Artist Not Allowed To Stream His Own Music 423
the_arrow writes "Scottish artist Edwyn Collins wanted to stream one of his own songs on MySpace, but it seems that copyright misunderstandings make him unable to do so. According to the article, 'Management for the former Orange Juice frontman have been unable to convince the website that they own the rights to A Girl Like You, despite the fact that they, er, do.' Collins said, 'I found a nice lawyer guy at Warners, very apologetic, promised to get it sorted, but all these months later it isn't.' His wife added, 'MySpace are not equipped to deal with the notion that anyone other than a major [label] can claim a copyright.'"
Think (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah.
Re:Think (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Think (Score:4, Informative)
So true, so true.
That, and the competence of the developers there has to be some of the worst on the web. Why should the competence of any of their other divisions be any better?
This will get fixed (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry, folks. "Tom" will straighten this out immediately.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true. But what I find a bit curious about this case is that rather than doing something about the situation - like finding another hosting service or hosting the material himself (well, Hello! Maybe that's too obvious), the guy seems to prefer spending months whining about MySpace's policies.
Seems to me that if you don't like MySpace, you can always just dump it, and tell everybody why.
Re:Think (Score:5, Informative)
Considering that MySpace purports to be a musician's site (or used to), and it seems to be the leader in it's niche, perhaps he thinks that it would benefit others if they could be convinced to remove their head from their ass.
Re:iFail (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Facebook started out as a way for high school and college friends to find each other easily. I remember way back I think you even needed a school email to sign up for Facebook.
I believe Facebook was originally only for college students. It was a bit of a big deal when they started adding high schools as well (that was before it opened to the general public, of course). Originally, yes, you did need a .edu email address from a college that Facebook had added to their system. I even still have my email/password saved in Firefox from when you still accessed http://schoolname.facebook.com/ [facebook.com]
Re:iFail (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is called marketing. It is how an artist becomes rich and famous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to me that if you don't like MySpace, you can always just dump it, and tell everybody why.
MySpace is huge. It's not like if he just set up his own webserver it'd be a seamless transition for him.
Re:Think (Score:5, Insightful)
whining about MySpace's policies
MySpace is breaking the law, or at least acting as an accessory to Warner's fraudulent claim of copyright. They are also failing to provide a service which they claim to provide. It's not "whining" to bring this to public attention.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you go over your bandwidth limit with only 5 users, you might want to rethink your content.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wasn't it the major labels that implored us to think of the artists?
Yeah.
Only if there is money in it for them.
Seriously though, someone please tell this guy that myspace is done.
Re:Think (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, if MySpace decides to remove content every time a party comes and claim copyright to the content, it's a MySpace problem, nothing more.
We all know the Majors care about their artists, not THE artists, and only because it makes money. They don't give a rat's *ss about art, music or any concept like this. They care about their wallet, art and artists be damned.
Re:Think (Score:5, Insightful)
P.S.
You say myspace is the problem, but do you think this artist would get different results on other sites like youtube or googlevideo? Youtube's pulled-down every song owned by WB per their request, and that would include this song "A Girl Like You". If Scottish artist Edwyn Collins tried to post his song on youtube, that too would get yanked. The problem is not the dot-com site but the DMCA law which requires the dot-com to take action, or else be fined.
Re:Think (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, one would think the DMCA gave the site owner the right to get proof thet the plaintiff is the actual copyright holder before doing anything. I don't think the DMCA is the problem here.
That said, you get a point in that any other website would do the same. And it's a problem between these sites and the contents publishers.
I remember a story in europe where a magazine did get free blog hosting from ~40 providers. They published a novel by Victor Hugo - ie: In the public domain for centuries. There was a note at the bottom of the page stating this.
Then they contacted formally all of the hosting companies demanding that the BLOG be shut off because it infringed their copyright. The results: 1 hosting company did its job, read the copyright notice, double checked the fact and sent an email back saying it was bullsh*t. 7 did ask for more proof, the rest did just shut the blog down, no questions asked.
Customer service is a thing of the past....
Re:Think (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, one would think the DMCA gave the site owner the right to get proof thet the plaintiff is the actual copyright holder before doing anything. I don't think the DMCA is the problem here.
One would "think"?
The DMCA REQUIRES the site to take down the offending content when they get the takedown notice. IF the person who put it on the site has a legal right to do so, they have to then submit a counter-claim, at which point the site CAN (but does not HAVE to) put it back up. However, once a counter-claim is filed any repeat takedown notices do not have to be acted upon and it's up to the two parties who filed notice to resolve it in court.
Failure to immediately take down the content makes the site liable, failure to re-instate it when they get a counter-claim does NOT make them liable.
So YES, the DMCA IS EXACTLY the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is not the dot-com site but the DMCA law which requires the dot-com to take action, or else be fined.
If WB is issuing DMCA notices, the artist just has to issue a counter notice. If WB fails to file suit in 14 days, the service provider must restore access to the copyrighted material.
Note that the ISP doesn't know or care who actually owns the copyright. That's for the courts to decide.
Re:Think (Score:5, Insightful)
The copyright owner's rights are being abridged by a fraudulent copyright claim from WB. Like if I showed up at your house, said I owned the place, and everyone simply agreed with me and kicked you out of your home. Please tell me you are going for some kind of rhetorical approach to a larger argument, and that you are not actually confused on the issue of whose rights are being abridged how.
Re:Think (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, I handle the abuse desk at a large hosting company and this is how it should have gone:
1. WB sends DMCA complaint
2. MySpace takes down content
3. Artist goes WTF and sends in a DMCA counter notice
4. MySpace restores the content.
(Not MySpace's problem anymore) ...
X. WB takes Artist to court
Required by Law (Score:4, Informative)
The Majors are required by law to care only about shareholder profits. Any publicly traded corporation can be sued if they put anything else but the bottom line first. They have a fiduciary responsibility to make money for their shareholders. If they use shareholder money to promote art, make music, and support artists without making money for said shareholders, they are breaching that fiduciary responsibility.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That should be easily solvable by putting appropriate language in the charter before incorporating and issuing common shares.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not much in the way of joint stock limited liability corporations before the the East India Company, was there? Maybe a few Dutch corporations. But I'd say, back to the early days of the US, when corporations like the EIC were seen as despotic enemies, and all corporations were limited to only perform the business for which they were chartered, could not own stock in other corporations, were limited in duration, were limited in geographic scope of business, and had no human rights as a legal person.
Corporations provide abrogation of responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I'm dense here, but how does what you said relate to what I said? Having chairs and desks are necessary to make money. Paying artists, and otherwise acting in a moral fashion is obviously not. I never said that corporations have to make the most money they can, this week, at the expense of long term profitability.
But corporations have been sued for not taking advantage when they could. Corporations are a tool for abrogation of responsibility. They let otherwise moral individuals use proxies to engage
Re:Required by Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate apologists consider justice to be something like groceries, i.e. something you send someone out to purchase when you need it.
Re:Required by Law (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't break the law to make money, yet. But if you, say, ship your manufacturing off to a country that where there are no environmental regulations, then you are doing right by your shareholders. If many companies start doing this, and seeing a profit, then shareholders can successfully sue companies that don't, or replace the boards.
Many people who would never think to throw trash in their neighbor's yard will, essentially, hire someone to throw trash in their neighbor's yard, and they will sleep like babies at night, believing they are good people.
Re:Think (Score:5, Informative)
No, the flaw here is you didn't reading the article before posting.
Re:Think (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Think (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. You can't even read the quote?
Neither can you, apparently.
The artist holds rights to his own works. A major label has laid claim to his works, saying they hold the rights to it. After getting hold of an actual lawyer with said major label, the artist is told "Sorry" and that it will be sorted, but after months it still isn't.
In trying to publish works that the artist owns the rights to, he is told he can't, nor can he apparently rectify the situation with the label causing the problems. He effectively has no rights to his own works at this point.
~jaraxle
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know why I'm bothering to reply, particularly so late in the discussion, but here goes...
Of course he still actually retains the rights, and of course the rights are being infringed.
However, what it boils down to is what fucking good is having the rights to your own works if a big corporation is blocking your ability to distribute said works? At that point, it's like you don't have the rights to your works at all (hence why I said He effectively has no rights).
~jaraxle
Re:Think (Score:5, Informative)
Erm, while it is usually the case that the artist(s) will sell the rights to the label to get a record deal, if you had read the summary even, you would have seen that Mr. Collins does in fact own the rights, and the label does not. Warner Music is illegitimately claiming copyright, and MySpace is taking their word over the actual owner's.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>The real question is why WB doesn't owe him several billion dollars for piracy.
They haven't distributed his work.
Yes they have. Allow me to quote because you're obviously too busy to RTFA (but not too busy to render an opinion, obviously):
While Collins has worked to make A Girl Like You freely available to his fans, [his wife/manager] alleges that the same track is sold illegally "all over the internet". "Not by Edwyn, [but] by all sorts of respectable major labels whose licence to sell it ran out years ago and who do not account to him."
Re:Think (Score:5, Funny)
If it were up to the RIAA, artists wouldn't be allowed to stream their own urine.
Re:Think (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>If it were up to the RIAA, artists wouldn't be allowed to stream their own urine.
Tyrants need to be shot before freedom can be restored.
Not always a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not always a problem (Score:5, Informative)
You must not have RTFA;
Once again this shows the REAL reason the majors don't want P2P, even though it has been shown to increase sales -- it also increases indies' sales. Opposition to P2P is part of the majors' war against the indies.
Does Britain have a law that would allow him to sue Warner? I would think they must.
Re:Not always a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That implies that "the little guy" is capable of winning against "the big guy". Which as we all well know is false. Warner would keep it in the courts until either an out-of-court settlement, or until "the little guy" is bankrupt.
Re:Not always a problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, this is what is wrong with a free market system of distributing justice. Those with money can buy it, those without can not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're both ways for musicians to get their music in front of prospective fans. Archive.org is the same; I have friends with music posted there.
The RIAA labels have radio, so they'd like for MySpace, archive.org and P2P to all go away, because those are Indie Radio. It's about killing their competetion.
Re:Not always a problem (Score:4, Informative)
MySpace didn't just assume that someone else owned the copyright. In this case, it seems Warner Music Group was trying to claim they owned it, when they didn't. Perhaps at some point, Warner sold his CDs, while he retained copyright, or something.
Re:Not always a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, unlike illegal copying and sharing, actually is copyright theft.
Warner Music Group claims copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
So this isn't a story about MySpace. They have been notified of a copyright conflict, so they don't allow distribution of the song. The real story is that labels claim copyrights they don't have, for commercial gain, and are not paying $150000 per song.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Ruttles [wikipedia.org] had it right - "All You Need Is Cash".
Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
"So this isn't a story about MySpace."
It is about MySpace. Sure the label started the problem by claiming a copyright on a song it did not hold. However, it is now a MySpace problem because the site apparently has no mechanism or system to fix the problem the label created.
Now that the label has admitted it has no copyright claim, it's MySpace's job to fix it and allow the song to be streamed. The label certainly cannot fix that problem. The fact that MySpace has not done so in three months makes it pretty clear that this story is about MySpace.
Re: (Score:2)
Collins said, 'I found a nice lawyer guy at Warners, very apologetic, promised to get it sorted, but all these months later it isn't.'
It appears that MySpace wasn't even contacted...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
unless the label admitted it in private correspondence with the author, but "neglected" to inform MySpace.
We don't know if the case is stalled due to MySpace ignoring Warner's disclaimer, or whether Warner failed to send such disclaimer despite claiming to do so.
Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Or obligation.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Slander of title, perhaps.
Fraud implies intent.. I think this is just a case of horrendous negligence.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
That should be amended to: "Tend to assume incompetence and not malice, unless it involves money."
Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
And the corollary is:
"Sufficiently advanced forms of incompetence are indistinguishable from malice."
Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (Score:5, Funny)
Anonymous Coward,
The phrase "So this isn't a story about MySpace." is a copyright held by the MySpace corporation. We urge you to cease and desist using said phrase for the next 70 years. If you fail to comply with our...request...we will be forced to take legal action. And possibly destroy your feeble world with our battle station.
Best Wishes,
MySpace
Subisidiary of MyGalaxy
Antares, Antares 20010
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Warner Music Group claims copyright (Score:4, Informative)
Wait, I'm confused - (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wait, I'm confused - (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about how seriously you take your doucheness.
Say if you're a moderate douche you've moved on to something like Facebook or Twitter, but if you're a hardcore oldschool douche accept no substitute to MySpace.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they hard to find because they aren't on mySpace then?
MySpace (Score:2)
People are actually still using MySpace???? I don't mean to troll, but seriously, people are still using MySpace? I assume it's mostly for music artists? Surely there's a better way to get your music out?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there are other ways and better ways. However, MySpace is free. Why not take advantage of all free options for advertisement?
Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Find someone who understands what you're about, and use their service instead. If your business depends entirely on you having a presence on MySpace, you're doing something wrong. Especially now that this may (has?) cost you attorney's fees to sort it out.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Funny)
"Find someone who understands what you're about, and use their service instead."
Probably Google since they know more about you than any other web entity.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
That's really a pissy attitude. IANAM, but my Pa was. He could make music with anything, if he could pull a string tight across it. He and his friends actually recorded some decent music, over the years. They all had haircuts and jobs - they all raised families - they were all respectable people.
None of them ever expected to "make money" - they played music together because they loved music, they loved performing for people, and they just loved being together. They did sell a little music - a dozen tapes at a nursing home, a couple dozen at a church, another dozen at a corner store somewhere. Enough to pay for gasoline sometimes, to offset costs.
Something like Myspace would have been cool, back in the '60's up through the early '80's. They might have sold a little more music, and they certainly would have been better known outside their home counties. You may have even heard of them, if there had been a means to distribute their music for free!
Indies. Those are the REAL musicians. The labels? They know how to pry money out of fool's pockets, but they don't know music.
Time for an indie-myspace (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it started out as a good thing, and even promised to help people track bands and discover new music.
But it's a mess now, and it's owned by the same company that runs FoxNews, so don't expect it to get any better.
Time for a young, fresh upstart to pull something better together.
Or are there already better alternatives?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google Wave?
Anyone keeping track of this? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is yet another example of how present-day copyright rules and legislation has harmed the general condition of the market and made to favor a select few who have even more control over the market.
When law does not serve and/or protect the interests of all evenly and equally, there is something wrong with the law.
When making a case for having the law changed or removed, it is useful to create a list of examples of how exactly others are unfairly harmed by it.
Registered? (Score:4, Informative)
In the US this would be a non-issue; here one can register a copyright with the Library of Congress for a very small fee, and your certificate is proof you hold copyright.
Is there anything like that in Britain? TFA doesn't say if the song's copyright is registered, or even if it can be in Britain.
How would that work (Score:2)
I'm not trolling. How would you do it? The score? How would a bureaucrat, exactly, identify that a performance is indeed the same as the score - without expensive lawyers getting involved? The title? Easily changed. The composer? Need to go to law to force $evil_corporation to admit they don't have title.
I suspect this is more about Myspace=US corporation, Warners=US corporation, where is Scotland?
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_sheet [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The performance is not the same as the music, in copyright law.
http://www.ehow.com/video_2384677_register-copyright-music.html [ehow.com]
Registering a musical work with a lead sheet (Score:2)
How, exactly, does one register copyright at the Library of Congress on a piece of music? [...] How would you do it? The score?
Yes. A common way to register a musical work (as opposed to a recording of that work) is to submit a lead sheet or other score.
How would a bureaucrat, exactly, identify that a performance is indeed the same as the score
One who registers a copyright in a derivative work, such as a recording of a musical work, has a duty to disclose the underlying works on the form. In the case of fraudulent registration, you probably will need attorneys and expert witnesses.
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright office actually is a british invention (where every work of art had to be registered before it was allowed to be printed).
Re:Registered? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, in the US you do not have to register it to own the copyright. Placing a copyright notice on the work is sufficient.
You don't even need the notice; every bloody thing you write is copyrighted unless explicitly released into the public domain. That's one of the many screwed-up things about US copyright law; you can have copyrighted material which gives you no indication as to who owns the copyright, let alone how to contact them. If you want to sue for damages, though, then registration will get you a better payoff; and registration serves as proof of ownership, in case there is a dispute over who actually wrote a particular song.
Corporations have more rights than individuals (Score:5, Insightful)
This is yet another example of Corporations having more freedoms and rights, than people do. People can vote, but corporations can lobby. People go to jail when they break the law, corporations maybe pay a fine at most -- some in fact, seem to get money from the government for breaking the law.
I urge everyone in the United Corp.. uh States of America, to incorporate themselves so that they finally have rights.
Remember that faxed letterhead carries more weight than actual legal precidence....
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. People can vote, but corporations can lobby.
People can lobby, too.
People go to jail when they break the law, corporations maybe pay a fine at most -- some in fact, seem to get money from the government for breaking the law.
I don't really see how you can jail an abstract legal entity like a corporation. They certainly do jail corporate officers for actions taken on behalf of their corporation.
Sue Warner Brothers. (Score:4, Interesting)
If people had been able to stream this over the internet, he could easily have lined up dozens of concerts paying tens of thousands of dollars each, all because Warner Brothers fradulently claimed copyright to his work.
Throw in some pointless punitive damages, and that ought to net him a good 6 million dollars, right? I mean if it works for the RIAA...
Amazon sells the track (Score:4, Interesting)
It's from a "Greatest hits" album, so I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that the label has rights to it.
Re: (Score:2)
The label may have non-exclusive rights to distribute it. That does not mean they can stop the copyright holder from doing anything with it.
Re:Amazon sells the track (Score:5, Informative)
The Blog post said:
A Girl Like You is available FOR SALE all over the internet. Not by Edwyn, by all sorts of respectable major labels whose licence to sell it ran out years ago and who do not account to him.
So the music label is basically stealing Edwins work and not paying him.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Amazon's reply:
Hello,
Thank you for your interest in the Amazon MP3 Music Downloads store.
The content available in our Amazon MP3 Store is provided by record labels and their distributors. The agreements to provide this content were arranged with these companies. Any questions you have regarding content should be directed to record label or distributor.
For additional information and a list of partners we work with, please visit our MP3 Music Labels and Artists Guide at this URL:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/ [amazon.com]
Standard operationg procedure? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like I've read previously somewhere a case where the record industry had claimed copyright on something they didn't actually own.
I'm starting to wonder if they don't train their watchdogs to send out DMCA notices for any music they see online thinking it's better to risk a simple apology later if they don't own it than it is to leave potentially copyright infringing music online.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I swear, under penalty of perjury consistent with United States Code Title 17, Section 512, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(taken from a boilerplate DMCA takedown notice)
So... can he claim damages? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It takes about 10 minutes to fix this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup... (Score:5, Informative)
Many years ago I had a myspace profile entirely removed for uploading one song that I created using 'cat [textfile] > /dev/audio'. Yea. Apparently the title I decided to give it was too close to a song that they had listed in their database as being copyrighted or something so they killed my entire profile immediately. I sent a couple emails to the address they had given to contact in such cases and I never got a response. I'm amazed he even managed to get in contact with anybody...
Why Warner Brothers and not EMI (Score:3, Interesting)
Well aren't the Smithereens signed with Warner, they have a song from 1989 called "A Girl Like You". Is it possible that due to identically named songs this is actually a misunderstanding?
Well of course! (Score:4, Informative)
"MySpace are not equipped to deal with the notion that anyone other than a major [label] can claim a copyright"
Do you think that's by accident? The major labels have gone out of their way in the past 10 years to convince the governments and public that they are the sole gatekeeper for music. It's to their benefit to create that thought so that passing laws to codify their position and become the sole gatekeeper for music actually seem reasonable.
Never met a girl like you before (Score:3, Funny)
If he tried streaming "never met a girl like you before", I guess the Geneva convention was considered applicable for the abysmal guitar solo... good riddance and hats off to the guys in The Hague! ;-)
Umm... (Score:3, Insightful)
What about SoundExchange fees? (Score:3, Interesting)
How does this fit in with the SoundExchange Rules of Extortion [slashdot.org]? Doesn't that "agreement" mean that the media cartels claim default ownership of all music? Therefore, this guys claim is moot because he needs to pay a fee to stream any music on the internet anyway.
Re:Let's get the car analogy out the way quickly.. (Score:5, Funny)
This comment is written by gnick and is therefore copyrighted. Since it was written at work and it took me approximately 1.5 hours to write/edit/Preview/Submit and I make approximately 1 bazillion dollars an hour, this comment is worth $1.5 bazillion (US).
At my incredibly modest royalty fees, replicating this comment (e.g. downloading, printing, etc) costs only $5. If you've read this comment, please contact me for PayPal information to submit your payment.
But I own the patent on car analogies (Score:2)
Therefore, please send a royalty of $5 USD for each infringement (aka view) to my papal account www-data@localhost.
Re:But I own the patent on car analogies (Score:4, Funny)
Therefore, please send a royalty of $5 USD for each infringement (aka view) to my papal account www-data@localhost.
I had no idea His Holiness was a Slashdot user....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)