YouTube Next Legal Target For Universal

[WhiteTara]

freedom of information is terrifying for control freaks. Or maybe this is just an intellectual property rights problem. Oh, right...it's all about the money.
Bad news for those who want to share video information.
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/78171

Associated Press reported Friday that Universal Music Group is prepared to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube. Universal has been in negotiations with both YouTube and MySpace contending that videos posted by users are violating copyright laws. “We believe these new businesses are copyright infringers and owe us tens of millions of dollars,” Universal Music CEO Doug Morris told investors Wednesday at a conference in Pasadena. “How we deal with these companies will be revealed shortly.”

YouTube accounts for 60% of the online videos watched in the US. But, as was previously discussed, has managed to avoid copyright issues by complying with the "online service provider safe harbors" provision contained in the DMCA. Capitol, Warner Bros., and other labels have actually made use of YouTube's huge audience with promotions and video releases. Universal, however, wants compensation for content.

n/m

[Deja Q]

1. I bought a music video DVD because of youtube...

Do these fools want to lose customers?

Apart from those who upload entire tv shows, youtube does no harm and, indeed, only gets people TO buy because the video and sound quality of the clips is hardly anything to call home about (it's crap).

[MiniMandaRuth]

2. It's not like the put full movies on.

It's just little clips and trailer. Jeeze, Uni, pull the stick out of your corporate ass.

[KyndCulture]

3. A lot of those live music videos are seeded by the artist anyway.

That's not really uni's problem with you tube.

[TaleWgnDg]

4. I've always found it somewhat humorous . . .

the so-called "debate" about intellectual property law on the internet, i.e., those libertarian-types who espouse "open source" versus those libertarian-types who love property per se and treat it as a deity, as well as those who haven't a clue but spit out their two cents regardless.

All in all, yes, it is about money and it is about property (as to who owns what and why) as opposed to the know-nothings that think everything that appears on the internet is innately free. But ask: would you want your house or car or what-ever used by whoever wants to use it and for as long as they want to use it? Oh. Indeed.



.

[Exultant Democracy]

13. Read some Thomas Jefferson's he has already explained why you are wrong

200 years ago.

"But ask: would you want your house or car or what-ever used by whoever wants to use it and for as long as they want to use it? Oh. Indeed." is apples and oranges.

Edit: Here is a link if you care http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1610
You might also start reading some Lawrence Lessig http://www.lessig.org/blog/ this is a debate that demands some intellectual investment from people that wish to partake in it. I know for a fact that I still don't really even know enough about it to have an opinion based on real logic.

[TheWraith]

51. Your argument is completely and totally wrong.

Typical misunderstandings from somebody who's never looked past the content industry spin.

For one thing, your analogy isn't even close. A car has physical value. It has a cost to produce, which assigns innate value to each copy of it. A bit of information, on the other hand, can be copied to infinity without any cost at all. If you could produce new cars instantly, for no money, would the same ideas about ownership still apply?

Second, you're talking about depriving someone of physical goods in comparison to infringement against the purported ownership of information--infringement that you would be hard pressed to claim costs the purported owner any actual value. Despite the figures that industries throw around in the billions of dollars, it's yet to be proven that copyright infringement does any kind of significant monetary damage.

The supposed copyright infringement issue is a lot of bunk. All that the content industry is doing is trying to legislate their business model. They don't want to deal with change, so they try to sue it out of existence rather than come up with new business models. They're scared to death that somebody is going to start exploiting new technologies to undercut their control of the market. What do you suppose would happen if some company like Google started an online-only TV channel? Or several? GNews, GSports, GMovies? What would happen is they would gain a huge number of users who might then not have a need for the old content delivery systems. They just want to freeze things right where they are so that they can continue with the same business model they've always had.

[astonamous]

5. I have been torn about this issue...

Part of my job is to keep copy written material from being sold or given away on sites like Ebay, Youtube and Myspace. While I can understand that in the case of Youtube, not the whole performance is usually posted, there is usually enough that people will watch and then not purchase the product legally. When the market is saturated with free stuff why pay for it?

Everyone needs to step back and put yourself in the place of an artist. If you are an artist that has put your craft up for the world to enjoy, wouldn't you want to have some control over how it is presented? It usually doesn't have much to do about money in the artist's eyes, but more about the art itself and control. A company like Universal are more concerned with the money and all the employees all the way down to the little wage earner that depend on that income. Imagine some of these "starving" artists that don't have enough money to pay for luxuries like food and health insurance. Their stuff is posted for free by some well meaning fan and again, why buy it if you can get it for free.

If you write something and then find out that your written words were posted by another person, even if they aren't making money from it, I think that you would probably not be happy about it.

There is a video clip of Richard Pryor on YouTube...I think it is quite popular...of an interview he did while filming Stir Crazy. He was higher than a kite and it was just before he set himself on fire. How do you think his family felt when they saw that? And they did because someone felt compelled to send them the link. I can tell you that there were tears over that. It had nothing to do with money.

I know that quite a lot of people will see something new because of these posts on Youtube or whatever and then go out and make the purchase, but many do not.

Trudy
www.pryorsplanet.com
www.richardpryor.com

[Kagemusha]

6. Forgive me for putting it like this but...

"I know that quite a lot of people will see something new because of these posts on Youtube or whatever and then go out and make the purchase, but many do not."

And quite a lot of people will make a purchase despite NOT seeing posts on Youtube or whatever, but many do not.

Are the many who do not purchase these products in spite of not seeing a darned thing on YouTube whatsoever, also lost customers? Or are they lost solely because YouTube did not force them to purchase the product, even if they might well have not purchased the product, nor seen the product at all, if they were simply left in ignorance?

I'm not someone who purchases hardly independently recorded music (by which I mean, that's not in movies or video games or what not). And yet, I'm less inclined to buy a Universal Music product by the mere act of reading this story. Does that make me a lost customer? Should someone be held accountable for losing me? Or am I a never-had customer?

[NJCher]

7. I don't think you can carry that logic very far

What you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is if there is free content out there, the public won't pay for content.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there are enough people who don't care about the copyright or financial compensation that there will always be plenty of free material. You admit this yourself. Just like the stuff we pay for, some will be worthless and some will be average, but there will also be gems.

Let Universal rip its stuff. Who cares. There will be plenty more to take its place.

One of these days, when these media companies and record producers get their collective heads out of their collective a^#$#%^s, they will realize that the technology has changed the nature of the business and old copyright laws are no longer feasible.




Cher

[astonamous]

14. And fuck the artist who gets screwed from both ends. n/t

[teknomanzer]

19. As an artist I see greater opportunities in this new environment...

it means I don't need to rely on mega corps to distribute and promote my work and every cent that is due to me goes in my pocket and not the coffers of some overly priveleged CEO. In addition if someone values my work enough to see it worthy of stealing... well I consider that a compliment. I means what I doe has value to someone. What I am due will come to me in the end.

[NJCher]

40. who needs the middleman?

The artist has never gotten a fair deal: from recording companies, from publishers, from any media producer. It is only when the artist reaches a certain level (think J.K. Rowling) that they have any clout whatsoever.

With the Internet, many artists are coming into their own and they don't need record producers to do it, either. Because the recording companies always screwed the artists, they have a tradition of making their money from other means, such as concerts.

Writers don't have quite the track record in forging ahead in the new media world, but there are examples of people who have achieved significant sales of their self-published books. The NY Times did an article on it and NPR also did a report that tells about some of the people who are doing well with this avenue.




Cher

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

12. That was a sad time in Rich's life.

Yes, he was a tortured genius, if there ever was one. That said, Rich did embrace that time of his life in his art and did not shrink from confronting it head-on in his material and in his non-performing words, once the dust had settled. So should those who now control his legacy.

That interview was, surely, duly released and is part of his historical record. There is much that many can learn from that interview, both as comedians and as persons made from the same flawed clay as Rich was. Why should it be surpressed in the name of, perhaps, historical revisionism?

Let's not whitewash the memory of Richard Pryor. He once made a movie that exposed the comedy in whitewashing a black man. There was more to that message than simply makeup, too. In real life, he didn't whitewash himself. Maybe the same courtesy should be extended to him in his passing.

Thank you for your websites. They are a great historical record of a very important performer.

[astonamous]

25. No one wants to change history or cover-up...just read his

biography and then watch the interview. Fucking hilarious to watch someone self destruct in front of your face. If the interview helps someone else understand the effects of drug use, then I hope the thing stays at the top of viewed videos. Richard was known for speaking the truth and his legacy continues. I don't think that what Universal or other big companies are going to be able to touch the interviews or other things posted on YouTube. In fact, there are many artists, as stated before, that are using these postings to promote their material. Even Richard's family isn't trying to take the sad reminder of his drug addiction down. Also, it wouldn't be Richard Pryor Inc. that would own the rights to that interview. Hell, he doesn't even own full rights, or even controlling rights, to the best comedy concert ever produced.

All I am trying to say is that it isn't just money that is the issue. It is control of an artists image, persona and material. The artist should be the one to decide. I would be willing to bet that a number of the artists "owned" by Universal don't mind their work being posted. Universal has the money to take the website to court and yes, we might lose a valuable tool because of it.

Like I said, I am torn about the issue because of my wanting to let history speak for itself and still being able to protect the rights of an artist to control the release of their material. There are laws already in place to protect copy written material and there are always going to be people that think they are above the law or just don't give a damn either way.

"Sprinkle my ashes in about two Pounds of cocaine. Snort me up!" R.I.P. Richard Pryor

Trudy

[sendero]

8. These morons just will never get it..

... let them go ahead. The crap you can see on YouTube is low quality grainy chopped up shit that nobody would pay for - but it IS free advertising for the artist/creator.

These people are so god damned stupid they would cut off their own leg just to cook it up for a free meal.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. What does Universal really want?

I'll tell you. I worked in the music biz for 27 years and I know how those rat bastards think.

They cannot create something that can compete against YT. They don't want to, it will cost too much and why should they? One already exists. So, they will sue them for hat and baggage(They know that YT is going through tenuous financial times and are looking for investors), and either win it outright or get a controlling interest in settlement.

Some forward thinking companies have embraced YT and it's social networking/viral aspects. Universal wants it lock, stock and barrel.

There are few groups of professionals lower than the subterranean whale shit that are entertainment lawyers.

[leQ]

17. you hit the nail on the head there tandalayo (n/t)

[AX10]

29. Right here:

"There are few groups of professionals lower than the subterranean whale shit that are entertainment lawyers."

I would say the same for the bigwigs who run these entertainment firms.

[zonkers]

42. How long do you think we have until the pipeline of YT vids is cut off?

I want to capture my faves before they are not available.

[WhiteTara]

48. thanks for the industry's position

I wondered what the real motive was. Seemed like free ad to me...KO was grateful for his 800,000 viewers...but I also read a post by an artist with their perspective of trying to be independent and watching all their work being sucked up by a non paying public.

:hi:

[NVMojo]

10. GREED!!!

[zonkers]

11. I have to admit, I am amazed Youtube has been around this long.

[Downtown Hound]

15. This is bullshit

They only put short clips on, not the whole movie. If anything, it's free advertising for Universal and other companies. There is something else behind this.

[Human Torch]

18. They also put on things like...

...the clip of Tom Petty, Jeff Lynne, Prince, and George Harrison's son Dhani performing "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame concert (go to YouTube and type in the song title and you'll find it)...Petty and Lynne trade vocals and at the end Prince goes apeshit during an extended guitar solo...sort of a Hendrix / Neil Young / "Where the hell did THAT come from" solo.

Someone can't "steal" something that doesn't exist. What DOES happen when people see things like this on YouTube is that they send letters and e-mails to the record companies of Tom Petty, Jeff Lynne, and Prince, saying "WHEN THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO RELEASE THIS SO I CAN BUY IT?"

And even if they don't, the record companies get a ton of FREE marketing intelligence on their potential buyers. They know George Harrison music still sells. They know people still like Prince. And Tom Petty. And Jeff Lynne. Then they slink off into a back room and plan new ways to "repackage" the artists' catalogs with a few sweepings from the cutting room floor so consumers will buy them a second, third, fourth time...

And that's just one scenario outside of the "you're stealing from the artists" mantra.

[Human Torch]

16. Hey Universal. I've got just the man for the job. Lars Ulrich ©...

Use of the name Lars Ulrich © is protected by copyright and is used without permission. Any violations of this law will result in Lars Ulrich © coming to your house and whining about how he can't make his Range Rover © payments if you use his name or likeness without significant royalty fees paid to Lars Ulrich ©.



Photographic likeness of Lars Ulrich © above is used with the permission of Lars Ulrich ©, but by clicking on this thread you express your implied consent to send a check or postal money order in the amount of $200 U.S. dollars to Lars Ulrich © for the right to view his copyright-protected face.

REMEMBER...Lars Ulrich © killed NAPSTER ©, Lars Ulrich © will kill YouTube © if we ask him to, and most importantly...if you steal from him...Lars Ulrich © can kill YOU.

[teknomanzer]

20. Your post reminds of the great irony...

Metallica got their claim to fame through bootleg tapes and recordings since they never got any airplay. Funny, as soon as they got big they forgot how they got there.

[Human Torch]

22. ...and when they finally decided to cozy up with iTunes...

...they made sure to add "bonus tracks" to their albums so fans would buy the whole album and not just selected tracks. Because hey...with Metallica, it's all about the fans...

:sarcasm:

:toast:

[Zodiak]

24. and they lost me as a fan because of it

Old school Metallica fans took pride that our band was not a corporate whore. That went by the wayside in the 90's as Metallica embraced a "new" set of fans.

[teknomanzer]

26. Lost me too for the very same reason.

The music changed too... Too much of Hetfield's whining about his personal issues... and this reaching back to some bluesey rock feel "Turn the page" kinda B.S... Whatever... it wasn't Metallica of old.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Poor "Cliff" must be turning over in his grave to consider how

a member of his beloved "Metallica" is the Poster Child for "Corporate Sell-outs." :cry: :(

[dougkeenan]

49. LOL! You can't spell univeRSAL without LARS !

[ShortnFiery]

21. Evil Greedy Corporate Bastards! = The Universal Music Group is VOMIT!

[opihimoimoi]

27. Ya just know them GOPers had sumpthin to do with this shit...

[AX10]

28. Youtube gives you a low quality picture. No one would buy those...

but those pictures are a good advertisement for artists. In turn, companies such as Universal make money when people buy their artists work.

[Joanne98]

30. Free music would revive the music industry. Ever since the corps

took it over music has SUCKED!

[Raydawg1234]

36. uhhh, free music wouldn't revive it because the musicians have to make a

fucking living.

[Solon]

52. Maybe not free music, but cheaper, independent music will...

Seriously, the RIAA is going to be in serious trouble within the decade when some big name artists decide to no longer renew their contracts and "go independent", selling CDs at half the cost they cost at the store, and making MORE MONEY THAT WAY!

The RIAA is trying their damndest in trying to stave this off through legal threats and lawsuits, but it will fail.

[Up2Late]

31. How ridiculous, these people are so greedy and short sited...

...this is free advertising, mostly, when a video clip is uploaded.

Everyone who uploads a video clip to YouTube is doing for free what a lot of people in in the Film/TV industry get paid a lot of money to do. Most of the videos (which have already been broadcast or been on Cable TV, are uploaded because they were not available at a Corp site. :crazy:

[Dissenting_Prole]

33. Up2late, Is it OK if I upload your home movies?

I would be doing you a favor.

[Up2Late]

38. Did I broadcast my home movies into your home? I don't remember...

...doing that.

If you have them, sure, go for it! I'll save me a bunch of time and disk space.

Maybe I'll just upload them myself, it'll take less time to up-load them to my own FREE YouTube account.

[Dissenting_Prole]

32. As a producer of a popular independent documentary...

that has been uploaded to Google Video five times in one month, I can tell you that I'm sick of other people trying to tell me that they are helping us promote our documentary by doing this. They need to understand that WE will decide how we want it promoted. If we want to promote it this way, WE will make our own promos and upload them ourselves, thank you. We use Google and Youtube ourselves, we don't need help in that department.

Uploading copyrighted material is theft. Period. I have to defend Universal because the same rules apply to them as to me. Just because they make millions is not an excuse to steal from them. If someone doesn't like the fact that Universal makes more more than them, they should form their own company, create original content, and work for their slice of the pie - not steal little bites from someone else's.

If Google and YouTube are going to offer this service, they need to be as diligent and cooperative as possible with the owners of copyrighted material. If a law firm somewhere would take them on, they could bury Google over this issue. Unfortunately, with their shares trading at just under $400, Google thinks it can do whatever it wants.

[Up2Late]

37. First of all, nobody here said "...they are helping YOU promote (y)our...,

...documentary...," man, talk about over blown ego! And Second, this article is not, and never was, about GOOGLE! This is about YouTube! They are two VERY different enterprises.

If you can't see the difference between the two, good luck in ever being successful as an "independent documentary" producer. Comparing and confusing the two, is like comparing and confusing the National Broadcasting Company (NBC*UNIVERSAL) with WNDU-TV Channel 16, a medium market, local NBC Affiliate.

I really find it hard to believe that WNDU would be angry that if a 5 minute segment of one of their locally produced programs got up-loaded to YouTube, I bet they would be thrilled.

And until just now, I'd never even clicked on the Google Video link, so you can be sure, I'm not a user of Google video and I don't know what their rules are and probably won't be using Google Video, it looks rather lame.

I DO know the rules at YouTube, which is what this article IS about, and they do not allow any clip over 100 Megabytes or any longer that 10 minutes, that's not really large enough or long enough to upload an entire "independent documentary" now is it? YouTube is not a Mega Corp, I have no idea how they can afford to do what they do.

I do use YouTube, and I have uploaded CLIPS of recorded Television programs that I received in my home (along with some lame advertisements that paid for these program), and you know what, these clips are all that remains of these programs. They will never be seen again, except as short clips on the Internet, because these programs are NOT sold on VHS or DVD. Even when "programs on demand" becomes more common, you still won't see most of these ever again when you have 400-500 cable channels to choose from.

I don't know how long you've fancied yourself as an "independent documentary" producer, but I sold my first "independent documentary" to a film distribution company in Chicago in 1986, and even though I only got 25% of the cut, it made me several thousands of Dollars by doing that, but guess what? After a few years, the checks stopped coming. Hell, I don't even know if the company is still in business, but I do know one thing, if anyone is watching that film they are probably not watching a copy they paid for, and I sure know I'm not getting paid for it anymore.

I can tell you one thing for sure, you really need to change your attitude and your way of thinking about the entertainment industry or you are going to find yourself black listed very soon.

[Dissenting_Prole]

45. to up2late

>First of all, nobody here said "...they are helping YOU promote (y)our...,
>...documentary...," man, talk about over blown ego!

I was referring to the people who email me to justify their actions, not about the participants in this forum. Talk about YOUR overblown ego.

>And Second, this article is not, and never was, about GOOGLE! This is about YouTube!
>They are two VERY different enterprises.
>If you can't see the difference between the two, good luck in ever being successful as an "independent >documentary" producer. Comparing and confusing the two, is like comparing and confusing the National >Broadcasting Company (NBC*UNIVERSAL) with WNDU-TV Channel 16, a medium market, local NBC >Affiliate.

Either way, both Google and YouTube, despite what their policies say, allow uploading of copyrighted material by users.

>I really find it hard to believe that WNDU would be angry that if a 5 minute segment of one of their locally >produced programs got up-loaded to YouTube, I bet they would be thrilled.

I have no idea who WNDU is (and could care less). Good for them if they would be thrilled. As the copyright owner of their content, they can be as thrilled as they want.

>And until just now, I'd never even clicked on the Google Video link, so you can be sure, I'm not a user of >Google video and I don't know what their rules are and probably won't be using Google Video, it looks rather >lame.

For someone who has never clicked on a Google Video link, or read their terms of use agreement, you sure seem to be an expert on the subject. You said "They are two VERY different enterprises." How would you know?

>I DO know the rules at YouTube, which is what this article IS about, and they do not allow any clip over 100 >Megabytes or any longer that 10 minutes, that's not really large enough or long enough to upload an entire >"independent documentary" now is it?

Yes, actually it is enough. There are programs as long a 45-minutes on YouTube. Also, longer prgrams can be uploaded in chapters. Are you sure you've visited YouTube's site? Doesn't seem like it.

>YouTube is not a Mega Corp, I have no idea how they can afford to do what they do.
>I do use YouTube, and I have uploaded CLIPS of recorded Television programs that I received in my home >(along with some lame advertisements that paid for these program), and you know what, these clips are all >that remains of these programs. They will never be seen again, except as short clips on the Internet, >because these programs are NOT sold on VHS or DVD. Even when "programs on demand" becomes more >common, you still won't see most of these ever again when you have 400-500 cable channels to choose >from.

So that gives YOU the right to upload them? By the way, my earlier comments were in reference to my particular program, which is not 20 years old and sitting in a vault somewhere.

>I don't know how long you've fancied yourself as an "independent documentary" producer, but I sold my first >"independent documentary" to a film distribution company in Chicago in 1986, and even though I only got >25% of the cut, it made me several thousands of Dollars by doing that, but guess what? After a few years, >the checks stopped coming. Hell, I don't even know if the company is still in business, but I do know one >thing, if anyone is watching that film they are probably not watching a copy they paid for, and I sure know I'm >not getting paid for it anymore.

That's your problem. Just because you mismanaged your project doesn't mean that I have to allow mine to be given away free. What does this paragraph even have to do with this discussion?

By the way, we don't have a distributor. We do it ourselves and manage quite well, thank you. We've sold over 30,000 DVDs and made 4 broadcast deals, which takes me back to my original point which is: WE NEVER NEEDED ANYONE TO UPLOAD OUR PRODUCT TO YOUTUBE TO "HELP US PROMOTE IT". We have our own strategy for promotion, and we make the decisions about when and where it gets uploaded.

>I can tell you one thing for sure, you really need to change your attitude and your way of thinking about the >entertainment industry or you are going to find yourself black listed very soon.

Blacklisted? By who? The "entertainment industry" can kiss my ass.

[Up2Late]

54. Oooow, 30,000 DVDs, you must be set for life...

...or at least you better be if your think you can go around telling the entire entertainment industry they can kiss your ass.

What is this fabulously special "independent documentary?" It must be awesome for you to feel so passionate about it.

[astonamous]

43. Sorry to hear that you are having problems controlling your

own work. I agree with you...stealing is stealing even if the other person isn't making money off your work. It's your work and you are the one who should decide how, when and where it is viewed.

Steal a person's vote, their car or their s.o. and everyone is all up in arms. But it's ok to copy (steal) a person's work.

Trudy
www.pryorsplanet.com

[Dissenting_Prole]

46. Thank you for some sanity

>Steal a person's vote, their car or their s.o. and everyone is all up in arms. But it's ok to copy (steal) a >person's work.

If's easier to justify stealing if you can't see the victim.

[astonamous]

47. If Youtube would put forth a little effort to police their site

Universal wouldn't have to go to the lengths they are going to. I can see where you would want to control how much and of what is viewed of your project. Why does that seem so unreasonable to everyone else?

Good Luck!

Trudy
www.richardpryor.com
www.pryorsplanet.com

[Solon]

53. First it isn't stealing, its copyright violation...

When someone's car is stolen, they are deprived of that property immediately, same for stealing a vote. Copyright violations, at worst, may deprive a company of a POTENTIAL purchase. This is usually no sure thing, however. Not to mention I have yet to see flagrant copyright violations on YouTube itself. Broadcasts of CLIPS of shows or movies generally don't count, because, guess what, they actually fall under that little known rule called "Fair USE". Now, same can be said for remixes, homemade music videos, etc. However, if there ARE flagrant violations of copyright law, then those videos need to be removed, just don't call it theft, that's disingenious.

[Copperred]

44. Agree with you 100%

[Odin2005]

34. Technology is evolving too fast for the media dinosaurs.

This shit is nothing more then those dinosaurs trying to squelch innovation by the little guy because it threatens thier power.

[saddemocrat]

35. This is so stupid....

When I was a kid, I used to tape songs off of the radio if I liked them....really, everyone did...and I don't think it was a big deal. When I got old enough to work and earn money, I often bought tapes of music that I liked....

I taped my favorite tv shows....I still have a whole collection of them too...of course, now you can order them on dvd from amazon. Will videotaping tv shows become illegal now?

Youtube has inspired me to go out and buy several CDs that I wouldn't otherwise have purchased...I don't often buy CDs because I usually only know 1 main song on the CD...the popular one...at Youtube, I've been able to search by artist and listen to several of the songs on a CD....often, I end up buying the CD then...

What whiners...

kris

[keopeli]

39. When your business model is dependent on royalties, you have two choices

1. Defend copyrights as the market shifts, which is counter-productive in terms of marketing.
2. Adjust marketing and pricing expectations, sometimes agressively, to capitolize on your product's inherent value.

This was true way back in the 90s when music first went online, and it's true as video does the same thing.

In my opinion, the product is the value you should focus on, which is what Capitol and Warner Bros. appear to be doing.

[drm604]

41. How can YouTube possibly police this?

I don't see how they can possibly police and remove every copyright violation among the tons of legitimately free content. It seems to me that if Universal pushes this and wins the result won't be just the removal of copyright violations, it will be the removal of YouTube. Maybe that's what they really want, to remove the free sources of entertainment that compete with them for people's time. I think they're just as concerned about the legitimately free individually created content as they are about the copyright violations. This is about attacking the competition.

[electricmonk]

50. Cointrast UMG's actions to Warner's

Warner to license music in YouTube videos