SilvaGunner got banned from YouTube

[Mirby]

nobody should ever listen to music without paying for it pirates are ruining the music industry how will metallica ever survive

I lol'd. XD

[Liontamer]

He made a new account named "SilvaGunners" Check it out:

No, that's not him. That channel's by some weirdo. His alternate channel is http://youtube.com/SilvaGunner2 and he won't be uploading content to it.

Just to clarify, SilvaGunner never made money from the videos or had partner status. He got 1 strike from Viacom having a Team America clip, which he had uploaded back before he dedicated his channel to VGM. The 2nd came from the Record Industry Association of Japan for "Hikari" from Kingdom Hearts. Don't know what the 3rd strike was for yet. AFAIK, game companies weren't responsible for the takedown.

[Bleck]

I'm just saying you can't go around uploading people's work without their permission and then act surprised or indignant after they ask you to stop, you ignore them and get banned from YouTube for it.

I think the thing you're missing here is that isn't actually what happened (since otherwise I'd agree with you)

[EdgeCrusher]

And people wonder why I never post here anymore. Bitch bitch bitch I can't have free stuff bitch bitch bitch.

[DarkeSword]

And people wonder why I never post here anymore. Bitch bitch bitch I can't have free stuff bitch bitch bitch.

Nobody wonders that.

[Arcana]

YouTube is legally required to take down anything on their site if they receive a copyright complaint about it. Current copyright law provides protection for sites hosting user content -- the users, rather than the site, is held responsible for infringing content... as long as the site immediately takes down any content that they're told is infringing by the copyright holder. The user is then allowed to contest the removal, but the site HAS to take it down IMMEDIATELY upon recieving the complaint or they themselves become liable for the infringement.

So basically, YouTube has to nuke anything they get complaints about unless they want to get sued into oblivion.

This post is a good one.

[noTuX]

I don't like the decision they made, but I have to agree with what YouTube did looking at it from a business perspective. And with software that can convert YT videos to mp3s and whatnot, its easy to see why they decided to do what they did. I'm sure the people at YouTube wouldn't want to get sued by VGM composers over something as silly as this.

Maybe one day, YT can reach a middle ground that will please the VGM fans and composers.

[Chernabogue]

That's sad to hear, but I think it would happen one day or another, because of legal issues.

[relyanCe]

Nobody wonders that.

this made me smile very wide

[Native Jovian]

The problem with that, and believe me, I've seen this happen, is that ANYONE can impersonate a major company/firm/whatever and file a copyright complaint.

You can pretend to be Funimation and remove a bunch of AMVs if you want (more power to ya), or you can pretend to be something like DiC and force people to remove those GI Joe PSA parody videos.

Like I said, this HAS happened to some of my friends, because some dickwad wanted to be a jerk. Youtube does not fact-check- it just deletes a user's entire history with the site.

And the user is allowed to post a counterclaim if they want. If your video isn't infringing (which obviously depends on the video -- just straight up postings of music wouldn't count, but lots of things on YouTube fall under parody or fair use), you're allowed to contact YouTube after it's been removed and tell them to put it back up. I don't actually know what the process for accomplishing that is, but it is written into the law. After that, YouTube is officially in the clear -- if the copyright holder wants to make an issue of it after that, they have to take the user to court.

[Halt]

Nobody wonders that.

I do. I WONDER.

[NegimaSonic]

No, that's not him. That channel's by some weirdo. His alternate channel is http://youtube.com/SilvaGunner2 and he won't be uploading content to it.

Just to clarify, SilvaGunner never made money from the videos or had partner status. He got 1 strike from Viacom having a Team America clip, which he had uploaded back before he dedicated his channel to VGM. The 2nd came from the Record Industry Association of Japan for "Hikari" from Kingdom Hearts. Don't know what the 3rd strike was for yet. AFAIK, game companies weren't responsible for the takedown.

I'd like to clarify two things, first I don't know any other words to use to mention what normal music is (non video game music or mainstream music) so sorry if I seem to be repeating myself. Second, I'm not going to justify or condemn uploading VGMusic to youtube (though I probably do seem to favor one side over the other).

I'm glad I read your post before replying. It seems that the gaming industry is fairly lenient about this. I won't say he was in the right of course for uploading copyrighted content but based off of this, it seems VGM composers still haven't changed their mostly non interfering stance.

Personally, I think VGM is in a different class anyway. Take something like Sonic Adventure 2 Battle. I own that game. They have a full sound test on that disk and when I was younger I used to leave the TV on on sound test just to listen to "live and learn", "it doesn't matter", etc etc. With games, you kind of pay for all of the content in them, including the music, with normal CDs, you are paying for songs and nothing else. I think with games you already paid for the music in all honesty.

And yes, this reasoning breaks down a bit given all games don't have sound test type things or full versions of the tracks in them but in general the music was made to enhance the games, not just for the sake of making music (to sell).

Also unlike normal music, it can be hard to find soundtracks period for video game music whether you want to purchase it legally or not. I'm looking at play-asia right now and all things for "Ai no Uta" (Pikmin single) are sold out/out of print. And no company I know of offers single downloads of songs like that. So if you even wanted to listen to the song, you couldn't.

And often times, I wouldn't want a whole album. I'd just want a song or two (Sorry Amy, I don't really like your theme ^-^. So even a site like guvera.com (yeah, there IS free music, EMI even references them on their site), doesn't touch video game music. If I wanted to use my free credits there to support the VGM industry, I couldn't...because there is no such an option. Not even on amazon.com can I get single tracks to pay for them out of pocket.

This is why I'm always glad for sites like OCRemix with original yet different free remixes or when companies do things like Sega is doing with Sonic The Hedgehog 4 and actually releasing the soundtrack free and promoting some of the best remixes (in their blog). No one loses when there's options like this.

I didn't visit SilvaGunner's channel a lot but I was glad it was there for when I was in a mood to listen to "The Dark Messenger" or "Vamo alla Flamenco".

Oh, and I know from a friend about getting copyright notices from people other than the original company. The problem with a counterclaim on that on OBVIOUSLY infringing content is that even if you get it back, it would probably then be taken down by the original company if you can't delete your video fast enough. And there is the threat of a "court summons".

So all I can say is thanks to SilvaGunner for what he did. A small cry will echo through the internet as thousands of links will now show up as "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

[Chernabogue]

It seems his former channel still works :

[Dhsu]

The cool thing about the way YouTube handles copyrighted content is that it sticks ads for the original content onto the video. That's why a lot of copyright holders are actually okay with leaving it up: free exposure and revenue without having to go through the trouble of uploading hundreds of videos themselves.

Anyway, there's always Grooveshark.

[Arcana]

Well, it would only put ads up if the copyright holders put their ad on YouTube, right?

I would wager that there's a lot of people out there who simply don't really care that much - some Japanese Guy (or even some Japanese company) who composed some video game music twelve years ago might not give a damn that the SNES tracks have been ripped and uploaded onto YouTube. However record labels (or soundtrack producers/sellers) would be a little more concerned because they are actively monetising the content.

[EC2151]

I do. I WONDER.

Run, coward! I HUNGER!

[ftninja]

Well, considering he uploaded tons and tons of copyrighted tracks without permission, I'm not surprised... nor do I really feel sorry for him since, as I understand it, he had several other accounts that were banned for the same reason. It does suck from our perspective as listeners, but we have to be fair to the original composers & publishers. If your channel has over 200 million views and you didn't create ANY of the content, that's not right.

Um. Pardon me because I could be wrong. But SilvaGunner always stated what game the song was from, what company made it, who the composer was, and that he didn't create the song.

I thought that's what Youtube had it's panties in a bunch for most of the time.

[big giant circles]

Um. Pardon me because I could be wrong. But SilvaGunner always stated what game the song was from, what company made it, who the composer was, and that he didn't create the song.

I thought that's what Youtube had it's panties in a bunch for most of the time.

This made me lol. Stating credit does not give the user some sort of special license-bypassing rights. It's one of the most ignorant things when a person uploads and shares content which they did not create and do not have legal consent to distribute but then says "I did not make/do not own this, _______ does! No copyright infringement intended!"

Think about it. Let's use movies instead of music since for some reason people have an easier time understanding that it's not ok to upload movies (bootlegs or rips) to places like Youtube. Movies make their money by ticket and DVD sales. When people upload them so others can watch for free, it's bad for the people who own the rights to that movie. If I were to upload a movie, but provide full credits in the description, or say something like "I do not own this, no copyright infringement intended!" as I'm sharing something not meant to be free with millions of others for free, would that excuse me from any sort of legal repercussions?

[ftninja]

[big giant circles]

Just because you see people do it, or that the content hasn't been removed for whatever reason, does not mean people have the right to do it. Most people just get away with it because companies either aren't aware or it's just not high enough priority for them.

Also, it's not Youtube that gets "their panties in a bunch" over it. It's the copyright owners.

[Rozovian]

Indeed. I would definitely have a problem with someone uploading my stuff (if it's not stuff I've released for free). Doesn't matter how well credited I am in the uploads, or how the uploader clearly states it's not his/hers, it's still _my_ songs, _my_ work. Credit is completely irrelevant to ownership. Crediting someone doesn't give you unlimited rights to do what you want with his/her work.

Just sharing doesn't even count as fair use. Doesn't matter if there's any potential loss of revenue from album sales or whatever. Doesn't even matter if it's good publicity. It's still unauthorized use, unlicensed sharing of my work.

That game companies are cool with ppl uploading and sharing the music, at least most of the time, is great. But we can't cry foul when they don't. It's theirs.

I think video game music should be free. Pay for the game, pay for everything. But... no.

[ftninja]

High priority meaning?

I mean come on. If you're bitching or SHOULD BE bitching about somebody 'stealing your money' you'd think NOTHING would be fair use.

Please understand, I'm not trying to argue, just understand.

[Dhsu]

There's a difference between using very short excerpts for educational purposes, and just uploading entire works.

[big giant circles]

High priority meaning?

I mean come on. If you're bitching or SHOULD BE bitching about somebody 'stealing your money' you'd think NOTHING would be fair use.

Please understand, I'm not trying to argue, just understand.

I do understand that. But it's fair to point out that your post shows that you're a bit ignorant on the subject, and we're merely pointing out why. Not trying to argue, just understand

There's a difference between using very short excerpts for educational purposes, and just uploading entire works.

Yep, I should have mentioned that as well. Derivative works are a whole other topic altogether. Let's keep it to just straight up rips for now, just to keep the topic on point. Plus, silvagunner wasn't posting derivative works (like VGM arrangements *cough*) he was posting the actual unaltered music.

Also, I'd like to take this time to say that I'm fairly indifferent about the SG issue at all. I'm simply pointing out the reasons WHY he doesn't have the actual right to post that stuff. I'm not saying he should or shouldn't have.

I think video game music should be free. Pay for the game, pay for everything. But... no.

I agree with the rest of your post Roz, but just out of curiousity, do you feel the same way about, say, movie or television soundtracks? (I'm only curious, not actually trying to push the discussion that way)

[ftninja]

I do understand that. But it's fair to point out that your post shows that you're a bit ignorant on the subject, and we're merely pointing out why. Not trying to argue, just understand

You're still kind of a douche. But thanks for clearing shit up for me.