* <<FBC.0855>> "No copyright infringement intended."
I love that people share music on YouTube. It's absolutely the best
resource for exploring obscure, out-of-print, or simply unpublicized
music, and I'm a big fan of media sharing in general, because it's
great publicity for people who don't have a publicity budget. I've
benefitted professionally from having my illustration shared,
reblogged, etc. It's great. But if you're gonna share other
peoples' music on YouTube, don't monetize your fucking videos.
That's the difference between sharing and exploitation. And what's
even worse is people who upload copyrighted material, monetize the
videos, and then leave a mealymouthed little disclaimer, "no
copyright infringement intended", in the video description. Fuck
you, "no copyright infringement intended." Christ, if you're going
to be a parasite, have some spine about it.
Winds me right up.
..
I was going to post this on pump.io. Then I reconsidered my
feelings. A restatement:
..
I love that people share music on YouTube. It's absolutely the best
resource for exploring obscure, out-of-print music, international
music, or even mainstream domestic music that's simply never come to
your attention, and I'm a big fan of media sharing in general because
it's a brilliant way for creative professionals like me to get our
work out to potential clients. One thing really winds me up, though,
and that's when people share music to YouTube and then monetize the
videos. Actually, that part alone doesn't really wind me up (I'll
come back to that); it's when people post copyrighted material, and
then leave a mealymouthed little disclaimer, like "no copyright
infringement intended", in the video description. Bullshit, "no
copyright infringement intended" – that's exactly what you're doing
–intentionally! Christ, if you're going to be a parasite, have some
spine about it.
Disingenuous disclaimers aside, my feelings about people who brazenly
upload copyrighted material and try to monetize it is more-or-less:
whatever. Ninety-nine percent of the time, I think it's a non-issue.
A few thousand views on YouTube is only going to pay the infringing
party, like, $1 USD, and if you're a smaller, independent artist,
that "infringement" will probably work in your favour, since you're
probably not going to be getting any exposure on commercial radio or
television. An argument could probably be made that the infringer
deserves that tiny finder's fee if they help you grow your audience
at all. On a moral ground, I don't like it – it's the very
difference between sharing an artist's work, and exploiting that
artist – but from a practical point of view, it's hardly worth
getting up-in-arms about.
--
Excerpted from:
PUBLIC NOTES (F)
http://alph.laemeur.com/txt/PUBNOTES-F
©2015 Adam C. Moore (LÆMEUR) <
[email protected]>
