What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
$9 t-shirts today only view!
threadless.com - Today's the day to snag a deal on t-shirts! Threadless.com. $9. Every. Single. Tee.
152 Comments
- mlostracco, on 01/25/2009, -1/+125I did a music video with an artist before she was signed, contracted by the music publisher. I own the copyright on the video, and I have permission from the music publisher (who control the rights) to have the video up on YouTube anyway. Warner has since signed the artist, and keeps getting YouTube to pull my video down, and I keep having to dispute the copyright claim. It's incredibly annoying, especially considering that Warner isn't even authorized to do it (in this case).
And I am all for protecting copyright, buying music, etc., but you can't just steamroll everything and use your size and resources as leverage for blanket copyright claims. It's like a daisycutter effect for the sake of convenience. - valleyvideo, on 01/25/2009, -1/+79Holy smokes. I got a video pulled because of a snippet of music - I had no idea there was a new push going on.
- Maxamegalon2000, on 01/25/2009, -2/+76I'm disappointed about the removals of music from Rock Band videos. Seriously, guys?
- roho76, on 01/25/2009, -4/+65Stop using YouTube then. They are the ones complying with this. I would expect more out of Google.
- kev0476, on 01/25/2009, -2/+55WMG needs to eat all the dicks.
- captainmo77, on 01/25/2009, -2/+53Does Warner Bros think the background music on youtube videos is really hurting music sales?
- UtahApocalyse, on 01/25/2009, -4/+47If your telling the truth your a rich man. That has LAWSUIT screaming out loud, get a lawyer and fight fire with fire.
- lakerslive2004, on 01/25/2009, -1/+41To hell with you, big media companies that don't allow us fair use.
- Jibberwalk, on 01/25/2009, -0/+35You want sad... I had a video up of my puppy doing something awesomely cute. While I was recording, the radio in the background happened to be broadcasting some Red Hot Chili Peppers (Dani California).
It got yanked because of that. - Ugotownedo, on 01/25/2009, -4/+36Warner Bros Music is a bunch of *****.
- Jibberwalk, on 01/25/2009, -0/+25I don't think it's really about profits and bottom-lines.
I think it's more a dick-waving contest between YouTube and WMG, and the users end up on the wrong end of a bukakke. - Alegoo92, on 01/25/2009, -1/+23Yeah, my video had almost 250k views and is muted now. I was going to dispute the thing because I figured it was arguable fair use, but what's the point?
- dmtherob, on 01/25/2009, -12/+33Fair use has yet to be defined online...
- Brak710101, on 01/25/2009, -0/+21I can't even remember the last time I bought music. And no, I don't download it either.
Pandora.com and various internet radio stations are my choice. - mst3kcrow, on 01/25/2009, -2/+23They're really hell bent on people not buying their music.
- pw378, on 01/25/2009, -1/+20Bullcrap. Fair use is well defined, and it shouldn't matter if material is online or not.
- diggdowner, on 01/25/2009, -0/+19I had my (first) YouTube account suspended because someone didn't like my Elite Beat Agents video, which had a COVER of Y.M.C.A.!
- bluechips23, on 01/25/2009, -4/+23Here's a solution - Just boycott Warner Music Group. Don't buy a single music CD or song or album from WMG for at least just one month. Once their profit dips, they will start using their brains to realize not to piss off their customer base.
- Bulletbillx, on 01/25/2009, -2/+20that sucks. i could see maybe if you intentionally set the background music through video editing but if its just playing on the radio it shouldnt be taken down.
- krahzee, on 01/25/2009, -1/+18I wouldn't. Google is a publically traded company. Any hint of litigation can hurt the price of the stock pretty severely.
- Blue5234, on 01/25/2009, -5/+21You're. I mean twice in one sentence.....really?
- lakerslive2004, on 01/25/2009, -2/+18By this logic I should be fined every time I use a line from a song in my day to day speech.
This morning I woke up, fell out of bed....*****! - tidu, on 01/25/2009, -0/+14Look what you've done, you bankrupted that band! I hope you're happy with yourself.
- inactive, on 01/25/2009, -0/+14Why? Because their marketing slogan is "Do no evil?" Come on. They showed their true colours when they tried to spin censoring Chinese internet as something "good". They provide a useful service. That's it. They're still a soulless corporation interested in revenues - not standing up to any sort of moral principles.
- The3pic0ne, on 01/25/2009, -1/+15Put it back up with note of "WMG I'm sorry that song you have the right to was playing on the radio at the time of recording. If you do not like go complain to (name of radio station) for they are the ones broadcasting the content you have rights to. If you have any other complaints to bad so sad this is the modern age and technology has the power to widely distribute any content and you should spend you time focusing any catching those really stealing your content and not basically giving you free promotion."
- aufte, on 01/25/2009, -1/+14I'm sure artists are very happy to hear that big record execs are stopping exposure and causing horrific alienation between them and fans over a few dollars on top of the millions they already have.
- had3l, on 01/25/2009, -1/+13Just upload it to some other service and put the link on the description.
- p4r4d0x, on 01/25/2009, -1/+12The worst part is when they take down videos that aren't available anywhere else: rare concert videos, documentaries, even incidental use in television shows often results in the indiscriminate muting of the audio of the entire video.
I was watching a 70s-era doco clip the other night which I know is well out of print and I refresh the page to discover the dreaded 'Video has been removed due to a copyright claim by Warner Music Group' message.
***** Warner - offguard, on 01/25/2009, -1/+12Just avoid these artists from now on (incomplete list, but some big names):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Music_Group_ar ...
And avoid these labels from now on (again incomplete, but a good start):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warner_labels
A side note - Maybe someone should compile a complete list of "what to avoid". I'm sure it'd get popular fast.
I admit it's pretty simple stuff for me to copy-paste those wikipedia links, but it makes sense. Avoid these things like the plague, and maybe go for something from a small company or an unknown band (who'll appreciate your free publicity and fan loyalty). Maybe start using really old music with expired copyright in your videos. Remix that really old stuff at home - it could give some interesting results.
Look at the silver lining here: No more godawful Nickelback on Youtube. That in itself is a victory worth celebrating, isn't it? - inactive, on 01/25/2009, -0/+11It's almost impossible to find 2 keys farther apart on a keyboard than A and O.
- DigitAl56K, on 01/25/2009, -0/+10I don't know why you're being dugg up. The tenets of fair use are not dependent on the medium.
See 17 U.S.C. ยง 107:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
This simply sets the conditions under which a copyright holder does not have exclusive rights to authorize a use. You can see that U.S.C. 106 provides exclusive rights subject to 107:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html
IANAL, but I believe you're spreading disinformation, possibly unintentionally, but nevertheless I wanted to offer others the chance to read for themselves.
LilRabbitFooFooLilRabbitFooFoo (above) is correct that you ought to be careful around fair use; sometimes what is and what isn't fair use depends on the opinion of a judge and the stakes can be high. - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 01/25/2009, -0/+9Perhaps the better phrase would be "fair use has yet to be properly vetted online."
For example, the real issue is and has always been "are you making any money" off this so-called "infringement". While Youtube users certainly aren't making any, Google/Youtube IS (via ad revenue) and that is an issue that conflicts with fair use.
If you had a non-profit site that did the same thing, there'd be no commercialization and you'd be hard pressed to show loss of real profits, etc. - TheIndigoSky, on 01/25/2009, -1/+10Screw Warner music. I've bought songs in the past that I've stumbled across on youtube legally, but I'm not going to buy a single song legally from Warner as long as this ***** goes on.
- LemurDaddy, on 01/25/2009, -1/+10Stand tall for grammar, homie. Keep it real.
- andycr512, on 01/25/2009, -1/+10The law disagrees.
- robzthird, on 01/25/2009, -1/+9They don't have to be ***** about it. Like their song being in the background of someones video is really gonna hurt them financially.
- andycr512, on 01/25/2009, -0/+8Not to imply I boycott the RIAA (I don't, explicitly), but you realize that Pandora pays the record companies when you listen, right?
- RedSepher, on 01/25/2009, -0/+8I swear, their getting bored, and have nothing better to do...
- crickey23, on 01/25/2009, -1/+9I don't understand how they can remove or mute videos so quickly. I get how they could remove music videos of their music that weren't (or even were, as it's been shown) put up by the artists, but how do they find videos where a radio in the background is coincidentally playing a song that WMG owns? Do they have people go through every video on YouTube and remove ones that just happen to be playing their music?
I feel bad for the people who made creative videos but had them removed because a big-name company didn't like them. This is really messed up. - moulin1, on 01/25/2009, -0/+8If the music industry can't play nicely with their copyrights, we need to take them away.
- ldailey06, on 01/25/2009, -0/+7No, it's a dick move from a bunch of corporate dicks.
- inactive, on 01/25/2009, -0/+7radio is free
- omercyme33, on 01/25/2009, -1/+7They keep pulling it? I've had copyright disputes through YouTube and after they are resolved I've never been bothered (about those specific videos) again.
- ldailey06, on 01/25/2009, -0/+6don't give them ideas
- omercyme33, on 01/25/2009, -0/+6Yeah, people don't realize that they only need to have background music "barely audible" and not blasting so you can't hear a word they are saying.
- mlostracco, on 01/25/2009, -0/+6In other words, this is how the flowchart in the legal department should have played out before anybody sent out a takedown notice on my video:
Is it an artist signed to us? YES.
Do we own the rights to the video? NO.
Did the producer get permission from the music publisher to use the music in the video? YES.
No further action required.
(BTW, the video goes back up when I dispute it, so I am winning, but it's still annoying to have to do it, especially more than once.) - blondeguy08, on 01/25/2009, -2/+8***** WMG!!!! and google wtf???? seriously???
- dsmx, on 01/25/2009, -1/+7p
- chedabob, on 01/25/2009, -0/+5Dispute it. I did, and my reason was "The video has been up for over 2 years and nobody cared, why start caring now?". The video is back up with the original audio.
- mlostracco, on 01/25/2009, -1/+6I kept it intentionally vague to not drag the artist into it, since the artist is with a smaller, sub-distributed Warner indie-type label and it's not her fault. And discussing specifics would be unprofessional, on my part. Plus, it really has nothing to do with the artist, but with overzealous, sloppy copyright claims.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 154 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is