Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Muting, Removing Videos Involving Warner Music
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 DMCA 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."
...you use a small clip of a song for the background music of a video.
That's about half the videos on Youtube.
THL phish sticks
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.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
For some reason the headline made me think they're taking down Bugs Bunny cartoons.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
It's not evil to delete people's videos off their own website because said person tried to bend the rules they agreed to when signing up.
s/before he could/after he didn't/
According to TFA he had a few years to file a counter notice.
It would be so much more fun if they just speeded up the videos and dubbed over the Benny Hill song (props to b3ta)
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Keep this up and people will just find a less draconian place to be.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It seems it's possible to have anyone's account killed by sending three letters.
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.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Slowly but sooner or later all freedom that was on youtube will be gone.But new sites will arise,i'm certain of it.
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.
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.
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.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
I record my sleeptalking
Says a Google search. 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...
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.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
You probably meant Pyrex.
Someone would just use one of the botnets to spider every user account in youtube's userbase and post 3+ DCMA takedown reports on it? Show them it's a load of bull what they are doing...
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 sort of desirability to at least some of it.
The problem is not so much the value as the cost. The people who produce it want to sell it at a specific price, which most people don't want to pay. Meanwhile, the cost of reproduction has dropped just about to zero, and that's what people are paying in money to get the stuff. They're still paying costs in effort, storage space, etc. to find, grab, and warehouse the stuff.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
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!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
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."
* Youtube account permanantly disabled, no reason given.
* 'We Still Run This' - down (up again) - Copyright claim by Gary Scarf.
* Tommy Davis videos being pulled
* A video from the Church0fScientology account removed for TOS violation
* The 888 video is down now.
* Onehuman and Gerry Armstrong Vid Censored
* Scientology Attacks Jedi Anons YouTube - BOTH of the videos that had readings from The Complex were deleted
* Angry Gay Pope Banned from YouTube - It's the video where Ken Moxon comes out and servers me a TRO
* 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.
* Is it just me or are about 25k YouTube "Scientology" vidoes missing?
* 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.
* Very important videos taken down on Youtube - These videos are very important because they are evidences of fair game caught on tape.
* DMCA Abuse by Scientology Re-uploaded on Youtube!
* Report on Kaja Ballo removed from Youtube
* Another Video removed - "Shawn Lonsdale assaulted by Ron Salevo"
* Possible new wave of DMCA claims? - ContentFactory America, Inc does not exist. This is the same shit as the American Rights Counsel LLC.
*
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 their lawyer aren't stupid they forsaw this and put in the EULA that they can at any moment yank/delete/mute/stop the image of any of your video.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
While technically valid, at some point companies grow too big and pervasive to follow the same rules as everyone else. Like how the telcos have to follow all these government rules nowadays. Technically they are a private company and they should be able to do whatever the hell they want to their customers, but the government stepped in to protect people and give them a certain level of service because the phone system is too important to let companies do whatever they want.
While not the same as a phone (as far and safety and stuf) YouTube is pretty much in the same place. Just like Google itself. They have to play by different rules because their services have become too vital. It's because of this that they can't just do whatever they want like you said. They are forced to work at a higher more general level and obey the laws of the land in a general sense even though they are a private company.
users tend to use music way too much, often at the expense of the audio i *want* to hear. so there is an upside to this.
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.
This is my sig.
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 of watching a 'postage stamp' sized video in half-CD quality mono.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
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.
It's not evil to delete people's videos off their own website because said person tried to bend the rules they agreed to when signing up.
No, but it's evil assist those who would seek to destroy our culture. This is the battleground: between greed and the preservation of our way of life.
I'm not kidding, and a shitload of people agree with me
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
I should be surprised but I'm not. Let me share one of my favorites before Sony joins and its gone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYDzCzSiaz4&feature=PlayList&p=6B95CC593F0AD058&index=0&playnext=1).
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.
youtube's been sucking for awhile.
i Video DJ (i make mashups) and ALL THE CONTENT I POST IS NOT MINE. i am not claiming to be lil wayne, i did not make the beats, but i did put them together in a brand new way and make my own song out of them. DJ mixes are for promotional use only, and as long as theyre being distributed freely they are not violating any laws. youtube removed 4 of my videos sometime in 2006 and then recently blocked 3 more, one of which has over 830,000 views. i was really looking forward to crossing a million on that one...
It's evil to comply by the DMCA? It's evil to follow the law? Get a clue.
If Google didn't remove the videos they would loose "safe habour" and be sued for every video infringement.
You obviously have your head up your ass to think google is evil for having to do what every other website, INCLUDING SLASHDOT has to do.
Obviously, Warner Music doesn't want to remain mainstream. They would rather opt for the old dying scheme than continue to move forward in the digital age.
Remove all the videos you want Warner, I have copies.
Seriously though, I applaud youtube on this point. I think they did the right thing.
:P
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.
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.
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
It's evil to follow the law?
It is evil to follow evil laws. I'm not quite sure the DMCA counts as evil -- but certainly it is culturally destructive.
Add some RIAA-represented metal music to it and yes.
They have to play by different rules because their services have become too vital.
Youtube is far from the only game in town. There's vimeo, revver, etc. I'd agree with you if we were talking about public utilities, but you don't need to be defended from a company deciding they won't host your video for free. At worst you can always host it yourself.
Of course, once you do that, you'll be getting those takedown notices at your home address, and you'll have to decide how to deal with them. So once we assign everyone their responsibilities and follow the cause and effect chain, the real problem becomes (AFAICT) that the law is lopsided. Copyright lasts too long and fair use has very little muscle behind it these days.
I feel for the people doing things like movie reviews who've had their accounts deleted or videos removed. But fortunately they have strong evidence of fair use should they host their video somewhere where they have more control. I don't feel for people who make photo slideshows of "Lost" or whatever show they like and put music behind it. That is in fact a copyright violation and in my mind should be treated as such.
What people are really worried about is losing access to YouTube's large user base, which compared to a normal web page is like getting free advertising. If people lose that, then so be it, it's not a right. As long as the terms were made clear when signing up, I don't see the issue. YouTube needs to defend itself from the horde of industry lawyers.
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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.
That is interesting you chose metal. Is metal synonymous with meth? Should we call it Methal? I thought it was more of a raver/dance-club drug, but whatever.
YES YES YES I, also, agree with you. I am part of that shit load of people. You are, so right.
Q: What's the difference between a viola and an onion?
A: Nobody cries when you cut up a viola.
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
If it means that many of those "music videos" that the anime nerds make are silenced, I die happy.
I had a video taken off YouTube (well, I had to mute the audio before they would let the video go public once more) as it violated Warner Music Group's copyright. It was Panic at the Disco music video that a few friends made for college, nothing menacing or harmful about it whatsoever. I also did a bit of investigation and couldn't find what WMG had to do with the labels that PATD are signed to...
Cpl Richard J Nelson's Funeral (Video 2)
Now that is pathetic. They even censored a video of a funeral for a man who died serving his country. Out of all the truly fucked up things the entertainment industry has done to censor us all and control the media, I have to say, I truly believe they hit rock bottom with this one.
Nelson died fighting for freedom, only to have a video of his funeral censored by Warner Music.
drastic, draconian, utterly out of anyone's control and result in making the products of any **AA's clients so utterly unpopular, unpalatable and unsafe that merely uttering one word about it would make a performer a pariah.
Then, when everybody sees what a Ponzi scheme the media business is, they'll stop being able to sign up anybody.
We don't need the labels anymore.
They'll stop suing anybody when nobody listens to them anymore because they'll have no more money coming in.
End of **AAs when we get rid of their clients.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
It's evil to comply by the DMCA? It's evil to follow the law? Get a clue.
You don't seem to grasp the seriousness of what's going on. The DMCA needs to be opposed, broken and made ineffective in order to defend something far more important than the right to make a buck. If they close YouTube down, so be it. YouTube, Slashdot, or any other site on its own is NOT more important than culture itself.
To quote Lawrence Lessig:
"Within every culture, there is a public domain - a lawyer-free zone, unregulated by the rules of copyright. Throughout history, this part of culture has been vital to the spread and development of creative work. It is the part that gets cultivated without the permission of anyone else.
There is no doubt that piracy is an important problem - it's just not the only problem. Our leaders have lost this sense of balance. They have been seduced by a vision of culture that measures beauty in ticket sales. They are apparently untroubled by a world where cultivating the past requires the permission of the past. They can't imagine that freedom could produce anything worthwhile at all.
The danger remains invisible to most, hidden by the zeal of a war on piracy. And that is how the public domain may die a quiet death, extinguished by self-righteous extremism, long before many even recognize it is gone."
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
You're obviously so far up your own ass that you can't even consider that perhaps Google might not want to go out of business.
Yeah keep sticking it to the man.. If Google can't keep hosting those Britney Spears music videos then they should go bankrupt over it..
Also quoting Lawrence Lessig on unrelated topics doesn't make you insighful, all you're doing is trying to bait me into discussing a different topic so you can "win" the debate.
This is the beginning of the end for YouTube...
Instead of posting the video on just youtube, post it on as many video streaming sites as possible, diversify your upload portfolio.
Youtube is not the 'god' of internet video...fuck em. Use other sites...they are out there.
They can't imagine that freedom could produce anything worthwhile at all.
I'm sure they do recognize that freedom could produce worthwhile creative content. That is the problem: It is then content they can't control, and more importantly, money that isn't lining their pockets.
My band [start shameless plug] Three Legged Dawg - www.crunkytonk.com [/ end shameless plug] does a cover of When Doves Cry - a fan posted a video of it on youTube a couple weeks ago and it was quickly yanked. Which means a person or bot who enforces a standing order from Prince's legal team is aware of us! awesome!
I did some research last month and created this list from all videos that have been removed recently.
Very interesting is that even videos critical about Youtube removing videos were removed too (TOS violation)...
you can find it here:
http://anontube.com/ytDB.txt/
You're obviously so far up your own ass that you can't even consider that perhaps Google might not want to go out of business.
That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. They don't want to go out of business, but the DMCA - taken to it logical conclusion, will do just that for them because culture is more powerful than either Google or the DMCA.
Yeah keep sticking it to the man.. If Google can't keep hosting those Britney Spears music videos then they should go bankrupt over it..
Which is what I just said too.
Also quoting Lawrence Lessig on unrelated topics doesn't make you insighful, all you're doing is trying to bait me into discussing a different topic so you can "win" the debate.
How was the topic unrelated? They seem perfectly compatible to me. What is the point you are making?
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"