Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Businesses Google Music The Internet Your Rights Online

YouTube Muting, Removing Videos Involving Warner Music 202

Posted by Soulskill
from the responsible-judgment-takes-too-long dept.
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 DCMA 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Muting, Removing Videos Involving Warner Music

Comments Filter:
  • even when... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gandhi_2 (1108023) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @12:21PM (#26497451) Homepage

    ...you use a small clip of a song for the background music of a video.

    That's about half the videos on Youtube.

    • by AmigaHeretic (991368) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @12:31PM (#26497541) Journal
      >>That's about half the videos on Youtube.

      Nah, I checked the Warner Music website and Rick Astley isn't signed with them. Which is too bad really.

      Hey, but Cher is! I'm going to go start making annoying Cher videos!! Oh wait, I guess I could just watch her normal videos...
    • by owlnation (858981)
      Nah, half (probably more it seems) of the videos on Youtube are not really videos. They are slideshows of pics of celebrities set to the favorite song of their creator. Invariably, also tag-spammed into oblivion.

      While I remain opposed to censorship, and think the RIAA are pissing into the wind with this, the one possible good thing is that it may result in less of these irritating, spamming, slideshow compilations. Ken Burns has a lot to answer for.
  • by numbski (515011) <numbski@hksil[ ].net ['ver' in gap]> on Saturday January 17, 2009 @12:22PM (#26497459) Homepage Journal

    Sadly, it's fair use for you to use it, but you have no "right" to post it to their site. Once you created an account there, you pretty much waived any of your content rights there. C'est la vie.

    • by LingNoi (1066278) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @12:26PM (#26497503)

      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.

      • by numbski (515011)

        I see what you did there.

        I don't mean in any practical sense...

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Bobnova (1435535)
          Sure it's their right to do whatever they want to with posted videos, but it seems to me like they open the door to competition by doing this. Some other site (why doesn't microsoft have a streaming video site, anyway?) that demands actual legal proof before taking down videos could make real inroads to youtube's current market share. Especially if they started off by mining youtube for good videos. Youtube must feel very secure in their domination of the market here, else they wouldn't risk pissing off t
          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 17, 2009 @12:48PM (#26497701)

            That's not how the law works or the DMCA. If you ignore the DMCA then you no longer gain the "safe harbour" privilege which means you can be sued for every copyright infringement case on your website no matter who uploaded what.

            By removing the videos first Google is in accordance with the DMCA and doesn't get legally nuked into the ground.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by falcon5768 (629591)
              not true at all. The DMCA requires a challenge period which You Tube has done NOTHING to provide, as well as by law they should be taking claimed rights holders who have filed illegal challenges to them to court, which they will never do while they get content from the very same challengers. As it stands now, Google is JUST as in violation of the DMCA as the challenging rights holders have been. Even worse, people whos original works have been removed by Google due to major media falsely making claim have h
            • by Kindaian (577374)

              The issue is that DMCA is very specific with that.

              The right owners have to identify exactly what is against their will...

              And i doubt that they are doing it.

      • by nganju (821034) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @01:03PM (#26497829)
        Totally agree with you. Especially because 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.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Langfat (953252)
          Totally agree with you. Especially because 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.
          --
          There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
      • by Gerzel (240421) * <brollyferret&gmail,com> on Saturday January 17, 2009 @01:53PM (#26498311) Journal

        Anything digital is pirated?

        So the short stories I write and post to the internet are pirated?

        What about the digital photographs I take?

        What about the drawings I make? ...they suck but that's another matter...

        Though for the growing bulk, perhaps even majority of useful data you are right that if posted w/o consent of the copyright owner it is "pirated" or put correctly(piracy is a maritime law only!) intellectual property infringement.

        As this bulk grows it means that there are more and more creations that can be considered similar to material that is part of someone's intellectual property. In order to relate to other people you have to relate to their experiences and many of those involve IP such as theme parks, brand name items, cartoons etc.

        This means that gradually companies owning what amounts to non-expiring IP are taking ownership of society for their own non-personal(corps are not people) gains.

        Any Intellectual Property(copyright, patent, trademark etc.) without a reasonably short expiration date is grossly unjust.

        Every piece of IP should have an expiration date for when it will enter public domain and once set that date should NOT change even if new laws are passed. Renewable IP dates may be just provided that the renewal process allows for a certain end time for the property holder's rights and the longer the ownership the harder the renewal should be to prove(not to pay for).

        • by LingNoi (1066278)

          So the short stories I write and post to the internet are pirated?

          No they are shared.. Read what I said.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        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.
      • by dontmakemethink (1186169) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @05:28PM (#26500191)

        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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by LingNoi (1066278)

          I thought this interpretation up the other day feel free to use it.

          File Sharing is like a farmer eating the competitors apple and then planting the seeds. Soon the farmer has a field full of apple trees. The farmer gives his apples away to others for free.

          The apple is content. The farmer consumed the content, made copies and is now sharing those copies with others.

          Disturbingly you could relate this to GM crops however I'd like to keep the debate on track. Copyright or the possession of ideas just fundamenta

    • by Gerzel (240421) *

      Soon that could be true for the entire internet.

      Thankfully Obama has appointed an FCC head who knows what Net Neutrality is.

      Unfortunately even with him in office I think the day is coming when the Internet is as free and open to free speech as any major Radio or Television broadcast.

      It is free speech ...as long as you never say anything illegal or offensive or that challenges those that set what "illegal or offensive" means.

    • Once you created an account there, you pretty much waived any of your content rights there

      If you mean the copyright by the content right, then it is wrong. The copyright of any video you made still belong to you. It would need far more than an EULA to "give" them the copyright. What probably happens is that you grant them perpetual free licence to copy or delete or whatever.
      If on the other hand you meant that the playing of the content there is dependent on their arbitrary whim, you are correct, if thei
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Sadly, it's fair use for you to use it, but you have no "right" to post it to their site. Once you created an account there, you pretty much waived any of your content rights there. C'est la vie.

      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

  • Beyond brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Saturday January 17, 2009 @12:28PM (#26497519) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • They just want it to be "their way", so we can enjoy the music on sites like this one [mtvmusic.com]. Padded in ads and nagging you to buy something.

    • Old People (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mfh (56) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @12:41PM (#26497645) Journal

      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:Old People (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LingNoi (1066278) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @01:04PM (#26497837)

        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.

        • I'm sure that page exists more for shareholders than the public at large. Not that I don't get what you're saying.

    • by Xelios (822510) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @12:47PM (#26497695)
      Here's the typical scenario, this happens to me all the time.

      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.
    • by Scrameustache (459504) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @12:53PM (#26497745) Homepage Journal

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by anagama (611277)
        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.
        • by Scrameustache (459504) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @03:08PM (#26498989) Homepage Journal

          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.

          • by Kindaian (577374)

            Is stoped...

            In the last 15 years i brought 3 CDs.

            And 2 of them where the soundtrack of a manga series (imported from Japan naturally).

            And yes, before the whole music "piracy" wars, i was buying about 1 CD per month... ;)

        • by zotz (3951)

          That may be so, but some people were already "old" and their buying spiked when the original napster was in play and then fell off again when it got shut down.

          Ask around among some "old heads" and see what you can find.

          drew

    • by multisync (218450) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @02:01PM (#26498375) Journal

      I am speechless at the business acumen behind killing your number one free advertising site

      This doesn't make any sense. Why didn't Warner just give the offending parties a "stern lecture [wired.com]?"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iamhassi (659463)
      "By lowering your exposure, I can absolutely guarantee you're going to lose sales. Genius."

      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 /. Very stupid.

      I know someone who recently had a popular video
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mcnellis (1420749)
      At this point, I don't even give a shit. Sure it's bullshit, but like you said it'll only hurt them. They're forcefully hurting themselves. It's like a crybaby emo kid addicted to heroine. Just let them kill themself and when they do no one will feel sorry. In the mean time, instead of watching the YouTube video if the song is stuck in my head, I'll just go and download the song (and it won't be from iTunes!) and just watch as I effortlessly contribute to killing their business. I can't wait for the day th
  • Better Approach (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lobiusmoop (305328) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @12:34PM (#26497575) Homepage

    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)

    • That would be funny until Universal Music forces them to take it down since they own A&M, Herb Albert's label.

    • I was saying this the other day to my boss... but rather than the benny hill song, it should be the Chicken Dance. That shit is hilarious.

  • Keep this up and people will just find a less draconian place to be.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      And that place will be great until Warner threatens them and sues them out of existence. Youtube's playing by the rules set forth by copyright law. Copyright is the problem, here, not a silly video site.
      • by nurb432 (527695)

        There are other alternatives that are pretty much outside the reach of the 'industries'.

    • I guess that's basically what Warner et al try to prove: Just like Napster, these video portals live on "illegal content". Take it away and they fold because there's nothing left.

      What they fail to see (or rather, what they fail to mention) is that this is why they fail, even though it's not the focus. They fail because other portals have legal AND illegal content. So portal A offers both, portal B offers only "legal", where do you go?

      It's like going to WalMart instead of the 7/11 around the corner. Yes, bot

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nurb432 (527695)

        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

      • In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.

        Best, and truest, implication in a sig I've seen in a *long* damn' time. America, our capitalism has become corporatism. It's time to take the power back.

  • by LaminatorX (410794) <sabotage@@@praecantator...com> on Saturday January 17, 2009 @12:38PM (#26497609) Homepage

    It seems it's possible to have anyone's account killed by sending three letters.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Jeoh (1393645)

      I thought DMCA notices were much longer.

    • by WiFiBro (784621) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @01:06PM (#26497857)

      And indeed people are using this to remove videos they do not like. Example: convict Kent Hovind spread false videos against evolution. With permission to spread. Several people made response videos and these were removed referring to this issue. Pro-God YT user VenomFangX made people file complaints on many anti-him (small 'h', VFX) videos, but went too far by using it as a censorship trick. YT user Thunderf00t, who was wrongly censored, threatened to sue VFX unless VFX made apologies and shut up for a year - watch the forced apologies being uttered on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4&feature=PlayList&p=4618299B334AB7B9&index=8 [youtube.com]
      By the way VFX did not make the one year silence full. He again places his anti-evolution barf, and typically only allows his fans to comment.

      • by symbolic (11752)

        Pro-God YT user VenomFangX made people file complaints on many anti-him (small 'h', VFX) videos, but went too far by using it as a censorship trick.

        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.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by internewt (640704)

          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.

    • by sam0737 (648914)

      It seems it's possible to have anyone's account killed by sending three letters.

      I bet some botnet author will start automating this process anytime soon.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mounthood (993037)

      We need a virus that submits bogus DMCA notices. In volumes that require automated responses, Google would be forced to take action. It would ruin YouTube to honor the notices, or they would be forced to ignore the flood of (legit looking) DMCA takedown notices.

      Then the unfair power of companies-with-lawyers would be exposed since RIAA DMCA notices would either get special treatment, or ignored like the virus DMCA notices. Google would have to break the DMCA to ignore the spam, since they can't tell if it'

      • by BillX (307153)

        Gasp, they'd have to go back to actually sending the notices by mail like any other legal threat. (Certified Mail for added emphasis...)

  • Well, their loss (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vadim_t (324782) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @01:01PM (#26497803) Homepage

    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.

    • by cdrguru (88047)

      Buy? Once you "have", you have all you need.

      The value of recorded music is zero, and that's all anyone I know is paying.

      • cdrguru: Buy? Once you "have", you have all you need.

        The value of recorded music is zero, and that's all anyone I know is paying.

        That's not quite true. There is a value to most music: it can convey ideas and moods, change one's outlook, and serve as anything from light entertainment to a rallying theme depending on the intent and skill of the songwriters and performers involved.

        Really, if there was zero value, would people really bother to collect it? It wouldn't be worth downloading if there were some so

      • So I assume you have no music anywhere in your home if you say it has no value to you.

    • by Albanach (527650)

      What I find strange is that they haven't found a way to monetise their music for home video use. Why is there no simple way to pay $30/$40 to use tracks from their catalogue to accompany video.

      Surely it's not beyond the competence of their lawyers to come up with terms that would work.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 17, 2009 @01:12PM (#26497905)

    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.

  • Good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fishbowl (7759) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @01:13PM (#26497911)

    It's good to see a former big player withdrawing from a market. It just makes that much more room for an independent artist.

    Warner reached a peak with the inception of Bugs Bunny. I'll maybe shed a nostalgic tear or something.

  • Newsflash (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sleeponthemic (1253494) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @01:26PM (#26498029) Homepage
    If you put a lot of effort into making videos and then go slap on some copyrighted music over the top of it, you are a fool and you should not be surprised that your video had an expiry date.
  • by Doug52392 (1094585) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @01:28PM (#26498051)
    Says a Google search [google.com]. Looking at some of the videos that were censored, a LOT of them had a few seconds of a Warner song in them. So they went far beyond removing JUST those "music videos" or "CD tracks".

    Some of the videos I noticed have been disabled:
    * Numerous AMV videos
    * Video game demos and clips
    * Several videos by stand-up comedian George Carlin (WTF?)
    * Some videos about global warming
    * World of Warcraft videos
    * Live recordings of music artists from the 1960's through today.

    So they removed videos that were perfectly within fair use, simply using a small snippet of a song. I guess this is the end of fair use...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by anagama (611277)

      Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Cite [cornell.edu]

      Some of the videos may well fit into fair use, but many of them probably do not. For example, when using music as background to a video game sequence, if the sequence is merely someone showing how cool they are, it is hard to see this as "teaching". Even if it is "teaching" -- it isn't teaching about the music. The music is not a key part of the lesson on how to do a particular game activity, and it is thus hard to say that music falls under a teaching exception. Is it "comment"? Probably "comment" mea

      • by Aladrin (926209)

        "Some of the videos may well fit into fair use, but many of them probably do not. "

        Here, let's change that a bit and see if it's still okay:

        Some of the people definitely didn't commit a crime, but many of them did.

        Can you see how wrong that statement is?

        • Welcome to the modern world, where you're safe until they get round to thinking of something for you to have done wrong.

          Enjoy.
        • by anagama (611277)

          There is an objectively large difference between a private site owner removing questionable material that violates its terms of use, and being arbitrarily jailed or executed by the government. Differences
          - Private company v. Government entity
          - Refusal to publish a video (*) v. loss of freedom, rights, or life
          - Video creator can buy a webhost and self-publish (may still result in copyright violations) v. loss of freedom, rights, or life.

          I am no fan of government and will cheer heartily when WA DC sinks into

          • by anagama (611277)
            oops, forgot my footnote: (*) You can still make the video for private use. Even if it violates copyright, the chances of getting caught are so minuscule as to be non-existent. Publishing is where things get tricky.
      • by russotto (537200)

        For example, when using music as background to a video game sequence, if the sequence is merely someone showing how cool they are, it is hard to see this as "teaching". Even if it is "teaching" -- it isn't teaching about the music.

        There are four tests to fair use, however. Stuff like that pretty much immediately passes the fourth factor -- the effect of the use on the marketplace for the work. This is just vanity crap, and has no effect on the marketplace. If it's just a snippet of the song, it probably

    • Almost all of those look like they're a few minutes long or more. How can you say they were using a "small snippet" without actually seeing the original video?

    • People like you are always going on about 'fair use', I've yet to see a video on Youtube that had 30 seconds or less of copyrighted music playing ( 30 seconds is always in the battle cry: "it was just a small 30 second clip" ).

      Re-read the codified law concerning copyright again. Please.

  • Time to boycott (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Endo13 (1000782) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @01:35PM (#26498137)

    Something like that happened to one of my own videos. Just a stupid little clip from a video game, but it included some music that apparently it's "wrong" to use. So they deleted the video. I made it easy for them - I deleted the rest. I'm done using YouTube. They're stupid for caving in so easily, but the labels issuing the takedown notices are far, far more stupid. They're slaughtering their single best advertising, and it was free for them. Seriously, they should be PAYING people to use their crap on YouTube. You already know no one (and I mean NO one) is going to use YouTube as an alternative to downloading an MP3. Let's see... choice of $0.99 to download the song and use it on your MP3 player, or have to go to a website, on your computer, and stream the video every time you want to listen to it. Yeah, people were DEFINITELY using YouTube to avoid buying music. Lots of lost sales there, yep!

    YouTube is going from great to irrelevant, and it's hurting not only them, but the music labels as well. That's fine, I'm done with them.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      "choice of $0.99 to download the song and use it on your MP3 player, or have to go to a website, on your computer, and stream the video every time you want to listen to it"

      Stream whut???

      If you want to listen to something not available elsewhere, downloading the video with DownloadHelper is effortless as is playing the file with vlc. Older concert clips come to mind as examples.

  • Good! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by crhylove (205956) <rhy@leperkhanz.com> on Saturday January 17, 2009 @01:46PM (#26498259) Homepage Journal

    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!

  • by JumperCable (673155) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @02:00PM (#26498373)
    The DMCA is too easy to abuse as a chilling effect tool. Fake people & entities are used in massive take down requests. Non-copyright owners are issuing take down requests of critical information & commentary. It is being used to obtain the name & address of people who post critical information. And it is being used to removed content of unattended accounts or to harass posters of critical content until they stop responding to DMCA requests.

    * Message to Scientology vid DOWN!! - "The video was apparently down due to false DMCA claims made against two other videos, which brought down the whole account." [whyweprotest.net]
    * Youtube account permanantly disabled, no reason given. [whyweprotest.net]
    * 'We Still Run This' - down (up again) - Copyright claim by Gary Scarf. [whyweprotest.net]
    * Tommy Davis videos being pulled [whyweprotest.net]
    * A video from the Church0fScientology account removed for TOS violation [whyweprotest.net]
    * The 888 video is down now. [whyweprotest.net]
    * Onehuman and Gerry Armstrong Vid Censored [whyweprotest.net]
    * Scientology Attacks Jedi Anons YouTube - BOTH of the videos that had readings from The Complex were deleted [whyweprotest.net]
    * Angry Gay Pope Banned from YouTube - It's the video where Ken Moxon comes out and servers me a TRO [whyweprotest.net]
    * flagging a different video of mine for sexual content, but the reason he is doing so, as far as I can discern, is due to comments made regarding the video itself. [whyweprotest.net]
    * Is it just me or are about 25k YouTube "Scientology" vidoes missing? [whyweprotest.net]
    * That shitbag TomNewton237, owner of XXXXX has flagged my most recent upload and in his shitty blog brags about getting Tori, Mark Bunker and others pulled. [whyweprotest.net]
    * Very important videos taken down on Youtube - These videos are very important because they are evidences of fair game caught on tape. [whyweprotest.net]
    * DMCA Abuse by Scientology Re-uploaded on Youtube! [whyweprotest.net]
    * Report on Kaja Ballo removed from Youtube [whyweprotest.net]
    * Another Video removed - "Shawn Lonsdale assaulted by Ron Salevo" [whyweprotest.net]
    * Possible new wave of DMCA claims? - ContentFactory America, Inc does not exist. This is the same shit as the American Rights Counsel LLC. [whyweprotest.net]
    *
  • by MooglyGuy (1455165) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @02:10PM (#26498463)
    This issue actually hit me on YouTube. I decided to post some videos of me 5-starring various songs on Guitar Hero: World Tour, since I worked on the game and happened to enjoy it. A few weeks later, Warner Music submitted a takedown notice on the video I made of me beating Hotel California, stating that it was a recording of a song by the Eagles. I subsequently submitted a counter-claim stating that it is not a recording of a song by the Eagles, but is in fact a recording of Guitar Hero: World Tour, which has no EULA barring the "public performance" of the game. Unfortunately, I never got the chance to see how it turned out, as when I discussed it with my employer, it was suggested that I just acquiesce to the company's demands so that they don't get upset with Activision. Frankly, rather than capitulating to unreasonable demands like that, I think the company should make the terms of licensing music for use in the game more clear so that crap like this doesn't happen, but there you go.
  • I know what YouTube is talking about. It's this practice where people take their favorite song and make it the background music for whatever cheesy video they have cobbled together. Guess what? i t s n o t y o u r s o n g a n d y o u c a n t d o t h a t.

    Oh well. If anything, the more Youtube is cleansed of videos of Thomas the Tank Engine set to bad Journey songs, (as if there are good ones?), well, I'm all in favor of it.

  • Ever since Google bought YouTube for a ridiculous amount of money people have been wondering how they'll be able to make their money back from it, there's a simple solution to this:

    Use YouTube as a try-before-you-buy system.

    Instead of muting the audio on copyrighted tracks & removing copyrighted video - reduce the audio/video quality a bit and include a BUY NOW link so that Google and the copyright owners can start to cash in on people's want to have the audio/video in CD/blu-ray/DVD quality instead
    • by Ant P. (974313)

      That won't work for one simple reason. People don't give a shit about sound/video quality! Just look at how popular sites like, say, youtube.com are as proof.

  • I like to watch gameplay videos. However, I don't like it when the original audio to the game is gone, in favor of some dumb death metal song. It's almost a bit of an insult to those who engineered the audio for the game.

  • If one wants to use a RIAA song, he/she should get express written permission from the copyright holder, and mention that it was granted in the vid, with a copyright notice.

    If one doesn't want to do that there is a lot of awesome creative commons stuff out there.

    And the latter is a better solution anyway.

    F*** the RIAA.

  • Go, go youtube! :D (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jesset77 (759149) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @04:13PM (#26499581)
    Seriously though, I applaud youtube on this point. I think they did the right thing.

    They could have simply taken down the videos, but that is blackballing, is it not? It's easy to forget the thing was even there.

    Instead they invent a brand new method of censorship, who's only express purpose is to make it very, very clear that something is being censored.

    They are HIGHLIGHTING the problem and they are GENERATING buzz over this fiasco. They are making it clear that they are being legally threatened and demonstrating what the effects of this censorship are. They are doing so under the guise of both serving the requests of T-W and being "kinder and gentler" to users, but really they are inviting users to Get Mad As Hell [youtube.com].

    It is counterproductive to be angry at YouTube over this. They will shame TW, the RIAA, and they will back down and this new form of censorship will cease. In the meantime, allow them to make strikes like this on our behalf, and join me in raising some ruckus against the distributers. :P
  • Anyone remember the seen from the movie Amadeus where the Emperor had declared that the ballet was banned, so he walks into a rehersal and sees how ridiculous ballet is without music. The difference is the emperor changes his mind and allows the music whereas our media companies aren't that sensible.

  • If it means that many of those "music videos" that the anime nerds make are silenced, I die happy.

One picture is worth 128K words.

Working...