Juliet and Lisa vs WMG and Google
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- “I’m furious right now.”
That’s Juliet Weybret (left), 15, in a YouTube video.
She goes on, “See, you may have noticed that the video of me singing and playing on piano Winter Wonderland, that good old Christmas song that everyone loves – I love it, you guys loved it – it`s not on my channel anymore!
Not only but also, “Check this out,” echoed angry YouTuber Lisa Lavie. “My mum`s one and only video on YouTube just got removed!”
Guess who was behind the removals? “Like Warner Bros removed your video?!” says Lisa. “Like, what does that mean for the rest of us who sing all of these songs all of the time?!”
Actually, it wasn’t Warner Bros, it was Warner Music, the same company that’s developing Choruss, a music licensing project and which students would have to pay $5 a month for the privilege of listening to Warner music and which TechDirt’s Mike Masnick criticised as a Bait-And-Switch op.
But Juliet and Lisa weren’t, and aren’t, alone. “Countless other amateurs have been ensnared in a dispute between Warner Music and YouTube,” owned by mega online advertising company Google, says the New York Times, going on
“The conflict centers on how much Warner should be paid for the use of its copyrighted works – its music videos – but has grown to include other material produced by amateurs that may also run afoul of copyright law.”
Warner Music says YouTube doesn’t distinguish between professionalvideos and amateur productions, “that may include copyrighted works,” says the story, quoting company spokesman Will Tanous as stating:
“We and our artists share the user community`s frustration when content is unavailable. YouTube generates revenues from content posted by fans, which typically requires licenses from rights holders. Under the current process, we make YouTube aware of WMG content. Their content ID tool then takes down all unlicensed tracks, regardless of how they are used.”
OK, Juliet? OK, Lisa? Fair dues? See, it was Google’s fault, not WMG’s. The fact your amateur videos gave pleasure to your friends and relatives can in no way have ‘negatively impacted’ either Google or WMG’’s bottom lines and may indeed have drawn even more eyeballs to their ‘product’ doesn’t come into it.
Both companies are greedy and grasping and figure the world owes them a living and somehow we, the people who keep them in business, are invisible.
The takedown notices are a, “glaring example of the rising tensions between Internet sites that distribute content free and owners of copyrighted material,” the NYT says, quoting the EFF’s Fred von Lohmann as declaring, “Many of the offending videos of the user-generated variety like Ms. Weybret’s – as opposed to copies of music videos produced by Warner and its artists – would fall under fair use” because they’re, “noncommercial and include original material produced by the user”.
Others, however, “including Warner Music`s lawyers,” might argue the videos, themselves noncommercial, “are nevertheless being shown on YouTube, which is a moneymaking enterprise”.
Referring to Juliet’s video, Ben Sheffner, “a copyright lawyer in Los Angeles who has worked on antipiracy at the 20th Century Fox movie studio,” says in the story, “she’s not making a dime. But from another perspective it’s entirely commercial because Google is trying to make money off it.”
Oh.
Users don’t have to sit there and take it, says the NYT. They have the right to dispute a takedown. But few have.
Why’s that?
It’s the RIAA Catch 22.
Lawsuits cost money – a lot more money than the average person has available, especially for disputes such as these – so the corporations can do whatever they like, safe in the knowledge the chances of anyone challenging them are zip to zero.
On top of that, “People are somewhat intimidated by the possibility of being sued by one of the music companies, even if they have a free lawyer, like us,” von Lohmann is quoted as saying in a massive understatement.
According to the story, “In late December, Warner and YouTube failed to agree to terms on a new licensing deal that would have paid Warner a cut of advertising revenue in exchange for permission to stream the music company`s videos. Warner then began having its music videos removed from YouTube. The site has licensing deals with the other major music companies, and had a deal with Warner for two years before the recent impasse.
“The situation with Warner has created a double-barreled risk for YouTube. Professionally produced music videos are some of its most-watched material – six of the top 10 most popular videos of all time are music videos, and the most-watched video ever on YouTube is not a bulldog on a skateboard, but an Avril Lavigne video, with more than 117 million views.”
The skateboarding bulldog, by contrast, has almost 6.8 million views.
So? Well, you know how it goes — money talks and bullshit stays right where it is.
It’s gone! – Warner Music defecates on own doorstep, January 27, 2009
music licensing project – Say No! to Choruss, says Ray Beckerman, March 20, 2009
Bait-And-Switch op – Choruss` Music Tax Plan: Bait-And-Switch, March 18, 2009
New York Times – As Rights Clash on YouTube, Some Music Vanishes, March 22, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:36 am
“So? Well, you know how it goes â money talks and bullshit stays right where it is.”
Shit has lots of air and other gases in it, therefore, it rises to the top. Same goes for the entertainment cartels and other “intellectual” “property” industries.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:49 am
“…Their content ID tool then takes down all unlicensed tracks, regardless of how they are used.”
It’s pretty sad Google has to use a bot to cover the volume of takedowns, just to keep the g00ns from suing them.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Ya. Poor Google. A g00n attacked by g00ns.