Dy’er Sez: As a musician and content creator, I fully understand why a musicians (or any other creator of works) property needs to be protected, especially in our modern information age. But some of the allegations of copyright infringement (and the lawsuits which have followed) are more than a little heavy handed. Realistically, what is a music video but an advertisement to sell a record (sorry….i meant a CD; I guess my age is showing)? So I don’t get why any music company wouldn’t want their musician’s video plastered about as many places as they possibly can get it (I know that I wouldn’t mind that, at least). Wouldn’t that be tantamount to free advertising? But to knock down a video that was put up by the musician himself is utterly inane and clearly shows that the methods that are being used to determine copyright infringement on the internet are way, way off the mark.
Story from Ars Technica:
Musician angry after BPI forces YouTube to pull his video
British musician Calvin Harris was none too pleased to see that one of his original music videos, which he posted to YouTube, was removed due to a copyright complaint from the British Phonographic Industry. The phenomenon isn’t new, but it continues to show why takedown notices have gotten out of hand.
By Jacqui Cheng
YouTube takedown drama is back this week, thanks to British musician Calvin Harris and the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). The organization, which represents the recording industry in the UK, apparently had one of Harris’ music videos removed from YouTube due to a copyright claim. The problem, however, was that the video was created and posted by Harris himself.
After his discovery that the video was missing, Harris had many colorful words for BPI in his Twitter stream (hat tip to The Music Magazine). “The BPI are the worst organisation to ever walk the earth and their setup is shambolic,” Harris wrote in one tweet. “There are videos up there that other people have uploaded of the same song, and they haven’t been removed!? But mine does!”