German Copyright Group To Collect From Creative Commons Event 349
bs0d3 writes "In Leipzig, Germany, an 8 hour music/dance party event was organized to play nothing but creative commons music the entire time. A German copyright group called GEMA told the organizers that to be certain that no rights were infringed, it would need a list of all artists including their full names, place of residency and date of birth. After the event GEMA sent an invoice for 200 euros. They claim that behind pseudonyms some of their artists may be hidden and produce things that they would not earn anything from. According to German law, you are required to prove that an artist is not with GEMA. So even though GEMA probably does not have rights to any of the music, they are not required to prove that they do."
At this point (Score:5, Insightful)
gema, a slave camp? (Score:5, Insightful)
title says it.
they should rebel, the gema artists that is.
also germans should rebel, because gema is collecting money it has no way to deliver to the lawful owner(the artist).
No rights infringed (Score:5, Insightful)
A German copyright group called GEMA told the organizers that to be certain that no rights were infringed, it would need a list of all artists including their full names, place of residency and date of birth.
So, to be sure no rights are violated, they need to be given private details about 3rd party individuals that they have no right to know?
Re:gema, a slave camp? (Score:3, Insightful)
That rebellion should have started the moment 90% of the videos on Youtube that have music got blocked due to GEMA not granting the rights to use it.
like a friend from scotland said (Score:2, Insightful)
Rent seeking... (Score:4, Insightful)
...is always more profitable than working, because you hardly have any overheads. You just need to supply the occasional fawn for your lawyers to swallow whole, before going into torpor until their next court date.
At some point, our leaders and their pet intellectuals are going to have to deal with the fact that one of the most basic assumptions behind our societies - that profitability is equivalent to economic success - is fundamentally flawed.
Re:At this point (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I think you're wrong. Property rights are a requisite to a functioning democracy.
This has nothing to do with property rights. It has to do with the legislation that basically assumes guilt and requires payment lest you be able to fully prove yourself innocent, and that the system allowed such a law to get on the books.
These things, they are not "privileges," they are fundamental rights. Seems to be a pretty basic right that one should not be punished for a crime unproven. A democracy which fails to protect this is a failing democracy.
Your path to declaring this undemocratic is troublesome, though. Simply because a minority has the rights to something the majority does not, does not imply a failing of democracy. That would be more akin to communism. That the minority can maintain their (rightful) claim to their rights despite the tyranny of the majority trying to take it away, that is a functioning democracy. Simply saying a minority appears to have "more" "rights" than the majority is therefore not necessarily a failing of democracy.
This has nothing to do with minorities and majorities. It is a law that violates fundamental rights. It would not matter if it was a majority impressing this same law on a minority, it would be just as offensive. It is only a failing of democracy insofar as that democracies are, in general, supposed to protect these rights, something not true of all other governments. It is a failing of any legitimate government, which claims to protect the rights of the governed.
Re:gema, a slave camp? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this at all akin to slavery? That is a terrible analogy, and it seems like you just wanted to liken it to something that society sees as reprehensible to make it look bad.
It is bad, but at least call it out for being what it is. People who make outrageous claims simply discredit their own movement.
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I have long opposed extreme copyright terms and bad copyright law, and supported the public domain and creative commons licensing - but I have also supported paying artists for such work as they have copyrighted. I have always tried to buy a legitimate copy of music I like, where it has been available, and encouraged others to buy legitimate recordings.
But this is simply too much. If the copyright organizations are going to insist on collecting money for works they do not own nor represent, then they can go to hell. Really, this is just extortion. They deserve no more sympathy.
Re:At this point (Score:5, Insightful)
"Property rights are a requisite to a functioning democracy"
Well, thats a nice sweeping statement, shame it doesn't mean anything. If you think it does, define the words "property", "functioning" and "democracy" - as precisely as possible.
Does the emergence of property rights in China make it more democratic? Does the fact that many EU countries have a larger public sector than, say, Russia mean that they are less democratic? Is it democratic for the population to vote for an inheritance tax?
This is the problem with ideological rhetoric. It all sounds very good, and is carefully phrased to be almost impossible to disagree with, but is devoid of any useful underlying meaning.
Re:gema, a slave camp? (Score:4, Insightful)
The part about potential pseudonyms is what makes this slavery.
Think about it. Once an artist is signed up with GEMA, he is apparently no longer allowed to make a dance track in his spare time and release it as Creative Commons. Once he's signed up with GEMA, anything he makes becomes GEMA's property to collect royalties for, even if the artist himself does not want any royalties for it.
Please explain how that is NOT slavery, even if a modern version of it.
This is placeholder clause in most of laws (Score:4, Insightful)
This is my biggest bone with copyright laws - it gives rights to collect copyright fees to private entity - and what's most important - they don't have to prove that it is their representative they collect money for. Our local agency claims that they have rights to do it so, and after author will make agreement with them, they will pay money back (minus admin fees of course). This is bordering with absurd, but honestly, people lack of insight in such difficult subject helps heavily, as lobbyist groups have freeway to copyright laws.
Re:At this point (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems you don't understand the word "corporatocracy" [wikipedia.org]. It would probably help your case if you did.
Re:At this point (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh, you're just being dishonest. I didn't say property rights imply democracy, I said that a democracy needs property rights. So no, saying that because $nation1 has more property rights than $nation2 does not say anything about the relative levels of democracy in each.
And it's not ideological rhetoric at all. At any rate, I'd say it's not rhetoric. Sure it's ideological, in that it represents an idea or school of thought. And it's easy to argue against. Socialism is often democratic and yet it has much looser expectations for property rights, as there is more emphasis on wealth redistribution and welfare.
Apparently on this subject I've hit a nerve with you, and you disagree. But you're post is ridiculous. Apparently everything is nebulous and undefined for you, and nothing is debatable or worth the time to examine?
The only thing you said that even approaches being interesting is to ask how exactly one defines property and democracy and functioning. Yet you offer nothing to it yourself. And it doesn't begin to deconstruct what I said, without making some far-fetched assumptions... The only restriction I've placed on how one defines a democracy is that it deals with majority/minority opinion, and my post requires no specific definition of property, because I said one must have a "rightful" claim, the validity of which would be determined by the society in question. Sure, the definition of these things is debatable to some extent. But as my post does not relying on any specific definition... what'e your point?
The functioning part is better. For these purposes, I think functioning must describe more than the present, but future viability, including resistance to external forces of economics and politics.
Re:SACEM (Score:5, Insightful)
So, then the composer sent a letter to the SACEM, explaining to them that they had solicited money in his name, and that he wanted to have it. A couple of weeks later, a bank transfer showed up at the band's account (not the composer's personal account) where the fee was reimbursed in full, but no explanation, nor excuse...
They were probably quite happy with that resolution, because in the end they collected it and the composer had to go to them to claim it. No precedent for anything else was set. So sure, they could probably get their 200 euro back but it does nothing to change the system.
Re:At this point (Score:3, Insightful)
. The USA is both a republic and a democracy, as is Germany
Although the 'representative' part seems to be becoming increasingly selective as of late...
Re:Germans bought way too much into the Arteest th (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a bad idea after all. Look at this scenario:
An artist does a painting, sells it while he's not famous for a thousand euros, then some time later he becomes famous and his painting is sold to a new owner for a million euros.
Shouldn't the artist get some of that money? or should only the "art industry" feed on it?
No, since the artist fucking SOLD the painting in the first place. He got compensated for it.
No one should have a lock on the future.
Re:At this point (Score:3, Insightful)
Dishonest? WTF?
It isn't dishonest to take apparent a statement that is generally accepted as wisdom, when it clearly IS rhetorical. It uses the power "democracy" to push through the idea of "property rights" without a clear universal definition of what that means. Fuck, even the USSR under Stalin had property rights (you can have personal stuff in your house).
The idea that democracy needs property rights is therefore unprovable and unfalsifiable; EVERY state has something that can be called 'property rights' under somebodies definition, some states are democratic, and so to say 'democracy needs property rights' is to say 'democracy needs a state' which is a tautology because democracy is, in the context you seem to use it, a way of running a state.
This isn't ridiculous, just because it questions something you clearly hold sacred. It is my prerogative to do that as a free thinker, and I won't apologise if this upsets you.
Re:At this point (Score:5, Insightful)
It has become necessary that we all ignore copyrights from this point on, in civil disobedience.
From what I've seen, this is already happening - just not in civil disobedience. While some people who infringe/ignore copyright on a daily basis do so for some sort of political meaning, most of the millions of people across the world who infringe copyright - not just those who download music and films without a licence, but those who rip CDs, use photocopiers, sing or hum tunes in public or, in England at the moment, visit most websites [bailii.org] - do so because they don't care enough to check whether what they're doing is lawful, and probably wouldn't stop even if they knew. If asked, many may say that they support copyright, and that they think it is important, but that only lasts while it doesn't get in the way of whatever they want to do.
This doesn't just apply to people, either; news organisations and many other companies are perfectly happy to go with a "use first, try to license later" model, which sometimes involves them having to pay up, but rarely ends up in court. The current state of copyright reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes, except with laws passed to say the clothes exist, the Courts upholding those laws, and groups lobbying and pushing for even fancier, thinner and more expensive new fabrics for the clothes.
Re:Copyrights aren't property (Score:5, Insightful)
The main problem with "your own creation" is the part, that is not your own creation. As all creations are cultural creations, e.g. only possible with a cultural and social background, and any (theoretical) creation that isn't founded in the social and cultural background, is non-understandable for any other than the creator and non-distingushable from random noise for everyone else, every creation is 95% background and 5% original creation. But it gets protected as if 100% of it was solely the accomplishment of its creator. A property has its welldefined limits, where it is easy to say where the property begins and what belongs to the environment around the property. Patents at least attempt with the claims system to point out the limits which distinguish between background and creation, but normal works of Arts don't. There is no claims list where the artist points out which of the work is reference, quote, copied from somewhere else, taken from nature etc.pp., and of which part the artist thinks to be actually his original creation. Persiflage and satirical usage can further muddy the water
If you look into court cases of plagiarism, you'll notice how complicated the differentiation between "original" and "non-original" can get, and how it depends on the actual argument of lawyers and quoted precedences, which part of a work is "creation" and which is not.
The idea of "give the creator the right to his creation" is well intended, but often very naive and unworkable. Sadly though, I have no solution how to improve on the idea to make it workable.
Re:At this point (Score:5, Insightful)
Swiss as well as entire nothern part of Europe would like a long word with you about things like economic competitiveness and quality of life.
Re:At this point (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you have the right to your own creations. You write a book or build a widget, you have the right to keep that specific book or widget and do whatever you want with it.
But when you want to take it a step further and use government force to block other people from making similar books or widgets using their own tools and materials on their own land, that's not a property right, that's a ban on certain uses of other people's property.
"By claiming that copyrights are anti-property rights - therefore an infringement of property rights - your argument logically has to consider the material that copyrights cover as property."
No. If I own a pen and a piece of paper, that pen and paper is my property, and that includes the right to write whatever I want on that paper. If somebody steps in and with government force they tell me I can't write certain sequences of words on it because they have a copyright on those sequences of words, they're banning specific uses of my property. That doesn't imply those words are anybody's property, it's just a ban. Like a ban on smoking in certain areas, or a ban saying that white SUVs cannot be driven on Sunday.
That's not to say that copyrights and patents shouldn't exist altogether. Heck, I'm a software developer and what I create needs copyright protection. I'm saying copyrights and patents are not property, they're bans. It just happens that the industries that profit from copyrights and patents have been successful in drumming the phrase "intellectual property" into society's collective heads so that they can leverage concepts from physical property to get laws that expand the reach of copyrights and patents.
How do you prove anything? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Copyrights aren't property (Score:4, Insightful)
"The idea of "give the creator the right to his creation" is well intended, but often very naive and unworkable. Sadly though, I have no solution how to improve on the idea to make it workable."
Is suspect a workable solution would include reducing the term that copyright and other intellectual "property" rights last. Copyright is meant to be a limited privilege afforded to the creator of a work, in order to reward the creator and thus encourage the creation of intellectual works. A noble intent, which has gotten lost over the years as corporations started receiving copyright and realised they could increase profits by lobbying the governments of this world to increase their copyright terms step by step until the current ridiculous system of decades of protection after the death of the artist.
It is now considered by many politicians to be inalienable rights and thus the original compromise between the freedom of expression and reward for authors/creators has been lost.
A workable solution would be to start from the assumption that there is no copyright any more and then reintroduce the original compromise in the context of modern society.
Re:At this point (Score:5, Insightful)
As your parent is right, it would nice to see your definition ;D
The nations on this planet that are "democracies" are just a hand full.
All other so called democracies are republics and/or a mix of republic and representative democrcies.
See for the later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy [wikipedia.org]
And see for an overview of democracies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_democracy [wikipedia.org]
Re:Germans bought way too much into the Arteest th (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It is a terrible idea.
What if you buy a BMW 1201Whatever and later on this car becomes a classic collectors car, making it worth more money than it originally was? Shouldn't BMW get some of the money?
What if you buy a designer shirt from Le Whatever and later on this shirt becomes a "vintage" collectors shirt, making it worth more money than it originally was? Shouldn't Le Whatever get some of that money?
What if you buy a house and later on property prices go up and the house becomes worth more than what it was. Shouldn't the person who sold you that house get some of the money?
No. When you sell something, you've sold it. Meaning you've lost all claims to it. That is the risk of selling something. You may lose future income, but you have also protected yourself from the item losing value by realising its value in cold hard cash.
If the artists want to profit from future price rises, they should sell a share of the paintings. They can then still profit from future price rises, but obviously they have to take the risk of the painting actually decreasing in value over time.
The artist having the cake and eating it too is not fair. Not fair at all.
Re:At this point (Score:4, Insightful)
It may be world wide as well. Here in the US there's ASCAP, that legally extorts money from bar owners, even if the bands that play in them play only their own compositions.
One bar owner here in Springfield who had a folk music venue lost his business fighting ASCAP's extortion. And make no mistake, it's nothing short of legalized extortion.
Re:At this point (Score:5, Insightful)
But as I said to another poster - should one not have the right to one's creations? What gives you the right to claim them as your own or as the public's?
Because they're not 100% your creation. Nothing comes from a vaccuum. Like science and technology, all art comes from what came before it. "If I see farther than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." Here's [slashdot.org] a story that would be far weaker had it not incorporated a forty year old song that should have passed into the public domain long ago; a song that is part of our heritage and part of our public awareness. Tell me, do you honestly believe that "Happy Birthday" should be under copyright?
Imagine how technology would stagnate if patents lasted as long as copyrights. That's how art is stagnating now.
You can indeed own your own thoughts and words and art -- but once you let them loose, they no longer belong to you.
And I say this as someone who has painted, written computer programs, artices, stories, poetry, and music, and have a book floating around BitTorrent (I seeded it myself). Once someone hears my words, those words no longer belong to me.
The US Constitution says that I don't own my words; "we, the people" do. I merely have a "limited" time monopoly on their publication.
Re:At this point (Score:5, Insightful)
You're just making stuff up.
HE's making stuff up? Apparently it takes one to know one.
The word "Republic" comes from REPresenting the PUBLIC.
Rubbish. It comes from the Latin words "res publica", roughly translated "the concern of the people" or "the public interest". Look it up in a dictionary, if you have one. Failing that, try a library.
As previous replies have made clear, a republic was originally the alternative to a monarchy. Arguably, a dictatorship is more like a monarchy; but note that the term "dictator" itself is another Roman word, originally meaning a military ruler with all power in his hands. In the Roman republic, a dictator was appointed only in times of critical danger for the state, and only for the shortest possible time.
The bottom line is that we have an impressive menagerie of colourful terms for political dispensations, but they overlap a good deal. Moreover, there is often a very great difference between what a polity is called and what it really is. If a state were to elect a dictator for life, would that be "representative democracy"? If not, why not - that scenario would differ from ours in the USA and UK only in the number of elected representatives and their length of tenure.
Personally, I think that what we have in both countries (and in most other so-called democracies) is a plutocracy - rule by the rich - with cosmetic elements of democracy to keep the masses quiet.