Another copyright infringement suit/countercuit

[MichaelChang]

<p>This case relates to an alleged unauthorized use of copyright music which might be of interest to wedding slideshow and time-lapse video makers.<br>

<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/music-label-sues-michelle-phan-copyright-infringement-article-1.1876162">http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/music-label-sues-michelle-phan-copyright-infringement-article-1.1876162</a><br>

<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/234681309/Ultra-Records-v-Michelle-Phan-copyright-complaint">http://www.scribd.com/doc/234681309/Ultra-Records-v-Michelle-Phan-copyright-complaint</a></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There are ways to make this work to the benefit of both vloggers and musicians, but the old music industry paradigm ain't it. There are plenty of indie musicians who would welcome the opportunities for mutually beneficial exposure, and allow some usage of their music for web-radio podcasts via the podsafe concept. I'm not sure whether anything comparable exists for vloggers.</p>

<p>Incidentally, <a href="

Phan's selfie tutorial</a> is very good.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>She's made some money doing this and now someone wants a piece of it. This would never have been filed if she were not worth $3 million.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Rick, I think you're right, but the suit is so heavy-handed with a claim of some $150k for each violation that, if successful, is bound to send chills through the entire community. </p>

<p>I don't think anyone advocates copyright infringement against the spirit of the law, but in this instance violating the letter of the law, as Lex says, can enrich the music community to create a symbiotic relationship benefiting both sides.</p>

<p>Maybe Phan's countersuit will set a precedent if she prevails. <br>

</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>The suit is intended to send chills through the entire industry. It says very clearly, you steal our property, we're coming after you. If you want to use our music, pay for it up front.<br>

The music is the company's property. It is up to them to decide whether a certain arrangement is of benefit to them. <strong> If</strong> the complaint is true, she used the music without a license, without permission and for her own financial gain. She now wants to turn around and claim the theft was good for the music company? Anyone who steals music or video or images could make the same argument and it would be the end of copyright protection. The argument <br />"I stole the work but used it for the benefit of the company" just doesn't fly. </p>

 

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>...I'm not sure whether anything comparable exists for vloggers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is list on<a href="http://creativecommons.org/legalmusicforvideos%20%20%20"> this page </a>of sources for music with Creative Commons licenses and/or have been given up to the public domain. Some of these are like flickr for music. <br /><br /><br /></p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>violating the letter of the law, as Lex says, can enrich the music community to create a symbiotic relationship benefiting both sides.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Similar to the adage used when asking photographers to provide free work... "You'll get great exposure". Except for the asking part. Now it has come to just taking it. Then calling that helpful.<br /><br /><br /></p>

[Spearhead]

<p>It's important to recognize the difference between the music "industry" and musicians. The only musician quoted in the article says he's fine with the usage, there has been no support from the artists for the suit. Notice that the complaint is strictly from the label. The problem is that the industry has kept musicians captive and pretty much made sure that they steal from them, especially when they are too young to know what is being done to them. If the artists were getting a significant piece of the compensation, this situation would be different.</p>

<p>Regardless of what you think about the author, this article sums up the situation in 2000, and it's gotten worse. Read the whole article. I will never support the rights of a music business to copyright claims unless they are paying the artists a fair share.</p>

[qalam]

*Phan's team told the BBC that the lawsuit "lacks any merit."

 

 

*"Ultra agreed to allow Michelle to use the music and Michelle intends to fight this lawsuit and bring her own claims

*against Ultra," a spokesman said.*

 

If this true, there is a written contract and the contract allows what she has done, she should prevail in court.

 

If she had an oral contract and cannot prove its stipulations in court, she could find herself up the proverbial creek in a

lead-bottom boat and without oars.

 

For those who think you can follow what you consider to be the spirit of the law while violating the provisions of the law, good

luck selling that argument to a judge.

 

Dura lex sed lex. (The law is harsh but it is the law.)

[User_5888660]

<p>Jeff. First you say that only one musician is quoted in the article, but claim "there has been no support from the artists for the suit." I don't think you can make the leap from one twitter post to the assumption "none" of the artists support the suit.</p>

<p>Second, you state, "If the artists were getting a significant piece of the compensation, this situation would be different." The named musician has a net worth of $20 million dollars. I don't know about you, but $20 million isn't exactly pocket change to me. Just how much is "significant" compensation?</p>

<p>http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/richest-djs/kaskade-net-worth/</p>

<p> </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Even Microsoft has switched its position on piracy in favor of a long-term view as explained by Chris Anderson in this short clip titled "Free now, pay later: Microsoft turns piracy into Profit"<br>

<a href="

- 2:35 run time</p>

<p>It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine such a posture might work in the music industry considering its failed strategies to date. </p>

[ali_baba2]

<p>Seems to me they are attacking the fact she used the music to create media (the videos) which was used for "business" since the videos made her who she is and indirectly got revenue out of it... When that happens the label or "artist" wants a piece of the pie since they own the copyrights. Its different from having permission to use the songs in videos that wont bring any financial return, ever...<br /> A label like that wouldnt care less about that kind of exposure but many bands and musicians with noone representing them, very likely, wouldnt have minded letting her use their songs. Maybe things like that will end making people turn to small independent artists in their videos, that wouldnt be a bad thing.<br>

Microsoft strategy is basically "the first one is free", there are some artists that have done and do that with music also, i dont think that labels think in that way though...</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> I don't think you can make the leap from one twitter post to the assumption "none" of the artists support the suit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

There isn't a single expression of support of the suit from any artists anywhere. Find one on the web and you might have a point. However, the Twitter post has nothing to do with that. It's a statement of non-support and isn't relevant.<br>

<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The named musician has a net worth of $20 million dollars.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Check out his per-appearance pay. That's not compensation from the music company. Once again, a very off-base conclusion - an artist being wealthy doesn't mean he or she got paid well by a label.<br>

</p>

[ali_baba2]

<p>When it comes to Electronic Dance (what that particular artist does) the money comes from performances not much from song sale. Exposure makes sense for him. He usually puts a ton of stuff for free on the net... <em><br /></em>It wouldnt be that great advertising for the other artists to speak up if they were supporting the label because they dont follow Kaskade's point of view that</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>We can’t love music we haven’t heard</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>They havent said they support it but they havent said they are against it either (for now at least).<br /> And he knows well about the situation with the labels, its his choice to go for it anyways:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>When I signed with Ultra, I kissed goodbye forever the rights to own my music. They own it. And now Sony owns them. So now Sony owns my music. I knew that going in…</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>He isnt that naive...<em><br /></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>an artist being wealthy doesn't mean he or she got paid well by a label</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>An artist being wealthy, <strong>most of the times, </strong>is because they had a label backing them up and promoting them...<br>

<br /> At the end its all publicity...<br /> </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>It's interesting that some large media/content companies are still struggling with a sustainable business model.</p>

<p>The Wall Street Journal, for example, is allegedly paid-subscription only ($20/mth) for content access, and this is made clear when you access their site and click on an article, you will be greeted with "Get the full story, subscribe or login". Example: <br>

<a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/kerry-in-jerusalem-for-talks-to-end-israel-hamas-fighting-1406121531">http://online.wsj.com/articles/kerry-in-jerusalem-for-talks-to-end-israel-hamas-fighting-1406121531</a></p>

<p>If, however, you highlight the article title and do a Google Search via right-click, you will be able to access the full article through a Google search result link - something WSJ must be aware of and tolerates, likely because they value the Google referral and know that searchers will simply click on a competitive link if WSJ doesn't share its content.</p>

<p>It's probably unfair to a subscriber that anyone can access its content for free, but it's likely to remain so until businesses figure out how to make it all work to the benefit of everyone. </p>

[ali_baba2]

<blockquote>

<p>something WSJ must be aware of and tolerates, likely because they value the Google referral and know that searchers will simply click on a competitive link if WSJ doesn't share its content.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It used to be google's FirstClickFree program... Last i heard WSJ decided to have some content partecipating and some content not... There are other newspapers and magazines that allow all the content and others that dont... There is all a circle of advantages for both, even more for the advertising that appears going through google... Unless one is exploiting some weakness or holes in the system (they do exist) things like that arent set up without a great deal of thinking and a promise of monetary returns</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>An artist being wealthy, <strong>most of the times, </strong>is because they had a label backing them up and promoting them...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Do you have any experience in the music industry? If you did, you would understand how most of the promotion happens now, and it isn't the labels.</p>

[ali_baba2]

<blockquote>

<p>you would understand how most of the promotion happens now, and it isn't the labels</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Support financially: who advances living money to a musician while they do the "creative stuff" and say "here is a chunk of money for your contract well get it back in royalties? They organize basically everything and everybody needed to bring the songs out there all the way to the end. They do have lawyers and accountants that can take care of the artist if required and they have marketing and promotion dept that will take on the exposure online and other media, they have the possibility to get gigs that an independent artist might find difficult to get including radio and TV if worthwhile. And thats only a fraction of what they do.<br /> Some artists can do all that on their own, til a certain point, many went from independent to being signed with a label because when the thing is too big or you follow the music or you follow the business. Others are great artists but not good at business, period.<br /> Plain and simple you dont write a song and play the guitar on Youtube and money falls down from the ceiling, you need a ton of other people involved in putting you, as musician, out there. Labels do that, some better than others obviously, they arent all bad... i guess its like any other business partner "one hand to shake theirs and the other on your wallet to make sure is there"<br /> Sure, if some have enough means then they hire people and basically open their own record company, but its beyond what most want to do.<br /> If they were all slave traders musicians would run from them instead of looking for a label and celebrating when they get signed up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you have any experience in the music industry?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some, but since it seems you need proof for everything dont believe me and believe Neil Young:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>What I like about record companies is that they <strong>present and nurture</strong> artists. That doesn’t exist on iTunes, it doesn’t exist on Amazon. That’s what a record company does, and that’s why I like my record company. People look at record companies like they’re obsolete, but there’s a lot of soul in there — a lot of people who care about music, and that’s very important.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>About the ones that complain about the industry situation</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Those artists should go by themselves. They have a choice of what they can do. Artists who want to go it alone should just do that.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>and about piracy</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Piracy is the new radio, that’s how music gets around.</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

[john_h.1]

<p>Thankfully photographers don't have to contend with centralized powerhouses like labels and can do more for themselves on the open market. But infringing without consequence, even from property acquired by unfair powerful business interests, tends to weaken the protection of creative works in general. So, even if 'exposure' of music is of value to musicians and writers, I don't think it justifies infringement even if it has that incidental effect in some cases.<br /><br /><br />I was hoping music artists could better reach an audience directly in the digital age. How is that going?<br /><br /></p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>believe Neil Young</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That quote is 2 1/2 years old and things have changed a lot.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>who advances living money to a musician</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Nobody these days, unless it's related to Idol. I know fairly big name musicians who sleep in their bus on tour. Life is different. And the word for marketing now, since you don't seem to know, is festivals, not your label.<br>

<br>

I used to work for Polygram and I am a partner in a small label now. You can find my name if you look carefully. Looking for "ali baba" in the music business gives nothing, any anonymous web warrior can claim to be almost anything. I can't even find anything for "ali baba" relative to photography, that seems to be a bust too.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I was hoping music artists could better reach an audience directly in the digital age. How is that going?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Many do now. YouTube channels provide better marketing than any label. And, as I mentioned above, festivals, which are one of the best ways to market currently. </p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"So, even if 'exposure' of music is of value to musicians and writers, I don't think it justifies infringement even if it has that incidental effect in some cases."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it depends on whether one sees it as a curse or an opportunity. There is no fixed formula to defeat outright theft by any legal definition, but a clever response can turn theft on its ear when there is no practical recourse. <br>

<br>

Monty Python did just that by capitalizing on unauthorized postings on YouTube; they started their own channel and gave away just enough quality content to boost their DVD sales by (according to some accounts) 20 fold. Their channel "About" page spells it all out:<br>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython/about">https://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython/about</a><br>

<br>

Arguably, Monty Python was kept alive by all those unauthorized YouTube postings or they might have fallen into obscurity like so many others from its time. I'm almost sure certain-death would have followed had they employed strong-arm tactics to combat theft rather than embracing it. <br>

</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>An example of beating them, on their turf, at their own game, through humor and capitalizing on celebrity status:<br>

<a href="

- Mick Jagger plugs Monty Python. </p>

[ali_baba2]

<blockquote>

<p><br /> That quote is 2 1/2 years old and things have changed a lot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean he changed his mind now that things are different?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And the word for marketing now, since you don't seem to know, is festivals, not your label</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably i dont explain myself well in english: promotion can be done however you want and prefer, the point is that a label (big, small, whatever) has more possibilities than a single artist on its own. In Italy the business is still about who you know and labels help a great deal, festivals or elsewhere.<br /> One rather new label that is doing well here defined itself as "<em>360 degrees record label</em>" taking up "<em>management, concerts, promotion, pr, musical and video production and much more</em>" and the first thing they do is to create a fan base for their bands.... Last time i checked thats promotion. <br /> The label you are partner in doesnt do any promotion and and gives no support? i dont think so, you must do something or musicians would have no reason to be with you in first place if they are the ones doing all the work...</p>

<p>But, just to end that discussion and bring back the thread subject, since you are also in the music industry, let me ask you (and im just asking for a simple opinion not an argument):<br /> Someone is using the music you have copyrights for in their videos, and they have a big following and making good money using those also. You sent them letters where you ask to stop using the music, got ignored and the person keeps using the songs, do you sue them or let it go?</p>

<p>BTW no you wont find ali baba on my IDs either. If its such a problem for you have the rules to join the forum changed to suit you better. I would complain to a moderator but... ehy you are one... so there.<br /> Its not the first time you come out with this, its getting old. Discuss it in private if you care so much, not in other people's threads</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p><em>John H: "So, even if 'exposure' of music is of value to musicians and writers, I don't think it justifies infringement even if it has that incidental effect in some cases."</em><br>

Michael Chang: I think it depends on whether one sees it as a curse or an opportunity.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think my comment was understood. I acknowledged instances of opportunity in the quote referenced. Namely that exposure having incidental effect in some cases. More often than infringing uses of images is my impression. But, I don't have any stats on that. What I was saying is that incidental benefit to the artist or owner doesn't justify the infringement or the conduct of the infringer. That's not what people here are necessarily saying but it kinda seems that way with all the emphasis of how great infringement can be in some particular instances. My view is that good thngs can occur with permissive use and prefer that route rather then one that disregards IT protections and the practical effect that such disregard has over time. In photography, rampant infringement has made it necessary for many photographers to adjust their practices and live with the phenomenon. It has also made subsequent transferees of images (new owners) adapt as well.<br /><br />On a rather different note, Jeff said he doesn't support a music business being able to make copyright claims unless the artist is paid a fair share. I sympathize with that where you have an industry that has vastly more powerful bargaining power than content providers. On the other hand, I think such property should be transferable in a free market. I don't know enough about the industry and the practicalities and technicalities of rights management in that area to opine on solutions.<br /><br />Returning to infringement claims as to audio and music, if infringement is a good thing, I'm open to hearing why other than the fact that an artist or owner may get more attention because of it once in a while. </p>