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."
As soon as you upload anything to the internet you've pretty much waived any of your content rights you had.
Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.
We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?"
Buy a fish, take a picture of it beside your purchase receipt, then drop it in a lake. A fisherman catches it, you say "wait, that's my fish, here's my proof." Fisherman ignores you, cooks/eats fish. Even if it were a $1000 fish, no court would grant you compensation.
Similarly, if you post your original content online, you effectively surrender it to public domain, including the possibility that it may become "unpublished". You've dropped it in a lake.
What the RIAA refuses to accept is that their fish have been flooded by this ocean called the Internet, and they can't apply their archaic Elvis Presley marketing model anymore. They'd rather sue children than develop a reasonable way to market music in a connected marketplace. Their inability to adapt disqualifies them from the authoritative position they purport to have. It's all over but the crying.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines