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."
It seems it's possible to have anyone's account killed by sending three letters.
Sure it's their right to do whatever they want to with posted videos, but it seems to me like they open the door to competition by doing this. Some other site (why doesn't microsoft have a streaming video site, anyway?) that demands actual legal proof before taking down videos could make real inroads to youtube's current market share. Especially if they started off by mining youtube for good videos. Youtube must feel very secure in their domination of the market here, else they wouldn't risk pissing off that many people.
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.
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.
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...
Anything digital is pirated?
So the short stories I write and post to the internet are pirated?
What about the digital photographs I take?
What about the drawings I make? ...they suck but that's another matter...
Though for the growing bulk, perhaps even majority of useful data you are right that if posted w/o consent of the copyright owner it is "pirated" or put correctly(piracy is a maritime law only!) intellectual property infringement.
As this bulk grows it means that there are more and more creations that can be considered similar to material that is part of someone's intellectual property. In order to relate to other people you have to relate to their experiences and many of those involve IP such as theme parks, brand name items, cartoons etc.
This means that gradually companies owning what amounts to non-expiring IP are taking ownership of society for their own non-personal(corps are not people) gains.
Any Intellectual Property(copyright, patent, trademark etc.) without a reasonably short expiration date is grossly unjust.
Every piece of IP should have an expiration date for when it will enter public domain and once set that date should NOT change even if new laws are passed. Renewable IP dates may be just provided that the renewal process allows for a certain end time for the property holder's rights and the longer the ownership the harder the renewal should be to prove(not to pay for).
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.
*
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.
not true at all. The DMCA requires a challenge period which You Tube has done NOTHING to provide, as well as by law they should be taking claimed rights holders who have filed illegal challenges to them to court, which they will never do while they get content from the very same challengers. As it stands now, Google is JUST as in violation of the DMCA as the challenging rights holders have been. Even worse, people whos original works have been removed by Google due to major media falsely making claim have had little help from You Tube to get legally required information for them to file lawsuits against the claimed rights holders. Its very much a case of Google doing a lot of things evil, and illegal.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
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 c0mments.
I thought this interpretation up the other day feel free to use it.
The apple is content. The farmer consumed the content, made copies and is now sharing those copies with others.
Disturbingly you could relate this to GM crops however I'd like to keep the debate on track. Copyright or the possession of ideas just fundamentally doesn't work.
If we all agree that taking someone's work (music, movie, game, gpl software with no source) making copies and then selling it is wrong then a middle ground and special rules have to be set for which the original creator is rewarded.