New US Copyright Laws

[Inner Prop]

There are two new bills in the US Congress right now about internet copyrights. I don't know all the particulars, but it looks like if they pass everyone who covers a copyrighted song could spend 5 years in jail.

What will this do to uke videos?

 

[wolfybau]

wow.

I was just lookign to see what other crimes get you a 5 year sentence. manslaugter was one, drug smuggling another. child abuse only gets a year sentence in most cases as does violent assault.

hmm I wonder what song would be appropriate to cover for a trip to jail. something protest oriented i would think.

 

[Gadzukes!]

The Music Indsutry: Killing itself, one stupid move at a time.

Good riddance.

 

[hoosierhiver]

Would they let you have a uke in jail?

 

[zac987]

I heard the bill was shot down.

 

[byjimini]

If that was the case then Justin Beiber would have to be sent to prison.

 

[PoiDog]

Seems like that kind of restrictive bill would never be able to survive under the weight of it's own idiotic intertia. It would basically result in not allowing anyone to play anything at all unless they paid royalties -- even if the people were playing a song at a campout or for friends in their homes.

Besides, there would be too much conflict with rights etc. If I buy the sheet music to a song, I then am allowed to play it as often as I like, and (I believe) am only required to play royalties if I then play that song for profit.

Silly law. Hopefully Zac is right and someone somewhere saw how stupid it was and killed it.

 

[PoiDog]

If that was the case then Justin Beiber would have to be sent to prison.

Wrong thread. This one is discussing music, not pre-packaged corporate branded marketing hype.

 

[byjimini]

Wrong thread. This one is discussing music, not pre-packaged corporate branded marketing hype.

Now now; if someone listening to Justin Beiber picks up the uke to play his songs, then it's one more of us and one less of them.

 

[PoiDog]

Now now; if someone listening to Justin Beiber picks up the uke to play his songs, then it's one more of us and one less of them.

The words "Justin Bieber" and "song" in the same sentence? Does not compute. Error, non-sequitor.

 

[byjimini]

Ah, I see, you're a music snob.

*stands well clear*

 

[Blrfl]

The bills in question are HR3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act and S.968, the PROTECT-IP Act. Neither bill is anywhere near dead, and Judiciary Committee hearings that took place yesterday were well-stacked with speakers in favor. Big Content wants this bill so bad it can taste it.

--Mark

 

[dktoller]

Would they let you have a uke in jail?

Ha ha ha. Five years with just me and a uke? And maybe an internet connection... (And liberty weekends in early June.)
That would be a real interesting experiment.

 

[coolkayaker1]

I've been practicing "Mexican Radio" by Wall Of Voodoo to the point of having bar-b-qued iguanas in my dreams at night. And now if I record it for youtube in my sombrero with a Poncho Villa mustache, I could be Joran VanderSloot's "jenny" for the next five years? No comprende, it's a riddle.

 

[itsme]

I don't know all the particulars, but it looks like if they pass everyone who covers a copyrighted song could spend 5 years in jail.

No, you don't seem to know any of the particulars. This is not at all about individuals doing cover songs on youtube.

If I buy the sheet music to a song, I then am allowed to play it as often as I like, and (I believe) am only required to play royalties if I then play that song for profit.

<sigh> Again, it seems you don't know how copyright really works or who pays for fees and royalties.

Sorry, but it gets old seeing people spout off about whatever they perceive about intellectual property law with no basis in fact.

I did work in the music industry for a decade, and I did study law for a paralegal certificate, so I probably know a bit more about how things work than the average person who jumps onto a forum to sound a death knell for what they think will not allow them to play copyrighted tunes on their uke any more..

 

[Gadzukes!]

I did work in the music industry for a decade, and I did study law for a paralegal certificate, so I probably know a bit more about how things work than the average person who jumps onto a forum to sound a death knell for what they think will not allow them to play copyrighted tunes on their uke any more..

Care to enlighten us?

 

[itsme]

Care to enlighten us?

No, I don't. I've expounded on it before, but the examples I quoted above just go to show that many people don't know how the music industry and copyright law work. It's very complex and involves many aspects. I'm not up for writing a dissertation on it and I'm not the best qualified person to do so anyway, but if you have a specific question, I'll do my best to address it.

 

[HoldinCoffee]

Here's a link to a site that has some strong opinions against these bills... perhaps not the most comprehensive info, but it should give you an idea about what its all about...

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/protect-ip-act-stop-online-piracy-act

and yes, it seems that if it passes, posting a video of a cover song could land you in jail for five years. Anyone with some info on why or how this is untrue, please shed some light on the topic.

As to the OPs question, what'll this do to the uke, I think perhaps we'll dig up a LOT of old public domain material or else write more of our own music.

 

[23skidoo]

I have heard several things about this, but in very broad strokes. But almost every reputable news source makes mention of You Tube covers....

From The Washington Post/Bloomberg:

The bill is a mixed bag for artists and musicians — especially for amateurs.

SOPA protects artists’ intellectual property, enabling them to pursue a profit — which, in the case of record labels and movie companies, cuts off consumers’ paths to free downloads, and pushes them toward purchasing the work.

But the types of content that would be prohibited under SOPA would also include amateur remix works, like YouTube covers of songs or mash-ups of movies. These works would be considered copyright violations, and not only could the creator of the work be legally vulnerable, but also could the host of the content.

The question is - would they enforce it? You Tube covers are technically illegal already, but very few copyright holders crack down them......

 

[Blrfl]

This is not at all about individuals doing cover songs on youtube.

You're absolutely right there, because publishing covers of songs on YouTube is already a violation of the copyright holder's rights. This is about Congress, whose lack of understanding of the technical issues could fill a book, doing something with a lot of bad second-order effects at the behest of an slow-to-adapt industry with a dying business model.

If you want to understand why SOPA/PROTECT-IP will be ineffective and what the unintended consequences will be if they're passed, I recommend reading this paper: CLICKY. Four of the five authors are Internet industry heavyweights and two of them, Paul Vixie and Steve Crocker, are particularly well-qualified to comment on this issue. (If you're wondering what qualifies me to make that assessment, I've been around the Internet for close to 25 years and I did study computer science for a degree in it, so I probably know a bit more about how things work than the average person who says this isn't going to break anything.)

--Mark