ASCAP Wants My Money... Can They Take It?

[Per]

Stop the flaming and keep on topic.

 

[PlanHex]

Even though you are embedding material that is not hosted by you, it is still you're responsibility to obtain permission to stream music performances from you URL. You need either permission from the copyright holder's of the songs, or a license from a representing society such as ASCAP. We strongly recommend that you enter into an ASCAP license agreement, as this will authorize you to stream any and all of ASCAP's music over your website.

You are obviously dealing with highly-trained professionals. I suggest you surrender immediately.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

you know how huge they are, right? what you just said is like ripping on Amazon.com for one of their phone operators.

i can't believe you guys are just sitting and discussing a topic that is well beyond what you actually know about it.

 

[SimpleMinded]

Again, you guys obviously aren't the best source for this, but do you think the situation would be different if I purely linked to the videos instead of embedding them?

As we've discussed, technically, it's not all that different, but to a techphobe, it looks a lot different.

To me it would seem logical for youtube and such services to pay the fees and then collect fees from people using the content they provide. But since there's no legislation regarding this issue, you can do as the guy in the article says: tell them to take it up with youtube.

Aye, the trouble is, I don't JUST use YouTube. I use a variety of services (whichever one has it available for embedding) including DailyMotion, YouTube, iMeem, etc. So do I tell them to take it up with each respective service, which is what I said last time, leading to this email I received.

 

[DexterMorgan]

not really. they are looking to keep their organization alive while also protecting the artists they represent. nobody said they're philanthropists but they're certainly not the "OMG EVIL CORPRITS!" you were dogging them for with your first post in this thread.

Lack of transparency sort of lights up all sorts of red lights on my board. Let's quote wikipedia again:

ASCAP has also been criticized for its extremely non-transparent operations, including the refusal to release attendance records for board members, the notes from board meetings, and the reasoning behind their weighting formulas which determine how much money a song or composition earns for use on TV or radio.

Coupled with case in point, ie using scare tactics not rooted in any legislation whatsoever, I'm well within my rights to level criticism against them. Much more so than you, who are directly benefiting from their activities, seem to able to rationally defend them.

Aye, the trouble is, I don't JUST use YouTube. I use a variety of services (whichever one has it available for embedding) including DailyMotion, YouTube, iMeem, etc. So do I tell them to take it up with each respective service, which is what I said last time, leading to this email I received.

IMO, you should consult terms of service for each of these, looking specifically for items that give you permission for embedding their content, then quote these in your reply as a "they told me I can, take it up with them". That's what seems logical to my layman's thinking.

ˇˇ Contacting a lawyer is probably a good idea too.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

SM: i've had a boss of a restaurant deal with a situation like this for a few years in a row. the lesson which i learned is that they will go after you like a credit card company until you reach some sort of settlement or agreement. you can try to fight them for as long as possible but this ain't just your neighborhood team of Joes you're dealing with.

i'd contact a lawyer if i were you.

 

[Sander]

Now, since there is no law governing usage of such content by the OP, who exactly gives the right to ASCAP to issue such demands? Because they say so?

What? Normal copyright laws and the DMCA govern this normally, for as far as I know. The issue is their applicability, which is constantly tested in court.

Your saying that this isn't legislated is contradicted by, well, practice.

SM: i've had a boss of a restaurant deal with a situation like this for a few years in a row. the lesson which i learned is that they will go after you like a credit card company until you reach some sort of settlement or agreement. you can try to fight them for as long as possible but this ain't just your neighborhood team of Joes you're dealing with.

i'd contact a lawyer if i were you.

There's a difference, though, as it is significantly easier to just send out mass mailings on the internet, and there are other organisations that we know simply use scare tactics and basically can't do anything if you ignore them in most cases (like the RIAA, or the equivalent organisation in the Netherlands).

And, as the site that I linked to notes, if they want you to take down content, they need to use a DMCA takedown notice. Until they do, they can't do anything to sue you. If they do send that, and then you ignore it, then they can make a court case out of it.

That said, the content of that email sounds a lot more friendly than most emails I've seen that use scare tactics.

 

[DexterMorgan]

What? Normal copyright laws and the DMCA govern this normally, for as far as I know. The issue is their applicability, which is constantly tested in court.

Your saying that this isn't legislated is contradicted by, well, practice.

If the material has been placed in the public domain by the copyright holder, Youtube as well as anyone linking to this material can not be held responsible or asked to pay fees. If the material infringes on the copyright, Youtube gets a DMCA and the material gets pulled from everywhere.

Willfully putting copyrighted materials on a free service such as Youtube and then hammering down on people who use such materials amounts to entrapment. IMO.

 

[SuAside]

strictly speaking, torrent sites like the Pirate Bay also do not host any data, only links to data.

your site goes a step further and shows stuff on the site, through embedded content.

now, personally, i think ASSCRAP can go fuck itself, since the licensing issues lie with the actual host, not the linker. however, plenty torrent sites have been shut down while doing something that isn't all that different.
if a user posts embedded content that is licensed, you can be in trouble.

it all depends on the courts where you'll have to defend yourself for this kind of stuff, i guess. but i wouldn't hope on an intelligent or logical ruling in this case.

 

[Sander]

If the material has been placed in the public domain by the copyright holder, Youtube as well as anyone linking to this material can not be held responsible or asked to pay fees. If the material infringes on the copyright, Youtube gets a DMCA and the material gets pulled from everywhere.

Willfully putting copyrighted materials on a free service such as Youtube and then hammering down on people who use such materials amounts to entrapment. IMO.

That's not what they're actually doing, Dexter, they're not placing that material on youtube themselves.
They're talking to people who are embedding that material on their websites. Perhaps they already have these deals in place with Youtube, and are asking other sites to follow suit. Even though Youtube's license agreement says that anyone can embed the content on their site, that doesn't necessarily mean that that is legally valid.

That said, they do need to go to Youtube and the likes, as those are the people who host the content. But to say that this is a very clear case is simply not true, as internet legislation is extremely murky and unclear.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Well, the logical way to go would be for ASCAP to ask YouTube to charge for it's service and pay royalties. Naturally, YouTube would simply tell them to fuck off and pull videos in question, causing them to loose a very powerful marketing medium. So rather than grapple with someone their own size, they decide to crack down on the little people.

My strictly layman's view.

Edit: We posted at the same time. Regardless of who's placing the content online, it can be easily pulled from YouTube. Of course, ASCAP can't do that. Now, YouTube says this:

Prohibited commercial uses do not include:

* uploading an original video to YouTube, or maintaining an original channel on YouTube, to promote your business or artistic enterprise;
* using the Embeddable Player to show YouTube videos on an ad-enabled blog or website, provided the primary purpose of using the Embeddable Player is not to gain advertising revenue or compete with YouTube;

Obviously, they have a legal mechanism to prevent sharing. They choose not to employ it in order to extract money from people using a demonstrably free service.

I agree the issue is somewhat murky, but not THAT murky

 

[Sander]

Well, the logical way to go would be for ASCAP to ask YouTube to charge for it's service and pay royalties. Naturally, YouTube would simply tell them to fuck off and pull videos in question, causing them to loose a very powerful marketing medium. So rather than grapple with someone their own size, they decide to crack down on the little people.

My strictly layman's view.

Your nonsensical layman's view.

Youtube has license agreements in place with a lot of companies. There's no reason why they wouldn't have one with the ASCAP.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Your nonsensical layman's view.

Youtube has license agreements in place with a lot of companies. There's no reason why they wouldn't have one with the ASCAP.

So it's YouTube who's duping SM into copyright infringement? Am...

 

[TheWesDude]

its very simple.

ask them to cite the law with a link to a governmental/legal site showing what law they think you are violating.


and if they cannot provide such information and they continue to send such emails, you will contact a lawyer to issue a cease and desist for harassment.

 

[SimpleMinded]

strictly speaking, torrent sites like the Pirate Bay also do not host any data, only links to data.

your site goes a step further and shows stuff on the site, through embedded content.

it all depends on the courts where you'll have to defend yourself for this kind of stuff, i guess. but i wouldn't hope on an intelligent or logical ruling in this case.

Yea, this is exactly the stuff I'm worried about. Now Pirate Bay has the misfortune of being in a market that has a little more negative stigma around it, but all the same, it serves as a good precedence for them to win.

So it's YouTube who's duping SM into copyright infringement? Am...

More ASCAP trying to double dip by being paid for the views by YouTube AND by me.

And, as the site that I linked to notes, if they want you to take down content, they need to use a DMCA takedown notice. Until they do, they can't do anything to sue you. If they do send that, and then you ignore it, then they can make a court case out of it.

So I don't have to worry too much until I actually get that notice? At that point, I'll just remove the videos as it's not a big deal.

That said, the content of that email sounds a lot more friendly than most emails I've seen that use scare tactics.

Yea, that and there was a good month and a half between emails gives the impression that they're not specifically hounding me.

My curiosity is... if I ignore them, will they just go away? Or will it eventually escalate to the next level.


One thing I may do is look up what artists I promote that are under ASCAP and see if I can contact a few of the ones I'm close to about getting their permission explicitly and using it as leverage.

 

[Sander]

Yea, this is exactly the stuff I'm worried about. Now Pirate Bay has the misfortune of being in a market that has a little more negative stigma around it, but all the same, it serves as a good precedence for them to win.

You're not in Sweden, so it's actually not a precedent at all.

Yea, that and there was a good month and a half between emails gives the impression that they're not specifically hounding me.

My curiosity is... if I ignore them, will they just go away? Or will it eventually escalate to the next level.

Again: going to a lawyer will get you the best advice. But from what I know, until you get a DMCA Takedown notice, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[SimpleMinded]

I'll have to look up lawyers in the area. Do you happen to know how much out of pocket is a consultation with a lawyer?

Just curious if I'm going to be spending just as much to speak to a lawyer as to give in to the man

 

[DexterMorgan]

Well, with YouTube the issue is pretty clear cut. Let's go over it again:

Can I upload videos to YouTube?

In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not submit material that is copyrighted, protected by trade secret or otherwise subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy and publicity rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from their rightful owner to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein.

Can I post embedded videos from YouTube?

using the Embeddable Player to show YouTube videos on an ad-enabled blog or website, provided the primary purpose of using the Embeddable Player is not to gain advertising revenue or compete with YouTube;

Therefore, YouTube says you CAN'T upload copyrighted material, and that you CAN use their embedded player. Therefore, you can say that if they suspect your site is linking copyrighted material from YouTube they can inform YouTube, because as far as you know, and according to YouTube, this material is yours to use freely.

 

[SimpleMinded]

Aye, so that removes the issue of YouTube videos. I'll have to see if the other services I use have any sort of reference as well.

Has anyone ever heard of http://www.newlawyer.com? It looks like you get a free on the phone initial consultation but I figured I would check for background here first to see if anyone else has tried it. (Yes I googled it... some law library referenced it so it sounds legit... but figured I'd ask too ).

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Welsh is a law student, he would be the person to ask on this website.

That said, twinkie isn't an expert on anything, Sander is just well read and logic-minded, and Dexter is just reciting the claims for the pirate-bay case.

Petition to give twinkie and Dexter the parrot achievement.