Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Backstage' started by jdto, Jan 11, 2018.
Look at the size of the dick beaters on this dude.
meanwhile on YouTube there's big tittied chicks playing cover songs with 10,000,000. views that somehow fly under the radar.
While someone else will get a video pulled because Welcome to the Jungle was playing in the background.
and holy shit DO NOT play a Prince song!!!
Thanks for posting Facebook rules on copyrights. However, it takes an attorney and sometimes a court to tell us what can be copyrighted and what cannot. We know a chord progression can't be copyrighted, and we know that an entire melody can. I strongly believe that "riff clips" are not covered by the copyright on the entire song. If riffs could be the subject of copyright protection of the entire song, there wouldn't be enough courts to handle the suits! I feel that Facebook made a legal decision without legal advice.
It seems it was probably lawyers/possible lawsuits/big money settlements that initiated the crack downs to begin with.
I have nothing to do with facebook and I am shying away from all the big dick corporations run by little dicks!
It appears to me that Facebook is just passing the buck and not owning up to their responsibility like YouTube does. Facebook should pay the fees to benefit their product, the users.
facebook, douche pipe, man bun.....
wake me when they all go away
You might as well stay in bed
Atlantic has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to protect their copyrights. Facebook is responsible for enforcing its TOS to maintain the environment that retains its userbase, again, as a responsibility to its shareholders. Atlantic has acted properly, in aggressively requesting copyright protectin, while Facebook has not, as they have unflinchingly caved in to an unsupported complaint, probably to avoid setting the precedent of having to bother investigating such a complaint.
Nothing against the guy whatsoever - but this is why social media and "cloud storage" in general suck. I've had three "WE'RE GONNA BE HERE FOREVER" storage sites close doors on me, leaving me scrambling to find terabytes of capacity elsewhere (I'm a photog) , and Facebook has banned me three times (the last one being for 30 days over the "major US holidays" - cutting me off from friends and family) for what appears to be a very ethereal set of """community rules""" (the last ban came from posting a pic I've posted a dozen times previously). After they banned me the image was still in place 3 weeks later - they finally removed it after I pointed it out about 9 times.
Anyway - social media is being ruined by lawyers and advertisers in general, ironic given that it is supposed to be a "social" platform and not merely ANOTHER marketing platform.... but then it's the ads that keep the shit running.
YouTube started to suck balls the week Google bought them - as per Google's MO of "buy it, then ruin it (or make it go away altogether)".
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for the protection of personal / intellectual property - but someone doing a shit cover of "When Doves Cry" isn't going to be draining millions from the coffers that the Prince bloodsuckers are all currently drinking deeply from.
It's pretty sad - the idea of social media had promise - who would have guessed it would be ruined by.... society.
Facebook is run more by AI and algorithm than actual human beings (plus, they've a BILLION users to keep in check), that's why they'll cut off your head to address a splinter. There's no finesse on Facebook when it comes to moderation. Same for Twitter.
I backed up all my important Facebook pics.
While I've never seen Truck Driver Shawn's FB videos, from FB's own page on copyright help, under "Fair Use": "The fair use doctrine recognizes that rigid application of copyright laws in certain cases would be unfair or may inappropriately stifle creativity or stop people from creating original works, which would harm the public. So, the doctrine allows people to use someone else’s copyrighted work without permission in certain circumstances. Common examples include: criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research."
The rest of the FB page is pretty interesting as well. From the above and without consulting a lawyer, it seems if Mr Shawn were using his FB page to teach riffs, he broke no copyright laws. And of course there are hundreds of thousands of FB videos of cover bands that have nothing to do with "criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research."
And I'm sure Suckerberg has a slew of lawyers on retainer who get paid whether they sit around all day or not, so why not contest Atlantic? If FB isn't paying ASCAP, what the hell would it cost Suckerberg - probably chump change to him.
This just has the feeling of "let's dump on the little guy, the guy who isn't going to get a lawyer to represent him while we sit around all day and congratulate ourselves."
while I admit its a dick move ,the real blame goes to FB
I am not on Facebook.
But isn't Facebook like a window to "your life"?
So if a dude plays "Sweet Child of Mine" (I just picked a random title here... )
in front of his friends in his living room it's ok but if he plays it through the "window of Facebook"
then it's not ok? I guess there's space for arguments right there.
Now if he makes money by "performing" the song, then it's a different story and royalties should be paid.
But playing in front of "friends", them being "there" or "virtual" should not be sanctioned.
I'm pretty sure these guys didn't get paid.
Take it away boys!
You're looking at the wrong perps. It's not the person playing. It's the medium that is supplying copies to the world (Facebook).
Facebook IS making money from views/plays of the content. Atlantic has no problem with the dude, they have a problem with Facebook.
That's all well and good, so why not attack them instead of all the people they are using to make their money? They're not in it for free.
This. ALL of it. And the bloodsuckers is accurate. They didn't create the music or contribute to in in any way, but come hell or high water, they are gonna cash in on it now that Prince is gone.
Totally agree that Facebook is in the wrong here, google figured this out a LONG time ago with you tube and pays its fair share (off the backs of the people who post it, but whatever) why can't facebook bone up and pay their fair share? This poor guy is a victim of FACEBOOK's greed, not Atlantic's.