davros

An unbelievable large amount of Nine Inch Nails footage can be streamed here. More than anyone could ever possibly watch.

TheBang

And how long until Vimeo takes them all down?

Dan

Why would they?
Trent Reznor isn't going to file a complaint.

Chrisedge

But all the other bands on that page might. Trent is taper friendly. Lots of the other bands aren't.

TheBang

Trent only has full copyright ownership of Ghosts (2008) and later. Universal Music Group (and whoever owns Pretty Hate Machine now) has copyright interest in all the prior material.

davros

a quick look on youtube will tell you that none of these artists or their respective publishers/copyright holders care.
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...s+live+90&aq=0

TheBang

I know this is straying heavily into pedantry, but this isn't exactly correct either. ASCAP and other publishers are now heavily screening and matching content uploaded to YouTube, using YouTube's Content ID system, and capitalizing on it.

A live video of NIN that I uploaded recently was flagged by YouTube as "Matched third party content." According to the information provided by YouTube: "No action is required on your part. Your video is still available worldwide. In some cases ads may appear next to your video." Previously, rights holders would get the content disabled. Now, they seem to be taking the route of trying to capitalize on it by displaying ads on your videos. This is only in effect for newly uploaded videos (they are not going back through historically uploaded content for content matching).

davros

I agree, I have about 1700 videos uploaded to YT myself (not the ones from the site I posted above). There is a big difference between the '3rd party' type of flag that you pointed out and an actual copyright infringement claim (DMCA). Only a DMCA 'earns' one a strike against their account and eventually leads to the account being shut down.
Though, in all honesty, whenever an upload of mine gets flagged with that relatively harmless '3rd party content' shit, I usually take it down. And I in 99% of all cases shoot and upload with the artists consent. But the artists consent does not always equal the publishing rights holders consent, I get that.
In any case, based on my many years of YT/Vimeo experience I can say, that it is mostly small artists that hardly anyone has ever heard of that actually file DMCAs, either as a result of a big 'misunderstanding' or just simply because they are dicks. Bigger labels, let alone all the major ones, in most cases let it go as it backfires against them in terms of bad press. I know that there are exceptions to what I just wrote. Like for example when Green Day played secret shows and footage surfaced. But like I said, those are exceptions.

Not trying to split hairs either, just saying.

TheBang

Good points, I agree.

Chrisedge

Most of mine are flagged 3rd party. I have two that won't play in germany over the audio I used in a montage. Only one out of 100+ actually got the audio removed. Hotel California by Don Felder and I know he (not studio) was actually ok with me taping it.