TechCrunch is reporting that YouTube is now muting users videos that use a copyrighted audio track.YouTube has been testing out various ways of detecting copyrighted videos, the company has been fingerprinting audio tracks and notifying users of infringement when they find a copyrighted song. It appears as though the focus has changed and instead of users being notified the music is now muted on the videos.
The reaction from the twitter universe has been mainly negative with some saying "this is not a good idea!" and "the end of amateur creativity on youtube? arghhh!!".
The notice on the videos states "This video contains an audio track that has not been authorised by all copyright holders. The audio has been disabled. More about copyright"
It's clear that this will kill user generated content where users often use an audio accompaniment to picture slideshows, like the muted video below.
sigh...
sigh...
I hate you.
sigh...
haha good one
sigh...
You got me! Absolute genius!
Yes, because everyone's a musician...
Idiot.
What a terrible analogy. Credit is given to the author of the music. And by the very nature of the internet, the artists work stays intact (as apposed to the printing press days). Just look at the Open Source software market, where stuff is traded with Open Copyright, there is virtually no plagerism.
And I'm sure everyone in the world can sing wonderfully, play multiple musical instruments, and has the appropriate equipment to create studio quality recordings.
You're a moron.
It'll be sad to see them loose traffic, but if that traffic was the result of people wanting to view copyright material for free then it was unsustainable to begin with.
It'll be sad to see them loose traffic, but if that traffic was the result of people wanting to view copyright material for free then it was unsustainable to begin with.
They've been doing fine without this - They remove videos when they receive take down notices. When was the last time YouTube actually was brought to court because of a "user" created video?
It's a completely different story now. In the past YouTube basically said, "You send us the takedown notice and we take it down. The process is impossible to automate" and the courts agreed. Things are different now that they have been provided with the necessary software to automate the identification and takedown of copyright material.
There is an old saying that goes along the lines of 'don't kick people on your way up as you might just need them again on your way down.' I can't help but think the owners of YouTube have overlooked this. I think the sheen that made YouTube as popular as it has been in recent times is certainly starting to dull as they court the big media companies more and more prolifically.
I can see where your disappointment comes from, but I don't see how you can blame youtube who has taken great strides to allow copyright music to easily be used. They even had profit sharing agreements where YouTube payed the labels when you used copyright music in your videos. These deals eventually died when the 'tens of millions' of dollars the labels where making apparently weren't enough and they wanted to re-negotiate.
Reading this comment, and your other comment further down, I suspect you have some dislike towards the RIAA. You're perfectly entitled to that of course, but that's not really the subject of this article.
YouTube has done a lot to try and allow users to legally use copyright music. I don't see how they can be held responsible for this.
F*ck YouTube!
I can imagine it's most likely to apply to videos specifically using that music as a direct soundtrack - such as the slideshow above.
Or download the CD/song from your favorite BitTorrent site.
See, this doesn't help against piracy. That's the stupid part. The music industry is again shooting themselves in their collective feet. What this does is however making less music be heard via YouTube. They're reducing the spread and discovery of new music via YouTube. I'm not sure where they see profits in that, but the music industry move in mysterious and failing ways since a number of years ago.
errrr...how would that prevent youtube from muting the video? This has nothing to do with pirating music, this is about copyright infringement and is absolutely pathetic. I could understand it being done to those videos that share ad revenue, but for the rest, there's no reason for it and it will do more harm to the music industry than good.
Using music without permission is just STEALING.
Do you want someone use your car without your permission ??? I don't.
It's about context, which you seem to be blind to. Do I want someone to use my car without my permission? Not particularly (though it's just a car when all is said and done). Would I mind if someone used my car without permission for good reason? Not at all.
Are you suggesting that youtube vids using full music tracks as a soundtrack (for no satire or video-relevant purpose) are "good reason" for ignoring royalty payments? I rather doubt that would stand up in any court.
Basically, every time a video was flagged with copyright material the uploader would be given the option to resubmit with different audio or allow ads on the page. These ads would then have a portion of their revenue given to the copyright holder. Universal reported these profits to be "in the tens of millions"
The relationship most people seem to have with the RIAA (and similar) strikes me as being somewhat masochistic. You have this huge entity which is trying to screw you at every turn (including attempts to sue your favorite video sites into oblivion) yet you side against youtube in issues like this while proclaiming the death of the site and your intentions to find a new site where you can listen to music supplied by the people who treat you like walking piggy banks. It's like they spit in your face (by proxy via actions against youtube and the like) and rather than saying "F.U., I'll get my music elsewhere" you decide to ditch youtube and trawl around for the next serving of table scraps the RIAA so graciously allows you.
The relationship most people seem to have with the RIAA (and similar) strikes me as being somewhat masochistic. You have this huge entity which is trying to screw you at every turn (including attempts to sue your favorite video sites into oblivion) yet you side against youtube in issues like this while proclaiming the death of the site and your intentions to find a new site where you can listen to music supplied by the people who treat you like walking piggy banks. It's like they spit in your face (by proxy via actions against youtube and the like) and rather than saying "F.U., I'll get my music elsewhere" you decide to ditch youtube and trawl around for the next serving of table scraps the RIAA so graciously allows you.
Definately well said.
My tunes don't need to be blessed/sanctioned by the RIAA to be considered as "music"
The relationship most people seem to have with the RIAA (and similar) strikes me as being somewhat masochistic. You have this huge entity which is trying to screw you at every turn (including attempts to sue your favorite video sites into oblivion) yet you side against youtube in issues like this while proclaiming the death of the site and your intentions to find a new site where you can listen to music supplied by the people who treat you like walking piggy banks. It's like they spit in your face (by proxy via actions against youtube and the like) and rather than saying "F.U., I'll get my music elsewhere" you decide to ditch youtube and trawl around for the next serving of table scraps the RIAA so graciously allows you.
Definately well said.
My tunes don't need to be blessed/sanctioned by the RIAA to be considered as "music"
+1
What? You do know why nobody listens to independent artists? Because they suck. If you're an artist and you dont suck, you get signed. If you dont get signed, it's because you suck at music.
Yeah, It's the same reason people get their 'news' from tabloids and their philosophical guidance from Oprah.
That' not always the case and your comment is very ignorant, I have heard a fair few unsigned bands that are great. Each to their own I guess.
If the worth of your video is tied so closely to the background music doesn't that say something about your video? Even if I took the video medium that co-exists most closely with the background audio track, a music video, a really good creation can still stand alone and be set to any audio track. When I think of the best music videos in recent memory, I can easily imagine them being just as good set to a completely different song.
If I made, for example, a skateboarding video back in my teenage years and I felt the worth/quality of the video was directly related to the background music I would quickly conclude that both my video and skateboarding skills must be sub-par.
If the worth of your video is tied so closely to the background music doesn't that say something about your video? Even if I took the video medium that co-exists most closely with the background audio track, a music video, a really good creation can still stand alone and be set to any audio track. When I think of the best music videos in recent memory, I can easily imagine them being just as good set to a completely different song.
If I made, for example, a skateboarding video back in my teenage years and I felt the worth/quality of the video was directly related to the background music I would quickly conclude that both my video and skateboarding skills must be sub-par.
You make a very good and valid point here.
There are alternatives.
There are alternatives.
Both owned by Goggle, dopey. They'll implement this on Google Video soon enough...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10126439-93.html
The only reason this happened is because the labels tried to ask for even more money.
Why would the RIAA need to pay Google? It's breaking the law, plain and simple.
There is a reason for royalty payments existing. Just because you are an amateur video maker, doesn't suddenly make it okay. And if you're not an amateur, and making use of youtube revenue share, it's even less okay.
You just can't profit off other people's work without permission.
Like said above, if you want to use music freely - use free music, or ask permission.
There is a reason for royalty payments existing. Just because you are an amateur video maker, doesn't suddenly make it okay. And if you're not an amateur, and making use of youtube revenue share, it's even less okay.
You just can't profit off other people's work without permission.
Like said above, if you want to use music freely - use free music, or ask permission.
Well obviously Youtube makes a profit off of the site, but the users are taking their time to make vids (note: I'm not in approval of people who just put up a track with a one frame video background, I'm talking about actual user created vids) and they put them up on youtube simply for the purpose of SHARING their creativity with the world. They don't "profit" off of it.
Take this for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDRXEJjwGGY
Pirating is bad. But fans using your song to create an home made video imo is not.
It's there to encourage purchasing music? But how the heck will that plan work out when you can still just as easily pirate it if you wish? Sites sharing mp3 files still exist, in heaps.
I think both the music industry and the fans will lose on this. They still have a far too simple view of the market and their own customers.
It's there to encourage purchasing music? But how the heck will that plan work out when you can still just as easily pirate it if you wish? Sites sharing mp3 files still exist, in heaps.
I think both the music industry and the fans will lose on this. They still have a far too simple view of the market and their own customers.
I bought some albums after hearing them in youtube video.
Couple of years ago i was watching Halo 2 videos when i heard a song from the soundtrack of Saw. Liked it and bought the album.
It's not like the sound quality of youtube video is good anyway. It's worse than the radio.
lool
I'm sure YouTube won't miss the people who are leaving because they can't watch illegally duplicated materials anymore. Boo Hoo, would you like a tissue?
The real problem I see is, what if a studio or music label, or whoever, decides that they don't care if their materials show up on YouTube? After all, YouTube isn't exactly the highest quality. I imagine this would make it very difficult for YouTube to detect an infringing video vs. a non-infringing video. Either way, the system won't be perfect. Some people are going to be quite upset if their video is muted when it contains no infringing materials.
This will certainly change online video. Most videos have some type of professional soundtrack to them.
This will certainly change online video. Most videos have some type of
professional soundtrack to them.
Who the hell uses Soapbox?! I don't even see a space for it in the new MSN Video beta. Maybe it's finally going away.
Hopefully this will have the positive side effect of influencing more people to come up with original music or "open source" music for their videos.
Secondly, how many times do you go to watch a video that needs no music (instructional, tricks, etc) where some band's music is thrown in for no reason? I get sick of listening to these bull**** "punk" bands simply because I wanted to see how someone did something in a game or something. Ugh...
Like if there was a video of someone falling over while dancing to X song this is currently illegal, they could easily change the law to say that it was legal in things like this. Of course this opens up a whole grey area to what would be legal and what would be illegal :p
I buy as many CD's now as I did from the mid to late 90's, before that I bought tapes, now I also use iTunes. Back then when I liked a song I recorded it from the radio to tape, now I use iTunes because it easier, or P2P for some techno / trance that iTunes just doesn't have, or a Stream Ripper for internet radio. I understand that I'm breaking some law doing this, but I feel quite morally comfortable with this, however I am always re-evaluating those morals. People will call using another person's music as steeling; that's fine they're in their right to do that and are in fact supported by laws. I see it differently; as this content was released to the world, for the world, and for my self to use and enjoy (non-profit of course).
You cannot directly compare tangible objects such as a car to intangible ideas, thoughts, drawings, music, art as we know it. Stealing a car is not the same as listening to acquired music that you did not purchase. By law I am wrong here, so be it. I listen to free music all the time when listing to the radio; some will say that content is paid for by advertising, but If don't listen to the advertising, am I stealing the music by listing to it? No that would be silly; that content is being released for everyone to enjoy and to further promote the artists ideas and thoughts and to entice me to see their live performance (I'm going to see Sevendust and Disturbed in concert next month BTW). If I buy their CD I'm paying for the cost of producing the CD materials, for distribution, and for some profit to the producing parties; because these are tangible costs and expenses. If I buy their digital CD I'm paying for the convenience of not having to waste fuel and time to go to the store to buy the physical CD.
"At the end of the day it is illegal... what needs to be changed is the law to have a acceptable usage."
Right you are sir.
Couldn't agree more with every single sentence you typed. Bravo Sir
That is a good point. How is music in a video on YouTube different then the music played over the radio. I use to volunteer DJ at the college station when I was still in school, and it was fair game to play anything that I owned over the air. The only thing I could not do is play an album from beginning to end over the air.
Here's one for ya. This exists all over the place.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinbu...ast/7029892.stm
Oh I don't like this person. I'm gonna file this, and when 3 videos get taken down, they will be suspended.
I have had my video filed for 'copyright' and it was just a video of my yard during Hurricane Gustav. No music, nothing. This person didn't like me and filed a copyright, and down it went. I did file a counter claim and it got reinstated. That takes WEEKS. It shouldn't be this way. You shouldn't have fear when you upload a video for your friends/family to see.
However if they are claiming to use the DMCA for that, and their claim is false, it is illegal, and you can counter-claim/take legal action.
This will turn YouTube into a site containing only silent videos, videos with original music composed and performed by the creator, videos using *that* sample yet again and corporate advertising of the latest crappy "artist". We have enough of the latter on MySpace without it becoming the prevalent example somewhere else.
Yeah I know (but who has money for a lawyer?) but it should NOT have to be that way. Counter claims takes WEEKS to process. It's pure bulls)it!
YouTube needs to do something about people abusing DMCA claims and TOS claims. Until then, to hell with YouTube.
But ... we're all spoiled by free media and act like victims if someone dares to take our crack away. Record labels from I see already post their official clips on youtube. No need for 1,000 duplicates taking up bandwidth and no need for a 200lb Twlight-loving 14 year old girl lip syncing to a Miley Cirus song for 3 minutes. Youtube is doing us a favor.
Guess I'll have to start using those programs where you put on your phone that record the song and then it tells you what the song is
I had a user created video for a gaming outfit I belonged to years ago. We went full tilt with it and had every single scene choreographed with in game footage to the song we picked, "This is War" by Smile Empty Soul. We completely cited them in the closing credits so they could get some traffic out of it hopefully. Fairly popular in its own right, but nothing spectacular, we just did it for ourselves and decided to share it.
I just got the e-mail telling me of the audio muting this last weekend. Gaaah!!!!! I was ****ed to say the least. I fail to see where this is a bad thing for the artist.
In actuality, this is going to cost them. In the very same day that the audio was muted, a user commented on my video saying that they stopped back by because they liked the video, so much so in fact that after seeing it went out and purchased a CD of theirs to hear more from them. After hearing of the muting and frustrated and the short sightedness of the company behind them had stated they would no longer purchase any of their music.
If this isn't a perfect example of how the internet can help promote a band and big business being to stubborn in their broken business models to see it, I don't know what is.
Last edited by RazorEye on 15 Jan 2009 - 04:08
Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up
What about replacing copyrighted video track/scene with color bars?
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.