According to this article, people in the UK can no longer access portions of YouTube!
That just sucks! Though it doesn’t sound like the entire site is blocked, just certain videos. That’s good, because there are a lot of videos and indie artists on YouTube that have nothing to do with this financial bullshit. Would folks in the UK chime in after tonight to let us know if you can still see anything? I’d be very interested.
The clueless record labels strike again! This is the same kind of crap that led Warner Music to pull all of its music from YouTube, because “the payments it received did not fairly compensate the label or its artists and songwriters.” How much money are they losing because people can no longer discover bands on that label?
Speaking of YouTube though, this is interesting. It’s not going to last long, I’d imagine
I’m in the U.S., but I suddenly can’t find the early live TV appearance of Chuck Berry playing “Johnny B. Goode”, which was followed by Keith Richards recounting how knocked out and “floored” he was when he saw that the first time. And it was a truly live performance with Chuck at his best, rather than one of those usual ones where they mimed the record.
Well, they take down things all the time. I haven’t had anything taken down, but my husband has. He has tons of throwaway accounts though, so he just put videos back up under another account. Sorry, though. I know what it’s like to have something you really liked suddenly disappear.
I’m curious, if he distributed stolen goods from stores instead of from copyright owners would you still be bragging about it here?
Forget banning portions of YouTube in the UK, those kind of widespread abuses should get all of it banned everywhere until they actually make a serious effort to ban your husband and others like him.
He doesn’t put up anything that’s commercially available, has ever been commercially available, or will likely to be commercially available, so there’s no need to get all righteous on me or him.
It’s not up to you to decide that, as you have no way of knowing if any of that is true and it isn’t particularly relevant anyway. Wild, self-serving assumptions used to rationalize breaking the law don’t excuse anything.
On top of that, YouTube has made it clear that it doesn’t want those videos there. You can’t even try to claim that you don’t know any better when you are making fraudulent accounts to do exactly what you know isn’t allowed. And you somehow think this is so normal and acceptable that you brag about it on another board? Do you have any throwaway accounts here to avoid the rules?
I realize this is a rhetorical device, but please don’t accuse other posters of breaking the rules this way. Use the report button or a private message if you have that kind of concern.
Anyone who uses the lame, discredited method of comparing stealing from a store - where the the store owner is deprived of an actual, physical object - with copyright infringement - where the copyright holder is deprived only of a theoretical sale - has zero credibility. Until the copyright absolutist side admits that copyright infringement is not “theft”, the public is going to be unsympathetic to their interests.
Nonsense. It’s all shades of gray. For instance, some copyright holders have not ordered the YouTube uploader to remove the video. Instead, they have asserted their rights by placing ads on the same page as the video. They’re looking at YouTube as a positive - someone has saved them to trouble of digitizing and uploading it, and they get free advertising space for their current material.
Even more gray is the fact that, in almost all cases involving recording artists, the costs of producing the music video came out of the artists share of the royalties. They paid for it, but the record company “owns” it. I’ve put videos up and received mail from the artist asking me to send a copy of the DVD to their parents. They never even received a copy of the thing on which they spent thousands of their royalty dollars.
yeah, that’s the one! Just about three minutes ago they played Chuck’s “Havana Moon” in the Starbuck’s where I’m sitting; the short but deeply felt howl he gives about halfway through shows what a pioneer he was, not just in rock and roll guitar, but in singing and performing. Given his natural gift as a performer, I imagine he could have done well even if he didn’t play an instrument.
Or put another way, I could probably enjoy a genre of music I normally dislike, if the performer has the right personality. I actually did once see a polka band that I enjoyed, because the leader had that talent. (It was by accident, of course. )
Also, if the quotes in the OP are accurate, then it’s the videos uploaded by the recording studios that are being blocked, not the copies uploaded by ordinary users.
The PRS is the same organisation that has said that my workplace cannot let employees listen to their own radios on work premises without wearing headphones because it would count as broadcasting to the public if another member of staff could hear it. The only way we can do it is if we buy a workplace licence for £100’s per year backdated to when the radios were brought in. At the last place I worked we were basically told to pay 25+ years of back fees or remove the radios.
We have one guy at my current workplace who’s in a seperate building, on his own all day, who now can’t listen to the radio in case someone visits him and hears it. It’s ridiculus.
While the situations are similar they are not analogous. Stolen goods get used up, a video of someone does not. The goods have value, the video has no value.
I am not saying it isn’t wrong, or isn’t SIMILAR it’s just not a correct analogy.
For instance if I go into a store and have the clerk show me all the features of a product with no intention of buying it there, 'cause I can get it cheaper online, then go home and buy from the website, I have “stolen,” services. The clerk was using his time on me, when I had no intention of buying, perhaps a customer who WANTED TO BUY from the store, left because he wasn’t getting waited on. This results in a lost sale.
However no actual value was lost, just potential value.
The video has no actual value just potential value. I would say a better analogy wouldn’t be stealing but rather “abuse.”
It’s like a store that gives away free samples. If you have no intention of buying the product to take a sample is technically stealing. 'Cause they are given away with the idea the person MIGHT buy one. If you have NO intention of getting one, you shouldn’t take one. However I would class it as “abuse,” rather than stealing, though it technically is.
Well in Equipoise’s husband’s case, someone obviously doesn’t want the material he’s posting to youtube on there, otherwise it wouldn’t keep getting taken down, so it seems fairly black and white. I don’t have a dog in this fight but you’re arguing generalities while this is a specific instance of using multiple accounts to continually upload material that the site doesn’t want uploaded.
The thing I find funny about the music video issue is that I was always under the impression that a music video was essentially an advertisement for a product (i.e. the CD), the video wasn’t the product itself.
It’s as if the record companies have suddenly realized that, OMG! People can hear the music when they watch these things! Whenever they want!
)