Thread: So long Youtube, nice knowing you

I tried to submit a video nearly two years ago of the Red Hot Chili Peppers performing on SNL, and they rejected it due to copyright concerns. I think that they've always cared, but with such a huge site they don't have the resources to police every single video. That's my guess anyway.

A site of that magnitude has to observe the copyright laws. After all, a law is a law. Even individuals have to observe the copyright laws!

Oooh, a new toy to play with
Wonder how good their audio fingerprinting is

Just a few thoughts
putting a couple of seconds of static at the beginning
playing with the EQ before uploading

*fires up audacity*

1 second of static at the beginning
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CNApuETPBrU

let's see what happens....

Taken from their blog:

January 14, 2009 | Posted by: The YouTube Team | Permalink
User Choice and Music Licensing

Music licensing can get very complicated, but we try to make your experience as simple as possible. We want you to have options when uploading videos with music in them. And if your video is subject to a copyright claim, you should have some choices too.

Previously, when a music label or other rights owner issued a copyright claim to block audio, the video was automatically taken down. Uploaders had two choices: dispute the claim (in the case of fair use, for example) or use our AudioSwap tool to replace the track with one from our library of pre-cleared music. Now we've added an additional choice. Instead of automatically removing the video from YouTube, we give users the option to modify the video by removing the music subject to the copyright claim and post the new version, and many of them are taking that option.

Our content management tools have revolutionized the ways in which users and content owners are distributing, marketing, and making money from video online. As we continue to build out this system, we are working to find the right balance between encouraging creativity and free expression and respecting the rights of copyright holders and the law.

The YouTube Team

In my opinion, I don't think Youtube gives a damn about what music we listen to, copywritten or not. However, the music industry has been up Youtube's ass for a very...very...long time. I wish people would understand the legalities behind situations like this before throwing their middle finger to Youtube.

People who listen to music on YouTube are assholes anyways.

Originally Posted by Marvo

People who listen to music on YouTube are assholes anyways.

Why?
(well, aside from not using "proper" online music solutions
like last.fm and pandora)

Because the quality is garbage.

People need to stop being such tight asses.

Originally Posted by Ynot

1 second of static at the beginning
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CNApuETPBrU

let's see what happens....

Lul, bye Robbie.

Damn, try again Ynot

We needs a way arund this!

arund, lol.

You know, there's more places to watch videos and listen to music.

www.magnatune.com

AWESOME ONLINE SONG DOWNLOADS! THEY GOT EVERYTHING MANG!

No.

I use Imeem.com to listen to songs for free.

Use pandora,
btw youtube just did the same exact thing to me when i went to upload Thanks for the venom - my chemical romance :[

Not getting with the times will be the end of all these old companies (including the old telephone companies - sorry, but nobody gives a shit about your multi-million dollar PBX when there is open source voip technology out there). Good riddance; the time is nigh.

magnatune failed

Copyright is for Losers.
Make music, share it for the joy of it and stop being a greedy, possessive asshats.
This is the result of when people stop seeing music as a Joy of life to share and start seeing Music as a product to make them Money.

Free the arts!

No, copyright is awesome. It gives you the ability to make a living off of a talent that is of purely intellectual value.

The purpose of copyright laws is NOT to enable a perpetual source of income for artists (authors, inventors etc.)
It's a government grant to subsidise artists for their work, because that work benefits society

All "copyrightable" material must be creative and innovative works that benefits society
All creative and innovative works that benefit society should be freely available to society – it increases your standard of living – it makes the world a better place

If you create something that benefits society, you should be encouraged to create more
you are an asset, and your works should be enjoyed by everyone

To encourage you to continue, the government subsidises your work under copyright law
put simply, it's your work, but meant for everyone – copying of the work is therefore controlled and royalties paid to the creator

It is always the intention, at a certain point in time, for your work to become freely available, at zero cost to everyone (or rather, zero profit, production and manufacturing expenses need to be met if it's a physical object)
The subsidy of copyright is purely an incentive, enabling you to devote more (but not necessarily all) time to your future works, without financial insecurity
The financial subsidy of copyright is temporary
Profit from works under copyright is a privilege, not a right

After “a reasonable period of time” the copyright expires, and the work enters the public domain
It's owned by everyone

The idea of works tied up in an almost perpetual copyright enforcement is ludicrous, and a gross misuse of this government grant (especially if you are not creating more works)

anyway, I'm rambling
but the purpose of copyright has been severely distorted

Originally Posted by Ynot

The purpose of copyright laws is NOT to enable a perpetual source of income for artists (authors, inventors etc.)
It's a government grant to subsidise artists for their work, because that work benefits society

All "copyrightable" material must be creative and innovative works that benefits society
All creative and innovative works that benefit society should be freely available to society – it increases your standard of living – it makes the world a better place

If you create something that benefits society, you should be encouraged to create more
you are an asset, and your works should be enjoyed by everyone

To encourage you to continue, the government subsidises your work under copyright law
put simply, it's your work, but meant for everyone – copying of the work is therefore controlled and royalties paid to the creator

It is always the intention, at a certain point in time, for your work to become freely available, at zero cost to everyone (or rather, zero profit, production and manufacturing expenses need to be met if it's a physical object)
The subsidy of copyright is purely an incentive, enabling you to devote more (but not necessarily all) time to your future works, without financial insecurity
The financial subsidy of copyright is temporary
Profit from works under copyright is a privilege, not a right

After “a reasonable period of time” the copyright expires, and the work enters the public domain
It's owned by everyone

The idea of works tied up in an almost perpetual copyright enforcement is ludicrous, and a gross misuse of this government grant (especially if you are not creating more works)

anyway, I'm rambling
but the purpose of copyright has been severely distorted

So basically what I said except longer

Originally Posted by Serkat

No, copyright is awesome. It gives you the ability to make a living off of a talent that is of purely intellectual value.

And you think a creative musical artists ever gets enough money out of the millions their producers earn from selling their music? And off course the stores selling the artist's CDs want to make a buck too so the price rises again. And as a result people will instead download it for free. And in response to that the prices of CDs will drop, but the greed and profit-need of the producers and the stores selling the CDs wont and very little profit remains for the artist.

I'm saying: don't be so damn proud about music you made saying:"Cool huh? yeah this is MY tune, you hear that? MINE!". Just make music and share it with others. You were also inspired by other musicians and the notescheme, chords, basslines..etc of your songs will most defenitely exist in a bunch of similair songs by other musical artists, no matter how Original&Revolutionairy you may think your song is.

And if you want to make a living as a musician, Perform. Alot. Performance/public musical artistic expression is a good way to bring live music back to the people who are now being drowned in electronical, pre-programmed music. Being able to go out and see ALOT more live music would improve the quality of (my) life.

And make a living from giving live performances and selling your CDs at the concerts/gigs you perform. Perhaps make some visual art to go with your music and to be sold there too, Maybe incorporate some Poetry into the performance. Be Creative and bring the people something Really special. To do this you will need an extra source of income so you have enough to fall back to if performing music, poetry,whatever fails to make a sufficient income. I have no idea how much the taxcolletor-nazis want to cash in on your well earned low income, but I don't suppose income Taxes are good news to True musicians/performers.
Don't expect to become a millionaire, but aim to cover your costs(of the band/performance, your rent, energybills and foodmoney) and enjoy doing what you adore doing: Making music, bringing people a messege, giving people a good time.

Originally Posted by Ynot

Why?
(well, aside from not using "proper" online music solutions
like last.fm and pandora)

Shitty mono bitrate. The only reason to use youtube is to listen to a song to check out if you want to buy/pirate it properly or not, and ofcourse watch videos.