The following is "fallow-up" to my earlier pissed-off rant: "Van Morrison Hate's Covers (READ IT FIRST SO YOU HAVE CONTEXT TO GO BY!) --Shmoo


After a lot of research, consultation, "testing of the winds and waters" ...and self preserving thought, my band Electric Gypsy sadly decided to DECLINE on the option of fighting back against the Van Morrison DMCA take down notice we received via YouTube. --Shmoo

Sure, the EFF will 'rise to the well publicized occasion' to fight for "fair use/parody" rights when a baby this cute dances to an obviously RIAA copyrighted music background...

...but, (I guess) copyright laws have the EFF's hands tied when it comes to any cover tunes (even when they make NO USE WHATSOEVER of the actual sights and sounds associated with a recording of the song.)

Long story short, the EFF doesn't seem to want to play ball with my case. (lol, maybe Fred is mad at me for accidentally calling him "Eric" so many times over the years!)

-------------------

Ray Beckerman was no help either. I contacted him about what was happening with a mild request that he'd help 'slashdot' the story and all I got in reply was a snide remark (at least it seemed that way to me) essentially saying [paraphrased] "I thought you guys were 'independent' musicians" ...which, I took to mean that because I have a band that sometimes does "covers" that somehow excludes me from being "indie" in his book. (I could be mis-reading him, but his reply was VERY short and 'snippy' IMHO.)

-------------------

I tried putting my story past several other prominent blogger's and 'netizens' ...WITHOUT much reply.

...Nobody wants to help spread the story about the following facts it seems:

-------------------

Universal and YouTube have a "Strategic Partnership" (...meaning that Universal is getting a huge share of YouTube's ad revenue in return for not suing WHILE supposedly YouTube users are allowed to use stuff from Universal's catalog in their videos. (Meanwhile: the YouTube user's who do choose to use said material in their videos have NO CLAIM on any portion of that ad revenue!)

--------------------


Folks,

If I were to press the issue and file a "counter claim" against the DMCA take-down of that silly cover song, (that me and my band really don't care all that much about) I would then likely end up in court in a real life legal battle where I would be accused of willful copyright infringement and have to face extremely well funded lawyers WITHOUT even pro-bono support.

Even though I follow news and things about copyright law very very closely, I am NOT a lawyer myself. I'd have to "go it alone".

(I wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell!)

-----------------------

Me and the band talked it over. It's just not worth it. We MIGHT have been swayed to "fight" had we gotten more support from the "blogosphere" and "digital/copyright fighters" who are out there on the net. But we DIDN'T.

Besides. Our "video" of that damn recording was JUST a single (and unimpressive) still photo of our band on top of the FIRST TIME EVER attempt we did of playing that song into the ADAT recording deck at our second rehearsal with our new drummer (who isn't even featured in the old picture we used.)

I mean,

what's the damn point of "going forward" with a counter-claim under these circumstances?

After all, even though the recording we made can't be found at YouTube,
it is STILL AVAILABLE at a much BETTER website called "DMusic"

(DMusic had the foresight to have obtained LEGAL rights for its' artists to feature cover tunes!)

And DMusic doesn't play DIRTY with its' users.

My pal leflaw would NEVER build HIS site on the backs of the members creative efforts and then turn around to share all the revenue with the fucking RIAA!

Michael Robertson sorta did that trick with Mp3.com ...but YouTube/Google have done WORSE!

---------

Ah well,

fuckitall

...I just want to play music with my band.

I mean, don't y'all know that blogging too much will kill you?

(I am an obvious candidate for a heart-attack!)

lol