Copyrights, capping, and pirating

[VeronicaChaos]

this is a sensitive subject for a lot of girls, so forgive me if I hurt your feelings, and I hope we can be civil in this discussion. I would really like to discuss the way camgirls at large approach copyright and intellectual property laws in regard to their own work and the use of others.

It's brought up sometimes the legalities of playing copyrighted music on cam, but it never seems to go much further than "they have bigger fish to fry" and that's that. That I agree on, and I don't think there's much risk in doing so. But it's more than that. Models use copyrighted phenomena in their shows, and dress up as copyrighted characters. A pretty standard show is a mash-up of different copyright violations.

Now, I don't support intellectual property rights in the least, and am likely more guilty of this than most. I see the value in being able to use something that doesn't legally belong to you and creating something with it that is new and interesting. I believe that the evolution of art is an evolution and that it builds on itself in both blatant copying and subtle inspiration. I believe that had copyright laws been a thing throughout human history we would have a fraction of the art we have today. I believe Nosferatu is one of the finest adaptions of Dracula (https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/10/17/dracula-vs-nosferatu-a-true-copyright-horror-story/).

I'd like to get back to capping. I suppose most will say that it is different because it's not improving or changing anything but is simply copying without regard, often automatically. Piracy robots. However, I find it dangerous to place such an emphasis on the illegality of capping while reaping the benefits of your own copyright infringement. I also find it dangerous to draw that line between acceptable and unacceptable piracy and copyright infringement.

Thought experiment: how would you feel if someone took parts of your cam show and used them in their bands music video, uploading it to YouTube without your permission? They've got an ad on it so they're making money on it. You are uncredited.

Other question: is the morality of playing music in your camroom based on the means of acquiring it? Is a torrented discography bad but spotify totally okay? I don't see the difference really; it matters not to the viewer who is now experiencing the music whether they once purchased it or not.

Really curious to hear some perspective on this!

 

[CharlotteLace]

Honestly, I've always thought it was a bit hypocritical for models to be mad about their broadcasts being capped, but have no problem including music in their shows or videos. Hell, I play music when I cam, I'm just as guilty of it as anybody else. Which is why having my shows uploaded has never bothered me.

Playing devil's advocate, I know there's the argument of "capped shows endanger me because they aren't geo-blocked." I can empathize with that sentiment. But really, if you're that concerned about a particular person finding your nakedness on the internet, you shouldn't be camming in the first place. If all it would do is make for some uncomfortable family picnics, but not put you in physical danger, that's another story.

Frankly, I think a lot of times we like to turn a blind eye when it's our bottom line in question, as opposed to a musician's. I mean, I'd wager a lot of us use the #PayForYourPorn hashtag, but get quiet when it comes to #PayForYourMusic

I realize I'm focusing just on music, as opposed to other copyrighted material. It just gave me the best examples to use.

 

[Jimmy9]

I think that using copyrighted music or other material in videos/shows is different than when people cap and upload stuff. For one, the music isn't the primary focus of the video, people are paying for what the model is doing and the music is just in the background and it's not what's directly making them money. Musicians are also not losing money from people using their music for shows, it's actually more likely that they make money from people who are introduced to their music that way. Recorded shows can have that effect as well, but I think in most cases it hurts a model's income more than it helps. In short: capping hurts models a lot more than it hurts artists when model use their materials for shows.

 

[CharlotteLace]

I think that using copyrighted music or other material in videos/shows is different than when people cap and upload stuff. For one, the music isn't the primary focus of the video, people are paying for what the model is doing and the music is just in the background and it's not what's directly making them money. Musicians are also not losing money from people using their music for shows, it's actually more likely that they make money from people who are introduced to their music that way. Recorded shows can have that effect as well, but I think in most cases it hurts a model's income more than it helps. In short: capping hurts models a lot more than it hurts artists when model use their materials for shows.

Well wait, though. What about models dancing to music? They're directly utilizing a song for monetary benefit.

Also, your last line feels weird to me. A model being capped doesn't cancel out them stealing from an artist, because it's supposedly not as significant. To the artist, it's damn plenty significant.

 

[Jimmy9]

Well wait, though. What about models dancing to music? They're directly utilizing a song for monetary benefit.

What I meant was they aren't selling the song directly, which is what cappers are doing. Even in that situation the primary focus is on the model and not the music. But it's hard to know where to draw the line between what's acceptable use and what isn't.

Also, your last line feels weird to me. A model being capped doesn't cancel out them stealing from an artist, because it's supposedly not as significant. To the artist, it's damn plenty significant.

Whether it's significant or not is up to the artist. Yes, it's technically illegal to use music that way, as it should be. But I think sometimes it's ok to bend or break laws to a certain extent, when it isn't harmful. A good example would be driving faster than the speed limit, which is also technically illegal but something everyone does because it doesn't cause harm (when done responsibly). Whether or not using copyrighted music for a video is considered harmful is up for debate and requires some judgement about the specific use, but I think most people would say that it is not.

 

[MFCGod]

Like everything, what we each find acceptable and unacceptable isn't black and white but shades of grey

I don't particularly care if they fall under the same category in terms of the law, they're very different.

Playing music on your cam I don't feel is personal, dressing up as a character isn't personal etc etc

Stealing your image, especially if you're doing something explicit is extremely personal

They're totally different things and I'm surprised you take your morality from what the law says.

 

[zippypinhead]

As always, when the subject of intellectual property comes up, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that once a model signs a standard model agreement with a camsite, she also signs away all copyrights to content produced through that camsite. It's all work made for hire, so none of the model's shows actually belong to the model (at least on paper.)

Honestly, the issues raised so far in this thread become different beasts when you're providing work for hire content. Since the camsites own your content (at least on paper) it is their responsibility to police that content when it has been misappropriated. That's why they seem to be pretty quick with the DMCA when models ask them to. Of course, the other edge of that is that, should they not care about misappropriated work, they aren't obligated to the model to seek action against offenders. Since camsites own the content (at least on paper) they may police that content as they see fit.

As far as use of music goes, though, since this is work made for hire, find myself wondering if gaining licenses for music used on the site is actually the responsibility of the camsites themselves. After all, work for hire ownership (at least on paper) of the content means that the camsite is responsible for the end product, including the inclusion of otherwise copyrighted material. For all I know, camsites might set up licenses through entities like ASCAP and BMI as a matter of course, so models are automatically covered for music that appears in their streams (I doubt it, but it is a possibility.) However, even if they don't, they probably should. They are making claim to ownership via their model agreements to the content that their site broadcasts, so it stands to reason that they are the entities responsible for clearing rights to copyrighted works that appear on those broadcasts, rather than the models themselves.

I honestly doubt that the work for hire clause that comes standard to every model agreement would actually hold up to legal scrutiny, especially when these sorts of issues come up and complicate the issue. The language of the agreements that models sign do not generally align with the way that camsites treat their content.

At any rate, there are big music streaming services that offer competitively-priced business licenses for their catalogs. If I was in the streaming business and using background music in my streams, I would look into those sorts of deals.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Well wait, though. What about models dancing to music? They're directly utilizing a song for monetary benefit.

Also, your last line feels weird to me. A model being capped doesn't cancel out them stealing from an artist, because it's supposedly not as significant. To the artist, it's damn plenty significant.

I am with you. I am 100% sure there is a forum just like ACF for songwriters and performers and thread bitching about camgirls and porn folks making money using their songs as background to their performance and them not making a dollar off it. I have an internet friend, who had a hit song in the late 60s (I don't remember which song). It continued make him a thousand or so a month for decades based on airplay, album sales, commercial license. That dropped to virtually nothing this century even though the song remain popular.

I suspect that if 9 inch Nails, collected the standard 1% royalty from every cum show performed to "fuck me like an animal", the band members would pretty damn rich. I don't think people appreciate how important music is until you go on to a site like Streammate, where they really enforce the no music rule. It is one of the reasons I like MFC. So its a little ironic that Streammate gets punished for obeying the law and MFC gets rewarded.

In the short term its seems me the right thing for MFC to do is to sign a license agreement with the music companies and let models use musics from those companies, or even work a deal with Spotify and Pandora. BTW even you pay for Spotify or Pandora, or generally even buy something on iTunes you aren't allowed to use during a camshow because it is a commercial setting.

Over the long term, I somewhat agree with Veronica. The IP laws were written before the digital revolution and are hopeless antiqued to use in the 21st century.

 

[ThePioneer]

It's always just a victimless crime until it's your livelihood being impacted. What many people don't realize is that it's not just the artists you're harming by stealing music. Studio musicians who track the songs, song writers, producers, audio engineers, subcontracted studios/artists/workers, etc. are all losing out because record labels are always going to take their cut. There are plenty of music services out there as already mentioned as well as plenty of hard-working musicians, no different from you, creating affordable royalty free music for content creators of all types.

The same goes for software as well. It blows my mind how many artists will complain about their work being copied/stolen when they openly admit to creating it using pirated copies of photoshop...

From what I've seen, several of the screen capping websites clearly state the models name and the site they are on. So while it sucks to have images of you and your shows out there, are they really doing as much harm as everyone claims?

 

[MFCGod]

I am with you. I am 100% sure there is a forum just like ACF for songwriters and performers and thread bitching about camgirls and porn folks making money using their songs.

I'm 100% sure there isn't any bitching about camgirls - go find these threads if there are please and report back, thanks

I suspect that if 9 inch Nails, collected the standard 1% royalty from every cum show performed to "fuck me like an animal", the band members would pretty damn rich

You know what would happen if they did have to pay the 1%? the model wouldn't play the song, so the artist isn't losing anything

Well actually a lot of girls pay for music streaming services where I believe artists get paid right? so if they cancel that because they aren't allowed music then it's actually less money for the artists

 

[gingerhobbit]

Everybody has their own moral code, I guess. Mine is that I won't pirate from artists who sell their material directly - say, an author self-publishing on Amazon - but if it's a large corp selling content at ridiculously high prices, I will pirate away and whistle a happy little tune while I do it. Well, I would if I could whistle.

 

[dilligaf0]

Since we're opening this can of worms, I would also point out that about 90% of the gif's on MFC are of copyrighted materials / characters.
Would that be copyright infringement as well?

 

[MFCGod]

Right so If I'm following most the points in this thread..

If I hear a model playing a song, dressed up, perhaps even using a gif (as suggested above) I am then free to record her and spread it around the internet and she has no right to complain?

...

 

[ThePioneer]

Right so If I'm following most the points in this thread..

If I hear a model playing a song, dressed up, perhaps even using a gif (as suggested above) I am then free to record her and spread it around the internet and she has no right to complain?

...

I don't think anyone is trying to justify capping of cam models. But there is something inherently flawed if an entire industry has the mentality of "it's ok for me to steal from you to create a profit, but it's not ok for someone else to steal from me." Theft of intellectual property to create a personal gain is shitty. Period.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Since we're opening this can of worms, I would also point out that about 90% of the gif's on MFC are of copyrighted materials / characters.
Would that be copyright infringement as well?

I think GIF's would fall under fair use. This lawyer agree with me. Certainly posting them in chat is covered under fair use. Now if you made video which made extensive use of GIFs than perhaps not.

 

[UncleThursday]

I don't think anyone is trying to justify capping of cam models. But there is something inherently flawed if an entire industry has the mentality of "it's ok for me to steal from you to create a profit, but it's not ok for someone else to steal from me." Theft of intellectual property to create a personal gain is shitty. Period.

There's an actual term for this line of thought, but I can't remember it right now.

But, you see it all the time. Apple has been doing it for years, taking other people's/company's ideas, and then using them as their own, then going ballistic when they see people copying them. TV networks and shows have no qualms about using YouTube videos or other things from the internet on those shows, but again go ballistic if someone uses their stuff. Some models broadcast movies as most of their screen, or sporting events, but complain when they find videos of them online.

It's a never ending cycle. People feel justified using other people's work or ideas, if they can benefit from them, but then get very protective of their own ideas or works when someone else uses them. It's a part of human nature.

 

[dilligaf0]

My point was that we shouldn't be selective of what we use. This is okay but that's not is a flawed concept.
Models, though I do not approve of "capping", your broadcast are still the property of the camsite (at least the one's I know about). Doesn't that make it the responsibility of the camsite to pursue copyright infringement?

 

[UncleThursday]

My point was that we shouldn't be selective of what we use. This is okay but that's not is a flawed concept.
Models, though I do not approve of "capping", your broadcast are still the property of the camsite (at least the one's I know about). Doesn't that make it the responsibility of the camsite to pursue copyright infringement?

Yes. Anything capped off the cam site is the site's responsibility. Other content models make and sell is the models' responsibility.

 

[AerynShade]

I don't think people appreciate how important music is until you go on to a site like Streammate, where they really enforce the no music rule. It is one of the reasons I like MFC. So its a little ironic that Streammate gets punished for obeying the law and MFC gets rewarded.

Actually, Streamate encourages models to use music, just not during TV shows.


My issue with IP laws falls under the problem of not being able to purchase/watch things in certain countries while I'm traveling. I'll pay for software, music, movies, etc if I can legally, but sometimes you just can't. And since I think arbitrary borders are stupid, this is when I download stuff. So I guess in this situation if a dude is in a location I have blocked I'd be ok with them watching capped shows or uploaded videos since he can't be a customer anyway.

As for music in shows/videos, I try to only play artists I support in other ways (always go to their concerts, buy all their albums) and think they'd be ok with their music being broadcast. Which is why the majority of my playlist is two bands...

@VeronicaChaos I'd be fucking thrilled if the bands I play used my shows/clips in their music videos. I would probably then send the link to every single person I knew.

 

[JessieWolfe]

Yea streamate definitely lets us use music in our streams haha just not in TV shows, because broadcasting on TV would leave them liable if a band sued them for using the music in a broadcasted sex stream. (which kinda proves the legality to playing music in the backgroun is a SUPER grey area)

I figure people who watch my capped shows won't watch my shows for money anyways so it doesn't really bother me.

If someone asks what song is playing in the background i'll easily give the name and artist to them. I assume if someone put part of my stream into a music video they would link to my twitter or something.

My capped shows don't hurt my sales to people who appreciate my work. Just like the music in my background doesn't hurt the artists I listen to (in my opinion, I feel like i've opened a lot of my regulars up to new kinds of music) . I actually had someone who loved the music I played so much they bought every Milky Chance album XD

Now if milky chance was like "yo girl i watched you masturbate to my song last night, but i'd appreciate if you didn't do that again" I'd be like 'sure i'll remove you from my camming playlist' lol.


I live in this awesome fantasy world where everybody is reasonable and kind apparently lol (because i realize if there was a lawsuit about a camgirl playing certain music, it wouldn't be settled out of court like my milky chance example)

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Yea streamate definitely lets us use music in our streams haha just not in TV shows, because broadcasting on TV would leave them liable if a band sued them for using the music in a broadcasted sex stream. (which kinda proves the legality to playing music in the backgroun is a SUPER grey area)

The streamate model agreement states this

2. Proprietary Rights You acknowledge the following: (i) Streamate permits access to Content that is protected by copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual and proprietary rights ("Rights"); (ii) These Rights are valid and protected in all media and technologies existing now or later developed; and (iii) Except as explicitly provided otherwise, the TOS, applicable copyright and other laws govern your use of Content. You agree that you may transmit on or through Streamate only Content that (1) is not subject to any Rights, or (2) any holder of Rights has given express authorization for distribution on Streamate.

The previous section places the burden of ensuring the content is valid on the model.
They don't allow music on TV because once they have reviewed the "TV Gold" show Streammates couldn't plausible claim we are just an ISP, they own the copyright on the TV shows and are responsible for any copyright violations.

However, as long as the model streams the music if they get sued by the copyright holder, they can say we are just an ISP, go sue the model.

It is a rather clever legal trick we own the copyright on anything you stream, but it your responsibility to make sure that you have distribution rights for any content.

There are lots of grey areas in copyright and Intellectual property law, broadcasting copyright music in a commercial performance isn't one of them. There is no legal difference from doing this and bar, broadcasting the Superbowl without paying.

 

[JessieWolfe]

Well I guess streamate covered that base as well lol

Would it be more like a bar broadcasting a certain radio station? Rather than the Super Bowl?

edit::

You can buy a business music license, I just discovered this, it is around 351 a year.

Which would be tax deductible as well right?

Also Sirius offers a business radio package
http://www.siriusxm.com/siriusxmforbusiness

 

[JessieWolfe]

http://pandora.moodmedia.com/sign-u...y34TWS_yKr74sBQR_ZbU2O8oDFxGLmN6GwBoC0Gvw_wcB

there is pandora for business as well which I am going to upgrade to for the legality reasons

 

[starsign]

Other question: is the morality of playing music in your camroom based on the means of acquiring it? Is a torrented discography bad but spotify totally okay? I don't see the difference really; it matters not to the viewer who is now experiencing the music whether they once purchased it or not.

This is a great topic, thanks for the OP. Just a quick comment regarding Spotify (and other streaming services); even though they pay the artists just peanuts, they are still much better than pirated songs. At least many small streams make one river, and you can also support the artists by following them, "starring" their songs etc...

Like someone mentioned, it takes a great effort for someone to write, record and produce a song, especially to come up with a great song. The time spent on just one song is easily several months and it shouldn't go wasted (or there won't be much music in the future).

Let us compare a cam show with a TV show. If a TV show wants to use a song to spice up a scene, they will pay international royalties for it. No one pays royalties for cam shows but at least using legally produced music would be the right thing to do.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Other question: is the morality of playing music in your camroom based on the means of acquiring it? Is a torrented discography bad but spotify totally okay? I don't see the difference really; it matters not to the viewer who is now experiencing the music whether they once purchased it or not.

Was reading this article the other day and thought of this thread. Basically some torrent sites are now blocking anyone who uses Windows 10 from using their site. They state that Windows 10 sends the contents of your local disks directly to one of their servers and the largest anti-piracy company called MarkMonitor. (microsoft works with that company). And they are doing that even if you turn off all the well known check boxes that allow them to monitor everything, since it's right in their EULA they can do so.

Makes me wonder if torrented music will even be an option for camrooms in the near future.

 

[Guy]

Was reading this article the other day and thought of this thread. Basically some torrent sites are now blocking anyone who uses Windows 10 from using their site. They state that Windows 10 sends the contents of your local disks directly to one of their servers and the largest anti-piracy company called MarkMonitor. (microsoft works with that company). And they are doing that even if you turn off all the well known check boxes that allow them to monitor everything, since it's right in their EULA they can do so.

Makes me wonder if torrented music will even be an option for camrooms in the near future.

But if your computer is a Mac you wont have to worry about that.

 

[AmberCutie]

Sonos speakers with subscriptions to Spotify, Slacker, rdio, Sonza and Pandora is the way to go.

We pay monthly for all of it, I don't feel bad for a moment.

 

[someclevername]

In the USA the law is that you need a synchronization license from the publisher (the party who holds the rights to the composition and lyrics) and a master license from the party that owns the sound recording that you wish to use in your production. This is why we have the great generic wah-wah guitar instrumentals in classic 70s porno. There was no way a porno producer was going to go the expense to obtain a license to any kind of mainstream music so they bought or commissioned cheap music to accompany the action scenes.

If licenses could be negotiated at a reasonable price the whole process would be beyond something that even the top models could afford to manage. It would be nice if the camsites could obtain a blanket licenses similar to Spotify and Pandora but I seriously doubt that we will ever see that happen.

 

[mutantdonut]

Of all the discussion involving music, not sure if anyone has ever brought up the Fair Use Act that may or may not counteract to any legal warnings or fines, in case it actually happens. Edit: I am not an expert on the matter, but i wonder if it's valid under specific circumstances.

So according to the Fair Use Act Statute...

The doctrine of fair use developed over the years as courts tried to balance the rights of copyright owners with society's interest in allowing copying in certain, limited circumstances. This doctrine has at its core a fundamental belief that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research.

Although the doctrine of fair use was originally created by the judiciary, it is now set forth in the Copyright Act. Under the Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I find most models play music to make their camming time more enjoyable, beneficial only to the model, which is seemingly where Fair Use applies since there is no actual or clear distinction of monetary benefit when playing music in the background. However, it's still dicey given the nature of camsites is considered a commercial business, despite the purpose of music is clearly not for paying customers. It's all gray area though.

Fair Use is likely thrown out the window when there's use of music in videos that are later sold, or models accept tips for song requests.

Then there are rare moments when models allow song requests WITHOUT a tip, therefore the song is clearly for the paying customer, in spite of no monetary exchange at that moment. Once again, i think it's very gray area.

Just want to gather thoughts or if anyone shed some light on this?

 

[Sevrin]

Then there are rare moments when models allow song requests WITHOUT a tip, therefore the song is clearly for the paying customer, in spite of no monetary exchange at that moment. Once again, i think it's very gray area.

Just want to gather thoughts or if anyone shed some light on this?

I don't think it's a gray area at all. Music is an integral part of a commercial endeavour if it's playing in the background to enhance the mood of a model's room, just as if it's playing in a bar or a store.