Originally posted 2015-08-10 23:40:48. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Originally posted 2012-06-11 19:57:19. Republished by Blog Post Promoter.
I like this from Jonathan Rogers:
On the YouTube blog, the company posted an announcement about a deal struck with many music publishers. Now, when users upload videos with background music that is copyrighted music, instead of begin taken down, if it belongs to certain publishers, an ad will play, and at least some of the revenue sent to that publisher to pay for the royalties that should be paid. . . .
My problem with this is that it only further to cloud the layman YouTube userâ€™s understand of proper copyright music use in videos. Google tried to educate users with a cute video. But you still see people upload full songs with nothing but a picture of the artist then post in the comments â€œCOPYRIGHT NOTICE â€“ I DONT OWN THIS MUSIC NOR CLAIM TO, DONT TAKE THIS DOWN OR SUE MEâ€. There is a terrible lack of understanding about what copyright protects with most users.
Okay, I don’t love it, I like it. I like it because I have also written at length about the way copyright enforcement and policy feeds back into the public’s understanding of, and willingness to comply with (or, if you must, “buy into”) intellectual property laws, and why that matters.
In this case, however… “meh.” I think YouTube had to come to an accommodation with music publishers on this knotty problem. There’s a limit, especially in a bilateral context such as this one (holding the “publishers” as one “side”), to how much the parties can do to both come to an agreement and make this an effective “teaching moment.”
If you disagree, though, SUE ME!