# Publishers join case against YouTube



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

NEW YORK (AP) - A group of music publishing companies said Monday it is joining a copyright infringement lawsuit against Google Inc.'s video-sharing site YouTube. 

More...


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I guess this was bound to happen sooner or later.


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I guess this was bound to happen sooner or later.


That was my exact thought when I saw the title, lol.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Ah, Canoe got last year's newspaper finally I see :tongue:


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2007)

FU<K EM....

If you're to short sighted to see that things like youtube are the way of the future, you won't survive long.

(They're not even new... people have been going in this direction since about 1983....)

Get with the times, or FK the H*LL OFF!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I guess that is easy to say if you are not the guy on the losing end of the stick. There are always two sides to the story. As the consumer it's great, but what about the artist or the material owners?


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

Paul said:


> I find it amazing that people who don't own valuable intellectual property don't value intellectual property.
> 
> The distribution model has changed, and will continue to change, but the work of creative people HAS to be protected and valued. Net Radio is complaining because they are now required to pay the musicians that performed the work as part of their royalty agreement. That's right, the performers will now get paid for performing. That leaves broadcast radio in the US in the unique position of being the only broadcast system that does not pay musicians for their work. The songwriters and the publishers get paid, but not the musicians.
> 
> As consumers too many of us have taken it for granted that music will just be out there for free. It's not free, it shouldn't be free, and the people that own the rights to creative works are well within their rights to use litigation to defend those rights. The for-profit organizations, (last I checked Google/YouTube was not a charitable organization), that allow for the distribution of protected works need to pay the owners of the work for the use of the work.


Really well said. It's interesting that a lot of people view digital piracy as two individuals sharing a file with no money being made and forget that they're both just being used by companies that are making fortunes off of that sharing. When people get rich off of unauthorized use of other people's product, that's not right.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2007)

"forget that they're both just being used by companies that are making fortunes off of that sharing"
Good for them... Power to 'em.

Except that I know -I'm- not being 'used' by Youtube.... It's the other way around. Youtube is being used by me. That they found a way to make a few bucks off it? Again, power to 'em.

"the guy on the losing end of the stick"
No such person.

"taken it for granted that music will just be out there for free"
Music always has been free. At the hearth, around the kitchen table, out in muddy fields. It was only when suits discovered they could 'middle man' their way to fortunes did it become a commodity.

Indeed the same is true for ALL arts.... 

So.... would you rather be a tool for the suits? Or would you rather be an artists? If you're an artist, you'll create as much as you can, and spread it everywhere.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> ...but what about the artist or the material owners?


If you haven't been keeping up with the news, the artist actually gets little or none of the revenues collected by lawsuits.

The RIAA released info that of all their filesharing lawsuits, not one dime went to any artist affected by the filesharing (EFF).

When I recorded and had MY OWN music for download, I was receiving threats to take down my music or face lawsuits. While they didn't have a legal ground, my ISP at the time (Telus), backed THEM 100% 

I even learned recently that the Canadian CPCC tax on blank material, almost nothing goes to Canadian arists (through SOCAN), it all heads south of the border (ZDnet)

This is WAR and WE are going to have to win!

/end rant


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

ClintonHammond said:


> "forget that they're both just being used by companies that are making fortunes off of that sharing"
> Good for them... Power to 'em.
> 
> Except that I know -I'm- not being 'used' by Youtube.... It's the other way around. Youtube is being used by me. That they found a way to make a few bucks off it? Again, power to 'em.
> ...



Nothing here makes any sense


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

A lot of this talk of legal action strikes me as ambulance chasing!

I would agree that some stuff on YouTube is a blatant ripoff. Lots of other music and band clips are gems that would never have seen the light of day through any other media!

Just this morning I found two Crowbar clips, with Richie Newell and Kelly Jay. They had been made over from original "home movie" type film from family members and posted for all to see. 

This sort of "bootleg" action with such classic acts was never made available before and likely wouldn't ever have happened through legal channels. Anything that keeps interest alive is a bonus to the copyright holder! A windfall profit in free advertising, as it were. In these situations the copyright holder usually has done little or nothing to promote the artist(s) for years and now wants to get a lawyer to to bleed a little free blood money?

Maybe YouTube should start charging THEM!

And don't get me started on Sheila Copps' 25 cent a tape ripoff tax...

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

YouTube is FREE advertising. Don't Publishers and Music Corporations get this ???? Gawd what a bunch of TARDS !!!

I saw some old FREE vids and bought an LP from iTunes, Love that Kossoff tone. That's just one example.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Paul said:


> By "we" I hope you mean the people who have a financial stake in this.
> 
> This includes the songwriters, the publishers, and the performing artists, and anybody to whom those rights may have been assigned!!!!


I can't see how my post gave you that idea.

"Ownership" and "rights" are two completely different things in the industry.

There are examples that exist of how music can be traded freely and the artists make as much money as being signed, yet are completely Inde and cutout the middleman.

The old system is dead. Some newer labels are even saying "Go ahead, share it, we'll make the money through concerts and merchandising" and guess what? They do!


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Paul said:


> Dianne Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Warren) is a very successful songwriter. Please show me how she would make any money if her songs were given away.


I'm discussing finished music.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Songwriter sells the song to the band either flat rate or commission. Band makes money from performing and merchandising.

Checkout a local music festival and yak with the musician's about where their cash comes from - CD sales aren't even on the list. Some writers/composers I spoke with around here are making $50K+ year and belong to no collecting society.

So, I say again, the money collected from these lawsuits don't go to the musician's anyway. How are these lawsuits helping the songwriter/musician?


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

> The lawsuits help the songwriter directly, because they, along with the publisher, have rights currently codified in law.


Bull. They do not help, they do straight into coffers of the collecting society.

Your arguement is based on a broken and unworkable system, which no longer has any merit in the digital age.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2007)

"How are these lawsuits helping the songwriter/musician?"
They don't...


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2007)

"Just as lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union"
Have nothing to do with Canadian Law.... 

"not too many people actively listen on a true Hi-Fidelity system"
Because few people can even hear the difference... let alone care.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Last week or so I saw a news clip featuring the latest president of Warner Bros Recording Label. I listened to him talk and thought "Geez, finally a suit that gets it!"

It started off by mentioning that he had just downsized by over a 1000 positions, with a good chunk being management!

His words had to do with how Warner had no choice but to accept they were living in a world where music essentially was free! Big music store chains had been closing due to low sales yet downloading just grows bigger and bigger. Trying to scare millions of folks with threats of lawsuits had proven a total waste of time.

He spoke of how Warner needed younger and more creative decision makers. They would have to find other streams of revenue, like a return to mega-concerts where they could sell all the promo material. A return to concert tours, of budgets for artist discovery and development.

It sounded very similar to how the industry worked in the 50's and 60's, with the additions of selling promo stuff at the side of the stage. They had got away from all that in the 80's, where the CD had killed the 45 single so they could force you to pay big money for a CD with only a few good songs.

Anyhow, it was obvious they had given up on the fight over profit from the music media. There no longer is any media! Just download direct into an MP3 player. There are young folks around today with huge music libraries that not only have never bought a CD, they've never even touched one!

He's the first music suit I've yet seen that seemed willing to be realistic with the new real world situation.

The big labels must be truly scared and desperate if a guy like him can be given the reins!

The clip mentioned how the Bare Naked Ladies had bailed on their label in 2002, to run and promote their own show. They've done well and set a new model for other artists to follow in.

Just FYI...

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Paul said:


> The DRM attached to files from ITunes are there to work within American laws. We suffer the spillover.


Auch, don't I know it *rollseyes*

Fortunately the DVD DeCSS cases allowed us to "crack" the DRM for personal use. No prosecutor has suceeded where redistribution wasn't involved. Konrad von Finkenstein (while sitting as a judge) did good with the ".... no different than a photocopier in a library" analogy for CD's (which eventually led to the creation of the CPCC).




> With audio quality going in the dumper, (current mastering stnadards and low-fi file formats), not too many people actively listen on a true Hi-Fidelity system any more. Music has become an on-the-go backround distraction. (i-pods and car stereos are among the most common listening environments.)


That is so sad, it makes me ill. Here kids today have the ability to listen to the highest quality of tunage mankind has ever known and yet they choose 96 and 128Kb mp3's on their iPod's with $0.25 earbuds that could barely pass for voice communications, IMO. All for the sake of having enough albums on it, that it could take them 20 years of continuous play to listen to! ARRRGH!

Surprisingly, it's us older farts demanding lossless formats! 

Ok, sorry for the OT tangent....


----------

