car, but I'd accept a copy of a car someone GAVE me.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (2)

misnohmer (1636461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678759)

"nobody has lost anything"?!? Is your basic premise is that intellectual property has no value whatsoever? Something tells me if you were the musician whose paycheck was directly proportional to the number of CD's sold you may have a different opinion.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678819)

You own property, not the ability to profit. Should we outlaw automobiles so you can still sell buggy whips?

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678907)

That's the stupidest analogy I have read all day.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678883)

"nobody has lost anything"?!? Is your basic premise is that intellectual property has no value whatsoever? Something tells me if you were the musician whose paycheck was directly proportional to the number of CD's sold you may have a different opinion.

No, the poster is merely using the English language correctly. No tangible object, no "thing", has been lost. Music was copied without authorization from the copyright holder, but the copyright holder still has the same stuff they had before. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of using correct language instead of twisted propaganda like "piracy" and "theft" that describe acts other than those under discussion.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (1)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678939)

Perhaps he should not rely on a model which is contingent on the number of cd's sold, like for instance doing performances for the general public... you know "work".

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40679225)

And the people in charge of saying just how much this form of theft costs the world have been caught red handed suppressing studies they paid for because they proved the exact opposite! Just suppose that's true as a thought experiment. In that case, pirates shouldn't be prosecuted for doing harm to someone, they should be rewarded for the free advertising they are doing (which is the only effect that's ever been proven successfully so far).

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678791)

In the context of TFA, there is an effective theft in that there was a contractual agreement based on IP laws that the composer would get money for distribution of his work. The work was distributed and the composer was not given his due and was thus deprived of something of material value (money).

That's what it all comes down to when they're talking about copyright violations being theft, isn't it? Depriving someone of funds which they theoretically should have received.

In the case of poor college students, I'm actually totally with you. They wouldn't have bought the music anyway, and them having the music turns them into fans who might eventually buy the music or go to shows or introduce other people to the music who will in turn become paying customers.

But in the case of a corporation--especially one whose sole existence is based on profits from collecting payment for use of copyrighted material--not paying for their own use of copyrighted material, I'm quite happy to vilify that act with the oversimplified term, "theft".

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678373)

So we don't need to discuss this anymore. Copyright infringement is "THEFT"

Are you talking about people downloading music?

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678391)

The FBI doesn't make the laws, it executes them (the Executive Branch). Sadly, people on a power trip often forget to pack reality and intelligence.

Creative Commons pilot (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678235)

They refer to a Creative Commons pilot program [bumastemra.nl] on their website, but it's in Dutch, and the translation is a little hard to understand. Can someone describe what this is about a bit more clearly than Google Translate?

Re:Creative Commons pilot (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678399)

Previously, any artist that signed up with BUMA/STEMRA would not be allowed to distribute their own music using a creative commons license (well, they were, but BUMA/STEMRA would bill *the artist* for each downloaded song).

Now with this new program, that particular act of low-sea piracy of BUMA/STEMRA seems to have stopped.

File Suit Next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678243)

The MAFIAA would follow this up with a major lawsuit, so I would encourage this guy to do the same. Start an online donation drive for legal fees - I'd kick in $5-10 bucks.

Musicians only get paid once work is profitable (0, Troll)

DickBreath (207180) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678253)

Musicians only get paid when the music makes a profit. Since his music on an anti-piracy promo will never be "sold" and thus never make a profit, he will never get paid. Sucker -- for working with the music/movie industry.

Similarly writers and actors only get paid once a movie is profitable. (aka Never)

The most successful movies and records of all time strangely never seem to be profitable and thus royalties are not owed.

Re:Musicians only get paid once work is profitable (4, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678569)

I can't find a single thing you said that is factual. His music was sold with copies of Harry Potter DVDs, which I'm fairly certain were rather profitable.

Writers Guild of America members do not get paid exclusively based on profit, but rather based on the size of the budget of the production. See pages 1-4 of the document specifying their pay scale [wga.org] . They get a minimum pay for specific tasks for works with a budget under $5M USD, and a higher minimum pay if the budget is over $5M USD. They can negotiate a contract that additionally includes profit-sharing, of course, but they are guaranteed the minimum amounts, regardless of profitability of the work.

Similarly, actors who are in the Screen Actors Guild have a similar document with similar terms [sag.org] . Profit-sharing comes in addition to it, meaning that they should not face a situation where they go unpaid because the work was a flop.

And at this point, I'm too lazy to correct you for musicians, but it's the same deal there too. In fact, something like 90% of musicians lose money for the studios, yet they still get paid anyway. That's part of the cost of being a studio.

Now, that's not to say that all of those folks can't get screwed over by Hollywood accounting and other legalese, but that has to do with any pay that's in addition to the minimums specified in those documents. Their minimum pay is always guaranteed, and they always get paid.

Re:Musicians only get paid once work is profitable (2)

Wain13001 (1119071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678577)

This is not how composers get paid. They get royalties from performances (broadcast on TV and radio) that are gathered by ASCAP and BMI, and then when it comes to DVD and media they can (attempt to) negotiate receiving mechanical royalties (good luck). Either way, I at least get paid anytime the film I've scored is played on TV no matter how much money it made...even if it was a complete loss through hollywood accounting...and if I manage to get through the nightmare of trying to get my much deserved mechanicals I get a royalty for every disc regardless again of the studios net.

Re:Musicians only get paid once work is profitable (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678579)

Depends on their deal. The royalty is the most common form of payment, yes, but not the only one. They can also negociate a fixed fee - the no-risk option. They won't rake in the big bucks, but they won't make nothing either. And even if the music does make a profit, that doesn't mean they get paid - both movie industry and record labels have well-documented methods of playing accounting games, to the point where every movie makes a loss on paper and even successful albums rarely make enough royalties for the artists to pay off the loans the label provided to cover production costs.

Re:Musicians only get paid once work is profitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678709)

Similarly writers and actors only get paid once a movie is profitable. (aka Never)

Wait, what? Am I right in thinking you're saying actors never get paid?
Is Tom Cruise just getting along with the help of the Scientologists?

Re:Musicians only get paid once work is profitable (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678711)

Musicians only get paid when the music makes a profit. Since his music on an anti-piracy promo will never be "sold" and thus never make a profit, he will never get paid.

You totally missed even the summary: he made it for a one-time anti-piracy promo which was not being sold and for which he didn't expect to be paid BUT he found it on a DVD which *was* being sold.

Re:Musicians only get paid once work is profitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678825)

The most successful movies and records of all time strangely never seem to be profitable and thus royalties are not owed.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2010/12/23/paul-mccartney-continues-to-have-a-wonderful-financial-christmas-time/
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2011/03/hollywood-top-earners-201103

This doesn't surprise me at all. (5, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678323)

Its real simple to understand these asshats. They hold the following constellation of views:

1) if we have licensed it, it's ours.
2) if we comission it, it's ours.
3) if one of our signed artists makes it, it's ours.
--
4) if it's ours, we can do whatever we damned well want with it.
5) if somebody is violating their limited license for something that is ours, we will squash them.

The conflict between "You were given limited rights. You may not redistribute however you like!" And their internal rose-colored view of how copyright should work never crosses their mind. They operate under the blanket policy that anything they license, comission, or sponsor is their full, exclusive right. That's why they make stupid blunders like this, time and time again.

It's also why they get cranky like a baby with diaper rash when they can't get full, exclusive rights to properties. Their business model revolves around having exclusive power, and dolling out highly nonexclusive licenses.

To defeat them, we need to cut off their supply of exclusives. Nothing short of oxygen deprivation will kill them. Like ants though, they have quite a bit of bottled air, and will take decades to kill off.

Big media was a bad idea for everyone involved except government, middlemen, and lawyers.

For once I can agree with the "stealing" term... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678357)

...live by the sword, die by the sword, "thieves!"

They deserve to be tried for their theft in a sharia court and their hands removed for it. :P

How did it wind-up on a Harry Potter DVD? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678363)

One year later, Rietveldt purchased a Harry Potter DVD only to find that his piece was being used on DVDs around the world without his permission.

I can't access the TorrentFreak link from my office. How did it wind-up on a Harry Potter DVD? Did the anti-piracy group get their message as a special feature on the DVD somehow?

Re:How did it wind-up on a Harry Potter DVD? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678447)

One year later, Rietveldt purchased a Harry Potter DVD only to find that his piece was being used on DVDs around the world without his permission.

I can't access the TorrentFreak link from my office. How did it wind-up on a Harry Potter DVD? Did the anti-piracy group get their message as a special feature on the DVD somehow?

presumably yes. if that sounds far fetched then I suppose you haven't seen any legit(non blackmarket/torrent) dvd's or blurays ever.

No surprise (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678459)

Anyone surprised by this is truly clueless.

Re:No surprise (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678645)

Oh I'm not surprised. But I think the author of the music should sue them for oh...what's the going rate these days? $250k/infringement? Man that's going to be a lot of cases per DVD isn't it? Oh and I bet it's on Bluray, and digital distribution too.

Man, this guy is going to be rolling in so much money that that he could bankrupt them...wait just a tick. Everyone support this guy, quick!

Poetic Justice (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678485)

I'm sure it's a misunderstanding because these agencies are just so concerned about those poor starving artists.

1 gazzillion Euros (4, Funny)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678553)

That is what they should pay.

Take their own calculation and use that on how much he should get. So how many billion copies have been sold? Those were clearly missed sales for him. Then add the number of illegal downloads that they made possible by putting it on those DVDs and you get to a gazillion pretty quickly.

Dear Buma/Stemra (2)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678625)

Fuck You.

Every discussion on copying (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678733)

Should come with a short summary of the difference between Malum in Se and Mallum Prohibitum.

Re:Every discussion on copying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40678877)

Maybe you could start the trend instead of just saying that?

Re:Every discussion on copying (1)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 2 years ago | (#40679199)

That would be "Wrong in itself" versus "Wrong because it's against the law".

Ha, ha! (1)

misnohmer (1636461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40678783)

I hope they are ordered to pay maximum damages per Harry potter DVD sold!

Stealing their music (1)

ThePeices (635180) | more than 2 years ago | (#40679013)

So now that they have been caught stealing the music, did they return the music to the artist they stole it from?

No?

Because they used the music without the proper permission, the artist no longer had their music anymore...

Oh hang on, what I just said makes no sense at all.

Thats because COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT STEALING!!!

Why do people perpetuate this fucking insidious myth?

He didn't write that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40679017)

So what's the big deal? Obama says he didn't write that song himself, it took the whole government to enable him to do it, so it's not really his.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?