which I think is beautiful and a really interesting concept for a video/audio project. Turns out the creator of the video, gregbarrett9, has several videos like this showing his hacked jukebox simply playing records. It seems totally fun until you read this in his info:

Sorry but I can’t take any requests. Recently there have been copyright issues affecting other people who post records playing and I may find myself retricted to what I can upload in the future.

For Christ’s sake, this artful and free project isn’t hampering any artist’s ability to make money with his or her music and it is most likely exposing tons of new people to the music. (After all, had you heard J. Geils Band’s “Come Back” before playing that video?) It’s such a shame that creators like gregbarrett9 have to worry about this kind of issue.

Meanwhile, BitTorrent sites witnessed a decrease in MediaDefender activity following the leak. The Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde, who sued some key players in the entertainment business for using MediaDefender, told TorrentFreak that there has been a significant decrease in activity from BitTorrent spoofers and decoyers. “It’s strange that no one has given much regard to the fact that the way MediaDefender works is probably illegal in most countries. Even in the US. I might even say, especially in the US,” Sunde added.

Here’s a tasty, aggravating paragraph:

“The reviewer is referring to a BitTorrent where someone has altered the original songs,” Universal Music Sweden president Per Sundin told another Swedish publication, according to RoadRunner Records. “The reviewer explains exactly where one should go in order to download the file that totally infringes on a copyright. It’s not only an illegal file, but an altered file. The reviewer also writes that this is how the album should have sounded.”

That record label d-bag continues:

“File-sharing of music is illegal — period,” lectured Sundin. “There’s nothing to discuss. That fact that Sydsvenskan has a writer that has downloaded this music illegally and then makes mention of an illegal site in his review is totally unacceptable to us.”

I’m just so confused by every issue at play here. For obvious starters, file-sharing of music is not illegal “period.” The writer didn’t link to a torrent of the album that’s available for purchase (as he easily could have done) thereby circumventing the sale of the album. He linked to a fan’s remix and then stated an opinion that the remix was better than the original. So it seems in this case, what Metallica and their record label really object to is the writer’s opinion and they’re using the “illegal” file-sharing issue as a smokescreen to try to avoid negative press. But all they’re really doing is pointing out that they still hate the way their fans interact with their music and that they don’t understand the internet nor new media.

Or to put it another way: Metallica = FAIL.