Youtube bowing to the "copyright police"

I'm probably misunderstanding you all, but are you saying that if someone doesnt want to sell you something you 'have the right' to just go in and take it? And that if you guess that doing whatever you feel like doing will 'help the artist' it'll give you the moral right to just ignore whatever law you please? Just trying to make sure I get it...

I'm probably misunderstanding you all, but are you saying that if someone doesnt want to sell you something you 'have the right' to just go in and take it? And that if you guess that doing whatever you feel like doing will 'help the artist' it'll give you the moral right to just ignore whatever law you please? Just trying to make sure I get it...

At first glance, I would have to say that you are misunderstanding the point, and this is why. Is getting a video off of YouTube "pirating"? Is it "mostly no", or, "mostly yes"?

I believe that it's mostly no. YouTube would not be up and running if that were the case. I really believe we get to see what they (the music industry, film industry, etc) want us to see. I view it as a watch-what-you-want-when-you-want television programming. Do you really think that if whatever industry organization didn't want a particular video up there in a very easy to find manner that it would be up there for more than 20 minutes? No way. That's why I sing the praises of You Yube and it's being able to show obscure footage.

But that's precisely what's happening: youtube started as a website where people could broadcast themselves, their lives and their own activities to a 'wider public'. It rapidly became a site where people could upload commerical stuff: whether ripped from commercially availlable DVD or copeid from pay-per-view channels. As much as I like free stuff (hey, I'm Dutch!) you have to draw a line somewhere. In my opinion those who create should have a say in to what happens with their stuff and when people start ignoring that the line has been crossed. Ofcourse things get sketchy when we're talking about footage that's not, or no longer, commercially availlable but be honest, YouTube is absolutely filled to the top with tons of stuff that we all know we should normally pay for, that is widely availlable, that has been uploaded without the artist permission or approval etc. That is pirating, plain and simple. Don't get me wrong, I'm as much a 'pirate' as everyone else here and pirating is probably one of the lesser 'sinful'/criminal acts I've been involved with in my life, I'm really not trying to take control of the soapbox here or pretend to be a saint. Youtube rocks, it does show a lot of stuff that would otherwise have been forgotten about, it's the best way to show friends new music and I really dig it, but this post started about those who own creative products trying to stop it from spreading for free against their wishes. That's their well-deserved right and by taking that right away from them we take away that which protects the fruits of our own creativity.
Do you really think that if whatever industry organization didn't want a particular video up there in a very easy to find manner that it would be up there for more than 20 minutes? No way.

You forget that 5 billion people can upload faster then 5 billion dollar can take it down. :lol:

On a personal note: as some may know I'm close to releasing my first little album. I plan to put as much up on last.fm for on-demand streaming, youtube will follow as soon as I have decent video footage. It simply is a very efficient way to spread the word, so to speak, for the smaller artists (as much as I hate to call myself an artsis in public, it has a certain arrogance around it). But the choice to do so should always be with the artists: if they dont want it to be there then so be it.

In my opinion those who create should have a say in to what happens with their stuff and when people start ignoring that the line has been crossed.

Agreed and agreed.
YouTube is absolutely filled to the top with tons of stuff that we all know we should normally pay for, that is widely availlable, that has been uploaded without the artist permission or approval etc.

Agreed, but only somewhat. No doubt people are copying DVDs and posting them. I see plenty of segments from my Pulse DVD ('Floyd) that are just as if it came from my own copy. There's an assumption we are both making, though. It gets complicated. Lars, the drummer dude from Meticalla, to his credit, made the public aware of the pirating going on. Where's the controversy here? How does a video get removed from YouTube? There's no doubt in my mind that the lawyers from both sides are sharing a strategy about content availability. Remember, it's not the artists. It's their collective group that they are a part of. We do know that a video can get taken down. What we do not know is the criteria for doing so. We all have a reasonable working class knowledge of the law. IF the music industry people did not want that particular video up on YouTube, it would not be there. My example is a 'Wino's video posted from some really poor copying job and there is no question. No doubt at all it's pirated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAJUt1C923Q Why is it still up there? It's not hidden away. No, the name of the artist and the song are clearly stated in the title. Not even looking for that particular video, I (being a database professional) could easily cross check a list of names and songs for their existance within song titles in the database. The code would take minutes, not hours to write. It's that easy. I dound it by utilizing the site's very own search capacities, and quite easily as I recall. This isn't a rogue video. We do know that YouTube does take stuff down. Why not this one? What is happening with this one that didn't happen with others that did get taken down? Believe me. If someone wanted it down, it'd be down.
You forget that 5 billion people can upload faster then 5 billion dollar can take it down.

It's not a question of mass taking down of videos. All's it needs is some admin to change a little setting in whatever their web service software is and the site gets toasted.

Bottom line for me is this. I don't think that much of what stays, stays without some sort of consent. If it was, we'd be hearing some front page news stuff about it. The rub in that lays in the fact that we have no way for sure to know if that's actually what's happening for any particular video. We must make one assumption or the other. That doesn't fit so well into my binary world.

Not sure how you can say this:
Agreed, but only somewhat. No doubt people are copying DVDs and posting them.

and only agree somewhat. :wink:

The thing is that we as a consumer public have gotten to the point where we truly don't think twice about where things come from, what it takes to make them and what the "cost" is. Technology is certainly blurring lines in what we are capable of but not in basic "right" and "wrong." If you put something up from any copyrighted source, that's technically wrong as it's no longer for your own personal use (like seeing it at home). But even knowing that doesn't stop us from using it. Putting it up in the first place is wrong and the matter about taking it down and who allows it to be up there in the first place, interesting and entertaining though it might be, is moot.

Where the real problem comes in is when we start thinking of our access to all this merchandise, stuff, intellectual product, art, as our right or our entitlement. It's not, plain and simple. You can dress it up anyway you want to, but it is stealing.

Now you can live with that without a second thought (most people do) or it can keep you up nights. As musicians and people who want to support musicians, all of us talk one way and act out another. That's a generally shared characteristic among most people. But I do think it's important to know that is indeed what we do and not get all put out when called out on it. When you put it in a reasonable sense of perspective, having something taken down from YouTube is an inconvenience, but it is not someone taking our rights away nor is it someone barring us from history.

Oh, and it goes without saying that this was all my opinion, right? :wink:

Peace

David for president!

Thanks for making me spit up Diet Pepsi all over my monitor! I should really know better by now than to drink anything while reading these boards... :wink:

Maybe though, as a Moderator, I should remove that post as we're not supposed to get into politcal discussions!

Peace

David, he can't vote for you anyhow. :roll: :lol: :lol:

The part I did not agree on was the 2nd part of Ignars sentance is the "...without artist permission or approval etc". I guess in the absolute sense of that phrase, you're right. Keith Richards' people did not contact Joe Shmoe and tell him it was OK.

That STILL does not make me think that we are dealing with another 90's Napster here. I still have not seen hyper drummer guy's attempts to enlighten me. (Sad truth is that what he said with the Napster thing and I killed my Napster app. I'm that much a wuss. I digress). Actually, I've seen signs of the music industry embracing YouTube. Universal Music Group and BMG. Not just music. CBS has like a jillion videos out there. Well, thousands.

I just did a sampling of my playlist just for curiosity. Selected 5 songs and only one was by an official music org, but another one did have a curious little blurb alongside a youtube logo stating that "Contains material from Universal Music Group". Is that YouTube giving UMG the finger, or is that UMG saying "That's cool. We approve". Of course, had I never clicked on this video, I never would have seen it to begin with. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-a_cCBzXRg Now tell me. How is that not a gray area? Click on a link and hope that the video you've just selected and started to download is approved or not? Reminds me of Russian Roulette. I could click on that link and breathe a sigh of relief. Otherwise, the FBI would be collecting some $8,000 penalty from me.

I'm an adult with a reasonable education and thought process (albeit currently hampered). How is some nose picking moron supposed to figure this out?

Nope. I'm merely suggesting that what we have with YouTube is not absolute as far as the law or right or wrong goes. You both have stated your interpretations of the law and I think you are right. I'll bet I lean towards the right or wrong arguments you've laid down more than most people would. There are some serious mixed signals from within Youtube itself though. I know that I view this YouTube thing as sort of an internet radio station made for videos. I'm quite sure that a huge amount of other people do too.

So right now, I'm trying to reconcile the illegality of the uploading to the site vs the victims not caring if it's up there or not.