
Can Beethoven send takedown requests? - janoszen
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/08/27/can-beethoven-send-takedown-requests-a-first-hand-account-of-one-german-professors-experience-with-overly-broad-upload-filters/
======
Jerry2
I used to have a Youtube channel where I posted videos of me playing the
piano. I played mostly Mozart, Beethoven and Rachmaninoff compositions. I had
around 40 videos in total. Sometime around 2014, I started getting DMCA
takedown notices from various companies claiming copyright. I was getting one
or two per week and I contested them and things were ruled into my favor. But
then it started getting harder and harder to contest them and I even lost the
ability to upload. It got so bad that one day several (3 or 4, don't remember
anymore) notices were filed and Google didn't rule on them fast enough.

I had to close the channel because my account was locked for one full day and
I couldn't do a thing. I had too many emails inside of Gmail and didn't want
to lose them so I gave up. I'm still pissed about it and how Youtube and
Google run things.

I always found it interesting that under YT rules content creators have the "3
strikes and you're banned" rule hanging over their heads but those who falsely
claim copyright can do so with impunity. I still remember one company that
ended up falsely claiming copyright over 10+ of my videos and they did so
against one or two videos per week. Nothing was ever done about them.

~~~
dotancohen
Who was sending these notices? Sounds like perjury to me.

~~~
ObsoleteNerd
Welcome to the DMCA. It's as broken as copyright and causing quite serious
stifling of young creators. It sometimes feels like it's used more for evil
than for its legitimate purpose.

~~~
cninja
Takedown notices on Youtube are not handled under DCMA. DCMA has protections
against false accusations.

~~~
DuskStar
More like "DMCA theoretically has protections against false accusations, but
instances of people being held accountable are _extremely_ rare."

Knowingly making a false DMCA claim is perjury, and IMO it should be treated
as such. Instead companies send out automated claims in the thousands and then
come back with "but we didn't _know_ it was wrong, it was the bot!" and get
away with it.

~~~
dweekly
Hi there. Plaintiff here from OPG v Diebold, the first successful case
enforcing 512f against knowingly false DMCA takedowns where the defendant was
found guilty and owed several hundred thousand dollars in damages. It can and
does happen and there is court precedent. Contact EFF if you're on the
receiving end of an obviously bad DMCA takedown.

~~~
ngold
Bravo, now if it could become standard practice.

------
tallanvor
It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that Google is focusing on
this the wrong way. Rather than automatically assume that ContentID is correct
and notifying the user, it should instead notify the supposed owner of the
music, and let them decide whether or not to make a claim. If the "owner"
makes too many false claims then they should be banned form the service.

~~~
toong
I thought that was the way it works ? But they just hit the (virtual) "claim
everything" button as fast as they can.

Maybe the problem is that Google can't ban them from the service legally ?

~~~
ObsoleteNerd
The problem is that by the time the victim has fought to have their video re-
monetised or reinstated, it's "old". You have a very short time to make money
on videos these days. Yes there's rare videos that gain longer term success or
get dug up and go viral, but for the most part those first couple days are
vital.

------
giancarlostoro
Given how quickly music becomes "old" I don't understand why copyright needs
to chain up music any longer than two decades (I'm being kinda generous, some
songs are old after a few months / one to five years). I hate the state of
copyrighted works. Movies can stay copyrighted for a good 40 to 50 years,
anything else is crazy. Books maybe 50 years too, but again, it's just crazy
and clear that the extended years of copyright only benefit record labels and
other publishing corporations, and not truly the artists / authors who get
decent money, but it's mostly chump change.

~~~
Cthulhu_
> Given how quickly music becomes "old" I don't understand why copyright needs
> to chain up music any longer than two decades

You say that but the Beatles, Elvis, Beethoven, Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson
are all artists that had their heyday 30-60 years ago and are still the top
selling artists. A lot of them are dead now because of varying reasons, but
some are still alive and kicking and giving new performances of their 40 year
old music.

Are you going to tell them they have no right to their own work anymore 20
years after they had one of their most successful releases?

~~~
giancarlostoro
If anything I'm more for stripping record labels of their copyright, an artist
can keep their copyright till they die for all I care. Their families
shouldn't depend solely on one artist's income. There's many angles to
copyright, it's a complicated subject cause of it, but we need to take away
all the noise of it, this legalized censorship against allegedly copyrighted
works doesn't actually work is the main issue. Most artists don't even care
that their fans download their music until their record labels have them say
otherwise. Artists from what I recall make more money selling merchandise and
doing concerts...

~~~
icebraining
In fact, that right already exists (in the US), it's Section 203 - artists can
terminate their copyright grants after 35 years after the publishing date.

~~~
giancarlostoro
That's quite insightful, now if only after 50 years it would be terminated,
regardless of whether the artist is dead or alive. If they want to give them a
renewed copyright grant or something that's another story, and it should end
the moment the artist dies. Till death do us part indeed.

------
laumars
This reminds me a lot of the experiment someone did uploading white noise: “My
ten hour white noise video now has five copyright claims”[1]

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325)

------
yeloboy
Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years
in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Tell me one reason this
shouldn't be the case. By then, the studios will have taken a profit (or been
a commercial failure but that's not on us) and so will have the artist.

After the artist dies, there's no reason to "support the artist" anymore and
while there is the effect of post-mortem sales spike, a celebration of now
freely available music for all to enjoy would be a much better hommage.

As for the family, there really isn't any reason they should obtain that
copyright. If they wanna earn money with art, they have to create art on their
own. What the current laws create in most cases are lazy rich children who
spend the rest of their lives managing the copyright legacy of their parent.
That doesn't benefit society in any way. Either they work like normal people
or they make their own art but they're not entitled to the copyright of their
parents. If the parents don't want to leave them in poverty, they can still
leave the money they earned with this copyright over the years for their
children.

Also, with the minimum 50 years duration, they could still inherit the
copyright if their parent dies at an early age. However, a term of life PLUS a
ludicrous amount of years is a really bad idea for the cultural development of
our society.

~~~
clon
Lazy rich child A's dad built a house, which he and his children can benefit
from for marginal costs (maintenance, taxes).

Lazy rich child B's dad wrote some music, which he and his children can
benefit from for marginal costs (publishing, taxes).

I know - in one case it is a physical object, and in the other - immaterial.
But both houses and music can offer enjoyment and can be benefited from
financially, and thus have inherent value.

I am not sure if the notion of private property should depend on the continued
existence of the _original_ creator. When do we start requisitioning houses
for the hommage of the original owner?

~~~
plopilop
In my country, inheritance of more than 2 million € is taxed ~50% (20% tax for
500 000 - 1M€).

Copyright inheritance is not taxed in any way.

~~~
onetimemanytime
_> >Copyright inheritance is not taxed in any way. _

Michael Jackson's estate begs to differ: _IRS argues that the pop star’s name
and likeness should have been valued at $161 million; that would be down from
2013, when it valued those rights at $434 million._
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/michaels-jacksons-estate-
faces-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/michaels-jacksons-estate-faces-demand-
for-big-tax-payment-1486320354)

~~~
plopilop
Well, as I said, in my country it's not the case.

------
sklivvz1971
YouTube sent me a takedown request for publishing a video to my own song
(which is published on CD only).

They took down the song because I could not "prove" I was the owner.

I guess my name being on the cover and my picture was not enough...

I.e.

\- they don't check even if you point out it's a mistake \- they always side
with the copyright owner by default

~~~
kartan
> They took down the song because I could not "prove" I was the owner.

Because it is not about rights, it is about power.

------
mirimir
There's really only one viable solution. If you want stuff to stay up, put it
somewhere that won't let anyone take it down. No matter what. And isn't
vulnerable to coercion. YouTube is not such a place, of course. For most
purposes, torrents are good enough. Maybe BitChute. Or for sensitive stuff,
sites on Tor .onion servers. Not Freenet, though, because that is a trip to
jail, just waiting to happen.

Edit: OK, about Freenet. Yes, it is uncensorable distributed storage. And yes,
it is arguably impossible to prove which nodes are storing what, and which
nodes are accessing what. But it _is_ possible to establish what a given node
is sending and receiving, based on hashes. And if you get busted, you will be
faced with the prospect of paying an expert to explain some seriously
complicated stuff to a jury. And you will likely end up making a plea bargain.
Even if you were entirely innocent.

If you're curious about Freenet's opennet content, there's only one "safe" way
to access it. Do everything via Tor, and access Tor via nested VPN chains. Get
yourself some Bitcoin, and mix it very well. Then use it to anonymously lease
a VPS. Install Freenet on the VPS in headless mode, with its webGUIs as Tor
.onion services. Now you can safely access whatever you like. Maybe the VPS
will get busted, but tracking that back to you will be _very_ hard. Also, to
be safe, use Tor via Whonix. Work in a clone of the workstation VM, and nuke
the clone after each use. And of course, have LUKS on the host machine. Maybe
use a dedicated host machine, and wipe it when you're done, just in case.
Seriously, Freenet is _that_ radioactive.

~~~
executesorder66
Why is uploading to Freenet illegal? And where?

~~~
mirimir
Sorry, I updated with a much longer explantion about Freenet. It's not that
using Freenet is illegal _per se_. It's that Freenet is loaded with child
porn, and worse. And that investigators have tweaked Freenet software that
logs content moving through all peers that they connect to. And there are
databases with hashes of illicit content. So they see that your node is
handling illicit content, contact your ISP to get your identity, and then SWAT
you. That's how that ex cop in Philadelphia, who's still sitting in jail,
after "forgetting" his FDE passphrase, got busted.

------
JackFr
The solution, of course, is to make legal arguments a class of intellectual
property.

If a lawyer wants to cite a precedent, he's got to pay. Using a parallel
argument without explicitly citing the precedent is a tort, and may be subject
to lawsuit.

This will tie up all the intellectual property lawyers who will start suing
each other. At that point the rest of us can go on with our lives.

(At least in countries with a common law based legal system...)

------
arh68
Devil's advocate here: why give welfare to artists (really, the labels they
sign their rights over to) when so many great pieces of art actually exist
that were made by artists who died penniless? Van Gogh, Gauguin,

I just don't buy the notion that extending copyrights way, way past death help
the artist in any way. Why fight for labels' rights, when they largely amount
to copyright trolls? Their artificial fears have made their way into YouTube,
which just _has_ to take those legal recordings down (they don't), because
they're just _so scared_ (they should not be) that this _might_ be something
that belongs to a troll.

When the real musicians get their content taken down after Big Label overtly
steals it, we're getting trolled.

------
rbrtdrmpc-
I personally work with music copyright claims for an internet company and as i
see a lot of folks here (including the author) are missing the copyright
thing. They are not claiming for the fingerprinted music, they are claiming
for what the big publishing companies are saying, and they are the ones making
the rules. This is how it works more or less, YT fingerprints a piece, they
run their algorithms on new content and if they match the fingerprint, also
using metadata, if its right and guess what, most of the time its not, they
look at what the MULTIPLE publishers claims on the same stuff. Publishers can
claim whatever they want, they need just to face other publishers if they
abuse their power (and bare with me, this is mad because there is no central
authority!), there is no such way as YouTube able to rule on copyrighted
content. So as an example, if i upload a video with the 5th of Beethoven, the
algorithm can fingerprint it correctly, next YT looks at what publishers are
claiming and if there is someone with a valid recording of that piece at a
"performance" level, they need to pay for the content otherwise stated. And
just to add something more, there are three different type of "claims" in the
music industry, mechanical, synchronization and performance share, more about
the aforementioned here [http://www.copyright.com/blog/music-licensing-public-
perform...](http://www.copyright.com/blog/music-licensing-public-performance-
license-synchronization/)

------
jellicle
Copyright should probably be about 5 years long, total, non-extendable.

This achieves 95% of the asserted benefits of the existing copyright system
and gets rid of 99% of the problems. The boost to national innovation would be
tremendous.

But of course it's about money (copyright is a just a privatized tax) and
anyone advocating this would find themselves marked for death by the copyright
industry.

------
maaaats
> _“[…] thank you for contacting Google Inc. Please note that due to the large
> number of enquiries, e-mails received at this e-mail address support-
> de@google.com cannot be read and acknowledged”_

Google's support in a nutshell.

~~~
chrismorgan
It’s worse than that: the phrasing is entirely deceptive and misleading.
“Thank you for contacting Google”? But the remainder of the message is denying
that you actually _did_ contact Google. You tried, but you _failed_.

~~~
K2L8M11N2
You contacted Google's bots, while failing to actually reach any human. In a
way you succeeded while also failing.

------
qubax
Firstly, the assumption by google should be innocence rather than the guilt of
the youtube creator. The burden should be on the accuser and not the accused.

Secondly, if 3 copyright violations gets the accused banned, then 3 false
copyright accusations should get the accuser banned. Under youtube's current
model, it actually incentivizes companies to claim everything since there are
no consequences.

Thirdly, with what youtube is doing, it seems like they just want to be a
platform for corporate media. It seems like they are heavily pushing
established media like CNN, Late Night Shows, SNL and celebrities like ( Kevin
Hart, Will Smith, etc ). I'm seeing so many more corporate media
recommendations on youtube than ever before. If that's the case, what's the
point of youtube? If all they want is for me to see CNN or Kimmel clips, what
do I need youtube for? I can just go watch CNN and Kimmel on TV.

Youtube's selling point was that it wasn't TV. It was different. That's the
case less and less now. I still have hope for youtube and I still like a lot
of the non-corporate content there, but I hope youtube really reassesses their
handling of claims.

Edit: And as for copyright, there should be less, not more of it and it should
be for limited time. It stifles creativity and it pretty much enriches the few
( most of whom had nothing to do with the creation of art ).

~~~
ConceptJunkie
Copyright as it exists today definitely favored the rich in recent history,
because you had to sell out just to get your creation in front of an audience.
The Internet changed all that, but it seems like companies like Google are
working hard to get things back the way they used to be by becoming the
gateway to the audience.

------
astura
Copyright claims have become out of control!

Someone uploaded white noise they recorded to YouTube and got five copyright
claims.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42580523](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42580523)

~~~
tim333
From that:

>Google automatically makes claims on behalf of content creators if its
algorithms find a close match between the content of two videos.

That seems to the the root cause of a lot of these problems - Google's
software being dumb.

------
jrochkind1
> However, I intended to release all of my videos under a free license, so
> that they could be used in the future for others to educate and inform
> students about these beautiful works. Even in cases where my defense to the
> ContentID claims were successful, the videos were not reverted to this free
> license, making it much more difficult for others to use and share these
> digitized works in the way I originally had intended.

If you don't own the copyright of the thing or have a license to it, how can
you "release it under a license" any license at all?

Is the OP just not saying it clearly, and what they really wanted to do was to
mark it as in the public domain?

Or does Youtube actually have no way to do this?

Our entire cultural practices, corporate policies, and software feature lists,
are set up ignoring public domain use cases. People don't even realize how
this stuff works legally, which doesn't help. But you can't release something
under a license if you don't own it (or have a license to re/sub-license it).

~~~
jwilk
The music is not copyrightable, but presumably the videos are.

------
zaarn
Easy and stupid solution: Make it illegal to falsely claim copyright on a
piece of media and additionally make transparent and fair processes around
Notice&Takedown required for all larger platforms.

Youtube's DMCA mechanism is a black box, you get told you did some bad and you
can say "no I didn't do bad" at which point the black box will do things and
after a few days agree or not.

If someone files a copyright claim on my video I want to know who did it, why
they did it, what they expect as a resolution and if the claims turn out to be
false more than three times, ban them from claiming already uploaded videos of
mine or even future videos.

There needs to be hurtful punishment for abusing these processes but there
isn't so lots of media corporations abuse it without end.

~~~
sametmax
Powerful entities are getting less and less liable to the public every day.
And it's mostly because of us: we don't make them pay any mistake, so they
carry on as long as it profit them.

Google is not your friend. It's a for profit company that protect its
interests.

Basically, they won't do anything because:

\- they don't care. They never did. They used to pretend they did when they
were not the leader. Now they are.

\- they won't gain anything from changing the status quo.

\- they won't lose anything because of it. You content is just a tiny small
drop in the sea, and they own the biggest and most popular ocean. And the fish
never rebels.

~~~
wilsonnb3
Why can't a for profit company that protects its interests be my friend?

~~~
sametmax
It can. It's just not the case with google, as they proved again and again in
the last 5 years.

------
DanielBMarkham
Things are seriously whack in regards to posting anything regarding classical
music online.

I had a short 1-minute video that I made last year to demo a product. I used
the intro to Beethoven's Ninth, second movement, from a recording made in the
50s as background music.

Nobody would post it due to copyright issues. Heck if I could figure it out,
and like all things fucked up about having algorithms tell me what I can and
can't do online, I ignored it and moved on. Not worth fighting over something
I shouldn't have to fight about.

I wonder, however, how many other people do the same thing that I do -- and
how that's all going to end up over the long term. Not good, I expect.

------
phkahler
One solution would be to host videos on your own site. It's another argument
for decentralization.

Of course it's not simple. We need a decentralized platform for this and
social media, but the questions on how to achieve that are many.

~~~
r3bl
> We need a decentralized platform for this and social media

PeerTube (YouTube lookalike), Mastodon (Twitter lookalike), and PixelFed
(Instagram lookalike) are already that[0]. On top of that, they all follow the
same federation standard (ActivityPub), meaning that you can follow and
comment on a PeerTube channel or a PixelFed feed from within Mastodon. You
don't really need three separate accounts, you can just have one.

They are practical on some levels, impractical on others, and they definitely
do require some tweaking of how you use social media.

But they do exist, they are decentralized (as in, anyone can run their own
instance), they are in active development, and they even have some fair amount
of users. If I remember correctly, Mastodon boasts with around 1.5 million
users at the moment. IMO, minuscule number for something that's considered a
social network, but a _gigantic_ number for something that's a _decentralized_
social network.

[0] There are way more clients than the three I've mentioned. I chose to
mention these three because they're lookalikes, meaning that you already kind
of have the idea of what they are for.

~~~
phkahler
Can you regulate who sees what? For example, I want the FB capability of
sharing stuff with friends only in addition to having some public.

------
Rotdhizon
Never forget when that on guy uploaded a video of random white noise and he
got several automatic copyright strikes

------
ddtaylor
YouTube gave me a copyright strike because I posted video of a broken NES
emulator I was developing.

------
mar77i
In case you missed the Blender Foundation debacle...

[https://www.blendernation.com/2018/06/19/blender-
foundation-...](https://www.blendernation.com/2018/06/19/blender-foundation-
youtube-update/)

Another piece in the puzzle that is Youtube's copyright compliance. You'd
consider it good enough, until you realize _how_ broken it is.

------
dessant
Jim Sterling has done a brilliant job at explaining how broken the YouTube
Content ID system is, and how to prevent these companies from monetizing your
work (though you don't get to run ads on the videos either).

Possibly NSFW:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM&t=20s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM&t=20s)

------
gumby
Seems like anybody who receives a serious number (say, 5) of bogus TD requests
from one entity could sue them for restitution for time spent. Of course the
counterparty (bogus filer) won't show up so the plaintiff will get a default
judgment. You could ask for an injunction and court costs or reimbursement and
court costs.

Sounds like a lot of work and of course it would be (though you do get your
costs back) but if a few people do this and win, and then go seize assets with
the sheriff (like a guy in Florida did to Bank of America in the housing
crisis) it would get public attention. I wonder if small claims can issue an
injunction or only cash awards.

I don't know if the system in Germany can support this kind of thing. The
German right agency (GEMA) is particularly bad.

------
beshrkayali
> lawful free expression online

What's the point of using the word "lawful" here? Free expression is free
expression, conforming to a law or not is subject to the country and time. I
think it somehow dilutes the absolute nature in the meaning of: free
expression.

~~~
mLuby
You're technically correct but in a meaningless way.

One is "free" to do basically anything they have the power to do, but nobody
acts that way (they'd be jailed or dead) so when we say "free" we mean within
reasonable bounds, which usually includes the law.

~~~
beshrkayali
I'm not sure how it's meaningless. When we're talking about a concept such is
free speech, there is no point of "within reasonable bounds... the law", at
least in an ideological frame. The only bounds are those of any greater
freedom, meaning do as you like as long as you're not transgressing on someone
else's. Freedom of expression using ones own means is an absolute freedom that
should be self-evident and self-defined.

------
kuroguro
Had exactly the same problem after uploading some newer recordings of
Beethoven's work that was purposely placed in the public domain by the authors
(or it might have been some loose license, can't remember).

------
kachurovskiy
If only there was a way for regular people to unite their resources and push
back against corporations lobbying their copyrights into eternity.

------
phobosdeimos
Seems to me anyone can send a takedown request, or rather program a bot to do
it. There seems to be no cost or due diligence involved.

People want to blame Google but they have no choice but to comply with current
copyright laws. YT is investing a lot of money in monitoring its content. The
internet isn't cool anymore.

------
fogetti
Well this is what the tech giants brought to us. The middle finger and an
automated 'Up your ###' message. Not a far fetch to assume that soon similar
technologies will judge your work resumes and credit worthiness too. With a
similar up your ### message of course.

------
PerilousD
There were file sharing sites before Youtube came along and there are still
file sharing sites other than Youtube now.

SO - stop enabling Google-Youtube to pull this stuff and go somewhere else -
its called using the Internet?

~~~
ConceptJunkie
That's fine. I agree with you. Now, how are people going to find it?

That may work if you have an established presence, but even then you will
likely lose a lot of your audience.

------
coreyp_1
Question: Would filing a false DMCA request count as libel? After all, it is
an accusation that you are using someone else's property without permission,
in a written format.

------
shdon
Got hit with several ContentID claims on videos that I posted in 2013 with the
work I was supposedly infringing on being created in 2014. My appeal was
denied. Moronic algorithms.

------
DarkContinent
Would human monitors work better than ContentID in this situation?

~~~
LeonM
Even if we disregard the obvious costs of having thousands of people screening
uploads all day long, I don't think it would work better. The humans will need
to identify the content, and decide if it's public domain or not. This
requires an infinite amount of knowledge, or a lot of googling.

I think a hybrid sollution (computer identifies the content, and if it is not
sure about it being public domain or not, a human is used to give the final
verdict) is probably the best compromise. But I expect that YT is already
doing this.

~~~
tumetab1
AFAIK the first copy right takedown noticed is received without review by
Youtube, they only review after being contested.

From my perspective, people are just too used tolerating the bad things of
ContentId which in part is the result of bad legislation.

In this case I bet that no human would be able to make a confident call
because of multiple jurisdictions. On Germany it's public domain but on France
maybe it's still copyrighted so you need an international copyright law master
degree to figure that out.

------
CM30
This is why left wing political parties should make copyright and IP law
reform a major part of their platform, and be willing to kick out the
corporations and 'donors' in exchange to going back to basics.

All it takes is one political leader and party with the guts to tell the likes
of the MPAA/RIAA/Disney/whatever to stick it and change the laws. What can
they do if they don't like it? Go to China where IP laws are basically not
enforced at all?

And I'm pretty sure most of the population would be on their side if they did
that.

------
sunsetMurk
listen while you read:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVKiYw5hVuM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVKiYw5hVuM)

Dalia Lazar playing a Beethoven concert on piano.

------
starsinspace
So, does anyone have experience with other video websites, like Vimeo?

~~~
phyzome
You can also just stick video on your own blog using <video> tags. It's super
easy these days! No Javascript libraries or Flash required.

Here's an example on my own site:
[https://www.brainonfire.net/blog/2018/03/23/oxalis-leaf-
open...](https://www.brainonfire.net/blog/2018/03/23/oxalis-leaf-opening-time-
lapse/)

And here's the source code:

    
    
      <video src="https://www.brainonfire.net/hotlink/20180323-oxalis-timelapse/oxalis-160x.mp4"
        poster="https://www.brainonfire.net/hotlink/20180323-oxalis-timelapse/oxalis-poster.jpg"
        width="640" height="360" controls muted="true" preload="metadata">
        Video element not supported in your browser.
        Try this link! <a href="https://www.brainonfire.net/hotlink/20180323-oxalis-timelapse/oxalis-160x.mp4">oxalis-160x.mp4</a>
      </video>
    

(The fallback content is totally optional, but a nice touch for curmudgeons
like me who don't have A/V enabled in their main browser.)

------
jwilk
> _the videos were not reverted to this free license_

What does that mean?

------
User23
No, he's dead.

------
nerdnumerouno
I'm amazed at the amount of comments that say music, should for some reason,
be less protected than other forms of media and created works.

Your precious books and movies are no different than a song someone wrote
and/or performed. Get your heads out of your asses.

