I had an artist manager ask me a new one yesterday: How do I get live performance footage of new songs recorded on someone’s cell phone removed from YouTube? This isn’t really a new request, we have to have material taken down from websites fairly often. What is new about it is that the recording was made on a handheld digital recorder by a fan at a show where the artist was trying out new material.  Â
Until YouTube, it was possible to “open in Philadelphiaâ€? to try out new material, a time-honored tradition in our business. Artists frequently try out material in small clubs in small towns, and may completely rewrite songs based on how they “feelâ€? live or simply not use certain songs. (This is obviously not limited to artists, but also would include comedians, broadway shows, any number of performers.) Â
My artist client now has to pay me to write notice and takedown letters to YouTube to exercise rights under the DMCA—the same week that YouTube is rumored to be fetching an asking price over $1 billion dollars. That’s billion with a B. My artist asked me to explain to him how it is that YouTube is able to make more money from infringing his work than any artist will ever see in their lifetimes, yet he has to take the time to send a cease and desist to YouTube in some kind of grotesque game cyber shakedown. Â
Of course it is true that anyone can record an artist’s performance anywhere, that’s not the problem. The problem is not with the fan, and I refuse to allow YouTube to try to make it so.
The problem is that YouTube makes no apparent effort to filter videos that are of obviously questionable origin. Riddle me this: If an artist wanted to make their video available on YouTube, would they typically want to post a poor quality video, or would they more likely be interested in keeping that kind of video off of YouTube.
The lawyers for YouTube have tried to get around this issue by implying that they have no way of knowing whether a video that is uploaded is secretly being uploaded by the artist themselves to start a grass roots campaign. The same is true of movie studios or record companies.
There’s a very easy fix to that problem: Ask them. Ask the artist’s permission before YouTube permits the video to be posted. But of course YouTube can’t do that. Asking permission doesn’t “scaleâ€?.   Â
What YouTube means when they say that something doesn’t scale is that in order to accomplish a particular thing, they would have to spend money they don’t have on resources they don’t want to achieve a goal for which they have contempt. It’s like saying, yes I know I may be stealing from you, but it’s too inconvenient for me to find out. Sounds infantile when you think of it that way right?
If a child said that to their parents, they would likely be grounded for a good long time. It’s time to ground YouTube.
Chris Castle is a music attorney in Los Angeles where he represents artists (including KOAR fav 10 Years), producers, music industry executives, songwriters, independent publishers and record companies, and technology companies. Chris is a contributing editor to Entertainment Law & Finance and writes the Music-Tech-Policy blog (http://music-tech-policy.blogspot.com/). He is on the board of directors of the Austin Music Foundation and moderates the digital panel at SXSW. Before law school, he was the drummer for Jesse Winchester, Long John Baldry and Yvonne Elliman
Â
Unless a band sux live and is worried about their “live sound” being out on video and hurting there possible tour revenue, I don’t sse what the big deal is. People hear the music dig the song , tell a friend and then so on and so on. It’s the bueaty of something being viral.
I do however understand it can be irritating to have a poor quality video up but in this digital day and age, people know that a cell phone video isn’t going to be a “true” experience of show and sound.
Here is another case of lawyers getting involved and making everything harder than it is.
Let me guess, they will be looking for some type of financial compensation right.
I am all for a music attorney, god knows that they have been more beneficial in developing our artists than any manager ever was but with that said, they also contacted me on a regular basis trying to drum up controversy where it didn’t need to be.
Thats my 2 cents.
its more about quality control then anything.
lets say a fan goes on in search of new material from an artist, but is then dissapointed because of poor quality, or that the song doesnt seem as polished as thier older material. often times many of these people will be quick to say that the artist/band has changed thier sound, or has started to suck.
i can see why the artist would be upset. unfortunatly theres not too much that can be done to stop this and it could just mean bands stop trying new material live.
Somehow I find the idea of youtube screening the uploads amusing. It’s like taking you responsible for the lifes of people crossing the street in front of your house.
Bands should focus to give their fans the whole experience. Come on, noone who is not really into an artist, watches this shaking shadow videos. Put a section on the artist website for user generated recordings, videos, concert pics and reward them, than punish them for beeing dedicated to the artist. At least if you ever want to sell something to them again …
Obviously the previous comments were not by artists. You don’t get it. IT IS STEALING!!!. If you were a carpenter and built a bench and someone took it would you care? Videoing a performance is STEALING that persons art. PERIOD!