Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Verge)   If you post a video on YouTube which has music in the background, don't be surprised when you receive a bill for $150,000, per track   (theverge.com) divider line 101
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4606 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Jul 2014 at 2:54 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-22 11:12:39 AM  
A billion views of revenue-making professional product is a bit different from somebody's kid dancing while a radio plays.
 
2014-07-22 11:17:19 AM  

ZAZ: A billion views of revenue-making professional product is a bit different from somebody's kid dancing while a radio plays.


No kidding.  In case subby is unaware, YouTube pays people that run big-number channels.  Jenna Marbles makes like $100K/year, for instance, just from YouTube.
 
2014-07-22 11:17:23 AM  
You know who else committed similar heinous crimes?

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-22 11:23:35 AM  
I'd infringe her.
 
2014-07-22 11:31:01 AM  
Aren't they skipping some steps here? File DMCA complaints to get the videos taken down and she'll learn pretty quickly once it starts hurting her bottom line.

Or, YouTube has a mechanism where a music owner can just claim a share of ad revenue on an infringing video.

Doesn't sound like the record company is acting in good faith on this one.
 
2014-07-22 11:42:59 AM  

serial_crusher: Aren't they skipping some steps here? File DMCA complaints to get the videos taken down and she'll learn pretty quickly once it starts hurting her bottom line.

Or, YouTube has a mechanism where a music owner can just claim a share of ad revenue on an infringing video.


Maybe they want to negotiate a license based off her profits, rather than just taking what YouTube deems appropriate?

Doesn't sound like the record company is acting in good faith on this one.

Ultra hit Phan with a lawsuit last week, claiming that the YouTube star has repeatedly been told she doesn't possess the necessary rights to use tracks like Kaskade's "4 AM" in her videos, but apparently those warnings have fallen on deaf ears.

Sounds like the record company has repeatedly tried to contact her in good faith and she's ignored them.
 
2014-07-22 11:46:07 AM  

factoryconnection: ZAZ: A billion views of revenue-making professional product is a bit different from somebody's kid dancing while a radio plays.

No kidding.  In case subby is unaware, YouTube pays people that run big-number channels.  Jenna Marbles makes like $100K/year, for instance, just from YouTube.


Part of me is sickened and disgusted by this statistic, but another part of me knows that eventually the revenue streams will dry up, the money will all be spent, and now these people will be looking for a job despite having no real world experience, and nothing to put on a resume other than "spent the last 5 years making videos on Youtube". Of course, by the time that happens I'm sure she'll be on an "I was a Youtube Celebrity" reality series on VH1 with the guy in the Tron Costume and that dude who sang Chocolate Rain, and be getting paid more than is reasonable for that as well.
 
2014-07-22 11:49:00 AM  
So this girl is stupid, I can understand that. But no one around her anywhere told her that she can't do that?
 
2014-07-22 11:54:24 AM  

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Aren't they skipping some steps here? File DMCA complaints to get the videos taken down and she'll learn pretty quickly once it starts hurting her bottom line.

Or, YouTube has a mechanism where a music owner can just claim a share of ad revenue on an infringing video.

Maybe they want to negotiate a license based off her profits, rather than just taking what YouTube deems appropriate?

Doesn't sound like the record company is acting in good faith on this one.

Ultra hit Phan with a lawsuit last week, claiming that the YouTube star has repeatedly been told she doesn't possess the necessary rights to use tracks like Kaskade's "4 AM" in her videos, but apparently those warnings have fallen on deaf ears.

Sounds like the record company has repeatedly tried to contact her in good faith and she's ignored them.


I would have considered DMCA notices to YouTube (which wouldn't have been ignored) a prudent first step in that contact.  "Hey, we pulled your video, but if you'd like to continue using our songs let's work out a deal."
My conspiracy theory is that they knew if it came to that she'd come just stop using their music.  So they contacted her in ways she was less likely to take seriously because they wanted to allow the infringement to continue.  This way they have a bigger bill to finally drop on her now that they've decided to sue.
 
2014-07-22 11:54:55 AM  

spman: Part of me is sickened and disgusted by this statistic, but another part of me knows that eventually the revenue streams will dry up, the money will all be spent, and now these people will be looking for a job despite having no real world experience, and nothing to put on a resume other than "spent the last 5 years making videos on Youtube".


This is an oddly strong and personal reaction.  Why would you be sickened and disgusted by this?  They create products that YouTube uses to get people in front of their ads.  For that, they're paid by YouTube.  They get paid based on actual consumption of their product.  Does it sicken and disgust you that writers, producers, production staff, and actors are paid to create TV, movie, and other professional video content?
 
2014-07-22 11:59:55 AM  

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Aren't they skipping some steps here? File DMCA complaints to get the videos taken down and she'll learn pretty quickly once it starts hurting her bottom line.

Or, YouTube has a mechanism where a music owner can just claim a share of ad revenue on an infringing video.

Maybe they want to negotiate a license based off her profits, rather than just taking what YouTube deems appropriate?

Doesn't sound like the record company is acting in good faith on this one.

Ultra hit Phan with a lawsuit last week, claiming that the YouTube star has repeatedly been told she doesn't possess the necessary rights to use tracks like Kaskade's "4 AM" in her videos, but apparently those warnings have fallen on deaf ears.

Sounds like the record company has repeatedly tried to contact her in good faith and she's ignored them.

I would have considered DMCA notices to YouTube (which wouldn't have been ignored) a prudent first step in that contact.  "Hey, we pulled your video, but if you'd like to continue using our songs let's work out a deal."


They're not required. And here, I think it would be overkill - her videos only use the music as a background. Taking them down simply because of the background music would get people rightly outraged.

It's also a bad move in a negotiation: "hi, we'd like to negotiate in good faith and come to an amicable deal, but before we even approached you, we shut down your business and will hold it hostage unless you agree to our offer."

My conspiracy theory is that they knew if it came to that she'd come just stop using their music.  So they contacted her in ways she was less likely to take seriously because they wanted to allow the infringement to continue.  This way they have a bigger bill to finally drop on her now that they've decided to sue.

There's no need. They can already easily establish willful infringement, and statutory damages are per work, not "per day used" or some other formula, so there's no "bigger bill" to drop on her.

Frankly, I think they did the right thing here. A takedown would be too much, and this suit can (and likely will) be voluntarily dismissed when the parties come to a settlement agreement.
 
2014-07-22 12:02:52 PM  
But Phan's lawyers tell TMZ ... Ultra fully agreed to allow Phan to use the music and feels her videos have promoted their music and "showcased [them] to an international audience."

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/07/21/michelle-phan-lawsuit-kaskade-copyright e d-music-sued-response/#ixzz38DIv3OHF
 
2014-07-22 12:08:35 PM  

LewDux: Ultra fully agreed to allow Phan to use the music


That'd be what this hinges on, and frankly, I'm skeptical... If they had actually licensed the music to her, then they'd have a contract and they'd either not be suing, or suing for breach. And if she had a contract, then she wouldn't be trying a "my videos have promoted their music, so really, they should be thanking me" defense - she'd just be waving the license agreement around.
 
2014-07-22 12:19:19 PM  
FTA: Phan has regularly used (and profited from) music performed by its DJs without permission

"...AND PROFITED FROM..."

Sounds like Subby needs to be taught how basic intellectual property rights work. This is not just ANYONE posting videos to YouTube - this is people posting videos to YouTube FOR PROFIT. At that point, you cannot claim fair use rights for music you're putting in the background. If she ignored multiple warnings, then she is a dumbass.
 
2014-07-22 12:30:38 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: This is not just ANYONE posting videos to YouTube - this is people posting videos to YouTube FOR PROFIT. At that point, you cannot claim fair use rights for music you're putting in the background.


Sure, you can. Say you were posting a video FOR PROFIT that was a review of the music. As long as you're using just a short clip of it, for example purposes during your review, you'd have a great fair use argument. Similarly, you cannot claim fair use when you post the entire music video, without any commentary, simply because you're not making any money off of it.
The profit/non-profit nature of the infringer is not dispositive of fair use - it's merely one factor out of several that are considered together.
 
2014-07-22 12:31:43 PM  

Theaetetus: This is an oddly strong and personal reaction.  Why would you be sickened and disgusted by this?  They create products that YouTube uses to get people in front of their ads.  For that, they're paid by YouTube.  They get paid based on actual consumption of their product.  Does it sicken and disgust you that writers, producers, production staff, and actors are paid to create TV, movie, and other professional video content?

 

It's probably the fact that I begrudge busting my hump working 2 jobs just to support my family while there are other people out there who get paid big bucks for essentially doing nothing, producing low budget content of little to no value to anyone. It's the same sort of feeling people get when the guy in front of them is paying for their filet mignon and crab legs with his WIC card, then getting cash back that he will use to buy his smokes and lotto tickets. It's a very Michael Douglas Falling Down sort of reaction I think.

Now if you told me that Shoenice was making six figures for his Youtube videos, I wouldn't have a problem with that, he earns that money. Someone like Jenna Marbles who brings absolutely nothing to the table besides the fact that she's reasonably attractive? Not so much.
 
2014-07-22 12:37:04 PM  

spman: Theaetetus: This is an oddly strong and personal reaction...


That wasn't me. That was factoryconnection.

And I've found some of Jenna Marbles' stuff to be amusing and moderately educational. Particularly that video where she shows how wildly different dress and makeup can make someone look. It's at least as entertaining as some of the dreck on broadcast television.
 
2014-07-22 12:37:56 PM  

spman: It's probably the fact that I begrudge busting my hump working 2 jobs just to support my family while there are other people out there who get paid big bucks for essentially doing nothing


I think producers of youtube videos are waaaay down the list of people to get pissed at for that.

/didn't even know you could make money on youtube
 
2014-07-22 12:55:59 PM  

Theaetetus: Sure, you can. Say you were posting a video FOR PROFIT that was a review of the music. As long as you're using just a short clip of it, for example purposes during your review


I specifically said "in the background." Using a short clip of a song for a review is different because A) it's news/informational, and B) you're only using just enough of the song to prove a point. That is completely different from using it editorially in the background because you think it sounds cool. Those are two completely different uses.

I'm a television producer and doc filmmaker. I have had many discussions with lawyers about the boundaries of fair use. Of the three big areas - film clips, photos, and music - the music industry is by far the most litigious. On one hand, I'm excited that anyone can be a producer/filmmaker now. On the other hand, the result is that you have a lot of amateurs who don't take the time to educate themselves on the law and get themselves into trouble.
 
2014-07-22 01:08:03 PM  

spman: It's the same sort of feeling people get when the guy in front of them is paying for their filet mignon and crab legs with his WIC card, then getting cash back that he will use to buy his smokes and lotto tickets. It's a very Michael Douglas Falling Down sort of reaction I think.


Ah, so Jenna Marbles (or whomever) is taking your hard-earned tax dollars, paid to her for producing a popular product for a for-profit corporation that positively impacts their bottom line, and using it to buy luxuries on her WIC card.

I can see how being so profoundly confused by life would be a source of rage.
 
2014-07-22 01:50:01 PM  

factoryconnection: spman: It's the same sort of feeling people get when the guy in front of them is paying for their filet mignon and crab legs with his WIC card, then getting cash back that he will use to buy his smokes and lotto tickets. It's a very Michael Douglas Falling Down sort of reaction I think.

Ah, so Jenna Marbles (or whomever) is taking your hard-earned tax dollars, paid to her for producing a popular product for a for-profit corporation that positively impacts their bottom line, and using it to buy luxuries on her WIC card.

I can see how being so profoundly confused by life would be a source of rage.


Did I say that? The comparison I was making is that in both instances, people are being paid to essentially do nothing. I suppose the person taking my tax dollars is probably worse because they actually are doing nothing, as opposed to the pretty girl who has to sit in front of her computer once a week for 5 minutes and record a video where she says and does nothing worth watching.

I suppose I could hone in and say that the main crux of my outrage is the fact that if you gave all of her exact same material to a man, or another girl who wasn't attractive by the normal standards of our society, no one would give it a second thought. If she was funny, or smart, or clever, that would be fine, but there's only two things people are watching her videos for, and it ain't her eyes.
 
2014-07-22 02:11:42 PM  

spman: Did I say that? The comparison I was making is that in both instances, people are being paid to essentially do nothing. I suppose the person taking my tax dollars is probably worse because they actually are doing nothing, as opposed to the pretty girl who has to sit in front of her computer once a week for 5 minutes and record a video where she says and does nothing worth watching.


You may find it uninteresting and "not worth watching" but millions of people a month donate their eyeballs and advertising-sensitive brains to the cause and make lots of money for Google.  They have something interesting to share.

Maybe you should figure out something interesting and, with a mere five minutes per week, you can also get in on this.  It definitely doesn't require planning, writing, editing, promoting or anything like that.  Millions of viewers are clamoring for it.
 
2014-07-22 02:19:37 PM  

factoryconnection: spman: Did I say that? The comparison I was making is that in both instances, people are being paid to essentially do nothing. I suppose the person taking my tax dollars is probably worse because they actually are doing nothing, as opposed to the pretty girl who has to sit in front of her computer once a week for 5 minutes and record a video where she says and does nothing worth watching.

You may find it uninteresting and "not worth watching" but millions of people a month donate their eyeballs and advertising-sensitive brains to the cause and make lots of money for Google.  They have something interesting to share.

Maybe you should figure out something interesting and, with a mere five minutes per week, you can also get in on this.  It definitely doesn't require planning, writing, editing, promoting or anything like that.  Millions of viewers are clamoring for it.


I suppose you're right, I guess all I can do is sit back and wait for the premiere of "Ow My Balls" any day now. Actually, that's not such a bad idea for a Youtube show, people would watch that, right?
 
2014-07-22 03:02:22 PM  
I'm awaiting the day when RIAA lawyers visit my local Goodwill with warrants to seize the iPods from the managers offices that have been playing stereo songs over mono systems. Gonna find out why Muzak exists.
 
2014-07-22 03:03:04 PM  

spman: factoryconnection: ZAZ: A billion views of revenue-making professional product is a bit different from somebody's kid dancing while a radio plays.

No kidding.  In case subby is unaware, YouTube pays people that run big-number channels.  Jenna Marbles makes like $100K/year, for instance, just from YouTube.

Part of me is sickened and disgusted by this statistic, but another part of me knows that eventually the revenue streams will dry up, the money will all be spent, and now these people will be looking for a job despite having no real world experience, and nothing to put on a resume other than "spent the last 5 years making videos on Youtube". Of course, by the time that happens I'm sure she'll be on an "I was a Youtube Celebrity" reality series on VH1 with the guy in the Tron Costume and that dude who sang Chocolate Rain, and be getting paid more than is reasonable for that as well.


I want to go on record that Tay Zonday is a national treasure and your argument has lost merit for making fun of him.
 
2014-07-22 03:04:49 PM  
I'm trying to figure out how it's even possible?

I tried to upload a video once with the theme from "The High and the Mighty" in the background and the audio was removed automatically.
The video never even posted with audio.

Why did they catch mine but this chick has been doing it since 2006?
 
2014-07-22 03:05:51 PM  

spman: factoryconnection: spman: It's the same sort of feeling people get when the guy in front of them is paying for their filet mignon and crab legs with his WIC card, then getting cash back that he will use to buy his smokes and lotto tickets. It's a very Michael Douglas Falling Down sort of reaction I think.

Ah, so Jenna Marbles (or whomever) is taking your hard-earned tax dollars, paid to her for producing a popular product for a for-profit corporation that positively impacts their bottom line, and using it to buy luxuries on her WIC card.

I can see how being so profoundly confused by life would be a source of rage.

Did I say that? The comparison I was making is that in both instances, people are being paid to essentially do nothing. I suppose the person taking my tax dollars is probably worse because they actually are doing nothing, as opposed to the pretty girl who has to sit in front of her computer once a week for 5 minutes and record a video where she says and does nothing worth watching.

I suppose I could hone in and say that the main crux of my outrage is the fact that if you gave all of her exact same material to a man, or another girl who wasn't attractive by the normal standards of our society, no one would give it a second thought. If she was funny, or smart, or clever, that would be fine, but there's only two things people are watching her videos for, and it ain't her eyes.


For some reason 6.5 million people find her important.  That sucks but that is life.   There will always be dumbasses out there and it is up to those who provide their entertainment to exploit them.
 
2014-07-22 03:06:36 PM  

serial_crusher: I would have considered DMCA notices to YouTube (which wouldn't have been ignored) a prudent first step in that contact. "Hey, we pulled your video, but if you'd like to continue using our songs let's work out a deal."


Considering that people get DMCA takedowns for birds chirping, I don't take DMCA takedowns seriously. If you send YouTube a DMCA Takedown for a video, they will take it down, no questions asked. They don't even bother to ask if the takedown is even legitimate.
 
2014-07-22 03:18:45 PM  
There are probably a lot of legal happenings behind the scenes that went on before reaching this point.
 
2014-07-22 03:20:17 PM  

factoryconnection: ZAZ: A billion views of revenue-making professional product is a bit different from somebody's kid dancing while a radio plays.

No kidding.  In case subby is unaware, YouTube pays people that run big-number channels.  Jenna Marbles makes like $100K/year, for instance, just from YouTube.


Heck, my 14 year old son has earned a hundred bucks so far from his boring (to most people) electronic and mechanical project videos.  The money helps, too - you know how much enamel coated copper wire (aka "magnet wire) costs these days?

But yeah, if she received and ignored C&Ds, she should be prepared to burn in court.

/Shameless plug: son's YT channel
 
2014-07-22 03:36:50 PM  

spman: I suppose you're right, I guess all I can do is sit back and wait for the premiere of "Ow My Balls" any day now.


It's on ABC. They call it "Wipeout", but it's the same premise.
 
2014-07-22 03:51:07 PM  
This is a tough row, the law aside. There has been more than one artist that I have become familiar with because their music was (illegally) background music to another video. One example is Inna. They should be careful, Phan will just stop using their music and then they will be poorer as a result.

As for Jenna Marbles, I like her. She's funny and creative. I don't subscribe but drop by her channel from time to time.

I love this one by her...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQxHlr2fXM
 
2014-07-22 03:51:11 PM  
If you post a bunch of videos on YouTube which has have music in the background and make a ton of money off them, don't be surprised when you receive a bill for $150,000, per track

I'll reserve my outrage for those times when the greedy assholes aren't going after the right people, thanks. Fair use doesn't mean it's fair for you to use other people's stuff in your money-making venture without obtaining their permission.
 
2014-07-22 03:51:55 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Considering that people get DMCA takedowns for birds chirping, I don't take DMCA takedowns seriously.


If you're making a profit off of your YouTube videos, you should probably start taking them seriously. Don't they usually name the copyright holder that is claiming you're using their intellectual property?
 
2014-07-22 03:53:24 PM  
NOW they start, where the fark were you people when Beeber was doing this 5 years ago?????
 
2014-07-22 03:56:03 PM  

Theaetetus: shower_in_my_socks: This is not just ANYONE posting videos to YouTube - this is people posting videos to YouTube FOR PROFIT. At that point, you cannot claim fair use rights for music you're putting in the background.

Sure, you can. Say you were posting a video FOR PROFIT that was a review of the music. As long as you're using just a short clip of it, for example purposes during your review, you'd have a great fair use argument. Similarly, you cannot claim fair use when you post the entire music video, without any commentary, simply because you're not making any money off of it.
The profit/non-profit nature of the infringer is not dispositive of fair use - it's merely one factor out of several that are considered together.


What's the statute on AMVs?
 
2014-07-22 03:58:36 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: If you're making a profit off of your YouTube videos, you should probably start taking them seriously. Don't they usually name the copyright holder that is claiming you're using their intellectual property?


That's true, but I think he's talking more about automated DMCA takedown "services" that just comb sites like Google and Youtube with bots that try to match found content to copyrighted material. When they find a match a form letter is fired off threatening the poster without consideration for fair use, whether the person DOES have permission or whether or not the match was even valid. HBO once sent an automated letter to Google demanding it take down "infringing" content that was actually on hbo.com, for example.

Everything about the DMCA is completely wrong. It's an absolute atrocity as far as copyright law goes.
 
2014-07-22 03:58:50 PM  
I approve of that when it happens to those who deserve it, which is never, so I disapprove of it.
 
2014-07-22 03:59:27 PM  

worlddan: This is a tough row, the law aside. There has been more than one artist that I have become familiar with because their music was (illegally) background music to another video. One example is Inna. They should be careful, Phan will just stop using their music and then they will be poorer as a result.


They don't need your promotion. That's an old claim that bands always hate. Even your local bar band complains about local bars refusing to pay because "Dude, you're getting promoted!" The answer to that is always "Ok. The next time you hire a plumber, when he's done tell him you aren't going to pay him, but you'll be sure to tell your friends about him."

I have no issue with people using whatever music they want in videos that aren't being posted for profit, even though technically you can have your videos pulled for that, too. But as soon as you turn those videos into a business, you need to start paying whenever the use is outside the scope of what's considered "fair use." There are plenty of affordable music libraries out there that someone making $1,000s per year off of their videos can easily afford to license from.

The other reason I support going after people doing for-profit videos is that there's no clear line to draw between them and someone like Sony Pictures. So now the next Spider-man movie can use a Led Zeppelin song for free and tell the band "Don't worry, we're promoting you!"
 
2014-07-22 04:01:18 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: worlddan: This is a tough row, the law aside. There has been more than one artist that I have become familiar with because their music was (illegally) background music to another video. One example is Inna. They should be careful, Phan will just stop using their music and then they will be poorer as a result.

They don't need your promotion.


Except, if you had bothered to read the article, at least one of the artists in question thinks they do in fact need Phan's promotion.
 
2014-07-22 04:13:37 PM  
Somebody hep me. If I post a video of something with my images, but with the audio of a movie (I got an idea for a really whacked out 2001 mashup) just for my own amusement, not making money, is that considered Fair Use? Or do the lawyers get to cut off my balls?
 
2014-07-22 04:14:13 PM  

worlddan: shower_in_my_socks: worlddan: This is a tough row, the law aside. There has been more than one artist that I have become familiar with because their music was (illegally) background music to another video. One example is Inna. They should be careful, Phan will just stop using their music and then they will be poorer as a result.

They don't need your promotion.

Except, if you had bothered to read the article, at least one of the artists in question thinks they do in fact need Phan's promotion.


He's just trying to get in her pants.
 
2014-07-22 04:15:34 PM  

spman: factoryconnection: ZAZ: A billion views of revenue-making professional product is a bit different from somebody's kid dancing while a radio plays.

No kidding.  In case subby is unaware, YouTube pays people that run big-number channels.  Jenna Marbles makes like $100K/year, for instance, just from YouTube.

Part of me is sickened and disgusted by this statistic, but another part of me knows that eventually the revenue streams will dry up, the money will all be spent, and now these people will be looking for a job despite having no real world experience, and nothing to put on a resume other than "spent the last 5 years making videos on Youtube". Of course, by the time that happens I'm sure she'll be on an "I was a Youtube Celebrity" reality series on VH1 with the guy in the Tron Costume and that dude who sang Chocolate Rain, and be getting paid more than is reasonable for that as well.


She already has a SiriusXM show
 
2014-07-22 04:18:37 PM  
If Flicker monetized like Youtube, I'd be a wealthy man.

/curses the fates that give me talent in effectively non-profitable fields
//tiny, tiny fist
 
2014-07-22 04:22:43 PM  

worlddan: shower_in_my_socks: worlddan: This is a tough row, the law aside. There has been more than one artist that I have become familiar with because their music was (illegally) background music to another video. One example is Inna. They should be careful, Phan will just stop using their music and then they will be poorer as a result.

They don't need your promotion.

Except, if you had bothered to read the article, at least one of the artists in question thinks they do in fact need Phan's promotion.


Sounds like it was more of a business decision that the money made off of the "free advertising" Phan gets that artist beats any money he'd make off of royalties from her.  And DEFINITELY beats the big fat zero he'd make if she's wiped out.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-22 04:37:03 PM  
skozlaw

The alternative to DMCA is not "no copyright in cyberspace." The alternative to DMCA is making service providers liable for their customers' content without prior notice of claim.

Any company is free to ignore takedown notices. The company is then in the same position it would have been without the DMCA.
 
2014-07-22 04:45:09 PM  
I support a $150,000 fine for the posters who seem to go out of their way to assault my eardrums with the most obnoxious music they can find.
 
2014-07-22 04:47:54 PM  

Vash's Apprentice: Theaetetus: shower_in_my_socks: This is not just ANYONE posting videos to YouTube - this is people posting videos to YouTube FOR PROFIT. At that point, you cannot claim fair use rights for music you're putting in the background.

Sure, you can. Say you were posting a video FOR PROFIT that was a review of the music. As long as you're using just a short clip of it, for example purposes during your review, you'd have a great fair use argument. Similarly, you cannot claim fair use when you post the entire music video, without any commentary, simply because you're not making any money off of it.
The profit/non-profit nature of the infringer is not dispositive of fair use - it's merely one factor out of several that are considered together.

What's the statute on AMVs?


It's infringing both the copyright of the music publisher and the copyright of the anime publisher. It's quite transformative on the anime side, since you're cutting and selecting different parts, like a collage, so you'd have a stronger argument for fair use there. On the music side, though, not a chance.
They might take it down, or they might come after you. Less likely for the latter, though, unless you start making a profit off ads or something.
 
2014-07-22 04:52:39 PM  

spman: factoryconnection: ZAZ: A billion views of revenue-making professional product is a bit different from somebody's kid dancing while a radio plays.

No kidding.  In case subby is unaware, YouTube pays people that run big-number channels.  Jenna Marbles makes like $100K/year, for instance, just from YouTube.

Part of me is sickened and disgusted by this statistic, but another part of me knows that eventually the revenue streams will dry up, the money will all be spent, and now these people will be looking for a job despite having no real world experience, and nothing to put on a resume other than "spent the last 5 years making videos on Youtube". Of course, by the time that happens I'm sure she'll be on an "I was a Youtube Celebrity" reality series on VH1 with the guy in the Tron Costume and that dude who sang Chocolate Rain, and be getting paid more than is reasonable for that as well.


It'll dry up when they start getting old looking and can no longer connect to young viewers.
 
2014-07-22 04:54:17 PM  

spman: t's probably the fact that I begrudge busting my hump working 2 jobs just to support my family while there are other people out there who get paid big bucks for essentially doing nothing, producing low budget content of little to no value to anyone...


Yes, it sucks that you're untalented while some people aren't. Know what's even worse? You probably do have talents you could exploit and create better lives for yourself and your family, but you never will. You may never even discover what they are. Shoulda paid attention in school.

We gotta install microwave ovens
Custom kitchen deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour TV's
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report