4 incredibly absurd moments caused by copyright
The laws governing creative works seems made to be taken to extremes and lead to absurd situations.
The current system intellectual property is designed to be abused by overzealous rights holders of its contents. Particularly in the United States, where laws often result from the interests of lobby groups and producers, this often means they are molded convenience : this is why, for example, the current term of the copyright, whose extension was originally established in the Copyright Extension Act of 1998, known as the “Law Mickey Mouse “, whose approval was caused mainly by lobby Walt Disney Company to delay the date of entry into the public domain of the famous mouse.
However, other cases less known may be equally or more absurd, and forced illogical if you look closely enough.
1. “Pixels” against his own trailer
A couple of weeks Entura International, a group British anti-piracy, acting on behalf of Columbia Pictures, sent a number of requests for removal of content on videos that contain the word “pixel” in the title, claiming that the videos contain content protected movie Pixels . Apparently it sought to eliminate pirated versions of the film, but given the structure of claims under the DMCA scheme, a large number of independent artists whose contents had absolutely nothing to do with the film saw his work disappear overnight.
The contents were discharged from the site, and then returned in those cases in which users could check that their contents do not infringe the copyright of Columbia. However, among the videos that were removed during this period, found the short film in which the film was based, and the official trailer of this . As if that were not enough, the latter was the only case of removed content that actually contained film material.
2. iTunes is illegal in the UK
Last year, the UK legalized copying for private use , a practice that was already legal in most of the world, to the point that many citizens They did not know that previously was not. The problem? Certain representatives of the music industry objected to the law before the Court, and it was declared illegal.
As a result, the existing statute was restored. It is illegal to make private copies of works under copyright that you own, without permission of the owner of rights: this includes format changes and support from one medium to another
. This means that under current law, iTunes (and any other similar software to copy CDs the hard drive of your computer or other device) is illegal , and that the company could face legal claims for damages. Basically, the law means that any software that lets you make backups in your music library (or your e-books, or any “protection” of intellectual property right) is an offense.
3. Universal vs. Megaupload … because yes
Does anyone remember la Megaupload song , one containing video artists COMOP Diddy, Will.i.am, Alicia Keys, Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown and Mary J Blige? If you remember it, perhaps you remember that shortly after it was published, was removed from YouTube and other platforms due to a copyright claim by Universal Music Group. Although Both the song and the video were original material , UMG claimed that since most of the artists appearing in the video had a contract with them, the material could not be issued.
Although Kim Dotcom appealed the request, many instances of video remain written off even today , in what is considered one of the most blatant examples of abuse of the system of copyright.
4. Happy Birthday, Warner
In case you did not know, every time you sing” Cumpleaños “(in the classic version that appears in every Hollywood movie in the history of world) you are violating the property of Warner Music Group – or at least that’s what they claim
A filmmaker currently trying to prove that “Happy Birthday To You” is. in the public domain , after being sued by Warner for using the song. This was written in 1893, and was published at least in 1924. Although there are strong arguments for holding that the song is in the public domain, in the United States considers its copyright expire in 2030 . Warner seems to conclude that the creators find it logical to pay the license rather than risk being sued, demonstrating once again how e l current copyright system favors large corporations and harms individual creators or independent.