Facebook prohibits music or music listening experience on Live(facebook.com)
facebook.com
Facebook prohibits music or music listening experience on Live
https://www.facebook.com/legal/music_guidelines
201 comments
I know this hurts people's feelings, but Facebook wasn't supposed to be important or entertaining anyway.
Their updated terms seem to imply copyrighted music, but it comes off as banning any and all music including original content.
Use of music for commercial or non-personal purposes in particular is prohibited unless you have obtained appropriate licenses.
Unauthorized content may be removed
If you post content that contains music owned by someone else, your content may be blocked, or may be reviewed by the applicable rights owner and removed if your use of that music is not properly authorized.
Seems fair enough to me.
Unauthorized content may be removed
If you post content that contains music owned by someone else, your content may be blocked, or may be reviewed by the applicable rights owner and removed if your use of that music is not properly authorized.
Seems fair enough to me.
A famous record label sent its lawyers to us, because we used some song to dance at a party an uploaded it on youtube. How that is fair?
Advocate for changes to the law.
A lot of people have been doing that for a long time. It's not working.
Most people don't understand the issue. What actions people generally find acceptable are very different from the actions permitted under copyright law, but most people don't understand that.
Do you mean you disputed a UGC claim?
>You may not use videos on our Products to create a music listening experience
This seems to even apply to things that you fully own the rights to.
This seems to even apply to things that you fully own the rights to.
Especially this part towards the end:
> You may not be able to post or access videos containing music in every country of the world > > We want you to be able to share videos with your family and friends wherever they are, but any music in your video, if it is allowed at all, may not be available in all countries of the world.
That part about "music in your video, if it is allowed at all" really feels like it's setting up a scenario where you just aren't allowed to have music in your FB videos at all.
> You may not be able to post or access videos containing music in every country of the world > > We want you to be able to share videos with your family and friends wherever they are, but any music in your video, if it is allowed at all, may not be available in all countries of the world.
That part about "music in your video, if it is allowed at all" really feels like it's setting up a scenario where you just aren't allowed to have music in your FB videos at all.
Our overly restrictive copyright law does a lot of unnecessary damage to our culture and our society. Instead of adapting to technological change, many music companies seem intent on protecting their revenue by limiting the expression of others, and the ability to remix content.
I wonder if there are exceptions for properly licensed music. It is certainly so hard to license most music that such exceptions are practically useless, though.
I wonder if there are exceptions for properly licensed music. It is certainly so hard to license most music that such exceptions are practically useless, though.
Is it possible for a musician to publish their music in a way so that everybody else can do with it whatever they like?
If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like there is pexels.com for images?
If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like there is pexels.com for images?
I remember working for a startup and finding open source music to use in our promotional videos. So I suppose it’s a thing.
Look up Creative Commons licences. Some allow for commercial use. Jamendo is (was?) a fairly popular website for that.
There's some Funkwhale [1] communities that might be close to what you're looking for
I haven't found what I'm looking for but I want to share my music like software, source code and all, easily modifiable and reusable
I miss what.cd originals, what were those called?
It was really inspiring to see people sharing their own music like that
Bandcamp has this feeling in spirit with their donation based option
SoundCloud had that spirit before Go
Splice is cool but seems specific and not very open
Not music but, LibrVox[2] has something special going
Won't all music coming out today eventually be in the public domain?
[1] https://fediverse.party/en/funkwhale [2] https://librivox.org/
I haven't found what I'm looking for but I want to share my music like software, source code and all, easily modifiable and reusable
I miss what.cd originals, what were those called?
It was really inspiring to see people sharing their own music like that
Bandcamp has this feeling in spirit with their donation based option
SoundCloud had that spirit before Go
Splice is cool but seems specific and not very open
Not music but, LibrVox[2] has something special going
Won't all music coming out today eventually be in the public domain?
[1] https://fediverse.party/en/funkwhale [2] https://librivox.org/
Splice is literally a sample shop, instead of buying from a certain company's web shop and paying for a whole sample pack at once, you can cherry pick sounds and just pay for what you need and mix and match several packs and company offerings at once.
They're under rather strict licensing terms though, no reselling as samples even if they're heavily modified for example.
They're under rather strict licensing terms though, no reselling as samples even if they're heavily modified for example.
Well, like in open source software we have licenses like MIT and WTFPL, in creative industries there's different Creative Commons licenses like CC0 or CC-BY-SA for example which would grant different usage rights in certain circumstances.
There's a lot of different mediums which supports sharing and searching for media under different CC licenses, I've tagged a majority of my SoundCloud releases for example with great success.
If we're talking about a whole site dedicated for openly licensed music and audio, freesounds.org comes to mind.
There's a lot of different mediums which supports sharing and searching for media under different CC licenses, I've tagged a majority of my SoundCloud releases for example with great success.
If we're talking about a whole site dedicated for openly licensed music and audio, freesounds.org comes to mind.
The issue with the permissive licensing is when the works get legally used in works that aren’t licensed that way. This is a common cause of YouTube contentID legal “false positive” results.
Both you and the other person have the rights to that audio and platforms like YouTube have put no effort into giving us a solution to resolve this “edge case”.
Both you and the other person have the rights to that audio and platforms like YouTube have put no effort into giving us a solution to resolve this “edge case”.
Is there some international scale comparison? I'm fairly sure Creative Commons does not mean the same thing f.e. in Germany due to GEMA.
The whole thing is wack, can't imagine licensing some code under GPLv3 and turns out that does not apply in some country.
The whole thing is wack, can't imagine licensing some code under GPLv3 and turns out that does not apply in some country.
Is it possible for a musician to publish their music in a way so that everybody else can do with it whatever they like?
Yes. This happens all the time, and sometimes sounds come from places like BBC.
If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like there is pexels.com for images?
Yes and no. People put up websites and other things that let you download music, but most of it isn't as organized as the free stuff for artists. It also seems like it is more decentralized and requires a bit more work, sometimes hours of work. It is quicker to look at photos than it is to listen to music and sound clips.
Sources: Spouse creates somewhat experimental electronic music, and uses free-to-use sounds alongside his own stuff. I've watched him sit for hours sorting through sounds and clips and music. Also, youtubers often use such music and link to it in their descriptions (Steve the Bartender, for example, and Im pretty sure Binging with Babish does something similar, or at least did at one time).
Yes. This happens all the time, and sometimes sounds come from places like BBC.
If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like there is pexels.com for images?
Yes and no. People put up websites and other things that let you download music, but most of it isn't as organized as the free stuff for artists. It also seems like it is more decentralized and requires a bit more work, sometimes hours of work. It is quicker to look at photos than it is to listen to music and sound clips.
Sources: Spouse creates somewhat experimental electronic music, and uses free-to-use sounds alongside his own stuff. I've watched him sit for hours sorting through sounds and clips and music. Also, youtubers often use such music and link to it in their descriptions (Steve the Bartender, for example, and Im pretty sure Binging with Babish does something similar, or at least did at one time).
Check out https://freemusicarchive.org directed by the awesome WFMU radio station.
WFMU sold the FMA to Kitsplit in 2018, who in turn sold it to Tribe of Noise in 2019.
I'm currently looking into this for streaming (twitch in particular) specifically.
A musician can license their music within the Creative Commons. This means that people can do almost whatever they want, use it wherever, remix it, etc... As long as the author gets attribution.
Similarly, specifically for streaming, you would need a _synchronization license_, the license required to synchronize music to image (ie, streams).
It is possible to issue a global blanket sync license, meaning that basically everyone can use it, usually with the same requirement that you the streamer give attribution
Glad to see a few people have brought up Jamendo already, but I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned ccMixter [0]. This is one of the really early sites to try and address this exact need. They have an enormous back catalog of open-licensed music designed specifically for mixing and reuse, and a still quite active community of dedicated users (though the site design needs a bit of a refresh).
[0] http://ccmixter.org/
[0] http://ccmixter.org/
Nine Inch Nails released the album "Ghosts I - IV" under the Creative Commons license (BY-NC-SA) and the banjo riff in the song "Old Town Road" by Lil Nas X was sampled from a song on this album.
Yep. Not just music companies too, patents are just as bad. That shit ought to expire after a decade tops, everyone would be better off.
Well they do expire after 2 decades, which is a lot better than 70+ years for copyrights.
Still effectively an eternity in the modern world.
Only in the move-fast-and-break-things part of the world. In other engineering professions (aviation, drilling, pharmacy) it can take a decade to go from initial design to fully-deployed product.
Of course, but this is a discussion about music and not petroleum engineering, right?
No this is a discussion between the 2 decades for patents, which seems fair, versus the 7 decades for copyrighted material, which doesn't :)
IMO the patent term should depend on the field.
As far as copyrighted content stuff... I think a year or two is enough. Especially for movies and music which, afaik, make most of their money right after release. This would disincentivize most of the blatant copyright abuse happening today, while still allowing the creators to earn their money.
As far as copyrighted content stuff... I think a year or two is enough. Especially for movies and music which, afaik, make most of their money right after release. This would disincentivize most of the blatant copyright abuse happening today, while still allowing the creators to earn their money.
Except for the people that pored years of their life into their inventions and now see others take their invention and run with it, of course. It can take a long time between a patent and a marketable product.
Big companies like to push for restrictions and subsidies using this very argument - oh the poor lone inventor, they can't survive if we don't create this overly restrictive law or subsidy. In practice, huge cartels benefit from these at the expense of small inventors and everybody else.
As a lone inventor you can spend your energy on building a company, or on enforcing your patents. getting bogged down in the courts won't make you money, building a company might.
I think the "lone inventor" myth died out in the last century.
The LPF (League for Programming Freedom) saw all of this corporate nonsense coming in 1990: portfolio warfare among giants; trolling and extorting; patenting trivial things and then trolling; and to your point, the death of the heroic lone inventor without a large team of patent lawyers to earn the money.
The LPF is gone now, software patents are the domain of large corporations, and garage guy is (largely?) no more.
The LPF (League for Programming Freedom) saw all of this corporate nonsense coming in 1990: portfolio warfare among giants; trolling and extorting; patenting trivial things and then trolling; and to your point, the death of the heroic lone inventor without a large team of patent lawyers to earn the money.
The LPF is gone now, software patents are the domain of large corporations, and garage guy is (largely?) no more.
Seems like a model could exist for an entrepreneur to create a subscription based licensing program for creators to use music in their streams.
> Seems like a model could exist for an entrepreneur to create a subscription based licensing program for creators to use music in their streams.
There are a few - I use Pretzel.rocks. (No affiliation.)
There are a few - I use Pretzel.rocks. (No affiliation.)
Music licensing is already a thing you know.
It so so bad that enormous resources are wasted in multinational stings [1] to get a few torrent seeders instead of using these resources to stop human trafficking or real crimes.
It is disgusting. Especially since the ones who pushed so hard to get these laws themselves have been accused of copyright violations.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/new-scene-security-notice-sparks-pi...
It is disgusting. Especially since the ones who pushed so hard to get these laws themselves have been accused of copyright violations.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/new-scene-security-notice-sparks-pi...
These are the kind of things that made me realize the whole copyright thing is a conveniently legal way for any government to make sure only currently-Approved media is ever available to the general public. Nothing is accidental.
Can you please elaborate on that? "Currently-approved media"? In my mind (European) by media we mean the Press. Do you mean Press or Social Media?
A radio station, or a newspaper has a license to operate and is governed by specific requirements and protections. Facebook and Twitter are NOT part of the press (imho). The fact that e.g. BBC tweets some news doesn't fall under the Social Media "laws" but under the Press "laws".
Do you imply conspiracy? Could it just be that greedy capitalism runs ahead and legislation is 10y behind and ran by white old folks who just care to be re-elected and not to keep up to speed because, why bother?
I am not trying to make this political, I sincerely do not understand if you are implying conspiracy or ruthless reality.
Do you imply conspiracy? Could it just be that greedy capitalism runs ahead and legislation is 10y behind and ran by white old folks who just care to be re-elected and not to keep up to speed because, why bother?
I am not trying to make this political, I sincerely do not understand if you are implying conspiracy or ruthless reality.
Your logical fallacies are whataboutism and false dichotomy. Copyright lawsuits do not detract from other issues. Copyright is a civil matter, whereas the ones you mention are criminal ones. The police and the US' various secret services are not involved in copyright issues.
> The Crown also revealed that police had handed seized hard drives to FBI staff who copied them at the police crime lab in South Auckland and sent the copies back to the US. Justice Winkelmann ruled that the handing of hard drives seized by New Zealand police in the raid to the FBI was in breach of extradition legislation, and the FBI's removal from New Zealand of cloned data from them was unlawful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom
How do copyright issues not detract from other issues? There is clearly a finite amount of resources available to allocate to all our earthly concerns.
The FBI and other agencies are often involved in raids and arrests, and actively seize websites that are supposedly used for piracy. I don't understand how you can argue that it is a civil matter that does not involve law enforcement. Just search "fbi raid bittorrent", there are plenty of examples.
Copyright violation is actually a civil matter. But piracy is a federal crime and therefore under the FBI’s purview.
Piracy historically referred to illicit printed copies created for unauthorized unlicensed material benefit to the copier, without demanded licensing terms or in absence of negotiations toward such licensing. The copyright lobby ensured it broadened to cover digital reproductions on shaky epistemological grounds imo.
SPARKS weren't just a few torrent seeders, they were more specifically the source of a major part of BluRay releases in the warez scene. They also don't release on P2P, but on topsites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsite_(warez)
In fact the scene despises P2P (or at least used to).
I agree with you though. It's an absolute waste of resources that could be spent on actually making the world a better place.
In fact the scene despises P2P (or at least used to).
I agree with you though. It's an absolute waste of resources that could be spent on actually making the world a better place.
> In fact the scene despises P2P (or at least used to).
I can't understand that, isn't peer to peer inherently more resistant to law enforcement than any centralized FTP server?
I can't understand that, isn't peer to peer inherently more resistant to law enforcement than any centralized FTP server?
From my understanding, the scene is about being part of a club, belonging, and part of this is contributing back.
Torrenting is just getting movies, without these social aspects, and without being part of the "elite".
Torrenting is just getting movies, without these social aspects, and without being part of the "elite".
mdoms(1)
Also they obtained and released blurays before they were put on sale to the public.
Well that's honestly what happens (in my experience) with any major DVD/BluRay release. Once they get pressed and given to retailers, they leak.
Yes, the people arrested are allegedly from groups who are definitely responsible for sourcing a large percentage of the pre-release films you notice online.
Human trafficking hurts the profits of almost no large corporation; so - there's no economic pressure to eradicate it. And most governments are not very amenable to pressure by human-rights groups, especially when they advocate for foreigners with a different language, different skin color, no voting rights and no money.
Sadly to me, it’s socially acceptable to believe that the concerns of others are just, like, your opinion, man, and that it’s okay to not share the concerns of wider society, and furthermore okay that other narrower societies are not one’s concerns either; that to not care about others is a political stance, and therefore, to impress upon one the necessity of human rights for all, is to open the floor for a political debate. It’s strange to me, but nearly every time human rights are invoked, those invoking it are called out for being needlessly politically correct. As if being politically correct were the goal all along, as if being a sjw were a goal itself, so that the goal or argument in favor of the goal can be dismissed out of hand without discussion or debate. It’s a thought-terminating cliché.[0]
I feel gaslit by society sometimes. Where have all the nice good people gone? I know all those folks in Mr Rogers Neighborhood are real people irl, but they increasingly seem like characters and actors from a society that no longer exists and perhaps never did, but hopefully one day could exist.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
I feel gaslit by society sometimes. Where have all the nice good people gone? I know all those folks in Mr Rogers Neighborhood are real people irl, but they increasingly seem like characters and actors from a society that no longer exists and perhaps never did, but hopefully one day could exist.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
I'm actually not a great fan of the "Human Rights discourse". I would rather phrase things in terms of interests, needs and desires, which should be catered to due to human (and sometimes class) solidarity.
Will read your link; for now, I'll reciprocate with this:
https://libcom.org/library/implosion-point-democratist-ideol...
Will read your link; for now, I'll reciprocate with this:
https://libcom.org/library/implosion-point-democratist-ideol...
Well, it's been exactly the same for the last 25 years.
> Instead of adapting to technological change
When I look at the way that Journalism has adapted its business models to technological change, I think we engineers should be a bit more wary...
When I look at the way that Journalism has adapted its business models to technological change, I think we engineers should be a bit more wary...
[deleted]
The MLB used to go out of their way to report fans who shared short game clips on twitter and it never made any sense to me. Do they have the right do to that under the current copyright system? Sure. But it seems so short-sighted. It's free advertising of the best kind: word of mouth. Why would you want to stop people from sharing samples of your product that way?
> Why would you want to stop people from sharing samples of your product that way?
I don't know how much this is relevant here but I read of this a few years ago and now I feel like I shoe horn it into every single problem in the world: the principal-agent problem.
For those not in the know (sorry, if you're like me you will be addicted to this from now on)
> The principal–agent problem, in political science and economics (also known as agency dilemma or the agency problem) occurs when one person or entity (the "agent"), is able to make decisions and/or take actions on behalf of, or that impact, another person or entity: the "principal".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
The management of the company has no REAL interest in the long term benefit to the franchise, much less baseball in general. They're just trying to survive this quarter. Here "survival" is very twisted. You could think you are doing a heck of a job but if your revenue grows a very respectable ten percent year over year this quarter but your competition is out there growing twenty five, then well your bosses aren't going to like that very much. It is basically survival of the worst, really.
I think I am guilty of assuming the best intention of other people sometimes and then I see the "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law" tags on mattresses and I am reminded that we need laws not to prevent people from stuffing literally human hair and who knows what other nastiness in "new" mattresses but to do so without disclosing the fact the mattresses are made with nastiness.
I don't know how much this is relevant here but I read of this a few years ago and now I feel like I shoe horn it into every single problem in the world: the principal-agent problem.
For those not in the know (sorry, if you're like me you will be addicted to this from now on)
> The principal–agent problem, in political science and economics (also known as agency dilemma or the agency problem) occurs when one person or entity (the "agent"), is able to make decisions and/or take actions on behalf of, or that impact, another person or entity: the "principal".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
The management of the company has no REAL interest in the long term benefit to the franchise, much less baseball in general. They're just trying to survive this quarter. Here "survival" is very twisted. You could think you are doing a heck of a job but if your revenue grows a very respectable ten percent year over year this quarter but your competition is out there growing twenty five, then well your bosses aren't going to like that very much. It is basically survival of the worst, really.
I think I am guilty of assuming the best intention of other people sometimes and then I see the "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law" tags on mattresses and I am reminded that we need laws not to prevent people from stuffing literally human hair and who knows what other nastiness in "new" mattresses but to do so without disclosing the fact the mattresses are made with nastiness.
> They're just trying to survive this quarter.
They are probably trying to maximize the metrics their employees (whoever represents the shareholders) use to evaluate them. And those are short term metrics by necessity of the evaluation.
Survival is one, but it's a really easy one to top, so they are probably ignoring it.
They are probably trying to maximize the metrics their employees (whoever represents the shareholders) use to evaluate them. And those are short term metrics by necessity of the evaluation.
Survival is one, but it's a really easy one to top, so they are probably ignoring it.
How is baseball a 'quarter' based business? The employees in franchises float with the successes on the field, I'd think. I guess I should go read Inside Baseball or something.
IANAL, but based on what I’ve seen about the US judicial system, maybe if they don’t pursue people sharing short clips, it would be harder for them to make a case in court against someone sharing the whole game?
That’s a common misconception. You don’t lose copyright if you don’t defend it.
Trademarks can be lost if not defended.
Trademarks can be lost if not defended.
It amazes me that people who are supposed to have studied business and marketing continually throw the long term health of their company/industry under the bus to satisfy the short term revenue stream.
Music makes its revenue by propagating itself into the cultural zeitgeist. Attempts to limit consumption of music runs counter to that business model if you ask me.
This situation also reminds me of another common shortsighted trend: sports teams moving their broadcasting to paid cable networks.
Sports at some point depends on the social network effects of fandom. By restricting viewership with paywalls and cable subscriptions, they’re alienating young fans from ever becoming fans. They’re shrinking the sports fan base from appealing to everyone to being yet another exclusive niche where you're either deep into it or you’re out.
If I don’t have any of my real life friends taking interest in sports, so many of the benefits of being a fan disappear.
Annoying, nonsensical restrictions like only being allowed to watch out of market games with online streaming subscriptions, only being able to buy NFL Sunday Ticket through DirecTV...this stuff is insane.
You may not be aware: no joke, DirecTV won’t sell you the Internet version of NFL Sunday Ticket unless you live in a multi-unit residence. In other words, you have to be verified to not be able to be sold a physical dish to attach to your home to be allowed the privilege of spending $300 to watch a bunch of games that already have more advertising than gameplay.
These sports teams will eventually find themselves in a situation where they have to squeeze more revenue from a shrinking, aging customer base. If you were 15 right now and had a choice between watching 18 minutes of NFL gameplay surrounded by 2 hours of ads and stoppage, or jumping on Fortnite with your friends, which would you choose? These sports networks can’t fathom that they’re competing with more and more entertainment options as time goes on.
The tl;dr of this is that you need to give your customers what they want.
Music makes its revenue by propagating itself into the cultural zeitgeist. Attempts to limit consumption of music runs counter to that business model if you ask me.
This situation also reminds me of another common shortsighted trend: sports teams moving their broadcasting to paid cable networks.
Sports at some point depends on the social network effects of fandom. By restricting viewership with paywalls and cable subscriptions, they’re alienating young fans from ever becoming fans. They’re shrinking the sports fan base from appealing to everyone to being yet another exclusive niche where you're either deep into it or you’re out.
If I don’t have any of my real life friends taking interest in sports, so many of the benefits of being a fan disappear.
Annoying, nonsensical restrictions like only being allowed to watch out of market games with online streaming subscriptions, only being able to buy NFL Sunday Ticket through DirecTV...this stuff is insane.
You may not be aware: no joke, DirecTV won’t sell you the Internet version of NFL Sunday Ticket unless you live in a multi-unit residence. In other words, you have to be verified to not be able to be sold a physical dish to attach to your home to be allowed the privilege of spending $300 to watch a bunch of games that already have more advertising than gameplay.
These sports teams will eventually find themselves in a situation where they have to squeeze more revenue from a shrinking, aging customer base. If you were 15 right now and had a choice between watching 18 minutes of NFL gameplay surrounded by 2 hours of ads and stoppage, or jumping on Fortnite with your friends, which would you choose? These sports networks can’t fathom that they’re competing with more and more entertainment options as time goes on.
The tl;dr of this is that you need to give your customers what they want.
You know, I can understand if you are streaming to 100+ people that musicians want a cut of that. Thats a small music hall if it was a concert.
However, Facebook kicks you out even with 3 or 4 people watching. Even when I bought all the music beforehand. I find the rules much to strict, unfair and quite frankly ridiculous that there is such strictness.
However, Facebook kicks you out even with 3 or 4 people watching. Even when I bought all the music beforehand. I find the rules much to strict, unfair and quite frankly ridiculous that there is such strictness.
Something I was going to mention but “cut for time” was the idea of a royalty threshold.
Sure, charge influencers a royalty or collect a portion of advertising revenue for influencers with over some number of thousand followers.
But for individuals, the labels should be encouraging sharing.
Also, it seems somewhat obvious in retrospect that it’d be smart for the big labels to own a social network, with deep music features and integration with major music streaming services (E.g. “add this song this person is dancing to to your Spotify”). Now would be a great time for them to clone TikTok.
Sure, charge influencers a royalty or collect a portion of advertising revenue for influencers with over some number of thousand followers.
But for individuals, the labels should be encouraging sharing.
Also, it seems somewhat obvious in retrospect that it’d be smart for the big labels to own a social network, with deep music features and integration with major music streaming services (E.g. “add this song this person is dancing to to your Spotify”). Now would be a great time for them to clone TikTok.
> It amazes me that people who are supposed to have studied business and marketing continually throw the long term health of their company/industry under the bus to satisfy the short term revenue stream.
It shouldn't really be surprising, given the incentives. Performance reviews, bonuses, etc. are probably based more on short-term performance than long-term health because it's easier to measure.
It shouldn't really be surprising, given the incentives. Performance reviews, bonuses, etc. are probably based more on short-term performance than long-term health because it's easier to measure.
In addition to what I said, I will fully understand if I’m actually completely wrong, too.
What I mean is...I shouldn’t assume that these companies haven’t already made these calculations in relation to the long term picture. For example, perhaps the MLB has run the math and knows that going for broad appeal (e.g. games streamed/broadcast for free) is inefficient or results in lower revenue. Perhaps cable companies have already calculated that they will bleed customers no matter what they do; that they’re best off milking their customer base until they disappear.
What I mean is...I shouldn’t assume that these companies haven’t already made these calculations in relation to the long term picture. For example, perhaps the MLB has run the math and knows that going for broad appeal (e.g. games streamed/broadcast for free) is inefficient or results in lower revenue. Perhaps cable companies have already calculated that they will bleed customers no matter what they do; that they’re best off milking their customer base until they disappear.
As a musician I wonder what would happen if I play my own music, that I own 100% of the rights and permissions for. Or do a live concert of my own music.
And people wonder why TikTok (previously Musical.ly) is so popular.
Their core business model and feed algorithm are built around syncing music to video content and paying the music publishers and composers.
Their core business model and feed algorithm are built around syncing music to video content and paying the music publishers and composers.
It's not just copyright law that causes unnecessary damage, but how private companies often overreact to it.
I took a multiday cross country road trip a few years ago and installed a dashcam before I left. I put together a timelapse video, complete with some of my favorite music that I felt was appropriate given the purpose of my trip and the landscape in view. Those friends and family who have seen it think it's pretty cool.
But good luck sharing it anywhere online because Content ID and the like are everywhere.
I took a multiday cross country road trip a few years ago and installed a dashcam before I left. I put together a timelapse video, complete with some of my favorite music that I felt was appropriate given the purpose of my trip and the landscape in view. Those friends and family who have seen it think it's pretty cool.
But good luck sharing it anywhere online because Content ID and the like are everywhere.
I hate to be that guy but this actually seems like a reasonable restriction to me. If your favourite artists "want" to charge for your sharing of the music they have the right.
Honestly I think the biggest problem with copyright these days is the infinite period for which it lasts.
Honestly I think the biggest problem with copyright these days is the infinite period for which it lasts.
> We want you to be able to enjoy videos posted by family and friends. However, if you use videos on our Products to create a music listening experience for yourself or for others, your videos will be blocked and your page, profile or group may be deleted. This includes Live.
That sounds like all music videos are banned (not just live stuff).
That sounds like all music videos are banned (not just live stuff).
Copyright law needs major reform. Technology has hit the point where you have to make a concerted effort to avoid infringing by accident. Every time a security camera picks up music, it's copyright infringement. When your camera records virtually anything man-made, copyright infringement. Probably 90% of photos are infringing copyright.
It's totally nuts now that recording devices are everywhere.
Copyright on images and audio are just unrealistic. Abolish them, the artists make most of their money in other ways anyway
It's totally nuts now that recording devices are everywhere.
Copyright on images and audio are just unrealistic. Abolish them, the artists make most of their money in other ways anyway
What kind of security camera “picks up” music unintentionally? In the US at least, you can’t leave surveillance microphones recording in public areas, or anywhere that people might have a conversation without knowing it’s being recorded. That’s illegal in every state, regardless of copyright.
Home security & Dash cams. The latter especially struggles with YouTube takedowns due to ambient car music.
To have those running as a security camera recording audio is legally perilous anyway. You’d have to inform car passengers or house guests that you have a microphone running if there’s any chance they might converse without you. The trouble you’d get into for surreptitious recording is a lot worse than a YouTube takedown.
And in the ambient music scenario the accidental recording of music isn’t a problem — it’s always been fine to record live music, radio, TV, etc. for your own enjoyment. It’s the non-accidental uploading to YouTube that’s the problem. Copyright doesn’t interfere with using it as a security camera, with or without audio.
And in the ambient music scenario the accidental recording of music isn’t a problem — it’s always been fine to record live music, radio, TV, etc. for your own enjoyment. It’s the non-accidental uploading to YouTube that’s the problem. Copyright doesn’t interfere with using it as a security camera, with or without audio.
Recording audio of passengers and house guests is absolutely fine in most states. I had a dash cam recording audio the entire time I was driving rideshare, many drivers do.
And it's not legal to bypass copy protection post DMCA for recording. So in most cases it's not legal to make recordings
And it's not legal to bypass copy protection post DMCA for recording. So in most cases it's not legal to make recordings
If you didn’t post prominent signage in your car about the recording, you were breaking the law. Uber rolled out audio recording in Latin America but had to leave the United States out until they could be sure they’d fully satisfied the requirement to inform passengers. It’s not a small issue. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/20/uber-pl...
Dash cams, any cameras in bars or club, security cams at homes and stoplights. And smart speakers are recording copyrighted music constantly.
And you're definitely wrong about recording. Single party consent is legal in most states. There's only a handful with laws against it, everywhere else recording private conversations and even phone calls is totally legal without permission.
And you're definitely wrong about recording. Single party consent is legal in most states. There's only a handful with laws against it, everywhere else recording private conversations and even phone calls is totally legal without permission.
That’s only conversations that you’re a part of. Zero-party consent is illegal everywhere. E.g., if you invite people into your home, leave the room, and they continue talking, it’s a illegal to not inform them of the microphone.
Recording audio on a security camera in a club is certainly illegal, just as it would be in a restaurant. You can’t record the private conversations of your customers without informing them.
Recording audio on a security camera in a club is certainly illegal, just as it would be in a restaurant. You can’t record the private conversations of your customers without informing them.
Do you have a source for this? If someone is in your home they're on your property, and generally you can record whatever you want in a single party state. It's not "zero party" if you know there's a recording. AirBnb's do it all the time. There's exceptions for recording naked people and bathrooms, but in most states it's fine otherwise.
Recording audio in a business is 100% legal in nearly every state. Most businesses do not give you any "expectation of privacy" outside the restrooms.
Recording audio in a business is 100% legal in nearly every state. Most businesses do not give you any "expectation of privacy" outside the restrooms.
> If someone is in your home they're on your property, and generally you can record whatever you want in a single party state.
That’s simply not true. They’re called “one-party states” because there has to be one party in the conversation who knows about the recording. Some states are one-party, some are two-party, but there is no such thing as a zero-party state. It is always illegal to record a conversation between two people if both are unaware of the device and believe their conversation is private. The fact that they are in your home, your car (without you), or in your business is irrelevant.
You’re confusing laws that apply to video with laws that apply to audio. You can of course record images on a security camera in your home or business (except, as you said, in restrooms, dressing rooms, etc.) Audio is different.
Sources on this are easy to Google for. Here’s one in pretty straightforward language from a defense attorney’s website: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-def...
That’s simply not true. They’re called “one-party states” because there has to be one party in the conversation who knows about the recording. Some states are one-party, some are two-party, but there is no such thing as a zero-party state. It is always illegal to record a conversation between two people if both are unaware of the device and believe their conversation is private. The fact that they are in your home, your car (without you), or in your business is irrelevant.
You’re confusing laws that apply to video with laws that apply to audio. You can of course record images on a security camera in your home or business (except, as you said, in restrooms, dressing rooms, etc.) Audio is different.
Sources on this are easy to Google for. Here’s one in pretty straightforward language from a defense attorney’s website: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-def...
Interesting. Since the main test is "a reasonable expectation of privacy", I'm guessing that the majority of the time recording is still fine. If there's clearly visible cameras it could be assumed you're being recorded, at least on video, so you don't really have an expectation of privacy.
I guess the main problem would be if you hid the recording device
I guess the main problem would be if you hid the recording device
That’s an extremely high bar to clear. If two people are screaming at each other on a street corner with a crowd of onlookers it’s surely fine to record them. But if those same two people are quietly speaking to each other while you stand nearby with a microphone running, you’re violating the Wiretap Act. Same for recording the patrons behind you at a restaurant, the guy on a phone call on the bus, etc.
There are surprising edge cases to this. People have been found in violation of the Wiretap Act for putting microphones on their walls to collect proof that their neighbors are screaming too often. A loud argument in an apartment still has an expectation of privacy even if you can make out the words with your ear to the wall.
There are surprising edge cases to this. People have been found in violation of the Wiretap Act for putting microphones on their walls to collect proof that their neighbors are screaming too often. A loud argument in an apartment still has an expectation of privacy even if you can make out the words with your ear to the wall.
> you can’t leave surveillance microphones recording in public areas ...
Wonder if that means having (say) Samsung TV's running in shop windows is therefore illegal? Sounds like it is.
Wonder if that means having (say) Samsung TV's running in shop windows is therefore illegal? Sounds like it is.
Except that the instances you listed are not a problem the vast majority of the time. While copyrights and patents are enforceable for any unauthorized use no one would bother until you are rolling in the dough, at which point the laws make perfect sense.
That said, I am not arguing that patent law doesn't need reform, especially patents for software, algorithms and math.
That said, I am not arguing that patent law doesn't need reform, especially patents for software, algorithms and math.
Copyright has become the ultimate tool of selective enforcement, because it's nearly impossible to avoid breaking the law.
It's not a problem the majority of the time, just like laws that allow police to detain you for no reason. It becomes a problem when someone decides to arbitrarily target you. There's countless stories about small businesses being targeted. The latest I know of is against streamers.
Since everybody is breaking the law music industry uses copyright mafia style. If they think they can get money out of you they send some goons to extort protection money from you, with huge leverage against your previous "crimes".
A country with rule of law should not have laws that are impossible to avoid breaking. Such laws are only useful for corruption, a way to enforce "justice" arbitrarily through bribes
It's not a problem the majority of the time, just like laws that allow police to detain you for no reason. It becomes a problem when someone decides to arbitrarily target you. There's countless stories about small businesses being targeted. The latest I know of is against streamers.
Since everybody is breaking the law music industry uses copyright mafia style. If they think they can get money out of you they send some goons to extort protection money from you, with huge leverage against your previous "crimes".
A country with rule of law should not have laws that are impossible to avoid breaking. Such laws are only useful for corruption, a way to enforce "justice" arbitrarily through bribes
>> Abolish them, the artists make most of their money in other ways anyway
And look how great that's working out for them now that an entire year, potentially more of touring has been cancelled. Why don't software companies start giving away their product and instead make their money through t-shirt sales and speaking tours? Music has already been made exponentially less expensive for the consumer (at a massive cost to artists). It seems cruel to take even more away so that someone can use music in their vlog or travel video for free.
>> It's totally nuts now that recording devices are everywhere.
Maybe instead we should reconsider why we have recording devices everywhere. Music and musicians getting paid is beneficial to society, people recording who's ringing their doorbell and who's walking past their home is detrimental.
And look how great that's working out for them now that an entire year, potentially more of touring has been cancelled. Why don't software companies start giving away their product and instead make their money through t-shirt sales and speaking tours? Music has already been made exponentially less expensive for the consumer (at a massive cost to artists). It seems cruel to take even more away so that someone can use music in their vlog or travel video for free.
>> It's totally nuts now that recording devices are everywhere.
Maybe instead we should reconsider why we have recording devices everywhere. Music and musicians getting paid is beneficial to society, people recording who's ringing their doorbell and who's walking past their home is detrimental.
Artists already make virtually nothing from music rights. I've seen royalties of less than $100 for a million plays, so taking away copyright royalties would do basically nothing to hurt artists.
It only hurts the recording industry that's become a monopoly which abuses copyright law to hurt artists and consumers alike
It only hurts the recording industry that's become a monopoly which abuses copyright law to hurt artists and consumers alike
Ah, the wonderful logic of 'Spotify screws artists anyway, so lets just take the last few pennies going into their pocket and light them on fire.'
The recording industry is screwing over users and artists alike. What purpose does it serve beyond a profit sucking middleman? With the advent of the internet, recording companies are pointless. You can release your music on a personal website with a few hours of work. There's no longer a need for any distribution on radio, vinyl, CD's. The original purpose of these companies is gone, they exists solely to reap rewards from our crazy copyright laws
How did the recording industry get the rights to those royalties?
Preface: I absolutely agree on the reform. I can't stress this enough.
I've dealt with copyright professionally and had my fair share of discussions with legal experts... It's definitely a rabbit hole, but it's not a rabbit hole you can readily dismiss and replace with something else. Working with copyrighted materials, copyright hampered us, but other times it backed us as well. It really is a double edged sword depending on where you come from...
So. I hope to give you a bit of an insight why it's not that easy...
At it's core, there are three reasons why copyright - or any law for that matter - is a hard problem:
First, describing a complex reality and codifying them in rules that govern society is a hard problem. Either the principles you derive from reality are too generic; or you end up with a law and volumes upon volumes of exceptions, clarifications, and so on. And in between, you always end up with people who feel that the law doesn't include them.
Secondly, there's the interpretation of the rules. That happens in court. And depending on the legal system that applies to you, this creates a precedent that may or may not be followed in general. Which is where you end up in the murkiness of legal traditions, customs and so on.
Thirdly, as a result, most people have a vague notion of what copyright is... but when you ask them to clarify and apply copyright law to specific cases, they tend have it wrong.
For instance:
> Every time a security camera picks up music, it's copyright infringement. When your camera records virtually anything man-made, copyright infringement.
No, it's not. Copyright doesn't prohibit you from making a copy. It prohibits you from publishing that copy: sharing with or distributing to other people.
You're perfectly good to make a recording or photo's with your smartphone, security camera, whatever. But as soon as you hit the "post" or "publish" button and you make your copy available for the wider world, that's copyright infringement.
> Probably 90% of photos are infringing copyright.
Depends who publishes them and whether they have permission from the original photographer to publish them. Or whether they are the original photographer themselves.
If you snap a picture and you publish that on Instagram, you are the original photographer and copyright automatically protects your rights. If some paper or magazine downloads that picture and publishes it on their website without your permission: you can send them an e-mail demanding to take that picture down. And they actually will have to comply with your demand less they want to risk you suing them.
If you make a picture of protected materials and you post that on line, well, now you are potentially infringing copyright. Like, if you go to MoMa and you do an Instagram of Andy Warhol. Technically, you published a copy of a creative work which is still under copyright. Or if you publish a 30 second sample from a Walt Disney's Snowwhite on Snapchat: same thing.
You could go "Oh! But Andy Warhol is dead and his art is in a museum, and Snowwhite is 80 years old, what's the harm? They are so well known!" You could argue: let's create exceptions for anything that hits a collection display of a museum; or is so well known that it's part of some implicit cultural canon which is foundational to society...
... but then you end up in a massive rabbit hole: how do you establish equal and fair criteria that say "this creative work is protected by copyright; and this isn't?" Which inevitably leads to endless yak shaving and bike shedding discussions (Yes, I've been there professionally. These are unwinable!).
> the artists make most of their money in other ways anyway
It's the other way around. Artists make their money in other ways today, not because of copyright... but because of technology.
When your band gets signed up with a record label, you actually sign away your own copyright. You waive your rights as an author to your material. You basically say to a record label: "In exchange for leveraging your capability to produce, market and distribute millions of copies, I'll agree to 2, 5 or 10% of the revenue of the distribution." That's the deal you signed up for.
As an artist, it used to be that you earned nicely when music/video/movies were still distributed through movie theatres or record shops where consumers bought a physical record. You'd pay maybe 15 or 20$ for the album of your favourite band. And you'd listen to that album for hours on end.
Digital technology and streaming platforms have completely undercut that model. And the price for content has crashed entirely. Today, you don't pay 15$ for just 20 songs on a single album. You pay 15$ a month to get access to a catalogue of tens of thousands of songs. That's the difference.
The biggest issue is that streaming platforms and digital services have taken over distribution of creative content - audio and video - from traditional record labels, movie produces and so on, and have become the new middle men. And it has happened, the artists who signed away their rights see far less in return for their efforts.
This is a huge debate in the industry: https://musically.com/2020/05/05/spotify-should-pay-musician...
At the end of the day, copyright isn't going to go anywhere, I'm afraid. After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And that's why modern copyright emerged some 300 years in the first place: Ironically because of the introduction of a new technology. As it happens, with the proliferation of the printing press and movable type, book printers, authors and publishers wanted to put a halt to others piggybacking on the success of selling their materials.
I've dealt with copyright professionally and had my fair share of discussions with legal experts... It's definitely a rabbit hole, but it's not a rabbit hole you can readily dismiss and replace with something else. Working with copyrighted materials, copyright hampered us, but other times it backed us as well. It really is a double edged sword depending on where you come from...
So. I hope to give you a bit of an insight why it's not that easy...
At it's core, there are three reasons why copyright - or any law for that matter - is a hard problem:
First, describing a complex reality and codifying them in rules that govern society is a hard problem. Either the principles you derive from reality are too generic; or you end up with a law and volumes upon volumes of exceptions, clarifications, and so on. And in between, you always end up with people who feel that the law doesn't include them.
Secondly, there's the interpretation of the rules. That happens in court. And depending on the legal system that applies to you, this creates a precedent that may or may not be followed in general. Which is where you end up in the murkiness of legal traditions, customs and so on.
Thirdly, as a result, most people have a vague notion of what copyright is... but when you ask them to clarify and apply copyright law to specific cases, they tend have it wrong.
For instance:
> Every time a security camera picks up music, it's copyright infringement. When your camera records virtually anything man-made, copyright infringement.
No, it's not. Copyright doesn't prohibit you from making a copy. It prohibits you from publishing that copy: sharing with or distributing to other people.
You're perfectly good to make a recording or photo's with your smartphone, security camera, whatever. But as soon as you hit the "post" or "publish" button and you make your copy available for the wider world, that's copyright infringement.
> Probably 90% of photos are infringing copyright.
Depends who publishes them and whether they have permission from the original photographer to publish them. Or whether they are the original photographer themselves.
If you snap a picture and you publish that on Instagram, you are the original photographer and copyright automatically protects your rights. If some paper or magazine downloads that picture and publishes it on their website without your permission: you can send them an e-mail demanding to take that picture down. And they actually will have to comply with your demand less they want to risk you suing them.
If you make a picture of protected materials and you post that on line, well, now you are potentially infringing copyright. Like, if you go to MoMa and you do an Instagram of Andy Warhol. Technically, you published a copy of a creative work which is still under copyright. Or if you publish a 30 second sample from a Walt Disney's Snowwhite on Snapchat: same thing.
You could go "Oh! But Andy Warhol is dead and his art is in a museum, and Snowwhite is 80 years old, what's the harm? They are so well known!" You could argue: let's create exceptions for anything that hits a collection display of a museum; or is so well known that it's part of some implicit cultural canon which is foundational to society...
... but then you end up in a massive rabbit hole: how do you establish equal and fair criteria that say "this creative work is protected by copyright; and this isn't?" Which inevitably leads to endless yak shaving and bike shedding discussions (Yes, I've been there professionally. These are unwinable!).
> the artists make most of their money in other ways anyway
It's the other way around. Artists make their money in other ways today, not because of copyright... but because of technology.
When your band gets signed up with a record label, you actually sign away your own copyright. You waive your rights as an author to your material. You basically say to a record label: "In exchange for leveraging your capability to produce, market and distribute millions of copies, I'll agree to 2, 5 or 10% of the revenue of the distribution." That's the deal you signed up for.
As an artist, it used to be that you earned nicely when music/video/movies were still distributed through movie theatres or record shops where consumers bought a physical record. You'd pay maybe 15 or 20$ for the album of your favourite band. And you'd listen to that album for hours on end.
Digital technology and streaming platforms have completely undercut that model. And the price for content has crashed entirely. Today, you don't pay 15$ for just 20 songs on a single album. You pay 15$ a month to get access to a catalogue of tens of thousands of songs. That's the difference.
The biggest issue is that streaming platforms and digital services have taken over distribution of creative content - audio and video - from traditional record labels, movie produces and so on, and have become the new middle men. And it has happened, the artists who signed away their rights see far less in return for their efforts.
This is a huge debate in the industry: https://musically.com/2020/05/05/spotify-should-pay-musician...
At the end of the day, copyright isn't going to go anywhere, I'm afraid. After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And that's why modern copyright emerged some 300 years in the first place: Ironically because of the introduction of a new technology. As it happens, with the proliferation of the printing press and movable type, book printers, authors and publishers wanted to put a halt to others piggybacking on the success of selling their materials.
I think the problem runs deeper than that. When music is playing in the background of your zoom call, it's clearly copyright infringement. When you share your screen, it's copyright infringement. When you send a screenshot of random stuff to a co-worker it's infringement. Uploading any of the above to Facebook too. Fonts are copyrighted, so any of the countless pictures of text you see online are infringing
When you take a picture in a city, all those little signs and ads are copyrighted. Posting a picture of this is a ton of violations of copyright law.
Technology has advanced beyond a point where copyright on images and audio is reasonable at all. When these laws were created, copies were hard to make and deliberate. Put in another way, everything is so easy to replicate that it has zero value, and copyright is attempting to force people to pay for things that aren't worth anything.
At a minimum, the law needs to be changed so that the copied works must be "non trivial" and the copying "deliberate". This will make copyright hard to enforce, but it needs to be. You shouldn't be able to copyright a picture of your ass and sue people for sharing it on facebook
When you take a picture in a city, all those little signs and ads are copyrighted. Posting a picture of this is a ton of violations of copyright law.
Technology has advanced beyond a point where copyright on images and audio is reasonable at all. When these laws were created, copies were hard to make and deliberate. Put in another way, everything is so easy to replicate that it has zero value, and copyright is attempting to force people to pay for things that aren't worth anything.
At a minimum, the law needs to be changed so that the copied works must be "non trivial" and the copying "deliberate". This will make copyright hard to enforce, but it needs to be. You shouldn't be able to copyright a picture of your ass and sue people for sharing it on facebook
I think this recent article gives a nice concrete insight with regards to how copyright suddenly turns at odds with working from home:
https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2020/07/articles/random-iss...
But I think this quote is what it essentially all boils down to:
> Are copyright holders going to pursue users for these issues? Likely playing some music during a live virtual happy hour with friends and family is not actionable – and may well not even be a “public” performance. But using music in an online meeting in a commercial setting may not be treated as kindly.
This is about liability and the extent to which you can be held liable by someone else.
Technically, all of the examples you gave are infringements of copyright. But copyright is ultimately a matter between two private parties. If you didn't ask permission up front, the other party may - and more importantly - may not (!) decide to claim damages.
When music plays in the background during your Zoom call, that's technically copyright infringement. Is Geffen going to come after you personally because you had Bing Crosby's White Christmas playing during a family occasion over Zoom or Skype? Hardly.
What about Zoom? This is where things get interesting.
For all intents and purposes, Zoom basically enables millions of people to play Crossby's song in the background during their social calls. Is Zoom then damaging the commercial interests of Geffen?
This is the crux of the matter: depends on which angle you consider the role Zoom is playing. If you consider just 1 case - you and your family members - then Zoom is just a service provider that tends to the infrastructure and makes video calling a possibility. But if you look at millions of cases - millions of people playing music over Zoom - then maybe Zoom isn't a just a service provide: it's a publisher of protected creative content. And it's actively infringing on the rights held by Geffen causing a significant sum of missed income for the record label.
This is also exactly why Facebook disallows prohibiting music and music listening on FB Live.
Facebook tries to create the perception that is - from a legal point of view - just a service provider that only does the piping and has literally nothing to do with what people post on it's platform. The moment a judge rules "Nah, Zuck, you're a publisher", all bets are off and literally any big record label, movie producer,... can come after Facebook for infringing on copyright simply because anyone and their dog unwittingly shared protected content on the platform.
> Put in another way, everything is so easy to replicate that it has zero value, and copyright is attempting to force people to pay for things that aren't worth anything.
Hardly. Copyright gives rights holders that possibility, but it doesn't force consumers to pay up by default.
The gross majority of pictures, videos and audio isn't valuated at a million dollar price point. Just because you play in a band on Saturday, doesn't make your music on par with The Beatles. Still, that valuation is irrelevant as far as copyright goes: you have the exact same rights as far as protection goes as The Beatles. If someone rips your music from Bandcamp, you can equally decide to sue them. Exactly like what The Beatles would do. In the exact same courtrooms.
What makes all the difference is context. For instance, it might be smart to just let others share and publish your songs and not care about the apparent infringement: you just hope that someone important notices your song and offers you a nice deal. That's a big difference with shelling off pirated singles with The Yellow Submarine: The Beatles - or better, the record label holding the rights to their music - are already past that stage and would mind you stealing from their plate.
The big problem, as a consumer, is that it's not always very clear what you can and can't do as copyright literally pertains to any creative work, regardless. Creative content sold in a commercial context is, ultimately, just a one facet of a much larger reality where copyright applies.
That's what makes it so confusing for the general public: they tend to apply copyright just to commercially sold music and video, whereas it reaches much, much farther.
https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2020/07/articles/random-iss...
But I think this quote is what it essentially all boils down to:
> Are copyright holders going to pursue users for these issues? Likely playing some music during a live virtual happy hour with friends and family is not actionable – and may well not even be a “public” performance. But using music in an online meeting in a commercial setting may not be treated as kindly.
This is about liability and the extent to which you can be held liable by someone else.
Technically, all of the examples you gave are infringements of copyright. But copyright is ultimately a matter between two private parties. If you didn't ask permission up front, the other party may - and more importantly - may not (!) decide to claim damages.
When music plays in the background during your Zoom call, that's technically copyright infringement. Is Geffen going to come after you personally because you had Bing Crosby's White Christmas playing during a family occasion over Zoom or Skype? Hardly.
What about Zoom? This is where things get interesting.
For all intents and purposes, Zoom basically enables millions of people to play Crossby's song in the background during their social calls. Is Zoom then damaging the commercial interests of Geffen?
This is the crux of the matter: depends on which angle you consider the role Zoom is playing. If you consider just 1 case - you and your family members - then Zoom is just a service provider that tends to the infrastructure and makes video calling a possibility. But if you look at millions of cases - millions of people playing music over Zoom - then maybe Zoom isn't a just a service provide: it's a publisher of protected creative content. And it's actively infringing on the rights held by Geffen causing a significant sum of missed income for the record label.
This is also exactly why Facebook disallows prohibiting music and music listening on FB Live.
Facebook tries to create the perception that is - from a legal point of view - just a service provider that only does the piping and has literally nothing to do with what people post on it's platform. The moment a judge rules "Nah, Zuck, you're a publisher", all bets are off and literally any big record label, movie producer,... can come after Facebook for infringing on copyright simply because anyone and their dog unwittingly shared protected content on the platform.
> Put in another way, everything is so easy to replicate that it has zero value, and copyright is attempting to force people to pay for things that aren't worth anything.
Hardly. Copyright gives rights holders that possibility, but it doesn't force consumers to pay up by default.
The gross majority of pictures, videos and audio isn't valuated at a million dollar price point. Just because you play in a band on Saturday, doesn't make your music on par with The Beatles. Still, that valuation is irrelevant as far as copyright goes: you have the exact same rights as far as protection goes as The Beatles. If someone rips your music from Bandcamp, you can equally decide to sue them. Exactly like what The Beatles would do. In the exact same courtrooms.
What makes all the difference is context. For instance, it might be smart to just let others share and publish your songs and not care about the apparent infringement: you just hope that someone important notices your song and offers you a nice deal. That's a big difference with shelling off pirated singles with The Yellow Submarine: The Beatles - or better, the record label holding the rights to their music - are already past that stage and would mind you stealing from their plate.
The big problem, as a consumer, is that it's not always very clear what you can and can't do as copyright literally pertains to any creative work, regardless. Creative content sold in a commercial context is, ultimately, just a one facet of a much larger reality where copyright applies.
That's what makes it so confusing for the general public: they tend to apply copyright just to commercially sold music and video, whereas it reaches much, much farther.
> Fonts are copyrighted, so any of the countless pictures of text you see online are infringing
Font files are subject to copyright as code, but the resultant rendered character is not subject to copyright in the US [0]. This usually means that distributing a document with an embedded font file is a potential copyright violation while distributing pre-rendered text (such as a screenshot) is not.
[0] https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf
Font files are subject to copyright as code, but the resultant rendered character is not subject to copyright in the US [0]. This usually means that distributing a document with an embedded font file is a potential copyright violation while distributing pre-rendered text (such as a screenshot) is not.
[0] https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf
Major labels do license deals too (in my experience, they're actually more common now). So the artist retains ownership of the master recording, but the end result is much the same, as it's typically exclusive and the term is long.
> No, it's not. Copyright doesn't prohibit you from making a copy. It prohibits you from publishing that copy: sharing with or distributing to other people.
> You're perfectly good to make a recording or photo's with your smartphone, security camera, whatever.
This is incorrect. It's an offence (although civil, not criminal) to make a copy if you don't have correct authorisation. No-one is going to enforce that for the vast majority of copying, but non-enforcement doesn't mean it's not an offence.
https://copyrightservice.co.uk/_f/8215/8193/9720/edupack.pdf
> Acts restricted by copyright
> It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the copyright owner:
> i.Copy the work.
> ii.Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
> iii.Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
> iv.Adapt the work
> You're perfectly good to make a recording or photo's with your smartphone, security camera, whatever.
This is incorrect. It's an offence (although civil, not criminal) to make a copy if you don't have correct authorisation. No-one is going to enforce that for the vast majority of copying, but non-enforcement doesn't mean it's not an offence.
https://copyrightservice.co.uk/_f/8215/8193/9720/edupack.pdf
> Acts restricted by copyright
> It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the copyright owner:
> i.Copy the work.
> ii.Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
> iii.Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
> iv.Adapt the work
> although civil, not criminal
That's exactly why I said that copying is not prohibited. Just that makes a huge difference.
First, it's a right which is granted to natural and legal persons. It's entirely up to that legal person to decide whether or not to seek damages because someone violated that right. What that means is that governments and authorities won't stop original authors from seeking damages in a courtroom.
Second, what it doesn't mean is that public authorities prohibits the act of copying. Extreme example: if copying was prohibited by criminal law, judicial authorities could order law enforcement to search your home on the mere suspicion of you having copied a book using pencil and paper.
Moreover, copyright gives the exclusive right to authorize reproduction to the original author. Mind the wording here: It's not the "exclusive right to reproduce", it's the "exclusive right to authorize".
Finally, that right itself isn't an absolute. The Berne treaty itself already provides for exceptions. In practice, you're looking at Fair Use, Fair Dealing and discussions such as the Treshold of Originality which excludes all kinds of contexts from copyright (i.e. security camera footage).
This entire discussion about the impact of technology is, in truth, a discussion about increased legal liability. The proliferation of camera's and mic's in digital devices have created a huge vector for violating copyright. If Facebook decides to disallow music from being played on it's platform, then that's an attempt to reduce that liability. Let's not forget that there's a huge discussion whether Facebook is merely a service provider of infrastructure, or a publisher, as well. And this move fits within that context.
I'm sorry, but absolutes such as "copyright prohibits you from making a copy" muddle exactly this discussion even more.
That's exactly why I said that copying is not prohibited. Just that makes a huge difference.
First, it's a right which is granted to natural and legal persons. It's entirely up to that legal person to decide whether or not to seek damages because someone violated that right. What that means is that governments and authorities won't stop original authors from seeking damages in a courtroom.
Second, what it doesn't mean is that public authorities prohibits the act of copying. Extreme example: if copying was prohibited by criminal law, judicial authorities could order law enforcement to search your home on the mere suspicion of you having copied a book using pencil and paper.
Moreover, copyright gives the exclusive right to authorize reproduction to the original author. Mind the wording here: It's not the "exclusive right to reproduce", it's the "exclusive right to authorize".
Finally, that right itself isn't an absolute. The Berne treaty itself already provides for exceptions. In practice, you're looking at Fair Use, Fair Dealing and discussions such as the Treshold of Originality which excludes all kinds of contexts from copyright (i.e. security camera footage).
This entire discussion about the impact of technology is, in truth, a discussion about increased legal liability. The proliferation of camera's and mic's in digital devices have created a huge vector for violating copyright. If Facebook decides to disallow music from being played on it's platform, then that's an attempt to reduce that liability. Let's not forget that there's a huge discussion whether Facebook is merely a service provider of infrastructure, or a publisher, as well. And this move fits within that context.
I'm sorry, but absolutes such as "copyright prohibits you from making a copy" muddle exactly this discussion even more.
true
>No, it's not. Copyright doesn't prohibit you from making a copy. //
You're fundamentally wrong.
You should either delete your comment or preface it with a caveat.
See for example section 2, bullet 7 here: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html
"Exclusive right of authorization" to "the right to _make_ reproductions".
Copyright isn't misnamed, it is essentially about copying.
In USA Fair Use can make it seem different to this which may be the source of your confusion.
You're fundamentally wrong.
You should either delete your comment or preface it with a caveat.
See for example section 2, bullet 7 here: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html
"Exclusive right of authorization" to "the right to _make_ reproductions".
Copyright isn't misnamed, it is essentially about copying.
In USA Fair Use can make it seem different to this which may be the source of your confusion.
I'll add to my reply:
Depending on where you live, copyright is a part of civil law, not criminal law. Which makes all the difference.
It means that the act of copying itself isn't outlawed. You won't be prosecuted by public authorities for owning a device that makes copies, or having made copies of a work of art to which you don't own the intellectual rights.
Think about it, if you decide to record an episode of Friends on your PVR, didn't you just make a copy? And does that mean that law enforcement could search your house because there's a suspicion you committed a criminal offence?
The Berne convention is literally what it says: the author owns the exclusive right to authorize reproduction. Copyright is about discerning who holds the authority to sanction reproduction. It's not about prohibiting the act of reproduction.
It means that you're free to make a copy of a copyrighted work, and ask permission after the fact. Public authorities don't come into this, unless the rights holder feels that their exclusive rights were violated, and decides to sue you in civil court.
Depending on where you live, copyright is a part of civil law, not criminal law. Which makes all the difference.
It means that the act of copying itself isn't outlawed. You won't be prosecuted by public authorities for owning a device that makes copies, or having made copies of a work of art to which you don't own the intellectual rights.
Think about it, if you decide to record an episode of Friends on your PVR, didn't you just make a copy? And does that mean that law enforcement could search your house because there's a suspicion you committed a criminal offence?
The Berne convention is literally what it says: the author owns the exclusive right to authorize reproduction. Copyright is about discerning who holds the authority to sanction reproduction. It's not about prohibiting the act of reproduction.
It means that you're free to make a copy of a copyrighted work, and ask permission after the fact. Public authorities don't come into this, unless the rights holder feels that their exclusive rights were violated, and decides to sue you in civil court.
That's what the treaty says. That's correct, and I'm fully aware of that.
First of all, my response is indeed within the context of Fair Use as the example given was background music in a Zoom call.
Second, a big crux is in the part between parentheses which you didn't include:
> (with the possibility that a Contracting State may permit, in certain special cases, reproduction without authorization, provided that the reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author; and the possibility that a Contracting State may provide, in the case of sound recordings of musical works, for a right to equitable remuneration)
The Berne Treaty is a framework of first principles. But the legal reality is shaped by how this treaty is then codified in supra-national and national laws. And finally how those laws then get enacted in civil cases within the applicable legal system depending on where you are.
For instance, Freedom of Panorama:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama
Another example that limits the application of copyright all together is the Treshold of Originality, which of course comes with it's own opposite doctrines of thought:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
Finally, Fair Use and Fair Dealing pertains to vast economic domains such as education, press and research. Why does Fair Use exist? Because lawmakers have conceded over time that a strict definition of copyright can't be practically upheld anyway. The application of Fair Use is far from a "confusing" fringe exception in the real world.
Your point would be valid if copyright was implemented straight up by it's first principles with zero exceptions. But that's not how the legal framework has evolved and gets implemented in the real world today.
Hence why I prefaced with "I totally follow you on copyright reform".
First of all, my response is indeed within the context of Fair Use as the example given was background music in a Zoom call.
Second, a big crux is in the part between parentheses which you didn't include:
> (with the possibility that a Contracting State may permit, in certain special cases, reproduction without authorization, provided that the reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author; and the possibility that a Contracting State may provide, in the case of sound recordings of musical works, for a right to equitable remuneration)
The Berne Treaty is a framework of first principles. But the legal reality is shaped by how this treaty is then codified in supra-national and national laws. And finally how those laws then get enacted in civil cases within the applicable legal system depending on where you are.
For instance, Freedom of Panorama:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama
Another example that limits the application of copyright all together is the Treshold of Originality, which of course comes with it's own opposite doctrines of thought:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
Finally, Fair Use and Fair Dealing pertains to vast economic domains such as education, press and research. Why does Fair Use exist? Because lawmakers have conceded over time that a strict definition of copyright can't be practically upheld anyway. The application of Fair Use is far from a "confusing" fringe exception in the real world.
Your point would be valid if copyright was implemented straight up by it's first principles with zero exceptions. But that's not how the legal framework has evolved and gets implemented in the real world today.
Hence why I prefaced with "I totally follow you on copyright reform".
I suspect none of your examples are factually correct, or even particularly relevant. I'm not aware of any significant trend of suing security camera owners for copyright infractions, for example.
Copyright on images and audio is actually how artists make most of their money.
Some musicians can play live, but what options do professional photographers have if they want to create work of lasting value?
Perhaps artists should move towards the software developer model and produce products that are never actually finished and never really work correctly, so they can spend their professional lives never quite fixing the problems they've created.
Copyright on images and audio is actually how artists make most of their money.
Some musicians can play live, but what options do professional photographers have if they want to create work of lasting value?
Perhaps artists should move towards the software developer model and produce products that are never actually finished and never really work correctly, so they can spend their professional lives never quite fixing the problems they've created.
> I'm not aware of any significant trend of suing security camera owners for copyright infractions, for example.
It doesn't matter if anyone is being sued or in what quantity. Most types of incidental recordings have been declared copyright infringement in some capacity or another, and everything else is selective enforcement.
It doesn't matter if anyone is being sued or in what quantity. Most types of incidental recordings have been declared copyright infringement in some capacity or another, and everything else is selective enforcement.
A lot of copyright claims on online platforms are not actually copyright infringement, but will have all the same repercussions as if they were. That's really the crux of the problem.
> Copyright on images and audio is actually how artists make most of their money.
This might be true for images, but I doubt this is true for music. I would bet that musicians as a whole make most of their money from live performances. Music labels make their money from copyright though.
This might be true for images, but I doubt this is true for music. I would bet that musicians as a whole make most of their money from live performances. Music labels make their money from copyright though.
> I would bet that musicians as a whole make most of their money from live performances.
That's certainly been true for artists who are locked into restrictive contracts. Live performances have usually been the main ways for many to make money outside of their recording deals, experiment, and to sell merch.
That's certainly been true for artists who are locked into restrictive contracts. Live performances have usually been the main ways for many to make money outside of their recording deals, experiment, and to sell merch.
Whenever someone says that something needs to change for the greater good, I want to say something snarky. Copyright law is like the orbit of Jupiter - it is the way it is because it's a balance of all involved forces - and the only way to change it is to change those forces.
It's indeed a balance of forces in a sense. The crushing force of major recording companies vs the small force of millions of artists acting/negotiating independently, meaning that the recording companies get a share proportional to their force.
In the past 250 years, the protected copyright duration in the US slowly went from up to 28 years to up to 120 years (!). It's no accident that the last big change was nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
A reversion in the protection periods to be aligned, let's say, with patent durations would still offer reasonable protection to all parties.
In the past 250 years, the protected copyright duration in the US slowly went from up to 28 years to up to 120 years (!). It's no accident that the last big change was nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
A reversion in the protection periods to be aligned, let's say, with patent durations would still offer reasonable protection to all parties.
Those forces are giant monopolies. The best way to initiate copyright reform is probably antitrust. Once these huge conglomerates are broken up there won't be armies of lobbyists advocating insane copyright laws
You're free to record music, copyright claims only come into play when you republish it. And I doubt your security cameras are open to the internet.
I think you should look up actual copyright cases instead of whatever it is you're trying to do now.
I think you should look up actual copyright cases instead of whatever it is you're trying to do now.
I don't think those are copyright infringement according to the law, however the way the laws are written in many places has effectively made things like picking up background music in your videos illegal. When the only way online platforms can comply with the law is to have automated systems take down anything with copyrighted music in it, fair use largely disappears on those platforms.
So I agree that copyright law needs reform, but there are actually pretty good laws surrounding fair use that protect the examples you provided - the problem is that with the current laws it is almost impossible for platforms to preserve fair use while getting rid of copyright infringement.
So I agree that copyright law needs reform, but there are actually pretty good laws surrounding fair use that protect the examples you provided - the problem is that with the current laws it is almost impossible for platforms to preserve fair use while getting rid of copyright infringement.
I don't think abolishing copyright for Audio and Images is the right way forward, but we do need to overhaul what is considered "fair use" for these mediums.
Perhaps in the future you can avoid surveillance by playing Top 50 music at all times?
Surely we've had enough examples of governments blatantly disregarding copyright law in election advertisements to establish that this is one of those "rules for thee but not for me" situations.
Depends on how deeply record companies get their claws into broad tools. The government may not always have the competence to roll their own.
reminds me of this Onion:
"CHICAGO—Music, a mode of creative expression consisting of sound and silence expressed through time, was given a 6.8 out of 10 rating in an review published Monday on Pitchfork Media, a well-known music-criticism website."
https://entertainment.theonion.com/pitchfork-gives-music-6-8...
I cannot wait to find out what common human behaviours are regulated online next, after all, if you don't like it, you can just
actually sorry there is only online now
"CHICAGO—Music, a mode of creative expression consisting of sound and silence expressed through time, was given a 6.8 out of 10 rating in an review published Monday on Pitchfork Media, a well-known music-criticism website."
https://entertainment.theonion.com/pitchfork-gives-music-6-8...
I cannot wait to find out what common human behaviours are regulated online next, after all, if you don't like it, you can just
actually sorry there is only online now
> You may not use videos on our Products to create a music listening experience
So basically if you are a DJ you cannot broadcast a mix session on Facebook or even broadcast a live performance of your own music under threat of being removed from Facebook.
Facebook might not want to have to deal with copyright management like Youtube does.
So basically if you are a DJ you cannot broadcast a mix session on Facebook or even broadcast a live performance of your own music under threat of being removed from Facebook.
Facebook might not want to have to deal with copyright management like Youtube does.
Many DJs switched to Twitch
I wonder how long it will take for such measures to reach Twitch and Youtube. I remember some weeks ago some streamers started to get threats from DCMA over playing music on stream, i think some of them even got their clips and videos removed due to copyright claim.
I think this is purely music companies decisions, even the artists are not aware of this.
I think this is purely music companies decisions, even the artists are not aware of this.
The restrictions are already on Twitch and YouTube, for the most part.
A lot of artists (or their managers) are! I’ve been watching some YouTube videos from Ricky Beato and he talks about “blockers”, and within the same label you have different artists that block or don’t.
Twitch already mutes parts of VOD's (past streams that are archived) when they detect copyrighted music. There is a loophole though, you can stream video-game music all you want because detecting those would mean they have to remove 90% of the videos on the website.
There was a scare on Twitch a couple months ago where a few big streamers got dinged for infringements (along with another big gossip streamer saying he had sources that claimed there's companies with the tech to copyright strike every offending streamer on Twitch right now if they wanted to), but since then nothing has happened. Plenty of people play copyrighted music, and Twitch continues to mute it in the VODs.
Rick Beato had a great video on Youtube blockers recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z7a-vh5OzU
I expected to go there just to see that the video is blocked
I mean what's the end goal here? Any video that contains music is just auto blocked? Hopefully as more regular people are impacted each person becomes an advocate for change.
I think we need AI and rules so strict you can't even upload a video at all because you're breaking some rule somewhere. Maybe we can even have AI on this website that says your words are breaking copyright and you're not allowed to publish them.
Only then will we see a real push for changen I feel.
I think we need AI and rules so strict you can't even upload a video at all because you're breaking some rule somewhere. Maybe we can even have AI on this website that says your words are breaking copyright and you're not allowed to publish them.
Only then will we see a real push for changen I feel.
Nah, the real goal is music companies want money. Bags and bags of money Facebook clearly doesn’t want to pay.
Prohibited.... Unless you have the appropriate licenses for the music.
Much ado about nothing. Did anyone ever bother to read the post?
Much ado about nothing. Did anyone ever bother to read the post?
Firstly, how do I prove to Facebook that I have an appropriate license, or that one isn't required (for example, music in the public domain)?
Second, it is legal (in the United States) to perform or play music, even copyrighted music, at personal, private, non-commercial events. These events can be in-person or online. As an example: it is legal ("fair use") for someone in my family to strum a popular, copyrighted tune on their guitar during a family gathering. Another example: it is also legal for us to listen to music that only one family member owns a legal copy of -- this happens any time someone puts on a CD during Christmas. These perfectly legal, normal, un-bureaucratic activities seem to be prohibited by Facebook's new rules.
During COVID-19, online experiences have replaced many experiences that people would otherwise have had in-person. Facebook's rules seems to be unnecessarily restrictive, which is especially disappointing during this time when many experiences people would be having face-to-face are now taking place on its platform, or on competitors' who may imitate Facebook's policies.
Second, it is legal (in the United States) to perform or play music, even copyrighted music, at personal, private, non-commercial events. These events can be in-person or online. As an example: it is legal ("fair use") for someone in my family to strum a popular, copyrighted tune on their guitar during a family gathering. Another example: it is also legal for us to listen to music that only one family member owns a legal copy of -- this happens any time someone puts on a CD during Christmas. These perfectly legal, normal, un-bureaucratic activities seem to be prohibited by Facebook's new rules.
During COVID-19, online experiences have replaced many experiences that people would otherwise have had in-person. Facebook's rules seems to be unnecessarily restrictive, which is especially disappointing during this time when many experiences people would be having face-to-face are now taking place on its platform, or on competitors' who may imitate Facebook's policies.
FB is not serving their users, they hedge against being rated as a publisher.
> Second, it is legal (in the United States) to perform or play music, even copyrighted music, at personal, private, non-commercial events. These events can be in-person or online.
But it is legal for you and Facebook to enter into an agreement to sublicense that content for Facebook's commercial use? You may get the benefit of Fair Use, but the same may not be the case for Facebook, who also must have a valid right to distribute the content.
But it is legal for you and Facebook to enter into an agreement to sublicense that content for Facebook's commercial use? You may get the benefit of Fair Use, but the same may not be the case for Facebook, who also must have a valid right to distribute the content.
No. You can't grant a (sub) license of rights you don't have. However, a special licensing regime applies to derivative musical works like covers of songs.
>non-commercial events
I guess it depends on whether DJs are getting bits, subscriptions, etc. from their content.
I think the music companies are cutting off their nose to spite their face but that would probably be the argument against allowing DJs streaming mixes.
I guess it depends on whether DJs are getting bits, subscriptions, etc. from their content.
I think the music companies are cutting off their nose to spite their face but that would probably be the argument against allowing DJs streaming mixes.
Facebook doesn't require you to prove you have a license before posting. They just require you to have a license before posting. They will ask for that license if a copyright holder files a claim.
The first activity you describe is legal because a special copyright licensing regime applies to derivative musical works like strumming a tune in your guitar, so you could also steam your guitar cover of the popular song on YouTube without issue, even for commercial use. (And thousands of musical performers do, without issue.)
The second activity is part of the implied license granted by physically owning music on a licensed media like a CD. Unlike the first activity, there isn't a special licensing regime and so streaming that music online requires it's own manually acquired license... Even for non-commercial use. The license costs a few cents...
Facebook's rules aren't any more restrictive than they've always been. They're just letting you explicitly know what they have always been.
(I handled music licensing at my old job and we were a Facebook video partner back in the day so I'm very familiar with how the musical licensing works in the US.)
The first activity you describe is legal because a special copyright licensing regime applies to derivative musical works like strumming a tune in your guitar, so you could also steam your guitar cover of the popular song on YouTube without issue, even for commercial use. (And thousands of musical performers do, without issue.)
The second activity is part of the implied license granted by physically owning music on a licensed media like a CD. Unlike the first activity, there isn't a special licensing regime and so streaming that music online requires it's own manually acquired license... Even for non-commercial use. The license costs a few cents...
Facebook's rules aren't any more restrictive than they've always been. They're just letting you explicitly know what they have always been.
(I handled music licensing at my old job and we were a Facebook video partner back in the day so I'm very familiar with how the musical licensing works in the US.)
The issue here isn't legality but performance royalties. Music played over the internet is considered a performance. These royalties should be collected and paid out to recording artists, or whoever owns the master recording copyright, whenever that song is performed publicly. It's seems that FB doesn't want to pay artists these royalties.
Copyright holders are constantly harrasing and taking down content of creators with valid licenses on platforms like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.
Having a license means nothing to modern copyright holders and they just massively spam shotgun takedowns on everything and anything. They even managed to pervert the law to the point where there's no consequence to themselves and the creators need to prove they're NOT guilty. Again and again and again because the holders will not stop requesting takedowns even after the creator has proven their right to play sounds in their own creation repeatedly.
This is textbook abuse.
Having a license means nothing to modern copyright holders and they just massively spam shotgun takedowns on everything and anything. They even managed to pervert the law to the point where there's no consequence to themselves and the creators need to prove they're NOT guilty. Again and again and again because the holders will not stop requesting takedowns even after the creator has proven their right to play sounds in their own creation repeatedly.
This is textbook abuse.
None of what you said is true, except on YouTube.
Facebook does not respond kindly to false takedown claims and unlike Google will revoke someone's right to use the online reporting function (meaning that future claims must be filed the old fashioned way, through a document or other means of communication that exposes the complainant to legal liability if they make a false claim.
Twitter is generally the same, as in 280 characters you can't meaningfully infringe many copyrights.
This is not textbook abuse. It's literally just Facebook making a bare statement about copyright licensing.
Facebook does not respond kindly to false takedown claims and unlike Google will revoke someone's right to use the online reporting function (meaning that future claims must be filed the old fashioned way, through a document or other means of communication that exposes the complainant to legal liability if they make a false claim.
Twitter is generally the same, as in 280 characters you can't meaningfully infringe many copyrights.
This is not textbook abuse. It's literally just Facebook making a bare statement about copyright licensing.
Many gaming streamers on Twitch play music (at least at a low volume) while they stream. A blanket ban like this doesn't make me think that Facebook is going to get a significant part of Twitch's market anytime soon despite their "Facebook Gaming" initiative.
FYI, they just got a big chunk of users from Mixer, a Microsoft-funded Twitch competitor that shut down.
There are a few problems in copyright laws:
- bad incentives (cf, "mickey mouse law"),
- one rule for all areas (music, movies, books, graphics) instead of different rules for different areas,
- not being fit to digital era.
This item emphasize the last one quite strongly, and it's only going to get worse.
- one rule for all areas (music, movies, books, graphics) instead of different rules for different areas,
- not being fit to digital era.
This item emphasize the last one quite strongly, and it's only going to get worse.
It’s rare that Facebook itself accelerates the thing that desperately needs to happen: people must, en masse, stop donating free content to massive censorship platforms.
This is a good step, counterintuitively.
This is a good step, counterintuitively.
Yep, it’s one step towards the death of Facebook. I am also quite pleased about this.
Just so a few hundred of people can be ultra billionaires we use so much force and violence against any creative endavours that may jeporedize the wealth of these few individuals.
It has been an especially tough time for DJs who as you can imagine are severely affected by Covid19. A game of copyright whack-a-mole has been going on across other platforms for a few years now (SoundCloud, MixCloud, etc.), exacerbated now by a move to live streaming over the last few months.
Live streaming has been a great way to avoid getting tagged for copyright infringement vs a pre-recorded upload which can automatically be scanned for violations, so it is easy to see why this was a problem for Facebook. They basically brute forced a solution to avoid legal responsibility.
Via SoundClouds guidelines: "The best way to avoid copyright infringement is to ensure that you don't use anything created by someone else. Simple as that.". It has just been hard to find an equitable balance between original music creators and mix creators. "Fair Use" is such a gray area here and is barely defensible.
Live streaming has been a great way to avoid getting tagged for copyright infringement vs a pre-recorded upload which can automatically be scanned for violations, so it is easy to see why this was a problem for Facebook. They basically brute forced a solution to avoid legal responsibility.
Via SoundClouds guidelines: "The best way to avoid copyright infringement is to ensure that you don't use anything created by someone else. Simple as that.". It has just been hard to find an equitable balance between original music creators and mix creators. "Fair Use" is such a gray area here and is barely defensible.
I watch a lot of live DJ streams (and have done some myself), and basically right now everyone is either using Twitch or Mixcloud.
Twitch - doesn't enforce any takedowns when you're live, but will mute you after the fact in clips/etc. Very gamer-y, but has friendlier chat features, emojis, and some meta-games around unlocking them. Also has support for hosting (showing someone else's channel in your own for a period of time) and raiding (relocating everyone in your channel to someone else's), which are key for people that want to do multi-artist events.
Mixcloud - smaller, but actually has a licensing deal so muting is far less common. Chat is primitive (no @'s, limited emojis). Streaming quality is good, though.
Facebook - basically a non-starter as they'll mute you live. Only really works if you're playing a literal live show with a band, where you're making noise that the algorithms won't pick. Reach is obviously much bigger, as the platform will shove live videos in your face if people have already liked your fan page.
Twitch - doesn't enforce any takedowns when you're live, but will mute you after the fact in clips/etc. Very gamer-y, but has friendlier chat features, emojis, and some meta-games around unlocking them. Also has support for hosting (showing someone else's channel in your own for a period of time) and raiding (relocating everyone in your channel to someone else's), which are key for people that want to do multi-artist events.
Mixcloud - smaller, but actually has a licensing deal so muting is far less common. Chat is primitive (no @'s, limited emojis). Streaming quality is good, though.
Facebook - basically a non-starter as they'll mute you live. Only really works if you're playing a literal live show with a band, where you're making noise that the algorithms won't pick. Reach is obviously much bigger, as the platform will shove live videos in your face if people have already liked your fan page.
> Mixcloud - smaller, but actually has a licensing deal
Interesting, can you explain how this works? Is there a way for DJs to look up which songs are licensed while you're live-streaming?
Interesting, can you explain how this works? Is there a way for DJs to look up which songs are licensed while you're live-streaming?
No, but their licenses are very broad. Their rules are also fairly straightforward: https://help.mixcloud.com/hc/en-us/articles/360004031080
They use an interactive radio blanket licence
Correct me if I'm wrong: Twitch will delete any stream after a couple of days. So Twitch is a no-go if one wants to build a library of past shows.
Couldn't you simultaneously do the twitch stream, but also record and host the shows elsewhere, if you wanted that library of past shows?
I see this with a lot of folks - they stream on Twitch and then the audio shows up on Mixcloud/Soundcloud, and sometimes the video on Youtube later on. You get the fun of watching it live, but then also enjoy replays later on.
This is actually wrong, you can choose to have your streams recorded and placed in the 'Videos' tab on your profile where others can watch them forever.
The web has been quite unempathetic when it comes to DJs and the music culture that surrounds it. The key difference between mix DJs and other types of music is that the culture around mixing is made by and for DJ sets. The music makers want their music played by DJs on radio, in clubs, in livestreams, at house parties, that's why they made it in the first place. A blanket ban on music means even cooperative parties can't belong.
Same goes for platforms with automated copyright checking. Enough music makers get caught up in labels that don't get this either, that you'll almost always have three or four tracks striked out of your recording making it pointless to upload.
There has never been any money in live online DJing, it's done for fun and the love of it. So it just feels like petty fun policing.
Same goes for platforms with automated copyright checking. Enough music makers get caught up in labels that don't get this either, that you'll almost always have three or four tracks striked out of your recording making it pointless to upload.
There has never been any money in live online DJing, it's done for fun and the love of it. So it just feels like petty fun policing.
> The music makers want their music played by DJs on radio, in clubs, in livestreams, at house parties, that's why they made it in the first place.
Presumably musicians that want this release their work under a license that allows it.
Presumably musicians that want this release their work under a license that allows it.
Unless they’re under the yoke of Sony, Universal or Warner..
Just kidding, those three companies have been granted a state guaranteed monopoly over enough of human culture to be able to bully other entities like YouTube, Spotify or whatever, into accepting onerous terms.. (think youtube automatically (and legally) stealing ad money and giving it to these companies, for a video of a person playing historical scores on a recorder. Or Spotify accepting that the money you pay them will get rerouted to famous artists you have never listened to)
Just kidding, those three companies have been granted a state guaranteed monopoly over enough of human culture to be able to bully other entities like YouTube, Spotify or whatever, into accepting onerous terms.. (think youtube automatically (and legally) stealing ad money and giving it to these companies, for a video of a person playing historical scores on a recorder. Or Spotify accepting that the money you pay them will get rerouted to famous artists you have never listened to)
Musicians often don't know what they're signing up for, and sometimes labels change their mind about how to manage their catalogues anyway. There are a lot of great labels that do all the right things for artists and DJs, but it's a big industry with lots of players.
> Presumably musicians that want this release their work under a license that allows it.
Vast majority of musicians have no clue about licensing or copyrights or/and do not care, be it permissive public ones or strict ones.
Vast majority of musicians have no clue about licensing or copyrights or/and do not care, be it permissive public ones or strict ones.
If the artists don't know or don't care, then neither should end users.
Most musicians are effectively end users. A relatively small fraction of musicians are actually involved in the production and sale of commercial recorded music.
I think that’s too broad a definition and renders the term near useless (someone who can play an instrument regardless of skill).
In this case I’d regard musician as someone who derives significant portion of their income from making or playing music or at least puts in a significant time into becoming the above (practice, learning and playing).
In this case I’d regard musician as someone who derives significant portion of their income from making or playing music or at least puts in a significant time into becoming the above (practice, learning and playing).
Also, Facebook actively downranks you if you post a link to other video/livestreaming tech (Youtube, Twitch) instead of uploading content directly to Facebook. This is unethical, and infuriating when you upload directly to Facebook and they play gatekeeper on things that are often not even copyrighted at all. I once had a video of me playing Beethoven muted. I wish more people would make noise about it.
Facebook: "let's distract them with music copyright non-sense while we utterly fail politically."
Edit: since this was downvoted, I hope someone can explain this: "why now?" What other motivation does FB have to address this, right now?
Edit: since this was downvoted, I hope someone can explain this: "why now?" What other motivation does FB have to address this, right now?
Has anyone created an AI annealing tool that can take a basic beat and create a randomized but good-sounding sampling for real-time DJing?
The record industry lashing out against DJs strikes me as a particularly braindead reaction. They’re shutting down free promotion of their music. I don’t listen to DJs because I want to illegally listen to one song, I listen to find new music and then go off and buy it.
I think you're misunderstanding the economic reality of the modern music business for labels. They make their money off streams, not people "buying" music; they have no real incentive to let people stream music for free as a 'promotion.'
Bands make their money off merch, and to a lesser extent, live shows.
Bands make their money off merch, and to a lesser extent, live shows.
I also stream the music. The point is a mix is not a medium for listening to one song. It’s a medium for listening to a set of songs mixed together. Sometimes you only get 1 or 2 minutes of a 8/9 minute non-Radio-Edit of a track.
To be fair, playing devil’s advocate I do know some people who only listen to streams of DJs. I guess the question is what’s the breakdown of people who do that. My guess is it’s a very small margin. And even if it were more sizable, are those people really gonna go off and go buy individual Drum And Bass tracks or whatever off Beatport? I would doubt it.
The end result is it feels like they cannibalizing or cauterizing off a potential market and generating more bad will.
To be fair, playing devil’s advocate I do know some people who only listen to streams of DJs. I guess the question is what’s the breakdown of people who do that. My guess is it’s a very small margin. And even if it were more sizable, are those people really gonna go off and go buy individual Drum And Bass tracks or whatever off Beatport? I would doubt it.
The end result is it feels like they cannibalizing or cauterizing off a potential market and generating more bad will.
What about whistling, singing or performing music live? Where is the line?
I mean, are the people enacting such policies even real person living a real life?
I mean, are the people enacting such policies even real person living a real life?
They're the same people who purposely ruin their products with advertising, pervasive tracking, and hostile UX. Then they claim they're doing their users a favor. By "helping businesses reach their audiences". Because that's clearly what people use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and all other social media services for, right?
Social media companies are waaay out of touch with the real world.
Social media companies are waaay out of touch with the real world.
Radio hams are not allowed to retransmit music, even that is as simple as having music in the background when you key the mike.
I never heard anyone try this on the east coast but around Southern CA and San Diego I heard it all the time on 2 meters.
There is the exception that you CAN retransmit music from the space shuttle or space station however.
I never heard anyone try this on the east coast but around Southern CA and San Diego I heard it all the time on 2 meters.
There is the exception that you CAN retransmit music from the space shuttle or space station however.
Clickbait title. Please change to "Facebook Music Guidelines," or something that isn't editorialized to make it sound like Facebook is against music.
At most, this guideline says not to stream other people's music to the internet without a license, which is very reasonable, given that artists want to get paid and wouldn't want you to play their songs on air for 2 billion people to enjoy for free.
Otherwise, it quite literally states the opposite - please do play your music for your friends, so long as it is yours.
At most, this guideline says not to stream other people's music to the internet without a license, which is very reasonable, given that artists want to get paid and wouldn't want you to play their songs on air for 2 billion people to enjoy for free.
Otherwise, it quite literally states the opposite - please do play your music for your friends, so long as it is yours.
>Otherwise, it quite literally states the opposite - please do play your music for your friends, so long as it is yours.
where do you read that?
Cuz when I read the BOLDED statement
>You may not use videos on our Products to create a music listening experience
Your take is not my take.
where do you read that?
Cuz when I read the BOLDED statement
>You may not use videos on our Products to create a music listening experience
Your take is not my take.
I thought Facebook had reached a deal a couple years back with the music publishers so that they wouldn't have to do this?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/9/17100454/facebook-warner-m...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/9/17100454/facebook-warner-m...
Shameless plug:
For anyone out there looking for live listening music experiences, I work on Stationhead, a social radio app. We're built on top of Spotify and Apple Music, so all the music is not only 100% legal and licensed, the artists actually get paid when you play or listen to your music.
Download for iOS (Android coming soon): http://share.stationhead.com/hn
For anyone out there looking for live listening music experiences, I work on Stationhead, a social radio app. We're built on top of Spotify and Apple Music, so all the music is not only 100% legal and licensed, the artists actually get paid when you play or listen to your music.
Download for iOS (Android coming soon): http://share.stationhead.com/hn
So...as it reads, per my understanding, Facebook reserves the right to ban my account if I pick up my guitar while on live and play even an original melody.
Am I the only one who sees this as a new gatekeeper preventing the organic rise of new musical talent?
There are alot of young artists in the music industry who first got widely noticed by building a social media following around their singing or other musical talents.
It seems that this is a way to close that door.
Am I the only one who sees this as a new gatekeeper preventing the organic rise of new musical talent?
There are alot of young artists in the music industry who first got widely noticed by building a social media following around their singing or other musical talents.
It seems that this is a way to close that door.
Not only that, but Facebook actively downranks you if you post a link to Youtube instead of using Facebook video. This is unethical and I wish more people would make noise about it.
Well, that does help explain why one of the local high schools had their livestream abruptly terminate 22 times when they tried to stream their band’s senior night concert. It does seem to be a clear TOS violation by the school even though the school was trying to work within Ohio coronavirus guidelines. I guess the effort to build something using OpenBroadcaster has increased urgency now.
This will be a huge problem for people on the ground reporting on news events like protests/riots. Often, people in the crowd are using portable bluetooth speakers and playing commercial music. There are FB accounts (and youtube, twitch, etc) that have several thousand people watching these protests/riots every night, and often make it to mainstream news outlets.
There should be a fair use exemption for live newsworthy events where the music isn't the focus. The music is just in the background and not the main point or even a secondary point. It's inconsequential and you can't even hear it clearly.
There should be a fair use exemption for live newsworthy events where the music isn't the focus. The music is just in the background and not the main point or even a secondary point. It's inconsequential and you can't even hear it clearly.
Facebook will mute anything that contains music it recognizes that has a copyright. It's annoying and stupid because YouTube is much more liberal about it as most people know. I always post video with music on YouTube and share a link.
Not only that, but Facebook actively downranks you if you post a link to Youtube instead of using Facebook video. This is unethical and I wish more people would make noise about it.
Facebook once did the mute thing on my OWN recording of a classical Beethoven piece (long out of copyright) and it was infuriating. I would have used Youtube to avoid the problem except Facebook downranks Youtube videos I post and doesn't show them to most of my friends.
Facebook once did the mute thing on my OWN recording of a classical Beethoven piece (long out of copyright) and it was infuriating. I would have used Youtube to avoid the problem except Facebook downranks Youtube videos I post and doesn't show them to most of my friends.
Good. I'd hate to see Facebook get big in the music world in any way.
My favorite is when reporters are out in the field reporting and someone drives by with their car radio on, and the entire clip gets taken down due to copyright.
Streamers listening to music is a common thing while talking, gaming, etc. Something needs to change.
Streamers listening to music is a common thing while talking, gaming, etc. Something needs to change.
It's not even clear from their wording if you can play original music live. Did they not even think of that possibility?
I think they are trying to envision every possible scenario. For example, and unknown singer could upload an original song to Facebook, sell the rights to the song, become famous, and have a billion views on Facebook. The owners of the song could then be owed performance royalties from Facebook, according to the current laws that apply to internet streaming.
I know many believe that this is mess is the result of the existing Copyright laws but I disagree. We are in times of change, where Wild Wild West is getting rules and enforcement. It's a painful situation for most, because the rules are ambiguous, made up on spot and change often.
I believe the true solution is through use of scalable and precise technology, brining high transparency and removing ambiguity. I built my whole company around this idea [0], so I'm definitely biased.
I know that many might disagree with me on this, but shattering copyright is not going to do us, the society, any favors. If you, as I, believe that automation is going exceedingly take over more of our responsibilities, IP (intellectual property) [read creativity] is the only thing left to us as humans. While many believe copyright is about extortion of money, I believe it's about proper attribution. This is the founding principle behind Creative Commons which believes that credits needs to be given to the creators. If they choose to make money of their creation, that's their right and should be followed.
I do believe that with transparent rules and removed ambiguity the UGC market will thrive beyond what we seen so far. You can see glimpses of what's possible through platforms like TikTok or Triller that do acquire licenses and are in process of paying creators portion of the revenue. This was one of the most important innovations of YouTube that spurred a whole new market and paved the way for many new platforms.
Imagine that you, as a creator, could know instantly which content of other people can you use under what conditions. If you disagree with them, you just don't use it and choose something else. Especially in music, this gives you a freedom of selection. There is 80M songs. There will be always enough to choose from, even if the major righpshodlers would withhold their catalogues.
I believe that if the rules are know, are stable and unambiguous, then the market will be much stronger and healthier for everyone.
[0] https://pex.com/attribution-engine/
I believe the true solution is through use of scalable and precise technology, brining high transparency and removing ambiguity. I built my whole company around this idea [0], so I'm definitely biased.
I know that many might disagree with me on this, but shattering copyright is not going to do us, the society, any favors. If you, as I, believe that automation is going exceedingly take over more of our responsibilities, IP (intellectual property) [read creativity] is the only thing left to us as humans. While many believe copyright is about extortion of money, I believe it's about proper attribution. This is the founding principle behind Creative Commons which believes that credits needs to be given to the creators. If they choose to make money of their creation, that's their right and should be followed.
I do believe that with transparent rules and removed ambiguity the UGC market will thrive beyond what we seen so far. You can see glimpses of what's possible through platforms like TikTok or Triller that do acquire licenses and are in process of paying creators portion of the revenue. This was one of the most important innovations of YouTube that spurred a whole new market and paved the way for many new platforms.
Imagine that you, as a creator, could know instantly which content of other people can you use under what conditions. If you disagree with them, you just don't use it and choose something else. Especially in music, this gives you a freedom of selection. There is 80M songs. There will be always enough to choose from, even if the major righpshodlers would withhold their catalogues.
I believe that if the rules are know, are stable and unambiguous, then the market will be much stronger and healthier for everyone.
[0] https://pex.com/attribution-engine/
[deleted]
Facebook is concerned about possibly having to pay licensing fees to music publishers and rights owners. The new policy is a disclaimer, attempting to release Facebook from any responsibility for infringement. It's however unlikely that Facebook would be judged to be in the clear if it's determined that they are benefiting from uploaded content. Most likely they will balance the threat of paying fees against the hurt to the appeal of their product caused by their own restrictions, and that will determine the level of enforcement.