Decrescent Daytripper wrote:

satyreyes wrote:

On the other hand, my outrage aside, the AMV's masher-upper hasn't harmed me.  He hasn't broken my leg or stolen my TV.

They have stolen from you, though.  They stole your song.  That song is your property.  They stole a bit of the money you could garner from the song, and even if there is some other/new audience/money coming your way, it's coming to you from a commercial source (say, youtube) in a way you may not be comfortable with.  Think of politicians using songs without licensing them - or without artist participation - to further their campaigns or establish a public image.  Copyright means the right to make copies before it means anything else; controlling the production.  And the use may irrevocably alter the perception of the song for (a percentage of) the audience.

This last piece in particular I think is off target.  Sarah Palin doesn't have the right to control people's perception of her; Campbell's Soup doesn't have the right to control people's perception of its soup; why should I get the right to control people's perception of my music?

As for the rest of it, yes, that's certainly how copyright works.  I'm just contemplating whether it's fair to try to apply the same legal standard to intangible things like songs that we apply to tangible things like TVs.  The difference, of course, is that if you steal my TV, I don't have it anymore, while if you "steal" my song, I still have it.  This isn't stealing, it's sharing by force -- which does diminish my power over the song.  But I'm having trouble finding an intellectually consistent middle ground between "artists should have total power over their creations; no one should be able to use those copyrighted creations for any reason without the artist's permission, not even for parody or interpretive art" and "artists should have no power over their creations; once they're released they should be in the public domain for anyone to do anything they want with, including commercially."  Both are clearly too extreme, but is there any philosophically internally consistent compromise?  We can talk about a pragmatic compromise, of course, as the current law does, but then talking about whether artists "should" be doing this or whether Pirate Bay "should" be doing that becomes meaningless.

Next thing you know, they will be trying to remove Abridged Series(not that most of them are worth a damn) cos they use footage of the series.

satyreyes wrote:

This last piece in particular I think is off target.  Sarah Palin doesn't have the right to control people's perception of her; Campbell's Soup doesn't have the right to control people's perception of its soup; why should I get the right to control people's perception of my music?

Actually, they do, both as individuals and corporations.  That's all a defamation suit is often enough.  Libel, slander, including that by inference of the context in which you put a person (be it digitially fitting someone into a photograph of neo-nazis, or putting a Tom Waits sound-a-like in your car commercial).  And, yes, Waits won that one.

And I think it's important to remember that not everyone working for WMG is a superfab millionaire.  Heck average sound person on a major-selling album might not even be that wealthy.  (Of course, even that money they already have could be distributed more fairly, but...)

Intellectual property is difficult to defend, especially on the basis of physicality, which unfortunately, our laws are still pretty wrapped around.  The laws do need revising, but if intellectual property isn't has significant as physical property, is the work behind it as significant or worth the money?

If you think the representatives of the music in question are wrong here, legally or ethically, take it to court.  If you don't want to pay the costs yourself, get other AMV-makers together, spread the cost amongst you, and take it to court.  Or, put them online somewhere else and wait for a company or individual to sue you, then fight fight fight.

I sample a lot, via internet, via borrowing, burning from friends, fansubs... but if I still own something by the time there's a commercial version available to me, I plunk the money down.  Because I've been on the other end, and it ain't fun.

Mylene wrote:

Tamago wrote:

Next thing you know, they will be trying to remove Abridged Series(not that most of them are worth a damn) cos they use footage of the series.

I thought one of the abridged series (Naruto?) had already had issues with being removed.

The (as far as I know) first abridged youtube series, Yugioh, moved off to its own site quite a while back due to the videos being removed.
 
The thing is, regardless of the moral or legal issues involved, as long as people are capable of downloading music for free on the internet they will. As such, I would think youtube videos are responsible for such a small number of nonsales as compared to actual music download sites, that this is all a kind of misdirected effort. If someone feels strongly about a song they'll pay the money for it, I certainly do when I'm able.

In terms of how much control an artist can have over their art, again not looking at it legally, I think it does matter whether the art has been purchased or not. If I pay for a copy of a song I feel entitled to do with it as I please to a reasonable extent. Likewise if I buy a block of cheese. I don't care if it's art or not, that particular copy has become my property because the artist willingly sold it to me. If I tried to charge people to listen to it, or played it freely in a concert hall I can understand getting in some trouble. But there's clearly not enough of a taboo about sharing music over the internet to keep the average person from doing so.

Mylene wrote:

I watch fansubs (of unlicensed series--oh, and the second half of Kodocha since Funi's being obnoxious about it--but I'll be one of the first to preorder if they ever decide to release it), I download anime mp3s sometimes (usually when there doesn't seem to be any other way to get them--I want "Boy" from Figure 17, but it's only been released on one album, which is only being sold at one store that I can find, and I don't know if they're reputable), etc.

Utena:  Mylene! I misjudged you!
Miki:  I'm so disillusioned!

Somehow its a bit like when suing someone for some slight that most people wouldn't waste their time on otherwise, sure you could sue but what sort of precedent will it lead to?

Decrescent Daytripper wrote:

Ragnarok wrote:

If I pay for a copy of a song I feel entitled to do with it as I please to a reasonable extent. Likewise if I buy a block of cheese. I don't care if it's art or not, that particular copy has become my property because the artist willingly sold it to me.

So, when you use it in an AMV, you have to get rid of your other copy.  And only have one copy of the AMV.  Otherwise, you aren't doing something with your one copy, you're making copies.  And if you can make those copies, than copyright doesn't mean anything.

I did specify I wasn't going by the legal standards. Although to my knowledge it is legal to make a backup. And then if you do want to get nitty-gritty with it "I uploaded a single AMV with a single copy of the song, the copies that were made from that AMV via the internet are entirely the responsibility of the individual downloaders. They made those copies on their own computers without my express consent or knowledge."

I wasn't defending the use of songs in AMV's, and the hypothetical argument I just wrote is more a validation to stop people from having access to songs on websites. I'm simply stating that the purchase of something does affect what a person perceives is their entitlement. Laws are, afterall, judgement calls to begin with.

Decrescent Daytripper wrote:

There has to be another way to handle the whole affair.  Whether it's extrapolating from the argument that you should be able to digitize for yourself intellectual property you've already purchased in a hard, physical format, or something totally new, there has to be a better way.

If you'll excuse the source of the link, Daniel James had some interesting thoughts on a subject vaguely in the same area.

Last edited by Ragnarok (02-25-2009 03:52:52 PM)

Couldn't some AMVs defend the use of the songs under parody?? That has been defended successfully before.

Which means that since all Abridged Series use actual show footage, they would technecally need permission to use it... that would spell the end of any amateur based work then as more often than not, using the original footage is part of the point.

Its not like AMVs where it is theoretically possible to convert them into low quality mp3s so you can pirate the music, you cant convert the Abridged Series back into a normal series.

They (Big Businesses) only seem to care about it now because its gained some level of popularity.

I hope this is not going too far out of this thread's theme but what about fanfiction? Unlike the other things like AMVs and the Abridged stuff, the only aspects of the original most fanfics seem to use are the character names, maybe their discriptions and maybe the setting.

I use the maybes before because I read fanfics that are essensually original-ish work with a character or two names added in to attract more readers.

The problem with encouraging fanfiction can be the legal issues of the original author/controlling entity producing follow-ups.  Anne McCaffrey famously permitted and encouraged fanfic writers using her characters and situations, only to find herself later sued by fic writers who believed their work (basic plot points, character types) were being coopted by McCaffrey in her newer works.

It isn't that most fanfic writers are going to cause grief or expense, or most AMV-makers, fanartists, or the kid who torrents a Summer blockbuster to watch on her laptop during a roadtrip.

These cases all depend, really, on the specifics of how the case is approached, legally and publicly.

I still can't help but think about Kaavya Viswanathan, whose YA novel was pulled from the shelves, and whose career has been basically eradicated, because of appropriation, not of entire passages, but the structure of passages from works in the same genre.  Basically, she madlibbed paragraphs from about seven to ten other YA and chick lit novels in the body of her own fiction.

William Burroughs or any half a dozen Modernists does it, it's acceptable and brilliant.  Kathy Acker pulled it off through sheer academic aggression.  But when the practice was in the so-called "chick lit" genre, they kinda pilloried the author and then forgot about it.  A perfect example of how innate these self-reflexive and multilevel interactions are, that we really are a remix culture, truly postmodern.  And the result wasn't celebration or even just a raised eyebrow and letting pass; condemnation.

Iris, SO many of your vids are gone...I'm shocked and saddened. House of Flies, I want House of Flies...
As you know I love your vids. If you post the bulk of them somewhere else can you please let me know? I want to be able to watch them.

* * *

Another Utena one of mine got taken down (Angels by Evanescence, Akio/Anthy/Utena), since I first posted this thread. Actually I think more have been taken down today but I'm too depressed to go and look. I've got to say it's upsetting not to be able to use Evanescence to vid to anymore. Or Muse for that matter - apparently all Muse songs are going.

The video-makers group I belong to for Xena editors is moving off youtube.

I'm also participating in a Multi Editor Project at the moment for multiple animes (I'm doing Utena of course), set to a megamix a fan made of mashing up Evanescence and t.A.T.u. Since Evanescence music is WMG, I wonder if that means they'll take down this megamix too...that would be pretty disheartening after all the group work and sense of community art.

* * *

Sidenote: One of the protest videos I was watching suggested people fax/phone WMG and youtube and lodge complains. Would such action make any difference though? I'm weighing up whether to do it.