Sony Music Entertainment has gone too far.

[BurningLed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKtfLwvEmZo

This is a rendition of the third movement of Beethoven's Pathétique. It's been taken down by Sony Music Entertainment.

This makes me very, very angry. Modern artists who have signed under your label, fine -- It's dickish, but they did agree to it. But a piece over two centuries old? There is no fucking way you can claim that as your own without it being considered some sort of perversion of the copyright system. This is like patent trolling, only they're making even more money off of it.

I haven't much else to say, but this made me pissed and I felt it necessary to share with the fora.

Note: Specifically, it's Glenn Gould's rendition, and he died in 1982 so his copyright sticks around till 2060 or so (stupid as that is), but it's still not his piece; Sony still has no right to take it down.

[uncivlengr]

If they own the rights to that recording, they have every right to take it down.

The bright side is that you're right in that they don't own the rights to the piece itself - anyone else that records the piece can put it up on Youtube without concern that Sony will file a complaint (which would actually be ridiculous).

[achan1058]

Note: Specifically, it's Glenn Gould's rendition, and he died in 1982 so his copyright sticks around till 2060 or so (stupid as that is), but it's still not his piece; Sony still has no right to take it down.

Sure, it's a dick move, but they have every right to take it down. If you want to hear the piece, find a recording that doesn't belong to Sony. I think the Piano Society has a good number of various piano solo recording of pieces by amateurs and professionals who release it for free.

[Izawwlgood]

Is your contention that the company that owns the rights to the piece has taken it down from youtube?

I'm unsure of what the issue is. Presumably you are able to purchase the recording somewhere from the company?

[Cryopyre]

Fuck capitalism

[Izawwlgood]

Er... You realize YouTube is able to stay afloat by SELLING advertising space...
Well, not 'afloat', but heavily in the black.

[Cryopyre]

Yeah, and YouTube is owned by Google, a corporation.

And... ?

[Роберт]

I don't blame Sony for being greedy.

We have ridiculous copyright laws though. Did you know that recordings that are in the public domain in their country of origin are likely NOT in the public domain in the U.S.? And that practically NO sound recordings will be in the public domain in the U.S. for a freaking long time? Look it up, it's crazy.

[Izawwlgood]

Yeah, and YouTube is owned by Google, a corporation.

And... ?

I, er... You complained 'fuck capitalism', but you can only get your free video sharing website from a company that seeks profits... Meaning... Yay capitalism, because it lets me get some free stuff.

Complaining that your free service isn't free enough is sort of silly.

[Obby]

Yeah, I don't really see too much of an issue here. Sure, copyrights (in my opinion, at least) last entirely too long, but Sony doesn't own Beethoven's work, they own this person's interpretation of Beethoven's work. If you were to record yourself playing any of Beethoven's compositions and put it on youtube, there's fuck all anyone can do about it. If you upload someone else's performance of Beethoven's work or your performance of someone else's rendition that still happens to be copyrighted, it's up to them whether or not they let you keep it up.

[BurningLed]

Actually, you all are right; I was just very pissed about it when I saw what had happened, so I decided to rant about it on the internet; I chose to ignore the fact that Sony does have the legal right to do so.

I stand by the point that copyright lasts a ridiculous amount of time after someone has died, though; and that corporations are able to keep control of that copyright -- Weren't the laws written for the family to be able to take care of their loved ones' works, to do as the artist wished with them? I don't see how extending that right to corporations works for the creator whatsoever -- it only serves to increase publishers' profits without contributing anything useful. It still feels like patent trolling.

[Izawwlgood]

I can totally understand a good 'ol rant about not being able to find something that you once could. There used to be an awesome comic book store near my lower school that didn't care if you read the comics before buying, and I remember being heart broken when it shut down. Similar concept, I think.

As for patent or copyright purchasing, it's an incentive. It provides innovators with a means to provide for themselves. It's not a perfect system, but in addition to allowing people to profit from one another's and their own ideas, it also provides a legal framework from which you can protect that which you've created or bought license to.

[achan1058]

I don't see how extending that right to corporations works for the creator whatsoever -- it only serves to increase publishers' profits without contributing anything useful. It still feels like patent trolling.

I think Glenn Gould probably sold the rights, or have it transferred under certain clauses. Otherwise, you are right about him and his heirs owning the recording. He isn't the first person to do so, probably not the last neither. And no, this is very different from patent trolling, since Sony do have to pay for it in some sense.

[Cryopyre]

Capitalism supplies the same thing market Socialism can, but without the shackles that hurt the lower class (like intellectual property and the diluted patent system). That's barring the far more dangerous and deadly aspects of corporatism, but since we're talking about Sony Music Entertainment we can just focus on ridiculous intellectual property.

Yeah, capitalism supplies goods, but Libertarian Socialism is a vast improvement.

[Izawwlgood]

I've never heard of that term before, and I admit, I laughed when I first saw it, and the entire time I was reading the wiki.

I'm curious if you realize that intellectual property practices can HELP the lower classes, because anyone, not just the rich, can file a patent. The patent system is fundamentally based on the idea of protecting people with idea's and their idea's, and even the reality of it's execution is not oppressive to the 'shackled' poor at the hands of the wealthy.

[Cryopyre]

The patent system and copyright system really only exist to help the rich. Only the rich can afford to protect it.

As an aside, there is nothing so crazy about Libertarian Socialism. Anarcho-syndicalism is actually the only Socialist ideology I can recall creating a functioning Socialist society. Comparatively, anarcho-capitalism has never actually worked.

[Izawwlgood]

The patent system and copyright system really only exist to help the rich. Only the rich can afford to protect it.

I'd like to see a citation backing that.

As an aside, there is nothing so crazy about Libertarian Socialism.

Except for the paradox in the title; Libertarianism holds an individuals right to their property as it's highest tenants. Rand herself repeatedly stated things to the effect of 'Without personal property, there is no freedom' or 'Beware any organization which seeks to take your property'. Libertarian socialism is like saying "Capitalism minus the greed!" or "Socialism minus human nature!"

Anarcho-syndicalism is actually the only Socialist ideology I can recall creating a functioning Socialist society.

Er, what? Have you heard of a kibbutz?

[Dream]

The patent system and copyright system really only exist to help the rich. Only the rich can afford to protect it.

I'd like to see a citation backing that.

More to the point, the system as implemented can be slanted towards the rich (most things in society are), without the concept being slanted at all. So it's no argument against copyright or patenting to say that they are set up to favour those who can afford them. That's an argument in favour of reform.

[uncivlengr]

Libertarianism holds an individuals right to their property as it's highest tenants.

A tenant's rights to a property are still limited by the terms of agreement set out in the lease, though. That's one of the basic tenets of property law.

(couldn't resist)

[Izawwlgood]

I already admitted that the system isn't perfect, but to claim that the system only protects the rich is simply untrue, considering, again, that in practice, not just theory, the system allows someone who is 'poor' protection from intellectual exploitation from someone who is 'rich'.

If you want to argue that the cost of entry is to high (I believe it's 10k to patent something?) then fine, make that argument. If you want to argue that the patent length is to long, and thus anyone who can afford to buy up a patent holds onto it for to long, then fine, make that argument. But calling the patent system exploitative of the poor is simply baseless.

Re:Rental: Yes, but my right to enter such an arrangement are mine and mine alone to make, and once made, the contract stands. Furthermore, the goods I use to enter such an agreement (money), are mine and mine alone to spend. Property doesn't only mean land, and libertarianism is based around the notion that an individual has a right to what is theirs. Thus, libertarian socialism, which opens the wiki with: "promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production" is such an oxymoron I laughed. The only reason 'libertarian' is included in the two words at all is because it 'opposes coercive governments or organizations' which is to say, it's socialism, but minus the corruption. The eye rolling emoticon doesn't do my sentiment justice in this case.

[Cryopyre]

They believe in personal property but not private property. The distinction being personal property is my place of residence, my furniture, my computer... things I use on a consistent basis. Private property generally only extends land or machine ownership. Machines that you do not use, but instead rent out to workers who produce for you. Your main tie to owning it is previous class differences that are enforced through private property. Anarcho-syndicalism is a bit outdated for the United States, however I'd argue Democratic Socialism is not, but I digress. (Before I digress, I was thinking of anarcho-syndicalist Spain, but Kibbutz are nice too, both being examples of anarcho-syndicalist communes. I like Spain more, as these communes were interconnected and didn't function on a microcosmic level like the Kibbutz.)

Anyways, intellectual property and the patent system are both susceptible to abuse, and I oppose both on a moral level as well. The fact is I could torrent from Roulé all I want, but torrenting from Warner Music Group puts me at significantly greater danger. The money it costs to hire people to help enforce the law is the vast ocean of difference here.

[achan1058]

More to the point, the system as implemented can be slanted towards the rich (most things in society are), without the concept being slanted at all. So it's no argument against copyright or patenting to say that they are set up to favour those who can afford them. That's an argument in favour of reform.

Even if there is argument for reform, there's no argument about Sony not owning the recording or they are not supposed to be taking down the stuff from youtube. Anyways, I don't understand why patent is in this, as this is a copyright problem. I would agree that copyright is "fairy-tale" long, but that's another story all together.

[Izawwlgood]

The distinction being personal property is my place of residence, my furniture, my computer... things I use on a consistent basis. Private property generally only extends land or machine ownership. Machines that you do not use, but instead rent out to workers who produce for you. Your main tie to owning it is previous class differences that are enforced through private property.

This is easily one of the least sensible distinctions I have ever heard. The above bolded in particular is effectively an assertion that belies a very unreasonable assumption, that the only way you can succeed is if you were born into a higher class, or that the only way you'd ever work for someone is if you were born into a lower class, AND, that financial transactions based around letting people work while profiting from said transaction is somehow evil. We're probably not going to have a constructive conversation from this point onward, because I think socialism is batshit insane, and you think capitalism is batshit insane, but it's funny that you'd point to a system that effectively argues for an individuals right to be a capitalist, while simultaneously denouncing capitalists.
I.e., it's more socialist drivel, but this time, it's combined with a word it thinks means 'Fight the system, man', but actually means 'The word that follows me is ethically abhorrent to my way of thinking'.

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

I don't blame Sony for being greedy.

We have ridiculous copyright laws though. Did you know that recordings that are in the public domain in their country of origin are likely NOT in the public domain in the U.S.? And that practically NO sound recordings will be in the public domain in the U.S. for a freaking long time? Look it up, it's crazy.

I ran up against a rare exception of the US copyright law being more reasonable than somewhere else's. I was trying to download a Rachmaninoff score and the website had some sort of stick up its ass and used location-detecting software to tell me that I wasn't allowed to download it. I then used a US-based proxy and got to a "please register or login" page. I then changed my search and got an IMSLP link and got the score

[Cryopyre]

The distinction being personal property is my place of residence, my furniture, my computer... things I use on a consistent basis. Private property generally only extends land or machine ownership. Machines that you do not use, but instead rent out to workers who produce for you. Your main tie to owning it is previous class differences that are enforced through private property.

This is easily one of the least sensible distinctions I have ever heard. The above bolded in particular is effectively an assertion that belies a very unreasonable assumption, that the only way you can succeed is if you were born into a higher class, or that the only way you'd ever work for someone is if you were born into a lower class, AND, that financial transactions based around letting people work while profiting from said transaction is somehow evil. We're probably not going to have a constructive conversation from this point onward, because I think socialism is batshit insane, and you think capitalism is batshit insane, but it's funny that you'd point to a system that effectively argues for an individuals right to be a capitalist, while simultaneously denouncing capitalists.
I.e., it's more socialist drivel, but this time, it's combined with a word it thinks means 'Fight the system, man', but actually means 'The word that follows me is ethically abhorrent to my way of thinking'.

I'm gonna break this shit down, because you're not very clear, but it seems like your critique against the division between personal and private property has something to do with capitalism being a meritocracy. That's a nice ideal (capitalism being a meritocracy) but even then, once someone "earns" those means of control, they are given control over people, and depending on the private property, they can have near unlimited control. That is problematic.

This was the problem during the gilded age, swathes of poor people packed into flats paying ruthless landlords then shuffling into factories to do work. Their position on the bottom had nothing to do with their hard work or lack thereof, and everything to do with who owned the private property. This was often position to be born into, but even if it wasn't that did not give them the right to keep others living in squalor. This class power inequality is what made socialism so popular back then, especially libertarian socialism, as the government and corporations worked in conjunction (as they do today).

Now, if you recall, I told you these ideals were a bit outdated for the current situation in the U.S. Our jobs are now largely white collar, and I'm not really certain how to apply libertarian socialism to our (or maybe just my) country today (though I would suggest mere federalist democratic socialism, somewhat similar to the original draft for the US government with socialism added). However, it's worth noting that these ideals are not outdated completely. Capitalism still shifts its blue collar wrath abroad, I'm sure your aware of the corporate and government assisted oppression of people abroad. A google search for government/corporate intervention in South America will yield plenty of results. Anarcho-syndicalism remains applicable for any country whose workers remain oppressed by private property ownership.

I don't know what else to say, I know this has strayed so far beyond the original intent of this thread, and I contemplated replying or not.

Anyways, I'd guess I'd end with the note that, despite Libertarians pointing out that these critiques of capitalism are actually critiques of corporatism. This may be true, but it points to a fatal flaw in Libertarian Capitalism, despite the insistence that capitalism is "human nature" it has never existed, not stabely. It has always devolved to corporatism or pre-feudalism. In this way Libertarian Socialism has had Capitalists beat for quite some time, anarcho-syndicalism has existed in Catalan and the Kibbutz officially (and many other places unofficially), and in fact, the majority of human interaction constitutes as socialism. Most of us do not weigh the loss or gain from helping a human being. Human empathy is a powerful and good force.

[Izawwlgood]

and in fact, the majority of human interaction constitutes as socialism. Most of us do not weigh the loss or gain from helping a human being. Human empathy is a powerful and good force.

Wildly disagree with the above bolded, and wouldn't call it a fact, and don't see what the second part has to do with either socialism or capitalism. I help human beings all the time, and am quite empathetic, as a libertarian capitalist pig.

As to the rest of your breakdown, all I can say is "neat". I think you're wrong about somethings and right about others.

[drkslvr]

As long as corporations with creative investments can lobby, they will lobby for longer copyrights. I expect the next major wave of lobbying to come sometime around 2020, when Micky Mouse's copyright is once again about to expire.

Sony is more-or-less legally obliged to be party to this. Corporations must at all times act in the best interests of their shareholders. If they don't, the shareholders can sue them. If it's identified as in the best interest of shareholders to prevent a track from being on YouTube, they have to petition to get it taken off. It's awful. No one likes it. But it's the way our system works. All I'm saying is, don't hate the player. Hate the game.

(Exceptions made for players like Disney, who help write the game's rules. You are welcome to hate them all you like.)

[Cryopyre]

Well, the players at the top are always in charge of making the rules in a corporatist state, that goes for the major record labels like SME too.

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

As long as corporations with creative investments can lobby, they will lobby for longer copyrights. I expect the next major wave of lobbying to come sometime around 2020, when Micky Mouse's copyright is once again about to expire.

Sony is more-or-less legally obliged to be party to this. Corporations must at all times act in the best interests of their shareholders.

I think this should be removed from the law. If the corporation does something stupid, why not let the market decide to bankrupt them rather than getting the lawyers involved?

[Cryopyre]

As long as corporations with creative investments can lobby, they will lobby for longer copyrights. I expect the next major wave of lobbying to come sometime around 2020, when Micky Mouse's copyright is once again about to expire.

Sony is more-or-less legally obliged to be party to this. Corporations must at all times act in the best interests of their shareholders.

I think this should be removed from the law. If the corporation does something stupid, why not let the market decide to bankrupt them rather than getting the lawyers involved?

Good luck passing something into law that will damage corporate power.

[Izawwlgood]

Haha, yeah, anti-trust laws totally don't exist. Totally.

[Cryopyre]

Haha, yeah, anti-trust laws totally don't exist. Totally.

Anti-trust laws and other anti-corporatist legislation was pioneered during times when socialist dissent was at an all-time high. These days anti-corporatist legislation is practically unheard of, and much is even being stripped away.

It's not impossible but it is incredibly unlikely. In a system where corporations own media sources, and therefore the public outlook through the manufacture of consent, it is near impossible to establish checks on corporate power until it is too late. Corporations will wind up destroying themselves, but not before they destroy much of the middle class (again).

[Izawwlgood]

I see your fear mongering paranoia and raise you one 'read the news'. Corporations are constantly dealing with lawsuits due to malfeasance. For a variety of things, from minor infractions to major violations.

[SurgicalSteel]

As long as corporations with creative investments can lobby, they will lobby for longer copyrights. I expect the next major wave of lobbying to come sometime around 2020, when Micky Mouse's copyright is once again about to expire.

Sony is more-or-less legally obliged to be party to this. Corporations must at all times act in the best interests of their shareholders.

I think this should be removed from the law. If the corporation does something stupid, why not let the market decide to bankrupt them rather than getting the lawyers involved?

Because then the shareholders would also lose a lot of money. If the shareholders can bring successful litigation against the leaders of a corporation for running the company like jackasses they can at least get some recompense or a legally mandated change in leadership.

[six6six6six6]

Fuck capitalism

Indeed.

[zmatt]

Copyright as we know it is a very old and outdated system that goes back to when the printing press was becoming common. In it's current form it cannot adequately deal with the information age. Whats needs to be done is an overhaul of copyright to better meet technology. This is going to happen for awhile though because the big players (RIAA, MPA, book publishers etc) are doing everything they can to get their way in congress and the courts as well as in parliaments around the world and foreign courts. People obviously don't care (judging by the prevalence of piracy) and this failure to adapt I think will be the downfall of these companies in the next decade or so. Society has obviously made up it's mind, and no amount of lawsuits or laws can change that. I call it a popular revolt against copyright.