Zane’s Techdirt Profile


About Zane

Zane’s Comments comment rss

  • May 9th, 2021 @ 1:46am

    Wider issues

    There's a wider issue with the British Criminal Justice System. The focus is on funding prosecution, not defending citizens accused of a crime. Investigators have a bias, as they are looking for evidence that proves guilt as opposed to look for anything that shows innocence. Many cannot afford an adequate defense, computer forensics would have been needed, but the defence should have had the same access and resources as the prosecution. The right of appeal is sadly not available to many, particularly if someone has offered a guilty plea to reduce a sentence.

  • May 9th, 2021 @ 12:59am

    Re: Moral rights in copyright

    You're exactly right, although I'd argue that moral rights are there as a default in US copyright law. The US might not explicitly mention "moral rights". But it's a given, as the artist has control of their work to ensure they can profit from it, create more, and just as important not have someone use their work in a way which negatively affects their career and ability to create and profit from future work. That's why many are careful about whether they sell the rights for political campaigns to use their works in adverts.

  • May 9th, 2021 @ 12:51am

    Political campaig advert - don't complicate things

    He lost because it was used in an advert for political campaigning, there isn't really much more to it. Even in the US, political adverts need copyright permission. Satire and parody as a defence could work for someone not closely connected to a political campiagn. It's different situation whenyou come to political advertising. Satire and parody are not for the billioinaires making adverts who are trying to sway voters to vote for the billionaires own interests.

  • Dec 7th, 2020 @ 5:02am

    Re: 512(f) [was Re: Compromise]

    It's the basic concept that a knowingly false DMCA takedown request is perjury. The lack of litigation is probably because there are few malicious takedowns or platforms simply don't care.

  • Dec 7th, 2020 @ 4:57am

    Re: Encouragement of learning [was Re: ]

    Sure, but it's widely accepted that by paying creators allows creators to make a living, thus giving them time to create more works, thus creating more knowledge.

  • Dec 7th, 2020 @ 4:55am

    Re: 'You get everything, I get nothing' is not 'compromise'

    They don't have to take it down, what they have to do is take a look at the content and decide if it breaks copyright, or if they believe it meets fair usage etc etc. It's not treating them as "guilty", it's putting the onus on them to investigate and justify why they are keeping the content live. That's a step newspaper editors have had to to for centuries, DMCA just lets them avoid that responsibility. I think peoples dislike for the concept of copyright has seriously affected their ability at looking at the issue rationally. The compromise is crystal clear, the compromise is that sites aren't sued daily and put out of business for not constantly locating, removing, or preventing hosting copyright materials. That is the real alternative in the real world.

  • Dec 6th, 2020 @ 11:57am

    (untitled comment)

    And then there is the presumption that copyright holders and creators are one and the same, and thus economic harm to the former means that there's economic harm to the latter

    Sure, creators can and do sell their copyright on. They would argue that it was still in the interest to think about those who buy the copyright. If there rights are not considered and protected then why would anyone buy copyight? And who does that hurt, yes that's right the creator, as they're ability to sell on their copyright is reduced. This is all totally inline with what copyright is for, allowing the holder to profit from the work and control how the work is used

  • Dec 6th, 2020 @ 11:47am


    But the even bigger problem is that the protection is conditioned on platforms acting against speakers and speech based only on allegations of infringement, even though those allegations may be unfounded

    That's the heart of the issue.The compromise was always that platforms weren't held responsible for copyright infringement IF they agreed to comply with take down notices. This was how they avoided being sued like a newspaper would be sued for publishing content they had no right to publish. Of course platforms are free to sue for malicious takedown notices. Is it a perfect system, no. But expecting platforms to only takedown material once it has gone through court after months/years AND not be liable for ignoring a simple takedown notice is just not going to happen. It would make copyright to costly to enforce and meaningless.

  • Nov 18th, 2020 @ 10:14pm

    Never heard that quote

    Never heard that quote. But yeah I would never say that it was fine for someone to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, if the person they believed there was not a fire. I wouldn't say that was a freedom of speech argument, and we should all have the right to cause panic and piss people off in the name of "freedom of speech. Should the person shouting that be charged with something if they knowingly knew there was no fire, caused a panic and some guy got crushed and died in the panic? I don't know. For me it's the same level of stupidity as someone driving drunk a short distance on a quiet road, and happens to kill someone who runs across the road.

  • Nov 17th, 2020 @ 12:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really

    I'm not saying the artist would have been happy and given permission. I felt covered this point. An artist is concerned with their brand. If an advert uses their music and if it is used for an advert that is in opposition to their fanbase, then they likely lose their audience, thus money and maybe even their career. Meaning they are less likely to create more material, as they will probably have to get a regular 9 to 5 job, giving no time to be creative. Particulary if the advert is big. Then others won't want to pay to use their music, increasing the issue. That's exactly you don't see adverts for diarrhea using a mainstream band. And yes many people despise Trump and his politics. So that is totally in line with the "progress of science and useful arts". A negative use of material can decrease the "progress of science of uesful arts".

    Secondly he could have paid a willing artist or also commissioned a new piece of music from a right wing artist.

    This is just a textbook case of why copyright is needed, you may not specifically have "moral rights" in US copyright stated. But it's a given, as the artist has control of their work to ensure they can profit from it, create more, and just as important not have someone use their work in a way which negatively affects their career and ability to create and profit from future work.

  • Nov 16th, 2020 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really

    Well yes if you pay for the copyright to use material then you are helping progress "science and useful arts". I guess the idea is you are helping the artist earn a living. Obviously the artist may not want to give you permission as he may believe that your use of the material may damage his brand - maybe even put you out of business if his market dislikes the association. What the Trump campaign should have done is asked permission from an artist willing to give it, or simply paid a musician to create a unique piece of music for his campaign. So yes this case is exactly aligned to your "progress of science and useful arts" quote. As noted this is a textbook example of why copyright is needed.

  • Nov 16th, 2020 @ 2:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really

    The fact is they are suing for copyright enfringement, whether that is Eddy Grant or whether the label is doing it I wouldn't know. Only the copyright holder can do this, so I can only assume the copyright holder is not happy. It doesn't seem to be a case where the label has granted permission, and the singer disagrees. As I've already noted ASCAP is not relevant. The link you cite shows this, it states:

    This kind of use may involve rights such as synchronization of music with video and the possible use of the master sound recording. The campaign will need to contact the song’s publisher and possibly the artist’s record label to negotiate the appropriate licenses with them. And remember, campaign videos containing music that are posted on the internet also require these licenses. Once the commercial has been produced, the TV and radio stations, and any websites that transmit the commercial, must have a public performance license"

    I think you are confusing public events with advertisements. They are different beasts. If ASCAP was used as widely as that, copyright would be meaningless. They could possibly make that claim if they were playing the song at a campaign rally, but they can't if they make a video advert. They would need to get permission.

    But yes you are right, there are these annoying stories that crop up when a singer complains about their song they signed away rights for. In reality these are usually (although not always) communication difficulties between the label and the singer. Labels will often do what the singer wants, and it is often in their interest to protect their brand, and as noted if the politics do not fit the brand, then the label will say no. That's why you don't see adverts on TV for laxatives using Madonnas music. Most artists and their labels have a similar idea about what is in their interest.

    Basically there is no basis for ASCAP in this case, they needed to get permission and they didn't. The copyright holder is taking action. So if that is not Grant himself, then there doesn't seem to be disagreement.

  • Nov 16th, 2020 @ 12:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really

    Sure it's a given you are allowed to sign away your copyright or make it open you personally lose your rights to decline permission. That's not really the issue at hand. It's up to you to decide if you want to sign away your rights, and even if you do you can negotiate terms. I saw nothing in the article to suggest that was the case though.

    As for ASCAP - as far as I'm aware that wouldn't be relevant in this case. ASCAP is for the likes of public performances, think supermarkets, conference centres, radio stations playing music etc. It is not for adverts, where you would need specific permission. This makes sense as labels or artists want to control their brand. They'll likely lose revenue if their artist is associated with politics or say a brand of toilet roll that may be unappealing to their target audience. Indeed even with live events, copyright holders can exclude themselves from certain politics. But again this wasn't a live political rally, it was an advert - different rules.

    I was merely noting that although many people (including myself) may not like the concept of copyright. This article shows exactly why it is a necessary evil. I wouldn't want my voice used to promote politics I was against both morally and because of the negative damage it may do to my brand. Political campaigns can licence music or even commission it, which is actually a major reason for copyright in the first place.

  • Nov 15th, 2020 @ 10:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: No, not really

    Unless he's made his work open, or detailed how his work can be used. The copyright holder has the right to refuse permission to anyone, he does not need to give a reason why. Whether or not "moral rights" are explicitly stated, isn't really relevant. It is universally accepted that the point of copyright is for the owner to have control of how it is used.

  • Nov 15th, 2020 @ 10:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: No, not really

    Those sort of arrangements rarely if ever cover videos or political advertisements. It would be a stretch to call it parody/satire - it was a political propaganda campaign video.

  • Nov 15th, 2020 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: Exactly why copyright is needed

    That article has literally no relevance to the point, it doesn't even attempt to talk about instances where copyright may be valuable. No artist is going to want their voice used to promote politics they disagree with. That is exactly why we have copyright. Besides, they could have easily found another artist and paid them to use their music with their consent.

  • Nov 15th, 2020 @ 10:26am

    Re: No, not really

    Hmm, it would be fairly unusual for a major artist to have it setup in such a way that they do not have the option to decline requests. Artists are usually concerned about their brand, and they will not want their voice to be used for political propaganda that they are against. As noted that is the whole point of copyright, to give control on how their work is used. Even if you dislike the concept of copyright, I struggle to see how anyone can really argue against the need for it in these sort of cases. Even if you don't like the morality aspect, there is a likely a financial impact on the artist if their voice is associated with politics which differs to their fans

  • Nov 14th, 2020 @ 10:49pm

    Exactly why copyright is needed

    This is a textbook example of why copyright is needed. Few artists would wish their work be used to promote politics they are against. This is exactly what copyright was designed for, to give control to the copyright holder

  • Nov 9th, 2020 @ 11:04pm

    It's like forecasting the weather

    Think of it like a weather forecast - you don't call it misinformation because the weatherman says there is 55% chance it will rain in particular city it it turns out to be a dry day. I think you're over thinking this, polls are polls - they are based on the data that are available, and there is always an error of margin. That will be published too, even if media outlets choose not to publicise it. As long as there hasn't been a deliberate attempt to try and alter the result from what the data dictates, or ignore data just because you don't like what it says, you can't call it misinformation.

  • Jul 26th, 2020 @ 10:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Good for Linkin Park

    That only applies to the use of music in the actual campaign marches. The issue at hand is a video, where they use the music for a Trump propaganda video. Your link notes that permission is needed in these circumstances, just as anyone producing a commercial would need to gain permission. They did not get permission.

    I've not seen the video, but this is a description of what it apparently contained:

    The video Trump retweeted earlier featured a cover of “In The End” that begins quietly and ominously, apparently implying the Democrats are about to ring in the apocalypse. Then the song revs up with images of the military, cops busting into doors, MAGA fans and the president at the Lincoln Memorial. It was apparently made by Trump supporters and posted on Twitter, The New York Post reported.

    “Time is a valuable thing. Watch it fly by as the pendulum swings. Watch it count down to the end of the day,” warn the lyrics of “In the End.” “The clock ticks life away.”

    For me it's a textbook example of why copyright is needed. I wouldn't want my work or indeed my voice to be used for political propaganda that I was against, I struggle to believe anyone would. At the end if the day that is exactly why we need copyright.

More comments from Zane >>


This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it