Just ran across this on

A fellow with the handle JOSIV5 has posted a number of classic Beatles songs with the instrumental portion drastically suppressed. You can still barely hear it in the background, but for all intents and purposes this is the Beatles Acappella.

Enjoy …


JOSIV5 isn’t the only one, another fellow … bauersnarky is doing the same thing.

Bee seeing you …

4 thoughts on “JOSIV5

  1. Wow! I accidentally recorded a little vintage Louis Armstrong on three short videos of my cat, Andy when I made videos of at the same time I was listening to a favorite CD. It looked and sounded cute, so I made the mistake of posting them on YouTube, thinking I “quoted” too short a section of each song to be in violation of copyright law. In retrospect, I didn’t adequately identify the music of copyright holder or meet the standards of the Creative Commons business.

    Google sent me a severe notice about killing my children, confiscating all my wealth, and tossing me in front of a truck for my terrible violation of law and google (by way of YouTube) standards.

    I barely joke here. I was genuinely shocked and worried about my legal woes-to-be. I mean, remember when they sued schoolchildren who downloaded music off the Internet?

    It’s videos like these that made me think it wasn’t wrong, however. I mean, I had snippets of music; these are complete copyrighted works, even as modified. Complete movies uploaded by individuals, not the known copyright holders, also confused the issue for me. Google applies the rule and laws selectively, apparently.

    I was threatened with legal action even if I removed the three videos, banishment forever from YouTube, removal from their advertising scam-cum-moneymaking program (I don’t get enough views to ever trigger payouts), and deletion of all my account.

    Frankly, it pisses me to see these videos on YouTube considering what I experienced. No, it makes me want to see a lawyer!

    I re-edited the offending videos, and used Kevin MacLeod music I paid for that I profusely acknowledged both at the end of the videos and in the text under the video.

    I didn’t have to buy the music or do much more than acknowledge it’s source, using an acknowledgement shown on MacLeod’s website, but I decided google/YouTube needed to know I absolutely had authorization to the music, which I identified by name and the catalog number MacLeod uses.

    The irony is that my CD collection is somewhere between 5000-6000 discs, bought and paid for by me except for exactly one CD I received as a gift. I think my support of artists and the companies that produce CDs is easily established. If the average paid per CD was even $10 (it was more, of course), I have a small fortune in CDs.

    Of course, since this over-kill by google, I doubt I’ll ever pay another penny for a CD produced by the copyright holder. (It isn’t the Armstrong estate, as far as I know, but Sony.)

    You might want to review your liability, if any, for re-posting these videos.

    I seem to have settled the problem of my videos to google’s satisfaction because advertisements now appear on my videos again, though, as noted, there is no, NO benefit to me. Even when I use google’s audi files, I make sure the name of the music and artist appear below the video since (for reason obscure to me) sometimes YouTube adds these acknowledgements there, but many times it does not.


    1. The phrase “Don’t shoot the messenger” comes to mind (of course history never seemed to come down on the side of the messenger).

      It also reminds me of the ridiculousness surrounding the singing of “Happy Birthday” in public, because one would have pay royalties.

      Oh well … it is what it is.

      Consider this dilemma … All search engines have an image option, in which they display images aggregated from the World Wide Web. Yet there is nary a hint of Copyright notice or acknowledgment.

      Copyright is a nineteenth century concept that is ill equipped to deal with twenty-first century technology. I honestly don’t know what a fair and equitable solution might be. However I think that we are living in the tail end of the golden age of the “free Internet”. I would not be surprised that at some future state we are charged by the image, by the file, by the video that we watch via the Internet. Maybe only a penney or fraction thereof, but charged none-the-less.


  2. p.s. I’m tempted to reblog this so my comment gets a little airing on my blog, but I’m concerned I might bring down more crap on my head. I have had this sort of video delete by outside forces in past, part of the copyright holders’ war on re-use of copyrighted materials that can be reproduced easily using legally-procured technology. Perhaps I’ll just copy my comment and post that instead.


  3. Since these are embedded videos, accessible to anyone on the web I am not concerned (even if I should be). These are YouTube videos … they’re problem, not mine. I can easily edit the post to remove, delete the post entirely etc. Don’t get me started on lawyers, the music industry, etc. The total arbitraryness of it all makes it difficult for me to even have a calm discussion of fair vs. moral vs. ethical vs. legal. It is what it is.

    The situation you describe is the reason I am sure that I could not find “original” recordings of C. W. McCall.

    Feel free to reblog, I am sure that it must be very frustrating for you based on you past experience


Leave a comment ... or else ...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s