>>They do! To prevent a galaxy of infringement suits, Youtube has agreements with most copyright conglomerates either to attribute, alter or completely mute the music. Suggestion: upload a video with "Eye of the Tiger" and see how long it takes Youtube to apply the copyright holder's instructions.
>
>
>I've posted video content on YouTube and I know full well how it works.
>
>Counter-suggestion....go up to YouTube and see how many times Eye of the Tiger is up there (and in many ways where the person doing the posting did some level of subtle indirection). Actually, I found a ton of Survivor content posted by members and I am pretty sure it would violate copyright laws. But almost all of the content I found up there has one thing in common - free of any endorsement.
>
>I'll stick with my original statement. Survivor isn't interested in copyright laws and loss of revenue, no much how much they might claim it. It is selective outrage with concerns of perception of false endorsements. Period.

I tend to agree with this. Obviously it's not going to result in any money changing hands here as a result of copyright laws and what-not... but even so I can't hardly blame them for their fear of perception of endorsement of this person's views. There is a difference between playing some tunes with friends in your backyard while shooting off some fireworks and blasting a song at a press conference watched by millions as an introduction anthem to a law-breaking hypocritical bigot. You're not going to have any chance in the world of chasing down every copyright breaker of your songs so no matter what it's a selective process. Now that all being said - they could of just asked politely (like Rush did) to quit using the song instead of filing a million dollar lawsuit.. Of course this way gets much more media attention, thus eliminating the perception of endorsement further - which is what I think the whole point is for them.