Should Youtube be exempt from copyright?

[Karma168]

Right off the bat I'm not advocating piracy, my point is should a sharing site be held liable to laws that are designed around stealing a permanent copy for yourself?

We've all seen the music videos uploaded on youtube/other video sharing sites by fans, they're usually the only way we get to hear all the songs from an album without buying it. Of course every so often the record company will throw a fit and have all these videos pulled, should they be able to do that? they are basically saying that we are not allowed to hear the music until we have coughed up the dough.

Think about this, before youtube how did you learn about new bands? your friends would let you listen to an album and if you liked it you went and bought it. Youtube works along the same principle; you get to hear the songs and if you like the album you can go and buy it. Youtube does not give you a copy of the song to keep, it merely lets you get a taster of how good/bad a band or album is (I can think of a few cases where i liked one song, bought the album and realised the other tracks were aural garbage; getting to hear the whole album would have saved me a lot of money)

Also consider that fan made videos are basically free advertising; the fact that someone has uploaded the video tells you that they think "wow this song is awesome, have a listen." this tells the company that they are on to a winner; should they then place a stranglehold on this form of advertising? How else to minor (signed) bands who don't get airtime on radio or TV get a decent fanbase?

 

[DefunctTheory]

No, there is no reason for them to be exempt.

A company/individual has the right to control their own intellectual property. If they want to release them on Youtube, on the radio, or any other method they choose that THEIR choice, not YOUR choice.

Oh, and its not hard to take a copy of any song/video on youtube.

Yes, we should all bow down to corporations. Who cares about normal people? All that matter are the rich!

No, all that matters is ownership, whether its the rich, the poor, or corporations

Poverty has never been an excuse to steal, especially when its something like video and music, which, last time I checked, was not a necessity for life.

 

[Apocalypse0Child]

I have mixed views on this,
On the one hand, I agree with the very first comment posted whereby saying that the owners of the material should be the ones with the right to post it, however on the other, being able to listen to your favourite bands without carrying around a whole stack of CDs or filling up countless portable devices with songs is a significant bonus.

How else to minor (signed) bands who don't get airtime on radio or TV get a decent fanbase?

I myself am in a very new band, and we've just recently started recording and putting our music on Youtube. However your point on this matter is redundant, because as it is new material and therefore unbound by copyright we don't have to worry about Youtube's copyright agreements, so small / undiscovered bands don't really have problems with copyright infringement, as far as I can see at least, and they still get the chance to advertise themselves on Youtube.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I too see no reason for blanket exemption. If a record company or whatever think that Youtube is good advertising and is worth it then they won't file copyright claims. That is their choice.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well it was nice when they were exempt, but as copyright laws stand you really can't do that, because there will always be someone who will just be uploading full songs and movies

 

[AgentDarkmoon]

Unlike listening to the radio (le GASP) or your friend's music, it is incredibly easy to rip a song/video off of youtube/elsewhere on the internet. Like, I wasn't even trying and I found out a way to. Also, you can just fave the youtube video or make a playlist with it, and listen to it unlimited times forever with no repercussions or having to actually pay for it. So yes, money is lost because of it.

For your argument of wanting to hear the songs before buying: I'm against Vevo because I don't like it [vevo, not the concept], but it does put the songs out there for consumers to hear. Something like it could definitely work for other record labels/groups/etc. Bands (especially minor ones) also often have websites where you can listen to songs/song samples, or there's always itunes for samples. Or, if I am actually interested in buying the album and go to the store, I use fye's headphones things to listen to tracks, even if I'm not buying it there. There are enough other places that I can listen to the songs that I do feel that Youtube is justified in being subjected to copyright laws.

Apocalypse0Child hits on the 'why it doesn't really hurt small or unknown bands' well.

 

[Calcium]

I'm pretty sure there are ways of getting copies of video/audio from Youtube too, so anything shared there can be taken as "a permanent copy for yourself", hence breaking the law you mentioned.

Although I think people putting up music on Youtube does more to promote the music than to hurt the artists, it's the owner's decision how they wish to distribute it.

 

[EzraPound]

No, there is no reason for them to be exempt.

A company/individual has the right to control their own intellectual property. If they want to release them on Youtube, on the radio, or any other method they choose that THEIR choice, not YOUR choice.

Oh, and its not hard to take a copy of any song/video on youtube.

Kind of missed the point, here--that YouTube doesn't involve the possession of media, therefore the piracy argument is even more tenuous than it would be with downloads (which is enough of a minefield, anyway). Also, where does your logic end? If users sharing videos with each other on YouTube is "releasing", then is someone playing an album for someone else doing the same? Presumably you're predicating your argument on some standard of reproduction.

Also, ever heard of something called Fair Use? These details get trampled underfoot by the corporate brainwash campaign, which you've obviously bought into:

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

Personally, I don't think full allowance of YouTube publication would make much of a difference, commercially. I know the main thing I use it for is sending others a song or video whereas I couldn't with a hard copy--something buying a CD or DVD wouldn't change. If I like an artist's songs I hear on YouTube, I'll download their album, and then maybe pay to see them live. Actually, I just got back from seeing Lil' Wayne, Nicki Minaj, and Rick Ross in Buffalo yesterday--I wouldn't have got into the guy's music in all likelihood if it weren't for file-sharing, and now I've picked up a poster, a t-shirt, and $300 in concert tickets.

. . .Of course, that's not to suggest that file-sharing is making the industry more profitable. But who cares? Major record labels have never done scat for artists, a download is not akin to physical theft, and half of the great popular music songs were stolen from somebody else anyway, before you downloaded them on Pirate Bay.

No, there is no reason for them to be exempt.

A company/individual has the right to control their own intellectual property. If they want to release them on Youtube, on the radio, or any other method they choose that THEIR choice, not YOUR choice.

Oh, and its not hard to take a copy of any song/video on youtube.

Yes, we should all bow down to corporations. Who cares about normal people? All that matter are the rich!

No, all that matters is ownership, whether its the rich, the poor, or corporations

Poverty has never been an excuse to steal, especially when its something like video and music, which, last time I checked, was not a necessity for life.

What do you mean poverty isn't an excuse to steal? Of course it is!

Let me hit you with a little bit of basic level political philosophy. There is a social contract. It requires that citizens adhere to the rules established by a government, provided the rules are fair. When the rules are fair, it is the moral prerogative of the government to punish citizens for disobeying them. When they are not fair, it is the moral prerogative of citizens to subvert them by the means available.

This is, in fact, what a revolution is--the appropriation of government property by masses who've (often) been grossly abused by a small elite. Even crime is mostly the product of disenfranchisement--there are always sickos out there, but crime rates globally basically correlate with levels of poverty and oppression.

If people are oppressed enough by legal means, it rationalizes the violation of their means of oppression--in this case, laws. I'm not saying that the demographic that uses the Escapist is "oppressed", by any means, but I just object to your juvenile, Randian use of the term "never."

 

[TeeBs]

How did I find most of the bands I like?

Pitchfork, Stereogum, Last.FM and other review sites.

The first too being a personal preference but Last.FM is a great way to discover music, free downloads if the artists/record label approves it and no legal bullshit.

 

[Bad Neighbour]

I'd like it if there was exemption so long as entire songs aren't used. I don't really like it when someone posts up an entire album, cause people just copy it and don't pay. What is frustrating though is when a video is ruined because it has a song in the background or a ten second clip and then some ridiculous copyright claim causes the audio on the whole video to be wiped. I suppose they technically do have a right to do that, but god dammit what's the point? Usually all including the song does is give them free advertising. It's really annoying that to actually have music in a youtube video you have to find someone independent, write it yourself or hope it doesn't get randomly shot down.

 

[4484448444844484]

I have mixed views on this,
On the one hand, I agree with the very first comment posted whereby saying that the owners of the material should be the ones with the right to post it, however on the other, being able to listen to your favourite bands without carrying around a whole stack of CDs or filling up countless portable devices with songs is a significant bonus.

How else to minor (signed) bands who don't get airtime on radio or TV get a decent fanbase?

I myself am in a very new band, and we've just recently started recording and putting our music on Youtube. However your point on this matter is redundant, because as it is new material and therefore unbound by copyright we don't have to worry about Youtube's copyright agreements, so small / undiscovered bands don't really have problems with copyright infringement, as far as I can see at least, and they still get the chance to advertise themselves on Youtube.

Actually, the reason you don't have to worry about Youtube's copyright agreements because you have the rights to the music. If someone else reuploaded your songs, you would be well within your rights to send them a takedown notice. Whether or not you actually have a formal copyright, new material is still covered under the law (though it only matters if you choose to enforce it). As you have pointed out, most of the time if new bands want publicity from their music being on Youtube, they post it there themselves.

The reason most established bands don't want their music on Youtube is because unlike with over the air and internet radio, they get no royalties when their songs are listened to on Youtube. In this case, it's hard to excuse it with "free publicity" and with most larger bands, selling music is their main source of revenue. It's hard to make a living when all people are doing is listening to your albums on Youtube instead of paying you for them. This doesn't just go for popular bands either; I've seen at least one smaller artist who was very unhappy when his material was put on Youtube.

[end of comments on this quote; on to the OP]

Regarding the free advertising argument, consider this: You see a song on Youtube, and you listen to it. Let's assume you like it, and it's worth hearing again. Do you then go and buy it on itunes or Amazon, or do you listen to it on Youtube again? How many times do you listen to it on Youtube before you actually buy it, if you ever buy it at all? At this point, it is no different from regular piracy. Sure, you may be in the group of people who actually buys music instead of just continuing to listen to it for free, but the vast majority of people are probably not. The music industry has shown its opinion on on-demand streaming with services like Rhapsody, which lets you listen to whatever music you want as much as you want for a monthly fee. It even lets you put the songs on an mp3 player if you get the premium subscription. This service exists at the cost it does because the artists want to get paid when their product is used.

How else to minor (signed) bands who don't get airtime on radio or TV get a decent fanbase?

Also, regarding this, if a band's record label isn't getting them airtime or otherwise promoting their music, then that label is not doing its job correctly. At this point, that is basically the only reason to be signed at all, considering how easy and inexpensive it is to self publish with services like Tunecore.

TL;DR: No, I don't agree with unauthorized posting of music on Youtube. Go buy it instead, it's not that expensive.

And in case anyone is curious, yes, I am a musician, and yes, I have posted my music on Youtube.

 

[Azex]

no reason for them to be exempt. they just need better and more intelligent moderators. banning creators for making abridged shows is silly as abridged shows generate interest in the original and are nothing like the source material.

Thats a very specific example but its true of silly bans accross the site

 

[Radeonx]

No, there is no reason for them to be exempt.

A company/individual has the right to control their own intellectual property. If they want to release them on Youtube, on the radio, or any other method they choose that THEIR choice, not YOUR choice.

Oh, and its not hard to take a copy of any song/video on youtube.

Yes, we should all bow down to corporations. Who cares about normal people? All that matter are the rich!

No, all that matters is ownership, whether its the rich, the poor, or corporations

Poverty has never been an excuse to steal, especially when its something like video and music, which, last time I checked, was not a necessity for life.

Seriously? You're still saying rich people deserve to fuck the poor over.

How is suing someone for intellectual property theft "fucking them over"? If you don't want to get a copyright lawsuit don't steal copyrighted stuff.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

Youtube is just a great and easy way for media to be spread and shared, sort of a easily accessible pool of information. BUT, people do have the right to copy write what they put on youtube, it is their hard work after all.

 

[bluepilot]

If the music and film industry starts attacking youtube then they are attacking some of it's best customers

I like using YouTube to check out films before they are released and listen to music too. If I like what I see and hear then I will see the film and buy a Hardcopy for my iPod.

I really hate it when I buy something and the first thing that I get is a warning telling me not to indulge in piracy. I have just BOUGHT their DVD with my own money and already I feel like a criminal. Also, taking away the ability to fast-forward through the adverts at the beginning was really low. I have bought the item and should be able to fastforward through the adverts if I please.

I am ranting a bit but the point that I am trying to make is that if music/film/tv industries want us to buy their products then they should cooperate more with their consumers

One thing a I was really happy about was getting a digital copy free with the DVD when I bought Dark knight

 

[Irridium]

No, I don't think Youtube should be exempt. Nothing is above the law. Even if that law is stupid and needs to be revised.