Universal Sends DMCA Takedown On 1980 Report 189
An anonymous reader writes "For many, many years, every time some new technology has come along, the music industry has insisted that it's going to "kill" the industry. The player piano was supposed to kill live music. So was the radio. And, of course, every time this happens the press is willing to take the industry's word at face value. In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done. Someone posted that 20/20 episode to YouTube a few years back, where it sat in obscurity until people noticed it a couple weeks ago. And suddenly, Universal Music issued a takedown notice for the show. Universal Music does not own 20/20, and there were only brief clips of music in the show. It appears the only reason for Universal to issue the takedown is that it doesn't want you seeing how badly it overreacted in the past."
Youtube link (Score:5, Informative)
The actual program in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vz7Z42Fl9s
Lenz v. Universal (Score:4, Informative)
Or maybe sending take down notices to ALL videos on youtube is just a way to cover up the ones they REALLY want to take down.
That wouldn't be the best strategy for Universal Music. It has previously been hit with a lawsuit in the Northern District of California, Lenz v. Universal [wikipedia.org], in which Judge Fogel held that OCILLA requires a copyright owner to make a fair use analysis in good faith before submitting a notice and that Universal may not have made such an analysis.
Improper Takedown? (Score:5, Informative)
It is perjury (a criminal act) to issue a DMCA takedown request when the requester is not the rights holder or their designated agent.
So what content are they saying they are a rights holder/agent of?
C//
Re:Youtube link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Go and download it (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Or maybe (Score:3, Informative)
There's no 'cover up' because there's no truth the the summary's statement that " In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done."
I watched the video and it does no such thing. It mentions home taping once and mentions that sales had 'levelled' but the substance of the programme is the new development of video and music, specifically laser discs, and the music industy's hopes that this would allow them to gain ever greater profits.
This is a bogus /. story. I wish I could say it was the first. Utterly misleading and a waste of your time, dear reader.
RTA?
The video posted in the article is the 'first half' of the 20/20 piece. The second half was no longer available when the author went to view it a second time.
Re:Improper Takedown? (Score:3, Informative)
It is perjury (a criminal act) to issue a DMCA takedown request when the requester is not the rights holder or their designated agent.
No. It's perjury if you respond to the request by saying falsely that you have the right to distribute it, but it's not perjury to issue a DMCA takedown request under false pretenses. The law was written this way for a reason. (Probably a few million reasons, on small pieces of paper.)
(IANAL, of course.)
Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (Score:4, Informative)
That doesn't stop them from trying to rape you with licensing fees if they think there's any connection to the sheet music. If one industry pisses me off more then the music industry, it's the sheet music industry.
Re:Youtube link (Score:3, Informative)
It's available in The Netherlands. I don't know if it has been down here. v=E9KRtuEttIQ [youtube.com]
Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Radio is canned music. You cant ask the radio disc jockey to change the key, because you are a baritone instead of a tenor.
That is what OP meant by "Live" music. That it is played live, by a living person, for you, in real time. And yes, the player piano did a grand job of putting corner store pianists out of business. By the same token, the tractor put many farm hands out of business. Technology does that. It reduces the amount of labor invested, and makes things easier; the downside is that it also puts people out of work in the process-- the people that did the jobs the technology replaced. Computers put whole accounting firms under, or at least resulted in huge reductions in the numbers of humans working for those firms.
The tired "Buggy whip" trope used on /. is very apt here.
Re:Youtube link (Score:3, Informative)
Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (Score:5, Informative)
The original compositions are in the public domain. Simplified adaptations for amateur piano are derivative works that probably are not.
Mirrors (Score:5, Informative)
Download and mirror!
Re:so far so good (Score:2, Informative)
I assume 2020 Report on music video 1980 - Part 2 of 2 [youtube.com] must be what they wanted to take down.
Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (Score:5, Informative)
Well it is high time to start aggressively campaigning for an amendment to the DMCA setting out substantive penalties for false claims with significant payments to the party who were defamed and who had their constitutional rights to free speech infringed.
There has been a lot of complaints about abuses of the DMCA but as yet seemingly little action to force an amendment for false claims.
Mirror (Score:1, Informative)
Mirror:
http://plunder.com/bfe00c693f
Re:Improper Takedown? (Score:5, Informative)
You have to attest, under penalty of perjury, that you own or hold rights to the work that you're reporting as infringing.
That's not quite true, although the difference is subtle:
US Code, Chapter 5, Title 17, Section 512(c):
(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION-
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Note that the only part of the notice actually subject to penalty of perjury is "a statement .. that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" (emphasis added). They can ask for material to be taken down which is not related in the slightest to the exclusive privilege they are claiming it infringes without committing perjury under the rules established here. Of course, there may be other consequences for filing false takedown notices.
Re:hmm (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Or maybe (Score:3, Informative)
Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (Score:1, Informative)
The original compositions are in the public domain. Simplified adaptations for amateur piano are derivative works that probably are not.
Back then sheet music was not standardized, so pretty much any rendition of classical works is technically a derivative work, adaptation, etc.
But you are especially correct with regards to piano music- most of the modern piano solo pieces labeled as Mozart, etc. were at least a chamber orchestra if not a full symphony. In addition, during Mozart's time the "standard" piano was only 5 octaves, not the eight of the modern versions of the instrument, so even works that were written as a piano solo have been modified. The point being, almost ANY time you see someone performing a solo piano piece of a Classic work it is almost certainly an interpretation or derivative work.