Viral Video Of 9-Year-Old Girl Football Star… Taken Down Because Of Music

from the now-back-with-awful-music dept

If you follow the “hot viral video of the week” you probably have seen or heard about Sam Gordon, the 9-year-old girl who is pretty damn good at football, (the American kind for all you foreigners), as shown in an impressive highlight reel her father put together:

As tends to happen with these sorts of things, Sam was everywhere this week, with all sorts of press coverage including appearances on morning TV shows and such.

Just one problem. The original video had all sorts of famous songs in it:

Without the music in that video — Jane’s Addiction covering The Doors’ “LA Woman” and The Germs’ “Lexicon Devil” (as part of a medley) and the Beastie Boys’ “Soul Fire” (also in a sense a cover) — this video wouldn’t be nearly as effective, and thus not as viral. Her father Brent Gordon, who originally uploaded the video, chose these songs because they are exactly what this video needs. As any Hollywood director knows, pairing the right music with any video makes it way more effective.

Normally, the Beastie Boys, Jane’s Addiction, The Germs, and The Doors could choose to get paid when a video with their music goes viral like this. But that does not appear to be the case here, at this point anyway.

Sure enough, soon after people started pointing that out — and even though the video had something like 2 million views lined up already, it went down due to a copyright claim. It looks like ContentID showed up late, because the “takedown” mentions a bunch of possible copyright holders, without saying who made the final call:

After all that, Sam’s father, Brent changed the music to something that wouldn’t get pulled down — though people are already complaining that the new music is “lame.”

We’re pleased to see that the video is online, because that Sam Gordon is a sight to behold, with amazing moves and no small amount of moxie, which is the main reason people liked the video so much. But it’s a shame that the music is now so bad that we couldn’t even make it through one viewing without muting it. With the other soundtrack, I ended up watching it five times in a row.

And thus it was proven for the umpteenth time that A) The right music makes all the difference in a video, and B) Copyright, while necessary, tends to rain on parades, especially when multiple rights-holders get involved.

Of course, depending on your general position in this debate, you can make one of two arguments here. The copyright hardliners will say that this proves the importance of good music and that Gordon should have paid up in the first place. Those who find problems with today’s copyright system will note that it’s not like your average person is going to even be able to license, let alone want to pay for, songs to stick on a video like this (especially without knowing that it’s about to go crazy viral). The music industry could make this easier with a simple database / store option (“want this song for your non-commercial video? $1 — click here to buy the license”) but they don’t seem to want to do that. So, instead, we get this situation where no one wins. The video has crappy music. The good music providers don’t get paid. How is that a good solution?

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Viral Video Of 9-Year-Old Girl Football Star… Taken Down Because Of Music”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
65 Comments
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: One small correction

Call me crazy, but I always thought that the sport that should be called football would be the one where you, you know, use your feet? A game where half of the game involves picking it up and carrying it doesn’t count in my book. Especially one where you stand and wait around after every attempt to move up the field!

Luckily, I don’t give a crap about either game 🙂

out_of_the_blue says:

"How is that a good solution?"

First, you probably mean “system” or “situation”, because you definitely don’t regard it as “solved”. — Or at least I’ve no hopes that you’ll cease your tilting at windmills.

Now, it IS a good situation for society because more or less prevents talentless hacks (or uselessly talented sports players) from too much leveraging off the work of others. It’s not difficult to make a video of your own dull or stupid actions and yet have it be “hit” primarily because of someone else’s work.

And “someone else’s work” is the basis of copyright: to more or less suppress unearned grifting, to try and make it so that the rewards properly go to those who put in the time and money.

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: "How is that a good solution?"

PS: Mike is using the “sad plight” of a 9-year old girl for emotional ploy here, but don’t forget, you pirates, that “Kim Dotcom” of Megaupload has gotten millions of dollars for essentially the same leveraging of someone else’s work! So while the essential principle makes saps sigh “awww, what a shame” here, Mike is simply building a case for commercial grifters.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: "How is that a good solution?"

Pretty sure Kim got his money for providing an amazing service….
Either as an awesome file locker or a fantastic video platform.

If he can make millions from that why can’t the **AA make money by using a similar format? Oh yeah because they’d make more money if the internet never existed so they’ll pretend it doesn’t.

TroutFishingUSA says:

Re: Re: Re: "How is that a good solution?"

If he can make millions from that why can’t the **AA make money by using a similar format?

Come on, man, you can’t be this dense. I highly doubt the total profits from Megaupload would come anywhere close to the amount of money spent to create the content it distributed illegally.

In case that isn’t clear enough: there’s only “millions” in the content-give-away game if you’re not also footing the bill to create the content being given away.

Ruben says:

Re: Re: "How is that a good solution?"

I’m really having trouble understanding why content creators spend all of their time yelling and screaming and stamping their feet when they could expend half the effort making a service people want to use. You know, working with people to figure out what’s good and then doing it?

It’s like they’re creating their own destiny or something.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: "How is that a good solution?"

You know what else is “someone else’s work”? Everything. Society is. The language you use. That word you like to use so much (grifter) was first used in 1915 according to Merriam-Webster. Just a few years later and maybe you’d have to pay someone to use it. It was someone else’s work.

This website that you are posting on? Someone else’s work.
Your whole stupid shtick? Someone else’s work.
The phrase you use for your moniker? Someone else’s work.

You, sir, are the talentless hack.

Milton Freewater says:

Re: "How is that a good solution?"

“First, you probably mean “system” or “situation”, because you definitely don’t regard it as “solved”.”

so?lu?tion/səˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun:

1. A means of solving a problem or dealing with a difficult situation: “there are no easy solutions to financial and marital problems”.

Only you would go out of your way to nitpick about someone else’s use of a word and then get the definition wrong.

“It’s not difficult to make a video of your own dull or stupid actions and yet have it be “hit” primarily because of someone else’s work.”

The musicians are talentless hacks? That’s a little cold, bra. I like the Germs.

“so that the rewards properly go to those who put in the time and money.”

Offer an example of how, thanks to this takedown, that is happening.

Not gonna lie – I was hoping to see some kind of substantive argument from the pro-copyright side on this one. Maybe there isn’t one. I honestly agreed with the takedown until I read your post.

Anonymous Coward says:

why should anyone have to pay for a license to use music in any non-commercial video anyway? this whole copyright debacle is way out of hand and the various governments are doing nothing to sort the problems out. in fact, they are doing the exact opposite, making things easier for the industries to force take downs, then sue if they want, more difficult for the public to use the stuff (which stops an extra free play for the industries) and really piss people off!!

Josef Anvil (profile) says:

Valid Point

This may make copyright maximalists quite happy. I actually agree that musicians should get licenses for music on YouTube and similar services.

With that said, I’m not sure how it should be set other than an arbitrary $.99 (seems like a decent number). The problem with the industry is that it seems to believe that the internet is like TV or Movies and that it’s entitled to some insane license for music put on non-commercial video.

I should add that this music license should not be imposed on videos posted that just happen to have music playing in the background.

I’m guessing that the reason these licensing deals have always been fees, rather than a percentage of net revenue, is that all the players in the field have similar accounting practices that always show zero profits.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Valid Point

“I actually agree that musicians should get licenses for music on YouTube and similar services.”

Non-commercial uses like this video are a perfect example of something that I feel should probably be limited to attribution. People that like the song will probably go look for it, and everyone benefits.

Licenses should be limited to commercial aspects, such as advertising campaigns, trailers, etc… The lines can get blurry, but I think it should be easy for the courts to create a dividing line.

anon says:

Re: Re:

A simple way to get back at them…
Show everyone you know how to use torrents, encourage them to use it and if they buy a cd or dvd download it immediately and start playing it, that should shock them into torrenting very quickly.
If you see people you know buying cd’s or dvd’s just gently laugh and encourage them to change and not spend there money on outdated plastic disc’s

All anyone has to do is get three people to stop buying and very soon there will be no MPAA to attack the average joe for sharing good videos because there is music in the background.

Every time I read a story like this I do my bit to make sharing more available to everyone I know. Seriously I alone have probably cost the industry at least 40 people that used to buy dvd’s and cd’s and that is the direct encouragement I am sure they have told friend’s who have told friends who have told friends(it feels good getting back at the monopolists). I look at it as my way of boycotting and doing my part to force them to come into the future, which they are fighting with everything they have got.

Grover (profile) says:

Music licensing

It was back in 2009 that I put together a photo montage of my brother’s Boss Hoss that I’d done a lot of metalwork/fabrication on. The two songs I chose to incorporate into that video were perfect for the feel and tempo of it. Unfortunately, as soon as I uploaded it to Youtube, I was met with the message that the music would be muted because of copyright issues. Well, crap. So, I DID NOT UPLOAD IT to Youtube because of that – I just couldn’t find any other music that was close to the original two from Youtube’s free collection.

Anyway, almost two years later, while perusing Youtube for Boss Hoss videos, I CAME ACROSS MY OWN VIDEO, WITH THE ORIGINAL TWO SONGS ON IT!!! The information on the video said there was a standard Youtube license applied. While I am happier-n-chit over seeing the video out there, what interests me is how did that happen, and who put it out there? I never uploaded the video!

Non-commercial use of a song for home-made videos, regardless of whether they’re put out there on the web or used for home viewing (as in weddings, funerals,or immortalizing a child’s accomplishments), shouldn’t be subject to greedy monetizing. Greedy monetizing efforts should be contained within the context of commercialization, period. My two cents.

Bergman (profile) says:

One small correction

If you hit people while playing rugby as hard as American football players routinely hit each other, there would be fatalities.

Even attempting to do so can get you ejected from a rugby match for being too rough. A yellow card in rugby is a normal football play. A rugby red card will result in football play being halted to check for injuries, but then play resumes.

So no, American football isn’t nancy boy rugby, rugby is nancy boy American football where people are too afraid of hurting each other to get properly into the game.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...