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
Re: (Score:3)
For the record i would also like to say that both intellectual property law and current forms of governance are out dated.
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you, the record will benefit immensely from your important ideas about law and government.
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:5, Funny)
Your welcome, but they were not originally my ideas, i copied them from others. ;-)
We all stand on the shoulders of giants
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:5, Funny)
We all stand on the shoulders of giants ;-)
Not me. I stand on a stack of midgets.
Re: (Score:2)
Those Lilliputians are really useful in the lab for crawling inside my devices and debugging those teeny-tiny parts.
Re: (Score:3)
Well said. "Yertle the Turtle". Dr. Seuss's take on Mussolini, but for kids!
Re: (Score:3)
For the record companies i would also like to say that both intellectual property law and current forms of governance are out dated.
ftfy.
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: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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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. He may be hired to work again if it was a good performance, otherwise you tax and unempower other people and musicians, so you get to be fat and lazy off of their hard wor.
Likewise I have a hard time developing devices without running afoul of someone's patent, even though what I did was developed in a clean room process, so th
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: (Score:2)
A) they actually did any work whatsoever, or its non trivial work "one click", "round corner tablet device"
B) they are willing to license the work at all, instead of suing me to an oblivion.
C) that people should be rewarded from ideas, instead of the labor time they spent in implementing ideas.
A) "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." ... try reading more carefully.
B) "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 t
Re: (Score:2)
People can send money to these 'creative' charities if they want to, who then have an obligation to spend the money on creative endeavors, and of course a world where personal income is capped at some reasonable level.. ...
C) that people should be rewarded from ideas, instead of the labor time they spent in implementing ideas. .
What exactly is better about this model? Now the little guy still doesn't get rewarded and the entire content industry would get dunked into the toilet, taking lots of employed people with it. What is the problem you're trying to solve and why would it be better than just shortening the length of copyright?
Re: (Score:3)
There are entire industries that are dunked into the toilet, many of the employees of whom live in tiny huts/dorms with hardly more than the clothes on their backs, why should your industry benefit at the expense of all others?
Because your from the bourgeois class, which is able to force the balance of power your way, and thus keep out the competition?
Re: (Score:2)
There are entire industries that are dunked into the toilet, many of the employees of whom live in tiny huts/dorms with hardly more than the clothes on their backs, why should your industry benefit at the expense of all others?
We can't have this conversation yet until you answer the question I originally posed: What exactly is better about your model?
Re: (Score:2)
Posted to grandparent.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... okay. So let me ask you this: If your way suddenly happened overnight, what all do you think we would lose?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't bother, he's a nut. Notice that he honestly believes that personal income should be capped?
Yeah, we're better off in a world without his ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Whats better about it:
The intellectual property realizes maximum utility
It increases competition in the market place by removing protectionism
It cant be used as economic/geographical/class warfare
Intellectual property cannot be leveraged to help increase wealth inequality
Wealth inequality causes inherent economic inefficiencies
Where wealth inequality is less efficient because:
1. The law of diminishing returns occurs, say for example the ROI on college education VS a traditional investment vehicle.
2. The uti
Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I (Score:4, Interesting)
We are at a point in time where the sharing of ideas is almost instantaneous, and internationally reaching. Eliminating the concept of idea ownership will allow people to innovate at a faster pace, creating a richer (not necessarily wealthier) society. This of course would happen at the expense to business models that rely entirely on the concept of IP, and do not create any actual value in the process.
Artists, inventors, and creators, would still provide a service like any other profession. They can choose to start a business that utilizes their skill set, or go work for a company that knows how to efficiently capitalize on those skills. Your claim is that in either model, these people would [get the shaft]. If they are getting screwed in either model, why not choose the one that allows society to progress faster?
I would even go as far to say that without IP ownership, more artists would be able to earn a living wage. Why you ask? Because their sole means of income would no longer be in the hands of a monopolistic media empire which controls the entirety of mainstream distributions channels. That's a doubleplusgood for the model without IP.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are getting screwed in either model, why not choose the one that allows society to progress faster?
Because they can still elevate themselves to 'not get screwed'. Go look up the author of Harry Potter some time.
More artists would be able to do so if we took the power away from the media monopolies (EG. get rid of, or severely limit the scope of IP).
Re: (Score:2)
"on a computer" is still overly broad, your not entitled to money, just because you had a good idea.
"we currently do this thing, so im going to patent doing it on a computer".
Re: (Score:2)
With most ideas, the money isn't coming in because someone came up with a good idea, but because someone sat down and worked out the details, came up with a business plan, invested capital, hired the right people, laid down many hours of hard work organising it all, etc.
Ideas are over-rated -- even the non-obvious ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, i believe in labor theory of value, I just didn't use the jargon. That is not to say subjective value theory is wrong, but subjective value theory doesn't work on intellectual property.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for him, he is getting hundred of thousands of dollars for a very minimal amount of work!
Bad for everyone else, that are expected to pay $25 + his royalties for a harry potter DVD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the payment should reflect the amount of labor or investment went into creating and performing the music, not as the means to live without having to work ever again, and not as a means to extract wealth from other creative types wanting to enjoy/learn from his work.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The studio is getting millions of dollars for mass-producing content people wish to buy. His 'minimal work' assisted in reaching those earnings. You're saying you'd rather Warner Brothers just get more money rather than spreading that amongst the people who made it possible. The oddball thing is you're proposing a greater harm to society!
Those people pay the $25 regardless of whether or not that royalty is paid.
Some day you need to learn that hours on a time-card do not reflect value of the work.
I'm saying that warner brothers model is broken as well, and they should work on the charity/patron/client model. If his work isn't worth the amount he wants for it, then the "content distribution 501c3" will choose someone else, and if "content distrubtion 501c3" doesn't produce work I like (emo metal hiphop) I'll donate to someone else who does.
Re: (Score:2)
True, if copyright was removed, a lot of the traditional Hollywood studios might disappear, and a lot of people could be out of jobs.
But you're forgetting that people still have a need for entertainment, and the money they don't spend on Hollywood films would be spent on something else. Like low- and medium-budget films. Or live performances. Or tv shows distributed directly over the Internet. And those also require writers, actors, sound tecnicians and so on.
In the end, it'd be like when horse carriages w
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is simple. Do you have permission to copy it? Maybe, I'm not sure... then you possibly can't copy it. It isn't complicated. Does it last too long? yes, but it isn't complicated.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
The practical reality of copyright compliance lies far, far from that.
First, every copyrighted work potientially has a different license agreement, that specifies how many copies you may make, which geographic region you may distribute them in, for what purpose you may do it, during which time period you may do it, how and when you're allowed to display the work publicly, etc.
Second, different countries have different copyright terms, different rules for fair use, and so on.
Third, a work may have several cr
Re: (Score:2)
I am confused. This is a case of IP law working very well. Are you suggesting that this person should receive no payment for their music?
Re: (Score:2)
I am confused. This is a case of IP law working very well. Are you suggesting that this person should receive no payment for their music?
I believe this to be a case of a person making a generalization based upon what they perceive to be popular opinion (Ugh think copyright/IP/patents BAD, Ugh no need know reason why), with zero regard for reality or logical thought processes. Common practice on the 'net these days, what with the apparent obsession with peer acceptance and approval as a means of self-realization.
Otherwise, one would assume they would have realized, prior to posting, that the concept of "not in the best interest of society" i
Re: (Score:3)
Or it could be based on a nuanced study of capital flows to IP thugs, and the lack of investment in other human resources (people), which in turn harms the ROI on other human labor (farming, manufacturing). Thereby reinforcing a class system in which people are unable to escape.
Hardly as subjective as your subjective analysis of "he probably just wants free stuff".
Re: (Score:3)
Or it could be based on a nuanced study of capital flows to IP thugs, and the lack of investment in other human resources (people), which in turn harms the ROI on other human labor (farming, manufacturing). Thereby reinforcing a class system in which people are unable to escape.
Yea, no.
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to claim that the current iteration of IP/copyright/patent law is fucked, namely because it is. But that is by no means a blanket condemnation of the tools themselves; in fact, to claim the tools are the problem is to show an abject lack of critical thinking ability, as any child could tell you it's not the hammer which ultimately drives the nail, but the man holding the hammer. Yes, the system is oft abused by powerful groups, but that doesn't mean the system itself
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, no. Look, it's perfectly reasonable to claim that the current iteration of IP/copyright/patent law is fucked, namely because it is. But that is by no means a blanket condemnation of the tools themselves; in fact, to claim the tools are the problem is to show an abject lack of critical thinking ability, as any child could tell you it's not the hammer which ultimately drives the nail, but the man holding the hammer. Yes, the system is oft abused by powerful groups, but that doesn't mean the system itself in inoperable - there are also instances, such as that brought forth by TFA, in which IP/copyright/patent law actually does work to protect the artist/inventor from whom the product originated.
What IP/copyright/patent law actually does is protect the artist/inventor, at the expense of both the consumers, producers and competition, and that is whats inherently unethical about it. Any laws that exist should be applied universally (Immanuel Kant), tractor manufacturers should be alllowed to license and charge royalties on food production, production workers should be able to license and charge royalties as well.
Funny, I don't recall making that statement... *re-reads previous post* Nope, nothing even close to the assumption you've made here. In fact, you're the only one who has broached the idea of wanting something for nothing... perhaps you yourself are unaware of your actual agenda? One has to wonder why a person would be so adamantly opposed to the mere concept of IP, especially when discussing a rare instance in which IP law actually works out in the best interest of the creating artist...
What's your angle here? If you're not attempting to posit the idea that you should have access to other people's creative works without payment, then what are you trying to say?
Yes. I am saying that the person who created the work should be paid according to their l
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. thats what college textbooks and the college loans to pay for them, have done to the college students and people who cant afford it, thereby creating a class division of "haves" and "have not's"
Re: (Score:3)
I generally believe that if his work was important enough to be made, than he should have been paid for the amount of work performed, not based on how much it benefited society.
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
No, but we're talking about creative works here, not labor. If the company makes an improvement in the tractor that increases its usefulness they should benefit from the idea. A perfect example is the three point hitch [wikipedia.org] which Harry Ferguson invented. It revolutionized how tractors were used.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the difference between creative works and labor ? And by patenting it or some other benefit, does it prevent it from realizing its maximum usefulness?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
Well, do you think it should be illegal for me to buy some tractors and lease/rent them out to farmers, charging either for time or miles driven or both? Maybe I want to run some kind of Tractors as a Service (TaaS) system providing tractor capacity on demand the way I find best and charging by the food produced. Maybe that's the only kind of service the tractor company wants to offer. You make it sound like you have to sell your work and I disagree, you just shouldn't be able to have it both ways. Today yo
Re: (Score:3)
>
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
So what you are saying is, if I'm a farmer and I rent a tractor for a week... Then I can just keep using that same tractor forever?
That is basically what happened here. He made a song, they could use it for a week. But then they kept using it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's different, because if you keep the tractor, you're depriving the tractor company of one tractor.
On the other hand, if you COPIED the tractor, the tractor company would be no worse off than before, and you'd be richer by one tractor.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, lots and lots and lots of companies work that way. For example: Suppose that the tractor is so good it costs $250,000 to build: parts and labor. And the R&D to develop it was $50 million. No farmer could afford that. But they might be able to afford paying a per-crop fee so long as they used the tractor. And it might still wind-up with them saving money because it cuts their work down.
Medical devices work this way, as one example. So do inkjet printers & ink. And movies. And restau
Re: (Score:2)
Well no, that's theft and you should be charged as such.
If he sold you the doodle for five minutes of his hourly rate then you went and sold it for a million bucks, that's his problem and he needs to suck it up: obviously you were a better salesman.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a case of IP law working very well
No, this is a case of someone forcing the MAFFIA a eat their own dog food.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society
Oh, it is, it is! You just have to be a big company to try to get away with 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: (Score:2)
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.
Except that they wouldn't be able to actually sell the content all around the world
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: (Score:2)
Perhaps its time that we realize that intellectual property is not in the best interests of society
Yo Ho, Yo Ho, the pirate life for me. Take everything you can, give nothing back. Arrrgh!
Just goes to show (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is a secondary function of all forms of governance, corporate and civil.
Re: (Score:2)
the music industries attack on piracy is often about a new way to extort easy money more than an actual concern for the musicians they are supposed to represent
Music & Entertainment Industry are their own worst enemies.
Re: (Score:3)
If it were us, we would be looking at "infringment penalties" of many, many dollars for every copy we "distributed".. yet they have to pay a 20k Euro fine, and his court costs.. Wow.. the downside is really not a downside, is it?
€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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Such high damages are only appropriate in cases involving non-commercial infringement.
DVD Ad (Score:5, Insightful)
So there was a DVD advertisement that pirated music about not pirating music?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's the problem. A lot of terms are lobbed around which insight more emotion than understanding. Did they pirate it? Not really. They had permission to exhibit the song in a specific way and broke the terms of the license. Constantly using analogues to physical things ("piracy", "property", "theft") is just dumb. We need to realize that this stuff isn't property and this isn't theft. Should content creators be protected? Yes. Are they currently? IMO way more than is necessary.
According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (Score:4, Interesting)
So we don't need to discuss this anymore. Copyright infringement is "THEFT"
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr
Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (Score:5, Interesting)
When did the FBI get to decide that?
Under US law it is clearly not theft.
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: (Score:2)
"nobody has lost anything"?!? Is your basic premise is that intellectual property has no value whatsoever? Something tells me if you were the musician whose paycheck was directly proportional to the number of CD's sold you may have a different opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he should not rely on a model which is contingent on the number of cd's sold, like for instance doing performances for the general public... you know "work".
Re: (Score:2)
That's what it all comes down to when they're talking about copyright violations being theft, isn't it? Depriving someone of funds which they theoretically should have received.
In the case of poor college
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:According to the FBI it is "THEFT" (Score:4, Informative)
RTFL before replying buddy. They clearly claim music and media as theft.
Creative Commons pilot (Score:2)
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.
How did it wind-up on a Harry Potter DVD? (Score:2)
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.
I can't access the TorrentFreak link from my office. How did it wind-up on a Harry Potter DVD? Did the anti-piracy group get their message as a special feature on the DVD somehow?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I can't access the TorrentFreak link from my office. How did it wind-up on a Harry Potter DVD? Did the anti-piracy group get their message as a special feature on the DVD somehow?
presumably yes. if that sounds far fetched then I suppose you haven't seen any legit(non blackmarket/torrent) dvd's or blurays ever.
No surprise (Score:2)
Anyone surprised by this is truly clueless.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I'm not surprised. But I think the author of the music should sue them for oh...what's the going rate these days? $250k/infringement? Man that's going to be a lot of cases per DVD isn't it? Oh and I bet it's on Bluray, and digital distribution too.
Man, this guy is going to be rolling in so much money that that he could bankrupt them...wait just a tick. Everyone support this guy, quick!
Poetic Justice (Score:2)
I'm sure it's a misunderstanding because these agencies are just so concerned about those poor starving artists.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Buma/Stemra (Score:3)
Every discussion on copying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be "Wrong in itself" versus "Wrong because it's against the law".
Stealing their music (Score:2)
So now that they have been caught stealing the music, did they return the music to the artist they stole it from?
No?
Because they used the music without the proper permission, the artist no longer had their music anymore...
Oh hang on, what I just said makes no sense at all.
Thats because COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT STEALING!!!
Why do people perpetuate this fucking insidious myth?
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Recording Industry,
I am terribly sorry for the music I have stolen from you, please accept your items returned in an "as new" state as recompense.
11001 1110000101010110010 00011100110001111 00001111001110011000001 000110101010 0101 1010100001 0101010001 0101 0101 010 00011110101010101010 01011101001010 0 10 10 01 0110110100110 10101001010100 0101010101010 100111111 010010101010101 01010 0100101010....
I hope that now your property has been returned to you in perfect condition that you will not pursue a
correction to the summary (Score:2)
when Rietveldt bought a Harry Potter DVD in 2007, he discovered his music being used in the anti-piracy ad without his permission
Now it makes a bit more sense.
By the way, pretty sure this is not the one they're talking about but I have to post it. I HAVE TO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No way! Really?
Re: (Score:2)
How ironic...
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: (Score:2)
NO ONE FUCKING GIVES SHIT!
Yet, ironically, lotsa people do give a shit.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I explicitly mentioned "Hollywood accounting" in my last post, precisely because of situations like these, and if you read your own link you'll find that it only pertains to the profit-sharing side of the equation, which is exactly what I said Hollywood accounting has an impact on. And, as you'll recall, I also pointed out that the profit-sharing side is in addition to any other payments that are made. That actor got paid. He just didn't get paid as much as he should have.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not how composers get paid. They get royalties from performances (broadcast on TV and radio) that are gathered by ASCAP and BMI, and then when it comes to DVD and media they can (attempt to) negotiate receiving mechanical royalties (good luck). Either way, I at least get paid anytime the film I've scored is played on TV no matter how much money it made...even if it was a complete loss through hollywood accounting...and if I manage to get through the nightmare of trying to get my much deserved mech
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Musicians only get paid when the music makes a profit. Since his music on an anti-piracy promo will never be "sold" and thus never make a profit, he will never get paid.
You totally missed even the summary: he made it for a one-time anti-piracy promo which was not being sold and for which he didn't expect to be paid BUT he found it on a DVD which *was* being sold.