Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 44 45 46 47 48 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
I'm hoping there's an element of self depreciating irony in your sell hype, but with you Ive learned not to make such assumptions.
Always wise but, in this case, correct ;-)
-
Who wrote Happy Birthday? Who owns the copyright?
A significant chunk of the human race is breaching that copyright if this is true.
Has Campbell Smith ever sung Happy Birthday at a party? ;-)
Seriously - I only want an answer to the first two questions.
On the subject of Youtube, if I was a musician I would put all my video clips on it. I can think of 10 -15 artists I have checked out on Youtube and subsequently bought albums. I bet that happens worldwide.
The music industry should embrace it... both arms, stretched out wide.
-
-
A significant chunk of the human race is breaching that copyright if this is true.
I don't think you understand the conditions of copyright.
-
My usual incisive column on Mr Baysting's email is here.
that's not your best work mark.
-
Thanks Mark.
This is interesting:
there is one theory that because the "Happy Birthday to You" variation was not authored by the Hills, and it was published without notice of copyright under the 1909 U. S. copyright act, that the 1935 registration is invalid.
Many question the validity of the current copyright, as the melody of the song was most likely borrowed from other popular songs of the time, and the lyrics were improvised by a group of five and six-year-old children who never received any compensation."
The entry is worth reading:
Thousands of spectators sang happy birthday to Pope Benedict XVI at the White House on April 16, 2008, his 81st birthday. [14]
On June 27, 2008, hundreds of people in London's Hyde Park sang the song to Nelson Mandela on the occasion of his 90th birthday.[15]
Following his 200 m gold medal performance at the 2008 Summer Olympics, the crowd at Beijing National Stadium sereneded Usain Bolt with "Happy Birthday", as his birthday began at midnight that night.
-
A significant chunk of the human race is breaching that copyright if this is true.
I don't think you understand the conditions of copyright.
If you use it and make money from it, you must pay. All those restaurants etc that sing it for the kids at birthday parties are breaching copyright.
-
I hope that seems reasonable to you.
not really matthew.
you didn't frame your comment like that in the original post.Unfortunately some people seem to think that it's practical for ISPs to corroborate accusations
we've only had a small amount of information on how content owners intend to find infringers. from what we've heard they haven't got round to asking ISP's to corroborate anything, merely contact the alleged infringer and send em an email saying oi, stop it. my understanding is the content owner will provide the evidence.
They may well be working on other ways of identifying offenders and collecting evidence but so far we haven't been told about it so we're talking about imagined problems not real ones.
your post office analogy doesn't stand up in the way you intended it.The commercial service provider idea is interesting but as campbell said it is reasonable for people to keep tabs on what happens on thei own personal connection, and perhaps a push for lenience until people figure out how best to achieve that would be a good move.
From what campbell and Ant say lenience is part of their plan, if they're to be trusted and having met them both I don't see why you would think otherwise of them.
This then puts the onus on government to phase in sales restrictions on networks devices that can corroborate evidence and increase the scope as is practical.
a good plan. how backward are local isp's gear. I know inet's gear is quite capable of filtering bit torrent indiscriminately, which isn't exactly fair to those using the program for legitimate files.
Ant has said that many isp's he's talked to are supportive of moves to knock down illegal file sharing as it stresses their systems.
they'd much rather have you paying $49.95 a month to look at web pages and send emails.These big corps must have an evil grin on their faces to have a bunch or individuals work for them to reduce their work load though. bet they never thought they'd be the underdogs in anything and how quickly we've forgotten the shit job they've done to bring nz up to international standards of broadband.
-
All those restaurants etc that sing it for the kids at birthday parties are breaching copyright.
I think that qualifies as private function, not public performance or broadcast, and to back that up as far as I know no one has been hit for it. it's inclusion in movies they're mainly in it for.
if you sing it in a licensed music venue then you're covered by that venues music performance license. technically you're supposed to include it in your performance sheets and money is directed to the administrator of the songwriting copyright for the lyric part of it. its not even their tune though which is a cheek.
-
Copyright is not a straight forward issue.
-
They may well be working on other ways of identifying offenders and collecting evidence but so far we haven't been told about it so we're talking about imagined problems not real ones.
This is not unique to Aotearoa and it's not imaginary. We know from what already happens overseas, which is where the technical detail spelled out by Campbell Smith comes from. He neglected to mention what has happened so far if anything gets near a court..
-
If you use it and make money from it, you must pay. All those restaurants etc that sing it for the kids at birthday parties are breaching copyright.
Probably not, assuming they've paid for an APRA license, which they should if they're playing music to customers.
The "singing happy birthday in a park" thing arose from protests against a truly terrible Australian copyright bill that could in theory have treated such a rendition as a public performance, and applied a $6600 fine. As it turned out, 'Happy Birthday' isn't actually copyrighted in Australia.
-
He neglected to mention what has happened so far if anything gets near a court..
Which they generally don't, as the demands of the RIAA are so excessive, even defending the accusations become quite expensive. So most people settle out of court.
-
Exactly.
-
Copyright is not a straight forward issue.
yes, its mildly complex even for someone who's been dealing with it for over 20 years.
what doesn't help the issue is these sensationalist angles people keep throwing into the mix to spook people.
As far as I know
- no one ever got prosecuted for home taping,
- no one ever got prosecuted for format shifting
- I don't know of anyone who got slapped with a bill for singing happy birthday in a non profit environment,
- no ones ever got hit for watching a video on you tube
- or biffed off the internet for downloading a downloadable song on someones myspaceRIAA did put law suits against people for file sharing and the back lash to that didn't really help them at all.
presently they're all looking for some other way that will take the bite off it since the DRM war has been lost. -
no one ever got prosecuted for home taping
But they did penalised for it. A variety of nations instigated an, at times heavy, levy on blank cassettes, paid to the major labels and rarely willingly passed on to artists, on the largely bogus grounds that home taping was killing recorded music.
The bullshit is on a generational loop.
-
Canada currently has the descendant of that, with a levy on all blank CDs, which has been a point of contention for computer users who don't download music.
-
users who don't download music.
who use cds for non music data storage. downloading's got nothing to do with it.
the offense in that apart from some users being taxed for something you don't use the product for (all though hopefully moving to dvd discs change that although are movie companies next in line with their hand out?) is that the money stops somewhere away from its intended place, ie there's no method in place to channel the money fairly.Still, every cassette I ever bought was used for home taping right up until I used em for manufacturing, and then I got wholesale rates.
CDs I use for both, but if there's a levy in nz its small enough not to offend.
Whats the levy in canada, ie how much? -
Canada currently has the descendant of that, with a levy on all blank CDs, which has been a point of contention for computer users who don't download music.
Italy too, a dear friend made a point of railing against it every other time I saw him. Until I pointed out that he uses blank CDs and DVDs *exclusively* for the purpose that instigated the levy in the first place.
-
he uses blank CDs and DVDs *exclusively* for the purpose that instigated the levy in the first place.
that's never been a valid reason to lay off the righteous indignation :)
theoretically if those countries get pro format shifting laws in place they'll have less of a case to keep the levy though. -
CDs I use for both, but if there's a levy in nz its small enough not to offend.
There's no levy in New Zealand, as far as I'm aware.
Whats the levy in canada, ie how much?
-
re canada levy from marks link.
The private copying levy is distributed as per the Copyright Board's allocation as: 66% to eligible authors and publishers,18.9% to eligible performers and 15.1% to eligible record companies.
I take it the 66% goes to be divided between artists in the local equivalent of apra.
Not sure what performers have got to do with anything as its recorded music. Maybe its to take account of the massive amount of people holding up vintage walkmans at concerts (not)
interesting that eligible record companies are last in the cue though. -
performers=performers on the records
-
Still, every cassette I ever bought was used for home taping right up until I used em for manufacturing, and then I got wholesale rates.
and every copy taped was a sale lost, right????
From experience, the European labels have, in years gone by, usually pocketed 100% of the performance side of any tape / cd levy without mentioning it to artists unless pushed fairly hard.
-
and every copy taped was a sale lost, right????
to be honest, if I was trying to impress someone by giving them a copy of some music and I had the home taping option removed from me, my only other option would be to buy it, and give them that copy.
I was given tapes that I really enjoyed and never bought the original so the argument that a dubbed tape leads to a sale doesn't necessarily follow either.
Home taping was an sustainable loss and from a pr standpoint not one worth pursuing.
usually pocketed 100% of the performance side of any tape / cd levy
I don't doubt it, They could be forced to take a leaf out of the Canadian hand book, although this bit doesn't sit well (from marks link)
The Canadian Private Copying Collective has developed a methodology by which the proceeds are distributed to rights holders based on commercial radio airplay and commercial sales samples, ignoring radio/college airplay and independent record sales not logged by Soundscan. This methodology has been criticized as favouring major-label artists at the expense of the long-tail
CAF do your thing?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.