A Few Words About A few words about...™ Vendors, film piracy and national security (2 Viewers)

[Garysb]

I apologize. Apparently my information was out of date. The EU copyright protection of sound recordings was changed to 70 years after the death of the performer in September 2011. Still Amazon in the UK is selling these (maybe) bootleg recordings . I don't know if this is retroactive. For the sound recordings went into the public domain under the old rules, I don't think they can be recovered.

Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights
The directive to extend the term of protection for performers and sound recordings to 70 years was adopted on 12 September 2011. The aim of the directive is to bring performers’ protection more in line with that already given to authors – 70 years after their death. The extended term will enable performers to earn money for a longer period of time and in any event throughout their lifetime. The income from copyright remuneration is important for performers, as they often do not have other regular salaried income. The extended term will also benefit record producers who will generate additional revenue from the sale of records in shops and on the internet. This should allow producers to adapt to the rapidly changing business environment and help them maintain their investment levels in new talent.
The directive also contains accompanying measures which aim specifically to help performers. The “use it or lose it” clauses which will now have to be included in the contracts linking performers to their record companies will allow performers to get their rights back if the record producer does not market the sound recording during the extended period. In this way the performer will be able to either find another record producer willing to sell his music or do it himself, something that is possible easily via the internet. Finally, record companies will have to set up a fund into which they will have to pay 20% of their revenues earned during the extended period. The money from this fund will be destined to help session musicians.

 

[bigshot]

If this is correct, would the U.S. have not attempted to equalize under the latest treaties?

The way it works is that the big corporate copyright holders shovel money at Congress telling them, "We need to bring our laws in line with other countries!" Then once they get away with a new chip off the block of public domain, they go to all the other countries and tell them "You need to bring your laws in line with the US!" It's a scam. The US doesn't "equalize". The US "deequalizes" so the rest of the world has to "equalize" again.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I didn't have time to read through the entire thread, but I did want to clear one minor thing up. A great many Amazon Customer Service Associates are located in the U.S.

As for people getting bootlegs on the site, report the sellers. That's the best thing you can do. There is a form you can fill out to report a seller for rules violations.

 

[Robert Harris]

I didn't have time to read through the entire thread, but I did want to clear one minor thing up. A great many Amazon Customer Service Associates are located in the U.S.

As for people getting bootlegs on the site, report the sellers. That's the best thing you can do. There is a form you can fill out to report a seller for rules violations.

I've attempted to communicate the problem with great specificity to Amazon.

The response.

Crickets...

Which tells me they're happy with the status quo. There is also a current litigation between WB and Amazon sellers, which may change things a bit, but I presume not much. As I said, Amazon seems content with things as they are.

Caveat emptor.

RAH

 

[Professor Echo]

If Amazon responds with crickets, then you respond with one.

 

[bigshot]

I've attempted to communicate the problem with great specificity to Amazon. The response. Crickets...

They won't refund your money? How long has it been since you ordered it?

 

[Douglas R]

I apologize. Apparently my information was out of date. The EU copyright protection of sound recordings was changed to 70 years after the death of the performer in September 2011. Still Amazon in the UK is selling these (maybe) bootleg recordings . I don't know if this is retroactive. For the sound recordings went into the public domain under the old rules, I don't think they can be recovered.

Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights
The directive to extend the term of protection for performers and sound recordings to 70 years was adopted on 12 September 2011. The aim of the directive is to bring performers’ protection more in line with that already given to authors – 70 years after their death. The extended term will enable performers to earn money for a longer period of time and in any event throughout their lifetime. The income from copyright remuneration is important for performers, as they often do not have other regular salaried income. The extended term will also benefit record producers who will generate additional revenue from the sale of records in shops and on the internet. This should allow producers to adapt to the rapidly changing business environment and help them maintain their investment levels in new talent.
The directive also contains accompanying measures which aim specifically to help performers. The “use it or lose it” clauses which will now have to be included in the contracts linking performers to their record companies will allow performers to get their rights back if the record producer does not market the sound recording during the extended period. In this way the performer will be able to either find another record producer willing to sell his music or do it himself, something that is possible easily via the internet. Finally, record companies will have to set up a fund into which they will have to pay 20% of their revenues earned during the extended period. The money from this fund will be destined to help session musicians.

The EU Directive has not been brought into force by all member states as domestic legislation yet, so 50 years still applies at present. The UK expects legislation to apply from January 2014. It won't be retrospective so those discs already released under the 50 year rule won't suddenly become illegal.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

They won't refund your money? How long has it been since you ordered it?

I don't believe that he wrote about something he bought, but just to notify them about bootlegs they had for sale.

 

[bigshot]

Oh. I thought he was trying to return something.Quite frankly, I would hope that any online retailer would not actt unless the legitimate copyright holder complained, and only if they could prove ownership. Copyright trolls are a huge problem on the internet.

 

[Mark-P]

Oh. I thought he was trying to return something.Quite frankly, I would hope that any online retailer would not actt unless the legitimate copyright holder complained, and only if they could prove ownership. Copyright trolls are a huge problem on the internet.

Riiiiight..... and I know exactly where you are hearing complaints about "copyright trolls" - Pirate sites!!!

 

[bigshot]

No, there are unscrupulous businessmen who play on the fact that many sites don't verify that takedown notices are valid. They file fraudulant copyright complaints against competitors to gain an edge online. There are also legal firms that negotiate "settlements" to "complaints" without even representing the company who owns the copyright. They basically shake people down by pretending to be copyright owners. It's a very serious problem online.My organization has a relationship with a well respected public domain video company. They allow us to post the restored films on their DVD collections on YouTube for educational purposes. These films have all been researched and verified as PD and are available for sale at retailers and for rent at Netflix. I always link back to the video collection for sale, so those who would like to own a copy can order it. Totally legit. Yet I still get takedown notices filed against my account at YouTube by other PD video companies who don't like DVDs that look better than theirs being on YouTube. Worse yet, many of the copyright trolls convince YouTube to put banners on my videos and give them the revenue. YouTube does very little to verify before blocking or adding banner ads to the films, and I waste a lot of time providing documentation to YouTube over and over again that the films do not belong to the people claiming them.

 

[Robert Harris]

No, there are unscrupulous businessmen who play on the fact that many sites don't verify that takedown notices are valid. They file fraudulant copyright complaints against competitors to gain an edge online. There are also legal firms that negotiate "settlements" to "complaints" without even representing the company who owns the copyright. They basically shake people down by pretending to be copyright owners. It's a very serious problem online.My organization has a relationship with a well respected public domain video company. They allow us to post the restored films on their DVD collections on YouTube for educational purposes. These films have all been researched and verified as PD and are available for sale at retailers and for rent at Netflix. I always link back to the video collection for sale, so those who would like to own a copy can order it. Totally legit. Yet I still get takedown notices filed against my account at YouTube by other PD video companies who don't like DVDs that look better than theirs being on YouTube. Worse yet, many of the copyright trolls convince YouTube to put banners on my videos and give them the revenue. YouTube does very little to verify before blocking or adding banner ads to the films, and I waste a lot of time providing documentation to YouTube over and over again that the films do not belong to the people claiming them.

Shades of Ray Rohauer...

RAH

 

[Mark-P]

No, there are unscrupulous businessmen who play on the fact that many sites don't verify that takedown notices are valid. They file fraudulant copyright complaints against competitors to gain an edge online. There are also legal firms that negotiate "settlements" to "complaints" without even representing the company who owns the copyright. They basically shake people down by pretending to be copyright owners. It's a very serious problem online.My organization has a relationship with a well respected public domain video company. They allow us to post the restored films on their DVD collections on YouTube for educational purposes. These films have all been researched and verified as PD and are available for sale at retailers and for rent at Netflix. I always link back to the video collection for sale, so those who would like to own a copy can order it. Totally legit. Yet I still get takedown notices filed against my account at YouTube by other PD video companies who don't like DVDs that look better than theirs being on YouTube. Worse yet, many of the copyright trolls convince YouTube to put banners on my videos and give them the revenue. YouTube does very little to verify before blocking or adding banner ads to the films, and I waste a lot of time providing documentation to YouTube over and over again that the films do not belong to the people claiming them.

Well I'm really sorry that copyright trolls are making it difficult for you to post public domain material. I come from a completely different perspective. As the owner of a small press, I have to deal with people using file-sharing sites to share copies of eBooks I have published and own exclusive distribution. I only wish that the file-sharing sites I deal with were as co-operative as Youtube in taking down illegal material (they aren't, it's an ongoing battle).

So searching for "The Lady Vanishes" on Youtube, I come up with multiple hits of the full-length movie. If I report those to Youtube, then I guess I would be a copyright troll.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Riiiiight..... and I know exactly where you are hearing complaints about "copyright trolls" - Pirate sites!!!

There's one site in particular called Torrentfreak which has been the most vocal in pushing pro-piracy propaganda. It routinely publishes all manner of articles and hokey studies justifying piracy, and squarely pointing the finger of blame at everyone and everything else but the pirates. As a result, "copyright trolls" are a major issue for them, because of course we all know that it's overzealous enforcement of copyright that's the real problem, not the vast majority of people obtaining things for free without contributing to the actual creators of said products....

Most of you would also be aware that there are now official "Pirate" political parties contesting elections around the world, once again trying to play off the popular sentiment in favor of piracy. It's extremely sad that human beings find so many ways to justify selfish behavior, but an entire network has risen up in support of this nonsense, and this warped way of thinking, which is frightening.

While it's clear that the copyright system can be abused - as can any system - the real issue as always is the massive scale of piracy. The YouTube example bigshot mentions occurs because YouTube is absolutely rife with piracy. Google, the owners of YouTube, were threatened with serious legal action if they didn't do something about it, so they implemented a system to monitor and rectify intellectual property breaches. Their system is not very good. But if you get hit with a takedown notice on YouTube, there is a mechanism through which you can make a counter-claim. I've done so myself, for people falsely claiming that PC gaming videos I've put up belong to them. Sometimes it works, sometimes YouTube sides with the wrong party.

The upshot of it is though that rampant piracy on YouTube caused this issue in the first place. If people had any understanding, any respect for intellectual property, then this would be a less significant problem, and YouTube could then allocate more resources to actually determine each case on its merits. Right now they're flooded with claims, and this is the best they can do to deal with it. Not exactly suprising.

Consider the example of shoplifting in retail stores. At present, I believe it sits at around the 5-10% mark. Although far from desirable, at least the scale of the problem is manageable. That means the average shopper doesn't get constantly harrassed when entering a store, or strip searched, or treated like a thief by default. But were shoplifting rates to hit the 80-90% mark, as piracy has, then we would have a completely different reaction from storekeepers.

So really, many of the issues surrounding this apparently "broken" copyright system, are in fact due to the tremendous pressure that an unprecendented and unbelieveable level of piracy is placing on said system. The solution is for people to gain an understanding of, and respect for, intellectual property. Then we can focus on amending kinks in the system, instead of creating more loopholes for pirates to abuse, which is what they're really after at the moment.

 

[Robert Harris]

Well I'm really sorry that copyright trolls are making it difficult for you to post public domain material. I come from a completely different perspective. As the owner of a small press, I have to deal with people using file-sharing sites to share copies of eBooks I have published and own exclusive distribution. I only wish that the file-sharing sites I deal with were as co-operative as Youtube in taking down illegal material (they aren't, it's an ongoing battle).

So searching for "The Lady Vanishes" on Youtube, I come up with multiple hits of the full-length movie. If I report those to Youtube, then I guess I would be a copyright troll.

Should be the copyright holder playing whac-a-mole with copyright thieves. I do it daily, and come away as the bad guy.

I've begun to contact all on-line sellers who currently offer the pirated UK Hitchcock titles, and will begin to offer my experiences with them. E-mails and messages are out there, with more tomorrow. I'd love to get to the bottom of this and make a difference, if possible.

I understand precisely what you're going through, as you also must be playing w-a-m.

RAH

 

[Professor Echo]

I'm often reminded of an old Harry Shearer sketch wherein his version of Mr. Blackwell states that the biggest problem plaguing mankind is typecasting.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I don't know how many here have ever worked in customer service but if someone really expects Amazon to shut something down because someone e-mails them something negative then they really don't know what they're talking about. Amazon probably gets 10,000+ e-mails a day and probably even more calls. Some calls or e-mails, like Mr. Harris', might be legit but I'm not sure how many people they have on their payroll to track down copyright holders. Not to mention the countless other complains or issues they might get. It's not just legit calls but I'm sure they have nut jobs calling for them to take down STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS because it sucks. Having worked in customer service you get all sorts of wild and crazy things to work through so I can't say I'm shocked that Amazon didn't throw their lawyer on whether or not FRANKENSTEIN'S GREAT AUNT TILLIE was able to be included on a Mill Creek set.

I can point people to message boards where owners of some small labels are constantly fighting with one another on who owns the rights to what. One will say they bought it from AGENT X while the other will say they bought the rights from AGENT Z.

 

[Robert Harris]

I don't know how many here have ever worked in customer service but if someone really expects Amazon to shut something down because someone e-mails them something negative then they really don't know what they're talking about. Amazon probably gets 10,000+ e-mails a day and probably even more calls. Some calls or e-mails, like Mr. Harris', might be legit but I'm not sure how many people they have on their payroll to track down copyright holders. Not to mention the countless other complains or issues they might get. It's not just legit calls but I'm sure they have nut jobs calling for them to take down STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS because it sucks. Having worked in customer service you get all sorts of wild and crazy things to work through so I can't say I'm shocked that Amazon didn't throw their lawyer on whether or not FRANKENSTEIN'S GREAT AUNT TILLIE was able to be included on a Mill Creek set. I can point people to message boards where owners of some small labels are constantly fighting with one another on who owns the rights to what. One will say they bought it from AGENT X while the other will say they bought the rights from AGENT Z.

Those who make legitimate claims and representations, as owners or representatives of owners of copyright do so via a form, sign said form, and do so at their peril. Those who fraudulently make claims, can and should be prosecuted.This is not about customer service reps. It concerns vendors legal depts. At least one claim has gone to litigation in LA., with WB as the injured party.RAH

 

[bigshot]

So searching for "The Lady Vanishes" on Youtube, I come up with multiple hits of the full-length movie. If I report those to Youtube, then I guess I would be a copyright troll.

Not if you owned the film and had a Thompson and Thompson report in hand that proved it.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Those who make legitimate claims and representations, as owners or representatives of owners of copyright do so via a form, sign said form, and do so at their peril. Those who fraudulently make claims, can and should be prosecuted.This is not about customer service reps. It concerns vendors legal depts. At least one claim has gone to litigation in LA., with WB as the injured party.RAH

The point with the reps is that if people are simply calling in and reporting the bootlegs nothing is going to be done or the paperwork is going to be put on a desk while higher issues are looked at. Type Sinister Cinema into the Amazon search and just look at all the results. Paying someone to do to paperwork, legal work and all the leg work to track down copyright holders for 1000 titles just isn't going to be easy to do and especially for someone who owns the rights to a title that 10 people might buy. You can't really pay a lawyer thousands of dollars for a title that will sell a handful of copies at ten bucks.

So you've sent all of this paperwork into Amazon and they've done zero to pull the titles (Hitchcock's?)? It seems genre company owners have had titles pulled with ease but I'm really not sure what all they had to do.