|
Van Morrison hates covers!
This article was originally posted on 25 March 2008. Date was changed by the author to "bump" it back to the current front page of Boycott-RIAA due to interest.
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by VAN MORRISON / EXILE PRODUCTIONS claiming that this material is infringing:
Brown Eyed Girl (cover): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbg9eyDGncg
Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.
Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.
Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.
==========================
My message to Van Morrison / Exile (via MySpace)
To Van Morrison/Exile Productions:
My band just had a video yanked from YouTube via a DMCA take-down notice. (...as a result of a third-party notification by VAN MORRISON / EXILE PRODUCTIONS.) The video consisted of a still image of our band and audio we recorded live covering "Brown Eyed Girl." We understand that the underlying composition of the song itself is the copyright of Van Morrison, but it was OUR audio recording and images. We think it rather unkind to bully an independent artist (who was making NO money whatsoever - NOR attempting to do so.)
Would you also like us to stop performing the song live at our shows too? (We are covered by ASCAP licenses in those situations, but we can always substitute some other artist's song, including one of our own if you don't want our audience reminded of "Brown Eyed Girl".)
Our band, Electric Gypsy is very disappointed by this action. It's not like we were selling unlicensed copies of our cover of your song or anything of the sort. We just wanted our fans and friends hear us play the tune.
No, we are NOT prepared to pay the Harry Fox Agency (nor directly to you, the author/publisher) for a license to the song when we were doing it just for fun with no intention to profit from the recording. That's just plain stupid. We'd rather just drop the song from our set-list completely and forget that it ever existed. (Perhaps our fans will too!)
Sincerely hurt,
Mike (Shmoo) Steely of Electric Gypsy
and Boycott-RIAA.com
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
autodidact
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 3:51 AM
I never got Van Morrison. Apart from a handful of songs I like, I'd rank him as one of the most overrated "artists" in pop music. I'll admit his singing style is a matter of taste. Frankly, I don't see the art in it, but that's just me. Shmoo, there are ten thousand other great songs to cover, from artists who wouldn't mind the compliment you've paid them by performing one of their songs. |
|
axxis
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 6:48 AM
If you'd like to get even with these sons of bitches who think that they are so fucking high and mighty, start downloading their music and they will start to lose money.
Think of it as a penalty for unfair business practices. |
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 8:00 AM
" If you'd like to get even with these sons of bitches who think that they are so fucking high and mighty, start downloading their music and they will start to lose money. "
I think very few here would advocate
downloading label owned music, for
ANY reason.
Besides, if a lot of folks start to DL
Van Morrison tunes because of this,
it would show ( falsely ) an interest
in the artist.
I prefer to not dl, purchase. or even
have my band play any Van Morrison
tunes.
If he wishes to be forgotten, let him
have his wish. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 9:30 AM
Dreddsnik is right. Downloading or sharing (and now, I guess performing) a tune against the copyright holder's wishes is not a good way to "get back at" a copyright holder for being a jerk. I wish we could convince everyone using p2p applications of this fact.
The best thing to do is ignore and forget the song and find something by someone else. |
|
axxis
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 12:16 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the label did not write the song or record the song, they only distribute the song on behalf of the recording artist, so I don't see why they should have the final say as to what we can do with it after all is said and done. SO THERE! |
|
axxis
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 12:16 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the label did not write the song or record the song, they only distribute the song on behalf of the recording artist, so I don't see why they should have the final say as to what we can do with it after all is said and done. SO THERE! |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 12:51 PM
You should have sent your letter to YouTube. YouTube responded to a threat; all you have to do is show them that the threat is invalid, just like the guys who posted cell-phone videos of Led Zeppelin a few months ago.
If I were the admin of Boycott-RIAA and a record label had one of my videos taken down, I'd be e-mailing and calling every damn newspaper, television station and network I could think of.
First you explain the facts -- It's your sound recording and there is no applicable fee to be paid to the songwriter for this use.
The record labels know this. If they are sending takedown notices on the basis of the title alone, without reviewing the content, this is an abuse of the system.
If they looked at it, realized it wasn't theirs and still decided to screw with you, that's malicious. If they were aware you're the admin of this site when they knowingly and falsely accused you of copyright infringement, that's when it's time to scream loud and long to whomever will listen, and maybe talk to Larry about a contingency fee. |
|
leflaw
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 4:27 PM
George, its technically a film sync. The publisher controls film syncs.
BUT I'd litigate it as a noncompetitive fair use.
Fucking fair use.
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 5:35 PM
"It's your sound recording and there is no applicable fee to be paid to the songwriter for this use."
"its technically a film sync."
hmm... I would have guessed that it would be a DPD (digital phonographic delivery) which you can go to Harry Fox to obtain the license for, but I guess that would only apply to an audio only recording.
I know this is technically a slight bit different than the "Let's Go Crazy" baby video scandal.
But perhaps I should raise a big stink over this. Prince backed down after pressure from the EFF. That video is back online. We are using our own audio and images NOT the DMCA sender's.
leflaw, what do YOU think. Should we get in touch with the EFF over this? (Do you want involved?) |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 5:41 PM
Get this:
BROWN EYED GIRL
Writer(s): VAN MORRISON
HFA Song Code: B78600
Publisher
Represented By HFA
UNIVERSAL - SONGS OF POLYGRAM INTERNATIONAL INC
------------------
Brown Eyed Girl may not even be the copyright of Van Morrison and Exile Productions (I assume to be his own private label or publishing company.)
Universal has a DEAL with YouTube to allow use of their copyrights by users!
That tears it. I'm going to go forward with a complaint. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 5:59 PM
Ok, I fired off an e-mail to a couple of our friends at the EFF. Folks, I will not speak any more publicly on this matter until I am advised by council that it is wise to do so. YOU guys however say whatever you want to say. Freedom of Speech and all that!
:) |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 6:28 PM
Folks, until Saturday, I am at work behind a firewall of some sort that doesn't allow me to post in the shoutboxes or use DNotes at DMusic. If anyone needs to contact me on this or any other matter please use my yahoo e-mail account. (same username as I use here.) |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 8:41 PM
George, its technically a film sync. The publisher controls film syncs.
Okay. How much does everyone else pay when they make a video of themselves playing someone else's song and post it on YouTube? There are millions of them. What's the going rate? Can they just cherry-pick videos at random? Doesn't Universal get a portion of ad revenue from YouTube for the express purpose of avoiding this bullshit? |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 25, 2008 @ 9:19 PM
Wikipedia says:
"Morrison signed a new contract with Polydor Records that was announced in October 2007"
Exile appears to be his "vanity label"
Polydor is owned by UNIVERSAL!!!
'k - I'll shush now. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 26, 2008 @ 1:09 AM
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP AND YOUTUBE FORGE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP (Source: UMG's own damn site!)
Innovative Video Distribution and Revenue Agreement to Enhance Entertainment Experience and Embrace User-Generated Content While Fairly Compensating Artists
UNIVERSAL CITY, CA and SAN BRUNO, Calif. – October 09, 2006 –YouTube, Inc., a consumer media company, which enables people to watch and share original videos through a Web experience, and Universal Music Group (UMG), the world’s leading music company, today announced an agreement offering YouTube and its users access to thousands of videos on YouTube from UMG’s extensive roster of artists covering every genre of music. In addition, under this agreement, UMG broadly embraces the power and creativity of user-generated content, allowing users to incorporate music from UMG’s recorded music catalog into the videos they create and upload onto YouTube. UMG and its artists will be compensated not just for UMG produced videos but also for the unique, user created content that incorporates UMG music.
YouTube and UMG have also agreed to a process to protect UMG copyrights using technology to filter out UMG content that is not authorized to appear on the YouTube service. "With this strategic alliance, UMG brings an incredible array of entertaining video content to the YouTube community to help its artists communicate directly with fans. By allowing the use of their content in user-generated videos, UMG is embracing the creative spirit of our users and music lovers around the world while protecting the rights of their artists, "said Chad Hurley, CEO and Co-Founder of YouTube. "As a new distribution channel for media companies, YouTube is committed to balancing the needs of the fan community with those of copyright holders to continue to provide the best video entertainment service on the Internet – one that promotes individuality, respect and originality."
"Universal is committed to finding innovative ways to distribute our artists\' works and today’s agreement with YouTube furthers that strategy by helping transform this new user-generated content culture into a mutually beneficial business opportunity," said Doug Morris, Chairman and CEO, Universal Music Group, "We pride ourselves in empowering new business models that create new revenue streams for content creators. You Tube is providing a new and exciting opportunity for music lovers around the world to interact with our content, while at the same time recognizing the intrinsic value of the content that is so important to the user experience." |
|
Distilled1
|
Date: March 26, 2008 @ 5:20 AM
congrats on receiving the first Dmca take down :) ...really I think that its funny that you the admin of botcottRIAA, got the first one that I know of that is a cover song recording NOT FOR SALE.
I hope that your rebuttal to you tube brings it back up. and I think I would still send that letter to van and his vanity label.
as well to UMG.. although they are allowing the work they own and this is work you own ;)
Keep us informed...
can we sticky this one so we can all watch as it unfolds?
your not the only one with covers on you tube. or free cover recordings period on the net.
|
|
RaidHHI
|
Date: March 27, 2008 @ 4:10 AM
I'll wait and see what sort of response he gets from this, but I suspect, sadly the DMCA will stand.
While some of you seem to think boycotting their music will do the trick, it's not working. itunes is still #1 in single track sales.
So, I still believe if you wish to harm them in the least, pissing and moaning about it isn't going to work. Don't pay for the stuff, vote with your damn wallet. Download it for free.
|
|
Distilled1
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 4:41 AM
any new News? |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 6:11 PM
Been playing phone tag with Corynne McSherry of the EFF. I don't want to move forward with anything until after I have talked with her. I'm still trying to figure out how to proceed. |
|
Distilled1
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 6:59 PM
well keep us up to date! this is an important thing i think anyway:) |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 5:38 AM
leflaw, if my changing the date on this article messes up the DMusic news order, you can change it back. But I have had a lot of e-mails and other contacts about this particular issue. (And I know, it involves me and my band directly, so I don't want to be seen as "spamming" or anything, but the response seemed to warrant it.)
That ok? If not, I'll understand. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 6:03 AM
(leflaw, I think there are 2 other articles that need to hang around at the "top" for a while too.)
"Let's Get Real" and "Jim Griffin"
But 'tis your call (of course!) |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 6:47 AM
leflaw, since DMusic/Boycott switched servers, every time I try to upload a tune I get "your upload limit is past full" message.
Otherwise, I'd upload to you and DMusic an .mp3 of the "offending file" in question (since you are covered by that expensive blanket license you bought to allow covers on your site and all...)
-------------
Damnit! I f**king HATE being told that my friends and family (and maybe we have fans too) are not allowed to hear us play a stupid cover tune from 40 years ago just because Universal/Polydor plan to release a big "retrospective" album of Van Morrison's music in the next year and they want to "create demand" by scrubbing YouTube and the rest of the Internet of anything remotely related/similar.
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA~!!!!
---------------
Ok folks, I don't give a fart. I'm gonna TALK and SAY what's on my mind until council tells me NOT to. (Instead of "clamming up" while AWAITING council.)
Council? I'm awaiting... |
|
Distilled1
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 7:11 AM
:clap: |
|
RaidHHI
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 1:55 PM
http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/032708-gone-in-2-minutes-mac.html
Mac users warned, your box isn't as "secure" as you think it is. *grin*
|
|
Olde-Phart
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 2:12 PM
eh, Van Morrison is a jackass. |
|
pessimist
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 4:27 PM
Re: Mac users warned, your box isn't as "secure" as you think it is. *grin*
True, if using problem-prone Safari browser. But then, Windows using Safari wouldn't be any more secure.
|
|
RaidHHI
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 4:37 PM
pessimist,
Indeed, however, Microsoft isn't trying to push Safari on us as an important update. :)
Speaking of which, I distinctly remember when the sony rootkit fiasco was taking place, that many macs would refuse to boot after injesting one of those riaa infested cds...
PC's would continue to boot, albiet with a rootkit installed.
|
|
pessimist
|
Date: March 30, 2008 @ 11:16 AM
Browsers are notoriously vulnerable, and Apple/Mac should have known better about Safari, that's true. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link (and that's usually the browser). Microsoft's Internet Explorer has infamously had glitches and holes since day 1, of course.
One thing Mac has over Windows is its tendency to not release new versions of its OS until the kinks are just about all worked out. Brother Bill, however, is noted for letting his customer base be the guinea pigs (beta testers), so he can save time and money; Redmond then simply reacts and issues frequent fixes and patches.
Bill is the richest patch-up boy on the planet.
:) |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: March 30, 2008 @ 3:44 PM
Mac users warned, your box isn't as "secure" as you think it is. *grin*
It is if you didn't upgrade to OSX. :)
--------
Shmoo, I hate to tell you but EFF probably isn't going to respond unless you make the issue high-profile first. |
|
RaidHHI
|
Date: March 31, 2008 @ 10:40 AM
George,
Your right, of course.. I just had to put that mac attack in there.. You know this. I'm a pc person.. You mac lover! :)
I think EFF is slightly overrated, due to the fact that in order to get any real help; you have to practically make the front pages news.
While I hope your band comes out on top, I suspect it's not going too.
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: April 11, 2008 @ 10:04 AM
UPDATE:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/29813 |
|
|
Navigation
