It belongs to Warner Bros. and was posted without permision. It was copyright protected. If you write a song and put it on a CD you don't want someone else to make money off your song without your permission. Or even post it on youtube without your permision. We benefit from having recourse if someone uses our copyright protected song without our permission. If you don't care that's fine. But, obviously Warner Bros. does care. I care as well. I'm not giving my music away. Everyone who I wanted to give my music away to I gave them a CD. I'm sorry, but we didn't record it for free. The studio wanted money to record it, the artist wanted money for the jacket art, the radio station wanted money for advertising, and so did all the other advertisers, the printer wanted money for the posters, people even wanted money to press the disc. So, I'm not giving it away until everyone else starts giving it away to make it. Even then my time is worth money. Those songs didn't write themselves. I don't understand how any musician WOULDN'T be a supporter of copyright law.

Dave

The first example was from 1940, the second from 2006. How would YouTube or copyright activists explain this? What is the solution to the problem?

Explain what?

Dave

The first movie was made in 1940 and was blocked on YouTube due to copyright infringement. The second movie made in 2006 was allowed to play on YouTube. How can a movie made in 1940 (72 years ago) have more infringement protection than one made in 2006?

Now I understand.

It doesn't. youtube is a massive sight. There are a lot of things up there that are in violation of copyright law. There is no possble way they can view every video uploaded. Unless someone complains they will probably stay up.

Dave

youtube act when there is a complaint from the copyright holder . they don't self regulate.

Like Prince. He had all his stuff yanked off youtube and threated to sue the a-- off them . you still find some bits and peices but they don't last long

warners bros is a big company. no doubt they pay people to scour these sites and get their property removed

Shouldn't YouTube be held accountable for not regulating itself? Why should Warner Bros. have to hire people to protect its property, in a sane society that cost would be borne by YouTube who is in essence an accessory to the "so-called crime" of copyright infringement.

That would be nearly impossible:

Total number of YouTube videos -- over 120,000,000

Number of videos uploaded per day -- about 200,000

Time required to see all the videos -- over 600 years

Number of videos watched daily -- over 200,000,000

Amount of content uploaded every minute -- 13 hours

Number of accounts on YouTube -- over 300,000,000

Percentage of videos violating copyright -- over 12%

Dave

in a perfect world yes . and they do regulate in some area's. if someone posts porn or anything super violent they will yank it in minutes

it comes down to to the service they provide. they will argue they are a hosting site and are not responsible for enforcing copyright .If the holder of the copyright doesnt care enough to take action why would you tube ?

Copyright laws are in a real middle ground at the momnet. they were just not created to deal with the technology we have now .There are inconsistencies everywhere.

You hit it right when you said they will not accept responsibility. So the question becomes why should others? In the old days people led by example, today they do what they can get away with. Hollywood's liberalism has come home to roost. What a contradiction that now all of a sudden they're for law and order.

By liberal, do you mean any viewpoint you don't understand?

I would think there would be no faction wanting you to speak for
them. You think youre clever, your not. You think youre insightful
and I suspect youre a moron. And by the the way, has anyone seen
you play yet?

Youre just a poo-butt motherf---er and no one cares what you
think. Im only answering you because Im pretty bored right now.

Chris, don't get upset over trivial matters. Inhale, exhale, relax......with more practice one day you'll become the guitar player you think you actually are. When bored I suggest reading a book.

when I put up videos, theyre live imperfections and all. Not slicked
up overdubs and other s--- these other guys use. If you think I
overestimate my guitar skills. we can chop heads anytime you get
your balls together.

Personally, I really enjoy all those videos of your playing that you
post. You should post some new ones tonight!
Now, when you say "chop heads" is that another of those
regional colloquialisms of yours? I remember getting in trouble
for pointing one out in the past. But, I thought it was called
"cutting heads" - like when Ralph Macchio was playing against
the
devils guitar player. I'll bet you remember that, right? That must
be what it's like out on the road,
traveling from town to town, having to play for your life in every
smokey bar and juke joint against the local gunslinger who
comes out every night to challenge the unwanted stranger from
out of town. So, as a professional, is that what it's like for you?

You seem to like to hide behind that name. Who are
you?? How old are you? What are you? A woman? A man?
Both?

Put up a video or at least a sound clip so that we
can get a discussion about guitar playing going!!!

Copyright law is an important part of business for some
musicians, although I have never met one who thought it was
political until now. While it may or may not have any significance
to you, that doesn't make it any less so. Whether or not you are
capable of even participating in a discussion on the subject
doesn't really
matter. You can continue to post your propaganda and/or show
your immaturity if you choose. But to at least a few people here
this has some importance. Any musician who has a body of work
they wish to publish and sell should have some knowledge of
copyright law. Any person wishing to illegally post copyrighted
material on the internet might also consider learning, too. It's
why many lessons here were removed a while back. So, you can
revel in your ignorance and let other people make the rules or
you can learn to educate yourself so that you might participate in
a discussion without being so easily dismissed for your niavete.
I'm not hiding behind a name and I answer to the one I go by
here on a regular basis - I assume you do the same with yours?
You can take what I have to say seriously if you choose, or not. I
believe it stands on it's own merits and not whether or not you
like my name. Is there something I have posted that you have
found to be untrue or based in anything other than fact?
Anything malicious that wasn't provoked?

I'm extremely offended. Now...

May I ask you to post some guitar playing? Just a
clip??

Take it easy man.

Why do you have such a need to compete? Other people on this site have noted the same thing about your playing: sloppy, uncoordinated, rushed, out of beat etc......Be a good little boy, find yourself a girl, and use your balls for what nature intended them to do.

Is it just me or are you Bumblebee Slim?? Because
you're starting to seem like him.

Just thought I would throw that out there.

I'm not Bumblebee Slim.

My apologies.

what the f--- would you know about keeping time? What would
you actually know anything about music except putting up
youtube video.

I simply dabble in rock and that other crap. Its actually hard for
me to switch back to 4/4 or 2/4 or 3/4, because most
everything i play is at least in 7/8, something you couldnt refine
or even hear if your life depended on it. So go f--- yourself.
Matter of fact this whole site can suck my dick.


Not my fault you have no listening ability, you little c---.

Relax Chris, it's just a guitar. When babies don't get their way, they usually take a fit and resort to name calling. Your response was very predictable and juvenile. Remember Chris, if it sounds off then by Jove it is off.

NO, I just know what Im talking about, and you dont.

Anyway, Im taking my ball and going home. F--- this site. I dont
need to engage in this bullshit. F--- all you bitches.

It's assumed you know everything Chris, so why get upset with everyone on WholeNote? Why the name calling? Relax...breathe in, breathe out, count one and a, two and a, three and a.......etc.....

Dude, Ive been coming to this site for ten years. There was a time
that a 100 posts a day were going up. But a funny thing , little
smartasses and condescending little s---s kind of rooted in. The
guys that had legitimate questions and answers disappeared one by
one, and not one came back.

So its just time to call it a day. THose who knew this site in its
heyday really know one thing, this site is dead, This will be my last
post. And whether you agree or not, it just died a little more.

I kind of agree with you but the decline of WholeNote is probably (IMO) due to the advancement of other sites that are technically superior. I'm sorry if I got your goat.....peace man.

Chris Bond is mad at the world because he is useless.

"Poo-butt"? What's next, video of you sticking out your tongue?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_femhrxbNtS0/THjtgQBKRyI/AA
AAAAAAHUk/rEqInVrAG6M/s400/Liberals.jpg

I actually used to enjoy reading Buckley's column in the
newspaper.
I didn't always agree with him but at least he had the ability to
form
his own opinions and state them intelligently. So does
Olbermann,
even if he's a little to the left of my thinking sometimes. But a
response like yours, which is just to post some picture with
rhetoric
that doesn't even apply to this discussion, doesn't really seem to
make sense at all. I'm trying to understand why the OP thinks
opposing the posting of copyrighted material on YouTube is
somehow "liberal" or has anything to do with Hollywood. Or how
one could fail to understand why it's wrong. That's not to let
YouTube off the hook for having copyrighted material illegally
posted on their site, but ultimately the responsibility should fall
on the person who posted it. If you have a different viewpoint
then state it and I'll gladly discuss it with you, but please don't
try to make this about anyones political viewpoint - that's just
trolling.

I"m trolling yet again:

http://opiatemagazine.com/?p=1008

By liberal, I mean any viewpoint that hasn't got common sense.

So, if you are against copyright law then by your own definition
would that make you liberal?
Seriously, I'd like to know why you oppose copyright laws. Is it
just
because you prefer to get your music and movies for free on the
internet? Because common sense tells me that that is most likely
the truth of the matter. You say you think it should be the
responsibility of YouTube to monitor the site and not allow
copyrighted material but make no mention of the responsibility
of the person who actually posts the material on YouTube. Is that
more of your idea of common sense?
C'mon, you initiated this discussion but seem unwilling to accept
the answer to the question you asked. Do you really mean to tell
us you don't have a common sense response to explain your
beliefs? Or, could it be that you really know it makes no common
sense to take your stance?

I'm all for copyright protection but not to the tune of 75 years or as Sonny Bono once put it, "Forever and a day." Isn't it obvious that copyright protection as the music industry and Hollywood once knew is all but over because of the new technology. The "best movie of the year" was on YouTube just the other day, today they had Hugo on too. Did copyright law protect these movies? No. My beef with Hollywood and the Music Industry is that they think they're above everyone else when it comes to justice. They in fact support every kind of fraud except when it concerns their industry. I bought my music years ago and have no need for the new stuff. The cable company charges me for 30 channels when I only want 5, so I do pay for music and movies that I never watch thanks to the pull of the industry bigwigs.

O.K., thanks for posting a response. At leasy now maybe we can
have a discussion on the topic. I'm always interested in other
people's viewpoint, even if I don't agree. I really do try to
understand both sides of something like this because it does
effect
most of us in one way or another.
So, let's take it one point at a time so that we don't have too
many
different discussions happening all at once. You good with that?
First - you say you're O.K. with copyright protection, but not for
75
years. I believe our times are different here in the US, but if it's
75 for you, then that's still a debateable figure. How long do you
think is fair for a person or persons to own
their own work before they have to give it up to public domain?
I'm not as familiar with who owns the rights on movies so for the
sake of this debate can we stick to music?
Here's an example: I write a song when I'm 18. It does fairly
well and recieves radio airplay. It's also is catchy enough that
20-
30 years later it gets used in a movie soundtrack. And over the
course of my lifetime it gets used various times around the world
in commercials. Why should I have to give up the rights to my
own song and it's earnings - ever? Why should I have ever had to
renew my copyright? It was my song, nothing's changed, right?
Why shouldn't I have a say in who uses my material and how
much I can charge them? If they don't want to pay the amount I
ask then they're free to choose someone else's material, but they
shouldn't expect it to be free. And how could anyone be so
audacious as to think that they have the right to take my work
and use it or distribute it without my authorization? Arguing that
technology allows people to easily steal my work does not mean
that the law should be changed. We don't make credit card fraud
or identity theft legal because the technology exists that makes
it easy to do.

There's a big difference between listening to a song on YouTube and profiting from it. I never said that anyone has the right to make money from another persons body of work. If the work is used to make money it's only logical that the artist should receive his proper share of it. How many artists have been ripped off by the music industry and Hollywood? How many haven't received their share? My personal observation is that the biggest thief always cries loudest when he becomes the victim.

So if someone steals your guitars and amps - as long as they
don't intend to sell any of your stuff or use it to make a profit of
some sort, it's O.K.?

I'm not disputing whether artists have been ripped off by the
system or the industry, they have been. But is your solution to
also steal from them? Why keep blaming the industry and
hollywood for your actions and the actions of others who are
defrauding artists by illegally posting and downloading music in
order to avoid buying the product? You want to
justify it by
saying you pay for cable television and they charge you for stuff
you don't want so you can then in turn illegally post and view
anything you like from any available resource because you feel
slighted by the cable company. If you don't like the product or
service you buy it doesn't mean you can turn around and steal
from someone else. I see a trend here in the blame
game, do you? It goes like this " I have the resources to sit at
home and steal other peoples intellectual and artistic property. I
know it's wrong and illegal when I do it but I'm not to blame -
Hollywood and the industry and the cable company and the
internet and YouTube shouldn't let me do it - it's their fault."

You completely avoided answering any of my questions in the
previous post, btw.

I believe I answered your questions.....yes the artist should be remunerated if his song or movie is being used to make profit. How much clearer can I be. Is the artist who made the movie or recorded the song in 1940 being paid? What is YouTube? Is it a band of brothers, a band of thieves, a site where anything goes? If I stole your guitars and had them at home on display, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that I'd be arrested and sent to jail if I were caught? If I had a warehouse of stolen goods and were caught I'd go to jail too? If copyright law is what it is can't we assume that YouTube is a warehouse of stolen goods? I believe TV and radio stations pay a fee for their content and all is legal. Can we say the same about YouTube? If I help someone commit a crime I'd be charged as an accessory.......isn't YouTube an accessory?

Well, based on your initial question about how we benefit from
"this" - and "this" being the removal of a movie over copyright
infringement - it would seem you didn't agree with the action,
otherwise you would understand why we benefit. I suppose you
could agrue that "we" didn't benefit in that particular instance
because "we" didn't hold that particular copyright, but you know
what I mean. If this is going to deteriorate into a game of
semantics then I'll go ahead and bow out of the discussion. I'll
certainly try to keep it from happening on my part.
An artist from 1940 should still be able to retain
copyright if this chart is accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_length
Now, you had mentioned that 75years was "forever and a day"
(God help me, I qouted Sonny) so, based on that, some of my
questions I asked that you didn't answer from the post I
mentioned were:
How long do you
think is fair for a person or persons to own
their own work before they have to give it up to public domain?
Why should I have to give up the rights to my
own song and it's earnings - ever?
Why should I have ever had to
renew my copyright? It was my song, nothing's changed, right?
Why shouldn't I have a say in who uses my material and how
much I can charge them?
And how could anyone be so
audacious as to think that they have the right to take my work
and use it or distribute it without my authorization?
I'm not trying to let YouTube off the hook and I've already
mentioned that. I also said that blaming them for the posting of
the material is laying the bulk of the blame at the feet of the
wrong party.
Don't you think that the persons responsible for posting the
material should be the ones ultimately held accountable? If you
post something illegal there, you're to blame. If you post
something illegal on the internet it isn't the fault of your provider
or the company that made your computer, it's your fault. If
you're a citizen of Canada then you also pay taxes, correct? And
as a taxpayer you pay for roads? So, technically you are a part
owner in the roads - should you be held partially responsible for
other peoples violations of the law commited on your roads? Of
course not, the person responsible for commiting the violation
is. You can
try to point the finger at anyone you want, but you know it's just
a way to try to weasel out of being responsible for you own
actions.
Look, I know you don't agree with the system and think it's
antiquated and unenforceable but until it's legal you're still to
blame and are only contributing to the problem by breaking the
law. Complaining
about the lack of enforcement while abusing the system is just
hypocritical.

You've got quite a list there so I'll try to answer all your questions.

How long do you
think is fair for a person or persons to own
their own work before they have to give it up to public domain? IMO 15-20 years is enough before it becomes available to the public. This of course would exclude enterprises making money from the work. If someone makes money...the artist should always get paid.

Don't you think that the persons responsible for posting the
material should be the ones ultimately held accountable?
They should be held accountable but so should the institution enabling the action.
1: YouTuble allows people to upload whole movies, albums, etc...This I believe started a year or two ago.
2: YouTube allows downloading of material on its site. If that's not aiding and abetting then I don't know what is.
3: YouTube makes money from their site....Do the people uploading make money?

should you be held partially responsible for
other peoples violations of the law committed on your roads?
It all depends on how you look at it. If the violators are let loose or not held accountable then it is the responsibility of the people to elect politicians who will uphold the law and fine or imprison the violators. If I owned a MacDonald's franchise and allowed pushers to sell drugs, I'd go to jail along with the dealers. If Corzine can't find the missing $1.2 billion don't you think he should be held accountable since he was, after all the ceo?

I'm not pointing the finger.....Hollywood and the Music Industry is getting a taste of their own medicine. If they changed their way of looking at things and led by example then maybe the people who view their product would have a better way of doing things.

So, here's a relevant event in the news that I'd be interested in
hearing your opinion on:
http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=708952
Without getting into what Rush said on the air and sticking
strictly to the fact the he appears to be using Gabriel's music
without his knowledge, what do you think? The song is 26 years
old. Should Gabriel still have a say in when and where it's used?
People identify him with it and it with him. Is Rush's use for
profit? If the man wrote the song he should have a say in how it's
used for the rest of his life unless he sells the rights to someone
else.
I promise we'll get 'round to my thoughts on YouTube and thier
culpability but I can't do it today - maybe tomorrow.
I'd really like to hear other members opinion on this, too. Surely
y'all have some thoughts on this.

I posted earlier on and have been reading but there's not that much to it to me . I believe in the idea of copyright and as someone who is in a band that writes,performs and records original material i want my product protected as long as possible.

you tube, bit torrent,lime wire, pirate bay and whatever else throw a spanner in the works and raise allot of new questions about copyright and how it is enforced but that doesnt mean I dont support the idea .just because I can watch a movie or rip music online deosnt mean I do it or I think the rules shoudl change . in fact I never do. I'll check out a song on you tube and if I dig it I'll buy the album

I agree with Adrianno on the fact the music and movie industries and getting some just deserts and payback. but I will never support anything that potentially takes money out of the pockets of creative poeple cause there's far too many gifted creative people getting no money .

Well said Matt.

Dave

Rush Limbaugh's show is very profitable, if he uses Gabriel's music he should pay. I'm not sure I'd agree with Gabriel saying where and when it's used. As long as he's paid, where's the beef. I know what you're gonna say so.....should a doctor who discovers a cure for a disease have a say in who gets the medication? The average person is getting fed up with these stars who act as if they're God's gift to mankind.

The article doesn't say Limbaugh was using it without permission. Permission in copyright situations is usually meant and understood as, the rights to use it have been paid for.

Now, it is still Gabriels right to not allow someone to use it. These things are seldom run past the author for approval by the company that holds the copyright or the executors of the copyright. If the author voices a disagreemnet, then they can retract or stop any further use of the material.

In Limbaughs case, I would think he has enough staffers to do things legally and that the music was paid for its use. But, it's moot anyway since Gabirel has nnow stated he doesn't want it used by that person.

A few elections ago, I forget which presidential candidate it was, a candidates campaign was using someones music, paid for and legal. But the author did not agree with that candidates ideas and asked that they stop using the music, which they did.

IMO 15-20 years is enough before it becomes available to the
public. This of course would exclude enterprises making money
from the work. If someone makes money...the artist should
always get paid. - So you think it should then become "free" for
you to use for your pleasure, as long as you're not making $
from it? Would the artist be responsible for monitoring that?
Should it have some type of code imbdded in it so that if you use
it illegally you would be sent a bill?


They should be held accountable but so should the institution
enabling the action.
1: YouTuble allows people to upload whole movies, albums,
etc...This I believe started a year or two ago.
2: YouTube allows downloading of material on its site. If that's
not aiding and abetting then I don't know what is.
3: YouTube makes money from their site....Do the people
uploading make money? - Again, I don't agree with YouTube
having illegal material on their site, but I still think that the
responsibility falls on the person who posts it. Isn't that listed in
the terms of agreement of their site?



I'm not pointing the finger.....Hollywood and the Music Industry
is getting a taste of their own medicine. If they changed their
way of looking at things and led by example then maybe the
people who view their product would have a better way of doing
things. - But you are pointing a finger. Just look at what you just
said about Hollywood and the Music industry. We all know that
the industry has it's crooks and bad guys. So does any other
business I've ever been exposed to. Artists were, and still are,
taken advantage of - just like in any other business. But by
illegally using an artists material to punish the industry, I fail to
see how you feel that is answer.

So, how do you propose we "fix" it?

"So, how do you propose we "fix" it?"

To please the artists we must, asap, do the following
1: Ban DVD player/recorders
2: Ban PVR and TIVO
3: Close all public libraries
4: prohibit the lending of cds and dvds amongst friends
5: Start an artist relief fund(ARF), ordinary people like myself would willingly contribute $100 a year......extraordinary people could give $200 to $300......super people wouldn't bat an eye giving $1000.....the artist would surely give a minimum of $10,000
6: Ban the sale of computers
7: Beam the planet back to 1940....LOL

Well since I posted I learned something about this. I violated youtube's copyright policy because I put up a video (just pictures) with Sinatra's That's Life as a backing track. I received an email about it saying I didn't have to do anything. However, they said that it may have an advertisement added to it.It seems the copyright owner can have it removed, or they can have it tracked with youtube reporting how many hits it's getting, or they can ad an advertisement to it. Obviously youtube has some kind of software in place to detect songs because I got the email right after I posted it.

Dave