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..."
Another case of "do what i say, and not what I do" (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society
Just goes to show (Score:5, Insightful)
€164,974? (Score:2, Insightful)
That seems low for when someone steals music. Shouldn't that be more like €100,000,000 by the MAFIAA calculating ways?
DVD Ad (Score:5, Insightful)
So there was a DVD advertisement that pirated music about not pirating music?
Re:Just goes to show (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is a secondary function of all forms of governance, corporate and civil.
This doesn't surprise me at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its real simple to understand these asshats. They hold the following constellation of views:
1) if we have licensed it, it's ours.
2) if we comission it, it's ours.
3) if one of our signed artists makes it, it's ours.
--
4) if it's ours, we can do whatever we damned well want with it.
5) if somebody is violating their limited license for something that is ours, we will squash them.
The conflict between "You were given limited rights. You may not redistribute however you like!" And their internal rose-colored view of how copyright should work never crosses their mind. They operate under the blanket policy that anything they license, comission, or sponsor is their full, exclusive right. That's why they make stupid blunders like this, time and time again.
It's also why they get cranky like a baby with diaper rash when they can't get full, exclusive rights to properties. Their business model revolves around having exclusive power, and dolling out highly nonexclusive licenses.
To defeat them, we need to cut off their supply of exclusives. Nothing short of oxygen deprivation will kill them. Like ants though, they have quite a bit of bottled air, and will take decades to kill off.
Big media was a bad idea for everyone involved except government, middlemen, and lawyers.
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>This example doesn't really exlcaim "IP is bad for everybody!"
Yeah it does. It shows how the law is used for the benefit of the rich, not the people it supposedly protects. WE steal money, we get punished. MF's Jon Corzine steals money, he gets called "the honorable" in Congress and that's about it. RIAA/MPAA get caught pirating songs and selling them to the tune of 1.5 billion dollars, but nothing happens. WE do that and we get hit with multimillion dollar fines that make us lifelong wage slaves (see Jamie Thomas).
Ultimately We the People would be better off without these laws, since they don't benefit us. They only benefit the fucking rich (corporations/CEOs) and/or the well-connected (politicians and polticians' friends).
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:5, Insightful)
The composer should have been paid for the of work he performed, as the function of the investment it takes to perform the work and value, not for how useful the work ended up being.
Why? His unique contribution helped bring in a good deal of money, so much so that they enter into agreements that basically equate to profit sharing. Your approach would just mean the big nasty corp gets all the dollars.
Likewise I have a hard time developing devices without running afoul of someone's patent...
This really is a different topic from patents and, as such, a separate discussion. I would like to point out, though, that it's implied that the people you're accusing of sitting fat and lazy off your work did that work before you got to it. You're being encouraged to either license their work or try another approach. That means rewarding the inventor who sunk the time into it (like you do for a living) or developing the technology even further by trying other approaches. That actually is how the patent system is supposed to work and I'm willing to bet that's helping the company you work for out. Getting back on topic, if your complaint about their patent is that it's overly broad, then we're back to the problem not being with the system, but how its enforced. That is a legitimate complaint, but it takes a different approach to get something done about it.
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society
Intellectual property is in the interests of society, it stops big companies from using people's music on top-selling DVDs all around the world.
The problem with intellectual property is when individuals are being fined millions of dollars for sharing half a dozen songs, when the internet is being wrecked in the name of preventing piracy even though anybody with half a brain knows it can't be stopped, when consumers are being screwed over by DRM, when young artists are being ripped off by experienced con-men in suits, etc.
ie. There's no sense of proportion in the laws, they're going way too far in the direction of the corporations instead of towards the consumers.
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:5, Insightful)
This example doesn't really exlcaim "IP is bad for everybody!"
The example screams this: "The copyright system is so ridiculously complicated that even its biggest supporters can't follow the rules properly." (Or worse, they don't even bother to.)
Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction... nobody has lost anything that anyone other than the copyright holder may perceive as valuable. Or, to be more specific, nobody has lost anything tangible.
The point of copyright is that it is supposed to be an *exclusive* right to control copies of the work. If somebody just goes any makes copies of such a work without getting that permission, then that exclusivity has been compromised, and is actually lost to the copyright holder.
Whether you want to argue that this exclusivity should be of no value is immaterial to the notion that it is not an inexhaustible resource (it runs out completely once the work has reached a saturation limit that is specific to both the nature and widespread appeal of the work), and so can arguably have some financial value associated with it.
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:5, Insightful)
IP laws do not provide 'protection' for anyone, they just provide the grounds for a court case.
Because court cases are generally won by the side with the best lawyers, unless they're complete idiots as in TFA, laws generally favour corporations rather than consumers, and larger corporations rather than smaller ones.
This, obviously, is a generalisation and there are always counter-examples of the little guy winning. But if IP laws can be said to protect anyone, then they generally protect the rich against the poor.
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:5, Insightful)
No, his payment should reflect whatever he agreement he and the buyer agreed to.
If they can't come to an agreement then they should fall back to the ever popular: have the other guys find and destroy every single unauthorized copy they created in existance.