IFPI Forces Music Offline, Even Though Copyright Holder Wanted It Shared
from the all-about-the-musicians,-huh? dept
When challenged on what they're doing, organizations like the RIAA and the IFPI will often claim that they're just trying to help musicians. That's obviously untrue, as they represent the record labels -- who have a long history of an antagonistic relationship with the musicians they work with. We're seeing more and more cases where this conflict is being made quite clear as the RIAA and IFPI attacks fan actions that the musicians in question would prefer be left alone. Reader Xavier sends in this example of a music blogger who received a cease and desist from the IFPI that not only contained numerous mistakes, but was disputed by the musician himself.
When the blogger received the cease-and-desist (which named the wrong song, but pointed to a specific URL on his blog), he sent the band a note via their MySpace page, to which the lead singer of the group responded:
"You definitely have my blessing as one of the 4 holders of the copyrights to that specific recording. I actually think this is bogus. Anyways thanks for posting that on your site. It was lovely to see it out there doing the rounds. We didnt take it to radio so your helping with the pollenation of the nation."Of course, the blogger was (rightfully) worried that the IFPI might have his hosting company take down the site and/or charge him with a lawsuit, so he took down the song anyway. Nice to see the IFPI looking out for the best interests of the musicians, huh?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
What do you expect? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no checks and balance system in place to deal with the take downs at this point it time. If you receive one, you must comply or be forced offline entirely.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Can anyone explain to me clearly why...
...Congress never created a Public Domain mark that creators can use to mark works that they specifically wish to exempt from copyright?
Is not The Copyright Act of 1976 an act of overt tyranny by forcing copyright upon creators?? Why do creators not have a choice?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
wtf
mike, i agree with you that RIAA and IFPI are obviously contradicting themselves. now that the barriers to entry are gone so that artists can be in business for themselves, it's just a matter of time before there are enough useful services and tools for musicians to forgo major record labels stuck on old biz models completely and render those organizations obsolete.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Can anyone explain to me clearly why...
Perhaps because our government is controlled by big business and not the people like it's suppose to be?
Our entire system of government is corrupt.
EtG
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I would agree with you if the band in question was not sign to Sony BMG. Do some research.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Can anyone explain to me clearly why...
To hopefully explain the legality of it all: there are common law and statutory "copy-rights." Under the Federal Copyright Act copyright protection automatically applies to an "original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression." Congress did not need to create a "Public Domain" because public domain and something that is copyrights are polar opposites. Black to white. If something is in the public domain then it is not the subject of copyright protection. Or through time or a lack of policing copyrights, thing will fall back into the public domain.
Copyright is not the problem, copyright is a great thing if used properly. For example google "copyleft" or look at the GPU that exists with a lot of the open source software today. People can use their copyrights to share. Copyright gives me the ability to give away music to the masses yet still prevent the Fox Network from using it in advertising I do not wish to support or be associated with. As a copyright holder you can do what ever you want. But copyrights can also be used for evil. See the RIAA and IFPI.
As for this case, unless the band was signed to a label, and in that signing gave their copyrights for either the compositions or the sound recordings to the label, then the IFPI has no right whatsoever to make a demand to remove the song.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ha
This reminds me of when I read about how the RIAA hasn't given a PENNY to the artists they are so called suing for.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
UK/US
As noted on the blog itself, the letter is coming from the UK quoting US laws. Why is someone from the UK quoting US laws? US laws don't apply in the UK (unless there's something Bush hasn't told us.)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
The point isn't that the IFPI is wrong from a legal perspective. The point is that it's not actually acting in line with the interests of artists, like it often claims to be doing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: UK/US
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment