EU Article 13 - Copyright Everything

[Zavala 1384]

SIAP

I think the final vote is today.

http://www.alphr.com/politics/1009470/article-13-EU-what-is-it-copyright

Quote

The proposed changes have split opinions, with proponents of reform including many notable musicians and artists, such as Wyclef Jean, who made an appearance in Strasbourg today. Opponents of the legislation include websites and internet presences who claim the laws will mark the end of "meme" culture and user-generated content. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/eu-approves-controversial-internet-copyright-law-including-‘link-tax’-and-‘upload-filter’/ar-BBNdRrh
 

Quote

EU approves controversial internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

 

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/9kv5pa/eu-copyright-directive-vote-internet

Quote

The EU just voted to fundamentally change how the internet works

 

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

Greedy greedy greedy. Musicians should be paid for their live performance. The actual work. The model is old and outdated. They will not longer need to wait for their gold plated shark tanks. 

Roaylties need to be reigned in. Writing one shitty pop song should never have been a life long income stream. 

[hpslugga 4043]

9 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Greedy greedy greedy. Musicians should be paid for their live performance. The actual work. The model is old and outdated. They will not longer need to wait for their gold plated shark tanks. 

Roaylties need to be reigned in. Writing one shitty pop song should never have been a life long income stream. 

So just hand all of the money to the record company after a certain period?

[atomheartbevo 89409]

Hollywood is so jealous right now.  

[jimmyjazz 45546]

19 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Greedy greedy greedy. Musicians should be paid for their live performance. The actual work. The model is old and outdated. They will not longer need to wait for their gold plated shark tanks. 

Roaylties need to be reigned in. Writing one shitty pop song should never have been a life long income stream. 

Yeah, your perspective sucks ass.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

9 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

So just hand all of the money to the record company after a certain period?

They gone too. Artist sell directly to consumer through streaming or databases like amazon and iTunes. 

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, your perspective sucks ass.

Who wants to work?  10 3 min songs should always be worth millions of dollars

[jimmyjazz 45546]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Who wants to work?  10 3 min songs should always be worth millions of dollars

Well, if one can be dumb as a stump but run a 4.3 sec 40 yard dash and vertical jump 40 inches, and then get $30M guaranteed, then yeah, I guess that might be true.

The fact that the vast majority of people on this planet couldn't write a hit song if you spotted them "Satisfaction" seems to be lost on you.

[hpslugga 4043]

8 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

They gone too. Artist sell directly to consumer through streaming or databases like amazon and iTunes. 

And how is the music recorded?

jimmyjazz' analogy is spot on. Might seem easy to a critic, but give them a microphone and they sound like any other drunk-off-his-ass schmuck at a Japanese restaurant doing karaoke.

[HornOnTheBayou 8881]

18 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Who wants to work?  10 3 min songs should always be worth millions of dollars

I don't want to work. I want to bang on the drum all day.

Huh, now that I think about it, that would make a real catchy tune. I'm going to go write it and collect my royalty checks.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, if one can be dumb as a stump but run a 4.3 sec 40 yard dash and vertical jump 40 inches, and then get $30M guaranteed, then yeah, I guess that might be true.

The fact that the vast majority of people on this planet couldn't write a hit song if you spotted them "Satisfaction" seems to be lost on you.

Bad example, that dumb as a stump athlete gets paid on GAMEDAYS - after playing the game (if suspended - no pay), not for the video of his 40 yard dash.  When that athlete stops "working" or "playing" they stop getting paid.  Their grand kids aren't getting royalties 50 years from now because he ran a 4.3 on one day.

Just like Crosby Stills and Nash can make 10 million on a nation wide concert tour.  They get paid each night the preform.

[David Dennison 18652]

2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Bad example, that dumb as a stump athlete gets paid on GAMEDAYS - after playing the game (if suspended - no pay), not for the video of his 40 yard dash.  When that athlete stops "working" or "playing" they stop getting paid.  Their grand kids aren't getting royalties 50 years from now because he ran a 4.3 on one day.

Just like Crosby Stills and Nash can make 10 million on a nation wide concert tour.  They get paid each night the preform.

You should probably read up on Bobby Bonilla.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

The more the Artist music is shared and spread by any means makes them more valuable when they work. High ticket prices, endorsements and more opportunities for work (more exposure). They can sell more music going forward as well. 

Play to Pay

[TwiceHorn 31263]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

Bad example, that dumb as a stump athlete gets paid on GAMEDAYS - after playing the game (if suspended - no pay), not for the video of his 40 yard dash.  When that athlete stops "working" or "playing" they stop getting paid.  Their grand kids aren't getting royalties 50 years from now because he ran a 4.3 on one day.

Just like Crosby Stills and Nash can make 10 million on a nation wide concert tour.  They get paid each night the preform.

Ok forget musicians.

Writers don't do live performances.  Is it ok to rip off writers then?

There's a reason you pay 10+ bucks per copy of a book vs. a buck or so for a song.

And then there are films.

The entertainment industry really doesn't ask a lot from us financially, but we have no qualms ripping the shit out of them.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

Just now, David Dennison said:

You should probably read up on Bobby Bonilla.

Has he signed a post career contact, or is he still being paid on a contract signed while still playing?

[Biff Tannen 45491]

ChickenSandwich?

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Ok forget musicians.

Writers don't do live performances.  Is it ok to rip off writers then?

There's a reason you pay 10+ bucks per copy of a book vs. a buck or so for a song.

And then there are films.

The entertainment industry really doesn't ask a lot from us financially, but we have no qualms ripping the shit out of them.

Yes they should. Sell a book, an album of physical or digital media and get paid. No one else should be able to make money by selling your work. 

But trying to charge a restaurant because a song comes on the radio is asinine. 

[TwiceHorn 31263]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Yes they should. Sell a book, an album of physical or digital media and get paid. No one else should be able to make money by selling your work. 

But trying to charge a restaurant because a song comes on the radio is asinine. 

But the last sentence is not what we're talking about.

Even if it were, why is it so important for the restaurant to have music?  Can't they just turn off the fucking radio?

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

Has he signed a post career contact, or is he still being paid on a contract signed while still playing?

The latter. 

The Mets pay him $1.19 million every July 1 through 2035.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

But the last sentence is not what we're talking about.

Even if it were, why is it so important for the restaurant to have music?  Can't they just turn off the fucking radio?

I really don't want to wade into this dumb ass discussion, but exactly.  Why do restaurants play music?  Just for the fuck of it?  No, they are using someone else's work to supplement their business and keep their customers happy.  Why should they get it for free? 

It's ok, it's not like ChickenSandwich is going to overturn decades of statutory rates and performance licensing laws.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

9 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Bad example, that dumb as a stump athlete gets paid on GAMEDAYS

For the guaranteed portion of his contract?

Pick another example:  Jerry Seinfeld makes a shit ton off "Seinfeld" residuals.  He literally did EXACTLY the same thing as a songwriter/musician.  He makes money every time a rerun airs.

[Celery Man 20882]

all the stuff that goes into creating a hit song is the hard part, performing is the easy part.  a recording is a different thing than a song, also.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ok forget musicians.

Writers don't do live performances.  Is it ok to rip off writers then?

There's a reason you pay 10+ bucks per copy of a book vs. a buck or so for a song.

And then there are films.

The entertainment industry really doesn't ask a lot from us financially, but we have no qualms ripping the shit out of them.

While films are more likely to be illegally downloaded, they already have better protection when it comes to streaming. 

If you uploaded Infinity War to youtube, it would be taken down quickly. If you uploaded a powerpoint with a Justin Bieber song playing over it, it would stay up indefinitely. 

Youtube pays per stream for official videos. Spotify and others pay per play. I do think this law is overkill, but it isnt so bad that it would kill creativity as its opponents claim. You still have fair use for parody and memes, and if you instead want to profit from memes, then I dont see why copyright holders shouldnt get a cut. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But the last sentence is not what we're talking about.

Even if it were, why is it so important for the restaurant to have music?  Can't they just turn off the fucking radio?

That would be a boring restaurant.  Still, they usually have pandora, spotify, or apple going which all pay per play already.  The days of a waiter plugging in an ipod and playing ripped mp3s are pretty much past.

[TwiceHorn 31263]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

That would be a boring restaurant.  Still, they usually have pandora, spotify, or apple going which all pay per play already.  The days of a waiter plugging in an ipod and playing ripped mp3s are pretty much past.

But, does the streaming service royalty include the public performance right?  I don't believe it does as the streaming royalty is the same theoretical license that the radio stations pay (I know it isn't the same amount, but it is for the same right).

[Huckleberry 32694]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

While films are more likely to be illegally downloaded, they already have better protection when it comes to streaming. 

If you uploaded Infinity War to youtube, it would be taken down quickly. If you uploaded a powerpoint with a Justin Bieber song playing over it, it would stay up indefinitely. 

Youtube pays per stream for official videos. Spotify and others pay per play. I do think this law is overkill, but it isnt so bad that it would kill creativity as its opponents claim. You still have fair use for parody and memes, and if you instead want to profit from memes, then I dont see why copyright holders shouldnt get a cut. 

This is not true. I made a video to be played at my wife's grandmother's funeral and it was taken down by YouTube because of a claim on a song used in the video.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Yep, there is now evidence that companies like Sony are claiming copyright over pieces CLEARLY in the public domain . . . and not on the recordings, on the compositions themselves.  Bach comes to mind.  It's fraudulent and complete bullshit, but YouTube is bending over to their complaints rather than fight back.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, does the streaming service royalty include the public performance right?  I don't believe it does as the streaming royalty is the same theoretical license that the radio stations pay (I know it isn't the same amount, but it is for the same right).

It doesn't unless something changed recently.  Restaurants still have to pay for their PRO licenses (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) to cover the public performance.

[TwiceHorn 31263]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yep, there is now evidence that companies like Sony are claiming copyright over pieces CLEARLY in the public domain . . . and not on the recordings, on the compositions themselves.  Bach comes to mind.  It's fraudulent and complete bullshit, but YouTube is bending over to their complaints rather than fight back.

What remains unclear to me is whether those claims are intentionally false or within the error of the program that hunts for copyright material.

[TwiceHorn 31263]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

It doesn't unless something changed recently.  Restaurants still have to pay for their PRO licenses (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) to cover the public performance.

That's what I thought.  Thanks.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

What remains unclear to me is whether those claims are intentionally false or within the error of the program that hunts for copyright material.

I'll give you one guess.

[Monster 219]

 

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is not true. I made a video to be played at my wife's grandmother's funeral and it was taken down by YouTube because of a claim on a song used in the video.

This is correct.  If you put more than a few seconds of ANY recognizable song on your youtube video, you will see a copyright claim.   The claimant can remove your song immediately, or require that your video show ads (for which the copyright holder gets 100% of the proceeds), or simply reserve the right to pull it, or place ads later.

If your video has music that shazam can recognize, I promise you, it will be hit with a copyright claim.  It's automated by an algorithm.  No one has to watch/find your video.  

Edited September 12, 2018 by Monster

[TwiceHorn 31263]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'll give you one guess.

But, for example, if Sony owns a copyright on Berlin Philharmonic's 2018 performance of Handel's Air, what good does it do them to take down some other non-copyright version of it?

Most modern-ish music isn't going to have a public domain version.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

14 minutes ago, Monster said:

 

This is correct.  If you put more than a few seconds of ANY recognizable song on your youtube video, you will see a copyright claim.   The claimant can remove your song immediately, or require that your video show ads (for which the copyright holder gets 100% of the proceeds), or simply reserve the right to pull it, or place ads later.

If your video has music that shazam can recognize, I promise you, it will be hit with a copyright claim.  It's automated by an algorithm.  No one has to watch/find your video.  

Okay then Paul McCartney has nothing to bitch about in that case.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

The copyright duration is going to cover all "modern-ish" music.  What is it, 70 years past death or some such?

I don't know what "good" it does for YouTube to take down a recording of me doing a ham-handed version of "Moonlight Sonata", but I guarantee you that the sniffing algorithms have no concern with finding whether or not it's a copyrighted recording.  They're searching for patterns and nobody (but the performer) likely cares that they get caught in the morass.

It's a huge problem.  Shazzam was one thing -- I believe it searched for exact fingerprints.  Now the technology has evolved to search for rough patterns, etc.  The fact that the results don't discern between known copyrighted recordings or other personal performances doesn't matter to the companies involved.  Ironically, by MERELY fixing the performance then that performance is copyrighted!  Nobody cares (again, except the performers in question, if they get snagged).

[Zavala 1384]

47 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

ChickenSandwich?

This is the perfect example of what is being discussed in the articles.

Potential for memes such as this to be censored due to copyright laws. You didn't create Seinfeld, you don't own that image, they can fine Surleyhorns potentially for allowing that content to be accessible to the EU. 

It has more to do with potential mass-censorship and less to do with where this thread has gone for the most part.

[Monster 219]

I believe your family can renew your copyright claim after the 70 years.  Personally, I think, after an artist dies, his/her work should immediately enter public domain. 

I completely agree that record companies shouldn't get to keep collecting after an artist dies.  Their greed will stop an artist's music from being shared.  Which is a disservice to the artist AND listener. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Monster

[Biff Tannen 45491]

6 minutes ago, Zavala said:

This is the perfect example of what is being discussed in the articles.

Potential for memes such as this to be censored due to copyright laws. You didn't create Seinfeld, you don't own that image, they can fine Surleyhorns potentially for allowing that content to be accessible to the EU. 

It has more to do with potential mass-censorship and less to do with where this thread has gone for the most part.

 

 

 

 

 

fuck I did it again

[Monster 219]

13 minutes ago, Zavala said:

This is the perfect example of what is being discussed in the articles.

Potential for memes such as this to be censored due to copyright laws. You didn't create Seinfeld, you don't own that image, they can fine Surleyhorns potentially for allowing that content to be accessible to the EU. 

It has more to do with potential mass-censorship and less to do with where this thread has gone for the most part.

Does the technology exist to police that?  They'd need a database with every movie and tv show and photograph...then search the entire internet for every still frame of every movie and tv show...every day.

edit: i see the 'upload filter' now.    still think it'll be hard to create that database.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Monster

[jimmyjazz 45546]

12 minutes ago, Monster said:

I believe your family can renew your copyright claim after the 70 years. 

No, I don't think so.  The original duration was 28 years with an optional 28 year extension.  After that, the work entered the public domain.

Disney successfully lobbied Congress to extend to a term of 75 years, and then another 20 years.

Anything copyrighted in or after 1978 is now 70 years past death.  There are 95 and 120 year variants (past creation) for various specific cases, like work created under a pseudonym.

I no doubt have some of this wrong.  I'm not an attorney but as an engineer and songwriter have done a fair amount of dabbling in IP law, and I usually get some details wrong.  It's very arcane stuff.  However, I can find no indication that the death+70 term can be extended.

[Rimbo 25773]

I saw some sense in the GDPR. They took consumer rights seriously, and the "Directive's" problems, and made something that is, by and large, better.

This, on the other hand, is hilariously awful and will end in nothing but disaster.

[Zavala 1384]

21 minutes ago, Monster said:

Does the technology exist to police that?  They'd need a database with every movie and tv show and photograph...then search the entire internet for every still frame of every movie and tv show...every day.

edit: i see the 'upload filter' now.    still think it'll be hard to create that database.

 

 

Thats the thing. They force an automated system of censorship somehow, the site will error on the side of caution and censor anything remotely close to getting them a fine. Why risk it? 

Things that used to be under fair use will be taken down. More broadly, anything that receives a complaint (even automated) will have to be taken down.

We will see if theres any balls behind this kind of sweeping legislation when the Euro version of snow cone guy owns Surly.

[bernorange 8348]

You must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with....

a herring!

 

[chainsaw 9837]

15 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

No, I don't think so.  The original duration was 28 years with an optional 28 year extension.  After that, the work entered the public domain.

Disney successfully lobbied Congress to extend to a term of 75 years, and then another 20 years.

Anything copyrighted in or after 1978 is now 70 years past death.  There are 95 and 120 year variants (past creation) for various specific cases, like work created under a pseudonym.

I no doubt have some of this wrong.  I'm not an attorney but as an engineer and songwriter have done a fair amount of dabbling in IP law, and I usually get some details wrong.  It's very arcane stuff.  However, I can find no indication that the death+70 term can be extended.

The Mouse disagrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31263]

16 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

The copyright duration is going to cover all "modern-ish" music.  What is it, 70 years past death or some such?

I don't know what "good" it does for YouTube to take down a recording of me doing a ham-handed version of "Moonlight Sonata", but I guarantee you that the sniffing algorithms have no concern with finding whether or not it's a copyrighted recording.  They're searching for patterns and nobody (but the performer) likely cares that they get caught in the morass.

It's a huge problem.  Shazzam was one thing -- I believe it searched for exact fingerprints.  Now the technology has evolved to search for rough patterns, etc.  The fact that the results don't discern between known copyrighted recordings or other personal performances doesn't matter to the companies involved.  Ironically, by MERELY fixing the performance then that performance is copyrighted!  Nobody cares (again, except the performers in question, if they get snagged).

Maybe I misunderstood your "I'll give you one guess."  What you describe above is what I meant by error  of the algorithm, as opposed to intentionally deciding to  "fuck Barney and his shitty covers."  Of course the net result is to fuck Barney and his covers and at some point I suppose that becomes Sony Music or whomever's intention after they've done it a few thousand times.  But I'm not sure they set out to fuck Barney.

Of course, googletube's obeisance to the copyright claimaints is a deliberate strategy to keep money in their pockets, but is a different question from the one I asked.  And I think it is actually incumbent on googletube to do a better job responding to legitimate complaints from non-infringing creators.

[TwiceHorn 31263]

16 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

No, I don't think so.  The original duration was 28 years with an optional 28 year extension.  After that, the work entered the public domain.

Disney successfully lobbied Congress to extend to a term of 75 years, and then another 20 years.

Anything copyrighted in or after 1978 is now 70 years past death.  There are 95 and 120 year variants (past creation) for various specific cases, like work created under a pseudonym.

I no doubt have some of this wrong.  I'm not an attorney but as an engineer and songwriter have done a fair amount of dabbling in IP law, and I usually get some details wrong.  It's very arcane stuff.  However, I can find no indication that the death+70 term can be extended.

The duration under the 1909 Act was 28 + 28.  The duration under the 1976 Act started as life of the author plus 40 years (or 75 for anonymous works and works made for hire).  It has gone up from there thanks to the Parliament of Whores.  There were numerous Copyright Acts prior to the 1909 Act, all with different terms.

The Berne Convention, which establishes global copyright norms, sets the minimum acceptable term at life of the author plus 50 years.

[EMAWesome 101]

Jimmyjazz and me hardly ever agree on anything more debatable than what shape the planet is and neither one of us like this legislation.  That seems to proof to me that it is an epically bad piece of legislation.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The duration under the 1909 Act was 28 + 28.  The duration under the 1976 Act started as life of the author plus 40 years (or 75 for anonymous works and works made for hire).  It has gone up from there thanks to the Parliament of Whores.  There were numerous Copyright Acts prior to the 1909 Act, all with different terms.

The Berne Convention, which establishes global copyright norms, sets the minimum acceptable term at life of the author plus 50 years.

So Mickey is, for sure, protected by trademark anyway. What are the real ramifications of Steamboat Willie losing its copyright?  Others still can't use Mickey as a character in new content. Can they sell copies of Steamboat Willie?

 

[TwiceHorn 31263]

Also probably worth noting that the term of copyright runs from creation of the work, not publication or any formal act of registration or "copyrighting."

[TwiceHorn 31263]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

So Mickey is, for sure, protected by trademark anyway. What are the real ramifications of Steamboat Willie losing its copyright?  Others still can't use Mickey as a character in new content. Can they sell copies of Steamboat Willie?

 

I believe the latter for sure.  But, the trademark issues (I am sure Steamboat Willie is trademarked too) are going to make it a pain in the ass.