|
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! >
YouTube Copyright Nazis Outta Control
YouTube Copyright Nazis Outta Control
Page:
1
Honkin On Bobo
68 posts
May 13, 2009
2:54 PM
|
Ok this is a little off topic, but as this is a music forum and a lot of us are using youtube I'd like to vent for a minute.
Is it me or are the copyright Nazis going way overboard?
Let me say at the outset that I never steal music. I have a modest CD collection all bought and paid for. I have never intentionally illegally downloaded a single music file from an online source, seriously. I have an Ipod, but all the music on it has been ripped and burned from cd's I bought and own (fair use right?). I recently received a itunes gift card. When I download those songs they'll be my first.
OK, so I'm trying to learn a little guitar too. I'm a huge fan of Clapton and Cream's Sunshine of Your Love. I own the CD that song appears on. I find a great little instructional vid on youtube. The kid playing it sounds awesome, and the vid is shot so that the fret board fingering can easily be seen, ie: he's a great teacher, not a show off. I favorited it. Come back a few days later.
VIDEO REMOVED FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATION
Now I ask you, whose pocket was losing money if that video stayed up there? I own the CD. And if I didn't, wouldn't messing around trying to learn that song make me more likely to go out and purchase it or other clapton/cream stuff. Would it's presence make me any less likely to go out and purchase any CD? I wanted to fire a projectile through the computer screen (fortunately I did not).
It's this kind of crap that puts a smile on my face when I hear about the problems the recording industry is having. They continuously take a dump on the little guy, the fans, their best customers. I'm all for the artists getting paid, and even the record companies for the capital they've invested, but hasn't it reached the point of absurdity????
Anybody who wants to.....fire away.
Last Edited by on May 13, 2009 3:02 PM
|
Blackbird
81 posts
May 13, 2009
3:41 PM
|
I'm far from an intellectual property lawyer (I just play one on television...) but between photography copyrights, and back when OLGA (online guitar archive - both pre and post internet days) OLGA went through a legal battle with publishers over the transcription of the music, I decided to understand a bit about why it happens, and how. The bottom line, how the publishers and copyright holders see it is essentially this:
When you perform the music copyrighted by another, organizations such as ASCAP and BMI regulate the royalties and use of the music. When radio plays it, somebody gets a penny. When Muzak goes on in the elevator, someone gets a penny - resold by Muzak. It's technically illegal to use "unlicensed music" (radio or cd boombox/stereo) in a business here in the USA, because broadcasting that music isn't licensed and the publishers/artists don't make money from doing that. The record cops have been busting that for years before online MP3 infringement has been going on.
The other side is the written side. When you compose a song and write it down, you own that copyright. When anyone else writes it down - in theory, even when they discover it by their own study, (short of credit for 'arrangement' or whatnot) it is essentially violating the original copyright. So online tablature can be considered a violation, because it's essentially 'giving away' the work that someone owns.
Granted, that can be seen two ways. Picky as hell by the non-copyright owners, and for the people losing money, a very serious problem. Consider some people who were millionaires from writing songs and having others perform them (Neil Diamond, for example) were zillionaires for publishing royalties before anyone ever heard of them.
So when someone has a popular enough video on youtube, or a lawyer is hired to browse for material by the person who paid them, anything that legally falls under the copyright violation gets rightfully axed.
If you know more about it, as an attorney or expert in the field, feel free to correct or embelish upon what I've written. I'm no expert, but trying to remain safely educated in the topic. Do I think that a video of a kid playing someone's song is copyright infringement? By the legal definition, yes... by a practical definition? It's a bit extreme. The artist feels that if anyone should learn their song, they should be making money from who they licensed to teach it.
Someone will inevitably bring up the idea of cover bands in live performance. Yup. Most of that is going on illegally unless they obtain copies of the music they're playing - or the venue buys a license to allow virtually anything to be played on their stage. Most of the time, the record cops have better things to chase, but it's not unheard of for someone from BMI or ASCAP to show up and hit a venue or business with a cease and desist order when they've got nothing better to do.
You'll notice also that much of the online lyric/tab content is sometimes absurdly "incorrect" - which technically could protect an accused infringer by claiming it was a different song, or not intentionally transcribing an existing known song. Also, OLGA has had a legal disclaimer that they're offering the information for "educational purposes only" to ensure that it's clear that it is not an intent to infringe upon copyright.
It's a crazy topic on both sides. It's as rightful for the copyright holders to yank it as it is for the infringers to avoid paying for it.
Last Edited by on May 13, 2009 3:45 PM
|
Patrick Barker
278 posts
May 13, 2009
4:39 PM
|
I think youtube helps advertise music more than it hurts... people don't want to have to go to youtube every time they want to hear music.
----------
"Without music, life would be a mistake" -Nietzsche
|
Buddha
415 posts
May 13, 2009
5:04 PM
|
I didn't read all of the post entirely so I'm just commenting on the topic.
It's more than lost revenue. For example, I own the rights to Harmonica Summit as an event. It's a legal business entity owned by me as well. So when I see people advertising their harmonica summit I ask them to change the name. Not because of lost revenue but rather reputation.
A few years ago I orchestrated an event that had the world's greatest living harmonica players from around the world come to teach and give concerts for one week.
It was the harmonica convention that has set the standard for what a convention should be. Many of the things you see at current conventions are spin offs of the summit.
I set the bar with the Summit and so far NOTHING has come close with the exception of Rockin in the Rockies with Jason and I as teachers and performers. However Rockies is about 1/10 the size of the summit.
I don't like it when others use the name so it they want to use it, I get paid for it, or they remove the name from their advertising or I sue them.
I have no problems with what YT is doing.
Last Edited by on May 13, 2009 5:05 PM
|
GermanHarpist
341 posts
May 13, 2009
6:11 PM
|
Youtube really has no choice. It's called getting sued. If the big companies have teenagers pay 1000$ for copyright infringements, how much do you think they threatened Youtube/google with?
----------
germanharpist, harpfriends on Youtube
|
Honkin On Bobo
70 posts
May 14, 2009
11:41 AM
|
Blackbird: Thanks for that info. You play an excellent attorney.
Actually, I was never arguing that they didn't have a legal right to do what they were doing, I was simply saying that it seemed that the copyright holders were getting a little crazy in the types of material they were demanding be removed. Even from a business standpoint it seems kind of counterproductive to me.
GH: I know YT has no choice. I was actually venting at the copyright holders who are demanding that the videos be removed. I probably should have used a different thread title.
|
Post a Message
|
