vector self portrait- Pinktastic

Lorenz: YouTube vs. Warner

I think that companies like Warner need to learn to pick their battles.  I understand and respect the fact that they own certain copyrights and have the right to protect them, but most of what's on YouTube seems like it should be a pretty low priority.  If a 15 year old wants to sing a Christmas carol that's been around for 60 years, why not let her sing it?  We all know it, we've all heard it a thousand times on the radio, so what's the big deal?  

I'm not sure what the correct action in this case actually is, though.  While I feel like it's a little ridiculous to target people who use a song for a few seconds in the background of a video, the copyright does belong to Warner.  If they don't want it played, that's their prerogative.  It's a tricky issue, but hopefully YouTube and Warner can come up with a sensible agreement to retain the rights of both Warner and the public.

YouTube Vs. Warner

As ridiculous as it may seem that Warner Music Group removed a 15 year old girl’s cover of a Christmas carol, I don’t necessarily disagree with them. It’s just business. The article states that YouTube has licensing deals with numerous major music companies, so for every popular song that plays on YouTube, someone is making money by allowing YouTube to keep it up on the website. For whatever reason, Warner and YouTube could not agree on a deal, so Warner is just reacting to this. I agree that pulling the video of a guy teaching sign language may be going overboard, but Warner stated that their song identifying software is automatic and has no way of distinguishing professional from amateur. This is a much more efficient way of removing videos than having someone manually go through them, which would be pretty much impossible. Warner may seem like the bad guy here, but they are just doing what they need to do. I think any other music company would do the same thing if they could not agree to terms with YouTube. As much as it stinks, people need to remember that there’s always a risk when you post something on the internet. Having Warner remove the videos is not the worst thing that could have happened, being sued would be a lot worse.

Al Greene's Self Portrait

Al Greene's Self Portrait

The New Real

This article brings up some interesting questions. I see the positive aspects of digitally reproducing great masterpieces to for example exhibit them where the artist intended originally. But I think that Walter Benjamin's concept of an art work having an aura is still true. With reproduction, or cloning this aura could be lost, or multiplyed? The artist intended to make, and made only one masterpiece. When technology alows us to clone, "one of a kinds" and put them in the place of the original it is a tribute, but it also reminds me of the missing master. More people can experience it but, is there experianc authentic?

Rights Clash on YouTube

I think the most important thing is to focus more on the professionally-made material while letting amateur videos made for fun remain on YouTube. Removing home videos with songs playing in the background is nonsense to me.

This reminds me of when I was in school for graphic design. We were told to change an image in seven distinct ways before using it in our work. I am not sure if there is any legal merit to that, but it is a good way to scare people out of using other people's work.

I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. Copyright laws should be frequently reviewed and updated to keep up with the rapidly-changing means of creating, using and sharing media.