MySpace

[ATom2]

...and why I've stayed away. It was bound to happen.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/17/technology...sion=2006111717

[Hope4Peace]

Thats a bunch of BS... if anything, THEY should be HAPPY about all the FREE ADVERTISEMENT and EXPOSURE they are recieving from this activity.

[john]

...and why I've stayed away. It was bound to happen.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/17/technology...sion=2006111717

How do you think this affects unsigned artists? By that I mean myspace is most definately used by indie artists for self promotion. They agree copyright terms when they upload, so can't really sue myspace. So provided the copyright agreement is acceptable the situation hasn't really changed. For signed artists this has a lot more impact.

This had to happen, and sorry to disagree Amanda, but it has to be up to the artist to give away their material for nothing, not the listener.

Cheers

John

[Hope4Peace]

This had to happen, and sorry to disagree Amanda, but it has to be up to the artist to give away their material for nothing, not the listener.

Nothing is being given away.

The lawsuit accuses MySpace of allowing users to upload videos illegally and taking part in the infringement by re-formatting the videos to be played back or sent to others.

The user already had the video. how they got it should not be something myspace should have worry about. If anything, they should be going after whom ever is distributing the copyrighted material. For all myspace knows, the user could have purchaced it. Would it not then be the users right to upload it for view on his site? If of course, they are not redistributing, selling, or altering the product.

This isnt about copyright infringment, its about myspace has the money, and they need an excuse to get it.

[ATom2]

It has a lot to do with Vivendi......the same company that wiped out MP3.com for the indie performer.

[john]

aah yes. them. but didn't they buy it and start trying to charge? or was it a legal manouver?

[john]

Nothing is being given away.

The user already had the video. how they got it should not be something myspace should have worry about. If anything, they should be going after whom ever is distributing the copyrighted material. For all myspace knows, the user could have purchaced it. Would it not then be the users right to upload it for view on his site? If of course, they are not redistributing, selling, or altering the product.

This isnt about copyright infringment, its about myspace has the money, and they need an excuse to get it.

Dealing with it legally, rather than ethically...

The difference between having a cd in your house and playing it in a club (website, radio station etc) is that you essentially become a broadcaster... ie you are broadcasting it to other people. If Songstuff wanted to set up a radio station we would need to get each artist to sign a copyright waiver. If we didn't we would be have to pay performance royalties, and to be honest the performance royalties would cripple the site. Completely. If not we would be sued.

So what is being given away? Performance royalties.

I agree myspace shouldn't have to worry about where it came from, however as soon as they introduce an element of approval by the site they accept responsibility for that content.

In addition the fact that myspace then edits/compresses etc make them complicit in editing files that they do not have permission to edit.

Ethically, if I stole your car, drove it around, lent it to my friends and let them drive it around to the point where you got to drive it one day a week, would you be pissed off? Of course you would. If the theif then said "yeah but it makes your car look really popular", would you feel any better? If they said, "I do pay the petrol" you still wouldn't be happy? Why? For a start you bought the car, you have the right to say who other than you drives it. They still have to have a license and insurance too. While someone else drives it, they still notch up the miles and run the car down.

When you buy a song, you are not buying all the rights to a song. You are only buying certain rights, constrained by the media type in part, but the rights you get are generally the same. What you do not buy for 79cents are broadcast rights, or the rights to alter/edit the track.

Do you think firearms manufacturers are culpable in the spiralling violence we see across the globe? Ethically? Legally? Well, if nothing else, Myspace are culpable in a similar way. They provide a means to break the performance rights. By editing, they also breach mechanical rights.

Also, because downlaods of some media on myspace is not controlled, it can be downlaoded (not just streamed) this means that they and the uploader are effectively distributing the song. Each download may or not result in additional record sales, but the artist/copyright owner definately has the right to say whether their music can be given away.

One thing to remember is that most signed artists (never mind unsigned) are not multimillion sellers. Most have significant debt. Most have very limited sales which can be almost completely wiped out by illegal downloads. Still sound fair?

A well meaning fan may think it fair to post a song. If so, why don't they ask for permission?

Think of it this way. You know how hard the artists on Songstuff work on their material. If a Songstuff artist puts together a CD and releases it on iTunes (like Finn), but they only have so much money to promote it.

Now at that point they might think:

I'll use a track, and give it away for free as a way of promoting the album. The idea being that they will make money to cover costs and possibly, shock horror, make profit from album sales.

or

If all downloads are sales, I will make enough to cover my costs and maybe make profit.

So along comes someone who posts that track thinking "I like this, this will help get the word out. People will hear it and buy it"

Unfortunately 1 in 100 actually buy it. 30 out the hundred still keep it and play it regularly. the other 69 hate it and never want to hear it again. So, the artist has lost 30 possible sales.

Now what happens when a less scrupulous, or naive fan rips the whole album and posts it on a file sharer, or even myspace? Now the border line earning artist will be making a huge loss. It's worth noting that most singles in the mainstream charts do not actually make the artist any money. For example 80s band Wham who were still receiving state benefits when they were in the charts with their third top ten hit.

IF a fan wants to help an artist. Ask them. They may be delighted to give away a track, or their figures may not want you to help in that way.

If they don't want to contact the artist, but want to promote their song, why not rave about their music on their page and place a link to where the song can be bought, or heard legitimately? (i.e. from a site that has permission to do so, usually because they bought or were given broadcast rights)

Everyone is not a well meaning supportive person. Most folks are quite happy to get something for nothing. Most folks don't add songs to their myspace pages because it hepls the artist, most do it because it makes their page look cool, or because more people will add them as a friend. Any benefit to the artist is purely coincidental.

Sure some fans are not like that, but yet again I would say contact the artist and ask. After all, you only help the artist if they want you to help them.

Cheers

John

[Hope4Peace]

maybe so, but when will this all end? in a few years what, If I buy a CD or movie, will it be illegal to let others listen to it, or watch it with me? Lend it out? Will each person then have to pay to be able to listen or watch?

I understand that artist have rights, but so do the consumers. AND myspace being a 3rd party here, I feel its very unfair to hold them accountable for the actions of those consumers, as I would say in respect to hold any site or organization accountable for its members actions. To a point, it just really makes no more sence than in the fact, as I said. They just want the money......

[Lazz]

This isnt about copyright infringment

But this IS about copyright infringement, Amanda.

"For all myspace knows, the user could have purchaced it."

Purchasing a media format does not automatically confer the untrammeled right to broadcast it.

You may think that it does, you may fervently wish that it was so, but it doesn't and isn't.

"The user already had the video."

But they do not own the broadcast rights.

"Would it not then be the users right to upload it for view on his site?"

Only if they own the rights to do that thing. If those rights in that content belong to someone else then, of course, there is a prima facie breach of the law. You may feel copyright is unjust insome way but, with respect, that doesn't make it go away. It is a legal fact. And one which myspace is well aware of.

"they should be going after whom ever is distributing the copyrighted material."

They are.

"of course, they are not redistributing, selling, or altering the product."

So, in your opinion, this awards them automatic rights for broadcast ?

Currently, they are not selling product - in the future, I wager they will be.

It may be in a small way, it may be big, but product is always altered.

"how they got it should not be something myspace should have worry about."

You say that - although I don't understand why - and you might even passionately believe it as a personal preference for one particular state of affairs over another but, clearly and obviously and very sensibly from an operational point of view. copyright is something that myspace are concerned with. They would be seriously dumb not to be. And they're not dumb at all.

In fact, they've recently been spending a bundle of time and money over copyright issues in their hefty pursuit of some other guys who've developed software for us to take downloads from myspace. The ironies all round are absolutely delicious. Myspace is an openly flagrant copyright abuser, and yet they sue someone else on grounds of copyright. Admirable chutzpah !

Truth is, myspace are operating successfully by exploiting a grey area of intellectual property which is in a state of change. Now they have bigger money behind them, bigger lawyers, and more lobbying muscle. Behind the scenes and obviously unknown to most of us, numerous music-companies/copyright-holders have already cut a deal with them. But so far Universal (Universal/Vivendi - same company) is a hold-out. That's their decision. Maybe they're just holding out for better terms - which would be a difficult precedent for myspace. Maybe they have something else strategically in mind. Maybe we'll find out.

Edited November 18, 2006 by Lazz

[Lazz]

maybe so, but when will this all end? in a few years what if…..

Before we can usefully start belabouring any rhetorical what if, I think it’s necessary to get some realistic purchase on what is.

If I buy a CD or movie, will it be illegal to let others listen to it, or watch it with me? Lend it out? Will each person then have to pay to be able to listen or watch?

This pesky little wrangle between Universal/Vivendi is not part of some insidiously orchestrated conspiracy to undermine or otherwise attack your regular rights as a consumer – whether or not they fall within the doctrine of ‘fair use’. It is about nailing protection for the rights of copyright-holders.

I understand that artist have rights

But evidently you disregard whatever those rights may be.

but so do the consumers.

Right.

They do.

Those rights are not under attack in any way, though.

What you presume to be your right is perhaps under attack.

But perhaps these were only temporary opportunistic privileges.

myspace being a 3rd party here, I feel its very unfair to hold them accountable for the actions of those consumers

In many jursidictions, courts have agreed with you

… as I would say in respect to hold any site or organization accountable for its members actions.

All publishers, all organisations, have certain liabilities and legal duties towards the rights of others.

They just want the money......

They just want what they reasonably believe is their due in law. Edited November 18, 2006 by Lazz