YouTube Leaves Google Vulnerable?

PreacherTom writes "Yesterday's big news was Google's $1.65 billion deal to acquire popular video hosting service YouTube. But will it be a good deal? The market thinks so, as Google's stock rose about $10 per share after the purchase. On the other hand, YouTube increases Google's risk of copyright infringement, opening the door for significant liability...if Google cannot solve this issue. Will their planned video 'fingerprinting' be enough, or just a billion dollar mistake?" From the article: "YouTube's policy is to remove copyrighted clips once alerted to their existence. Content providers say the company needs to be even more proactive ... Todd Dagres, general partner at Boston's Spark Capital, says that Google's large market cap of $130 billion makes it much more vulnerable to lawsuits than a private company such as YouTube. 'Once Google starts to apply its monetization machine, there is going to be more money at stake and people are going to go after it,' says Dagres. 'You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.'"

Comments

They wish

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.

That's not what the copyright laws say. It's what the content industry wishes they would say, and takes them to mean. This is a great quote because it reveals how they really think about it.

Re:They wish

[linuxci]

In the end anyone who puts up TV shows on one of these services is going well beyond fair use but all Google should have to do is pull it down when asked.

However, content providers that don't embrace video services like youtube will end up losing out in the long run. There's a lot of other ways people can get the content, now they've had a taste of what's possible then more and more people would start looking elsewhere (P2P maybe) for their content should it be pulled from Googles servers. So it makes sense for the content providers to stike a deal with Google and get a share of ad revenue rather than drive people to P2P where they get nothing.

It's good to see Google is already striking deals with other companies.

Re:They wish

[monkeydo]

Yes, copyright law is actually much broader than that. In fact, you can't distribute other people's copyrighted content without their permission, even if you aren't making money off it.

That is what you meant, right?

Re:They wish

[gilgongo]

"In the end anyone who puts up TV shows on one of these services is going well beyond fair use but all Google should have to do is pull it down when asked"

The CRUCIAL thing here is "when asked." The problem with copyright culture right now is that content providers far too often simply tear stuff down before waiting to see whether the copyright holder wants them too or not. Granted, this is a proactive measure designed to save them from the courts, but if I were the boss of a TV station I'd ask them to keep it up there: if it's old episodes of Gilligan's Island or outtakes from Lost that are pulling the kids into YouTube then I can get those same kids to subscribe to cable (and or some future hi-def format) and watch it there too.

No exposure == no audience == no money. This is the lesson of the long tail.

Re:They wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny how the content industry wants ANY and EVERYONE to buy their product, but not use in any method except for consumption.

Personally I fail to see how content can not be cited like book references.

Ex: Little Johnny is bit eccentric and creative, and wants to make a short film about the wildlife in his backyard. So, he takes some still's with a camera, maybe a few short clips with a camcorder, and slaps it all together, putting Blind Melon's 'No Rain' as the audio overlay. Now, at the beginning of his short clip he cites the audio creator/ license holder/ producer/ all Copyright info of the song, which then progresses to play. He then uploads it to a website, like Youtube, where others can view it. He also cites on the page where it can be viewed, all Copyright info of the song in his short movie clip. He intends for others to view it at their interest and amusement, and expects no compensation of any kind of what he has uploaded.

Now, is what he has done deprived the copyright owner of any credit with regard to the creation? It is cited in his work, and no monetary gain has been acquired, yet you can be pretty sure the Copyright owner would go after him regardless of whether money was made.

I guess what I fail to understand with copyrighted content is this: if content intended for mass consumption is rehashed into an alternate form and redistributed into an alternate medium, with reference and citation to the copyright holder, for no monetary or other compensation, how has the copyright holder been deprived of anything??

It seems hypocritcal and draconian to think that if you put some form of art out into the world for people to consume with their personal wealth, that they not be able to do what they want with it as long as citation and reference to the original creator is noted accordingly.

Re:They wish

[bazorg]

In the end anyone who puts up TV shows on one of these services is going well beyond fair use
I don't know about that... Over here in Portugal we all pay a tax to support the public TV/Radio network. As the tax is charged along with the electricity bill, it's kind of hard not to pay it.

Using this network that is paid by the public, there are a few TV stations that broadcast 24h/7 with open signal, so it's obvious that the TV shows are not secret, or meant not to be distributed. So, why exactly would it be unfair if I would use the computer (or VCR) to record and show to my friends something that was already made public?

Re:They wish

[monkeydo]

And what does my reply say about selling? Nothing. You can't republish someone else's book and insert ads, even if you give the book away. This is similar to what YouTube and Google videos do. These sites have claimed protection up until now under the DMCA (wait, I thought the DMCA was all bad?) which provides a defense as long as the content is removed as soon as the host is notified by the copyright holder. However, a court could certainly decide that YouTube is encouraging the use of their service to infringe copyright, and possibly still hold them liable.

Dumb Question, ask another

[Se7enLC]

Google Video and YouTube are the SAME THING. The only difference is that google actually takes down copyrighted video when people post it to google videos and youtube doesn't. I don't see any reason why video.google can't merge with youtube and fix youtubes problems.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[ImaNihilist]

How many people are going to go to YouTube when all the copyrighted material is gone?

Not many.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[ImaNihilist]

That's because people happen to find other things while looking for illegal content. I've never met anyone outside of my geek circle that actually used YouTube to watch viral internet videos. Every "normie" I know uses YouTube to watch TV shows, anime, and music videos (quasi-legal now). When you remove the illegal content from YouTube, what is it? It's called Google Video, which probably doesn't even get 1/100th the views. Probably not even 1/1000th. If you aren't using it to watch illegal content, you're using it to either watch lonelygirl, brookers, or some other hobag play with her boobs. I suppose as long as they keep those three going strong, they will always have an audience. Boobs are always in style.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[Tony Hoyle]

Probably a regional thing.. everyone I know uses google video.

Part of the problem with youtube is its unreliability - someone posts a youtube link and about 80% of the time you bring it up and the play button doesn't work or it plays for 5 seconds and gives up.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[forgotten_my_nick]

YouTube does take down copyright material but it has to be reported or they have to see it. Not sure why Daily show clips appear everywhere (probably too many posting them) but still is pulled.

Heroes and Lost for example got pulled the day after they were posted. WOW South park got pulled a few days after posting but only because a large majority of the WOW players were probably spamming. I have also seen comments like "Content removed as owner is MTV" and similar.

Likewise with google video. You can get (c) material there too but generally harder to find and that's only because more people use youtube.

I wouldn't class them as the same either as Youtube is used as a social system as well. You can talk about the videos, subscribe to favorites, users, keywords, channels.

Actually, the added liability risk makes sense...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

YouTube increases Google's risk of copyright infringement, opening the door for significant liability

Despite what else I think of Google, this move makes sense. Google has stepped up to defend itself on a number of other copyright fronts (including book content); I think they will do an equally good job defending themselves (or coming to terms) on the video front.

since when...

[aleksiel]

since when was google afraid of copyright lawsuits? caching webpages, images, (mostly open-source-ish) code, actual books, and (some of their) videos?

i think youtube fits right in, personally.
but also, i hate the current state of our copyright laws.

I don't think it'll be a problem

[Rik Sweeney]

All Google have to say is they'll take anything down when the copyright holder (and only the copyright holder) complains. eBay has this policy similar to this, but still kick up a fuss when they're asked to take stuff down (Live 8 tickets last year for example).

Re:I don't think it'll be a problem

[jackharrer]

Exactly. They can just simply say: 'Oh, just because of sheer amount of videos we overlooked few. But we're trying.".
So we can be sure that we will still be able to see everything - but just for few days. Which is really good for marketing - you need to visit their page very often, just not to miss some content.

Good idea, plus if you don't annoy RIAA and MPIA (and their BIG members) too much it should work.

jackharrer

Re:Actually, the added liability risk makes sense.

[DerGeist]

Exactly. So many comments by analysts and armchair politicians seems to reflect a certain mindset that Google is so blindingly stupid that they bought YouTube for 1.65 billion after a six-week bender, and now their lawyers are crapping their Dockers screaming "oh crap, I forgot! We could get sued!"

Obviously Google knows there is copyrighted content on YouTube. It also knows that YouTube is what people want. Before the idea of capitalistic humility was eroded by monopolistic content producers who unilaterally decided they had consumers by the proverbial balls and would take them for all they're worth, companies actually tried to give consumers what they wanted. Google, I think, understands that. Yes, people want everything for free, but we all love YouTube. And why? Ignoring the vlogs and random jackass-style videos that everyone likes to watch, YouTube is on-demand content. It's a service that is realizable within today's technological constraints and universally desired among consumers. If Google can find a way to get the money machine going on this, the possibilities suddenly become immensely attractive.

Leaves it vulnerable my bottom.

[suv4x4]

Think about it. Would Google, which already has Google Video, go and spend 1.6 billion on a virtually equivalent service, only to end up "vulnerable" and sued?

Somehow I feel this was discussed behind closed doors, risks assessed and measured, strategy outlined. The deal proceeded despite all this.

There's simply a lot we just don't know to start discussing if YouTube leaves "Google vulnerable". And when you don't know something, it's best to wait and see, versus flap your mouth, outputting unmitigated BS in your articles.

Re:Leaves it vulnerable my bottom.

[PreacherTom]

You don't think both are examples of selective enforcement?

Monetize?

[TheWoozle]

You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means.

Is the entertainment industry going to lobby Congress to make movies and songs into a currency?

Google is plenty vulnerable already

[mrkitty]

*caugh*
http://www.cgisecurity.com/2006/10/06

This is a Non-Issue

[organgtool]

I really don't see copyright infringement becoming a huge issue with this acquisition. As another poster pointed out, Google Video removes copyrighted material from their site and as long as they enforce the same policy on YouTube, they shouldn't have too many copyright problems. However, I'm sure there will be a few grab-asses that will threaten to sue Google in an attempt to get a settlement, and if Google was smart, they'd allow the case to go to court and make an example out of them.

It's the nineties all over again.

[bytesex]

When the market realizes that young people switch over from one website to the next on a whim, and that you can make youtube out of slashdot out of wikipedia with just minor code changes, they will once again withdraw their money and the market will collapse. All these companies have is brands; it's a dangerous move by Google.

Re:It's the nineties all over again.

[King_TJ]

I think "the market" may be more web-savvy than YOU!

You can't just "make a YouTube out of Slashdot" or what have you, with "only minor code changes"! I'd agree that only small changes are needed to turn a particular type of site into a competing "clone" of the site. This is often seen with online dating service web sites, for example. They all perform the same basic function, so the back-end database code is pretty much the same.

But the hardware, bandwidth AND software demands of a streaming video site are very different than a blog site that deals in practically all text.

The fact that young people switch web sites "on a whim" is meaningless. Young people *always* switch brand loyalty on a whim. The fashion industry is well aware of this, yet they haven't stopped vying for their dollars, have they? The fact is, there's a lot of money to be made in creating and trying to hang onto an image of "oool/trendy" as long as you possibly can.

Re:It's the nineties all over again.

[daigu]

One of the most significant assets of any company are its brands. Interbrand does an evaluation every year where they estimate what the biggest brands are worth. Here's the top five: Coca-Cola ($67 billion), Microsoft ($56.9 billion), IBM ($56.2 billion), GE ($48.9 billion) and Intel ($32.3 billion).

Now, you can argue whether the YouTube brand is worth the price. But to argue that all they have is a brand - with the implicit assumption that brands are not worth anything at all - is simply wrong. Every day people pay more for the expectation of consistent quality and image. It's why people pay more for everything from Apple computers to Marlboro cigarettes. That's worth money, my friend.

Monetize?

[pla]

You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval

And here we have, in one choice of wording in one sentence, the embodyment of everything wrong with out entire IP system.

We need to line asshats like this need up against the wall, ASAP. Yes, YouTube hosts quite a lot of copyrighted content. Yes, Google has deeper pockets. So what?

Camwhores aside, anyone considering suing GooTube does not have the advancement of human culture in mind - Or even their own sales! They just want a quick buck via legislation rather than work. YouTube has taken what amounts to the "abandonware" of the media market, and made it popular again even in a low-quality format. Sales of cheesy 80s videos collections have skyrocketed thanks to YouTube, and at least some major labels haven't failed to notice this. But it only takes a single holdout, who considers their one-hit-underground-wonder as the single most important pile of dung on the planet, to make YouTube the next Napster.


We don't need an overhaul of IP law (and yes, I do include the whole plate of copyright, trademark, patents, and the rest in that term, quite deliberately), we need it completely done away with. We need a judiciary that has at least a basic grasp of the technology they keep making very dangerous decisions about. And we need people who talk about "monetizing" anything other than physically backed currency taken out back and shot.

Actually they already agreed about it

[skiingyac]

You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.

YouTube has just signed how many agreements with major content providers. Do you think that MAYBE, just MAYBE, Google was waiting for that to happen before buying them?

So, the question isn't even relevant. Nobody cares whether they can do it without their approval. YouTube HAS their approval, and now that Google owns YouTube, so does Google.

Any remaining content providers will quickly realize their choices are 1) spend money on long, expensive lawsuits against Google with little/no prospect of a ROI, or 2) jump on the bandwagon for practically free and make some money out of it. It shouldn't take long even for a corporate board member to figure that one out.

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[inviolet]

Any remaining content providers will quickly realize their choices are 1) spend money on long, expensive lawsuits against Google with little/no prospect of a ROI, or 2) jump on the bandwagon for practically free and make some money out of it. It shouldn't take long even for a corporate board member to figure that one out.

This will then stimulate a change in the advertising industry. Since discrete commercials can be so easily skipped or completely snipped out, advertising must insinuate itself directly into the content.

In the case of television, perhaps we should expect to see new shows filmed with green-screens subtly placed around the sets. You know, such as on the door of the refridgerator, or on the billboard that is slightly visible from Will & Grace's back yard. At the time of broadcast or rebroadcast or publication on DVD, commercial content can be pasted onto the green-screens dynamically.

This would have major benefits, because the commercial content can be adjusted according to the intended audience and timeslot. Advertising dollars will bring more bang for the buck... and that means that less total advertising needs to be delivered and watched.

I'm all for it. Commercial breaks are irritating, and seriously disrupt the mental state that the show is trying to induce in me. I'd rather ignore the computer-generated label on Doogie Houser's cereal box than I would sit through a cereal commercial.

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[rkcallaghan]

skiingyac wrote:

Any remaining content providers will quickly realize their choices are 1) spend money on long, expensive lawsuits against Google with little/no prospect of a ROI, or 2) jump on the bandwagon for practically free and make some money out of it. It shouldn't take long even for a corporate board member to figure that one out.

Academic curiosity: In the history of megacorporations, with particular emphasis on copyright-owning media corporations; have any of them ever chosen option number 2?

If yes, who? What were their results? If no, what indicators do we have that they would do so now?

~Rebecca

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[skiingyac]

I completely agree with your suggestion that history does not support this, and I think that's why nobody bought YouTube until now. However, in case you didn't read the Forbes link in the article, YouTube has signed deals with:

• Sony BMG Music Entertainment
• Warner Music Group
• CBS Corp.
• Vivendi's Universal Music Group

I don't know how they got this far, but that was DEFINITELY the hard part. The Washington Post recently stated that Drudge Report is their main source of traffic and that they have a symbiotic relationship. The rest will follow once the first couple start saying they are making money.

This is about confronting the copyright collective

[metoc]

This is a direct quote from the Google corporate site http://www.google.com/corporate/.

"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Webpages are but a piece of the world's information. Most of it is in print, video and audio. The problem is the various copyright collectives pretends that fair use doesn't exist, and this gets in the way of Google's stated mission.

Google is confronting the book publishers already and challenging their interpretation of fair use. The Youtube aquisition means the movies and television is next. Music is obviously down the road. Audio search is not as difficult as video search, but it is also not as sexy (The success of Youtube is testimony to our love affair with video).

This was a brilliant purchase

[pnuema]

Some things to point out...

1. Google paid 1.5% of the company in stock to purchase YouTube. Google stock jumped 5% on the news. Purchasing YouTube resulted in a profit for Google.

2. Television as we know it is dieing, and quickly. You can already watch many network shows on the web. Moving shows to the web means that networks can gather better metrics, which means better add targeting, which means higher add prices, which means fewer adds. Everybody wins. (And before you go on about greedy media companies, nobody knows better how not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg than Google).

3. Media providers were already signing up in ones and twos with YouTube. They will now fall all over themselves to sign up with the web's largest advertising company.

4. You can't be sued for hosting copyrighted content unless you have been properly notified of your infringement by the copyright holder and ignored it. No legal risk unless you bungle it.

5. With media providers signing up with YouTube to host their copyrighted content, there will be more copyrighted content available, at higher quality. You will have to sit through adds, but not as many as when you watch TV, and you can do it at your own schedule.

Google will be the largest media company in the world within 10 years. You heard it here first.

Re:This was a brilliant purchase

[Illserve]

Google paid 1.5% of the company in stock to purchase YouTube. Google stock jumped 5% on the news. Purchasing YouTube resulted in a profit for Google.

You're doing Bubble math.

Increases in stock price are not "profit", it is a change in the imaginary value of the company in the minds of the stockholders.

That value can be lost, catastrophically, in a way that cash in a bank account, or physical assets cannot.

Much Ado About Nothing

[yankeessuck]

YouTube has profit sharing deals in place with CBS, NBC, UMG, Sony BMG and Warner. It seems to me that media companies would rather cooperate than litigate in this particular case.

Law does not require them to be proactive

[slughead]

YouTube's policy is to remove copyrighted clips once alerted to their existence. Content providers say the company needs to be even more proactive

The law says otherwise.

Nice try, __AA.

Not that big of a risk

[cfulmer]

There are two ways in which Google could end up getting in copyright trouble:

1. Direct infringement: somebody posts a video they don't own and the copyright owner sues. This isn't a problem, so long as YouTube adheres to the DMCA notice-and-takedown provisions. The copyright owner sends an email to google, saying "You have my copyrighted content at www.youtube.com/blah/blah/blah. Please remove it," google removes it and no liability.

2. Vicarious infringement: basically, the Sony Betamax/Grokster doctrine: you have this site up there intending for people to post infringing material. So, even though your site may be used for non-infringing purposes, the fact that you intend for it to be used for infringing purposes is enough to make you liaible for vicarious infringement. BUT, google is out signing agreements with all sorts of content owners, trying to populate youtube with legitimate content. In this situation, it hardly seems that their business model relies on infringement.

There will, no doubt, be a few people who try to sue. But, as long as google doesn't mess up, those people will lose.

Quite Brilliant

[echocola]

I think this move is quite brilliant actually. They are going to make a rival to broadcast TV with this move. Copyright issues, I don't think so. The media companies will be paying THEM to host their content. This is going to be the TV of the future with targetted ads for "On Demand" content.

Not Liable

[omega9]

Google is not, and will not be, liable unless they choose to be.

The way the law currently stands, Google can not be held liable as long as they take sufficient measures to prevent, and react to effeciently remove, illegal (in this case, unlicensed and copyrighted) material. YouTube, now through Google, offers a service to upload and display video on the web. Sure, there are more minor details, but that's really just it. And that's not illegal. Users may choose to upload unlicensed, copyrighted material, but it's only up to Gootube to properly police it.

Some points:

• Remember the crazy business about taxing CD burners and blank discs because they might be used to duplicate copyrighted material? In those cases the penalty is placed on the consumer, not the manufacturer. Nobody went and tried to shutdown Plextor.
• Assuming there are massive copyright issues with YouTube, this deal works out well for both parties, buying them time to figure out how to best deal with it. Google is a well respected company and there's no reason to suspect they won't handle it with good faith. Any judgement brought against them at this point would be stayed until they've had time to deal with it. Think about if you've even been pulled over for expired plates on your car. Even if you get a ticket they most often always clear it if you get your papers in order by the court date.
• YouTube already struck a deal with Warner Brothers and there is talk about the same thing happening with other major labels. Some expect YouTube to become MTV reborn online with labels providing their back catalog of music videos. Have you watched MTV lately? It's certainly not a venue for music videos anymore. And if the lables think they can get more added value from already produced material...
• 'You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.' - That may be true, but approval is a minor detail. Throw an extra paragraph in the EULA. I don't think Google with take it that way, but it's not a big hump they have to get over. And anyway, take the revenue sharing idea of Revver and combine it with something like Google's adsense.

Re:Limit to liability

[AlXtreme]

If Google keeps YouTube as a separate corporation owned by Google, are they insulated from its liability?

Technically the Google-YouTube deal was a merger, so no.

The obvious deterant

[iabervon]

Content providers can insist that Google be more proactive in making sure that their copyrighted work isn't available. But Google could respond by also not listing those providers as highly in searches. They have no legal obligation to not give preferential treatment in search results to people who don't sue them or complain too much (at least until they lose the inevitable anti-trust lawsuit, which will take ages).

Some news sources have asked that they not be quoted on Google News, too, I've heard. I think there were even some that I'd heard of and read at the time, but I can't remember any more what they were...

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[pla]

IP / copyright were created to support the individual, not the business

Thomas Edison held 1,093 patents, AFAIK the record for an individual.

Today, assuming a non-lawyer could write a 100% compliant single-claim application, get it accepted on the first try, and no one ever challenges that patent, it would cost over 1.5 million dollars just to hold that same number for their standard patentable lifetime. That represents a minimum; figures I've seen for the "real" cost of getting and holding a patent come out in the $10k-20k range, and that still assumes no significant challenges to the patent.

Support the individual? Not bloody likely.


Either that or they haven't produced anything of value in their own life.

I code for a living (in part). In my spare time, I code for free and for fun, including (most usefully, and I don't mind bragging a bit) custom data analysis software for four university affiliated research groups in three states.

I already "got mine", and I work a 9-to-5 to keep it (not that I consider work in any way "noble", but I certainly don't think the world owes me a free ride just because of a great idea I had 15 years ago). I don't want yours too, and if you can profit from picking through my garbage, bless you for recycling.



Once again, a great example of the excluded middle argument that has no basis in reality and instead is based on some wanted utopia that doesn't exist.

Please search Google's arguably-copyright-violating database for the phrase "Free and Open Source Software". This particular "utopia" exists to the degree we make it, no more, and no less. Unlike virtually all historical human endeavors, however, once FOSS improves the world - Nothing short of the complete collapse of civilazation can undo that improvement. Not laws, not money, not religions, not bullets.

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[pla]

You confuse purpose with implementation.

And communism could work, in theory.

Yes, in an ideal world, some form of extremely limited IP law seems like a good idea. In practice, every exclusionary granting of certain rights and benefits to one person/group over another has rapidly degenerated into a self-perpetuating polarization of "haves" and "have-nots".



And what if someone removed your means to "get yours" to begin with?
[...]
What if you are an author? You want someone to copy your work whole and pass it off as their own?

What, before I wrote it? ;-)

And yes, actually, if I wrote a book and made enough to comfortably retire on, have fun gnawing on the leftovers, it harms me not at all. And if I don't have the popularity of someone like JK Rowling who could retire after her one well-known series (itself massively ripped off from another author, ironically (in the context of this topic) enough)? Then (as I do in reality) I'd damned well better not quit my day job, even if that day job means writing a new book every year or two.



You might be ok with that but who the hell are you to tell me I should be too?

"I" form the culture that you draw 99% of even the most creative and new ideas from; "I" give you an audience to sell to. And even under our current system (at least as intended, if not the farce we have now), "I" have granted you a metacontractual limited monopoly on what you borrowed from my culture, for the purpose of enriching that culture as a form of repayment-with-interest.

You have one, and only one, natural "right" as a petulant means of depriving me of your ideas - Keep them to yourself. If you don't like those terms, don't create. Simple as that.

Not an artist are ya?

[Spark00]

It seems hypocritcal and draconian to think that if you put some form of art out into the world for people to consume with their personal wealth, that they not be able to do what they want with it as long as citation and reference to the original creator is noted accordingly.

You don't get it. Copyright law has nothing to do with money - and everything to do with money. It is written to say that when an artist creates a work, and put it out for consumption, that's what we get to do - consume it. We don't get to use it as source material (other than through influence) for something else. It makes no difference if the kid in your example profits or not (or even if he CAN profit) because it is not about him or his profit. It is about the original artist. Because the little brat, even if he attributes correctly, is stealing from originators of that song. Not stealing money, but (ask an artist) something worse - his/her good name. Proof of that is in the very reason you'd use someone else's song in your work of art, because it evokes a certain feeling, a sensation, makes people think or feel a way etc. In other words they've done the heavy lifting of creating a work of art that has an effect on people, and you're borrowing the effect and hoping some of it smears off on whatever you've created. It's easy to say "oh that one-hit-wonder should shut up and enjoy the few extra iTMS downloads he's gettin' cos of this exposure." And yah maybe that's so. But should an artist shut up when some former KKK member is running for governor and uses his song as a campaign anthem? Of course not! The same laws that protect that artist and allow him to tell the nazi scumbag to cease and desist lest people thing the singer supports the nazi, allow the one-hit-wonder to tell your exemplar little Johnny to stoppit, and to tell youtube and google to pull that shit down. you are making the same mistake that others do, collapsing two arguments: 1) what do the copyright laws work to protect? 2) what SHOULD artists do with their work to encourage people to continue to enjoy it. The first one is a legal question, the second a philosophical one.