Warner Music Mutes YouTube, So Blame Them Instead

I’ve always had my qualms with YouTube about video quality, comment moderation, ease of use, comment moderation, and comment moderation, but what’s got the blogosphere exploding lately is something that I kind of pity rather than hate YouTube for: videos containing copyrighted music are having their audio muted.

This actually isn’t new, just a new option for users hit by an increasingly rabid crackdown by Google’s Video Identification robots. A video that I posted of footage I took at Anthrocon was taken down automatically just because I happened to synchronize the footage with a song that is copyrighted by a gigantic corporation. I was given the option to replace the audio with a different song, which would have killed all my hard work in Final Cut, or I could dispute the claim, either because it was an incorrect match (which it wasn’t) or because it was Fair Use (which it was).

I don’t love YouTube’s handling of Fair Use, though legally the burden is upon the Fair User to justify it, so I suppose taking your video down before allowing you to defend the use is appropriate. That’s how I handled my video, explaining to YouTube’s input box that my video was non-commercial and did not prevent the copyright holder from making a profit. Submitting that dispute got my video replaced quite punctually, but when I clicked that Submit button, I saw a single line that told the story of who the true villain is here: “Your claim has been submitted to WMG.” Warner Music Group.

Now, technically, the audio muting was Google’s, not Warner’s idea. Of course it was, because Google is behind the engineering of their site; Warner’s idea was to threaten Google with lawsuits if they didn’t piss off the entire Internet in some way, shape, or form simply because Google (rightfully) didn’t want to give Warner more money than they deserve.

So is Google being cowardly here for not standing up in defense of 17 U.S.C. § 107? Yes, they certainly are, and while I’m sure they don’t want to risk a big legal case in this economy, it would be really nice if they’d use some of their money to uphold the rights of their users under the law. But no company bigger than Psystar has ever concerned themselves with trying to get copyright law interpreted sanely, so Google’s cowardice here isn’t entirely unprecedented.

And while I still say shame on you, Google, since I figured “don’t be evil” implied “don’t be a pussy” too, I’m going to stand by YouTube as best I can here. Instead I will turn my fires of hatred to Warner, because if they’re really that concerned with all the money they’re not losing, perhaps they should reform their business model to sell something people might actually want to pay for.

There’s still something I find odd, though. Remember that video that YouTube took down, and how my dispute was submitted to “WMG”? Well, take a look at it and listen. Here’s the Vimeo version just in case Warner DDoS’s YouTube or something:

That music? You hear that? That’s “Welcome To The Jungle” by Guns N’ Roses. Guns N’ Roses is signed to Geffen Records, which is owned by Universal Music Group. I’m sure Universal is probably slamming YouTube as well, but…

Why was my claim about a Universal Music Group song sent to Warner??????

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• Quick! Tell Everyone!