61–70 of 107 posts
The Register article goes on for a while about the "weakening" of copyright law that allowed this to happen, but never actually says what legal change occurred that makes this possible. Anyone know?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone at YouTube needs to go back to PR school after this. I'd say that someone just needs to be repeatedly hit in the head with a copy of Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People". Seriously, every single PR flop I've seen discussed here (or anywhere else) was a result of failing to adhere to a single basic rule: don't be a douchebag. It's really that simple . Do we really need PR schools to teach peo…
Do we really need PR schools to teach people how to be decent human beings? Probably not, but it's bad for business to be decent human beings. PR/x-relations/etc is about faking decency while unapologetically pushing a business agenda, that does take training.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The huge problem is Youtube is the go-to place when teenagers and young adults want to listen to a piece[0] and they know it. [0] the alternative being torrents, and they're very much non-instant.
My friends and I tend to always go to Soundcloud first.
I am not going to waste my time with a low quality video (often with only a static image) when I can have the high quality of Soundcloud. Soundcloud also has an interesting comment system and a better community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incorrect. The artist can still have their music removed from YouTube when third parties upload it without permission. The option that's being lost is for the artist to leave the infringer's video up and slap ads on it. The replacement for this option is to join the new subscription-based, ad-free monetization program.
Are you sure? IIRC from her article, she was saying that the only way for her to keep removing stuff from YT would be to issue DMCA complains for each and every video (which is obviously impossible).
The article reads like a pro-copyright/pro-SOPA hit piece, I would take it with a grain of salt. I don't see anything too evil here, just reasonable business decision forced to them by the ridiculous copyright framework. Google came with a simple solution: their way or the highway. Sounds harsh but anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer-vetting. They rather pull your stuff rather than…
It's from Andrew Orlowski, a professional media troll. He usually takes a contrarian position on any controversial tech issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your (b) there means that people can upload all the licensed songs they want and no money goes to the artist and the artist has no choice in this except to agree to (a). (A) is a binding 5 year contract that forces her to release music on youtube as soon as it is done and cannot sign any other exclusive release deals on any music. Both choices remove all "choice" from the artist in regards to their own work. Imagine…
Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. In many ways that's even more far-reaching than what YouTube is asking, but that hasn't stopped programmers from flocking to them in droves. That does, however, suggest to me an option (c) that Google isn't offering: Musicians pay Google to run Content Id on their behalf to simplify the takedown…
Publicly available yes, open source no. You're free to choose whatever license you want:
You're under no obligation to choose a license. It's your right not to include one with your code or project, but please be aware of the implications. Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"However, Keating appears to have kept verbatim notes – strongly indicating that a tape was running" Is the act of recording illegal, or just sharing the recording?
BTW, she says she took notes with shorthand, so recording laws don't apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incorrect. The artist can still have their music removed from YouTube when third parties upload it without permission. The option that's being lost is for the artist to leave the infringer's video up and slap ads on it. The replacement for this option is to join the new subscription-based, ad-free monetization program.
That is not the only option lost (though you are right, you can chose a and remove everything). The artist is indeed loosing the choice to just monetize the content he wants, and he indeed loses the ability to monetize content on youtube without being bound to release on Youtube first/at the same time. nosequels gist is correct: the artist has now less choice than before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incorrect. The artist can still have their music removed from YouTube when third parties upload it without permission. The option that's being lost is for the artist to leave the infringer's video up and slap ads on it. The replacement for this option is to join the new subscription-based, ad-free monetization program.
That is not the only option lost (though you are right, you can chose a and remove everything). The artist is indeed loosing the choice to just monetize the content he wants, and he indeed loses the ability to monetize content on youtube without being bound to release on Youtube first/at the same time. nosequels gist is correct: the artist has now less choice than before.
I don't think that's a fair summary of the original comment, which also asserted that the artist is losing the choice to enforce their copyright unless they join the new program.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your (b) there means that people can upload all the licensed songs they want and no money goes to the artist and the artist has no choice in this except to agree to (a). (A) is a binding 5 year contract that forces her to release music on youtube as soon as it is done and cannot sign any other exclusive release deals on any music. Both choices remove all "choice" from the artist in regards to their own work. Imagine…
Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. In many ways that's even more far-reaching than what YouTube is asking, but that hasn't stopped programmers from flocking to them in droves. That does, however, suggest to me an option (c) that Google isn't offering: Musicians pay Google to run Content Id on their behalf to simplify the takedown…