The recent dust-up between the Romney campaign and Sliversun over the campaign's use of the band's tune, "Panic Switch," highlights an intellectual property issue that I see more on the Internet than in live settings.
As Huffington Post Entertainment notes, the band charged that the campaign did not secure permission to use the song. The campaign said it used the song under a "blanket licensing agreement." What is that?
I follow several jazz bloggers on Twitter who seem to combine the audio of a tune with the album cover and post the combo as a video on YouTube. How is this any different than e-mailing illegally downloaded mp3's to friends? And why aren't recording companies and artists suing these bloggers in the same way they nailed Napster a decade ago? And why doesn't YouTube block this rampant practice?
This video is an example of the practice: "Señor Blues" from "Ray Charles: Genius + Soul = Jazz." It's posted by MrMusicMagic, with this edifying note: "No description available."
This video's integrity is uncertain: "Dark Eyes" from "Terminal 7" by the Tomasz Stanko Quintet. The post, authored by giokat100, claims a "Standard YouTube License." What is that? The artwork with this piece looks like a press-kit photo, so maybe the creator of the video is authorized by the artist or the label. However, the post also directs the user to a Tomasz Stanko YouTube channel "auto generated by YouTube." This channel is packed with tunes by Stanko presented in the same fashion as the first example. So, is YouTube enabling the misuse of intellectual property, or has the artist or label granted permission?
I will look for answers. Meanwhile, if you have any, please comment.
As Huffington Post Entertainment notes, the band charged that the campaign did not secure permission to use the song. The campaign said it used the song under a "blanket licensing agreement." What is that?
I follow several jazz bloggers on Twitter who seem to combine the audio of a tune with the album cover and post the combo as a video on YouTube. How is this any different than e-mailing illegally downloaded mp3's to friends? And why aren't recording companies and artists suing these bloggers in the same way they nailed Napster a decade ago? And why doesn't YouTube block this rampant practice?
This video is an example of the practice: "Señor Blues" from "Ray Charles: Genius + Soul = Jazz." It's posted by MrMusicMagic, with this edifying note: "No description available."
This video's integrity is uncertain: "Dark Eyes" from "Terminal 7" by the Tomasz Stanko Quintet. The post, authored by giokat100, claims a "Standard YouTube License." What is that? The artwork with this piece looks like a press-kit photo, so maybe the creator of the video is authorized by the artist or the label. However, the post also directs the user to a Tomasz Stanko YouTube channel "auto generated by YouTube." This channel is packed with tunes by Stanko presented in the same fashion as the first example. So, is YouTube enabling the misuse of intellectual property, or has the artist or label granted permission?
I will look for answers. Meanwhile, if you have any, please comment.
4 comments:
Ed, I'm reading a good book right now that has some of the answers you seek, and gives a fair overview of the Wild West of current copyright. See Robert Levine's Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back.
Thanks, Steve, for mentioning this book, which you also mentioned in a related Facebook discussion a while back. I'm bringing up this matter again because I am finding possible gray areas on YouTube. Questions: Who is authorized to post? How can we tell? Who cares?
I don't like the construct of "intellectual property" and I think it leads to a lot of the craziness that infects the DMCA. If the goal of copyright is to "promote progress," derivative works and such should be encouraged, not suppressed. The problem with online posting, AFAIC, is not that the tunes get posted but that the artists don't get paid.
What I am seeing on YouTube is derivative only in the smallest increment — copying the complete digital audio file of an original piece of music, and copying the entire image of an album cover (an original work of commercial art), and combining them.
Listening to these copies on YouTube seems similar to burning a CD or sharing an mp3. The outcome is that artists don't get paid because consumers are using free copies.
In any case, the question remains: Who cares? Not YouTube, and not (within my awareness) artists or labels. It's also possible that all these stakeholders feel that exposure on this no-cost, high-profile medium is ultimately good for business.
Post a Comment