Anti-piracy Group Fined For Using Song Without Permission 220
zacharye writes "Oh, the irony. A musicians' rights group in the Netherlands was fined this week for stealing music from a client, using it without his permission and failing to pay royalties. Music royalty collection agency Buma/Stemra approached Dutch musician Melchior Rietveldt in 2006 and asked him to create a composition that would be used in an anti-piracy advertisement, which the group said would be shown exclusively at a local film festival. One year later, Rietveldt purchased a Harry Potter DVD only to find that his piece was being used on DVDs around the world without his permission..."
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society
Eh... I cannot say I agree with you. I mean if the IP system was being used properly, the composer would be getting paid for the use of his work.
That said, would totally agree that cases like this prove that people are abusing it. I mean, if you're going to hoot and holler over people using your content without permission, you should be the last person to do the same. This example doesn't really exlcaim "IP is bad for everybody!"
Re:Not to be annoying, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Irony [merriam-webster.com] can be either "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning" or "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result". While /. might not be surprised by a musicians' rights group violating their client's music rights, it could generally be said that this is an ironic situation since the claimed protector is one committing the violation.
Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (Score:5, Informative)
Don't get your definitions from a law enforcement agency. I mean, the none of the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers are in LEO. In fact, don't let government define anything; PATRIOT act, anyone?
Here's the difference between stealing music and infringing copyright.
Sealing music: you walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD. WalMart is out the value of the CD. If you're caught, it's a misdemeanor and a small fine.
Copyright Infringement: You BUY that CD form WalMart and put it on the Pirate Bay. Nobody has lost anything, and the label may actually gain sales from your "piracy". If caught, it will cost you thousands of dollars and maybe jail time.
Not the same at all. I wouldn't steal a car, but I'd accept a copy of a car someone GAVE me.
Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (Score:4, Informative)
RTFL before replying buddy. They clearly claim music and media as theft.
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:5, Informative)
When the composer discovers his song has been used more widely than agreed, he goes to his music royalty collecting agency, an entity ostensibly representing those starving artists out of whose mouths pirates are stealing delicious crumbs.
They stonewall him. Hard.
Then, in a conversation that turned out to be recorded, causing a bit of a scandal, "The case caused a scandal in the Netherlands last year following discussions Rietveldt had with Buma/Stemra[the collecting agency] board member Jochem Gerrits about getting the money he was owed. In order to help, Gerrits suggested that the composer should sign his track over to High Fashion Music, a label owned by Gerrits himself and one that would take 33% of Rietveldt’s royalties for its trouble."
So, yeah, if he was merely willing to play ball with the label owned by a board member of the collecting agency, his little problem could be made to go away, for a modest price. If he preferred not to sign, well, perhaps he might continue to have trouble?
This isn't exactly news; but the de-facto Intellectual 'Property' system appears to operate on the basis that peasants might have the right to sell their little scraps of it; but only people who matter are accorded any serious protection.
Re:Musicians only get paid once work is profitable (Score:5, Informative)
I can't find a single thing you said that is factual. His music was sold with copies of Harry Potter DVDs, which I'm fairly certain were rather profitable.
Writers Guild of America members do not get paid exclusively based on profit, but rather based on the size of the budget of the production. See pages 1-4 of the document specifying their pay scale [wga.org]. They get a minimum pay for specific tasks for works with a budget under $5M USD, and a higher minimum pay if the budget is over $5M USD. They can negotiate a contract that additionally includes profit-sharing, of course, but they are guaranteed the minimum amounts, regardless of profitability of the work.
Similarly, actors who are in the Screen Actors Guild have a similar document with similar terms [sag.org]. Profit-sharing comes in addition to it, meaning that they should not face a situation where they go unpaid because the work was a flop.
And at this point, I'm too lazy to correct you for musicians, but it's the same deal there too. In fact, something like 90% of musicians lose money for the studios, yet they still get paid anyway. That's part of the cost of being a studio.
Now, that's not to say that all of those folks can't get screwed over by Hollywood accounting and other legalese, but that has to do with any pay that's in addition to the minimums specified in those documents. Their minimum pay is always guaranteed, and they always get paid.