The copyright claim on “Burning Down the House” video is legitimate

posted at 3:35 pm on September 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

My friend Danny Glover at Eyeblast notes that music publishers have twice now forced YouTube to remove a 10-minute video that demonstrates the irresponsible nature of Democratic policies in the collapse of the credit markets.  I have received a slew of e-mails on the removal of “Burning Down The House”, the video created by The Mouth Peace and embedded here and a number of other blogs.  Danny argues that the copyright holders are acting politically:

Warner Music and YouTube also could have a tough time enforcing copyright law in this case because all of the music used in the bailout video is available elsewhere on YouTube. (Follow the links above for examples.)

Another fact worth noting: Edgar Bronfman, the head of Warner Music, is a Democratic campaign contributor. Among other donations, he gave $2,300 to Dodd’s presidential campaign last November, and he contributed to the Democratic campaign committees for both the House and Senate.

A commenter at American Thinker also noted: “YouTube is owned by Google. Warner Music Group is owned by Time Warner. Google and Time Warner are two of [Obama’s] biggest financial contributors.”

I’m less inclined to see this as a copyright infringement.  The Mouth Peace tried reposting it with a claim of “safe harbor” because he wouldn’t see any profit from the use of the copyrighted material, but that doesn’t give people leave to reproduce copyrighted material without permission.  The property rights of the owner allow him or her to determine the circumstances of publication, not anyone else.  Since the entire songs were used in this publication, it doesn’t qualify under “fair use” excerpting either.

Did Time Warner intervene for political reasons?  No one can know intent for certain, but there is another reason for them to make the claim — and Danny inadvertently makes the case in the excerpt above.  Lack of prior claims on publication can be seen as an acknowledgment that the owner intends for the property to enter the public domain.  Copyright holders have to take action to protect their private ownership of their property, or else they can lose the ability to profit from them in the future.  That would mean that Time Warner and Universal almost have to assert their ownership, especially when this video has gotten such wide distribution, if they intend to keep “Burning Down the House” out of the public domain.

The obvious solution here is to stop using copyrighted music, or to get the appropriate licensing for it.  Maybe that wouldn’t be quite as clever, but the music is the least of the message in this video.  The Mouth Peace should redo the video with either public-domain music or licensed music and republish to YouTube.  Or better yet, to Eyeblast.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Okay Then more You Tube Videos need to be removed if this is the standard. That is FAIR. This is selective. Then the Video should be retooled and go back up. The content doesn’t belong to Warner Music.

Dr Evil on September 30, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Indeed, Ed.

The Rule of Law must be upheld.

Abby Adams on September 30, 2008 at 3:40 PM

There is an official record, the Democrats can’t clear or take down the Record in THE HOUSE. C-Span not owned by Warner Music or Anyone else. This isn’t going to go away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Dr Evil on September 30, 2008 at 3:41 PM

considering there are 48 other instances of use of ‘burning down the house’ what would you say is the motive but a kind of negative influence campaign donation to Bambi?

sven10077 on September 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM

And just why do the Dems keep saying it is the GOP that services Big Business? The biggest and most influential businesses, Hollywood and Wall St., are Dem sycophants.

DerKrieger on September 30, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Copyright owners do have to be vigilant and aggressively police their claims.

rbj on September 30, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Pay for the use or don’t use it.

Next.

Dave Rywall on September 30, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Is this the youtube video?

Democrats Barack Obama: Economic Crisis “REIGNITE THE FIRE!

luckybogey on September 30, 2008 at 3:44 PM

I already saw another version up there somewhere, with multiple songs in less than 2 minute snippets…

Its already out there.

Romeo13 on September 30, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Pay for the use or don’t use it.

Next.

Dave Rywall on September 30, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Just as soon as you stop forcing the right to do business it doesn’t want to Gypsum.

sven10077 on September 30, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Dave Rywall on September 30, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Yep. Rywall gets it right.

Abby Adams on September 30, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Who fucking cares?

echosyst on September 30, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Dave Rywall on September 30, 2008 at 3:44 PM

I knew I smelled pansies.

AubieJon on September 30, 2008 at 3:47 PM

There is an official record, the Democrats can’t clear or take down the Record in THE HOUSE. C-Span not owned by Warner Music or Anyone else. This isn’t going to go away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Dr Evil on September 30, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Indeed….they get a bobsled course they may spike C-span…no joke.

sven10077 on September 30, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Take out the music, re-edit it to go faster and refine the pace. Make the point quickly. Don’t worry, people will watch it more than once. The music is a gimmick and doesn’t add that much.

wise_man on September 30, 2008 at 3:48 PM

The music is a gimmick and doesn’t add that much.

It’s not like anyone has heard or cared for this song in decades.

AubieJon on September 30, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Has anyone noticed that Bwahney Fwank looks and sounds a lot like Buddy Hackett? Maybe he could do a remake of “The Love Bug”.

AubieJon on September 30, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Dow up 500 points. We need a bailout!@!!!!111!

carbon_footprint on September 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Ok, two things here:

1) TheMouthPeace does NOT claim “Safe Harbor”. He claims “Fair Use”. these are two totally different and unrelated issues.

2) “Fair Use” Says that you CAN use a copyrighted work IF the use A) Is non-profit B) OR Is in parody C) is INCOMPLETE or altered in any way D) OR Is for Political Speech.

I’m fairly certain that TheMouthPeace’s use of the music in question clearly falls under A, C, and D. Thus the copyright infringement claim is INVALID.

Frankly, crap like this is one of the MANY reasons I support the abolition of the poisonous DMCA.

wearyman on September 30, 2008 at 3:58 PM

dude. I don’t care if someone farts through the video. Cut the music and put it back up.

marklmail on September 30, 2008 at 3:58 PM

Haven’t seen the video in question-does it use the song of the same name by the Talking Heads?

Del Dolemonte on September 30, 2008 at 3:59 PM

I really can’t imagine why we’re in the mess, when we have this fat commie pervert in charge of things.

I mean, would anyone in their right mind, put this venereal disease ridden, filth bucket, fecal matter coated sodomite in charge of anything of any importance, whatsoever?

But by all means, put this incompetent, corrupt and obese queer in charge of our economic well being, thank you Democrats.

NoDonkey on September 30, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Ed, do you know how many videos there are on you tube with music in them?

Gazillions! Where is Time Warner and Google on those?

Come on, this is political hackery.

Face it Ed, Democrats are Communists. You can sit there and say they are following the law, but that is a scapegoat on this one.

Unless they ban the gazillion other videos out there on you tube with music, then what else can this be?

TheHat on September 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Put the same music to a vid of American soldiers being attacked in Iraq and the lefties would be hailing the creator as visionary.

And yes, I AM questioning their patriotism. Every single day that I draw breath.

Bishop on September 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM

If the use of the music doesn’t impede the copyright owner’s ability to make money from that music, it’s hard to enforce the copyright. Ironically, by the music being used, sales of the original song have probably increased lately. Heart’s “Baracuda” sales probably would have increased after the Republican convention if they hadn’t had such a whiney liberal fit over it’s use.

AubieJon on September 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM

NoDonkey on September 30, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Now tell us what you really think. :-)

Bishop on September 30, 2008 at 4:03 PM

It’s the message, not the music!

Star20 on September 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM

the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire,

we don’t need no water let the cotton eater burn

burn cotton eater, BURN!

ThackerAgency on September 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM

It’s better without the music. The edits were very clumsy. Also, the end needs punching up.

S. Weasel on September 30, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Look up if you haven’t watched it here it is you can watch and make your own judge ment there are many copys still up. I will cut to the chase the Democrats are to Blame and now they would really like you to pay them lets say, 700 Billion Dollars..I just love typing that. Hey it’s not a Bail Out it’s a Rescue Package…alrighty then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiXwZI_YqHY

Dr Evil on September 30, 2008 at 4:08 PM

And yes, I AM questioning their patriotism. Every single day that I draw breath.

Bishop on September 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM

DAMN STRAIGHT

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 30, 2008 at 4:10 PM

The obvious solution here is to stop using copyrighted music, or to get the appropriate licensing for it.

Yeah, if the Marxists running the entertainment industry will give you the licensing.

doubleplusundead on September 30, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Burning Down The House without the music, except for a little classical (public domain) at the start.

Mulligan on September 30, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Burning Down The House without the music, except for a little classical (public domain) at the start.

Mulligan on September 30, 2008 at 4:12 PM

ONO THATS COPYRITED PUL IT DOWN NAO

Wait, no one’s complaining? Then what the hell’s up with the other video, eh?

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 30, 2008 at 4:13 PM

Forgot…. /iSarc

Grue in the Attic on September 30, 2008 at 4:14 PM

Is the Barney song copyrighted, because that would make a fine musical score for an Oloser ad.

“I love you, you love me…” while the fool prances through the audience and slack-jawed followers.

Bishop on September 30, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Grue, maybe I’m missing your point, but the YouTube version I put up the link to doesn’t contain any copyrighted music.

Mulligan on September 30, 2008 at 4:16 PM

Mulligan on September 30, 2008 at 4:16 PM

I was being sarcastic, and forgot my tag.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 30, 2008 at 4:17 PM

anyone seen this amazing website?

lodge on September 30, 2008 at 4:19 PM

I’m fairly certain that TheMouthPeace’s use of the music in question clearly falls under A, C, and D. Thus the copyright infringement claim is INVALID.

Frankly, crap like this is one of the MANY reasons I support the abolition of the poisonous DMCA.

wearyman on September 30, 2008 at 3:58 PM

The FAIR USE claim doesn’t cut it with me. If someone uses my music without my written permission or pay for the rights to use and cry Fair Use I will be more than happy to show them what Fair Use of their face is for my hands.

The DMCA blows goats.

Old Hippie Vet on September 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM

I have gotten just today, 4 to 5 offers in my email in box, to get me a mortgage or help me with my current mortgage. Did they miss the memo, the Credit Market dried up. This is what is wrong with bureaucrats and politicians, they can’t get on the same page. I am supposed to be scared to death here people, this is not inspiring fear in me. Puleeze, someone tell the banks they are hard up. It has come to this, we are going to have to outsource our “Fear Mongers” really this is embarrassing. LOL!

Dr Evil on September 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM

wearyman on September 30, 2008 at 3:58 PM

I’m not a lawyer, and I certainly may be wrong, but that is not how I understand Fair Use. In the event that this video is not covered by Fair Use, and if the artist, or publishing company, gets to determine when and how it may be used outside the allowable purposes, then their objection to it in this context is their right. If I were a musician, I would not want some Lefty using my work for something I vehemently opposed. So, when the artist/publisher raises objections in this case but not others, we can draw logical conclusions about what they stand for.

DrMagnolias on September 30, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Grue, that’s very different, never mind…….
*blush*

Mulligan on September 30, 2008 at 4:21 PM

wearyman on September 30, 2008 at 3:58 PM

The non-profit exemption for copyright is very, very specific; this usage does not qualify. Altering a song “in any way” will absolutely not defeat a copyright claim. The tests for this are well established. Claiming a use a “political” in no way gives carte blanche to use copyrighted material as you please. It’s been a while since my IP overview course but I do remember that.

exlibris on September 30, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Republicans should just STOP using anybody’s music!

Barring that, use ONLY the music of KNOWN supporters!

It’s not that complicated!!

Star20 on September 30, 2008 at 4:24 PM

An off topic post before I move on in my reading cycle.
Most apropos fair use of “Burning Down the House” I have ever encountered? Blasting it through the frat house windows across the street from my wife’s former sorority house as it burned to the ground.

(Relax – it was a late night kitchen fire, no one physically hurt, not even minor injuries to the rescue teams who arrived in time to merely keep it from spreading to other buildings.)

TubbyHubby on September 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Old Hippie Vet on September 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM

While I will agree with you that the DMCA blows goats, My point was that there IS a legal hole in copyright that allows for the above stated uses. EVEN YOUR music OHV.

That’s the point of “Fair Use”. It allows a very limited, non-profit, incomplete use of a copyrighted work. It also allows things like, making a personal-use copy of a DVD or CD (either physical or digital) so you can store the original for safekeeping, and for playing DVD’s and CD’s at private partys.

If not for the “Fair Use” clause, we would ALL have to pay for each time we rip a CD, or copy a DVD so our kids don’t wreck the original. If not for “Fair Use” we would have to pay a fee JUST to play music at a party or to watch a DVD as a family. If not for “Fair Use” the Paul Shanklin parodies could not exist! If not for “Fair Use” entire GENRES of Music would NEVER have been created!

“Fair Use” is critical to freedom, and to creativity. The DMCA restricts it.

I think his use of the music falls under “Fair Use”, but that he is fighting an uphill battle. He should remake it with Public Domain music, if only to eliminate the argument, and then fight the “Fair use” fight another day.

wearyman on September 30, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Barring that, use ONLY the music of KNOWN supporters!

Ted Nugent!!

AubieJon on September 30, 2008 at 4:38 PM

If you search Google videos using the term Obama,
you get all pro-Obama vids.

If you try it w. McCain you get all anti-McCain vids.

I just did it. it’s spooky.

The media is BIG BROTHER, They have their firemen burning all the truth.

TheSitRep on September 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM

Hannity says a full third of Barney Frank’s own committee voted against the bill. God, they are pathetic.

Mr_Magoo on September 30, 2008 at 4:40 PM

so lets put together the money to pay for his blanket license…

gimmie a link to put some money in… that video is too important to lose…

also can some one give me a non-youtube version

Kaptain Amerika on September 30, 2008 at 4:42 PM

If they take this iteration of the video down, it’s time to break out GarageBand.

Sekhmet on September 30, 2008 at 4:42 PM

Pay for the use or don’t use it.

Yea, verily, the misuse of artists’ intellectual property is of monumental import!

I recommend an immediate sting coordinated by the DOJ and FBI to root out individuals who illegally share or distribute files. For the sake of economy during these troubling economic times (brought on solely by George W. Bush and masterminded by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney), I recommend starting the investigations on college campuses. I understand there are already loyal troops (who I am sure are “concerned Christian conservatives who just happen to be registered Democrats) mobilized on Ohio’s college campuses. Let’s start in Ohio.

I’m sure there won’t be any unintended consequences such as harassment of O! supporters in the process.

/sarc

Y-not on September 30, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Obama got $338,000 from Time Warner … nothing to see here, is there.

Mr_Magoo — That was a third of the Democrats on Barney Franks committee, 12 Democrats voted no. Tight races, couldn’t afford the risks.

tarpon on September 30, 2008 at 4:46 PM

The best:

The lyrics are creepy within this political context.

Watch out
You might get what youre after
Cool babies
Strange but not a stranger
Im an ordinary guy
Burning down the house

Hold tight wait till the partys over
Hold tight were in for nasty weather
There has got to be a way
Burning down the house

Heres your ticket pack your bag: time for jumpin overboard
The transportation is here
Close enough but not too far, maybe you know where you are
Fightin fire with fire

All wet
Hey you might need a raincoat
Shakedown
Dreams walking in broad daylight
Three hun-dred six-ty five de-grees
Burning down the house

It was once upon a place sometimes I listen to myself
Gonna come in first place
People on their way to work baby what did you except
Gonna burst into flame

My house
Sout of the ordinary
Thats might
Dont want to hurt nobody
Some things sure can sweep me off my feet
Burning down the house

No visible means of support and you have not seen nuthin yet
Everythings stuck together
I dont know what you expect starring into the tv set
Fighting fire with fire

moxie_neanderthal on September 30, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Here I was looking forward to hearing the T Heads’, Burning Down The House during the video, but I did enjoy every minute, even though the music was repetative (sp?). (Byrne would have sued whoever for the use of ‘his’ song. He’s a maniac.)

Christine on September 30, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Duh…I musta missed one with BDTHouse.

Christine on September 30, 2008 at 5:17 PM

Watching that ‘old’ clip of the T. Heads I wondered how many grams of cocaine were consumed before the show.

Christine on September 30, 2008 at 5:26 PM

Sounds like a good reason to start up an association of conservative artists. I’m sure there’s a number of folks that could put together some driving electronica to get the point across.

spmat on September 30, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Lack of prior claims on publication can be seen as an acknowledgment that the owner intends for the property to enter the public domain. Copyright holders have to take action to protect their private ownership of their property, or else they can lose the ability to profit from them in the future.

That is incorrect. This rule about defending it or losing it is for trademarks. A copyright is not weakened or lost from lack of defense.

Here’s and old link. Look at FAQ question 3. Sorry, I didn’t want to take more time to research a more current explanation.

sweetlipsbutterhoney on September 30, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Did you hear about the new hot dog over at Fenway, it’s called Barney’s Frank, and if you don’t like it, you can shove it up your asss!

reshas1 on September 30, 2008 at 5:37 PM

I work in a job that straddles both the Entertainment and Information Technology industries, so let me clear up the misconceptions some people have about using copyrighted music in video:

1. Fair Use does NOT cover anything other than short snippets (there is no magic “less than 30 seconds and I don’t have to pay” number) of a song/movie/etc. for purposes of academic review or non-profit discourse (which does not include a positive/negative political attack ad)
2. If you take a song off a CD/MP3 you purchased and edit that song into a video for your personal use in your home (i.e. home video of your kids on the swingset with an Alan Jackson song playing in the background), you cannot claim “Fair Use” and you are technically violating copyright laws—the FBI just rarely prosecutes anyone for it
3. If you upload your home video containing copyrighted music to YouTube, the music publisher and/or artist is within their rights to have YouTube pull your video unless you paid a royalty to the music publisher for the use of the song in your YouTube video—again, Fair Use protections do not apply
4. An artist can refuse to authorize their song in a video but if the entity using the song has paid the proper royalty fees and cleared it through the music publisher, then there’s not much the artist can do to stop the video from using the song. For example, David Byrne, songwriter for the Talking Heads, will not allow a Republican to use his song Burning Down The House in an ad exposing the failures of Democrats in Congress. However, if Byrne sold his song’s publishing rights to Warner Music Group and the Republican paid all of the royalties as directed by Warner Music, then the Republican can use the song in the attack ad
5. Song parodies are legally considered a First Amendment right only when the certain criteria are met. Do what Al Yankovic does: Always consult a lawyer before going into the studio to record your parody.

ScottMcC on September 30, 2008 at 6:02 PM

The obvious solution here is to stop using copyrighted music, or to get the appropriate licensing for it. Maybe that wouldn’t be quite as clever….

…nail on the head, old man. Stealing is stealing…even if it’s stealing from folks who would give the music to those who would wreck democracy and impose an ueber-state, but expect a bucket of blood from you….

Intellectual property is property, and the owner can dispose of it as he sees fit…even if he’s a noron.

The suggestion of Eyeblast is excellent, as well. Why the hell should YouTube — considering their shennanigans in the past — have a monopoly. I like diversity — I mean real diversity — especially in the marketplace.

Puritan1648 on September 30, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Take the music out. Have someone record a generic background that interferes in no way… Like keyboard sounds and impacts, for example.

No songs, no problem.

***

This also shows a very disturbing trend. It seems that, increasingly, Republicans are excluded from using or listening to any music, even though they pay and do what’s legal to obtain it.

If the entire music industry is against us, we must do something to counteract it, and fast.

newton on September 30, 2008 at 6:07 PM

The funniest part of the video is the first song “Money for Nothing” – for reasons unknown the word “faggot” is removed and replaced with silence.

It’s pretty jarring, because the word is used several times in a row. Makes you wonder why he chose to use that song if the content offended him.

What the hell is wrong with British cigarettes, anyway?

Dorvillian on September 30, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Did you hear about the new hot dog over at Fenway, it’s called Barney’s Frank, and if you don’t like it, you can shove it up your asss!

reshas1 on September 30, 2008 at 5:37 PM

…clever…terribly homophobic, and probably racist as well (although I don’t know how it could be)…but clever.

…wait a minute…I’m terribly homophobic, generally speaking, which is anywhere Rep. Frank is concerned…so all we need to address is the charge of racism….

…and, since I made it…nevermiiiiiiiiind….

…good…that settled. Clever.

Puritan1648 on September 30, 2008 at 6:09 PM

“TheMouthPeace” has a new video up with new music. This one should stick. He also slaps TW at the begining and shows their donation totals to The One for fun.

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

Click above or: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

Enjoy.

batter on September 30, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Instead of letting anyone assume the video is gone (or having to dig through the comments), any chance of an update with a link to one of the ‘safe’ videos, Ed?

TheMouthPeace has posted one (link above) and so has Mulligan.

batter on September 30, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Enjoy.

batter on September 30, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Thanks for the link. Posted it on my blog.

CyberCipher on September 30, 2008 at 7:00 PM

moxie_neanderthal on September 30, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Did you realize that those lyrics are copyrighted as well? You shouldn’t publish/post them without consent, I’m just sayin’…

Geministorm on September 30, 2008 at 7:08 PM

It’s not like anyone has heard or cared for this song in decades.

AubieJon on September 30, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Hey, I like a lot of those songs!

Count to 10 on September 30, 2008 at 7:20 PM

I figured it was the music and that it was politically motivated, BUT I figured it would just be released again with different music or no music to get by the copyright.

Why have they not redone it yet and released to meet copywright statndards?

It is the best quick explanation of what REALLY happened that led to this.

1) Forced bad loans.
2) Selling mortgage to F/F.
3) F/F securitizing it, selling it with implicit government backup.
4) F/F billions sent to politicians, mostly Dems, to keep it going.
5) Obama fighting Citibank via ACORN to force them to make MORE bad loans.

Get it out there, damnit.

Sapwolf on September 30, 2008 at 7:20 PM

I’m sure that someone got to Time-Warner on this. That’s good, in a way – it shows they’re paying attention.

I will never be able to hear the name ‘Jim Johnson’ again without hearing that AC/DC track. I don’t own that record, though, and I sure as hell won’t *buy* it now.

Good that it’s been redone and is back in the public eye.

JEM on September 30, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Sapwolf on September 30, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Here is the link to the new “copyright ok” version.

batter on September 30, 2008 at 7:23 PM

aw, it’s not the same w/o the music :-(

how about the video posted on powerlineblog with the congressmen/women proclaiming nothing was wrong w/fannie & freddie. also good:

anna on September 30, 2008 at 7:45 PM

trying the link again:

anna on September 30, 2008 at 7:45 PM

ok, i’ll just post address:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021644.php

anna on September 30, 2008 at 7:46 PM

We need to open up copyright laws for more liberty. We also need to limit the terms to 14 years, that would solve 80%+ of the problem.

Tim Burton on September 30, 2008 at 7:49 PM

The music does matter when it gives topical flair to what might be a dull subject. The Founders struggled with intellectual property rights the way we do. A lot of this stuff should become public domain, but stupid new laws went against the reality of current technology and turned everyone into criminals.

Selective copyright claims are applied to silence political views that aren’t PC. Corporate leftists love it. Vermin.

If you find something worth saving on Scroo-Tube, there is software to save the browser cache file as a regular file.

A brilliant anti-manmade Global Warming video was yanked using the same fishy excuse. The original had some hard-hitting German heavy metal. Had a feeling it was going to get pulled. Real funny how the average person can’t make a deal that re-popularizes old work.

Not advocating breaking the law; I’m just sayin’.

Feedie on September 30, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Google is the biggest group of sleezeballs when it comes to copyright infringement. I know first hand Googles BS due to my current job and they refuse to take any action to protect anyone who has copyright material on there, even when specific things are being asked to be taken down.

These are being taken down for one reason only, to protect the dems. If the videos are plastered on under many different titles around the 3AM hour it is less likely Youtube will be able to take them all down, worse comes to worse they’ll have to chop up, manipulate, and cut a few songs together, but from my knowledge with my work if a song is added with video not owned by the same company they have an extremely hard time claiming copyright infringement.

Rbastid on September 30, 2008 at 10:30 PM

I’m less inclined to see this as a copyright infringement.

Don’t you mean you’re more inclined to see this as a copyright infringement?

Kralizec on October 1, 2008 at 3:35 AM

We need to open up copyright laws for more liberty. We also need to limit the terms to 14 years, that would solve 80%+ of the problem.

Tim Burton on September 30, 2008 at 7:49 PM

And force more tax money out of middle class citizens and corporations while we are at it. Income redistribution sucks dude. There is no justification what so ever for reducing the duration of a copyright on any artistic tangible asset. As long as the artist is alive they deserve to maintain control of any and all revenues that their artistic work produces.

doriangrey on October 1, 2008 at 4:04 AM

Everyone with the talent to put something like that together ought to deny the Toob-Censors all the initial traffic and post it straight to Liveleak.

Feedie on October 1, 2008 at 4:06 AM

The obvious solution here is to stop using copyrighted music, or to get the appropriate licensing for it.

Let me just say, “Duh.” You can’t use someone’s music without licensing it.

That said, YouTube would not exist if not for pirated content. I’ve uploaded videos; YouTube reminds you not to post anything that isn’t yours. So, take it all down… all the TV clips, all the music videos, everything that actually drives traffic there.

saint kansas on October 1, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Why is there music in it at all? Isn’t there CONTENT there?

rightwingprof on October 1, 2008 at 12:29 PM

I uploaded a new ant-Obama ad titled “Endorsements” last night to my YouTube account and immediately received a copyright violation notice. I’m disputing it, since I only use part of the song and give credit to the owner at the end. I’ll gladly remove it if the artist wants me to.

Check it out while you can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wIr9qSWKlw

I don’t think the song writer/performer will mind. :-)

cannonball on October 1, 2008 at 2:23 PM

Yup, I actually agree with this. I thought the video was quite clever, but I was thinking of this exact scenario even as I was watching it: “I wonder how long this video will be here given that they’re using a *LOT* of all these songs and the publishers are probably going to be upset.” Nevermind the partisan angle.

Frankly, you could probably get somebody to create new music for you probono that would be just as good. Sure, you’d lose the irony of that part of the message, but you also wouldn’t have the strange transitions between songs.

PersonalLiberty on October 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM