Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

EFF Lawyer Calls YouTube ContentID Worse Than DMCA

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the take-toys-and-go-home dept.

Google 219

Richard Koman writes "Warner Music Group is apparently blocking everything YouTube ContentID comes up with as potential infringement. We knew that, but this piece by Jason Perlow shows that they're also spewing out DMCA takedown notices for some pretty clearly fair-use stuff. In my interview with EFF's Fred von Lohmann he talks about how, as bad as the DMCA process is — and it's pretty firmly against fair-use — YouTube's process gives remixers and digital creators even fewer options to assert their right to speak through the fair use of copyright material. While EFF is negotiating with Google and the studios, he suggests that users boycott YouTube if they won't stand up for fair use."

cancel ×

219 comments

Alternative? (2, Interesting)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27522919)

Is there an alternative that's as easy to use and allows embedding of the videos on other sites?

Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523015)

You can blame the **AA for basically stamping out all competition and then wheeling out ineffective/pay-to-use/DMCA crushing alternatives.

Re:Alternative? (5, Insightful)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523029)

An alternative is giving the giant middle finger to the RIAA and using ONLY independent music in your YouTube videos. Go creative commons, go attribution only, etc, and fully credit those artists so people can discover them and realize they can get good or better music without the RIAA

Re:Alternative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523471)

Independent music wouldn't work so well for something like wedding reception videos, though. If you're in a situation where people can request music, they're not all going to pick independent artists.

Re:Alternative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523597)

While I enjoy my Ramen noodles and read these discussions about the new Elvis, I always wonder... what if I took my guitar, and TNE (The New Elvis) took his laptop, and we both went to the park, and at the exact same time we both started "creating", who would get to go home with the cute chick walking her dog?

Re:Alternative? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523699)

Probably the dog...

Re:Alternative? (2, Interesting)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523815)

They're just send takedown notices anyway.

Re:Alternative? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523847)

then they'll become famous, and a major record label will sign them up and GOTO 10

Re:Alternative? (0, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523879)

Yes, the solution to the problem is not to fix it, but to just listen to shitty music by people who aren't good enough to get a real contract.

Great idea. Really.

I spent a good year and a half doing just that, only listening to indie music, I stopped when my ears told me that if I didn't stop listening to it they were going to throttle my brain in a desperate attempt to save life as we know it.

If you can give a convincing fair use argument (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523031)

It's called the dispute button. It leads you to a page listing several categories of valid and invalid dispute reasons. One of the valid options is "this use does not require the copyright owner's permission"; select the radio button next to that and you'll get a text box for further information. Put a Twitter-length explanation of why you believe your use is a fair use under the Copyright Act, and you just might win if you have a decent case. I won the only dispute filed against me, which was for the use of "Take Me Out" in this video explaining how it sounds like an Animal Crossing song [youtube.com] .

Patents, Copyright, trademarks and IP (5, Insightful)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523195)

Put a Twitter-length explanation of why you believe your use is a fair use under the Copyright Act, and you just might win if you have a decent case.

Whoa. Hold on there, son. Yes, I agree: there is a strong need to change the laws that define patents, copyrights, trademarks and intellectual property. The current set of laws are either based on older laws or have been designed by the wrong people.

But - and I need you to put down the remote and listen to me, child - there needs to be a balance between inventors, writers and the public. DMCA was written too broadly by the entertainment industry. Another hurdle that hurts the common man is the costs involved in getting a patent, copyright or trademark are at times higher than the expected revenue to be derived by having a patent, copyright or trademark.

Fair use also needs to be protected. If a video of a child's music recital is taken down because of copyright laws, then those laws have gone too far. The song "Happy Birthday" apparently is still copyrighted, but the public is allowed to sing the song at special events without paying anything to the copyright holder.

Art and music are vital parts of culture, the artists should have credit and benefit of sales; but, the public has a right to experience art and music without undue burdens that treat the enjoyment as a commodity. Fucking kids!

=Smidge=

Re:If you can give a convincing fair use argument (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523479)

Put a Twitter-length explanation of why you believe your use is a fair use under the Copyright Act, and you just might win if you have a decent case.

I don't know if a Twitter [slashdot.org] length argument will help. I might also confuse them when I start pointing out that M$ is the root of all evil and they're the reason that my fair use rights are tramped on.

(CAPTCHA: mumble)!!

Re:If you can give a convincing fair use argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523595)

He obviously meant "140 characters or less". Besides, the company pushing the block button is Warner Music Group, not Microsoft Corporation.

Re:If you can give a convincing fair use argument (4, Interesting)

Neoncow (802085) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523627)

Write up your experience with filing your counter-claim. Add an easy to understand explanation of what DMCA is and why it's bad. The key is easy to understand and follow.

Post it to a blog or website. Report back to slashdot and we can distribute it among young YouTubers.

Education + youthful resentment of authority + Gen Y/Gen Z entitlement - Music videos == digital revolt.

A twitter length? (1)

ChefInnocent (667809) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524081)

How many Libraries of Congress is that?

Re:Alternative? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523151)

Vimeo isn't bad.

Re:Alternative? (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523393)

Vimeo isn't bad.

But it is limiting. Vimeo doesn't allow videos that promote a business, unlike YouTube. Nor does it allow you to post videos licensed from some other author (e.g. under Creative Commons) or videos from the public domain; the uploader has to be the author. This means you can't post, say, video game reviews because you aren't the author of the video game.

Re:Alternative? (2, Interesting)

mftb (1522365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523623)

Well that's justifiable - they don't want to be YouTube so they set up a niche (that, in my opinion, has led to a very good collection of videos). If you really want to post videos yourself, you can always host them yourself.

Fair Use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27524039)

*shakes head* When did people actually start believing that crap that 'Fair Use' had anything to do with 'Fair'. Or 'Use', for that matter.

Far better to boycotting would be.... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#27522973)

if college students from places that are righting **AA put up fair use items. Then when Warner and others go after these, then put the lawyers against the companies. Once they feel the heat of lawyers, then things will change.

Re:Far better to boycotting would be.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523121)

Even better would be...

creating an official anti-copyright consortium. Then creating data centers to house copyrighted works en masse. Finally, paying the worlds best spammers to spam links to these data centers while spreading anti-copyright propaganda.

I'm fairly certain that if they stopped spamming Viagra and Oprah shit for 24 hours, and substituted all that spam with "free movie download" spam it would send a message louder than any boycott or lobbyist ever could.

Re:Far better to boycotting would be.... (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523137)

I'm afraid I don't understand your master plan.

if college students from places that are righting **AA put up fair use items.

Do you mean "writing"? what does "righting **AA" or "writing **AA" mean exactly?

Then when Warner and others go after these, then put the lawyers against the companies.

What lawyers? I thought they were students. Students probably couldn't summon their university lawyers, and most likely the lawyers would advise the students to take down infringing material. Maybe the whole "righting **AA" comes into play some how? Not sure how.

Once they feel the heat of lawyers, then things will change.

No, I'm pretty sure **IA has dealt with lawyers of all stripes before. They seem to be unaffected.

Again, I have only a vague idea what you are proposing, but unless there is a crazy catch 22 on the order of getting them to be as stupid as the associated press, I doubt it will work.

Re:Far better to boycotting would be.... (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523377)

I'm afraid I don't understand your master plan.

He accidentally the submit button.

4chan ftw

Re:Far better to boycotting would be.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523139)

What would a college's lawyers sue the **AA over? The takedown notice is being sent to Google, not the college or even the college student.

Google is under no obligation to provide anyone with a means to publish videos online regardless of whether they fit the Fair Use criteria.

Re:Far better to boycotting would be.... (1, Informative)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524025)

And who pray tell will be paying for this?

"put the lawyers against" requires money, and a lot of it. If you are a non-wealthy tier citizen it is not something you can afford and therefore any rights requiring lawyers or legal assistance is something which non-wealthy citizens(aka middle class and lower) are not entitled to, where wealthy citizens are.

This is how the US government works. The wealthy class are taught the language of money and law, and given the ability, clout and means to use it(all three are known by the rest of us as capital or simply money). The non-wealthy classes may aspire to become wealthy, but until they do must not know their place and must be kept in the dark as to how the legal system works. This is simple as the language of the legal and financial system is kept so abstruse and threatening that no one without a constant immersion and direct means to use it would ever be willing to try and navigate it. There are of course colleges that teach these things but the cost is kept at a high enough rate that only the cream who are willing to keep the status safely quo are allowed to pass through the rest are generally given such crushing financial debts that they are never able to wield these instruments against their makers.

We have a wonderful financial system. It has replaced the government without the people ever realizing it. No matter how much is blustered about reform and regulation just look who is in office under those elected. Sure you could have voted for the other guy, because the system is so perfect that he'd be in the same pocket just on the other side of the button. All blame is shifted to abstractions-today called "Red" and "Blue"-and the system works right on around all the outrage and indignaty of the unwealthy undeserving majority, the loser classes, while the winners reap all the benefits.

The RIAA is a good scape goat and fine working piece of this machinery slowly but surely shutting down all of the loser ability to speak out in any meaningful way. In concert with efforts to control content on the internet it will soon be that dissent will be funneled through the tightest of information capillaries where the mere effort to squeak it out will be so much that the individual will be seen as stupid and undeserving of being listened to simply for wasting their valuable time.

Is there a solution (5, Insightful)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523035)

Whatever google does is going to end up being bad, including doing nothing. The online user submitted content arena is a total hell hole. I would not touch that stuff with a 10Gbit/s foot tube.

Crazy Thought! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523041)

Learn to play an instrument, write something, film your own original movie. Copy/paste is not art.

Accidental plagiarism (5, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523103)

Learn to play an instrument, write something

And get sued for accidental plagiarism. George Harrison got sued and lost (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music). Michael Bolton got sued and lost (Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton).

Re:Accidental plagiarism (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523593)

Ding Ding Ding! I had a situation at work where people used Happy Birthday as a melody for an iPhone music app. They were shocked to find out that it is copyrighted. The problem is that there is so much content out there that you can argue with just enough credibility to get into court that creative work A infringes on random creative work B. Despite all efforts by creators of A to be original. Not sure where I heard it, but this was one advice to future creatives types that stuck with me: "If you want to make a movie, do it in an empty white room with your two closest friends. Everything else opens you up for copyright claims."

The point is that culture thrives on copying, modifying and playing with existing content. The harder corps will try to come down on small infringement, the less people will like the overall idea of copyright itself. One possible outcome is that WarnerBros gets everyone to turn into mindless consumers. Another possible outcome is that people get so pissed off that they manage to convince their congress critters to change copyright law in their favor. And I'm not sure the former is more likely than the latter.

Re:Accidental plagiarism (5, Funny)

TheFaithfulStone (1528753) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523703)

"If you want to make a movie, do it in an empty white room with your two closest friends. Everything else opens you up for copyright claims."

Sounds like a THX1138 ripoff to me.

Re:Accidental plagiarism (1)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524093)

Not to sound like a troll, but it is a relatively well-known fact that "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted.
At every restaurant I've been at where the staff sang something for somebody's birthday, it was never the actual "Happy Birthday" song, but an alternate version of theirs.
I asked them why, and they explained me that they didn't have the right to sing Happy Birthday, because it is indeed copyrighted!

Re:Accidental plagiarism (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524147)

This is a relatively well-known fact that you had to inquire about.

Re:Accidental plagiarism (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524107)

"If you want to make a movie, do it in an empty white room with your two closest friends. Everything else opens you up for copyright claims."

I have a patent on that. Patent 588233, boring movie done with two closest friends in an empty white room.

Please send me my share or we'll meet in court. Thanks.

Re:Accidental plagiarism (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523653)

Michael Bolton got sued and lost

I'm confused: are you objecting or complaining that copyright infringement isn't a capital offence?

Read the statistics (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523777)

Farmer Tim: In singling out Mr. Bolton, are you aiming for a (Score:5, Funny), trying to make a reference to Office Space or perhaps to some obscure film that I haven't seen?

Consider this: Based on the properties of the western musical scale, there's a significant chance that any song you write will infringe another song's hook. I seem to remember this analysis [slashdot.org] .

Re:Crazy Thought! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523157)

Learn 'blah' to 'blah' play 'blah' an 'blah' instrument, 'blah' write 'blah' something, 'blah' film 'blah' your 'blah' own 'blah' original 'blah' movie. 'blah' Copy/paste 'blah' is 'blah' not 'blah' art.'blah' --- yes it is.

Re:Crazy Thought! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523229)

Compelling. I can't wait to get front row seats to watch you perform. I hear you can do a one handed copy/paste, while holding a sparkler in the other!

Re:Crazy Thought! (4, Funny)

Petersko (564140) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523663)

"Learn 'blah' to 'blah' play 'blah' an 'blah' instrument, 'blah' write 'blah' something, 'blah' film 'blah' your 'blah' own 'blah' original 'blah' movie. 'blah' Copy/paste 'blah' is 'blah' not 'blah' art.'blah' --- yes it is"

Let's play "spot the person with no significant artistic talent". Can I go first?

Re:Crazy Thought! (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523161)

They may still submit a DMCA takedown notice againt it, and google will still take it down...

..and now what do you do? Get a laywer? Cry? yeah...

Re:Crazy Thought! (0, Troll)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523347)

This started with the cult of the DJ. Once it became acceptable to be considered a musician for playing other people's records, the floodgates were opened. Now just cutting other people's work up and rearranging it is considered "creative."

Re:Crazy Thought! (3, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523499)

This started with the cult of the Baroque composer. Check this. [bepress.com] (warning: PDF)

Johann Sebastian Bach was often criticized in later (post-18th-Century) critical literature for "borrowing" from other composers. If he or his son Johann Christian were starting out today, they'd be mixers, not composers.

Absolutely (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523915)

This started with the cult of the Baroque composer.

Couldn't have someone loaned the composer a few bucks?

Re:Crazy Thought! (2, Interesting)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523807)

But it is creative. Or I should say, it can be creative. [thru-you.com] That song did not exist until Kutiman made it. Not one of the videos he used were that song, they were their own songs (and in some cases just sounds), but not the one he created.

Re:Crazy Thought! (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523839)

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that it isn't creative. You don't even understand what you are talking about. You've obviously never listened to many DJs, or you would know shit like that is so creative: Mick Boogie [mickboogie.com] , Kruder & Dorfmeister [g-stoned.com] , DJ Benzi [djbenzi.com] , Amplive [myspace.com] , DJ Jazzy Jeff [djjazzyjeff.com] , Crookers [myspace.com] , Diplo [myspace.com] , DJ Danger Mouse [illegal-art.org] , Wax Tailor [waxtailor.com] , N.A.S.A. [anti.com] , etc., etc., etc. And that's just off the toppa my head.

Stop hatin'! (It is verifiably bad for your health to harbor strong emotions based on nothing but some desire to protect a fragile ego.) Being a DJ is far more than playing music for people (although it is also very much playing music for people). It is moving people and entertaining them throughout an evening and keeping them dancing and psyched out about hearing all the bagin' beats and their favorites and new tracks. It's about hyping new artists and producing beats for them so that more people can hear music they like. It is about remixing and producing tracks featuring a variety of vocalists and instrumentalists. It is about evoking emotion on and off the dance floor and showing people another perspective on a beat or vocal hook they thought they knew inside and out. It's fine if you don't like the music, but to call something you know nothing about uncreative is just, well, hubris!

Re:Crazy Thought! (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524059)

Some more: Kid Koala [myspace.com] , Kut Master Kurt [discogs.com] , Afrika Bambaataa [zulunation.com] , DJ Spooky [djspooky.com] , The X-Ecutioners [www.last.fm] , Nightmares on Wax [nightmaresonwax.com] , The BPA [myspace.com] . Man if I had my iTunes with me I could probably type a whole screen of tight shit.

I mostly agree. (1, Insightful)

Petersko (564140) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523565)

I have to say there's a great deal of creativity and talent involved in the performances of guys like DJ Shadow and Cut Chemist (Brain Freeze, for example), despite the fact that they work with prerecorded media. They're exceptions though.

The worst examples are on youtube. Sticking a bunch of clips from a tv show together and replacing the audio with some annoying song is technically, but barely, creative, and it's certainly not worth anything. Any iTard can do it.

Re:I mostly agree. (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524031)

They're very much not exceptions my friend. Obviously, there are a ton of crappy DJs out there just like any other kind of performers. I posted some a couple posts up in this thread, but I mean I can even remember more now besides those: Kid Koala [myspace.com] , Kut Master Kurt [discogs.com] , Afrika Bambaataa [zulunation.com] , DJ Spooky [djspooky.com] , The X-Ecutioners [www.last.fm] , Nightmares on Wax [nightmaresonwax.com] , The BPA [myspace.com] . Man if I had my iTunes with me I could probably type a whole screen of sick shit.

Re:Crazy Thought! (2, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524105)

Ever go watch a Shakespear play? There's often some darned good performances going on; real artists. None of them wrote the material.

Silence kills freedom... (1)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523059)

We are quickly becoming a silent society. I never thought I would see the day when fear was the top motivator in art. I never thought I would have to worry about enjoying a song or looking at something on a wall.

For me because media has become a big business that has nothing to do with art, joy, expressiveness, emotions, insights, wisdom or knowledge. Let it all die out.

It was a mistake to allow the internet to go commercial. It has become one of the most useless things on the planet.People think they can't live with out it and stay connected for to long.
I use it for entertainment purposes only. It has become for me no more meaningful than a television. I turn it off when ever I want.

I am just afraid that someday the only access you will have to government or economic resources will be online. When that happens I will have to move out of this country to one that isn't so technologically "advanced".

The internet could have connected the world into a global community but it has been corrupted and it is the tool of big business and big government. The common people never had a chance.

=Smidge=

Re:Silence kills freedom... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523633)

Problem is, your dismay has been forseen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_2020 [wikipedia.org]

The RP gamer crowd knew the net would be commercial, even before we properly understood it all.

Yes the book missed a few things, but what's alarming me is the MegaCorporation mentality is right on track, on time.

Reg. User posting Anon because I modded something else up to someone who deserved a point.

Actually (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523085)

You-Tube is losing money, so use their services even more of you don't like them

They give us content at a loss, but make up for it in volume.

Re:Actually (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523333)

Citation please?

First google result I found said that net revenue had increase 101% in the last year, although YT profits represent only 1-1.5% of googles total ad revenue.

Not a loss by a long shot.

Re:Actually (1)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523451)

Article Link [multichannel.com]

Most of the articles I saw regarding losses were based on this projection.

Re:Actually (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523515)

increase of 101% does not mean profit.

I think a cuople of informed /.'ers ahve posted a link already, so I won't bother.

Thanks guys!

Re:Actually (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523687)

Yeah sorry, half asleep and I parsed net revenue as net profit.
You're right, their haemorrhaging cash.

Re:Actually (4, Insightful)

mrbene (1380531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523737)

You-Tube is losing money, so use their services even more of you don't like them

They give us content at a loss, but make up for it in volume.

I may having a bit of a slow day. This series of statements doesn't seem logically sound.

Perhaps the intent is to state:

  1. YouTube is currently generating more cost than revenue.
  2. Due to economies of scale, infrastructure and delivery costs grow less quickly than audience size.
  3. Due to a larger audience allowing a premium on ad impressions, ad related revenue grows more quickly than audience size.
  4. It is YouTube's ultimate goal to become profitable by increasing audience size beyond the point that these two curves converge.

However, this thesis is at odds with the recommendation to "use their services even more if you don't like them".

Re:Actually (1)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523907)

I may having a bit of a slow day. This series of statements doesn't seem logically sound.

It's an old joke but I can't remember the source.

Re:Actually (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523987)

I think his point was the use their services even more to the extent that 2 becomes false, breaking the rest of the chain.

Given that YouTube is pissing money... (3, Interesting)

kylemonger (686302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523237)

... to the tune of 470M per annum according to Credit Suisse analyst Spencer Wang [barrons.com] , maybe we should pile on instead of boycotting them. :)

It's pretty sad (1, Redundant)

S7urm (126547) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523259)

That people expect a service that provides easily searchable, accessible, and embeddable content, to fight your crusade for you. Why SHOULD they fight fair use battles if that wasn't their implied mission from square one? I know that if I was the owner/operator of YouTube I'd do everything that I had to do to protect my business from being sued by DMCA happy lawyers.

You also have to keep in mind that crusaders of Fair Use are in the Minority, because your average Joe doesn't even know what the DMCA is or ever even heard of the RIAA, and THAT is the audience a huge site like YouTube is focusing on.

I agree that it sucks, and that the DMCA sucks and is abused, but you can't expect everyone to chance everything to fight something that garners No common interest among the majority of it's users population.

Write em' an e-mail, and gripe to them, just don't expect anything to happen at the speed you'd like to see.

Donate to EFF! (4, Informative)

siliconwafer (446697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523271)

...he suggests that users boycott YouTube...

Good idea. I also suggest making a donation to EFF [eff.org] .

Re:Donate to EFF! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523529)

the EFF has been slipping more into using scare tactic headlines and statements and away from just listing facts.
So I will NOT be donating this year.
Yes I have donated in the past.

Tell you what (4, Insightful)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523281)

We don't NEED warner's music/movies. With the web, we've developed to a point where independently run shows are more entertaining than big business crap.
Think hak5, collegehumor, derrik comedy, truenuff.
Yeah, honestly, fuck warner. If they don't want to share, they don't get to be part of the future.

Re:Tell you what (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523373)

Considering that list I'd say we do in fact need them.

Who will provide background music? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523459)

We don't NEED warner's music/movies.

Clarification: Time Warner spun off Warner Music Group a few years ago. Now they share nothing but the Warner name and the WB logo, and possibly a favorable license to use WMG music in TW films.

With the web, we've developed to a point where independently run shows are more entertaining than big business crap.

But who will provide the background music for these independent shows?

Yeah, honestly, fuck warner. If they don't want to share, they don't get to be part of the future.

Think of that on the day you go one year into the future. Your family will probably sing you a song copyrighted to Warner/Chappell [wikipedia.org] , a division of WMG.

Re:Tell you what (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523949)

We don't NEED warner's music/movies.

True enough. It's entertainment, we don't need any of it, much less theirs.

With the web, we've developed to a point where independently run shows are more entertaining than big business crap.

The hell we have. I have yet to see ONE, just one, independently produced show that was anywhere near as good as a professional show (unless we deliberately cherry-pick our indie shows to be good and our pro shows to suck). We're nowhere near the point you claim.

Anti-Boycott hurts them more (1)

Mr_Blank (172031) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523287)

As seen Apr. 9, 2009, 6:30 AM on http://www.businessinsider.com/is-youtube-doomed-2009-4 [businessinsider.com]

According to a report by Credit Suisse, YouTube is on track to lose roughly $470 million in 2009. No matter Google's $116 billion market cap: a half-billion dollar loss on a single property, even one as large as YouTube, is a bitter pill to swallow...

Since the majority of Google's costs for the service are pure variable costs of bandwidth and storage, and since they've already reached the point at which no greater economies of scale remain, the costs of the business will continue to grow on a linear basis. Unfortunately, far more user-generated content than professional content makes its way onto the site, which means that while costs grow linearly, non-monetizable content is growing geometrically as compared against the monetizable content that YouTube really wants and needs to survive. This means less and less of YouTube's library will be revenue-contributing, while the costs of delivering that library will continue to grow.

If you really want to hurt Google, then post more and raise their costs. A boycott right now would actually help them balance the books and make it easier for them to justify continuing the service.

Re:Anti-Boycott hurts them more (1)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523437)

And besides, seriously, when has a boycott against a major internet player every worked? Please link to sources if you have examples. It's easy to call for a boycott. Not so easy to actually make one effective.

Re:Anti-Boycott hurts them more (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523557)

Yes, but I cant link because they are gone.

Seriously, A boycott would work, they question is "When has anyone gotten an actual boycott on a major internet player."

I do know that Google has change policy when there was a major outcry. So has MS.

Re:Anti-Boycott hurts them more (1)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523739)

News story link perhaps? And public outcry isn't the same as a boycott. A boycott is when you get people to stop using a service. Did people in large numbers quit using MS or Google? Is that what got them to change or was it just the bad publicity.

What a bunch of sour grapes! (5, Funny)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523297)

They don't like YouTube, they don't like Obama [slashdot.org] ... does the EFF like anything?

Seriously, write a press-release about how much you love little puppies or something. Your grumpiness is making me depressed.

Re:What a bunch of sour grapes! (1)

averner (1341263) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523547)

News flash: reality can be harsh. Don't shoot the messenger!

Re:What a bunch of sour grapes! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523591)

Well they seem to be running out of new Ammo, so are just gunning on the big names, usually using scare verbage in their posts.

Seriously, they ahve taken a huge dive in the last 10 months.

Re:What a bunch of sour grapes! (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523655)

But, but! That would break with the internet hate machine school of journalism!

If the EFF didn't hate, we wouldn't care! Honest!

They Must Be Running Low on Funds (1, Interesting)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523795)

The EFF always slips into high melodrama mode when they need to raise funds. Slashdot has served as one of their principal PR platforms perennially. It's pathetic and smarmy, but it's nothing new.

Re:What a bunch of sour grapes! (1, Flamebait)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523897)

[quote]they don't like Obama... does the EFF like anything?[/quote] Last I knew, the middle 'F' in EFF was for Freedom. That may have just a bit to do with the dislike for our current dictator.

Everything is worse... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523327)

So the EFF says that YouTube ContentID is worse than DMCA, and that Obama's wiretapping defense is worse than Bush's...

EFF: Tomorrow's Proclamations Will Be Worse Than Today's.

My intellectual property position [long] (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523331)

To say where this all started would be a revelation to me. When it started I didn't even know I was doing it. Now days this is so overly talked about on shows and written in lyrics it's almost a fashion. Girls and boys thinking they are hardcore and profound. Well to me this is just a story, and I don't know if there is any conclusion to it.. but it's mine.

Feeling alone in high school isn't anything new. This all started when all my friends were around me and I notices blood dripping from my hands because I had dug my fingernails so far into my skin without even noticing. I know this is not cutting but for many it is the start of a great relationship.

I don't know why but I remember taking a pen cap that was all chewed up and running it back and forth until I was satisfied on how much blood was running down my thigh. Nothing to have any scars there till this day, but enough to make me cringe in the shower for a few days.

I did this about once a month until my senior year. I got drunk on New Years and for some reason ran into my friends bathroom and started slicing away at my wrists. I got up now satisfied and went and hung out with my friends. Of course they noticed my sweaters cuffs had blood on them; but soon didn't care because I thew them off with a good girl on girl make out session.

The same thing happened on the night of graduation with a big party and to much alcohol and a stone wall. I was talking with all my friends and had my arms to the other side of the wall just running them back and forth.

All these cuts go away into tiny white scars that no one notices. So it's not that bad and so it never becomes a problem. Sometimes you have cuts that are seen by others, and you make up excuses. Dumb ones that sound like freak accidents, but no one is really the wiser.

At 18 I moved out on my own and did not have to answer to no one. I could talk about how I do this when I am feeling so much pain and I want to direct the pain into a bloody cut, but then I more enjoy the stories of how these beautiful cuts are performed.

One night after a sexual episode the guy left my house and forgot his Kershaw pocket knife. That thing stays sharp! It has a smooth edge for warm deep cuts, and it has a jagged part for angry messy cuts. That friend was great and left me with flat scars that I still have today but can not be noticed to greatly.

It became something I just did. My friend found out and told me to stop... but was me and there was no reason for me to stop or want to. This is the best thing ever. I loved that feeling and the sight of blood. I got such satisfaction in seeing my work. While the cuts healed was almost a test on my creativity; until winter came around and there is no need for creativity.

My knife was upstairs, and while cleaning I found a razor blade in my drawer. It was rusty, but sharp none the less. I sometimes did my cutting like a ritual. I would sometimes make a bath and put candles around and turned on my favorite self hating CD. I loved it when my bathwater is red, and when I got out you could tell where the water level was on me because of a red line.

The thing about very sharp razor blades is that you do not have to push as hard as a knife. It was great. I sat out on my front porch and drank and smoked and I did about 15 cuts on my forearm and across my wrist.(my favorite place to do it)This time was a little different though. It was amazing how clean and far this razor cut. It hurt so good. I just thought about how easy it would be to just end it all right there. But I never wanted to kill myself. Suicide kids are people are in there own class and to have that much balls to do that is something I just don't have.

I forgot to clean all the blood off the porch because I had to go pick up my friend from work. I couldn't think of no excuse except I don't know what that is.

Every time those cuts scabbed over I would pick them and watch more blood come out. I did that all the time but these ones were so messy. Picking them was almost as good as cutting because I would grab one end of the scab and rip the whole thing off. Then it was like a brand new cut.

These ones didn't heal like the others. It is now summer and today it was 98 degrees outside. I had a long sleeve shirt on and again I have to hide. These scars that I got from this are very dark and very raised.

To get rid of them would be great but I can't get rid of them on my own. I tried to scrub all my arm skin off with a rough stone. Kind of start a new canvas if you will. But that does not work on these scars. I was desperate and I turned to my mom.

My mom knew about my problem but I told her a while ago it was over. So she was oddly understanding but she made me go to therapy and take Zoloft for my depression and anxiety attacks. Three months later I am out of my medication and won't go to therapy anymore. Screw those sessions. I cured myself. This cutting thing was my best friend until it made me not be able to wear some things and make me understand that it did nothing for me.

Now I am trying to figure out a way to get rid of them. I don't know if I will try something surgical, or try to find out if this might give me an excuse to get a lower arm sleeve. I love tattoos! Either way my advice, not that I am in anyway a good advice giver, is if you need to cut, do it on your thighs or groin area. Those places are nice and painful and are easier to hide.

Disclaimer: The experience above was submitted by Dan East and has not been edited. We can not guarantee that the experience is accurate, truthful, or contains valid or even safe advice. We strongly urge you to use BME and other resources to educate yourself so you can make safe informed decisions.

-Dan East

Jack Valenti, the immortal Lich King of *AA, (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523343)

once said "There is no fair use to take something that doesn't belong to you." Evidently, his corrupt spirit continues to rule the dark kingdom of Mediopolis. Fair use is a legal right, at least within U.S. law, but it appears that corporate media copyright conglomerates will make you fight for that right, each and every you exercise it, until you give up.

Re:Jack Valenti, the immortal Lich King of *AA, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523893)

He may be immortal, but I doubt he would have much luck against my level 23 Cleric turning him.

Done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523353)

Hahahaaaaa. YouTube? Whats that? I've already forgotten how to use it. Be sure to let us know if the situation changes, otherwise I'll have to stick with Xtube.

More Take Downs (1)

Mr_Blank (172031) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523387)

Doesn't every YouTube video that is entirely quiet violate copyrights on 4'33" [wikipedia.org] ? If so, then the copyright holder of that 'song' could dispute many videos, and potentially open the path to new revenue by getting all those copyright pirates to buy a license for the use of silence.

Re:More Take Downs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27523563)

Doesn't every YouTube video that is entirely quiet violate copyrights on 4'33" [wikipedia.org] ? If so, then the copyright holder of that 'song' could dispute many videos, and potentially open the path to new revenue by getting all those copyright pirates to buy a license for the use of silence.

Technically, you are correct. However I highly doubt that any copyright for that "song" would hold up, due to prior "art".

Workaround (2, Informative)

dhermann (648219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523433)

I know there are a great many video editing tools out there, but here is how to do it in Sony Vegas.

  1. Highlight the audio track that is flagged.
  2. Choose Options -> Audio -> Apply Audio FX (or something to that effect; I don't have it in front of me)
  3. Choose Pitch Shift
  4. The top scroll bar is for very large shifts in pitch. You want a small one, so use the second slider. I am not sure what kind of threshold is necessary to avoid detection by YouTube, but a quarter-step (moving the slider to about 1/4 of the way from the left or right edge) should do the trick.
  5. If this track is already part of a video you've made, you probably want to choose "Preserve Duration". Pick one of the filters labeled as "Music". I use the "Best for Loud Bass" one.
  6. Finish.

The theory behind this is simple: music operates in a key. It's a "baseline" set of notes that are usually pleasing when played together. What people usually don't understand is that any song can be played in any key, and it will sound basically the same. When you hear the pitch shift in effect the first time, the song will sound "wrong", but unless you are listening to it side-by-side, it won't matter.

YouTube scans audio using small pieces of WMG songs as "fingerprints". They naturally assume that the songs they are looking for are in the same key as the original recording. By shifting the pitch a quarter step, the audio track will be impossible to match to their fingerprint. Keep in mind that this is a "workaround", that is, you could not rerecord a song in a different key and claim that it doesn't infringe on the original's copyright. But your YouTube videos are safe!

Good luck finding the Pitch Shift feature in your video editing software. It's relatively simple, and should be available in most.

Under Penalty of Perjury... (4, Interesting)

Devil's BSD (562630) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523443)

So as far as I know, all DMCA takedown notices must have the following legalese blurb:

"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

IANAL, but it seems obvious to me that misrepresenting something that is clearly fair use as something that isn't means that the notification was NOT accurate. Therefore, the law firm representing the copyright holder (and possibly the copyright holder themselves) should have charges of perjury filed against them. I haven't seen the EFF file any countersuits like this yet, though...

Re:Under Penalty of Perjury... (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523771)

Who can prosecute them for it? I've never, ever, heard of that statement being invoked against anyone. (I did hear an explanation as to why it's essentially meaningless unless you are representing yourself...but I don't remember it anymore.)

Re:Under Penalty of Perjury... (1)

dirk (87083) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523799)

Actually, you are incorrect. The problem is, Fair Use is a defense. If you are sued for use of copyrighted material, you can go to court and claim that what you were doing is Fair Use and you should not be penalized for it. They are not claiming what is there is not Fair Use, they are simply claiming that the video is using copyrighted material, which is correct. It is up to you to then prove that your use was Fair Use and okay.

YANAL (3, Informative)

vlad_petric (94134) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523851)

Problem with fair use is that it's a very vague concept (at least in the USA) to begin with. RIAA is even claiming that it's not a right, but an affirmative defense. So anybody can claim that X is not a fair use of Y without committing perjury in any way.

Under what clause of "Fair Use" does this fall?? (1)

strings42 (1155255) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523469)

I'm going to get flamed for this, but under what idea of "Fair Use" would this fall? IANAL but I don't see how this is particularly transformative, and it certainly isn't parody. Pretty much just a guy who got his feelings hurt, sounds like. There is no inalienable right to use copyrighted material, and the law generalizes on the side of the copyright holder, not the user. In general, copyrightable materials are copyrighted unless proven otherwise, not in the public domain unless proven otherwise. And oh by the way, YouTube is private. They're not obligated to post anything, ever. Or as a corrolary, they can pretty much take anything down anytime they want. You don't have to like it, support YouTube, etc., certainly, but the whole idea of having some inalienable right to use a service that costs somebody else money for free, on your own terms, is pretty laughable. I have to say the EFF is starting to look like the ACLU in that their arguments are becoming increasingly bizarre. The EFF should probably recommend that people boycott my media server too, since I don't have any intention of ever letting anyone outside of my immediate family post to it. Fire away ...

Pain in the Ass (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523503)

Seems like every other video I go to watch is without audio due to 'complaints' and 'infringement'

While this is a good thing for those gameplay videos that involve rap being played at 2x the volume of the game's sounds, it is a BAD THING for things like anime music videos, or parody videos, etc.

Things that should be fair-use are being taken down for 'infringement'.

Perhaps someone could get away with a slander/libel case against whoever called it infringement when it was fair use?

Scale of the takedowns (5, Interesting)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523519)

Earlier this year when YouTube started silencing user posted videos in response to WB, someone posted this link [google.co.uk] which did a search for silenced YouTube videos.

Right now there are over 22,000 search results, the highest I've seen it was 300,000+ search results, meaning overall YouTube appear to have silenced over well over 1/3 million videos (and probably then removed most of them).

Informational Video with Troy McClure (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523575)

The New York Times reports that many YouTube users have found themselves in the same position as high school sophomore Juliet Weybret, who posted a video of herself playing piano and singing "Winter Wonderland."

Troy McClure: Oh, how darling! That is one swinging rendition, Juliet!
Troy McClure: But today I'm going to teach you the magic of copyrights! Do you know that you're violating the law?
*Juliet shakes her head*
Troy McClure: GOOD! That just might hold up as a defense in court if you look a little more sweeter and innocent. But your fate is up to the RIAA to decide!
Troy McClure: You see, Juliet, copyright law is designed to be much too complex for any normal citizen to understand for a reason: so that you, the average citizen, will always lose. Now where did you learn that song from?
Juliet Wybret: My grandma.
Troy McClure: Jackpot! The RIAA loves to interact with the elderly that can't understand technology. I'm certain she paid a handsome sum to play that song for you though otherwise the two of you are thieves. You're not a thief, are you Juliet?
Juliet Wybret: I don't think so.
Troy McClure: Of course not! You see there is a simple law that states for works created after 1978 copyright lasts 70 years after the last surviving author's death (in the case of joint) and works between 1964 and 1977 are the same except were under the old model which had terms of 28 years starting in 1923 but they had to be renewed in order to enjoy the benefit of the full 95 year term after the last surviving author's death. Easy to remember, right? So you see, Winter Wonderland was composed by Felix Bernard who died in 1944 and the lyrics were written by Richard B. Smith who died in 1935. The good news is that you can publicly say the lyrics after 2030 and play the music on piano after 2039! So you're almost there!
Juliet Wybret: Bu ... but my grandma and mom play this song for the whole family every Christmas ...
Troy McClure: Easy there, Juliet! The RIAA's got enough ammo against you as it is. Remember, the Senators and Congresspeople who represent you and your interests want it this way so be an American Patriot and embrace the law! They were only thinking of a fair system for you and the artists when they made these laws. See you next time!

ran across some of this earlier today (2, Interesting)

downix (84795) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523581)

Earlier today I had an urge to listen to Devo's Jocko Homo from their self-produced movie.  Found two copies, only to have the sound removed because a record label was claiming copywrite on the music.  Hello, the music is within a movie which is copywrited by Devo Productions, how can you claim to control what is within their own movie?!?

Re:ran across some of this earlier today (1)

CyberSlammer (1459173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523895)

Youtube will die, just like Napster...something else will rise from the ashes and we'll start all over again.

Re:ran across some of this earlier today (2, Informative)

PRMan (959735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523909)

Easy. Bands don't own the rights to their own music.

Re:ran across some of this earlier today (1)

downix (84795) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523921)

Ahem, this wasn't the music, it's a clip from the movie, which is owned by Devo Productions....

Re:ran across some of this earlier today (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#27523979)

Earlier today I had an urge to listen to Devo's Jocko Homo from their self-produced movie. Found two copies, only to have the sound removed because a record label was claiming copywrite on the music. Hello, the music is within a movie which is copywrited by Devo Productions, how can you claim to control what is within their own movie?!?

Devo owns the rights to the movie and music, and can do whatever they want with that material and the associated rights (that someone is willing to pick up). They obviously sold, leased or otherwise signed away the rights to audio reproduction of the soundtrack and/or songs therein. They probably still own it but are sharing the reproduction rights with the record company because it is more likely to be able to make them money than if they simply retained the rights. I suspect this is because their record production capabilities are less than the label's.

Private companies != government (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 5 years ago | (#27524067)

The U.S. government cannot deny you the right to carry a firearm to work, but the company you work for may.
The U.S. government cannot prevent you from filling your yard with yard gnomes, but your housing association may.
The U.S. government cannot force you to stop drag racing, but the company that hosts your life insurance policy may.
The U.S. government cannot prevent you from sharing particular content online, but the site that you use for hosting the content may.

In each example, you are entering an agreement with the company in the example. The agreement can set any terms it wishes. You have the choice of not signing it.

"Fair Use" is extremely vague. I believe it was vague on purpose, so that courts, politicians, and lawyers would become more necessary, but that is beside the point. YouTube realizes that the line is extremely gray, so they are conservative with what they allow. How do people not understand this?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...