What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
64 Comments
- inactive, on 01/28/2009, -0/+20Dear (.........),
Your video, (........), may have content that is owned or licensed by WMG.
No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.
Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team
I had that video up for 2 years, and now it's gone. - virtualonliner, on 01/28/2009, -1/+21***** Warner Bros. ***** the RIAA.
On a different Note, ThePowerDigger alert. - alphaterminus, on 01/28/2009, -1/+18He's not taking any revenue from Warner, which is likely making money as this free advertising is the only way anyone is actually going out and buying this old music.
You know you lobbyists for the RIAA are ***** for posting on internet forums. ***** politicians like John Boehner can burn in Hell for believing your *****.
***** you and die in a fire. - uberduger, on 01/28/2009, -0/+13Before I buy an album, I'll go and preview all of the tracks on youtube. Every one, if they're available. Then I'll go out and buy it. So if those videos get deleted and the official versions are all 30 seconds long or come up with 'This content is not available in your country', then I'll often go and download a torrent to use as a preview. At which point, the chance of my buying it drops significantly, as I may discover about a week later that it's not a very good album. (Though before I get dugg down, I should point out that about 14 of the 20-odd albums I've bought in recent months have been 'pirated' first - I'm not just a thief.)
***** you, major record labels. ***** you. - uberduger, on 01/28/2009, -0/+8YouTube_users_caught_in_Warner_Music_spat_2?
***** DUPLICATES. Everyone who knowingly posts a duplicate story more than 5 minutes after the original deserves to be permabanned. Buried as douche-submitted, you douche. - valarking, on 01/28/2009, -2/+8This article is deceptive. It only briefly mentions at the end that he is profiting from his video. In that case, it is entirely understandable that he be asked to remove his video. It is ridiculous to ask to profit off of someone else's (John Williams) work without getting permission and paying a portion.
- ayeroxor, on 01/28/2009, -1/+7"John Williams, the man who scored the soundtracks for such blockbuster films as Indiana Jones, and Star"
Not to mention that this submitter (ThePowerDigger? Go ***** yourself.) didn't even think the submission was worth the time to create a complete and sensible description. - skywake, on 01/28/2009, -0/+6That argument only works when it has the potential to take away from the sales of their product. I don't think in this particular case people are going to to this guys video on youtube over watching Star Wars or buying a John Williams soundtrack. If anything youtube is free advertising to these companies.
I know I personally have brought music based on decisions I have made from watching both live and studio performances from bands on youtube. And sometimes a certain amount of user creativity and renew interest by looking at things in a different way. All Warner and others are really worrying about here are their own distorted views of reality. - inactive, on 01/28/2009, -0/+6Google should buy them all, sack the big wigs and replace them with younger fresh minds willing to excel in a bold new landscape. At least we can go to the movies again and know we won't get ripped off...
- chedabob, on 01/28/2009, -1/+6Dispute it. Give some crappy reason. Two of mine were flagged, both times I disputed them (even though legally I didn't have any grounds to do so) and they were put back up, with the original audio.
- str3ama, on 01/28/2009, -1/+6Complete idiots, they fail to modernize their business and blame the market and customers for it. The worst part of any organization are the lawyers, they have a complete inability or desire to understand technology and how it works - and as a result they choose to just file out complaints to their users.
This is a very stupid move on their part, exposure is a good thing - just have youtube detect your songs, and if detected place their ads on the video and a link to buy the song/album with their commission link. Instant profit for them without having to do anything - youtube would definitely be willingly to do that because it's no profit loss for them - and warner would profit from the conversion of ad clicks and commission or direct sales made.
They can't see the forest from the trees, and that's the real problem. Pull the copyright lawyers out of the picture, put in the PR team and add in tech people who understand that the concept behind the internet lies in the unfettered sharing of information, slap some ads and instant profit and instant PR for your company's ability to embrace the customers and new mediums. - PunishedOne, on 01/28/2009, -0/+4One of my Warhammer videos was flagged just because I had some Nightwish playing. That pissed me off severely as my audio was disabled, and I comment on all of my Warhammer videos. So, that just basically ruined the point of the video, so I just deleted it. I don't want to dispute it either, as they usually come up with a stupid reason.
- getatmedigg, on 01/28/2009, -0/+4Must've been Prince that got all of this WB crap going. He's been on a tirade with YT for some time now. All this does is stifle creativity and new uses of art. What about the remixers, mashers and other artists out there? What about just plain fans? What's going on with these media companies? Do they want complete totalitarian complete over works that will eventually be in public domain?
They should look at YouTube as one, a time capsule, and two, free advertising. I can guarantee that people aren't filling their dvrs and mp3 players solely with low quality video and audio from YT. These sites are a doing all the work for the music, tv and film industries by allowing fans to discuss their products and share tthem with millions of others people. And these people will go out and buy their works. I'm sorry WB, you're too late-you didn't create a social network for your artists but there's tons of sites they'll do it for you.
Now, clips of video/audio should be allowed and if they (media) wants to go in licensing agreements with YT and others, that's fair. But, I just don't want to worry that I'm going to be sued for whistling some Prince song. It could happen! - alphaterminus, on 01/28/2009, -1/+5ayeroxor: Leave my ***** pony and my age out of it. That day last September was one of the most traumatic of my life. I still stay up at night crying for Smoshy!
- ayeroxor, on 01/28/2009, -0/+4"I disputed them (even though legally I didn't have any grounds to do so) and they were put back up, with the original audio."
Just FYI, they put it back up and tell the complainant that you are requesting to meet them in court if they wish to proceed. What do you suppose the odds are that you'll get that summons? And no, you can't ignore a summons. - honesttussey, on 01/28/2009, -2/+6man this is insane. It's like the media cartel are the NWO. Since when did ***** music copyright have so much power. IT'S JUST FRICKIN MUSIC.
p.s. I'm still waiting for the day when our brains are hooked up the our bank accounts and Warner Music group so they can charge us for every song we think about.
Somehow I don't think this is how Beethoven envisioned music. Nickeled and dimed to death. - ANA1OG, on 01/28/2009, -1/+4Same here, for some reason I got mine back. Try disputing.
I don't understand why WMG does not want any of their music on youtube. Wouldn't that be better for them? Whatever, these guys are jerks. - CarStan, on 01/28/2009, -1/+4stupid major labels. Can't they understand that exposure on youtube is good for them?
Did they really expect the new generation to become be interested in their backcatalogue without having heard even a beep from them?
just yesterday i was stuned to find out that a video with the 'Mortal Combat Theme' has over 10million views. If it wasnt for youtube videos using this song , because its part of pop culture history, no one would ever again hear this song - inactive, on 01/28/2009, -0/+3OH my god.. big companies abusing copyright law yet again.. I really don't understand how these ***** think that it's fine for them to act in this way but not for the pirates..? Remember folks, copyright infringement is only wrong if you're a individual.. but it's totally cool if it's a huge ass company or a government..
- LannyOnasisYT, on 01/28/2009, -0/+3I know exactly how you feel, jordan. It was the same situation with me, the video was rejected after two years of un-interrupted broadcasting. At least we know what's going on right now and are not completely in the dark.
- Kotoyumu, on 01/28/2009, -0/+3Its getting really ridiculous, Warner needs to get with the times.
- michaelaranda, on 01/28/2009, -0/+3Fun fact of the day: Corey Vidal didn't do the track himself; he merely lip-synced. The creators of the song in question are members of the a capella vocal group Moosebutter.
http://moosebutter.com/ - shauncorleone, on 01/28/2009, -0/+3Once again, the labels miss the point. So what if the guy was profiting off the music? It's not as if he posted "music video for ______ song full track!". It was a mashup of his own creation, using parts of previously released audio. If they want to go after people for using copyrighted tracks, they should at least focus on those who might in some way be taking away from their potential profits.
- skywake, on 01/28/2009, -0/+3I personally don't think he needed to give any more credit to John Williams. It was painfully clear that the original works were from John Williams (he even called it a tribute) and in terms of financial returns for Warner it was free advertisement as mentioned. For the same reason I don't think there should be any problem with people putting songs on youtube videos... as long as the video uploader gives due credit it doesn't hurt the song owner's business.
So I stand by what I said.... Warner are looking through their dated corporate glasses. If they were smart they would use the internet as a tool to gain revenue (like google has) but instead they shun it and it has backfired. - DinosWillDie13, on 01/28/2009, -0/+3mine too. goodbye youtube, hello vimeo.
- BowieX, on 01/28/2009, -0/+2Corey's next a capella video should be a clever attack on Warner Music and copyright law, sung to John Williams' themes from Minority Report, Stepmom, Empire of the Sun, A.I. Artificial Intelligence and War of the Worlds so that Warner won't notice.
- deathcapt, on 01/28/2009, -0/+2It also said that he was willing to share profits / pay royalties but he doesn't even know how to go about doing it.
- deathcapt, on 01/28/2009, -0/+2I agree that google should just start buying up labels, team up with iTunes or whatever. Make it so that if you buy a song on iTunes then you can pay a little extra or something to use it in your videos. And then put links to the songs @ itunes so that viewers can buy it if they want to. Throw down some ads into it and voila, a new revenue vector. Big music needs to move away from selling cds to micro transactions for songs and personal usage. Like most youtube videos have like a couple thousand views, and are not for profit, so most people would never even consider buying the broadcast rights to these songs, but most would probably be willing to pay a couple bucks to be allowed to broadcast it on youtube.
- crowbarred, on 01/28/2009, -1/+3There is only one way to fight this battle ... WMG are so many people .... we are many more ... do you digg?
- bdav87, on 01/29/2009, -0/+2american copyright law doesn't apply to beethoven. the law wasn't written yet in his time :)
- Travelsonic, on 01/28/2009, -1/+3If you are indeed a musician, you sure are irrational and hostile.
- Lihtsaltjobu, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2Losless WAV > MP3.
Yes, even at 320 kbps.
And there aren't many albums in .wav format uploaded. - stelman1, on 01/28/2009, -0/+2Big companies are stupid. Youtube will die if it keeps going like that. Maybe we have to turn to another video site.
- tehjabba, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1I think the legal divisions of these major corps that run around shutting down fan made content are just box ticking number crunchers, with little or no comprehension of marketing or PR.
I can only imagine that they're just trying to justify their existence.
Idiotic & dumb any way you look at it. - deadfire55, on 02/16/2009, -0/+1Well YouTube, you've just lost another potential ad clicker, I'm moving on to Metacafe.
- XFireAlchemistX, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1he said he was willing to share a portion of his profit.
- birus, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/coreyvidal
- TheFuzzyOne, on 01/30/2009, -0/+1I suppose I should pay a fee to listen to your terrible music on the radio or in a commercial. And my roommate should pay a fee if he overhears music coming from our upstairs neighbors.
- astrotrain, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1I don't see Mr. Methane is being sued for his music renditions of classics..
- irishchick8988, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1http://www.facebook.com/pages/Corey-Vidal/82341353 ...
If you wanna see the video that got taken down - evergrim, on 01/29/2009, -0/+1Why buy an album?
o_O That's a strange concept to me. Are you telling me that people actually pay money for music? - moomoomoomoo, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1Why can they pull down a video over a tiny snippet of a song... ._. and yet if they infringed copyright nothing would happen to them because they are a huge company...
- Travelsonic, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1There is only one fatal floaw with your statement, MIO: It isn't just public domain or compensate the artist - ccopyleft, creative commons (all relying on copyright BTW) are other legit options you left out.
- BellaVitaGirl, on 01/29/2009, -0/+1And if you know the video and didn't know that fact...that's just sad.
P.S. The video that Corey Vidal made with Moosebutter singing it themselves live is still up on YouTube. Wtf? - BellaVitaGirl, on 01/29/2009, -0/+1Did anyone notice that they took the lipsynch video offline but not the one made by Corey where Moosebutter sings the same exact song...live???
Now I'm just confused.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGYAPr6UKhs - valarking, on 01/28/2009, -2/+2That's not how things work though.
I respect things like remixers, DJs, cover artists, etc, but they do owe part of their success to the original artists whose work they use. This means that if someone uses something I write to make money, then they are legally and (at least from my view) ethically obligated to compensate me for my role. It doesn't have to be financial compensation, it could just mean putting my name in the credits. Otherwise, it is easy for abuse, which would be artistic parasites milking money off of other people's work.
So I'm saying that it's not about his Youtube video hindering sales of John Williams music. It's about him profiting off of someone else's work and basically ignoring the fact that he needs to get approval. - Musimuse, on 01/29/2009, -0/+0Warner Music is stupid for continuing this charade. We are in a recession people! Take what you can get.
http://www.musimuse.com - devianthopes, on 01/30/2009, -0/+0Dont worry we yell loud enough...someone is bound to hear
- korhayus, on 01/30/2009, -0/+0Well isn't this a load of crap, bring the people's video's back. =.= there will be one less youtuber, if I can't watch amusing videos as the one's Corey has put up.
Sincerely,
Corey H. - ChayesFSS, on 01/28/2009, -2/+2I had my account removed with no explanation a little over a year ago (giving 5 stars to anti wacko-scientology crap?) and have never gone back, not worth it unless you're a pre-pub teen.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is