Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...

[EagleLady]

You seem to think someone posting a harmless video on Youtube is committing a crime. It's not a crime to want to pay tribute to said Artist with a video!

[sodascouts]

The law is such a mutable thing and the current "rules" so ill-defined that anyone attempting to take a rigid, black-and-white stance on the issue at this point will probably find himself with an ulcer before it's all said and done.

The internet and the technology of digital media have changed the world. You can scream for it to stop and waste your time grabbing at the shirts of the people running past you, or you can accept the new reality and figure out a way to make it work for you. It's your choice.

[bernie's bender]

The law is such a mutable thing and the current "rules" so ill-defined that anyone attempting to take a rigid, black-and-white stance on the issue at this point will probably find himself with an ulcer before it's all said and done.

The internet and the technology of digital media have changed the world. You can scream for it to stop and waste your time grabbing at the shirts of the people running past you, or you can accept the new reality and figure out a way to make it work for you. It's your choice.

Folks have often confused mob rule with democracy.

Question: After removing and having your accounts deleted, you eventually moved on to other things, right? Are you still posting your Joe Paterno videos? Did you finally 'give up'?

Eaglelady, I don't believe I've used the word crime or criminal in any of my posts. A person who gets a speeding ticket isn't a criminal, it is just a violation of existing law and not a big deal so long as the guilty party takes care of his/her responsibilities and either pays the fine (admitting responsibility for violating the law) or goes to court and is found not guilty.

Determining harm is part of community standards and deciding who is harmed is something that a court can determine, but that a reasonable person can also 'make sense of'.

Earlier, I gave an example of a person owning land and folks wanting to hunt on it. Because there are folks who would be ignorant as to asking to hunt prior to actually hunting, it is a requirement in most states that a land owner MUST POST no hunting signs, failing to do so can be interpreted as tacit permission. To a reasonable person, this seems pretty silly and stupid, most of us have enough respect for other people's property that we wouldn't just assume we could trespass without asking permission. But, there are those who say, "nobody said I couldn't, so I can."

When folks make tribute video with video or pictures shot by people who make their living taking pictures and who get paid from selling their pictures and video and when people take songs that they love but do not belong to them to re-use or re-sell... they may do it as an act of love. But, if the 'tribute' is allowed without permission, when the artist decides to try to defend their ownership against someone who is using it for purposes other than a 'tribute' the rights to the owner are diminished because they have not been valuing their ownership and have not enforced their rights. Not enforcing your rights is demonstration enough of the court to rule in favor of the person using the work without rights.

So, the intention can be good, but the effect on the artist can be really bad.

Take Henley's case against Devore. If Henley had not been vigorous in his defense of misuse of his property, when Devore used Henley's work essentially against him, Devore's defense could have simply been the precedent that Henley had been allowing it to happen and it had the appearance of being okay. (in other words, not posted "no hunting" therefore, okay to hunt.)

Again, the argument that 'everyone is doing it' is a logical fallacy, I know there are several teachers and parents here... it is effectively "but, mom!, all the other kids get to do it."

You can claim the law is mutable and as they say in poker, I 'call'.

If you think so, why not adjudicate your Paterno/Stevie Nicks video. If you are in the right, you'll prevail, right? To date, it appears that you folded when called by the authorities... why not test it?

There is irony in making a tribute that actually harms the artists in enforcing their rights to their work. Assuming that it is harmless, why would artists be so desperate to defend their rights? Why would we, the fans, be hassling the very artists who we love and respect? They have brought so much good to us for such a small price (cd's, records etc) and yet, when they want to protect their way of earning a living, we support the convenience of trampling their work for our harmless tributes... and our defense ends up being 'it is the new world artists, get used to it.' or, 'everyone else is doing it, why not us?'

I think we stake out the ground we each feel comfortable standing upon. We each make our own choices.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

This has been an interesting discussion and, it only underscores that this is a very complex problem that none of us here are capable of solving. As I said before, I can see very valid arguments on both sides of this issue. Soda, I agree with what you say about artist needing to figure out how to make technology work for them, but bender also makes a very valid point about non-enforcement being viewed as permission. I don’t think there is any question that some of these issues are going to have to be litigated, and the full impact of the internet on copyright laws may not be truly realized for years to come. But, to me, it is important that we go through the process. In the meantime, those on opposite sides of the issue can, hopefully, all stay open-minded and just agree to disagree.

[sodascouts]

True, dreamer. And I think sometimes it's hard for folks to see things from another's perspective.

But the law IS mutable. Ask the justices on the Supreme Court, who change the law on a regular basis. The problem is that most of us regular folks can't go into court to prove our points. That's why threatening people with lawsuits is so effective. Even if we win, we might go broke in the process. It's unfortunate that the courts have become a weapon of the wealthy and powerful used to intimidate the little guy, but it's a sad reality nonetheless.

[bernie's bender]

True, dreamer. And I think sometimes it's hard for folks to see things from another's perspective.

But the law IS mutable. Ask the justices on the Supreme Court, who change the law on a regular basis. The problem is that most of us regular folks can't go into court to prove our points. That's why threatening people with lawsuits is so effective. Even if we win, we might go broke in the process. It's unfortunate that the courts have become a weapon of the wealthy and powerful used to intimidate the little guy, but it's a sad reality nonetheless.

The irony here is that you are effectively arguing that the law is immutable since you don't think that the 'little guy' has real access to the mechanism.

By turns, I am effectively saying that while it may be mutable, at this point, The Eagles and their agents are acting within existing law.

The obvious fact (which you state very effectively) is that millions of people ignore the law (in essence following the old MLK line of "there are two kinds of laws: just laws and unjust laws and unjust laws are no kind of law at all.")

When folks go to court (thus far) the existing copyright and ownership laws appear to be holding. But, your point that many people don't like the existing laws is well made....

Statistically, we are mostly consumptive in this world. Very few people make things or create things. Most of us buy things that are from other people's imaginations and creativity. There are more people who WOULD BE against any law stopping them from creating 'hybrids' (hybrids = taking other people's work, remixing, mashing, organizing) and calling them creations.

There are parts of rap music (specifically 'sampling') that have gotten lots of criticism for taking key elements of existing songs and then 'rapping' over them. Those cases were had and the rappers were compelled to pay the original artists. In the beginning of that fight, the rappers were appalled that the original artists would demand what they saw as their due. "It is a tribute" "We love those guys!" "How could they not want to be sampled?" "This is just the music companies wanting to get richer"

The same arguments we see here.

For my livelihood, I work in the technology industry. I have had and have friends who have had people rip me off. Industrial espionage and outright theft have visited me and in some cases, I've won and in some I have lost.

I actually have an intellectual property attorney, this is stuff that I know first hand. There are things that I have worked on that most of you have used. In my family, I've watched as several inventions that my dad came up with got 'knocked off' and taken from him from people who were just harvesting other people's ideas and I've seen things my brother has created in the sporting goods industry get completely ripped off. I've seen my mom be a nice old lady and allow the neighbors to use part of her property to load and unload equipment to harvest fruit in their orchards and later to see her sued because she'd allowed an apparent easement... and lose AND have to pay to pave the road!

There is a final philosophical question of which is worse: the harm that people do willingly or the harm they do through ignorance and not knowing and assuming their level of knowledge is adequate for the position they hold?

Lots of people think that they know what the actual issues are and the ramifications of their actions, when, in fact, they haven't spent thousands of dollars either defending their property or fighting to keep something they created instead of letting virtual carpetbaggers come in and steal it from them.

Like so many other things of late, the very people who should be supporting one side, are attracted to another.

[sodascouts]

you are effectively arguing that the law is immutable since you don't think that the 'little guy' has real access to the mechanism.

Huh? The law is mutable because it can be changed. Whether or not it can be changed by the "little guy" is irrelevant with regard to mutability. With regard to fairness... well, that's another matter.

This debate is not "the creative people vs. the people who aren't creative." Heck, I'm a creative person myself, so it's not as if I don't understand that aspect.... but there's a bigger picture here, gray areas that need to be recognized.

There is a reason why the actions of Cass County Music and the big record companies are garnering such ill will among so many people. You can say it's because everyone is vain, ignorant, lazy, etc., but that dismisses hundreds of millions of people - not only the uploaders but the people who watch the uploads and thus perpetuate them. Something more is going on here - and until that reality is confronted, these problems will not go away.

[bernie's bender]

Huh? The law is mutable because it can be changed. Whether or not it can be changed by the "little guy" is irrelevant with regard to mutability. With regard to fairness... well, that's another matter.

This debate is not "the creative people vs. the people who aren't creative." Heck, I'm a creative person myself, so it's not as if I don't understand that aspect.... but there's a bigger picture here, gray areas that need to be recognized.

There is a reason why the actions of Cass County Music and the big record companies are garnering such ill will among so many people. You can say it's because everyone is vain, ignorant, lazy, etc., but that dismisses hundreds of millions of people - not only the uploaders but the people who watch the uploads and thus perpetuate them. Something more is going on here - and until that reality is confronted, these problems will not go away.

if it is only mutable by only a few and not by you... it isn't mutable for you.

it is absolutely the rights of the creative who make things that people want vs. the consumer who sees it as an entitlement to take a product they obtained as a consumer and use it in ways that the original terms did not provide for. That is precisely the issue.

that is the reality that should be confronted. A couple of years ago, I read a huge debate between some musician/songwriter friends and a young man who told all of them they were dinosaurs and stupid for being against piracy. That young man ended up coming to the united states and getting a job in Nashville and he released a series of guitar lessons...

They were pirated. He went crazy. He was so angry that someone would steal his work and GIVE IT AWAY and he was furious to find out that some guys were selling it!

People will spin this issue in a ton of different ways... if you don't think this is the consumer vs. the artist, you've got it wrong. It is difficult because both sides need each other... but stealing is stealing is stealing. You can call it what you want, but if it isn't yours to use, it is stealing and it isn't right.

Every single one of my friends who actually makes something of value does not dig the fans stealing their work. If you think that I'm dismissing millions of people, if they are stealing, they need to not sugar coat it and pretend it is anything other than what it is.

People who steal from other people may do it out of malice, but it is more likely they do it because they don't know the law (ignorance,) don't care (lazy) and somehow want a piece of the spotlight created by the original artist and feel entitled to it because they are a fan (vain.)

I sense that you are a creative person, that is why it is so curious that your position would appear to be so counter and so at odds with the things you care about... If I am adamant about my position, it is because it is real to me. I am someone who has been ripped off, and I have lots of friends who rely on their work for their living...

To me and the artists I know... the debate is very much "Why are people stealing from me who say they love my work? Why aren't they willing to follow the agreement we had as creative selling to consumer?

Cass County is the agent of the artists who want some protection... they are easy to vilify, but the artist needs someone to protect their interest, because if they don't protect themselves, their interest will be lost.

If you think the Eagles wouldn't agree with me, you should ask them.

[MikeA]

Analogy is a slippery weapon Bernie.

We've covered this before, but I have a hard time parallelling "hunting on private property" which is destructive and provided tangible benefit (food) for he who was doing the hunting, and someone humming, singing or maybe playing a song created by someone else when that person had no intent of profiting by that action.

Nor do I see anything but benefit to the artist who created that music unless the person benefits tangibly from the performance and I agree that if there is profit, then the original artist should receive his due in the form of royalties or some fee permitting the plagerizer to profit from it.

It seems that the entire point being debated here is THEFT. I fully endorse the creative persons right to profit from his or her creativity by packaging and selling his or her product and not have it stolen by some other less creative person who does not have the integrity to leave it alone and come up with their own product to be packaged and sold.

If I buy a book at a book store, read it, enjoy it so much that I let my good friend borrow it and read it, is that the same issue? Should each friend or relative who read that book that I bought be held accountable because they didn't go to the book store and purchase that book?

Probably. I suppose that if the law is that black and white, then we can say that the only correct way to behave is to buy that book, read it, put it into a fireproof safe and allow no one to even look at the cover. Heck, you shouldn't even be telling anyone about the book because to do so would be revealing Intellectual Secrets of the author even though telling someone about that book might encourage them to go out and buy it themselves.

Now, exactly how does the above example differ in any way from someone who bought that book, read it, enjoyed it so much that they sat down at a word processor and typed the entire book into softcopy and uploaded it to the Internet for anyone to download for free? In that case, the person who initially bought the book wasn't "SELLING" it, yet making it available to the masses without charge WAS depriving the author of profit because the masses who downloaded and read that book for free instead of paying for it at the bookstore, probably are not going to go to the store and buy it.

(Well, I do if I get hold of the book from someone and read it and like it, I will most likely go on a mission to find and buy everything that author has written....examples of that are the complete works of Marion Zimmer Bradley, Azimov, Heinlein, Piers Anthony, and L'Amour. Each one of those collections started out by me reading a book belonging to someone else but resulted in me buying the complete collection simply because I liked one book someone loaned me. But that's just ME. Most people are not that obsessive.)

I doubt seriously that any court in the land would entertain the thought of prosecutting that person who loaned a book to a friend to read (or that they would prosecute the person who borrowed the book and read it). Yet technically, there is no difference between the two instances is there?

What it boils down to is a matter of DEGREE. With music, I see it in a similar vein. It doesn't "stand on all fours" but is very similar to the example with the books. I can't see any difference in someone buying an Album and playing it for friends at home and someone buying a book and letting someone else read it.

Technically, I suppose that the person owning the Album should have insured that there was no chance of anyone else ever hearing the music recorded on THAT PARTICULAR COPY of the album. They should have locked it in that fireproof safe and never allowed anyone who had not purchased that album listen to it.

Yet, it would seem that letting friends listen to that music at home is okay.

However, playing that Album or Cuts from that Album on radio or in a Disco (perish the though of DISCO! That should be illegal whether fees are paid or not! <LOL>) without paying fees for doing so IS illegal. I don't think there is any argument on that point. The difference of course, is in the "profit" motive. I do not think that any rational person would disagree about the illegality of making copies of that Album and giving them to friends or relatives. God forbid that they make copies and SELL them!

Now all of the above (though pretty silly) still doesn't pertain to the issue I thought this topic started out as being. That point, I thought, was that of someone hearing a song, learning it and playing it and recording their version of it and allowing others to hear it too.

Personally, if I do something like that, you can rest assured that I have no motive of profit. I'm not trying to impress anyone so that they will pay me to have them teach them to play guitar or sing. It is NOT going to improve my resume in any way....performing and music and writing code for mainframe computers have very little in common and if I crudely perform (or do a perfect rendition) of a song, it is in no way going to impact my salary nor will it enhance my "job security." I can't see how that is going to impact the success of the artist nor is it going to decrease the profits the artist can expect.

If that artist is so VAIN that he or she doesn't want anyone to perform that song regardless of the motive, then that is an artist I want nothing to do with and that INCLUDES EAGLES! Good grief, prohibiting me or anyone else from playing "Hotel California" is no different in principle than denying ANYONE the right to hum or sing that song while washing dishes! And singing it while washing dishes is really no different that someone making a video of their performance and posting it on YouTube other than that of the number of people who might witness the performance. More people are going to see it on YouTube than are going to be seeing you or hearing you perform it while washing dishes (at least I would hope so)!

So it boils down to the fact that the objection must be one of Degree. If so, that makes it a non-black-and-white issue. If profit is not the motive of the performer, then to be a black and white issue, one would have to define the number of people who are allowed to witness the performance before it is deemed a violation of the artist's rights.

Wow! If I could go back and relive my life, I think I'd study to be a Lawyer! Nah.....I pretty much like what I've done.

Man, I shouldn't get on the Internet to distract myself at 4:30 in the morning because I couldn't sleep!

[TimothyBFan]

I had 4 or 5 pages of this thread to get caught up on and as I read, I just got a little angrier with each page. I agree about the whole profit thing, I really do. But I just want to be able to pull up a video (which usually isn't that great of quality on YouTube anyways, let's face it!) and watch it. I really don't understand how that harms anyone.

And again, I'm with whoever wondered what gives CCM the right to take down all Eagles solo works.

I don't say things as eloquently as some of you here, I just get angry and ramble on, making little sense. Mike had I wanted to put my thoughts into words, I wish I could say it like you just did! Spot on my friend!!!!

I think some artist and their representatives (all hundreds of them) need to Get Over It and themselves, and let the "little people" enjoy their music and show their appreciation. I do believe it works both ways and when you act like a "brute", it can backfire on you also! Food for thought!