I don't really understand so much effort trying to abolish patents in countries that already have a system in place. It seems like it would be faster to create showcase areas that are patent-free. Then if they become model locations for innovation, presumably it will be much easier to abolish patents in IP-protection countries once they see how well such a patent-free system works.
Will lower prices be pushed all the way to the club level?
It will be interesting to see if heavy discounting of the bigger shows will impact the smaller shows. People may wait until the last minute to see what's the best deal.
As I said, I've noticed that there has been some softening of prices for local and smaller touring acts, but I haven't seen any research to confirm that industry-wide. Perhaps what was once a $30 ticket is now a $20 ticket. What was once a $20 ticket is $15. What was once $10 is now $8. Etc.
Summer Concert Ticket Sales Decline - NYTimes.com: For lawn tickets to the next Lilith Fair stop, at PNC Bank Arts Center on Saturday, for example, the regular price is $37.75. Live Nation was also offering a special deal of a pack of four lawn tickets for $75; with service charges they cost a total of $112.20. But on Wednesday, when the company's latest sale took effect, those same four lawn tickets were $40 flat."
Why do you suppose a musician would find putting out a print book via a book publisher to be attractive while a novelist would find skipping his book publisher to put out an ebook with music to be attractive?
Murakami Releases His Own eBook Without His Publisher | Techdirt: "Popular Japanese author Ryu Murakami announced that he will be self-publishing his next novel directly to the iPad, sidestepping his publisher in favor of working directly with a software publishing company on this eBook. Murakami's eBook, 'The Singing Whale,' will include video content and music by composer Ryuichi Sakamoto that will hopefully leverage some of the strengths of the new platform."
Of course, if all intellectual monopolies are abolished, investors will still have to cope, right?
I think people not bothering to apply for patents and people not bothering to enforce copyrights is going to happen long before IP protection is abolished via legislation.
I never go to concerts in large venues. I like to see acts when they are still playing smaller clubs.
Price is definitely an issue for the big acts, but I'm also seeing bands in the smaller clubs lowering prices, too. What was once a $10 ticket is now a $8 or $6 ticket. So it is possible that economic conditions are affecting concerts at all price points. I haven't seen any industry-wide figures on what's happening to music in bars and small clubs, but I have seen ticket prices dropping even at the cheapest levels. And of course in cities with an abundance of musicians, getting no cover is often the norm.
First you ask for ways Youtube can implement legislation that might be a little more fair and I gave ideas in that regard.
I didn't ask for ways to improve YouTube. I'm sure they will address that themselves as they can. Let me backtrack here a bit to explain why I cite YouTube as a good example of a proactive company and maybe then we can figure out if you and I are addressing the same issue.
What I've been saying is this: YouTube has created a system that, in essence, encourages uploading copyrighted material by people who have yet to obtain permission. (Yes, I know they tell you to obtain permission first, but a lot of content is uploaded where no permission has been obtained.) Once the material is uploaded, YouTube checks to see if permission has been given by the copyright holder, and if so, the material is left and is monetized. If permission hasn't been given, then the unauthorized content is taken down. And for stuff not in YouTube's database, it appears it is left there until the copyright holder asks for it to be removed.
YouTube could require proof of permission before anything is uploaded, but it doesn't. And it tries to sell copyright holders on the idea of giving permission to keep as many of those videos on YouTube as possible. YouTube's approach seems to be more proactive than sites that don't attempt to do any brokering between copyright holder and unauthorized user.
There are flaws in the system, but it's better than what we've had and I'm focusing on what YouTube is doing well rather than saying it isn't sufficient because it hasn't eliminated copyright (which YouTube, by itself, can't do).
You said that you didn't like the "three strikes concept," so I asked about it and also did as much research as I could.
You wanted a system more like the one proposed in Brazil and I asked if it was something YouTube itself can implement or whether it was determined by legislation. I'm not sure if you answered that. (In other words, is the "three strikes" YouTube's idea or part of US legislation?) And reading about the proposed Brazil system I wonder if it will be unworkable for YouTube anyway because it requires a lot of human intervention.
When I got to the question about whether or not moving to a system like Brazil would require a change in US legislation, I said a lot of Techdirt discussion is about getting rid of IP protection altogether, which isn't like to happen anytime soon. When everyone responds to abuses in the system by saying "Let's get rid of the system," I said that it's like listening to talk radio where there's a hard line taken and people talk about it, but it doesn't necessary change the reality. An extreme position gets people charged up, but what actually happens in terms of legislation tends to be less extreme.
Having watched how you can get support from both the right and the left on certain environmental issues if you are willing to compromise, I believe in furthering discussions among all parties rather than pitting them against each other. I was vice president of an Audubon Society group in Wyoming and we worked with hunters and with ranchers. People who didn't necessarily believe in killing birds realized that Ducks Unlimited was an ally in preservation of wetlands. And Democratic environmentalists realized that wealthy Republican ranchers would work with them to discourage strip mines near their property.
Techdirt discussions tend not to venture very far into moderate or compromise territory. YouTube, in my mind, is an effect compromise at the moment.
Okay, back to your idea. Is the Brazil system something YouTube can do right away? And how would it implement a review system where copyrights holders and users discuss who has the right to the content?
The book publishing industry has been so much ahead of the music industry on terms of contracts. Most authors sign for one book at a time, which means they are free agents for each book they publish. And unlike record labels, book publishers don't bill the costs of making and marketing the book to the authors. Authors often pay for additional marketing costs themselves, but they determine if they want to do it.
I had a traditional book publishing deal, where I got an advance and the book came out, and was picked up by a book club, etc. The advance was fair and I was happy with the deal.
Then I started a book on sports marketing and management for athletes. It was a niche topic and I was primarily interested in getting the info out. I didn't want it to go out of print, so rather than shopping it around to a book publisher, I just broke up the sections and started to make them available for free as an email newsletter. It was well received and since I allowed people to use it for educational purposes, it was used as supplementary curriculum material in a number of sports marketing and management college courses.
I would still go back to a traditional publisher for some topics. If I felt it was a mass market book and I could get a good advance, I'd sign a contract. If I felt it was something I wanted to update frequently, I'd probably just do it as a self-published online book. Or, more likely, as a blog post. What I am writing about now, music-business related topics, are really in-depth explorations of various subjects and are comparable to what I might put together for a book. But by uploading them as I want, I'm not bound by a publishing deadline. On the other hand, there's no "event" to promote like releasing a book.
At any rate, book publishing has generally been good for authors. It's not been as good for publishers because a lot of the projects they fund haven't earned their money back. But that's a different story.
I see no valid reason that everyone needs to ask permission from Youtube, RIAA, MPAA or anything else to make things their way.
I'm not arguing for this. I've just been pointing out that a lot of the discussion on Techdirt is about what should or shouldn't be, and that will go on for a long time. In the meantime, YouTube has found a way to survive and allow a lot of experimentation and to show real benefits for both copyright holders and video creators.
We can talk about the problems with the DMCA until we are blue in the face, but unless the laws get changed, people defy them, or someone finds a way to work around the system, nothing new happens.
In fact, sometimes I think people just want to bitch about the system, without actually doing much because it clearly defines an "US against THEM" mentality. Kind of a talk radio approach: As long as we collect an audience for our position, we've accomplished what we want. For all the "copyright is evil" comments, YouTube is actually facilitating something. It may be an just interim system, but at least it is doing something which may change the way we approach things.
I think that how we approach IP will probably happen in incremental steps rather than overthrowing the system entirely from the beginning. There are definitely abuses, and finding ways to eliminate those will likely happen before it is abandoned altogether.
but I have seen some research (admittedly a year or two ago) that showed that it was fairly easy to defeat by changing the speed by a small amount.
This is probably what you saw. It only deals with modifications of a recorded song, but people following along with this discussion might find it of interest. Some musicians have had videos of themselves doing cover songs taken down (Eagles songs seem to be the biggest no-no according to the forum discussions and musicians have been advised to stay clear of them), but on the other hand, they probably identified the song and the songwriter in the title, making it easy for any copyright owner of the song to be able to find with those videos doing a manual search.
Here's where I think people may be getting confused about what I am trying to say.
YouTube says "Don't upload any content where you don't hold the copyright or have permission. BUT IF YOU DO, we have this nifty system that helps determine whether or not the copyright holder lets it stay and under what terms."
I'm placing great significance upon the "nifty system" that lets some content stay. If YouTube wanted to make sure no one violated copyrights, the company could require that every user show proof of permission before uploading the video. Knowing that everyone doesn't have proof and that it would discourage users from using YouTube by having to do so, YouTube promotes a system that lets some content stay even if the permission is granted AFTER THE FACT via Content ID.
It has created a system where copyright holders can indicate how their content can be used and YouTube can compare this to what has been uploaded and then allow it to stay or take it down. It is a form of licensing built into YouTube, which I consider an advancement.
I've shown that the DMCA requires an immediate takedown of alleged material.... n Brazil where the video is taken down, but negotiations start for both sides. They actually talk to each other rather than a bot which is sniffing Youtube for all signs of videos.
Will going to a system like the one in Brazil require a change in the DMCA, to be done via legislation? Or do anticipate that YouTube can implement it immediately?
What I've been looking at is what is being done in a timely fashion. YouTube seems to be pushing everyone as fast as it can within the law. I'd certainly like to see a system that corrects the abuses and works with artists, but I'm wary of anything requiring legislation because I anticipate that will be a long, drawn out process.
The "copyright laws are evil" discussions aren't really going to change what's happening now. Here's my take:
1. YouTube has been a great way to promote musicians.
2. YouTube knows this and has been publicizing this and expanding music programs, especially among unsigned artists. Success stories about artists covering songs are part of the news.
3. Legally YouTube must say everyone needs to post original material or get permission, but it doesn't really want to discourage users from uploading content.
4. There is no good system for fans and most musicians to obtain permission to cover songs on YouTube, so it is rarely done and YouTube and the musicians know this.
5. ContentID is an automated system to identify copyrighted material and can be set to allow varying degrees of usage without the user having to ask for permission.
6. ContentID right now is being presented to copyright holders to show they have control over their content.
7. Unfortunately at the moment users rarely know if what they have uploaded will be flagged unless it is entirely their own content (and even then they can be caught up in the system via fraudulent claims). There are on-going discussions among users about how to deal with these grey areas.
8. YouTube is likely to keep tweaking the system so that there is more transparency and fewer takedown requests.
It's in YouTube's best interests to engage as many video creators as possible. So I think the message to everyone (users and copyright owners) is going to be "Use YouTube and we will find ways to work with you." I think YouTube will push the boundaries and stop only at the point where it risks being shut down.
Of all the digital music experiments, YouTube seems to have survived the best. I didn't think it would be possible. But Google's deep pockets and technical resources have allowed the company to remain standing long enough to find workarounds to problems which have ended other music sites. So if Google continues along the way it is going, it may create some workable copyright solutions before any copyright reform actually gets passed.
Rather than just talking about theory, their approach seems to be, "Give us and users some flexibility in terms of copyrighted content and in return we will give you income that you wouldn't have had otherwise." It's a better approach than saying. "Copyright is bad and we shouldn't have it, but it's up to you guys to figure out how to generate income." Change is easier when it actually comes with a check than when it comes with only the potential for income (if that).
This guy does a good job of outlining possible alternatives. I'll just point you to his post.
YouTube makes statement on Content-ID takedowns | Brad Ideas: "As such YouTube does want to avoid the blocking of non-infringing videos while trying to help content owners get rid of actual infringements on the site. These recommendations apply on what to do for partial Content-ID matches where the upload is not simply a verbatim audio/video copy of the content owner's work, but is possibly transformed into something else which may be non-infringing."
Here's a good discussion about false claims and YouTube. From everything I have read, this is probably the most problematic and causes the most abuses.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not as if
Here's another interesting resource. His examples have been posted elsewhere, but since the goal of his website is to reduce plagiarism, he comes from the perspective of someone who appears to support proper use of copyright. It might be a good future reference on the on-going discussion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not as if
Here's one of the better discussions about takedown notices and music on YouTube. People who use previously recorded music are likely to run into more problems than those who perform covers because there are more copyright holders (e.g., labels, publishers). If you are covering a song, then you are more likely just to hear from a publisher. I've been looking to see if anyone has put together a "don't cover this song" list. Eagles songs, for example, appear to have caused quite a few problems so people have been advised in some discussions not to cover those.
If there were a way to use something similar to Brazil's "Notice and notice" instead of "Notice and takedown until further notice, delete" I probably wouldn't have a problem with Youtube. As it stands, it's an overreaction in all ways.
I'm not sure what YouTube can do beyond what they are doing right now. It's in their best interests to facilitate whatever users want to upload without going so far as to be shut down or run into a wall by copyright holders.
My opinion of what they are trying to do changed considerably when I heard the TED talk on copyright. It's the best automated system I've heard about to allow use of copyrighted material. Not perfect, but perhaps a way to eliminate some of the lawsuits.
The problem right now seems to be that while copyright holders in many cases are perfectly okay when users cover songs or incorporate recorded music without obtaining permission, the users don't know what's been approved and what hasn't been. And even if a song has been okayed for one video, it might not be for another.
So the advice to users seems to be, if you are prepared to have the video pulled and your account closed, go ahead and use the song and see what happens. One musician said if your account gets closed, just open another one.
The ideal system would be for musicians to be able to run the permissions through YouTube, but I guess that gets into legal issues for YouTube. Still, the ContentID system seems to be a step in the direction of CC licensing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not as if
I've been researching this, reading comments by a number of people who have uploaded videos of themselves performing songs they didn't write. In some cases the videos were removed. In other cases there was never any problem.
In one case, someone got a takedown notice for performing a 250-year-old classical piece, protested it, and then YouTube realized it was a mistake and left the video alone.
Increasingly people are getting takedown notices filed fraudulently by someone harassing the video creator. The video creators can protest, and usually do, but the video is removed or silenced until they file a countersuit. This is less likely to happen with a famous song because the legitimate copyright holder has probably already registered it with YouTube, blocking fake claims, though someone could falsely claim to own a copyright on anything in the video and could still tie up the system.
Where it appears to get interesting is that even if you think you have permission, the copyright holder can change his mind and file a takedown notice. So that means you'd need to get a contract that says you have irrevocable permission to upload you performing this song in this video on YouTube in perpetuity, a clause you usually see these days when you license a song to a movie or TV show.
But as far as I know, these sorts of contracts don't yet exist for fans and musicians wanting to perform a cover song for YouTube. In real life, you are free to perform whatever you want at a show, and the venue is responsible for paying ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. And you can record any song you want at 9.1 cents a copy by getting a compulsory mechanical license.
But uploading a video of you performing a song online doesn't really fit into recording a song, performing a song, or even using someone's song in a movie or TV show (it's closest to this, but there is no set rate for a fee).
I maintain that YouTube knows exactly what it is doing by promoting artists who have uploaded cover songs and will only act when someone files a takedown notice. This system works for the artists because most of them aren't challenged; it works for YouTube because the company gets a huge number of user-generated videos; and it works for the copyright holders when YouTube can show them financial gain.
As I already posted in a different comment, music publishers don't necessarily even have a contract set up to give a fan or musician permission to do this. If you request permission in advance, they may not have a form for you. And if they do, unless it says you have permission forever, it may not grant you much protection if they change their minds.
I think in practice recording yourself singing someone else's song is a grey area. People other than true copyright holders can file a takedown notice. There are few, if any, real contracts giving permission to cover a song this way. And YouTube and the artists proudly promote these cover song videos.
On the post: Innovation Happens When Ideas Have Sex
Patent-Free Zones
Patent-Free Zone
On the post: Reminder: Big Concerts Are Not All Of The Live Music Business
Will lower prices be pushed all the way to the club level?
As I said, I've noticed that there has been some softening of prices for local and smaller touring acts, but I haven't seen any research to confirm that industry-wide. Perhaps what was once a $30 ticket is now a $20 ticket. What was once a $20 ticket is $15. What was once $10 is now $8. Etc.
Summer Concert Ticket Sales Decline - NYTimes.com: For lawn tickets to the next Lilith Fair stop, at PNC Bank Arts Center on Saturday, for example, the regular price is $37.75. Live Nation was also offering a special deal of a pack of four lawn tickets for $75; with service charges they cost a total of $112.20. But on Wednesday, when the company's latest sale took effect, those same four lawn tickets were $40 flat."
On the post: Kristin Hersh Turns An Album Into A Book
Re: Re: Could you elaborate?
This is how I explained it.
The Rise of the "Creative Thing"
On the post: Kristin Hersh Turns An Album Into A Book
Could you elaborate?
Murakami Releases His Own eBook Without His Publisher | Techdirt: "Popular Japanese author Ryu Murakami announced that he will be self-publishing his next novel directly to the iPad, sidestepping his publisher in favor of working directly with a software publishing company on this eBook. Murakami's eBook, 'The Singing Whale,' will include video content and music by composer Ryuichi Sakamoto that will hopefully leverage some of the strengths of the new platform."
On the post: Software Firms Overwhelmingly Against Patents
Re:
I think people not bothering to apply for patents and people not bothering to enforce copyrights is going to happen long before IP protection is abolished via legislation.
On the post: Reminder: Big Concerts Are Not All Of The Live Music Business
Re: It's about the price
Price is definitely an issue for the big acts, but I'm also seeing bands in the smaller clubs lowering prices, too. What was once a $10 ticket is now a $8 or $6 ticket. So it is possible that economic conditions are affecting concerts at all price points. I haven't seen any industry-wide figures on what's happening to music in bars and small clubs, but I have seen ticket prices dropping even at the cheapest levels. And of course in cities with an abundance of musicians, getting no cover is often the norm.
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: Brazilian system
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: ???
I didn't ask for ways to improve YouTube. I'm sure they will address that themselves as they can. Let me backtrack here a bit to explain why I cite YouTube as a good example of a proactive company and maybe then we can figure out if you and I are addressing the same issue.
What I've been saying is this: YouTube has created a system that, in essence, encourages uploading copyrighted material by people who have yet to obtain permission. (Yes, I know they tell you to obtain permission first, but a lot of content is uploaded where no permission has been obtained.) Once the material is uploaded, YouTube checks to see if permission has been given by the copyright holder, and if so, the material is left and is monetized. If permission hasn't been given, then the unauthorized content is taken down. And for stuff not in YouTube's database, it appears it is left there until the copyright holder asks for it to be removed.
YouTube could require proof of permission before anything is uploaded, but it doesn't. And it tries to sell copyright holders on the idea of giving permission to keep as many of those videos on YouTube as possible. YouTube's approach seems to be more proactive than sites that don't attempt to do any brokering between copyright holder and unauthorized user.
There are flaws in the system, but it's better than what we've had and I'm focusing on what YouTube is doing well rather than saying it isn't sufficient because it hasn't eliminated copyright (which YouTube, by itself, can't do).
You said that you didn't like the "three strikes concept," so I asked about it and also did as much research as I could.
You wanted a system more like the one proposed in Brazil and I asked if it was something YouTube itself can implement or whether it was determined by legislation. I'm not sure if you answered that. (In other words, is the "three strikes" YouTube's idea or part of US legislation?) And reading about the proposed Brazil system I wonder if it will be unworkable for YouTube anyway because it requires a lot of human intervention.
When I got to the question about whether or not moving to a system like Brazil would require a change in US legislation, I said a lot of Techdirt discussion is about getting rid of IP protection altogether, which isn't like to happen anytime soon. When everyone responds to abuses in the system by saying "Let's get rid of the system," I said that it's like listening to talk radio where there's a hard line taken and people talk about it, but it doesn't necessary change the reality. An extreme position gets people charged up, but what actually happens in terms of legislation tends to be less extreme.
Having watched how you can get support from both the right and the left on certain environmental issues if you are willing to compromise, I believe in furthering discussions among all parties rather than pitting them against each other. I was vice president of an Audubon Society group in Wyoming and we worked with hunters and with ranchers. People who didn't necessarily believe in killing birds realized that Ducks Unlimited was an ally in preservation of wetlands. And Democratic environmentalists realized that wealthy Republican ranchers would work with them to discourage strip mines near their property.
Techdirt discussions tend not to venture very far into moderate or compromise territory. YouTube, in my mind, is an effect compromise at the moment.
Okay, back to your idea. Is the Brazil system something YouTube can do right away? And how would it implement a review system where copyrights holders and users discuss who has the right to the content?
On the post: Big Name Authors Realize Their Old Contracts Don't Cover eBooks; Route Around Old Publishers To Release New Versions
I've done both
I had a traditional book publishing deal, where I got an advance and the book came out, and was picked up by a book club, etc. The advance was fair and I was happy with the deal.
Then I started a book on sports marketing and management for athletes. It was a niche topic and I was primarily interested in getting the info out. I didn't want it to go out of print, so rather than shopping it around to a book publisher, I just broke up the sections and started to make them available for free as an email newsletter. It was well received and since I allowed people to use it for educational purposes, it was used as supplementary curriculum material in a number of sports marketing and management college courses.
I would still go back to a traditional publisher for some topics. If I felt it was a mass market book and I could get a good advance, I'd sign a contract. If I felt it was something I wanted to update frequently, I'd probably just do it as a self-published online book. Or, more likely, as a blog post. What I am writing about now, music-business related topics, are really in-depth explorations of various subjects and are comparable to what I might put together for a book. But by uploading them as I want, I'm not bound by a publishing deadline. On the other hand, there's no "event" to promote like releasing a book.
At any rate, book publishing has generally been good for authors. It's not been as good for publishers because a lot of the projects they fund haven't earned their money back. But that's a different story.
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: Re: Re: ...
I'm not arguing for this. I've just been pointing out that a lot of the discussion on Techdirt is about what should or shouldn't be, and that will go on for a long time. In the meantime, YouTube has found a way to survive and allow a lot of experimentation and to show real benefits for both copyright holders and video creators.
We can talk about the problems with the DMCA until we are blue in the face, but unless the laws get changed, people defy them, or someone finds a way to work around the system, nothing new happens.
In fact, sometimes I think people just want to bitch about the system, without actually doing much because it clearly defines an "US against THEM" mentality. Kind of a talk radio approach: As long as we collect an audience for our position, we've accomplished what we want. For all the "copyright is evil" comments, YouTube is actually facilitating something. It may be an just interim system, but at least it is doing something which may change the way we approach things.
I think that how we approach IP will probably happen in incremental steps rather than overthrowing the system entirely from the beginning. There are definitely abuses, and finding ways to eliminate those will likely happen before it is abandoned altogether.
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: Re: YouTube and musicians
This is probably what you saw. It only deals with modifications of a recorded song, but people following along with this discussion might find it of interest. Some musicians have had videos of themselves doing cover songs taken down (Eagles songs seem to be the biggest no-no according to the forum discussions and musicians have been advised to stay clear of them), but on the other hand, they probably identified the song and the songwriter in the title, making it easy for any copyright owner of the song to be able to find with those videos doing a manual search.
Scott Smitelli • Fun with YouTube's Audio Content ID System
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: ...
YouTube says "Don't upload any content where you don't hold the copyright or have permission. BUT IF YOU DO, we have this nifty system that helps determine whether or not the copyright holder lets it stay and under what terms."
I'm placing great significance upon the "nifty system" that lets some content stay. If YouTube wanted to make sure no one violated copyrights, the company could require that every user show proof of permission before uploading the video. Knowing that everyone doesn't have proof and that it would discourage users from using YouTube by having to do so, YouTube promotes a system that lets some content stay even if the permission is granted AFTER THE FACT via Content ID.
It has created a system where copyright holders can indicate how their content can be used and YouTube can compare this to what has been uploaded and then allow it to stay or take it down. It is a form of licensing built into YouTube, which I consider an advancement.
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: ...
Will going to a system like the one in Brazil require a change in the DMCA, to be done via legislation? Or do anticipate that YouTube can implement it immediately?
What I've been looking at is what is being done in a timely fashion. YouTube seems to be pushing everyone as fast as it can within the law. I'd certainly like to see a system that corrects the abuses and works with artists, but I'm wary of anything requiring legislation because I anticipate that will be a long, drawn out process.
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
YouTube and musicians
1. YouTube has been a great way to promote musicians.
2. YouTube knows this and has been publicizing this and expanding music programs, especially among unsigned artists. Success stories about artists covering songs are part of the news.
3. Legally YouTube must say everyone needs to post original material or get permission, but it doesn't really want to discourage users from uploading content.
4. There is no good system for fans and most musicians to obtain permission to cover songs on YouTube, so it is rarely done and YouTube and the musicians know this.
5. ContentID is an automated system to identify copyrighted material and can be set to allow varying degrees of usage without the user having to ask for permission.
6. ContentID right now is being presented to copyright holders to show they have control over their content.
7. Unfortunately at the moment users rarely know if what they have uploaded will be flagged unless it is entirely their own content (and even then they can be caught up in the system via fraudulent claims). There are on-going discussions among users about how to deal with these grey areas.
8. YouTube is likely to keep tweaking the system so that there is more transparency and fewer takedown requests.
It's in YouTube's best interests to engage as many video creators as possible. So I think the message to everyone (users and copyright owners) is going to be "Use YouTube and we will find ways to work with you." I think YouTube will push the boundaries and stop only at the point where it risks being shut down.
Of all the digital music experiments, YouTube seems to have survived the best. I didn't think it would be possible. But Google's deep pockets and technical resources have allowed the company to remain standing long enough to find workarounds to problems which have ended other music sites. So if Google continues along the way it is going, it may create some workable copyright solutions before any copyright reform actually gets passed.
Rather than just talking about theory, their approach seems to be, "Give us and users some flexibility in terms of copyrighted content and in return we will give you income that you wouldn't have had otherwise." It's a better approach than saying. "Copyright is bad and we shouldn't have it, but it's up to you guys to figure out how to generate income." Change is easier when it actually comes with a check than when it comes with only the potential for income (if that).
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not as if
YouTube makes statement on Content-ID takedowns | Brad Ideas: "As such YouTube does want to avoid the blocking of non-infringing videos while trying to help content owners get rid of actual infringements on the site. These recommendations apply on what to do for partial Content-ID matches where the upload is not simply a verbatim audio/video copy of the content owner's work, but is possibly transformed into something else which may be non-infringing."
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not as if
So, about false DMCA claims... is there any way to *really* defend yourself? - YouTube Help
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not as if
DMCA Fail: The 5 Dumbest Takedown Notices | PlagiarismToday
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not as if
Use of Royalty Free music gets three copyright strikes! - YouTube Help
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not as if
I'm not sure what YouTube can do beyond what they are doing right now. It's in their best interests to facilitate whatever users want to upload without going so far as to be shut down or run into a wall by copyright holders.
My opinion of what they are trying to do changed considerably when I heard the TED talk on copyright. It's the best automated system I've heard about to allow use of copyrighted material. Not perfect, but perhaps a way to eliminate some of the lawsuits.
The problem right now seems to be that while copyright holders in many cases are perfectly okay when users cover songs or incorporate recorded music without obtaining permission, the users don't know what's been approved and what hasn't been. And even if a song has been okayed for one video, it might not be for another.
So the advice to users seems to be, if you are prepared to have the video pulled and your account closed, go ahead and use the song and see what happens. One musician said if your account gets closed, just open another one.
The ideal system would be for musicians to be able to run the permissions through YouTube, but I guess that gets into legal issues for YouTube. Still, the ContentID system seems to be a step in the direction of CC licensing.
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not as if
In one case, someone got a takedown notice for performing a 250-year-old classical piece, protested it, and then YouTube realized it was a mistake and left the video alone.
Increasingly people are getting takedown notices filed fraudulently by someone harassing the video creator. The video creators can protest, and usually do, but the video is removed or silenced until they file a countersuit. This is less likely to happen with a famous song because the legitimate copyright holder has probably already registered it with YouTube, blocking fake claims, though someone could falsely claim to own a copyright on anything in the video and could still tie up the system.
Where it appears to get interesting is that even if you think you have permission, the copyright holder can change his mind and file a takedown notice. So that means you'd need to get a contract that says you have irrevocable permission to upload you performing this song in this video on YouTube in perpetuity, a clause you usually see these days when you license a song to a movie or TV show.
But as far as I know, these sorts of contracts don't yet exist for fans and musicians wanting to perform a cover song for YouTube. In real life, you are free to perform whatever you want at a show, and the venue is responsible for paying ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. And you can record any song you want at 9.1 cents a copy by getting a compulsory mechanical license.
But uploading a video of you performing a song online doesn't really fit into recording a song, performing a song, or even using someone's song in a movie or TV show (it's closest to this, but there is no set rate for a fee).
I maintain that YouTube knows exactly what it is doing by promoting artists who have uploaded cover songs and will only act when someone files a takedown notice. This system works for the artists because most of them aren't challenged; it works for YouTube because the company gets a huge number of user-generated videos; and it works for the copyright holders when YouTube can show them financial gain.
As I already posted in a different comment, music publishers don't necessarily even have a contract set up to give a fan or musician permission to do this. If you request permission in advance, they may not have a form for you. And if they do, unless it says you have permission forever, it may not grant you much protection if they change their minds.
I think in practice recording yourself singing someone else's song is a grey area. People other than true copyright holders can file a takedown notice. There are few, if any, real contracts giving permission to cover a song this way. And YouTube and the artists proudly promote these cover song videos.
Next >>