TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Copyright Corruption Scandal Surrounds Anti-Piracy Campaign

Anti-piracy group BREIN is caught up in a huge copyright scandal in the Netherlands. A musician who composed a track for use at a local film festival later found it being used without permission in an anti-piracy campaign. He is now claiming at least a million euros for the unauthorized distribution of his work on DVDs. To make matters even worse, a board member of a royalty collection agency offered to help the composer to recoup the money, but only if he received 33% of the loot.

A story currently unfolding in the Netherlands painfully exposes the double standards and corruption that can be found in some parts of the copyright industry.

It all started back in 2006, when the Hollywood-funded anti-piracy group BREIN reportedly asked musician Melchior Rietveldt to compose music for an anti-piracy video. The video in question was to be shown at a local film festival, and under these strict conditions the composer accepted the job.

However, according to a report from Pownews the anti-piracy ad was recycled for various other purposes without the composer’s permission. When Rietveldt bought a Harry Potter DVD early 2007, he noticed that the campaign video with his music was on it. And this was no isolated incident.

The composer now claims that his work has been used on tens of millions of Dutch DVDs, without him receiving any compensation for it. According to Rietveldt’s financial advisor, the total sum in missed revenue amounts to at least a million euros ($1,300,000).

The existence of excellent copyright laws and royalty collecting agencies in the Netherlands should mean that the composer received help and support with this problems, but this couldn’t be further from what actually happened.

Soon after he discovered the unauthorized distribution of his music Rietveldt alerted the local music royalty collecting agency Buma/Stemra. The composer demanded compensation, but to his frustration he heard very little from Buma/Stemra and he certainly didn’t receive any royalties.

Earlier this year, however, a breakthrough seemed to loom on the horizon when Buma/Stemra board member Jochem Gerrits contacted the composer with an interesting proposal. Gerrits offered to help out the composer in his efforts to get paid for his hard work, but the music boss had a few demands of his own.

In order for the deal to work out the composer had to assign the track in question to the music publishing catalogue of the Gerrits, who owns High Fashion Music. In addition to this, the music boss demanded 33% of all the money set to be recouped as a result of his efforts.


Rietveldt’s advisor talking business with the Buma board member

buma

The conversation between Gerrits and the composer’s financial advisor was recorded by Pownews, and during the conversation the financial advisor confronts Gerrits with his unconventional proposal.

“Why do you have to earn money?” he asks, as usually all of the money goes directly to the artists.

“It could be because a lot of people in the industry know that they are in trouble when I get involved,” Gerrits responds, adding that he can bring up the topic immediately in a board meeting next week.

Once again trying to find confirmation for the proposal, the composer’s advisor later asks if the music boss indeed wants one-third of the money.

“Yes, that’s the case, but then [the composer] would make 660,000 euros and now he has nothing,” Gerrits responds calmly.

The seemingly corrupt practices of Gerrits resulted in mass disbelief among many Dutch viewers and today the news is being reported by several mainstream outlets in the Netherlands. As a result of the controversy, Gerrits quickly decided to temporarily resign as Buma/Stemra board member to focus on his defense.

Responding to the press, Gerrits further claims that he was somehow “misinterpreted,” but unfortunately for him the recordings leave little room for that.

BREIN director Tim Kuik, whose organization is accused of distributing the unauthorized copies, noted to TorrentFreak that this is a contractual issue in which BREIN is not involved. Kuik further said that BREIN is not the distributer nor the client in this case.

Whatever BREIN’s role in this case, there is little doubt that someone in the movie industry failed to pay the composer. And instead of standing up for the rights of a musician, a board member of the music royalty collection agency tried to exploit the situation for financial gain.

Sickening.

Update: Pownews’ written report no longer references BREIN’s involvement in the case. Although BREIN is responsible for many anti-piracy warnings on DVDs in The Netherlands, the video described in this article was made for another party related to the movie industry. This confirms the statement of BREIN director Tim Kuik.

Update: Dutch politicians, musicians and a Buma/Stemra board member are shocked by the revelations and describe Gerrits’ actions as “corrupt,” a “money grab” and “mafia-like.” Politicians want more transparency from the royalty collecting agency, and will debate the issue in parliament.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Derpface

    ..33% of 1 million Euro just for law services?
    what the fuck?

    • HollywoodAnna

      Not even law services, Gerrits is no lawyer. Corruption of the highest order, attempting to use ones own position to gain free money. I think it’s commonly called a bribe.

    • HollywoodAnna

      Not even law services, Gerrits is no lawyer. Corruption of the highest order, attempting to use ones own position to gain free money. I think it’s commonly called a bribe.

      • Albert Piratus

        Or even more specifically, racketeering.

        In this case, Gerrits is promising to “protect” Reitvelt’s copyrights from Gerrits’ own organization.

        This is no different from a mobster who offers to “protect” a shopkeeper from broken windows. The clear threat here is that if you don’t pay, the mobster’s own criminal organization will continue to cause the shopkeeper losses by breaking the shop’s windows.

        • Imran9898

          What about ‘innocent until proven guilty’ – Let the courts decide. I for one am not interested in going around with a lynch mob ready to hang the first person whom I think MAY have committed a crime. We should encourage the upholding of law in a civilised society!

        • Piraatti

          … And that’s why we call it “the copyrights mafia” in Finland.

        • Guest

          @Imran9898

          What about “innocent until proven guilty” – let the courts decide? Tell that to the thousands of individuals who were dragged to court based on IP subpoenas. These people – who collect expensive royalty fees for artists that they’re not even sure falls under their protection (see GEMA), and routinely fail to pay the artists they represent (see SoundExchange) – deserve to be treated the same way as they have treated others.

        • Headbhang

          Not quite, it’s actually more like a bribe, really. The people who are using the composer’s music illegally are not the same ones as those trying exort him of the money. Rather, it’s a member of the agency supposedly in charge of protecting his revenue, but that it’s refusing to do its job.
          So, in this case it’s more like an individual police officer is offering to help track down and recover a shopkeeper’s looted goods in exchange for keeping a fraction of them because the police force refuses to do anything against the dirty organization it seems to be in collusion with.

      • Guest

        We don’t have bribes in the West.

        We have lobbyists, fund-raisers, donations and introduction fees. Amounts to a fucket-load of corruption all the same.

        • Guest

          nope, we have bribes as well…

      • Jh Borden

        JUst good ‘ol fashioned corruption at all level’s….not suprising but we need to hold them accountable. They dont mind holding us accountable let’s return the favour ten fold. :)

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000572292979 Jordan Bukikosa

        Racketeering, or grafting. But because it’s just an effing cool word, RACKETEERING.

    • Guest

      Anti-FileSharing along with corruption? No way!

    • Oz

      Somone should tell the guy its used on DVDs in Australia too.

      • Razorgirl

        Not to mention Cinemas.

        I’ve seen this ad multiple times just prior to seeing a film in Cinemas in Australia as well.

    • Jh Borden

      Sounds right to me my lawyer charged 25 percent without court and 30 percent with court if it had to but I settled out of court I got 75 % they got 25 %.

      • Tyrrelco

        In my country that is legal, you hire a lawyer for a fee or commission but you pay only if you win the case, no win no pay to the lawyer or to you. But that´s not a case like this one, where a company have to provide a service to you by making sure you get the money (that´s why you become a member of this association) but instead try to get an extra and huge amount of money for their normal job, and on top of that the money goes directly to one member of the company, not the company… do you really think that is the same case??? check again!

        • Jh Borden

          In my country Canada it is the same as you. I just did not feel the need to specify. I thought it was self explanatory being as I stated that I settled.

      • Anonymous

        Read the article again.

        Gerrits is NOT a lawyer. He’s a board member of the company that screwed the composer over. It’s like a neighbor steals your barbeque, and then offers to pay you 66% of the cost of it.

        • TheOriginalPounderOfAss

          well i mean, you wouldnt sell a used bbq for full retail price would you now?

        • Jh Borden

          My bad I read the comments first on this one. :)

        • http://www.facebook.com/croga Koen van der Pasch

          Not entirely… BREIN is the company that’s using the stuff without permission. They are a company that sues copyright violators.
          BUMA/STEMRA is the company that’s supposed to collect copyright fees for artists. Gerrits is a board member of them.

          So it’s more like a neighbor stealing your barbecue, you go to the police to report it and the District Atorney then tells you he will get your barbecue back for 33% of that barbecue.

        • Kaleknar

          @ koen, thats not true, buma/stemra (the royalty collection agency) is the mayor participant in BREIN and as such have at least one, the most important, seat on its board.

    • Klgray

      More like 33% of a million Euro just to do the job he’s already supposed to be doing.

    • ImWorkaRealJobinSomalia

      33% of 1 million, as payment, for giving him what he deserved in the first place… wait… what…

    • ImWorkaRealJobinSomalia

      33% of 1 million, as payment, for giving him what he deserved in the first place… wait… what…

    • Alexander

      Any lawyer able to convince 33% is a fair rate most likely has the negotiation skills to win the case.

  • Noone

    Obvious Money Grabbing MAFIAA shill is Obvious!

  • http://twitter.com/MAFIAAFire MAFIAAFire

    And this is only one guy who _got caught_ .

    There are MANY more who do not get caught for screwing the public AND the artists who they shout they are “protecting”.

    • Oomg

      you should expose them then :)

    • Anonymous

      …I just had to like this comment.

  • http://twitter.com/ScytheNoire ScytheNoire

    Can’t we kill off all the lawyers yet? Pretty please.

    • anon

      no, but we can make their frivolous lawsuits and litigation useless with technology.

  • lw

    Nothing ordinary will help here. What is needed is another Breivik who will issue death sentences to the highest members of the copyright industry and lawyers involved. This is required in every country and repeatedly, until the problem is solved.

    • eli

      Dude ! Are you really as sick as you sound? Another Breivik…
      Sure, lets call out to all the psychos and encourage them to go on a killing spree just so you can continue to download your next episode of whatever…

      Moron!

    • sonicqa

      You’re a right fucking ray of sunshine!

      So you’re supporting the action that Breivik took?

      • lw

        No I do not. He is sick religious nut.
        On the other hand, what is really sick is this whole stupid fu©king system of Corporate Terrorism influencing current primitive centralized political power. This medieval bullshit needs to go. Just an idea for a catalyst, otherwise you will not see a change in your lifetime.
        And this is not only about copyright and as suggested some tv shows, but rather the Corporate Terrorists having too much control through legal bribery to change legislation in favor of few and against humanity.
        Now that is fu©king sick. Yes friends, not only copyright industry and representing lawyers, but also corporate terrorists from other industries plus those corrupt politicians need to go.

      • lw

        No I do not. He is sick religious nut.
        On the other hand, what is really sick is this whole stupid fu©king system of Corporate Terrorism influencing current primitive centralized political power. This medieval bullshit needs to go. Just an idea for a catalyst, otherwise you will not see a change in your lifetime.
        And this is not only about copyright and as suggested some tv shows, but rather the Corporate Terrorists having too much control through legal bribery to change legislation in favor of few and against humanity.
        Now that is fu©king sick. Yes friends, not only copyright industry and representing lawyers, but also corporate terrorists from other industries plus those corrupt politicians need to go.

        • Asdf

          Actually he is not religious at all. He calls himself Christian because he appreciates the “Christian society” or something like that. He does not care about church, Jesus and that stuff, mostly just thinks it’s better here with Christianity than some other stuff.

    • Rory

      No. That sort of violent extremism is not the answer.

  • http://www.the-digital-reader.com Nate

    And does this surprise anyone? Collection societies are extortion schemes in the first place. All that’s new here is that the victim is the artist, not some business.

  • http://www.the-digital-reader.com Nate

    And does this surprise anyone? Collection societies are extortion schemes in the first place. All that’s new here is that the victim is the artist, not some business.

  • Pingback: Copyright Corruption Scandal Surrounds Anti-Piracy Campaign | TorrentForce Blog

  • J1zzlord

    What needs to happen here is that BREIN members need to be r@p3d in prison for eternity by a gang full of of rabid midgets hopped up on goofballs.

    There should also be livestock nearby, and the livestock should occasionally trample the BREIN dudes so they stay squishy.

  • Goodbyenoway

    Everytime I see that “You Wouldn’t Steal a Handbag” or “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” ad campaign at the beginning of a DVD I want to throw up. It’s such complete bullshit.

    Of course, I wouldn’t steal a handbag or a car. But if I bought one it would be mine and I have the right to do ANYTHING with it that I choose. But the entertainment creeps tell me that if I buy a CD or a DVD I have no right to do anything with it because it’s not really mine. That, my friends, is completely obscene.

    If I buy a car or a handbag, I have a right to sell it to someone else or let them borrow it or share it with others. I don’t have that right with a CD or a DVD, according to the entertainment industry scumbugs.

    So the comparison is ludicrous.

    Give me the same rights as I have when I purchase ANY OTHER good, product, or service and then we can start talking.

    In the meantime, take that ad campaign and shove it so far up your ass that you can lick your brains (if you have any).

    • Anonymous

      I agree to this and further it by saying that any folks who want to be Artists do not ever sign with a Big Label or let a Big-Wig Anti-Piracy Org use your Art.
      Neither one of these are needed any longer.Power is with the people.With the Internet anyone can be a Star.

    • Itsevilbert

      To be totally honest, if I could copy/download a car I would, I wouldn’t steal one. Sharing is caring.

      • M0sh3g

        That’s what corporate spying is. You copy/download plans/circuits/material compositions/etc, stuff that company invested millions into, so you can re-use them as a competitor for free, or sell to competitors for nice money.

        Would you still do it?

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          Irrelevant straw manning, at most.

          Copying a car, or for that matter, copying a media file, as part of a simple information exchange between individuals has zip and nothing to do with intrusion and spying.

          Nor does it have anything to do with commercialized distribution of said information – so-called “bootlegging”.

          There is a VAST difference.

    • Danny

      It always reminds me of the IT crowd episode. ‘You wouldn’t steal a baby’
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

    • Danny

      It always reminds me of the IT crowd episode. ‘You wouldn’t steal a baby’
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

    • Imram9898

      Your comments are flawed and wrong…. The products you are talking about cannot be compared in the same light as though containing intellectual property. You can own a DVD (the physical disc) you can sell it, break it do what you like, but rightly so you DO NOT own the content. There has to be some form of protection for intellectual property if you want to expand and grow any markets or technology. Without it you would not get any funding for research and the world would go back to the dark ages! It has and always will be difficult for any person or company to compete with the so called ‘free’ mentality.

      • Fredrika

        > “Your comments are flawed and wrong….”

        Let’s remember those words when we go through the rest of what you wrote, ok?

        > “The products you are talking about cannot be compared in the same light as though containing intellectual property.”

        No products contain intellectual property. Some products, such as copies, contain intellectual works

        > “You can own a DVD (the physical disc) you can sell it, break it do what you like, but rightly so you DO NOT own the content.”

        That’s correct, nobody owns the content, because an intellectual work can not be owned. An intellectual work does not constitute intellectual property.

        The unfortunately misleading term intellectual property refers to the copyright monopoly, which is indeed a piece of intangible property, that can be owned, sold or bought.

        > “There has to be some form of protection for intellectual property if you want to expand and grow any markets or technology.”

        There’s no scientific evidence to support the thesis that a copyright monopoly that extends to controlling non-profit use, such as filesharing, is needed for business models built up around the use of an intellectual work to succeed.

        > “Without it you would not get any funding for research and the world would go back to the dark ages!”

        That’s nothing else than your personal conclusion, that no actual evidence supports, a conclusion from someone who doesn’t understand the difference between an intellectual work, and a intellectual property monopoly.

        > “It has and always will be difficult for any person or company to compete with the so called ‘free’ mentality.”

        Entrepreneurship has always been hard, anyone who thinks that it should be easy, or that one out of principle is entitled to an intellectual property monopoly, is the one who carries a free mentality.

        Shall we go back to the beginning now?

        > “Your comments are flawed and wrong….”

        Hhmm, seems it was the other way around, now doesn’t it? =)

        • http://tinyurl.com/ANoiXioNA-personal-info ANoiXioNA

          Way to rip him a new one

          The Chemical X is certainly showing……….”Bubbles” : ¬ )

        • Fredrika

          Amateur proctology, Fusilli pasta, stop shorting, and ‘the move’ have always been some guilty pleasures of mine since i saw the ‘Assman episode’ of Seinfeld back in the days.. =)

        • Guest

          She is the joy and the laughter!

          Fighting trolls, trying to save the world.
          Here she comes just in time.

        • It’s a fit-up

          I love it when pompous know-it-alls get taken apart like that.
          Good stuff….

        • Xyrgen

          You may not agree with him but your whole argument falls apart with the distinction between intellectual works and intellectual property. The work it’s self is an intellectual work (as technically is anything considered artistic) however once it becomes copyrighted it becomes intellectual property. In this case it is the intellectual property that is the focus as no-one is denying that he wrote it and therefore deserves royalties. Either way all that’s irrelevent because the actual legal case covers only two things which company is not correctly doing it’s job which constitutes operating under false pretenses and could lead to an investigation that may result in all their clients being compensated and the heads of that business being put in jail for a lengthy period and whether or not gerrits should be charged not only for attempting to use standover tactics on a client but for receiving an income from the business while not doing his job. When you put both of these together what is actually going on is a legal debate about whether the company should be paying the unpaid royalties because it was their job to do so or whether gerrits should pay the unpaid royalties from his own pocket as clearly he had something to do with the royalties not being paid by the company in the first place.

        • Fredrika

          > “You may not agree with him but your whole argument falls apart with the distinction between intellectual works and intellectual property.”

          Agree? I have not disclosed any of my personal opinions. My answer consists only of facts.

          > “The work it’s self is an intellectual work (as technically is anything considered artistic) however once it becomes copyrighted it becomes intellectual property.”

          No it does not, and i explained that very thing in my answer, you just seem to not understand it?

          Property, physical or intangible, are limited in their supply. It can be owned, sold or bought. An intellectual work is never property, it can never be owned, sold or bought. It can however be controlled, through a copyright monopoly, which gives the owner exclusive right to control how the intellectual work is allowed to be used in conjunction with physical goods or services.

          But this does not change the original point, that an intellectual work does never constitute intellectual property. All property including intellectual property has a monetary value. The intellectual work has no monetary value. The copyright monopoly is what holds the economical value.

      • Nevdka

        iTunes competes with free music. Steam competes with free games. The great classic works of literature, art and music were created without copyright protection.

        Also, comparing those products (handbags, cars etc) to DVDs and CDs isn’t what Goodbyenoway did, it’s what the distribution companies do. THEY compare DVDs to handbags, THEY compare theft of physical property to unauthorised sharing of intangible property. Goodbyenoway said that ‘the comparison is ludicrous.’

        Imram, your comments are flawed and wrong.

        • Tshamika

          oh yeah, search “itunes flaw allowed government monitoring for 3 years” (on all users) way to get v’d….. fuck apple and itunes

        • Imran9898

          Yes Itunes and Steam do compete compete against free, but what do people these days prefer to have – the product that is free or the product which which has been paid for and developed to a higher standard. An prime example is BT traffic in the majority is used for the distribution of illegal content, be it films, music, porn or whatever. As I said before competing with ‘free’ is never easy – I didn’t say it was impossible. In my own personal view I think if a person develops something and others want it then that person is allowed to remunerated for his time and skills etc – it is their choice.

        • Imran9898

          Yes Itunes and Steam do compete compete against free, but what do people these days prefer to have – the product that is free or the product which which has been paid for and developed to a higher standard. An prime example is BT traffic in the majority is used for the distribution of illegal content, be it films, music, porn or whatever. As I said before competing with ‘free’ is never easy – I didn’t say it was impossible. In my own personal view I think if a person develops something and others want it then that person is allowed to remunerated for his time and skills etc – it is their choice.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Imran9898

          Paulo Coelho published “The Alchemist” on TPB for free and suddenly his books sales skyrocketed with 12 million.

          Trent Reznor published an album on TPB and sells one million copies of that same album in a year, becoming amazon’s best seller during 2008.

          Sorry, no. You are incorrect. You can compete against “free” with great success even when the “product” is an identical copy of what is already available for free.

          This has been proven over and over again for quite some time. Your deductions are based on false premises.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Imran9898

          “In my own personal view I think if a person develops something and others want it then that person is allowed to remunerated for his time and skills etc – it is their choice.”

          That person is certainly able to – and should be able to – prevent others from selling said product without remunerating him. I.e. “genuine” product piracy and bootlegging.

          When it concerns person A passing information to person B as part of a noncommercial transaction then the rights of free speech – the ability to communicate for person A and person B – is not a commercial transaction and the “cost” of enforcing artist C’s right to remuneration vastly supercedes the gain to both society as a whole and is borne directly as an inexcusable hit on ordinary civil rights.

          You are certainly welcome to charge money as an artist. If you cannot do this without interfering with people’s ability to communicate freely then you will have to abstain in charging money for your product or service this way. It’s that simple.

          Because there is no magical crystal ball which will inform you on what person A is sending person B, meaning that everything, including highly confidential matters, would have to be monitored. Which is in essence why copyright can never be enforced without abolishing vast segments of ordinary civil liberties as far as non-commercial infringement goes.

      • Zig

        “It has and always will be difficult for any person or company to compete with the so called ‘free’ mentality.”

        And yet Microsoft and Apple both continue to succeed (and some) with their commercial operating systems when competing against the free Linux alternatives. So what’s your point again?

        • Imram9898

          “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
          Albert Einstein

        • Xyrgen

          I would just like to know how exactly this became a debate about the effectiveness of brandnames and commercialization versus free trade. History has already proven that financially brandnames are more effective even though free trade is at a more personal level because they have the ability to appeal to a much larger customer base. Not that it matters anyway because this is supposed to be about a legal case not which is the better money making option.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Xyrgen

          “I would just like to know how exactly this became a debate about the effectiveness of brandnames and commercialization versus free trade.”

          Because the copyright industry does it’s level best to muddle the two? Brand names and convenience matters which is why you can sell bottled tap water at a hundred times the price of what everyone has available.

          The actual value of pouring tap water into an old evian bottle does not, in that way, generate a loss of revenue for evian assuming it does not get sold with the label on.

          However, this is more or less what the pro-copyright brigade would have us believe which is a nonsensical argument at best.

        • Garouken

          Microsoft fights “free” with ignorance, have you ever seen a PC on a store without Windows?

          In Chile Microsoft made a deal behind closed doors to ensure that the goverment would use their software (This ocurred when Ricardo Lagos was president)

          Apple succeds since their products as a whole are too good.

          Note: I’m a linux user and a custom pc fan

      • T-shamika

        well if we own the disk, not the contents, then that means we can all sue them for ripping us off for the price of a cd/dvd. I can buy a 50 pack of them sometimes for $7.99. So this means even if u paid $10 and it just happened to have a product on it, we all got screwed still. so 50×10=500, where the 50 pack that just did not happen to have the content on it was only $7.99

        • T-shamika

          now i remember years back the riaa (before mpaa merged with riaa to create mafiaa,) they got sued for price fixing. What compensation did I get, $16usd for ripping me off on over 200 dvd’s. scam anyone?

        • Xyrgen

          I have to agree with imram to an extent on this one except that you aren’t just paying for the dvd but also the right to watch the content that the producers have paid to include in the package you still don’t own the content or any part of it, hence the reason a blank dvd is cheaper. Think of it this way when you buy a tv you aren’t paying directly for the shows you can watch on it just for the means to watch those shows, otherwise everyone who owns a tv would not only be entitled to royalties from each show they watch but also to have a direct say in what happens on those shows and when they are or aren’t shown. Face the facts if you try and give everyone a say in everything then nothing gets done because there will always be people out there pushing for unrealistic goals or going against the grain so to speak. Not to mention that it would reduce the governments job down to nothing more than data collection/management and an ever growing pile of unread wants and opinions from people. This in itself would totally crush the economy (as it would mean resorting to trading what you have for what you can get not based on value or worth as without an economy there is no value or worth but on how much the person you were trading with liked you) and halt the progress of the human race as we have only progressed to where we are today by basing things on economic value and without that there is no question that life would just go back to only the strong survive which equates to nothing more than what goes on in the animal kingdom and if we reduce ourselves to that then we’re very literally taking a giant leap backwards and rendering all of history since the formal introduction of currency null and void. Free trade is never a good option as there will always be some fool trying to assert their dominance via standover tactics. On the other hand we have fair trade but in order for fair trade to work we have to either have some form of economy in order to put a value on things or to render literally everything as having equal value which to put into perspective still doesn’t actually equate to fair trade because it would mean that I would be able to trade a scrunched up bit of paper, a broken shoelace or even faeces for literally anything including land and people. So by simply cutting a shoelace into as many pieces as possible or within just a few trips to the toilet or even just by collecting some dust I would be able to own the entire world because the useless items I have to trade would be worth just as much as your life or the land you live on.

      • Those are my bits.

        You sir are the one who is quite incorrect here. If I buy the disc, I fully expect that what’s on it is mine. I do and will continue to do what ever I want with it. If I didn’t have this expectation, I would never buy it in the first place. Which is one reason why the sales of DVD’s and CD’s has declined. The main reason of course is that they are totally obsolete. The disc itself doesn’t contain the original work, the disc contains a copy of the work. It doesn’t matter whether or not you had the right to copy it when the disc was created, it’s still a copy. If I want to make a copy of my copy contained on the disc I’m going to do so. I’m paying for the right to do that when I buy it. Period. If you don’t want me to do that, then don’t sell me the disc, and I in turn will agree not to buy it. In the end it’s the consumer who has the power, and who sets the precedent, not the distributors. A lesson big media obviously needs to learn the hard way.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        “There has to be some form of protection for intellectual property if you want to expand and grow any markets or technology.”

        So…the last 4000 years of recorded history didn’t actually happen?

        And in modern times every time a nation has decided to skip the entire concept of “intellectual property” said nation has had a fevered upsurge of innovation and industry. According to your arguments the british empire never existed nor did the US establish itself as the world’s airplane nation.

        That’s a very sad attempt you made there. Not only factually incorrect but also staggeringly ignorant.

        • Cactus

          I’m honestly interested in what happened in relation to copyright inthe US and the British empire if you could share a link or two?

          I’ve read about germany having a couple of decades of very light copyright protection that may have had an effect in its powerful industrial development.
          http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html

        • Xyrgen

          Name one nation ever that has truly skipped the concept of intellectual property and I will more than happily prove to you that not only did that nation not skip intellectual property but were infact embracing it at the time you claim they were skipping it.

        • Xyrgen

          Name one nation ever that has truly skipped the concept of intellectual property and I will more than happily prove to you that not only did that nation not skip intellectual property but were infact embracing it at the time you claim they were skipping it.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Cactus

          Google “the wright brothers patent war” and “Manufacturer’s aircraft association”. Basically the US government under Roosevelt forced every airplane patent holder to form a patent pool in order to form a cross-licensing association.

          In effect they abolished the patent control entirely for individual stakeholders. Whether any constructor of said patent even got remuneration out of this patent pool, I don’t know.

          As for the british/french controversies it’s a bit more difficult to isolate – neither the UK nor the French shared a common patent system at the time and so you’ll need to investigate under “industrial espionage” as that is the form it took. I’d look under the period of textile manufacture as that is where the UK and the french butted heads extensively over a few hundred years.

          @Xyrgen

          Just about every nation for roughly 90% of recorded human history? China – notable for possessing printing, advanced chemistry, and relatively advanced metallurgy, a plethora of creative arts and writing, only implemented it’s first patent after contact with the west.

          But feel free to correct me on those issues if you like.
          “Intellectual Property” as a whole has only ever been utilized in “modern” times. And the last half-century of it’s definition has more in common with the “Information control” implemented and used by socialistic or fascist regimes than with the far more restricted systems which were in place before the 1930′s or so.

          I’ll agree that on a local level some extent of patents, state-sponsored monopolies and to a certain extent copyright has existed since between the 14th century and the 16th century in europe, but current law bears little or no resemblance to this.

      • Galaxian_9

        you’re right, I do not own the movie or music on the CD/DVD. it’s only a license to use it. But why do I, if my CD/DVD gets damaged, have to buy everything again? I mean, I already paid the license, so I should get the movie/music again on a fresh CD/DVD at the cost of the physical disc.

      • guest

        and that a justification for having copyright law

        not a justification for misrepresenting copyright infringement as theft

    • Nalano

      I wouldn’t steal a handbag, but I’ll buy a Chinatown knockoff in half a heartbeat.

      • Tshamika

        well sorry homeland security, ice, and fbi take sites offline that sells the stuff as they don’t like getting often better products cheaper….

    • Nalano

      I wouldn’t steal a handbag, but I’ll buy a Chinatown knockoff in half a heartbeat.

    • T-shamika

      “You Wouldn’t Steal a Handbag” or “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car , but we’ll steal your music”. This should be the new slogan from the mafiaa goons. They say don’t do something and do it themselves…. Hipocrits

    • http://twitter.com/Konrad Konrad Neuwirth

      This sounds like a good idea to me: Make videos the other way around:

      You wouldn’t buy a handbag and then have the shop tell you where you could wear it. You wouldn’t buy a car and let the manufacturer tell you where you can drive it … Also, with nice music and visuals that are reminiscent of the DVD intro videos.

  • Anonymous

    “Responding to the press, Gerrits further claims that he was somehow “misinterpreted,” but unfortunately for him the recordings leave little room for that.”

    Oh sweet, sweet irony!

  • Anonymous

    “Responding to the press, Gerrits further claims that he was somehow “misinterpreted,” but unfortunately for him the recordings leave little room for that.”

    Oh sweet, sweet irony!

  • Pirates

    once again the artist gets shafted but hey dont worry its all the pirates fault right anon????

    at least pirates are honest about what they do!!!

  • Stan

    DIE TIM KUIK.. DIE!!

    • Guest

      Yaaaaa!

  • Herptyderp

    Hey anon, is this what you mean when you say artists should get paid? That they can get extorted for 30% of their money by the copyright police? Because it looks like that is the only way they will stand up for his rights. Looks like there are waaay bigger crimes going on then our making a copy for personal use (like having an extra copy for in the car).

  • Alyssa Blindy

    This is not really that unexpected. This is only proof of what we know about the hypocritical people who often work in anti-piracy organizations.
    I hope that this BREIN organization is taken down along with all of its corruption.

    • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

      Alyssa-Babes, this is why I’ve now started calling the MAFIAA a “corruptorate” and MAFIAA-based private police such as BREIN who operate within that “corruptocracy”.

      Just like our corrupt banking system that’s destroying society and every Human value we have and care about, the MAFIAA and their Agents of Doom are thwarting and STEALING from the very artistes they base their business upon. On a football field it would be called a “foul”.
      In society it’s called a “disaster”.

      these heinous practices now employed by the MAFIAA (and bankers etc) used to be called “the unacceptable face of Capitalism”, but it’s now a full-blown corruptocracy that is holding back people, development and innovation simply for their own fevered and frenzied pursuit of ever-increasing profit.

      And it’s GOT TO STOP!!!
      We need to inject Humanity and caring back into our financial systems – and that includes corruptorates such as the MAFIAA too.

      • Alyssa Blindy

        I must say, corruptorates, that’s actually quite creative.

  • Anonymous

    and they call ‘file sharers’ ‘pirates’! the words ‘pot’ and ‘kettle’ spring quickly to mind. as for Kuik trying to deny everything, he is quick enough to check out people who are supposedly ‘pirating’, he has no excuse for not checking this! he needs hauling in front of a court and stitched up, just the same as he has done to others. being on the receiving end of a law suit may do him good!

    • Zig

      Don’t forget that the file-sharers the MAFIAA so readily berate for disseminating works without compensating the rightsholders do not profit from the sharing. In this case, though, the copywrong monopolies used the work in a commercial venture without compensating the rightsholder.

      Under a sane copyright law the former example would be lawful (civil law) fair-use and the second would be illegal (criminal law) use. But it doesn’t benefit the MAFIAA to have sane copyright laws.

  • Guest

    Come on, Anon, Pelouze, Jack Murdoch, Benjamin Strouse, Gordon, etc… stand here in this thread and loudly proclaim us as morally and intellectually bankrupt.

    We know you’re too prejudiced and high-grounded to ignore this; you took the bait the last time just to get a few kicks on Rick Falkvinge.

  • http://twitter.com/Mathew30 Mathew Lisett

    so local music royalty collecting agency Buma/Stemra holds this guys owned and created peice of music and demands money or else tactic. WOW and remind us again how pirates are the bad ones when we dont profit or take money like they always claim.

  • Anonymous

    You would think with millions of copies going out they would know EXACTLY who owned the music and if they were paid or not. I would also believe BREIN was in control of this when this anti-piracy video was made for them.

    Well in my opinion this only highlights that even most pro-copyright companies will infringe other people’s copyrighted media.

    Oh a message for FACT & BREIN…

    You wouldn’t steal download a handbag (or car)? Actually we would…

  • Anonymous

    The copyright previleged corporations and those who serve them, will tell us that this
    is a regrettable and manageable instance of corruption in which one poor author has been viciously sodomized by a lone out of control copyright vigilante whose demented lust for lucre departs from the high standards which regularly inform the intimate relations between Artists and copyright distributors under the copyright laws. Above all, they regret the abundance of shocking graphic evidence of the vile crime, which will undoubtedly unsettle the public conscience.

    That analysis is penetrating; but, not satisfying.

    Artists have always been the first victims of the corporate copyright laws. Moreover, until recently, when the wholesale extinction of constitutional and civil liberties underlying the legislative suasion of corporate copyright lobbyists became known as an imminent threat to all citizens, artists were known to be the most brutally defrauded segment of society under the copyright laws.

    Who then have been the beneficiaries, if not Artists?

    Almost exclusively, these beneficiaries have been massive corporate distributors whose business is the second transfer acquisition of the works of Artists in order to
    accumulate and trade on the monopoly attributes of copyright control over intellectual property as perpetual property that NEVER returns to the public domain.

    Perhaps the biggest lie ever successfully foisted as consensus wisdom on a gullible public, is the claim that Artists are the constructive intended beneficiaries of
    copyright law as it exists today. In fact, it is only now; for perhaps the first time in modern history, that the technology of the digital revolution has empowered artists to lay a direct and personal ownership claim over their creative product; and, to take direct control of its distribution. This singular fact, and NOT the level of current political resistence to the abuses of the copyright lobbys, is the most hopeful promise of constructive transformation of the copyright laws today.

    Why? Because in a digital universe in which the costs of distribution (warehousing,
    replication, and transmission) are a meaningless mathematical margin above zero, the Artist has the personal control (but for the institutionalized corporate copyright establishment) to offer his work product directly to the global population at a transaction price that optimizes transfer volume and value for the benefit of the Artist and his Customer without the presence of a perfectly useless and unnecessary intermediary (the distributor) receiving a legislatively mandated monopoly premium.

    The Artist will always be indispensable! But what about the digital copyright distributor? Hes’s as useless as tits on a bull.

    • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

      I want to have multiple babies with you TUTD lol.
      Great post YET AGAIN my friend, thanks :)

    • Titania

      You are an enlightened individual.

  • Anonymous

    Pirates are thieves who profit off the work of others earning cash from cyberlockers, etc. It’s a dirty way to earn money by stealing from others.

    • Guest

      Wrong thread, Mr. Artists-N-the-99%; this thread has nothing to do with cyberlockers. Try again. Actually, for the benefit of everyone, DON’T try again.

    • Anonymous

      How do pirates earn cash if I store my music in the cloud? Also, if someone downloads a movie or song, how do they profit?

    • Guest

      Stop trolling pay troll. It is not working. Take your fake opinion and fuck yourself with it.

    • Censured

      Corporate entertainment executives are thieves who profit off the work of others earning cash from artists and customers. It’s a dirty way to earn money by stealing from others.

      • Djb

        that’s the same as politicans !!

    • Goodbyenoway

      You have no idea what you’re talking about, willalavie, I’ve been filesharing for 7 years. Have never sought or earned a penny from doing so.

      Trying cleaning your ass before trying to form a thought.

    • Jmorse43508

      Obvious Troll is Obvious.

      Nothing to see here but the same old crap from the MAFIAA shills.

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      And as usual willaLavie has a lot of personal opinion flying in the face of both common sense and the judgements of the courts in every country on this planet.

      You are becoming every bit as much an irrelevant troll as Anon or Jack Murdock.

  • RIAAtarded

    I think he should sue for more. They illegal used his music so he is entitled to that at the very least now what about all the pirate copies they whine about as lost sales? But for the fact they pirated his work in the first place others wouldn’t have access to pirate it now so he should go for all actual sales plus the downloaded loses as well. The industry wants to put us all on trial so lets do the same to them. There shouldn’t be a two tiered so whoever didn’t do the due diligence on this needs to pay and the damages need to be equivalent to what they’d look for themselves.
    Sadly we all know how this will end. They are a “do as I say not as I do” business model. So he’ll be lucky to get what he is owed and where extortion charges should be laid this will be swept under the rug and played off as a clerical error / misunderstanding. Had any of us pulled this crap we’d be sued out of house and home then thrown in jail for good measure.

    • Xyrgen

      unfortunately you’re most likely correct and this will probably always be the case unless the concept of business/corporate law is completely abolished and the people involved in these kinds of cases are held responsible for their actions/mistakes and tried as individuals rather than as minor parts of a “bigger” institution.

  • Jh

    my friend is a producer.. by no means is he living off of his music. he was playing x-box one day to find his song in a best-selling game… he had NO idea this had been going on. Happens quite a bit. disgraceful.

  • Adam

    “You wouldn’t steal a movie”

    You’re right, ad-that’s-on-every-DVD. Because I fucking didn’t. And went out and purchased you. Yet you berate me for stealing something.

    …Why do I get the mental image of the MAFIAA sending everyone to jail if they could?

    • Amusement

      i’m sure almost nobody here has ever stolen a movie. Although it’d be pretty easy to do so. Here’s what you have to do: you wait till the movie comes out on DVD, BluRay (or if you lag behind, VHS), then you go to your local shop (or shopping mall) and you take one or more of these discs (or tapes) and you walk out without paying. Congrats, you stole a movie ;)

      • Adam

        I should have put quotation marks around “”Stealing”".

    • Amusement

      i’m sure almost nobody here has ever stolen a movie. Although it’d be pretty easy to do so. Here’s what you have to do: you wait till the movie comes out on DVD, BluRay (or if you lag behind, VHS), then you go to your local shop (or shopping mall) and you take one or more of these discs (or tapes) and you walk out without paying. Congrats, you stole a movie ;)

  • Adam

    “You wouldn’t steal a movie”

    You’re right, ad-that’s-on-every-DVD. Because I fucking didn’t. And went out and purchased you. Yet you berate me for stealing something.

    …Why do I get the mental image of the MAFIAA sending everyone to jail if they could?

  • Philip1069

    Someone should be asking these collection agencies EXACTLY how much money have they collected and EXACTLY how much they have given to music artists. Anyone want to bet the figure is very low or zero.

  • Pingback: Finding an apt analogy for piracy | A Division by Zer0

  • Nimby

    Can’t he go to court and get an injunction preventing sale of all these “pirate” DVDs containing unauthorized copied of his ditty? Have the DVDs impounded. That’d put the ball in BREIN’s court!

  • Jimbo

    RIAA/MAFIAA etc charge $150,000 per infringement. perhaps he should do the same?

  • Pingback: Derechos de autor. Escándalo y corrupción en torno a campaña antipiratería [Eng]

  • Lodewijk Gonggrijp

    As someone who has been forced to listen to his terrible composition many times watching my legal DVDs I feel little sympathy for the artist.

  • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

    Who Police’s the Police?
    Self-regulation (eg by BREIN, FACT, AFACT, Sabam, etc) in a corruptocracy isn’t fair on other businesses, consumers or society as a whole.

    The whole freakin’ system is broken, and the current push by these dying industries to continue their extortionist practises of legalised enslavement of consumers AND the artistes is at an end. All we need do is persuade our politicians via votes, whereas these dying industry types continue to attempt to use bribery through the lobbying and campaign- or Party-donation system.

    Our so-called democracy is now a corruptocracy, and their wealthy sponsors wont hesitate to wield their economic power to retain their élite position to influence politics as they see fit – regardless of how we, the People, vote.

  • http://twitter.com/srm1138 Steve Morton

    ‘Anti-pirates’ always have the best booty.

  • Pingback: You Wouldn't Steal A Car... - Mattduk

  • jm

    Racketeering aside, I find it really amusing that most commenters here are hoping for copyright laws to protect the rights of the composer in the article who had his work distributed (further than he’d agreed to), while same commenters are advocating free sharing of music and movies (further than what the artists had agreed to). Quite amusing.

    (I guess this could be taken as blatant trolling. If so, then I can live with that.)

    • Anonymous

      Not read them, but they could be the type that buys from small artists, and copy material made by the big companies / artists. Those who makes millions and pay actors a cut that makes them millions too.

    • ndmushroom

      There is a teenie weenie difference between someone who claims to be representing the artists and then steals the artists’ work to use it for his own benefit (yes, the ad cost money, and someone pocketed that money) and someone who is a fan of an artist, goes to his shows, buys his t-shirt but decides to download his latest for a preview, or to share his favourite album with the world so that the artist can get more exposure, and all that for no personal profit whatsoever (and I won’t even touch the whole “give me money to do what I’m supposed to be doing anyway” bit of the story). I’m sure you can see that.

      • Anonymous

        You decide to share that artist’s work with the world? For “exposure”? How grand of you. Did that artist authorize this display of largesse on your part? Did you know that, unless you’re in the upper echelon, touring is actually a money losing proposition for most bands? The guarantees are lower than they used to be… because so many bands will play for free, just for the “exposure.” The costs are higher, and fans will fuss and whine if they have to shell out more than $10 for a club show. Merch sales pay for the cost of making the merch in the first place. The cost of recording is still considerable, so if your display of “career building generority” results in no actual sales of the band’s CD, where do the recording costs go? How about hiring a publicist? How about booking? Playing in another country? You’re losing 30% witholding tax in the US now. Less money there.

        People die of exposure. Everyone claims to be ” the world’s biggest music fan” but they don’t actually “value” music.

        Here’s an example – you get some young band in Chicago. They have a killer new song, and the local college radio station plays it once. CD is on iTunes. 1,000 students download it from a torrent site. Those students each send it to 10 friends, who all LOVE the sopng and do the same. Now you have 100,000 copies of that song out there. If it had been purchased… for 99 freaking cents…. that could have earned the band about $60,000 after iTunes and whoever else takes a cut. $60,000 for an indie band is the next CD. It’s promotion. It’s touring. It’s independence and the opportunity to make more music that people love. Your decision to give the band “exposure” could actually hurt them.

        Exposure is great when a band decides to put stuff out there, and essentially writes off any shot at revenue. It’s a marketing decision for many bands. Lower bit rate, links to website for high bit rate paid files, other merch, etc. If they don’t want to, or their entire catalogue is available for free, you take money out of their pockets.

        Should being a musician not be a profession?

        • Goodbyenoway

          But you’re making one big fat assumption. That the people who are filesharing would otherwise buy the product. I don’t think that’s been proven.

          I, for one, know that most of what I get from filesharing I would never in a million years buy. But it also frees up my budget to go out to the movies more often.

          I don’t see how “artists” lose under this most likely scenario.

        • Goodbyenoway

          But you’re making one big fat assumption. That the people who are filesharing would otherwise buy the product. I don’t think that’s been proven.

          I, for one, know that most of what I get from filesharing I would never in a million years buy. But it also frees up my budget to go out to the movies more often.

          I don’t see how “artists” lose under this most likely scenario.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          “Should being a musician not be a profession?”

          The answer is obvious – only if you are able to earn money from it. As a number of artists have proven over the years, this is not only possible but rather easy, given your ability to create a fan base. There are numerous examples of artists finding to their great delight that the ability to mass market at no cost has generated an avid audience willing and able to pay.

    • Guest

      You miss a very crucial distinction.

      Most opponents of current copyright law distinguish between commercial and noncommercial copyright.
      The artist in this case was not a “victim” of unauthorized sharing or distribution but commercial exploitation.

      Even so, I don’t think most “pirates” really support copyright law, but what we want is surely consistent enforcement.

      • Xyrgen

        As most of us already pay to use the internet in the first place and the internet is undoubtedly the biggest catalyst for piracy isn’t the most logical and effective means for consistent enforcement to remove agencies and copyrighters from the equation and just have the internet providers pay the royalties to the artist based on download/viewing numbers. What alot of people don’t seem to understand is that even “pirates” are paying some amount (all be it considerably less than direct purchases) for what they copy as they are paying to use the internet. To me that says that all the debate about piracy is ridiculous or more specifically misdirected and easily settled.

        To put it in simple terms:
        The people both consumers and pirates are paying internet providers to use the internet.
        The internet is the major catalyst for piracy.
        The providers are already making the money from both the consumers and the pirates.
        So isn’t the logical answer in order to stop internet based piracy to make the providers pay the royalties as they already have access to the information on what is being downloaded/viewed and they’re also the ones making it possible in the first place.

        It still means that the customer is paying the royalties in the long run and it also means that the artists are getting their cut not just from direct customers but also from the associated pirates, instead of that money just ending up as profit for the people/companies causing the problem in the first place.

        I could go into more detail but I’m pretty sure most people will understand what I’m getting at. Keep in mind though this is only the most viable solution in regards to internet piracy when it comes to hard copies of things you’re dealing with a whole different kettle of fish.

  • Acid Jazz

    I also hate all anti-piracy, but I laughed so hard when reading about this artist’s “hard work” for this one song. A tune like that is done in an hour, he didn’t even have to sell it to the customer, the customer ordered it from him. This doesn’t give the MAFIA right to rip him off ofcourse but why is it expected in some industries to get a million for doing a few hours job?
    I know this is besides the point, but this whole industry is too weird to be understood, even by a musician as myself.

    • Anonymous

      Could be more the weird way law works. You need to sue someone for 10x or more – of the amount you end up getting.

    • Anonymous

      Right, but someone is making a lot of money from the sale of the completed work in its entirety. Why should the songwriter not be entitled to their share of it? The original negotiated use was a one-off. Once that use goes beyond what was negotiated, especially in a commercial package, that songwriter has every right to demand compensation.

      Also, Copyright is not the issue here, it is the unethical conduct of a person who works for the Dutch PRO doing a side deal. Does that mean copyright law is now worthless, because one guy acting shadily?

      • Xyrgen

        Personally I would like to see the actual paperwork for the original “one off” agreement before making any flat out decisions about this one as the music industry is all about consumerism and mass production and these two things make a “one off” agreement almost impossible and on the rare occaision that a true “one off” is agreed to it is usually at a cost to the artist and ends up including the sale of copyright to the company to cover the costs. This by definition means that even if the initial agreement was “one off” that after the agreement has been signed the company can do whatever they like with it because they own the rights to it not the artist, so the artist is no longer entitled to royalties or to even claim the work as his own regardless of how much is made.

    • Xyrgen

      It’s the nature of capatilism and the stupid way our economy values things based on rarity/obtainability rather than functionality.

      In general the rich get rich by spinning lies about what they sell/do and then upping the prices and limiting the customer base in turn giving the impression that even if their product/service is useless that those who can afford it are part of an elite few and therefore in some way better. It seems like a foolish thing to fall for, but think about it just how much stuff have you brought not because you needed or even wanted it but simply because you didn’t want to be the one of your social group that missed out.

    • Henk

      Sure, it’s ridiculously easy money. But hey, if you happen to compose this one catchy tune, and enough people keep including it over and over in different products (all subject to royalties), this is how it works.

      If they would have simply bought the tune (with all rights) for just a few thousand euros at the time, the composer would probably have been happy, and the publishers would have saved themselves a lot of trouble. But noooo :) Well, here ya go! :)

  • RJ

    You wouldn’t steal a soundtrack…

  • Pingback: Copyright- en corruptieschandaal bij Nederlandse auteursrechtenverenigingen | Gadget Review

  • Pingback: EpicFail! anuncio anti-pirateria tenia musica pirata « bennux

  • No

    This is what the anti-piracy acts should be about. Nabbing those using media for PROFIT gain. Me? Sitting at home jamming out to my new tunes… Why should I be prosecuted for that? I’m not selling it or making anti-piracy commercials.

  • Markfrancombe

    well yes.. ryste discusting, but isnt it a bit hypocritical of YOU guys to comment? Dont you support the idea that musicians shouldnt get paid?

    • Guest

      well yes.. ryste discusting, but isnt it a bit hypocritical of YOU guys to comment? Dont you support the idea that musicians shouldnt get paid?

      What “we” would support if “we” had the power to rewrite the law from scratch is really not germane to commenting on the double standard exhibited by the copyright industry.

      Pointing out that the artist is a victim of exploitation by an organization purportedly representing the interests of artists is a valid observation, regardless of one’s stance on copyright.

      The artist is a “victim” of theft according to the metric used by the copyright industry, and pointing that out is not really inconsistent with a principled opposition to that metric.

      I need not endorse the moral claim that artists deserve to be paid in order to find the treatment of the artist hypocritical.

      If even the copyright industry can’t or won’t respect copyright by clearing all legal rights within a legal framework within which it is qualified to act, I fail to see why the consumer should be held to a higher standard.

      • Xyrgen

        Is the artist who doesn’t read the fine print, truly a victim of exploitation or is he simply open to being exploited?

  • Nathan

    LEARN TO READ PEOPLE! THERE IS NO LAWYER IN SIGHT IN THIS ARTICLE.

    • Goodbyenoway

      You’re awfully naive if you don’t think there isn’t a lawyer lurking behind just about every ill that has ever been conceived by man or woman.

  • Potmeetkettle

    Pot, meet kettle.

  • Anonymous

    lol, is anyone actually surprised by this? Its always about the money, the precious money. VPN-Shield.tk

  • Anonymous

    lol, is anyone actually surprised by this? Its always about the money, the precious money. VPN-Shield.tk

  • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!! Can’t stop laughing at the massive FAIL of these copywrong trolls! Priceless. Thanks TorrentFreak!

  • Pingback: Anti-Piracy Group Caught Pirating Song For Anti-Piracy Ad… Corruption Scandal Erupts In Response | Greediocracy

  • Pingback: "You wouldn't steal a car" anti-piracy ads?They pirated the music

  • http://xn--d1anlndd4d.com pult du

    I have little sympathy for any of the parties involved, including the artist.

  • Pingback: Isn’t It Ironic? | Chili Dog Blog

  • Pingback: Un lobby antidescargas utiliza una canción de un músico sin su permiso para un anuncio antipiratería

  • Pingback: Facepalm of the Day: Music for Anti-Piracy Spots is Pirated « The Dead Cat Bounce

  • Pingback: Have you ever seen a PSA video on a DVD that warns against the evils of illegally… | Kalex's Tome

  • Anonymous

    So, we can expect that BREIN will be blacklisted from all ad networks, payment networks, and lose their domain to a DNS block for this blatant piracy, right?

    • Xyrgen

      Most likely that ones a BIG NO especially in that kind of industry it is more likely they will do nothing more than appoint a new CEO and re-open under a different name while still operating under exactly the same terms. Afterall if they’re blacklisted and/or closed down then that’s hindering profits gained through other clients and from a legal perspective that means that the clients wouldn’t be getting the royalties they deserve (regardless of whether the company was actually paying out the royalties or not).

  • Pingback: Anti-Piracy Group Caught Pirating Song For Anti-Piracy Ad… Corruption Scandal Erupts In Response « waweru.net

  • Pingback: Anti-Piracy Group Being Sued For Piracy | Kotaku Australia

  • Pingback: Dutch royalty collection executive forced to resign in extortion scandal « Internet toolbox

  • Pingback: | Kalex's Tome

  • Pingback: Anti-piracy group BREIN caught ripping off music

  • Pingback: Remember that catchy tune on the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Handbag…” antipiracy notices? Yup. They pirated the music. | Techblast-web watching

  • Pingback: Anti-piracy group BREIN caught ripping off music - InstantKEbooks Blog - InstantKEbooks Blog

  • Anonymous

    They are shocked I tell you! Shocked! Now pull the other one.

  • WmDan

    No scandals here!

    http://www.UnambitiousUs.com – The Online Magazine for Time Wasters

    Movies, Games and Fantasy Football!
    No ads, no bs.

  • Pingback: LXer: Copyright Corruption Scandal Surrounds Anti-Piracy Campaign | Coders & Admins

  • Pingback: Anti-piracy group under fire for piracy themselves | t-break: Tech @ Its Fastest

  • Pingback: Music Jobs Weekly Round-Up

  • Noloader

    Headbag said “Not quite, it’s actually more like a bribe, really.” I would consider it extortion since Buma/Stemra tried to extract the money from Rietveldt

  • Pingback: Copyright Corruption Scandal Surrounds Anti-Piracy Campaign « Anacristina79's Blog

  • Pingback: The Technology Blog: Copyright Corruption Scandal Surrounds AntiPiracy Campaign

  • Edmundo

    Just a couple of weeks ago, the heads of SAYCO (the royalties collector here in Colombia) had to resign. As it turns out, they collected royalties everywhere and failed to pay all artists… for years. They kept the money for themselves. How about that?

    • Henk

      Sounds familiar. Same happens here with Buma/Stemra. They rarely pay out artists at all.

  • Wendy Verwey Bekker

    This campaign was used in South Africa too…

  • Pingback: Copyright Corruption Scandal Surrounds... | Linux | Syngu

  • Pingback: Evviva la pirateria, sale della cultura « NeoRepubblica Kaotica di Torriglia « HyperHouse

  • Pingback: dustbury.com » Hoisting a few with Captain Petard

  • Pingback: Sunday Scare Tactics: Anit-Piracy Company Pirates Their Theme Song : The New Rockstar Philosophy

  • Graham Whittaker

    I don’t have any answers here because it’s hard to say if this is exploitation, or copyright infringement, or both, by either or all parties. As a hypothetical I was an advertising copywriter for some 40 years, print and radio. In the case of a “jingle” I would write the copy, hum the tune, and the muso’s would produce the result. We worked under pressure writing up to 300 pieces of copy per day for 15-30 second ads. This muso was asked to write what is (I understand to be) a commercial, so the devil is in the detail of the contract. Could I now go to the courts and ask for my jingles to be paid royalties per play? How about the ads I wrote that were reworked and translated to TV (We were supposed to get $100 for each time our ads were used off station, but rarely ever got that.) There is certainly an argument for corruption, but do I deserve to be compensated millions of dollars for a career that was spent writing tens of thousands of commercials. I don’t think so. I wrote ads. That’s all. I really don’t know the answers to this particular issue and it seems to me that commentators are doing little more them filling the water with mud arguing to protect their own interests.

  • Pingback: Links 4/12/2011: GNOME 3.4 and Torvalds, More GNU/Linux Games | Techrights

  • Pingback: 5-Minute News! Quantum Diamonds, Obamacare, TicketMaster, and More! – 12-05-11 – Status Update « Bryan Cain — News – Music – Videos – Tech and Teaching

  • Pingback: Linky-dinky-doo. « Christian A. Young's Dimlight Archive

  • Anonymous

    phlpn.es/829r8s

  • Pingback: Kiedy organizacje antypirackie wykorzystuj? swoj? pozycj? do ?amania prawa, które powinny chroni?

  • Pingback: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group BREIN In Copyright Scandal | TechFruit

  • Pingback: Kiedy organizacje antypirackie wykorzystuj? swoj? pozycj? do ?amania prawa, które powinny chroni? | SEO

  • Henk

    Let me assure you peeps, everybody here in the Netherlands pukes of this whole Buma/Stemra institute, and same for Brein. They’re bunch of f*cking parasites. Evil, corrupt parasites, as it turns out.

    They have NEVER been working for the benefit of musicians and artists, but for their own personal gain. Besides this one case I know many people who once fell for the promises of Buma/Stemra and never receive any money for their work whatsoever.

    Hope these filthy rats get shut down for good real soon.

  • Computoronloan

    I have to laugh at the stupidity of the hypocrites.
    Shut down every site they find for the anti piracy, and yet steal themselves.
    They now look like a joke, out for money, out for glory, never mind the truth.

    But watch what happens, only they in their stupidity will pass the buck, blame someone else for doing wrong, fire them instead, and then look innocent.
    You are a joke BREIN and not to be taken seriously anymore.

    When you think the doors are closing, others open up.
    There are more ways around your stupid controls than I have had hot dinners!

  • Pingback: Ep40 – Cruz Kim | Straight Riffin'

  • Pingback: El anuncio "anti-piratería" tenía música pirateada

  • Pingback: Numero Uno | Uncertain Form

  • Anonymous
  • Pingback: Social Blend » Blog Archive » Social Blend Used To Love Her

  • Pingback: Protect IP and SOPA: Congress is Ready to Pander to Lazy, Rich Hypocritical Hollywood Crybabies | The Underground Multiplex

  • Pingback: La música de la campaña antipirateria de "no robarías un bolso" no contaba con el permiso del autor...

  • Pingback: La música de la campaña antipirateria de los Paises Bajos en los DVDs no contaba con el permiso del autor… [EN] | Cuéntamelo España

  • Pingback: SOPA act protest causes GoDaddy to back down | Radio Clash Music Podcast & Blog | lapis quasi mergi

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.