This proposed bill reminds me of Muddy Waters

[billyjean]

Lawmakers Pushing Bill That Could Land YouTube Lip-Synch Artists Behind Bars
By Pete Griffin

Published June 09, 2011

FoxNews.com

AP

In this photo taken April 6, 2011, YouTube lip-syncing sensation Keenan Cahill, 16, poses with an autographed poster of Katy Perry who he sees as his mentor in his room at home in Elmhurst, Ill.

Record labels are clamoring for a chance to have their artist lip-synch alongside 16-year-old YouTube sensation Keenan Cahill in, of all places, his bedroom.

But could a proposed amendment to the federal copyright infringement law potentially land Cahill, or any person lip-synching copyrighted material in a YouTube video, behind bars?

Senate Bill 978, a bipartisan measure introduced last month by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.), is backed by supporters who say it closes glaring loopholes in current copyright infringement law created by the realities of the digital age.

"As technology rapidly evolves, our laws must be updated to protect creativity and innovation," said a statement by Cornyn.

But critics say a section of the bill provides for steep penalties -- up to five years in prison -- for "publicly performing" copyrighted material and embedding the video to sites like YouTube.

"It seems like (the bill) is attacking the core of the Internet itself, which is to promote communication amongst people all over the world," said Hemanshu "Hemu" Nigam, a former White House counsel for online protection and the founder of the online safety advisory firm SSP Blue.

Cahill's manager, David Graham, said record labels have contacted the teen in an effort to use the material in his YouTube videos. But what about the average person who lip-synchs and plays a copyrighted song in the background of their YouTube video who doesn't receive permission from a record label?

Nigam said something as simple as a school recital could expose students and anyone else who participated in the potential copyright violation to prosecution.

"The questions you're going to have to ask are do you prosecute the school for hosting the event? The parent for videotaping it and posting it on their Facebook? Or the child for actually using the Lady Gaga song and performing it in front of all her loved ones?"

But the bill's supporters say that's not going to happen.

The new law will not target "individuals or families streaming movies at home," said a statement from Klobuchar. She said the bill will instead target "criminals that are intentionally streaming thousands of dollars in stolen digital content and profiting from it."

Mary LaFrance, a copyright law professor at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, believes the bill primarily focuses on those who intend to make money from streaming copyrighted material on the Internet. "You have to have the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain," she said.

But Nigam thinks lawmakers will face a "nightmare" when it comes to actually executing the new measure.

"Because this is a federal law, what it's saying is that you can go to federal prison for up to five years," said Nigam. "That...is a really big deal."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/09/lawmakers-pushing-bill-that-could-land-youtube-lip-synch-artists-behind-bars/#ixzz1OqJfjjgu

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/09/lawmakers-pushing-bill-that-could-land-youtube-lip-synch-artists-behind-bars/


***************************

When you have to throw kids in jail for lip synching ... I think we've reached an all time low.

[scungili]

The thought of that awkward lil' lip-syncer being thrown in jail definitely tugs at the heart strings.  But that's not what this bill is about.  It's about unlicensed streaming media and how it is copyright infringement.

Does the felony status seem harsh ... no & yes.  No - because unauthorized people are giving away someone else's creation for free and possibly gaining notoriety for it or even earning money via ads, click thru's or even direct earnings.  YES - because it seems to be too big a blanket when it comes to intent and I'd hope that a video from a class recital or school talent show wouldn't be tried in the same light as someone distributing an album for free.

The issue of "unauthorized copying" is nothing new ... it's just that technology has made it so easy that people who would have never taken the time to borrow a friends LP and tape it now think downloading all this "free music" is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

When it comes to Intellectual Property and Creative Works ... the internet has been a "door opener" for many and has provided exposure for many more, but the downside (and it's a huge downside) is that artists have no control of their work.  Whether it be the peer-to-peer networks, blogs, illegal mp3 sites in foreign lands or Youtube - there's a growing guilt-free attitude that there's no reason to buy any artists' cds or even legally download their mp3s because you can generally find it for free somewhere on the web.

"Cloud Music Lockers" are going to make it even worse for musicians who would like to earn a living from selling their music.  Currently, Apple is the only corporation that has set up licensing & royalty payments when it comes to one of these personal cloud music "lockers".  Amazon & Google have rolled out their lockers as well but have refused to pay royalties.  "The Cloud" is a tricky thing and probably a thread in itself ... but some things about it just ain't right.

Anyhow ...

The growth of technology & laws often fall out of sync, but then hopefully catch up with eachother before too much damage is done.  What's been happening over the last 14 years in regards to technology and music though is just ridiculous.  The RIAA & Label "Suits" were too greedy, short sighted and arrogant when Digital Media really started taking over.  They should have had a better understanding of what the future of music could be and rather than try to shackle it into a system that worked in the analog age - they should have shifted the way the business works to adapt to the coming digital world.  Then maybe, the bills/laws that are being presented to "catch up" today might not be so drastic because things would have been laid out better from the get-go.

Chances are, Senate Bill 978 will get some sensationalized coverage & maybe a dozen "offenders" will end up in court and then it'll be un-enforced like so many other things.

[billyjean]

Scrung, say you go over to Fitzgerald cause one of your fav groups will be there and perform.  Say this band you went to see performs a song that is by ... let's say Bon Jovi.  You are sitting there and take out your camcorder and film the performance.  You go home, and you want to show everyone how well one of your fav bands performed perhaps one of your fav songs by Bon Jovi.  You post it on youtube.  Is this bill going to target either you for posting, or the band for performing a Bon Jovi song?

[billyjean]

Further ... it says in the article (I've just read the bill) that CRITICS say ... "But critics say a section of the bill provides for steep penalties -- up to five years in prison -- for "publicly performing" copyrighted material and embedding the video to sites like YouTube."

Is American English, for instance, paying royalties since their entire act is based on performing as if they are the Beatles, doing Beatles songs.  If so, fine.

But what about the bands that do a whole repertoire involving the hit songs of various artists?  Are ALL bands, other than those that perform their own original music, paying royalities to each and every artist whose music they perform?  IDK.

You state about streaming .... that to me is more about MOVIES than it is about music.  There are many sites that allow you to listen to music whether on radio, TV, or streaming from the internet.

Here's a link to the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978

again, the key word I keep seeing is "performance".   Forget lip syncer for a moment, what about all these cover performances on youtube?  You know that guy that wants you to watch him play Stairway to Heaven on his guitar?  To me that is ridiculous to target such performances.  Last I know, iTunes is making a ton of money on ppl actually downloading to ppl songs by original artists.  If it wasn't for places like youtube, half of America would have no way of listening to songs that are 50 years + old, or just music from decades they are not familiar with, awakening a desire to know more about the artist and then go and purchase from iTunes music they have just been exposed to for the first time.  There are pros and cons, but this law is a bit mysterious in EXACTLY what it is trying to stop.  They give no examples so we are left to wonder just what they are up to.

[Bonster]

there's a growing guilt-free attitude that there's no reason to buy any artists' cds or even legally download their mp3s because you can generally find it for free somewhere on the web.

"Cloud Music Lockers" are going to make it even worse for musicians who would like to earn a living from selling their music. 

Too bad.  It's absolutely no different than ever before; just a different medium.  Easier?  Sure.  Growing up, I couldn't afford $7 a pop for a vinyl disc for each band I liked, so I'd get one here and there, and record my friends' albums.  

Besides, no musicians have ever made a living selling their music; they've made their money touring.  Only the record companies made the dough and the artists were screwed.  Now, rather than the labels screwing the artists, the fans are, and that's precisely why Metallica made the big stink over Napster - they had just signed a mammoth deal that was based in part on record sales.  Had this been 1983 every one of them would have been pushing friends to make tapes and distribute to get their name out.  Time to get out there and play.  

If anything, I think this makes it a greater draw as more people will hear your music.

[Bonster]

I'll also dispute that it's easier to find stuff for "free somewhere on the web."  I think for your general mainstream music it's easier to drop 99¢ to Amazon for a song or less/per for an album than to find exactly what you want on the web.  Quite often people post garbage of varying bit rates and quality, if even the exact version you're looking for.  What I appreciate the "somewhere on the web" for is bootlegs and rare versions you can't seem to find at commercial sources. 

[scungili]

A muddy question indeed ...

There's several things going on here, but when it comes down to it - it'd be me because I was the one who posted it.

I could get sued by the band for broadcasting their performance without permission.  I don't think Fitzgerald's has a "No Filming Policy" so I'd be ok w/ them.  Could BonJovi sue me for posting the vid ... I don't think so because the music wouldn't be BonJovi's copyrighted work, it'd be a performance by a band that is performing the song.  Fitzgerald's is a reputable place so I assume they are up on all their licensing in regards to ASCAP & BMI so BonJovi or the actual writers of the song are getting their royalties.

[billyjean]

there's a growing guilt-free attitude that there's no reason to buy any artists' cds or even legally download their mp3s because you can generally find it for free somewhere on the web.

"Cloud Music Lockers" are going to make it even worse for musicians who would like to earn a living from selling their music. 

Too bad.  It's absolutely no different than ever before; just a different medium.  Easier?  Sure.  Growing up, I couldn't afford $7 a pop for a vinyl disc for each band I liked, so I'd get one here and there, and record my friends' albums.  

Besides, no musicians have ever made a living selling their music; they've made their money touring.  Only the record companies made the dough and the artists were screwed.  Now, rather than the labels screwing the artists, the fans are, and that's precisely why Metallica made the big stink over Napster - they had just signed a mammoth deal that was based in part on record sales.  Had this been 1983 every one of them would have been pushing friends to make tapes and distribute to get their name out.  Time to get out there and play.  

If anything, I think this makes it a greater draw as more people will hear your music.

Bonster, anytime I feel the least bit guility about getting something for nothing, all I have do is think how I bought the song (general price ranges):

first on a 45 or 78  (anywhere from $.69 to $3.00)
next on an album (anywhere from $12.00 to $15.00)
next on an 8 Track (anywhere from $12.00 to $15.00)
next on a cassette (anywhere from $12.00 to $15.00)
next on a CD (anywhere from $15.00 to $20.00)

I figure looking at my library, I've probably paid somewhere close to $50.00 a fav song just to be able to play it with what new technology had come out because old technology was being phased out.  So, anyone that feels they didn't make their money on the music (I'm talkin over time for the big artists) just go eat some ice cream and don't worry about it.  They made theirs ... 10 TIMES over.  I only wish I could have all that money back that I spent before.  

[Bonster]

Even in the pre-digital days of "selling tapes" after shows at the Whale and such, there was little success.  You'd go see a band (of any quality), and afterward they'd be trying to push their tapes at $3-5/per.  They'd be lucky to get but a few poor schmucks to shell out paper for one.  Granted, everyone was poor, from the bands to their fans, yet when you'd befriend one of the members you might get a freebie and it might just turn out to be a great one.  Soon thereafter all your pals knew about it and copied your copy (viral).   

[billyjean]

Scrung ... with all due respect .. I doubt Fitzgerald's has copyright agreements with those that represent all the various artists whose songs may be performed by bands that perform at their establishment.  Copyright agreements are no small one two three deal.  It's an agreement.  An attorney has to go over the agreement, has to docket the royalty dates (the dates you have to pay) as it is not a pay once and it's over type of thing.  You keep paying.  So between paying royalities and paying attorneys, who will not give you a break just cause you're Fitgeralds, they charge the hourly rate of the attorney to do this work, and when you consider the amount of artists and the lawfirms representing those artists, we are not talking just a walk in the park here.  This would be big bucks.

Years ago, back in the late 70's I think, I was in Washington D.C.  We had friends over one night and turned on TV and low and behold a live show from Fitzgeralds was on ... hosted by Dan Ackroyd.  I was amazed that out of all things here I am in D.C. watching a live show from my home town.  Anyway, I think when a show goes national like a live show from Fitzgeralds, for something like that, they will dot the i's and cross the t's for copyright.  They have ppl that will do that because they are putting on a production, just like I'm sure they have to do for a program like American Idol, where these contestants are performing songs done by artists.  However, other than this type of scenario, I really cannot wrap my head around Fitzgeralds doing this for it's just normal entertainment to the public that come in to see a band peform.  It's just too much work, too much money.  If they do, then I am impressed that they have the cashflow to provide for this type of overhead and that they have someone there that handles this with an attorney, which would be non-stop, and so improptu, since these agreements need to be drawn up, reviewed and in place before a performance.  What if there is a last minute change?  A band is a no show?  Now you just rang up a bill for something that never happened.

[scungili]

Billyjean ... Any venue that has live music (heck even a jukebox) that wants to keep things on the up & up pays a yearly fee to agencies like ASCAP & BMI.  The venue is supposed to keep track of all songs played & then that paperwork is submitted - then payments are made to the artists thru ASCAP or BMI (there's a couple others I forget who they are though).  It's not too much work ... and really, it's not alot of money on a yearly basis.  Do bars & clubs buy the licenses?  Some do ... most don't.

You know that guy that wants you to watch him play Stairway to Heaven on his guitar?

I believe those fall under fair-use act because it is instructional.  Whether this is a "work around" to post your version of someone's song - I dunno.

There are many sites that allow you to listen to music whether on radio, TV, or streaming from the internet.

Yep ... and they're supposed to have licences that work the same way as the licensing I mentioned above.  I gotta check, but Pandora is really good about licensing.


Bonster ... The good part of all these tech advances & the web is that bands don't need to rely on the labels like they used to.  They don't have to sign contracts where the only place to keep a decent portion of sales was merch at concerts.  Not every band signed "bad contracts", many of them made good money through album sales.  I don't care for Steely Dan, but weren't they basically a studio-only band during the 70's?  They did well - correct?

Regardless - the landscape has changed, bands can keep more of their work's earnings thru DIY methods and Indie labels.   "Song sales" (lp-cd-mp3) are important to a band's success. 

Too bad.  It's absolutely no different than ever before; just a different medium.

It is different.  You used to have to make an effort.  It took time.  Even with a Metal Bias Cassette it was a copy.  You only had access to what your friends had or the guys on the tape trade list had.  A smaller group of people were dubbing copies of say "Ride the Lightning" because it wasn't available everywhere & it was mainly metalheads & some punks who'd seek it out.  Now, say you're curious about jungle techno dub you can search and sample ... great ... but you can also go out & download the entire catalog by "DJ X-Marks the Spot" with one or two clicks so you can play it wherever you want ... free ... it just takes a lil' googling.

[Bonster]

I don't care for Steely Dan, but weren't they basically a studio-only band during the 70's?  They did well - correct?

Financially?  They did OK; never really capitalized on their music.
Steely Dan - as we know it - was Donald Fagan, with help from a friend (can't remember), and had great control of his music top to bottom.


Edit: I believe they put a band together in recent years and tour.  Recouping some of the revenue they missed in the big 80s, perhaps.  You're also talking about "megaband."  Huge acts today still do well.

[Bonster]

It is different.  You used to have to make an effort.  It took time.  Even with a Metal Bias Cassette it was a copy.  You only had access to what your friends had or the guys on the tape trade list had.  A smaller group of people were dubbing copies of say "Ride the Lightning" because it wasn't available everywhere & it was mainly metalheads & some punks who'd seek it out.  Now, say you're curious about jungle techno dub you can search and sample ... great ... but you can also go out & download the entire catalog by "DJ X-Marks the Spot" with one or two clicks so you can play it wherever you want ... free ... it just takes a lil' googling.

OTOH - high school kids can now produce a basement tape that sounds better than most metal bands' studio tapes from the 80s.  And it still takes time on p2p shares.. there's a lot of crap connections out there.  Not as long as it takes to wait to record a tape, but most of the time I'd drop a tape off at a pal's and he'd record while listening to the album anyway.  (And later you got the "highspeed" dubbing of dual cassette players! (early bootlegging devices, no doubt!))

Metal?!  That was for the rich kids.  At best we used chrome!

[billyjean]

Scrung:  "Billyjean ... Any venue that has live music (heck even a jukebox) that wants to keep things on the up & up pays a yearly fee to agencies like ASCAP & BMI.  The venue is supposed to keep track of all songs played & then that paperwork is submitted - then payments are made to the artists thru ASCAP or BMI (there's a couple others I forget who they are though).  It's not too much work ... and really, it's not alot of money on a yearly basis.  Do bars & clubs buy the licenses?  Some do ... most don't."

the bold ... that's kinda my point.  And thank you for enlightening me on how things work.  I couldn't imagine that they went through the actual copyright royalties route, cause that's a long one for what we are talking about.

In any event, we are talking about this bill and they specifically mention "by electronic means", so again, thus far, this bill is somewhat of a mystery to exactly what they want to do by way of this amending of existing copyright law. 

[mustang54]

  Everytime we opened a new ice arena ASCAP would pay us a visit. If we were going to play music of any kind during public skate,where we charge admission we had to pay a yearly fee to ASCAP. Ya know Bonster it amazed me when Metallica took on Napster. Years back some bands actually allowed audio and video taping of their shows.Metallica was one of the first. They actually charged a few bucks more to sit in a reserved tapers section.
Another thing that really drove record labels nuts was EBAY. Alot of bands and artists still don't mind people taping for themselves or trading with other collectors. Selling of it they mind. The RIAA got tired of bootleggers selling on Ebay and put a stop to it. The copying of released cd's or video known as pirating is frowned upon big time by all artists. You would be amazed how many artists have huge bootleg collections. It may sound funny but I have actually given quite a few artists bootlegs of themselves and other bands they had no idea existed.
 This bill has alot of grey areas and they really need to define very clearly what they want to continue to let exist and what they want to stop. Especially now with alot of the bands that have been around for years who now refuse to sign recording contracts and pay their own costs then sign with Walmart or Best Buy llike The Eagles,Journey and a few others have done.
 And Bonster there is still big money in sales of cd's and dvd's,especially with todays high costs of touring. It now costs Bon Jovi 2 million a week to go on the road. An old freind of mine is the stage manager for U2 and the money it costs to put them on the road is unreal. U2 employs 330 people when they are on the road. Yes todays ticket prices are a whole lot higher but so are the costs of going out on the road.
 This paragraph will be for Bob Pauly in case he reads this post for in another topic told me I must be an Infinity fan insinuating I know nothing about music. LOL. Bob, before I was in the ice arena business I spent a couple of decades in the music business.

[Bonster]

 And Bonster there is still big money in sales of cd's and dvd's,especially with todays high costs of touring. It now costs Bon Jovi 2 million a week to go on the road. An old freind of mine is the stage manager for U2 and the money it costs to put them on the road is unreal. U2 employs 330 people when they are on the road. Yes todays ticket prices are a whole lot higher but so are the costs of going out on the road.

Those are huge bands that put on ultra-extravagant shows.  In fact, U2 had to cancel a tour in the 90s during a down period (for them) because they were not selling out, and could not afford to put on the show they had designed. 

[Bonster]

 Everytime we opened a new ice arena ASCAP would pay us a visit. If we were going to play music of any kind during public skate,where we charge admission we had to pay a yearly fee to ASCAP. Ya know Bonster it amazed me when Metallica took on Napster. Years back some bands actually allowed audio and video taping of their shows.Metallica was one of the first. They actually charged a few bucks more to sit in a reserved tapers section.

I think their "Cliff 'em All" video for bass player Cliff Burton who was killed on tour was put together almost entirely with fan videos.

[watcher]

Bonster, anytime I feel the least bit guility about getting something for nothing, all I have do is think how I bought the song (general price ranges):

first on a 45 or 78  (anywhere from $.69 to $3.00)
next on an album (anywhere from $12.00 to $15.00)
next on an 8 Track (anywhere from $12.00 to $15.00)
next on a cassette (anywhere from $12.00 to $15.00)
next on a CD (anywhere from $15.00 to $20.00)

I figure looking at my library, I've probably paid somewhere close to $50.00 a fav song just to be able to play it with what new technology had come out because old technology was being phased out.  So, anyone that feels they didn't make their money on the music (I'm talkin over time for the big artists) just go eat some ice cream and don't worry about it.  They made theirs ... 10 TIMES over.  I only wish I could have all that money back that I spent before.  

Arrrrrrgh Matey! It's a pirate's life for me!
I have media (vinyl,tape, CD) for most of the music on my computer. Some I converted myself when I couldn't find it on P2P.

I use torrents to search for out-of-print titles I "own" on other media. I also stream music from Wolfgang's vault to hear live versions of stuff I used to collect on bootleg tapes. I refuse to buy from I-tunes or Amazon. If I want a new release, I'll go order it at Val's Halla.
I actually enjoy "sharing" with small local businesses.

IMO, the "industry" tried to postpone, ignore and downplay the transition to online digital music. Napster and other entrepreneurs stepped in to fill the void, established the framework and standards for online music and reaped the rewards until the industry stepped in and wanted to reclaim its "rights".

If Napster hadn't happened we'd likely still be waiting for the "industry" to come up with a product they could monopolize and monetize.

I think there are degrees of "piracy" that range from benign to malignant. The problem with laws like this is a failure to recognize the legitimate right of collectors to maintain their collections without having to re-re-re-re- purchase continually. That and the industry that is still short-changing the artists on rightful royalties with clever bookkeeping.

[billyjean]

watcher ... the re re re re purchase was a planned deal.  Obviously, I can understand the long transition from phonograph all the way to CD players.  But they profitited from your having to purchase over and over.  Granted you are not forced to, but say in the case of 8 Track ... you bought ... and then they completely phased it out.  I didn't use the turntable example because thankfully you can still buy a turntable without much problem, and that's whats sold now also to take your library and hook it to your computer to transfer your library on vinyl to digital ... with enhancements I might add like removing scratching or background noise of any kind.

But they seem to have now STOPPED on the CD format, almost like they have reached a plateau.  Why?  Because you can download from online and don't need to physically get an actual CD.  OK ... put that aside.

They now deliberately in the area of visual ... DVD's are back at the same routine of re re re purchase.  Regular DVD .... Blueray DVD .... 3D DVD.  Each requiring certain equipment in order to play.  They will keep going ... there WILL be something after 3D ... and after that ... and after that.

I wouldn't mind so much the progress, but my problem with it is that it comes too FAST !!!!  You just buy a TV or computer ... and within a few short years it is useless for anything new then that comes out.

Another bitch I have is in the area of computer software or these playstations, XBox or whatever.  I can understand an older model not being able to play NEW software (it can't read it), but there is no excuse for old software not being able to be played on newer equipment.  Gonna go way back here now, but say you bought a bunch of games to play way back when you had Windows 95.  It's my opinion that you should be able to play an old game on a new computer.  New game on old computer ... NO.  So now you had to re re re purchase for Windows 98, XP, Vista, and now Windows 7.  It's just wrong yet no one wants to protect the consumer.  They are coming out with new Windows like every couple of years ... it's ridiculous.  How many of you parents have had to re re re purchase same games to keep up with the ever upgrading of playstations?  I just think it's a rip off ... and a con on consumers.

I still have a Windows 95 .. and a Windows 98 ... the XP totally died.

[mustang54]

  I totally agree with you watcher,if it wasn't for Napster we would either be waiting for the suits in the industry to come up with something or they would have made it painfully expensive and a total mess. The people who have run and ruined the music industry never seem to amaze me in their thinking. They have totally screwed many an artist as well as not having a frickin clue on what the public wants. Take live music for instance. The huge amount of bootleg collectors world wide proves people want live music. Bootlegs infact have been a real source of keeping alot of classic rock acts alive. And as Bonster said bootleg collectors played a huge part in the Metallica release.
Most artists p r departments know who the biggest bootleg collectors around are. I know a few who have been contacted by p r departments to provide material for them they did not have. A couple of years ago a dvd came out of a classic rock band that I still enjoy. They said the original lineup,every piece of footage there was of that lineup in the best possible quality. I gladly spent the 25 bucks on it when it came out. Only to find I already not only had some footage that wasn't on there but the quality of alot of their footage was not as good a quality as the bootlegs I had. As usual they dropped the ball.
 The major problem they now face is there is a huge generation of people out there who feel they should never have to pay a dime for any music they want. The internet has spoiled them. They feel because they call themselves a fan they are entitled to all the music for free. This law mixed with what has already been created could turn out to be the biggest cluster you know what in the history of music.