Urheber abzocken ist nichts neues – #yes2copyright #SaveYourInternet

Was jedem in der gerade laufenden Debatte um Artikel 13 der neuen Richtlinie zum Urheberrecht in der EU klar sein muss ist, dass natürlich niemand Lust darauf hat, für etwas zu bezahlen. Klar, mit Ausnahmen, manche Leute, die man dann gut findet, bei denen lässt man vielleicht mal ein paar Euro. Aber die vielen Male, die man Rick Astley “Never gonna give you up” benutzt hat, um andere zu trollen, würde man natürlich nie und nimmer daran denken, dass man ja für die Quelle des Spaßes, den man sich gemacht hat, ein paar cent abgeben könnte. Das Argument soll aber nicht sein, dass jeder, der den größten Troll der Geschichte verbreitet, dafür etwas bezahlen soll.

Sondern die Plattformen, auf denen diese Art kulturelle Aktivität stattfindet und die dieses Verhalten gezielt zu Geld machen sollen von genau diesen Einnahmen einen kleinen Teil abgeben.

Um aber nun als Urheber etwas in der Hand zu haben, das nachhaltig verhindert, dass Inhalte unvergütet, oder schlimmer noch, an Dritte vergütet auf Plattformen stattfinden, muss jemand für das Fehlverhalten haften. Die Erfahrung (sucht nach copyright und whack-a-mole) der letzten 25 Jahre hat gezeigt, dass das die Plattform sein muss, weil alles andere verwaltungstechnisch gar nicht zu lösen ist.

Um aber zu zeigen, dass es für uns Musiker schon immer (auch vor dem Internet!) eine ganz normale Sache war, dass zwar für Auftritte bezahlt wird, dass aber die Kompositionen, die dort gespielt werden, nicht vergütet werden wollen, habe ich Euch mal einen Vertrag meiner damaligen Band Frame of Mind rausgesucht, den uns 1990 eine Kneipe vorgelegt hatte.

Ihr seht also: das Bedürfnis, seine Kosten so niedrig wie möglich zu halten ist verständlich und überall verbreitet. Sogar bei den Leuten, die vordergründig glauben, dass sie ja Musik und lokale Kultur unterstützen: jede Coverband bekommt ihr Geld, aber die Leute die die Stücke geschrieben haben, bekommen nichts. Deshalb sind wir Komponisten auch an dieser zentralen Schnittstelle in der Diskussion: weil wir besser als jeder andere die Realität kennen, dass unsere Werke zwar benutzt werden wollen (Unterlegung von Homevideos, Indie-Filmen, Corporate Videos etc. etc.) die Vergütung dafür aber eben nicht eingesehen wird.

Und deshalb sind wir auch so empfindlich, wenn an diese Rechte wieder und wieder in Frage gestellt, bzw. oftmals sogar ganz offen negiert werden.

Solange es keine wirksame Haftung der Plattformen gibt, sind alle Aussagen “aber wir wollen ja, dass es den Urhebern besser geht” reine Lippenbekenntnisse meistens gepaart mit einem grundsätzlichen Unverständnis der Realität, die in diesem Geschäft herrscht.

Hier sind noch ein paar Links zum nachlesen:

Teil 1, 2 und 3 lesen:

Spotify, Google and Pandora Appeal Copyright Ruling – Variety – angegriffen von allen Seiten

“When the Music Modernization Act became law, there was hope it signaled a new day of improved relations between digital music services and songwriters,” Israelite said in a statement. “That hope was snuffed out today when Spotify and Amazon decided to sue songwriters in a shameful attempt to cut their payments by nearly one-third. … No amount of insincere and hollow public relations gestures such as throwing parties or buying billboards of congratulations or naming songwriters ‘geniuses’ can hide the fact

Source: Spotify, Google and Pandora Appeal Copyright Ruling – Variety

Author Societies – Transfer of value explained in new GESAC brochure

Please read this short brochure to get a quick and concise overview of the current exploitative practice in the online marketplace.

Created in 1990, Gesac represents more that 1 million rights holders in the areas of music, graphic and plastic arts, literary and dramatic works, and audiovisual as well as music publishers.

Source: Author Societies – Transfer of value explained in new GESAC brochure

Owning vs. licensing: I hate to be a killjoy, Jason Snell

Also, if you’re not a fan of DRM on ebooks, you might be interested to know that there’s a plug-in for Calibre that lets you remove the DRM from books and then convert them to other formats. I maintain a DRM-free backup of most of my Kindle books, so if I ever want to abandon the platform altogether, the books I bought will come with me to wherever is next. Piracy is bad, people, and authors deserve to get paid—but if I buy a book, I’m going to feel free to load it on any device I wish.

Dear Jason,

I hate to tell you this, but when you “buy” a book on the Kindle, you are not buying an actual copy of the book. This is where owning things IRL is completely different. IRL you buy the book and then you can do with it as you wish.

But when you “buy” a book on the Kindle you are only buying a license to use that book in that ecosystem. That is what you and the author have agreed upon.

Your statement is a blatant FU to the authors even though in the same breath you try to sound good by claiming that authors deserve to get paid.

You’re breaking that agreement. Knowingly. And it’s wrong.

Source: Calibre: How I put epub books on my Kindle – Six Colors

Good writeup: Will Streaming Music Kill Songwriting? – The New Yorker

“We were emerging from this bubble,” she told me, “and I realized, ‘I have this hit. This is going to be good! Nearly three million streams on Spotify!’ And then my check came, and it was for seventeen dollars and seventy-two cents. That’s when I was, like, ‘What the fuck?’ So I called Kay.”

Source: Will Streaming Music Kill Songwriting? – The New Yorker

Steve jobs on intellectual property, copyright and stealing

“From the earliest days of Apple I realized that we thrived when we created intellectual property. If people copied or stole our software we’d be out of business. If it weren’t protected there’d be no incentive for us to make new software or product designs. If protection of intellectual property begins to disappear creative companies will disappear or never get started. But there’s a simpler reason: it’s wrong to steal. It hurts other people, and it hurts your own character.”

Source: Steven Soderbergh – The State of Cinema Video & Transcript — SF Film Society Blog

Enabling of Ad Blocking in Apple’s iOS 9 Prompts Backlash – The New York Times

There is a small revolution going on at the moment. The very successful and great content creators of the internet start to understand how their business model actually works.

These are the same people who have turned a blind eye for years at the issues surrounding music and the monetizing of music.

They kept saying: look for a new business model, look for a new business model, look for a new business model, look for a new…

I don’t mind them and their content going away. Even if it’s the New York Times.

What I like to see come back is a business model between creators and end users based on open and transparent transactions: I use your content, I pay you directly for it. Either up front and can keep the content or transparently per use.

But the new middle men are much much worse than the old labels used to be.

Apps that block all ads are threatening some web publishers’ livelihoods, which in turn could threaten some content on the web.

Source: Enabling of Ad Blocking in Apple’s iOS 9 Prompts Backlash – The New York Times

Digital Business Models Should Have to Follow the Law, Too – HBR

The article linked below is extremely sad. I know this for a fact since I`m working in the industry that`s most affected by this sort of behavior.

And what`s particularly sad is that people all over the world who proclaim to be music lovers ignore and outright laugh at the challenges and exploitation that culture creators face.

Digital Business Models Should Have to Follow the Law, Too – HBR.

Music and fruit salad

In this video (it’s around minute 35), Kerstin Jorna, Director of Intellectual Property Directorate of the European Commission brings an interesting example, and in my opinion she had the roles completely backwards.

She referred to individual creators works as

I’m selling bananas, you’re selling apple and he’s selling oranges. But you (pointing towards the audience) just want your fruit salad without buying from each and every one of us.

This way of thinking in the context of music is plain wrong. Music is not a commodity no matter how much music is out there. You can substitute an apple from vendor ABC with an apple from vendor XYZ, but you can’t substitute The Beatles “Revolution” with Prince’s “Kiss”. And thinking about it more closely it shows the ignorance that creators have to face today.

But to stay with her example: what exactly is the fruit salad in Ms. Jornas example?

  • Is it a remix?
  • Is it using the work in a different context (film, advertisement)?
  • Is it a brass band concert playing arrangements of the songs?
  • Is it the right to broadcast the work?
  • Is it the right to press vinyl of it?
  • Is it the right to distribute the work on a website?
  • Or is it the right to carry the work with you on a device such as an mp3 player?

And here lies the misconception of the example of Ms. Jorna, because she’s confusing individual uses (carry the work on mp3 player, storing it on a computer etc.) with commercial uses (in some form of a distributor).

I ask you: you’re a laywer. Your mind should be sharp enough to make these distinctions especially since you’re supposed to watch over our rights. I’m deeply disappointed.

A great win for the little guy (or girl in this case!)

UPDATE: It seems that this all of this is a bit weird, so I want to just say that I’m very doubtful about this particular case. However, I still thing a personalized creator right is a great thing as opposed to the american copyright system.

This is what copyright and individual creators rights are about: you get to have justice on your side against the sleaze-balls that are better at exploiting than creating.

Original Creator of Matrix & Terminator Wins $2.5 Billion In Lawsuit | The HipHop Consultant.