Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club

balkin.blogspot.com

100 pointssstrudeau35 comments

There's always been a folk culture, including folk songs -- with "folk" and "songs" as separate words, "songs part of the popular consciousness" as opposed to "songs sung in an Appalachian dialect with a banjo, a long beard, and highly un-Appalachian politics."

We have a folk culture at the present day, too; the problem is that all songs used by the folk are copyrighted. Read _Sound Targets_, on music in the Iraq War, for another illustration of this; if every occasion of piracy mentioned in that book produced a $150,000 fine, the RIAA could field its own armed forces with the proceeds. (I hope I didn't just give them an idea.)

I'm not sure where we go from here. This situation can't continue, but "the laborer is worthy of his hire," to use the medieval form of the expression. If only the music industry weren't a gang of thugs (for a list of RIAA members: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels), we might already have a solution for this...

I'm sympathetic to the argument in this article, but like virtually all such articles it misses the underlying problem. Copyright law isn't the way it is because of misguided lawmakers or greedy corporations, or, rather, those are only the proximate causes. The ultimate cause is that representative government is unstable against the formation of special interest groups. Explaining very clearly to people why they're a bad idea, and even convincing them that you're right, won't solve the fundamental problem. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act passed for the same basic reasons that ethanol and mohair subsidies persist: those who benefit have a concentrated interest to game the system; those who suffer have a greatly diluted interest to resist.

By the way, you may be aware that the infamous mohair subsidies ended in 1995. Alas, this was not the equilibrium, and you can see the grinding of the implacable gears in this sad story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohair#US_subsidies_for_mohair_...

High school teachers know about this stuff. A drama teacher I know always knows exactly how many tickets she needs to sell to break even after licensing.

Things are about to get a lot worse with ACTA. Imagine you Internet access being shut off for sharing an unauthorized, amateur remake or mashup like those disccussed in the article!

Fortunately India an China will do their best to torpedo this monstrosity.

You have to remember that Glee is backed by the RIAA, they make money off of the show so I doubt they will cover an issue that makes them look like the bad guys.

Interesting...

Obviously the actors aren't liable if they have RIAA's support. But if the RIAA is promoting mash-ups and stuff in what effectively would amount to propaganda (regardless the reason why) and then sues people for doing exactly what they were promoting... That's got to be some kind of illegal, right?

>But if the RIAA is promoting mash-ups and stuff [...] ... That's got to be some kind of illegal, right?

Just immoral unfortunately.

If the government were doing this, you could make a case for entrapment. (IANAL)

Ehm, I think most schools have agreements with ASCAP and BMI that cover this scenario... perhaps through something like this: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/pdfs/imla_rate_schedule.pdf

The article talks only about recordings and mashups. The former aren't covered by such an agreement, and it's not clear if the latter are.

Huh? It's talking about glee clubs, and in particular the glee club on Glee, who mostly do live performances. The article begins, "For a show that regularly tackles thorny issues like teen pregnancy and alcohol abuse, it’s surprising that a million dollars worth of lawbreaking would go unmentioned." But this premise seems to be faulty - there's no indication that there is a million dollars worth of law-breaking involved in performing songs live as part of a glee club which is most likely covered by the absurdly cheap school/town ASCAP, BMI etc license.

Certainly I haven't heard of them talking about releasing a recording on Glee, although I missed a couple episodes...

EDIT: I see that the article discusses in particular the videos that were created which would constitute "recordings". On the mashup issue, presumably they aren't actually recording mashups but writing them to be performed live - these aren't lip syncing groups, and most glee clubs probably don't make videos either so it seems fairly moot.

presumably they aren't actually recording mashups but writing them to be performed live

I thought it was very common for performing artists to record their own work and even to share it with other people on the internet. Youtube has many many such recordings. ASCAP licenses will not cover these activities.

I guess there's no problem as long as performing artists never record or post such recordings online.

>and most glee clubs probably don't make videos either so it seems fairly moot.

Half of them are carrying video recorders in their pockets. Sure, it's very low-fi stuff, but you're remarkably out of touch if you think that teenagers don't record themselves performing and upload it to YouTube and Facebook.

So you tell me — what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines?

Since this is a relatively cheap rhetorical question, let's play devil's advocate: 1) forcing people to make new content is obviously good in the way of promoting learning; 2) you can learn technique without using protected content 3) there are already some exceptions in place for educational and religious use of protected content (right now if you do "Like a Virgin" as an allegory of being born again as a Christian, do it in the Church hall, and don't make any money, you should be okay).

The exceptions are probably too few and too narrow. A more useful discussion would explain how they should be broadened.

It is not a rhetorical trick: copyright is only constitutional BECAUSE it promotes knowledge and learning. The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant.

And to be honest, I'm not sure it is physically possible to learn such things without committing any infringement. You might be able to do so without committing any infringement that a powerful copyright holder cares about, but how many stories can you think of right now that don't bear substantial similarity to some story that some author wrote in the last century? Jessica Littman wrote in her book on copyright that you infringe upon copyright whenever you watch a movie and then imagine the same film with a different actor playing the lead. Obviously, that's not a practical problem, but if so much basic intellectual activity qualifies as infringement, even the transient creations needed to learn new skills might be difficult.

The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant

It's relevant to the extent that it would have to be true in order to argue that the $150,000 fine promotes learning. The fact that I make that argument as "devil's advocate" and that I've got to sing "Like a Virgin" as an allegory of finding Jesus means I accept the law might be absurd. I would like greater insight into and specificity concerning the nature of that absurdity (the burden of the argument I quoted was being carried by a rhetorical question), and, for that reason, and for what it's worth, I find your comment more interesting and more substantive than the original post.

The author is actually a friend of mine; if you want more substance, you check out the slides for a longer form presentation on copyright reform that she did; see http://cmmulligan.com/?page_id=27

Alternatively, Jessica Litman's book Digital Copyright is short and a good exposition of these issues.

"People can eat other types of food," is not in itself a justification for banning a certain type of food.

  > 1) forcing people to make new content is obviously
  > good in the way of promoting learning

You could also make the assertion that a blanket ban on fast food restaurants would be a good thing because it would force people to eat healthier.

You can't defend a system just because there are ways to not bump up against its limitations. That argument should be about whether we gain any benefit that is worth its limitations.

I have a feeling that printing, filling out, and then mailing off a mechanical license for every song, and then waiting by the mailbox for the results won't make for compelling television.

I understand the message behind the weblog post, but I think it's asking a little too much for them to tackle copyright on Glee.

I'm sure it could be "dramatized" for TV. Say by burly men in dark glasses turning up to serve legal notices. There could even be paper cuts.

Asking for copyright permission doesn't make for interesting real-life either. Nor does it fit with today's technology and expectations. This was the point of the article. The law needs to be changed.

I don't think it is asking too much. They address problems like "teen pregnancy and alcohol abuse" which aren't 'soft' problems. While the subtleties of compulsory licensing don't necessarily need to be addressed in detail, I think acknowledging that the issue exists would be a good step where a recording is available on Youtube in seconds instead of an 'underground' tape being passed around.

Funding is a key plot point. As far I recall, this has only manifested as "we can't afford pretty costumes and special effects" (and a "we can't rent a bus" episode).

In reality, if they were tight on funds, the teacher would be telling the kids "we can't afford to do that song."

I'm sure the writers and producers are well aware of the issue - they have to deal with this stuff in producing the show. The cynic in me says they're avoiding the issue to keep the industry happy.

> "we can't afford to do that song."

The thought of being unable to sing a song because of licensing fees/fines literally sends chills down my spine.

Especially because half the time I sing compulsively, without consciously realizing I'm doing it.

You're missing the point, but it would actually make a pretty good episode. Here's my attempt:

  * RIAA baddies turn up in suits demand money
  * Glee club hasn't got the money
  * Will asks for money from Sues budget. Obviously she
    says no way. She needs to save for the hovercraft.
  * They decide that Glee club can no longer sing copyrighted music
  * Your task for the week? "Original song". Compose an original song.
  * They all do cool funky new tracks
  * Turns out the RIAA guys were listening,
    and have a change of heart they work out some deal or something.
    Maybe the original songs are *so* hot that the RIAA want in on profits.
  * Yay! all is good.

They can then sprinkle in as many of the issues and arguments about copyright as they see fit/are allowed to.

I'd prefer a script where the RIAA gets some kind of comeuppance, but your version is probably more believable ;)

Yeah I agree. It depends on how brave they feel as to how far they push. But it's definitely something that could be worked into the Glee formula.

An alternate scenario would go something like Rachel is sharing her singing on youtube and gets a court order served for copyright violation. Will decides to represent her in court since it's something he believes in passionately (And he has to be the hero). They go to court and Argue how repressive copyrights are and how they prevent people from expressing their true selves (Something Glee club is there for) and showcasing their talent.

You'd have to end with a non-heavy/funny bit though, so perhaps the copyright owner bursts in court and says he's a massive 'Rachel' fan and she can sing any songs she likes of his with no charge.

For double Glee comedic value and irony, the artist would be someone who has been ridiculously outspoken in favor of the RIAA and copyrights in real life.

(I've watched Glee too much lol)

Actually, I'd say you could combine this with my previous idea in the same show and maybe even intertwine the story lines a bit.

The only non-news show that I've seen actually get a non-satirical swing at their corporate overlord in the last few years is Leverage. Leverage, which runs on TNT, absolutely savaged CNN's Nancy Grace last summer in "The Three Days Of The Hunter Job". Of course, News Corp only owns an indy label, not one of the big ones.

This would make a brilliant show. If they do it, you should sue them.

Sports Night did a great job with this issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP9U_mslaWU

(there's something strangely meta in linking to an infringing video about copyright infringement)

Here's another instance of the article (Yale Law School's Information Society Project site) with a few comments that might be worth reading if you're especially interested in this topic:

A strong break needs to be made between the reality of life and that of television shows.

In the reality of Glee the RIAA may not exist, copyright laws could be drastically different. Given that a sixteen year old looks and sounds like he is in his mid-twenties this is entirely conceivable. We would also all have amazing hair and teeth.

If we pull this into our reality, then I would believe that the production company Fox owns the rights to the songs being sung, or has enough influence over the owning bodies to use them without concern.

For actual high school performances and their rights, I will reference jbarciauskas's comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com