Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Muting, Removing Videos Involving Warner Music

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the responsible-judgment-takes-too-long dept.

Media 202

notseamus writes "In the past few days, YouTube has started muting videos uploaded by users that use 'unauthorized copyrighted music' in response to Warner Music's threat over royalties, and so far appears to target only Warner Music related videos. Ars Technica also reports that after three DCMA notices YouTube will remove a user account, even when it appears to be fair use. Kevin Lee has had video essays — which he believes are fair use — removed from YouTube, and his account disabled before he could file a counter notice."

cancel ×

202 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Will they remove this video? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26497445)

* 1 Case Regular Pint size Mason Jars ( Used for canning)
* 2 Boxes Contact 12 hour time released tablets.
* 3 Bottles of Heet.
* 4 feet of surgical tubing.
* 1 Bottle of Rubbing Alchohol.
* 1 Gallon Muriatic Acid ( Used for cleaning concrete)
* 1 Gallon of Coleman's Fuel
* 1 Gallon of Aceton
* 1 Pack of Coffee Filters
* 1 Electric Skillet ( If you don't know what iam talking about i will have pics later)
* 4 Bottles Iodine Tincture 2% (don't get the declorized it won't work)
* 2 Bottles of Hydrogen peroxide
* 3 20 0z Coke Bottles (Plastic type)(with Lids/caps)
* 1 Can Red Devils Lye
* 1 Pair of sharp scissors
* 4 Boxes Book Matches (try to get the ones with brown/red striker pads)
* 1 pyrodex baking dish
* 1 Box execto razor blades single sided
* 1 digital scale that reads grams
* 2 gallons distilled water \
* 1 Roll Aluminum foil tape

That's what you would have to go buy if you wanted to make meth.

First things first -- the Iodine Crystals. Take one 20 oz, plastic Coke Bottle and pour 4 Bottles 2% tincture into it.

Add Hydrogen Peroxide to this. Use only 1/2 a bottle of Hydrogen peroxide. After this you know, the gallon jug that the Muriatic acid comes in take the cap off and fill this cap level with the acid. Add the acid to the coke bottle (Place in a freezer for at least 30 mins).

While the Iodine crystals are being made we are going to extract the Phsuedo from the Contacts. You are going to need a towel for this so go get one. Take the pills out of one box, add it to one of the mason jars fill with rubbing alchohol just enough to cover the pills let set for 3 minutes. Remove pills and take the towel and wipe the top coating off the pills this will remove the wax. Do the same with the other box of Contacts as well, after this add those wiped off pills only 10 to a clean mason jar. On top of this add 1 bottle of Heat do the same for the other box of Contact. Let theese two mason jars with pills, heat stand for 30 minutes. Then shake the jars till pills are completly broke down then let the jars sit again for 4 hours or until the Heats is completly clear . Once clear cyphon the heat off (Not the powder stuff at the Bottom you don't want this it will fuck your dope up).

Well anyway syphon the heat off with a piece of the sergical tubing syphon this into a pyrodex baking dish place in microwave on high till the heat is almost evaporated. Take out of microwave. Now plug up your electric plate set the pyrodex dish on this on about 180 deg continue evaporating till you get a white powder on the pyrodex (Carefull not the burn the phsudo if it turns yellow it's burned) after you get it dried take a razor blade and scrape this powder up. (put this asside for later use)

Now we are going to get the red phosphorus from the book matches take a pair of scissors and cut along the edge of the phosphorus do the whole four boxes of match book matches then take 1 small coffee cup will work to this coffee cup add about 1/4 the way with Acetone dip the match book strike pads into the acetone for 10 seconds this will loosen the phosphorus so it will be easier to scrape with the razor blades. ( put the phosphorus in an empty match book box to let dry. Now it's time to get the iodine crystals get a clean mason jar on top of this place 1 coffee filter and pour the contents of the iodine +muriatic+Hydrogen Peroxide into the filter ( do it slowly don't over pour) well once you get though with the filtering on top of the coffee filter will be a black substance ( This is iodine crystals) dry them by wraping in more coffee filters till you get a pretty good thick pile around the original filter place on ground and step on it to get the rest of the liquids off save this for the cook.

next take your digital scales wiegh your pills first say you had 2 grams of pill powder then weigh out an equal amount of iodine crystals then for the phosphorus devide the total weight of pills by 3 3 will go into 2 1 time so if you had 2 grams pill powder you should have 2 grams iodine crystal 1 gram phosphorus Now its time to make the cook jars you will need 2 clean mason jars with lids 1 foot surgical tubing poke a hole in both jar lids place one end of the tubing into each jar lid and seal with foil tape (buy this at walmart for about $ 1.60 well anyway seal off the tubes as well as you can so you should have 2 mason jars with lids that have surgical tubing foiled taped and sealed. ok this is the cook in one mason jar add distilled water in it fill it half way close the lid on it. now get you hotplate hot first at 180 degreese F when the plate get hot then its time to add the Iodine+pill powder to the other mason jar not the one with water in it once you get both Iodine and pill powder to the jar add 6-10 drops of distilled water to this place it on the hotplate now add the phosphorus once you put this in the jar there is going to be a imediatereaction place the other lid with hose onto the jar screw on tightly then turn your hotplate up to 400 degrees f let this cook for 1 hour to an hour and a half the best way to tell when it is done is when the contents of the cook jar doesn't boil anymore once this has happened turn the hotplate off and let the jar cool so you can touch it now its time to see if we have dope once it has cooled open the lid and you should smell rotten egg like smell if it has this smell congrads you have dope now we have to remove the dope from the black goey substance to this jar add about 1/4 cup of distilled water and seal the jar with a lid that has no holes in it and shake the jar till all the substance on the botom of the jar has come off into the water

next take another clean mason jar and place a coffee filter and filter the cook jars contents though the filter now on the filter is your phosphorus save this for another cook later on just putt it in a dry coffee filter and put it somewhere dry and safe now you have a jar filled with a yellow honey looking substance if its this color you have done good at cooking the dope now to this add colemans fuel fill the jar about full just leave anough room for shaking now add 1-2 table spoons red devil lye let the jar sit for about 5 mins then place lid on the jar and shake the hell out of it then sit the jar somewhere to rest for about 30 mins Now we are going to pull the dope out of the coleman fuel and the product is going to be 90% methamphetamine to do this fallow what i say exactly syphon the coleman fuel into an empty 20 oz coke bottle syphon off much as you can trying not to get the substance off the bottom of the jar once you have the coleman fuel in the coke bottle add about 4-6 coke bottle caps of water to this now add one drop of muriatic acid to the coke bottle place lid on bottle and shake the hell out of it place upside down so it want fall and get your hotplate hot 400 degrees f on top of the hotplate place a clean pyrodex bowl on it now take the coke bottle still upside down and loosen up on the cap let the water drain into the pan don't get any coleman fuel into the pyrodex bowl now the water will evaporate while it is doing this take a coffee cup add acetone to it fill it 1/4 the way up now once the water has dried on the plate take plate off with gloves and add a small amount of acetone to the pyrodex bowl it will sizzle swirl it arouund and if all works out good ther will be cirle crystals all over the pyrodex bowl scrape up with a razor and enjoy Methamphetamine :-) This with 2 boxes of Contacts will make anywhere from 2-3 grams meth....

Pyrodex baking dish???? (2, Informative)

IvyKing (732111) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498155)

I'd be surprised if you survived making that video - Pyrodex is a black powder substitute.

You probably meant Pyrex.

Re:Pyrodex baking dish???? (0, Troll)

rschwa (89030) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498369)

Thanks for ruining it :rolleyes:

even when... (3, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497451)

...you use a small clip of a song for the background music of a video.

That's about half the videos on Youtube.

Re:even when... (5, Funny)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497541)

>>That's about half the videos on Youtube.

Nah, I checked the Warner Music website and Rick Astley isn't signed with them. Which is too bad really.

Hey, but Cher is! I'm going to go start making annoying Cher videos!! Oh wait, I guess I could just watch her normal videos...

Re:even when... (0)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497703)

Perhaps. Remaining three quarters probably include full songs, rest probably include no music at all.

[citation needed [wikipedia.org] ]

Re:even when... (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498211)

Nah, half (probably more it seems) of the videos on Youtube are not really videos. They are slideshows of pics of celebrities set to the favorite song of their creator. Invariably, also tag-spammed into oblivion.

While I remain opposed to censorship, and think the RIAA are pissing into the wind with this, the one possible good thing is that it may result in less of these irritating, spamming, slideshow compilations. Ken Burns has a lot to answer for.

Their site, their right. (5, Informative)

numbski (515011) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497459)

Sadly, it's fair use for you to use it, but you have no "right" to post it to their site. Once you created an account there, you pretty much waived any of your content rights there. C'est la vie.

Re:Their site, their right. (4, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497503)

As soon as you upload anything to the internet you've pretty much waived any of your content rights you had.

Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.

We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.

Re:Their site, their right. (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497587)

I see what you did there.

I don't mean in any practical sense...

Re:Their site, their right. (2, Interesting)

Bobnova (1435535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497641)

Sure it's their right to do whatever they want to with posted videos, but it seems to me like they open the door to competition by doing this. Some other site (why doesn't microsoft have a streaming video site, anyway?) that demands actual legal proof before taking down videos could make real inroads to youtube's current market share. Especially if they started off by mining youtube for good videos. Youtube must feel very secure in their domination of the market here, else they wouldn't risk pissing off that many people.

Re:Their site, their right. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26497701)

That's not how the law works or the DMCA. If you ignore the DMCA then you no longer gain the "safe harbour" privilege which means you can be sued for every copyright infringement case on your website no matter who uploaded what.

By removing the videos first Google is in accordance with the DMCA and doesn't get legally nuked into the ground.

Re:Their site, their right. (2, Interesting)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498891)

not true at all. The DMCA requires a challenge period which You Tube has done NOTHING to provide, as well as by law they should be taking claimed rights holders who have filed illegal challenges to them to court, which they will never do while they get content from the very same challengers. As it stands now, Google is JUST as in violation of the DMCA as the challenging rights holders have been. Even worse, people whos original works have been removed by Google due to major media falsely making claim have had little help from You Tube to get legally required information for them to file lawsuits against the claimed rights holders. Its very much a case of Google doing a lot of things evil, and illegal.

Re:Their site, their right. (5, Funny)

nganju (821034) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497829)

Totally agree with you. Especially because as soon as you upload anything to the internet you've pretty much waived any of your content rights you had.

Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.

We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.

Re:Their site, their right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26497933)

We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.

Ironically, the comment you pirated was modded interesting.

And you stole my idea, you insensitive clod!

Re:Their site, their right. (0, Troll)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497943)

Don't pretend to be me douchebag.

Re:Their site, their right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498279)

Don't pretend to be me douchebag.

I didn't, dumbass. I meant that he stole my idea of copying and pasting your comment, to humorous effect.

Re:Their site, their right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498367)

Totally agree with you. Especially because as soon as you upload anything to the internet you've pretty much waived any of your content rights you had.

Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.

We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.

Re:Their site, their right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498383)

Totally agree with you. Especially because as soon as you upload anything to the internet you've pretty much waived any of your content rights you had.

Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.

We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.

Re:Their site, their right. (1, Insightful)

Langfat (953252) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498781)

Totally agree with you. Especially because as soon as you upload anything to the internet you've pretty much waived any of your content rights you had.

Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.

We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.
--
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,

Re:Their site, their right. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498149)

As soon as you upload anything to the internet you've pretty much waived any of your content rights you had.

Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.

We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments..

Re:Their site, their right. (3, Interesting)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498311)

Anything digital is pirated?

So the short stories I write and post to the internet are pirated?

What about the digital photographs I take?

What about the drawings I make? ...they suck but that's another matter...

Though for the growing bulk, perhaps even majority of useful data you are right that if posted w/o consent of the copyright owner it is "pirated" or put correctly(piracy is a maritime law only!) intellectual property infringement.

As this bulk grows it means that there are more and more creations that can be considered similar to material that is part of someone's intellectual property. In order to relate to other people you have to relate to their experiences and many of those involve IP such as theme parks, brand name items, cartoons etc.

This means that gradually companies owning what amounts to non-expiring IP are taking ownership of society for their own non-personal(corps are not people) gains.

Any Intellectual Property(copyright, patent, trademark etc.) without a reasonably short expiration date is grossly unjust.

Every piece of IP should have an expiration date for when it will enter public domain and once set that date should NOT change even if new laws are passed. Renewable IP dates may be just provided that the renewal process allows for a certain end time for the property holder's rights and the longer the ownership the harder the renewal should be to prove(not to pay for).

Re:Their site, their right. (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498385)

So the short stories I write and post to the internet are pirated?

No they are shared.. Read what I said.

Re:Their site, their right. (2, Funny)

nevillethedevil (1021497) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498981)

As soon as you upload anything to the internet you've pretty much waived any of your content rights you had. Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared. We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.

Re:Their site, their right. (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498125)

Soon that could be true for the entire internet.

Thankfully Obama has appointed an FCC head who knows what Net Neutrality is.

Unfortunately even with him in office I think the day is coming when the Internet is as free and open to free speech as any major Radio or Television broadcast.

It is free speech ...as long as you never say anything illegal or offensive or that challenges those that set what "illegal or offensive" means.

I doubt it (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498389)

Once you created an account there, you pretty much waived any of your content rights there

If you mean the copyright by the content right, then it is wrong. The copyright of any video you made still belong to you. It would need far more than an EULA to "give" them the copyright. What probably happens is that you grant them perpetual free licence to copy or delete or whatever.
If on the other hand you meant that the playing of the content there is dependent on their arbitrary whim, you are correct, if their lawyer aren't stupid they forsaw this and put in the EULA that they can at any moment yank/delete/mute/stop the image of any of your video.

Whatever happened to (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26497461)

Whatever happened to don't be evil?

Re:Whatever happened to (5, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497521)

It's not evil to delete people's videos off their own website because said person tried to bend the rules they agreed to when signing up.

Re:Whatever happened to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498525)

While technically valid, at some point companies grow too big and pervasive to follow the same rules as everyone else. Like how the telcos have to follow all these government rules nowadays. Technically they are a private company and they should be able to do whatever the hell they want to their customers, but the government stepped in to protect people and give them a certain level of service because the phone system is too important to let companies do whatever they want.

While not the same as a phone (as far and safety and stuf) YouTube is pretty much in the same place. Just like Google itself. They have to play by different rules because their services have become too vital. It's because of this that they can't just do whatever they want like you said. They are forced to work at a higher more general level and obey the laws of the land in a general sense even though they are a private company.

Re:Whatever happened to (5, Insightful)

gilgongo (57446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498719)

It's not evil to delete people's videos off their own website because said person tried to bend the rules they agreed to when signing up.

No, but it's evil assist those who would seek to destroy our culture. This is the battleground: between greed and the preservation of our way of life.

I'm not kidding, and a shitload of people agree with me [free-culture.cc]

Re:Whatever happened to (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26497553)

As soon as you upload anything to the Internet you've prettymuch waived any of your content rights you had.

Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.

We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.

that's all folks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26497489)

For some reason the headline made me think they're taking down Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Beyond brilliant (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497519)

I am speechless at the business acumen behind killing your number one free advertising site, the one that had no negative affect whatsoever on your sales because the sound quality was way too low to "pirate". Newsflash to Warner: I've bought music I'd never normally get simply because it was stuck in my head and that was the only way to get rid of it. By lowering your exposure, I can absolutely guarantee you're going to lose sales. Genius.

Re:Beyond brilliant (1)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497601)

They just want it to be "their way", so we can enjoy the music on sites like this one [mtvmusic.com] . Padded in ads and nagging you to buy something.

Old People (5, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497645)

The problem with business is old people and I don't mean aged people just people with OLD IDEAS, like the captive audience. It's bullshit and it's gone. We are able to do anything with our constantly deteriorating free time, so why would we give YOU money when YOU treat us like we are criminals and not customers?

We'll go somewhere else, do something NEW and leave you in the DUST.

Re:Old People (5, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497837)

I know this is slightly off topic because it's about movies not music however I have to agree with this.

Before the MPAA changed their website their about page was all about fond memories of going to the cinema as a kid to watch the black & white movies and about how movies should be enjoyed with a audience.

Those days are over. This generation wants content when it suits them and doesn't want to go to a filthy room with over priced junk food. They want to watch the movies in their own home around their own schedule, where people aren't going to be talking in the movie or making noises munching on popcorn.

I did a quick check and saw this..
http://www.mpaa.org/AboutUsGlickman.asp [mpaa.org]

It's about the current CEO of the MPAA. Lots of talk about how he has helped feed the worlds poor and how he is a political scientist. What about you know.. the damn movies?! The very core of the association's being and not one mention of why he loves movies or any experience he has in the area.

In fact all the MPAA is (judging from the website) about copyright protection. This is a shame and they should really move on and consider why there is so much copyright infringement and how their association can provide the media for the generate of today, not the old fart generation of yesteryear.

This most likely won't happen because from my point of view everyone at the MPAA has been replaced with lawyers and political scientists who are completely out of touch with the audiences of today. They can't even comprehend the fact that they need to change.

Re:Old People (-1, Troll)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498727)

The problem with business is old people and I don't mean aged people just people with OLD IDEAS, like the captive audience. It's bullshit and it's gone. We are able to do anything with our constantly deteriorating free time, so why would we give YOU money when YOU treat us like we are criminals and not customers?

We'll go somewhere else, do something NEW and leave you in the DUST.

oook. oook. oook-ooooook. oook. oooook.

Now in English for the rest of the readers:

Please do go somewhere else. Do something new. Leave us in the dust. And when you finally realize you can't knit a sweater, let alone make yarn, build a road, ensure you have clean drinking water, generate electricity, light the darkness, or any of the other million things that make your "constantly deteriorating" free time possible, perhaps you will come back with a new appreciation for being productive and honoring the social contract.

Re:Beyond brilliant (5, Insightful)

Xelios (822510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497695)

Here's the typical scenario, this happens to me all the time.

Someone: "So what's your favorite band?"
Me: "Right now it's [band 1]"
Someone: "I like them too, have you ever heard of [band 2]? They have a similar sound, here check out this video of one of their songs."
Me: "Wow, they're pretty good. Have you heard of [band 3]? Here's a link."
Someone: "Thanks, I'll check them out."

And viola, bands 2 and 3 have new fans.

Incidentally, [band 2] and [band 3] are really great, you guys should check them out on YouTube.

Re:Beyond brilliant (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26497751)

And it all doesn't matter that they're new fans because given the music's available for free on YouTube/Kazaa/whatever, they don't bother buying any copies.

Free samples only work if the samples do not constitute 100% of the available product. Those little taster booths in supermarkets rarely offer you a lifetime free supply of the product they're hawking. Go into a car dealership, and they'll rarely offer you a ten year long unattended test drive.

Re:Beyond brilliant (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497909)

Right, having is the point. Once you have, well, you have it. It isn't like ice cream where you have for only a short while and then you need more.

I "have" lots of music. I don't buy music anymore because I "have" it.

Re:Beyond brilliant (4, Insightful)

Xelios (822510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497977)

You listen to all your music on Youtube? I can't think of a single person I know who's playlist is comprised of links to Youtube videos. I also can't think of anyone who goes through the trouble of ripping the video from Youtube to rip out the low quality audio to put on their mp3 player.

The issue of whether these people pay for the music later is separate from the fact that they learned of these bands through Youtube. What would you rather have as an artist? A fan who might buy your CD's or go to your concerts, or a person who doesn't know you exist?

Re:Beyond brilliant (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498021)

Go into a car dealership, and they'll rarely offer you a ten year long unattended test drive.

You took the salesman with you didn't you?

Noob.

Re:Beyond brilliant (5, Funny)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497755)

And viola, bands 2 and 3 have new fans.

Yeah, how else would you hear new viola music?

Re:Beyond brilliant (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497851)

From the construction of this phrase it looks to me like he is talking about a band named "viola" rather than music for the viola.

Re:Beyond brilliant (3, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497795)

And viola, bands 2 and 3 have new fans.

Viola [wikipedia.org] is not voila. [wiktionary.org]

Re:Beyond brilliant (3, Funny)

Xelios (822510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498041)

Well, that's going to cost me some geek cred.

Re:Beyond brilliant (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498253)

Hmmmm... if you demonstrate something with a viola, does that give you a vioila? I feel it should.

Re:Beyond brilliant (4, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497745)

I am speechless at the business acumen behind killing your number one free advertising site, the one that had no negative affect whatsoever on your sales

I never bought as much music as I did during the napster days.
I got to sample music I liked, instead of being subjected to the choices of our betters in the music industry, who get to chose what gets played on the radio.

And this is the crux, it's not motivated by business acumen, but by a desire for control.

Re:Beyond brilliant (2, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498239)

Napster was what -- 8,9 years ago? That means you're almost a decade older now. People also tend to buy less music as they get older.

Re:Beyond brilliant (4, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498989)

Napster was what -- 8,9 years ago? That means you're almost a decade older now. People also tend to buy less music as they get older.

People also tend to stop buying RIAA music almost entirely (I'm only human) as part of a conscious thought after being called a thief for daring to sample a product before deciding to buy it or not.

I'm almost only buying straight from the artists now. Bonus: Autographs.

Re:Beyond brilliant (1)

xonicx (1009245) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498707)

>>>I am speechless at the business acumen behind killing your number one free advertising site, the one that had no negative affect whatsoever on your sales
I never had interest in movies made in usa(I am not from english speaking countries) until I watched few pirated movies using bittorent. Now I watch new releases in theater and pay for it.

Re:Beyond brilliant (1)

notseamus (1295248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497771)

This is the OP here, and personally I find that I listen to a lot of music on YouTube, especially now that Warner has pulled out of Last Fm and I can't listen to their full tracks there. It's poor quality sound, but it's how I find new music that I've heard about and want to check out before buying. iTunes preview is too short, MySpace is unbearable and like I said, Warner Music have pulled their full tracks from Last.fm. (besides that, it's much easier to download hq tracks from myspace than youtube that requires you to strip the low quality audio from low quality video).

Re:Beyond brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498321)

I think what they wanted was royalty's. When youtube said no we will just take them down they had to follow through or else they would lose their fangs.

Re:Beyond brilliant (4, Funny)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498375)

I am speechless at the business acumen behind killing your number one free advertising site

This doesn't make any sense. Why didn't Warner just give the offending parties a "stern lecture [wired.com] ?"

Re:Beyond brilliant (2, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498871)

"By lowering your exposure, I can absolutely guarantee you're going to lose sales. Genius."

Yep. Seems Warner doesn't "get" the internet. When I google a song, you want videos showing up in the search results. By having videos removed from Youtube you're killing those search results.

And Youtube, by deleting users for stupid reasons without allowing them to at least respond you're killing your advertising stream and getting bad press on /. Very stupid.

I know someone who recently had a popular video removed. It was a video of her lip-syncing to a song. There was no warning, just "your video has been deleted". No way to access the video again either.

When will internet companies treat customers like customers rather than criminals?

Re:Beyond brilliant (2, Insightful)

mcnellis (1420749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499107)

At this point, I don't even give a shit. Sure it's bullshit, but like you said it'll only hurt them. They're forcefully hurting themselves. It's like a crybaby emo kid addicted to heroine. Just let them kill themself and when they do no one will feel sorry. In the mean time, instead of watching the YouTube video if the song is stuck in my head, I'll just go and download the song (and it won't be from iTunes!) and just watch as I effortlessly contribute to killing their business. I can't wait for the day the RIAA goes out of business because they have no one to blame but themself.

before he could file a counter notice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26497537)

s/before he could/after he didn't/

According to TFA he had a few years to file a counter notice.

Better Approach (4, Insightful)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497575)

It would be so much more fun if they just speeded up the videos and dubbed over the Benny Hill song [nerdiphythesoul.com] (props to b3ta)

Re:Better Approach (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498289)

That would be funny until Universal Music forces them to take it down since they own A&M, Herb Albert's label.

Re:Better Approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499097)

What a weiner webmaster:
http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/block.png [nerdiphythesoul.com]

Fortunately he places his ads and whinging in a div called ads, so it is easy to block this div on this website and all others by putting the following in your userContent.css file:

#ads { display:none !important}

Cya You Tube (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497603)

Keep this up and people will just find a less draconian place to be.

Re:Cya You Tube (3, Insightful)

SterlingSylver (1122973) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497659)

And that place will be great until Warner threatens them and sues them out of existence. Youtube's playing by the rules set forth by copyright law. Copyright is the problem, here, not a silly video site.

Re:Cya You Tube (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497891)

There are other alternatives that are pretty much outside the reach of the 'industries'.

Re:Cya You Tube (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497877)

I guess that's basically what Warner et al try to prove: Just like Napster, these video portals live on "illegal content". Take it away and they fold because there's nothing left.

What they fail to see (or rather, what they fail to mention) is that this is why they fail, even though it's not the focus. They fail because other portals have legal AND illegal content. So portal A offers both, portal B offers only "legal", where do you go?

It's like going to WalMart instead of the 7/11 around the corner. Yes, both have coke. But you get coke and tires at WalMart, and if you want both you go to the one place that has both, you won't get your coke from the 7/11 and then drive over to WalMart for your tires. When you have to go to WalMart anyway, and you get your coke there too, why bother hitting the 7/11 on your way back?

Re:Cya You Tube (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497917)

Even if it didn't 'live on illegal content' ( which youtube doesn't ) id still refuse to be a customer of them if they fold to demands like this. So while i would contribute to their downfall and as you suggest proving the industries point, it would be for a different reason.

As far as your walmart analogy, i make it a point to do business with the local mom and pop shops in my area. Local quality over mega convenience. Even if it costs me a little more in dollars and time, its the right thing to do.

Sure im only one person, but if enough of us do it, it makes a difference.

How to silence anyone on YouTube: (4, Interesting)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497609)

It seems it's possible to have anyone's account killed by sending three letters.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube: (3, Funny)

Jeoh (1393645) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497805)

I thought DMCA notices were much longer.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube: (4, Interesting)

WiFiBro (784621) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497857)

And indeed people are using this to remove videos they do not like. Example: convict Kent Hovind spread false videos against evolution. With permission to spread. Several people made response videos and these were removed referring to this issue. Pro-God YT user VenomFangX made people file complaints on many anti-him (small 'h', VFX) videos, but went too far by using it as a censorship trick. YT user Thunderf00t, who was wrongly censored, threatened to sue VFX unless VFX made apologies and shut up for a year - watch the forced apologies being uttered on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4&feature=PlayList&p=4618299B334AB7B9&index=8 [youtube.com]
By the way VFX did not make the one year silence full. He again places his anti-evolution barf, and typically only allows his fans to comment.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube: (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497989)

Pro-God YT user VenomFangX made people file complaints on many anti-him (small 'h', VFX) videos, but went too far by using it as a censorship trick.

Ah yes, VenomFangX - another certifiable zealot. I've always wondered - if his religion is so great and wonderful, why does he feel it necessary to resort to such underhanded tactics? It has been around for more than two thousand years, and will certainly survive without him.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube: (1)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497955)

It seems it's possible to have anyone's account killed by sending three letters.

I bet some botnet author will start automating this process anytime soon.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube: (2, Interesting)

mounthood (993037) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497965)

We need a virus that submits bogus DMCA notices. In volumes that require automated responses, Google would be forced to take action. It would ruin YouTube to honor the notices, or they would be forced to ignore the flood of (legit looking) DMCA takedown notices.

Then the unfair power of companies-with-lawyers would be exposed since RIAA DMCA notices would either get special treatment, or ignored like the virus DMCA notices. Google would have to break the DMCA to ignore the spam, since they can't tell if it's legit. Google would get the laws changed once they couldn't play copyright cop.

Re:How to silence anyone on YouTube: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498297)

Warner Brothers! Warner Brothers! Warner Brothers!

Nothing Happens.

[Shrug]

Hmmm... I guess that kind of magic only works in the movies and on YouTube.

Slowly but... (1)

velja27 (1427879) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497697)

Slowly but sooner or later all freedom that was on youtube will be gone.But new sites will arise,i'm certain of it.

Well, their loss (4, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497803)

The right thing to do in this case is to comply with Warner's demand.

Then go find some unknown artist that makes good music they don't mind to be heard more widely, use their stuff, and of course link the artist's website with a recommendation to buy their music.

Re:Well, their loss (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497881)

Buy? Once you "have", you have all you need.

The value of recorded music is zero, and that's all anyone I know is paying.

The Cost Benefit Analysis of a Major Chord (1)

Crash Culligan (227354) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498231)

cdrguru: Buy? Once you "have", you have all you need.

The value of recorded music is zero, and that's all anyone I know is paying.

That's not quite true. There is a value to most music: it can convey ideas and moods, change one's outlook, and serve as anything from light entertainment to a rallying theme depending on the intent and skill of the songwriters and performers involved.

Really, if there was zero value, would people really bother to collect it? It wouldn't be worth downloading if there were some sort of desirability to at least some of it.

The problem is not so much the value as the cost. The people who produce it want to sell it at a specific price, which most people don't want to pay. Meanwhile, the cost of reproduction has dropped just about to zero, and that's what people are paying in money to get the stuff. They're still paying costs in effort, storage space, etc. to find, grab, and warehouse the stuff.

Re:Well, their loss (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497907)

What I find strange is that they haven't found a way to monetise their music for home video use. Why is there no simple way to pay $30/$40 to use tracks from their catalogue to accompany video.

Surely it's not beyond the competence of their lawyers to come up with terms that would work.

Re:Well, their loss (1)

He who knows (1376995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497967)

That artist should be After the ice. plus their music is free.

The DMCA is being heavily abused (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26497905)

Tons of DMCA requests are being submitted by scientology to take critical information off of the internet.

It's a cheap quick easy way to take down information from unattended accounts.

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/186-youtube-2008-edition/

It's also an easy way for them to get the name & address of people who are critical of scientology.

Nothing prevents them from using a fake name & address to submit false DMCA requests.

Who here as the money to go head to head against scientology? Especially since their stated aim is not to win, but to harass.

Good (3, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26497911)

It's good to see a former big player withdrawing from a market. It just makes that much more room for an independent artist.

Warner reached a peak with the inception of Bugs Bunny. I'll maybe shed a nostalgic tear or something.

Newsflash (2, Insightful)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498029)

If you put a lot of effort into making videos and then go slap on some copyrighted music over the top of it, you are a fool and you should not be surprised that your video had an expiry date.

13,600 videos have been silenced. (4, Informative)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498051)

Says a Google search [google.com] . Looking at some of the videos that were censored, a LOT of them had a few seconds of a Warner song in them. So they went far beyond removing JUST those "music videos" or "CD tracks".

Some of the videos I noticed have been disabled:
* Numerous AMV videos
* Video game demos and clips
* Several videos by stand-up comedian George Carlin (WTF?)
* Some videos about global warming
* World of Warcraft videos
* Live recordings of music artists from the 1960's through today.

So they removed videos that were perfectly within fair use, simply using a small snippet of a song. I guess this is the end of fair use...

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced. (2, Informative)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498419)

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Cite [cornell.edu]

Some of the videos may well fit into fair use, but many of them probably do not. For example, when using music as background to a video game sequence, if the sequence is merely someone showing how cool they are, it is hard to see this as "teaching". Even if it is "teaching" -- it isn't teaching about the music. The music is not a key part of the lesson on how to do a particular game activity, and it is thus hard to say that music falls under a teaching exception. Is it "comment"? Probably "comment" means something more like a review of the work itself or an op-ed-like piece in which the music makes a certain point. It would be a difficult and creative task to make that connection. If the music is just soundtrack however, the "comment" is about the video game and not the music.

Be honest, most of the youtube videos with music added to them, are nothing more than "Hey -- look at me!" videos, slideshows of cats, or slideshows of dead people with some random piece of music tacked on. It's probable, though not impossible, that most of these don't fit "fair use".

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced. (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498539)

"Some of the videos may well fit into fair use, but many of them probably do not. "

Here, let's change that a bit and see if it's still okay:

Some of the people definitely didn't commit a crime, but many of them did.

Can you see how wrong that statement is?

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced. (1)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498815)

Welcome to the modern world, where you're safe until they get round to thinking of something for you to have done wrong.

Enjoy.

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced. (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498999)

There is an objectively large difference between a private site owner removing questionable material that violates its terms of use, and being arbitrarily jailed or executed by the government. Differences
- Private company v. Government entity
- Refusal to publish a video (*) v. loss of freedom, rights, or life
- Video creator can buy a webhost and self-publish (may still result in copyright violations) v. loss of freedom, rights, or life.

I am no fan of government and will cheer heartily when WA DC sinks into the mud, but get some perspective.

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced. (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499057)

oops, forgot my footnote: (*) You can still make the video for private use. Even if it violates copyright, the chances of getting caught are so minuscule as to be non-existent. Publishing is where things get tricky.

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced. (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498655)

Almost all of those look like they're a few minutes long or more. How can you say they were using a "small snippet" without actually seeing the original video?

Re:13,600 videos have been silenced. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498745)

This is only the end of fair use on YouTube. Post it on your own blog and fight back.

Time to boycott (4, Interesting)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498137)

Something like that happened to one of my own videos. Just a stupid little clip from a video game, but it included some music that apparently it's "wrong" to use. So they deleted the video. I made it easy for them - I deleted the rest. I'm done using YouTube. They're stupid for caving in so easily, but the labels issuing the takedown notices are far, far more stupid. They're slaughtering their single best advertising, and it was free for them. Seriously, they should be PAYING people to use their crap on YouTube. You already know no one (and I mean NO one) is going to use YouTube as an alternative to downloading an MP3. Let's see... choice of $0.99 to download the song and use it on your MP3 player, or have to go to a website, on your computer, and stream the video every time you want to listen to it. Yeah, people were DEFINITELY using YouTube to avoid buying music. Lots of lost sales there, yep!

YouTube is going from great to irrelevant, and it's hurting not only them, but the music labels as well. That's fine, I'm done with them.

Re:Time to boycott (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498843)

"choice of $0.99 to download the song and use it on your MP3 player, or have to go to a website, on your computer, and stream the video every time you want to listen to it"

Stream whut???

If you want to listen to something not available elsewhere, downloading the video with DownloadHelper is effortless as is playing the file with vlc. Older concert clips come to mind as examples.

What if... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498229)

Someone would just use one of the botnets to spider every user account in youtube's userbase and post 3+ DCMA takedown reports on it? Show them it's a load of bull what they are doing...

Good! (4, Insightful)

crhylove (205956) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498259)

The more these media corporations and the RIAA crack down on online media, the more user generated and INNOVATIVE material will get room to breathe and kick the crap out of Blink 9,347, Miley Cyrus, and whatever disco/pop crap emo bullshit they are successfully peddling while piracy is still available.

Warner is just painting itself into a corner, and I say GOOD. Fuck 'em. They haven't produced anything original or good in at least a decade, anyway!

Examples of abusive take down requests (3, Interesting)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498373)

The DMCA is too easy to abuse as a chilling effect tool. Fake people & entities are used in massive take down requests. Non-copyright owners are issuing take down requests of critical information & commentary. It is being used to obtain the name & address of people who post critical information. And it is being used to removed content of unattended accounts or to harass posters of critical content until they stop responding to DMCA requests.

* Message to Scientology vid DOWN!! - "The video was apparently down due to false DMCA claims made against two other videos, which brought down the whole account." [whyweprotest.net]
* Youtube account permanantly disabled, no reason given. [whyweprotest.net]
* 'We Still Run This' - down (up again) - Copyright claim by Gary Scarf. [whyweprotest.net]
* Tommy Davis videos being pulled [whyweprotest.net]
* A video from the Church0fScientology account removed for TOS violation [whyweprotest.net]
* The 888 video is down now. [whyweprotest.net]
* Onehuman and Gerry Armstrong Vid Censored [whyweprotest.net]
* Scientology Attacks Jedi Anons YouTube - BOTH of the videos that had readings from The Complex were deleted [whyweprotest.net]
* Angry Gay Pope Banned from YouTube - It's the video where Ken Moxon comes out and servers me a TRO [whyweprotest.net]
* flagging a different video of mine for sexual content, but the reason he is doing so, as far as I can discern, is due to comments made regarding the video itself. [whyweprotest.net]
* Is it just me or are about 25k YouTube "Scientology" vidoes missing? [whyweprotest.net]
* That shitbag TomNewton237, owner of XXXXX has flagged my most recent upload and in his shitty blog brags about getting Tori, Mark Bunker and others pulled. [whyweprotest.net]
* Very important videos taken down on Youtube - These videos are very important because they are evidences of fair game caught on tape. [whyweprotest.net]
* DMCA Abuse by Scientology Re-uploaded on Youtube! [whyweprotest.net]
* Report on Kaja Ballo removed from Youtube [whyweprotest.net]
* Another Video removed - "Shawn Lonsdale assaulted by Ron Salevo" [whyweprotest.net]
* Possible new wave of DMCA claims? - ContentFactory America, Inc does not exist. This is the same shit as the American Rights Counsel LLC. [whyweprotest.net]
* They just tried to steal the church0fscientology account. [whyweprotest.net]

Warner is taking down game videos, too (5, Interesting)

MooglyGuy (1455165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498463)

This issue actually hit me on YouTube. I decided to post some videos of me 5-starring various songs on Guitar Hero: World Tour, since I worked on the game and happened to enjoy it. A few weeks later, Warner Music submitted a takedown notice on the video I made of me beating Hotel California, stating that it was a recording of a song by the Eagles. I subsequently submitted a counter-claim stating that it is not a recording of a song by the Eagles, but is in fact a recording of Guitar Hero: World Tour, which has no EULA barring the "public performance" of the game. Unfortunately, I never got the chance to see how it turned out, as when I discussed it with my employer, it was suggested that I just acquiesce to the company's demands so that they don't get upset with Activision. Frankly, rather than capitulating to unreasonable demands like that, I think the company should make the terms of licensing music for use in the game more clear so that crap like this doesn't happen, but there you go.

the upside is that when someone posts a video of a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498567)

users tend to use music way too much, often at the expense of the audio i *want* to hear. so there is an upside to this.

Why can't people make their own music? (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498615)

I know what YouTube is talking about. It's this practice where people take their favorite song and make it the background music for whatever cheesy video they have cobbled together. Guess what? i t s n o t y o u r s o n g a n d y o u c a n t d o t h a t.

Oh well. If anything, the more Youtube is cleansed of videos of Thomas the Tank Engine set to bad Journey songs, (as if there are good ones?), well, I'm all in favor of it.

Stupidity at head office, film at 11 (1)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498659)

Ever since Google bought YouTube for a ridiculous amount of money people have been wondering how they'll be able to make their money back from it, there's a simple solution to this:

Use YouTube as a try-before-you-buy system.

Instead of muting the audio on copyrighted tracks & removing copyrighted video - reduce the audio/video quality a bit and include a BUY NOW link so that Google and the copyright owners can start to cash in on people's want to have the audio/video in CD/blu-ray/DVD quality instead of watching a 'postage stamp' sized video in half-CD quality mono.

Irritating music (1)

British (51765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498697)

I like to watch gameplay videos. However, I don't like it when the original audio to the game is gone, in favor of some dumb death metal song. It's almost a bit of an insult to those who engineered the audio for the game.

Way to hurt your business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498737)

I should be surprised but I'm not. Let me share one of my favorites before Sony joins and its gone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYDzCzSiaz4&feature=PlayList&p=6B95CC593F0AD058&index=0&playnext=1).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>