Hacker News Reader

Comment by clircle | Hacker News Reader

Well, did he just write the songs or does he own the copyright? The former isn't enough to make this a wrongful suspension.

View on HN

The DMCA takedowns have their nets cast too wide. Uncopyrighted works get taken down all the time.

Are you implying he owns the copyright?

Yes

The problem is that Universal is the owner of the copyrights (including the lyrical and syncronisation copyrights), and this is DMCA we're talking about. This would end up differently in Europe or UK (the original authors are irrevocably entitled to some percentage of the revenue, typically 5%) but DMCA is based on American laws (which do not have these protections).

Right but surely his recording contract with Universal would allow him to perform his songs.

In a commercial context?

Maybe even in a commercial context. In fact it's quite likely that concerts get treated specially. The issue is, these automated censorship tools don't encode the nuanced clauses of such contracts. They err on the side of banning, even if it's perfectly legitimate.

Also IMO in the digital age it's so stupid that teachers can't even read a book to children via Zoom without a license...

Concerts are commercial contexts.

Probably live performances, but not on video recording

Genuine question: where’s the line? Because he’s still playing it live (live streaming). Is it just the act of being recorded?

Aren't they signed to Universal?

Looks like the rest of the band participates in the channel too..

I think they are implying that public domain works are attacked globally because a company thinks they own it in one country. Take Happy Birthday, for example: in the UK it is considered a traditional song and is therefore public domain, but in the US there are no such protections against copyright and therefore Time Warner thinks they own it.

> in the US there are no such protections against copyright and therefore Time Warner thinks they own it.

I don't think even they think that anymore:

> On June 28, 2016, the final settlement was officially granted and the court declared that the song was in the public domain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyrigh...

This is a fair point, though. Just because you're the producer doesn't mean you're the owner. Book authors often go to publishing houses to get their book published, in which case the author has little control over their work. Also, commissioned works are usually copyright to the commissioner or other employer, that's why Doctor Who is copyright to the BBC, not Steven Moffat.

SFWA standard terms are the author grants US publishing rights, not the entire copyright. https://www.sfwa.org/2009/07/05/model-contract-hardcover/

Authors should never sign anything worse then that.

That would still cover the right to publish in US territory.

Which the author gets royalties for giving. The system is made so authors get money and publishers do too from their books. They are jointly using the authors copyrighted work for mutual benefit.

What's not included and valuable? Adaptations, foreign translations, sequels, etc.

Some time ago he announced that some of Dragonforce's albums are "dmca free" and "allowed" to be played on twitch.

I couldn't find any more details than this: https://old.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments/gzx3s0/herman_li_gu...

Music copyright is complicated and there are certain rights that attach to each performance vs. the music. If I sit down and play Bach that recording cannot be copied without my permission but you can sit down and record your own performance of Bach.

But if you wrote something today and recorded

I would need a license to print your words.

A license to use your exact song if longer than 7-15 seconds.

A license to perform a cover if it sounds the same.

And you'll also need a seperate synchronization license to play the song with any visuals. Music rights are ridiculously convoluted.

But can you sit down and record your own performance of Dragonforce?

Yes, compulsory licencing and royalty sharing applies. Also, if the recording is made from a performance in a venue, the owner must obtain a blanket licence from the music rights organisation.

The above is true for a couple of jurisdictions.

So absurd that an original performance of a copyrighted song is an infringement.

Why? You’re literally talking someone else’s song and reproducing it. You just have to ask the copyright holder for permission and then you’re good.

It’s how the whole world of covers work.

In the US, you don't need permission. You DO have to pay a fee (royalties; pretty sure nothing upfront). It's a compulsory license.

In the US you don’t need to get the copyright holder's permission to record cover songs, you need to pay for a mechanical license. In the case of live performances you don’t need to get permission directly. The venue is the one that pays royalties to a handful of groups that have agreements with thousands of artists.

Yup. I have a strong “fuck you” to ASCAP for charging my favorite small coffee shop insurmountable fees and forcing them to stop having live musical performances. FWIW the musicians played mostly original work.

ASCAP has also been actively against the EFF, Creative Commons, and others.

> In June 2010, ASCAP sent letters to its members soliciting donations to fight entities that support weaker copyright restrictions, such as Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Creative Commons

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composer...

> It’s how the whole world of covers work.

Yes, I am aware of how the law currently works. I think that it is unethical and that my playing of some pop song on the piano shouldn't be covered by property law because my performance is not owned by someone else.

But the song you’re playing is owned by someone else. I can understand the case for carving out an exception for this use but it doesn’t change the fact that your derived work now has two copyright holders: the original artist and you.

Its an automatic copystrike

Copyright doesn't cover live performances, this would be ASCAP licensing or something similar though it seems if he's "playing his own music" then none of the above should apply.

Just so people aren’t misled - ASCAP is a not-for-profit, it isn’t a government agency. I think a more accurate word for it is “cabal” since most people don’t know much about them and that they often work against (IMO) the public interest.

I meant that someone can't assert copyright over your live performance of your own compositions as it occurs. Copyright can be asserted over a recording of course. Someone might try to assert copyright over portions of the music I suppose. In this context though there's no way for copyright to be valid unless he's assigned the copyright to someone else which doesn't seem to be the case barring any further information.

> I meant that someone can't assert copyright over your live performance of your own compositions as it occurs.

They can, that is how ASCAP functions.

> In this context though there's no way for copyright to be valid unless he's assigned the copyright to someone else which doesn't seem to be the case

The copyright for their music is held by Universal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com