EveryDay Angels Forum - A Jewel Message Board

Author Topic: Killing YouTube  (Read 1433 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

codepoet

  • EDA
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 319
Killing YouTube
« on: June 21, 2016, 07:34:25 PM »
OMG, Jewel is one of the artists trying to get all the music taken down off YouTube!  :o




How am I subbosta discover awesome new artists like Halsey! I am too old to go to concerts or clubs, anymore. And, MTV and the Radio don't really play any music anymore.  :crying:

jewelwiki

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 333
  • Hey man, this is a beautiful life
    • JewelWiki
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2016, 05:04:57 AM »
Maybe she's included because she's a member of ASCAP? This also reads to me like the songwriters are pissed that they aren't the beneficiaries of YouTube, but other companies are. I dunno...
Visit the JewelWiki, a comprehensive Jewel resource for information on albums, concerts, tabs and lyrics.

Jessica

  • EDA
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3,045
  • Dancin the night away
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2016, 06:22:39 AM »
This was on the news yesterday, but I'm not sure what exactly they're after - has anyone seen any sort of proposed replacement legislation?  All I saw is they hated it as it is, but I didn't hear any solutions proposed or amendments.

Angel Eyes

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2016, 02:09:27 PM »
This also reads to me like the songwriters are pissed that they aren't the beneficiaries of YouTube, but other companies are. I dunno...

Yeah, I think that's it. This pic really doesn't say anything, just that they want change which I can definitely understand. But... how? What do they propose? I very seriously doubt they want to take their music off youtube completely because that's one main way they get their music out there to make what money they do get from elsewhere. I don't know. I'm kinda confused to be honest.

Angel Eyes

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2016, 02:19:16 PM »
Oh, Irving Azoff is behind the petition...










ebuchszer

  • EDA
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2016, 07:43:30 AM »
"I got my first taste of freedom beneath the light of the moon"

Donna Sue

  • EDA
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 758
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2016, 08:30:09 AM »

Yeah, I think that's it. This pic really doesn't say anything, just that they want change which I can definitely understand. But... how? What do they propose? I very seriously doubt they want to take their music off youtube completely because that's one main way they get their music out there to make what money they do get from elsewhere. I don't know. I'm kinda confused to be honest.

I agree Tracy. I wouldn't know half the artists I do if it wasn't for the 'Tube. It would be increasingly difficult to follow even Jewel without finding stuff about her on the internet. Radio just isn't cutting it anymore.
The red light cannot change the mood of the blue guitar that's played

Jessica

  • EDA
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3,045
  • Dancin the night away
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2016, 08:57:57 AM »
I think this is the request that she should be involved in... not killing youtube

http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/06/thom-yorke-trent-reznor-eddie-vedder-sign-open-letter-to-congress-to-stop-gun-violence/

I love Thom Yorke's autograph!  :lol:



Jewel's already taken the "mental health" stance on this issue.  She ain't signing that.

codepoet

  • EDA
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 319
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2016, 06:00:43 PM »
Jeez... just raise the price of albums, dummies! That's what you get for going to music school instead of business school. A 10-12 song album has costed $10-$15 since I was 8 years old! That's like three decades ago.

My understanding is they want to eliminate the "Safe Harbour" provision of the DMCA. Basically, Safe Harbour says that internet companies can't get sued for stuff their customers upload and aren't responsible for monitoring it all. But, still have to make reports to law enforcement in special cases (child porn has be to reported w/ in 72 hours, for example).

The problem is though, the DMCA is already being abused. And, if safe harbour disappears, the DMCA could be abused to shutdown sites like wikileaks, cryptome, Snowden's e-mail provider, Dropbox, Youtube, and basically everything else anyone (especially the government) doesn't like. And, if you get someone like LavaBit who says no, the government can just step up the chain and sue Verizon, ATT, or Comcast, of anyone else that provides fiber network transport all the way to the server they don't like.

I'm sorry, but it is just time for the Music industry to change. They need to make their money off touring and selling albums and other digital content (while that still lasts). There's nothing anyone can do about it. This whole thing of like old gray faced wall street exec guys suing anyone that writes a song with the same 5 notes in the same order as some crappy song that was written like 100 years ago that their hedge fund bought the rights too when the artist died 50 years ago is stupid. They are killing art and killing the industry. Let derivative works flourish, drop geolocking (one of the biggest problems - especially for older artists like Jewel), let copyright expire 10 years after the author dies, make money touring, make money off sites like StageIt, make money off crowd funding on kickstarter, or patreon, or even just do it as a hobby if you have to. No one owes artists a perpetual stream of income or a 1%er living in a Beverly Hills mansion. Do I still get "royalties" (I hate that word, like they're a King/Queen getting taxes or something) for documentation and code I wrote at a job 20 years ago? Nope, I got paid by the hour or by the project and that was that.

If HBO and Netflix and Movie companies can figure out models to make intellectual property based entertainment work, so can musical artists. I think it's just that they're try to use big government to force people back into the past instead of evolving. That is just not going to work.

Times are changin'. Notice that there's no young artists in that list of signatures.

Angel Eyes

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2016, 09:15:40 PM »

Yeah, I think that's it. This pic really doesn't say anything, just that they want change which I can definitely understand. But... how? What do they propose? I very seriously doubt they want to take their music off youtube completely because that's one main way they get their music out there to make what money they do get from elsewhere. I don't know. I'm kinda confused to be honest.

I agree Tracy. I wouldn't know half the artists I do if it wasn't for the 'Tube. It would be increasingly difficult to follow even Jewel without finding stuff about her on the internet. Radio just isn't cutting it anymore.

Yeah, or even rediscovering older bands and artists. I remember back in 2006 or 2007 I went on a BIG Smashing Pumpkins kick so I went to YouTube and watched so many of their videos. I ended up buying the rest of their albums I didn't have (I only had Adore and my sister had Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness) and their music video DVD. I'm sure that's the minority thing to do, though, but you know there are some people out there that probably still do that. :)

But then there are artists like Prince who was vehemently against YouTube and the internet in general and you couldn't find any of his music on YouTube until he died, only on Tidal which the majority of people don't have. And for a few months last year on Spotify. And then you see comments from younger teens and adults who wondered why people loved him so much because his music wasn't so easily accessible. That's honestly really freaking annoying and I'd hate for any other artist to be THAT strict. It wouldn't help anyone, the artist/writers/label or the consumer, and the only reason it worked for him is because he was an older artist who was already so popular. It definitely wouldn't help for today's popular artists like Taylor Swift or Beyonce, for example.

Angel Eyes

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2016, 11:36:34 PM »

My understanding is they want to eliminate the "Safe Harbour" provision of the DMCA. Basically, Safe Harbour says that internet companies can't get sued for stuff their customers upload and aren't responsible for monitoring it all. But, still have to make reports to law enforcement in special cases (child porn has be to reported w/ in 72 hours, for example).

Oh! OK, I was obviously too lazy to really look that up. And now this tweet makes more sense. Sorta.


Like, what's YouTube supposed to do, exactly? They still take down videos artists don't want up, and I thought they already had blocks put in place to make sure certain songs or videos can't go through. I guess it sucks to have to keep reporting them, but honestly I don't even care. Trying to compare Youtube to Spotify, Apple and Pandora is pretty baffling because regular people can't upload stuff to those sites. Duh. Or are they talking about the songs that the labels give Youtube to upload, like this?



Because it makes sense to put full songs/albums such as that behind the pay wall if the artist wants them to. I was surprised that they weren't already, but I don't see why the DMCA should change for that. That'd be too drastic of a measure, man. Unless I'm still missing something.

Quote
If HBO and Netflix and Movie companies can figure out models to make intellectual property based entertainment work, so can musical artists. I think it's just that they're try to use big government to force people back into the past instead of evolving. That is just not going to work.

Times are changin'. Notice that there's no young artists in that list of signatures.

In general I agree, but I think the consumers of movies and TV are different from the consumers of music. Ever since Napster it's been A LOT easier to download a 5 minute song vs. a 2 hour movie. The film industry had more time to adapt and change but the music industry hasn't and for a while I think they were all in denial that things would change so drastically. Now that they have I think it's too late to really change the attitudes of the younger generation especially. Once they see something as free and easy then that's what they'll grow up to pretty much think. That's really the heart of the problem in my opinion, and I don't know what they can do to change that mindset.

Oh, and there are a few young artists on the list. Fifth Harmony, Meghan Trainor, Walk the Moon, St. Vincent... do Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift and Katy Perry count? I kinda wonder how many of them really understand what they're signing. :shrug2:

Angel Eyes

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2016, 04:37:15 AM »
Just a couple of posts about this and copyright in general:

http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/062116-music-industry-letter-seeks-to-turn-back-clock-on-internet/

Quote
The letter offers several criticisms attributed to the DMCA safe harbor that dont hold up.

This law was written and passed in an era that is technologically out-of-date compared to the era in which we live.

Far from being out-of-date, the 1998 DMCA is the most recent substantive revision of the Copyright Act.  By this logic, the entire 1976 Copyright Act is technologically out-of-date too some parts of which date all the way back to 1909.  Even if we accept the dubious proposition that laws have a shelf life and an expiration date, then the DMCA is one of the freshest parts of the Copyright Act.

Music consumption has skyrocketed, but the monies earned by individual writers and artists for that consumption has plummeted.

Recent industry data and analysis reflects a growing music sector.  PROs have announced growing, record payouts to songwriters, topping $1 billion annually.  And consumers are spending more on music each year.  It is true that some stakeholders, like the RIAA and music labels, are losing out as consumers spend a growing share of that money on streaming and live events.  However, the DMCA is not responsible for consumers shifting preferences.

The tech companies who benefit from the DMCA today were not the intended protectorate when it was signed into law nearly two decades ago.

This is a strange view of how laws should work, that only the specific interests who were connected enough to have had lobbyists at the table when a law was enacted should be able to benefit from it.  Sadly, this is how much of the Copyright Act is written.  But the DMCA isnt an example of that.  Courts have noted that Congress explicitly intended that the DMCA should apply broadly, beyond those who existed in 1998.  This makes sense when considered in light of Congress intention that the safe harbors provide legal certainty to an entire industry.  Its also somewhat disingenuous to suggest that only companies which were in existence in 1998 can benefit from the Internet, since most of the Internet post-dates 1998.  This interpretation would ensure the law applies to virtually no one, which might be the desired outcome, but isnt consistent with what Congress intended.

Undermining the DMCA would represent bad political judgment for several reasons.  First, a vast number of platforms and users rely on the DMCA in the daily business.  As the SOPA debacle indicated, reopening the DMCA to upset this reliance particularly to mandate that everyones postings are affirmatively surveilled is a third rail in IP politics.


"Notice and staydown" or "Takedown, staydown" seems to be what they're really for. It sounds like a disaster.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html

Quote
The U.S. Copyright Office which has a history of favoring the interests of Hollywood and record companies over Silicon Valley technologists recently solicited public comments and held hearings on the notice-and-takedown provisions. The Copyright Office is widely expected in the next year to recommend that Congress make changes to the DMCA, possibly adopting Hollywoods preferred approach: notice and staydown.

The idea of notice and staydown is that when an ISP receives a notice of copyright infringement it would then search out and delete all copies of that work and, more importantly, block that work from ever being uploaded again.

That sounds good in theory. But consider it in just a bit of depth and its appeal quickly falls apart. First, just because one user is infringing on a copyright doesnt mean that a second user who posts the same content is also infringing. The second person may be licensed or making a sort of use for example, a non-profit educational use that the law often treats as permissible. Notice and staydown would guarantee that such perfectly legitimate uses would get blocked.

But theres a worse problem. Notice and staydown effectively kills the chance of any startup or entrepreneur to compete with established players such as YouTube and Facebook.

Its impossible to enforce any staydown without technologies that mark and identify copyrighted material. And that sort of technology is extremely expensive. YouTube has what is considered the most sophisticated system out there, called Content ID. It takes digital fingerprints of copyrighted works and checks all new uploads against those fingerprints. Something even more elaborate than Content ID would be required to make notice and staydown work.

Content ID cost Google more than $50 million to build. Not many startups can replicate that.


https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/notice-and-stay-down-really-filter-everything

Quote
Notice-and-Stay-Down Is Really Filter-Everything

The Proposal Is Unfair to Both Users and Media Platforms

Theres a debate happening right now over copyright bots, programs that social media websites use to scan users uploads for potential copyright infringement. A few powerful lobbyists want copyright law to require platforms that host third-party content to employ copyright bots, and require them to be stricter about what they take down. Big content companies call this nebulous proposal notice-and-stay-down, but it would really keep all users down, not just alleged infringers. In the process, it could give major content platforms like YouTube and Facebook an unfair advantage over competitors and startups (as if they needed any more advantages). Notice-and-stay-down is really filter-everything.

At the heart of the debate sit the safe harbor provisions of U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. 512), which were enacted in 2000 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Those provisions protect Internet services from monetary liability based on the allegedly infringing activities of their users or other third parties.

Section 512 lays out various requirements for service providers to be eligible for safe harbor statusmost significantly, that they comply with a notice-and-takedown procedure: if you have a reasonable belief that Ive infringed on your copyright, you (or someone acting on your behalf) can contact the platform and ask to have my content removed. The platform removes my content and notifies me that its removed it. I have the opportunity to file a counter-notice, indicating that you were incorrect in your assessment: for example, that I didnt actually use your content, or that I used it in a way that didnt infringe your copyright. If you dont take action against me in a federal court within 14 days, my content is restored.

The DMCA didnt do much to temper content companies accusations that Internet platforms enable infringement. In 2007, Google was facing a lot of pressure over its recent acquisition YouTube. YouTube complied with all of the requirements for safe harbor status, including adhering to the notice-and-takedown procedure, but Hollywood wanted more.

Google was eager to court those same companies as YouTube adopters, so it unveiled Content ID. Content ID lets rightsholders submit large databases of video and audio fingerprints. YouTubes bot scans every new upload for potential matches to those fingerprints. The rightsholder can choose whether to block, monetize, or monitor matching videos. Since the system can automatically remove or monetize a video with no human interaction, it often removes videos that make lawful fair uses of audio and video.

Now, some lobbyists think that content filtering should become a legal obligation: content companies are proposing that once a takedown notice goes uncontested, the platform should have to filter and block any future uploads of the same allegedly infringing content. In essence, content companies want the law to require platforms to develop their own Content-ID-like systems in order to enjoy safe harbor status.

For the record, the notice-and-takedown procedure has its problems. It results in alleged copyright infringement being treated differently from any other type of allegedly unlawful speech: rather than wait for a judge to determine whether a piece of content is in violation of copyright, the system gives the copyright holder the benefit of the doubt. You dont need to look far to find examples of copyright holders abusing the system, silencing speech with dubious copyright claims.

That said, safe harbors are essential to the way the Internet works. If the law didnt provide a way for web platforms to achieve safe harbor status, services like YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia could never have been created in the first place: the potential liability for copyright infringement would be too high. Section 512 provides a route to safe harbor status that most companies that use user-generated content can reasonably comply with.

A filter-everything approach would change that. The safe harbor provisions let Internet companies focus their efforts on creating great services rather than spend their time snooping their users uploads. Filter-everything would effectively shift the burden of policing copyright infringement to the platforms themselves, undermining the purpose of the safe harbor in the first place.

That approach would dramatically shrink the playing field for new companies in the user-generated content space. Remember that the criticisms of YouTube as a haven for infringement existed well before Google acquired it. The financial motivators for developing a copyright bot were certainly in place pre-Google too. Still, it took the programming power of the worlds largest technology company to create Content ID. What about the next YouTube, the next Facebook, or the next SoundCloud? Under filter-everything, there might not be a next.

Heres something else to consider about copyright bots: theyre not very good. Content ID routinely flags videos as infringement that dont copy from another work at all. Bots also dont understand the complexities of fair use. In September, a federal appeals court confirmed that copyright holders must consider fair use before sending a takedown notice. Under the filter-everything approach, legitimate uses of works wouldnt get the reasonable consideration they deserve. Even if content-recognizing technology were airtight, computers would still not be able to consider a works fair use status.

Again and again, certain powerful content owners seek to brush aside the importance of fair use, characterizing it as a loophole in copyright law or an old-fashioned relic. But without fair use, copyright isnt compatible with the First Amendment. Do you trust a computer to make the final determination on your right to free speech?

Georgiegirl

  • EDA
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: Killing YouTube
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2016, 07:57:12 AM »
Dreamer is a great song i love it. :music: