For having taken wedding videos with copyrighted music playing in the background...
How does this make you feel?
Printable View
For having taken wedding videos with copyrighted music playing in the background...
How does this make you feel?
I makes me feel sad.
:(
It's no different to any video on Youtube with copyrighted music playing over it. In fact, it's exactly the same thing.
It makes me feel justified. And it makes me appreciate bands like Radiohead all the more.
I understand that businesses have to protect their vested interests, but the recording industry has always been pretty heavy handed and sometimes quite silly about how it treats its customers (like 1. suing a mom for "vicariously" downloading music that her daughter downloaded through kazaa. 2. contacting a little girl at school by impersonating her grandmother. 3. Threatening a dead Vietnam War vet's family within a week of his death that their suit against him would be continued with the family 4. Suing a homeless man 5. Suing a dead 82 year old woman who had never owned a computer. etc etc etc etc etc). It's karma at work. If the RIAA doesn't figure out a better way to interact with consumers, it will end up crippled in just a few years. This photographer bullcrap is just another example of how they're not getting it.
Allow me to be the one to state the obvious: smurf this.
As much as I think the RIAA are a bunch of dicks, Joe Simon, the videographer who was sued, used a coldplay song for Tony Romo's wedding video. And that video got picked up by a bunch of news outlets and blogs. The RIAA has gone after people for much less, so I can't believe how careless he was with such a high profile client. And the guy isn't just a nobody, he's a pretty big name in the wedding industry and he charges like $10,000 for his work. He shoulda been waaaay more careful, because you know, RIAA are dicks, or he should have just used licensed music.
Are you suggesting that I should've actually read the article? Because it looked kind of long and the video was already stupid.
No no,
RIAA: gripe
is sufficient.
Reading's for the nerds.
This is actually entirely fair, I think. These persons are using copyrighted works to actually make a product that they profit from. It only makes sense that they should be paying royalties for it.
Perhaps. However, the RIAA doesn't sue and ask for royalties. The RIAA's suehappy even if they're sometimes justified in making claims. I am quite surprised that the photographer would so blatantly use the music in this way though, especially an established one with someone like Romo. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
The RIAA is dicks, but their business model is pretty sound. By suing over every little thing you learn not to mess with them. This videographer should have known better, especially with a high profile client like Tony Romo!
Except people still download more music than they actually buy. They just don't use Kazaa.
They'll get you all eventually.
Nope.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
So you're saying you agree, right? The photographer was a retard for using copyrighted materials in his own for-profit works. I can be lenient when it comes to non-profit use, but this is everything but non-profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by chionosPerhaps. However, the RIAA doesn't sue and ask for royalties. The RIAA's suehappy even if they're sometimes justified in making claims. I am quite surprised that the photographer would so blatantly use the music in this way though, especially an established one with someone like Romo. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
Yeah, I agree that the photographer/videographer did something incredibly moronic and he should have known better, and basically set himself up to be sued. I was just pointing out that the RIAA's attacks are almost always overinflated, so even when they do have a valid complaint, they overdo the claim and still look like greedy fools. Also, while in this particular case the photographer should have known better, being a veteran in the business, and so deserves to have to deal with what he's dealing with, nevertheless it shouldn't be a situation for him to have to worry about simply because it's a ridiculous requirement in the first place to not be able to have a song pop up in the background that's copyright protected. It's the law, certainly, I don't argue that, I just think it's a poor way of understanding copyright infringement and a weak point in copyright law. I will hedge a bit by saying I'm not sure (can't find info on it) whether the photographer charged anyone (like romo+wife) for the video or if he just made it and put it up online. If the former's the case then I retract most of what I've said, that deserves anything and everything that the RIAA would want to throw at the guy. But making slideshows with music in the background just for fun means the RIAA is just being douchebaggish. To further hedge, I guess it would also depend on whether the video going viral meant anyone was able to make profit through advertising. So it gets a little more in depth when ya start to ask, did Youtube make any profit from this? etc. *generalizing now* Eventually things are going to have to change. One side's going to have to give way, and it's more than likely not going to be very pleasurable a transition.Quote:
Originally Posted by MirageSo you're saying you agree, right? The photographer was a retard for using copyrighted materials in his own for-profit works. I can be lenient when it comes to non-profit use, but this is everything but non-profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by chionosPerhaps. However, the RIAA doesn't sue and ask for royalties. The RIAA's suehappy even if they're sometimes justified in making claims. I am quite surprised that the photographer would so blatantly use the music in this way though, especially an established one with someone like Romo. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage