RSS
Kings Of Leon Management Issuing Questionable DMCA Takedowns To Stop Clips Of On-Stage Problems?
from the copyright-as-censorship dept
John Obeidin points us to the news that YouTube videos of a problematic Dallas concert by the band Kings of Leon are disappearing from YouTube under claims from Vector Management, who apparently represent the band.
Apparently Caleb Followhill from the band complained a bunch about feeling sick and saying that his voice was shot. At some point, he announced that he was going backstage to vomit and that he'd be back later -- which didn't happen. The rest of the band apologized (profusely) and later hinted at "bigger" problems with the band. Lots of folks in the audience were upset about all of this. Either way, a bunch of videos sprung up on YouTube. But as quickly as they go up, Vector Management appears to be pulling them down. Now it's possible that some of the videos include clips of copyrighted songs, but the whole thing certainly seems pretty questionable, and looks like an attempt to stifle the video of what happened. Assuming that most of the videos only included a bit of music, but focused on Caleb's statements, it seems like there would also be strong fair use claims.
Now, I did just find the following video, which does not appear to include any music, but merely clips out the statements made by Caleb and then other members of the band. It's still up as I'm posting this. If it remains up, then perhaps the takedowns are only directed at clips with actual music in them. Even so, the whole thing feels sketchy and, of course, is only drawing more attention to the whole story.
Now, I did just find the following video, which does not appear to include any music, but merely clips out the statements made by Caleb and then other members of the band. It's still up as I'm posting this. If it remains up, then perhaps the takedowns are only directed at clips with actual music in them. Even so, the whole thing feels sketchy and, of course, is only drawing more attention to the whole story.
I’m looking for research...
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
Innovate More. Code Less: Optimizing Open-Source Utilization
I have an app...
How My First Game Made $28,623
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
I’m looking for policy...
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
Developers On Patents: Five Employees, Six Lawyers
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Interesting
This is starting to sound like an ongoing theme for them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting
ROCK N ROOOOOLLL!!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Interesting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Interesting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Interesting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"copyright" claim on KOL rant video
Matt
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
Are you filing a counternotice?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
Y'know, people that actually possess talent, unlike himself and his douche brigade here.
The terms of going to a concert are listed very clearly on the ticket. Just because musicians are generally chill and let you record/film their show does not mean they can't choose to invoke their rights about their performance.
Is there a bigger hypocritical slimeball on the web than Mike Masnick?
Nope.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
Yes, someone who rants against him with the "Captain Privacy" snide remark, yet refuses to put a name to their own ranting.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
Um. Dude did what he did in front of thousands of people. There's no "privacy" issues at all. How can you not see that?
Y'know, people that actually possess talent, unlike himself and his douche brigade here.
Moving on...
The terms of going to a concert are listed very clearly on the ticket.
Makes no difference. This is abuse of copyright. Nothing on the back of a ticket legally gives the band's mgmt copyright over videos taken by others.
Just because musicians are generally chill and let you record/film their show does not mean they can't choose to invoke their rights about their performance.
You don't understand a thing about copyright law, do you?
Is there a bigger hypocritical slimeball on the web than Mike Masnick?
Nope
When you have to answer your own rhetorical, people might wonder if it's because no one actually agrees with your answer. Just saying...
In the meantime, when are you going to stop with the ad hom attacks and actually pay attention to what we *actually* say? I mean it's fun and all to watch you make up shit all the time, but it's not very productive.
So can we have a productive discussion?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
1) DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS :p;
2) He doesn't care about his reputation,e lse he'd be actually innovating, rather than spending his time embracing the persecution complex.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
I'm the idiot? Fascinating.
FYI, while a venue may set policy barring video without permission, that only leads to a cause of action between the venue and the individual. It *does not* allow for a takedown to be issued on the video.
Separately, there are additional questions about the legality of any such policy. At *best* it would allow the venue to remove the patron. It almost certainly would not allow for legal action as no actual contract was ever signed.
And, even you admitting that "its not about copyright" proves my point: this is an illegal abuse of the DMCA.
Period.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
Oh wait, that would involve "paying" to be entertained...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
I have. I addressed that in my post. It is not enforceable despite your claims, and the only thing they can do with it is kick you out. They cannot make a faulty DMCA claim.
Oh wait, that would involve "paying" to be entertained...
Are you really that much of an asshole? I pay to be entertained all the time. I go to lots of concerts and movies and I buy CDs and music from Amazon on a near weekly basis. I've told you this. Why do you insist on pretending I don't.
In the meantime, learn something about copyright law before looking even more stupid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
So tell us who you are and what your talents are so we can make a call on who's talented and who's not, and who's a douche and who's not. Or are you too chicken?
"Is there a bigger hypocritical slimeball on the web than Mike Masnick?"
The irony is strong with this one...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"copyright" claim on KOL rant video
Matt
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"copyright" claim on KOL rant video
Matt
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"copyright" claim on KOL rant video
Matt
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video
Cautionary tale about to much coffee.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems drunk, not "sick"
If he was only getting worse, it makes sense for the band to keep him offstage rather than coming out as an embarassment.
That was my impression. Maybe he was just sick...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems drunk, not "sick"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seems drunk, not "sick"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seems drunk, not "sick"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
simply because
step1. have the band "cancel" halfway through a performance, drawing SOME media attention
step2. Issue massive takedown notices of any video about this to try to take advantage of the Streisand Effect
step3. ?????
step4. Profit when the "Surprise" new album/tour comes out......
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: simply because
step4. Realize you've just alienated your entire fanbase...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Who knew.
The word copyright has been over used and abused for so long now, the actual meaning of the word is becoming blurred.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I say that because I'm worried that people think materials produced by large businesses are somehow more copyrighted then say a personal blog, and should have more access to enforcement measures.
Take a three strikes system for example, a copyright holder sends a claim of infringement to an ISP and the ISP takes action. Since the actually question of infringement can only be answered by a court, the ISP should not treat a claim from the RIAA any differently then some individual. If they do, then that undermines the legitimacy of copyright law because everyone is supposed to be equal under the rule of law.
The reason there are little/no penalties for a false claim is because it would not benefit those who lobbied for the DMCA, and most people don't have the resources to fight for such a penalty using the court system.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
consequence or lack thereof
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: consequence or lack thereof
So youtube finds it safer to just axe every video, regardless if any sort of infringing takes place or even if the person claiming infringement actually owns the content in the first place. Anyone can do it because anyone can be considered a legal rights holder on the internet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: consequence or lack thereof
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment