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."

53 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. even when... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    That's about half the videos on Youtube.

    1. Re:even when... by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 5, Funny

      >>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...

  2. Their site, their right. by numbski · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sadly, it's fair use for you to use it, but you have no "right" to post it to their site. Once you created an account there, you pretty much waived any of your content rights there. C'est la vie.

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    1. Re:Their site, their right. by LingNoi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Their site, their right. by Bobnova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Their site, their right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Their site, their right. by nganju · · Score: 5, Funny

      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,
    5. Re:Their site, their right. by Gerzel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

    6. Re:Their site, their right. by falcon5768 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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."

    7. Re:Their site, their right. by nevillethedevil · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
    8. Re:Their site, their right. by dontmakemethink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Buy a fish, take a picture of it beside your purchase receipt, then drop it in a lake. A fisherman catches it, you say "wait, that's my fish, here's my proof." Fisherman ignores you, cooks/eats fish. Even if it were a $1000 fish, no court would grant you compensation.

      Similarly, if you post your original content online, you effectively surrender it to public domain, including the possibility that it may become "unpublished". You've dropped it in a lake.

      What the RIAA refuses to accept is that their fish have been flooded by this ocean called the Internet, and they can't apply their archaic Elvis Presley marketing model anymore. They'd rather sue children than develop a reasonable way to market music in a connected marketplace. Their inability to adapt disqualifies them from the authoritative position they purport to have. It's all over but the crying.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    9. Re:Their site, their right. by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:Their site, their right. by falcon5768 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    11. Re:Their site, their right. by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  3. Beyond brilliant by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am speechless at the business acumen behind killing your number one free advertising site, the one that had no negative affect whatsoever on your sales because the sound quality was way too low to "pirate". Newsflash to Warner: I've bought music I'd never normally get simply because it was stuck in my head and that was the only way to get rid of it. By lowering your exposure, I can absolutely guarantee you're going to lose sales. Genius.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Beyond brilliant by Xelios · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    2. Re:Beyond brilliant by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Beyond brilliant by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Funny
      And viola, bands 2 and 3 have new fans.

      Yeah, how else would you hear new viola music?

    4. Re:Beyond brilliant by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Funny

      And viola, bands 2 and 3 have new fans.

      Viola is not voila.

    5. Re:Beyond brilliant by Xelios · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    6. Re:Beyond brilliant by Xelios · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    7. Re:Beyond brilliant by anagama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:Beyond brilliant by multisync · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?"

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    9. Re:Beyond brilliant by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    10. Re:Beyond brilliant by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    11. Re:Beyond brilliant by mcnellis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  4. Re:Whatever happened to by LingNoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Better Approach by lobiusmoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  6. How to silence anyone on YouTube: by LaminatorX · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    1. Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube: by Jeoh · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought DMCA notices were much longer.

    2. Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube: by WiFiBro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube: by mounthood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    4. Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube: by internewt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Car analogies break down.
  7. Old People by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with business is old people and I don't mean aged people just people with OLD IDEAS, like the captive audience. It's bullshit and it's gone. We are able to do anything with our constantly deteriorating free time, so why would we give YOU money when YOU treat us like we are criminals and not customers?

    We'll go somewhere else, do something NEW and leave you in the DUST.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Old People by LingNoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Old People by jmcvetta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  8. Re:Cya You Tube by SterlingSylver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Well, their loss by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. The DMCA is being heavily abused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Good by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  12. Re:Cya You Tube by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  13. Newsflash by sleeponthemic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you put a lot of effort into making videos and then go slap on some copyrighted music over the top of it, you are a fool and you should not be surprised that your video had an expiry date.

    --
    I record my sleeptalking
  14. 13,600 videos have been silenced. by Doug52392 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:13,600 videos have been silenced. by anagama · · Score: 2, Informative

      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".

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  15. Time to boycott by Endo13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  16. Pyrodex baking dish???? by IvyKing · · Score: 2, Informative
    I'd be surprised if you survived making that video - Pyrodex is a black powder substitute.

    You probably meant Pyrex.

  17. Good! by crhylove · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The more these media corporations and the RIAA crack down on online media, the more user generated and INNOVATIVE material will get room to breathe and kick the crap out of Blink 9,347, Miley Cyrus, and whatever disco/pop crap emo bullshit they are successfully peddling while piracy is still available.

    Warner is just painting itself into a corner, and I say GOOD. Fuck 'em. They haven't produced anything original or good in at least a decade, anyway!

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  18. Examples of abusive take down requests by JumperCable · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    *

  19. Warner is taking down game videos, too by MooglyGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  20. Re:Whatever happened to by gilgongo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not evil to delete people's videos off their own website because said person tried to bend the rules they agreed to when signing up.

    No, but it's evil assist those who would seek to destroy our culture. This is the battleground: between greed and the preservation of our way of life.

    I'm not kidding, and a shitload of people agree with me

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
  21. Go, go youtube! :D by jesset77 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    --
    People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
  22. I don't always agree with such decisions but... by scourfish · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  23. Re:Whatever happened to by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.