Tremolina said:

Sure - 2 sides to every coin. I realise that there are places where they couldn't afford to buy our cd anyway. Also, there is no guarantee, as you say, that the people downloading it would have bought it in the first place. You can also argue that the music is reaching a larger audience and that may well turn in to bookings for gigs (main source of income!) that we wouldn't have got otherwise. But, its all conjecture and, really, I can't think of many other products that go through that kind of process. Like Ford don't make cars, only to see most disappear and then wonder what the ramification of that product loss is! Music seems to have become a commodity with no value to the consumer and some seem to feel it is right to have free access to music. Naturally, I strongly disagree.

Interesting timing for that last question, as I had a meeting only yesterday where it was discussed and agreed about the way forward. After 6 years of being on record labels and distributing cds in the traditional manner (as well as having them available for d/load through Amazon etc) me and the co-producer decided that we are going to start our own company, incorporating our own label and also start our own dedicated website. We have been busy collating fans emails (with their permission, of course) and we aim to go direct to the fans. Offer them something exclusive to buy the album from us direct and we'll do that for a while BEFORE giving the cd to a traditional distributor to get it in the shops and available for download. We are hoping that by giving our genuine fans the opportunity to buy it before it is generally available, this might minimise its appearance on bit-torrents and the like and, therefore, maximise our sales of the album.

I realise we won't ever entirely circumvent the black market, but we have to try something eh?

Mindflux said:

Yes, but you see, as a lawyer, I must object to equaling playing by the rules to crimes.

If it were obvious that Youtube is not playing by the rules, it would be the appropiate action to take it down ASAP.

But that hasn't happened. Instead they have let it flourish. Why?

Perhabs (and this is just my theory) because of this:

IF, note IF, a court establishes that Youtube can be held liable for contributory copyright infringement, then they are liable for hundreds of millions in damages and possibly also committing crimes.

Using the Napster case again, the court there in the end ruled that they were guilty of contributory copyright infringement, meaning they did not commit the initial infringing acts, but they did make those acts possible.

However in the 1984 Sony vs. Universal et al, aka the Betamax case it was considered, that even though infringing acts took place with vcr's, Sony did not contribute to that by producing and selling them to the public. In that (also famous) case the interests of technology producers and consumers triumphed those of copyright owners.

Just before Napster was shut down, it was purchased by Bertelmanns music group. They thought they could make big money from it, as soon as they were able to
transform it into a legitimate service.

The question is what would happen in the Youtube case. Google selling it doesn't seem likely however.

So like I said, I think they could take it down, but that it wouldn't be taken down just like that. First they will have to jump through the filter hoops, before a court does that. A court will, possibly, also try to direct the parties towards a settlement.

In the end, whether it closes or not, a deal will have to be made.

Mindflux said:

Yes, one sure fire way to lose money is by not selling anything (like Prince with his vault). And yes, the best way to make lots of money is doing gigs.

The problem for artists is that you cannot stop filesharing. It WILL happen no matter how bad it may be, no matter how what you try to prevent it, or whatever scheme you come up with HOPING you can have some period of "exclusivity". I don't want to offend, but it is right there, in between the lines of your post: You don't believe that works either.

How to fix this? Answer: turn the problem into an opportunity.

What does the internet thrive on? On information AND on communities. Music, unlike cars, is INFORMATION. Information can be shared with just the tip of your fingers on the net. It is unstoppable.

Communities are groups of people that share a certain interest with eachother, for example MUSIC. Because of that SHARED interest they are willing to SPEND and INVEST time and money in that community.

When you make sure that your information is available AND that you have a community sharing in that interest, THEN you make sure you will have an income in this "brave new world".

The main problem is that copyright laws haven't kept up to the speed of technology.
Anything involving laws moves at snails space compared to technology.
It amazes me that the larger corporations did not move faster and decisively to join forces as a unified force to protect themselves. Caught off guard? or maybe having conflicting interests?
Whatever the case, The Viacom VS Youtube case is just one of long overdue moves to address this. Which will be great for everybody. There has to be set standards for everyone to work with. In time all these battles will be long forgotten but the decisions to address these new concerns will in part be settled and Tremolina will have another page added to one of his law textbooks.
[Edited 4/17/10 21:52pm]

Tremolina said:

Highly unlikely to be forced to shut down, their platform has been copied worldwide and the implications would be huge. It would open the floodgates and Google would be entrenched in lawsuits for at least a decade.
Youtube is synonymous with online streamed content and sites such this have had a tremendous positive impact world wide. There will merely be a decision that in some ways will address what is and isn't allowable by stating whether Youtube did indeed violate Viacoms copyrights. Whatever the initial outcome is it will be promptly appealed and will drag on for a long time to come.
Meanwhile whatever the outcome Youtube will make changes to mitigate any future damages. But i believe youtube will be around until something better comes along or people or Google loose interest in it as a platform
[Edited 4/17/10 23:34pm]

Mindflux said:

Ummm... what?

What I proposed was that Prince play the game with the equipment that's available to him instead of wasting money, time and resources to fight his fans in seeming perpetuity. I never said that illegal uploading of his copyrighted works should be allowed without his consent. While this is Prince's career and the choices he makes are indeed his to take to the grave, I find his overzealous disdain for new media quite idiotic. As idiotic as someone who gets their audio files from YouTube videos.

As far as I'm concerned, Tremolina lost their case as soon as they started coming out with the personal insults. Pathetic.

intersecting nexus> corporatism > fascism > globalism and the incomprehensible nigh infinite legalese which essentially amounts to: "all structures of authority own you, your mind, the products of your mind [thoughts] and everything in the world around you for all perpetuity: you are a slave neo"
..... say what?..... slave? hmmmnnnn....nah...that's not possible...right?

here: http://femalefaust.blogsp...xcuse.html
[reading is your friend]

Google has developed into a soft- ware provider rivaling Microsoft, with this major distinction: almost all Google software is server-side, residing on massive Google computer banks, not your local PC, which means they own the content, not you. This is the paradigm shift of “cloud computing,”...

[snip]

But one of the big problems with the cloud, and the danger it presents, is that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against search and seizure do not apply. The caveats are buried deep in the text that users usually skip over, and click “I agree,” to install a new application. But the consequences are huge, says Bankston. “When private data is held by a third party like Google, the Supreme Court has ruled that you ‘assume the risk’ of disclosure of that data.” When you store e-mail at Gmail — or, similarly, in the cloud at Yahoo or Hotmail — “you lose your constitutional protections immediately.”

To search and seize the information on your desktop, a law enforcement or intelligence agency requires a warrant or grand jury subpoena, after demonstrating probable cause before a judge or magistrate; or an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (authorized by FISA); or a National Security Letter issued by the FBI, Department of Defense or CIA. But to obtain that same information stored on Google’s servers, there is a shortcut: Google, like a telecom provider, may supply the information voluntarily as long as the government can argue the information is needed as part of an “emergency.”

[snip]

Like the giants of the surveillance-industrial complex, Google has backed its federal sales force in Reston, Virginia, with a D.C. lobbying operation — spending $2.9 million on lobbying in 2009 — to make sure that privacy is not a priority in the Obama administration. It also works with several industry-supported interest groups: the Interactive Advertising Bureau, the Technology Policy Institute, and the Progress & Freedom Foundation, whose mission statement espouses “an appreciation for the positive impacts of technology with a classically conservative view of the proper role of government... Those opportunities can only be realized if governments resist the temptation to regulate, tax and control.” All these groups are funded by Google, along with a who’s-who of communications behemoths. Their mission: subvert any congressional legislation extending Fourth Amendment-style prohibitions to the data-mining private sector. Their argument, per the Technology Policy Institute: “More privacy ... would mean less information, less valuable advertising, and thus fewer resources available for producing new low-priced services” — in other words, privacy is a threat to the economy.
[snip]


...it is in actuality the crisis of humans becoming slaves to their own information systems. It will lead to ever increasing disasters in every aspect of human function as massive datasets destroy coherent comunication and make cognitive dissonance the norm: IE: the death of "truth" [existential, not syllogistic]

The "norm" will be: incoherent remuxing of predigested infobytes completely divorced from anything personal simply for interactive non-interaction for entertainment [passing of time in an amusing way]....kind of like...here.

Is this P's agenda?

dunno

it should be everyones agenda. [nah...that's just silly]


"mom" ought NOT be selling her "baby dance" for all perpetuity to a strange undefined and indeterminate [and irresponsible] social network called "a corporation" so lil dancin dude can make $$ for evol-mf's for all eternity.....

say--waitaminnit: did mom know she sold [gave away] her babys rights to youtube-google-hellspawn?

probably not
she probably spent no time thinking about what the consequences of this would be...

who are the actors here: mommy-dearest> babydancinmachine> Prince> youtube
Hey...waitaminit

WHO . IS . YOUTUBE?

TO WHOM DO I B1TCH IF'N I FIND SUMPTHIN UNTOWARD?

Who is *responsible* for what *youtube* does?

n.o.b.o.d.y. inc. [an anonymous, faceless legal fiction that is not liable for anything cause...it's fiction?]

....interesting circumstance...
dangerous times getting worserer by the minnit...

say...the king of pop was "murdered" [figuratively] in broad daylight by...whom?
n.o.b.o.d.y. inc.
Will MJ be dancin in someones [n.o.b.o.d.y. inc.
] tv ad someday, selling something forever and ever?
hey waitaminnit...new MJ sneakers and videos and albums and moo-veez...and he had to bite the dust to become the financial resource for...
n.o.b.o.d.y. inc.

[and: NO, it is not amusing. Quite horrific actually]

...should it go down like that for P?
...and lil dancin baby?
...and everyone else?

the strange beast that feeds you your own f3ces so you can video it upload it and then watch it so the strange beast can again feed you...[endless loop...click "exit"]

[boggles the mind]

bad news

ya think?

naaahhhh...it's just $$ right?

[pissing in the wind part 3]

It is quite scary how people seem to have no problem putting their personal information out there (Facebook) without appreciating the consequences of that and how they're helping to erode any last remnants of privacy that they have. Maybe they should look themselves up on the likes of Spokeo and Peekyou.

Mong said:

Oh please I did not insult you personally. Your first post simply WAS incorrect AND showed you know very little of the law and what is REALLY going on. I did not call you any names, but you simply begged for a rebutal with that first post. After that you have done nothing else but personally attack me.

violetblues said:

That is the main reason why, after 10 years of being able to sell it directly to music fans, there are still so little legitimate ways of purchasing music on the net.

It's not because of the law. The law is up to date. It was in 1998 already, when they passed the DMCA, which for the most part wasn't even that necessary to begin with and is all in all a draconical law.

Copyright law gives them all the legal instruments available to stop infringements. But you cannot police a worldwide network of billions of computers with just the law. That's impossible.

So for a decade they didn't just waste hundreds of millions of dollars on lawyers to shut websites down, only to find out that the infringements continued somewhere else, for a decade they also invested like a billion or so in DRM technology, only to find out it doesn't help them at all. Worse, it scares away even more consumers.

I could have told them in 1998 already and I did, as did many, many others, but they did not listen and they still don't listen.

--
[Edited 4/18/10 4:55am]

violetblues said:

I disagree that it's highly unlikeley to get shut down. I think the movie studios have a good case to make that Youtube engages in contributory copyright infringement, by offering its users a worldwide platform, to distribute their protected works to the public, without being able to prevent that.

When it appears in court that Youtube really cannot prevent users from uploading their films, the court will have no choice but to uphold the law and close it, or make Youtube inaccessible for US internet users.

Yes that WILL dupe all the millions of users who use Youtube lawfully. So a court will only do that when it is asked to do that by the copyright owners and when it is shown that there is massive copyright infringement taking place that cannot be prevented in any other way than shutting it down.

But they are not asked to do that, nor has it been shown already whether Youtube can or can not use a filter or something stop it.

Tremolina said:

Excuse me, you did personally attack me. Re-read your posts directed towards me. I repeat, YouTube is nothing without its content. And when the majority of that content is used without any respect for the creator, I have an issue with it. This is not about knowledge of the law, so stop being condescending. To take away the right of someone's creative works are distributed is a fundamental wrong.
[Edited 4/18/10 5:14am]

Tremolina said:

To be a bit more specific. They are not asked to do that because it will become a major PR disaster and they don't believe it will be granted so easily.

So they focus on creating a bargaining position by claiming damages over the period of Youtube (before 2008) when it was still "young" and "roque", aware of many infringements, possibly even enaging actively itself in it and not always complying very well with DMCA take down notices. There seems to be quite some evidence in that direction, so it is very well possible the court will be asked to make a decision about the past only and not the present, circumventing the risk of a PR disaster and strengthening their bargaining position towards Google for a new business model, to their liking.

--
[Edited 4/18/10 5:33am]

Mong said:

No mong, you really should stop being condescending and putting words in my mouth. Nowhere on this thread have I defended copyright infringements. The fact that you continue to claim that speaks volumes.
And excuse me this is not about the law? Is that a joke? You are talking about rights here but this is not about the law? Please...
Lastly I re-read my comments and I did not personally attack you. I attacked the ignorance and the emotionally fueled incorrectness of your first post after which you did nothing but feel compelled to make this all personal.

No reason whatsoever to do that.

I see your position and agree that copyright owners deserve protection. If you would actually take the time to read and not get so emotional you would see that too. I just see it from other sides too and don't agree with you on EVERYTHING.

--
[Edited 4/18/10 5:25am]

Except my first post was not incorrect. And you did accuse me of coming out with bullshit. Hardly polite talk.

I don't quite know how you can expect people who feel passionately about the blatant epidemic of the disregarding of copyright law to reign it in. I repeat, YouTube are only paying a paltry amount to creators because they've been forced to. They never made allowances in their business plan for any rate of payment to be made, let alone a fair one. And there's hardly any incentive for people to buy music when it can be streamed on demand (such as Spotify in the UK, which won't last past 2011 - talk about a tool that dissuades people from buying music). I think it's a very worrying time for artists, songwriters, producers...anyone in the creative field of the music industry.

Tremolina said:

A little backtracking there, lol

So you agree that its is highly unlikely to be shut down, Just major changes in store behind the scenes.

Tremolina said:

In fairness Tremolina, and without wanting to re-ignite any hostility, you were pretty obtuse to start with (even TheVoid, who was defending you, said you were being "a bit of an ass"). Its pretty unfair for you to start accusing people about being ignorant and talking bullshit when we are talking about complex law matters, ESPECIALLY when it turns out you are a lawyer who is a specialist in this particular field. You shouldn't really be using your professional insight to be dismissive of other people's lack of knowledge.

As a professional producer myself, I don't berate people for not knowing studio terminology or how to properly master a track, or recognise when a particular effect is being used etc. I just wouldn't expect someone who isn't a musician to know about such things. Its ok to tell people they are wrong and prove it so, that's education. But you did immediately start to belittle and only because your private vocation affords you a deeper insight in to the subject matter.

We didn't keep saying that youtube is a thief, we consistently said that youtube allows illegal activity to continue on it's site. And, as you now know, this is a subject that is personal to me, not just something I'm deciding to let off some steam about because I have nothing better to do! Despite all of the angles, arguments and ramifications, that basic premise is still true - that youtube allows the worldwide broadcast of material that people have no right to transmit in the first place.

Let's all just be friends eh? And realise that there are arguments on both sides, but that its the "little" man, not the massive corporations, that are suffering here (ain't that always the truth?!).

Peace.
[Edited 4/18/10 8:56am]
[Edited 4/18/10 8:58am]

Mindflux said:

I think we all agree on the bolded part. Tremolina's stance is that nothing can be done about it so we might as well just accept it and will just have to live with a compromise.

I agree that there will have to be some sort of compromise but i dont think It's really true that nothing can be done, Its more a question of how far are we willing to go to make it more difficult.
Ultimately what allows such widespread sharing of of illicit content is not the individual but a platform such as Youtube.
A foolproof way of eliminating it altogether IS impossible for anything digital or otherwise. But as Bart stated in his opening posts, we have to switch to make it more difficult to do it illegally and easier to it legally because we are lazy.
Clamping down on facilitators of illegal downloading will bring a nice little bump in the road because it is just much too easy at the moment. Think of any major freeway during rush hour, we cannot prevent everything that is moving not to carry illict content, but we do not open commuter lanes for it either. Which in a way Youtube is.
Tremolina in one sentence says nothing can be done to prevent the illicit trading and then in another breath saying Youtube has a "high probability of being shut down" Those statements are a little contradicting to say the least. Again the problem is not individuals, but high profile major players that facilitate the practice.
The actions by the likes of Viacom or even Prince and like minded artist is just the beginning into what will lead to implementing broader standards and bumps in the road to help prevent large scale copyright infringement.
Ultimately this is not about anything other than simply taking baby steps to help protect legal commerce from a newer form of large scale theft.
[Edited 4/18/10 10:29am]

Tremolina said:

Exactly. For a decade plus they made it HARD or IMPOSSIBLE to buy music online -- and then they're surprised an entire generation has grown up that just doesn't give a fuck about all this?

Mindflux said:

http://j.mp/dryLGO



20 hours of video EACH MINUTE. And that was a year ago.

http://j.mp/bkVP9O



24 HOURS of video uploaded EVERY MINUTE. How the hell are you gonna police that?

For one person to watch all of the video uploaded to YouTube in one day would take them... nearly FOUR YEARS.

see this

http://video.search.yahoo...1702289786

Tremolina said:

And people would simply flock to the next site that offers the same functionality. And the whole circus starts again. And it won't solve anything.

violetblues said:

Sure. And yet we were still killing music, if you believe the major record labels were to believe. Guess what? That same generation bought tons of music when they grew up. Each time the recording industry whines about loss in sales they point to those numbers from the 80s and 90s, and forget to add that those were RECORD NUMBERS.

Also, is there really an effect of piracy: http://torrentfreak.com/i...no-100418/

violetblues said:

Amazing. Why do you pretend there's an alternative? THERE ISN'T. People aren't flocking to YouTube as opposed to the legal alternative -- there IS NO legal alternative.

violetblues said:

WILL? It's 2010. TWO-THOUSAND-TEN. This idiocy has been going on for 10+ years. And all I hear from the RIAA and MPAA is "whine whine whine they're stealing our shit." No they're not, they're sick of waiting for you old tossers to get a clue.

BartVanHemelen said:

I'm aware of that. But, are you saying we should just let them get away with it, because they can't control it? Perhaps a company shouldn't allow themselves to grow beyond a capacity that they can reasonably maintain a control over? Perhaps, then, it is all the more reason to shut them down?

I'm also aware that someone will just start something similar elsewhere. But, just because we can't see a solution at the moment, doesn't mean we should just give up and accept it. Otherwise, we may as well stop paying the police and say, "Well, crime is just going to continue, whether we try and stop it or not, so let's save a bundle of cash and just stop trying to prevent it".

I don't have a solution and nobody else seems to either - it doesn't follow that we should stop pursuing a solution though.

BartVanHemelen said:

Hang on a minute - that's not quite right, is it? Music and other forms of media ARE now available to purchase online - ok, it did take the industry a while, but its pretty damn easy to buy virtually any piece of music you want now. Trouble is, people can get if for free. Most people will go for the free product over the one that costs.

They ARE stealing stuff but, again, its not the corporations that are really suffering due to this.

Its such a minefield - I remember people being up in arms when individual users were pursued over illegal filesharing and the massive backlash from the Metallica scenario. But then, we have a debate like this and people are protecting youtube's position by saying "but its the end users uploading illegal product, not youtube". So, what is it to be - go after the enablers, or the uploaders, or both?

And, when you say, "Get a clue" - what exactly do you mean? Are you implying that you have a solution to their 10 years of "idiocy"?
[Edited 4/18/10 15:28pm]

BartVanHemelen said:

Ever heard of I-tunes or Amazon?
But you are right on your indictment of the music industry, i think they were not keen on i-tunes either and hesitant to say the least but came on board only when it looked like they had nothing to loose. But it saved their ass and again, has been universally hailed as the one thing that saved the music indusrty.

And yes while Viacom is going after just Youtube while there are a lot of other alternatives doing the same exact thing, any judgment for or against Youtube will have ramifications on every other site like it on the web.The effects of any decision is not something that will not go unnoticed. Ultimately Google and Viacom are some of the only players that have the pockets to afford to play this game of chicken. If Viacom has any kind of victory, consumers are not really going to be able to just move on to another site unless that site operates in the nether fringes or has come up with a solution to avoid costly litigation.
[Edited 4/18/10 11:48am]

violetblues said:

lol OK, to try and be even more specific:

From a BUSINESS standpoint it would be a stupid move to ask the court to shut down Youtube. That's why they are not asking that and that's why I think it's not likely that they will. They are only asking for damages in order to improve thier bargaining position. They don't want to throw away this potential money making machine and moreover can't afford the bad PR (again).

From a purely LEGAL standpoint however it would be appropiate to stop the infringements by shutting it down, IF it turns out that Youtube cannot filter out copyright protected material sufficiently. But since they are not asking that, it won't happen either.

violetblues said:

Actually I haven 't said that.

There ARE things you can do against the infringements on Youtube. You can filter that content, license it or shut the entire site down. If Viacom would have asked the court to shut Youtube down, a court WOULD, because of the many infringements, but not just like that in a heartbeat. BEFORE it would shut it down, it would seriously investigate whether there are alternative options, like filtering or licensing, to stop the infringements and keep the site open for the other (legal) traffic that ALSO takes place there.

Since Viacom is NOT asking the court to shut Youtube down, but only for damages that are mainly focused on the "roque" period before 2008, the question is WHY??

My answer to that question is twofold: one because it would be a stupid business decision and two because it wouldn't be THAT easy in court. Ultimately they would get an injunction, when it appears Youtube really cannot stop the infringements, but like I said, not before the court lets them jump through a few hoops first.


Anyway, to make a long story short. This court case is NOT about the small guys in music, nor the big artists, nor about the fans / end users, altho' in reality those people and their interests matter the most in al this (imo at least).

This particular case, tho' seemingly all about "protecting artists" against "theft", is all just a big game between two huge players that are competing with eachother over who will control the online streaming market of the future.

Don't forget, in 2006 already Viacom tried to purchase Youtube. Google suprassed them in their offer. They are competitors.


--
[Edited 4/19/10 4:40am]

BartVanHemelen said:

Please. Of course there is. The industry is being decimated by many factors, but the main one is illegal filesharing. Simple as that. Why bother paying for something which you can get for “free”? No model can ever compete with free.

Streaming sites are not the way forward. The earnings are so minimal…and re live and sync, most tours will see artists losing money still, and sync only reaps benefits for a very small percentage of artists.

Loads of studios have closed down over the last few years. I know great engineers and mixers who don’t have any work at all. The studio session music scene has all but gone. Touring musicians’ wages are low on average (you’ll earn more playing for a wedding these days). Quite a few independent artists I know aren’t intending to release any new stuff, as they see it being illegally shared online before it’s released and they can’t even break even these days with that being the case. The music industry’s recession kicked in around 2000 when illegal filesharing began to make a big impact on sales. The last thing I would recommend anyone to do would be to go into music; it’s getting harder and harder to earn a living from it, and many musicians I know are doing something else in order to be able to pay bills etc. It’s a very depressing time to be in the industry.

End of slightly tangential rant.