riverc0il
New member
I don't think any one debates the legality of what YouTube and the music industry is doing. The debate is in the ethical aspects of the strict application of the copyright law. Fair use in copyright issues are an interesting topic to debate.
I like to look at it from the perspective of profit or lack thereof. In this instance, there is no file being "shared" such as via a P2P network. There is free promotion and marketing perhaps even exposing music to new audiences. The music is controlled via an online and embedded media. So there is no loss in profitability it seems as this is not a comparable issue to P2P and file sharing. If businesses were using unlicensed music for profit, then obviously there are much more serious implications.
Through the eyes of a photographer, having pictures lifted and reused is an obvious issue because it threatens the product being sold and devalues it. But that is not a fair comparison as that is a direct sharable copyable media that can be reproduced and used any where. This is all very much unlike an embedded movie that has an audio track.
The only issue I could foresee would be potential no profits going profit. That is a clear issue. Both Greg and I both have produced video with movies. Greg runs a for profit web site so I think that is a bit more of an issue as people are drawn to AZ by viral videos. People are drawn to my site through the videos as well and even though it is no profit, a good argument is that it could be and the music helps to build the base of users. This happens a lot in the web when once free services go profit once they have a big enough user base.
From a moral perspective, this is just one more instance of business as usual from a failed industry that can't come up with an innovative solution to be profitable at the same time as providing content that customers want in a service they desire at a price point that is reasonable. Some might say that you agree to play by the rules when you become a member of organized society. But I counter that by suggesting some of the best and most amazing innovations and evolutions of society have come from groups resisting the status quo. If legality is never challenged, it never changes. Any one interested in music knows that things need to change. Consumers have spoken but the industry refuses to listen but instead plays a dated business model and plays the letter of the law.
Any ways, I think the music industry has more to loose than to gain by forcing YouTube to take down videos that are not making any one any money and only spreading good vibes and interest in bands that have good tunes. I don't disagree with the fact that this is the law. But I disagree with the fact that it is a dumb move that will likely piss more consumers off and already soured market when labels were getting non-sharing free marketing and buzz and good vibes.
I like to look at it from the perspective of profit or lack thereof. In this instance, there is no file being "shared" such as via a P2P network. There is free promotion and marketing perhaps even exposing music to new audiences. The music is controlled via an online and embedded media. So there is no loss in profitability it seems as this is not a comparable issue to P2P and file sharing. If businesses were using unlicensed music for profit, then obviously there are much more serious implications.
Through the eyes of a photographer, having pictures lifted and reused is an obvious issue because it threatens the product being sold and devalues it. But that is not a fair comparison as that is a direct sharable copyable media that can be reproduced and used any where. This is all very much unlike an embedded movie that has an audio track.
The only issue I could foresee would be potential no profits going profit. That is a clear issue. Both Greg and I both have produced video with movies. Greg runs a for profit web site so I think that is a bit more of an issue as people are drawn to AZ by viral videos. People are drawn to my site through the videos as well and even though it is no profit, a good argument is that it could be and the music helps to build the base of users. This happens a lot in the web when once free services go profit once they have a big enough user base.
From a moral perspective, this is just one more instance of business as usual from a failed industry that can't come up with an innovative solution to be profitable at the same time as providing content that customers want in a service they desire at a price point that is reasonable. Some might say that you agree to play by the rules when you become a member of organized society. But I counter that by suggesting some of the best and most amazing innovations and evolutions of society have come from groups resisting the status quo. If legality is never challenged, it never changes. Any one interested in music knows that things need to change. Consumers have spoken but the industry refuses to listen but instead plays a dated business model and plays the letter of the law.
Any ways, I think the music industry has more to loose than to gain by forcing YouTube to take down videos that are not making any one any money and only spreading good vibes and interest in bands that have good tunes. I don't disagree with the fact that this is the law. But I disagree with the fact that it is a dumb move that will likely piss more consumers off and already soured market when labels were getting non-sharing free marketing and buzz and good vibes.
