<title>YOUTUBE RANTS</title>
<body bgcolor=black background=darkbg.gif text=gray link=gray alink=gray vlink=gray>
<font face="courier new"><center>
<p><font size=2><a href=main.html style=text-decoration:none>[MAIN]</a> <a href=archive.html style=text-decoration:none>[ARCHIVE]</a>
 <a href=videos.html style=text-decoration:none>[VIDEOS]</a> <a href=music.html style=text-decoration:none>[MUSIC]</a> 
 <a href=pictures.html style=text-decoration:none>[PICTURES]</a> <a href=texts.html style=text-decoration:none>[TEXTS]</a>
 <a href=links.html style=text-decoration:none>[LINKS]</a> <a href=ytrant.html style=text-decoration:none>[YT RANTS]</a> <a href=about.html style=text-decoration:none>[ABOUT]</a>
</font>

<br>
<p><hr>
<p><img src=youturbialogo.png>
<p><a href=youtuberant_3.html style=text-decoration:none><b>[Click here for the previous rants]</b></a>
<p><h2>User Choice and Music Licensing</h2>
<p>Any comments or feedback to this should be made <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6am6NtiPy8 style=text-decoration:none><b>[on this YouTube video]</b></a>.  
<p><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PS1z30LnWgE&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PS1z30LnWgE&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<br>
<p>The above video is a video I made back in May 2008 regarding a video which I had uploaded to YouTube back in October 2007.  I uploaded a video using the Misfits song, Walk Among us.  The video had a copyright claim placed on it by Universal Music (UMG), and advertising was placed on the video (in this case, the video shows a contest promotion for the Watchmen movie).

<p>Now, take a look at this most recent <a href=http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=jCz__7k2AtI style=text-decoration:none><b>[YouTube Blog Entry]</b></a>.  It appears that the music industry isn't being so nice anymore.

<p>In just my personal experience alone, the video mentioned above has now been blocked in some countries (of which I don't even know which ones), and an even older video of mine (which some of you may remember as 'Epic NSider Delete Maneuver Part II') was blocked because of a copyright claim.

<p>Now, here's the real problem.  Take a look back at the comments made to the beforementioned blog entry.  Obviously, many people are upset (I can't blame them for that).  The thing that gets me, though, is how many people are directing their hate towards YouTube for this.  I don't see why YouTube is getting so much hate over something that they are basically being forced upon by the copyright holders of the blocked content.  Yes, YouTube and Google provide the tools, but it's up to the copyright holders in how they are used.  YouTube has been trying for the longest time to allow us to use copyrighted material in our videos ever since being legally threatened by large corporations.  There wouldn't be an AudioSwap feature if that wasn't the case.  The deals YouTube has tried to make with these large corporate copyright holders is to allow them to be properly attributed and compensated for videos which contain their content.  An automated system would detect copyrighted content, and then place advertising on the video.  The catch is that the very same system allows copyright holders to block content as well.  Again, while YouTube provides this feature, it's up to the copyright holders to determine how the videos are handled.  Say, in the instance that someone uploads a full movie or album to the site, that is reasonable enough content to block.  This kind of content obviously has financial impact against the favor of the copyright holder.  In the instance of someone just using part of a song in a video, is there anything wrong with allowing a video like that to stay live, especially if the original copyright holder is compensated for their work?  

<p>Copyright is more complicated than it seems (especially when getting into discussion on Fair Use defense), but in many cases the copyright holders can be a bit too protective of their work.  I truely believe that if it wasn't for so many copyright holders holding YouTube responsible for mass copyright infringement, that YouTube themselves could care less what music or video clips we use.  After legal suit held agains them by Viacom, and having music licensing deals with Warner fall through, YouTube has to go to desperate and unpopular measures in order to avoid being shut down like the Napster of the 90's.  The only reason Napster came back is because it's now a paid service where artists and labels earn money from it's sales.  What would happen if YouTube ended up going that same path?

<p>I end this rant with a choice... would you rather have a YouTube that allows you to upload anything you want for a 'per video' fee, a free YouTube that blocks copyrighted material, or no YouTube at all?


<p><hr>
<p><h2>More rants to come...</h2>
<p><i>The thoughts and opinions expressed in this article are my own views and do not represent the views of SonicRetro.org or any other party (including those persons in the embedded videos) unless otherwise noted.</i>


<P><A href="javascript:back()">[GO BACK]</A></font>
<hr>