hello Hello everyone, I am Yitong, a big speechless incident, a big speechless incident, my family, I was just playing with my mobile phone and saw a hot spot, PDD prostitute teacher, during the live broadcast, he sang a few words of " Xiangtian borrows five more words" "Hundred Years of ", the copyright holder, the famous composer Zhang Hongguang, sued for RMB 100,000. The editor personally feels that this matter is quite interesting, so I came over immediately to share the code with you.
First of all, let’s take a look at the ins and outs of the whole thing and the current situation. It happened a few days ago. Mr. Liu Mou, a famous game anchor, former professional League of Legends player, and PDD prostitute, was doing his daily live broadcast work. During the performance, he casually sang a few lines of "Borrow from Heaven for Another Five Hundred Years". No one could have imagined that this seemingly ordinary day-to-day life would be sued by the copyright owner Zhang Hongguang and demanded compensation of 100,000 yuan. After PDD learned about it, his attitude was still very good. He said that he never imagined that he would be complained and claimed for his singing. He even joked to himself, was it really because his singing was too ugly? I wonder why he was the only one sued for compensation while other anchors were singing?
So regarding this, PDD still issued a video to publicly apologize. He frankly said that his live broadcast is a commercial activity and is stipulated by national laws. His behavior is indeed an infringement and he will not sing this song again in the future. However, he also said that he does not sing for profit and hopes that there will be more rights holders. understand. On July 2, the famous composer Zhang Hongguang, the copyright holder of "Borrowing from the Heaven for Another Five Hundred Years", responded, saying, "The amount of the claim is not important. The important thing is to call on all walks of life to attach great importance to music copyright." Media reporters told PDD asked for confirmation. PDD said that the other party has not yet accepted the apology and is negotiating with the game platform before the trial.
Good guy, it seems that the copyright owner is going to fight with the prostitute teacher and the live broadcast platform. Regarding this incident, netizens have a variety of opinions and comments. Some people say that the copyright owner is crazy for money. Some people say that since the amount of the claim is not important, why not claim one yuan? Some people say that they will no longer dare to hum songs on the roadside. Some people even joked that the children who sang "The Lonely Warrior" should quickly give money to Eason Chan . However, there are also a small number of people who think it is okay for composers to do this, saying that national laws have already clearly stipulated it, but people's copyright awareness was just weak in the past. In addition, commercial live broadcast rooms require the consent of the copyright holder before singing other people's songs. From everyone's speeches, we can also know that there are many, many similar incidents. PDD is not the first one, so of course, it will probably not be the last one.
Let’s talk about the editor’s own views. First of all, there is no problem with the comments of netizens who agree with the lawsuit and claim and respect the originality mentioned above. The editor himself is doing original work, and he also knows that creation is not easy. When his achievements are stolen by others, he will not feel so peaceful. When there was no original protection at the beginning, the copy was moved away intact, and even the name and title were not changed. The most annoying thing was that I had very few reads and likes, while the stolen copy had many. There are a lot of comments, likes, and readings. Even now that it has original protection, it is often moved. Therefore, I fully agree with the protection of originality and respect for copyright.
But, do I personally think the composer’s approach is a bit overkill? As many people have said, defending rights is correct, but at the same time the composer has lost everyone's favor. People often say that the law has no mercy and everyone is equal before the law. However, it is difficult for an iron-faced law to fully restrict certain things related to morality and emotions in people's lives, or unclear things, or boundaries. People who are familiar with PDD should know that Mr. Piao is a game anchor. Although the live broadcast in the live broadcast room is a commercial profit, PDD sings in the live broadcast room, but it is not to accumulate wealth for profit.I think the copyright owner should be aware of this before targeting PDD.
Let’s not go into details about other professional singing anchors singing in live broadcast rooms, street performers singing on the roadside, bar residents singing in bars, etc. It is said that it is to call attention to the protection of music copyright, thereby stimulating original works. Production and copyright protection are necessary, but over-protection will not play an innovative role. Think about it intuitively. In addition to obtaining copyright, the song can only be sung by the original singer. Can this really promote the innovation and development of musical works? In recent years, more and more emphasis has been placed on copyright and payment, and people's awareness of copyright has indeed increased. But has creative ability, including the number of excellent works, really improved? Has it actually declined?
In short, everyone knows that some things have no clear boundaries, and the law cannot clearly limit them. As far as copyright protection is concerned, obvious infringements can be seen by people with a discerning eye. Wrong is wrong and right is right. But as far as this incident is concerned, is PDD really not respecting originality enough and infringing on original rights? Just imagine if we follow the copyright owner's logic and think about it in reverse, if we hear some songs we don't want to hear on the Internet or on the roadside, or the existence of certain songs will cause various discomforts to us. Or if there is a negative impact, can we sue the copyright holders of these songs for compensation?
Returning to the protagonist of the incident, the prostitute teacher, PDD was also in the live broadcast room and told everyone that it might not be easy to hear his singing in the future. "This is the end of a certain fish singer. Maybe he has killed a genius." But then he also said that he and JJ Lin are friends, "How about catching him singing in the future? He won't sue anyway." “In just a few words, I don’t know what the words themselves are, but whether the prostitute teacher wants to make fun of himself or others, or he is more helpless.
Finally, the editor wants to say that originality needs to be protected, and I call on everyone to respect originality. But you have to know right and wrong, and you have a certain degree of success in speaking and doing things. If you don't control this degree well, you will end up in your own way. How do you, in front of the screen, view this incident? Everyone has their own ambitions and expresses their opinions. Let's discuss rationally. That's all for today. See you next time. Goodbye!
