byline Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Pretty clearly that's NOT the case. If WGI didnt have a choice and they were actually worried about consequenes, they'd spend a few days surfing youtube and get almost all of them (because most guard videos have the WGI tag in them). Have you ever considered that perhaps WGI is primarily acting on complaints it receives regarding specific videos? As I said before, it would be a full-time job, alone, for someone to track all the illegal uses of video out there. So it may be that WGI has to wait until they receive a complaint before acting on it, as they don't have sufficient personnel to keep up with this 24/7. Also, depending on how far back we're going/the music being used, some of that music is now in the public domain and so is not subject to copyright protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 (edited) FACT...not rumor:WGI will either break even or possibly lose money on REPLAY. WOW. What a strong motivation to try to strong-arm potential subscribers to REPLAY. And it's not FACT yet. You have no idea how many Finals-week-only subscribers they'll pick up. FACT: WGI didnt ask the video posters (in our case THEIR CUSTOMER) to remove the video first. FACT: WGI continues to permit non-REPLAY regional videos to remain. Just where's all this RUMOUR you're talking about? Edited March 11, 2008 by corpsband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 Have you ever considered that perhaps WGI is primarily acting on complaints it receives regarding specific videos? Also, depending on how far back we're going/the music being used, some of that music is now in the public domain and so is not subject to copyright protection. If it was based on a complaint by an original copyright holder i seriously doubt the complaint would have magically been ONLY 2008 regional soundtracks. And the takedown notice sent by youtube would have been from the copyright holder not WGI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastGuard Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 If it was based on a complaint by an original copyright holder i seriously doubt the complaint would have magically been ONLY 2008 regional soundtracks. And the takedown notice sent by youtube would have been from the copyright holder not WGI. WGI has the video and audio rights to ALL performances held at a WGI event. It is on the Entry Form. If a performance at a WGI event has been posted without their permission, WGI has the right to have it taken down. WGI pays a substantial amount of money to the music companies for copyrights, why would they NOT be concerned? Also, it is against WGI policy to video a unit at a WGI event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justgin Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Does anyone know for sure that it is WGI that flagged it? I've never had that happen, so I don't know how the notification is worded. Do they tell you who reported the problem, or is it just a generic email? I'm not saying I don't think they did, just wondering if there's a definite connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCIHasBeen Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Does anyone know for sure that it is WGI that flagged it? I've never had that happen, so I don't know how the notification is worded. Do they tell you who reported the problem, or is it just a generic email? I'm not saying I don't think they did, just wondering if there's a definite connection. Generally to get something like that flagged, you need to file a DCMA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) notice with you tube asserting you are the copyright owner, or representative thereof. They don't take stuff down on a whim ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 Does anyone know for sure that it is WGI that flagged it? I've never had that happen, so I don't know how the notification is worded. Do they tell you who reported the problem, or is it just a generic email? I'm not saying I don't think they did, just wondering if there's a definite connection. here's the email... YouTube | Broadcast Yourself™Dear Member: This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Winter Guard International claiming that this material is infringing: (url of video here) Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide. If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions. Be aware that there may be adverse legal consequences in your country if you make a false or bad faith allegation of copyright infringement by using this process. Sincerely, YouTube, Inc. Copyright © 2008 YouTube, Inc. No ambiguity about who did what... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 If it was based on a complaint by an original copyright holder i seriously doubt the complaint would have magically been ONLY 2008 regional soundtracks. And the takedown notice sent by youtube would have been from the copyright holder not WGI. That wasn't my point. You're complaining that there are still videos other than 2008 that are up and running, yet apparently WGI hasn't taken them down yet. That was what my explanation re: complaints was directed to. Also, what if if initially, the copyright-owner approached the person who posted the video, but was ignored or even rebuffed? Or, what if they are posting anonymously and so the copyright-owner has no way of tracking them down to legally enforce the copyright? Then the next course of action would be to approach the organization overseeing the color guard activity (especially if said organization has set policies regarding copyrighted materials). As I said, for 2008, I'm assuming that WGI has been told in no uncertain terms that legally, they must prevent copyrighted material from being distributed contrary to copyright law. Hence the harder line they've had to take this year. The same thing has been happening with DCI, to the point that now even parking lot audio/videotapes are off-limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 Generally to get something like that flagged, you need to file a DCMA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) notice with you tube asserting you are the copyright owner, or representative thereof.They don't take stuff down on a whim ... Actually you just need to send an email making the claim. The onus is on the counter-claimer to repudiate the claim. Interestingly enough it seems they've stopped (or paused) their violation-flagging activity. A simple search for other 2008 videos still reveals many (most?) from '08 still are up. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 WGI has the video and audio rights to ALL performances held at a WGI event. It is on the Entry Form. If a performance at a WGI event has been posted without their permission, WGI has the right to have it taken down. WGI pays a substantial amount of money to the music companies for copyrights, why would they NOT be concerned?Also, it is against WGI policy to video a unit at a WGI event. Should've read your reply before posting my own more speculative one. Thanks for clearing that up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts