PDA

View Full Version : To celebrate my 600th sub on YouTube...



deach
01-27-2010, 12:49 PM
To celebrate my 600th sub, YouTube decided to send me a notification.

Warner Music Group aren't the only jerks on YouTube. One more strike and I'm out.

http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss46/deach-uke/yt.jpg


Stage Three Music CSI!
Edward B. Marks Music CSI!
YouTube CSI!

PaulGeo
01-27-2010, 12:53 PM
Booooooooo....

Doctroid
01-27-2010, 12:56 PM
Guess you won't be giving them any ukes any time soon, eh?

Tigeralum2001
01-27-2010, 12:58 PM
I will not have that problem. My playing is so bad, it would clearly fall under the "parody" clause!

Seriously, you should throw the chords on the video & claim "education" clause. Oh, and join the EFF! http://www.eff.org/

sukie
01-27-2010, 01:01 PM
They'd do that to YOU? Wow! Sorry to hear that deach. You've got some of the best vids on Youtube. In my opinion.

Melissa82
01-27-2010, 01:11 PM
Wow, this sucks. :( These corporate guys have no idea what they are doing.

This is making me angry. I'm just going to go through all of my video and remove anything that relates to the song. I just renamed my wonderwall cover to wonder ceiling, lol.

Plainsong
01-27-2010, 01:18 PM
Guess you won't be giving them any ukes any time soon, eh?

No, he SHOULD send them ukes... to be inserted in the posterior regions. :p

austin1
01-27-2010, 01:40 PM
No, he SHOULD send them ukes... to be inserted in the posterior regions. :p

Why waste a perfectly good uke like that when you could get so much more personal satisfaction out of just punching them in the face? :D

<_<
>_>

Who said that?

austin1
01-27-2010, 01:46 PM
This is making me angry. I'm just going to go through all of my video and remove anything that relates to the song. I just renamed my wonderwall cover to wonder ceiling, lol.

I just saw this, and it totally made me laugh. Hmm...I think I might rename my banana pancakes cover something equally as awesome...avocado scrambled eggs, anyone?

ukeshale
01-27-2010, 01:49 PM
That blows. There's slight irony in the title of the second strike though ;)

I do hope something can be done in the long-term. You've got my support no matter what happens.

Congrats on 600. It's a shame it's been tarred with this.

RevWill
01-27-2010, 01:52 PM
This really sucks, Deach. FEA, whatever that means.









































(i know perfectly well what it means)

lisaxy424
01-27-2010, 03:48 PM
Ouch! Just wait until 1000 subs...I hear they repo your car and make fun of your haircut.

KC8AFW
01-27-2010, 03:56 PM
That stinks.

UKISOCIETY
01-27-2010, 04:12 PM
I was going to host a cover contest on YT, but I've decided against it because of this (and Sebi's bannination). Now I have to come up with another way to host a contest.

FrozenMango
01-27-2010, 04:32 PM
What I can't understand is why this happens to people who aren't even that famous on YouTube and are just doing covers and such.... I mean wouldn't aldrine's account be closed down by nintendo or someone else at this rate?

Ahnko Honu
01-27-2010, 11:33 PM
That sux. You should deach them a flaming bag of dog turds. SHEESH.

Ahnko Honu
01-27-2010, 11:35 PM
I was going to host a cover contest on YT, but I've decided against it because of this (and Sebi's bannination). Now I have to come up with another way to host a contest.

I've posted vids on my Photobucket account. I wonder if they have copyright Nazis there too?

sebi
01-28-2010, 01:05 AM
First, congrats on your 600 subs. You'd deserve way more than that. And second, I'm devastated. How can they go after you now? Wasn't it enough to have my old account taken away from us and before me John's songs and Adelle's account? Oh, man.

I might drift the discussion a little bit, but I'd like to raise this question:
Why don't we create our own video platform here on UU? I would even volunteer as a project manager to make that happen. We move ALL our videos - originals AND COVERS - to our platform and don't let any major corporation touch us.

micromue
01-28-2010, 01:15 AM
Why don't we create our own video platform here on UU? I would even volunteer as a project manager to make that happen. We move ALL our videos - originals AND COVERS - to our platform and don't let any major corporation touch us.

Because that would leave the owners of the UU-Board wiiiide open to litigation.:(
The risk of being sued for copyright infringement is not limited to the artist covering and uploading his material, it is also existing for the folks who run the video portal that shows the material.


Sorry for you, deach. It is a shame whats happening to you and the community.

HaileISela
01-28-2010, 01:35 AM
I was going to host a cover contest on YT, but I've decided against it because of this (and Sebi's bannination). Now I have to come up with another way to host a contest.

I still think we could try out vimeo:


http://vimeo.com/2645307

I mean, they left this on their page...

btw, by posting this, I do not intent to offend anyone. It's just my little happy 600 subs gift for deachymon...^^

sebi
01-28-2010, 01:40 AM
Because that would leave the owners of the UU-Board wiiiide open to litigation.:(
The risk of being sued for copyright infringement is not limited to the artist covering and uploading his material, it is also existing for the folks who run the video portal that shows the material.


Sorry for you, deach. It is a shame whats happening to you and the community.

I see. Very good point. Just trying to figure out how we can leave this problem behind.

buddhuu
01-28-2010, 02:18 AM
Deach, so sorry you're getting cr@p over all this as well. :(


I see. Very good point. Just trying to figure out how we can leave this problem behind.
And good on you for the effort.

Problem is that the law is the law. Any host of any platform is going to be subject to that same law. There may be creaky workarounds, such as making sites accessible to members only with passwords, but you won't stop determined copyright nazis.

The policing of content that does commercial harm to an artist, publisher or label I can understand - infringement for gain, or with intent to defame etc etc... But light-hearted stuff which is, as often as not, tribute to the original? Oh, puhleeez.

I can think of only three remedies:


The hosts come to commercial arrangement with the labels and publishers
Individual posters get the appropriate licenses and permissions before posting
The copyright owners learn to see beyond the letter of the law, get real about what, if any, threat it poses, and accept some of this stuff in the spirit in which it is posted.


The second ain't going to fly in real terms. It would kill spontaneity. Many/most vid posters wouldn't know the licensing process, where to find info etc etc... They'd just give up.

And whether the copyright owners admit it or not, that would not be to their benefit.

grammy
01-28-2010, 02:25 AM
I might drift the discussion a little bit, but I'd like to raise this question:
Why don't we create our own video platform here on UU? I would even volunteer as a project manager to make that happen. We move ALL our videos - originals AND COVERS - to our platform and don't let any major corporation touch us.

I live in Hungary which is the home of 'f**k you mr copyright nazi' and my hosting for my sites is in indonesia, which is also notorious for having no copyright protection at all. so... hosting platform servers either here or there and warner can't touch you. they wont even try. My hosting account is with Glob@t which is a US company but with no obligation to comply with warner, or anyone else for that matter cos they have overseas hosting.

beeejums
01-28-2010, 02:30 AM
Congrats, deach... And that sucks. I'm sorry. I can't wait for it to happen to me...

As soon as I have a free minute after I get home from work, I'm going to put "educational use only" disclaimers on all my videos to see if that changes anything... but we'll see.


This really sucks, Deach. FEA, whatever that means.
(i know perfectly well what it means)

I don't know what that means... And not knowing bothers me. I spent like three whole minutes trying to guess before I got distracted and did something else.

I don't think another video hosting site would do us any good... I'm sure in order to run one of those sites, you have to allow yourself to be trolled by copyright owning troll supercomputers.

Melissa82
01-28-2010, 03:08 AM
I live in Hungary which is the home of 'f**k you mr copyright nazi' and my hosting for my sites is in indonesia, which is also notorious for having no copyright protection at all. so... hosting platform servers either here or there and warner can't touch you. they wont even try. My hosting account is with Glob@t which is a US company but with no obligation to comply with warner, or anyone else for that matter cos they have overseas hosting.I don't know if any of you guys watched it but I posted an video that was about 90 mins long about ACTA. Basically, it's a NATO type of copyright that the government is trying to create. You guys should read up about it.

Woot, 3k post! :D

johncaudrey
01-28-2010, 03:10 AM
Reading all this reminds me of a similar situation on a juggling forum that I post on sometimes. Jugglers (professional and hobbyist) were having videos taken down by Youtube where they had used a piece of copyrighted music that their routine was set to, or just as background music to a practice video. Obviously the difference here is that it was original music rather than covers and I have read that Youtube has software that can actually detect original music (not sure how true this is), this would obviously be harder for a cover version of a song as waveforms etc would be different.
Basically a website was set up (juggling.tv) where anyone can post up videos with seemily without these copyright issues. This website has grown and grown and is used worldwide. I am now sure how they have got around this, or whether they are just taking a big risk, but I will be seeing one of the team involved in setting it up and running it in the next couple of days and will see if I can found out some information as to how they have got around copyrighted music issues.
I will keep you posted

johncaudrey
01-28-2010, 03:45 AM
Just checked with my friend, thought I phone him rather than wait until the weekend.

They basically state in their simple terms and conditions that the user/member is responsible for what they upload and would take any video down if a valid request was made. So far they are small enough to go under the radar and have not had any problems, but i guess it's just a matter of time!

JTV t&cs

> Our members are responsible for the content of their videos.

> If we receive a valid request, then a video will be removed.

> JTV reserves the right to remove any video at any time.

bunnyflower
01-28-2010, 04:05 AM
Oh, no, I can't believe this is happening to you, too.

I mean, super congrats on your 600th sub! But, yeesh. This is really ridiculous.




Problem is that the law is the law. Any host of any platform is going to be subject to that same law. There may be creaky workarounds, such as making sites accessible to members only with passwords, but you won't stop determined copyright nazis.

The policing of content that does commercial harm to an artist, publisher or label I can understand - infringement for gain, or with intent to defame etc etc... But light-hearted stuff which is, as often as not, tribute to the original? Oh, puhleeez.


I really think we need to see a change in the law, that has actual wording regarding covers, etc, for no monetary gain. This looks like it is just going to get worse.

Is anyone here good at wording offical-sounding letters? I really want to write my congressman. But, I am not the best wordsmith, I fear.

Someone posted this wonderful video in another discussion here, about how copyright laws are choking creativity in today's society. It's 19 minutes long, and is dead on right.
http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity .html

What else can we do? Too bad we don't have UU lobbyists in congress...

Sambient
01-28-2010, 04:07 AM
I don't know if any of you guys watched it but I posted an video that was about 90 mins long about ACTA. Basically, it's a NATO type of copyright that the government is trying to create. You guys should read up about it.
Melissa, could you include a link? I want to educate myself.


Woot, 3k post! :D
Celebrate!

Tonyd
01-28-2010, 04:27 AM
Congrats on the 600 mark, you deserve those subs.

Shame about the strikes, what a sad world we live in...

greg_usa
01-28-2010, 04:32 AM
what wankers! forcing people to take down covers? so ridiculous!

buddhuu
01-28-2010, 04:36 AM
Youtube doesn't miss much, you know. When I got my copyright strike for the YMCA version my old band did, I thought I'd start a new YT account for my solo stuff (yeah, I know there isn't any yet!). So I pretty much abandoned my old "panphobe" account where the band videos are, and opened "buddhuu".

To my surprise, when I checked out the "buddhuu" account, the strike from the previous account had been imported and was waiting there for me.

My own stupid fault for signing up with the same gmail address... Doh! :mad:

seeso
01-28-2010, 04:46 AM
Congrats on number 600, Deach. FEA.

Melissa82
01-28-2010, 04:49 AM
Melissa, could you include a link? I want to educate myself.


Celebrate!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3lzd9yJP9Q

Doctroid
01-28-2010, 05:06 AM
I really think we need to see a change in the law, that has actual wording regarding covers, etc, for no monetary gain. This looks like it is just going to get worse.

Is anyone here good at wording offical-sounding letters? I really want to write my congressman. But, I am not the best wordsmith, I fear.
We're up against the multibillion dollar entertainment industry here. One or ten or a hundred uke players writing letters will not change a thing. (Especially not after the Supreme Court's latest atrocity.)

The copyright laws have been twisted into a monstrosity for the benefit of the entertainment industry. Not for the benefit of the artists, oh no, but for the corporations that rake in all the money. And no amount of letter writing is going to alter that.

Historically change happens when the status quo becomes untenable. The status quo is untenable for musicians, maybe, but not for Warner and the other corporate giants -- not yet. Maybe it's becoming so, as file sharing and pirate sites eat into their sales. I do not advocate piracy. But piracy may be what eventually brings about change, if it means the entertainment industry's business model no longer works.

As for the issue at hand: Indeed, any hosting provider that allows illegal use of copyrighted material (and that is what we are talking about) is a potential target. But YouTube is the most visible target. Vimeo is less so, but still a major one. There are much more obscure hosts, not so much on the industry's radar. And, as mentioned above, pirate sites in certain non US countries may be relatively untouchable. For now, if you want to post covers, such hosts may be the only viable option.

One downside to going off YouTube is, of course, that's where the audience is. UU could migrate en masse to some obscure video host and watch each others' videos, but almost no one outside UU is likely to stumble into them. Which is a shame; I bet a lot of people wouldn't be here, wouldn't be playing ukes, if they hadn't come across a uke cover on YouTube. (Me for instance, some guy named Jack or Jock or something playing some song about a crying guitar...)

uke5417
01-28-2010, 05:22 AM
Yikes. What are you going to do?
Hope you have copies of your great originals, lest they get thrown onto the e-pyre if everything goes south. Thedeachynextdoor?

ukecantdothat
01-28-2010, 06:55 AM
I just saw this, and it totally made me laugh. Hmm...I think I might rename my banana pancakes cover something equally as awesome...avocado scrambled eggs, anyone?

I'd Google that title first if I were you... :nana:

And Melissa, I noticed the disclaimers on your posts and it seems like a good one, but I suspect YT will do what they want with their site and if that means keep the hard work of goofballs like us, or cave in to the corporatocracy and dump us, it's a no-brainer. If & when I get a "strike" against me I will consider it a complement.

And deach... I WANT MY "ROUGH BOY" VID! I never saw that one and it was one of the first songs I ever mangled on a uke a couple years ago. I would LOVE to hear your take on it. Is there a "legal" way to do that?

Melissa82
01-28-2010, 06:58 AM
And Melissa, I noticed the disclaimers on your posts and it seems like a good one, but I suspect YT will do what they want with their site and if that means dumping the hard work of goofballs like us, or cave in to the corporatocracy, it's a no-brainer. If & when I get a "strike" against me I will consider it a complement.? Yeah, I really don't care that much to make a fuss if they delete my videos. I did the most I could to show I don't have bad intentions. If I was a better musician and had more videos I'd probably feel differently.

ukecantdothat
01-28-2010, 07:24 AM
Yeah, I really don't care that much to make a fuss if they delete my videos. I did the most I could to show I don't have bad intentions. If I was a better musician and had more videos I'd probably feel differently.

You are a fine player and wonderful singer, Melissa (in case you didn't know...) and the "bad intentions" are tantamount to saying, "I like this song enough to play it on the ukulele and share it with my friends." How dare you, madam? How dare you?

All YT can do is remove the vids, really, because the act of performing a song and posting it on YT, alone, is harmless to the original artist. They would have to prove damages, i.e. a portion of any money that would be earned by the cover artist would go to the publisher and songwriter. Show me the money! The really funny thing is, there's a job description out there that says, "search the site for copyright infringements and send notices to the violators, which include any and all performances including to but not limited to, covers of any and all songs on any and all instruments by any and all performers regardless of intent, bad or otherwise." Hey, I'll do it. A job's a job!

dktoller
01-28-2010, 07:48 AM
Congrats Deach, and yes that really sucks.

A quick search of ""zz top" cover" on youtube shows a bunch of stuff still up, including live performances, videos, and guitar covers. Why in the hell would they pick on a guy doing a uke interpretation of a lesser-known hit?

May have to go relabel my first upload from 'Here Comes The Sun' to 'Here Comes the Son' and remove the Beatles tag. Seriously, are there any suggestions for how to best fly below the radar?

deach
01-28-2010, 07:50 AM
....Thedeachynextdoor?

lmao!


Thanks everyone, for your support.

I think it goes to show that you don't have to be as awesome and popular as Sebi to get suspended from YouTube.


and no, I don't have any copies of any vids I've made.

Ahnko Honu
01-28-2010, 07:59 AM
Woot, 3k post! :D

WOW Melissa, you're such a post gigolo (I never call a lady the other word even in jest)! Congratz!

Joe Hell
01-28-2010, 08:07 AM
Another group to watch out for is ASCAP (THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS) According to ASCAP,sitting on the beach with your uke and playing a song from your favorite artist (insert any public performance with any instrument) requires royalties to be paid.

Sic_Rob
01-28-2010, 08:10 AM
I'm sorry for getting to the danc elate here. I want see if I understand what happened to Deach. Deach has posted 600 video's on You tube. First off thats great Gut, congrat's on that. Is the problem that You tube is giving you grief because you are posting covers? Is that what Deach is getting strikes about? If I understand correctly, this is ridiculas. Isn't you tube made up 50 % of just this?
BTW Deach, how many Uku's do you own. I just viewed some of your You tube video's (which were great). it' looks like you have a different uku in every video. LOL Good luck with you tube.

bunnyflower
01-28-2010, 08:20 AM
and no, I don't have any copies of any vids I've made.


Quick, everybody go to keepvid.com and download all of them!! :D

Melissa82
01-28-2010, 08:33 AM
Quick, everybody go to keepvid.com and download all of them!! :DThis is cool!

buddhuu
01-28-2010, 08:56 AM
[...] and no, I don't have any copies of any vids I've made.
I'm really sorry to hear that, mate. Kind of insult to injury if you think your videos will be safe somewhere like YT.

I don't have copies of my old ones with the band either.

This might be a lesson for those of is in that same boat. If you don't have copies of your videos, why not grab them while you can.

As well as the excellent keepvid.com, there are vid download plug-ins for Firefox ('Download Helper' is the one I use most). Also, Realplayer has a video downloader that will let you download videos via your browser.

Pippin
01-28-2010, 09:26 AM
Many years ago I had an ISP that warned me about posting a couple of songs online. Then I proved that I had the rights to do so... I wrote them. They didn't know what to say. One of the two songs was on the radio at the time.

ukecantdothat
01-28-2010, 09:36 AM
Another group to watch out for is ASCAP (THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS) According to ASCAP,sitting on the beach with your uke and playing a song from your favorite artist (insert any public performance with any instrument) requires royalties to be paid.

If you've attracted a paying crowd or you're promoting something, maybe (but as a member of ASCAP myownself, I wouldn't put it past them. They are a tenacious bunch.). There has to be some sort of damage to the copyright holder (loss of money) for an actual lawsuit to ensue. A busker isn't taking away from an artist (or publishing house) if she's uking up Lady Gaga, even though she may be raking in the nickles. It would be pretty tough to find a court willing to entertain that. Club owners pay a blanket fee to to BMI, ASCAP, and the like, so bands can cover other artists. The fee one pays to publish a cover on a CD, movie, or other format, is based on the type of use intended, the distribution area, the amount of copies struck (CDs, etc), and the duration of the song. That is all fair. Nobody is going after small-time violators, or taking people to court for serenading granny on the front porch (which is what YT is for most of us after all, a big ol' front porch). All YT can do is ban you. BooHooTube I guess... As for ASCAP, come and get me fellas, I'm under lifeguard stand 5 on Venice Beach with a locked and loaded Mainland, and I'm fixin' to start playing "I Fought The Law" to twelve, ooops! make that thirteen seagulls...

Doctroid
01-28-2010, 10:05 AM
All YT can do is remove the vids, really, because the act of performing a song and posting it on YT, alone, is harmless to the original artist. They would have to prove damages...
I Am Not A Lawyer, but I don't think so. Infringement is (legally) infringement, whether monetary damage is done or not. In particular, it is still infringement even if the cover artist makes no money or other tangible reward as a result.

If you're publishing something someone else has a copyright on, without permission and without meeting the (ever more constricted) requirements for fair use, then legally you are violating copyright.

And here's a section of the copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html) which, if I read it correctly, means if you're prosecuted for a violation, even if you manage to convince the court that you were not aware and did not believe you were infringing, you can be fined no less than $200 -- regardless of actual damages or lack thereof.


(c) Statutory Damages.
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.In reality, of course, no one likely to take Deach to court to collect their $200, but in principle they could.

ukecantdothat
01-28-2010, 10:14 AM
Oh, Deach! I forgots to congrats you on the cool multi-subbageness. Congrats!!! Glad to be one of 'em.

Where are my manners... I know I put them around here somewhere...

ukecantdothat
01-28-2010, 10:33 AM
I Am Not A Lawyer, but I don't think so. Infringement is (legally) infringement, whether monetary damage is done or not. In particular, it is still infringement even if the cover artist makes no money or other tangible reward as a result.

If you're publishing something someone else has a copyright on, without permission and without meeting the (ever more constricted) requirements for fair use, then legally you are violating copyright.

And here's a section of the copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html) which, if I read it correctly, means if you're prosecuted for a violation, even if you manage to convince the court that you were not aware and did not believe you were infringing, you can be fined no less than $200 -- regardless of actual damages or lack thereof.

In reality, of course, no one likely to take Deach to court to collect their $200, but in principle they could.

Yeah, it would help if I had a copy of the law in front of me before I shot my virtual mouth off. I'm no lawyer either (although I'm married to one...). And you're so right about the reality. No one is going after deach... Sebi maybe, but not deach... When I get hauled into court by Stephen Foster's peeps for butchering "Camptown Races" on YT, I'm gonna tell 'em I didn't make the music heard there, my Mainland mahogany gloss concert uke with black geared tuners did it! They'll have to take it up with hoosierhiver...

Ron
01-28-2010, 10:38 AM
I'm interested in this thread. Is the the difficulty that Warner et al are complaining about the unoffical use of their clients' music and then your vids are being removed by Youtube as a result?
I guess I'm always in two minds about this copyright issue.
Club and venue owners in New Zealand are required to pay a fee to Australiasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) to cover the rights for performers to use music written by other people. That way a band or whatever can play covers and they're....covered ...for the right to publicly perform the song.
The same goes for anyone who uses CD's in their shop or cafe or exercise class or on radio. It isn't consistant of course. There'll be lots of public perfomances of copyrighted music that isn't paid for through APRA because APRA hasn't caught up with that venue yet or whatever. But theoretically anyone publicly performing someone elses song should pay an APRA fee one way or the other.
I essentially support that. The writer has written the song, it belongs to them. If someone uses it for commercial purposes then the writer is due a fee.
I do get grumpy about the Phonographioc Performance fees. These seem to go to the record company for the rights to use their recorded product in a public arena. It seems to me the musician has been paid by the company and the company has sold their physical product (the CD) and been paid for it - and if I choose to play that CD within earshot of other people that's my business. It seems to me the record companies are gouging extra income they're not due. But again - they have a legal right to ask for the fee and if they catch up with me I have to pay it.
So - what's your stance? If you write and produce songs for a living shouldn't you be entitled to payment if other people use your song? Or is the amateur nature of the UU Youtube environment an different story?
I guess we could have a distinction between "public performance" and "commercial perfomance".

HaileISela
01-29-2010, 02:58 AM
As this thread seems to bring up the same type of arguments as we had on this one:

Ukulele covers on Youtube being removed by Warner Music Group (http://www.ukuleleunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?25142-Ukulele-covers-on-Youtube-being-removed-by-Warner-Music-Group)

I just want to raise attention on it. maybe some of you might find interesting ideas on that matter. and those of you that already posted in the other thread do not have to retype all you wrote^^

just saying^^

Shas
02-01-2010, 08:35 AM
I am emailing Stage Three Music and Edward B. Marks Music,
making it clear to them that their short-sided aggression
towards traditional youtube song covers
prompts me to refrain from purchasing ANY products
from ANY of their performers or outlets.

If it's about money,
I'll use mine to support more generous and reasonable corporations.

Shas

Shas
02-01-2010, 08:52 AM
As I understand it, a busker (street musician)
is free to cover copyright songs FOR PROFIT,
so long as he/she does not sell a recording thereof.
Youtube covers are very similar to busking, IMO,
except that they are NOT for profit,
which should bring them even lower under the copyright cops radar...

RevWill
02-01-2010, 08:55 AM
For those who need clarification, FEA stands for "Eff 'em all," or something like that.

ukecantdothat
02-01-2010, 10:08 AM
As I understand it, a busker (street musician)
is free to cover copyright songs FOR PROFIT,
so long as he/she does not sell a recording thereof.
Youtube covers are very similar to busking, IMO,
except that they are NOT for profit,
which should bring them even lower under the copyright cops radar...
I'm not sure this is the case, but I don't think anyone is going to get very far hauling a busker into court. I've used the analogy of YT being a global front-porch when it comes to cover songs, but I like your not-for-profit buskers one better. Can I "steal" that?

Ron
02-01-2010, 06:50 PM
No it's pretty mcuh NOT the case, anywhere. Bottom line is that any public performane of a copyrighted material requires a fee. There are two fees. One to the writer. One to the owners of the medium on which a song is played. So a live performance of a cover requires a fee to the writer/copyright holder. Playing a CD or film publicly, commercially requires a fee to the owners of the "phonographic performance" copyright.
Truth is that a buisker or your local band at your local bar isn't going to get hassled because there's no one to hassle them. Bars and clubs often do get hassled.

Youtube contributers re being hassled because they're eaier to get to.

As I say - in NZ an upfront fee to one of the agencies precludes the need for the copyright owners to charge a fee each time a performer plays a cover or a radio station plays a song.

I guess my point is that the rights to these songs are owned. I think we do need to have a discussion about wheteher the writer of a copyright song is due a fee if an amateur on the interweb plays one of their songs.

Ronnie Aloha
02-01-2010, 07:52 PM
Ouch! Just wait until 1000 subs...I hear they repo your car and make fun of your haircut.

Deach? What haircut?

ukecantdothat
02-01-2010, 08:06 PM
I guess my point is that the rights to these songs are owned. I think we do need to have a discussion about wheteher the writer of a copyright song is due a fee if an amateur on the interweb plays one of their songs.
True enough, but I see most, not all, cover songs on YT as being in the same boat as the busker in the subway or a performer at open mic night at the local pub. It may be easier to reach the virtual busker on YT, but there is something fishy about such enforcement. It doesn't appear that money is at the root of it, but the implication is there. I don't hear about Sebi, for example, being told, "Now then, Mr. Monsterbazz, if you were to fork over this amount, you can cover Lady Gaga until you're blue in the face..." He's just being told his account has been revoked. Big deal. What does that do? He's back and pissed off now. Way to go, YT. You did the impossible. You angered a guy from Switzerland. The really cool thing would be for someone like deach to be brought before a jury by a record company seeking $200.00. That would be newsworthy (OK, maybe on a slow news day...). You can't buy that kind of publicity, deach... And what about those who have had songs taken down who actually do have the permission? YT seems to shoot first and ask questions later. But, again, YouGet what YouPay for on YouTube. I'm new to YT myself, so I find all this fascinating. I could give a fat rat's arse if they pulled a cover I posted. Easy come, easy go. I have enough real problems in my life to worry about without adding virtual ones created on the webbernets.

johncaudrey
02-01-2010, 08:19 PM
The really cool thing would be for someone like deach to be brought before a jury by a record company seeking $200.00. That would be newsworthy (OK, maybe on a slow news day...). You can't buy that kind of publicity, deach...

You can......$200.00 ;-)

ukecantdothat
02-01-2010, 09:16 PM
You can......$200.00 ;-)

Oh, yeah!!! LOL!!! But that's if he lost! And if he did, I'd call that a bargain, the best he ever had... Now, I would love to see that trial on TV!

"The court is now in session in the case of Warner Music Group v deach. Representing WMG is Reginald B. Sledgehammer III, esq., and representing deach is... deach."

Pure gold.

johncaudrey
02-02-2010, 07:07 AM
I'd pay $200.00 to see that!

ukecantdothat
02-02-2010, 07:23 AM
I'd pay $200.00 to see that!

I'll get you in on the guest list if it ever comes to pass, John! (Don't hold your breath, though...)

Ron
02-02-2010, 07:33 AM
True enough, but I see most, not all, cover songs on YT as being in the same boat as the busker in the subway or a performer at open mic night at the local pub. It may be easier to reach the virtual busker on YT, but there is something fishy about such enforcement.... And what about those who have had songs taken down who actually do have the permission? YT seems to shoot first and ask questions later....

I agree - I think the YT vids are an easy mark. And I agree YT is mishandling the issue.