First Prince, now Village People target YouTube
Somebody combined the Village People's hit song, "YMCA," with footage of a dancing Adolf Hitler and posted the clip to YouTube. Now the company that owns the rights to the band's music is preparing to sue YouTube.
(Credit:
Island/Mercury)
John Giacobbi, president of Web Sheriff, which hunts down pirated material on the Web and tries to get it removed, said his company has sent 500 "take-down" notices to YouTube. Each time the video is pulled, someone else uploads another copy. Giacobbi believes that YouTube has the ability to screen for copyright content in the same way it does for pornography.
The Hitler video is edited to make it look like he and other well-known Nazis are singing and dancing to "YMCA," the Village People's biggest hit. What's more aggravating for Giacobbi and the group is that copycat videos have begun cropping up. Many show the same footage but are combined with other songs by the group, a '70s disco band whose members dressed in costume.
"It's highly inappropriate," Giacobbi said. "Consider that the song's composers were both Jewish. It's not funny. It's stupid and hurtful."
Web Sheriff, headquartered in Great Britain, made news on Thursday for announcing that the company is preparing to launch civil litigation against YouTube, eBay and the Pirate Bay on behalf of rock performer Prince. In that case, Prince is accusing the companies of encouraging people to commit copyright violations.
YouTube said Thursday in response to Prince's criticism that the company enjoys excellent relations with copyright owners.
"Most content owners understand that we respect copyrights," said Zahavah Levine, YouTube's chief counsel in an e-mail. "We work every day to help them manage their content, and we are developing state-of-the-art tools to let them do that even better."
This is the month that YouTube representatives said the company would roll out a new filtering system, which would block copyright material from showing up on the site. An attorney representing YouTube in an unrelated copyright lawsuit brought against it earlier this year by Viacom, told a judge recently that the system was due around September.
Representatives from Can't Stop Productions, the company that owns the rights to the Village People's music, could not be reached for comment.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
This is an interesting debate for sure. And one we are beginning to address on our new web site and blogs on a regular basis as well.
But I must say, as one who has been employing artists, designers, cartoonists, illustrators, and digitizers ever since the days when "Prince" was only "Prince", none of us fall within your broad generalization of an "already wealthy yesterday's pop star".
This is not a battle between an ultra rich "copyright" minority and the "creative" masses who are all homeless and starving.
Let's at least explain the true story behind this debate accurately.
Google has decided unilaterally that it is up to their culture to do what is fair and just for all the rest of us. We stand by and watch while they give each other massages and eat free gourmet meals. They distribute our copyrighted materials, keep all the advertising fess for themselves, and invest $20 million in moon rockets.
Fact is, we have had to lay off dozens of very hard working, creative, and dedicated people due to flagrant Internet piracy within our ranks over the years. These folks have a hard time making ends meet when their hard work is stolen from them and freely distributed without attribution or fair compensation.
I am sure these "pirates" think they are doing us some kind of huge favor by freely distributing "free samples" of our work. "Creating a market for us", in your words. It doesn't work the way those of you without direct experience seem to think it should. People who become accustomed to getting their music, artwork, software or movies for free (stolen or not stolen) over the Internet continue to "shop" that way. If a copyright holder tries to "shift them" to a paid subscription service or pay-per-download service, the vast majority tend to bolt with the first sign of someone asking them to actually pay a fair price. They'll simply find something else to be loyal to if it's free.
I don't think it is good journalism for you to throw out socialistic or free market "theories" to your readers without one shred of evidence. Seeding a market with stolen goods does not work!
Copyright protection, and choices for the artists (not simply greedy distributors like YouTube and Google), have been around for over 200 years in this country. They work. As long as we can keep the crooks out of the game. We have a larger user base of newly copyrighted material than the rest of the world put together from what I have read.
There's a huge difference here that I don't believe many of you in the "tech media" field seem to understand. Don't you think the choice should be made by the individual artist (copyright owner), not someone creating very little original material themselves (sorry, Google) and simply leading the herds?
You see, the vast majority of copyright holders (my estimate is well over 90%) in this country are actually individual creative people and small development companies like mine. Not Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Eric Schmidt. We depend on copyright protection for survival. Some of us may decide that creating a new market with free distribution of our copyrighted works is a smart choice, and some of us may not.
But the Constitution (and our current copyright laws in this country) give this choice to us, not you. Let the free market decide whether it wants to support Prince's way of doing business, and creating useful art, or it wants to put him out to pasture.
Nothing says a legitimate copyright holder cannot choose to give all of his/her work to YouTube for free if they choose to do so. YouTube deciding this for them, however, is pure and simple "stealing". There's no intelligent debate on that issue.
You are right on one point ... the 80's were simpler times ... but nowhere near as exciting as things are today!
What exactly do you expect Prince to do here ... cry for "Purple Rain"?
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com
Copyright law wasn't designed to let IP creators get rich. It was designed to encourage the creation of more IP so society as a whole could be enriched.
It's the Big Content guys who have perverted Copyright law into the mockery it is now, through the use of BS lawsuits like the one referenced in this blog post.
If your contact is similar to others in your companies position, you generally take a persons copyright in such a way that's one sidedly favorable to your company.
Heck it's media companies in general that forced the true content creators like Actors and Artists to force the issue of the Right of Publicity.
Perhaps your company is an exception, but the odds are against it. I won't know until you posted examples of the contracts you use.
Your comment on a fair price is fair. But a fair price is determined by the market. A fair price may have nothing in common with what you would like to see for the work.
Your firm and your artists have the right to try and make a living. You don't actually have a right to make that living. Only true. It's entirly possible that in the digital age, everthing is worth less because it's so much more available. That's even ignoring privacy.
In the old days, I had NBC, CBS, and ABC that I could watch. I watched what they had one when they had it on. Cable expanded my ability to watch what I like plus gave me more things that I like. DVR's now let me watch what I like and when I like it. It all points to more and more competition for the one thing I can't increase. My time.
Music is no different. I can hear more artists in more ways than ever before. I still only have a limited budget for music.
So why the heck don't you distribute your artists materials and take the advertising fees? Your advantage is that you have the ability to provide the highest quality, and be offical.
Speaking of evidence, it seems to me that the vast majority of creative people are herded by companies like yours and a lot of those are going indie. While the other 90% of untapped creative people now have an outlet they never had before.
BTW. This post is orginal material. It's copyrighted. That's how it works. Someday I'll get paid for my time and hard work. But heck I can't even get on YouTube.
and the artists formerly known as the village people must need
another moment in the spotlight.
I guess this is easier than actually WORKING for a living.
Just another "artist" (used loosely) shooting themselves in the foot.
Besides, the Village People were a parody of themselves.
The guy who played Colonel Klink was Jewish, so why can't Hitler dance to this? Because the "writers" are Jewish?
They should be offended that anyone actually plays that stupid song, in any context. We should sue those responsible for "YMCA" for pain and suffering.
- ok
- by Swimdude007 September 14, 2007 2:40 PM PDT
- I love when a company or person finds something copyrighted on YouTube or any site they sue the company and not the person who uploaded it. How can YouTube be held responsible for something someone uploaded to their website. cmon man this is ridiculous.
- Reply to this comment
-
(10 Comments)