War has been declared on Youtube and/or Warner Music Groups

Geo

For those of you who like getting music from Youtube or listening to it on said site, you can all kiss that luxury goodbye. Warner Music Groups has declared that their music is no longer allowed on Youtube at all. This is bad because not only can people who make videos not be able to use music they want, but all songs and any videos incorporating them are just erased right off the site like an eraser on paper. Also, a good chunk of most of the famous and popular bands in the world are also licensed with Warner. However...many people such as myself are going to fight against this because I, and hopefully the rest of you, will not stand for this.

The reason why I'm telling you all of this is because this affects me directly as a filmmaker because I will never be able to post any of my short films on youtube because I'll more than likely use a song that happens to be owned by Warner. A lot of you could say to find some original or free content, I say no because I will not pay for any independent composers to make my music as I am too poor to do so and also because I am not at the stage where I'm ready to use independent and unlicensed songs yet (I'm still in high school and don't have the resources to mass produce my content yet). Most of you could probably say, post on another video hosting site. But you know what I say to that: fat chance! I like the style and substance that Youtube has to offer and I'm not willing to transfer just because of some huge corporate cluster fuck. To all of you who think as to why you should support something that doesn't affect yourself, just cut the bullshit do something for others for once instead of yourself. As you can tell, I am quite fired up by this and I deeply support it. All I ask of all of you is to join me and we can make a difference when united. For great justice.

The Declaration of War
A source speculating that someone else is responsible
Digg's take on this

Sail

Warner is in every legal right to do this.

...

This isn't really that unexpected, and I doubt Youtube will do much about it. Youtube already made clear that it won't go checking whether something is fair use or not and will just comply with the copyright holder sending the c&d.; I do wonder what will happen to the bands that upload their own videos.

To all of you who think as to why you should support something that doesn't affect yourself, just cut the bullshit do something for others for once instead of yourself.

Yeah, good luck and goodbye after this line.

Neito

Warner is in every legal right to do this.

Sail

I do wonder what will happen to the bands that upload their own videos.

I actually have some info on that. Streetlight Manifesto was slapped with a lawsuit from their own record label, Victory Records, for posting one of their music videos on their band-run YouTube channel. It's seriously fucked up.

Though, the band at least has some entitlement to their songs. You, as a user, absolutely do not.

Luke Burrage

You, as a film maker, should do your best to avoid breaking the law. Youtube explicitly states you must have rights to everything you upload before you upload it. Instead of moaning, why don't you find some Creative Commons or Copyright free or public domain music?

Youtube is providing a service FOR FREE. If you don't like their terms and conditions, go elsewhere. Host the video on your own website, one where you pay the bandwidth and hosting costs.

Seriously, stop moaning and bitching about how everything isn't exactly to your slightest whims and desires. I disagree with the state of copyright too, but I'm with both Warner and Youtube on this one.

Geo

Warner is in every legal right to do this.

Oh sure, I recognize that they are within their rights to do this. But that doesn't stop it from being asinine or unfair from my point of view. But I doubt anyone cares what I have to say.

Neito

Warner is in every legal right to do this.

Oh sure, I recognize that they are within their rights to do this. But that doesn't stop it from being asinine or unfair from my point of view. But I doubt anyone cares what I have to say.

Would you like it if I put all the stuff you ever made online, for free? And then, when you demanded I take it down, I threw a fit and bitched about how asinine you were being?
There's a point where you have to admit that someone's being fair about their copyright. I think this is the line, myself.

George Patches

Oh sure, I recognize that they are within their rights to do this. But that doesn't stop it from being asinine or unfair from my point of view. But I doubt anyone cares what I have to say.

If you don't like it, tell them.

Personally I think this is stupid, because all of the songs I've bought recently I listened to on youtube first. However, it is perfectly fair for them to do this.

HMTKSteve

Check out YouLicense if you need to use someone else's music in your films.

Norvu

I thought Rick Astley was with Warner. Is this goodbye to Rick-Roll?

WindUpBird

Look at it this way: if YouTube can't provide, eventually the people running torrent sites now will start streaming video sites run on foreign soil and fill the void. PirateTube, anyone?

Neito

Look at it this way: if YouTube can't provide, eventually the people running torrent sites now will start streaming video sites run on foreign soil and fill the void. PirateTube, anyone?

So, "Allow me to do illegal things, because otherwise, other people will do illegal things"?

Geo

The sad thing is Youtube and Warner are also hurting themselves. They rely on customers to buy their content or make the content that keeps them afloat in the first place. Don't you think we (or at least those of us who make/buy content of the respective corporations) deserve at least a little gratitude?

WindUpBird

Look at it this way: if YouTube can't provide, eventually the people running torrent sites now will start streaming video sites run on foreign soil and fill the void. PirateTube, anyone?

So, "Allow me to do illegal things, because otherwise, other people will do illegal things"?

I didn't say it was right, I just said that's how it will happen.

Neito

Don't you think we (or at least those of us who make/buy content of the respective corporations) deserve at least a little gratitude?

I do, and I'm half playing devil's advocate here. But in the end, the content is theirs; you have no right to it. Declaring "War" over something like this strikes me as something of an overreaction.

Apreche

Alright people. Let's say I make a video. In that video, I include some music. However, my use of the music is a fair use. Perhaps I only use a clip, and the video is itself an educational video about the music clip. That's definitely fair use. Maybe it's a parody, that's also fair use.

With YouTube's policy, they are going to take those down automatically with no regards as to whether there was fair use or not. It's fine if they want to remove infringing works from the site, that's fine. However, to escape my ire, they have to make sure that no non-infringing videos are removed in the process.

WindUpBird

Yeah, the powers that be nowadays tend to gloss over fair use as if it didn't even exist.

George Patches

With YouTube's policy, they are going to take those down automatically with no regards as to whether there was fair use or not. It's fine if they want to remove infringing works from the site, that's fine. However, to escape my ire, they have to make sure that no non-infringing videos are removed in the process.

However, there's no good way to automate determining whether something is fair use or not. They'd have to have a person looking at every video that's flagged. That's just unfeasible, even for a company like Google.

MrRoboto

In times when content is more and more online, why would they do something this silly? I'm guessing they have something under their sleeve, something where they can also control ads and have some revenue of their own selling ad spaces, so I'm guessing they will soon launch their "Warner Tube" with their own ads and stuff.

As I see it, its probably going to be a win/win kinda thing, the copyright owners get a cut, the users probably get not only the high def videos, but guaranteed that they are going to view the video in question and not some stupid waste of time rick-roll. Downside, 3rd world countries like mine will probably be blocked.

Oh, it'd be a good time to backup your youtube videos just in case.

I wonder if people playing covers will get their stuff deleted also

Apreche

However, there's no good way to automate determining whether something is fair use or not. They'd have to have a person looking at every video that's flagged. That's just unfeasible, even for a company like Google.

First of all, Google is smart. The way YouTube filtering works is Google has setup a system whereby Warner is the ones doing the filtering. They go through YouTube using an interface provided by Google, and they pick out which videos they would like removed. That's why you see "video removed by X" letting you know who did it. Google doesn't do the work, the copyright holder does.

Secondly, this is the root of the problem here. The copyright holders want to fight copyright infringement. Alright. Necessarily, because of the way of the world, it is very expensive and time consuming to fight it effectively. Right now what seems to be happening is we are losing rights to fair use, and other things, in order to make it easier for them. That's bullshit. Why should we have to give up such rights? If they want to protect their copyrights, they have to work for it. If you think my YouTube infringes, sue me. None of this bullshit taking down my video without first proving in court that I have infringed. Innocent until proven guilty, right out the Window.

The DMCA is what makes these things the way they are. We can hope one day we will be free of it.

George Patches

First of all, Google is smart. The way YouTube filtering works is Google has setup a system whereby Warner is the ones doing the filtering. They go through YouTube using an interface provided by Google, and they pick out which videos they would like removed. That's why you see "video removed by X" letting you know who did it. Google doesn't do the work, the copyright holder does.

I did not know this.

Secondly, this is the root of the problem here. The copyright holders want to fight copyright infringement. Alright. Necessarily, because of the way of the world, it is very expensive and time consuming to fight it effectively. Right now what seems to be happening is we are losing rights to fair use, and other things, in order to make it easier for them. That's bullshit. Why should we have to give up such rights? If they want to protect their copyrights, they have to work for it. If you think my YouTube infringes, sue me. None of this bullshit taking down my video without first proving in court that I have infringed. Innocent until proven guilty, right out the Window.

The DMCA is what makes these things the way they are. We can hope one day we will be free of it.

I see your point and agree, but given the powerful economics that motivate the music industry to half ass it's copyright enforcement, I see only one option. We, the users who are having or fair use taken away, have to sue they crap out of them. We have to make it more expensive to take down fair use videos than it is to actually sort through them and correctly identify infringements. The trouble is making such a case. I think we can assume that the majority of the videos they take down are probably infringing, which leaves us very few to sue with. Also what damages would you sue for? What have we actually lost? A little of our freedom of expression? Google can do pretty much whatever they want with any video that's posted so we're pretty much stuck without a leg to stand on.

Dkong

That Cnet article is very interesting. If this is just Youtube getting after Warner because they don't want to pay Warner more money for licensing and rights for Warner's music, then Warner isn't to blame at all. Warner can be to blame if they are asking for a ridiculous sum of money, though (on the other hand, also according to that article, they're certainly making a shitload of money from Youtube).
Plus, even if all of Warner's music gets taken down, what did we lose? The 11th biggest label on Youtube? I mean really, this represents a loss of some music, but especially for you and your videos, Giygas, you'll still have a TON of artists to choose from to use in your videos.
Also, I took a look through the list of labels under Warner and I didn't see that many notable bands, to be quite honest with you. Anyone care to point out what I'm missing?

I thought Rick Astley was with Warner. Is this goodbye to Rick-Roll?

Nope. You'll still be getting Rick Rolled. According to Rick Astley's Wikipedia page, he's with Sony BMG.

Luke Burrage

You can still make videos that have fair use of copyrighted music. Nobody is stopping you. And you can still share them with the world. Nobody is stopping you. Fair use is yours, freedom of expression is yours.

Meanwhile, youtube can do what they want with any of your videos. If you want a service which doesn't go by the "guilty until proven innocent" rule, find another video hosting service. It can be free like youtube or paid like many others.

Seriously, I don't get what people are upset about here. Youtube is a free service. You get what you pay for. Youtube owes you nothing.

Josh Bytes

If you are a creator of content and like to use music or whatever in your media. Just look for creative commons works. There is plenty out there. It's not like Warner is the be all end all of media.

omegafinal

...The reason why I'm telling you all of this is because this affects me directly as a filmmaker because I will never be able to post any of my short films on youtube because I'll more than likely use a song that happens to be owned by Warner. A lot of you could say to find some original or free content, I say no because I will not pay for any independent composers to make my music as I am too poor to do so and also because I am not at the stage where I'm ready to use independent and unlicensed songs yet (I'm still in high school and don't have the resources to mass produce my content yet)...

Here's a site that I use to find my music, Jamendo.com. The Newgrounds Audio Portal has been getting some great stuff too. Both sites use the Creative Commons (Newgrounds uses only CC by-nc-sa) and it's FREE. As much as I would like to something heard on the radio and/or is popular, using something original (or an original remix) is much more satisfying. Who knows, something that you made using their music might bring them more views, listens, or maybe even some sales if they got CDs. I know that at least a few people who saw my works asked where I got the tracks from.

Apreche

Seriously, I don't get what people are upset about here. Youtube is a free service. You get what you pay for. Youtube owes you nothing.

First of all, some people pay for YouTube.

Second of all, YouTube is a service, not a publisher. The difference is that a publisher edits, a service just provides a mechanism. While YouTube is within its rights to decide what videos it does and does not host, it is not good for it to do so. This pushes all the net neutrality buttons. You want your Internet service provider to just give you bandwidth, and not pay attention to what you do with it. You want your video hosting site you host your videos, and not care about what videos those are. If there is a problem with your Internet activity, or your videos, you want to take responsibility. By choosing to be a publisher, and not just a service provider, they are taking your responbility, and your rights, away. It's all outlined in the DMCA, and it's not good.

Also, while we may all recognize that it is indeed illegal, at least in the USA, to make a movie using copyrighted music without permission, is it wrong? Clearly one could argue that taking a brand new movie on DVD and just posting it to YouTube is wrong. But what about if I take a popular new song, and make an anime music video to it? It's definitely illegal, but isn't it good? I've taken another work of art and used it to create another work of art. Shouldn't that be allowed? Shouldn't it be encouraged? The limited monopolies of copyright are supposed to promote and incentivize creation useful arts and sciences. It is clear that in this case the law disincentivies art.

Really think about it. Elvis Presley is dead, but his music is still copyrighted. Is it really wrong for me to make a remix without giving money to the current rights holders? Would it be wrong if I made a Mickey Mouse cartoon without Disney's permission? Would it be wrong for me to make a video celebrating my favorite sports team, even though the footage is copyrighted?

Funfetus

Streetlight Manifesto was slapped with a lawsuit from their own record label, Victory Records, for posting one of their music videos on their band-run YouTube channel.

Punk as fuck.

Luke Burrage

Seriously, I don't get what people are upset about here. Youtube is a free service. You get what you pay for. Youtube owes you nothing.

First of all, some people pay for YouTube.

I have a feeling those with paid accounts are not having their videos removed without them being checked manually. I might be wrong. But my point stands for the 99.999% of normal cases.

Second of all, YouTube is a service, not a publisher. The difference is that a publisher edits, a service just provides a mechanism. While YouTube is within its rights to decide what videos it does and does not host, it is not good for it to do so. This pushes all the net neutrality buttons. You want your Internet service provider to just give you bandwidth, and not pay attention to what you do with it. You want your video hosting site you host your videos, and not care about what videos those are. If there is a problem with your Internet activity, or your videos, you want to take responsibility. By choosing to be a publisher, and not just a service provider, they are taking your responbility, and your rights, away. It's all outlined in the DMCA, and it's not good.

You are way off here. Net neutrality doesn't mean Youtube has to host any video YOU want it to. Net neutrality means that you can set up your own video hosting service and the ISPs have to give you the same speed and access as they do to Youtube. Youtube is NOT an ISP or anything remotely like that. It is a video hosting and web 2.0 community website. Nothing about that position means it has anything to do with net neutrality, nor should have to be anything like it. If I owned Youtube I'd be very open that not all content was welcome. And you know what? That would be my choice, as I am paying for every single bill.

Also, while we may all recognize that it is indeed illegal, at least in the USA, to make a movie using copyrighted music without permission, is it wrong?

This is a completely different point, and one I agree with you entirely. I even said I disagree with the laws, but that still doesn't change anything. My point still stands. What rights is Youtube taking away from you by taking down your video?

Meanwhile, if you want a video host that has a different policy on video hosting, create one yourself. I have friends who were unhappy with the quality of youtube back in the day, mainly because the framerate and compression made juggling videos unwatchable. They created the juggling.tv archive, and much better quality videos can be found there. In the past few days hundreds of juggling videos have been removed from youtube, and lots of people are now uploading their videos, which they consider have fair use of copyrighted music, to juggling.tv. The chance that juggling.tv gets big enough to warrant attention from Warner isn't that high, so people presume they have nothing to worry about. Problem solved.

Apreche

You are way off here. Net neutrality doesn't mean Youtube has to host any video YOU want it to. Net neutrality means that you can set up your own video hosting service and the ISPs have to give you the same speed and access as they do to Youtube. Youtube is NOT an ISP or anything remotely like that. It is a video hosting and web 2.0 community website. Nothing about that position means it has anything to do with net neutrality, nor should have to be anything like it. If I owned Youtube I'd be very open that not all content was welcome. And you know what? That would be my choice, as I am paying for every single bill.

I didn't say that it IS a violation of net neutrality. I said that it's wrong for the same reasons that violations of net neutrality are wrong.

Luke Burrage

You are way off here. Net neutrality doesn't mean Youtube has to host any video YOU want it to. Net neutrality means that you can set up your own video hosting service and the ISPs have to give you the same speed and access as they do to Youtube. Youtube is NOT an ISP or anything remotely like that. It is a video hosting and web 2.0 community website. Nothing about that position means it has anything to do with net neutrality, nor should have to be anything like it. If I owned Youtube I'd be very open that not all content was welcome. And you know what? That would be my choice, as I am paying for every single bill.

I didn't say that it IS a violation of net neutrality. I said that it's wrong for the same reasons that violations of net neutrality are wrong.

I know that, but I still disagree. A private company working alone providing a single website with one or two main features can't be compared to the entire internet. You know, the internet is like a series of tubes. Youtube is like a big truck. The driver of the big truck can drive it how or where he wants. The tubes belong to everyone.