Copyright enforcement from Ole?

[slowroll]

I've always enjoyed listening to or watching full length Rush concert videos on YouTube. There were some nice R40 shows there. Recently, these appear to have been taken down. One now displays the message "This video contains content from Ole Media Management, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."

 

Since Ole bought the Rush catalog, are they taking a harder stance on copyright matters?

[Mr. JD]

Good for them

[taurus]

Perhaps, I had a Rush upload removed from youtube recently.

 

I respect copyright to a certain extent but what I uploaded was a fan project of assembling audio and visuals of a complete MP show in the original running order, something I felt would be of interest only to the most avid fan, it wasn't just an upload of a commercially available dvd or cd, Nonetheless it did contain the contents of the ESL dvd so I don't think I would have a strong argument to keep it up.

[blueschica]

I have noticed that message on some Youtube videos as well. I hope they don't do it with any interviews, I always find those interesting!

 

Slowroll, if you want to, sign up for the Rush external HD ; it is full of audio and video performances you can copy for yourself. There is more about it in this thread-

 

http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?/topic/60890-ext-hd-vine-is-here-complete-rush-audio/page__st__1620

[canadianice]

Good for them!

[RobK]

I was concerned myself when I heard about the sale because I've performed a few RUSH covers on my YouTube channel and while flagged, Anthem allowed it with profit-shared ads. Now it's changed to :

• You're monetizing this video and sharing revenue with the copyright owner.
  
• OleMediaManagement
  
• Monetized by copyright owner
  

However, I must agree with takedowns of DVD ripped content or any other "officially" released RUSH material. People uploading published concert footage and or "lyric videos" with the actual released music tracks is just theft. It's the definition of copyright infringement. They may also be coming down harder on more recent audience video uploads (such as R40) because there's still a significant chunk of money for them to make there?

"in the end" :) …they're within they're rights to have it ALL taken down, people uploading covers, all of it. They could also be suing us. I'm remaining thankful for what I'm allowed. We're all so used to passing around other people's intellectual property that it's desensitized us to the value it may or may not have for those who created it… and that it's THEY, not us, who have the final word.

[x1yyz]

However, I must agree with takedowns of DVD ripped content or any other "officially" released RUSH material. People uploading published concert footage and or "lyric videos" with the actual released music tracks is just theft. It's the definition of copyright infringement. They may also be coming down harder on more recent audience video uploads (such as R40) because there's still a significant chunk of money for them to make there?

 

I agree as well. Taking away from sales is stealing from the band, and copyright infringement is a huge issue that needs to be (properly) enforced.

 

"in the end" :) …they're within they're rights to have it ALL taken down, people uploading covers, all of it. They could also be suing us. I'm remaining thankful for what I'm allowed. We're all so used to passing around other people's intellectual property that it's desensitized us to the value it may or may not have for those who created it… and that it's THEY, not us, who have the final word.

 

I have a question here about covers. (I don't suppose anyone here is a copyright attorney, eh?) I know it is legal for bands to record and release cover songs so long as they don't also publish the lyrics (unless they have a separate agreement which includes that). I know it is also legal for bands to perform cover songs live without prior authorization from the copyright holder. So why wouldn't it be legal for a band to post a video of themselves covering a song? I know with YouTube there is some sort of automatic thing that detects copyrighted songs and disallows you from uploading them (although considering the preponderance of lyric videos and such I suspect this only applies to music which the band/copyright holder has previously complained about) so it is theoretically possible that a cover song which is very close to the original could be disallowed because the auto-detection thought it was the original.

[Disembodied Spirit]

It all has to do with content and if the content owner wants to bother with it.

Music, Tv shows, sports broadcasts, etc.

I have seen some artists do this Purge a few times. Now, I would assume, you have to Pay someone to send emails, etc, to get people to remove this. For some artists, it's just not worth it. Plus I have no idea how this works with say, 'I filmed 8 songs at R40 in New Orleans'....The songs are still copyrighted, but not on any album. A couple years after Michael Jacksons death, this purge happened, but they are back on there....so all people have to do is upload again. Rush or Rush's label is not going to pay constantly to have stuff removed.

[RobK]

I have a question here about covers. (I don't suppose anyone here is a copyright attorney, eh?) I know it is legal for bands to record and release cover songs so long as they don't also publish the lyrics (unless they have a separate agreement which includes that). I know it is also legal for bands to perform cover songs live without prior authorization from the copyright holder. So why wouldn't it be legal for a band to post a video of themselves covering a song? I know with YouTube there is some sort of automatic thing that detects copyrighted songs and disallows you from uploading them (although considering the preponderance of lyric videos and such I suspect this only applies to music which the band/copyright holder has previously complained about) so it is theoretically possible that a cover song which is very close to the original could be disallowed because the auto-detection thought it was the original.

 

It's definitely NOT legal for bands to record and release cover songs, lyrics or not. It falls under a derivative work (you can't take someone else's song, artwork, photo etc, change something, and then call it your work). It is also NOT legal for them to perform the songs live. Example, if a club/venue employs bands that play covers, the VENUE must have some kind of royalty agreement and be paying BMI/ASCAP and the like their fee. Just because people do it all the time and get away with it doesn't make it legal. When you see a band like Foo Fighters or Dream Theater etc cover songs live, I guarantee you they either have their ducks in a row, pay a fine, or just don't care and hope they get away with it (not so much now in the iPhone age).

 

I was the bassist for a band called Betty's Not a Vitamin back in 2005 and we did an Alt-Rock/Americana remake of Kenny Rogers' "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town" (you can hear a clip on the iTunes if interested). We were going to press 5000 CDs initially and we had to pay $2500 to the Harry Fox agency (they handle song licensing for most of the big artists - https://www.harryfox.com/) in order to officially release the song on our album. This $2500 ONLY covered those 5000 CDs. When we ended up pressing another 10K, we had to pay again. Now most deals include hard copies (CDs, records, etc) and a certain amount of digital downloads as sales (iTunes mostly). Once you burn through them, you pay for more and on and on.

 

Auto-detection on Youtube (per your example) does not need to think it's the original, it just needs match it to someone else work. When I uploaded my band's cover of The Spirit of Radio a few weeks ago (and we certainly don't sound exactly like RUSH LOL) it was detected in like 30 minutes as copyright infringement, but Ole allowed it if they could put ads on it and make money (and share a tiny bit with me).

 

'I filmed 8 songs at R40 in New Orleans'....The songs are still copyrighted, but not on any album. A couple years after Michael Jacksons death, this purge happened, but they are back on there....so all people have to do is upload again. Rush or Rush's label is not going to pay constantly to have stuff removed.

 

If you check your ticket materials you are prohibited from recording/filming. By purchasing and using the ticket you agreed to be bound by that. That fact that you DID it and nobody stopped you at the venue is irrelevant. You violated the contract. So that's how they can pull those down. Yeah, you can keep re-uploading it until you get banned (3 unresolved violations does it these days I think), or keep creating new channels and uploading them again... I see it all the time. For now, the chances of legal repercussions are quite low… for now.

Edited July 27, 2016 by RobK

[Wil1972]

Do you think this push back from Ole is because they are planning some big roll outs of Rush related merchandise in the near future? So that the only (legally) available sources are through the label's official releases? Or could it just be Ole being vigilant in its job? I am not in any way knowledgeable of how all the inner workings of the industry operate, but it was something that crossed my mind?

[JohnRogers]

Good for them!

 

Of course you'd say that Alex.

[x1yyz]

Thanks for the clarification. I had assumed the recording/releasing of covers was legal without prior authorization, but you what they say about assuming...

[Lorraine]

Good for them!

 

Of course you'd say that Alex.

 

[RobK]

Do you think this push back from Ole is because they are planning some big roll outs of Rush related merchandise in the near future? So that the only (legally) available sources are through the label's official releases? Or could it just be Ole being vigilant in its job? I am not in any way knowledgeable of how all the inner workings of the industry operate, but it was something that crossed my mind?

 

I definitely think it's just them being vigilant regarding their newly acquired property.

 

Actually you no longer need big industry clout. I'm not famous by ANY means and all my stuff was basically recorded in a bedroom. I have three albums and a single out and YouTube has flagged ME for copyright infringement for posting MY OWN songs! I simply contested it and said "uuuhhhh hey… I AM HIM" (and jumped through some other minor hoops to clear it). So I know the company I published through and assigned to monitor my own paltry, pathetically small musical rights is doing their job.

Edited July 27, 2016 by RobK

[Disembodied Spirit]

Great data Rob K.....I found this article which tries to simplify matters, but makes it even more murky.

Thoughts....agree, disagree ...either way a good read for us novices

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jul/13/taylor-swift-youtube-music-royalties-battle

[RobK]

Great data Rob K.....I found this article which tries to simplify matters, but makes it even more murky.

Thoughts....agree, disagree ...either way a good read for us novices

https://www.theguard...oyalties-battle

 

Give me some time to process that article.

 

What an A-list celeb already making millions of dollars considers to be fair doesn't necessarily transfer, or filter down to those of us ALSO working full-time in the industry but living basically paycheck to paycheck.

[fraroc]

Taking down videos of commercially available material is one thing, but if they start to false DMCA covers of Rush songs, amateur footage and old bootlegs, then you know what? That is more than enough reason to be pissed off in my book. There is such thing as "fair use".

[Eel Yddeg]

I'm REALLY angry at this. Taking down the commercially available Rush videos is one thing, but full R40 concert videos that AREN'T AVAILABLE ANYWHERE ELSE? Soon enough they'll be taking down old bootlegs, amateur video, and covers. This has to STOP.

 

Any other bootleg vids affected other than the full R40 shows?

Edited July 28, 2016 by Eel Yddeg

[HalfwayToGone]

Just because YouTube made it easy for everyone to upload bootleg footage doesn't make it legal. That's why it's called a bootleg. Bootleggers were outlaws. Unless you pay licensing fees to copyright owner or at least get permission to post something, you're posting someone else's legally protected performance of legally protected material that they may not want out there for whatever reason, including if the band feel it's a crappy quality representation of themselves or record label feels it's discouraging sales of the official release.

[RobK]

Taking down videos of commercially available material is one thing, but if they start to false DMCA covers of Rush songs, amateur footage and old bootlegs, then you know what? That is more than enough reason to be pissed off in my book. There is such thing as "fair use".

 

Posting covers, amateur footage and old bootlegs does not fall under "fair use".

 

"In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement."

 

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

 

"Fair Use" primarily covers commentary/criticism (like a news report or a review) and parodies (like Weird Al Yankovic… although he always tries to get permission he sometimes does not, but he doesn't need it).

 

It does NOT cover "well I feel it's unfair because I want to do it" although you could try and litigate if you have the resources. There is definitely wiggle room in interpretation.

Edited July 28, 2016 by RobK

[Eel Yddeg]

I hope no other shows get taken down, and that the R40 ones were the only ones.

[ytserush]

Just because YouTube made it easy for everyone to upload bootleg footage doesn't make it legal. That's why it's called a bootleg. Bootleggers were outlaws. Unless you pay licensing fees to copyright owner or at least get permission to post something, you're posting someone else's legally protected performance of legally protected material that they may not want out there for whatever reason, including if the band feel it's a crappy quality representation of themselves or record label feels it's discouraging sales of the official release.

 

Fortunately, we've insulated ourselves from most of this. Remember how looking for a Rush show was like a treasure hunt? Sometimes it took years, but when you finally bagged it? Priceless. Having them online is good for a quick reference or two though.

[HalfwayToGone]

There's always bit torrent if you can't live without them.

[Tony R]

A lot of people do not realize that the band themselves cannot authorise (ie give permission to) other people to publish their own catalogue. At Progarchives we once had a situation where a band sent us their album to stream and we were then told to remove it by a third party as the band weren't the copyright holders.

 

[KenJennings]

Copyright law needs to be updated for the digital age. Media distributors can not expect their content not to be shared and distributed freely on the internet. They need to evolve with the times, and governments need to stop enabling their entitlement.

 

Paying for music is an old model... something that harkens back to an era when music was manufactured and mechanical. Now, the flow of digits is free and unlimited, and if music wants to be an industry in modern times, it needs to evolve to accept that.

Edited July 29, 2016 by KenJennings