jonathans blog » legal stuff

european copyright extended to 70 years

jonathan — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:53:04 +0000

“On Monday 12 September 2011, the Council of the European Union agreed to extend the copyright term for performers and record companies from 50 to 70 years from release of the recording.

This is the culmination of a ten year campaign by performers and the wider music industry across Europe.”

cool, so i will be 100 when my current copyright expires….

uk election voting farce #ge2010

jonathan — Fri, 07 May 2010 07:48:14 +0000

what a farce. people not being allowed to vote because there are not enough ballot papers? is the point not that everyone in the country gets one? if they dont then what else are they doing wrong? if they just counted the blank ones wrong then who is to say that they counted the filled in ones properly?

and as for the closing at ten. this needs to change.

infact, we should scrap this one and do the vote again next week.

the metro this morning had an excellent quote from a random punter – “British troops are dying in Afghanistan to give Afghanis the vote.” yes. while we are employing the tactics of mugabe in zimbabwe to stop people voting.

also, voting in pencil? so someone can change it? next time im taking a permanent marker.

dizzee rascal for prezident, innit.

what the digital economy bill means for you as a copyright holder #debill

jonathan — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:00:01 +0000

I am a holder of copyright. I do sell music online. this new digital economy bill ( #debill ) is going to change the way the internet works. forever.

the internet is our legacy to the children, not of today, but of a thousand years. much like the wheel is to us today.

this is going to be a very long post. =|

what is the digital economy bill?

the digital economy bill is a set of laws that have been rushed through the uk chambers on the last two days of parliment. you can see all the stuff that google has on it via this link and here is the bills page on parliament.uk and here is the actual bill

what is covered in the digital economy bill ?

the digital economy bill covers lots of media. all things digital – form TV to radio and the internet. it also covers copyright.

will I get banned if i go on youtube ?

yes, and no. you may get banned if you upload a video that contains content tht you do not own, or have the rights to distribute. eg, if you put up a video with a song form your favourite band then the copyright holder has the right to send a letter to OFCOM requesting that they track you down, via your ISP and send you a letter telling you to stop. if you do not comply then you are effectively shut off the internet.

what if they get the wrong person?

there is no appeals process, there is no judge and jury, you do have other remits, but in the mean time you are still banned,

isnt that against the european human rights acts?

hopefully

what does this mean for me (as a musician, or record label)

well, it means that you can get people kicked off the internet at their own expense if they are sharing millions of copies of your stuff. but do you want to do that ? who will come to your gigs if noone knows your music?

is bittorrent illegal now?

no, bittorrent is a transport method, like a van. its not my fault if your van is full of bootleg dvd’s. mine is full of touring gear.

is google going to be blocked like in china?

it *MAY* be – check this link out for more info on google’s stance on the matter – in summary "Clause 8 grants the secretary of state for business the power to block "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright"

more on the copyright term

jonathan — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:04:03 +0000

An email I just got from the ppl…

Dear Friends and Colleagues

We have just learned that, at a crucial meeting this morning, the UK Government voted against the Copyright Term Directive. The meeting of COREPER (comprising representatives of the Member States) failed to approve the text of the Directive proposed by the Presidency. We are sending this news immediately because of its impact on all PPL members.

This seems to be fundamentally at odds with the Government’s assurances that they were looking after performers through this Directive.

In conjunction with the MU, BPI and AIM, PPL have today issued the following statement:

that was a tough two days!!

jonathan — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:59:20 +0000

well, the last two days have been busy. Firstly my site went down – That was the final straw, I moved to a different host. that took a full day to get all my wordpress hacks working again, but it’s all going now. I also have all the google apps stuff setup, which is nice.

I heard this on the news while I was battling with my hosting – the PRS have fallen out with google, who own youtube, and because of this youtube have stopped people from watching music videos if they live in the uk. the bbc story goes …

YouTube is blocking all premium music videos to UK users after failing to reach a new licensing agreement with the Performing Right Society (PRS).

Thousands of videos will be unavailable to YouTube users from later on Monday.

Patrick Walker, YouTube’s director of video partnerships, told BBC News that the move was “regrettable”.

Steve Porter, head of the PRS, said he was “outraged… shocked and disappointed” by YouTube’s decision.

In a statement, Mr Porter said the move “punishes British consumers and the songwriters whose interests we protect and represent”.

The PRS has asked YouTube to reconsider its decision as a “matter of urgency”.

The body, which represents music publishers, added: “Google has told us they are taking this step because they wish to pay significantly less than at present to the writers of the music on which their service relies, despite the massive increase in YouTube viewing.

“This action has been taken without any consultation with PRS for Music and in the middle of negotiations between the two parties.”

Mr Walker told BBC News the PRS was seeking a rise in fees “many, many factors” higher than the previous agreement.

He said: “We feel we are so far apart that we have to remove content while we continue to negotiate with the PRS.”

“We are making the message public because it will be noticeable to users on the site.”

Videos will begin to be blocked from 1800 GMT with the majority of them made inaccessible over the next two days.

YouTube pays a licence to the PRS which covers the streaming of music videos from three of the four major music labels and many independent labels.

Stream online

While deals with individual record labels cover the use of the visual element and sound recording in a music video, firms that want to stream online also have to have a separate deal with music publishers which covers the music and lyrics.

In the UK, the PRS acts as a collecting society on behalf of member publishers for licensing fees relating to use of music.

YouTube stressed that it continued to have “strong partnerships” with three of the four largest record labels in the world.

Mr Walker said the PRS was asking for a “prohibitive” rise in the cost of a new license.

While not specifying the rate the PRS was seeking, he said: “It has to be a rate than can drive a business model. We are in the business for the long run and we want to drive the use of online video.

“The rate they are applying would mean we would lose significant amounts of money on every stream of a music video. It is not a reasonable rate to ask.”

New deal

YouTube has also complained of a lack of transparency by the PRS, saying the organisation would not specify exactly which artists would be covered by any new deal.

“That’s like asking a consumer to buy a blank CD without knowing what musicians are on it,” a statement from YouTube UK says on its official blog.

YouTube is the world’s most popular online video site but has been under increased pressure to generate more revenue since its purchase by Google for $1.65 billion in 2006.

“We are not willing to do this [new licensing deal] at any cost,” said Mr Walker.

He said the issue was an industry-wide one and not just related to YouTube.

“By setting rates that don’t allow new business models to flourish, nobody wins.”

Services such as Pandora.com, MySpace UK and Imeem have also had issues securing licence deals in the UK in the last 12 months.

=| thats funny, but I dont get any money from the PRS for my video’s on youtube. I think I’ll have to phone them and shout at them.

and finally there was a riot at an iron maiden concert in columbia. thats what you get for mixing iron maiden with potent white columbian powder.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Government response to petition ‘NoNoiseControl’

jonathan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:55:34 +0000

SO, I signed a petition to stop the government forcing venues to turn down the volume
I got an email this morning with the response.
It is as follows

Thursday 19 February 2009

Nonoisecontrol – epetition response

We received a petition asking:

Newsflash – UK Govt Refusing to Back Legislation for Musicians

jonathan — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:42:11 +0000

I got an email from the ppl this morning, it goes as follows -

Dear Colleagues

Do performers deserve copyright on a par with other creators? We think so. So does the European Commission. So does the French government. So does the German government. But the UK government is not supporting the legislation to put this right.

The copyright term for performers is limited to 50 years after release, about half the length of copyright enjoyed by other creators. The draft Directive on the term of protection of copyright and related rights proposes increasing this to 95 years, on a par with the USA and closer to the life plus 70 years enjoyed by composers, authors, photographers and other artists.

Yet, the UK government is not backing this Directive. Despite having the biggest music industry in Europe, the UK government is not supporting its own musicians.

The draft Directive is currently being debated in the European Council of Ministers, attended by John Denham, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills. There is still time to persuade him. But we will need to act fast.

If you feel strongly about this, please write to your local MP. Tell them how unfair it is that you as a performer get a much shorter copyright term than other creators. Tell them how important these royalties are to you. Tell them what you think about getting support from the European Commission, from the French government, from the German government, but not from your own UK government. Tell them it is time for the UK government to put their warm words about the creative industries into positive action by backing this legislation.

To find your local MP, go to this website www.locata.co.uk/commons. If you want any help with the letter or email to your local MP, please feel free to contact my colleague Dominic McGonigal at dominic.mcgonigal@ppluk.com.

Finally, thank you, on behalf of thousands of other musicians, now and in the future. Your voice persuaded Commissioner Charlie McCreevy to back us. We can do it again.

Kind regards

Fran

FRAN NEVRKLA

Chairman & CEO, PPL and VPL

so, do as it says, and help us performers in the uk get some recognition.

cheers

Blogged with the Flock Browser

RIAA Bans Telling Friends About Songs

jonathan — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:31:05 +0000

from the onion – it is a joke, but it does seem like they are going this way….

RIAA Bans Telling Friends About Songs

November 30, 2005 | Issue 41

excellent article – Single Mother Gets RIAA Suit Dismissed, Sues Them Right Back

jonathan — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:17:26 +0000

found this article on business week, makes for an interesting read

Andersen got the piracy case against her dropped; now she’s going after the RIAA for conspiracy
by Heather Green

When Tanya Andersen opens the door to her modest apartment in suburban Portland, Ore., her Maltese-terrier mix, Tazz, runs over and wags his tail in a friendly hello. The 45-year-old single mother doesn’t seem like much of a fighter. She spends most of her days sitting on an overstuffed sofa with a heating pad behind her back to ease chronic pain and migraines that have kept her on disability for nearly five years. Her voice is soft and halting. Yet this woman is behind a fierce assault on the music industry and its tactics for combating music piracy on the Internet. “I’ve just got to keep doing what I believe is right,” she says, with Tazz curled up next to her on the couch. “And that’s fighting and letting people know what’s happening.”

After being sued by the music industry for stealing songs and winning the case’s dismissal, Andersen is now taking the record industry to court. Her case is aimed at exposing investigative practices that are controversial and may be illegal, according to the lawsuit. One company hired by the record industry, she claims, snoops through people’s computers, uncovering private files and photos, even though it has no legal right to do so. A different industry-backed company uses tactics similar to those of debt collectors, pressuring people to pay thousands of dollars in settlements even before any wrongdoing is proven. In Andersen’s case, the industry’s Settlement Support Center said that unless she paid $4,000 to $5,000 immediately, it would “ruin her financially,” the suit alleges.

Andersen is going after the recording industry under conspiracy laws. She argues the Recording Industry Association of America, the industry’s trade group, and its affiliates worked together on a broad campaign to intimidate people into making financial payoffs. The defendants “secretly met and conspired” to develop a “litigation enterprise” with the ultimate goal of preserving the major record companies’ control over the music business. Andersen is requesting class action status for her case, seeking at least $5 million in compensation for the class.

The RIAA says Andersen’s allegations are categorically false. It says it isn’t violating any laws. In fact, the courts have sided with the industry a number of times when it has faced claims similar to Andersen’s. The RIAA emphasizes that it doesn’t want to sue music listeners. But aggressive steps are necessary, it says, to stop rampant piracy that it figures costs the U.S. record industry at least $3.7 billion annually in sales. “The magnitude of this [theft] is incalculable,” says Richard L. Gabriel, lead national counsel for the RIAA and a partner at the Denver law firm Holme, Roberts, & Owen. “We don’t have an illusion that we can shut it down completely, but we do think that the suits will help get the marketplace to a fair place, where the illegal doesn’t control the legal.”

While the recording industry has gone after thousands of people, Andersen is unusual. Of the 40,000 people the RIAA says it has targeted for legal action, at most 100 have decided to defend themselves in court, says Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group. Few want to pay the legal costs of fighting the music industry, so most settle cases quickly, even if they believe they’re innocent. Of the people who defend themselves, only a handful have taken the next step of suing the record industry for their lawyers’ fees, and only a couple have won reimbursement. Andersen, one of the few winners on all counts, is the first to file a broad lawsuit that has put the RIAA on the defensive.

you can read the full article at this url
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_18/b4082042959954.htm

Blogged with the Flock Browser

freelance within the creative industries

jonathan — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:54:16 +0000

The financial and legal requirements within the music industry go hand in hand with each other