Author Topic: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
GrandAdmiralPelleaon 
Registered: Oct '00
Date Posted: 3/26/07 3:07am Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement - Date Edited: 3/26/07 3:09am (1 edits total) Edited By: GrandAdmiralPelleaon
Ender_Sai posted:
Authors and composers of music do this for a simple reason - to make money. And if you believe the "We're not in it for the money, we're in it for the fans" crap you're gullible to the point of pity.


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 wink . We're working on a new project now and if you want you can have all the music for free. :P

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.

 

-----signature-----
Vita vinum est.
Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison 
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 3/26/07 5:41am Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
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:
Michael Fricklas posted:
Is it fair to burden YouTube with finding content on its site that infringes others' copyright? Putting the burden on the owners of creative works would require every copyright owner, big and small, to patrol the Web continually on an ever-burgeoning number of sites. That's hardly a workable or equitable solution. And it would tend to disadvantage ventures such as the one recently announced by NBC Universal and News Corp. that are built on respect for copyright. Under the law, the obligation is right where it belongs: on the people who derive a benefit from the creative works and are in the position to keep infringement out of their businesses.
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:
Michael Fricklas posted:
Will forcing Google and YouTube to obey the law stifle innovation? Quite the opposite. Intellectual property is worth $650 billion a year to the U.S. economy. Not only does intellectual property drive our exports, it's a key part of what distinguishes developed economies from developing ones. Protecting intellectual property spurs investment and thereby the creation of new technologies and creative entertainment. This creates jobs and benefits consumers. Google and YouTube wouldn't be here if not for investment in software and technologies spurred by patent and copyright laws. It's time they respected them.
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

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Ender_Sai 
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: Feb '01
44324_Kyle Katarn
Date Posted: 3/26/07 6:52am Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
GrandAdmiralPelleaon posted:
Ender_Sai posted:
Authors and composers of music do this for a simple reason - to make money. And if you believe the "We're not in it for the money, we're in it for the fans" crap you're gullible to the point of pity.


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 wink . We're working on a new project now and if you want you can have all the music for free. :P

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.



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

 

-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
GrandAdmiralPelleaon 
Registered: Oct '00
Date Posted: 3/26/07 10:38am Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement - Date Edited: 3/26/07 10:44am (4 edits total) Edited By: GrandAdmiralPelleaon
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.

 

-----signature-----
Vita vinum est.
Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Ender_Sai 
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: Feb '01
44324_Kyle Katarn
Date Posted: 3/26/07 3:55pm Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
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. wink 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". wink

E_S

 

-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
anidanami124 
Registered: Aug '02
47295_2008 NFL Playoffs
Date Posted: 3/26/07 7:46pm Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
Ender_Sai posted:
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.


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.

 

-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Ender_Sai 
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: Feb '01
44324_Kyle Katarn
Date Posted: 3/26/07 8:01pm Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
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

 

-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
anidanami124 
Registered: Aug '02
47295_2008 NFL Playoffs
Date Posted: 3/26/07 8:21pm Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
Ender_Sai posted:
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/.


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 [b]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.

 

-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Mischievous 
Registered: Oct '99
40336_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 3/26/07 9:00pm Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
Well, it seems this thread has completely devolved into a proverbial mosh pit.

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
HawkNC 
Title: FanForce RSA
Oceania

Registered: Oct '01
Date Posted: 3/26/07 9:02pm Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
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.

 

-----signature-----
Use dp/dt
--
Come now, do you really expect me to do coordinate substitution in my head while strapped to a centrifuge?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Ender_Sai 
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: Feb '01
44324_Kyle Katarn
Date Posted: 3/26/07 9:38pm Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
I thought I was losing my grip on sanity, but no, it was just from arguing with Anidanami. hypnotized silly

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

 

-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Espaldapalabras 
Registered: Aug '05
46173_Robot Chicken: Ackbar Cereal
Date Posted: 3/26/07 9:48pm Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
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.

 

-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Ender_Sai 
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered: Feb '01
44324_Kyle Katarn
Date Posted: 3/26/07 10:01pm Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
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... wink

E_S

 

-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Erk 
Registered: Aug '01
6205_Labria
Date Posted: 3/27/07 2:59am Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
"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.

 

-----signature-----
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
Mick Travis, If....
Blast. They've removed my icon.
flag U S A ! U S A ! U S A !
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
anidanami124 
Registered: Aug '02
47295_2008 NFL Playoffs
Date Posted: 3/27/07 3:10am Subject: RE: youtube, free speech and copyright infringement
Ender_Sai posted:
I thought I was losing my grip on sanity, but no, it was just from arguing with Anidanami. hypnotized silly

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




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.

 

-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History