Facebook prohibits music or music listening experience on Live
facebook.com
facebook.com
I wonder if there are exceptions for properly licensed music. It is certainly so hard to license most music that such exceptions are practically useless, though.
It is disgusting. Especially since the ones who pushed so hard to get these laws themselves have been accused of copyright violations.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/new-scene-security-notice-sparks-pi...
In fact the scene despises P2P (or at least used to).
I agree with you though. It's an absolute waste of resources that could be spent on actually making the world a better place.
I can't understand that, isn't peer to peer inherently more resistant to law enforcement than any centralized FTP server?
Torrenting is just getting movies, without these social aspects, and without being part of the "elite".
Do you imply conspiracy? Could it just be that greedy capitalism runs ahead and legislation is 10y behind and ran by white old folks who just care to be re-elected and not to keep up to speed because, why bother?
I am not trying to make this political, I sincerely do not understand if you are implying conspiracy or ruthless reality.
I feel gaslit by society sometimes. Where have all the nice good people gone? I know all those folks in Mr Rogers Neighborhood are real people irl, but they increasingly seem like characters and actors from a society that no longer exists and perhaps never did, but hopefully one day could exist.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
Will read your link; for now, I'll reciprocate with this:
https://libcom.org/library/implosion-point-democratist-ideol...
As far as copyrighted content stuff... I think a year or two is enough. Especially for movies and music which, afaik, make most of their money right after release. This would disincentivize most of the blatant copyright abuse happening today, while still allowing the creators to earn their money.
The LPF (League for Programming Freedom) saw all of this corporate nonsense coming in 1990: portfolio warfare among giants; trolling and extorting; patenting trivial things and then trolling; and to your point, the death of the heroic lone inventor without a large team of patent lawyers to earn the money.
The LPF is gone now, software patents are the domain of large corporations, and garage guy is (largely?) no more.
I don't know how much this is relevant here but I read of this a few years ago and now I feel like I shoe horn it into every single problem in the world: the principal-agent problem.
For those not in the know (sorry, if you're like me you will be addicted to this from now on)
> The principal–agent problem, in political science and economics (also known as agency dilemma or the agency problem) occurs when one person or entity (the "agent"), is able to make decisions and/or take actions on behalf of, or that impact, another person or entity: the "principal".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
The management of the company has no REAL interest in the long term benefit to the franchise, much less baseball in general. They're just trying to survive this quarter. Here "survival" is very twisted. You could think you are doing a heck of a job but if your revenue grows a very respectable ten percent year over year this quarter but your competition is out there growing twenty five, then well your bosses aren't going to like that very much. It is basically survival of the worst, really.
I think I am guilty of assuming the best intention of other people sometimes and then I see the "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law" tags on mattresses and I am reminded that we need laws not to prevent people from stuffing literally human hair and who knows what other nastiness in "new" mattresses but to do so without disclosing the fact the mattresses are made with nastiness.
They are probably trying to maximize the metrics their employees (whoever represents the shareholders) use to evaluate them. And those are short term metrics by necessity of the evaluation.
Survival is one, but it's a really easy one to top, so they are probably ignoring it.
Trademarks can be lost if not defended.
If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like there is pexels.com for images?
Yes. This happens all the time, and sometimes sounds come from places like BBC.
If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like there is pexels.com for images?
Yes and no. People put up websites and other things that let you download music, but most of it isn't as organized as the free stuff for artists. It also seems like it is more decentralized and requires a bit more work, sometimes hours of work. It is quicker to look at photos than it is to listen to music and sound clips.
Sources: Spouse creates somewhat experimental electronic music, and uses free-to-use sounds alongside his own stuff. I've watched him sit for hours sorting through sounds and clips and music. Also, youtubers often use such music and link to it in their descriptions (Steve the Bartender, for example, and Im pretty sure Binging with Babish does something similar, or at least did at one time).
There's a lot of different mediums which supports sharing and searching for media under different CC licenses, I've tagged a majority of my SoundCloud releases for example with great success.
If we're talking about a whole site dedicated for openly licensed music and audio, freesounds.org comes to mind.
Both you and the other person have the rights to that audio and platforms like YouTube have put no effort into giving us a solution to resolve this “edge case”.
The whole thing is wack, can't imagine licensing some code under GPLv3 and turns out that does not apply in some country.
I haven't found what I'm looking for but I want to share my music like software, source code and all, easily modifiable and reusable
I miss what.cd originals, what were those called?
It was really inspiring to see people sharing their own music like that
Bandcamp has this feeling in spirit with their donation based option
SoundCloud had that spirit before Go
Splice is cool but seems specific and not very open
Not music but, LibrVox[2] has something special going
Won't all music coming out today eventually be in the public domain?
[1] https://fediverse.party/en/funkwhale [2] https://librivox.org/
They're under rather strict licensing terms though, no reselling as samples even if they're heavily modified for example.
I took a multiday cross country road trip a few years ago and installed a dashcam before I left. I put together a timelapse video, complete with some of my favorite music that I felt was appropriate given the purpose of my trip and the landscape in view. Those friends and family who have seen it think it's pretty cool.
But good luck sharing it anywhere online because Content ID and the like are everywhere.
Honestly I think the biggest problem with copyright these days is the infinite period for which it lasts.
Music makes its revenue by propagating itself into the cultural zeitgeist. Attempts to limit consumption of music runs counter to that business model if you ask me.
This situation also reminds me of another common shortsighted trend: sports teams moving their broadcasting to paid cable networks.
Sports at some point depends on the social network effects of fandom. By restricting viewership with paywalls and cable subscriptions, they’re alienating young fans from ever becoming fans. They’re shrinking the sports fan base from appealing to everyone to being yet another exclusive niche where you're either deep into it or you’re out.
If I don’t have any of my real life friends taking interest in sports, so many of the benefits of being a fan disappear.
Annoying, nonsensical restrictions like only being allowed to watch out of market games with online streaming subscriptions, only being able to buy NFL Sunday Ticket through DirecTV...this stuff is insane.
You may not be aware: no joke, DirecTV won’t sell you the Internet version of NFL Sunday Ticket unless you live in a multi-unit residence. In other words, you have to be verified to not be able to be sold a physical dish to attach to your home to be allowed the privilege of spending $300 to watch a bunch of games that already have more advertising than gameplay.
These sports teams will eventually find themselves in a situation where they have to squeeze more revenue from a shrinking, aging customer base. If you were 15 right now and had a choice between watching 18 minutes of NFL gameplay surrounded by 2 hours of ads and stoppage, or jumping on Fortnite with your friends, which would you choose? These sports networks can’t fathom that they’re competing with more and more entertainment options as time goes on.
The tl;dr of this is that you need to give your customers what they want.
It shouldn't really be surprising, given the incentives. Performance reviews, bonuses, etc. are probably based more on short-term performance than long-term health because it's easier to measure.
What I mean is...I shouldn’t assume that these companies haven’t already made these calculations in relation to the long term picture. For example, perhaps the MLB has run the math and knows that going for broad appeal (e.g. games streamed/broadcast for free) is inefficient or results in lower revenue. Perhaps cable companies have already calculated that they will bleed customers no matter what they do; that they’re best off milking their customer base until they disappear.
However, Facebook kicks you out even with 3 or 4 people watching. Even when I bought all the music beforehand. I find the rules much to strict, unfair and quite frankly ridiculous that there is such strictness.
Sure, charge influencers a royalty or collect a portion of advertising revenue for influencers with over some number of thousand followers.
But for individuals, the labels should be encouraging sharing.
Also, it seems somewhat obvious in retrospect that it’d be smart for the big labels to own a social network, with deep music features and integration with major music streaming services (E.g. “add this song this person is dancing to to your Spotify”). Now would be a great time for them to clone TikTok.
There are a few - I use Pretzel.rocks. (No affiliation.)
Looking at the username and the first person speech.
Their core business model and feed algorithm are built around syncing music to video content and paying the music publishers and composers.
When I look at the way that Journalism has adapted its business models to technological change, I think we engineers should be a bit more wary...
Live streaming has been a great way to avoid getting tagged for copyright infringement vs a pre-recorded upload which can automatically be scanned for violations, so it is easy to see why this was a problem for Facebook. They basically brute forced a solution to avoid legal responsibility.
Via SoundClouds guidelines: "The best way to avoid copyright infringement is to ensure that you don't use anything created by someone else. Simple as that.". It has just been hard to find an equitable balance between original music creators and mix creators. "Fair Use" is such a gray area here and is barely defensible.
Twitch - doesn't enforce any takedowns when you're live, but will mute you after the fact in clips/etc. Very gamer-y, but has friendlier chat features, emojis, and some meta-games around unlocking them. Also has support for hosting (showing someone else's channel in your own for a period of time) and raiding (relocating everyone in your channel to someone else's), which are key for people that want to do multi-artist events.
Mixcloud - smaller, but actually has a licensing deal so muting is far less common. Chat is primitive (no @'s, limited emojis). Streaming quality is good, though.
Facebook - basically a non-starter as they'll mute you live. Only really works if you're playing a literal live show with a band, where you're making noise that the algorithms won't pick. Reach is obviously much bigger, as the platform will shove live videos in your face if people have already liked your fan page.
Interesting, can you explain how this works? Is there a way for DJs to look up which songs are licensed while you're live-streaming?
Same goes for platforms with automated copyright checking. Enough music makers get caught up in labels that don't get this either, that you'll almost always have three or four tracks striked out of your recording making it pointless to upload.
There has never been any money in live online DJing, it's done for fun and the love of it. So it just feels like petty fun policing.
Presumably musicians that want this release their work under a license that allows it.
Just kidding, those three companies have been granted a state guaranteed monopoly over enough of human culture to be able to bully other entities like YouTube, Spotify or whatever, into accepting onerous terms.. (think youtube automatically (and legally) stealing ad money and giving it to these companies, for a video of a person playing historical scores on a recorder. Or Spotify accepting that the money you pay them will get rerouted to famous artists you have never listened to)
Vast majority of musicians have no clue about licensing or copyrights or/and do not care, be it permissive public ones or strict ones.
In this case I’d regard musician as someone who derives significant portion of their income from making or playing music or at least puts in a significant time into becoming the above (practice, learning and playing).
It's totally nuts now that recording devices are everywhere.
Copyright on images and audio are just unrealistic. Abolish them, the artists make most of their money in other ways anyway
Copyright on images and audio is actually how artists make most of their money.
Some musicians can play live, but what options do professional photographers have if they want to create work of lasting value?
Perhaps artists should move towards the software developer model and produce products that are never actually finished and never really work correctly, so they can spend their professional lives never quite fixing the problems they've created.
It doesn't matter if anyone is being sued or in what quantity. Most types of incidental recordings have been declared copyright infringement in some capacity or another, and everything else is selective enforcement.
This might be true for images, but I doubt this is true for music. I would bet that musicians as a whole make most of their money from live performances. Music labels make their money from copyright though.
That's certainly been true for artists who are locked into restrictive contracts. Live performances have usually been the main ways for many to make money outside of their recording deals, experiment, and to sell merch.
And look how great that's working out for them now that an entire year, potentially more of touring has been cancelled. Why don't software companies start giving away their product and instead make their money through t-shirt sales and speaking tours? Music has already been made exponentially less expensive for the consumer (at a massive cost to artists). It seems cruel to take even more away so that someone can use music in their vlog or travel video for free.
>> It's totally nuts now that recording devices are everywhere.
Maybe instead we should reconsider why we have recording devices everywhere. Music and musicians getting paid is beneficial to society, people recording who's ringing their doorbell and who's walking past their home is detrimental.
It only hurts the recording industry that's become a monopoly which abuses copyright law to hurt artists and consumers alike
I think you should look up actual copyright cases instead of whatever it is you're trying to do now.
So I agree that copyright law needs reform, but there are actually pretty good laws surrounding fair use that protect the examples you provided - the problem is that with the current laws it is almost impossible for platforms to preserve fair use while getting rid of copyright infringement.
I've dealt with copyright professionally and had my fair share of discussions with legal experts... It's definitely a rabbit hole, but it's not a rabbit hole you can readily dismiss and replace with something else. Working with copyrighted materials, copyright hampered us, but other times it backed us as well. It really is a double edged sword depending on where you come from...
So. I hope to give you a bit of an insight why it's not that easy...
At it's core, there are three reasons why copyright - or any law for that matter - is a hard problem:
First, describing a complex reality and codifying them in rules that govern society is a hard problem. Either the principles you derive from reality are too generic; or you end up with a law and volumes upon volumes of exceptions, clarifications, and so on. And in between, you always end up with people who feel that the law doesn't include them.
Secondly, there's the interpretation of the rules. That happens in court. And depending on the legal system that applies to you, this creates a precedent that may or may not be followed in general. Which is where you end up in the murkiness of legal traditions, customs and so on.
Thirdly, as a result, most people have a vague notion of what copyright is... but when you ask them to clarify and apply copyright law to specific cases, they tend have it wrong.
For instance:
> Every time a security camera picks up music, it's copyright infringement. When your camera records virtually anything man-made, copyright infringement.
No, it's not. Copyright doesn't prohibit you from making a copy. It prohibits you from publishing that copy: sharing with or distributing to other people.
You're perfectly good to make a recording or photo's with your smartphone, security camera, whatever. But as soon as you hit the "post" or "publish" button and you make your copy available for the wider world, that's copyright infringement.
> Probably 90% of photos are infringing copyright.
Depends who publishes them and whether they have permission from the original photographer to publish them. Or whether they are the original photographer themselves.
If you snap a picture and you publish that on Instagram, you are the original photographer and copyright automatically protects your rights. If some paper or magazine downloads that picture and publishes it on their website without your permission: you can send them an e-mail demanding to take that picture down. And they actually will have to comply with your demand less they want to risk you suing them.
If you make a picture of protected materials and you post that on line, well, now you are potentially infringing copyright. Like, if you go to MoMa and you do an Instagram of Andy Warhol. Technically, you published a copy of a creative work which is still under copyright. Or if you publish a 30 second sample from a Walt Disney's Snowwhite on Snapchat: same thing.
You could go "Oh! But Andy Warhol is dead and his art is in a museum, and Snowwhite is 80 years old, what's the harm? They are so well known!" You could argue: let's create exceptions for anything that hits a collection display of a museum; or is so well known that it's part of some implicit cultural canon which is foundational to society...
... but then you end up in a massive rabbit hole: how do you establish equal and fair criteria that say "this creative work is protected by copyright; and this isn't?" Which inevitably leads to endless yak shaving and bike shedding discussions (Yes, I've been there professionally. These are unwinable!).
> the artists make most of their money in other ways anyway
It's the other way around. Artists make their money in other ways today, not because of copyright... but because of technology.
When your band gets signed up with a record label, you actually sign away your own copyright. You waive your rights as an author to your material. You basically say to a record label: "In exchange for leveraging your capability to produce, market and distribute millions of copies, I'll agree to 2, 5 or 10% of the revenue of the distribution." That's the deal you signed up for.
As an artist, it used to be that you earned nicely when music/video/movies were still distributed through movie theatres or record shops where consumers bought a physical record. You'd pay maybe 15 or 20$ for the album of your favourite band. And you'd listen to that album for hours on end.
Digital technology and streaming platforms have completely undercut that model. And the price for content has crashed entirely. Today, you don't pay 15$ for just 20 songs on a single album. You pay 15$ a month to get access to a catalogue of tens of thousands of songs. That's the difference.
The biggest issue is that streaming platforms and digital services have taken over distribution of creative content - audio and video - from traditional record labels, movie produces and so on, and have become the new middle men. And it has happened, the artists who signed away their rights see far less in return for their efforts.
This is a huge debate in the industry: https://musically.com/2020/05/05/spotify-should-pay-musician...
At the end of the day, copyright isn't going to go anywhere, I'm afraid. After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And that's why modern copyright emerged some 300 years in the first place: Ironically because of the introduction of a new technology. As it happens, with the proliferation of the printing press and movable type, book printers, authors and publishers wanted to put a halt to others piggybacking on the success of selling their materials.
> You're perfectly good to make a recording or photo's with your smartphone, security camera, whatever.
This is incorrect. It's an offence (although civil, not criminal) to make a copy if you don't have correct authorisation. No-one is going to enforce that for the vast majority of copying, but non-enforcement doesn't mean it's not an offence.
https://copyrightservice.co.uk/_f/8215/8193/9720/edupack.pdf
> Acts restricted by copyright
> It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the copyright owner:
> i.Copy the work.
> ii.Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
> iii.Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
> iv.Adapt the work
That's exactly why I said that copying is not prohibited. Just that makes a huge difference.
First, it's a right which is granted to natural and legal persons. It's entirely up to that legal person to decide whether or not to seek damages because someone violated that right. What that means is that governments and authorities won't stop original authors from seeking damages in a courtroom.
Second, what it doesn't mean is that public authorities prohibits the act of copying. Extreme example: if copying was prohibited by criminal law, judicial authorities could order law enforcement to search your home on the mere suspicion of you having copied a book using pencil and paper.
Moreover, copyright gives the exclusive right to authorize reproduction to the original author. Mind the wording here: It's not the "exclusive right to reproduce", it's the "exclusive right to authorize".
Finally, that right itself isn't an absolute. The Berne treaty itself already provides for exceptions. In practice, you're looking at Fair Use, Fair Dealing and discussions such as the Treshold of Originality which excludes all kinds of contexts from copyright (i.e. security camera footage).
This entire discussion about the impact of technology is, in truth, a discussion about increased legal liability. The proliferation of camera's and mic's in digital devices have created a huge vector for violating copyright. If Facebook decides to disallow music from being played on it's platform, then that's an attempt to reduce that liability. Let's not forget that there's a huge discussion whether Facebook is merely a service provider of infrastructure, or a publisher, as well. And this move fits within that context.
I'm sorry, but absolutes such as "copyright prohibits you from making a copy" muddle exactly this discussion even more.
When you take a picture in a city, all those little signs and ads are copyrighted. Posting a picture of this is a ton of violations of copyright law.
Technology has advanced beyond a point where copyright on images and audio is reasonable at all. When these laws were created, copies were hard to make and deliberate. Put in another way, everything is so easy to replicate that it has zero value, and copyright is attempting to force people to pay for things that aren't worth anything.
At a minimum, the law needs to be changed so that the copied works must be "non trivial" and the copying "deliberate". This will make copyright hard to enforce, but it needs to be. You shouldn't be able to copyright a picture of your ass and sue people for sharing it on facebook
Font files are subject to copyright as code, but the resultant rendered character is not subject to copyright in the US [0]. This usually means that distributing a document with an embedded font file is a potential copyright violation while distributing pre-rendered text (such as a screenshot) is not.
https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2020/07/articles/random-iss...
But I think this quote is what it essentially all boils down to:
> Are copyright holders going to pursue users for these issues? Likely playing some music during a live virtual happy hour with friends and family is not actionable – and may well not even be a “public” performance. But using music in an online meeting in a commercial setting may not be treated as kindly.
This is about liability and the extent to which you can be held liable by someone else.
Technically, all of the examples you gave are infringements of copyright. But copyright is ultimately a matter between two private parties. If you didn't ask permission up front, the other party may - and more importantly - may not (!) decide to claim damages.
When music plays in the background during your Zoom call, that's technically copyright infringement. Is Geffen going to come after you personally because you had Bing Crosby's White Christmas playing during a family occasion over Zoom or Skype? Hardly.
What about Zoom? This is where things get interesting.
For all intents and purposes, Zoom basically enables millions of people to play Crossby's song in the background during their social calls. Is Zoom then damaging the commercial interests of Geffen?
This is the crux of the matter: depends on which angle you consider the role Zoom is playing. If you consider just 1 case - you and your family members - then Zoom is just a service provider that tends to the infrastructure and makes video calling a possibility. But if you look at millions of cases - millions of people playing music over Zoom - then maybe Zoom isn't a just a service provide: it's a publisher of protected creative content. And it's actively infringing on the rights held by Geffen causing a significant sum of missed income for the record label.
This is also exactly why Facebook disallows prohibiting music and music listening on FB Live.
Facebook tries to create the perception that is - from a legal point of view - just a service provider that only does the piping and has literally nothing to do with what people post on it's platform. The moment a judge rules "Nah, Zuck, you're a publisher", all bets are off and literally any big record label, movie producer,... can come after Facebook for infringing on copyright simply because anyone and their dog unwittingly shared protected content on the platform.
> Put in another way, everything is so easy to replicate that it has zero value, and copyright is attempting to force people to pay for things that aren't worth anything.
Hardly. Copyright gives rights holders that possibility, but it doesn't force consumers to pay up by default.
The gross majority of pictures, videos and audio isn't valuated at a million dollar price point. Just because you play in a band on Saturday, doesn't make your music on par with The Beatles. Still, that valuation is irrelevant as far as copyright goes: you have the exact same rights as far as protection goes as The Beatles. If someone rips your music from Bandcamp, you can equally decide to sue them. Exactly like what The Beatles would do. In the exact same courtrooms.
What makes all the difference is context. For instance, it might be smart to just let others share and publish your songs and not care about the apparent infringement: you just hope that someone important notices your song and offers you a nice deal. That's a big difference with shelling off pirated singles with The Yellow Submarine: The Beatles - or better, the record label holding the rights to their music - are already past that stage and would mind you stealing from their plate.
The big problem, as a consumer, is that it's not always very clear what you can and can't do as copyright literally pertains to any creative work, regardless. Creative content sold in a commercial context is, ultimately, just a one facet of a much larger reality where copyright applies.
That's what makes it so confusing for the general public: they tend to apply copyright just to commercially sold music and video, whereas it reaches much, much farther.
You're fundamentally wrong.
You should either delete your comment or preface it with a caveat.
See for example section 2, bullet 7 here: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html
"Exclusive right of authorization" to "the right to _make_ reproductions".
Copyright isn't misnamed, it is essentially about copying.
In USA Fair Use can make it seem different to this which may be the source of your confusion.
Depending on where you live, copyright is a part of civil law, not criminal law. Which makes all the difference.
It means that the act of copying itself isn't outlawed. You won't be prosecuted by public authorities for owning a device that makes copies, or having made copies of a work of art to which you don't own the intellectual rights.
Think about it, if you decide to record an episode of Friends on your PVR, didn't you just make a copy? And does that mean that law enforcement could search your house because there's a suspicion you committed a criminal offence?
The Berne convention is literally what it says: the author owns the exclusive right to authorize reproduction. Copyright is about discerning who holds the authority to sanction reproduction. It's not about prohibiting the act of reproduction.
It means that you're free to make a copy of a copyrighted work, and ask permission after the fact. Public authorities don't come into this, unless the rights holder feels that their exclusive rights were violated, and decides to sue you in civil court.
First of all, my response is indeed within the context of Fair Use as the example given was background music in a Zoom call.
Second, a big crux is in the part between parentheses which you didn't include:
> (with the possibility that a Contracting State may permit, in certain special cases, reproduction without authorization, provided that the reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author; and the possibility that a Contracting State may provide, in the case of sound recordings of musical works, for a right to equitable remuneration)
The Berne Treaty is a framework of first principles. But the legal reality is shaped by how this treaty is then codified in supra-national and national laws. And finally how those laws then get enacted in civil cases within the applicable legal system depending on where you are.
For instance, Freedom of Panorama:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama
Another example that limits the application of copyright all together is the Treshold of Originality, which of course comes with it's own opposite doctrines of thought:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
Finally, Fair Use and Fair Dealing pertains to vast economic domains such as education, press and research. Why does Fair Use exist? Because lawmakers have conceded over time that a strict definition of copyright can't be practically upheld anyway. The application of Fair Use is far from a "confusing" fringe exception in the real world.
Your point would be valid if copyright was implemented straight up by it's first principles with zero exceptions. But that's not how the legal framework has evolved and gets implemented in the real world today.
Hence why I prefaced with "I totally follow you on copyright reform".
In the past 250 years, the protected copyright duration in the US slowly went from up to 28 years to up to 120 years (!). It's no accident that the last big change was nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
A reversion in the protection periods to be aligned, let's say, with patent durations would still offer reasonable protection to all parties.
That said, I am not arguing that patent law doesn't need reform, especially patents for software, algorithms and math.
It's not a problem the majority of the time, just like laws that allow police to detain you for no reason. It becomes a problem when someone decides to arbitrarily target you. There's countless stories about small businesses being targeted. The latest I know of is against streamers.
Since everybody is breaking the law music industry uses copyright mafia style. If they think they can get money out of you they send some goons to extort protection money from you, with huge leverage against your previous "crimes".
A country with rule of law should not have laws that are impossible to avoid breaking. Such laws are only useful for corruption, a way to enforce "justice" arbitrarily through bribes
And you're definitely wrong about recording. Single party consent is legal in most states. There's only a handful with laws against it, everywhere else recording private conversations and even phone calls is totally legal without permission.
Recording audio on a security camera in a club is certainly illegal, just as it would be in a restaurant. You can’t record the private conversations of your customers without informing them.
Recording audio in a business is 100% legal in nearly every state. Most businesses do not give you any "expectation of privacy" outside the restrooms.
That’s simply not true. They’re called “one-party states” because there has to be one party in the conversation who knows about the recording. Some states are one-party, some are two-party, but there is no such thing as a zero-party state. It is always illegal to record a conversation between two people if both are unaware of the device and believe their conversation is private. The fact that they are in your home, your car (without you), or in your business is irrelevant.
You’re confusing laws that apply to video with laws that apply to audio. You can of course record images on a security camera in your home or business (except, as you said, in restrooms, dressing rooms, etc.) Audio is different.
Sources on this are easy to Google for. Here’s one in pretty straightforward language from a defense attorney’s website: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-def...
I guess the main problem would be if you hid the recording device
There are surprising edge cases to this. People have been found in violation of the Wiretap Act for putting microphones on their walls to collect proof that their neighbors are screaming too often. A loud argument in an apartment still has an expectation of privacy even if you can make out the words with your ear to the wall.
And in the ambient music scenario the accidental recording of music isn’t a problem — it’s always been fine to record live music, radio, TV, etc. for your own enjoyment. It’s the non-accidental uploading to YouTube that’s the problem. Copyright doesn’t interfere with using it as a security camera, with or without audio.
And it's not legal to bypass copy protection post DMCA for recording. So in most cases it's not legal to make recordings
Wonder if that means having (say) Samsung TV's running in shop windows is therefore illegal? Sounds like it is.
At most, this guideline says not to stream other people's music to the internet without a license, which is very reasonable, given that artists want to get paid and wouldn't want you to play their songs on air for 2 billion people to enjoy for free.
Otherwise, it quite literally states the opposite - please do play your music for your friends, so long as it is yours.
where do you read that?
Cuz when I read the BOLDED statement
>You may not use videos on our Products to create a music listening experience
Your take is not my take.
I think this is purely music companies decisions, even the artists are not aware of this.
So basically if you are a DJ you cannot broadcast a mix session on Facebook or even broadcast a live performance of your own music under threat of being removed from Facebook.
Facebook might not want to have to deal with copyright management like Youtube does.
I think we need AI and rules so strict you can't even upload a video at all because you're breaking some rule somewhere. Maybe we can even have AI on this website that says your words are breaking copyright and you're not allowed to publish them.
Only then will we see a real push for changen I feel.
Am I the only one who sees this as a new gatekeeper preventing the organic rise of new musical talent?
There are alot of young artists in the music industry who first got widely noticed by building a social media following around their singing or other musical talents.
It seems that this is a way to close that door.
Bands make their money off merch, and to a lesser extent, live shows.
To be fair, playing devil’s advocate I do know some people who only listen to streams of DJs. I guess the question is what’s the breakdown of people who do that. My guess is it’s a very small margin. And even if it were more sizable, are those people really gonna go off and go buy individual Drum And Bass tracks or whatever off Beatport? I would doubt it.
The end result is it feels like they cannibalizing or cauterizing off a potential market and generating more bad will.
Much ado about nothing. Did anyone ever bother to read the post?
Second, it is legal (in the United States) to perform or play music, even copyrighted music, at personal, private, non-commercial events. These events can be in-person or online. As an example: it is legal ("fair use") for someone in my family to strum a popular, copyrighted tune on their guitar during a family gathering. Another example: it is also legal for us to listen to music that only one family member owns a legal copy of -- this happens any time someone puts on a CD during Christmas. These perfectly legal, normal, un-bureaucratic activities seem to be prohibited by Facebook's new rules.
During COVID-19, online experiences have replaced many experiences that people would otherwise have had in-person. Facebook's rules seems to be unnecessarily restrictive, which is especially disappointing during this time when many experiences people would be having face-to-face are now taking place on its platform, or on competitors' who may imitate Facebook's policies.
The first activity you describe is legal because a special copyright licensing regime applies to derivative musical works like strumming a tune in your guitar, so you could also steam your guitar cover of the popular song on YouTube without issue, even for commercial use. (And thousands of musical performers do, without issue.)
The second activity is part of the implied license granted by physically owning music on a licensed media like a CD. Unlike the first activity, there isn't a special licensing regime and so streaming that music online requires it's own manually acquired license... Even for non-commercial use. The license costs a few cents...
Facebook's rules aren't any more restrictive than they've always been. They're just letting you explicitly know what they have always been.
(I handled music licensing at my old job and we were a Facebook video partner back in the day so I'm very familiar with how the musical licensing works in the US.)
But it is legal for you and Facebook to enter into an agreement to sublicense that content for Facebook's commercial use? You may get the benefit of Fair Use, but the same may not be the case for Facebook, who also must have a valid right to distribute the content.
I guess it depends on whether DJs are getting bits, subscriptions, etc. from their content.
I think the music companies are cutting off their nose to spite their face but that would probably be the argument against allowing DJs streaming mixes.
Having a license means nothing to modern copyright holders and they just massively spam shotgun takedowns on everything and anything. They even managed to pervert the law to the point where there's no consequence to themselves and the creators need to prove they're NOT guilty. Again and again and again because the holders will not stop requesting takedowns even after the creator has proven their right to play sounds in their own creation repeatedly.
This is textbook abuse.
Facebook does not respond kindly to false takedown claims and unlike Google will revoke someone's right to use the online reporting function (meaning that future claims must be filed the old fashioned way, through a document or other means of communication that exposes the complainant to legal liability if they make a false claim.
Twitter is generally the same, as in 280 characters you can't meaningfully infringe many copyrights.
This is not textbook abuse. It's literally just Facebook making a bare statement about copyright licensing.
This is a good step, counterintuitively.
That sounds like all music videos are banned (not just live stuff).
Unauthorized content may be removed
If you post content that contains music owned by someone else, your content may be blocked, or may be reviewed by the applicable rights owner and removed if your use of that music is not properly authorized.
Seems fair enough to me.
This seems to even apply to things that you fully own the rights to.
> You may not be able to post or access videos containing music in every country of the world > > We want you to be able to share videos with your family and friends wherever they are, but any music in your video, if it is allowed at all, may not be available in all countries of the world.
That part about "music in your video, if it is allowed at all" really feels like it's setting up a scenario where you just aren't allowed to have music in your FB videos at all.
For anyone out there looking for live listening music experiences, I work on Stationhead, a social radio app. We're built on top of Spotify and Apple Music, so all the music is not only 100% legal and licensed, the artists actually get paid when you play or listen to your music.
Download for iOS (Android coming soon): http://share.stationhead.com/hn
- one rule for all areas (music, movies, books, graphics) instead of different rules for different areas,
- not being fit to digital era.
This item emphasize the last one quite strongly, and it's only going to get worse.
I believe the true solution is through use of scalable and precise technology, brining high transparency and removing ambiguity. I built my whole company around this idea [0], so I'm definitely biased.
I know that many might disagree with me on this, but shattering copyright is not going to do us, the society, any favors. If you, as I, believe that automation is going exceedingly take over more of our responsibilities, IP (intellectual property) [read creativity] is the only thing left to us as humans. While many believe copyright is about extortion of money, I believe it's about proper attribution. This is the founding principle behind Creative Commons which believes that credits needs to be given to the creators. If they choose to make money of their creation, that's their right and should be followed.
I do believe that with transparent rules and removed ambiguity the UGC market will thrive beyond what we seen so far. You can see glimpses of what's possible through platforms like TikTok or Triller that do acquire licenses and are in process of paying creators portion of the revenue. This was one of the most important innovations of YouTube that spurred a whole new market and paved the way for many new platforms.
Imagine that you, as a creator, could know instantly which content of other people can you use under what conditions. If you disagree with them, you just don't use it and choose something else. Especially in music, this gives you a freedom of selection. There is 80M songs. There will be always enough to choose from, even if the major righpshodlers would withhold their catalogues.
I believe that if the rules are know, are stable and unambiguous, then the market will be much stronger and healthier for everyone.
Streamers listening to music is a common thing while talking, gaming, etc. Something needs to change.
There should be a fair use exemption for live newsworthy events where the music isn't the focus. The music is just in the background and not the main point or even a secondary point. It's inconsequential and you can't even hear it clearly.
I mean, are the people enacting such policies even real person living a real life?
Social media companies are waaay out of touch with the real world.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/9/17100454/facebook-warner-m...
I never heard anyone try this on the east coast but around Southern CA and San Diego I heard it all the time on 2 meters.
There is the exception that you CAN retransmit music from the space shuttle or space station however.
Facebook once did the mute thing on my OWN recording of a classical Beethoven piece (long out of copyright) and it was infuriating. I would have used Youtube to avoid the problem except Facebook downranks Youtube videos I post and doesn't show them to most of my friends.
Edit: since this was downvoted, I hope someone can explain this: "why now?" What other motivation does FB have to address this, right now?
"CHICAGO—Music, a mode of creative expression consisting of sound and silence expressed through time, was given a 6.8 out of 10 rating in an review published Monday on Pitchfork Media, a well-known music-criticism website."
https://entertainment.theonion.com/pitchfork-gives-music-6-8...
I cannot wait to find out what common human behaviours are regulated online next, after all, if you don't like it, you can just
actually sorry there is only online now