Comments on: Fuck You, Warner Music Group

By: martymankins

martymankins — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:29:03 +0000

paris lo – Welcome to the blog. And you make a very good point (with an equally great analogy) about losing the views and comments… all because WMG doesn’t care to let you promote “their” music for free.

kathy k – Thanks Kathy. And welcome from Winter’s part of the blogosphere.

By: Kathy K

Kathy K — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:50:27 +0000

Yeah, just found the link to this blog from Winter’s latest and wow… I love the way you presented everything.

Very nicely done… only wish that those who needed to see it would actually pay attention.
Ah well, utopia is a state of mind… or something.

By: Paris Lo

Paris Lo — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:25:48 +0000

my heart droped when WMG disabled 2 of my top videos on youtube. ;( sure i can upload the videos again but it’s not the same anymore…. all the views and comments that people leave just goes away, and it takes time to bluid it up again, it’s like trying to grow your hair out, and you finally have it how you want, and WMG just cuts your hair and it all falls to the ground in a matter of seconds when it took you years to grow it out, I DON’T SUPPORT WMG….. not one bit………….. they have caused me some unnessary stress………………

By: martymankins

martymankins — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:46:06 +0000

victor – Welcome to the blog and sorry for not responding to this sooner. Guess this post is getting more attention lately. I agree with you 100%. Why not let people use the music is a video. I know there’s been more people that have purchased the music from Universal artists because there’s an ad in the link to the video. And your clothing example is perfect. Free advertising results in more sales.

scott – Thank you and welcome to the blog. As for how to get the link to purchase the song, Universal adds it automatically. You can also add a caption or link to your video, pointing the viewer to a new location. But for any WMG songs, it’s all in their ball court.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:13:29 +0000

Great article. I’ve just started publishing to youtube, and have been at least peripherally aware that having songs in my videos might be legally tedious. But how is it that you were able to list the songs that were in your videos with a link to purchase them? I can’t find anyway to do that, and I’d really like to!

Thanks

By: Victor

Victor — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:58:52 +0000

I just had a song muted on most recent youtube video and stumbled upon this blog trying to find out why. I was very surprised to read about what WGM is doing. I always felt that when I used a song as a background for a personal video that I was doing the copyright owner a favor because they were getting free promotion. I always felt that if I were not using the videos I produced to make money and that my videos were positive videos that would attract an audience, that it would be no different then someone hearing the song on the radio. The possibility exist that the person watching the video might like the song and then go and buy it. I guess I kind of thought about it like wearing Tommy Hilfiger clothing; manufacturers have to pay to use the Tommy Hilfiger name, but consumers can wear the clothes out in public all they want, there by using their bodies as advertising stands. I guess I am having a hard time seeing the difference between wearing name brand clothing out in public and using a song in a personal video. Both result in free advertising for the copyright owner.

By: martymankins

martymankins — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:32:07 +0000

nycwd – Hey Dawg, welcome to the blog. Your discussion with an industry person is exactly the story I had heard some time ago. I think most of Warner’s stubborn ways is due to Mr Bronfman running the place. But that’s just my personal assumption. I will have to go check out Tubemogul.com. And you reminded me of the site you use for your videos, Viddler.com

ren – Thanks for your details on this. The DMCA has some broad clauses in it that really don’t offer much in the way of “Fair Use” protection for those of us that are simply doing this for free.

I knew about some of methods for filing a dispute. It’s a process I wouldn’t mind going through at some point, just to see how it works and if I’m successful, but for the few videos that they’ve tagged, in what the Wiki talks about the entire process, that’s a lot to go through. WMG has a link on their site (http://www.wmg.com/faqs/#8a0af8120e11a13f010e5c0b5cb34773) with a phone number to call them in an attempt to obtain a license for your “work”. They also offer onestoptrax.com, a site that had pre-approved music (for a price, of course). You are correct in the vague state “Fair Use” is in. It’s a crap shoot for us fun video producers.

By: Ren

Ren — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:18:38 +0000

While I agree that this action by WMG is against their own best interest, I think it is worth noting that the real problem here is the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This provision forces sites like YouTube to “promptly take down content if someone alleges it infringes their copyrights”. There is no protection against this and the service provider (YouTube) has no choice if they want to maintain their “Safe Harbor” status.

You actually have the ability to dispute the violation, though your likelihood of succeeding is questionable. Take a look at the example script at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act (which is where the quote above comes from, also) for the exact procedure for filing a counter-notice, but it basically consists of claiming, under penalty of perjury, that you have a good faith belief that the material should not have been removed. If the copyright owner doesn’t choose seek a restraining order against you within 14 days, then the service provider is required to restore the material.

The real trouble for your situation is how vague “Fair Use” is, so we’re never really sure if each individual video qualifies.

By: NYCWD

NYCWD — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:01:26 +0000

I actually had a long discussion with someone in the industry about this very topic. He likened it to the way the music industry reacted to online music via Napster and how it eventually evolved into iTunes. UMG learned the lessons, but it seems Warner has ignored its history.

For videos, I would check out Tubemogul.com. They allow you to upload to a bunch of sites such as YouTube, Vimeo, Yahoo, and Viddler with just one upload to their site. This way if one service edits or drops the video, chances are it will still be up on the others.

By: martymankins

martymankins — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:48:22 +0000

becky – Yep, if only Warner could be smart like Universal.

hello haha narf – Why thank you. Some things, I get worked up a lot over.

kevin – I remember you mentioning that. I’m hoping they leave the Vimeo’s and Metacafe’s alone. I mean, I’d like them to patch things up properly with YouTube, but I don’t want them going after everyone else in the process. If that happens, I’ll have to really think outside the box on my videos.

By: Kevin Spencer

Kevin Spencer — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:25:33 +0000

I think I’ve mentioned this in another comment to one of your posts about YouTube but I can’t find it now for the life of me. Anyhoo, I wonder how much longer it will be before the greedy bastards realize that YouTube isn’t the only video site and start “policing” the others too.

By: hello haha narf

hello haha narf — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:28:48 +0000

i like when you get all riled up!