Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Oct 2009 20:15 UTC
Legal Here on OSNews I've already talked about various copyright related issues here in The Netherlands - obviously because I'm Dutch and live there. As a small nation, the copyright issues we face here serve as nice, comprehensible discussion starters that we can all grok. Well, we've got another one. Our own RIAA equivalent has caused quite the stir by announcing that they will start charging bloggers and social website users for embedding YouTube videos with copyrighted content. Say what?
Order by: Score:
No offence...
by judgen on Wed 7th Oct 2009 20:40 UTC
Member since:

As title, no offence bit holland is a bit of a pushover when it comes to legislation. Just look at the immigration/integration laws as well as "personal security" soon you will be as trapped by the new IT legislation as the lot of us up here in Sweden. *god bless the lobbyists* (for those that did not understand, that was sarcasm)

Reply Score: 2

RE: No offence...
by sbergman27 on Wed 7th Oct 2009 22:16 UTC in reply to "No offence..."
sbergman27 Member since:

As title, no offence bit holland is a bit of a pushover when it comes to legislation.

As a U.S. citizen who once visited, I tend to think of the Netherlands as an island of sanity. A sort of "focus on what matters and don't worry about the rest" sort of place. Of course, it's been 17 years since my visit. And it was a short one. So my perspective is both limited, and perhaps out of date. But I still look to the Dutch with a feeling of hope for the rest of us.

Reply Score: 3

the riaa needs to be disbanded
by maaxx on Wed 7th Oct 2009 20:41 UTC
Member since:

<< "the riaa needs to be disbanded."

moby >>

I guess this is another fine example of what human greed can do.

Reply Score: 3

This is wrong
by werfu on Wed 7th Oct 2009 21:03 UTC
Member since:

This is totally plain wrong. If you put a video of you playing some classic music (let's say Chopin) on the piano, then you shouldn't have to pay copyright because, first it's public domain, second you're the one playing and own the copyright for the interpretation. Now, what garantee them that the track that's playing in the video is of one of them artist member? Do they have the right to collect of other international artist?

I live in Canada and I have to pay a levy on virgin CD because some morons think that I deserve to because I could copy music on them. Well, first I don't burn audio CD, I simply use my mp3 player, and secondly, I don't like french canadian music () so I listen mostly to american and some european artists (english singing ones).

Reply Score: 1

RE: This is wrong
by rexstuff on Wed 7th Oct 2009 21:17 UTC in reply to "This is wrong"
rexstuff Member since:

Actually that blank CD levy in Canada is an interesting thing. Though hailed as a major victory at the time, because of it, the CRIA (Canadian RIAA) have found it very difficult to prosecute or limit downloading of music. I don't remember off the top of my head, but it may even be considered legal.

Suffice to say, the CRIA now rues the day they convinced the government to pass that law ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: This is wrong
by jal_ on Thu 8th Oct 2009 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE: This is wrong"
jal_ Member since:

Actually that blank CD levy in Canada is an interesting thing.

We have the same thing in the Netherlands, where there's another organisation controlling the levy. They want it on MP3 players as well, which would double their cost. Luckily up till now this has been barred by the government, pointing to a lack of European legislation on the point.


Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This is wrong
by pepa on Thu 8th Oct 2009 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE: This is wrong"
pepa Member since:

In Holland we have a similar tax. I guess they now need to start heavily taxing harddrive sales...

Reply Score: 2

Good news!
by renhoek on Wed 7th Oct 2009 22:00 UTC
Member since:

Finally some good news from Brein!

No more sites with music, no more annoying crap playing though MY pirated music.

Do you know gif is patented? Go get those people who use animated gifs on the web!

Maybe we could also get rid of comic sans while we are at it, it's copyrighted afterall!

Edited 2009-10-07 22:04 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good news!
by Parry Hotter on Wed 7th Oct 2009 22:21 UTC in reply to "Good news!"
Parry Hotter Member since:

Just for the record, the gif (LZW) patent expired years ago.

Reply Score: 3

April fools in October !!
by bugjacobs on Wed 7th Oct 2009 22:04 UTC
Member since:

If I didnt know that it was October Id have thought this was an aprils fools joke .. !

Buma/Stemra must be off their rocker ..

Copyright troll deluxe .. But its in our international future .. "They want to put their mark on everything", to quote a prophetic nuttah ..

Some forces in the world just wants to OWN EVERYTHING ! And soon charge us for breathing ..

Reply Score: 2

The Australian government...
by mrhasbean on Wed 7th Oct 2009 22:29 UTC
Member since:
2006-04-03 currently "testing" mandatory internet filters for all ISP's. Despite every leading authority indicating it will create major slowdowns and not provide the supposed protection they are touting for children, and major outcries from tens of thousands of respondents to petitions, they are pushing ahead with the scheme. Further, the methodology, impact and security results of the test have not, and will not be made available on the basis that it could somehow compromise the project. The Government will have total control over what is filtered and what is allowed through, without having to answer to anyone or even tell anyone if the "test" was successful or not - because there is no publicly available measure anyway.

The reason I mention this here is because of the reference to the article about cinemas. With my conspiracy theorist hat squarely in place, I see it like this.

A number of years ago Mr Gates made a comment about finding a way to effectively advertise on the internet, but nobody has really been able to do this. Progressively we're seeing young people moving their entertainment away from the TV toward the internet because it gives them more choice and less intrusive advertising. But what does this mean for the big media moguls? Less viewers, less advertising revenue. Can't effectively advertise on the internet so they need their viewers back. How do they achieve this? Well, by convincing Joe and Joanne Lunchbucket that the world and especially the internet isn't safe for their kids - all those predators and terrorists have moved online now and are just waiting for the kids to log in so they can molest them over the 'net or teach them how to make bombs - they've paved the way for things like this proposed mandatory filter. By getting in the ear of the copyright activists they pave the way for things like this Dutch "plan". Once they slow the internet to a crawl and / or make it not financially viable for kids to use for entertainment purposes, well...

And the backup plan? Well if everything is filtered it's pretty easy to embed whatever advertising / propaganda you please. Go try one of the free VPN services and check out the lovely (large) advertising section at the top of every page you load. Sadly it seems this is the shape of things to come. And if at the moment you're thinking "pffft, thats only in Australia though - doesn't impact me at all". Well think about this - again, conspiracy theorist hat firmly in place. Wouldn't you test this scenario first on a relatively small population (eg. Australia, Netherlands) just to gauge what the backlash (if any) is? In Australia, most of the population have no idea it's even happening - because as in most countries, the population are generally very ignorant of the things their governing bodies and major corporations do to them.

Welcome to the future. Although we could be forgiven for thinking it's actually 25 years in the past...

Reply Score: 6

Strangely welcome
by aahjnnot on Wed 7th Oct 2009 23:14 UTC
Member since:

In a strange sort of way, I welcome this. Political trends tend to swing like a pendulum, and resisting the swing when it's pushing in the wrong direction simply delays the time it takes for the swing reversal to take place.

We need more idiotic behaviour from copyright holders to enter the public's consciousness. Once elected representatives realise that their mates in big business are actually alienating voters, they'll change allegiance faster than I can change my underwear. We should cheer every time the music dinosaurs score yet another own goal, and gleefully tell as many people about it as we can.

Reply Score: 1

The RIAAs of the world
by Cody Evans on Thu 8th Oct 2009 00:38 UTC
Cody Evans
Member since:

The RIAAs of the world don't have enough lawyers or money to stop / sue all the websites and people embedding videos.

Reply Score: 1

by license_2_blather on Thu 8th Oct 2009 03:03 UTC
Member since:

"A video of grandpa playing a song for you on the piano? Pay up."


I'll admit, I have never been to Holland, don't know much about it or its laws. But is there any concept of fair use there?

Reply Score: 1

Lets take a trip to other side
by Karitku on Thu 8th Oct 2009 12:16 UTC
Member since:

Lets say I'm person who spended 15 years of my life dedicated to music, and by that I don't mean downloading everything on internet. Thus I have educated myself with skill of playing bass while others made themself businessmen and computer guys with high skills. Ofc because they have such a high skill society is willing to pay them big money, mean while society thinks everything I contribute should be free. Ofc at this point you will say that I would get huge money for live playing, that would be true unfortunatly I can only dress on pink and music I play is death metal. Clearly I can't play on live.

Fortunatly in one cold morning while eating molded bread I happen to make very good song that small record label buys. I won't be rich but it's enough to give some fresh bread. Unfortunatly some frat boys from business school make unfunny video where they fart and act stupid while my music plays behind and because Internet exists purely on frat boys and girls it's instant hit pouring millions of viewers and tons of advertise money for tech geeks who own site. And what did I get, absolutely nothing.

It always reminds me WW2 documents about civil brutality, bad german nazis killing weak allies. They never show bombings that allies did at end of war on cities of germany or that brutality that german civilians had to suffer from soviet soldiers. We like to think that we are on side of small person but always forget that behind massive and evil corporates exists small individuals.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:

Cute story, but unfortunately things don't work like that. First of all, RIAA and the like aren't defending the small individuals. They only care about big names because big names means more money.

Secondly, if something is visible or audible in a video, but is not the main point of it, then it is quite silly in my opinion to sue or charge for it. Just think about it; you're on a trip with your family and you make a traveling film and load it up on your homepage. Then you suddenly get a few days later several thousands worth of charges because there happened to be copyrighted paintings visible in a few scenes of your video. Does that sound good?

I am not saying artists shouldn't be paid, I am just saying that there exists the Right Way to do it, and the Wrong Way.

Reply Score: 3

More money for... Buma/Stemra
by Eddyspeeder on Thu 8th Oct 2009 14:34 UTC
Member since:

Ugh, they did it again! Finding another way of gathering money in order to make the organization's executive even richer.

Most musicians I know (the majority are, you know, not really famous) are completely fed up with Buma/Stemra. In the past there wasn't a membership fee; you get only 7.5 euros PER NIGHT to play at a venue; in general it's just a bottomless pit that sporadically shoots some coins at you from below.

Reply Score: 1

Creative Commons
by ml2mst on Fri 9th Oct 2009 01:47 UTC
Member since:

Fortunately there is quite some Free work available. If you use Creative Commons content, there's nothing Buma/Stemra nor BREINloos can do!

Here is a collection of Creative Commons music from various Dutch artist, for starters:

Reply Score: 1

RE: Creative Commons
by Mellin on Fri 9th Oct 2009 09:37 UTC in reply to "Creative Commons"
Mellin Member since:

Not here in Sweden if you add creative commons music in a movie listen to it on radio in your company +more then you'll have to pay for it to STIM (the Swedish Performing Rights Society)

Edited 2009-10-09 09:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Creative Commons
by ml2mst on Fri 9th Oct 2009 10:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Creative Commons"
ml2mst Member since:

That's shocking news. There goes my illusion that the Scandinavian countries are much more sensible then the rest.

I wonder what gives those greedy bastards the right to earn money for Creative Commons work. They do not represent the artist who license their work under Creative Commons.

So in fact it is nothing but ordinary theft.

Scandalous ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Creative Commons
by Mellin on Fri 9th Oct 2009 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Creative Commons"
Mellin Member since:

STIM collects royalties for all artists (even those that are not members because they can always get a membership later)

Reply Score: 2

Member since:

Currently the Buma/Stemra made a little turn:
now embedding will become free for social networks and non-commercial websites.

See (in Dutch language).

I guess the next question will be about how they will be recognizing a (non) commercial blog. But I guess they still did not get the point: also commercials blogs are promoting music from the artists that the Buma/Stemra are currently "protecting". Why wouldn't they want free publicity for their members ? Because they can immediately earn money from it ? Still sounds a little shortsighted to me. But fortunately I am not in the music business.

Edited 2009-10-09 14:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1