Rock ’n Roll Hall of Fame; New York Times, 10/14/14

Deb Amlen, New York Times; Rock ’n Roll Hall of Fame:

"The artist formerly known as Prince and who is apparently very sensitive about copyright has prevented any videos of “RASPBERRY BERET” from being played on YouTube."

FYI: Free Online Webinar Wed. Afternoon Oct. 30th: Copyright & Accessibility for Uploaded, Downloaded, Using Videos- esp. YouTube, October 30, 2013 3:00 PM EDT

FYI: "Free Online Webinar Wed. Afternoon Oct. 30th: Copyright & Accessibility for Uploaded, Downloaded, Using Videos- esp. YouTube, October 30, 2013 3:00 PM EDT Members Exchange: Copyright & Accessibility for Uploaded, Downloaded, Using Videos- esp. YouTube, October 30, 2013 3:00 PM EDT Bookmark and Share Members Exchange: Copyright & Accessibility for Uploaded, Downloaded, Using Videos- esp. YouTube October 30, 2013 3:00-4:00 pm Eastern Time Leaders: Steve Gilbert and others Copyright for uploaded videos: Creative Commons, YouTube Accessibility for Videos: Captions, Tags, Transcription Accessibility: Google/YouTube This session is free to TLT Group Individual Members, to TOL4B registrants and planners. Don't forget to use the email address where you received this message as your username and login password when you come to the session. All of the TLT Group’s online offerings include use of “low threshold” tools, examination of controversial issues, options for participants with a range of experience, and suggestions for assessment as you integrate what you’ve learned into your repertoire. More information and online registration: Members Exchange: Copyright & Accessibility for Uploaded, Downloaded, Using Videos- esp. YouTube, October 30"

As Music Streaming Grows, Royalties Slow to a Trickle; New York Times, 1/28/13

Ben Sisario, New York Times; As Music Streaming Grows, Royalties Slow to a Trickle: "A decade after Apple revolutionized the music world with its iTunes store, the music industry is undergoing another, even more radical, digital transformation as listeners begin to move from CDs and downloads to streaming services like Spotify, Pandora and YouTube. As purveyors of legally licensed music, they have been largely welcomed by an industry still buffeted by piracy. But as the companies behind these digital services swell into multibillion-dollar enterprises, the relative trickle of money that has made its way to artists is causing anxiety at every level of the business."

“Buffy vs Edward” remix unfairly removed by Lionsgate; ArsTechnica.com, 1/9/13

Jonathan McIntosh, ArsTechnica.com; “Buffy vs Edward” remix unfairly removed by Lionsgate: "Buffy vs Edward has now been offline for 3 weeks. Over the past year, before the takedown, the remix had been viewed an average of 34,000 times per month. Since none of YouTube’s internal systems were able to prevent this abuse by Lionsgate and our direct outreach to the content owner hit a brick wall, with the help of New Media Rights I have now filed an official DMCA counter-notification with YouTube. Lionsgate has 14 days to either allow the remix back online or sue me. We will see what happens."

Yes, video of Obama belting out "I'm so in love with you" is fair use; ArsTechnica.com, 7/17/12

Timothy B. Lee, ArsTechnica.com; Yes, video of Obama belting out "I'm so in love with you" is fair use:

"The music publisher BMG Rights Management appears to have used the DMCA takedown process to remove another video of the commander-in-chief belting out "I'm so in love with you." The video, one of many uploaded in the wake of an event at the Apollo Theater earlier this year, was made by YouTube user sNewsCast...

Unfortunately, the law doesn't give YouTube much latitude to stand up for fair use if it wants to hold onto the protection of the DMCA safe harbor. The notice-and-takedown procedure requires YouTube to leave an allegedly infringing work offline for at least 10 days, even if the uploader files a counter-notice stating that the work is not infringing."

Music publisher uses DMCA to take down Romney ad of Obama crooning; ArsTechnica, 7/16/12

Timothy B. Lee, ArsTechnica; Music publisher uses DMCA to take down Romney ad of Obama crooning:

"But YouTube chief counsel Zahavah Levine fired back with a letter pointing out that trying to assess fair use on a case-by-case basis at YouTube's scale would be extremely difficult. In many cases, YouTube doesn't even have the information it would need to assess whether a particular clip is fair use. Given that declining to take down a clip could expose the site to liability, YouTube has decided to play it safe and comply with the DMCA's takedown procedure. No exceptions, even for presidential candidates.

In 2008, YouTube expressed the hope that whichever candidate won the White House would help to reform the DMCA's takedown process to avoid this kind of problem. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Instead, Congress nearly passed the Stop Online Piracy Act, which would have given incumbent copyright holders even broader powers to take down content they didn't like."

Justin Bieber: Klobuchar should be 'locked up'; Star Tribune, 10/28/11

Jeremy Herb, Star Tribune; Justin Bieber: Klobuchar should be 'locked up' :

"A teen pop superstar wants to throw Sen. Amy Klobuchar in jail.

Pop sensation Justin Bieber said that he thought Klobuchar should be “locked up” for a bill she’s proposed that would make it a felony to profit from streaming unlicensed online content."

Google may be poised to bid for Hulu; Los Angeles Times, 7/2/11

Jessica Guynn and Dawn C. Chmielewski, Los Angeles Times; Google may be poised to bid for Hulu:

"This spring, YouTube secured a movie rental deal with Sony Pictures, Warner Bros. and Universal Studios.

But rivals Walt Disney Studios, 20th Century Fox and Paramount Pictures have held back, amid concerns that Google has failed to do enough to combat Internet piracy. Paramount owner Viacom Inc. is still embroiled in a copyright infringement lawsuit against Google's YouTube."

KISS Videos Removed Due To Copyright Claims; TechDirt.com, 11/8/10

Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; KISS Videos Removed Due To Copyright Claims:

"We noted recently that Kiss's Gene Simmons has (not for the first time) declared war on people who infringe on his copyrights, declaring that they should all be sued..."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101108/10533311763/kiss-videos-removed-due-to-copyright-claims.shtml

Prince's war with iTunes plays into the hands of illegal filesharers; (London) Guardian,

Helienne Lindvall, (London) Guardian; Prince's war with iTunes plays into the hands of illegal filesharers: Prince is right to have issues with iTunes and YouTube. But making his album available only to Mirror readers goes against his philosophy of reaching as many listeners as possible:

"As a Prince fan, I bought the Mirror for the first time on Saturday to get a copy of his latest album, 20Ten. As a musician, I was puzzled by why he felt the need to give away his music with a UK tabloid that costs 65p. I was equally perplexed by his decision to snub iTunes because it doesn't pay advances. Why would he need an advance? He's Prince, for God's sake. Surely he should trust that people would buy his music anyway. Besides, many more fans would have access to iTunes than a newsagent on one day.

In an interview with the Mirror, Prince compared the internet to MTV, saying that its days are numbered. Is this the reason why, when I put his new CD into my computer, Gracenote, the music database used by iTunes, didn't recognise the titles? Is that why there were 66 five-second silent tracks before the bonus track?

It's a strange turnaround for someone who, a decade ago, described Napster as "exciting". "What might happen with young people exchanging music is that they might develop a real appreciation," the "purple Yoda from the heart of Minnesota" said. He also claimed that online distribution could enable musicians to end exploitation from record labels. Surprisingly, despite his dismay with the music industry, Prince later signed with Columbia Records and, in 2005, with Universal.

Since then, he seems to have had a change of heart. Prince has reportedly threatened YouTube with a lawsuit for copyright infringement, forcing it to take down live footage of him playing Radiohead's Creep at the Coachella festival in 2008. Now, I have issues with YouTube, and I fully support an artist's right to decide what happens to their music, but Prince's decision to make his new album available as an exclusive covermount goes against his philosophy of reaching as many listeners as possible.

The Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA), unsurprisingly, objected to Prince releasing his album as a covermount. Pointing out that his record sales have halved since the first Daily Mail covermount in 2007, it claims Prince's latest move "could kill his career". While there could be other explanations for the decrease in sales – illegal filesharing, for example – I agree that covermounts devalue music. It makes people question if a CD is really worth £8 when a major artist such as Prince can afford to give it away with a 65p paper.

I agree with independent record label Blancomusic that it's unfair that iTunes takes the same share of the retail price (30%) as the bricks-and-mortar shops, manufacturers and distributors – despite not taking the same risks when stocking product. I also agree that artists make little from other digital stores and streaming services. Yet, making their music available on legal digital outlets is something that they all have had to accept. That's what music fans want, and if they can't get it legally they'll get it illegally, without paying a penny.

ERA concluded its press release by saying: "Go away and make an album that people are prepared to pay for. We still have faith you [Prince] can do it." With 20Ten, I think he has. Unfortunately, most people will now only be able to get it illegally."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/jul/12/prince-itunes

Video Mad Libs With the Right Software; New York Times, 2/25/10

Paul Boutin, New York Times; Video Mad Libs With the Right Software:

"It is April 1945. In his underground bunker, Hitler huddles over a map with his top generals. The room is insufferably tense. Members of the German high command, sweating in their uniforms, wonder who will dare to break the terrible news to Der Führer.

“The iPad won’t support multitasking,” one general confesses. Hitler erupts in impotent rage, “I wanted to watch videos of lolcats while laying on the couch. But no, they won’t even give it Flash support.”

This four-minute video, available on YouTube, is one of hundreds of goofy edits to the English subtitles of a powerful scene from a 2004 German-language movie titled “Downfall” in the United States. In various home-subtitled remakes over the last few years, Hitler explodes when told that the McMansion he was trying to flip is in foreclosure, that the band Oasis has split up, that the Colts lost the Super Bowl or that people keep making more “Downfall” parodies. When Hitler learns Sarah Palin has resigned as governor of Alaska, he pounds his chest. “Every time she winked,” he moans, “I thought it was just for me.”

Making your own Hitler video turns out to be refreshingly easy, which is why so many of them can be found on YouTube. All you need is a PC and Microsoft’s Movie Maker, a program included with both Windows XP and Vista. (If you run the new Windows 7, you will need to download the old Movie Maker 2.6, rather than the new but less powerful Windows Live Movie Maker. If you’re a Mac user, Apple’s built-in iMovie application will handle the job.)...

A brief word about “fair use.” When you are playing with copyrighted material, you have to be aware that all your hard work can be for naught. While you may be well within your rights to use a portion of copyrighted material in a parody — the law is murky on how much material and in what fashion constitutes fair use — your parody might get squashed. Downfall’s copyright holder, Constantin Film, had a dozen remixes removed from YouTube earlier this year. But the company seems to have since yielded to the phenomenon. And YouTube recently removed the clip that began the 2007 fad of rickrolling, long after the meme had worn itself out."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/personaltech/25basics.html?scp=1&sq=madlibs&st=cse

Courts to Rule on Fan - Created Music Videos; Reuters via New York Times, 1/15/10

Reuters via New York Times; Courts to Rule on Fan - Created Music Videos:

"More than a decade after the launch of Napster, the recording industry's complicated legal relationship with Web-savvy music fans seems no closer to resolution. But a number of cases winding their way through the courts may bring a bit of clarity in 2010 to one particularly fuzzy area of the law: fan-created online videos that contain music.

The major labels have all worked out deals with YouTube to split ad revenue with the site after a user uploads a music video. But considering that labels don't issue explicit licenses to users and YouTube continues to warn against uploading copyrighted material, it isn't clear whether the labels actually want fans to upload their music in the first place. Meanwhile, other copyright owners who don't have deals with YouTube, such as Viacom and music publisher Bourne, are still pursuing copyright infringement suits against the video-sharing giant...

FEW PRECEDENTS

There is surprisingly little case law on this topic. In September, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled against Universal Music Group in its infringement suit against Veoh.com, saying the video-sharing site was protected by the DMCA. But that case isn't binding on a New York federal court, and UMG is appealing. And in a case involving peer-to-peer site isoHunt, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in December that safe harbors are simply unavailable to sites that "induce" infringement.

The other major legal question in the EMI suit is whether lip dubs and similar mash-ups of amateur and professional content are infringing. Copyright reform activists argue that they're examples of fair use tolerated under copyright law as an accommodation to noncommercial, transformative creativity. Of course EMI will point out that, whatever the motivation of the amateur lib-dubber, Vimeo is anything but "noncommercial."

Sources familiar with the labels' thinking on the issue acknowledge these videos' promotional value, but they also note that other video-sharing sites like YouTube have struck deals with the labels and dismiss the notion that copyright owners should forgo a revenue stream simply because it also promotes their artists.

Elsewhere, Stephanie Lenz is still battling UMG over its takedown of a video she had uploaded to YouTube of her toddler son dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." Lenz wants damages for the removal of a video she considers an obvious fair use; UMG maintains it acted in good faith to protect its copyright. And Don Henley's suit against U.S. Senate candidate Chuck DeVore (R-Calif.) over the use of "The Boys of Summer" and "All She Wants to Do Is Dance" in "parody" political videos is moving forward in federal court in Santa Ana, Calif.

U.S. courts have yet to provide clear guidance regarding the legality of pairing copyrighted music with amateur video and then broadcasting it to the world. That may finally change in 2010."

http://tv.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/01/15/arts/entertainment-us-copyright.html?scp=6&sq=copyright&st=cse

Streaming will never stop downloading; Guardian, 12/8/09

Cory Doctorow, Guardian; Streaming will never stop downloading:

Far from being a cure for the industry's woes, substituting streams for downloads wastes bandwidth, reduces privacy and slows innovation

"Someone convinced the record and movie and TV industries that there is way of letting someone listen to audio or watch video over the internet without making a copy. They call this "streaming" audio, and compare it to radio, and contrast it with "downloading", which they compare to buying a CD.

The idea that you can show someone a movie over the internet without making a copy has got lots of people in policy circles excited, since it seems to "solve the copyright problem". If services such as Hulu, Last.fm and YouTube can "play you a file" instead of "sending you a file", then we're safely back in the pre-Napster era. You can sell subscriptions to on-demand streaming, and be sure that your subscribers will never stop paying, since they don't own their favourite entertainment and will have to stump up in order to play it again.

There's only one problem: Streaming doesn't exist."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/08/music-streaming-cory-doctorow

Copyright laws must fit online evolution; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/11/09

Lance Kavanaugh, (senior product counsel, YouTube, is in Australia this week to discuss copyright issues), Sydney Morning Herald; Copyright laws must fit online evolution:

New business models will need new content ownership rules.

"PEOPLE around the world want to connect and interact with content online. We expect to be able to sit at our computer, or walk along with our mobile phone, and have content at our fingertips. The internet enables just that, and in doing so has shifted community expectations about access to content.

It is challenging for traditional copyright laws to adapt to the online environment, as was noted by WIPO director-general Francis Gurry in his address to the National Press Club in August.

In Mr Gurry's words: ''It is not necessarily by putting teenagers in jail that we are going to be able to deal with this extremely serious problem.''

Managing copyright online presents some of the most difficult technical and legal challenges on the internet - in part because global rights ownership and management are exceedingly complicated.

For example, music videos often have many different content owners who own different components of the video and audio. One party may own the video, another party the soundtrack and yet another the musical composition. You get the picture.

As a lawyer for YouTube, I am familiar with the challenges and excited about the potential solutions. I believe it's important that content owners, service providers and the public tackle this proactively. We see a lot of focus on combating copyright infringement. But do we see enough focus on the experimentation that is happening with new business models and the copyright tools that will make those new business models possible?"

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/copyright-laws-must-fit-online-evolution-20091109-i5hl.html

Google seeks to turn a profit from YouTube copyright clashes; Guardian, 11/1/09

Katie Allen, Guardian; Google seeks to turn a profit from YouTube copyright clashes:

Group is working to persuade music and video companies to cash in rather than clamp down when their content is uploaded

"Google is seeking to drag YouTube into profit by convincing music and film footage rights owners to make advertising revenue from their content rather than remove it from the video-sharing site for breach of copyright.

The company has been touting a fingerprinting system for rights holders that means YouTube can identify their material even when it has been altered and made part of user-generated content such as wedding videos or satirical clips.

First developed two years ago, the ContentID system is attracting record labels, TV producers and sports rights owners keen to make more money from the web. Google's computers compare all the material uploaded to YouTube – around 20 hours every minute – against "ID files" from a 100,000-hour library of reference material from the rights holders. The system creates reports of what is viewed where and how often.

Rights holders then have the choice to either block their content or make money from it. That means putting advertising alongside the video and sharing the revenues with YouTube, which takes a small cut. They can also make money by linking to sites selling DVDs, downloads and CDs of the original content.

Google declines to give a number but says the majority of rights holders choose to monetise their content. It points to Mr Bean as a recent beneficiary of the system."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/01/google-youtube-monetise-content

Warner Music Videos to Return to YouTube; New York Times, 9/29/09

Brian Stelter, New York Times; Warner Music Videos to Return to YouTube:

"Ending a nine-month standoff, YouTube said Tuesday that it had reached a new agreement with Warner Music Group that would return the label’s music videos to the world’s largest video Web site.

Warner Music had demanded that its videos be removed last December after licensing talks stalled with YouTube, a unit of Google. The new deal means that YouTube has deals with the country’s four major record labels and four major publishers."

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/warner-music-videos-to-return-to-youtube/?scp=2&sq=youtube&st=cse

Boyle Web sensation: A massive missed opportunity?; Associated Press, 5/29/09

Jake Coyle via Associated Press; Boyle Web sensation: A massive missed opportunity?:

"According to rough estimates by the Times of London based on online ad rates, the first Boyle video could have earned close to $2 million with minimal advertising on YouTube.

Eliot Van Buskirk, a writer for Wired.com who has covered this territory, thinks a unique opportunity was missed.

"This video of Susan Boyle is quickly becoming the most viewed video of all-time — and nobody's making money," said Van Buskirk. "It's been sort of a growing pains stage of ad-supported media."

Van Buskirk said the situation showed the need for content creators and distributors to have agreements in place for when a sensation strikes.

"We're still in the early stages — somehow — of media on the Internet," he said.

A percentage of the would-be ad revenue also would have gone to YouTube. Instead, the Google Inc.-owned company has earned little directly from what might become its biggest hit since launching four years ago."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_en_tv/us_web_susan_boyle

Payoff Over a Web Sensation Is Elusive; New York Times, 5/24/09

Brian Stelter via The New York Times; Payoff Over a Web Sensation Is Elusive:

"[Susan Boyle] has already won a popularity contest on YouTube, where videos of her performances in April have been viewed an astounding 220 million times.

But until now, her runaway Web success has made little money for the program’s producers or distributors.

FremantleMedia Enterprises, a production company that owns the international digital rights to the talent show, hastily uploaded video clips to YouTube in the wake of Ms. Boyle’s debut, but the clips do not appear to be generating any advertising revenue for the company. The most popular videos of Ms. Boyle were not the official versions but rather copies of the TV show posted by individual users.

The case reflects the inability of big media companies to maximize profit from supersize Internet audiences that seem to come from nowhere. In essence, the complexities of TV production are curbing the Web possibilities. “Britain’s Got Talent” is produced jointly by three companies and distributed in Britain by a fourth, ITV, making it difficult to ascertain which of the companies can claim a video as its own...

YouTube, a unit of Google, has been keen to make money from its hulking library of online video by signing contracts with copyright owners and sharing the revenue from ads it sells before, during, after and alongside the videos. Major media companies have shown varying degrees of interest in these deals, in part because they are reticent to split much money with Google...

The broadcaster and producers allowed the copies to stay online because they created buzz for the program. The clips have received more than a half-million user comments.

The view counts continued to grow as people awaited Ms. Boyle’s next performance. Visible Measures, a company that tracks online video placements, said Ms. Boyle was responsible for the fastest-growing viral video in the roughly five-year history of Web video."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/business/media/25youtube.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1243267357-yx358QnSV0PSvbz5bZMDwA

EFF Chastises YouTube, Seeks Fair Users; Public Knowledge, 2/4/09

Via Public Knowledge: EFF Chastises YouTube, Seeks Fair Users:

"In a post to the Deep Links blog yesterday, EFF senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann makes it quite clear that he's had enough of Big Content's efforts to squelch fair uses on YouTube. He points to a recent spate of abusive takedowns--largely believed to be the result of a breakdown in negotiations between YouTube and the Warner Music Group--as evidence that the DMCA notice and takedown system is now being used blatantly as a tool for censorship, rather than copyright enforcement. His proposed solution comes in two parts. First, YouTube must fix Content ID, its automatic digital fingerprinting/filtering system...

Second, von Lohmann thinks that it's time for a little impact litigation and he's looking to the YouTube community for help".

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1976

YouTube Copyright System Gone Mad, EFF Prepares to Sue: Read Write Web, 2/3/09

Read Write Web: YouTube Copyright System Gone Mad, EFF Prepares to Sue:

"Using YouTube's new automated copright detection technology, Warner Brothers detected last month that 15 year old Juliet Weybret had posted a video of herself playing the piano and singing the 1934 song Winter Wonderland. This unrepentant little criminal might have thought that such a widely covered tune had entered the public domain, 75 years after it was recorded, but Juliet was clearly unfamiliar with legislation like the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act, which extended copyright protection to 95 years or more after publication date.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is not happy with the situation...

What does the EFF intend to do about it? The organization has put out a call to people who have had videos taken off of YouTube at the behest of Warner and whose videos were both noncommercial and substantially original. The EFF says it will help serve a counter notice and offer legal protection to as many people as it can. "We can't promise to take every case," they say, "but neither will we stand by and watch semi-automated takedowns trample fair use.""

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/youtube_copyright_system_eff_action.php