RIAA Says Net karaoke is not OK? [Archive]

View Full Version : RIAA Says Net karaoke is not OK?

bigandy

Jun 21, 2006, 04:27 AM

[original article here (http://www.macuser.co.uk/?news/news_story.php?id=88614)]
The US record industry has apparently taken offence at a new trend of kids making videos of themselves singing along to popular songs and posting the result on websites such as YouTube.

According to music website Project Opus, the Recording Industry Association of America has sent cease-and-desist letters to YouTube users, demanding that said videos be removed from the site.

:eek:

If this is true, what a bunch of idiots.

CorvusCamenarum

Jun 21, 2006, 05:33 AM

I suppose next the RIAA will start installing surveillance devices in showers all across America just in case some of us fancy singing while bathing.

The RIAA deserves to go to remedial hell.

Veldek

Jun 21, 2006, 08:17 AM

Ugg

Jun 21, 2006, 10:31 AM

I can somehow understand this though, because I bet they're not talking about Karaoke but playback videos where these people fake to sing to the original song. As you can take the sound off the video, they're essentially distributing protected content without permission.

If it was in fact Karaoke though, that would be stupid.

Have you seen any videos on Youtube? The video and the sound quality is extremely poor.

Private performances of music where nobody is earning any money is perfectly within the realm of the Fair Use Doctrine. The RIAA needs to pull its thumb out.

SilentPanda

Jun 21, 2006, 10:45 AM

From the EFF's web site (http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html):

What are the factors to balance to determine if a use is fair?
The copyright statute lists four factors to balance together on a case-by-case basis to determine if a particular use would be considered fair. The law's language does not preclude consideration of other factors however. The factors to consider include:

0.
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes -- Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.

1.
The nature of the copyrighted work -- A particular use is more likely to be fair where the copied work is factual rather than creative.

2.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole -- A court will balance this factor toward a finding of fair use where the amount taken is small or insignificant in proportion to the overall work.

3.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work -- If the court finds the newly created work is not a substitute product for the copyrighted work, it will be more likely to weigh this factor in favor of fair use.

Due to the difficulty in determining exactly when the fair use privilege would allow you to exercise one of the rights otherwise reserved for the copyright holder (and the penalties for guessing incorrectly can be extremely costly, even including jail time), it is wise to consult experienced counsel as well as to review previous judicial opinions where courts have analyzed whether a particular use would qualify as fair.

I believe only the 0 condition is met whereas the 1st and 2nd are in favor of the RIAA and the 3rd is questionably a substitute for the original (since the full audio is there). A factor not listed but that may pertain would be the quality of the audio. However many people think AAC 128 is crappy quality so that's a hard line to draw...

Ugg

Jun 21, 2006, 11:12 AM

From the EFF's web site (http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html):

I believe only the 0 condition is met whereas the 1st and 2nd are in favor of the RIAA and the 3rd is questionably a substitute for the original (since the full audio is there). A factor not listed but that may pertain would be the quality of the audio. However many people think AAC 128 is crappy quality so that's a hard line to draw...

I disagree with you on #1. If it's a video and not a sound recording, and the people in the video are amateurs in their own home, then it couldn't be an infringement. Again on #2, the video is of an amateur in their own home, how could that possibly be construed as being a substantial portion of the work? A video by nature is made up of audio and video, not simply audio. The same goes with #3.

A line needs to be drawn between parodies and intentional copyright infringement. If a person is simply thumbing their nose at the RIAA, fine, but if they're simply having some fun.... It's being taken way too far and the backlash will be strong when it arrives if it hasn't already.

SilentPanda

Jun 21, 2006, 11:19 AM

I disagree with you on #1.

You believe the copied work, the song, is a fact and not a creative work?

Again on #2, the video is of an amateur in their own home, how could that possibly be construed as being a substantial portion of the work? A video by nature is made up of audio and video, not simply audio.

If a video is made of audio and video it is arguable that half the work is audio 50%. I don't even think that is point #2 though. I think it means did the user use the complete song or a snippet of the song? In most of the videos they use the complete song.

The same goes with #3.

The effect on the value of the copyrighted work is that now anybody who wants to can download the complete song. Thus devaluing the copyrighted work.

I *do* agree with you that this is more parody than an attempt to "screw over the RIAA". People are doing this for fun and without malicious intent. All I'm saying is that based on the four factors above I believe the RIAA is in the lead.

OutThere

Jun 21, 2006, 11:33 AM

The effect on the value of the copyrighted work is that now anybody who wants to can download the complete song. Thus devaluing the copyrighted work.

Granted, however, it takes a good deal of expertise to rip the sound off of youtube. You either have to use WireTap, or find a way to download the video as a FLV file, find a program to convert flv to something useful, then extract the audio and re-export it.

Somehow I don't think that these web karaoke things are making a big dent in legal CD sales. :rolleyes:

SilentPanda

Jun 21, 2006, 11:37 AM

Granted, however, it takes a good deal of expertise to rip the sound off of youtube. You either have to use WireTap, or find a way to download the video as a FLV file, find a program to convert flv to something useful, then extract the audio and re-export it.

Somehow I don't think that these web karaoke things are making a big dent in legal CD sales. :rolleyes:

I seriously doubt it's making a big dent in them... but that won't stop them from arguing as such.

Veldek

Jun 21, 2006, 11:43 AM

Have you seen any videos on Youtube? The video and the sound quality is extremely poor.They have spoken about videos from websites such as YouTube, so this isn't an argument IMHO.

.Andy

Jun 21, 2006, 11:52 AM

I don't think this has anything to do with the authors of the videos themselves for the reasons stated by some in this thread. I think it has more to do with the fact that YouTube etc are generating page hits and hence gaining advertising revenue based on them. As the uploader is predominantly responsible for the content (and a softer target) the RIAA cease and desists them.

Tanglewood

Jun 21, 2006, 12:51 PM

Does this mean that O-Zone is going to sue the Numa Numa Kid (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bAHfD6wv7JQ&search=numa%20numa)?

Kingsly

Jun 21, 2006, 03:31 PM

I suppose next the RIAA will start installing surveillance devices in showers all across America just in case some of us fancy singing while bathing.

The RIAA deserves to go to remedial hell.
Is THAT that that black dome is by my shampoo?
I suddenly feel extremely embarrassed. :o

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 23, 2006, 12:49 AM

The RIAA is so bent on throwing the baby out with the bath water.

IMO they are so looking for ANY profits, they are wiling to go after anything that moves. What is next, the MPAA going after the Star Wars kid?

nbs2

Jun 23, 2006, 01:56 AM

I believe only the 0 condition is met whereas the 1st and 2nd are in favor of the RIAA and the 3rd is questionably a substitute for the original (since the full audio is there). A factor not listed but that may pertain would be the quality of the audio. However many people think AAC 128 is crappy quality so that's a hard line to draw...
I've got to disagree with you. Like Andy points out, there is advertising revenue. I doubt YouTube would be so generous with it server space and bandwidth if it wasn't profiting commercially. I agree with you on 1 and 2, and I think you hit 3 with the thought that a lot of people aren't big on sound quality (I mean...have you listened the stuff some people have downloaded onto their computers? miserable quality....I just don't get it...). So, with all four factors (maybe 3 if you give them the substitute) met, they are going to feel the need to go after YT and other sites. Letting this go sets bad precedent for when sound quality improves - prior response will get weighed into the case....

That being said, I think the RIAA is being a few steps beyond moronic with this. From what I gather, the karaoke thing falls more in line with parodies of the video or some other attempt to mock the song. I think you might be able to squeeze your argument in there, but who knows. Either way....they really are being silly....they "make a point suits" just aren't working anymore. What I would give to be a fly on Cary Sherman's or the General Counsel's wall....

OutThere

Jun 23, 2006, 02:07 AM

The next thing I expect to hear is that the RIAA is suing people who play music at work.

I'm making money while my CDs are playing behind the counter at my café...and technically people could be tipping me because they like the tunes I'm playing...meaning I'm making money off the music. I'd better watch my back or get busted! :eek: :p

CorvusCamenarum

Jun 23, 2006, 02:24 AM

Mord

Jun 23, 2006, 05:59 AM

i think the RIAA wants us to hate them

stonyc

Jun 23, 2006, 08:37 AM

i think the RIAA wants us to hate them
I don't think they care.

Abstract

Jun 23, 2006, 09:05 AM

Then I expect the RIAA to sue Saturday Night Live and Ashley Simpson. :p

Les Kern

Jun 23, 2006, 06:28 PM

"It was reported today that the R.I.A.A. has secured copyrights to notes A, B, B flat, C, E, and E flat. In effect this will allow them to sue any garage band or tribute band, whether performing live or online, for substantial damages should the song contain any of those notes, no matter the octave. They are seeking to secure the other notes as well."

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 23, 2006, 09:44 PM