Maria Schneider: Going Her Own Way

AAJ: This is an incredibly important concern you're raising. Do you have any suggestions for changing the law?

MS: Well, I just testified before Congress. I presented three very common sense solutions:

First, the burden of proof for putting the music on the internet should be on the person putting it up, not taking it down. The rights holder has to sign perjury statements and scan them in, and jump through various hoops to get their music down (and then for probably only a couple of days). At very least, sites should require that the uploader go through a sequence of steps that address the question of ownership. Most people don't even realize that what they are doing is illegal—that Copyright is a Constitutional right! I can only imagine that if the person putting up on the web has to sign a perjury statement and scan it in, stating that if this music isn't owned by you, you will be accountable by law by the copyright holder, I don't think so many people would upload music so easily without getting consent!

Second, if an artist like myself tells a company that something has to be taken down, it should not go up again! It's not rocket science, or beyond the technology to have that piece flagged so that it can never go up again. What we said in the hearing was, "Take- down" should mean "Stay-down"!

Third, is that creators of content should be able to prevent unauthorized uploading before infringement occurs. We know it's technologically possible for companies to block unauthorized works, as YouTube already does this through its Content ID program. But every artist should be entitled to this service, to register their music once and for all. Just like the successful "do not call" list, creators should be able to say, "do not upload." If filtering technology can be used to monetize content, it can also be used to protect it.

But these are tough battles, because all these companies need a mass quantity of content, because they're selling advertising and big data, so they need tons and tons of music to attract tons of eyeballs. Certainly Google collects all sorts of information on the billions of users going through all these pirating sites all over the world. Of course they don't want to fix this. Their whole business model depends on stolen goods. That's the big elephant in the room. And the DMCA gives them some anemic thing to give the illusion that they're trying to fight piracy. It's pathetic.

Also, there's a matter of privacy. Do you know what YouTube does to someone who exercises their Constitutional right and does a DMCA take-down? They post a page with a frown face that says in my case, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Maria Schneider." Now mind you, the person uploading can hide behind some username. Their identity is not exposed, but mine is. They are obviously trying to create animosity towards those taking their music down. Privacy is a two-way street. But not on YouTube I guess. They're making a mockery of the DMCA and a mockery of my Constitutional right.

Music is still generating BILLIONS! People are listening to more music than ever. But starting with Google, and continuing with the rest, Spotify... you name it, they all have convinced people that they should get music for free and that people are getting music for free. But guess what, it's not for free. The money is now just diverted to them in a different form. Firstly, we consumers are paying a lot in bandwidth with Internet providers. Secondly, through all the data collected on us by Google and various companies, we are being precision targeted with ads. Those ads know right where your consumer vulnerability lies. If you're a sucker and go for it, guess who's paying for the ad? You. The price of the ad is figured into the cost of what you bought. In the end, maybe we'd all spend far less if we were walking to the store buying a CD. It's like our money is being siphoned right out of our bank accounts. I imagine if the same thing was happening to Congress' pension accounts, they wouldn't sit around waiting for industry to fix it. They'd have government step in faster than you can snap your fingers. Congress wants industry to fix this. Can you imagine industry fixing this? At the hearing, I sat next to the general counsel of Google, and even as I kept making all these points, she just kept saying how DMCA is working. Oh my Lord! Yeah, working for her.

Hopefully, musicians are finally saying, "Enough! I can't pay for my life anymore!" It's so sick, it's gone so far, and it's got to change. I want musicians to band together. I tell students, "Don't give yourself away." They try to convince us that all this exposure on the internet is free publicity. But it doesn't work that way. If people can get the music for free, why should they pay for it? This idea that exposure is good has completely diluted us. People can go to this link and learn about some of the issues:

Issues

If they want to witness the hearing, they can go to the following link. Be aware that it cuts off at a certain point:

Hearing

I'm part of a growing group of composers and songwriters called the Council of Music Creators of New York. We post relevant articles and news. Our Facebook page is located at:

Make company with CMCNY

People should follow the news on this and be vocal. We need every musician (and listeners) to actively speak out. We can't sit back and just wait for things to change. They're changing, and it's not good!

Comments