Music piracy and illegal downloading is anti-semitic. People are downloading music to hurt the Jewish media bosses and take away their profits. If you download music illegally, you are a Nazi criminal!
In terms of music, you get the Artist and the Label. The label makes the cash, the Artist is to create works for the Label to sell. It's the greed of the Label that fucks things up for the Artist not "Pirates". Artists are too naive to see that. So, to sum up: Artists: are not businessmen, Art is for expression not so much profit. Labels: are corporate pigs that leech off of unwitting Artists gaining more income than the Artist itself. If an Artists main desire is money, They are not Artists.
Can someone that's smarter then me answer this question I've had for ages. Why is remixing (often) bad, but doing a "cover" of a song (that is, performing a song that is someone elses) is often ok.
Some of the covers I've heard are (In my opinion) like taking a dump and wiping your backside on the mona lisa. (Snoop Dogg - Sad But True springs to mind).
Also, most remixes (at least that I've heard) only use a fraction of a song anyhow. Like I said I'm really out of my depth on this one, but I would have thought using more of a song should be grounds of copyright issues then using less.
@bersaba I agree my point is iif you covered John Lennon - Imagine you must agree with the point of that song but if you remix it you would lose the message and could remix it to the point where it goes against the point of the original. its an artistic thing really
I suppose, like I said I'm way out of my depth of understanding here. I think that the music industry (and movies even moreso) need to look at new ways for selling and dealing with piracy. Itunes and digital sale has been a bit of a saviour for music, and think movies need to look at digital sale aswell.
Ask me a question about a shitty ass and I'm ya man. (Nurse).
@bersaba Do you mean bad legally or in society? Because I read or was told or something that if you redo a song without sampling the actual recording, you are ok, but I believe my lawyer said that it is not ok. I'm with you though I've been wondering many things for a long time. I've got to go back to my lawyer or just finally buy a book instead of librarying it.
Society, don't know shit about the law (at least, in this issue). I just thing the law to music should be roughly the same as books. If I quote a small proportion of a book, and say I've quoted it, and give references too it, that's not only ok, but required to get degrees.
But if you sample a song, even giving credit and acknowledgement, that's bad. But copy the whole bloody thing start to finish (re, cover), that's ok. To me that's crazy.... craaaaazy.... possibly.
@12107170 You can cover a song but you have to give notice to the copyright owner and then pay a royalty (about a few cents per distributed copy) called a compulsory license. It's a specific exception (the copyright act is riddled with them and they are generally designed to comport with people's sense of fairness). The condition is that you can't change the work too much (i.e. remix). Note that you have to give notice before distribution or its infringement.
Great video. I came across this video because I'm trying to research and find out if I could shorten a 47 minute Fora.tv book interview to under ten minutes and post it on YouTube - would Fora.tv object? The subject matter is right in line with that of one of my YouTube channels. This video was very helpful. Case by case basis perhaps. I contacted Bloggingheads.tv about posting segments from one of their videos and they were very courteous and allowed it in this case.
I for one believe copyright laws have become insanely stupid. I mean, copyright on my genes?!??!?!? (they're really doing that with modified genes). This has gone to a high level of stupidity!!
I don't think anyone in their right mind sides with bootleggers. But, copyright as it is can kiss my ass! Corporations have lost the war in the age of the Internet & copyright laws are the only things giving them life support!
I think people confuse stealing with remixing. Remixing is interpreting art in your own way. My hobby is art, I'm fully aware as creative person that if I put my work out there in public it could possibly be interpreted in another way. Stealing, on the other hand is taking something from someone & CLAIMING it as theirs. There shouldn't be any problems as long as one person acknowledges the others' work.
interesting talk. This is not so much of a well informing debate, as the sneery laughter, that came from the host of this talk after the mention of free market, clearly exposes this. But, due to the concerns and ideas voiced by the two artists, it is well worth a view.
Let's draw the line with right winged capitalism, fascism exploition of the underclass who have no rights and no chace to get ahead or get up, screw the people at the bottom totally. Let's crucify any offenders wwho piss off the people in power in the slightest way even if it isn't against the law!
hey read Don't laugh at this! Just do it Start thinking something you really really want cause this is astounding the person that sent this to me said their wish came true 10 mins after they read the mail so I thought what the heck You have just been visited by DrSuess's Cat in the Hat. He will grant you one wish Make your wish when the count down is over 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 MAKE A WISH Send this to 10 videos within the hour you read this. If you do, your wish will come true
I used to work in digital/video copyright enforcement. I can vouch for what he's saying about Viacom and some other companies. If you straight-up jack a Colbert show clip they'll find it immediately and remove it. Trust me on that, I was one of the ppl doing it, and I was DAMN GOOD at my job.
But if you're even remotely transformative, they wont touch it. Free advertising for them, and you've respected their ownership over the product.
i dont live in the us and if it wernt for youtube i would never have heard of half the people i have heard of so steven colbert....you should think about that.....
this is the era to get rid of the huge corporations that just try to get rich off of artists, where the artists get 1 dollar an album and the industry gets 14 dollars. FREE THE MUSIC!
I love this channel. Illegal MP3, cracked games or ripped DVD's, they're all part of 'tha internetz'. But as long the corporation owning these copyrights go after the providers, after the illegal organizations, we can, and should, all support them. It's when they go after the little guy, the 'top 5 moment of Pulp Fiction', the 'best 10 movie lines of all times' or 'critical review of Fox' they crossed a line. We look, we watch, we use. Try to see the difference between exploit and fun.
This has been flagged as spam show
Music piracy and illegal downloading is anti-semitic. People are downloading music to hurt the Jewish media bosses and take away their profits. If you download music illegally, you are a Nazi criminal!
hectorsalina 10 months ago
In terms of music, you get the Artist and the Label. The label makes the cash, the Artist is to create works for the Label to sell. It's the greed of the Label that fucks things up for the Artist not "Pirates". Artists are too naive to see that. So, to sum up: Artists: are not businessmen, Art is for expression not so much profit. Labels: are corporate pigs that leech off of unwitting Artists gaining more income than the Artist itself. If an Artists main desire is money, They are not Artists.
22YearOldBoy 11 months ago
Can someone that's smarter then me answer this question I've had for ages. Why is remixing (often) bad, but doing a "cover" of a song (that is, performing a song that is someone elses) is often ok.
bersaba 1 year ago
@bersaba The same reason drawing a moustache on the mona lisa is worse than copying it
strangeroneuk 1 year ago
@strangeroneuk
Some of the covers I've heard are (In my opinion) like taking a dump and wiping your backside on the mona lisa. (Snoop Dogg - Sad But True springs to mind).
Also, most remixes (at least that I've heard) only use a fraction of a song anyhow. Like I said I'm really out of my depth on this one, but I would have thought using more of a song should be grounds of copyright issues then using less.
bersaba 1 year ago
@bersaba I agree my point is iif you covered John Lennon - Imagine you must agree with the point of that song but if you remix it you would lose the message and could remix it to the point where it goes against the point of the original. its an artistic thing really
strangeroneuk 1 year ago
@strangeroneuk
I suppose, like I said I'm way out of my depth of understanding here. I think that the music industry (and movies even moreso) need to look at new ways for selling and dealing with piracy. Itunes and digital sale has been a bit of a saviour for music, and think movies need to look at digital sale aswell.
Ask me a question about a shitty ass and I'm ya man. (Nurse).
bersaba 1 year ago
@bersaba Do you mean bad legally or in society? Because I read or was told or something that if you redo a song without sampling the actual recording, you are ok, but I believe my lawyer said that it is not ok. I'm with you though I've been wondering many things for a long time. I've got to go back to my lawyer or just finally buy a book instead of librarying it.
12107170 1 year ago
@12107170
Society, don't know shit about the law (at least, in this issue). I just thing the law to music should be roughly the same as books. If I quote a small proportion of a book, and say I've quoted it, and give references too it, that's not only ok, but required to get degrees.
But if you sample a song, even giving credit and acknowledgement, that's bad. But copy the whole bloody thing start to finish (re, cover), that's ok. To me that's crazy.... craaaaazy.... possibly.
bersaba 1 year ago
@bersaba I agree.
12107170 1 year ago
@12107170 You can cover a song but you have to give notice to the copyright owner and then pay a royalty (about a few cents per distributed copy) called a compulsory license. It's a specific exception (the copyright act is riddled with them and they are generally designed to comport with people's sense of fairness). The condition is that you can't change the work too much (i.e. remix). Note that you have to give notice before distribution or its infringement.
AsTimeDilates 1 year ago
@AsTimeDilates Thank you.
12107170 1 year ago
Great video. I came across this video because I'm trying to research and find out if I could shorten a 47 minute Fora.tv book interview to under ten minutes and post it on YouTube - would Fora.tv object? The subject matter is right in line with that of one of my YouTube channels. This video was very helpful. Case by case basis perhaps. I contacted Bloggingheads.tv about posting segments from one of their videos and they were very courteous and allowed it in this case.
TheBadendykeStory 1 year ago
He is making money (regardless of what he does with it) off the theft of someone else's artistic output. That is wrong ethically.
batwhizwife 2 years ago
lol last guy who spoke was full of bullshit, saying things that sounded logicall but wasnt.
GG for everyone who are falling for rethorics like that.
lachmeneger 2 years ago
I for one believe copyright laws have become insanely stupid. I mean, copyright on my genes?!??!?!? (they're really doing that with modified genes). This has gone to a high level of stupidity!!
diegohuyke 2 years ago
And the sad part is it never will.
icesamurai8 2 years ago
I don't think anyone in their right mind sides with bootleggers. But, copyright as it is can kiss my ass! Corporations have lost the war in the age of the Internet & copyright laws are the only things giving them life support!
jtorres520 2 years ago 3
I think people confuse stealing with remixing. Remixing is interpreting art in your own way. My hobby is art, I'm fully aware as creative person that if I put my work out there in public it could possibly be interpreted in another way. Stealing, on the other hand is taking something from someone & CLAIMING it as theirs. There shouldn't be any problems as long as one person acknowledges the others' work.
jtorres520 2 years ago 3
interesting talk. This is not so much of a well informing debate, as the sneery laughter, that came from the host of this talk after the mention of free market, clearly exposes this. But, due to the concerns and ideas voiced by the two artists, it is well worth a view.
deeliciousplum 2 years ago
Let's draw the line with right winged capitalism, fascism exploition of the underclass who have no rights and no chace to get ahead or get up, screw the people at the bottom totally. Let's crucify any offenders wwho piss off the people in power in the slightest way even if it isn't against the law!
That's where you draw the line!
BUDDY6414724297 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
twilightluver66 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1-Copy and Paste this message to 8 other videos
2-Go to your channel and look at you background
neillpaddy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1-Copy and Paste this message to 8 other videos
2-Go to your channel and look at you background
neillpaddy 2 years ago
Fairey is a 'real' bootlegger operation.
artformeandyou 2 years ago
He is infected with the "you know" virus.
humanist7117 2 years ago 7
For all Europeans and NIN fans: Come to Roskilde Festival to support Trent, since he has been so generous to give away his latest album.
(If you want to take the trip from outside Europe, feel free to come anyways :D).
Aaberg123 2 years ago
I used to work in digital/video copyright enforcement. I can vouch for what he's saying about Viacom and some other companies. If you straight-up jack a Colbert show clip they'll find it immediately and remove it. Trust me on that, I was one of the ppl doing it, and I was DAMN GOOD at my job.
But if you're even remotely transformative, they wont touch it. Free advertising for them, and you've respected their ownership over the product.
Other companies, however, like Fox... Nazis.
CharBroiled04 2 years ago 2
This is an issue that comes up alot on DeviantART. Fan art is fine, as long as the artist acknowledges that it's not their idea.
Art thieves are terrible, but it's worse when a company tries to make a profit from it.
Hot Topic stole one of my friend's designs and sold it on a shirt.
0BatGirl0 2 years ago 3
i dont live in the us and if it wernt for youtube i would never have heard of half the people i have heard of so steven colbert....you should think about that.....
lumpfish99 2 years ago
If an artist is inspired by another and makes money by that inspiration...why not a kick back ???
And why if someone records a video of a song they paid for and dance to it, Youtube will take it down.
Artist making money show very little intrgrity or creativity.
AVTPro 2 years ago
this is the era to get rid of the huge corporations that just try to get rich off of artists, where the artists get 1 dollar an album and the industry gets 14 dollars. FREE THE MUSIC!
freaks182 2 years ago 15
good artists borrow .. great artists steal
WhoRonPaul 2 years ago
I love this channel. Illegal MP3, cracked games or ripped DVD's, they're all part of 'tha internetz'. But as long the corporation owning these copyrights go after the providers, after the illegal organizations, we can, and should, all support them. It's when they go after the little guy, the 'top 5 moment of Pulp Fiction', the 'best 10 movie lines of all times' or 'critical review of Fox' they crossed a line. We look, we watch, we use. Try to see the difference between exploit and fun.
wimscheers 2 years ago 5
when we make our music videos and stuff to post on youtube, we're promoting their stuff. WHY DON'T THEY JUST LET US!!!!
seanw23 2 years ago 3
I AM SHEPARD FAIREY
HE IS I
I is HE
HE is SHEPARD FAIREY
THE DIGITAL WAR has BEGUN.
HomoGeneyes 2 years ago
but we're promoting their work, what's the big deal?!
seanw23 2 years ago
HEAD ON applied directly where it hurts
HEAD ON
applied directly where it hurts
HEAD ON... I love your product but your commercials.....
HEAD ON.
HomoGeneyes 2 years ago