There’s more to the story. There were two people with guitar videos. One was selling paid internet lessons, the other was not.
As far as I can tell, Sandercoe (who wasn’t selling guitar lessons on his site) just moved certain videos to a new YouTube channel on their UK site (http://tinyurl.com/2edxpg) “so that the main channel at YouTube is not violating any terms of use.”
The blogger linked to above points out that YouTube shut Taub down, not anyone from the music industry. While there was a letter about ‘Brown Sugar’, YouTube simply closed Taub’s account when they got the letter. It’s more complex than a simple “music industry bad, Internet good”. (Not saying you’re doing that, but there are people who do.)
What I want, for myself and as a resource, is a solid explanation of the ins and outs of using copyrighted music. For example, Justin Sandercoe claims the ‘fair use’ argument on his YouTube page. Is he correct? I have no idea.
It’s my belief (based on very little actual data) that posting a cover version of a song, not for sale, in a non-commercial way, is acceptable. Unless the copyright holder asks you to take it down, at which point you can either do that or fight them. Again, am I right about this? I don’t know.
I love the idea of recording public domain sheet music rather than pop songs as a way to get that music back into the listening world. And it would be nice if Mick and Keith and the rest would allow others to futz with their work. Barring that, some clarity as to what is likely to get you a cease and desist letter would be nice.
A meta note: I’m pushing a comment up to an independent post here, and probably will do this again in the future.
The “fair use argument” is just that; an argument. It’s a defense that has been used in past court cases and it is loosely defined. It is not part of any copyright law that I am aware of.
A good resource is the book, “This Business Of Music”-Krasilofsky, Shemel.
“It’s my belief (based on very little actual data) that posting a cover version of a song, not for sale, in a non-commercial way, is acceptable. Unless the copyright holder asks you to take it down, at which point you can either do that or fight them. Again, am I right about this? I don’t know.”
O.K. when you say “post” I am assuming you are talking about a digital file of a recorded performance available over the internet.
Technically, I believe, that would be considered a public release and therefore, subject to copyright laws.
This scenario also differs from the cases of Taub and Sandercoe in that, again I’m assuming, you are talking about a complete version of a song rather than just a portion.
There are a lot of people doing exactly what you’re talking about; releasing cover songs and not paying license fees. For the most part, the industry is letting it slide.
Now, if you put out the song and 2 million people downloaded it over a short period of time, you would probably be hearing from somebody.
Lucas, in his post, made the point that somebody was probably wanting to release a “for profit” version of a “Brown Sugar” instructional, that would be in competition with the YouTube one. I suspect that he is correct.
The industry takes notice when they are losing money.
Personally, I would not release a cover song for free over the internet. The nature of the digital world is that data doesn’t disappear. Over a period of time, even at a couple hundred a year, the downloads would add up and at some point the copyright owner could demand the mechanical royalty for each download.