Filed under: Internet, Video, Google, web 2.0
YouTube flagging videos of content owners
YouTube has been linking copyrighted videos uploaded by third parties to their respective content owners. This occurred with a Modest Mouse video, which YouTube linked to the official Modest Mouse page. The link says "Contains Content From: Sony BMG," and it may be YouTube's way of preventing content owners from removing videos uploaded by fans.
Up until now, YouTube has said it shouldn't be held responsible for the copyright violations performed by its members, but it has also been very cooperative in removing copyrighted material when asked. Last year Google announced a video identification system, permitting content owners to identify (and choose how to share or remove) their content, so it seems this is what's at play here.
We're sure YouTube doesn't like to remove member videos. It's bad for business: a site with unhappy members typically means a site that eventually has no members. But if YouTube's just linking videos instead of removing them, it must be a positive step for consumers in the ongoing Copyright war.
[via Valleywag]
With Halloween fast approaching, it's a great time to get in some practice defending your territory against zombies. In Graveyard Shift, you take aim at zombies and other creepy-crawlies, blasting them into splatters of cartoony green guts. It's a casual first-person shooter, and it's very easy to get the hang of - use the mouse to aim, click to fire. Graveyard Shift has at least 15 levels, and it might even have some secret stages I haven't unlocked yet.
They key to getting good at Graveyard Shift is learning to use ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Piranha said 10:35AM on 5-15-2008
I received a "copyrighted content" notice from YouTube a few days ago (I used a song by the 80's group,"Madness", in a video I did), but instead of UMG (the music publisher) demanding that I pull the video, they chose instead to allow it to stay online, but they get to put ads on it and earn money every time someone watches the video. So that's pretty cool. I'd like to think that they were impressed enough with my video to allow it to stay, but I more think it's just an overall choice that particular music publisher has chosen when dealing with videos that use their music.
Note that I wasn't involved in the decision-making process at any time. Also note that I have no idea if and when they can choose to revoke this decision, or if this is a semi-permanent thing.
Reply
c.b.mullen said 3:30PM on 5-15-2008
I disagree with your comment "Note that I wasn't involved in the decision-making process at any time." The fact of the matter is that you did make a decision, the decision to steal the work of someone else for the purpose of using it in your video. This is pure and simple theft. It cannot be classified as anything else.
Consider yourself lucky. If you stole a song of mine I would take you to court for damages.
c.b.mullen said 3:00PM on 5-15-2008
Copyright holders have a right to be paid for the use of their works or products. Any other person or entity using such works or products can choose to pay for the use of them or they can steal them.
If you wish to steal the works of others then you should be forced to pay compensation. This compensation can be in the form of money or jail time.
Reply
chris joseph said 7:44PM on 5-15-2008
you work for a record label, don't you?
Troy Hamilton said 7:58PM on 6-01-2008
Hollywood and the music industry the two biggest whining
crybabies when it comes to "copyright infringement" and
royalties. You say that an artist has a right to get paid for their work and that is a given. But actors and musicians and record labels and movie studios and the palm trees outside the movie studios, not only get paid for whatever job(and it is their JOB right? It's what they do to make a living) they do but they continue to want to be paid over and over and over again and again forever. Now most people would probably feel that a surgeon who performs a heart transplant has done something a little bit more worthwhile
than sing a song or say a few lines in a movie. But the doctor gets paid for his job ONCE. Not every year the patient lives nor every beat of his heart. ONCE. But God
forbid that some singer whose song died a hundred years
ago gets dusted off for thirty seconds in a twelve year olds
homemade video, and all hell breaks loose. I am all for
protecting the misleading usage of a work(claiming it to be
ones own or utilization in such a way that the work is made
to appear that is is original to another project). But if I
upload myself doing a lip sync to Cher, ain't no way anyone
is going to think that I own that song, or wrote it or sang
it. So no one is "stealing" because I'm not claiming it's mine
and I'm not making any money from it and it's nothing but
a tribute. Yet now the piss falls like rain. A huge deal is made. The fact that this person,"artist", who is fortunate enough to be in a business which pays them over and over and over again for something done once hundreds
of years ago, needs that last nickle is sad. Now add the
record label and the trumpet player and the janitor. After
all, they too need to be paid every single second of every
single day for a job they did once. There is a difference
between true copyright infringement damages and theft
and a song a couple dances to from a jukebox in a bar.
Everyone seems to know this except those special people
we refer to as "artists" and those who promote them. One
more note. I actually was friends with an "artist" and he
received checks almost daily for ten-eleven cents with the highest ever being a buck-buck fifty a few times. This for
a song he recorded 27 years ago.Everyone has forgotten if they ever knew the song and no one has ever heard of him.
But every once in a while two seconds of it might be played
before a toilet bowl commercial. Here's the kicker. It did come to life in a homemade video on YouTube, Alas, taken
down per directions of the label. A possible little resurgence
nixed because of ten cents. Oh well, he still has the toilet
bowl memories...
Rocketboy said 3:44PM on 5-15-2008
I'm with C.B... screw fair use...
Reply
Victor said 4:26PM on 5-15-2008
If you're talking about making money using videos, then sure, sue away! But the whole "personal use" discussion is still very murky. If I put a silly video together just for myself or my family, I don't see the harm. Putting photos or video of a kid's birthday party to a song hardly seems like something that should fall under the grounds of "I would take you to court for damages." But knock yourself out if that's what you feel is warranted.
By the same token, if someone shoots a wedding video, and the first dance is a Shania Twain song, according to the letter of the law, that part of the video must either be removed, or silenced, as clearly the wedding party did not pay to either play that song in a public venue, and clearly they or the videographer didn't pay to use the song in the wedding video.
And what about dance recitals?
What about if my toddler sings along to a Disney song in a cute way and I want to share it with my relatives? Do I have to pay rights fees to Disney, or get written permission from their lawyers for my child to sing along?
We're clearly in an era where all of these questions are very very vague, and it's going to take some time to figure out what constitutes "fair use" and what's "stealing". Much like the music and broadcast industries are having to rethink how they distribute and charge for their content (and it's evolving day by day), so too are the rightsholders to audio and video content going to have to re-evaluate what they should or shouldn't sue for.
My case is a perfect example. I used a song in a video purely for my own (and my family's) enjoyment. The rights holders evaluated my use and deemed it acceptable and have chosen to monetize it, rather than litigate it. If they had requested that I pull the video or change the song, I would have gladly done so. If for some reason my video somehow becomes a viral video sensation and it generates hundreds of thousands of views and UMG chooses to re-evaluate the agreement, then that will also be perfectly understandable.
See how that works? Everyone calmly works together rather than threaten to litigate from the word Go. But if seeking jail time for these 'thieves' is what makes you happy, then good luck with that.
Reply
c.b.mullen said 5:11PM on 5-15-2008
Your reasoning doesn't hold water. If you are using the creative works or products of someone else to compliment or enhance your own video, without the permission of the copyright holder, you are stealing. It is called theft. You have increased the value of or enhanced your work by using the work or product of someone else. You can eliminate this problem by purchasing the music first. If you don't market the video for financial gain or provide it for widespread viewing then you don't have a problem.
The "Fair use" doctrine is not carved in stone. It is ambiguity at its best. It is vague and it is overly broad, which under most governmental law makes it unconstitutional. It is simply advocated by some lawmakers who have no copyrighted material or products of their own being pirated by someone else. These lawmakers are not suffering financial loss. I could write several books about the stupidity and/or lack of reasoning of politicians and cover only a fraction of their occurrences.
The logic of your statements seems to be similar to "I'm going to borrow your lawnmower for the purpose of cutting my own lawn, and maybe the lawns of my relatives and a few close friends. I'm not going to ask you for permission because I don't think it is necessary" or "I'm going to copy the wedding gown you have researched and designed so that I can wear it in my own wedding. I don't really have the resources, time, creativity and effort to do it myself and I have no desire to pay money for your gown. I like your design, so I'm going to use it."
You also state "We're clearly in an era where all of these questions are very very vague, and it's going to take some time to figure out what constitutes "fair use" and what's "stealing". Hogwash. Something I have spent an abundance of time and money researching, developing and marketing does not belong to you. It belongs to me. Nothing you can say will justify your act of "taking" it without asking my permission.
There is a simple solution. Ask the copyright holder for permission to use it. If the owner determines that the use will not subtract from the value of the product or cause him/her financial harm I am sure you will be granted permission. However, this decision should be made by the copyright holder, not you.
Ownership is ownership and theft is theft. You can find the definitions of both in the dictionary.
Rocketboy said 3:12PM on 5-16-2008
CB.. the value of my work before music = $0. After the addition of music, = $0.
Now the value of someone wondering what the name/artist of a song is, and then buying music, going to a concert, buying a T-Shirt of a DVD, that's what's important. Not that someone has music that they didn't pay for in a video that doesn't mean a hill of beans.
Victor said 5:30PM on 5-15-2008
Again, I ask about weddings, dances, churches, etc. If you're going to go by the letter of the law (and clearly you are), then there can be NO public performance of any piece of copyrighted music without written permission of the copyright holders. If a bar wants to play music, by law they are supposed to pay a rights fee to play that music. By law, an office workplace is in violation if a radio station is played where employees can hear it (that's why Muzak exists).
I don't argue that permission should be obtained for the public use of a piece of copyrighted material, and absolutely if there is money to be made from use of said music. But the truth remains that someone sitting at home in Podunk, Louisiana that wants to string a few pictures or video clips together set to a song having to receive permission from ASCAP or BMI or UMG is ridiculous. In a perfect world, sure, but we don't live in that world.
And that's why THIS content identification software is absolutely perfect. It allows the person sitting at home to create something and for the content owner to determine if it constitutes fair use. Thousands of dollars in lawyer fees never had to come into play, either on the little guy's part, or the big corporation's part.
The sad truth is that the genie is out of the bottle. Digital audio, video, photos, books, etc, are all out there and becoming more entrenched every day. There's no way for the content owners to prevent people from using them or trading them or whatever. Every day, hundreds and thousands of regular people will use copyrighted content for silly, non-monetary reasons. The best option is to work with them to make money off of it. Which is what this software allows them to do.
Just look at how instead of shutting down the use of video clips in things like blogs and newsy sites, just about every entity that uses video is putting the video clips online themselves, and making them easy to embed in other places. This way it becomes free publicity.
If I go to someone's video clip, and they used a song that I like, and right there there's a link to purchase that song, that's a win-win for everyone.
It's a new world we live in. Those that scratch and claw and fight are going to be left behind.
Reply
chris joseph said 7:40PM on 5-15-2008
what's really stupid is people wouldn't be posting these themselves if the asshats at the record labels wouldn't disable embedding
I mean, what is their problem? Free bandwidth from youtube to promote their IP... it's a win win situation, but the legal eagles think they need to clamp down on people being able to re-post their music on blogs and social networking sites.
Reply