Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Copyright claims. It’s getting serious,


LarryUK

Recommended Posts

Yup. Over here in Europe "EU Article 13" has the potential to be extremely problematic for pretty much every single forum because posters will have to prove that they have the copyright to post any content not originated by themselves. Imagine a guitar forum discussion where you cannot post any picture of any guitar you have not taken yourself.

Bureaucrats doing what bureaucrats do best; totally f-ing up the system for no real purpose whatsoever.

I do understand that SERIOUS breaches of copyright are illegal and should be banned but, say, an on-line guitar tutorial being banned from showing 'pupils' some well-known chord-progressions?

 

Utterly ludicrous situation.

 

Pip.

Edited by pippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Over here in Europe "EU Article 13" has the potential to be extremely problematic for pretty much every single forum because posters will have to prove that they have the copyright to post any content not originated by themselves. Imagine a guitar forum discussion where you cannot post any picture of any guitar you have not taken yourself.

Bureaucrats doing what bureaucrats do best; totally f-ing up the system for no real purpose whatsoever.

I do understand that SERIOUS breaches of copyright are illegal and should be banned but, say, an on-line guitar tutorial being banned from showing 'pupils' some well-known chord-progressions?

 

Utterly ludicrous situation.

 

Pip.

 

 

Ag-effing-reed. But I was sure it was coming, and likely in installments. I think it's a pre-text to start charging more for legal streaming, which in itself is probably fair if the artists themselves see more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see how this holds up. They're copyrighting chords? what? this is absolute BS...

 

someone needs to sprinkle some sanity on this..

 

is this UK based only? he did mention UK Union.... ?

 

really, I get copyright protections but chord progressions were NEVER part of the laws, and now "a chord"??

 

this really p*sses me off,, what a steaming load of dog pooh..

Edited by kidblast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I can't see how this holds up. They're copyrighting chords?...

No, kb, not quite - but not far from it. To give but one small example;

 

What this involves is, say, an on-line tutorial where someone demonstrates how to play the intro and chord-sequence for 'Stairway to Heaven'. The copyright for this music, obviously, is owned by someone and the owner could expect to receive royalties for this on-line public 'performance' of their music. If the performer hasn't paid to be able to use the music in question then this tutorial is in breach of copyright law and Youtube (for instance) have an obligation to suspend the broadcasting of the tutorial.

 

And no; it's not just in the UK. The European Article 13 is, as I understand it, just the specific title for the form in which the legal case will be presented to the European Parliament. And it's not just music fora which will be affected. The Leica Photographic Forum has, for several months, been campaigning against the imposition of these criteria - even going to the lengths of having days where it's impossible to upload or view any photographic images on the forum to illustrate how crippling such extraordinarily draconian measures would be to (in their case) a photographic forum. Even when the individual posters post photographs taken by themselves it will be considered the responsibility of the Forum Owners to be able to prove that there has been no infringement of copyright even if there has been no copyright-infringement contested.

 

The situation really is quite insane.

 

Pip.

Edited by pippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been coming for a long time. The only way to control the middle is to clamp the extremes. Can't have everyone doing anything they want, anytime they want, without compensation to the owners of the rights to the material. The media companies want no part in such verification and payment of the typical ASCAP/BMI fees, because that would be, you know, work. So the answer to that is that nobody can do anything ever.

 

It works good like that. Nobody that should be is held accountable and responsible. Fact: Fair compensation for fair use has evaporated. Youtube, advertisers, and streamers all make money on material owned by others, while those owners get nothing. That is a fact. Nobody wants to do the hard work of figuring out rights fees for large scale providers of content. Bar owners pay these fees or face pretty big penalties, like all venues that host live entertainment. Zuckerberg and the Google don't have time for that nonsense, they'll just turn it all off. There will be droves of people with other content to replace the music stuff, they'll be fine.

 

We should all want and stand up for fair compensation for fair use, so I'll say it again:

 

Write, arrange, hire a band, record, advertise, and tour some songs. Watch others make small amounts of money on your material without paying you for it. Multiply that small amount by millions of hits on the internet. You will be angry still, but a different angry.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...We should all want and stand up for fair compensation for fair use, so I'll say it again: Write, arrange, hire a band, record, advertise, and tour some songs. Watch others make small amounts of money on your material without paying you for it. Multiply that small amount by millions of hits on the internet. You will be angry still, but a different angry...

I agree completely but the problem is what, exactly, constitutes 'Fair Use'.

 

Back in the day when I played-out we had to supply a list of tracks performed of an evening to the UK Musicians' Union (we were members) who would do their 'copyright' homework and, subsequently, send us a bill for how much we owed the writers / owners of the material we performed. It was all quite straightforward and the Bar/Lounge didn't get into trouble for hosting an 'unlawful performance'. And, clearly, that is absolutely fair. But can we really expect newcomers to the guitar to learn how to play the bloody thing without having some well-known classics to pay along to as they practice?

 

It's a difficult situation to get 'right' but is banning everything shown in the public domain the correct solution?......eusa_think.gif......

 

 

Pip.

Edited by pippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, kb, not quite - but not far from it. To give but one small example;

 

What this involves is, say, an on-line tutorial where someone demonstrates how to play the intro and chord-sequence for 'Stairway to Heaven'. The copyright for this music, obviously, is owned by someone and the owner could expect to receive royalties for this on-line public 'performance' of their music. If the performer hasn't paid to be able to use the music in question then this tutorial is in breach of copyright law and Youtube (for instance) have an obligation to suspend the broadcasting of the tutorial.

 

And no; it's not just in the UK. The European Article 13 is, as I understand it, just the specific title for the form in which the legal case will be presented to the European Parliament. And it's not just music fora which will be affected. The Leica Photographic Forum has, for several months, been campaigning against the imposition of these criteria - even going to the lengths of having days where it's impossible to upload or view any photographic images on the forum to illustrate how crippling such extraordinarily draconian measures would be to (in their case) a photographic forum. Even when the individual posters post photographs taken by themselves it will be considered the responsibility of the Forum Owners to be able to prove that there has been no infringement of copyright even if there has been no copyright-infringement contested.

 

The situation really is quite insane.

 

Pip.

 

Pip, I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying the whole thing is quite broken, as Ron says, and he's right,.,. been a long time coming.

 

unless the laws have changed, a chord pattern or sequence of the same, was never subject to copyright laws. A few law cases I've followed were settled in the last 15 years that we're decided on that fact. Some one tried to sue Lionel Ritchie, she lost, it was close, but it wasn't deemed a copyright infringement.

 

Fogherty was taken to court when he released Old Man Down The Road, which someone who owned his songs (a horrible story there) was "close" enough to "Run thru the Jungle" so they sued him, but afik he won.

 

Sounds like the song isn't a violation where recording the SAME song, and SELLING it. Plagiarism.. and this is kind of what Mike is implying in that 20 minute video he posted.

 

 

What about cover bands, so we're in a band and we play 10 Beatles songs, 15 Stones songs,, what about that? We're getting paid to play right? and if we are not in the Union, where I believe but could be wrong that the dues are "supposed" to cover these royalties?

 

What about the club that has 80 people in there drinking beers and dancing to Brown Sugar?

 

Club supposed to pay a royalty? they essentially are making money of the beer sales, and the people are there cuz they like the band, so... But we all know a club owner is going to toss anyone out on there arse that implies he owes a record label a cut of that.

 

So then is it the band who's getting paid (dirt most likley) to play there that night, They need to pay a royalty for playing Brown Eyed Girl, and Twist and Shout?

 

What if I write song that uses some of the same Chords "name a popular song here" has? I can expect an email if I upload to YT and someone decides that I've violated a copyright cuz I used those chords in my chorus?

 

This is what Mike on that link in the OP is saying that are getting notifications of a copyright case. That's why I'm saying Chords????? Really? did you see his vid? it implies some outrageous limitations.

 

Again, I'm not arguing, We all know that Musicians (the guys that write the songs, and live out of suitcases for 25 years of their lives) get BONED all the time by these record labels, and the GREED these corporate bastids run on is just beyond pornographic.. and now they're coming after guys like us...

 

it's indeed a slippery slope..

Edited by kidblast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly killed the record labels, now the squeeze is on.

 

Definitely

 

But also nipped the pockets of the artist as well, as we would get 5%-10% of album / CD retail price and we would eat the packaging costs..... 5% of a platinum selling album is a lot of coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...unless the laws have changed, a chord pattern or sequence of the same, was never subject to copyright laws...

Sounds like the song isn't a violation where recording the SAME song, and SELLING it. Plagiarism..

Oh, I agree with you, kb but I'm not talking about chord progressions which are similar to another song; I'm only talking about when someone actually performs a particular song - such as 'Stairway to Heaven'.

All the following views expressed by me in the stuff below were (AFAIK) correct a very long time ago when I played out. I'm sure some laws will have changed in the interim but here's (AFAICR) what it was like back in the late '70s / early '80s in Scotland;

 

...What about cover bands, so we're in a band and we play 10 Beatles songs, 15 Stones songs,, what about that?...What about the club that has 80 people in there drinking beers and dancing to Brown Sugar?...Club supposed to pay a royalty?...

No; the onus was on the band to pay any monies owed to the owner of the songs. It had nothing to do with the owner of the bar whatsoever. That was the reason we joined the Musicians' Union; because they did the necessary paperwork and we, the band, could be sure all was above board and legal. OTOH if the bar has a jukebox or the owner plays piped music then it is up to the owner to ensure he has a public performance license (Mechanical Copyright Protection Service) for such pre-recorded music as he played.

 

...So then is it the band who's getting paid (dirt most likley) to play there that night, They need to pay a royalty for playing Brown Eyed Girl, and Twist and Shout?...

Yes.

 

What if I write song that uses some of the same Chords "name a popular song here" has? I can expect an email if I upload to YT and someone decides that I've violated a copyright cuz I used those chords in my chorus?

That is a 'How Long is a Piece of String?' type Question but I'm sure you remember the Spirit "Taurus" / Led Zeppelin "Stairway..." court case...

 

...That's why I'm saying Chords????? Really? did you see his vid? it implies some outrageous limitations....it's indeed a slippery slope...

It does and it is. This is why it's such a desperately serious issue...

 

Pip.

Edited by pippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I wonder if they will come after me eventually... I purposely kept everything on my business youtube channel stuff that I have created myself (or I have permission to use). HOWEVER at the start and end of a lot of my vids I have a "similar" chord progression to The Wind Cries Mary and I do mean only similar, what I play is only an approximation, its doesn't really sound that much like the Jimi version at all.

 

Like in this one.

 

We all knew it was going to happen at some point as lets face it, the current situation and how its been for the last decade or so is not good, people have proper been taking the P, it does need control.. People should get paid for their own work. In fact it does annoy me somewhat how much stuff gets replicated on youtube.

 

BUT the worrying issue about this for us (and really not getting political) is its the EU that will control it.. And they will probably use the power in the worst way possible.. We will see I guess..

 

Check this vid about it. He does go way over the top but has some points too.

 

I don't think this is actually applicable to EVERY link posted but just for news media.. So posting pics of guitars should still be ok and lets face it, why would a guitar company stop us talking about and helping to advertise their product? That would be totally counter productive. If that is what ends up happening and ends up becoming the norm (this is just the EU we are talking about at the moment), indeed the internet as we knew it is over.

Edited by Rabs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...BUT the worrying issue about this for us (and really not getting political) is its the EU that will control it.. ......this is just the EU we are talking about at the moment......

 

But it isn't just Europe, Rabs.

 

How many times have you clicked on a youtube link posted here and have been denied access because of copyright issues?

Sure; Article 13 of the EU proposal is, by its very definition, EU-only but the Bigger Picture will, at some point, involve every continent which subscribes to applying International Law.

 

Pip.

Edited by pippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely but the problem is what, exactly, constitutes 'Fair Use'.

 

Right. Scrubbing off the guitar tracks, playing the song in "tribute" or "teaching", collecting advertising hits, collecting as the provider, and collecting as the advertiser is not "Fair compensation for Fair Use" if the owner of the rights doesn't get paid. Using the sickening "tribute" word over and over does not make it Fair. Teaching is fine, but there are three entities profiting, and none is the owner of the rights. That's all that matters. They are sick of it, they being the owners of the rights. If that owner happens to be a record company, talk to the artist that sold their rights to them, the record company just isn't the bad guy, they are the rights owers, same as widows and investors in song rights and songwriters that have NOT sold their rights.

 

Back in the day when I played-out we had to supply a list of tracks performed of an evening to the UK Musicians' Union (we were members) who would do their 'copyright' homework and, subsequently, send us a bill for how much we owed the writers / owners of the material we performed. It was all quite straightforward and the Bar/Lounge didn't get into trouble for hosting an 'unlawful performance'. And, clearly, that is absolutely fair. But can we really expect newcomers to the guitar to learn how to play the bloody thing without having some well-known classics to pay along to as they practice?

 

In Americur, the venue owner pays blanket fees to ASCAP/BMI in order to provide live music. There has been talk of moving it down to the bands, but that will result in no live music. So it will move down to us and kill it all, or it won't. Either way, I would bet large money that none, not one of the large scale internet media providers will be tasked with doing just that, paying the fees to cover their use of whatever anyone would care to call "live music". They should, but they won't.

 

It's a difficult situation to get 'right' but is banning everything shown in the public domain the correct solution?......eusa_think.gif......

 

As opposed to Wild West Freedom? For the owners of rights to music, it is the only solution. They too know that holding the massive internet providers to anything just isn't going to happen. They don't really have a choice if they want to retain control over their ownership, which is all they want to do. Like anyone that owns rights to anything.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pip/RCT to save us reading through quoted posts, wrt to your replies.

yep I understand and you seem to have it (in my opine anyway) right.

 

And that Zep court case was one that I was trying to recall but could not call to mind.

 

Anyway, been a good thread for the sake of good discussion and debate. something we sort of don't get too often here these days!

 

but none of it is looking good for "us". YouTube has been such a great resource for learning things, and now, just as it's become the place to go, it may wind up all going away.

it's really a same if that happens. "well lets see now, looks like they having a little bit too much fun over there, lets stop that..."

Edited by kidblast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it isn't just Europe, Rabs.

 

How many times have you clicked on a youtube link posted here and have been denied access because of copyright issues?

Sure; Article 13 of the EU proposal is, by its very definition, EU-only but the Bigger Picture will, at some point, involve every continent which subscribes to applying International Law.

 

Pip.

Yeah but also I have read or heard somewhere (cant remember now) that there have been countries who have tried to implement this sort of law but found it unworkable so have withdrawn them (Germany is one of them I think).. The reason being that the software and workload behind these laws is just makes it undoable. The amount of data uploaded to the internet on a daily basis is so big that there is no real way to police it all.

 

I don't know.. Im not that up on the facts.. But as I say, it all depends on how they actually implement the law.. If indeed they are going to allow automated software to take over completely it will be awful.

 

I was also talking about this on another forum.. This is what someone else said..

 

So...what they now have to do, in a post-Article 13 world, is compare all the content that's uploaded to their entire storage pool in real time to avoid bottlenecks. That's 300 hours per minute * 3GB (the rough size of an hour of decent-quality video content these days) = 900GB a minute, and that's just loading the content that's uploaded.

 

Effectively, every day they've got to compare roughly a petabyte of data to many exabytes of data. In real-time. At a minimum, just for reading their entire data pool in a day, you're looking at a transfer rate of roughly 5 terabytes per second. That's not practically possible with any known technology.

 

For reference the estimated total bandwidth of the entire Internet in 2017 was 295Tbps, or 36.9TB/s. So, just to deal with the current YouTube library, they'd need to internally apply the equivalent of 14% of the entire globally-available bandwidth...and that's without trying to work out how much processing power they'd need to compare it to the existing content. Probably about the same proportion of the Internet's available CPU (ie a ludicrous amount).

 

 

You get the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I wonder if they will come after me eventually...

 

 

I truly doubt it.

 

Honestly I think this is a very small exception, and YouTube is protecting themselves as they are the ones with the deep pockets, not the guy that is providing guitar lessons using YouTube as the medium.

 

If I were to have a musical lesson business that required videos as part of the curriculum, I would invest in my own website to provide video content to pupils.... Problem is when something has been provided as a free service for a long period of time, and the rules start to change, people get pissed.... But the reality is you got a free ride for many years, and it might be time to invest (pony-up) in a website that you will be in more control of.

 

I remember when our company would provide free coffee to the employees, but employees would take the coffee packs, sugar and creamers home for their use only, and others would complain about the brand.... Finally our company said screw it and placed coffee vending machines throughout the facility and now we have to buy our coffee... Ya some people ***** but I just bought my little coffee machine and placed it in my office.

 

What's that song??? "nothing lasts forever."

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to see these kids have to learn songs the way I did but hey, buck up buttercups.

 

I can make all the Paul Hollywood breads I want, I can legitimately get his recipes(that are compensated for Fair Use), I can practice(and I do) and make them exactly like his. But I can't sell them as Paul Hollywood bread. The recipe to a degree, and the methods are fairly easy to master, but the name applied to the same thing for profit just is not doable. That industry has handled it, they have seen to it that their property is properly protected.

 

My effing Mary Berry Orange Spice Cake is a fantastic knock off of hers. Somebody paid the Fair Use rights so I could sit through the ads and get the recipe and get her tips. I paid Netflix to watch her make it, Fair Use again because she was paid for that. But I can't profit from it using her name on it without paying her. It is just Orange Cake, even if I call it "Tribute" cake.

 

Now get off my friggin lawn, I'ma make some cookies or something. I'm retired goddammit!

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I were to have a musical lesson business that required videos as part of the curriculum, I would invest in my own website to provide video content to pupils.... Problem is when something has been provided as a free service for a long period of time, and the rules start to change, people get pissed.... But the reality is you got a free ride for many years, and it might be time to invest (pony-up) in a website that you will be in more control of.

 

What's that song??? "nothing lasts forever."

Yes this...

 

Its all been free for so long.. Some people have worked out how to make money with very little outlay.. That's going to be taken away so people who have made their living this way are obviously going to be pissed about it..

 

But its the same in general these days people seem to think they are entitled to all their media for free because no one has been able to stop it.. Until now. It had to happen.

 

Everything changes in the end...

 

I am kind of glad I was around to see the start of the internet and how quickly it has developed and how much it has changed the way we do certain things... I think that the internet is still in its infancy so far its been mostly online shopping and porn :) Also the internet is still not really a safe place, they need to fundamentally change the way it works to make it more secure and there have been plans for internet 2.0 for a while now. Its coming when the powers that be can decide how its going to work. Ive read stuff about a tiered system, that would be awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...