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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    byte^me (profile), Aug 1st, 2011 @ 8:18pm

    Interesting

    I find it very interesting that right at a year ago, the Kings of Leon cancelled a concert in St. Louis after just three songs because of a pigeon crapping on them. Details at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/24/kings-of-leon-pooped-on-b_n_658330.html.

    This is starting to sound like an ongoing theme for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt, Aug 1st, 2011 @ 9:37pm

    "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

    I posted a video that was subsequently removed like all the others. It contained no music and only showed Calebs speech. Same as the other videos. The one you have on this page was taken down as well but put back up with all the "property of trodmac" stuff. I was a little curious as to why my video was removed.

    Matt

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 1st, 2011 @ 10:58pm

      Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

      I posted a video that was subsequently removed like all the others. It contained no music and only showed Calebs speech. Same as the other videos. The one you have on this page was taken down as well but put back up with all the "property of trodmac" stuff. I was a little curious as to why my video was removed.


      Are you filing a counternotice?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 12:37am

        Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

        Mike Masnick is "Captain Privacy" in all situations unless it involves publicly embarrassing musicians.

        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 ]

        •  
          icon
          PeteProdge (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:11am

          Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

          "Is there a bigger hypocritical slimeball on the web than Mike Masnick?"

          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 ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:59am

          Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

          Mike Masnick is "Captain Privacy" in all situations unless it involves publicly embarrassing musicians.


          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 ]

          •  
            icon
            The eejit (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 3:44am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

            Mike, two points:

            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 ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 11:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

            It's not about copyright you idiot- you're not allowed to record/film a show without permission. Period.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 12:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

              It's not about copyright you idiot- you're not allowed to record/film a show without permission. Period

              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 ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 3:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

                Read the back of a concert ticket some time.

                Oh wait, that would involve "paying" to be entertained...

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 3:42pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

                  Read the back of a concert ticket some time.


                  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 ]

        •  
          identicon
          CL, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 6:52am

          Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

          Other people marked this as "funny", right?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          JMT (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 5:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

          "Y'know, people that actually possess talent, unlike himself and his douche brigade here."

          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 ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt, Aug 1st, 2011 @ 9:37pm

    "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

    I posted a video that was subsequently removed like all the others. It contained no music and only showed Calebs speech. Same as the other videos. The one you have on this page was taken down as well but put back up with all the "property of trodmac" stuff. I was a little curious as to why my video was removed.

    Matt

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt, Aug 1st, 2011 @ 9:38pm

    "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

    I posted a video that was subsequently removed like all the others. It contained no music and only showed Calebs speech. Same as the other videos. The one you have on this page was taken down as well but put back up with all the "property of trodmac" stuff. I was a little curious as to why my video was removed.

    Matt

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt, Aug 1st, 2011 @ 9:38pm

    "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

    I posted a video that was subsequently removed like all the others. It contained no music and only showed Calebs speech. Same as the other videos. The one you have on this page was taken down as well but put back up with all the "property of trodmac" stuff. I was a little curious as to why my video was removed.

    Matt

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      teka, Aug 1st, 2011 @ 10:05pm

      Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

      file a counternotice through youtube?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Nicedoggy, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 3:38am

      Re: "copyright" claim on KOL rant video

      To much coffee can cause your hands to shake uncontrollably and hit the refresh button repeatedly when you are still on the send page.

      Cautionary tale about to much coffee.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Brendan (profile), Aug 1st, 2011 @ 10:28pm

    Seems drunk, not "sick"

    After watching the video, it seems like Caleb was in fact drunk, not sick, despite his protestations.

    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 ]

  •  
    icon
    hmm (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 1:59am

    simply because

    Someone at the groups management has grabbed the idea that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and has been reading techdirt it seems:

    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 ]

  •  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:40am

    Citing copyright in order to censor information?

    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 ]

  •  
    identicon
    R. Decline, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 6:35am

    Who cares if your voice is shot, it is more annoying to keep making excuses over and over about it. Just get on with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 8:21am

    they suck anyway, canceled their tour as well so who cares!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 11:24am

    Filing DMCA complaints against people you don't like/videos you don't approve of on Youtube is an old, old tactic. Youtube will axe pretty much any video on one or two DMCA notices or enough flaggings without as much as verifying that the person filing it is actually a verified source or that the person filing it is actually a legitimate rights holder and not some butthurt little kid trying to settle an internet argument. It might as well just be an automatic takedown, as it's nigh-impossible to ever actually get your account back once it has happened. And it only takes one little dickweed with enough patience to completely ruin your account.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      chris, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 9:29am

      Re:

      It would be nearly impossible for YouTube to determine if every person who sent a notice was the copyright holder for that work. They have no choice but to assume it is legit. A random kid has the same authority to enforce a copyright as some mega-corp, and is no more likely to file a false claim.

      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 ]

  •  
    icon
    ofb2632 (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 11:56am

    consequence or lack thereof

    What are the consequences of filing a false take down order? and why are the penalties not more severe?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 12:13pm

      Re: consequence or lack thereof

      None, they can't go after every person who files a false claim. And some of the people who file false claims are legitimate rightsholders that would be perfectly willing in fighting a long, drawn out legal battle over who can and can't file a DMCA notice.

      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 ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:26pm

        Re: Re: consequence or lack thereof

        Then be prepared to go balls up at some point. Someday, someone out there will get tired of the nonsense, and start something entirely new, and all of the lawyers, copyfreaks, and DCMASwingers will be standing at the side of the road with their broken business model in one hand and a bottle of jack in the other.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This