| kdj2hot 20.09.2007 13:54 |
I like Prince but this is ridiculous. This really effects everyone who uses Youtube because a spokewoman for them already said they're gonna introduce a technology that scans files and filters copyrighted material in the future. That certainly is a way to win fans, being known as the guy who killed Youtube. Good job, prince. I still love'em though. link |
| Penetration_Guru 20.09.2007 14:30 |
If youtube had stuck to cats falling out of trees and video blogs, fair enough. But it's being used as a way around copyright and while Prince's attitude to some aspects of public life is as mad as a box of frogs, I agree that YouTube has got out of control. ..and being the artist that killed napster doesn't seem to worry Metallica over-much |
| Tero 20.09.2007 14:57 |
It's amazing to think that at the time I became a Prince fan (in 1993 I believe), the only way to see his videos was to either borrow the officially released VHS tapes from library, or to watch MTV's Greatest Hits and hope that a Prince song came on. (Usually about once or twice a day they played something by him.) At this day and age people have grown accustomed to being able to see just about any video with a couple of clicks of the mouse, and can't even believe the possibility that somebody actually "owns" the material and is entitled to a compensation whenever that material is being used to make commercial profit on the internet. That is the bottom line... YouTube is making a profit by showing copyrighted material without paying the appropriate compensation to the copyright holder, and it's perfectly understandable that some parties will want to stop that. I can live with it because I was born before YouTube was around. I believe anyone else could live with that prospect as well, because anybody searching for his videos in YouTube should have heard his material earlier, right? Music should still be mainly about music, shouldn't it? |
| beautifulsoup 20.09.2007 23:21 |
Heh. Never mind, it was a stupid post, and so I deleted it. |
| john bodega 21.09.2007 01:07 |
"said they're gonna introduce a technology that scans files and filters copyrighted material in the future." I would really like to see them back that one up... What are they going to do, keep an index of every single and every popular music video, and run comparisons against whatever gets uploaded?? That's absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And Prince is a fuckwit anyway. Youtube takes down videos if the copyright owners complain. All he has to do is get his midget ass to an internet cafe, search for "Prince videos" on Youtube, and then go and complain when he finds offending material. AND... this hardly represents lost revenue. Youtube is shitty FLV video, and in mono sound unless you know how to do it in stereo (it can be done). If I see something on Youtube, and like it, and it is available for purchase, then I'll bloody well go and buy it. Taking down the "George Takei loves sweaty basketball players" video was just stupid.... I can't buy that in shops, and it was damn hilarious. Fuck Youtube, sometimes, honestly... |
| Tero 21.09.2007 03:47 |
Zebonka12 wrote: And Prince is a fuckwit anyway. Youtube takes down videos if the copyright owners complain. All he has to do is get his midget ass to an internet cafe, search for "Prince videos" on Youtube, and then go and complain when he finds offending material.I suppose that's true if you can hire a person to scan the YouTube website around the clock and report every video which breaks the copyright, but that's hardly a practical long time solution. :P Pretty much every website practices a self-censorship which stops obviously illegal activities from being practised, and most even go as far stopping activities that could be considered illegal. The only reason why YouTube does not follow suit and allows illegal material is because they make pretty much all of their profit from it. It really is as simple as that, and they have no moral basis to continue that practice. A crime is still a crime even if the victim himself doesn't report it. |
| john bodega 21.09.2007 05:31 |
"I suppose that's true if you can hire a person to scan the YouTube website around the clock and report every video which breaks the copyright, but that's hardly a practical long time solution." It's not about the practicality for these people though, it's about my favourites list shrinking every week or so!! Honestly, no one actually loses out from a site like Youtube unless whole albums or movies are uploaded (in their original form) in chunks. It doesn't hurt the corporations because if they didn't spend so much on copyright lawyers, they wouldn't be losing money. That's just a joke, but come off it... And it doesn't hurt struggling artists, because the struggling artist either has enough money already, or is happy for the exposure. There are so-called celebrities out there who frigging owe their careers to internet video... hell we wouldn't have had South Park if it weren't for people passing along free videos on the internet and generating huge interest. I'm all for the prosecution of these cocksuckers who just upload movies willy-nilly when it's dead easy to buy or rent them... but there is so much stuff on Youtube which isn't all that easy to get a hold of (a lot of it basically impossible to find) that from a legal perspective should be taken down. Which is really when you have to say "fuck the law". If I can't watch Buddy Rich and Sammy Davis Jr on the Parkinson show in '82, because it's illegal, then I say "Fuck the Law". |
| Tero 21.09.2007 07:18 |
Basically I agree with your opinion that rare and unreleased material should be available freely, but that should NOT have to come with the expense of official material being distributed with no regard for copyright. Until such time as YouTube takes the responsibility of screening the submissions for copyrighted material by themselves instead of profiting from it commercially, I will absolutely 100% agree with the likes of Prince and Viacom who are suing YouTube's ass. Only after YouTube grows enough backbone and stops intentionally breaking the law for commercial gain, could I possible start to agree with their (or your) point of view. |
| Mr.Jingles 21.09.2007 07:31 |
Anyone who wants their copyrighted material out of YouTube should make it available in their own website. |
| kdj2hot 21.09.2007 07:45 |
Tero wrote:Hardly practical? That's what prince does that's why there's never been a lot of Prince clips on Youtube because when they're uploaded a day or two later they're taken down cause his people complain. Which bothers me even more about the situation because he's doing just what the system allows and it's working for him. Even 3 months ago the only Prince video you would find (aside from parodies or interviews on shows he don't own) was aBlack Sweat which was posted by the record company. He's just being an asshole seriously, it's no other way. I could see how he feels it's wasting his resources having his people constantly search the site and complain about his videos but if that's the case just let them stay up, in the end who really cares. Videos were'nt created with the purpose of making you money directly, they make you money by people seeing them and then going out and buying the single or the album or going to your concert the entire situation is very egotistical and contol freakish on his part and not based on logic or common sense.Zebonka12 wrote: And Prince is a fuckwit anyway. Youtube takes down videos if the copyright owners complain. All he has to do is get his midget ass to an internet cafe, search for "Prince videos" on Youtube, and then go and complain when he finds offending material.I suppose that's true if you can hire a person to scan the YouTube website around the clock and report every video which breaks the copyright, but that's hardly a practical long time solution. :P Pretty much every website practices a self-censorship which stops obviously illegal activities from being practised, and most even go as far stopping activities that could be considered illegal. The only reason why YouTube does not follow suit and allows illegal material is because they make pretty much all of their profit from it. It really is as simple as that, and they have no moral basis to continue that practice. A crime is still a crime even if the victim himself doesn't report it. Oh yeah I forgot to mention that he's filing a suit against eBay as well for allowing people to sell bootlegs of his. He's getting ridiculous. He still rocks though. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 21.09.2007 07:56 |
in case anyone is interested aparantly Sky News are broadcasting part of his live show tonight [21st sept] between 8.30 and 9pm.one can watch via the sky news website too. |
| Tero 21.09.2007 08:22 |
kdj2hot wrote: Hardly practical? That's what prince does that's why there's never been a lot of Prince clips on Youtube because when they're uploaded a day or two later they're taken down cause his people complain. Which bothers me even more about the situation because he's doing just what the system allows and it's working for him. Even 3 months ago the only Prince video you would find (aside from parodies or interviews on shows he don't own) was aBlack Sweat which was posted by the record company. He's just being an asshole seriously, it's no other way. I could see how he feels it's wasting his resources having his people constantly search the site and complain about his videos but if that's the case just let them stay up, in the end who really cares. Videos were'nt created with the purpose of making you money directly, they make you money by people seeing them and then going out and buying the single or the album or going to your concert the entire situation is very egotistical and contol freakish on his part and not based on logic or common sense. Oh yeah I forgot to mention that he's filing a suit against eBay as well for allowing people to sell bootlegs of his. He's getting ridiculous. He still rocks though.Yes, he's doing that because YouTube is a lazy-ass money-grabbing law-breaking website which lives by exploiting other people's work without their permission. As much as you might not like it, YouTube has no legal right to keep Prince videos on the site if the man doesn't want it. What's at stake with these lawsuits against YouTube is whose responsibility it is to monitor what goes on the site. YouTube is the one breaking the law, and by common sense it should be the party to make sure there is no copyrighted material on their site. It also makes perfect sense to sue eBay for selling bootlegs. It's another example of a business which is making money by selling illegal products with no regard for legal copyright. I admit I've bought a few bootlegs in my youth, (and before I realised I could find them from the internet for free), but for the past five years my policy has been not to pay a single penny to anybody for somebody else's work they have absolutely no legal right to. Knowingly buying or selling stolen physical property is a crime, so why should it be alright to buy stolen intellectual property? |
| John S Stuart 21.09.2007 10:38 |
Commercial and licensed radio stations exist by broadcasting FREELY to the consumer. What makes radio fine is that the artists usually pick up additional revenues via generated sales and are paid royalties for each track played - but it is usually the advertisers who pick up the tab. For me, the greatest con of the 20th C was MTV, basically radio for television, promoting the bands latest (or classic tracks) - sponsored by the advertising industry - and STILL charging the consumer for the privilege! However, if 'YouTube' sticks to sh*tty low quality broadcasts, and legally reimbursed artists for their rights, then I see no difference between that medium and (as mentioned above) commercial radio stations. Surely under these conditions, most artists would then wish then appear on 'YouTube' - as this too would generate both royalties and sales? |
| Tero 21.09.2007 13:57 |
John S Stuart wrote: Commercial and licensed radio stations exist by broadcasting FREELY to the consumer. What makes radio fine is that the artists usually pick up additional revenues via generated sales and are paid royalties for each track played - but it is usually the advertisers who pick up the tab. For me, the greatest con of the 20th C was MTV, basically radio for television, promoting the bands latest (or classic tracks) - sponsored by the advertising industry - and STILL charging the consumer for the privilege! However, if 'YouTube' sticks to sh*tty low quality broadcasts, and legally reimbursed artists for their rights, then I see no difference between that medium and (as mentioned above) commercial radio stations. Surely under these conditions, most artists would then wish then appear on 'YouTube' - as this too would generate both royalties and sales?I don't know about other countries, but MTV has always been free in Finland. I wouldn't pay for it with the shitty selection it's had for the past decade. ;) As far as I've understood (and please correct me if I'm wrong) YouTube makes its money from advertisement, and pays a relatively small lump sum to copyright control agencies who distribute the money forward to all the artists they represent, because they don't keep track of actual views by item. Reimbursing the legal copyright holders for every single view of a video would indeed take away most of the concerns about YouTube, but it would still be left with the problem I feel is central in this debate... The copyright holder should be able to decide (within the copyrights they possess) what material is available and what isn't. YouTube couldn't care less about what's posted on their site because they get profit from everything, and that needs to change. |
| Raf 22.09.2007 06:18 |
Here in Brazil, a few months ago a model called Daniella Cicarelli was filmed having sex at the beach, and the video leaked out on YouTube (it isn't explicit, you just see her with her boyfriend moving in a suspicious way in the water, which is probably why it was "allowed" there), and she managed to get YouTube banned in Brazil. She has a TV show in MTV Brazil, and in most areas in the country, MTV Br is only available through cable TV. In a few HOURS, THOUSANDS of users from a few different cable TV services were phoning them and asking to have MTV removed, threatening to stop using their services, an absurd amount of e-mails arrived to MTV Br saying the users would stop watching the whole channel until she was fired, a massive petition started... All of that in only a few hours. The ban didn't last even 24 hours, and nowadays there are still quite a lot of people who dislike her a lot for the incident. |
| john bodega 22.09.2007 09:01 |
"Basically I agree with your opinion that rare and unreleased material should be available freely" Well, that's not exactly my opinion... I'd throw "if it can't be purchased legally" on the end there. Because I don't mind paying for things, really! "Only after YouTube grows enough backbone and stops intentionally breaking the law for commercial gain, could I possible start to agree with their (or your) point of view." Meh, I personally don't see a problem here..... Youtube gets complaints, the offending stuff gets taken down. It's a pain in the arse for me, because I can't laugh at the Yngwie Malmsteen parodies anymore... but the copyright holder is happy now, right?? "Here in Brazil, a few months ago a model called Daniella Cicarelli was filmed having sex at the beach, and the video leaked out on YouTube (it isn't explicit, you just see her with her boyfriend moving in a suspicious way in the water, which is probably why it was "allowed" there), and she managed to get YouTube banned in Brazil." What a prude! |
| Tero 22.09.2007 17:20 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "Basically I agree with your opinion that rare and unreleased material should be available freely" Well, that's not exactly my opinion... I'd throw "if it can't be purchased legally" on the end there. Because I don't mind paying for things, really!I assumed that much, and thought that would be pretty much everyone's opinion... ;) Zebonka12 wrote: "Only after YouTube grows enough backbone and stops intentionally breaking the law for commercial gain, could I possible start to agree with their (or your) point of view." Meh, I personally don't see a problem here..... Youtube gets complaints, the offending stuff gets taken down. It's a pain in the arse for me, because I can't laugh at the Yngwie Malmsteen parodies anymore... but the copyright holder is happy now, right??The problem is that it's more than just an offending parody. We're talking about every single music video, live performance and interview of yours that's ever been televised. It's downright illegal to upload those. In real world the equivalent would be that a recordstore would gladly sell bootlegs and pirate albums next to the official ones... I know this happens occasionally by "accident" even in some UK stores like HMV which are selling dodgy Queen releases (In Nuce, Final Live in Japan) but it's still breaking the copyright laws to make an extra profit, and should be discouraged. At least in my opinion. |
| john bodega 23.09.2007 01:48 |
" We're talking about every single music video, live performance and interview of yours that's ever been televised. It's downright illegal to upload those." Again with my favourite words though, 'fuck the law'. It might be downright illegal, but if Prince is going to be a giant prat and refuse to take care of his own back catalogue of unreleased stuff, and can't be arsed making all this stuff available through proper channels - he deserves to lose money. Seriously! That Youtube would make any money out of it is something that does bother me.... Chad and Steve, that pasty white guy and his asian coder friend.... I think they've got plenty enough money. Especially since they took a giant Google wad in their mouths. |
| Tero 23.09.2007 08:49 |
Zebonka12 wrote: That Youtube would make any money out of it is something that does bother me....Hah, so for that reason alone you should at least be sitting on the fence instead of siding with either Prince or YouTube. :P |
| Mr.Jingles 23.09.2007 09:08 |
I think it's great that Prince is pulling out his own videos from YouTube. Now nobody has to watch 'Batdance'. |