YouTube Removes Madonna’s TIDAL Exclusive. New One Gets Uploaded 5 Seconds Later…

youtubesadface2

Yesterday, TIDAL presented an ‘exclusive’ from Madonna, a behind-the-scenes look at her upcoming video, “Ghost Town”.  A grainy version of that video instantly appeared on YouTube.

That version was ripped down after 24 hours of our report, probably by a takedown notice from Madonna’s label or the artist herself.

It was instantly replaced by this…

tidalupload1

 

and, this:

tidalupload2

Any questions?

31 Responses

  1. FarePlay

    End the Safe Harbor for infringing content and the sites that allow it to happen. Close the unintended loophole in Section 512 that stipulates the removal of a file not a notice to remove specific content from infringing sites, permanently.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      Indeed.

      Google’s business model is to maximize the revenue it generates from the interval between a and b, where a is the moment Google uploads the illegal content, and b is the moment when it is forced to take it down.

      Google’s industrial DMCA abuse is not only perfect, it’s art.

      Reply
    • Adam

      Yeah, and then all the fair use videos get removed too? Please. It’s idiotic to have exclusives to some websites and not others. The problem is the lack of compulsory licenses for us to share music between eachother and have micro-payments automatically made for each transaction. The fact that only military million dollar companies have and can afford to pay for “the right of sale” is destroying your incomes. If sharing music freely resulted in the kind of payments that are made on streaming right now, we’d all be making sales every time we shared music. Problem solved. Good luck getting any rights holders to allow this or getting Congress to understand…

      Reply
      • small labe1

        pray tell, what exactly is a “fair use video”??
        Fair use is a defense in a trial, not a right of an uploader..

        Reply
      • Red

        The “Fair Use” doctrine is what some sites will (still) try to hide behind but it is no defense in this situation. Are any still trying to convince people that they are using it for ‘educational or review purposes’? Be real! If it is for fair use, it shouldn’t be on a site that produces revenue for use of the materials and has to have teams of lawyers willing to sell their souls for the retainer fee.

        Seriously, while they might get a few to buy into the fair use red herring, only those who have no skin in the game will buy it. It flies in the face of those who are seeing their works plastered all over and receive little or nothing in exchange while the sites hosting the material get revenue. I can’t say that I’m a Madonna fanboi but this is about the principle. If it was cited with a take down notice, it should *not* have been uploaded again within moments!

        As far as I’m concerned, if you produce something – in this case ‘content’ – you are entitled to and should be paid for that product. Closing the loopholes on Safe Harbor should have been done long before now.

        And the comment, “If sharing music freely resulted in the kind of payments that are made on streaming right now, we’d all be making sales every time we shared music.” is patently absurd on its face. Payments? What are you talking about? From a recent Guardian article “For example, Spotify says that its average payout for a stream to labels and publishers is between $0.006 and $0.0084 but Information Is Beautiful suggests that the average payment to an artist from the label portion of that is $0.001128 – this being what a signed artist receives after the label’s share.
        “http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-musicians-make-spotify-itunes-youtube or for a non-superstar’s income, check this one; http://danreitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/spotify_payout.jpg Based on these numbers, looks like these artists can afford to put a half tank of gas in the van… but only once in the 18 months shown. Sure, there are other expenses, but they need to get to the next gig, right?

        Reply
  2. Anonymous

    “YouTube Removes Madonna’s TIDAL Exclusive. New One Gets Uploaded 5 Seconds Later”

    YouTube doesn’t care which version you watch.

    The video is constantly available on YouTube. Nothing else matters to Google.

    Reply
    • Wooly

      “Nothing else matters to Google.”

      This is purely your opinion and an uneducated guess, at that.

      Reply
          • Anonny Mouse

            Well, in posters defense, I imagine it only takes 20 people to monitor millions of videos. The workload can’t possibly beyond the scope of real-time tracking and monitoring of every piece of content.

            (this is sarcasm)

  3. check... youtube a pirate site from DAY ONE...

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/03/21/viacom-v-youtube-google-a-piracy-case-in-their-own-words/

    • A July 29 email conversation about competing video sites laid out the importance to YouTube of continuing to use the copyrighted material. “Steal it!” Chen said , and got a reply from Hurley, “hmmm, steal the movies?” Chen’s answer: “we have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic. how much traffic will we get from personal videos? remember, the only reason our traffic surged was due to a video of this type.”

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      This is why the Viacom-YouTube case was such a travesty. OF COURSE the idea is to infringe.

      Reply
  4. Me2

    ‘Safe Harbor’ is looking like more like troubled waters. And the tide is on the way out.

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    Also, tumblr, locker sites, torrents, other video sites, etc… YouTube is just the most public

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      So what? It just means that Me2 was right in his/her comment above.

      Safe Harbor seemed like a good idea in the 20th century, but it’s a bad joke today.

      Reply
      • FarePlay

        Safe Harbor was never intended to shield infringing activity, but because of the language contained in the provision it has enabled piracy to thrive for 16 years. The real tragedy is that it wasn’t amended a decade ago and lessened the ravages of internet piracy.

        The music industry is on the brink of collapse, unless you consider a handful of superstars an industry.

        Reply
      • Faza (TCM)

        It’s a source of constant amazement to me that YouTube is eligible for safe harbour at all. They are not a service provider, they are a content provider.

        For all the hooplah about the amount of content being uploaded to YouTube, the number is dwarfed by the amount that is being watched in the same period. This should be the first clue that YouTube isn’t about hosting video, as much as displaying it to the public. The second clue is that it is the display that is being monetised, not the storage or delivery – you don’t need to pay YouTube anything to have your content hosted by them nor for the privilege of having it displayed to anyone who desires to watch it. On the other hand, YouTube makes money from advertising shown to people who watch videos. How exactly is that different from bog-standard television, I wonder?

        Since YouTube’s business is fundamentally the same as TV, there is no particular reason they should be held to any different standards than TV (using the same reasoning as SCOTUS adopted in Aero). Since what it is that their users upload is non-neutral from YouTube’s business perspective (popular content is more valuable than home videos from random strangers) and everything that they show is likely to be copyrighted (excepting the odd public domain video), it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to perform the same kind of editorial supervision and due diligence with regards to licensing as a TV station (or any other old-school content provider) would.

        Oh, would that mean they could no longer run their business like they do now? And?

        Reply
        • Yep

          Yes, but how many YouTube partners would be happy if the ‘safe harbor’ law was removed.

          This would, of course, render YouTube obsolete and thus extinguish this revenue stream for content owners/controllers

          Like all of the recent issues, it all comes back to the relationship between labels/PRO’s and artists. It is not the fault of the services if billions of $’s is not getting though to the artists.

          YouTube and Spotify are very, very important revenue streams for major labels and publishers, right now.

          Ever noticed how you don’t hear Sony, PRS, Warners etc…moan about YouTube? Weird that.

          Reply
          • Yep

            Oh you might hear the odd CEO make a statement about streaming, free tiers etc…

            But that’s just politics whilst they re-negotiate terms.

          • wurd

            you guys are talking out of the backside of your bodies.

            Please show some documentation that you know what the CEO of ANY company is thinking, let alone Sony, Google, YouTube etc.

  6. Alexander J. Benz

    Hello Faza, what does it mean?

    (using the same reasoning as SCOTUS adopted in Aero)

    Thanks
    Alexander

    Reply
  7. Anon

    Just because Madonna is bad at ingesting content and blocking it on YouTube is no reason to blame YouTube.

    Reply
  8. David

    If the video removed was, literally, ‘instantly replaced’, you have to wonder how that would happen. We know from documents filed in a court case that Grooveshark has a system that does precisely this: a number of ‘uploads’ of each song are held in reserve, and as soon as the current publicly available version is removed under a DMCA notice, one of the ‘reserves’ takes its place. (At least, this was the system a few years ago.) But so far as I know there is nothing quite like this in YouTube. If there is, YT could not claim ‘safe harbor’ because they would blatantly have ‘red flag’ knowledge of the infringement.

    Reply
    • Paul Resnikoff
      Paul Resnikoff

      Yes, that was proven in the case of Grooveshark, but in the case of YT, the network effect may simply be so giant that if it’s out there, it’s probably getting uploaded onto YouTube, and YouTube doesn’t have to do anything.

      Reply
  9. Satan

    Haven’t commented in a while I thought I would clear up a couple points of contention

    From what I’ve read about all the possible changes to copyright law in the USA, no politicians are talking about changing the DMCA.

    The DMCA safe harbor provision is what keeps Google/YouTube in business. Google and the govt are very cozy. Politicians know that Google controls a lot of data that can make or break a re-election.

    So don’t expect the law to change any time soon.

    Google’s wealth and power will continue to increase. It is being built out of the desiccated corpses of content creators.

    Do No Evil………….ha ha ha ha ha ha. It warms my heart

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      Well, this is true. The entertainment industry would be wise to start informing their users that the Google Corporation is the one that pulls the strings in Washington DC, not the voters.

      Reply
  10. Name2

    TIDAL is awesome. I just got an email hawking the TIDAL EXCLUSIVE RIHANNA video.

    TIDAL: if you want a company not really paying close attention to your listening habits.

    Reply
  11. Versus

    Safe Harbor has to go. It’s only “safe” for pirates, and provides no protection for honest people trying to protect their work.

    Why are there no instant penalties to such in fingers? At the very least, instant account termination. But beyond that, FINES.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *