YouTube Kills Lady Gaga's YouTube Channel For Copyright Violations
from the the-moden-world dept
YouTube has a pretty strict “three strikes” rule on accusations of copyright infringement before you lose your account. But whoever thought that Lady Gaga would lose her account because of it? Apparently she (or her people) uploaded some video of Gaga appearing on a Japanese TV show, and a company called Media Interactive issued a takedown. Media Interactive has quite the reputation (search the YouTube help forums) for issuing somewhat questionable takedown claims. And, it may be true that Gaga violated the copyright of the TV show (and perhaps earlier uploaded works), but it does seem pretty ridiculous. But, alas, this is the state of copyright law today. Of course, between this and 50 Cent’s website being declared dedicated to piracy, it should make people realize that figuring out what is infringing isn’t always so clear cut. Of course, it would be nice if one of these music stars used incidents like these to speak out about the over aggressive nature of copyright enforcement, but that seems unlikely to happen.
Filed Under: copyright, lady gaga, three strikes, youtube
Comments on “YouTube Kills Lady Gaga's YouTube Channel For Copyright Violations”
She’s a pirate! arrrrgh!
Re:
Will we be seeing Incubus punching Lady GaGa in the face in their next 8-bit video game?
One tic Guvnah...
Her account LadyGagaVEVO is still active in the US as of 5:43 Eastern. Can’t find any links to other accounts she’s used.
You mean it wasn’t Madonna asking for the takedown? Good thing Gaga hasn’t borrowed from Prince…yet.
"And, it may be true that...
…Gaga violated the copyright of the TV show (and perhaps earlier uploaded works), but it does seem pretty ridiculous.”
1) The truth of it seems to be a matter of indifference to you.
2) Live by the sword, die by the sword.
3) You used the correct term probably by accident: “infringing”. Lady Gaga IS a commercial interest that had or intended to make money from that video.
4) Contracts were no doubt signed too.
5) I don’t believe that the state of law or practice is so tough to figure out. — When in doubt, DON’T.
It sounded like Laday Gaga kind of “got it” in the past, maybe she’ll speak out about it a little and bring some attention to the copyright issue. Sadly, I think it’s unlikely, but we can all hope, right?
"And, it may be true that...
“Lady Gaga IS a commercial interest that had or intended to make money from that video.”
Citation requested.
“Contracts were no doubt signed too.”
And you know this how?
“2) Live by the sword, die by the sword.”
I’d be happy to run the copywrong maximalists clean through with a fat blade!
Re:
She did, but now those songs no longer exist and there can’t be a copyright for something that doesn’t exist (at least not yet).
"And, it may be true that...
She doesn’t own the copyright to the show, freetardo. Duh.
Nice to see you L00nbats threatening violence. Seems to have become common here and on torrentfreak. What impossible losers you people are.
"And, it may be true that...
You’re not *really* anonymous are you? 8*()
Would Nobody Make Art Without Copyrights?
We have enough art and artists in the world. Take away copyrights and see if they all disappear. I doubt that they will. Real artists that produce real art will continue to do so. Why? Because they are artists not business men/ women. Get the fucking business people out of making art, they suck at it and push their bullshit like we would not be entertained without them.
So all this time that she’s been singing “Born This Way”, she was really referring to herself as a pirate?
I am absolutely positive that the poor Japanese TV station would have gone out of business if Lady Gaga had been allowed to continue with her scandalous activities. I am also sure that she wasn’t making any money before, and has STOLEN billions from them.
No wonder she dresses like a super-villain!
"And, it may be true that...
L00nbats
Well, that’s a new one…
"And, it may be true that...
Nice to see you L00nbats threatening violence.
All law is violence, at its heart.
"And, it may be true that...
“She doesn’t own the copyright to the show, freetardo. Duh.”
I never said she did – HOWEVER YOU made the claim she had or intended to make money from that video. I asked for proof of your assumption, chump monkey.
“Nice to see you L00nbats threatening violence. Seems to have become common here and on torrentfreak. What impossible losers you people are.”
You are the one who actually brought the whole death and sword play to the table: “”2) Live by the sword, die by the sword.” Also, I didn’t threaten anyone, I just said it would make me happy, like watching lawyers staked to an anthill covered in syrup.
It’s a crazy little world you live in, tell your Mom I said “hi” when you get to the dinner table!
The music industry hoisted with its own petard? Imagine that!
YouTube Kills Lady Gaga!
YouTube jumped the shark awhile ago and now everyone under 30 knows it.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
aaaaahhhhhahahahahahahahahahahhahaha
*deep breath*
hahahahhahahahahahhahahahaahaha!
You fucking rights holders/Big Media wanted ever-more-increasing copyright protections and significant ratcheting-up of enforcement, now you get to reap what you have sown. You have NO ONE to blame but yourselves (and Disney). Eat it, suck it, lie in the bed you made.
"And, it may be true that...
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
First you better stop waving it like a feather-duster!
"And, it may be true that...
Law is civilisation pretending not to be violent to its citizens.
"And, it may be true that...
We’ll need a troll dictionary soon.
"And, it may be true that...
Did she intend to make money? Everything Gaga does is with the intention of promoting her brand and thus making money.
Ron, even if we stay is the screwed up alter world of techdirt, consider CwF+RtB. She is attempting to CwF, so they have a RtB. It’s all marketing, it’s all promotion, it’s all to promote her brand to get people to buy more stuff. So everything she does has a commercial aspect.
Damn, it feels good to beat someone over the head with the leg of the techdirt table.
Re: "And, it may be true that...
Apparently we’re right back to my original request of the original quote:
“Lady Gaga IS a commercial interest that had or intended to make money from that video.”
Citation requested.
So, your point isn’t that she’ll make money by directly selling the video itself? That is how I read the above quote, and therefore requested some sort of citation that would suggest any selling of the video.
Now, you have obviously passed TechDirt Algebra 101 with your clear demonstration and understanding of CwF+RtB. You even implemented the “freetard variable” by claiming the video will be used for marketing and promotional purposes. By the way, what happened to the plans to sell the video, from the original quote? You know, the whole origin of my “citation request”?
“Everything Gaga does is with the intention of promoting her brand and thus making money.”
That’s a Grand Canyon size leap you take from promoting her brand to “thus” making money. Your “thus” probably involves quite a bit of rehearsal time, touring dates, practice, a legal team, a marketing team, a record label and who knows what else? Hmmm, so just promoting will cause money to rain from the sky? Excuse me while I quit my job to become a wealthy marketing executive – brb.
OK! My boss wasn’t too happy that I quit in the middle of the project but he seems happy for me personally since I will be financially wealthy shortly!
Damn it feels good to watch someone get dizzy from circular logic! Again, I simply asked for a citation that Lady Gaga intended to make money from that video which is what the original poster clearly stated/presented as a fact.
At this point, it appears she only shared the video and never charged anyone anything for viewing it.
Re:
It would be an improvement on the original game.
A full day
Note that a full day has now passed since the posting of this story, and not a single comment from the “rah rah copyright its the LAW rah rah govt granted monopolies are the BEST!” crowd. What, no pithy comments about “freetards” “deserving” just punishment? No “without copyright the system would fall apart?” Suddenly, its not so great is it? Now when the arrow is pointing the other way and you CANNOT argue against it without directly contradicting your entire pro-copyright argument, its silence and crickets.
Fair use
Fair use had precedence to all copyright laws in effect, this should be enforced. You should need to file a lawsuit, and prove your case in a court of law before any take downs are initiated.