Comments on: Grisman sues YouTube

By: Jon Weisberger

Jon Weisberger — Sat, 19 May 2007 21:22:52 +0000

Ruin a good thing for the rest of us.

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.

By: martinmcwhorter

martinmcwhorter — Fri, 18 May 2007 22:01:01 +0000

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.

By: carmen

carmen — Wed, 16 May 2007 21:40:36 +0000

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.

By: Jon Weisberger

Jon Weisberger — Wed, 16 May 2007 17:18:19 +0000

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:

Why not just ask YouTube to remove your works and, assuming they do, leave it at that?

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.

By: 1969mets

1969mets — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:21:42 +0000

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.