Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

#31

Post by Natsu »

vacri wrote: post #29
Natsu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone who has sung "Happy Birthday" is also a pirate. Yes, really. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ Sure, there's some evidence that they may have done some iffy things with the registration, but you'd have to go through an expensive trial to prove that, so good luck.

Why on earth is ryanklee's comment dead? He's right - it's not violating copyright to sing a song for non-commercial purposes. Hell, you can even cover a song in a paid live performance and not have to pay royalties. You just can't record it and sell the recording without ponying up. edit: looks like the live commercial performance thing is not true in the US, according to snopes. I guess those guys don't have cover…

That's because the venue pays them on your behalf!

http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-...

"As a performer, you do not have to pay performance royalties. These are paid by the venue which hired you to perform. However, if you record your show and sell it as a live album, you will need to pay for the compulsory licenses, discussed later in this article."

Now, you could try to argue that it's innocent infringement (or maybe even fair use), but you have to do that in court.

From unhappybirthday.com:

"Did you know that if you sing any copyrighted song: ...at a place open to the public ...or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friends You are involved in a public performance of that work?"

For example, singing "Happy Birthday" at a restaurant....

EDIT: I had to turn on showdead to read that comment you mentioned. He mischaracterizes what Snopes said. I'll let Snopes speak for themselves: "performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)." As you can see, the problem there is public performance not just commercial use.

Re: The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

#32

Post by Natsu »

sbarre wrote: post #17
alexqgb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, this stuff is absolutely impossible to police completely. Major content producers (networks, studios, etc.) know this in their bones, and carry what's known as E&O - Errors & Omissions insurance - for this exact reason. Given the complexity of copyright law, the vagaries of content "creation", and the pressure of constant deadlines, these really are errors and omissions. And given the nature of a business t…

Hmm maybe if you dig deeper past Lamar Smith, you'll find insurance companies? :-)

http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/470-lamar-smith

Top 10 Interests Funding Industry #10: Insurance - $50,300

Re: The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

#33

Post by jleader »

toyg wrote: post #30
ggchappell wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> edit, apparently downvoting is the same as disagreeing here too. sigh. guess this teaches me to share my honest thoughts and to continue chasing integers. Sad, isn't it? Some people even seem to think that up/down votes are primarily for rating opinions. Pretty awful idea, if you ask me. I think HN very much needs some kind of discussion on this, and preferably an official policy discouraging it. Still, it's worth…

I think he was downmodded because of his spectacular failure to understand that the process of blaming A for the acts of B is exactly the point of SOPA... so complaining that we shouldn't apply to Smith the same process that Smith wants to apply to everyone else looks very short-sighted at best (and at worst, just partisan).

Actually, in this case, we're blaming A for the acts of B, in B's role as an employee or contractor working on behalf and at the direction of A.

In the case of SOPA, when a large user-generated content site is blocked because of one piece of copyrighted content, then individuals A through ZZZZZ are being punished for the acts of a completely unrelated B who just happened to use the same free service they did.

Re: The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

#34

Post by vacri »

Natsu wrote: post #31
vacri wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth is ryanklee's comment dead? He's right - it's not violating copyright to sing a song for non-commercial purposes. Hell, you can even cover a song in a paid live performance and not have to pay royalties. You just can't record it and sell the recording without ponying up. edit: looks like the live commercial performance thing is not true in the US, according to snopes. I guess those guys don't have cover…

That's because the venue pays them on your behalf! http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-... "As a performer, you do not have to pay performance royalties. These are paid by the venue which hired you to perform. However, if you record your show and sell it as a live album, you will need to pay for the compulsory licenses, discussed later in this article." Now, you could try to argue that it's in…

He doesn't mischaracterise it at all. He says it's fine for non-commercial use in response to someone who says everyone singing it is a pirate. The uses you describe are commercial uses, value-adding to commercial ventures, not a bunch of friends singing happy birthday, which is what the 'everyone's a pirate' comment is implying. The wrong comment went dead, methinks.

Re: The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

#35

Post by gergles »

vacri wrote: post #34
Natsu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the venue pays them on your behalf! http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-... "As a performer, you do not have to pay performance royalties. These are paid by the venue which hired you to perform. However, if you record your show and sell it as a live album, you will need to pay for the compulsory licenses, discussed later in this article." Now, you could try to argue that it's in…

He doesn't mischaracterise it at all. He says it's fine for non-commercial use in response to someone who says everyone singing it is a pirate. The uses you describe are commercial uses, value-adding to commercial ventures, not a bunch of friends singing happy birthday, which is what the 'everyone's a pirate' comment is implying. The wrong comment went dead, methinks.

His assertion is incorrect. Any public performance, whether "for profit" or not, requires a license.

Re: The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

#36

Post by downandout »

spodek wrote: post #19
dkokelley wrote: post #3

This really goes to show just how easy it would be to be accused and shutdown as a copyright violator. In this case it was probably an issue of the web designer recklessly searching for a Texas-y background and Congressman Smith unknowingly using the copyrighted image. Sure, it's irresponsible, but it's an understandable mistake to make. Enter sites with untold volumes of user-submitted content. To begin, it's unlike…

Think of the power a law that everyone breaks gives the government! They must love it. Mostly the executive branch, but others too.

In my opinion, this is really the heart of the matter. It doesn't just give power to the executive branch. If you create and pass a law that potentially makes a significant percentage of the population into criminals, you have a bargaining chip of unprecedented power.

The greatest power that criminal prosecutors have is discretion - the power to charge or not charge any person with a crime. They can, and do on a daily basis, threaten charges that carry significant penalties and essentially force their target to enter into what they call a non-prosecution agreement. These are voluntary agreements, essentially saying that the government will not prosecute you if you follow the terms of the agreement. There are no rules for what the government can ask of the target in these agreements. They can quite literally require anything the government wants of the target - even things that a judge could not legally impose upon a guilty defendant to do as part of a criminal sentence.

They can't throw hundreds of millions of people in prison - there simply aren't enough prisons - but they can have hundreds of millions of people doing whatever they want them to do.

Re: The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

#37

Post by nitrogen »

vacri wrote: post #29
Natsu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone who has sung "Happy Birthday" is also a pirate. Yes, really. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ Sure, there's some evidence that they may have done some iffy things with the registration, but you'd have to go through an expensive trial to prove that, so good luck.

Why on earth is ryanklee's comment dead? He's right - it's not violating copyright to sing a song for non-commercial purposes. Hell, you can even cover a song in a paid live performance and not have to pay royalties. You just can't record it and sell the recording without ponying up. edit: looks like the live commercial performance thing is not true in the US, according to snopes. I guess those guys don't have cover…

How do you define non-commercial? What if you're rich and have hundreds of other rich people at your birthday party? What if one of the people singing Happy Birthday at your party is a professional singer? What about singing Happy Birthday as customers in a crowded restaurant? What if a band wants to sing Happy Birthday to itself or to an audience member while on stage? What if the audience spontaneously sings Happy Birthday to someone (band, speaker, etc.) on stage? How about someone recording your friends singing Happy Birthday at your small, private party, then posting it on YouTube (or any of the other scenarios gets uploaded)?

Re: The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

#38

Post by nitrogen »

alexqgb wrote: post #15
bad_user wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that the owner is a US Congressman with extensive knowledge of copyright law (or so I assume) - he should have been paying attention to what happens on his freaking website, which is nothing more than his business card to the whole world. Failing to do so, talking about scale doesn't make much sense, since if a US Congressman, that happens to be the author of SOPA, can't handle it - what chances are there…

Actually, this stuff is absolutely impossible to police completely. Major content producers (networks, studios, etc.) know this in their bones, and carry what's known as E&O - Errors & Omissions insurance - for this exact reason. Given the complexity of copyright law, the vagaries of content "creation", and the pressure of constant deadlines, these really are errors and omissions. And given the nature of a business t…

So pro-SOPA people aren't going to look a this and think "Gosh, maybe we're wrong". They're going to think "This happens all the time, and it's why we carry insurance."

That sounds exactly like the way of the dinosaurs: instead of solving a problem like a good engineer would by redesigning the system, they "solve" it by throwing more money at it. It's like deliberately forming a cancerous tumor around a pimple to conceal the pimple.

Re: The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

#39

Post by tingletech »

Natsu wrote: post #25
spodek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of the power a law that everyone breaks gives the government! They must love it. Mostly the executive branch, but others too.

Everyone who has sung "Happy Birthday" is also a pirate. Yes, really. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ Sure, there's some evidence that they may have done some iffy things with the registration, but you'd have to go through an expensive trial to prove that, so good luck.

No, not really... according to the snopes link:

"""Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You" to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song's publisher? No."""

Re: The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

#40

Post by Natsu »

gergles wrote: post #35
vacri wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn't mischaracterise it at all. He says it's fine for non-commercial use in response to someone who says everyone singing it is a pirate. The uses you describe are commercial uses, value-adding to commercial ventures, not a bunch of friends singing happy birthday, which is what the 'everyone's a pirate' comment is implying. The wrong comment went dead, methinks.

His assertion is incorrect. Any public performance, whether "for profit" or not, requires a license.

See also the time ASCAP went after the Girl Scouts for royalties over campfire songs, which can hardly be construed as "commercial uses" under any reasonable definition. You will note their concern is over "public performance." Maybe I wasn't nitpicky enough when I said everyone, but I don't know any people who have only sung "Happy Birthday" privately and never sung it in school, a restaurant, or any other public place. Anyhow, as for the Girl Scouts:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royalt...

"Things heated up in March [1995], when Ascap sent a mailing to 6,000 camps (out of 8,000 in the United States) and informed them that they had to pay royalties for public performances. But Ascap did not specify what it meant by ''public performance,'' and of necessity did not include a list of its four million songs. (Ms. Bergman says they are available on the Internet; a computer printout of the material is five feet high.)

It did, however, include a schedule of annual fees that went as high as $1,439 for large year-round camps."

And yes, ASCAP eventually backed off after the bad PR nightmare they generated by demanding that Girl Scout camps either pay them fees or tell the kids they're not allowed to sing. From the same article:

''What does the word 'nightmare' mean to you?'' she said. ''We're fighting for our lives. We have to do a lot of work to tell people that we're not greedy songwriters.''

Post reply on HN