Vimeo started checking audio for copyright

bmorgan83

It looks like Vimeo backed down temporarily on checking private videos to find a better solution for users… glad they listened to that much, but still this is far from the best move they could have made.

thorn

Government via law, and it is society who give them this right.

So... theft is acceptable - even to be encouraged, once you (or a group of people) have decided the creator has earned enough money?

I will concede that force of government can coerce such a thing, but there's certainly no rational morality to it. Just because you want something I have, doesn't give you the right to take it - nor for me to provide it to you.

Society doesn't give a government the right to do this. They give government the power to do it. And there is a difference.

jleo

free EBOOK PDF

Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity

in FREE CULTURE, he ( Lawrence Lessig) widens his focus to consider the diminishment of the larger public domain of ideas. In this powerful wake-up call he shows how short-sighted interests blind to the long-term damage they’re inflicting are poisoning the ecosystem that fosters innovation.

All creative works—books, movies, records, software, and so on—are a compromise between what can be imagined and what is possible—technologically and legally. For more than two hundred years, laws in America have sought a balance between rewarding creativity and allowing the borrowing from which new creativity springs. The original term of copyright set by the First Congress in 1790 was 14 years, renewable once. Now it is closer to two hundred. Thomas Jefferson considered protecting the public against overly long monopolies on creative works an essential government role. What did he know that we’ve forgotten?

http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

Vitaliy_Kiselev

So... theft is acceptable - even to be encouraged, once you (or a group of people) have decided the creator has earned enough money?

Huh, in this case reading/listening to ANY public domain thing is.. theft. Theft term is absolutely inapplicable to digital works like software, music or films.

And no, all society will do is to force you work hard and make another piece. Of course it does not match your interests. Life is set of conflicts, and society as it has more power than you will force you to live according to new rules.

I will concede that force of government can coerce such a thing, but there's certainly no rational morality to it. Just because you want something I have, doesn't give you the right to take it - nor for me to provide it to you.

In fact, it is very rational. The tighter the restrictions the more diverse will become people interests, as they will be able to buy another things. It will also have significant impact on small business making their life much more easy and music that their visitors hear much more diverse, especially for small cafes/bars, etc.

Society doesn't give a government the right to do this. They give government the power to do it. And there is a difference.

Nope. Government do things, sometimes by force if interest of society is different than your individual interest.

thorn

Huh, in this case reading/listening to ANY public domain thing is.. theft.

No, because by definition it is in the public domain.

Theft term is absolutely inapplicable to digital works like software, music or films.

No, it is not. Software, by definition, can only be distributed as a digital work. Even if mass-copied via donated floppy discs, it is still a digital work and protected intellectual property. The method by which the work is distributed is not the protected element - the work itself is.

If one would like to dispute this, then convince a digital effects artist to pay $2000 for a blank CD instead of $2000 for a 3D application on CD. I suspect you won't find a single artist that will prefer the blank CD.

And no, all society will do is to force you work hard and make another piece. Of course it does not match your interests. Life is set of conflicts, and society as it has more power than you will force you to live according to new rules.

Institutional slavery was once quite accepted by both society and government. That fact doesn't make it morally justified.

The tighter the restrictions the more diverse will become people interests, as they will be able to buy another things.

People are free to have whatever interests they like now, and are free to purchase things now. If once prefers folk music to hip-hop, they are free to purchase, listen, and enjoy. Taking the creator's income does not create choices for what people are able to purchase. It simply takes away economic choices from the creator.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

No, it is not. Software, by definition, can only be distributed as a digital work. Even if mass-copied via donated floppy discs, it is still a digital work and protected intellectual property. The method by which the work is distributed is not the protected element - the work itself is.

Huh. I just told that term theft is inapplicable. Theft if act where you get something from someone, and someone no longer has it. Here it is just illegal copy. Illegal copy sounds not so nice as theft :-)

And yes, I think that so called art/music "elite" must work really hard and must lost 99% of their current income.

Institutional slavery was once quite accepted by both society and government. That fact doesn't make it morally justified.

Good logic. Working hard is slavery. How about simple facts stating that current system allow only top 1-2% to get almost all money (I mean here music, films, etc).

Taking the creator's income does not create choices for what people are able to purchase. It simply takes away economic choices from the creator.

Nope, it is just not true. Simple data show that it is big excess of creators who do it almost for free or for free and they can't get any compensation as they can't even get proper exposition and it is no money left in customer pockets. If someone has X dollars he want to spend on music and now amount he spends on highly promoted and advertised very limited popular music set is very close or equal to X. As you restrict income it'll result in fun thing - such music will be almost impossible to promote so hard (as you won't be able to get money back).

Biggest impact such system makes on large companies, distributors and digital music/film shops. And believe me, diversity and destruction of such structures is good thing.

thorn

Huh. I just told that term theft is inapplicable.

You did say this, but that doesn't make it true.

Theft if act where you get something from someone, and someone no longer has it.

Making and/or sharing an illegal copy of a digital work is theft by which the seller offered it for a price, which someone refused to pay for. The fact one is able to acquire the song/software without paying for it is not relevant. When you purchase a music CD, or software, you aren't paying $20 or $2000 for the disc itself; you're paying for the content on the CD. Again - I'm not familiar with people often paying $2000 for blank CDs.

How about simple facts stating that current system allow only top 1-2% to get almost all money (I mean here music, films, etc).

Those who produce the most success often do profit the most from it. That isn't an aberration or breakdown of society - that's the normal expected outcome.

There may be 10,000 musicians in a city, but if only one of them sells a million songs, the other 9,999 are certainly entitled to no profit in the matter.

Nope, it is just not true. Simple data show that it is big excess of creators who do it almost for free or for free and they can't get any compensation as they can't even get proper exposition and it is no money left in customer pockets.

You're drawing unsupported conclusions from a dataset. Correlation does not imply causation. 100% of people who drink water in their lives will die. That does not prove that water is a lethal substance.

Of course there are musicians, artists, and filmmakers who haven't received compensation equal to others. It may be due to writing poor songs, or perhaps the potential audience has not heard of them. In neither case is a successful musician obligated to give their potential income away, to correct the situation.

You're incorrectly assuming that if Pink Floyd no longer gets royalties for Dark Side of the Moon, that a poor brilliant violinist in a Prague subway will then earn more for his music. This is not a fact; the Pink Floyd fans might just spend their new extra money on an extra pound of coffee or a bottle of laundry detergent.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Making and/or sharing an illegal copy of a digital work is theft by which the seller offered it for a price, which someone refused to pay for.

And if you repeat terms that are brainwashed from your childhood it also do not make sense. Call it illegal copy. And such copy is illegal only in the eyes of rights owner or reseller. Not so much in society eyes as polls show, this is why it was replaced by wrong term.

that's the normal expected outcome. There may be 10,000 musicians in a city, but if only one of them sells a million songs, the other 9,999 are certainly entitled to no profit in the matter.

In fact it is not normal outcome. And it is flawed example. If you go back in time without copyrights and digital records you'll see that distribution of income was very different. It can be said that cheap distribution and huge copyright length protect most talented, but looking around it does not seem so. Quite reverse - each new copyright push resulted in more crap.

You're drawing unsupported conclusions from a dataset. Correlation does not imply causation. 100% of people who drink water in their lives will die. That does not prove that water is a lethal substance.

Argument for the sake of argument :-) Cool. I just said that if you have huge machine who push sick laws, push sick marketing and advertisement and push sick songs and films (and most people watch and listen to this due money spend and laws that ensure that they can be spend and returned). And data support it. People in industry know it.

You're incorrectly assuming that if Pink Floyd no longer gets royalties for Dark Side of the Moon, that a poor brilliant violinist in a Prague subway will then earn more for his music. This is not a fact; the Pink Floyd fans might just spend their new extra money on an extra pound of coffee or a bottle of laundry detergent.

They can spend them as they want. But if they do not have money left before another big sick fat pig corporation sold them new, as old, remastered exclusive limited album(tm) it is worse for them, and better for you. People are smarter than corporations and some other guys are thinking about them. Do not patronize them.

Again, I got point of your argument - it is same as famous example on how mafia operates, they show how boss lives and promise small drug dealers similar future (never happen, but works for idiots).

But you fail to catch mine. I just say that conflict of interest exist. And mafia must be destroyed, even if some small or large bosses think that it is uncool and theft is happening and even told their small brothers that they have bright future.

caveport

An overlooked issue is that copyright can be bought, sold & transferred. A musician or artist can be coerced into signing away copyright of their own work. This the common way that major corporations take control and ownership of an artist's work when the artist does not have the resources to do their own promotion or distribution. It's the copyright laws that need changing to make this kind of corporate behaviour illegal. There's nothing wrong with taking a slice of the pie for work performed, but taking the whole pie from the artist is theft. I am a musician who went through the whole business of being signed to a record label in the 1970's. The problem with allowing copyright for a short time is that it is unenforcable. Also should anyone be allowed to take someone else's work and build a career out of it without compensating the artist who created the work? Once it's in the public domain it's available to anyone to use for any purpose. I think that that is something that should not be allowed until after the artist's death.

thorn

And if you repeat terms that are brainwashed from your childhood it also do not make sense.

Perhaps it's a language barrier, but it's not an issue of brainwashing from childhood. If you take something of mine without compensation, I call that theft.

Call it illegal copy. And such copy is illegal only in the eyes of rights owner or reseller.

Call it "illegal copy" if you like; grammatical semantics don't change the point. The rights owner and/or reseller are the ones whose definition is paramount; in fact, they are the ones who have the right to define it to begin with.

It can be said that cheap distribution and huge copyright length protect most talented, but looking around it does not seem so. Quite reverse - each new copyright push resulted in more crap.

"More crap" according to whom? I'm fairly sure that bad music existed before copyright as well. The fact that copyright protects "crap" doesn't support the destruction of it. If people don't like crap music or films, they won't continue to purchase them.

I just said that if you have huge machine who push sick laws, push sick marketing and advertisement and push sick songs and film(...)

Again, the consumer has a choice. A consumer does not have to purchase sick songs. Copyright law does not ensure an income stream for musicians whose song no one purchases. There are countless songs, books, and films protected under copyright that few people have shown any interest in. They are often found in the bargain bins for $2. Which, I suppose, is a good thing for people without much money. Taking that further - one doesn't have to pay $15 for a new CD - just wait for the closeout sale. Don't want to pay $80 for the latest video game? Wait for the bargain bin in a year, and it will be $8. Copyright law does not need to be eliminated in order for people to be able to afford more entertainment for their dollar.

it is same as famous example on how mafia operates, they show how boss lives and promise small drug dealers similar future (never happen, but works for idiots).

One can make a similar observation on Socialism...

I do find the Mafia comparison interesting. The Mafia works by forcing business owners and rank citizens to do things their way through threats of violence. If one wants to use the power of government to force copyright owners to give up their rights and future income, how is that different?

Vitaliy_Kiselev

The fact that copyright protects "crap" doesn't support the destruction of it. If people don't like crap music or films, they won't continue to purchase them.

Nope, it is good reason also :-) And no, people are not free to choose, as I said. System is such that it produces crap as it made to do so.

Again, the consumer has a choice. A consumer does not have to purchase sick songs.

Data tell completely otherwise. It can sound strange, but if you potentially have choice from million of options in current system it does not mean that you have real choice, Corporations are pushing specific songs and films (via marketing, trends declaring that something is old and outdated, radio rotation, etc), of course you can also choose something other, but it is rare thing. Most proponents of digital distribution stated that now choice will be really big and people will be selecting according to tastes. Science show (I had post not long time ago) that actually people started preferring even fewer songs and films, fewer artists. Problem here is that corporations, online shops and their friends are powerful and know how to feed you from the spoon.

One can make a similar observation on Socialism...

I can't. As I lived in both contrary to some :-) Strange thing - in socialism copyright existed almost in same form as I propose. Authors got compensation but it was reasonable and they had very little power otherwise. Fun thing is that they almost stopped producing anything good and started living for rent or producing total crap as soon as "modern" copyright law were implemented. It was very easy to notice and you can ask anyone with same experience.

If one wants to use the power of government to force copyright owners to give up their rights and future income, how is that different?

Very different. As it is target and intention that makes it all different. Every advanced organization and society takes big amount of so called freedom (with most primitive ones taking very small amount of it).

If you even look for countries, the only ones still having their film industry in quite good form are ones who restrict US films showing/distribution in one form or another.

neokoo

Part of the issue you're talking about is also that people want big stars. It fulfills the needs for "larger than life" spectacle (complex and expensive stage shows), shared social experiences (being fans of same artists, going to same concerts together) and sometimes also the (religious?) need to follow an unreal idol with a cult of personality.

So it's not always just the music that is being made, but rather the whole image and story of an artist, and experiences along with it. The needs for this kind entertainment will probably continue to exist in any system. Those companies that exist mostly to make profits will of course use those needs and wants to their advantage. And to many buyers it does not matter where money goes as long as someone provides the entertainment. Those companies that are not aggressive and exist mostly to enable music to reach people, are often ignored.

As for how to treat music as a product, it must be taken into account that big part of music is immaterial and cannot be treated exactly as physical goods. Much of art, including music, happens subjectively in our heads. The content (piece of recorded music for example) is more like a medium or catalyst for emotional and/or intellectual experience. Creating that art, catalyst, medium, whatever you call it, requires work like any other (which is quantifiable and can be made systematically), but it also requires emotional input (which is much harder to willfully summon, measure and put numerical value on). Since there are unquantifiable sides both to creation and consumption of music, treating music purely as a physical product does not make sense, no matter what side of argument one might be.

And while we're talking artists' work and livelihood, might also talk how people use music. New music is not always wanted, sometimes all anyone wants from an artist is the hit, but to make that one hit, several years of studies, practice and work of many musicians were needed. And sometimes, the hit of a big artist (who receives much success and credit) has been in some form taken from work of other artist or even common folk traditions. So it is a really good question how society should treat music makers. Especially as most of them do not even want to be rich, just to make music.

In a wider perspective the problem is tied to concepts of human work in general - what work is really needed and what is not, and how human life and different kind of activities are valued.

soundgh2

Funny how once again audio is a second cousin in the eyes of people just using it on their Vimeo "film"

Think about it a little - did you fork out the $50k on gear and 10 years learning the craft to get to the stage to come up with the ditty in the first place? Did you ask the person who owns it if you could pop it on your new opus magnus? If the answer was no to the last two, then write your own - the musician doesn't pop your "film" clips in their new film project does he/she?

A lot of artist will say yes of course and even when asking to put music into a production on TV/FIlm a lot of artists will say no - but ask.

Watch Voldermorts "films" mute - they're funny ;p like someones dropped the camera lol

DrDave

@neokoo I don't agree that small labels support this; I know many that don't. The main use is to hassle pppl and park ads on their vids

neokoo

@DrDave

Small commercial labels I work with usually turn on monetizing (ads) but do not remove the tracks unless they've been misattributed or the uploader tries to monetize music they did not make. The latter case is why copyright policing is needed - some people upload (or use in a video) a bunch of other artists' tracks and try to make money from that without paying artists anything.

Otherwise those small labels do not enforce copyrights, usually they upload (and let others upload) full tracks, and artists sometimes even link other people's uploads of their work on official social media pages.

thorn

And no, people are not free to choose, as I said. System is such that it produces crap as it made to do so.

Do you choose what music you purchase and/or listen to? I'll be surprised if you have a large collection of Justin Beiber songs. I don't, despite the fact he's one of the biggest stars currently being marketed.

It can sound strange, but if you potentially have choice from million of options in current system it does not mean that you have real choice

For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true. How is the proper solution to destroy current copyright and give people opportunities to hear more music? If they have too many choices now, and destroying copyright creates more opportunities for unknown artists to share their music, then it seems your solution will increased your problem.

Further, if Vimeo kicks off a wedding video with Justin Beiber soundtrack - because it is copyrighted - why would this not be a good thing, if one believes Beiber is crap music that should not be heard as much?

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Do you choose what music you purchase and/or listen to? I'll be surprised if you have a large collection of Justin Beiber songs. I don't, despite the fact he's one of the biggest stars currently being marketed.

I don't, but as I said system works such a way that most money spend and most time spend is on crap. System just promote it.

If they have too many choices now, and destroying copyright creates more opportunities for unknown artists to share their music, then it seems your solution will increased your problem.

Number of choices is not a problem, really. Problem is ability for corporations to promote. And it is copyright and other laws that allow them to do so as they know that huge machine can force you to look at the horse arse for hours. Taking money away from them just take away fuel for all this machine.

Good idea is also to close mass digital music/films online shops and distributors, leaving only government owned shop were you can put your works for fixed yearly payment (and without any fees paid to shop upon purchase) and independent small distributors.

Further, if Vimeo kicks off a wedding video with Justin Beiber soundtrack - because it is copyrighted - why would this not be a good thing, if one believes Beiber is crap music that should not be heard as much?

You just told about freedom, if video author and his clients like Bieber, let them do it. Just show big fuck to Birber and make him get zero from it, he has enough already.

thorn

I don't, but as I said system works such a way that most money spend and most time spend is on crap.

So - you are currently able to make your own decisions on what entertainment you purchase, but others are not?

I don't like banjo music. It's annoying to my ears. Marketing will not change this fact, nor will I start to purchase banjo CDs if Beiber music goes away tomorrow. Conversely, those who enjoy listening to banjo music can and do, regardless of Beiber's popularity.

Good idea is also to close mass digital music/films online shops and distributors, leaving only government owned shop were you can put your works for fixed yearly payment

Who will decide which artists are sold in the government shop? And who will decide the amount of payment? Will all artists sold in the shop receive the same amount of fixed yearly payment?

it is copyright and other laws that allow them to do so as they know that huge machine can force you to look at the horse arse for hours.

I'm not aware of any media corporation that can force anyone for hours to watch films or listen to music one doesn't like. I am, however, aware of governments that have this sort of power - North Korea, for example.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Marketing will not change this fact, nor will I start to purchase banjo CDs if Beiber music goes away tomorrow. Conversely, those who enjoy listening to banjo music can and do, regardless of Beiber's popularity.

Again, data do not support it. Data shows that people follow the trend set by corporations (and with each year they do it more and more). You just can't want and love things that you do not know even exist in this world.

Who will decide which artists are sold in the government shop? And who will decide the amount of payment? Will all artists sold in the shop receive the same amount of fixed yearly payment?

No one will decide. Any artist can be present. Amount of payment will be just shop run costs divided by participants. No profit. Artists will receive 100% of money people paid, no fees.

I'm not aware of any media corporation that can force anyone for hours to watch films or listen to music one doesn't like. I am, however, aware of governments that have this sort of power - North Korea, for example.

Yep, North Korea is big target for stupid US propaganda :-) Somehow this propaganda avoid all the facts about "proper" and "democratic" countries who did all as guided by world owners, with extremely poor people with best fantasy is go to developed country and get some money by taking out pee and shit under old people.

And yes, you can force people to watch crap, and I never said that they won't like this crap, they will love it :-) This is how monkeys mind works and big guys know how to operate hamsters grey cells.

thorn

Data shows that people follow the trend set by corporations.

You seem to have side-stepped on this twice, so I'll try once more: it appears to me that you do not listen to the most popular trendy music. How are you personally immune to corporate trends, while millions of others are not?

On shops:

Any artist can be present. Amount of payment will be just shop run costs divided by participants. No profit. Artists will receive 100% of money people paid, no fees.

Under this scenario, it appears that anyone will be able to record a few terrible songs in half an hour, submit them to the shop, and receive yearly compensation equal to that of a master composer. That doesn't sound like a solution which encourages nor rewards better music and film.

And yes, you can force people to watch crap, and I never said that they won't like this crap, they will love it.

I'm not aware of "forced viewing and listening" happening on a regular basis, except in cases of government-controlled propaganda. Can you give a some examples?

Vitaliy_Kiselev

it appears to me that you do not listen to the most popular trendy music. How are you personally immune to corporate trends, while millions of others are not?

How it happens that all people are not black tall guys having white hairs? I really do not know, must be magic.

How it happens that children in English speaking families start talking in English? Some speak more than one language (or other language entirely) if family is differently speaking and use special approach. Crap spreading works in exactly same way. If you are born and live on the small islands of shit lake, all you know is shit, how it look and how it smells. You even become expert in the shit kinds. Even become patriot defending shit lake and laws made by people who produce this shit. Why? You just can't imagine that something else can exist.

Under this scenario, it appears that anyone will be able to record a few terrible songs in half an hour, submit them to the shop, and receive yearly compensation equal to that of a master composer

I really do not know that you mean. You can upload any song, and no one will provide you any compensation, only people who buy stuff and they can hear half the song, so if it is crap, bad for ya.

Can you give a some examples?

I can. Almost all Hollywood blockbusters and top radio hits. Each have very big marketing, advertisement and hidden advertisement campaign (paid publications and reviews), most have stars or brands also (read - previous advertisement).

except in cases of government-controlled propaganda

Oligarchy controlled propaganda presented as fully free results of art work is much worse.

thorn

If you are born and live on the small islands of shit lake, all you know is shit, how it look and how it smells. You even become expert in the shit kinds. Even become patriot defending shit lake and laws made by people who produce this shit. Why? You just can't imagine that something else can exist.

So it really is more of a matter of "because you do not like it, it should have little worth to anyone else."

I really do not know that you mean. You can upload any song, and no one will provide you any compensation, only people who buy stuff and they can hear half the song, so if it is crap, bad for ya.

You can do this now, if you like. Upload a song to the internet, and either ask for money, or give it away. This has always been the case with any music.

Almost all Hollywood blockbusters and top radio hits.

Perhaps things are different in your city. In the places I have lived, I've never witnessed anyone being forced to purchase a blockbuster ticket or a top radio hit recording.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

So it really is more of a matter of "because you do not like it, it should have little worth to anyone else."

No, it is about that environment and your knowledge that determinate your tastes and significantly affect your choices.

You can do this now, if you like. Upload a song to the internet, and either ask for money, or give it away. This has always been the case with any music

Whole talk was about how current system works and why "uploading", "participating in iTunes", etc won't work in it.

All your repeating complains can be saw as follow picture:

Big pile of meat lies in the middle of the meadow. Few big wolves are eating this meat. With all other small animals waiting if they suddenly drop a piece (data fully back this up). On simple proposal to shoot wolves and allow some competition for this meat you tell me that it is unfair thing to do, as they are big strong and have right to fuck anyone else or we can just carefully talk them out of it. Nope, nothing except shooting works. And yes, interests of wolves, big media, elite who are fully owned by big business, and so called "stars: of shit do not match society interests. But as they have media they, starting from poor young school children start brainwashing.

In the places I have lived, I've never witnessed anyone being forced to purchase a blockbuster ticket or a top radio hit recording.

You mean "forced with a gun" may be? As otherwise I can only see complete lack of knowledge about marketing, people phycology and all related things. I suggest to spend some time on it, as it can also help with your own work and sales. Big business is very good at forcing you in such a way that you kinda want to go yourself. They have people for this and they charge a lot.

Please understand me right, forum won't change model you formed (you think that you formed, as it is media, people and environment who do it mostly) inside your head. People cherish their models as it is pure natural thing, significantly changing model is very hard for your mind and very time and energy consuming. So it is natural to defend any model you have now. In fact it is 90% of all forum flame :-)

jrd

@Thorn

In practice, and overwhelmingly, the parties which benefit from these government-granted licenses are drug companies and, to a lesser extent, software and entertainment conglomerates. And of course in the case of drugs, many of which are developed with state assistance, there's no real notion of consumer "choice".

You really think there's no need to revisit a policy which, to the extent it has any public support at all, is built on preposterous expectations of getting rich from activities in one's garage?

This isn't to say the licensing should be done away with altogether. But no notion of excess profits? And the "creators" owe nothing to society, beyond the taxes they can't manage to avoid? In the case of drugs alone, the money saved from less expansive licenses would amount to more, annually, than we spend on the arts with copyrights.

thorn

Big pile of meat lies in the middle of the meadow. Few big wolves are eating this meat. With all other small animals waiting if they suddenly drop a piece (data fully back this up).

Small animals can walk to a different meadow and find a different food source.

You mean "forced with a gun" may be?

That's one good example, yes.

Big business is very good at forcing you in such a way that you kinda want to go yourself.

You are confusing the words "force" and "convince". They are not the same.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters