

Youtube starts muting videos with copyrighted music - vaksel
http://mashable.com/2009/01/14/youtube-mutes-videos/

======
FalconNL
Obligatory: Larry Lessig's TED lecture on why remixing shouldn't be illegal.
[http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html)

~~~
jonursenbach
The interview he did with Colbert last week was really good.

[http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/21545...](http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/215454/january-08-2009/lawrence-lessig)

------
DarkShikari
In other news, Youtube-clone video sites suddenly rise in popularity.

Youtube doesn't have anything in particular that makes it unique--they're
competing in a market among many video sites that are equal if not far
superior to them from a technical perspective and they have already lost in
many parts of the world.

See Nico Nico Douga in Japan, for example, which outcompeted Youtube with a
unique interface, better attention to their specific target audience, and a
more effective revenue model. They're breaking even--something not even
Youtube can say yet.

Changes like this, even if one can justify them by saying they are "forced by
the record companies," will simply accelerate Youtube towards irrelevance in
more and more markets. Youtube isn't like, say, World of Warcraft--anyone
using the site can literally just pick up all their uploaded videos and leave
at a cost of nothing to themselves. This is what makes changes like that
described in this article so dangerous.

No, Youtube isn't about to go away, or even lose significant popularity, but
huge sites like Youtube don't die overnight--they lose niche audiences one by
one.

------
zacharydanger
They forgot to mention that YouTube has a tool that lets you replace the
copyrighted music with music that YouTube has actually licensed.

~~~
vlad
For two reasons, I agree with the article's premise that YouTube is screwing
things up for its users.

First, my video actually lost all audio when I tried to use the AudioSwap tool
yesterday to reinstate my video after YouTube blocked it from public view; the
video (and sound) still previously viewable in the edit pane of my YouTube
account. I've just tried again with another AudioSwap song from their library
--maybe now it will work and add a song.

Second, my video was simply a parody of the music video set to a real song,
which there are likely millions of on youtube.

------
Flemlord
Not too often you see a company go out of their way to make their product
suck. IMHO, the RIAA is a bunch of dumbasses. I've heard music in YouTube
remixes, on TV, and in movies where I sought out the artist and bought the
album.

Here's a good example. I liked the music on this video so much I bought the
song:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3ybGOK8PtA>

(Natural Blues by Moby) I'm surprised the music companies don't view this as
free marketing. Very short sighted.

------
GHFigs
Thanks, RIAA. Instead of making it easier to buy your music when I hear it,
you've chosen to make it more difficult for me to hear it at all.

------
eru
In Germany Youtube has signed a deal with our local version of the RIAA.
Youtube pays for using their music there.

~~~
ivankirigin
It's not "their" music. It's not a middleman's music. Most artists I know
personally love YouTube. They love remixing. They want everyone who would like
their stuff to be able to get to it easily. They certainly want to get paid,
but an unauthorized video != not buying an album. In fact it is the opposite:
watching a video leads to buying an album.

This move is dumb on both the RIAA's part, and YouTube's. They added the link
to buy mp3s, which I thought was brilliant. I might actually use that. But now
I'm not going to go to YouTube for videos. I'm not going to bother.

Who does that benefit? I certainly didn't give more money to the artist. In
fact, I probably took money away by decreased notoriety. I won't share that
link or post the video to my blog.

~~~
eru
Morally you may be right. From a legal point of view, the GEMA (the 'German
RIAA') has an exclusive right to market the contracted musicians.

Those musicians gave up the right to sell their music. They can not even give
their music away for free after signing up with GEMA. Though many would love
to.

I guess someone has a vested interested in keeping the myth alive that you can
not get paid for radio airplay without signing up.

GEMA also has a complicated system to pay out more money to music that's more
'deserving'.

~~~
ivankirigin
You're certainly correct. But there businesses will not continue to exist if
things evolve in the same pattern.

------
jcl
Depending on how good the recognition algorithm is, I expect to see an
increase in the popularity of cover bands, sound-alikes, and/or royalty-free
producers.

~~~
dimitar
I've noticed I visit a certain youtube clone in my country more often lately.

