What arguments does Wired use to give its opinions on Copyright laws ?
In Andy Baio's 'Wired' article, there are many arguments used as to why he thinks that copyright laws, especially on Youtube, should be a lot more lenient. He argues that Youtube encourages fans to upload covers of their favourite bands songs, but then says that they must haver all rights to all of the content that they upload.
Do you think UGC artists covering songs should be subjected to copyright law ?
I don't think they should because it is basically free advertising. I know that if I listened to a mash up and enjoyed it, I would go and find the different songs that were in it. This also goes for fan made videos and if I hear a song in the background of a vine. The only time that artists should be subjected to copyright laws is if they are using the song for their own gain. If they posted a cover of the song claiming it as their own, or they were using it to be hurtful of abusive, then the should have to conform to the copyright laws. In all fairness, I think that the copyright laws should be looked at and changed to fit with what I just stated ; If you are using someone else's song to be discriminating or hurtful towards others, then you should be prosecuted. If you are using someones else's song to show appreciation or love towards the artist, or for other fans of the artist to enjoy, then you should not be prosecuted.
Why is the video maker being sued ?
Michelle Phan, a British Youtuber, is being sued over a copyright infringment breach on her Youtube channel. She uploads make up tutorial videos and has over six million subscribers, but has included at least 50 songs by artists signed to the record label in her videos. The artists are signed to Ultra Records, and because of the use of the music without the labels permission, Phan is now being faced with legal action. The claims for the action taking place come from the opinion of the label that Phan has been making money from advertising attached to her YouTube channel and website.
Why do you think the opinions of the artist and the record label differ ?
Kaskade, the main artist used in Phan's videos, has said that 'Copyright law is a dinosaur, ill suited for the landscape of today's media'. He believes that people should be allowed to use artists music when being used for a good reason, but the record label has explicitly said that the music cannot be used because, technically, it belongs to them. The artist does what he does because he loves it. The money is not the main thing in the artists eyes. But for the record label, it is just a money machine, and artists are just dollar signs.
Comments
Post a Comment