Grisman sues YouTube
In the first case I’m aware of involving a bluegrass artist, mandolinist David Grisman has filed suit against online video sharing website, YouTube. From large media conglomerates such as Viacom to soccer leagues, many have filed similar suits since Google’s recent acquisition of YouTube.
Grisman’s lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of cash for copyright infringement, as well as a court order forcing YouTube to comply with copyright laws in the future. Grisman and company seek to pursue the case not only for themselves, but also for other independent musicians and publishers.
YouTube’s response to such cases has historically been that they always comply with requests to remove unauthorized material when asked to do so by the copyright owners, and are therefore protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The suit was filed May 10, 2007 in a San Francisco federal court.
Some have pointed out the irony of someone who has always encouraged fans to bootleg his live performances now suing a video sharing site, but Grisman draws a distinction between fan bootlegs and “Google distribution.” Personally I don’t see much difference myself, since the fan bootlegs invariably end up online where they are distributed worldwide in the same way that YouTube clips are. But ultimately, as a copyright owner, it’s his right to decide when and where to allow use of his copyrighted works. But, you might ask, was a lawsuit really necessary?
Here’s part of the text from the suit.
they [Google and YouTube] deliberately refuse to take meaningful steps to deter the rampant infringing activity readily apparent on YouTube which would, in turn, have a negative impact on the advertising and other reviews and other value achieved through the large volume of traffic on the YouTube Web site.
Essentially the difference, as Grisman and company seem to be drawing it, is that YouTube, and by extension Google, is making money on the site where fans trading bootlegs aren’t. At least that’s the thought process, and I can go along with that. If he’s willing to give away, so to speak, his copyright by allowing fans to tape, that is different from someone seeking to monazite his copyrights without his consent.
I understand how he can be ok with live show taping, but not ok with YouTube video sharing. Other copyright owners might be ok with it though (I know some who are). So why try to take that choice away by forcing YouTube into a business model that wouldn’t allow it? Why not just ask YouTube to remove your works and, assuming they do, leave it at that?
Email This Post
| Print | Top | 5 Comments
We recently told you about the law suit filed by David Grisman's Dawg Music (Acoustic Disc) label against online video sharing site YouTube.com. It appears that's not the only lawsuit he's filed recently. He's also suing Universal Music Group and Warner Music for contracting to sell his music online...
The popular Internet video sharing service YouTube was in the news last week, as a Los Angeles journalist filed suit against them for copyright infringement after a YouTube user posted video shot by the reporter on his YouTube page. The whole purpose of YouTube is to allow users to easily post video...
This post is quite long. I've made an effort to present the facts of the legal battle. At the end of the post I leave you with my opinion on the situation and some links for further reading, including the full text of the filed lawsuit.
In an effort to protect copyright holders, MySpace recently announced...
I just discovered a new release from David Grisman. It's The David Grisman Bluegrass Experience. I don't have much information about the recording other than the list of musicians who are featured on it.
David Grisman: mandolin, vocals
Keith Little: banjo, guitar, vocals
Jim Nunally: guitar,...
We covered this issue in some detail in the past, with a good deal of discussion taking place in the comments (here and here). The issue seems to have slipped off the radar lately, but the debate continues in the background.
Just recently, the US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia set dates...
The recent ruling by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) to restructure the way royalties are calculated for internet broadcasters, has lead to heated discussion here on The Bluegrass Blog as well as in the halls of Congress. It appears as if Congress is not inclined to act at this point to overrule the...
This post is a contribution from David McCarty, a music journalist, songwriter and musician who writes regularly for Bluegrass Unlimited and Flatpicking Guitar magazines, and performs as a member of The Hot Club of Naptown. Your comments are welcome - agree or disagree.
After seeing the recent AP...
We've told you in the past about our friend Wichita Rutherford and the band he plays in, Van Heffer. As you may recall Wichita podcasted the entire video in 5 minute episodes earlier this year. Now it seems that somebody got ahold of a DVD copy and put the entire thing up on YouTube.com. Many people...
Leave a comment
Comments are open and unmoderated for our registered users, only your first comment will require approval before publication. Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of The Bluegrass Blog. Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by The Bluegrass Blog.
Jeez, this is all so confusing. Astute, savvy artists and businessmen have come down on both sides of this issue, but it sure is unbelievably ironic to have Grisman–who, as a young man, lugged around a tape recorder to bluegrass shows–going this route.
In the future, when artists will have to pay for placement in the promotional tools that “YouTube” will become, everyone will realize this was the golden age.
Ah, yes, the future. The only thing we know about the future is that it ain’t here yet. And I don’t see any particular irony here. It’s not hard to see a meaningful difference between making an analog tape of a show you’ve actually attended on the one hand and distributing worldwide infinitely reproducible digital recordings of performances you didn’t attend worldwide on the other.
As for Brance’s question:
I think the answer might be that what’s happening with YouTube and other “sharing” systems reveals that pro forma compliance with the DMCA removal requirement doesn’t actually address the problem, since users can – and do – immediately re-upload the pirated material.
Artists need to understand that the world has changed. I’m a bigger fan than ever because of watching him on utube. It’s greed.
Who does Grisman think he is, Lars Ulrick? Way to go. Ruin a good thing for the rest of us. I hope the Google lawyers trounce him so he has to sell his Loars.
Let’s recall that the “good thing” here is nothing more nor less than the posting of copyrighted material against the express wishes of the copyright holder.
You must