Last chance to watch Chris Hadfield cover of ‘Space Oddity’

[Jory]

It seems you can't escape the copyright police even when you record in space. This video will be removed tomorrow.

I would love to know who makes these decisions.

 

[incrediblestuff]

Cheers mate, glad i got to see it

 

[vinylweatherman]

It's a by the book honouring of the 1 year agreement, but it is predicted that it will never die as unofficial copies will surface.

Odd though, because unofficial copies of many songs are on youtube, and not all get taken down by the copyright holder. It seems that because this is NASA, the agreement will be honoured and the official version will come down after the agreed year, but it may be that the unofficial versions, or some of them, will be allowed to remain.

The whole thing is enormously complicated — not rocket science, exactly, but something pretty close. It’s led some legal experts to fret over the day when private rocket launches and space tourism put more people in orbit. Even singing a protected song in front of fellow space-travelers theoretically constitutes a copyright violation.

That, of course, is why Hadfield spent months negotiating the one-year lease with Bowie, NASA and the Canadian and Russian space agencies before recording “Space Oddity.” But don’t despair: While Hadfield might do things by the books, count on other YouTube users to show a little less regard for the law.

Well, surely every karaoke bar in the world is violating the law if "Even singing a protected song in front of fellow space-travelers theoretically constitutes a copyright violation." Singing in a pub is more common than singing in space, so why isn't Karaoke illegal. Humming a pop song on the way to work is also theoretically against the law too!

If Youtube stuck rigidly to the law, there would be no Youtube as most of the content would end up getting removed.

I would have thought that the copyright for the performance itself would lie with Chris Hadfield, and it would be treated like any other cover version of an old song, and become a work in it's own right.

 

[Dinahnana]

Cheers Cool video.

 

[Jory]

Well, surely every karaoke bar in the world is violating the law if "Even singing a protected song in front of fellow space-travelers theoretically constitutes a copyright violation." Singing in a pub is more common than singing in space, so why isn't Karaoke illegal. Humming a pop song on the way to work is also theoretically against the law too!

If Youtube stuck rigidly to the law, there would be no Youtube as most of the content would end up getting removed.

Any bar that wishes to play music must first purchase a licence. That money goes towards the artists though I bet not very much of it.

Anyone can sing any song they wish so long as its not commercial and they do not attempt to make a profit off it. If they upload it to youtube then during the processing of the video it will check to see if it matches any 3rd-party content. The video will then have ads enabled with a percentage of that profit going to the original artist/production company.

When this video becomes "blacklisted" anyone can still re-upload it but it will be blocked in all counties were the copyright law for that video is enforced.

The fight against Youtube ended a long time ago as most companies realised that it's highly profitable to have their content accessible to millions of people so long as ads can be enabled. I guess that isn't an option for a company like NASA.

The law is different in every country though. Youtube has different Terms of Service for each of them.

 

[The Dude]

Awesome video. Much better than the original.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Any bar that wishes to play music must first purchase a licence. That money goes towards the artists though I bet not very much of it.

Anyone can sing any song they wish so long as its not commercial and they do not attempt to make a profit off it. If they upload it to youtube then during the processing of the video it will check to see if it matches any 3rd-party content. The video will then have ads enabled with a percentage of that profit going to the original artist/production company.

When this video becomes "blacklisted" anyone can still re-upload it but it will be blocked in all counties were the copyright law for that video is enforced.

The fight against Youtube ended a long time ago as most companies realised that it's highly profitable to have their content accessible to millions of people so long as ads can be enabled. I guess that isn't an option for a company like NASA.

The law is different in every country though. Youtube has different Terms of Service for each of them.

It's not NASA though, it's Youtube. Why does this video have to come down when there are other unofficial versions of this song that are allowed to remain with money to be made from the ads.

I rather suspect that it's NASA who are taking down this video, going by the book in terms of the original agreement to have it up for a year. When other put it back, it is likely that some will get taken down, and some will remain with ads.

I don't think this video is for making profit, but maybe this is the problem, and is what prevents Youtube from using it to generate revenue from ads once the year is up - it's on an official NASA sponsored channel.

I would have thought that David Bowie would have made a different agreement as it is likely to be interpreted as he is forcing it to be taken down, whereas he turns a blind eye to all the other versions of this song, some of which are also amateur cover versions uploaded by amateur singers.

Copyright law does a good job of making artists and media companies look like arseholes that have double standards, going after ordinary folk, yet turning a blind eye to the REAL misusers of their content.

It also seems that copyright lawyers have a new worry with the prospect of private space trips (or of course, a whole new money making field of litigation). It seems the fate of this video is tied to which part of the space station it was performed in, so if it had been performed in, say, the Russian sector, it could not be forced off the internet by US copyright law. In a private space ship, the lawyers will be facing a huge hurdle just to determine which country's copyright laws apply, and it may well end up as being too difficult to enforce copyright in the case of private space flight, although I doubt this is going to present much of a problem given the cost of a ticket, so wide scale copyright infringement should not be a worry.

 

[Jasminebed]

Thanks for the heads up. I've watched several times, and it was fun to watch once more.

Chris Hadfield is one cool astronaut. He's currently touring his new book An Astronaut's Guide to Life, and has made a number of musical guest appearances since returning to Earth, including a stint in The Nutcracker this past Christmas.

 

[Jory]

It's not NASA though, it's Youtube. Why does this video have to come down when there are other unofficial versions of this song that are allowed to remain with money to be made from the ads.

I rather suspect that it's NASA who are taking down this video, going by the book in terms of the original agreement to have it up for a year. When other put it back, it is likely that some will get taken down, and some will remain with ads.

I don't think this video is for making profit, but maybe this is the problem, and is what prevents Youtube from using it to generate revenue from ads once the year is up - it's on an official NASA sponsored channel.

I would have thought that David Bowie would have made a different agreement as it is likely to be interpreted as he is forcing it to be taken down, whereas he turns a blind eye to all the other versions of this song, some of which are also amateur cover versions uploaded by amateur singers.

Copyright law does a good job of making artists and media companies look like arseholes that have double standards, going after ordinary folk, yet turning a blind eye to the REAL misusers of their content.

It also seems that copyright lawyers have a new worry with the prospect of private space trips (or of course, a whole new money making field of litigation). It seems the fate of this video is tied to which part of the space station it was performed in, so if it had been performed in, say, the Russian sector, it could not be forced off the internet by US copyright law. In a private space ship, the lawyers will be facing a huge hurdle just to determine which country's copyright laws apply, and it may well end up as being too difficult to enforce copyright in the case of private space flight, although I doubt this is going to present much of a problem given the cost of a ticket, so wide scale copyright infringement should not be a worry.

I assume an employee of NASA would not be allowed to affiliate themselves with another organisation, that would include advertising. Perhaps similar to how footballers can not mention any brand they are not sponsored by.

I joined Youtube back in the very early days and uploaded a lot of content. I was threatened many times with legal action. I chose to ignore them as I didn't fully understand the consequences at the time. Some companies saw the benefit of Youtube and wanted to make a deal with Youtube, others saw Youtube as damaging and demanded their content be removed.

As the original uploader of the content they began to target me rather than Youtube and with threats of millions of dollars in fines I eventually disabled the videos produced by these companies.

Those who did not threaten me had their content remain up and today have a combined total of over 35 million hits. The amount of ad revenue that has produced is between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000 based on the calculators I’ve used.

Of course I am not entitled to a single penny of that money as I do not own the content, I just uploaded it. I can't help but feel I should be entitled to a little something

I still have full access to these channels and they continue to receive thousands of hits daily. Perhaps I’m missing a trick or two as I have control over a large audience but not sure how to use it to my advantage. The only thing I can think of is to include some affiliate link in the videos description though I’ve been avoiding doing that as I’m sure it must break the Terms. Maybe I could brand the channels as I can convert them to google plus and give them any name. If anyone has any ideas, i'd be interested in hearing them.

 

[dunover]

Thanks for the heads up. I've watched several times, and it was fun to watch once more.

Chris Hadfield is one cool astronaut. He's currently touring his new book An Astronaut's Guide to Life, and has made a number of musical guest appearances since returning to Earth, including a stint in The Nutcracker this past Christmas.

Apparently he sighted a few Rushmore cheques through the porthole as it orbited over Central America, and shook hands with a couple of Media Corp directors...

 

[Patriot66]

Worth downloading it via keepvid. One of the best videos around!

 

[vinylweatherman]

Worth downloading it via keepvid. One of the best videos around!

It'll be back, but not on an official NASA site, but some other channel. David Bowie will have to play whack-a-mole, but then he would look like the villain in all of this because he is going after this one video, whilst ignoring the rest.

Who knows, David Bowie might just leave it alone like the others, and have youtube insert some ads. It may end up being NASA that tries to take it down because it can't be seen to just turn a blind eye. Given how popular it is, it can never be killed completely, so they may as well accept that it will remain online for a long time in one form or another as one of those iconic moments of history.