Music License trouble... (stupid of me...)

Chris Davis · July 21st, 2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Kawamoto

Woman Fined $1.9 Million for Downloading 24 Songs

Look here, this woman was fined 1.9 million just for downloading songs... she didn't even use them for a video or distribute them... just illegally downloaded them!

Most of the news stories written and reported about this case have it wrong - she was not fined for "downloading" the songs, she was fined for "reproducing and distributing" the songs. She (through her use of Kazaa) made those songs available for others to download.

Kevin Zibart · July 21st, 2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

David, well... if you weren't in Oz, I'd drop by to "borrow" your widescreen and BluRay player later, OK? That is if you're a bit more well off than I... oh by the way where do you keep your root beer stash - I'm out...?

If David could click his mouse and make copies of his widescreen and BluRay player, and I suppose his root beer stash as well, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to do so for you. But until that day comes, your comparison is flawed.

To fix it, you have to think about what things would be like if we truly did have such an ability. Say for instance that one could simply replicate a widescreen TV at no cost. Someone still has to buy the original first. David, how would you feel to always be the one that buys the original, with everyone else always just replicating your stuff? Also, how do you think the manufacturer would feel? You'd be their #1 customer, that is until they went out of business for lack of sales.

Sometimes it helps to understand where the artists and producers are coming from when we translate their product to something that has more value to us.

Dave Blackhurst · July 21st, 2009, 03:27 PM

Not flawed really, although the fact that one can "make copies" with relative ease and low expense creates the problem we are discussing. Just because we are talking a relatively inexpensive "item", doesn't make the loss of value to the IP holder any less objectionable, and when the copying or distribution results in hundreds of copies or potential copies, the quantity increases the loss.

Property is still property, including INTELLECTUAL property. If you don't think there are knockoffs of electronic items, think again, it happens - but it's not like it's as easy as sticking a disk into a drive and pressing "copy"... I used the analogy of rather more substantial items to press home the point of "using someone elses' stuff without permission or compensation". Pauls point is the same - just because someone leaves the keys in the ignition doesn't mean they are asking you to steal their car... (OK, maybe that's one way to "off" that old clunker...)

Just because it's EASY (or possible) to do something doesn't automatically make it legal or right - you CAN simply ignore a red light, but to maintain order, it's rather good that EVERYONE observes and respects that red light, correct? Then again, say in an emergency, there are exceptions...

SO, if you are an IP creator (and I presume we are here), even for a limited marketplace (Weddings and events of limited interest), you wouldn't want someone buying one copy, and making 100 and selling them, or worse yet someone else posts YOUR work on their website promoting their business (and yes such things DO happen), representing your work as their own.

I think we all want like to be paid reasonably for the work we do. Copyright law protects us, so we should be respectful of other "artists". "Do unto others" as the saying goes.

I've dealt with reasonable and unreasonable "artists" - there's a give and take - you can't become popular without a method of "distributing" your work, but you also have to consider how much is reasonable to charge for licensing... and if you aren't reasonable, you'll limit the market value of your work. There is however nothing preventing anyone from being unreasonable, and I'd stand by their right to do so.

I think there's a factor of if you charge reasonably, you'll "sell" more than if you shoot for the moon on pricing or are very restrictive - there's also a matter of if the genuine article is reasonably priced, why would anyone even WANT to "pirate" or illegally copy??

I think this is where we can all agree that it would be advantageous for artists to be able to offer rights to use their song as an audio track at a reasonable price if they CHOOSE to do so. AFAIK, nothing prevents an artist (barring other contractual obligations) from doing so, and it seems to me that the answer might lie in the existing sites like iTunes... just making the capability available.

Chris Hurd · July 21st, 2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Davis

...she was not fined for "downloading" the songs, she was fined for "reproducing and distributing" the songs.

Thus, the critical difference between downloading and uploading.

My brevity not intended to minimize Dave Blackhurst's excellent post above, though.

Kevin Zibart · July 22nd, 2009, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

Not flawed really, although the fact that one can "make copies" with relative ease and low expense creates the problem we are discussing.

It's the difference between borrowing and copying that I was specifically addressing with your analogy. People tend to think of copying as a victimless crime, so it's important to demonstrate how the original artist or copyright holder is actually victimized by it.

It helps to translate the issue to a scenario involving items of higher perceived value, which typically means something physical like your widescreen TV example. But until Star Trek replicators becomes reality, we won't really have any comparable scenarios involving physical items. So most analogies are easily dismissed as not truly being analogous, and I feel the message is being lost.

Warren Kawamoto · August 2nd, 2009, 11:22 AM

Another guy got fined for downloading and sharing music
Student Joel Tenenbaum to Pay $675,000 in Music Downloading Case

Chris Hurd · August 2nd, 2009, 11:34 AM

I've italicized what I believe to be the two key words in the case Warren links to above:

"...admitted in court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs."

Dave Blackhurst · August 3rd, 2009, 12:42 AM

What can one say about that situation...

"Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, said the jury's verdict was not fair. He said he plans to appeal the decision because he was not allowed to argue a case based on fair use."

I don't know what possible "fair use" argument he thought was viable, but the rest of the story says volumes...

"Tenenbaum admitted on the witness stand that he had downloaded and shared more than 800 songs... Tenenbaum said he downloaded and shared hundreds of songs... The recording industry focused on only 30 songs in the case."

AND:
"Tenenbaum testified that he had lied in pretrial depositions when he said his two sisters, friends and others may have been responsible for downloading the songs to his computer.
Under questioning from his own lawyer, Tenenbaum said he now takes responsibility for the illegal swapping."

Not exactly a "sympathetic defendant" IMO. Lying and admitting it isn't going to make you any friends on a jury, and admitting he was only being prosecuted for about 5% of what he was guilty of... YEESH! NO indication whatsoever he even WANTED or intended to compensate the IP holders in his initial infractions, and he tried to rub it in their face on top of it by asking the jury to "send a message"... IMO he got off easy...

It's interesting to note the "willful infringement" punitive damage multiplier -
"Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful."

Frankly it's hard for me to see how the guy WASN'T a flagrant and willful infringer, like many who seem to spout the argument that runs along the lines of "information should all be free" simply because it can be freely copied and posted on the Internet... ALL IP creators must find such positions offensive - theft is theft, even if the property is "only" intellectual property.

This is VERY different from the sort of very restricted "fair use" I believe wedding and event vidoegraphers envision...

Hank Palan · August 10th, 2009, 11:29 AM

I found this a while ago and thought I should post it here.

ZOOM :: Music Licensing for Videography & Digital Imaging

They have been around for a while and offer reasonable music licensing for major labels. As long as your not going to be posting your videos online its the perfect solution for many.

And in other news...I thought this was quite interesting too:

Official Google Blog: I now pronounce you monetized: a YouTube video case study

The artist who's music was used in the video without permission saw a massive increase in music sales because of the video.

Adam Gold · August 10th, 2009, 12:57 PM

The ZOOM site is interesting and a step in the right direction. A quick look reveals that Motown seems to be the only major label they've signed; it just shows how old I am that I didn't recognize the names of any of the other acts on their list. They have about 8500 tracks available, which seems like a lot (but isn't if they don't have the track you want).

But a great idea and I hope they continue to add labels, as they say they are.

Mickey Aaron · October 8th, 2009, 10:48 AM

Hey guys -- I've had great luck with Pump Audio, via Getty Images & click on "Music" at the top. You can also get a better selection by going right to Pump Audio's own website, but it's a little more expensive.... seems like the Getty version is more consumer-friendly in their pricing. Great stuff that sounds like actual movie scores, but waaay cheaper.

- Mickey

August 2nd, 2009, 11:34 AM	#127
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	I've italicized what I believe to be the two key words in the case Warren links to above: "...admitted in court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs." __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

August 10th, 2009, 11:29 AM	#129
Hank Palan Tourist Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Temecula, CA Posts: 1	An Interesting Move toward Music Licensing I found this a while ago and thought I should post it here. ZOOM :: Music Licensing for Videography & Digital Imaging They have been around for a while and offer reasonable music licensing for major labels. As long as your not going to be posting your videos online its the perfect solution for many. And in other news...I thought this was quite interesting too: Official Google Blog: I now pronounce you monetized: a YouTube video case study The artist who's music was used in the video without permission saw a massive increase in music sales because of the video.

October 8th, 2009, 10:48 AM	#131
Mickey Aaron Tourist Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Pasadena, CA Posts: 1	Music Hey guys -- I've had great luck with Pump Audio, via Getty Images & click on "Music" at the top. You can also get a better selection by going right to Pump Audio's own website, but it's a little more expensive.... seems like the Getty version is more consumer-friendly in their pricing. Great stuff that sounds like actual movie scores, but waaay cheaper. - Mickey

July 21st, 2009, 03:27 PM	#123
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Not flawed really, although the fact that one can "make copies" with relative ease and low expense creates the problem we are discussing. Just because we are talking a relatively inexpensive "item", doesn't make the loss of value to the IP holder any less objectionable, and when the copying or distribution results in hundreds of copies or potential copies, the quantity increases the loss. Property is still property, including INTELLECTUAL property. If you don't think there are knockoffs of electronic items, think again, it happens - but it's not like it's as easy as sticking a disk into a drive and pressing "copy"... I used the analogy of rather more substantial items to press home the point of "using someone elses' stuff without permission or compensation". Pauls point is the same - just because someone leaves the keys in the ignition doesn't mean they are asking you to steal their car... (OK, maybe that's one way to "off" that old clunker...) Just because it's EASY (or possible) to do something doesn't automatically make it legal or right - you CAN simply ignore a red light, but to maintain order, it's rather good that EVERYONE observes and respects that red light, correct? Then again, say in an emergency, there are exceptions... SO, if you are an IP creator (and I presume we are here), even for a limited marketplace (Weddings and events of limited interest), you wouldn't want someone buying one copy, and making 100 and selling them, or worse yet someone else posts YOUR work on their website promoting their business (and yes such things DO happen), representing your work as their own. I think we all want like to be paid reasonably for the work we do. Copyright law protects us, so we should be respectful of other "artists". "Do unto others" as the saying goes. I've dealt with reasonable and unreasonable "artists" - there's a give and take - you can't become popular without a method of "distributing" your work, but you also have to consider how much is reasonable to charge for licensing... and if you aren't reasonable, you'll limit the market value of your work. There is however nothing preventing anyone from being unreasonable, and I'd stand by their right to do so. I think there's a factor of if you charge reasonably, you'll "sell" more than if you shoot for the moon on pricing or are very restrictive - there's also a matter of if the genuine article is reasonably priced, why would anyone even WANT to "pirate" or illegally copy?? I think this is where we can all agree that it would be advantageous for artists to be able to offer rights to use their song as an audio track at a reasonable price if they CHOOSE to do so. AFAIK, nothing prevents an artist (barring other contractual obligations) from doing so, and it seems to me that the answer might lie in the existing sites like iTunes... just making the capability available.

August 2nd, 2009, 11:22 AM	#126
Warren Kawamoto Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,435	Another guy got fined for downloading and sharing music Student Joel Tenenbaum to Pay $675,000 in Music Downloading Case

August 3rd, 2009, 12:42 AM	#128
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	What can one say about that situation... "Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, said the jury's verdict was not fair. He said he plans to appeal the decision because he was not allowed to argue a case based on fair use." I don't know what possible "fair use" argument he thought was viable, but the rest of the story says volumes... "Tenenbaum admitted on the witness stand that he had downloaded and shared more than 800 songs... Tenenbaum said he downloaded and shared hundreds of songs... The recording industry focused on only 30 songs in the case." AND: "Tenenbaum testified that he had lied in pretrial depositions when he said his two sisters, friends and others may have been responsible for downloading the songs to his computer. Under questioning from his own lawyer, Tenenbaum said he now takes responsibility for the illegal swapping." Not exactly a "sympathetic defendant" IMO. Lying and admitting it isn't going to make you any friends on a jury, and admitting he was only being prosecuted for about 5% of what he was guilty of... YEESH! NO indication whatsoever he even WANTED or intended to compensate the IP holders in his initial infractions, and he tried to rub it in their face on top of it by asking the jury to "send a message"... IMO he got off easy... It's interesting to note the "willful infringement" punitive damage multiplier - "Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful." Frankly it's hard for me to see how the guy WASN'T a flagrant and willful infringer, like many who seem to spout the argument that runs along the lines of "information should all be free" simply because it can be freely copied and posted on the Internet... ALL IP creators must find such positions offensive - theft is theft, even if the property is "only" intellectual property. This is VERY different from the sort of very restricted "fair use" I believe wedding and event vidoegraphers envision...

August 10th, 2009, 12:57 PM	#130
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	The ZOOM site is interesting and a step in the right direction. A quick look reveals that Motown seems to be the only major label they've signed; it just shows how old I am that I didn't recognize the names of any of the other acts on their list. They have about 8500 tracks available, which seems like a lot (but isn't if they don't have the track you want). But a great idea and I hope they continue to add labels, as they say they are.