Update: see this new post for Jean Michel Jarre's official response.
No more JMJ cover videos on YouTube:
"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 FRANCIS DREYFUS MUSIC claiming that this material is infringing:
Oxygene 13 Jean Michel Jarre Cover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8CY0rKXank
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."
Update: it might only be Oxygen covers? Note the following is speculation:
"The whole story seems to have something to do with a conflict between Dreyfus and Jarre regarding the copyright for Oxygene.
Also, as I've learned by reading the forums, it seems that Dreyfus doesn't actually own the rights for public performances. Only for the recordings.
I don't see Mr. Jarre complaining... "
Why am I posting this here? Well a lot of the better videos showcasing what particular synths are capable have been with JMJ covers.
Friday, February 22, 2008
9 comments:
To reduce spam, comments for posts older than one week are not displayed until approved, usually same day. Do not insult people. For items for sale, do not ask if it is still available. Check the auction link and search for the item. Auctions are from various sellers and expire over time. Posts remain for the pics and historical purposes. This site is meant to be a daily snapshot of some of what was out there in the world of synths.
PREVIOUS PAGE
NEXT PAGE
HOME
© Matrixsynth - All posts are presented here for informative, historical and educative purposes as applicable within fair use.
MATRIXSYNTH is supported by affiliate links that use cookies to track clickthroughs and sales. See the privacy policy for details.
MATRIXSYNTH - EVERYTHING SYNTH
© Matrixsynth - All posts are presented here for informative, historical and educative purposes as applicable within fair use.
MATRIXSYNTH is supported by affiliate links that use cookies to track clickthroughs and sales. See the privacy policy for details.
MATRIXSYNTH - EVERYTHING SYNTH
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
well, they just cheated themselves out of a bunch of free advertising. laaaaame.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it is everyone benefits from those covers except the people who make them (in terms of cash).
ReplyDeleteThe record company gets advertising as well as potential new customers, since not the whole universe knows about Jarre and new people are born constantly. Where can you hear stuff from 1970-ies?
You Tube!
Synth companies...they get free advertising for their synthesizers. People want to buy synths which can play music they love. Simple enough.
You Tube - as someone already concluded, if they only kept LEGAL vids...not too many vids would still be online.
I suspect they earn some money out of the ads displayed on You tube, so the number of visitors counts.
This witch hunt is just pointless.
The appropriate response is to file a counter-notification stating under penalty of perjury (as Dreyfus' takedown notice will have been, amusingly) that the video violates no copyright held by Dreyfus, as provided for by the DMCA. Once you've done that, the original complainant has to either shit or get off the pot, so to speak - and the video has to go back up.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of stuff has just gone waaay too far. It's absurd. When did playing someone else's song become anything other than a complimentary homage?
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the days where playing a cover was a nod to someone who's influenced you? Hendrix would play covers for half of his sets. Not only did he make them his own in that unique way, but the original songwriters were flattered. Which is the appropriate reaction. C&D letters are the exact opposite. There's so much wrong with that.
JMJ is yesterday's news, and besides, there isn't any techno in him.
ReplyDeleteThe question comes down to 'who owns the publishing?' The publisher DOES have the right to enforce this.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that this is not REALLY lame, but it IS someone's job to do these things. Though it may be out of their jurisdiction if they DON'T own the publishing.
It's like the lyrics sites that have been shut down: the publisher has every right to do this, but it's still REALLY LAME.
the record companies are dying. Time to move on guys. RIP.
ReplyDeleteIt's natural that in the end they resort to those pointless actions...
NO ONE will ever be able to demonstrate me that someone could prohibite me to play one of their song for the pleasure of playing it (and no other gain). Shitloads. This will end really soon.
Sad, sad, sad, sad!
ReplyDeletezontar is right. It seems absolutely totally lame, but legally (IF they have the rights), they can do this.
ReplyDeleteYou can do whatever you like privately, but if you make a public performance without paying royalties and whatnot, you can be in trouble. It doesn't matter whether it is for profit. Even church choirs and bands can get in trouble this way. Not sure what this means for open mic nights.
This issue is difficult even without the political nonsense, and even though I agree with the business wisdom of leniency. There are plenty of books about the law and business of music that will bury you with the details.
Oh, and the copyright struggle is nothing new - it's been there for centuries. It comes to a peak each time a new medium or publishing technology is invented. The history is interesting reading.