Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Dec 2010 22:45 UTC
Multimedia, AV "A tightening of copyright rules means kindergartens now have to pay fees to Germany's music licensing agency, GEMA, to use songs that they reproduce and perform. The organization has begun notifying creches and other daycare facilities that if they reproduce music to be sung or performed, they must pay for a license. 'If a preschool wants to make its own copy of certain music - if the words of a song or the musical score is copied - then they need to buy a license,' GEMA spokesperson Peter Hempel told Deutsche Welle." Honestly. I wonder how those pro-RIAA/MPAA folk we have on OSNews feel about this. This is EXACTLY why I try to do my part (a small part, but still) in fighting big content. I wonder how much has to happen for our politicians to open their eyes, and see current copyright law for what it really is: pure venom. Poison of the most dangerous kind, which is destroying our very culture, which is stifling art and science. News like this SICKENS me. How anyone can defend something like this is beyond me.
Thread beginning with comment 455089
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: You Called?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 29th Dec 2010 23:46 UTC in reply to "You Called?"
Member since:

I'm doing my part by using OSNews as a platform to highlight the idiocy that is our current copyright system. Like I said - it's a small part, but getting the information out there is important. Since major TV networks, newspapers, magazines, and most large websites (Gizmodo, Engadget, and so on) are all *part* of big content, this subject doesn't generally get the attention it deserves.

Luckily, my own country has relatively decent laws (go after the people who profit big from piracy, but leave ordinary folk out of it), but I see the pressure exerted by the big content lobby. The current copyright system is stifling the arts and sciences, is hindering human development, and is destroying large bodies of culture. I do my part by using OSNews as a soapbox, and by voting for political parties who take this issue at heart.

Reply Parent Score: 6

v RE[2]: You Called?
by Idiot on Thu 30th Dec 2010 00:51 in reply to "RE: You Called?"
RE[3]: You Called?
by TechGeek on Thu 30th Dec 2010 02:55 in reply to "RE[2]: You Called?"
TechGeek Member since:

You really missed a lot of issues, but since they tend to be the ones against your version of reality, its not surprising. Did you ever hear of fair use? Specifically it allows copies to be made for educational purposes. That alone should cover everything that is done at the primary school level. They're kids learning music for god's sake. You would think the industry would at least support their own.

Second, performing music is not covered under copyright. At least not in the US. Germany may be different, but I doubt it. Its why we can have so many cover bands.

As for making a profit, the music industry is one of the most lucrative markets in the world. If they want more money, make more music. You won't find very many sympathetic people in this economy when it costs a damn fortune to go to a concert. Modern music is going to DRM itself into oblivion at this rate. No one will be learning it as a style because of all the royalty crap. Consider that more people listen to classical music than to music from the 30's, 40's, 50's. Don't you think there is a reason for this?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: You Called?
by xiaokj on Thu 30th Dec 2010 07:35 in reply to "RE[2]: You Called?"
xiaokj Member since:

Unfortunately, the only reason to pay for something you already have is guilt.

Is appreciation not on the list? Is donation not on the list? If all you can think of is that, your world view is incredibly small.

My teacher, whom I agree with, once said that he does not mind paying for music. But he just cannot understand why he must pay the full album price only to get exactly one song's worth. That is the true depravity of the music industry -- that the standard way to extract money is to attach spam with the hits.

These days, I have decided to simply stop consuming _any_ non-studies related content, except for classical music. And I do attend classical music concerts. No TV, no bands, nothing.

Except if I get to try stuff for free. I do my part to support the notion of trials. Too much rubbish out there costs so much that it has become profitable to churn out rubbish to get paid. That is precisely why we get -- the demand is too great.

Similarly, stores that do not state their prices upfront on displays/in-store brochures do not even get considered. Pamphlet givers, on the other hand, if they even dare to bother me, can be prepared for absolute spite. I treat unsolicited spam really seriously, such that I tease my friends who work as pamphlet givers. I always wish them rain.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: You Called?
by elsewhere on Thu 30th Dec 2010 08:01 in reply to "RE[2]: You Called?"
elsewhere Member since:

WHY are they going after small time sheet copying? Obviously because their income is at such a low state that they need to make every penny count. Why is their income so bad? Because music piracy is significantly impacting their business.

The only offer I've heard, as for music piracy HELPING corporations is the "try before you buy" argument. Unfortunately, the only reason to pay for something you already have is guilt.

Here we go again. The recording industry hasn't been able to produce a credible study directly linking piracy to a decline in sales, yet numerous studies have shown that music "pirates" are more likely to purchase online than non-"pirates".

While there is no doubt piracy can have a detrimental impact on sales, the degree of that impact is questionable. The industry's entire argument is based on the assumption that people downloading tracks would otherwise have paid for them, which is, frankly, bollocks.

Napster should have been a wake-up call to the music industry, in that it showed how effective the internet was at distributing music without the expense of punching and packaging CDs and shipping them all over the place. They've had a decade to figure out how to adapt their business model, yet they chose to fight it tooth-and-nail to maintain their existing model, and try and force the internet to conform.

Having said that, I don't condone piracy. I can't and won't rationalize unauthorized distribution of protected works. Anymore, anyways. I will admit that I was a casual Napster user back in the day, and I simply rationalized it at the time as being payback for years of being forced to pay $20 for a CD full of mostly crappy music with one or two tracks I wanted. Plus Napster was brilliant for finding music you couldn't buy, such as concert bootlegs or international tracks unavailable domestically. None of that is justification, of course, but I think most Napster users were oblivious of the IP issues and simply enamoured with this new method of obtaining music.

More aggravating to me is the fact that this argument is somehow portrayed as "robbing" the artists of their due, when the reality is the labels themselves have fashioned contracts with the artists that so rob them of revenue that there is nothing left for the "pirates" to steal. The artists were plundered long before Napster and the internet came along. The irony is that "free" music benefits the artists more, since they often rely on concert and t-shirt/poster/etc. sales for money, so having their music widely accessible is a benefit.

If the recording industry is losing money, then piracy is a symptom and not the disease. And while I won't argue the legality of whether kindergarten classes should have to comply with copyright requirements, it just seems like desperation at this point. If they've reached this point for survival, they have have no one to blame but themselves.

/end rant

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[3]: You Called?
by Gone fishing on Thu 30th Dec 2010 14:10 in reply to "RE[2]: You Called?"
Gone fishing Member since:

You are human? You have some contact with 3-7 year olds?

The school buys some sheet music for a school sing song and reproduces the words on say a newsletter or letter to the parents (not the music as most parents or 3-7 year olds don't read music) and every time they reproduce the words which the kids will loose 3 or 4 times they pay.

This is reasonably to you?

Presumably because this is causing agonizing financial hardship to a media company.

Presumably because listening to 3 year olds singing yellow submarine will stop you buying the album


Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: You Called?
by Karitku on Fri 31st Dec 2010 13:17 in reply to "RE: You Called?"
Karitku Member since:

You are so wrong when saying this is ruining culture, it's total opposite. Fact is that when people pay money for local content licensing agency that money actually goes for local culture, not mass (mostly American) culture. Actually biggest losers in music thing are big foreign artists whom music people want to listen, but since most fees are taken as static fees the payment often goes to local musician.

For example radio fees, they are mostly static fees. You pay certain amount and you can play certain amount whatever. In most cases majority, 90%, of that music is foreign, however majority of that money goes to local artists.

Fair? Hardly, so think that and ask why most local musicians (you know those guys that hardly make more money than we do) are supporting this system. Make they should go work like most of does, damn parasites.

Reply Parent Score: 2