Dave, also known in the internets as PDXguitarlegend got his account suspended on May 8 because of Van Halen and ZZ Top claims by the ever-friendly Warner Brothers. Music Group. That's 1,700 subscribers, and the removal of videos that DID NOT broke any law what so ever, and acted under the "Fair Use" guidelines of the Copyright Act. It's just a matter of time before all our accounts get suspended. Slowly, these measures by the record labels and Google, which are not only wrong, but kinda illegal, are destroying the musician community in YouTube.
Ask yourself: Who makes music popular? Who mantains these record companies, and who are they abusing? With who's money has Edgar Bronfsman Jr. bought his latest golden comb, and Lars Ulrich his latest pair of flashy sunglasses? Who's got the power to make these companies change their ways?
Don't let these companies try to monetize with your freedom as a consumer and your freedom to decide what to play and who to show your skills on a particular instrument.
Tribute is not theft. Stand up against the abuse of Copyright Laws.
Finally, an artist had something to say about the Warner-YouTube spat. Sadly for us, it's not what we would've hoped for. In an article written by Neil Young in his own website, he addresses the issue from the point of view of a WMG employee.
In his article, Young basically says YouTube offers different deals to each record deal, which includes different revenue money; as opposed to the old days when radio offered the same deal to every record label and artist to play their songs. Warner was the first to negotiate a deal with YouTube back in 2006. The other labels followed, but negotiated a better contract. According to Young, Warner merely tried to get the same deal the other labels got, and YouTube wouldn't hear of it. This, at least in my own personal opinion, still does not justify the removal of hundreds of user-generated content and LRRG videos.
Reading a bit more, I came across this small paragraph, which I found quite interesting:
"Today's web world has created a new way. Artists today can go directly to the people. There is nothing standing between the artists and their audience. Freedom of expression reigns."
Really? artists can go directly to the people? nothing standing between them? I guess that would be except for the big-ass multi-million dollar corporation which is removing the fan-made videos, and the artists' own videos! Judging from that small paragraph, I can conclude Warner is really good at one of two things: brain-washing their artists, or keeping them from knowing their modus operandi of video removal.
Granted, his opinion could've been worse. At least he took the time to comment on it, unlike that Danish tennis player whose name won't be mentioned.
Worried about how YouTube's automated video-signature flags videos and gives complete freedom to the copyright holders to block pretty much whatever they want, completely ignoring and bypassing the "fair use" clause in the U.S. Copyright Law, a student organization -MIT Free Culture- started this project hoping to reform it.
Basically, YouTomb monitors those videos on YouTube which are the most popular, often featured in other web sites, and serve as a source as to who has removed what and why. Browsing through some of the removed material, it becomes aparent some companies will claim copyright on anything. If you make a video of yourself, you better not have a mole which resembles the Mickey Mouse logo -- it would probably get removed. "Please use Mole-Swap and try again."
But I digress...
The fellows at YouTomb also keep a count on how many videos have the companies removed by themselves, WMG not surprisingly ranking at number one with over 4,600 videos taken down; counting only the claims by "WMG,"not those by "Warner Music Group" and other variations of that name which has become a euphemism for "copyright fascists."Of course, in a site of this nature, they could not lack a blog to express their thoughts and feelings about this wonderful world of corporate monopoly we're facing. Contributor Kevin Driscoll was kind enough to take some time out of his life and browse through this blog and the Living Room Rock God community and dedicating an article on YouTomb to our cause. (Thank you, Kevin!).
So, are you still wondering what happened to your favorite video in which some kitties were headbanging at the rythm of Metallica? I suggest you browse through YouTomb's content. WMG might have claimed copyright over the music... or the kitties (they might've looked like Sylvester the cat).
Just when we thought things were looking up, they deliver a blow like this. Two important musician YouTube accounts were suspended: jloch84 and Munkybarz. Both bassists, and both damn good at it. Munkybarz specially was the object of a huge following by players from all ages, since his videos served as a huge inspiration for young rookie players, and his huge library of rock bass lines got other older musicians and music fans to re-discover some classic rock songs and records.
We in the music community are affraid this might be a new way to deal with the evil copyright infringers that we apparently are in the eyes of the big record labels. As of late, many of us have stopped being afraid and contested the videos we got removed. Some even got a notification with the magic words "dispute successful."Maybe it's a bit of a conspiracy theory, but one cannot help but to think their new strategy might be: "no accounts, no counter notifications."
This theory can seem like a stretch, but ask yourself: "why else would they close these two accounts?" and while you're at it, "is my account next?"
Mr.Kafka might be on to something. Not Franz, but Peter, from All Things Digital. In his point of view, the most viable solution for the record companies-YouTube conflict is a simple one: just rip off MySpace. Creating a YouTube Music would not solve everything, but from our perspective, as YouTube users/musicians, would be a really nice option. This would create a new style of MTV, going back to basics for what MTV used to be: Music. Only, this way, we, the users, would have compelte control over what videos to watch and when, without stumple upon them by mere chance, having to sit through another episode of "The Real World."
But the promise land doesn't end up there. If they were to make a deal similar to Warner's back in 2006, this would mean pretty much carte blanche for any covers we might want to play: from Red Hot Chili Peppers, to Barney the Dinosaur. That is, as long as no executive looks at another in the industry that is YouTube and yells out: "why is he making more revenue than me?!"
Go ahead and read both articles by Peter Kafka for the entire story and his own theory of why YouTube Music should be created, and how it should work, as opposed as just reading my rambles and rants.
Today LRRG jouxplan posted this information in the Living Room Rock Gods forums earning the right to pick anything he wants from the nearest pastry shop. This is Warner Music Group's share price chart, according to Yahoo! Finance, UK. We're not economists or expert chart readers, but this doesn't leave much to speculation, that blue line really starts dropping around October from last year, and by January it's crawling like a snake. I wonder what kind of executive decisions could have been the reason for this debacle. Oh, right...
I like to think we, the fans and WMG-product-users, played an important part to cause such drop in share prices for Warner. Lashing out at the people who buy your products doesn't seem like a good idea, even for an all-powerful multi-million corporation. And now that Sony Music Entertainment successfuly renegotiated their deal with YouTube, it's looking even worse for them. We can only hope they realize their mistake and chose to negotiate, instead of taking the next step in their bullieness, as big-shot corporations are known to do from time to time.
In this video, we see a young child who's just learning to walk while being filmed by his mother who then uploaded the video to YouTube to show her family and friends. That's it. No editing. No music added in post-production. However, that did not stop the ever-watching eye of the Universal Music Group music police and actually claimed copyright infringement on it for the Prince song playing in the background. Fortuatelly, Stephanie Lenz, the owner of the video sued UMG with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the video went back up on YouTube. While her case is still ongoing, the judge did say that UMG and other copyright holders should consider fair use before sending a takedown notice.
I'm posting it now to make a point: this is how far these companies, such as UMG or WMG (Warner Music Group) are willing to go. Right now, they're claiming copyright infringement over the videos we make of ourselves playing covers from our living rooms or bedrooms. But, if we let them get away with that, and without shame, they'll claim copyright over your home movies and even videos of your kids learning how to walk.
These people have no shame. This image of Barack Obama was seen everywhere during the last months of 2008, and became one of the most important images of, at least, the 21st century when he was elected as President of the United States. The famous "HOPE" image was done by a Calfornia street artist named Chris Fairey, but it was not done from scratch. Inspired by Obama's campaign, Chris found a photograph by Manny Garcia, from AP, and transformed it into the image we all recognize today.
Now the campaign is over and Chris Fairy is getting a law suit threat by AP for copyright infringement!:
"The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission," said Paul Colford, AP's director of media relations taken from an article by Lewis Wallace for wired.com.
Fairy's lawyer is using our new two favorite words in the English Dictionary: Fair Use. It really does not take a lot of brain cells to figure out Fairy's work is completely transformative and it follows the Fair Use guidelines; he has not made a cent from the famous poster.
Now Fairy has counter-attacked AP. According to this article by David Kravets for wired.com, on Monday, Fairy "filed a preemptive lawsuit claiming he did not violate The Associated Press's intellectual property rights."
The lengths some people are willing to go for money or recognition is unbelievable. We can only hope the Fair Use clause gets more specific over time, so that no one with a little bit of power abuses copyright laws and demands "compensation" just because somebody else's work was better than their original efforts.
YouTube is not the only target of Warner Music Group's bottomless stomach for money. Recently, Last.fm -the on-demand music website- has had music taken down by WMG. However, as opposed as what happened in YouTube, the artist's official radio stations are still online, since they work under a dfferet contract, but music from albums by Neil Young, Nickelback, Death Cab for Cutie are right out.
This begs the question: what the hell is Warner doing? They were the first company to sign a deal with YouTube so it's users could use their music freely, and the first to make a deal with an on-demand music site (Last.fm). My guess -and that's only a guess- is they realized how may users these two websites had and their mind went "CHA-CHING!" Now, they're only thinking on how to get their dirty little paws on more dough, making a whole lot of consumers angry. Not a smart move, I'd say.
Holy crap! I did not expect the EFF article I posted here yesterday to cause so much stir, but many sites are commenting on it, including Billboard. Here are some articles commenting about both, the EFF article, and the current WMG hostile video take-over.
I don't think that we can find clearer evidence that what we're doing is working. If you've had one, or more, videos removed, or even if you didn't but one of your favorite videos was, and you feel it was unfair, please take a moment of your time and write to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Our freedom of playing music in our own homes is at stake.
This is what it's come to. Teenagers singing "Winter Wonderland" being censored off YouTube.
Fair use has always been at risk on YouTube, thanks to abusive DMCA takedown notices sent by copyright owners (sometimes carelessly, sometimes not). But in the past several weeks, two things have made things much worse for those who want to sing a song, post an a capella tribute, or set machinima to music.
First, it appears that more and more copyright owners are using YouTube's automated copyright filtering system (known as the Content ID system), which tests all videos looking for a "match" with "fingerprints" provided by copyright owners.
Second, thanks to a recent spat between YouTube and Warner Music Group, YouTube's Content ID tool is now being used to censor lots and lots of videos (previously, Warner just silently shared in the advertising revenue for the videos that included a "match" to its music).
EFF, along with many other public interest groups, have repeatedly expressed our concerns to both copyright owners and YouTube about the dangers of automated filtering systems like the Content ID system. These systems are still primitive and unable to distinguish a tranformative remix from copyright infringement. So unless they leave lots of breathing room for remixed content, these filters end up sideswiping lots of fair uses.
And that's exactly what has happened these past few weeks. And while today it's Warner Music, as more copyright owners start using the Content ID tool, it'll only get worse. Soon it may be off limits to remix anything with snippets of our shared mass media culture -- music, TV, movies, jingles, commercials. That would be a sad irony -- copyright being used to stifle an exciting new wellspring of creativity, rather than encourage it.
It's clear from the Warner Music experience that YouTube's Content ID tool fails to separate the infringements from the arguable fair uses. And while YouTube offers users the option to dispute a removal (if it's an automated Content ID removal) or send a formal DMCA counter-notice (if it's an official DMCA takedown), many YouTube users, lacking legal help, are afraid to wave a red flag in front of Warner Music's lawyers. That's a toxic combination for amateur video creators on YouTube.
So what can we do?
First, YouTube should fix the Content ID system. Now. The system should not remove videos unless there is a match between the video and audio tracks of a submitted fingerprint. When we made this suggestion in October 2007, YouTube assured us that they were working on improving the tool. Well, it's been more than a year. If YouTube is serious about protecting its users, the time has come to implement this fix. (Some will point out that this implies that record labels and music publishers can never use the Content ID tool to remove videos solely based on what's in the audio track. That's right. I think that adding a soundtrack to your home skateboarding movie is a fair use. If copyright owners feel differently, they can send a formal DMCA takedown notice, and with any luck, we'll see each other in court.)
Second, YouTubers, EFF wants to help. If Warner Music Group took down your video, ask yourself if your video is (1) noncommercial (i.e., no commercial advertisements or YouTube Partner videos) and (2) includes substantial original material contributed by you (i.e., no verbatim copies of Warner music videos). If so, and you'd like to counternotice but are afraid of getting sued, we'd like to hear from you. We can't promise to take every case, but neither will we stand by and watch semi-automated takedowns trample fair use.
Recently, Greg Sandoval, from CNET News wrote an article regarding the feud between Warner Music Group and YouTube and how this affects it's users. It focuses on a video (see here) you might have seen by Corey Vidal, known as ApprenticeA in YouTube in which he payed an a capella tribute to John Williams. His video was even nominated for a People's Choice Award, but Warner did not care, they removed the video anyway citing copyright over Williams' material.
The video did not have any music other than Corey's voice.
Posts
