3 ms·

Are you implying he owns the copyright?

by paranorman 6y ago

yokoprime 6y ago
Yes
- zinekeller 6y ago
  The 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 ago
    Right but surely his recording contract with Universal would allow him to perform his songs.
    - zinekeller 6y ago
      In a commercial context?
      - est31 6y ago
        Maybe 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 ago
        Concerts are commercial contexts.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      Probably live performances, but not on video recording
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        Genuine question: where’s the line? Because he’s still playing it live (live streaming). Is it just the act of being recorded?
- shawnz 6y ago
  Aren't they signed to Universal?
Nullabillity 6y ago
Looks like the rest of the band participates in the channel too..
dafoex 6y ago
I 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...

Are you implying he owns the copyright?

yokoprime 6y ago

Yes

zinekeller 6y ago
The 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 ago
  Right but surely his recording contract with Universal would allow him to perform his songs.
  - zinekeller 6y ago
    In a commercial context?
    - est31 6y ago
      Maybe 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 ago
      Concerts are commercial contexts.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    Probably live performances, but not on video recording
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Genuine question: where’s the line? Because he’s still playing it live (live streaming). Is it just the act of being recorded?
shawnz 6y ago
Aren't they signed to Universal?

Nullabillity 6y ago

Looks like the rest of the band participates in the channel too..

dafoex 6y ago

I 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...