What?!?! That sucks. Why can't they just be happy that people like their music?

this is wretched!

it's happened to a number of videos i've favorite'd there.
T 3T

It's pretty lame when you think again it because even if they are successful in preventing piracy, their profits will not increase by very much in the short term and it might end up costing them in the long term

I'd noticed that, sadly for me this all the more reason to continue donwloading mp3s etc left right and centre, because big companies are absolute bastards and do things like this.
*Has several somewhat commie family members and is becoming more sympathetic to them*.

Mylene wrote:

There are plenty of legitimate ways to hear songs for free, so the "Well maybe someone would hear it and like it and might possibly go buy it" argument doesn't work.  Last.fm, Yahoo! music, Pandora, occasional free MP3 downloads on Amazon, sample clips on numerous commercial sites, artists' official website/MySpace music pages, the radio...just to name a few.

As these are all additional ways to hear the music for free, how are they more beneficial to the company? If I hear a song I like on youtube wouldn't I more likely find a pure audio, high quality file to download instead of the entire video? (I would.)

Ragnarok wrote:

Mylene wrote:

There are plenty of legitimate ways to hear songs for free, so the "Well maybe someone would hear it and like it and might possibly go buy it" argument doesn't work.  Last.fm, Yahoo! music, Pandora, occasional free MP3 downloads on Amazon, sample clips on numerous commercial sites, artists' official website/MySpace music pages, the radio...just to name a few.

As these are all additional ways to hear the music for free, how are they more beneficial to the company? If I hear a song I like on youtube wouldn't I more likely find a pure audio, high quality file to download instead of the entire video? (I would.)

The company and artist receive compensation for these other methods of free music, regardless of whether or not you decide to get your own version.  They get nothing if you're watching it through an illegal source and choose not to take the next step (which many people do not.)

Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:

Which is the gist of the excerpt I posted from the wikipedia entry.  I was being charitable in calling it a grey area, but you're right.

Now, if you're using something released under a Creative Commons license (like the last couple of NIN albums, for example), that's perfectly legal, as long as the work made with it is also released under a CC license and credits the work from which it is derived.

I thought the checklist might help people visualize a bit better than a wall of text.  It's certainly helped me to figure things out a lot better.

I love Creative Commons, it allows the people who want to be freer to be freer while at the same time still establishing their intellectual property.  I'd love to see a greater trend towards such things.  Even Kadokawa (I think it's Kadokawa) is embracing such concepts by allowing fans to submit content using their content onto their Youtube area, and if they like it'll they put it up and it's completely legit.

Last edited by Mylene (02-24-2009 05:43:47 PM)

Are they only cracking down at YouTube, or are places like animemusicvideos.org also being affected?

Mylene wrote:

I thought the checklist might help people visualize a bit better than a wall of text.  It's certainly helped me to figure things out a lot better.

I love Creative Commons, it allows the people who want to be freer to be freer while at the same time still establishing their intellectual property.  I'd love to see a greater trend towards such things.  Even Kadokawa (I think it's Kadokawa) is embracing such concepts by allowing fans to submit content using their content onto their Youtube area, and if they like it'll they put it up and it's completely legit.

Copyright is about creators, not corporate greed.

That list you posted was much more direct and to the point Mylene, I learned quite a bit there!  To me, AMVs are at best appropriation art, at worst fans going "look at me, I can use video editing software!", so I can't share their disappointment/anger with what's happening to them on Youtube etc.

And before anyone slams me with "it's my creative expression, so it's legitimate art, they can't take it from me!", I took classes for multimedia and design too, so I'm familiar with classroom use of copyrighted material for school projects.  In an academic environment, an AMV could probably pass for a viable video project in a classroom.  But once it's posted online for entertainment purposes, as in the list that Mylene posted, the Fair Use terms have been violated.

Anyway, that's just my 2c on it.  I know it's not the popular view to express, but that's just my take on this issue.

Oh my.

*Takes a BIG BREATH*  Here's a list of mine that've gotten taken down.

Change (in the House of Flies) by Deftones Anthy/Akio/Utena focus
Enjoy the Silence by Depeche Mode Anthy/Akio/Utena focus
The Wretched by NIN Akio focus
Replacement by She Wants Revenge Kozue focus
She Will Always Be a Broken Girl by She Wants Revenge Nanami Focus
Slide by the Dresden Dolls Nanami Focus
Girl Anachronism by the Dresden Dolls SKU girls focus
Eye by The Smashing Pumpkins Shiori Focus
Movement of Fear by Tones on Tail Akio focus
How Beautiful you Are by The Cure Mamiya focus


I'm sure I'm forgetting a few.

Because of this, I am very, VERY reluctant to make a new amv or post one.

Last edited by Iris (02-24-2009 08:54:15 PM)

Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:

The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years.

Source: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-d … l#duration

There have been cases, however, where a lack of defense for the copyright has been used to circumvent that time-frame.  This was part of the problem with Charade, was used in Sherman's photos-of-paintings argument, and the argument for Jeff Koons adaptation of other people's photographs/postcards.  And once you lose the copyright - or try to gain it late - you're shit out of luck.  There's the whole Roy Orison/Pretty Woman lift, as well, which set an awkward case-by-case precedent.

I'm kinda glad I never posted any I did (some were posted for me) to an online forum.  We just used ours for throwing up on the wall(s) during parties and other local(ized) amusement.

I don't even think you can use the noncommercial argument with AMVs if you're posting them to something with as much range as youtube.  Personal advertisement is a commercial use.

Last edited by Decrescent Daytripper (02-24-2009 09:10:45 PM)

It seems to me there are actually two issues here.  The first is whether copyright holders ought morally to have the right to police how their work is used noncommercially.  The second is whether, given that they definitely do have the legal right to do this, doing it is actually in their best interest.

I'll start with the second, just to dispense with it.  One thing the recession has taught me is that companies, especially large corporations, are not as good at looking out for their own best interest as I used to assume they are.  That said, I think this problem is too complicated to solve without access to actual data.  There is probably a set of people who are less likely to buy "Baby Got Back" because they can look it up on YouTube for free.  There is probably a set of people who are more likely to buy "Baby Got Back" because they heard it on YouTube.  It's not obvious which effect is stronger.  You'd have to study it.  Speaking from my own experience, I can say that there are a number of anime, including Utena, that I would never have purchased if I hadn't watched them for free first; video pirating has in my case been a boon to video companies.  Similarly, I bought the Avenue Q soundtrack from iTunes because I heard "The Internet Is For Porn" on albinoblacksheep.com and thought it was hilarious.  On the other hand, I bought an album by an obscure band called Espers on the strength of a good review I read on the Internet and was disappointed.  If I'd been able to look their songs up online and had done so, I wouldn't have bought the album.  My bias is to think that WMG is overall making a bad move in removing the videos, but it's a bias, and to speak authoritatively on it a person would have to actually study the problem.

As for the moral aspect, I'm torn.  On one hand, I imagine creating and producing a song that meant the world to me.  A lot of work went into it, not to mention the portion of my soul I invested in it, and what I produced was a work of art, a succinct yet clarion expression of something vivid and true.  Then I go online and see someone has done an awful DragonBallZ mashup set to the score of my masterpiece.  I am not flattered; I am outraged.  My work has been trivialized, given a context where it becomes vapid and pedestrian.  This guy on YouTube is not expressing anything of value; he isn't a satirist criticizing my song through the medium of anime, nor a student of anime trying to elucidate the emotional subtleties of DragonBallZ by juxtaposing it with my song.  He just made a stupid mashup for him and his friends to laugh at.  When I see him doing that, I want to say: No.  You don't get to do that.  Not to my song.  And it's true: I wrote it, I sang it, it's on the CD I produced; doesn't that count for anything?  Shouldn't I get to decide who gets to use my work and how?  Or at least get to stop people from committing violence against it?

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.  He's just used a song he legitimately bought in a way I hate.  People do things other people hate all the time.  Tomorrow night on the Daily Show will be Jon Stewart making fun of Bobby Jindal six ways from Sunday, taking quotes out of context, playing them side by side with Kenneth the Page and Mr. Rogers, whatever he can think of to denigrate Jindal -- but no one says that Jindal should be able to shut down that part of the program because he doesn't like what Jon is doing to his speech.  It's not just because Jon's show is satire and comedy and hence art, either; no one would ever consider banning mashups of speeches in any context.  Once you say something in a speech it's out there for the world to twist however they want.  Why is music different?  Is oratory less an art than music?  No.  The only substantial difference is that Jindal's speech was itself noncommercial, while I'm making money from the song I wrote.  So an artist's rights to control his creation have nothing to do with protecting his artistry; they have everything to do with money.

That seems wrong to me.  I think I would disagree with a copyright law that says that when you create something you get to control it in order to protect it, but I could understand its logic.  But copyright laws that discriminate between authors of the kind of art you sell and authors of the kind of art that's free to everyone don't seem logical to me, because whether you sell the art doesn't bear on the art.

TL;DR: I don't know whether this is a good commercial decision for WMG, but I think the system that allows them to make the call is illogical because it discriminates between art-for-profit and non-profit art.

Hmm. What you guys have said is interesting, but I'm still of the opinion that WMG can afford the loss of .01 pennies while I enjoy listening to some music I downloaded. As can Robbie Williams, Abba, Metallica et al. Frankly I have no moral scruples about it whatsoever, although I can understand why people might. Maybe when I live in an enormous mansion, can afford to buy 4 cars and have enough money to ensure that my mum can keep the heating on and live in a decent house, I'll start worrying about it.
[/bluntness]