8 ms·
Well, did he just write the songs or does he own the copyright? The former isn't enough to make this a wrongful suspension.
by clircle 6y ago
Well, did he just write the songs or does he own the copyright? The former isn't enough to make this a wrongful suspension.
- blindm 6y agoThe DMCA takedowns have their nets cast too wide. Uncopyrighted works get taken down all the time.
- paranorman 6y agoAre you implying he owns the copyright?
- yokoprime 6y agoYes
- zinekeller 6y agoThe problem is that Universal is the owner of the copyrights (including the lyrical and syncronisation copyrights), and this is DMCA we're talking about. This would end up differently in Europe or UK (the original authors are irrevocably entitled to some percentage of the revenue, typically 5%) but DMCA is based on American laws (which do not have these protections).
- mnd999 6y agoRight but surely his recording contract with Universal would allow him to perform his songs.
- zinekeller 6y agoIn a commercial context?
- est31 6y agoMaybe even in a commercial context. In fact it's quite likely that concerts get treated specially. The issue is, these automated censorship tools don't encode the nuanced clauses of such contracts. They err on the side of banning, even if it's perfectly legitimate. Also IMO in the digital age it's so stupid that teachers can't even read a book to children via Zoom without a license...
- wbl 6y agoConcerts are commercial contexts.
- aidenn0 6y agoProbably live performances, but not on video recording
- colejohnson66 6y agoGenuine question: where’s the line? Because he’s still playing it live (live streaming). Is it just the act of being recorded?
- shawnz 6y agoAren't they signed to Universal?
- Nullabillity 6y agoLooks like the rest of the band participates in the channel too..
- dafoex 6y agoI think they are implying that public domain works are attacked globally because a company thinks they own it in one country. Take Happy Birthday, for example: in the UK it is considered a traditional song and is therefore public domain, but in the US there are no such protections against copyright and therefore Time Warner thinks they own it.
- est31 6y ago> in the US there are no such protections against copyright and therefore Time Warner thinks they own it. I don't think even they think that anymore: > On June 28, 2016, the final settlement was officially granted and the court declared that the song was in the public domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyrigh...
- yokoprime 6y agoIts an automatic copystrike
- wavefunction 6y agoCopyright doesn't cover live performances, this would be ASCAP licensing or something similar though it seems if he's "playing his own music" then none of the above should apply.
- shawnz 6y agoCopyright law does cover live performances. ASCAP is an agency which enforces copyright on live performances.
- montjoy 6y agoJust so people aren’t misled - ASCAP is a not-for-profit, it isn’t a government agency. I think a more accurate word for it is “cabal” since most people don’t know much about them and that they often work against (IMO) the public interest.
- wavefunction 6y agoI meant that someone can't assert copyright over your live performance of your own compositions as it occurs. Copyright can be asserted over a recording of course. Someone might try to assert copyright over portions of the music I suppose. In this context though there's no way for copyright to be valid unless he's assigned the copyright to someone else which doesn't seem to be the case barring any further information.
- shawnz 6y ago> I meant that someone can't assert copyright over your live performance of your own compositions as it occurs. They can, that is how ASCAP functions. > In this context though there's no way for copyright to be valid unless he's assigned the copyright to someone else which doesn't seem to be the case The copyright for their music is held by Universal
- whimsicalism 6y agoSo absurd that an original performance of a copyrighted song is an infringement.
- Spivak 6y agoWhy? You’re literally talking someone else’s song and reproducing it. You just have to ask the copyright holder for permission and then you’re good. It’s how the whole world of covers work.
- lostcolony 6y agoIn the US, you don't need permission. You DO have to pay a fee (royalties; pretty sure nothing upfront). It's a compulsory license.
- learc83 6y agoIn the US you don’t need to get the copyright holder's permission to record cover songs, you need to pay for a mechanical license. In the case of live performances you don’t need to get permission directly. The venue is the one that pays royalties to a handful of groups that have agreements with thousands of artists.
- montjoy 6y agoYup. I have a strong “fuck you” to ASCAP for charging my favorite small coffee shop insurmountable fees and forcing them to stop having live musical performances. FWIW the musicians played mostly original work. ASCAP has also been actively against the EFF, Creative Commons, and others. > In June 2010, ASCAP sent letters to its members soliciting donations to fight entities that support weaker copyright restrictions, such as Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Creative Commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composer...
- whimsicalism 6y ago> It’s how the whole world of covers work. Yes, I am aware of how the law currently works. I think that it is unethical and that my playing of some pop song on the piano shouldn't be covered by property law because my performance is not owned by someone else.
- dafoex 6y agoThis is a fair point, though. Just because you're the producer doesn't mean you're the owner. Book authors often go to publishing houses to get their book published, in which case the author has little control over their work. Also, commissioned works are usually copyright to the commissioner or other employer, that's why Doctor Who is copyright to the BBC, not Steven Moffat.
- wbl 6y agoSFWA standard terms are the author grants US publishing rights, not the entire copyright. https://www.sfwa.org/2009/07/05/model-contract-hardcover/ https://www.sfwa.org/2009/07/05/model-contract-hardcover/ Authors should never sign anything worse then that.
- wolco2 6y agoThat would still cover the right to publish in US territory.
- wbl 6y agoWhich the author gets royalties for giving. The system is made so authors get money and publishers do too from their books. They are jointly using the authors copyrighted work for mutual benefit. What's not included and valuable? Adaptations, foreign translations, sequels, etc.
- wbl 6y agoMusic copyright is complicated and there are certain rights that attach to each performance vs. the music. If I sit down and play Bach that recording cannot be copied without my permission but you can sit down and record your own performance of Bach.
- wolco2 6y agoBut if you wrote something today and recorded I would need a license to print your words. A license to use your exact song if longer than 7-15 seconds. A license to perform a cover if it sounds the same.
- realmod 6y agoAnd you'll also need a seperate synchronization license to play the song with any visuals. Music rights are ridiculously convoluted.
- jowsie 6y agoBut can you sit down and record your own performance of Dragonforce?
- bmn__ 6y agoYes, compulsory licencing and royalty sharing applies. Also, if the recording is made from a performance in a venue, the owner must obtain a blanket licence from the music rights organisation. The above is true for a couple of jurisdictions.
- dpedu 6y agoSome time ago he announced that some of Dragonforce's albums are "dmca free" and "allowed" to be played on twitch. I couldn't find any more details than this: https://old.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments/gzx3s0/herman_li_guitarist_of_dragonforce_announces_3/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments/gzx3s0/herman_li_gu...