 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2009-07-20 13:59
Yet another copyright (phonograph, etc) infringement on Youtube...... (both Anderson and the Boston Pops).
The law just doesn't matter anymore as it is becoming irrelevant by sites like Google allowing tracks to be posted without any though asto what's legal or not.
We hear about a few cases in the news, but there is a vast majority of stuff that's illegal as all he*l that's on the net and unchallenged.
That's the producer side of me coming out.
Cool video though!
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-07-20 16:11
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> Yet another copyright (phonograph, etc) infringement on
> Youtube...... (both Anderson and the Boston Pops).
>
> The law just doesn't matter anymore as it is becoming
> irrelevant by sites like Google allowing tracks to be posted
> without any though asto what's legal or not.
Copyright infringement is a big problem on YouTube. If a copyright owner complains, YouTube is supposed to take down the video or at least mute the sound if we're talking about music. It's a lot of trouble to lodge a complaint for every violation, though.
On the other hand, there are some copyright owners (including some record labels, I understand) who have worked out a deal with YouTube where they don't take down the offending videos, but, rather, affix advertisements to them and give the copyright owners a share in the revenue stream from the ads. It turns out that in a lot of cases this ends up being a better deal economically for the copyright owners.
And then there's Monty Python, who've actually seen an increase in sales after giving away free content. People who like the clips are more likely to buy the full Monty on DVD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGqX-tkDXEk
Post Edited (2009-07-20 16:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2009-07-20 19:33
Or this continuing trend may be an indication that the law needs to be revamped to match the changing nature of media, rather than extended to ensure the continuing viability of an increasingly antiquated business model.
There is a wealth of really cool new art and expression that would be (and is being) stifled by rigid copyright rules. After all, copyright originally came about as a means of ENCOURAGING people to create, in order to enrich society as a whole, not as a means of ensuring profits.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2009-07-20 19:54
There are music tracks that can be added instead of the sound on videos on youtube. The owner of that track gets credit on the file and an option to purchase is provided.
People these days think that they can just sample, take, steal whatever they want to, and there are no laws against it.
Copyright is to protect the interests of the creator, not the thief or borrower.
To me there should be an approval method for each and every video posted on youtube with someone who can check for violations just like if you put something up on Itunes someone is checking for that.
Youtube is taking the easy way out by just stating that "if the owner has a problem contact us and we will see what we can do" or something like that.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2009-07-20 21:25
The sheer volume of content, and the incredible breadth of possible source material would seem to make such a plan quite infeasible. Someone posting to iTunes has typically spent considerable time rehearsing, recording, mastering, marketing. The typical YouTube post may have taken all of 20 minutes to prepare. I think the current system is an adequate compromise for the time being.
Adding a track *instead of* the audio isn't particularly helpful in cases where alignment with video or a combination of the music with other audio (as in the video above) is involved, nor in cases when the desired song is not an option.
The problem with sampling, remixing, etc. is that it is prohibitively difficult, both logistically and financially, for the average non-label-affiliated upstart or 14-year-old to obtain proper rights (not to mention that very little is in the public domain), so rather than attempting to navigate bureaucratic hell, and not content to forego their music-reliant ideas, the average basement-dwelling creator opts to create their really cool idea without the blessing of the powers that be.
Ideally, some new system and some revamping of laws will take place that allows the average Joe to manifest their ideas that build on those of others affordably while still providing enough incentive for continued creation of higher caliber works. Unfortunately, the powers that be seem awfully reluctant to even consider anything that challenges the current outmoded model, even in cases where the current model is harmful to the very artists it was created to help, and to society at large.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2009-07-21 02:43
The video itself is pretty wild. The Principal trumpet of All State VA. band 1978 could do that with his hands. He played Stars and Stripes at Lunch and it was crazy.
He tried to show us how to do it, but still clueless.......
A guy did that stuff on the Americas got Talent show but got eliminated pretty quickly.
I thought it was cool!
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-07-21 09:31
I can only do owl noises with my hands held like that, and only a limited range - definitely nothing like this bloke.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2009-07-21 11:03
"increase in sales after giving away free content."
The "free samples" marketing concept has been around since Moses but then the "record labels" and lawyers found a way to get their cut. Getting rid of the middle men is what the "new wave" is all about and it's technology....not laws... that's allowing it to happen and directing more profit to the artist himself. Maybe this is what Milton Friedman was getting at.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-07-21 15:15
BobD wrote:
> Getting rid of the middle men is what the "new
> wave" is all about and it's technology....not laws... that's
> allowing it to happen and directing more profit to the artist
> himself.
Exactly. We don't really need the record companies anymore because current technology makes it unnecessary to manufacture physical recordings to distribute one's music. This is great news for musicians, because it is no big secret that the economics of making and selling recordings has until now favored the record companies at the expense of the performers.
There is still is need for copyright law in one form or another, however, to protect recording artists' right to commercialize their material.
The main difference between what is going on with YouTube and with older concepts of free samples (such as radio airplay) is that with YouTube, many of the free samples do not originate with the copyright owners. In other words, with YouTube some copyright owners are content to allow others to infringe on their works in a limited way so as to create interest in the works. It's infringement and illegal, but sometimes it makes economic sense to let it happen.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
