The RIAA Says No Dancing To Music On YouTube
from the how-dare-you! dept
We already know that the entertainment industry loves to try to get people to pay for every possible use of their content. Remember the filmmaker who almost couldn't release his documentary because there was a four and a half second clip of The Simpsons playing in the background in one scene? It seems that with the rise of user-generated video, a lot more people are learning about the fun of licensing rights. The RIAA is apparently sending out cease-and-desist letters to YouTube users who dare to put up videos of things such as themselves dancing to music they haven't licensed. It's difficult to see how the RIAA can make a credible claim of "losses" in this case. Clearly, some kids videotaping themselves bopping along to some song aren't going to pay a license fee -- and these sorts of viral videos tend to help build up more interest in artists. So what good does it do to go after these videos?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Absolutely nothing, but it lets the MPAA sleep at night, because they've done something. So they don't feel useless and pathetic.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I can't prove it but I can say it!
The RIAA cannot prove that they are experiencing losses but they can say it. Sending a C&D letter is cheap and usually scares the uneducated masses that cannot afford legal representation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
BS
This is BS now. The RIAA can't possibly be anymore insane or maniacal.
Some kid records himself dancing to some obscure song, it then get's catapulted to worldwide popularity. How is getting *free* product placement bad?
I don't understand it! In any other industry this is free advertising and product placing. To any other industry this is the best blood thing you can ask for! To the RIAA it's Grand Larceny!
What complete idiotic fools.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Well at least the MPAA is not suing dead people anymore.
It would depend on how the music is played right? If it is a public radio station they are listening to then they have no case since it is aired in public yeah? If the dancers bought the music they have a license as well you would think. Though they would probably say it is broadcasting, hence they need to license it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
wow
I have always hated the RIAA, but this really tops it, i mean, is this what these people do to get off, bother kids with legla threats?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
...I can't wait untill they go out of buisiness LOL
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Once again, blah, blah, blah. The day will be here sooner or later. Probably sooner. Death to RIAA.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
...
So let us compare the RIAA to politicians.
Which is...
Dumber?
Scarier?
More powerful?
Richer?
More panicky?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
There's only one solution...
Get the kids to dance to PODSAFE MUSIC!
http://www.podsafemusicnetwork.com/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Fight fire with fire
I say that we all create these stupid videos using the most annoying music you can find and flood places like google video and youtube with it. RIAA is a disease.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Its the RIAA
OK people... read carefully...
MPAA = Motion Picture Association of America
RIAA = Recording Industry Assocation of America
The MPAA is NOT the RIAA.. they have the same tactics, but one represents MOVIE studios and has nothing to do with music!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Fight fire with fire
Or maybe we could all flood youtube and the like with dancin videos to the tune of the national anthem and salute the RIAA the American Way...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
i like comment #2
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Can we all band together somehow, and put them out of business?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
it's a shame that sixteen-year-old Britney fans don't understand fair use or parody. hopefully, somebody's dad is an attorney...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmm
As a youtube poster This crap the RIAA is pulling is quite childish.
Perhaps a petition will get them to stop =D I mean there are more people who download the music then people who record it.
Im sure some congressmans children or grandchildren are downloading "Funkytown" right now. Gratz to the US government.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
One they they are gonna sue us if we don't pay a fee for playing our (LEGALLY PURCHASED) cds at home.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RiRR or what ever
Let them spend there $$$..They will go tits up..do more to make them spend more $$..F**ck them..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I just want to know if Speilburg is going to go after "the Star Wars kid"?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
There's no difference I can see between uploading an MP3 to the net
And uploading a video to the net
If the former is a copyright violation due to it containing a copyright song, so is the latter. It doesn't matter how unprofessional the individual looks dancing to the tune.
You don't have to claim losses for a copyright violation. A violation is a violation. (losses can increase damages, but you can win a case on the mere violation of copyright law.)
I'm not a lawyer. And I'm not saying artists should care. But I can see why the RIAA cares. (They're not the artist)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
jeuss..no literally
hopefully they dont see this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3KiAvmzcZbg&search=jesus
thats saved in my favorites a few times...OMG ITS SO FUNNY
digg thesong too
also
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/3120/ftheriaa0pm.jpg
^i made that (my photoshop skills are mega-not-uber-leet)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Anyone ever heard of Fair Use, i think the RIAA and MPAA are losing their mind, Fair Use applies in dozens of the things they complain about. For "knowing everything about thier own copyrights" they don't seem to know anything about how they can be used
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Everytime I hear of the RIAA doing something so petty and vengeful, I can't help but think of this guy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
JOHN, you are an idiot, did you read the headline, this is pure non sense, are you trying to tell me that if i upload a video of my self working out with a copyright video or audio in the background i am breaking the LAW ? Give me a FREAKIN BREAK, when will this non-sense stop, are you the same type of people that agrees with the Sony RootKit fiasco? the RIAA, the record and movie industry is nothing but pure greed, they do not care about you the end user or the artist, there was never a better time to pirate copyright material than now and i will continue to do so, F*** THE RIAA!
-JB
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RIAA can FLIP themselves
I am so sick and tired of the RIAA. Man, anymore it seems everywhere you look and turn there's the RIAA breathing down someone's neck anymore. You can't go a day without hearing a thing about them. What really sucks is they are really making themselves out to be the bastard child of all corporations. I mean who do you hate the most. Heck, people are complaining about the gov't spying on phone calls that are really targeted for oversea calls when their should be a loud and clear outcry on these "in-your-face" every freaking minute RIAA people. Man, just stop already with these stupid ignorant allegations of how you're loosing mony when in fact you're making more money than ever. I understand about making sure people don't steal music but come on.... this is just going WAY TOO FAR with this crap. Anyway, I could go on and on about this but I won't. I am FED UP with this by now. Oh yah, just one last thing. I DO PURCHASE all my music legally. Don't want the RIAA on my back.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I don't see what the issue is here?
You as citizens should have no say in what you do think or say, that is the job of the government and industry reps such as the RIAA and MPAA. I fully endorse the actions of the RIAA even though I feel they are quite lacking...honestly public execution for this violations would make things stop much faster.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I must say I applaud this move by the RIAA.
It absolutly sickens me to know that people are enjoying themselves.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
John is right on there. The law is the law and the law says that if you don't own the rights to broadcast something, you can't legally broadcast it. Buying a CD does not give you the rights to broadcast the music in any form, regardless of profit or motive.
All you people shouting "hahaha stupid RIAA" are, I'm sorry to say, only shouting about your ignorance of the law. You may not like paying for music, you may think the prices are outrageous, you may think the RIAA is overzealous and profit-hungry and their lawyers need to take a pill, and largely I'd agree with you, but you can't legally argue with their right to pursue copyright infringers if they want to because the law says they have that right.
THAT is why the attourneys that are parents of these kids aren't going to touch the case - they know that legally they will get crushed because their kids are acting illegally.
Maybe one day everything will be free and you'll be able to rip off anyone's work without facing consequences. Until then though, overzealous as they may be, the RIAA is legally within their rights to hunt you down.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RIAA
I think it's time for a serious, coordinated web-wide SILENCE THE MUSIC campaign - a good old strike - no music buying in any format until these idiots start to reflect on their stupidity. my penny's worth.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
The law is the law, yes. But I think the logical extension is that we're all shouting "hahaha stupid law"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Want the RIAA too Cease and Decist ?
Boycott purchasing music from RIAA support record companies.
If artisits see the RIAA is loosing them fans and buyers of their product, then the RIAA will cease too exist.
The RIAA is acting as like the politburo of the old soviet days in Russia, only this time it's ordinary people in America !
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Way to go. You just:
A) Fed a troll.
B) Made a complete ass of yourself.
C) Made those of us who really do care —but like to phrase our concerns in a far more civil way— look just like you: an ass.
Thanks for representing us so poorly. If I were any more cynincal than I am now I'd suspect the both of you of being RIAA goons out to make those against the RIAA look bad.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Bobby, I'd join right in with you in shouting "stupid law". But most of these people, I'd wager my last iTunes credit, just hate the RIAA because they want them to pay for music and they don't want too. Boo hoo.
There is definitely IMHO scope for change in the law with respect to fair use, so instead of preaching to the choir in places like this, petition your local congressman to introduce common sense into copyright law.
Put it this way: if someone broke into your house, took copies of all your digital photos and posted them on their own website, would you be upset? It doesn't matter if they made money out of it, or only posted a few of them, or whatever: the fact is they illegally took your property and put it out there for anyone to see. I'd be pissed and so would you! And all you people saying f**k the RIAA are no different from those burglars.
I wouldn't want you in my house and sure as anything would take a hockey stick to you if I caught you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Of course DittoBox, anyone with an opinion different to yours is a troll. *shakes head*
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I think it's rooted more in the fair use provisions that allow these kinds of things.
But it's still grey.
What concerns me the most is that the noise to signal ratio in TechDirt comments is getting really bad as of late. There is little or no civil public discourse. This particular article is the worst I've seen in a while.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
re.
I'm sure the guys from Ozone are really ticked off that Dragostei din tei was used in all those fan made music videos... dang internet users and them loving the numa numa song!
Riaa, ask yourself, how many people would have bought that cd/song if it wasn't used in any videos?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This is just another example of the self importance these people place upon themselves. Is anyone going to join my music, movie, and television purchasing boycott?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
The number of times you mentioned an extension of the word "Law"(law, legal, legally, lawyer) was a total of 12 times.
law
n.
1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
Would you accept the outcome if the people changed the laws?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
You're forgetting one huge difference: people usually want to keep their photographs private, while the whole point of the music industry is to gain credibility and get your music "out there." The RIAA is sending mixed signals. On one hand, they want us to buy music and spread it. On the other hand, they think public playing of licensed music should be illegal. An idea taken from South Park: what artists create belongs to society. Why do musicians create music in the first place? To entertain. Why create something and then try to hide it from the world?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RIAA Rights
I have to say, I'm not surprised by the reaction.
Legally speaking, the RIAA is correct: it's against the law. It's pretty obvious to anyone that this is the fact.
Morally and ethically speaking, they're absolutely frigging wrong. I'm sorry, but just because the law says something is so does not make it right. I am by far not a dissident of legal practices, being a conservative writer for the most part, but this is just ridiculous. Not only are they not facing up to the reality of things today, they are also not facing up to the fact that this presents a hugely bad face for their association.
Let's be real: kids playing music and dancing to it which, by and large, mostly only their friends will see, is not a violation of the law in the *spirit* of the law. If some kid suddenly makes $1 million off a video of him dancing to some music, then fine - ask for a cut. But be reasonable.
By their own account, it would be illegal to play music in your back yard if your neighbors could hear it because you don't have the right to "broadcast" that music into the public domain. That is just outrageously stupid. Everyone knows it is incredibly stupid - even neocons like myself. It bespeaks of an incredibly paranoid mind to take that sort of position.
That it is against the law, I can understand. But that they actually act upon it, or that nobody thinks that it has gone on for far too long to actually set about to change it (with the help of the RIAA to get back into the good graces of the public) is beyond me. And it should be beyond all of you as well - those of you defending this C&D letter campaign.
I'm all for artists making money, and even billions of dollars. But let's not do it by becoming tyrannical with art. This is exactly why everyone hates lawyers.
It's a dumb frigging action, everyone can see that, and those who can't are simply too stupid to have a single coherent thought of their own.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmmm....
Well, I've schooled myself and looked into performance licensing of music for a dance group I tried to start a while back, and I've been looking into podcasting. While there are podcasting and online performance licenses available, none can be considered reasonable for this kind of performance. BMI has a minimum license of $295 and no less than $250 per quarter for ASCAP, for web/internet performances. That's just the performance rights, you still have to license mechanical and other rights with the pubishers and artists. Bleh! It's too complicated.
The point is, there are no reasonable and/or simple licenses for these kinds of performances, especially since they assume you plan to make money with it. Some 13 year old girls dancing around to a Brittany song on Youtube aren't going to make money off of it. Until they can come down with reasonable licensing, I'd say thumb your nose at the RIAA and ask them if they can provide a reasonable/simple license. Chances are, they can't, but that wouldn't stop them trying to litigate you anyway. Hell, they aren't afraid to sue dead people and people with no computers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Lemme get this straight
The distribution of their copyrighted music through videos is infringement, then does that mean when I make home videos and they have music playing in the background I can't legally send copies to my relatives?
Would the RIAA go after me if they found out?
Pretty soon they're gonna go after the video camera industry for creating a means of pirating copyrighted material.
Jerks
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
AC: You bet I would accept it! Did you not read a word I wrote? And if a law was made making it legal to break into my house and steal all my digital photos, I'd work hard to have the stupid law changed, not bitch about it on forums.
Adrian: I thought the point of the music industry was to make money through entertaining people. I agree that there is an element of stupidity in what the RIAA does, but until people get off their asses to get copyright law changed, they are totally within their rights. South Park? A idea from the common law: what someone creates belongs to them until they assign the rights elsewhere. Music is no different to any other IP. The IP laws are outdated and badly suited to the modern world, agreed. The RIAA overreacts, agreed. It's OK to rip off whatever you want because music should be free, not agreed.
Banagor: I agree that the RIAA is acting stupidly and taking it to far. But the "hooray for piracy" shitheads annoy me just as much as the RIAA does. Both miss the point. And I never said I defended the C&D campaign - I just said that bitching about it is stupid because they're within their legal rights to do so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So then...
I suppose the next thing you know people all over are going to get sued for putting cheesy music in Powerpoint video montages for weddings and such? The next step is banning the use copyrighted music for thier slideshows. Soon half of America's high schools will be empty because kids were using Metallica in thier presentations on WWII.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Sure John and James, I'll be sure to turn off my music before I ever think of turning on my webcam lest the RIAA kick in my door and drag me off to the gallows to be hung. Laws can be repealed or changed if the legislators put their minds to it. This mindset that the law is the law is exactly why vigilante justice happens when ricidulous laws are on the books or when so-called "justice" gets out of hand. Watch your mouth or you could accidently find yourself in the crosshairs of the RIAA when you accidently "break the law". Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and professing their righteousness, perhaps you could take a stand like the rest of us.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Plead Innocence?
You could just argue that you were dancing to music that you did not play on purpose, for example, a roommate playing music too loud, or music from a loud car stereo that travelled through the window?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The real reason the RIAA does what it does
It should by now be fairly obvious what the RIAA/MPAA are up to...Stage 1 is to commit to stupid, ridiculous lawsuits. Stage 2 is to suggest completely unworkable and unfair regulation. Stage 3 is to push through the legislation they REALLY wanted all along, which compared to the previous things they did seems reasonable and sane by comparison.
Many governments do this..they want a law no-one would accept, so they start by suggesting a harsh law which everyone rejects, then introduce the original planned bill which seems tame.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
I'd work hard to have the stupid law changed, not bitch about it on forums.
What if bitching about it on forums is a step towards getting people to understand why the law needs to be changed?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
FUCK THE RIAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Can anyone give me an example of an artist who agrees with or condones the RIAA's behavior?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Nice
LMAO @ comment #20
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: So then...
Oh come on. High school kids stopped listening to Metallica AGES ago.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I agree except the line about musicians create music solely to entertain. There are a good number of musicians that create simply for their own enjoyment, and they couldn't care less who they entertain. The fact that they later might choose to release their material and attempt to commercially profit from their work is a secondary concern for such musicians. So if you ammend the above to read "commercial musicians" or consider the word "commercial" to be implied, sure, I agree. However, the problem with establishing new laws or rules, whether they restrict freedoms or enhance freedoms, is that they can be applied to wider groups of people than initially considered. In the case of musical intellectual property, it seems like a good idea to keep in mind that not all music is created for sale, but might still yet be considered intellectual property. What, for example, would prevent a musician from creating works for his or her own creative hobby, and then those works being considered as part of the creator's estate after death? Perhaps to the creator is was just a hobby, but then posthumously the creator's relatives could say "Hey this is still really good stuff" and release it. Or to go the contrary route, wouldn't it be (morally) a bad thing for someone to be able to get famous for re-recording a song you made just for fun (never mind here whether you're dead or alive when the re-recorder gets famous from your work).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Most of you are missing the point.....again
I think everyone (well almost everyone) is missing some add'l points.
1) What is the difference between posting an MP3 that I can download illegally and posting a video with me dancing whlel the same MP3 is playing? NOTHING. How hard is it to extract only the audio and now have the MP3 song on my harddrive? If the RIAA doesnt act, how long before someone throw some stupid video on top of the song so they can trade music illegally. Heck the video can be a still image by the argumetns presented here since the content of the video doesnt determine legality.
2) Those that argue that playing music loudly so that the neighbors can hear may constitute a breech of the law are also missing the point. Legallythis maybe true, but from a practical standpoint everyone has ignored what appears to be the defining factor in the RIAA's selection of C&D letters - is the content being transferred digitially?
3) I also think everyone is ignoring the impact of these videos with songs on the rest of the RIAA's business. How long before radio stations start to object to paying fees when little Sally can broadcast that same song with no charge to anyone, anywhere at anytime.
4) and finally, what happens when the vidoe collection starts adding meta data recognizing the song, sound quality and other properties and than adds search functionality to segment by music? How does this differ from Kazzaa. Heck how long before someone makes an interface like Kazzaa to search out the video sites only on music and automatically strips the video out during the download?
All of these items lead to the central point that if you project what appear to be minor threats into the broader pictutre the RIAA has too act now before a precedent is set.
As I have said before most of the people on this board want the business models of music and video to stay static while technology advances becuase this will lead to a reduction in the fees they pay. THe music and movie industries have every right to protect and even grow revenues in light of these changes since last i checked these are not non-profit organizations. The smartest thing I have heard is a music ban or writing to congress since this leverages the too most powerful catalysts of change, Economics (supply and demand) and democracy.
Mark
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Check out this site. You can check to see if music is published by a member of the RIAA...and then avoid it!
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Hmmm....
I think the issue here is that those are explicitly for broadcasting the music as the primary context. The music here is actually a secondary consideration to the dancing.
The law may be able to be strictly interpretted to make this illegal, but it is ridiculous.
If you want to broadcast music, play music that is copyrighted, etc. then I agree that you should pay fees.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: BS
amadeus amadeus... (or for those not familiar: hear the song (rock me amadeus))
this song would have probably died pretty hard core had it not been for ytmnd. ya hear me RIAA?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Most of you are missing the point.....again
huh?? Most everyone wants the industry to stay static? I dont think so. People are tired of feeling like suckers when they walk into a record store and buy something. Whether its legal or not, the RIAA and its members, make a living by ripping people off, the bands they sign even more so than the customers. Once a band signs with a big label, they basically become indentured servants.. serfs.
For an example of an industry that has embraced the web and digital content for years now.. look at porn. Adult content is one of the most pirated forms of entertainment on the net, with legit digital distributers competing against the pirates and doing just fine (Video on demand, monthly billing, etc). The adult industry didnt hesitate one second, and jumped on the web technology as soon as they could, and they are all happier for it.. RIAA, MPAA take notes!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Its the RIAA
The RIAA may not be the MPAA, but...
it's the exact same companies that belong to both. If you've paid attention to mergers in the last 10 years... all your major music labels are owned by the same organizations that own all the major movie lables.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
greedy
Greedy, man. Simply greedy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Its the RIAA
MPAA = Motion Picture Association of America
RIAA = Recording Industry Assocation of America
Or you can refer to them both at the same time, and say
MAFIAA = Music And Film Industry Association of America
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
the RIAA says "Please take our civil rights away!"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
re Star Wars kid -- (a comment way up there)
It would be Lucas who was angry, not Speilberg. But I doubt he would be. He probably thinks the Star Wars kid was funny.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"Put it this way: if someone broke into your house, took copies of all your digital photos and posted them on their own website, would you be upset?"
Completely wrong analogy. No one stole anything. The record companies SOLD a copy of the music, which individuals have fair use rights on.
Your analogy should really say: "Would you be mad if you SOLD your photographs to someone and they posted a cropped image of one of those photos on the internet." Completely different.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Are you a MORON James? You do have the RIGHT to broadcast what is in the background. It's not copyright infringement!!! You could even charge people to watch you dancing in the video. Why? Because this is a video about you in real life, a documentary. You are documenting something about your life! You now own the copyright to the piece of video, unless of course you place it in the public domain, such as YouTube, then the world owns it.
F'ing moron, there is such a thing as Fair Use. F'ing moron, I think the RIAA should start charging you for any music that eminates to anyone eles's ears that you purchased. If you play a CD in your car, and other's can hear you play it, maybe the RIAA should send you a Cease and Decist order. As, you only purchased the license for your use, not anyone's elses use.
Yep, that's exactly how ridiculous the argument is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Does anyone realize that licensing of music is not the law, but something that started with the music industry? The fact is, you don't need to license music to use it. The police are not going to arrest you for using it.
However, the music companies and the RIAA could file suit to sue you for it's use. If they win, it's how the Jury feels about it. However, the music industry and RIAA could sue you if you purchased a recording and played it loud enough for any other person other than yourself to hear it. And.., again, it all comes down to what the Jury decides for the outcome. That is.., if it gets to a Jury trial.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Speaking of morons...
You do have the RIGHT to broadcast what is in the background. It's not copyright infringement!!!
- Not necessarily true. Depends on content and circumstances. Most commercial material would not automatically be exempt.
You could even charge people to watch you dancing in the video. Why? Because this is a video about you in real life, a documentary. You are documenting something about your life!
- Not true as regards to recognizable copyright materials appearing in your video. Over simplified, but basically the reason why WKRP has never been released on DVD - music rights for 100's of recogizable songs.
You now own the copyright to the piece of video, unless of course you place it in the public domain, such as YouTube, then the world owns it.
- Placing a video on YouTube does not release it into public domain. Their TOS even states explicitly that the copyright owner retains all rights
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Obviously the RIAA are a bunch of old guys jealous that they missed out on such fun when they were younger, so they're lashing out.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Useless and Pathetic
Hell if I was a lawyer trying to charge people for this crap... I would feel useless and pathetic every second of my wasted life
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Coke and Mentos don't complain...
You know that all-so-popular scientific experiment conducted with Mentos and diet cola? Coca-Cola and Perfetti Van Melle don't have any issues with their free product advertisement with all of these videos showing up on YouTube and Google Video when people post them up. I don't see how this is much different. Whatever keeps these music companies happy, I suppose.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RIAA Rights
In responce to Bangar (post #41)
Thank you for summing up my thoughts on this.
In addition, I wouldlike to direct everyone's attention to the following site, pointing out how ludicrious the effects of laws related to this article's content.
http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
Yes, it is ILLEGAL to sing "Happy Birthday to You" in the presence of others. This holds for any licensed song; You are, by law, forbidden to make a "public performance".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's not about doing any good... it's about flexing muscle. The entertainment industry pulls down more bucks than almost any other industry (especially more than the government). So they can afford to bring useless lawsuits to court & drown people in paperwork & keep doing this because they will never go into the red. Until they admit that times & especially technology has changed since the early part of the 1900's and focus on that REAL problem & how to fix it, they will continue to be a thorn in everyones butt!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Most of you are missing the point.....again
And which company do you work for Mr. P? You must be new to this site, because as has been stated in the past none of us want the Business model of either the MPAA or RIAA to remain "static". The authers of this site have repeatedly commented about how the industry can embrace digital media, without copyrights, and make more money than they are now. You obviously dont understand the consumers of the current market. Yes, it is possible to strip the audio off of a YouTube video and sell and reproduce for no cost, but the quality of that audio is so poor no one would listen to it. YouTube is free advertising for any song/video that happens to be put on it. And attacking every little amature or kid goofing off around the house is one of the BEST ways to alienate you from your customers. The more they sue the more people will notice and the less people will buy their ever degrading sludge. The day is comming that the RIAA and the MPAA will be out of a job and forever closed, and on that day many people will celebrate.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Kill the MPAA and RIAA
This is total Bullshit! The MPAA and RIAA should go fuck eachother. Someone ought to kill thoes greedy bastards.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You've got to be kidding
What's next? Are they going to start charging people who overhear someone else's CD playing on a stereo? The more they piss people off, the more people are going to try retaliating.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
simple solution
flood the system and actively encourage others to do dance videos as well. These shitheads have too much free time.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Freedom
The great thing about this country is that we can peaceably assemble and bitch about whatever we want. James, sorry dude, but stereotyping everyone that complains about the RIAA's practices as thieves speaks volumes about who you are. Venues like this forum are all about people expressing their opinions, whether informed or not.
As far as doing something about the RIAA, the best thing is to not buy their product and to make sure everyone knows why. But, if you feel inclined to steel music or use it in your video that's your choice. You may get a C&D letter, but who cares. By the time you get it your video will probably be mirrored in thousands of places if it's good. If they sue you, do you think any court would do anything more than tell you to stop using their song in your video?
Personally, I think the RIAA and the industry they represent sucks. But, if your an entertainer and choose to be part of that industry or a consumer and want to continue to fund them, that's your choice. I don't buy any of their products and probably won't even if they do change their practices...just personal choice.
Piracy? If people want to make their statement that way, that's their choice. Sometimes just talking about laws and nagging politicians doesn't work and other measures need to be taken. I'm pretty sure we didn't gain our freedom as a nation by writing letters.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
You say a "violation is a violation". Well then, what is the violation? More and more copyright holders are reinterpreting copyright to mean they have total control over every aspect of how their copyrighted work is used. That was never the original intent of copyright law
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
stupid as stupid is
the only way to put them out of business is no one i mean every swinging person who buys music going to concerts,and go to movies and rent movies ,stop buying ,renting ,going,to it for 2 years and then will you see the backlash of pain come to them because when the music industry and movie industry stop seeing money come in they will die thats the only way they will die,
you are the people keeping them alive you f,ing yourselves you are giving them the money to abuse you think about it
the money they use to go after you and others is the money you give them from buying music movies going to movies going to concerts buying ipods tv's all the advertisements that generate funds for them we the people are feeding them to stay alive.. wake up because you are being stupid its like feeding the hungry grizzy bears who keep biting you in the ass but you keep feeding them and complain about it to everyone else ,lol
so stop crying about the mpaa and the riaa if you not going to do anything about it and the only way to do this is to have a MASS NO BUYING ,RENTING GOING , TO MOVIES, CONCERTS, NO BUYING MUSIC, TV'S STEREOS,
CAN YOU PEOPLE DO THAT FOR 2 YEARS IF YOU DID THE WHOLE INDUSTRY WOULD DIE ACTORS AND MUSICIANS WOULD RALLY AND PUT A END TO THE RIAA AND MPAA THEMSELVES AFTER THEY SEE THE PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF THERE SHIT, THEY WOULD THEN BEGIN TO SEE THAT IT IS US THE PEOPLE THAT KEEP THEM ALIVE AND RICH IN MONEY ITS US THAT MAKE THE MPAA AND THE RIAA WE ARE FEEDING THEM TO ABUSE US,SO WTFU AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND THAT TAKES ALL AMERICANS TO DO IT CAN YOU DO THAT FOR 2 YEARS ASK YOURSELVES IF YOU DID THEY WILL SEE THAT ITS US THAT HAVE THE POWER ,WE HAVE MORE POWER THEN YOU CAN BELIEVE IF WE ALL STOOD AS ONE AND THATS THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE ..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Stupid
I'm fed up with all of this. I don't buy CDs anymore because they might not work in my computer or my car or any other legally purchased CD player.
I don't buy DVDs anymore because the copy-protection scheme drives my legally purchased DVD players nuts - I have to watch some DVDs using my PS2. Hey Disney, guess what, I won't be buying Season 4 of Scrubs since Season 3 will not play in my legal DVD players. What do you think of your copy-protection scheme now? If anything, you are pushing me to get a pirated copy in the future. Idiots.
It's clear that the lawyers are running the show at the RIAA and MPAA. At some point someone at the RIAA and MPAA will have to realize that annoying your paying customers is not a wise business decision. Surely, someone with half a brain will realize this, right?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RIAA
Retarded, Idiotic Assholes of America
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
YOU ARE RIGHT
Right you are my friend .. my point is if all people stop buying i say 2 years but maybe even less ,and even folks overseas you will see a end come to them.. because we are feeding them the power instead we can have that power if we all stood together and thats to have a mass no buy 2 year boycott by the people and i mean every old ,young man woman child.. and thats the only way other then that
we might as well bend over and let them f us somemore..cause we are paying for them to do so .. so its time for everyone to wake up...
postitutes with strapon=mpaa = riaa = the john--->we the people
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
FUCK RIAA
Look at this amazing Super-Hero who will teach you about copyright infringment!!!
http://www.captaincopyright.com/
HILARIOUSLY USELESS.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Where do they come up with this stuff?
I don't see how the RIAA can afford these pricey lawyers if they EVIL internet is stealing all of their money?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not a challange, just a question
OK... I'm a ballroom dancer. Later in the month, I plan on doing a performance dance which, obviously is done to music. I plan on having that dance recorded for 2 reasons. 1) so I can view it and learn from it (like sports training), and 2) so I can put it on MySpace so my friends can see. Not all of my friends can make it to see the dance.
Now this dance is not a paid performance... there's no admission or cover fee. I'm not getting paid for this and no one is paying to see it (except gas money to get there). so....
If I don't license the song to which I'm dancing, would the RIAA come after me? Should they? More importantly, I purchased that song legally (yes, believe it or not, it's a legal MP3).
Seriously... the video is about me dancing, not the song that's playing. And it's my song. Shouldn't I be able to dance to it? Shouldn't I be able to let my friends see it? Shouldn't I be able to record that so other friends can see it?
As to the argument that someone could rip the song from the vid and record it... so? How is that my responsibility? How could I be liable for some action that someone else might take?
oh, and I do want to put my 2cents in on a previous comment:
The RIAA should act now to protect their interests... but not as they have been. They should be changing their business model to meet new competition. Not suing the hand that feeds them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
So anything you can buy a law for is OK? Slavery used to be legal in parts of the US but that never made it OK. No matter how many lawyers, politicians and turf trolls you can afford you just can't buy righteous.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The RIAA appears to be a massive scam.
I don’t really understand the legalities of all of this, but it appears to me that the RIAA is like a hive of lawyers that is masquerading as a legitimate watchdog organization. It’s nothing but an excuse for them to create opportunities to generate revenue through legal council and suits. The RIAA appears to be a massive scam.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: James and John
From Wikipedia regarding fair use: "The first factor questions whether the use under consideration helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of, say, personal profit. In order to justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new."
The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios for a case in which substantial copying — entire programs for private viewing — was upheld as fair use.
"The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the