YouTube Scares the Dickies off of Record Industries

The music industry is getting ready to work itself into a lather over the salvation for modern human society, YouTube.

From E-commerce News:

    “The British Phonographic Industry insists that the bootleg concert footage on YouTube breaches copyright law and says they will “rigorously” seek to have them removed from Web sites with the threat of legal action against service providers who refuse.

    A spokesperson said: “Our policy is to prosecute in cases of file-sharing of music and that would be the case where bootleg videos of concerts were also being illegally distributed. Record companies own the copyright of any filming done at concerts, and it is illegal to post such footage on the Internet.”

The evolution of human culture depends on man’s ability to use previously created material in order to create new ones. In today’s society, Homer would’ve been sued to the very olive stains on his toga for creating the Odyssey from bits of old legends. The recording industry gearing up for an attack on YouTube represents a threat to the ecosystem of human culture, marking out the space on the bedpost for the next notch ongoing raping of the public domain into nothingness.

In fact, we don’t (although our bosses would) mind if you lift articles from The Consumerist and pass them off as your own. You’re spreading our ideas. You’re paving the way into people’s minds, creating an avenue for more of our ideas to penetrate. We can always lay more golden eggs. In our eyes, you would not be a fox, but a camel.

It’s the middlemen, the leaches and interlopers, the grafters, cheats and agents, the parasites capitalizing on the creativity of others who fear more feet around their succor-hole.

Everyone has a right to protect their income, but doing so doesn’t make them in the right. We don’t care if this position is contrary to existing case law. If it prevents the creation of new works, intellectual property is theft.

Anyhow, they should be seeking ways to enable this flood of authentic fan interaction instead of stemming it. YouTube is an overflowing trough of opportunity for content providers, and their pimps.

Industry Uneasy With YouTube Craze [E-Commerce News via Digg]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. BWGunner says:

    Hats off to Consumerist and the rest of the Gawker team. I agree, get your hands off my media.

    I’m astonished, over and over again, for years now, that record companies (Hey, Sony, this means YOU) don’t see the potential in revising distribution channels to make money (As Apple already has). Media is free and there isn’t anything you can do about it, so find a new revenue stream already! Heck, I’ve purchased so many obscure artist catalogs that I ripped…I mean…listened to from my local library. Get a clue.

    OK, choir, sing along if you know the tune, “Fuck you Sony, I used a Mac to lose those DRM blues!”

  2. Juancho says:

    Ultimately, how does a record company own footage or sound at a concert? It’s a different version or versions of music from a CD. I would think ASCAP composers’ rights would be the only negotiable issue.

    Tell me how a major artist like John Mayer or Phish or anyone else who allows taping does it. Just say “poof” and it’s all legal?

    Bands who allow tape trading usually have loyal fans and great sales.

  3. mrscolex says:

    I hate to play Devil’s Advocate, but we also need to keep in mind that YouTube (presumably based on their content) is making money based on this distribution and that it constantly deals with removing videos online that copyright infringe. I would venture to say that half of the videos hosted on there are in violation of some kind of copyright since most of the clips I’ve ever seen are TV show snippets etc…

    YouTube is not your own personal Tivo and people need to get it out of their heads that they expect it to be like one. This isn’t like the RIAA arbitrarily suing 8 year olds for downloading music online, these are companies legitimately protecting a stake in their shareholdings from a company that is profiting at their expense (YouTube).

    I don’t want to see YouTube sued into oblivion, or worse yet, so protective of it’s content that people can’t put anything online without going through lengthy red tape, but unfortunately thats the way things are progressing unless somebody comes up with a smarter solution that doesn’t infringe copyright and infringe freedom at the same time.

    Perhaps thats the paradox– copyright infringes freedom? Homer would never have been sued for incorporating mythological context into his stories because they often time built off of his interpretation of public domain spoken works. In response to Joel (or whomever’s) accusation above that if Homer existed today he’d have been sued. Then I propose this: If Homer existed today, and his version of the Odyssey consisted of him distributing Gladiator on YouTube, then yes, he probably would have been sued. I suppose that wouldn’t have been very homeric of him.

  4. GenXCub says:

    And here I thought youtube was strictly for Leeroy Jenkins (world of warcraft legend) videos!

    Is this a different story because it’s coming from the British Pornographic er, Phonographic industry, as opposed to a US company?

  5. Bubba Barney says:

    I always link back to a site if I lift something from it. Unless it’s emailed to me and I don’t know the source.

    You Tube just seemed to come out of nowhere to me. It’s huge now. How long they been around?

  6. OkiMike says:

    Perhaps, in this case, YouTube could offer full information on the clips they provide. Such as date of filming, venue, artist, etc.

    In my case, I look for certain artists’ shows to see if they’re worth seeing. If they are, I want to go see one and pay for a ticket.

    My only complaint with YouTube is that they never give specifics about each clip they provide (who, what and where), but instead just some inane title like “Funny Skating Accident”, etc.