Legal Question about a certain item. Dancers.

[Carl Thibodeaux]

I have a random question. Lately you been seeing a lot of dancers and gestures that are playing the entire song and people are dancing to. Sometimes even part of the song. "Thriller" has been around forever but that's part of a song. There's a Full LMFAO song Dancer that was sent out in a group I'm in last night. So is it legal to use them or can you get reported? It seems to be borderline piracy. I don't know. Any advisements?

[Deja Letov]

---

Carl Thibodeaux wrote:

I have a random question. Lately you been seeing a lot of dancers and gestures that are playing the entire song and people are dancing to. Sometimes even part of the song. "Thriller" has been around forever but that's part of a song. There's a Full LMFAO song Dancer that was sent out in a group I'm in last night. So is it legal to use them or can you get reported? It seems to be borderline piracy. I don't know. Any advisements?

---

I wouldn't say it is legal, but the owner of that song would have to be the one to file a take down on the item in question, not us as residents. And it may just be me but I doubt anyone from LMFAO is sitting in SL looking for their songs being used illegally 

[Claireschen Hesten]

i would say it's illegal if who ever uploaded the song doesn't have the permission of the copyright holder they shouldn't be uploading it if you illegally download songs from illegal file sharing websites you can face hefty fines and be banned from the internet i dare say the same would happen if you uploaded a song with out permission. you could try ARing who ever uploaded the song but really it would have to be LMFAO or their label that files a DMCA against them 

[Dilbert Dilweg]

I can't see the copyright holder cracking down on fan art......

Piracy lol No one payed for it. it was sent as a free gift as fan art.

If it was being sold or used as a means of proffit . then the copyright holder might raise an eyebrow.

 

[phaedra Exonar]

People have been taken to court for sampling as little as 3 notes of a song, this all so applies to move and TV samples to.   There's really no border line if you don't have permission then it's illegal, even DJs are suppose to pay fees for playing a song.  But only the Owner of the music can file the DMCA, if they chose to, some don't.  I believe currently in SL only the person who uploaded and or people selling it would be held responsible, if you have a copy of some that is illegal, it could be removed from your inventory by LL after it's reported. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeport_Music_Inc._v._Dimension_Films

http://nexeusfatale.com/2007/11/music-licensing-issues-in-second-life/

[MoiselleErin Teardrop]

You cannot even yodel in your own bathtub without someone claiming piracy.

[phaedra Exonar]

---

MoiselleErin Teardrop wrote:

You cannot even yodel in your own bathtub without someone claiming piracy.

---

 

Not sure about yodeling, but be carefull if you sing happy birthday...

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=5413561&page=1#.UBsO95b9wis

[161488303349]

teach me how to dougie !!!

is gettting mudered in SL

this girl made it legend

[MoiselleErin Teardrop]

Is that not sick? WMG is so F'ing greedy they want to collect royalties on some song that no one knows where it originated or when.

 

I was out driving with my mom the other day (she is not in good health so often I take her to run errands). We got to talking about companies trying to out-do each other and she said, "things were not always like this. There didn't used to be this level of greed..."

Phaedra, if you had not posted the link I would not have believed this. I guess given enough time, some company will find a way to copyright common clichés like "I love you" just so they can perpetuate their greed.

[iCade]

How is this about greed?

When a song belongs to someone else legally, and they do not want anyone to share it without their consent they have every right to sue you, or require fees.

What if you baked cookies to sell, yet some random person who you've never seen before, snatches up some of the cookies and gives them away, or worse, sells them. Would you think then "Oh well, let them have at it since I'm not greedy!" ....? I know I'd be after them like a bat out of hell.

 

And we're not talking about cookies here, we're talking about the music industry losing billions of dollars every year because of this.

...Can you even fathom what that means for the artists? I don't give two craps about the industry, but artists have my deepest respect. They're the ones that get hit by this because the industry is throwing a fit about piracy.

 

My favourite story about piracyis:

 

Trent Reznor, front man of the band Nine Inch Nails was pissed at his record label for selling his CD for way above the price of a pop music CD. He asked the label why his CD was over $10 more compared to pop cd's. The label responded with "Because your loyal fanbase is willing to pay that price!"

Trent went on to officially ask his fans to NOT buy the CD. He specifically requested them to download it illegally and if anyone got sued, he'd pay the fines.

 

Do you know what the fans did?
They bought the CD at full price anyway. They felt like the artist deserved the sale. They didn't give a crap about the industry but the artist.

 

Think about it sometime before you point an angry finger at the supposed greedy.

[Vegro Solari]

If somebody took the cookies from you, you'd have less cookies than before. But. if someone sings or uses your song in SL, you know what? You have one more fan in the world, and many more listeners - and what of it, if they earned some tips for themselves doing it? Or had some fun with it? All your cookies are still safe in the oven.

A better analogy with copyright would be: you are requiring everyone to stop cooking cookies using what you claim is your (as in "don't touch, MINE!!!") recipe. Only you can cook those cookies. If anyone else wants to, they must pay your corporate agents. It's not for nothing that this category of "rights" is technically called a royalty - it's throwback to medieval monarchy when kings could & did assert incredible special rights than no one else had, just because they were kings. As long as the population was illiterate, dim and fearful, they could and did say that they just magically owned all the land, all the natural resources, and all the people of their countries - with absolute impunity. After all, they are the kings, so it's their right. Keep this in mind next time people try to convince you that copyright is some highly progressive modern digital web 2.0 notion. Could well be argued that it's actually taking us back into the dark ages, and enslaving the creators.

Safe to say, Trent Reznor would be wholly unimpressed with your conclusion about the events around his music album, so it's difficult to say, in what way the points of view that you present were supposed to represent the interests of "the artists", instead of the greedy rights-owners interests. They're trying super hard to brainwash you and me so we think what they're doing is somehow "the right thing".

[Kenbro Utu]

---

iCade wrote:

 

Think about it sometime before you point an angry finger at the supposed greedy.

---

The "greedy" she was pointing her finger at was not the creator, but the "industry" who acquired the rights through acquisition when all the of creative parties and their familes are long gone.  They bought the rights to a song with questionable origin specifically for profit.  I would call that greed all day long.  

[Vegro Solari]

You know, a creator can be greedy too, why not?  They could even be bad people through and through.  They could have zero positivity in them, no desire to share with others, and only want to profit.  Just being "a creator" doesn't make somebody immune to all that, surely. In fact, if you look around, that's nowadays not much of a sin, it's not considered abberant and bad to be greedy, it's almost a competetive requirement now for being seen as a successful person.  Whilst the entire idea of sharing with others is really positioned as too naive and old-fashioned ("PROTECT your cookies!", etc.).

[phaedra Exonar]

Isn't taking advantage of loyal fans to charge them more above and beyond an all ready over inflated profitable price despite the artist protest, a perfect example of greed,  in this case the fans are actually being penalized for their loyalty not rewarded, That would be like LL charging you more for a premium account for each year you have been in SL.

Protecting cookies Good , taking advantage of loyalty bad. 

The biggest problem I have with big recording labels is that they have figured out the maximum amount of time between releasing new material for a band, that they can profit of a recording before paying to record more new music.  I first heard of this in an inter view with the Red Hot Chili Peppers, when they were asked why it had been 3 years between releases.  To me that is like telling Picasso only paint ever 3 years.  Besides greed now there stealing art form every one.

I've never pirated any music or software but the night I met Trent when NIN opened up for the Jesus and Mary chain, I did manage to sneak back stage and eat some of the bands left over food.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

If somebody took the cookies from you, you'd have less cookies than before. But. if someone sings or uses your song in SL, you know what? You have one more fan in the world, and many more listeners - and what of it, if they earned some tips for themselves doing it? Or had some fun with it? All your cookies are still safe in the oven.

A better analogy with copyright would be: you are requiring everyone to stop cooking cookies using what you claim is your (as in "don't touch, MINE!!!") recipe. Only you can cook those cookies. If anyone else wants to, they must pay your corporate agents. It's not for nothing that this category of "rights" is technically called a royalty - it's throwback to medieval monarchy when kings could & did assert incredible special rights than no one else had, just because they were kings. As long as the population was illiterate, dim and fearful, they could and did say that they just magically owned all the land, all the natural resources, and all the people of their countries - with absolute impunity. After all, they are the kings, so it's their right. Keep this in mind next time people try to convince you that copyright is some highly progressive modern digital web 2.0 notion. It's actually actively taking us back into the dark ages, and enslaving the creators.

Safe to say, Trent Reznor would be wholly unimpressed with your conclusion about the events around his music album, so it's difficult to say, in what way the points of view that you present were supposed to represent the interests of "the artists", instead of the greedy rights-owners interests. They're trying super hard to brainwash you and me so we think what they're doing is somehow "the right thing".

---

A far more exact analogy, to my mind, would be if you write a novel, working with an editor and a publisher, and the publishers publicise it and it proves popular, and then I come along and print several thousand copies of your book myself, and sell them at half the price and keep all the money, and you can't do anything about it, and the some movie studio comes along and makes a succcessful movie based on your book and neither you nor your publishers see a penny, because, without copyright, the movie studio gets to keep it all.

 

[Vegro Solari]

Innula, those are the exact business relationships that the original copyright laws of the land were put in place to govern. It was an attempt at justice. it was a decent attempt, and no one in their right mind ever imagined those business laws would one day be applied on the level of "cookies". Talk about shooting flies with a howitzer!

 

Modern copyright laws are much trickier beasts, instead of being mere amendments of the original law,  they are an attempt at totalitarian capitalism in the intellectual sphere  + unlimited censorship capacities introduced to curtail the "winds of freedom" that roam on that pesky internet these days.

 

**  Think about it.  They are ACTUALLY saying,  actually with a straight face, that it is illegal and furthermore IMMORAL for you to SING A SONG that you don't have the permission to sing!   You will be ostracized as a "pirate" amongst your peers if you do not comply with this new world view, where everything, every expression of inner human experience has a price tag and a rightful owner.***

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

Innula, those are the exact business relationships that the original copyright laws of the land were put in place to govern. It was an attempt at justice. it was a decent attempt, and no one in their right mind ever imagined those business laws would one day be applied on the level of "cookies". Talk about shooting flies with a howitzer!

 

Modern copyright laws are much trickier beasts, instead of being mere amendments of the original law,  they are an attempt at totalitarian capitalism in the intellectual sphere  + unlimited censorship capacities introduced to curtail the "winds of freedom" that roam on that pesky internet these days.

 

**  Think about it.  They are ACTUALLY saying,  actually with a straight face, that it is illegal and furthermore IMMORAL for you to SING A SONG that you don't have the permission to sing!   You will be ostracized as a "pirate" amongst your peers if you do not comply with this new world view, where everything, every expression of inner human experience has a price tag and a rightful owner.***

 

 

 

---

Your cookies example is, if anything, an example of patent law, not copyright (you can patent a process, not copyright it, though you can, of course, copyright a recipe book),  I  simply gave you an example of something that clearly is copyright, but you seem to be saying that's not what you meant.    

There's nothing new in the idea that copyright applies to the performance of a copyright work, and I, for one, don't see anything wrong in the idea that if someone composes a piece of music, they should get paid if someone else makes money from performing it.

What "modern copyright laws" do you have in mind, exactly, and what differences from the older ones do you say are particularly objectionable?

 

[161488303349]

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

 

**  Think about it.  They are ACTUALLY saying,  actually with a straight face, that it is illegal and furthermore IMMORAL for you to SING A SONG that you don't have the permission to sing!   You will be ostracized as a "pirate" amongst your peers if you do not comply with this new world view, where everything, every expression of inner human experience has a price tag and a rightful owner.***

 

---

is nothing that says you cant sing a song

can only not make a public performance out of singing other people songs without the songwriter/publisher permission. most all songwriters are happy for anyone to do that and happy to give permission. publishers as well. just have to pay the fee is all. is how songwriters/artists get paid. from the fees. more people that public perform their songs the more happy they are

don't understand how singing has anything to do with pirating/ripping. they not the same thing at all. altho can see why pirate rippers always try to make some kinda connection between the two. even when is not real and not true

 

[iCade]

*sighs* Of course no one got my point as people can't be unbiased.

 

The point IS...it's NOT about greed, it's about doing the right thing.

 

If it's not yours, don't frigging touch it, you should have learned that lesson as a toddler. But of course society is going down the drain and it's perfectly fine that if you want somthing, people damn well better let you touch it or you'll call them greedy, evil or god knows what.

[Vegro Solari]

In many traditional societies, when a boy is born to a family, they go out of their way to establish that until he is about 5 years old or so, no one and no force on the earth has the right to stop little Johnny from reaching and grabbing what he wants; and trying what he wants.  Even when it puts Johnny in some danger of actual physical harm! 

The reason that more and more of these  tried-and-true traditions have been systematically eroded in our own society is that they produce un-governable, independent, fierce individuals.

Whereas we seem to be aiming to produce primarily worker drones, for whom of course everything they're not specifically allowed (licensed) to do, is forbidden and immoral.

Few may realize that, for example, only a hundred or so years ago, no free person needed any sort of "driving license" to move around in the country as they please. Licenses and registrations were at first introduced for the public good;  with provision that they only apply to "commercial performance" - driving was by definition, a commercial activity. At first, only this required formal license. Gradually, it turned out that actually everyone requires a license for everything, it's for the greater good. When the nice policeman stops you, you are to obey, show your papers. It's the right thing to do.

But who has ever demonstrated, to convincing effect, that songs are written to be SOLD, rather than sung?

By the way, ripping an mp3 of a song is merely another way of reproducing it;  it is in no way different from what is called "public performance".  Same with using it, maybe it's your favourite song, in a video you are making.  Those who support the copyright lobby effort often have a vague feeling in the back of their mind that eventually we too stand to possibly make a buck off this, one way or another,  yet this is very shortsighted - don't you see, if this continues, entire cultural strata will be stripped bare and impoverished, because quite simply no one will be able to afford the license fees to do anything or be willing to navigate the legal minefield to try anything.

As another poster puts it --   "It's not yours! Don't touch!"

With this, we've conveniently swept the elephant in the room under the table: what specific thing we are no longer "allowed to touch"!  It's our own shared modern culture that now becomes, to us, off-limits. This is distressing and very, very sad.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

By the way, ripping an mp3 of a song is merely another way of reproducing it;  it is in no way different from what is called "public performance". 

---

In what way is making a copy of a recording of someone singing a song similar to singing it yourself?  The two activities seem to me to have very little in common.

ETA

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

But who has ever demonstrated, to convincing effect, that songs are written to be SOLD, rather than sung?

---

Well, if the songwriter goes to the trouble of registering with the Performing Rights Society and prosecuting you for singing his song for commercial purposes without obtaining a licence first, I'd call that a pretty convincing demonstration of the writer's intentions in the matter.

[Vegro Solari]

Innula, to sing a song is to reproduce it, by means of the vocal tract. Correct?

You know how dolphins and parrots are able to reproduce exactly the sounds they've heard?  If you wanted to consider the issue philosophically, you'd agree that It's just a pure coincidence that this feat is a little more difficult for a modern human, and so is the fact that digital technology makes it as easy as clicking a button.

This is how we may argue that Copy-right (you have no right to make copies), royalty (you have no right to free enterprise in the cultural sphere without paying your King a fee) etc. - are all a return to the Dark Ages, because obviously this "new technology" is here, the ability of humans to reproduce whatever they want in infinite quantities is here, yet commercial lobbyists seek to put an end to it globally, declaring it illegal and furthermore immoral to question their kingly/royalty rights to own and commercially exploit entire swaths of people's shared culture.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

Innula, to sing a song is to reproduce it, by means of the vocal tract. Correct?

You know how dolphins and parrots are able to reproduce exactly the sounds they've heard?  If you wanted to consider the issue philosophically, you'd agree that It's just a pure coincidence that this feat is a little more difficult for a modern human, and so is the fact that digital technology makes it as easy as clicking a button.

This is how we may argue that Copy-right, royalty etc. - are all a return to the Dark Ages, because obviously this "new technology" is here, the ability of humans to reproduce whatever they want in infinite quantities is here, yet commercial lobbyists seek to put an end to it globally, declaring it illegal and furthermore immoral to question their kingly/royalty rights to own and commercially exploit entire swaths of people's shared culture.

 

---

To sing a song is to perform it.   A recording of a song is a reproduction of a performance, and the two are very different, unless you seriously intend to tell me you can't tell the difference between between one performer singing a particular song and another performer singing it.

You can't just pick on one point of similarity and say that's all there is to it.   Walking and taking a cab are both methods of getting from A to B, but the fact walking doesn't cost me anything doesn't  entitle  stiff the cabbie for the fare.

[Vegro Solari]

That distinction you mentioned may be very relevant to the copyright lawmakers, who struggle to make sense of just how the law should wrestle with this newfound "ability" of people to easily find and infinitely reproduce anything they want. But we're not the lawmakers here, so what's it to us?

A reproduction is a reproduction is a reproduction. It's as if, in your travel example, I offered you a practical and convenient way to instantly teleport wherever you want by merely clicking a button.  Should the law then sternly step in, and PROTECT the rights of the cabbies? Now that you don't have to walk,  you don't need their outdated middle-man services for your travel. Should there be a forced legal distinction between "travel" and "teleporting"? Think about all the hard workers in China, in the automotive industry and many others, whose cute chinese families will have nothing to eat if you stop paying your cab fare...

But let's be realists, the question with lawmakers usually isn't "should we", but rather "how much are the cabbies paying".  They're paying pretty good these days, it turns out. And many people are buying it.

[161488303349]

something that is said quite a lot is: art for arts sake

that art is to be appreciated and not valued in filthy lucre. that lucre diminish the artist. is rubbish this thought

+

is rubbish bc the thought goes that the artist is required to be pure and not sell out. they supposed to make art solely for the purpose of feeding not only their own soul through their creativity but also the souls of the audience by evening. and during the day to work in the bread factory to not only feed the belly of the audience but also to fill their own. like get a real job or something

is lots of people dont think that making art is a real job. it is

+

the debate is actual about the publishing model used by artists. not about the art itself. the interwebz is making it possible for artists to self-publish and to get their art onto the main distribution channel. this the game changer

it have nothing anymore to do with the evol hollywoods/record companies/art galleries/concert hall owners/show promoters/etc anymore. is about the artists now and their own self-determination to self-publish. the interwebz makes this possible

is true that the oldskool channels like radio and TV will continue to be important channels for promotional purposes but less so now and increasing less so as time goes by. specially for music and film/video and books/painting/virtual models/etc as well

+

some examples:

getting your song on iTunes front page is way more important than signing up to an oldskool bigas record label. shooting a short and have it go viral via youtube is more important than getting a slot at Cannes. getting on the front page of Wordpress if you a blog writer 

more specific to SL style. if you use say DAZ to make stuff then is more important to get on the front page of the DAZ shop than pretty much anything else

same for apps for Win 8. iPhone, Android. and on and on and on

now that these kinds of channels are becoming more and more available on the interwebz then we going to see an explosion of art for breads sake. SL in its own funny way actual showed the way on this

+

is good this. I am happy that is happening

quite often when I am argue against rippers then sometimes people think I am stick up for hollywoods and bigas record companies. am not. I am argue for the artists. so that artists not have to work in the bread factory anymore by day. so they can just go their studio all day as they like and make stuff and post on the channels and make some money for themselfs and their families just by doing that way