5 ms·
Well that's an interesting idea. Now, what happens if a small-time artist that doesn't follow the same distribution philosophy as many other artists these days
by sukuriant 14y ago
Well that's an interesting idea. Now, what happens if a small-time artist that doesn't follow the same distribution philosophy as many other artists these days (for example, if he followed a "I want money for my works" perspective), files what he thinks is a legitimate take down request and turns out to be wrong? 10k fine? He's small time and can't afford that.
The law is not a fine scalpel, it's a blunt instrument; and people supporting law creation need to remember that. This goes on both sides.
- icebraining 14y agoHow can he be wrong? He can't recognize his own music? The problem are automated systems; the solution is just not to use one.
- sukuriant 14y agoUsing a 10 second sequence that happens to be the same across multiple songs. Not knowing the exact details of the law, and thinking that reproductions of the song are also owned by him?
- icebraining 14y agoHaving to listen to the full song (or, alternatively, not going after people who are just distributing ten second excerpts) and having to know the law before beating people with it don't seem unreasonable demands to me.
- sukuriant 14y agoIs 10 seconds of the song considered fair use by big media?
- icebraining 14y agoI'm pretty sure big media considers fair use an obscene concept, but I don't really see how is that relevant, since I didn't say ten seconds of a song should become fair use.
- sukuriant 14y agoI was extending an assumption based off: "not going after people who are just distributing ten second excerpts"
- icebraining 14y agoYou are forgetting to account for context. I was saying that they couldn't go if they can't afford to lose ten grand if they're wrong about the song, not that it'd be illegal to do so.