YouTube Purges 30,000 Copyright Files

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by EditDave, Oct 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. EditDave

    EditDave New Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Download them while you can: It's only a matter of time before all those great music videos/performances are deleted from YouTube.

    YouTube Purges 30,000 Copyright Files
    Friday, October 20, 2006 10:37 AM EDT
    The Associated Press

    TOKYO (AP) — The popular video-sharing site YouTube deleted nearly 30,000 files after a Japanese entertainment group complained of copyright infringement.

    The Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers, found 29,549 video clips such as television shows, music videos and movies posted on YouTube's site without permission, an official from the group, Fumiyuki Asakura, said Friday.

    The San Mateo, Calif.-based company quickly complied with the request to remove the copyright materials, made on behalf of 23 Japanese TV stations and entertainment companies, Asakura said.

    Most videos posted on YouTube are homemade, but the site also features scores of copyright material posted by individual users. YouTube's policy is to remove such clips after it receives complaints, though some have suggested the startup eventually could be sued, especially with deep-pocketed Google Inc. about to buy it for $1.65 billion in stock.

    Asakura said the entertainment industry group may ask YouTube to introduce a preliminary screening process to prevent copyright clips from being posted.

    YouTube has been negotiating with leading copyright holders and reached agreement with several letting the Web site post copyright music videos and other content in exchange for sharing ad revenue.

    The company agreed to deploy an audio-signature technology that can spot a low-quality copy of a licensed clip. YouTube would have to substitute an approved version or remove the material automatically.

    YouTube has licensing deals with CBS Corp. and three major recording companies — Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment, which is a joint venture between Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG.

    Since YouTube started in February 2005, the company has blossomed, now showing more than 100 million video clips per day.

    YouTube's worldwide audience was 72.1 million by August, up 2.8 million from a year earlier, according to comScore Media Metrix.
     
  2. gener8tr

    gener8tr Senior Member

    Location:
    Vancouver, WA USA
    You know what sucks, who the **** should care about me downloading a very sub-par video of Cyndi Lauper - Girls Just Wanna Have Fun? They (record company) should be happy someone still wants to see the darn thing in the first place, and potentially purchase the CD because of it.

    I very highly doubt record sales are diminishing because of these videos. If anything, they are increasing. I've purchased at least five CD's based solely on the fact I was able to see an old video from way back when. Am I the only one who feels this way?
     
  3. johnny33

    johnny33 New Member

    Location:
    usa
    Welp there ya go.. its gone. @#$@ this really @#$%@ me off . I can only hope someone had archived a bunch of this stuff.Bunch of turds. Copyright Smopyrights . Its all about that buck in the pocket or some limp fisted " Oh I have to save the bleeding "Artist" from this terrible infringment he is suffering from these crappy 5 x 5 inch grainy vids" what a crock. grrrrr. get a life people.
     
  4. nosticker

    nosticker Forum Guy

    Location:
    Ringwood, NJ
    Well, we knew the dream wouldn't last.




    Dan
     
  5. bluesbro

    bluesbro Forum Hall of Shame

    Location:
    DC
    This is the end, my only friend
     
  6. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    It's not the end. there are many other like-site that pop up every week. You just have to search them out. Some of them will show almost anything.
     
  7. Macman

    Macman Senior Member

    You hit the nail on the head. I use Youtube solely to check out bands I've never heard, then go buy their CD if I like it. It's a tremendous resource and adverstising tool.
     
  8. Claude

    Claude Senior Member

    Location:
    Luxembourg
    There are two ways to make money from copyrighted material on the internet:

    - license it to distributors
    - wait until it gets uploaded illegallyand then sue the responsible website for copyright infringement. Agree on a settlement. For material that is low in demand, this will generate a much higher income than licensing it out voluntarily (because nobody would pay a buck for the crap)
     
  9. fyrfytrhoges

    fyrfytrhoges New Member

    Location:
    wisconsin
    the internet is no fun anymore, except of course this forum.....
     
  10. gener8tr

    gener8tr Senior Member

    Location:
    Vancouver, WA USA

    And they should embrace it! It's not like the quality is so good you can substitute the video for the actual audio source.

    I could understand if someone posted a 30 minute sample from a movie that is still in the theaters, but seriously, removing a Hall & Oates video is absurd!
     
  11. johnny33

    johnny33 New Member

    Location:
    usa
    ok lets be real. watching a hall and oates video is what is absurd .. :p

    I keed ! I keeeeed. :D
     
  12. Dillydipper

    Dillydipper Space-Age luddite

    Location:
    Central PA
    I for one am getting very tired of the business community telling us over and over just how big a sandbox we are allowed to play in, just because they're so darned afraid we might actually deny them of profit they wouldn't be making from us anyway.
     
  13. slinkyfarm

    slinkyfarm Forum Resident

    Location:
    Winchester, KY
    Apart from the legal aspect, I think it's too bad. It could take some of the guesswork out of figuring out what has the legs to merit a release or reissue.
     
  14. dgsinner

    dgsinner New Member

    Location:
    Far East
    It sucks.

    It had to happen.

    One of the most exciting new Internet sites and now, I'll guess anyway, it's done.

    How any of this hurts anyone's profits I don't know. I find it ridiculous.

    Dale
     
  15. t3hSheepdog

    t3hSheepdog Forum Artist

    Location:
    lazor country
    bet it was all anime
     
  16. Chip TRG

    Chip TRG Senior Member

    I don't believe in streaming.
    I don't believe in Google.
    I don't believe in YOU TUBE!!!!

    I just believe in me......

    SH.TV and me.

    The Dream is over.
     
  17. CraigVC

    CraigVC Senior Member

    Location:
    Portland, OR

    But eventually the quality will get very good, as bandwidth speeds increase and proliferate to mainstream users, to make higher-quality streaming video possible.

    As much as they are worried about the crappy pixelated, poorly synched audio videos on YouTube.com right now, they perhaps are much more worried about a few years from now when streaming "DVD-quality" videos becomes a mainstream reality.

    Isn't there something in the law that puts the burden of vigorously defending a copyright on the copyright owner, and that if the copyright owner is aware of copyright violations and they do nothing, they are in effect saying to the world that they approve of that use of their copyrighted object?

    In this case, if the record company knows that all their promotional music videos are available on YouTube.com, and they don't take action to have them taken off the site, they are basically setting a precedent that they are okay with that use of the videos. And when high-res streaming video becomes common, they might have hurt their case if they let those videos stream for free on YouTube.com and other sites for so many years.

    Sorry I'm not a lawyer, but I recall reading something like that before.

    Another point I would like to make is that I agree with those who said they use YouTube.com as another way to explore new music or to see things that otherwise are difficult if not impossible to see unless buying from bootleggers. But the quality is so lousy, I don't even think it's worth going to the trouble to archive this crap while it's still around, except that I haven't seen even 1% of the stuff on there I'd ever want to see... Too bad there's not a program that will run in the background of a server to leech videos from YouTube.com by the terrabyte. ;)

    Craig(VC).
     
  18. g23

    g23 New Member

    Location:
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    Amen!! Consider that if record companies had embraced real audio files as a preview device (they are poor quality and, unlike mp3 files, often could only been found on sites that sold the actual cds) instead of panicing over the copyright of a free 30seconds on poor quality music they could have avoided the whole mp3 flamethrower. (on a different note but a good example of this type of panic, the time period where it was mentioned the Steve Hoffman was up for possibly remastering the Beatles catalog only to be prevented also lines up with the time when CDs started getting cheap and someone envolved, I think it may have been neil asplin, stated in article that there is nothing wrong with the sound of the Beatles cds and, more particularly, the price)
     
  19. EditDave

    EditDave New Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio

    But isn't the point of a music video to promote the music so people buy the CD? Who cares if you watch the video on cable TV or on YouTube or any other Internet site? Wasn't that the original concept behind MTV?

    I think these copyright holders are missing the big picture. These little clips — or future hi-rez streaming content — only whet the buyer's apetite for more. That's when you dig deeper and log on to Amazon.com and actually buy the CD or DVD from the artist you're interested in.
     
  20. nosticker

    nosticker Forum Guy

    Location:
    Ringwood, NJ

    :biglaugh:


    Dan
     
  21. Claude

    Claude Senior Member

    Location:
    Luxembourg
    As far as I know US intellectual property law, this only exists in trademark law.

    If a trademarked name becomes the generic term for a product and the owner does nothing to prevent this, he looses his exclusive right on the name. In the 80's Sony had to go after magazines using "Walkman" as a generic term for portable cassette players, in order not to loose their trademark rights. Recently Google requested some dictionary editors to make changes to their books (who wrote that "to google" means "to search on the internet") to indicate that Google is a trademark. Google was criticized for this action, but they had to do it.

    But copyright or patent owners can remain inactive for years and then suddenly go after infringers. A bootlegger cannot feel safe just because the material he copies has already been around illegally for years and nothing has been done about it.
     
  22. And so it begins.
     
  23. tomhayes

    tomhayes Senior Member

    Location:
    San Diego, Ca
    They didn't get mine :)))
     
  24. Wmacky

    Wmacky Forum Resident

    Boycott Big Media!
     
  25. GabeG

    GabeG New Member

    Location:
    NYC
    I'm not sure how many of us are going to miss those Japanese videos, but in case no one has noticed, the major record labels have a deal with youtube and DO allow their copyrighted material to be shown. That's a major change of attitude folks. Instead of bitching, maybe it would be more proactive to let them know that you think this is a good thing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine