YouTube Muting, Removing Videos Involving Warner Music 202
notseamus writes "In the past few days, YouTube has started muting videos uploaded by users that use 'unauthorized copyrighted music' in response to Warner Music's threat over royalties, and so far appears to target only Warner Music related videos. Ars Technica also reports that after three DMCA notices YouTube will remove a user account, even when it appears to be fair use. Kevin Lee has had video essays — which he believes are fair use — removed from YouTube, and his account disabled before he could file a counter notice."
even when... (Score:4, Insightful)
...you use a small clip of a song for the background music of a video.
That's about half the videos on Youtube.
Re:Their site, their right. (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as you upload anything to the internet you've pretty much waived any of your content rights you had.
Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.
We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.
Beyond brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
I am speechless at the business acumen behind killing your number one free advertising site, the one that had no negative affect whatsoever on your sales because the sound quality was way too low to "pirate". Newsflash to Warner: I've bought music I'd never normally get simply because it was stuck in my head and that was the only way to get rid of it. By lowering your exposure, I can absolutely guarantee you're going to lose sales. Genius.
Re:Whatever happened to (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not evil to delete people's videos off their own website because said person tried to bend the rules they agreed to when signing up.
Better Approach (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be so much more fun if they just speeded up the videos and dubbed over the Benny Hill song [nerdiphythesoul.com] (props to b3ta)
Old People (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with business is old people and I don't mean aged people just people with OLD IDEAS, like the captive audience. It's bullshit and it's gone. We are able to do anything with our constantly deteriorating free time, so why would we give YOU money when YOU treat us like we are criminals and not customers?
We'll go somewhere else, do something NEW and leave you in the DUST.
Re:Cya You Tube (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Beyond brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone: "So what's your favorite band?"
Me: "Right now it's [band 1]"
Someone: "I like them too, have you ever heard of [band 2]? They have a similar sound, here check out this video of one of their songs."
Me: "Wow, they're pretty good. Have you heard of [band 3]? Here's a link."
Someone: "Thanks, I'll check them out."
And viola, bands 2 and 3 have new fans.
Incidentally, [band 2] and [band 3] are really great, you guys should check them out on YouTube.
Re:Beyond brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
I am speechless at the business acumen behind killing your number one free advertising site, the one that had no negative affect whatsoever on your sales
I never bought as much music as I did during the napster days.
I got to sample music I liked, instead of being subjected to the choices of our betters in the music industry, who get to chose what gets played on the radio.
And this is the crux, it's not motivated by business acumen, but by a desire for control.
Re:Beyond brilliant (Score:1, Insightful)
And it all doesn't matter that they're new fans because given the music's available for free on YouTube/Kazaa/whatever, they don't bother buying any copies.
Free samples only work if the samples do not constitute 100% of the available product. Those little taster booths in supermarkets rarely offer you a lifetime free supply of the product they're hawking. Go into a car dealership, and they'll rarely offer you a ten year long unattended test drive.
Well, their loss (Score:5, Insightful)
The right thing to do in this case is to comply with Warner's demand.
Then go find some unknown artist that makes good music they don't mind to be heard more widely, use their stuff, and of course link the artist's website with a recommendation to buy their music.
Re:Old People (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is slightly off topic because it's about movies not music however I have to agree with this.
Before the MPAA changed their website their about page was all about fond memories of going to the cinema as a kid to watch the black & white movies and about how movies should be enjoyed with a audience.
Those days are over. This generation wants content when it suits them and doesn't want to go to a filthy room with over priced junk food. They want to watch the movies in their own home around their own schedule, where people aren't going to be talking in the movie or making noises munching on popcorn.
I did a quick check and saw this..
http://www.mpaa.org/AboutUsGlickman.asp [mpaa.org]
It's about the current CEO of the MPAA. Lots of talk about how he has helped feed the worlds poor and how he is a political scientist. What about you know.. the damn movies?! The very core of the association's being and not one mention of why he loves movies or any experience he has in the area.
In fact all the MPAA is (judging from the website) about copyright protection. This is a shame and they should really move on and consider why there is so much copyright infringement and how their association can provide the media for the generate of today, not the old fart generation of yesteryear.
This most likely won't happen because from my point of view everyone at the MPAA has been replaced with lawyers and political scientists who are completely out of touch with the audiences of today. They can't even comprehend the fact that they need to change.
The DMCA is being heavily abused (Score:5, Insightful)
Tons of DMCA requests are being submitted by scientology to take critical information off of the internet.
It's a cheap quick easy way to take down information from unattended accounts.
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/186-youtube-2008-edition/
It's also an easy way for them to get the name & address of people who are critical of scientology.
Nothing prevents them from using a fake name & address to submit false DMCA requests.
Who here as the money to go head to head against scientology? Especially since their stated aim is not to win, but to harass.
Re:Cya You Tube (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it didn't 'live on illegal content' ( which youtube doesn't ) id still refuse to be a customer of them if they fold to demands like this. So while i would contribute to their downfall and as you suggest proving the industries point, it would be for a different reason.
As far as your walmart analogy, i make it a point to do business with the local mom and pop shops in my area. Local quality over mega convenience. Even if it costs me a little more in dollars and time, its the right thing to do.
Sure im only one person, but if enough of us do it, it makes a difference.
Re:Beyond brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue of whether these people pay for the music later is separate from the fact that they learned of these bands through Youtube. What would you rather have as an artist? A fan who might buy your CD's or go to your concerts, or a person who doesn't know you exist?
Newsflash (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Beyond brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)
Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
The more these media corporations and the RIAA crack down on online media, the more user generated and INNOVATIVE material will get room to breathe and kick the crap out of Blink 9,347, Miley Cyrus, and whatever disco/pop crap emo bullshit they are successfully peddling while piracy is still available.
Warner is just painting itself into a corner, and I say GOOD. Fuck 'em. They haven't produced anything original or good in at least a decade, anyway!
Re:Whatever happened to (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not evil to delete people's videos off their own website because said person tried to bend the rules they agreed to when signing up.
No, but it's evil assist those who would seek to destroy our culture. This is the battleground: between greed and the preservation of our way of life.
I'm not kidding, and a shitload of people agree with me [free-culture.cc]
Re:Their site, their right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.
We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.
--
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
Re:Beyond brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. Seems Warner doesn't "get" the internet. When I google a song, you want videos showing up in the search results. By having videos removed from Youtube you're killing those search results.
And Youtube, by deleting users for stupid reasons without allowing them to at least respond you're killing your advertising stream and getting bad press on
I know someone who recently had a popular video removed. It was a video of her lip-syncing to a song. There was no warning, just "your video has been deleted". No way to access the video again either.
When will internet companies treat customers like customers rather than criminals?
Re:Beyond brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Napster was what -- 8,9 years ago? That means you're almost a decade older now. People also tend to buy less music as they get older.
People also tend to stop buying RIAA music almost entirely (I'm only human) as part of a conscious thought after being called a thief for daring to sample a product before deciding to buy it or not.
I'm almost only buying straight from the artists now. Bonus: Autographs.
Re:Beyond brilliant (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah yes, VenomFangX - another certifiable zealot. I've always wondered - if his religion is so great and wonderful, why does he feel it necessary to resort to such underhanded tactics? It has been around for more than two thousand years, and will certainly survive without him.
Religion is utterly based on underhand tactics - the indoctrination of children, threats of eternal damnation for not doing or questioning what authority says etc..
Religion may out-survive one individual zealot, but it certainly will not survive without people like him.
Re:Their site, their right. (Score:1, Insightful)
Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.
We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.
Re:Old People (Score:2, Insightful)
And when you finally realize you can't knit a sweater, let alone make yarn, build a road, ensure you have clean drinking water, generate electricity, light the darkness, or any of the other million things that make your "constantly deteriorating" free time possible, perhaps you will come back with a new appreciation for being productive and honoring the social contract.
Know what the difference is between a song or a movie versus clean drinking water, electricity, light bulbs, and similar goods? You can make as many copies of a movie as you want, for damn near free. Try doubling your supply of potable water for free, and let me know how that works out for you.
Re:Their site, their right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy a fish, take a picture of it beside your purchase receipt, then drop it in a lake. A fisherman catches it, you say "wait, that's my fish, here's my proof." Fisherman ignores you, cooks/eats fish. Even if it were a $1000 fish, no court would grant you compensation.
Similarly, if you post your original content online, you effectively surrender it to public domain, including the possibility that it may become "unpublished". You've dropped it in a lake.
What the RIAA refuses to accept is that their fish have been flooded by this ocean called the Internet, and they can't apply their archaic Elvis Presley marketing model anymore. They'd rather sue children than develop a reasonable way to market music in a connected marketplace. Their inability to adapt disqualifies them from the authoritative position they purport to have. It's all over but the crying.
Re:Their site, their right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Google can certainly choose to have any policies they like on their site, however if they choose the wrong policies, then they will not be protected by the DMCA safe harbor [wikipedia.org] provisions.
Without safe harbor, Google can be sued by the MPAA as if they posted the videos themselves (technically, it's their actual servers that stream the content, so they are breaking the MPAA members' copyright every time your browser displays a video). With safe harbor, Google is protected.
It's a bad idea for Google to implement measures that proactively try to stop people from posting illegal videos, because it proves that they know the details of what people post, and then it is hard for them to claim that they are unaware, which is a legal requirement for safe harbor.
I don't always agree with such decisions but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whatever happened to (Score:3, Insightful)
You're obviously so far up your own ass that you can't even consider that perhaps Google might not want to go out of business.
Yeah keep sticking it to the man.. If Google can't keep hosting those Britney Spears music videos then they should go bankrupt over it..
Also quoting Lawrence Lessig on unrelated topics doesn't make you insighful, all you're doing is trying to bait me into discussing a different topic so you can "win" the debate.