Jump to content

The Evil That Is Youtube


ShadowBlade
 Share

Recommended Posts

So as I pointed out in the "original song" section of the forums, I made this and youtube blocked it. It's a heavy metal remix of a Britney Spears song.

The second I uploaded that to youtube......surprise. Matched 3rd party content. I expected that because, well, I don't own the copyright I just made it for fun. A few of my other remixed tunes have that as well.

Difference is, those other vids are still available. It says that my metal remix is "not available in some countries". I figured it would probably be just a few but no.......it's every country in the world that anyone actually lives in.

It appears Sony is launching a full scale assault on anyone uploading anything music related......

Explain why the second I post mine it gets flagged yet there's still other remixes of the song made by random people on youtube?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know how to get around this if you have Fair Use? I had to do that for a video I did using a Dragonforce song. I had already given full credit to the artist in my video description but YouTube insisted it be blocked and removed the audio from my video. After responding to YouTube's claims that I was illegally posting the song with an excerpt from some document that explained the purpose of my video, they restored it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know how to get around this if you have Fair Use? I had to do that for a video I did using a Dragonforce song. I had already given full credit to the artist in my video description but YouTube insisted it be blocked and removed the audio from my video. After responding to YouTube's claims that I was illegally posting the song with an excerpt from some document that explained the purpose of my video, they restored it.

Or you could just... you know... change the tuning of the song up or down a few keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing the pitch etc doesn't really avoid copyright, it can just get you past the initial BS. Like one of my remixes uses the same key etc of the original song and it took weeks before it said "matched third party content". It didn't get disabled or anything though. Just got ads.

I've posted the remix on youtube again and so far it's only blocked in Germany. I can live with that......unless they go crazy with it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q55ieok7QJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sampling Britney Spears for a remix does not constitute fair use. YouTube is not evil for protecting the rights of recording artists. Their enforcement may be inconsistent, but that's probably more due to imperfect algorithms and flagging procedures than singling anyone out.

YouTube just isn't a good place to share that sort of material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sampling Britney Spears for a remix does not constitute fair use. YouTube is not evil for protecting the rights of recording artists. Their enforcement may be inconsistent, but that's probably more due to imperfect algorithms and flagging procedures than singling anyone out.

YouTube just isn't a good place to share that sort of material.

Never said it was fair use. If people making these remixes were profiting off them, then yeah.

Youtube is evil for protecting rights when they're not being assaulted. Plenty of talented people (probably most of the people on ocremix) have their remixes on youtube. Even if their remixes are not submitted to ocremix itself. Remixing is a win-win situation. The remixer gets credit for doing a good job and the original artist gets more recognition and probably more sales etc.

It's evil because what's it really about is the fact that the record companies don't want the recording to exist in any way unless they're getting every last red cent from it. So they in turn can screw the original recording artist out of money they deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Youtube is evil for protecting rights when they're not being assaulted.

They are being assaulted. The artist has an exclusive monopoly on the sound recording, including all derivative works. i.e. You're not allowed to sample without permission. Doing so is infringing on the intellectual property rights of the artist.

If people making these remixes were profiting off them, then yeah.

What if YouTube is profiting? They get to sell more ads by people watching such videos. They should be obligated to prevent videos such as yours.

Plenty of talented people (probably most of the people on ocremix) have their remixes on youtube. Even if their remixes are not submitted to ocremix itself. Remixing is a win-win situation. The remixer gets credit for doing a good job and the original artist gets more recognition and probably more sales etc.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It doesn't matter, it's not your call to make. Rather, it's up to the original artist.

It's evil because what's it really about is the fact that the record companies don't want the recording to exist in any way unless they're getting every last red cent from it. So they in turn can screw the original recording artist out of money they deserve.

Yeah, those big bad record companies. I've heard that one before. I'm sure you are equally self-servingly ignorant about how record labels function as you are about copyright. If you find the idea of intellectual property evil that's a defensible, however naive, position. But scattering your confused angst at the labels and YouTube does not elicit sympathy. Hate the game, not the player.

cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are being assaulted. The artist has an exclusive monopoly on the sound recording, including all derivative works. i.e. You're not allowed to sample without permission. Doing so is infringing on the intellectual property rights of the artist.

What if YouTube is profiting? They get to sell more ads by people watching such videos. They should be obligated to prevent videos such as yours.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It doesn't matter, it's not your call to make. Rather, it's up to the original artist.

Yeah, those big bad record companies. I've heard that one before. I'm sure you are equally self-servingly ignorant about how record labels function as you are about copyright. If you find the idea of intellectual property evil that's a defensible, however naive, position. But scattering your confused angst at the labels and YouTube does not elicit sympathy. Hate the game, not the player.

cheers.

1. So I assume you got permission to do all your remixes? Properties of Sega etc.? Maybe you did, but I doubt it.

2. My remixes that contain copyright material have ads placed by youtube in them BECAUSE they're copyrighted. So youtube makes money whether you got permission or not.

3. Who's call it is...yeah it's the original artist. However, they're not the one making the call. The label is and it's not about protecting the artist's rights for them. It's about money.

4. The players create the game. My remix, you're remixes etc. are not hurting Britney Spears, Sony Records etc. MASSIVE change purses and you know it.

The right of "intellectual property" is not evil. Destroying creative, non-profit tributes to intellectual property IS. Clearly your mentality is "It's mine and I'm not sharing".

All in all, if they remove my remix totally in the end that's cool. It's not mine and I know that. It's a tribute. Obviously, If Gene Simmons has created hell. I'm going there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't mention the artist' name or song, and give full credit to yourself, as above.

I'm talking about the description, as for the video title, he seems to have a trend of leaving no spaces in his titles.

Offtopic but I just heard this version last week:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't it the act of sampling that changes the game here?

I don't know. Plenty rappers have "sampled" stuff in their songs and been sued for it.

Just ask Rob Van Winkle. Then again, he was profiting off of a bass riff from a queen song that he never had permission to use.

or MCHammer and Rick James.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. So I assume you got permission to do all your remixes? Properties of Sega etc.? Maybe you did, but I doubt it.

If you'd been paying attention to what I've been saying you'd see that's a non-sequitor. I'm not saying you shouldn't sample Britney Spears or whomever and share it online (though legally you shouldn't). Rather, I'm saying YouTube has an obligation and prerogative to remove remixes such as yours and they are not evil for doing so. I.e. stop whining.

3. Who's call it is...yeah it's the original artist. However, they're not the one making the call. The label is and it's not about protecting the artist's rights for them. It's about money.

4. The players create the game. My remix, you're remixes etc. are not hurting Britney Spears, Sony Records etc. MASSIVE change purses and you know it.

The artists voluntarily enter into a contract with their record label or publisher, who acts on their behalf. Therefore the will of the label/publisher is legally the will of the artist. You can feel that's not morally right and you can feel the labels are greedy, but your self-serving vigilantism won't help that.

The right of "intellectual property" is not evil. Destroying creative, non-profit tributes to intellectual property IS. Clearly your mentality is "It's mine and I'm not sharing".

The rights of intellectual property, as they stand, include rights over derivative works. No one is destroying your work; you're free to make all the remixes you want for personal use. But if you want to sell them or distribute them on YouTube, you need to get your samples cleared first. Those samples aren't yours, they belong to someone else. And if someone else doesn't want you using them, that's their prerogative. Nothing evil about that.

All in all, if they remove my remix totally in the end that's cool. It's not mine and I know that.

Then stop whining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd been paying attention to what I've been saying you'd see that's a non-sequitor. I'm not saying you shouldn't sample Britney Spears or whomever and share it online (though legally you shouldn't). Rather, I'm saying YouTube has an obligation and prerogative to remove remixes such as yours and they are not evil for doing so. I.e. stop whining.

The artists voluntarily enter into a contract with their record label or publisher, who acts on their behalf. Therefore the will of the label/publisher is legally the will of the artist. You can feel that's not morally right and you can feel the labels are greedy, but your self-serving vigilantism won't help that.

The rights of intellectual property, as they stand, include rights over derivative works. No one is destroying your work; you're free to make all the remixes you want for personal use. But if you want to sell them or distribute them on YouTube, you need to get your samples cleared first. Those samples aren't yours, they belong to someone else. And if someone else doesn't want you using them, that's their prerogative. Nothing evil about that.

Then stop whining.

Lol yes I see your point. Still I thought it was a decent discussion of copyright and youtube's removal of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That dude also made a "disney radio" version of Slayer's Raining Blood! It was epic.

*Pfft*, I arranged that song for a full orchestra + Tenor way back when as my Orchestration final. Now that was fucking epic. Wish I could find that score again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...