Comments on: YouTube conundrum for vintage acts

The video site is proving a thorn in the side of older, well-known musical artists, from Prince to the Village People.

[Bryce Mirtle]

The next American Idol

Soon You Tube will replace American Idol as the platform for
upcoming talent & we won't have to listen to that "pain in the @$$
Brit," Simon Cowell...

[sarki32]

your idol?

Shoud be your idol?
I doubt.
Anyway some usefull and nice lyrics:
http://www.sarki32.com/sozleri/p.php
http://www.sarki32.com/sozleri/prince/index.php
Anything else even if it's in Turkey, http://www.sarki32.com
Here's a countdown of the most essential tunes from the extraordinarily varied '80s catalogue of the true American original who at that time went.

[badasscat]

What planet are these guys on?

They're called PROMOTIONAL videos. As in, they help promote you as an artist. Why in the world would you not want them out there, everywhere they can be? It's like suing YouTube because they posted an advertisement for you. It is exactly the same thing.

Whether or not these are "established" artists is pretty immaterial. Does Coke not need to advertise anymore just because it's been around for a while?

If these guys want to pursue getting all of their videos taken off YouTube, then I guess they're free to do so... just as their fans are free to move on to the next great artist they find on YouTube.

[Heebee Jeebies]

We are talking...

Hitler you *******. Hilter. How would you like it if people started saying your mother or father was Hitlers dogs love slave. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, it is offensive and the Village People and their fans have a right not to be offended.

As for Prince it is his property. Maybe he doesn't want a bunch of freaky snot nosed kids as fans.

It doesn't matter the reason, copyrights were violated.

[skeptik]

not promotional, but parody.

These videos are NOT promotional videos. They are however parodies. My understanding is that clips can be used for parody WITHOUT permission. (I could be wrong)
Either way, these are not promotional for The Village People. They could be considered promotional for the person doing the mash-up, but they would need permission to use someone else's material in their promotion.

I think the key here is profit. This is not a legal view, but a realistic one. If kids are using publicly available material in a non-profit way for parody etc, I think it's pretty ridiculous for rich artists and companies to get all uptight about it. Where is the harm? NOBODY in their right mind views this and thinks The Village People are Hitler supporters. EVERYBODY, even those fan they claim don't go online often would recognize this as comedy.
so, it would seem this is all about control... the industry is very very pissed that they have lost control and common people now have the ability to manipulate and post content available out in the public arena.
I have no sympathy for them.

[orthotox]

Golden Rule a vintage act?

The argument seems to be that because some elect to allow this
company to use their material, anyone who refuses to must be a
poor sport or a fool. To paraphrase your president, the creator is
the decider, not you or utube or anyone else. Or shall someone else
start deciding what's best for you?

[skeptik]

nice try but

Extending your argument leads us to the conclusion that unless you have obtained permission from the artist to use their material, singing the lyrics to your favorite song while listening to the radio in anyplace where some other person might hear you is a violation of copyright and unfair.
I think this is an untenable position and the sign of a control freak. I also suspect this was NOT the intention of the copyright concept.