Home > All Posts > Sort by Topic
Topic #19008

Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Erin Nealey | "Erin Nealey" <schmee@...> | erinnealey
August 5, 2005 | Post #19008 | Topic #19008

From: Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...> Date: Thu Aug 4, 2005 9:50 am Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Freeplay Music: Warning Erin, this whole discussion has really helped me, actually. I am not a Freeplay Music user. If I were, at this point I would consider such a letter to be a Cease & Desist order, take down the offending music, and let them take me to court if they really needed the $200. ------------ Hey all, I hate to be keeping this discussion lingering around but wanted to let everyone know what's going on. In regards to what Stephanie wrote, and what others have said on and off list to me.. I've started to wonder if maybe I am being too apologetic about this whole thing. (Truth is, I've always been that way, and am quick to take blame and apologize for things in order to keep peace and avoid confrontation). Anyway, after talking extensively with my husband about this.. we have decided not to pay the entire amount to Freeplay Music. To be fair, I am going to offer to pay for the music as if it were pro-rated for a year. This afternoon, I will be taking down all my videos containing complete selections of Freeplay Music (6 in total). They will still be on the archive, but I will be requesting they be removed from there as well. Anyone know who best to contact at IA to do this?... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By R. Kristiansen | "R. Kristiansen" <raymondmk@...> | admnory
August 5, 2005 | Post #19009 | Topic #19008

I have admin status on the IA and can "make dark". Send me your list of mov= ies off-list (raymondmk at gmail dot com) and I will make the files invisib= le from the IA. The nodes on Ourmedia you can delete yourself by going to t= he node and clicking edit whereafter you click delete. We at Ourmedia hope= to make it easier for people to make content 'go dark'. The reason we do i= t like this, btw, is that it is safer for us to just make the files not ava= ilable than to physically delete them. I have been contacted by others who= hosted "FreePlay" music on IA and want it taken down after they heard abou= t the FreePlay policy, so I guess your message to this group regarding this= has been very helpful to a lot of people, Erin. Best, Raymond M. Kristi= ansen moderator, ourmedia.org On 8/5/05, Erin Nealey <schmee@...> wrot= e: > > > From: Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...> > Date: Thu Aug 4, 2005 9= :50 am > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Freeplay Music: Warning > > Erin= , this whole discussion has really helped me, actually. I am not a > Freepl= ay Music user. If I were, at this point I would consider such a > letter to= be a Cease & Desist order, take down the offending music, > and let them t= ake me to court if they... [View]



Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Erin Nealey | "Erin Nealey" <schmee@...> | erinnealey
August 5, 2005 | Post #19014 | Topic #19008

Thanks for such a quick response Raymond! UPDATE: My husband talked to Scott Shreer of Freeplay Music (he is much better at remaining calm than I am!) and some good has come out of this. Although we still are having to pay, it is only half. Another good thing that came from it is that Scott was willing to listen to the reasons why the site and terms could so easily be misinterpreted and said he would take those things into consideration, maybe bringing them up with others at Freeplay Music. Hopefully some changes will be made there so that this doesn't happen to anyone else. Afterall... this would be in the best interest of Scott as well as anyone else! OK.. lets move on, this is done :) Erin Nealey Mom's Brag Vlog nealey.blogspot.com I have been contacted by others who hosted "FreePlay" music on IA and > want it taken down after they heard about the FreePlay policy, so I > guess your message to this group regarding this has been very helpful > to a lot of people, Erin. > > Best, > > Raymond M. Kristiansen > moderator, ourmedia.org [View]



Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Gena | "Gena" <compumavengal@...> | compumavengal
August 5, 2005 | Post #19054 | Topic #19008

Erin I also appreciated your posts about FreePlay. I honestly did not know about this company. One thing I want to pass on to you and others is what I learned at a legal session at BlogHer. There is a web site called Chilling Effects http://www.chillingeffects.org This is a catalog of the cease and desist letters that companies send to internet users. It als provides info on how your rights. Now if you are in violation of terms that is one thing but many companies use C&D letters to stop comments about their companies, to stop free speech and other mischief to suppress expression. It is a project of the Electronic Freedom Foundation and a bunch of Law Schools that are monitoring the use of C&D's. You might want to take a look at the FAQ's and other goodies just for future (or current) information needs. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV) | "Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV)" <kpdcnettv@...> | kpdcnettv
August 5, 2005 | Post #19064 | Topic #19008

--=====================_279301173==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi everyone: At 10:05 AM 8/5/2005, you wrote: >From: Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...> >Date: Thu Aug 4, 2005 9:50 am >Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Freeplay Music: Warning > >Erin, this whole discussion has really helped me, actually. I am not a >Freeplay Music user. If I were, at this point I would consider such a >letter to be a Cease & Desist order, take down the offending music, >and let them take me to court if they really needed the $200. That's my opinion as well Steph. Besides, you can't get into trouble (at least with FPM) over something that's no longer linked to your site, though the IA may have a few choice words. But even then, they would just assume avoid litigation themselves simply by removing the offending the files and send you an email reminding you of *their* TOS (if they don't ban you outright). Erin wrote.... >Hey all, > >I hate to be keeping this discussion lingering around but wanted to >let everyone know what's going on. In regards to what Stephanie wrote, >and what others have said on and off list to me.. I've started to >wonder if maybe I am being too apologetic about this whole thing. >(Truth is, I've always been that way, and am quick to take blame and >apologize for things in order to keep peace and avoid confrontation). You're not being overly apologetic. In fact, if... [View]



Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Pete Prodoehl | "Pete Prodoehl" <raster@...> | raster
August 6, 2005 | Post #19083 | Topic #19008

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV)" <kpdcnettv@c...> wrote: > I ranted on this on my podcast earlier today (which BTW will NOT have > the open & close I normally attach to each show) and an idea hit me > that if they were to charge a ONE-TIME flat fee $5 (or whatever the > minilum value of a Money Order is nowadays) per track download > REGARDLESS OF USE, they'd make a fuckin' mint. > > I mean, think of it this way, how many times do you have to pay for a > gallon of milk at the grocery store before they actually consider it > yours to leave with? Answer - ONCE - At the checkout counter. When > is the next time you pay for milk? Answer - WHEN YOU GET ANOTHER > GALLON. I've NEVER seen ANY business charge me for something more than once. But the milk is a physical thing. You consume it, and it's gone. Music used as branding in a piece of media that can be played over, and over, and over and seen/heard by millions of people is different than a gallon of milk a few people will drink. Have you ever *bought* music, and by bought, I mean bought the full rights to any music to do as you please? Most times you are licensing it. CD's you buy at the store? You don't own those, you... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <solitude@...> | andreashaugstrup
August 6, 2005 | Post #19092 | Topic #19008

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 14:56:13 +0200, Pete Prodoehl <raster@...> wrote: > Have you ever *bought* music, and by bought, I mean bought the full > rights to any music to do as you please? Most times you are licensing > it. CD's you buy at the store? You don't own those, you don't have the > right to do whatever you want with it. You're just paying for the > rights to do with it what the record companies will allow you to do > with it. You're glancing over some important parts of copyrights here. When you buy a cd at the store you're buying a 'copy' of the work. That copy is yours to keep - what you can do with it is not limited by what the record companies feel is right. What you can do is limited by copyright law. Record companies could of course limit you, but not without having you sign a contract along each purchase. You have quite a few rights. With Freeplay on the other hand you don't buy a 'copy' of the work. You buy a license to use this work for a given period of time and for a specific purpose. Here you have only the rights granted to you in the license agreement. This is the exact reason I'm still buying physical cd's and not buying from the iTunes Music Store. At the music store I don't buy... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Markus Sandy | Markus Sandy <markus@...> | apperceive
August 6, 2005 | Post #19094 | Topic #19008

--------------020002090703000309040304 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit where does it end? will i eventually have to pay every time i remember a song? generally the only things i have to pay for repeatedly are my mistakes ;-) hmmm, maybe that means the buying commercial music is a mistake, hmmm yesterday, I was unpacking some boxes and I ran into a classic CD. I thought "Hey! I'd like to listen to this." Then it hit me: Why bother? The same amount of time would be better spent finding something new on the archive. we are the media markus Pete Prodoehl wrote: >--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV)" ><kpdcnettv@c...> wrote: > > >>I ranted on this on my podcast earlier today (which BTW will NOT have >>the open & close I normally attach to each show) and an idea hit me >>that if they were to charge a ONE-TIME flat fee $5 (or whatever the >>minilum value of a Money Order is nowadays) per track download >>REGARDLESS OF USE, they'd make a fuckin' mint. >> >>I mean, think of it this way, how many times do you have to pay for a >>gallon of milk at the grocery store before they actually consider it >>yours to leave with? Answer - ONCE - At the checkout counter. When >>is the next time you pay for milk? Answer - WHEN YOU GET ANOTHER >>GALLON. I've NEVER seen ANY business charge me for... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By duncan speakman | duncan speakman <duncan.kleindesign@...> | kleindesign
August 6, 2005 | Post #19103 | Topic #19008

> yesterday, I was unpacking some boxes and I ran into a classic CD. > I = thought "Hey! I'd like to listen to this." > Then it hit me: Why bother?= > The same amount of time would be better spent finding something new on = the > archive. then i guess it wasn;t such a classic CD!! i know what you= 're getting at markus, but some stuff deserves repeated listening/watching,= i've watched some vlogs more than once, and i think some of them have left= such a lasting impression that i hope i will return to them in the future.= For me, great works in any medium can give you a feeling or an experience = that is completely unique, and that is worth going through again. One major= risk with the amount (explosion?) of stuff being created at the moment is = that it all becomes too disposable, and we rush on to the next thing, never= giving things enought time to grow on us.. never letting stuff breathe, d= [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Michael Sullivan | Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...> | sulleleven
August 6, 2005 | Post #19108 | Topic #19008

------=_Part_259_30770537.1123346555011 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline [ Attachment content not displayed ] ------=_Part_259_30770537.1123346555011 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline [ Attachment content not displayed ] ------=_Part_259_30770537.1123346555011-- [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV) | "Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV)" <kpdcnettv@...> | kpdcnettv
August 6, 2005 | Post #19153 | Topic #19008

--=====================_365485770==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi everyone: At 10:42 AM 8/6/2005, you wrote: >Lessig recently cited an experiment, i think in Wired mag, on how >they tried to legally publish on the net he and friends singing >'Happy Birthday' to another friend. Quick conclusion- it cost almost >$1,000 *if* they were granted permission... which they were at first >but then they were denied the license agreement in the end. > >happy birthday fuck you! Yeah no sh*t. Who in the world has copyright over that title. :-( Cheers for now :-) Pat --=====================_365485770==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <html> <body> Hi everyone:<br><br> At 10:42 AM 8/6/2005, you wrote:<br> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Lessig recently cited an experiment, i think in Wired mag, on how they tried to legally publish on the net he and friends singing 'Happy Birthday' to another friend. Quick conclusion- it cost almost $1,000 *if* they were granted permission... which they were at first but then they were denied the license agreement in the end. <br><br> happy birthday fuck you!</blockquote><br> Yeah no sh*t.  Who in the world has copyright over <b>that</b> title.  :-(<br><br> Cheers for now  :-)<br><br> Pat</body> </html> --=====================_365485770==.ALT-- [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <solitude@...> | andreashaugstrup
August 6, 2005 | Post #19154 | Topic #19008

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:06:42 +0200, Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV) <kpdcnettv@...> wrote: > Yeah no sh*t. Who in the world has copyright over that title. :-( AOL/Time Warner does: <URL: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm > It's big bucks: "According to David Sengstack, president of Summy-Birchard, "Happy Birthday to You" brings in about $2 million in royalties annually, with the proceeds split between Summy-Birchard and the Hill Foundation. (Both Hill sisters died unmarried and childless, so the Hill Foundation's share of the royalties have presumably been going to charity or to nephew Archibald Hill ever since Patty Hill passed away in 1946.)" - Andreas -- <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/&gt; Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Joshua Kinberg | Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> | joshkinberg
August 6, 2005 | Post #19155 | Topic #19008

> happy birthday fuck you! > Yeah no sh*t. Who in the world has copyrigh= t over that title. :-( Here's the story of the happy birthday song: http:= //www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm Apparently it now brings in abou= t 2 Million in annual royalties which are split between AOL Time/Warner and= a private charity established by the descendants of the song's creators. = -josh On 8/6/05, Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV) <kpdcnettv@...> wrote: = > Hi everyone: > > At 10:42 AM 8/6/2005, you wrote: > > Lessig recentl= y cited an experiment, i think in Wired mag, on how they tried > to legally= publish on the net he and friends singing 'Happy Birthday' to > another fr= iend. Quick conclusion- it cost almost $1,000 *if* they were > granted perm= ission... which they were at first but then they were denied the > license = agreement in the end. > > happy birthday fuck you! > Yeah no sh*t. Who= in the world has copyright over that title. :-( > > Cheers for now :-)= > > Pat > > > ________________________________ > YAHOO! GROUPS LIN= KS > > > Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. > > To unsu= bscribe from this group, send an email to: > videoblogging-unsubscribe@yah= oogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Ter= ms of Service. > > ________________________________ > [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Stephanie Bryant | Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...> | mortaine
August 7, 2005 | Post #19169 | Topic #19008

Yes, but if you sing a variant on Happy Birthday-- ANY variant-- in which y= ou change the lyrics (except for celebrant's name) and/or tune, then you ha= ve a good fight available. Why? Because "Good Morning to You," which is a = nearly identical tune to Happy Birthday, is public domain (it is, in fact, = what the Hill sisters based their version of the song on). It is the same, = except that in Happy Birthday, the first note of each line is two eights in= stead of a quarter note (i.e., it is two beats instead of one). For instan= ce, "Happy Birthday to you, you live in a zoo" ought to be defensible in co= urt. After all, it is parody, among other reasons. But I'm not a lawyer an= d if you get sued for it, your defense had better not be "But mortaine said= it was okay!" Although.... does anyone want to do a parody-birthday song = collaborative project? THAT would be a fun Videoblogging promo and would ha= ve the added benefit of giving back to the world (people could email it to = their favorite birthday person) and risk us all getting sued by Time/Warner= and getting tons and tons of publicity for vlogging as a result. --Stepha= nie On 8/6/05, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> wrote: > Here's the sto= ry of the happy birthday song: > http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday= .htm -- Stephanie Bryant mortaine@...... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV) | "Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV)" <kpdcnettv@...> | kpdcnettv
August 7, 2005 | Post #19207 | Topic #19008

--=====================_455197419==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi everyone: At 08:29 PM 8/6/2005, you wrote: > > happy birthday fuck you! > > Yeah no sh*t. Who in the world has copyright over that title. :-( > >Here's the story of the happy birthday song: ><http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm>http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm > >Apparently it now brings in about 2 Million in annual royalties which >are split between AOL Time/Warner and a private charity established by >the descendants of the song's creators. Leave it fuckin' AOL to take something like "Happy Birthday" and copyright it for fuckin' profit (Sorry, I don't buy the so-called "private charity" bullshit). :-( :-( :-( This just goes to prove the point I made towards the end of my latest podcast (Episode 21 which DOES NOT have any known copyrighted material). I said in the podcast that before long companies and/or individuals with large sums of $$$ will find a way to copyright every word in the English language for some sort of profit, leaving only DEAD AIR for the rest of us "Average Pats". And with our luck, someone would find a way to copyright dead air too. :-( > > Cheers for now :-) Pat Cook patsvideoblog@... (FEEDBACK EMAIL) Denver, Colorado PAT'S VIDEO BLOG - http://patsvideoblog.blogspot.com/ DIVB-TV | THE DUMBASS IDIOTS VIDEO BLOG - http://dumbassidiots.blogspot.com/ RSS FEEDS ON EACH PAGE PAT'S PODCAST & VIDEO BLOG MESSAGE BOARD - http://patspodcast.proboards36.com/ SKYPE ME @ patspodcast --=====================_455197419==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <html> <body> Hi everyone:<br><br>... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <solitude@...> | andreashaugstrup
August 8, 2005 | Post #19210 | Topic #19008

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:01:53 +0200, Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV) <kpdcnettv@...> wrote: > Leave it fuckin' AOL to take something like "Happy Birthday" and > copyright it for fuckin' profit (Sorry, I don't buy the so-called > "private charity" bullshit). :-( :-( :-( Would you relax. AOL didn't copyright it. Copyright is automatic. You seem to prefer the opposite system. A system where copyright would be lost when a work becomes really popular (e.g. when Happy Birthday becomes a cultural icon). That would hurt creativity even more. What's the incentive for creating works if you can't make money the one time in your life you create something really good? > This just goes to prove the point I made towards the end of my latest > podcast (Episode 21 which DOES NOT have any known copyrighted > material). I said in the podcast that before long companies and/or > individuals with large sums of $$$ will find a way to copyright every > word in the English language for some sort of profit, leaving only > DEAD AIR for the rest of us "Average Pats". I couldn't find this podcast (your blog only goes until #20), but if you're including music in your podcast the material is copyrighted (unless the composer and the performers have signed the work over to the public domain). Creative Commons work is still copyrighted, thank God. Unless *you* signed the podcast over to... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Stephanie Bryant | Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...> | mortaine
August 8, 2005 | Post #19212 | Topic #19008

To be fair, AOL didn't copyright it-- the original "authors"* owned the cop= yright, which was eventually sold to Warner Bros. (I think). It's conglomer= atization that puts the property into the hands of AOL-Time-Warner. *not r= eally sure how changing one word and doubling a note in each line qualifies= as "authoring," but hey. Whatever. If that's legit, so is changing one mor= e word/note to make your own version of Happy Birthday, I suppose. On 8/7= /05, Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV) <kpdcnettv@...> wrote: > Leave it fu= ckin' AOL to take something like "Happy Birthday" and copyright > it for fu= ckin' profit (Sorry, I don't buy the so-called "private charity" > bullshit= ). :-( :-( :-( -- Stephanie Bryant mortaine@... http://www.morta= ine.com [View]



Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Jack Nelson | "Jack Nelson" <jack@...> | mexiculture
August 8, 2005 | Post #19244 | Topic #19008

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup" <solitude@s...> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:01:53 +0200, Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV) > <kpdcnettv@c...> wrote: > > > Leave it fuckin' AOL to take something like "Happy Birthday" and > > copyright it for fuckin' profit (Sorry, I don't buy the so-called > > "private charity" bullshit). :-( :-( :-( > > Would you relax. AOL didn't copyright it. Copyright is automatic. > > You seem to prefer the opposite system. A system where copyright would be > lost when a work becomes really popular (e.g. when Happy Birthday becomes > a cultural icon). That would hurt creativity even more. What's the > incentive for creating works if you can't make money the one time in your > life you create something really good? Good Morning to All was written in 1893. In 1935 the Hill sisters sued for copyright (42 years after the fact and it is not even clear that they wrote the new words to the song (Happy Birthday to You). The last Hill sister died in 1946. Whose creativity is being stunted when we use this song? Time Warner's? Their creative act seems to be buying something already made and cahing in on it (and lobbying to extend the copyright laws so they can cash in more). Happy Birthday to You will be covered by copyrigh5t laws until 2030 (unless Time Warner/MS/other big uncreative companies can get the... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <solitude@...> | andreashaugstrup
August 8, 2005 | Post #19245 | Topic #19008

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:07:20 +0200, Jack Nelson <jack@...> wrote: > Good Morning to All was written in 1893. In 1935 the Hill sisters sued > for copyright (42 > years after the fact and it is not even clear that they wrote the new > words to the song > (Happy Birthday to You). The last Hill sister died in 1946. Whose > creativity is being stunted > when we use this song? Time Warner's? Their creative act seems to be > buying something > already made and cahing in on it (and lobbying to extend the copyright > laws so they can > cash in more). Happy Birthday to You will be covered by copyrigh5t laws > until 2030 (unless > Time Warner/MS/other big uncreative companies can get the copyright laws > extended > again. That's bullshit, and it is not doing anything to help creativity. You're opposed to the length of the copyright. Pat was opposed to the idea of copyright. Vast difference. I can only agree with you that the current length of copyright (70 years after author's death) is much too long. I'd like to see that changed. - Andreas -- <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/&gt; Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Taking my videos down (Freeplay Music discussion)

By Pete Prodoehl | Pete Prodoehl <raster@...> | raster
August 8, 2005 | Post #19246 | Topic #19008

Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > > What's the > incentive for creating works if you can't make money the one time in your > life you create something really good? What a question! The incentive for truly creative people to create things is that they can't *not* create things! I create things because I enjoy creating things. It connects me with others. I get a good sense of satisfaction from the things I create. I can attempt to have control over the creation process. It keeps me sane. Why do I write, draw, record audio, and shoot video? The incentive is not the almighty dollar, that's for sure... As cliché as the "I do it for myself" thing might sound, it's pretty much true. (Also, I think you may be confusing "good" with "popular") Pete -- http://tinkernet.org/ videoblog for the future... [View]