youtube, free speech and copyright infringement

And more's the pity because frankly smart companies should be embracing this tech, not decrying it.

Luddites.

E_S

 

While Ani's sentiments might be selfish and illegal, I think you do have to recognize that because the music industry totally failed to catch on to new technology and tried to hold on to the $15 CD racket they had, the general public turned to extra-legal ways of downloading their music. If it hadn't been for what you might call the "entitlement" mentality that lead to the massive use of Napster, I don't think the major music lables would have worked with Apple to make it what it is today. The price for these companies for not adapting is that, right or wrong, people are going to go outside the law to get what they want.

Most people I think are willing to pay for the content, but if it isn't being offered legally the way they want it they are going to ignore the law. I'm not going to claim it's their right, it's just reality.

 

At what point during my posts where I said that YouTube was the future and the entertainment companies were critically shortsighted did I say anything that let you conclude I wasn't aware " the music industry totally failed to catch on to new technology"?

ES

 

On the original post.... putting up content one doesn't own isn't free speech. Now what is concerning was the story that a show parodying the Colbert Report was also demanded down by Viacom (though Viacom is now getting sued for that).

As for the stuff critical of Islam that YouTube pulls, its their right to do so as its their site. They should be more honest about it, though.

Don't rely on Youtube for stuff, but I do end up having to download shows I can't otherwise obtain. In fact, I'm just about to start that up again in, I think a week or two, when an Aussie show I love goes on the air again.
Actually... they may now have a legal way to download it in place.... I'm gonna have to double check between now and then.

 

Lowbacca: they had podcasts up for the last few eps of last season, so they should be up for all of them this year. //Cryptic

It's well within the rights of copyright owners to insist that their material not be distributed in an unauthorised manner, of course. As E_S has stated at length, though, the larger copyright owners (e.g. music labels and TV studios) are shooting themselves in the foot by taking a lumbering swipe at "the internet" as the source of all their woes. Short, 2-3 minute clips on sites like YouTube are essentially free advertising for them, but it'll be a long time before they understand that. The music industry is only just now catching on, I don't expect the TV and movie studios to jump on the bandwagon wholesale yet, even if a few have started dabbling in it.

 

I'm just gonna say its awesome that I think Hawk has deduced what show I must be talking about

 

Wow, dude, that's just uhm, not true. I know plenty of bands who make nothing money wise and do it for the fun of it. I wouldn't say they're in it for the "fans", but for the music. Like a German band who plays around here from time to time. They've all got normal jobs because they can't even survive just from their music, and in the weekend they drive up to 2000 km to play shows for something like 500 ?, do you really think they do that for the money? I played in a band myself, we were relatively succesful on a local level, we had a CD out in shops and all that but I never really made more money out of it than I could use to pay back the gas costs and a couple of beers. Don't transfer your liberal money-making attitude on me, please . We're working on a new project now and if you want you can have all the music for free.

By the way, the bands ani listens to are fairly well known and they do in fact have videos on rotation on MTV late at night, and Nightwish is even on rotation during the day.

 

There's an opinion piece in today's Washington Post written by one of Viacom's attorneys. Interesting reading, if only to see the sort of bait-and-switch arguing that is going on in this matter.

For example, towards the end, he says:

In this part, he completely neglects the way that copyright infringement has been handled since copyright started. Copyright holders have always had the burden of enforcement, because it simply isn't possible for any service provider to know whether every individual using their service has a valid license to copy a work, or even if a license is needed in the first place (as the work could be in the public domain).

However, he then goes on to change the topic in his conclusion:

This is pure bait-and-switch.

Honestly, after reading the piece, it seemed clear to me what this case is really about: controlling the distribution channels. Viacom feels threatened, not by their copyrighted works that have been posted to YouTube, but by the fact that there are easy ways for people to release their own video content without going through the established media channels.

Consider, which approach would be more of a burden on everyone? Viacom regularly checking YouTube for infringing videos (and remember that just because a video is from one of their programs does not mean that it is infringing - there are fair use rights codified in US copyright law allowing short segments to be used), or requiring YouTube to force everyone to follow strict requirements and thorough background checks on each uploaded video? As the RIAA has shown, the former can easily be automated (although it really needs a human to review the automated results). The latter cannot be automated as easily.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Yeah and neither you nor these guys are professional musicians - but if someone offered you a huge recording contract would you turn it down, if your goal was to be aprofessional muso? No. Cheers.

E_S

 

They're not professional musicians? What the hell is your definition of a professional musician? They tour, they've got albums out (which are by the way distributed in the States as well for example). You're saying that everybody that can survive on music is basically just putting music out for the $$$. Check out Sleep and then talk to me. If somebody offers you a recording contract you don't turn it down because it's really expensive to make music. Don't know if you noticed that. That doesn't mean musicians are in it for the money. If you're in it for the money I would really advise you do not become a professional musician because basically you're going to be living below the poverty line for most of your life. I guarantee you bands like Dozer aren't in it for the money and you can download their music for free, but they make next to nothing but still play full time.

 

Anyone who turns professional as a musician, GAP, is by definition using money as a means of generating income. If they're not good enough, or simply not mainstream enough, to generate the level of income to be considered ultra-successful it doesn't change the fact that the distinction between a guy who plays gigs on the weekend and a professional musician is the motivation.

That the mean income for professional musicians is exceptionally low is, in a sense, irrelevant to the definition.

If they are making their 'living' as musicians, they are professionals. It's transcended a hobby, GAP.

But just because I may have clouded your judgment doesn't mean you should assume anything. Especially that you can rework the defitinion of professional to mesh rose-tinted lefty idealism with an up-yours-capitalism punk sentimentality and remain "pure".

E_S

 

And this is why I have stopped buying music that comes from the US. All the music I buy comes from Europe. Let me say that one more time ALL THE MUSIC I BUY COMES FROM EUROPE.

So yes because After Forever and Epica coming from Europe I can't watch any of there videos unless I go online and watch it on youtube. I can't get any of there music unless I go online to places like amazon just to buy there music.

But hey if you want to keep coming back with your copyright laws then go ahead. You may know a lot about other things. Buy you really are showing that you don't know much about how the music world works. Key word WORLD not the US.

I will keep buying music that comes from Europe and I will keep supporting those bands and making sure they can get as much free promotion in the US as they can get.

 

Yeah, ok Ani, how long have you been on vacation from reality?

You're spoilt and you don't have a ******* right to ANY music.

The fact that you like bands in Europe is as worthless to me and it once again doesn't convey any rights upon you with respect to accessing that music. You have no right to access any music unless you obtain that right which is done through legal means. Even for crappy Eurotrash bands that make mad little Anidanami even madder, \m/.

You are obtaining that music without the right, which makes you on par with most shoplifting bottom feeding thieves. Christ, just admit you're doing the wrong thing and you don't care that you're being a law-breaking, immoral cad!

It's people like you that make misanthropy viable.

E_S

 

Oh so I'm not allowed to buy any music on less it's in the US. whatever dude. I buy all my music legally online from amazon.com and many other places legally. Just because I don't support the US music companys does not mean a thing. Let's do this again ALL THE MUSIC I BUY COMES FROM EUROPE[/ib].

Are you that mad that I don't buy my music from the US and great way to open your mind Eurotrash bands

You have spent this whole time belittling people who don't fall in line with you.

 

Well, it seems this thread has completely devolved into a proverbial mosh pit.

 

Ani, it's like you're having a conversation with someone else entirely and, through some fault in the space-time continuum, the respondent is showing up as E_S. What does liking European music have to do with whether or not they want their music up on YouTube? If whatever band you like, or more specifically their label, doesn't want their copyrighted material available through an avenue they didn't authorise, they have EVERY RIGHT to take it down. It doesn't matter whether they're American, French, or Tibetan (and man, I love me some Tibetan hip-hop). Their right to control the distribution of THEIR copyrighted material supersedes your desire to discover new music.

 

I thought I was losing my grip on sanity, but no, it was just from arguing with Anidanami.

My issue is as much with the entitlement mentality consumers as it is with the companies because it is just a pissing contest between two exceptionally myopic, stupid entities who lack vision and foresight. I champion YouTube and the like as innovative ventures, but it depends on sensible consumer reactions and not toddler-like tantrums because i wanna wisten to Woowopean music!

E_S

 

My point was if it weren't for people like Anidanami that feel entitled to their music, the record companies wouldn't change. So while he certainly doesn't have any sort of moral high ground, his willingness to infringe on copyrights has lead to better use of those copyrights by their holders.

I also think that infringing on copyrights isn't exactly the same thing as shoplifting. Because the good ususally isn't exclusive, in that more than one person at a time can use it, it is much more like pollution or some white collar crimes. If it was like stealing a car, then somehow the band wouldn't have their own music anymore.

 

That metaphor wasn't intended for American literal-mindedness my antipodean friend; it's more "on the scale of things". As in, equally as small fry, equally as unconcerned about the broader imolications of what they do...

E_S

 

"You are obtaining that music without the right, which makes you on par with most shoplifting bottom feeding thieves. Christ, just admit you're doing the wrong thing and you don't care that you're being a law-breaking, immoral cad! "

Once again with the immoral youth. Will they this time change their ways as they grow older like Alex in A Clockwork Orange or will the Ludovico-method be neccesary.

 

Is that all you can do is flame people? That's what you are doing here is flaming.

You really want me to post this here it goes:

SonicCatherdral.net
amazon.com

Let's see two places I go to for buing music

www.kamelot.com

Kamelot live in Oslo "When the Lights are Down" video is posted on KamTV. KamTV has been in the top 30 most subscribed channels for 4 weeks straight. Kamelot's DVD "One Cold Winter's Night" is now out everywhere!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn-nxMKiT8I

Kamelot announced their first Russian (May 12th, Tochka, Moscow) and Finnish appearances (Helsinki and Tampere) for 2007's World Tour. Support act will be Leaves' Eyes.

http://www.kamelot.com/news_en_mephisto.htm

Just one band that I listen Ender that is using Youtube and is let there fans use Youbtube for putting there videos up.

 

Of course they are, but that doesn't mean that they are making music just to make money or have money as the primary reason for making music or give a hoot about how much money the record will generate as long as it's good. What I read from you is that musicians and composers are in it for the $$$ and nothing else, and that believing anything else is gullible, which seems to me sort of, strange.

It's not really irrelevant that it's a low income to the sentence I quoted from you, because there you claimed they just did it for the cash, if you do something for cash, would you really pick a profession that pays next to nothing?

Maybe we're not arguing the same point here, but that's what I read into the sentence I quoted.

 

It looks like Ender and anidanami are arguing two different points... Ender's being that one shouldn't be illegally obtaining music, while anidanami is talking about being annoyed with American media providers because he has to buy it via other channels to get the music he likes in the U.S.

 

If they're professional, they're out to make money from playing music. It doesn't change a thing about their passion for music, but it's no different to any artist seeking to turn their passion into their profession.

Most people who chose to be professional musicians, GAP, wouldn't think of the poverty of it as being permanent because they'd be eternally hoping for the 'big break' that would push them into riches and fame.

But it's no different to me taking my passion for international relations and making a job out of it. I'm not here just because I like politics; I want to make money out of it. Same goes for most...

E_S

 

Most people maybe, but not all, and that's what bothered me about your statement. Sleep for example, was a band definitely not looking for the "big break" and they still aren't because everybody damn well knows they're never going to make anything with the music they produce. Once they got an opening that could've lead to their "big break", they followed it up by making the most un-marketable album in the world. Musicians don't just turn "professional" to make money from it, a lot of the time they just do it because holding a steady job and combining your passion for music is very hard if you're in a band that tours a lot. I'm talking about a very different musical scene here than MTV, I do hope you realize that.

I can appreciate what you're trying to say Ender, I just don't think you can generalize it so that every professional musician puts out music just for the cash.