iEntry 10th Anniversary
RSS
Newsletter
Advertising
This really doesnt address the fact that someones edited music + edited video + user commentary = a new product (fair use??? Freedom of speech??? Music reviews???). Eliminating users from sharing a video with copyrighted audio is silly, this isnt hurting sales. Why not mute the audio on the music played on the radio as well? Just because clever people can find a way to pirate a song off youtube doesnt mean that the masses are doing it. As the traditional media continues to flail in its battle against piracy it becomes more and more clear what they truly are; dinosaurs desperately trying to survive as the landscape changes and they are unable to adapt.
7 commentsWednesday, January 14, 2009
By Doug Caverly
If you happen to come across some silent YouTube videos today, there's no need to start investigating your speaker settings and browser defaults. It seems that the "problem" is on YouTube's end; the site's owners have chosen to mute certain clips as a way of dealing with copyright violations.
Look beneath affected videos, and you'll see the short, simple, official explanation: "This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by all copyright holders. The audio has been disabled." Google's no doubt hoping this step will allow it to avoid lawsuits and expensive payouts, and it does seem like a logical enough solution.
Look even lower on the pages, though, and you'll be able to read outraged comments from any number of users. Some rail against the RIAA; some criticize YouTube. Others go straight to suggesting possible solutions, and these include visiting other video-sharing sites or turning to things like Limewire and the Pirate Bay.
Still, it appears that YouTube hasn't gone all-out with this answer to the copyright problem, since it's far easier to find videos that haven't been muted than ones that have. Stan Schroeder provided a link to "Laundromat Blues" by Albert King if you're looking for an example of a clip that was hit.
We'll try to monitor whether the muting experiment - and the backlash to it - spreads or dies in the weeks ahead.
Publish A Comment
| Popular WPN Business Resources |
 |
 |
|
|
|
-
Reaching Your Audience Through Online Video
Internet video is continuing to grow by leaps and bounds. -
Yahoo Reveals SEM of Re-Brand
Near the end of September, Yahoo began a new branding campaign in an... -
Search + Social = Better ROI
Are you utilizing search and social media together? According to Lee...
     |
It was inevitable
And we wonder why people go more towards piracy.
I think there are three people to blame here
1- Youtube. They knew for sometime that copyright music was on videos yet they still allowed people to upload them. Also why haven't they still taken down the numerous (most of Youtube?) videos that are blatent copyright infringements?
2- Rumblefish. They recently signed up with Youtube to supply Youtube customers with music for their videos. Strange how the muting of videos comes after the new signing. However are people going to have to pay for Youtube music now?
3- The RIAA. Money grabbing people. Having tracks on Youtube increases downloads and also increases peoples awareness to the artist. Yet, we are still stuck in the stone age with people running a company that should have been split up ages ago, or at least remodeled on a vastly changing world.
Once this goes ahead, more sites will follow. So if you are an artist does that mean that you can't have fans having your video on their site?