I reckon so too. Do not know how they get away with it. If I miss a program on TV I just download it these days.

Do not know how they get away with it.

Probably because recording companies are run by old farts who could care less about some "internet", or who think that "internet is a set of tubes"... :) Until their grandsons (or some other young hotshot wannabe) tell them about it, and then lawyers get involved.

I don't understand, isn't the whole point of the DMCA to protect companies like this from copyright claims? My understanding was that as long as they remove material when they get a complaint, they're okay.

I think it's been tolerated for a while because the content being uploaded isn't high quality commercial product. I.e., if I upload a perfect, original MP3 of a popular song, that directly cuts into the revenue of the music firms. If I upload a music video, or video parody, that doesn't directly hurt music sales and may actually boost them.

I think the telling comment was reported in other articles. Morris likens the current situation to MTV, where by letting MTV play videos for free the recording companies left a bunch of money on the table (even though music sales benefit from airing the videos).

Probably because recording companies are run by old farts who could care less about some "internet",

True. The thing they don't realize is that is free publicity for their artists. They aren't making the huge money they used to and the artists and execs are not too psyched about it. Do it for the people or stay at home. That is what music is all about, no?

To me this is another lawsuit that will stifle creativity and growth of companies like uTube.

The people who just download music or movies from the Internet (utube, bittorent, etc) are not buyers turned thieves. That is the most ridiculous assumption that all these lawsuits are based on.

I personally only buy one or two CDs per year, and that is much fewer than I used to, but that is not because I am now downloading the music; it is simply because the new music is mostly garbage to me. I have my collection and I am happy with it. There are a few artists who I follow, and those are the CDs that I buy.

The record and movie companies are not losing sales because of downloads or services like uTube; those who do the downloads would never have bought their products anyway. Either because it is not worth paying $17 for an album that has one good song, or because they just weren't going to buy anyway.

I am not advocating stealing people's work, but just saying that the logic behind all these lawsuits is faulty.

Do companies who give away free versions of their software away lose money? No, they gain a following among those who cannot afford their commercial ware, and as soon as the users of the free software are able to will upgrade to the more powerful paid version.

'Behavior' like this from industry makes me not want to patronize them at all.

The claim of the record companies that sales have fallen due to unauthorized free downloads doesn't hold much water for me either. Couldn't those drops (which are not significant by the way) be due to, free online radio, XM Radio, etc.?

I am just sick of reading about lawsuits.

I am just sick of reading about lawsuits.

Depends on your point of view. When my material gets reproduced on some website down under I get very upset. 20 years of my life went into stuff I did (not music of video) and seeing it on ebay or some upstart's site really does hurt.

It's not all about the suits. It's about the people that create original stuff getting screwed by the <CTRL C> and <CTRL V> keys.

Kufu I could not have said it any better...

Receptional,

Perfectly understandable; and I do not disagree a bit. But these are not the artists who are filing the suits.

I would personally love it if I could buy from the artists directly, and know that all my money was going right to them. I have friends in the music industry (musicians), and if you knew the percentages they get on the work they produce it would make you wince.

What's funny is I've actually bought two tracks from iTunes so far just because of uTube. So I know the logic the lawsuits are based on is flawed.

You should read this month's issue of Wired, the main topic is the "Future of Music" (they also did a Future of Radio a while back, that relates to music too). The idea is (once again, obviously) that the industry is changing, and its players must adapt, and that there is still lots of money to be made.

Now, I personally believe Universal might attempt to strangle UTube and MySpace in an attempt to preserve the status-quo: on one side they want the consumer, on the other side they want the big entertainment companies like themselves. I mean, how scary is to see a bunch of guys launch an idea that seems obvious like UTube just to see their product reach more people in less than 2 years than the records that your aging giant of a company is pumping out?

They use fear tactics to slow down innovation, they want to strangle creativity in order to have control on it, and they are scared of their own incapacity to adapt and innovate.

Neither UTube or MySpace contribution or posts make commercial use of music (in the vast majority of cases). This is basically free advertisement for Universal, and if they don't see it, then too bad.

>>Neither UTube or MySpace contribution or posts make commercial use of music

Do the sites run advertisements? Just about ANYTHING a business does can be considered commercial use. Keep in mind, this is same industry that demands money from small businesses for using a local radio station or purchased music CDs for "music on hold" on their phones or as background music in their store. Own the CDs? It doesn't matter - either pay up the additional licensing fees, or switch to special royalty-free music.

Ahhhhhh Universal Music Group, so so so sorrrrrry!

Not

WAhhhhh WAhhhhhhh WAhhhhh

Bunch of babies in my opinion! They need to grow up over at Universal. I get free music all the time, never pay for it.

I always notice these folks crying like babies, it's called coporate greed, that's all... Corporate Greed.

Remember Enron and WorldCom, Universal execs I am sure are best buddies. Hell yah thay are! Think it over!

[edited by: Hollywood at 10:35 pm (utc) on Sep. 15, 2006]

would it be the end of youtube and myspace or another test for their great services. what would be the business plan for this kinda problem.

these companies still get some sort of revenue from myspace type sites having their content on their sites.......it generates buzz....and then they get repeat viewers/customers/fans.

These two quotes are outstanding, right on the nail:

Do it for the people or stay at home.

I am just sick of reading about lawsuits.

I'm personally sick to the back teeth of the music and film industries who feel that they should be getting filthy rich. Get your priorities right guys and work on delivering the maximum value for money to your consumers instead of maximum ROI for your pockets. Instead of taking legal action when people distribute your music and film offerings, be pleased that the creative output of the artists who entrusted themselves to your care is being heard and seen by more and more people.

I do not wish to be misunderstood, I am totally against commercial piracy because it means that shady companies and unethical individuals make money on the back of artists. But that's not what's happening here.

For a forum about copyight, some the opinions expressed in this thread are frightening.

Why is anyone in FAVOR of the illegal copyright infringer sites like YouTube?

Building a new place to steal things and encourage others to participate in copyright infringement is NOT innovation unless you think copyright infringement is a feature of WEB 2.0 and if that's the case then you have more serious issues.

IT'S WRONG!

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!

IT'S PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE PEOPLE POSTING IT!

Is there something about this concept of copyright that just doesn't register with some people?

How would you feel if we completely copied your websites and posted them elsewhere without your permission, perhaps this would give you a clue.

I'm sorry, you CANNOT justify copyright infringement with how much money they have no more than you can justify stealing a plasma TV from someone because they're "rich enough and can afford it."

I don't care if someone is rich or poor, corporate or private, if they create it and copyright it then it belongs to THEM and not everyone else.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OF ANY KIND CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED OR ALL OF US THAT MAKE MONEY ON OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RISK BEING PUT OUT OF BUSINESS!

[edited by: incrediBILL at 10:36 am (utc) on Sep. 16, 2006]

But these are not the artists who are filing the suits.

I would personally love it if I could buy from the artists directly, and know that all my money was going right to them. I have friends in the music industry (musicians), and if you knew the percentages they get on the work they produce it would make you wince.

But if the record company gets nothing ... then the artist gets nothing.

Is this rocket science, or are these advocates of copyright theft in a parallel universe? ;)

Of course, this is a case of copyright infringement.

The thing that I find humorous is that the very companies that hoisted the digital sound/video medium upon the unsuspecting world are those that are feeling the pinch because of it.
What goes aaround, comes around ;)

I have always (it seems) had connections with the music world, mostly on the musician's side. Although these days, it might be better to say on the 'product's' side.

Now if the record companies went back to making vinyl records, I'd be a happy bunny :)

If I like a CD I will buy it for $10.00UD. If it's more then that (typically $22) I will not buy a DVD for more then $14-15 dollars. Piracy is caused by high prices and unavailability for the most part. Execs want to charge a lot of money for a single item and do not realize people enjoy large collections. People will find a way around the system and keep doing so until the system learns to adapt to the people.

- John

No, piracy is caused by people who have the "I must have it all! Gimme gimme gimme!" attitude. Why do you need that extra set of icons? What do you need that pirated copy of Windows Live? Why do you need to download that movie before its DVD release? etc.

Some of you need to get a grip on your consumer habits.

Instead of taking legal action when people distribute your music and film offerings, be pleased that the creative output of the artists who entrusted themselves to your care is being heard and seen by more and more people.

If the goal of the artist is for their creative output to be heard and seen, then they should just go straight to MySpace and YouTube and forego signing a legal contract with a company who will now spend money to produce and distribute.

I do not wish to be misunderstood, I am totally against commercial piracy because it means that shady companies and unethical individuals make money on the back of artists. But that's not what's happening here.

No, its taking money from the pockets of artists who decided to enlist the help of acompany in exchange for an agreed upon amount of profit, if any is made.

No one is forced to sign a contract with a recording label. I am surprised and disappointed that the tone of this thread among people who make money as publishers are not taking a different tact and instead of making excuses for theft, arent instead encouraging artists to forgo the labels in the first place. If you really want to put the labels out of business, boycott the profitable/popular artists who dont self produce.

[edited by: Kirby at 4:13 am (utc) on Sep. 17, 2006]

Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company, contends the wildly popular Web sites YouTube and MySpace are violating copyright laws by allowing users to post music videos and other content involving Universal artists.

That it a true statement. If there is a copyright infringement suit, I would expect them to win the case.

If musicians (or artists, or writers, or software developers) want to create something and give it to the world to make a contribution or for subsequent recognition, that's great. But if musicians (or artists, or writers, or software developers) want to be paid for their work and they copyright it, it's not okay for other people to take their work and sell it or give it away.

This whole argument goes much deeper than you think. Places like youtube are opening up a whole new avenue of exposure to "independent" artists. It scares the record company. The whole internet thing is scaring the record companies. In 1999 there was a bill that made it thru congress that the record companies now use to steal rights away from artists.
It made music "works for hire". In other words...under contract the artist will never own the rights to that song.
If the internet continues on it's path, artists may never need record companies again.
I think it is extremely important that the internet be a pioneer path and the "copyright law" be used to benefit the artists. Not the record companies. Such internet pioneers as youtube need to survive in order for this to happen.
If someone buys a video and uses it to enhance their site on myspace, that should be entirely legal and if they are not facilitating direct copying then should not be held accountable for doing anything wrong. It was bought and paid for and if they are not using it to earn money but strictly as for entertainment enhancement of an individuals webspace then I can't see harm.
What would be next? Can't play your cd's at your next party at home? Everyone should buy their own copy and listen individually on their ipod?
There has to be some rein in on the record companies somewhere.

If the internet continues on it's path, artists may never need record companies again.

True, they can just to straight to bankruptcy court and bypass suing the record companies for their money as the trend to steal vs buy will make producing records for profit obsolete.

If they can't muster up enough steam for a concert tour they'll never make a nickle and the music industry as we know if, cranking out new tunes daily, will vanish.

Napster was taught a lesson, now it's time for YouTube to learn as well.

Thats not good for the Web,YouTube and other similar user generated websites are contrubuting a lot in these days,of course some portion of that content is pirated content but there is no cristal clear website when we are talking about community based sites

I think it is extremely important that the internet be a pioneer path and the "copyright law" be used to benefit the artists. Not the record companies.

This is a very relevant point. It's not the artists who are bring this case, it's the record company. Further, it is not the persons who are uploading this content who are being targetted, it's the website they are using. This is a classic case of money-chase-money when it should be a gentle word and quiet solution artist-to-uploader.

I might have more sympathy if it was a case taken personally and directly by artists and if they had taken the time to ask the individuals responsible (i.e. Joe Bloggs the youtube user) to remove the content first. Of course, as Joe Bloggs is actually helping promote the artist, the artist should offer selected clips of their copyright content, exclusive interviews or other media.

>>>>>True, they can just to straight to bankruptcy court and bypass suing the record companies for their money as the trend to steal vs buy will make producing records for profit obsolete.<<<<

The reason they are going to bankruptcy court is BECAUSE of the record companies who loot the revenues generated by the artist. Many artists that are generating million selling records are only receiving 25 cents to 45 cents a record. The record companies are padding the expenses and kicking back the money to an incredible degree.
Many times the tours can be profitable ONLY with a deep pockets sponsor. But the record companies are now the biggest thieves in the world.
And the reason they are going after the webiste (youtube, myspace) is because they are the revenue collectors in this framework. But they will have to prove these sites are actually directly profiting from these artists work and it is not incidental to the site and placed by a third party.
You can't measure these sites to Napster. These sites are not doing file sharing. It is strictly private entertainment.
At the most they might be forced to pay...ASCAP fees or something similar. Don't know exactly how that is working nowadays. Been out of the music business for a while.
I still think we are seeing the beginning of a new age. Digital music is the future and music companies per se are on the road to extinction. There will be a whole new field for seo's and web masters promoting music on the web and if you can hit the top ten in google, you might have a successful band. Imagine...no more Billboard Hot 100...it will become..."..it's #14 in google with a bullet".
This is another area that record companies are pursuing. Many young artists have signed those contracts that actually relinquish the rights to their own names. They don't realize it also gives up ownership of their websites to the record companies. All under the "work for hire".
And all this was done under what act? The Satellite Home Viewing Act of 1999. Our Congress. You gotta love em.
I hope the record companies get their head handed to them on this one. It would open up the Web music industry for all artists and the consumer.

On a helpful and more positive note, I wonder if YouTube could just bribe the record companies with hookers and drugs, the same things the record companies use to bribe the radio stations.

Over the past few days I saw a lot movement on YouTube that indicates they are now removing "unsuitable" content from their service. I noticed this both on adult-oriented and copyright infringing videos. To me, this is a clear sign that something is going on at YouTube. Looks pretty much like "panic mode" to me.

As to the opinion on copyright here in this thread, I agree with some posters that it is scary.

The whole point about copyright is that the creator of a certain work (or "content", i.e. text, images, videos, songs) is the ONLY ONE to determine how this work is used. If the creator decides to licence his work to a record company, then it is his right to do so. It does not matter whether or how much the record company takes as part of this deal. If the creator sees benefit in this, he may do so.

If the creator would see a benefit in releasing his works to the public, then he might do so as well, and many people are doing this today. There are many "hobby" sites that release unique content (in fact, content where they hold the copyright for) to the public without charging for accessing that content. If they see benefit, please go ahead. Do whatever you want.

I am often wondering whether those who defend the way YouTube and MySpace act have ever created unique quality content by themselves? I can't get rid of the feeling that the answer is "nO".

Sure, people want high quality for free, e.g. a quality music video performed by a well-known artist instead of a 3 minute video of a bloke who can neither sing nor dance or play an instrument. But it takes talent, technology and time (i.e. money) to produce such high quality stuff, be it text, images, videos, or songs. I THINK THIS WILL NEVER CHANGE. Why should I go into the trouble of creating quality content if someone takes the content and re-distributes it without my permission, earning money along the way? Why why why?