I'm calling it here: The Youtube suits will result in the end of the DMCA

[Initech]

Several media giants are teaming up to challenge Google Inc. and its YouTube video-sharing service, seeking to blunt their incursion into the entertainment business.

News Corp. and NBC Universal plan to announce as soon as today that they are creating an online video site stocked with TV shows and movies, plus clips that users can modify and share with friends, according to people close to the negotiations.

The two companies enlisted help from some of Google's biggest Internet rivals. The News Corp.-NBC Universal partnership has deals with Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp., Time Warner Inc.'s AOL and News Corp.'s MySpace to place videos in front of their collective audience of hundreds of millions.

Despite Hollywood's dismal track record in creating successful joint ventures, these players see little choice but to band together to compete against Google and Apple Inc., which are becoming powerful distributors of entertainment.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-youtube22mar22,1,402752.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true

I'm so fucking sick of this bullshit I could puke blood. The DMCA is the single worst piece of legislation we've ever passed in this country. The copyright gestapo is ridiculous and it goes to ridiculous lengths. I hope to god that these lawsuits get so out of hand that they go to the Supreme Court, which votes unanimously to shut down the DMCA and the Recording Industry gestapo once and for all. It' s ridiculous. People are getting arrested over NOTHING (just like the drug war). And it sucks. This is just another arrogant attempt to control our freedoms by greedy companies who are obsessed with nothing but making a profit. I'm tired of this crap.

Digital Millenuim Copyright Act - 1999 - 2007. Farewell and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

:rant:

[ToeBot]

1. There was a time when the music industry consisted of sheet music sales...

And I'm sure that, even then, the 'Industry' took from the artists more than their fair share. Things change - sometimes for the better.

[Initech]

2. We can all hope.

Artists make shit on their CD sales. I read the figures one time, they make something like 3% of the profits on a CD. The rest goes to packaging, distribution, and the record label itself.

[silverojo]

3. But artists make tons of money in other ways

Ancillary merchandising is where the real money is.

Besides, if the recording industry wasn't so greedy, artists would make more in the first place.

So it comes right back to gripe #1: The industry is too greedy for its own good, and one day people are going to revolt. It's time to boycott the bastards for just ONE week, to show them who has the REAL power: consumers.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Only big name artists make much from ancillary merchandising,

or from royalties. Most musicians are not making much money, period.

Record companies make the profits and they're greedy. But if you boycott, you may only hurt artists you like. It would be difficult to hurt the big companies but if you did manage to do so, the odds are high that they'd keep some artists you don't like -- the ones THEY decided should be stars -- and dump artists you do like.

[hughee99]

4. I think the artists profits come mostly from touring.

I don't have the numbers on that, though they do make a good deal from merchandising as well.

[dysfunctional press]

17. not really, unless things have changed a great deal.

tours are usually done to support album sales. a touring rock act is a very expensive proposition.

[hughee99]

19. Tickets are expensive, too, though.

Based on this, it looks like touring is quite profitable for the bands these days.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6959138/money_makers

[kiahzero]

5. Um... the DMCA is what's protecting YouTube.

Viacom's trying to get another bite at the apple by claiming that despite doing everything it needs to do in order to qualify for the safe harbor, YouTube is somehow "different" and doesn't deserve its protection.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/opinion/18lessig.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Make Way for Copyright Chaos
Lawrence Lessig
...

Viacom has now accepted this invitation from the Supreme Court. The core of its case centers on the “safe harbor” provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The provision, a compromise among a wide range of interests, was intended to protect copyright owners while making it possible for Internet businesses to avoid crippling copyright liability. As applied to YouTube, the provision immunizes the company from liability for material posted by its users, so long as it takes steps to remove infringing material soon after it is notified by the copyright owner.

The content industry was a big supporter of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998. Viacom is apparently less of a supporter today. It complains that YouTube has not done enough “to take reasonable precautions to deter the rampant infringement on its site.” Instead, the Viacom argument goes, YouTube has shifted the burden of monitoring that infringement onto the victim of that infringement — namely, Viacom.

But it wasn’t YouTube that engineered this shift. It was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As the statute plainly states, a provider (like YouTube) need not monitor its service or affirmatively seek facts indicating infringing activity. That burden, instead, rests on the copyright owner. In exchange, the law gives the copyright owner the benefit of an expedited procedure to identify and remove infringing material from a Web site. The provision was thus a deal, created to balance conflicting interests in light of the technology of the time.

Whether or not that balance made sense in 1998, Viacom believes it no longer makes sense today. Long ago, Justice Hugo Black argued that it was not up to the Supreme Court to keep the Constitution “in tune with the times.” And it is here that the cupidity of the court begins to matter. For by setting the precedent that the court is as entitled to keep the Copyright Act “in tune with the times” as Congress, it has created an incentive for companies like Viacom, no longer satisfied with a statute, to turn to the courts to get the law updated. Congress, of course, is perfectly capable of changing or removing the safe harbor provision to meet Viacom’s liking. But Viacom recognizes there’s no political support for the change it wants. It thus turns to a policy maker that doesn’t need political support — the Supreme Court.

...

[Initech]

6. Really? That's one part of the DMCA I didn't know about.

I only know the part the RIAA uses it for - imposing harsh royalty fees.

[GumboYaYa]

7. As an independent filmmaker who struggles to make enough

to fund my projects, I totally disagree with you. YouTube is a tool for people who are stealing artists' work. I have seen numerous posts here on DU where people are linking to documentaries that have been stolen and placed on YouTube. Every time someone clicks on one of those links, they deprive the artist of potential revenue.

Sure, there are lots of media companies who have been stealing artists' work for a long time (believe me, I know all too well about this). It also is absolutely true that we make a pittance on each unit when we distribute our work through large distribution companies. But (and it is a big but) two wrongs don't make a right. All that is happening with YouTube is that the artists is getting screwed by the consumer and not the distributor now.

If people really want to stick it to big media companies without hurting artists, buy direct from the artists off of their website. That is the way that we make the most money from our work.

If an artist wants to let people see their work for free, they will put it up on net and let people do that. If they do not, that means they have a different plan for distributing their work. When someone other than the artist takes it and puts it on the net without authorization, that person is stealing and every person who subsequently views it is stealing.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. And in fact, artists and musicians DO put up work

online where people can see or hear it for free.

Even at sites like Amazon, you can listen to several songs from most CDs. Amazingly, I'd heard people say, " I'm not going to buy an album if I don't like all the songs." That's a crazy way of thinking.

You make agood point by uggesting that people buy directly from artists. Musicians usually have CDs to sell at their shows and some sell through their websites, too. Most of the money still goes back to the record company, though, assuming they're signed to a label.

A lot of people don't realize that record companies put up a certain amount of money as a budget for artists to record a CD, but the artists have to repay the money. Say a band gets a $30,000 advance (studio time and the work of sound engineers, etc, is not cheap.) How many CDs do they have to sell before the record company has gotten back its share and the musicians actally start earning some money? Think about the price of a CD and how many have to be sold a that price to pay back a $30,000 loan. . .

Many artists make nothing off record sales, only a small amount off royalties, selling t shirts, etc., most of their money comes from playing live. That means touring. Touring costs money. Only big stars get their tour expenses picked up the record company. Most musicians have to pay their own way with little income to do so.

Illegal downloads are as much stealing as taking an item from a store without paying for it. Anyone who agrees that shoplifting is wrong should be able to see why dowmloading material you haven't paid for is wrong.

[Ignacio Upton]

12. Downloading is not the same as stealing

At least not legally speaking. Copyright infringement and theft are classified as separate offenses. Also, downloading music is not the same a taking an item from a store, because you are making a new copy of a song that did not exist in the for-sale inventory. Same goes with ripping a song off of a CD that you bought and then sharing that mp3 with a friend or a sibling, parent or cousin. Now what if we applied this to other types of paid for content? Suppose it were technologically possible to make perfect atomic copies of fruits and vegetables, and I bought a couple of tomatoes from a store, made 1,000 copies of them, and gave them out to people on the streets for free? Would I be stealing from the grocery store and hurting farmers who grow them?

Also, how about home taping with VCR or Cassette taping of songs played on the radio? The music and movie industry claimed that both of those were piracy in the '80s, and neither of them hurt their industries.

I do agree, however, that artists need to be compensated, because unlike home taping, or small-scale sharing of mp3s with friends, downloading is large-scale, and can represent a parallel "market." However, the current "legit" services such as itunes, Rhapsody, and Napster (I would say it's more like Napster Lite) burden consumers with ridiculous restrictions, such as DRM, and some make you essentially rent your music, whereby if you unsubscribe you lose your songs that you are merely streaming (if you want to download them, you have to double pay.) Perhaps we'll see something like a blanket license, where consumers pay a monthly fee to their ISPs to continue file-sharing as before, with that fee being given to the artists. This solution would be best for the consumer, and help indie artists gain more traction, because they won't even have to make CDs and do the same level of advertising as they once had to do.

[GumboYaYa]

14. I understand the legal distinctions, but from the perspective of a person who

has mortgaged himself into oblivion and dipped into his kids' college savings to fund a film because I felt the message was that important, it is stealing when someone downloads something without paying just as if they had walked out of the store with a DVD in their pocket.

I am in favor of exploring new distribution mechanisms that provide a more direct benefit to the artists, but for now we have to make our money to reimburse our investment in our art using the systems we have available (if we want anyone to ever see or hear our work).

You make a really good point about artists having to pay to produce their work. I think there are many peope who do not know that.

[Ignacio Upton]

15. Well, I respectfully disagree about downloading = stealing

in the literal sense. However, arguing about that back forth is not going to change either of our minds. Just curious, what is your documentary about? Also, what are your thoughts on just uploading individual clips of a tv show or movie? It doesn't seem any different to me than DU being able to let users cut and paste up to four paragraphs of a news article in the name of fair use. Also, watching those Colbert clips on YouTube made me MORE likely to watch his show, not less. I see watching those clips as being similar to watching a movie trailer.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. People don't get it. They see the people who

have "made it big" and think that all artists are making the same kind of money, being chauffeured in big tour buses or their own jets, etc.

Some argue that the best artists will automatically make it big. One look at the music charts should dispel that notion.

[Ignacio Upton]

11. YouTube limited their clips to 10 minutes to address this problem

Also, most of what has been pulled down for Viacom is in the form of clips, NOT shows in their entirety, as well as "mash-ups" of people doing home video-style parody of songs and shows. Why is it that posting a 3:00 clip of Colbert is copyright infringement, but at DU we can still post up to four paragraphs for news articles, as it is considered fair use?

[dysfunctional press]

16. real "artists" aren't in it for the money anyway...

they are more interested in having people see and appreciate what they are trying to say with their work.

the people who do things with compensation first and foremost in mind are called "capitalists".

[Ignacio Upton]

18. Well, if they want to make what they are doing a full time career

Then they also have to find a way to make a living, so they need some form of compensation. I just believe that the current model is predatory (in favor of record companies over artists) and anti-consumer and anti-privacy (damn right it shouldn't be illegal to take DRM off your purchased DVD or CD for personal use!)

[DemBones DemBones]

22. True, but real artists still have to eat, buy gas to get to the

next town they're playing, repair or replace equipment, go to the doctor when they get sick, etc. You may have noticed people charge for those things. They don't give them to artists.

Why are artists expected to give something for nothing?

People who download and don't buy CDs are not helping to support the musicians they like. If you're paying any attention, you know that there are many great bands who are not doing it "with compensation first and foremost in mind" or they would have long ago gotten jobs that pay better and have benefits. They do it for the love of it.

The ultimate outcome of downloading and not buying CDs will be more and more corporate-funded crap that nobody likes and people asking "where have all the good bands gone?"

Downloading is killing bands.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. If you were a musician, or even knew

some professional musicians, you'd feel differently about what you refer to as "the copyright gestapo." You'd want to have your copyrights and your royalties protected. Most musicians don't make much through royalties but it helps pay the bills. Only the biggest names earn a substantial amount of royalties.

Record companies have never treated their artists very well. They've often stolen from them, in fact. Record companies are the ones who make the big money, not musicians, with some obvious exceptions of "star" musicians.

If you want a world where the only music available is the music the big companies want you to hear, then keep on downloading illegally and complaining about copyright protection. Support the very people who want to take most of the music away.

In a few years, you'll be wondering why there's nothing good on the radio or in the music stores and why no good bands are touring anymore.

[pinstikfartherin]

13. hah

What are you talking about? There already is NOTHING good on the radio. IMO, the best music seems to becoming from the small artists who have a small but loyal fanbase. But this is coming from a youngun who is exposed to a lot of the "little known" music through friends, local shows, etc.

One problem I have with big bands is the venues they use and some of the ridiculous ticket prices. I refuse to go see a band in a huge venue because it just isn't the same as going to see a rock band in a small, tightly packed room. It's more intimate. It's just better.

When I was a young teenager, I was taken to see Matchbox 20, Live, and Aerosmith. Those concerts are unforgettable because well, it was Aerosmith. I'd listened to them since I was born. However, my best and most vivid memories are of seeing Danzig at the Coca Cola Roxy Theater in Atlanta, Social Distortion at the A & P (?) warehouse in Birmingham, AL, Rob Zombie at the Tabernacle, Edwin McCain at our local zoo (yes, zoo)! They were relatively small packed venues that pretty much no matter where you were it was a great view and show. And the tickets were not sky high so you could spend more money on merchandise. Hell, I didn't even like Danzig until that show, but I still remember it like it was yesterday. Now seeing Creed at BJCC in Birmingham, AL seemed good at the time, but I only remember how far away we were, not much about the show. I want to see more artists playing smaller venues, even if they have to play there more than one night. Big artists do it, they manage, and it allows more fans to go to shows because they can afford to. Hey, maybe then they could play more places besides just the same big cities.

[DemBones DemBones]

24. You're making my point: there's not much good on the radio now,

certainly not on Clear Channel stations, but it will get worse if bands who aren't "popular" enough are forced out of the music biz. (A student once asked me what "pop" music was. I said that it stood for "popular" and she asked "Why do they call it popular when nobody likes it?" Good question, don't you think?)

Lots of small bands prefer playing smaller venues and like to play more than one night at a venue; it's the venues that typically want somebody different every night.

You're right that "Big artists do it, they manage," because venues will pay the big artists to do it, and pay them a shitload at that. But big artists are usually playing big venues and charging truly exhorbitant ticket prices, too.

Downloading is hurting the smaller artists most. And you know that quality has little to do with who "makes it big" and who doesn't. Listening to the radio and looking at charts shows that.

[newyawker99]

25. Hi pinstikfartherin!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[onenote]

20. The DMCA is imperfect, but its not unconstitutional

If you're counting on the SCOTUS to undo the DMCA in any large measure (or, for that matter, in any measure), you're probably going to be waiting a long long time.

The Constitution gives authority to Congress to "promote the progress and science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The courts historically have interpreted this as a pretty broad grant of power to COngress and have been loathe to overturn copyright legislation.

[Ignacio Upton]

21. Sadly, this is likely correct

Unfortunately, our Founding Fathers worded this part of the Constitution too broadly. There is Fair Use, but that was legislated as part of the 1976 Copyright Act. IMHO, there should be a new constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits "copyright forever minus a day" type of extensions, as well as codifying Fair Use as a right and not a privilege.


...On second thought, if you can make the argument that the DMCA INHIBITS scientific and technological process (there are examples of this, such as suing the maker of a software program that allowed people to override DVD copy protection in order to get DVDs to play on Linux), I wonder if that would render the DMCA as unconstitutional, because the law would run contrary to what the Constitution states in terms of IP laws.

Also...since home taping is legal based on the fact that taping radio broadcasts involve taking in sub-standard sound quality, why not use the same argument for downloading files on mp3? Mp3's are sub-par in that they are below sound quality. I'm not sure if the arguments I just listed would hold up in court, but it never hurts to try (well...except monetarily.)