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."

Comments

Will they remove this video?

[Anonymous Coward]

* 1 Case Regular Pint size Mason Jars ( Used for canning)
* 2 Boxes Contact 12 hour time released tablets.
* 3 Bottles of Heet.
* 4 feet of surgical tubing.
* 1 Bottle of Rubbing Alchohol.
* 1 Gallon Muriatic Acid ( Used for cleaning concrete)
* 1 Gallon of Coleman's Fuel
* 1 Gallon of Aceton
* 1 Pack of Coffee Filters
* 1 Electric Skillet ( If you don't know what iam talking about i will have pics later)
* 4 Bottles Iodine Tincture 2% (don't get the declorized it won't work)
* 2 Bottles of Hydrogen peroxide
* 3 20 0z Coke Bottles (Plastic type)(with Lids/caps)
* 1 Can Red Devils Lye
* 1 Pair of sharp scissors
* 4 Boxes Book Matches (try to get the ones with brown/red striker pads)
* 1 pyrodex baking dish
* 1 Box execto razor blades single sided
* 1 digital scale that reads grams
* 2 gallons distilled water \
* 1 Roll Aluminum foil tape

That's what you would have to go buy if you wanted to make meth.

First things first -- the Iodine Crystals. Take one 20 oz, plastic Coke Bottle and pour 4 Bottles 2% tincture into it.

Add Hydrogen Peroxide to this. Use only 1/2 a bottle of Hydrogen peroxide. After this you know, the gallon jug that the Muriatic acid comes in take the cap off and fill this cap level with the acid. Add the acid to the coke bottle (Place in a freezer for at least 30 mins).

While the Iodine crystals are being made we are going to extract the Phsuedo from the Contacts. You are going to need a towel for this so go get one. Take the pills out of one box, add it to one of the mason jars fill with rubbing alchohol just enough to cover the pills let set for 3 minutes. Remove pills and take the towel and wipe the top coating off the pills this will remove the wax. Do the same with the other box of Contacts as well, after this add those wiped off pills only 10 to a clean mason jar. On top of this add 1 bottle of Heat do the same for the other box of Contact. Let theese two mason jars with pills, heat stand for 30 minutes. Then shake the jars till pills are completly broke down then let the jars sit again for 4 hours or until the Heats is completly clear . Once clear cyphon the heat off (Not the powder stuff at the Bottom you don't want this it will fuck your dope up).

Well anyway syphon the heat off with a piece of the sergical tubing syphon this into a pyrodex baking dish place in microwave on high till the heat is almost evaporated. Take out of microwave. Now plug up your electric plate set the pyrodex dish on this on about 180 deg continue evaporating till you get a white powder on the pyrodex (Carefull not the burn the phsudo if it turns yellow it's burned) after you get it dried take a razor blade and scrape this powder up. (put this asside for later use)

Now we are going to get the red phosphorus from the book matches take a pair of scissors and cut along the edge of the phosphorus do the whole four boxes of match book matches then take 1 small coffee cup will work to this coffee cup add about 1/4 the way with Acetone dip the match book strike pads into the acetone for 10 seconds this will loosen the phosphorus so it will be easier to scrape with the razor blades. ( put the phosphorus in an empty match book box to let dry. Now it's time to get the iodine crystals get a clean mason jar on top of this place 1 coffee filter and pour the contents of the iodine +muriatic+Hydrogen Peroxide into the filter ( do it slowly don't over pour) well once you get though with the filtering on top of the coffee filter will be a black substance ( This is iodine crystals) dry them by wraping in more coffee filters till you get a pretty good thick pile around the original filter place on ground and step on it to get the rest of the liquids off save this for the cook.

next take your digital scales wiegh your pills first say you had 2 grams of pill powder then weigh out an equal amount of iodin

Re:Will they remove this video?

[Tatsh]

Add some RIAA-represented metal music to it and yes.

Re:Will they remove this video?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

even when...

[gandhi_2]

...you use a small clip of a song for the background music of a video.

That's about half the videos on Youtube.

Re:even when...

[AmigaHeretic]

>>That's about half the videos on Youtube.

Nah, I checked the Warner Music website and Rick Astley isn't signed with them. Which is too bad really.

Hey, but Cher is! I'm going to go start making annoying Cher videos!! Oh wait, I guess I could just watch her normal videos...

Re:even when...

[ivucica]

Perhaps. Remaining three quarters probably include full songs, rest probably include no music at all.

[citation needed]

Re:even when...

[owlnation]

Nah, half (probably more it seems) of the videos on Youtube are not really videos. They are slideshows of pics of celebrities set to the favorite song of their creator. Invariably, also tag-spammed into oblivion.

While I remain opposed to censorship, and think the RIAA are pissing into the wind with this, the one possible good thing is that it may result in less of these irritating, spamming, slideshow compilations. Ken Burns has a lot to answer for.

Re:even when...

[gandhi_2]

Even Rocky had a montage.

Re:even when...

[jernejk]

Actually, he's not the author of the song... He's just a performer.

Re:even when...

[Anonymous Coward]

IF only the jihadists' and their supporters' videos use Warner music in the background. *sigh*

Considering that YouTube removed IDF's videos showing strikes against terrorists and YouTube's giving jihad supporters the benefit of the doubt, I say Google's "Don't do evil" is no longer worth the electrons transmitted. Maybe they should consider changing it to "Tolerate evil", after all tolerance is good no matter what.

Their site, their right.

[numbski]

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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[LingNoi]

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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[numbski]

I see what you did there.

I don't mean in any practical sense...

Re:Their site, their right.

[Bobnova]

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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how the law works or the DMCA. If you ignore the DMCA then you no longer gain the "safe harbour" privilege which means you can be sued for every copyright infringement case on your website no matter who uploaded what.

By removing the videos first Google is in accordance with the DMCA and doesn't get legally nuked into the ground.

Re:Their site, their right.

[nganju]

Totally agree with you. Especially because 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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.

Ironically, the comment you pirated was modded interesting.

And you stole my idea, you insensitive clod!

Re:Their site, their right.

[LingNoi]

Don't pretend to be me douchebag.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Gerzel]

Soon that could be true for the entire internet.

Thankfully Obama has appointed an FCC head who knows what Net Neutrality is.

Unfortunately even with him in office I think the day is coming when the Internet is as free and open to free speech as any major Radio or Television broadcast.

It is free speech ...as long as you never say anything illegal or offensive or that challenges those that set what "illegal or offensive" means.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

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..

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't pretend to be me douchebag.

I didn't, dumbass. I meant that he stole my idea of copying and pasting your comment, to humorous effect.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Gerzel]

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).

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree with you. Especially because 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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree with you. Especially because 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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[LingNoi]

So the short stories I write and post to the internet are pirated?

No they are shared.. Read what I said.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Langfat]

Totally agree with you. Especially because 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.
--
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,

Re:Their site, their right.

[falcon5768]

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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[nevillethedevil]

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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

... badly.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Isotopian]

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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Larryish]

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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is google doing something illegal? Sure, DMCA guarantees time to send a counter DMCA... Without it, Google doesn't need to take the videos off just because of DMCA. BUT it's their site and if you read the conditions you'll notice that Google has the right to take any videos off the site for whatever reason they want. So law doesn't force them to remove vids but they certainly still can if they want to.

Being evil... I am not sure I would even go there. If they won't allow the people (some of which might have their older original work only there) to still download their vids back. they are certainly assholes.

Re:Their site, their right.

[dontmakemethink]

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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[LingNoi]

I thought this interpretation up the other day feel free to use it.

File Sharing is like a farmer eating the competitors apple and then planting the seeds. Soon the farmer has a field full of apple trees. The farmer gives his apples away to others for free.

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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree with you. Especially because 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.

THESE WORDS ARE MINE NOW!

Re:Their site, their right.

[falcon5768]

legally they are REQUIRED to provide the information they obtain of the offendee to the "offending" person for challenge IF the challenge is deemed invalid, for prosecution in the DMCAs false claim clause. They have rarely if ever done this which is illegal. The problem is people who put their stuff on You Tube rarely have the money to take Google to court on this, especially if they are intending to THEN take on the media people so they just give up. And your right it IS their site, but that doesnt exclude them from having to follow the letter of the law. They are not now.

Re:Their site, their right.

[martin-boundary]

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.

Google can certainly choose to have any policies they like on their site, however if they choose the wrong policies, then they will not be protected by the DMCA safe harbor provisions.

Without safe harbor, Google can be sued by the MPAA as if they posted the videos themselves (technically, it's their actual servers that stream the content, so they are breaking the MPAA members' copyright every time your browser displays a video). With safe harbor, Google is protected.

It's a bad idea for Google to implement measures that proactively try to stop people from posting illegal videos, because it proves that they know the details of what people post, and then it is hard for them to claim that they are unaware, which is a legal requirement for safe harbor.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Kindaian]

The issue is that DMCA is very specific with that.

The right owners have to identify exactly what is against their will...

And i doubt that they are doing it.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Ihmhi]

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./p.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come ON, that's totally ridiculous.

Here, how about a car analogy instead? You buy a car, take a picture of it along with your receipt, then park it in a parking lot somewhere and go shopping. When you come back, you find some guy has smashed the windows and shorted the engine and is just driving off.

Not quite the same, eh?

Now, of course copying - even illegal copying - is not theft, and posting something online is not the same as parking your car in a public parking lot. But it's not the same as ABANDONING your property, either.

You always have to look at both the legal and the practical side. Sometimes, certain things will more or less inevitably lead to certain outcomes, and you may therefore decide not to do these things, in order to avoid these outcomes. BUT you should not make the mistake of confusing that with these outcomes being legal and all that.

Put another way: just because something on the Internet CAN and - quite likely - WILL be copied doesn't mean it's LEGAL to copy it, or that you necessarily have no recourse when someone does. And the fact that it's EASY to copy it doesn't mean it must necessarily be LEGAL to copy it, either; things don't have to be difficult to accomplish in order to be illegal.

Seriously, how did you crap get modded to +5?

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, it would be legal if they would follow DMCA, let the offenders make counter notices, then say "Okay, you are right. DMCA doesn't apply here but we will still delete you acconts just because we feel like it." Getting DMCA doesn't protect the accounts from deletion in any way.

Google can delete them for any reason they want to.

So it is perfectly legal for them to delete accounts at any time. Only thing arguably illegal here would be not delivering the info "BTW, before we deleted your account we got this kind of notice".

Re:Their site, their right.

[LingNoi]

As the original copyright holder of the works you have redistributed unauthorised I feel like I could have been moderated higher then I would have if you had not taken and copied my post.

Therefore you will be hearing from my lawyer with regards to the on going copyright infringement case against you.

I will see you in court.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Jurily]

The apple is content. The farmer consumed the content, made copies and is now sharing those copies with others.

The farmer can still use that apple. So can the original creator of the apple.

Problem is, the original creator wants to be the only one, who can sell or even give away apples. They also want to connect traditional farmer activities to stealing shit on the high seas.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Ihmhi]

I'd like to contend that I have added a /p at the end of my most. Creative emoticon or mistyped greater-than sign? I think the court will decide that my subsequent post is not in fact a redistributed work and rather a derivative work.

My lawyer would also like to state that you are alleged to be composed largely of glue and that his client (me) is composed largely of rubber - therefore any further statements you make will in fact bounce off of me and adhere to you.

Re:Their site, their right.

[LingNoi]

Problem is, the original creator wants to be the only one, who can sell or even give away apples.

and you don't believe this is justified?

If someone creates something should they not have a limited right over that piece of work when there is little to no work required to duplicate it?

I am interrupting what you said in three different ways because what you said is unclear.

1)

If you are arguing for the ability to resell someone else's copyright I just don't understand how you could make it work.

If I created a software application and sold it for $10 and then you were legally allowed to copy and give that to as many people as you wanted then my program is no longer worth $10.

In this type of system I would have to sell my application for $1 million. So that after the initial sale I would have made my money back at which point the ability to re-distribute it for free kicks in.

The resale of copyright that someone doesn't own happens from time to time however I do not think it should become legal because it would be worse then the system we have today.

2)

If you mean that after a consumer buys a piece of copyrightable work then they should be allowed to resell it then I don't really understand because I am pretty sure if I buy an original DVD I can resell it.

If your beef is with DRM in software making this impossible then I don't really know what to tell you. I think that's a completely different discussion on why consumer protection laws aren't being enforced or need to be changed.

3)

If you're talking about patents then this is a different discussion then it is to copyright which is what I am concerned about.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Tiberius_Fel]

Except this is wrong. When you consume the competitor's apple, he doesn't have an apple anymore (and can't plant the seeds).

Re:Their site, their right.

[LingNoi]

It is correct in the interpretation I gave it. You are interpreting it differently hence why it is wrong for your interpretation.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Their site, their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it! YOu got it right. it's the same with all these gov't bailouts. We're trying to keep together an archaic system rooted in yesteryear, on so many levels . . especially the powers that be. Unwilling and unable to change! Let 'em crash & burn! They'll never learn!

Whatever happened to

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to don't be evil?

Re:Whatever happened to

[LingNoi]

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.

Re:Whatever happened to

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as you upload anything to the Internet you've prettymuch 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.

Re:Whatever happened to

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Whatever happened to

[gilgongo]

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

Re:Whatever happened to

[LingNoi]

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.

Re:Whatever happened to

[jmcvetta]

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.

Re:Whatever happened to

[atraintocry]

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.

Re:Whatever happened to

[Anonymous Coward]

YES YES YES I, also, agree with you. I am part of that shit load of people. You are, so right.

Re:Whatever happened to

[gilgongo]

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."

Re:Whatever happened to

[LingNoi]

If they close YouTube down, so be it.

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.

Re:Whatever happened to

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Whatever happened to

[gilgongo]

If they close YouTube down, so be it.

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?

that's all folks!

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason the headline made me think they're taking down Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Beyond brilliant

[Just Some Guy]

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.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[ChienAndalu]

They just want it to be "their way", so we can enjoy the music on sites like this one. Padded in ads and nagging you to buy something.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Xelios]

Here's the typical scenario, this happens to me all the time.

Someone: "So what's your favorite band?"
Me: "Right now it's [band 1]"
Someone: "I like them too, have you ever heard of [band 2]? They have a similar sound, here check out this video of one of their songs."
Me: "Wow, they're pretty good. Have you heard of [band 3]? Here's a link."
Someone: "Thanks, I'll check them out."

And viola, bands 2 and 3 have new fans.

Incidentally, [band 2] and [band 3] are really great, you guys should check them out on YouTube.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Scrameustache]

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

I never bought as much music as I did during the napster days.
I got to sample music I liked, instead of being subjected to the choices of our betters in the music industry, who get to chose what gets played on the radio.

And this is the crux, it's not motivated by business acumen, but by a desire for control.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

And it all doesn't matter that they're new fans because given the music's available for free on YouTube/Kazaa/whatever, they don't bother buying any copies.

Free samples only work if the samples do not constitute 100% of the available product. Those little taster booths in supermarkets rarely offer you a lifetime free supply of the product they're hawking. Go into a car dealership, and they'll rarely offer you a ten year long unattended test drive.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[1u3hr]

And viola, bands 2 and 3 have new fans.

Yeah, how else would you hear new viola music?

Re:Beyond brilliant

[notseamus]

This is the OP here, and personally I find that I listen to a lot of music on YouTube, especially now that Warner has pulled out of Last Fm and I can't listen to their full tracks there. It's poor quality sound, but it's how I find new music that I've heard about and want to check out before buying. iTunes preview is too short, MySpace is unbearable and like I said, Warner Music have pulled their full tracks from Last.fm. (besides that, it's much easier to download hq tracks from myspace than youtube that requires you to strip the low quality audio from low quality video).

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Stormwatch]

And viola, bands 2 and 3 have new fans.

Viola is not voila.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[the eric conspiracy]

From the construction of this phrase it looks to me like he is talking about a band named "viola" rather than music for the viola.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[cdrguru]

Right, having is the point. Once you have, well, you have it. It isn't like ice cream where you have for only a short while and then you need more.

I "have" lots of music. I don't buy music anymore because I "have" it.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Xelios]

You listen to all your music on Youtube? I can't think of a single person I know who's playlist is comprised of links to Youtube videos. I also can't think of anyone who goes through the trouble of ripping the video from Youtube to rip out the low quality audio to put on their mp3 player.

The issue of whether these people pay for the music later is separate from the fact that they learned of these bands through Youtube. What would you rather have as an artist? A fan who might buy your CD's or go to your concerts, or a person who doesn't know you exist?

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Go into a car dealership, and they'll rarely offer you a ten year long unattended test drive.

You took the salesman with you didn't you?

Noob.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Xelios]

Well, that's going to cost me some geek cred.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[anagama]

Napster was what -- 8,9 years ago? That means you're almost a decade older now. People also tend to buy less music as they get older.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[owlnation]

Hmmmm... if you demonstrate something with a viola, does that give you a vioila? I feel it should.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what they wanted was royalty's. When youtube said no we will just take them down they had to follow through or else they would lose their fangs.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[multisync]

I am speechless at the business acumen behind killing your number one free advertising site

This doesn't make any sense. Why didn't Warner just give the offending parties a "stern lecture?"

Re:Beyond brilliant

[xonicx]

>>>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
I never had interest in movies made in usa(I am not from english speaking countries) until I watched few pirated movies using bittorent. Now I watch new releases in theater and pay for it.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[iamhassi]

"By lowering your exposure, I can absolutely guarantee you're going to lose sales. Genius."

Yep. Seems Warner doesn't "get" the internet. When I google a song, you want videos showing up in the search results. By having videos removed from Youtube you're killing those search results.

And Youtube, by deleting users for stupid reasons without allowing them to at least respond you're killing your advertising stream and getting bad press on /. Very stupid.

I know someone who recently had a popular video removed. It was a video of her lip-syncing to a song. There was no warning, just "your video has been deleted". No way to access the video again either.

When will internet companies treat customers like customers rather than criminals?

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Scrameustache]

Napster was what -- 8,9 years ago? That means you're almost a decade older now. People also tend to buy less music as they get older.

People also tend to stop buying RIAA music almost entirely (I'm only human) as part of a conscious thought after being called a thief for daring to sample a product before deciding to buy it or not.

I'm almost only buying straight from the artists now. Bonus: Autographs.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[mcnellis]

At this point, I don't even give a shit. Sure it's bullshit, but like you said it'll only hurt them. They're forcefully hurting themselves. It's like a crybaby emo kid addicted to heroine. Just let them kill themself and when they do no one will feel sorry. In the mean time, instead of watching the YouTube video if the song is stuck in my head, I'll just go and download the song (and it won't be from iTunes!) and just watch as I effortlessly contribute to killing their business. I can't wait for the day the RIAA goes out of business because they have no one to blame but themself.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's going to cost me some geek cred.

Not to mention the fact that you misspelled "Murphy" in your sig.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[jmcvetta]

And it all doesn't matter that they're new fans because given the music's available for free on YouTube/Kazaa/whatever, they don't bother buying any copies.

Ever try to download an entire album by an obscure, unknown band from P2P? Usually, you can't. File sharing is only going to have a significant impact on a musician's album sales once they have already reached a certain level of fame, popularity, & success.

Any musician who has attained sufficient success that his music is easily available on P2P, will in all likelihood be able to support himself (in greater or lesser comfort) from making music. Is he going to make as much money as an old-media rockstar? Probably not. But is he going to give up making music so he can ear more money doing "real work"? Again, probably not. End result: plenty of music still gets made, and more people get to enjoy it.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[jmcvetta]

When will internet companies treat customers like customers rather than criminals?

I know there's a "In Soviet Amerika..." joke in here somewhere....

Re:Beyond brilliant

[zotz]

That may be so, but some people were already "old" and their buying spiked when the original napster was in play and then fell off again when it got shut down.

Ask around among some "old heads" and see what you can find.

drew

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose each person has a music need which is fulfilled when that person has access to enough music that they like. If they can sample many kinds of music, they can make a wiser purchase, and sooner satisfy their need.

That's what it's about, that each person will spend until their need is satisfied, and the MPAA wants you to be less satisfied per dollar so that you spend more in total. It doesn't work though, because after being unsatisfied for long enough, you'd give up. But theoretically, advertising can delay that from happening (but remember what happened to banner ads pre-Google).

A starving person will eat almost anything, and perhaps music is just about as important to us as food is.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Kindaian]

Is stoped...

In the last 15 years i brought 3 CDs.

And 2 of them where the soundtrack of a manga series (imported from Japan naturally).

And yes, before the whole music "piracy" wars, i was buying about 1 CD per month... ;)

Re:Beyond brilliant

[invisibleairwaves]

Heh, I've been on a huge Matthew Good/Matthew Good Band kick lately, and that's pretty much exactly how I discovered them.

(yeah, only posting this because I saw your sig and did a double take)

Re:Beyond brilliant

[The Wild Norseman]

It's like a crybaby emo kid addicted to heroine.

Heroine? Yeah, I was quite partial to Barbarella myself...

Re:Beyond brilliant

[mcnellis]

heroin* my bad. got a little excited there.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Life2Death]

I think its mearly the fact that most pop bands suck so bad that the only way they are good is through post editing of their 'music.' When was the last time you went to a good metallica show for example? I mean to not flame, but they don't sound as good as they do on CD, along with many, many other bands, and they dont put a good show on to make up for this. I found all of my current music through piracy, and I happily go to their concerts and dish out money on merch, for both the band and the venue owner.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Minozake]

I also can't think of anyone who goes through the trouble of ripping the video from Youtube to rip out the low quality audio to put on their mp3 player.

Low quality? The quality is hardly "low". And the trouble isn't. Also, I just play the videos through a playlist and a disable video. It saves disk space, and if I want to view the videos, I have that option, too. It's quite trivial to download the video and rip the audio as well for my music players, or convert to the video-readable format..

And I get to circumvent broken links that happen because of the damn DMCA takedowns and site maintenance that happens during my normal awake hours.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

And "voila" is not "voilà", but you're forgiven, your keyboard is probably missing letters. ;)

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh god, I can. My father has a USB stick full of them, and I know he's not the only one.

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Kamineko]

Last fm! http://www.last.fm/listen/globaltags/viola

Re:Beyond brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Logic, I presume... http://www.satan.org.uk/irc/mrlogic.jpg

before he could file a counter notice?

[Anonymous Coward]

s/before he could/after he didn't/

According to TFA he had a few years to file a counter notice.

Better Approach

[lobiusmoop]

It would be so much more fun if they just speeded up the videos and dubbed over the Benny Hill song (props to b3ta)

Re:Better Approach

[amRadioHed]

That would be funny until Universal Music forces them to take it down since they own A&M, Herb Albert's label.

Re:Better Approach

[Anonymous Coward]

What a weiner webmaster:
http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/block.png

Fortunately he places his ads and whinging in a div called ads, so it is easy to block this div on this website and all others by putting the following in your userContent.css file:

#ads { display:none !important}

Re:Better Approach

[MyDixieWrecked]

I was saying this the other day to my boss... but rather than the benny hill song, it should be the Chicken Dance. That shit is hilarious.

Cya You Tube

[nurb432]

Keep this up and people will just find a less draconian place to be.

Re:Cya You Tube

[SterlingSylver]

And that place will be great until Warner threatens them and sues them out of existence. Youtube's playing by the rules set forth by copyright law. Copyright is the problem, here, not a silly video site.

Re:Cya You Tube

[Opportunist]

I guess that's basically what Warner et al try to prove: Just like Napster, these video portals live on "illegal content". Take it away and they fold because there's nothing left.

What they fail to see (or rather, what they fail to mention) is that this is why they fail, even though it's not the focus. They fail because other portals have legal AND illegal content. So portal A offers both, portal B offers only "legal", where do you go?

It's like going to WalMart instead of the 7/11 around the corner. Yes, both have coke. But you get coke and tires at WalMart, and if you want both you go to the one place that has both, you won't get your coke from the 7/11 and then drive over to WalMart for your tires. When you have to go to WalMart anyway, and you get your coke there too, why bother hitting the 7/11 on your way back?

Re:Cya You Tube

[nurb432]

There are other alternatives that are pretty much outside the reach of the 'industries'.

Re:Cya You Tube

[nurb432]

Even if it didn't 'live on illegal content' ( which youtube doesn't ) id still refuse to be a customer of them if they fold to demands like this. So while i would contribute to their downfall and as you suggest proving the industries point, it would be for a different reason.

As far as your walmart analogy, i make it a point to do business with the local mom and pop shops in my area. Local quality over mega convenience. Even if it costs me a little more in dollars and time, its the right thing to do.

Sure im only one person, but if enough of us do it, it makes a difference.

Re:Cya You Tube

[jmcvetta]

As far as your walmart analogy, i make it a point to do business with the local mom and pop shops in my area. Local quality over mega convenience. Even if it costs me a little more in dollars and time, its the right thing to do.

The local mom & pop shops in my neighborhood are cluttered, sometimes dirty, overpriced, and have inconvenient hours. They survive because there is limited commercial space in the neighborhood, and thus they have no local competition. If 7/11 were to find a spot to open a store nearby, I would never shop at those shitty little mom & pop stores again.

Re:Cya You Tube

[Anonymous Coward]

If YouTube is struck down, it will become more powerful than they can possibly imagine. Each alternative site will act as a seed to grow a new tree. Regarding The People:

You don't step on Superman's cape-- You don't piss into the wind-- You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger-- and you don't mess around with Them.

Re:Cya You Tube

[TechForensics]

In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.

Best, and truest, implication in a sig I've seen in a *long* damn' time. America, our capitalism has become corporatism. It's time to take the power back.

How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[LaminatorX]

It seems it's possible to have anyone's account killed by sending three letters.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[Jeoh]

I thought DMCA notices were much longer.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[WiFiBro]

And indeed people are using this to remove videos they do not like. Example: convict Kent Hovind spread false videos against evolution. With permission to spread. Several people made response videos and these were removed referring to this issue. Pro-God YT user VenomFangX made people file complaints on many anti-him (small 'h', VFX) videos, but went too far by using it as a censorship trick. YT user Thunderf00t, who was wrongly censored, threatened to sue VFX unless VFX made apologies and shut up for a year - watch the forced apologies being uttered on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4&feature=PlayList&p=4618299B334AB7B9&index=8
By the way VFX did not make the one year silence full. He again places his anti-evolution barf, and typically only allows his fans to comment.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[sam0737]

It seems it's possible to have anyone's account killed by sending three letters.

I bet some botnet author will start automating this process anytime soon.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[mounthood]

We need a virus that submits bogus DMCA notices. In volumes that require automated responses, Google would be forced to take action. It would ruin YouTube to honor the notices, or they would be forced to ignore the flood of (legit looking) DMCA takedown notices.

Then the unfair power of companies-with-lawyers would be exposed since RIAA DMCA notices would either get special treatment, or ignored like the virus DMCA notices. Google would have to break the DMCA to ignore the spam, since they can't tell if it's legit. Google would get the laws changed once they couldn't play copyright cop.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[symbolic]

Pro-God YT user VenomFangX made people file complaints on many anti-him (small 'h', VFX) videos, but went too far by using it as a censorship trick.

Ah yes, VenomFangX - another certifiable zealot. I've always wondered - if his religion is so great and wonderful, why does he feel it necessary to resort to such underhanded tactics? It has been around for more than two thousand years, and will certainly survive without him.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[Anonymous Coward]

Warner Brothers! Warner Brothers! Warner Brothers!

Nothing Happens.

[Shrug]

Hmmm... I guess that kind of magic only works in the movies and on YouTube.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[internewt]

Ah yes, VenomFangX - another certifiable zealot. I've always wondered - if his religion is so great and wonderful, why does he feel it necessary to resort to such underhanded tactics? It has been around for more than two thousand years, and will certainly survive without him.

Religion is utterly based on underhand tactics - the indoctrination of children, threats of eternal damnation for not doing or questioning what authority says etc..

Religion may out-survive one individual zealot, but it certainly will not survive without people like him.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, we'll be there in 30 minutes.

For now, why not sit down and have a cup of something, it will be your last for a long time.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why make a virus when you can just use the magnificent power of /. ?

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[BillX]

Gasp, they'd have to go back to actually sending the notices by mail like any other legal threat. (Certified Mail for added emphasis...)

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube:

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, "DMCA" is four letters. Sheesh!

Old People

[mfh]

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.

Re:Old People

[LingNoi]

I know this is slightly off topic because it's about movies not music however I have to agree with this.

Before the MPAA changed their website their about page was all about fond memories of going to the cinema as a kid to watch the black & white movies and about how movies should be enjoyed with a audience.

Those days are over. This generation wants content when it suits them and doesn't want to go to a filthy room with over priced junk food. They want to watch the movies in their own home around their own schedule, where people aren't going to be talking in the movie or making noises munching on popcorn.

I did a quick check and saw this..
http://www.mpaa.org/AboutUsGlickman.asp

It's about the current CEO of the MPAA. Lots of talk about how he has helped feed the worlds poor and how he is a political scientist. What about you know.. the damn movies?! The very core of the association's being and not one mention of why he loves movies or any experience he has in the area.

In fact all the MPAA is (judging from the website) about copyright protection. This is a shame and they should really move on and consider why there is so much copyright infringement and how their association can provide the media for the generate of today, not the old fart generation of yesteryear.

This most likely won't happen because from my point of view everyone at the MPAA has been replaced with lawyers and political scientists who are completely out of touch with the audiences of today. They can't even comprehend the fact that they need to change.

Re:Old People

[Score Whore]

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.

oook. oook. oook-ooooook. oook. oooook.

Now in English for the rest of the readers:

Please do go somewhere else. Do something new. Leave us in the dust. And when you finally realize you can't knit a sweater, let alone make yarn, build a road, ensure you have clean drinking water, generate electricity, light the darkness, or any of the other million things that make your "constantly deteriorating" free time possible, perhaps you will come back with a new appreciation for being productive and honoring the social contract.

Re:Old People

[russotto]

Please do go somewhere else. Do something new. Leave us in the dust. And when you finally realize you can't knit a sweater, let alone make yarn, build a road, ensure you have clean drinking water, generate electricity, light the darkness, or any of the other million things that make your "constantly deteriorating" free time possible, perhaps you will come back with a new appreciation for being productive and honoring the social contract.

Wait. You're seriously thinking Time-Warner executives have anything to do with clean drinking water, generating electricity, lighting the darkness, etc? Nobody's complaining about the power company's old ideas (at least not in this story), nor those of the municipal water and sewer utility. These are record company executives; unlike the poor put-upon telephone sanitizers, they actually ARE completely inessential.

As for the social contract (and particularly the bit about copyright)... if it exists, it's a contract of adhesion, extremely one-sided in terms and even more one-sided in enforcement, and appears to contain a clause to the effect of "Society (meaning those of us with political power) may amend these terms at any time without recourse to those subject to them (meaning you peons with no political power)". That's not a real contract; that's just force disguised in the terms of an agreement.

Re:Old People

[jmcvetta]

And when you finally realize you can't knit a sweater, let alone make yarn, build a road, ensure you have clean drinking water, generate electricity, light the darkness, or any of the other million things that make your "constantly deteriorating" free time possible, perhaps you will come back with a new appreciation for being productive and honoring the social contract.

Know what the difference is between a song or a movie versus clean drinking water, electricity, light bulbs, and similar goods? You can make as many copies of a movie as you want, for damn near free. Try doubling your supply of potable water for free, and let me know how that works out for you.

Re:Old People

[atraintocry]

I'm sure that page exists more for shareholders than the public at large. Not that I don't get what you're saying.

Slowly but...

[velja27]

Slowly but sooner or later all freedom that was on youtube will be gone.But new sites will arise,i'm certain of it.

Well, their loss

[vadim_t]

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.

Re:Well, their loss

[cdrguru]

Buy? Once you "have", you have all you need.

The value of recorded music is zero, and that's all anyone I know is paying.

Re:Well, their loss

[Albanach]

What I find strange is that they haven't found a way to monetise their music for home video use. Why is there no simple way to pay $30/$40 to use tracks from their catalogue to accompany video.

Surely it's not beyond the competence of their lawyers to come up with terms that would work.

Re:Well, their loss

[He who knows]

That artist should be After the ice. plus their music is free.

Re:Well, their loss

[amRadioHed]

So I assume you have no music anywhere in your home if you say it has no value to you.

Re:Well, their loss

[jmcvetta]

The value of recorded music is zero, and that's all anyone I know is paying.

I tend to think of people who pay money for CDs as retards. That's probably a bit harsh, but they are certainly stuck in the past. I do make exception for buying CD direct from the musician -- because that's more like making a donation than buying a product.

Re:Well, their loss

[jmcvetta]

Thirty bucks for the "right" to use some shitty pop song as the background to an amateur video? You've got to be kidding. Thirty cents, maybe....

Re:Well, their loss

[Anonymous Coward]

magnatune.com

Re:Well, their loss

[Anonymous Coward]

Donation have no value?

The DMCA is being heavily abused

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The DMCA is being heavily abused

[Tablizer]

DMCA was legislation written by big co's for big co's.

Re:The DMCA is being heavily abused

[Kindaian]

DMCA prevents it.

If they use false data, and the uses makes a counter claim, then the content is reactivated and they can be prepared to go to court for perjury. Plus any indemnification the accused may request.

Go read the law...

Re:The DMCA is being heavily abused

[Anonymous Coward]

If the original claim is made with a false name & address it then becomes a game of trying to find & identify who really filed the initial claim.

If they have filed a false copyright claim, we have yet to have any district attorney's willing to sue the scientologists for filing false claims.

Knowing the law & implementing the law are two entirely different scenarios.

Good

[fishbowl]

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.

Newsflash

[sleeponthemic]

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.

13,600 videos have been silenced.

[Doug52392]

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...

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[anagama]

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Cite

Some of the videos may well fit into fair use, but many of them probably do not. For example, when using music as background to a video game sequence, if the sequence is merely someone showing how cool they are, it is hard to see this as "teaching". Even if it is "teaching" -- it isn't teaching about the music. The music is not a key part of the lesson on how to do a particular game activity, and it is thus hard to say that music falls under a teaching exception. Is it "comment"? Probably "comment" means something more like a review of the work itself or an op-ed-like piece in which the music makes a certain point. It would be a difficult and creative task to make that connection. If the music is just soundtrack however, the "comment" is about the video game and not the music.

Be honest, most of the youtube videos with music added to them, are nothing more than "Hey -- look at me!" videos, slideshows of cats, or slideshows of dead people with some random piece of music tacked on. It's probable, though not impossible, that most of these don't fit "fair use".

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[Aladrin]

"Some of the videos may well fit into fair use, but many of them probably do not. "

Here, let's change that a bit and see if it's still okay:

Some of the people definitely didn't commit a crime, but many of them did.

Can you see how wrong that statement is?

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[DrEldarion]

Almost all of those look like they're a few minutes long or more. How can you say they were using a "small snippet" without actually seeing the original video?

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is only the end of fair use on YouTube. Post it on your own blog and fight back.

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[adamofgreyskull]

Welcome to the modern world, where you're safe until they get round to thinking of something for you to have done wrong.

Enjoy.

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[anagama]

There is an objectively large difference between a private site owner removing questionable material that violates its terms of use, and being arbitrarily jailed or executed by the government. Differences
- Private company v. Government entity
- Refusal to publish a video (*) v. loss of freedom, rights, or life
- Video creator can buy a webhost and self-publish (may still result in copyright violations) v. loss of freedom, rights, or life.

I am no fan of government and will cheer heartily when WA DC sinks into the mud, but get some perspective.

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[anagama]

oops, forgot my footnote: (*) You can still make the video for private use. Even if it violates copyright, the chances of getting caught are so minuscule as to be non-existent. Publishing is where things get tricky.

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[russotto]

For example, when using music as background to a video game sequence, if the sequence is merely someone showing how cool they are, it is hard to see this as "teaching". Even if it is "teaching" -- it isn't teaching about the music.

There are four tests to fair use, however. Stuff like that pretty much immediately passes the fourth factor -- the effect of the use on the marketplace for the work. This is just vanity crap, and has no effect on the marketplace. If it's just a snippet of the song, it probably passes the third factor -- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. Low quality reproduction would likely count towards this factor as well. On the "purpose" test it falls somewhere in between -- it's clearly not commercial, but it doesn't clearly fall into the "transformative" use category either. The second test, the "nature" of the work, probably weighs against fair use, but it will be the same for nearly every use of a commercially-published song.

Since there's no bright-line test for fair use, it's impossible to say (unless Time-Warner sues you) whether a particular use is fair. The only way to defend yourself against a DMCA takedown is to write a DMCA counternotice, which essentially says "Meet me in federal court at high noon". Think your lawyers are better than theirs?

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[drquoz]

So the message they post is "This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by all copyright holders"? That's not even legally sound. According to U.S. copyright law, for non-profit, non-exclusive use, it is only necessary to have permission from one co-author. So if you had permission from the songwriter (co-author of the audio) and the director or producer (co-author of the video), you could upload a music video and the record company wouldn't legally be able to do anything about it. Except they would try, and they would probably win. And that's why the system is screwed up.

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, Youtube are a bunch of pricks.

I read elsewhere that all they were doing was some pattern matching and removing the audio.
But the way i read it, i thought they were cancelling out the infringing audio, rather than the entire video.

I am all for the botnet to send them phony requests, let the fu cks suffer, they deserve it after doing something like this.

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[/dev/trash]

I doubt ANY of the affected parties have written permission on file. But hey, good try though.

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[drquoz]

Oh, I'm sure they don't. I wasn't criticizing the action taken, just the accompanying message. I also forgot the obligatory IANAL disclaimer. :-)

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[Kindaian]

That is not the correct law.

I'm not sure, but the music, it it's there just to fill up the sound track, it's ok.

But IANAL... nor do i remember the source of this...

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced.

[Anonymous Coward]

Up to 123,000 just a few hours later.

Time to boycott

[Endo13]

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.

Re:Time to boycott

[couchslug]

"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"

Stream whut???

If you want to listen to something not available elsewhere, downloading the video with DownloadHelper is effortless as is playing the file with vlc. Older concert clips come to mind as examples.

Re:Time to boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

So you haven't read any of the comments along the lines of "Use [whatever the name of the youtube downloader program is people keep advertising] to download it to mp3!", have you? I've seen loads of that recently, even on videos where the music is legally available for free by the author and a link is provided in the video description.

There is that element of advertising, yeah. It's possible to stumble upon music you might really enjoy but wouldn't have heard of on youtube, unlike anywhere else. If it wasn't possible to download the file, and people weren't spreading the word so much about that sort of thing, then yeah the labels would be merely throwing away free advertising. But at the moment they feel they're trying to protect their assets, and I don't really blame them for thinking that. They're definately going too far with it (whatever happened to fair use?) but when a stranger's swinging a bat in front of your face (bad analogy for advertising downloading tools), you're going to consider the possibility that they might try and hit you with it...

Re:Time to boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

I AGREE. I dropped off YouTube about a week ago after they stopped my young daughters video because someone claimed we were using there song. It isn't worth the time arguing with YouTube. I just closed the account and gave them the following departing message:
I realize YouTube is not the cause of my videos being changed because of the music content.
When I uploaded a video, which my young daughter made with a background song that is not composed by her and it is removed, I take offense. I have no respect for the corporate world. They have desensitized the young people with their selfish rules. In the beginning YouTube videos were uploaded by the majority for the fun. We weren't out to make money with the use of these songs.
I have a few words for the music cronies, but I refuse to get a heart attack worrying about it. I am just a grain of sand at the beach, and for now, insignificant, but maybe if enough people boycott this ruling, maybe they will wake up.
I don't NEED YouTube, nor that sorry music. Since YouTube has just become another stress in my life, I must remove that stress and say goodbye and good luck.

Re:Time to boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube is obeying the LAW. It's the music labels' fault. Don't give up on YouTube...

Re:Time to boycott

[Minozake]

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!

I download all of my songs off of YouTube and then I just play the videos on my computer. If I want to load them to a digital music player, I can rip the audio.

Flash video files are excessively easy to manipulate once you get them. Getting them is no problem, either.

Pyrodex baking dish????

[IvyKing]

I'd be surprised if you survived making that video - Pyrodex is a black powder substitute.

You probably meant Pyrex.

Re:Pyrodex baking dish????

[rschwa]

Thanks for ruining it :rolleyes:

Re:Pyrodex baking dish????

[Anzya]

If I had the points I would mod you up :D

What if...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

The Cost Benefit Analysis of a Major Chord

[Crash Culligan]

cdrguru: Buy? Once you "have", you have all you need.

The value of recorded music is zero, and that's all anyone I know is paying.

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.

Good!

[crhylove]

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!

Examples of abusive take down requests

[JumperCable]

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.
*

Re:Examples of abusive take down requests

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wow. From the bottom thread in your list, noted from the youtube service email and the posts:

From YouTube Service
To Church0fScientology
Date Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Subject Approval Needed

Hi, Church0fScientology.

You are receiving this message because one of our content partners has requested the use of your username, Church0fScientology.

...

If you are willing to give up your username, or would like to request to keep your username, please click below to register your decision:

http://www.youtube.com/reclaim_usern...req=URL_EDITED

The link is obviously dead now. They claimed it was to be used for a reponse, but in actuality it was a unique ID that acted as if he had clicked "Yes" to disabling his account.

Re:Examples of abusive take down requests

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it had been already disabled for some reason. Never mind the above.

I doubt it

[aepervius]

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.

Warner is taking down game videos, too

[MooglyGuy]

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.

Re:Warner is taking down game videos, too

[adamanthaea]

Does Guitar Hero: World Tour even use the original artist recordings or is it all sound-alikes? If that wasn't really the Eagles, sounds like there's a decent counter-claim to be made.

the upside is that when someone posts a video of a

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why can't people make their own music?

[tjstork]

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.

Stupidity at head office, film at 11

[hack slash]

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.

Re:Stupidity at head office, film at 11

[Ant P.]

That won't work for one simple reason. People don't give a shit about sound/video quality! Just look at how popular sites like, say, youtube.com are as proof.

Irritating music

[British]

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.

Way to hurt your business

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

One should not use RIAA songs in Youtube

[seeker_1us]

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.

I'm a Video DJ and have had 4 removed, 3 blocked..

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Warner Music

[fireheadca]

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.

Go, go youtube! :D

[jesset77]

Seriously though, I applaud youtube on this point. I think they did the right thing.

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. :P

Amadeus Ballet

[syousef]

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.

Not really

[/dev/trash]

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.

OT - Old violinist's joke

[mfnickster]

Q: What's the difference between a viola and an onion?
A: Nobody cries when you cut up a viola.

I don't always agree with such decisions but...

[scourfish]

If it means that many of those "music videos" that the anime nerds make are silenced, I die happy.

I had a video taken down...

[JamieRees]

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" censored...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Personally, I think the punishment should be

[crovira]

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.

Take note of this date

[Septje]

This is the beginning of the end for YouTube...

Here is the best solution to this stupidity

[Monoliath]

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.

don't forget his purple badness

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:don't forget his purple badness

[Bugsville]

forgot to login - the above post was not meant to be anonymous

list of removed videos

[Anonymous Coward]

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/