This article was originally posted on 25 March 2008. Date was changed due to re-interest and NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

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 (offline/deleted file)

-----------------------
22 July 2008 UPDATE (BREAKING NEWS!):

...The vid is NOW back up, but this time with permission (read on):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNnecTicxq0
-----------------------
(back to the original story:

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

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.

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.

" 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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

George, its technically a film sync. The publisher controls film syncs.


BUT I'd litigate it as a noncompetitive fair use.

Fucking fair use.

"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?)

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.

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!

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.)

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

any new News?

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.

well keep us up to date! this is an important thing i think anyway

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.

(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!)

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...

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*

eh, Van Morrison is a jackass.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

UPDATE:

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/29813

Hi folks. I posted a few days ago when a VM cover was removed by YouTube by request of WebSheriff. I responded with a silent version with inflamatory text added. Reasoning that if it were noticed, that one must conclude that the artist's rep gets hurt.

Well they noticed and I have been corresponding with Web Sheriff all day. I have learned much and perhaps it will help shed a little light here.

I'm positive that this trend that VM is on the bleeding edge of will continue. But its not so gloomy as I first thoght.

Van has authorized the use of covers with the restriction that the performance is not from a paid gig. Other words, if you're taping it in your home or anywhere without a paid audience in attendance then it can be used. They also request an industry standard notice stating use by permission of Exile.

My video was of a street performer and thusly tagged but my position was that was splitting hairs. They agreed and now my video is back up.

I doubt, unless something changes in copyright laws, that other groups following suit won't include this automatic rights provision.

So to the poster whose video was a cover tune with a still shot of their band (presumely not from a live show) would be covered under the provision by adding the permission quote in the description. You can find many VM covers on YouTube with this quote that are not being taken down.

Of course, original VM soundtracks and videos are not allowed and even though there are no shortage of them, they have always been infringing on the artist. It's just that very few artists are expressing their rights atm. And some choose to allow it, although that doesn't make it legal, just overlooked.

So although VM is getting a lot of heat for being one of the first taking action, once the majority of them jump on the bandwagon, I am guessing that very few will have a compromise for covers.

And though I still believe covers, no matter where they are recorded, should not be an issue, fans aren't completely shut out.

I wouldn't suggest contesting through YouTube as they set you up for perjury charges (check out their page for contesting) But I do suggest emailing Web Sheriff if you think your flagged video was unfairly pulled. Perhaps I got one of the good ones working there but know that they are not unbending, bullfaced lawyer types. And if you saw the title of my repost video, lol, and they were at all vindictive, they would not have corrected my situation.

Now as for the greedy, misguided, out of control RIAA, they are another story. Keep up the good work here guys
.

My band recorded one of our shows where we performed "Brown Eyed Girl" and "Wild Night." Both videos were removed within a week. Their tactics were assinine, too. First, they went through and marked the videos with one star, trying to make us yank the thing ourselves. When that didn't work, they requested YouTube to removed it for "copyright infringement."

As a songwriter myself, I understand the concept going on here. However, the whole "if you've performed it at a paid show" line doesn't hold water because the bars pay licensing to ASCAP, BMI, et cetera for the right to have cover bands perform songs, so the songwriter is getting paid. So what if my band got paid to entertain people? The songwriters got paid, too, for every cover song performed.

I'm not making any money on the video. It's asinine to make arbitrary rules that have no basis in copyright law. The videos of bands performing cover material are no better - in most cases - than a home movie, with the sole difference that the band playing it got paid to do so. And, as I've pointed out, that just doesn't hold water.

WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-3238013
Fax 44-(0)208-3238080
websheriff@websheriff.com
www.websheriff.com

Hi Mike, Cooperweb, Sixstringlass & Everyone,

First-of-all, apologies in advance (as it were) for posting on this thread – where many people might not welcome us – but we’d like to add our nickel’s worth, particularly as we have an announcement that should please Mike and, hopefully, other singer-songwriter and artist members of Boycott-RIAA.

As many of you may be aware – and as pointed-out by Leflaw - in order to synchronize video / film footage with an artist’s music (and assuming, for present purposes, that you are not re-arranging or adapting the artist’s / writer’s songs), a synchronization license is actually required from the relevant publishers / sub-publishers, which, unfortunately, can be a lot more complicated than you might imagine. If the publishers then seek to enforce / protect their rights on-line – some do, some don’t, others have yet to catch-up – then that’s where issues start to arise.

That being said - and in relation to Van Morrison specifically – Exile have been conducting on on-going review of these matters, specifically aimed at opening-up as many copyright exemptions for fans and YouTubers possible / feasible ... .. thereby cutting-through the publisher-red-tape with a series of special, automatic, copyright clearances. Initially, these exemptions were secured for fans performing their own, personal covers / renditions of Van songs, as well as usages that were either educational (eg. high school concerts etc) or compassiontate (such as weddings and funerals – events where, so often, Van Morrison’s music means so much to those concerned).

As part of on-going process of rolling-out these copyright exemptions – and as was the case with our friend Cooperweb - we are very happy to be able to announce that, subject simply to providing an industry standard, courtesy credit, Exile shall now also be able to provide bands with direct permission to keep their professional Van Morrison covers on YouTube (and, indeed, any other cover clips featuring Van’s music, provided, again, that the lyrics and arrangements are not changed - as this would require yet further clearances with publishers and, of course, the consent of the author himself). The text of the credit should simply say "Copyright music and lyrics reproduced by kind permission of Exile" and this should be prominently displayed at the very beginning of your description of the clip ... .. so, Mike / Shmoo and Sixstringlass, we’re glad to say that, not only will your covers no longer be pulled from YouTube, but they shall also be a very welcome addition to the constellation that goes to make-up Van’s on-line presence. Naturally, these permissions are conditional / revocable, so we would kindly ask anyone posting a cover to ensure that your clip and the accompanying wording is not rude or obscene and that it does not infringe Van Morrison’s moral rights in his music and lyrics – which, of course, would not have been the case with either Mike or Sixstringlass.

For the avoidance of doubt – and as also mentioned by Cooperweb - these permissions / exemptions ONLY apply to the use of Van Morrison’s music in conjunction with fans' and artists' own footage / recordings and NO permission shall be granted for the use of Exile copyright footage / recordings or footage / recordings that actually feature Van Morrison ; for which many thanks, again in advance, for understanding and respecting the artist's and label's wishes.

Anyway, there endeth ... .. and apologies, again, for butting-in on this debate ... .. we hope, however, that some of you will have appreciated our contribution as, at the end of the day, that’s what debates are all about !!

With Thanks & Regards to All,

WEB SHERIFF

First of all, I am impressed that WebSheriff has enough huevos to acknowledge our existence, take an interest in what we are discussing, and come here to talk to us about it. This is a measure of respect that we do not receive from RIAA members.

Even more surprising is the show of a logical process in dealing with the YouTube issue by WebSheriff, Exile and Van Morrison. Any one of those three entities could have taken the "You're stealing our stuff" attitude and overruled common sense.

I guess the question is which other artists share this viewpoint, and which ones think that imitation is the sincerest form of infringement.

I'm like you; I was impressed with Web Sheriff too.

"I guess the question is which other artists share this viewpoint, and which ones think that imitation is the sincerest form of infringement."

Wow!! If that doesn't say it all with the briefest but best of words, I don't know what would.
Thanks, George.

I appreciate their position, although this it without prejudice to our and Mike's (et. al.) position that such use is fair use, and should not be subject to copyright at all. But compromises make the world go round.

WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-3238013
Fax 44-(0)208-3238080
websheriff@websheriff.com
www.websheriff.com

Hi 'GD', Pessimist & Leflaw (and Mike, Cooperweb, Sixstringlass et al),

Many thanks for your very fair and civil replies ... .. as Leflaw says, compromise - and comon sense - makes the world go round ... .. importantly - vitally even - fans are the life-blood of any artist and, if respect for fan freedoms is matched by respect for an artist's right to decide how his or her music is distributed on-line (it is their music after all), then lasting and workable solutions can be found ... .. this world would be boring if everyone was the same and some artists (such as, generally, Radiohead and, in this case, Electric Gypsy) are very happy to allow their music to circulate uncontrolled and for free (although even Mike asks downloaders / uploaders to afford his band a copyright acknowledgement / credit), whereas others (such as, let's say, Prince and Metallica) have often taken a far less 'liberal' view ... .. many others take a middle / balanced approach ... .. ultimately, of course, that's our real point - ie. that, within reason and within the boundaries of fair use and common sense, it's an artist's decision / choice as to how their music should be distributed ... .. for our part, we always encourage a happy middle-ground, even to the extent of routinely advising labels to provide full-length, preview / promo tracks to fans ahead of an album's release.

Anyway, thanks again for listening and many thanks for giving us a fair hearing.

Best Regards,

WEB SHERIFF

P.S. We love the Soviet stlye header / artwork !!

"fans are the life-blood of any artist"

All artists should remember this first and foremost. The RIAA apparently doesn't think so since they continue to sue fans of many artists including Van Morrison.

"if respect for fan freedoms is matched by respect for an artist's right to decide how his or her music is distributed on-line (it is their music after all), then lasting and workable solutions can be found "

I certainly agree with this sentiment in principle, and believe artists SHOULD be the ones that dictate how their songs are used. Van Morrison may be in a better position than other artists, but let's not forget that most artists give this right to their record label. I certainly can appreciate that an artist might not want to have his/her song used for Karoke, but an artist's success is measured mostly by song recognition. It drives CD sales. It drives paying customers to shows. Without it, Van Morrison will be performing concerts in 2500-seat auditoriums with 15 people in attendance.

Getting picky about whether or not your song being covered by someone else was from a paying gig defeats the purpose of song recognition, doesn't it? People don't even need permission to cover a song for profit. All they have to do is pay a fee. Yet if someone covers it as a tribute on YouTube for fun, not for profit, all of a sudden more tedius rules have to be followed?

I understand that new ground is opening up every day with regard to Copyright law because of the internet. But Copyright Law wasn't written by the founding fathers to provide a livelyhood for 70 years after death to greedy corporations and heirs. It was provided to promote creativity "FOR LIMITED TIMES". How old is "Brown Eyed Girl"? Isn't it almost 40 years old?? It should be in the public domain by now for ALL to enjoy any way they please.

"within reason and within the boundaries of fair use and common sense"

Well said. All I suggest is that a little more common sense be applied. It is much harder today to figure this out because many more parties get involved. It's not one person and an artists copyrighted works. It involves corporations, which always muck things up. Corporations tend to forget how to use common sense. As an example, they have lobbied Congress to set Copyright terms that violate the original purpose of Copyright Law, for the sole purpose of increasing their profits at the expense of creative artists. I bet our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

within reason and within the boundaries of fair use and common sense, it's an artist's decision / choice as to how their music should be distributed

Since when? Artists have never made that decision. They're not even allowed to decide if it gets distributed, much less how. I'd be amazed if Van Morrison owns the sound recording copyright to "Brown Eyed Girl," especially since it was written before such a thing existed. Janis Ian doesn't own "Seventeen" or "Society's Child," and she can't even buy a copy.

It wasn't Led Zeppelin that tried to get clips of their O2 concert pulled from YouTube, it was Warner Music.

This is not about the artists. We know better. Don't try to sell that here. Surely Van Morrison isn't stupid enough to think that keeping his music alive somehow hurts him. Since every bar band in the country plays "Brown Eyed Girl," he ought to be rolling in bucks from ASCAP/BMI royalties that we earned for him.

If there's any money to be made from YouTube, it won't go to artists whose music is not there. And it won't go to us (independent artists), either, even if ours is there.

Shmoo was well aware of the rules, followed them all and still got a takedown notice. The fact that his video was flagged in the first place shows that the takedown requests are arbitrary and are certainly not based on law.

If it were, WebSheriff would not have different thresholds for different artists.

Hear Hear!

[url="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/universal-says.html"
Universal Music told a federal judge today[/url] that "takedown notices requiring online video-sharing sites to automatically remove content need not consider whether videos are protected by the 'fair use' doctrine."

I still appreciate WebSheriff's apparent willingness to broker a compromise, or at least listen to us, they still must do their masters' bidding. This has created another pointless roadblock for the rest of the musicians on the planet.

Mess with the audience all you want. We're counting on that.

But get out of our way.

"Since when? Artists have never made that decision. They're not even allowed to decide if it gets distributed, much less how."

Sure they have, it's in the fine print of that contract they signed. I suppose tho, they were too damn drunk/stoned to read it before they signed the fucking thing.

If any artist these days wants his or her material out there, they need only place it on limewire and send some cd-rs to local radio stations that are friendly to us pir8s.

The artists fuck themselves when they sign that contract. Just keep things in perspective here. Yes, the riaa is evil; but the artists who sign and keep the bastards going are just as much to blame.

very good point; I'm glad Raid added that perspective

I agree with what Raid is saying, especially if you signed a major label contract this century, but the high suckage level of the labels was not always common knowledge.

Those contracts also promised royalties for record sales. The labels kept ownership of the music and kept the money, too, if at all possible. And you couldn't make a record without them.

If I have a complaint about the old rock stars it is simply that they didn't warn the rest of us.

One thing I'd argue with -- the RIAA is not evil. That seems to imply they have a master plan and gives them waaaaay too much credit. They're just incredibly fucking stupid and have no problem wasting millions of dollars -- money the artists earned for them -- to attack the audience that gave it to them in the first place.

The RIAA seems to be the only organization in the world that can't figure out how to make a music web site.

Keep your eye on the IFPI. They started in Fascist Italy in 1933, and the RIAA is only a franchise.

Holy cow!

I spend just a few days away from a computer and look what happens...

=====
Let me see if I get this right:

So, Van Morrison must have seen this post (and others like it out on the web) complaining about the unfair take-downs at YouTube of covers - in addition to getting an earful from cooperweb (and others)...

...then, Mr. Morrison got in touch with his "cops" over at WebSeriff and told them to lighten up some on those of us who were NOT being so called "pirates" of his music...

Well, well, well.

I appreciate WebSheriff's polite entry into our forums explaining themselves. THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES (insofar as I know) that any entity of the "big" music industry that we have been critical of has appeared here.

I bet I still have to find a copy of, and re-upload our cover of Brown Eyed Girl. (But that's ok, we need to put some moving images in the vid instead of using a still photo of the band.)

I certainly don't mind labeling it with
"Copyright music and lyrics reproduced by kind permission of Exile" or similar caveat. (I and my band would hope no less from someone covering one of our originals.)

=======

I am pleased to hear that Van Morrison and Exile are not evil. (In fact, if you read above, I suspected that it was Universal actually behind the take-down notices. Turns out I was wrong.)

It still sucks big time that what was clearly a fair use cover was taken down at all. But this breaking news is a very welcome event.

=======

(Wow! Did our bitching and complaining actually bring in a "win" for once.)

Electric Gypsy had about given up on this battle in utter frustration.

Wow (again)

hmm...

http://youtomb.mit.edu/

YouTomb is a research project by MIT Free Culture that tracks videos taken down from YouTube for alleged copyright violation.

More specifically, YouTomb continually monitors the most popular videos on YouTube for copyright-related takedowns. Any information available in the metadata is retained, including who issued the complaint and how long the video was up before takedown. The goal of the project is to identify how YouTube recognizes potential copyright violations as well as to aggregate mistakes made by the algorithm.

In somewhat related news:

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/07/15

July 15th, 2008
Friday Court Hearing in YouTube Video Battle
Home Movie of Toddler Dancing to Prince Sparks Bogus Copyright Claim

San Jose - On Friday, July 18, at 9 a.m., the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will urge a federal judge in San Jose to protect the free speech and fair use rights of mother who posted a home movie of her son dancing to Prince on YouTube.

EFF represents Stephanie Lenz, who uploaded a 29-second clip of her son dancing in the family kitchen to the Prince song, "Let's Go Crazy," which is playing on a stereo in the background. Remarkably, Universal Music Publishing Group claimed that the video infringed its copyrights, and had the video yanked from YouTube. Lenz's lawsuit against Universal seeks to hold the company accountable for misrepresenting that her fair use violated its copyrights.

In Friday's hearing, EFF will ask U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel to reject Universal's motion to dismiss the case, and allow Lenz's lawsuit to continue.

WHAT:
Lenz v. Universal

WHEN:
Friday, July 18
9 a.m.

WHERE:
United States District Court, Northern District of California
Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
280 South 1st Street
San Jose, CA 95113

Contact:

Rebecca Jeschke
Media Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
press@eff.org

http://www.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_9932068

hmm...

I may just be cynical but,
maybe there is "something in the air" that brought about the recent appearance of WebSheriff to our forum?

Shmoo, my firewall does not like the link you provided; and I'm trying to figure out if its dislike is valid.

Mom fights music giant
S.J. COURT CONSIDERS KEY COPYRIGHT CASE
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Article Launched: 07/19/2008 01:33:24 AM PDT

For Pennsylvania mom Stephanie Lenz, a closely watched copyright showdown in San Jose federal court is a simple matter of standing up to powerful music moguls and petulant pop stars.

"I figure I have nothing to lose," Lenz said Friday in a telephone interview with the Mercury News. "The music companies are just going to keep doing this to people. I think it's my responsibility to stand up to them and say, 'That's enough.' "

Lenz, whose case reached a critical stage Friday, finds herself at the heart of an epic copyright fight over Universal Music's attempt to force her to take down a YouTube video of her toddler learning to walk with the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy" blaring in the background.

Calling it a "case of first impression," U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel on Friday considered Universal's attempt to dismiss Lenz's lawsuit, which maintains the media giant and Prince are abusing a 10-year-old copyright law intended to curtail movie and music thievery on the Web. Lenz is seeking unspecified damages and a court finding that she did not violate Universal's copyrights with the YouTube video.

'Takedown' letters

The case centers on a so-called "takedown" letter Universal sent to Lenz after she posted the video in February 2007. Music and movie companies send tens of thousands of such letters under the copyright law each year, essentially forcing the material to be at least temporarily removed unless
Advertisement
the target fights the request.

Lenz fought back hard, backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based civil liberties organization. She maintains that the video was a harmless, legal use of a popular song, and that her case exemplifies how a powerful industry can abuse the copyright law, known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Fogel dismissed a previous version of Lenz's lawsuit, but her lawyers filed a revised complaint that recasts the case as a test of what copyright holders must consider before sending out takedown letters. Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyers urged the judge to keep the case alive, arguing that companies such as Universal have an obligation to investigate and evaluate a video such as Lenz's before firing off the threatening letters.

Claim of 'fair use'

"It's a tiny, blurry little home movie," said Corynne McSherry, the foundation's attorney on the case.

Lenz and her legal team depict the video as a "fair use" of the Prince song. But Universal attorneys insist the company had the legal right to send the letter in Lenz's case, and that it would be unfair to artists and media companies to force them to undertake lengthy inquiries before asserting copyright violations.

Fogel took the company's request to dismiss the case under consideration and will rule later.

"The copyright owner is arguing that this is infringing; Lenz says it is fair use," said Mark Lemley, director of Stanford University's Law, Science and Technology clinic. "There are no cases directly on this question of user-generated content that incorporates songs as background. Lenz will be the first."

In the meantime, Lenz is prepared to take her case as far as it goes in the courts. The video is back up on YouTube, but that's not enough to appease Lenz.

"Somebody needs to tell these music companies they can't just throw out these (takedown letters) and accuse people of violating federal crimes," she said. "I didn't like feeling like I'd done something wrong, even though I knew I hadn't. It made me pani

It likely didn't take Universal long to realize the court of public opinion would be stacked against them on this case, and they became eager to dismiss it. That's what pisses me off about the RIAA moguls: When they feel they can't win, then to avoid bad publicity or having a precedent set that they don't want to see happen, they petition the judge for dismissal. However, when they've got just about everything stacked in their favor (and the defense counsel is even weak) as it was in Jammie's instance, well, then, they keep the guns a'blazin' to make a big point (Jammie was about to be their bad poster girl before she had a chance for a re-trial).
I know, some of you will say, "Hey, that's the system; whatcha-gonna-do-bout-it."
[sigh]

Music and movie companies send tens of thousands of such letters under the copyright law each year.

Universal attorneys insist... that it would be unfair to artists and media companies to force them to undertake lengthy inquiries before asserting copyright violations.

How about we all start accusing every Universal artist of copyright infringement every time they put out a new CD and demand that sales be halted for the three years it'll take before we drop the case? It would obviously be unfair for them to expect any lengthy inquiries before we assert copyright violations.

I routinely ask all pop music copyright holders to point out which part of the song is protectable.

Its all blues, ain't it?

"Shmoo, my firewall does not like the link you provided; and I'm trying to figure out if its dislike is valid."

hmm... it should be an ok link. It's just mercury news. (Many news sites have all that web 2.0 garbage attached to their articles, perhaps it's one of those widgets or a pop-up window setting off your firewall?) I have no probs using firefox 3 here at my mom and pop's house.

WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-3238013
Fax 44-(0)208-3238080
websheriff@websheriff.com
www.websheriff.com

Hi 'GD', Mike & Everyone,

Glad to see that this debate is still lively ... .. although GD's cynicism is somewhat misplaced ... .. we do, of course, appreciate what you are saying and, as you may have noticed, Exile continue to endeavour to maintain their independence from the likes of Universal and thereby remain free of the shackles of any over-arching, corporate policies (such as they may be) - hence being able to evolve their own, independent and inherently more flexible approach to matters such as fan and general covers of YouTube etc ... .. and so (Mike !!) our appearance here most certainly has no connection with Universal whatsoever and, again, is simply a measure of Exile's independent willingness to engage.

Once Again, Best to All (& thanks to everyone, GD included, for your genuine comments - debate is so much better than argument !!),

WEB SHERIFF

"although GD's cynicism is somewhat misplaced"

lol, it isn't, I promise. (We longtime members of this site feel we are a RIGHTFULLY cynical bunch of individuals. We have a lot of gripes about the wrongs of the music industry in general. Heck, I mean, c'mon, we ARE "boycott-RIAA" after all.)

But we understand that in THIS instance, Websheriff is now speaking on behalf of Van Morrison/Exile
and NOT Universal. (Albeit I'm sure Universal is also a client of yours) ...AND we are aware of the fact that Van Morrison had recently signed some sort of deal (probably P&D) with Polygram/Universal to release that big "retrospective" project of his. So, can you blame us for having had our suspicions that it was Universal behind the take down requests? (In fact, if you follow this thread from the top, you will see that it is exactly what I personally thought was happening.)

I am extremely pleased that Van Morrison/Exile (through you) seems to be wanting to "remain free of the shackles of any over-arching, corporate policies (such as they may be) - hence being able to evolve their own, independent and inherently more flexible approach to matters such as fan and general covers of YouTube etc." That shows character which earlier in this thread were sadly thought to be lacking in Van Morrison.

What stinks is that it took so long to get to this point. There should have never been this "problem" in the first place. And THAT is the rub. Copyright laws (and practices put to use by copyright holders) are so damn wrong and restrictive that crap like this happens all the time. Common sense and fair uses get crushed under misguided attempts to "protect IP" business models.

=========

We welcome civil debate from ANY of our opponents in the music industry. (Websheriff is a company we of course still DO remain critical of, despite the welcome dialogue we are having on this current subject.) You are invited to join in ANY of our other forum/topics to represent your point of view at any time!

=======
BTW

I have not personally done any background checking on you (user name: "WEBSHERIFF") yet to be %100 certain you are who you claim to be, (a genuine Websheriff rep and NOT some joker jerking our chain) but I am taking you at your word since it appears you have had some back-door dialogue with leflaw.
(But heaven help you if I find out you are not who you claim to be!!!)

oops:

Polygram/Universal should read = POLYDOR/Universal

WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-3238013
Fax 44-(0)208-3238080
websheriff@websheriff.com
www.websheriff.com

Hi Again,

Thanks for your further comments and for distinguishing between Van Morrison / Exile and Universal ... .. FYI, we sent an e-mail directly to Mike via the e-mail address on his band's web-site (last week), so this will verify our ID ... .. also, any mods from B-R.c are very welcome to either e-mail or telephone us for verification / a chat.

We'll look forward to liaising further and, if there any specific threads that you'd be interested to have us post on, do let us know (and thanks for the invite btw).

Best Regards,

WEB SHERIFF

I never got the e-mail. It must have went into my spam box and got deleted. (Yahoo has just changed its' mail interface, I still can't figure the darned thing out.)

I might give you guys a call in a day or two to touch base. Whom should I ask for?

"although GD's cynicism is somewhat misplaced"

a) Google "RIAA statistics".

b) This is the point in the conversation where I usually stop being civil or, at the last, turn the sarcasm way up. But you're new around here. I'm gonna cut you some slack.

First of all, the legal basis for removing cover songs from YouTube is even slimmer than the RIAA's lawsuits against file sharers, which has yielded exactly one trial. While they won that case, it has now been determined to be an "error of law."

Every aspect of copyright infringement in the U.S. Code is tied to "for profit."

Having said that, keep in mind that I really don't care about YouTube or the questions of law. I care about music and musicians, especially the independent variety.

I grew up in the 60s. I've been playing music since 1972. The first 30 years were sweet, except for the disco/urban cowboy era.

Then we finally got the tools to make and distribute our own recordings. And the RIAA has been there every step of the way, declaring each new tool to be somehow illegal -- mp3s, CD-Rs, file sharing, and now home video. I'm surprised that ProTools and CakeWalk ever saw the light of day.

Now there are suddenly rules that the record labels have instituted to control the sound recordings they did not make and therefore, do not own.

Rules? There are no rules in rock and roll. Show me a rock star and I'll show you a Class A rule-breaker. Rule-followers do not become rock stars. Musicians see rules of banned behavior as a to-do list.

I keep telling my pirate friends that the fastest way to end this nonsense is to do exactly what the RIAA asks and delete them from the Internet.

I keep reminding my musician friends the origin of the "cover song," which was a major label method of obscuring independent releases in the marketplace. The logic is that if you couldn't find a Van Morrison version of "Brown Eyed Girl" on the Internet, sixstringglass's rendition could become the new definitive version.

Oh yeah, there's the publisher to think about. Let's see, sixstringglass makes one copy and gives it to YouTube. He owes 9 and a half cents.

Sadly, this relies on the pirates deleting RIAA material instead of posting it, which hasn't quite caught on yet. So I'm glad to see WebSheriff has stepped in to get that going. Too bad it's not more accurate.

Music publishers are actively trying to prevent the performance of songs in their catalog. Unless your goal is obscurity, this is contrary to the purpose of being a publisher, and is being done simply because the publishers have not made collective licensing agreements.

My "cynicism" is a result of recognizing that the current "copyright cops" situation is a step-by-step replay of the publishers' fight against radio in the 1920s.

Sooner or later, the publishers are going to license for the Internet, just as they were forced to do with radio and television. They have no choice. When that happens, will they still want us to consider the copyright ideology of every artist/songwriter as a primary reason to reject their songs?

From a musician's point of view, this entire issue is a pointless, unnecessary interference that goes against the grain of common sense. We've got record labels begging people not to listen to the same music they were paying to get on the radio five years ago, songwriters and publishers who discourage performance of their songs.

Still trying to be civil... You can see the results of this genius plan in the RIAA sales charts. As my 11-year-old would say, that's whacked. It's jacked-up.

That's why a lot of us are independent in the first place. This is not really our fight. We don't care what you do to people using material recorded by the major labels.

Issuing takedown notices first and only reviewing the validity after someone complains serves the purpose of casting unfounded aspersions on legitimate content. Seems anticompetitive.

It's getting in our way for no good reason. None of us are making a dime from a YouTube video that we produced ourselves, except maybe the Clap Your Hands guys on the treadmills.

If the copyright cops remain in our way, we will be obligated to push the issue with algorithmic intensity, which will be accompanied by derisive mocking. It's already an attractive challenge for the rebellious at heart.

The Clap Your Hands Guys on the treadmills are now a signed act. "None of us are making a dime from a YouTube video that we produced ourselves" is still valid without the following "except maybe"...

Finally updated my band's website to include the following brief journal entry:

Tuesday, 22 July 2008
by Shmoo

Van Morrison (or his publisher, Exile) have decided to "lighten up" and let us and other bands put covers of his tunes online at YouTube and other such sites. See the article: Van Morrison hates covers - doesn't hate covers..." Apparently Morrison/Exile noticed that their hired copyright enforcer, Websheriff was being too heavy handed in doling out DMCA take-down notices. Websheriff actually came to the Boycott-RIAA website and apologized (on behalf of Exile) to us and other bands who had our Van Morrison covers yanked for not "good enough" reasons. So, in a way, by being the "squeaky wheel" WE WON! (Whoopie!)

Expect us to re-post our version of "Brown Eyed Girl" in the next week or so. (If I have time, I might even add some moving footage instead of just using a still band photo this time around. We are thinking of doing something with clay stop-motion animation! Won't THAT be cool!)

Props go to Cooperweb, Sixstringlass et al
(and everyone else who "made noise" on this issue!)

Van the man apparently realizes that his music is an order of magnitude more popular than it would have been THANKS to those of us who have chosen to cover his material over the years.

That makes me smile. I might even bend my vow not to purchase RIAA product and get a copy of his latest album.

A used 2nd hand copy

(I said "bend" not "break")

lol

I wonder if it is on vinyl?

Our cover of "Brown Eyed Girl" is back online at youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNnecTicxq0
------
...and here's an officially sanctioned clip of Van Morrison himself doing the song back in '73:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SP60n9v2YM

hmm...

Exile/Van Morrison's profile at YouTube claims that they are independent:


"OfficialExileFilms
Style: Soul
Joined: June 16, 2008
Last Sign In: 1 day ago
Videos Watched: 74
Subscribers: 80
Channel Views: 3,821

Record Label: Exile
Label Type: Independent
Country: United States
Website URL: http://www.vanmorrison.com

----------

Oh, how I hope hope hope that is TRUE! (Did the Polydor deal fall thru? Was it just a P&D deal?)

His MySpace page says Exile is a Major. Trying to track down Exile on the internet isn't easy, but looking at Van Morrison on Wikipedia shows Exile/Polydor Records... I would suspect he's on a major label, something like oh UMG's distribution list? It may be a long way around, but he looks mighty major to me.

So arrest me if I'm wrong. Nice spin, but spin is spin. Shame on YouTube, shame on Van's record label, shame on the whole bunch who want to control by fear of lawsuit.

I'm with George, pass the sarcasm.

Exile is not on the RIAA member list.

Wikipedia says the following about Polydor:

North American re-issues of pre-1998 Polydor releases are handled through Universal Records and Mercury Records. Today, in America, the Polydor Records name and logo is mostly used on reissues of older material from its 1960s and 1970s heyday.

Exile IS Van Morrison (plus a secretary, lawyer, and accountant or 2)

c'mon George. You shoulda known/guessed that much.



(Hope Exile/Van don't mind me pointing that out.)

==========

I'm just curious as to why (and if) Van Morrison/Exile is now claiming to be an "indie"

THERE SURE ARE A LOT OF PREVIOUSLY "NON EXISTANT" but yet OFFICIAL VAN MORRISON TUNES now available at YouTube this past couple weeks.

========

Did the Polydor/Universal deal fall thru? Did Van Morrison get A HUGE VICTORY in his latest contract signings?

How many licks does it take to get to the bottom of a lollypop?

(Will the world ever know?)

=====

"Wheeeeee!" Said the snail on the turtle's back

I hope he got back EVERYTHING the labels stole from him over the years. (Probably didn't get the "big hits" master tapes and/or original sound recording rights there-of...

...but it SURE LOOKS LIKE he got back SOMETHING!)

Let's hope and pray he didn't have to give up too much in exchange.

lol

Who knows? Maybe his original contract from the 60's & 70's finally expired?

If so,

WELCOME BACK VAN!

==========

um,

hey leflaw,

if Van IS an indie now, how about you hooking him and Lester Chambers up for a duet distributed at/by DMusic?

(That would be AWSOME to the max!)

==============

Ok, I'll put down my dream pipe now.

lol

WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-3238013
Fax 44-(0)208-3238080
websheriff@websheriff.com
www.websheriff.com

Hey Mike, George & Everyone,

Thanks again for your further comments and input (even if we don't always agree with 100% of what is being said) ... .. that being said (as it were), we're happy to confirm that Exile are 110% indie and proudly so ... .. in other words, totally, independently owned and controlled and not beholden to Universal or anyone else for that matter ... .. sure they are distributed through a major, but that's where it ends - hence, again, being able to evolve their own, common-sense policies when it comes to the internet and not having to tow any RIAA or Universal line.

George raises a very interesting, historical perspective ... .. the 'long-view' is one which we entirely share ... .. just as with radio in the 20s, television in the 50s and, most recently, MTV in the 80s, YouTube shall eventually be fully licensed and pay proper performance royalties just like other broadcasters ... .. which is fair enough when you consider that Google bought them for circa $5Billion and that much of the true value of YouTube was based-on other people's copyrights ... .. so, until such time as blanket licensing is in place (which could take years and, of course, have restrictions / opt-outs attached), YouTube shall have to respect the policies of those whose material they are profiting from ... .. from our standpoint, the money that YouTube makes and what it is largely based upon means that it would be fair-and-square not only for YouTube to pay all artists (big and small, indie or major) royalties for broadcasting their clips / masters / songs etc, but also that YouTube could afford to police themselves ... .. not necessarily for copyright (as that would no longer really be an issue in a fully licensed scenario), but for the depraved material that also gets posted ... .. we have recently been approached on behalf of a young mother who was gang-raped and a member of the gang had actually filmed the attack and posted in on YouTube ... .. it took YouTube TWO MONTHS to remove the footage and, needless to say, the woman is still highly traumatised by the entire situation, her trauma made all the worse for having to re-live her ordeal when the YouTube footage came to light ... .. when they are getting paid so much money, they should not allow stuff like this to happen and it would be interesting to see how many B-R.c members think they should be sued for this gross invasion of her privacy and how many think that they should get-away with it on free speach grounds ... .. sorry to turn the discussion to such things, but there's a whole wide range of issues when it comes to sites like YouTube, as we know you'll all be aware.

Anyway, on a lighter note, Mike did receive / locate our e-mail in the end, so contact established and we'll look forward to speaking with him in the near future.

As Ever, All The Best,

WEB SHERIFF

"YouTube shall eventually be fully licensed and pay proper performance royalties just like other broadcasters"

uh,

the "just like othe broadcasters" part is where I get the heebie jeebies.

-------

Historically, ARTISTS (and FANS) get royally SCREWED while big corporate labels run away with the money.

"and that much of the true value of YouTube was based-on other people's copyrights"

We agree here on this point.

(See: http://azoz.com/topics/youtube/20061011.html for a gripe we for-saw then!)

----------

"from our standpoint, the money that YouTube makes and what it is largely based upon means that it would be fair-and-square not only for YouTube to pay all artists (big and small, indie or major) royalties for broadcasting their clips / masters /