youtube & copyright

[davros]

have you seen how in the UK (at least) most videos on youtube have been blocked. Its down to copyright payments with youtube, as far as I read, being charged what they felt was well over the 'going rate' so what we have now is the 'world' wide web gettin blocked in certain parts of the world. Its not even a censorship issue..... its just a money issue.
really though, does youtube drain the music industry of cash or is it more likely to generate cash as bands / songs have far more exposure than anywhere else?

is it not really short sighted, Ive got into loads of bands simply from cruising through youtube listening to stuff I never would hear normally.
They tried to stop the guitar tab sites, they tried to shut down sites which give the lyrics to songs will they be running around the clubs to shut down tribute bands? will you face a huge fine if you are caught playing a song to more than 3 people?

and at the end of the day you can always use firefox and download an addon which chages your IP to a different location and watch the damn videos anyway!!

[Six]

It's a sign of the times I'm afraid Scott, like everything else - the internet is money driven.

I had a video removed by YouTube. I compiled a bunch of footage that I took of the local feral kittens playing in the summer sun. I carefully timed the sections of footage to a cover version of a ZZ Top tune that I'd recorded some time before. This was, according to YouTube, a breach of copyright! I wouldn't have minded if I'd been cheeky enough to use the original song, but this was my playing!!

[Danny Danzi]

davros, try not to be bitter man. What is happening is what SHOULD have been happening 20 years ago man. And that is, proper publishing where it is due. Here's Youtube's deal...if they host the material, they have to pay for a license. The right way to do it is YOU the person covering the material buys the license. If you submitted a license to Youtube for a cover song, you would NOT be asked to take it down.

This is the way it should work. As far as your question about cover bands, yes, they should pay a license fee to perform tunes that are not theirs while they make money from those tunes. In reality, this is against the law. However, pubs pay a royalty fee monthly so that they are allowed to have cover bands in their establishments. By rights, the cover bands should also pay a fee for the performance of other peoples material while making money from it.

You see, you have to be an artist living this stuff to fully accept it and understand it bro. File sharing is so out of control, artists have been forced to exercise their rights to the extreme. This sounds money hungry to you, but in all fairness, artists and the industry are taking a bath because of the internet. File sharing is killing the industry completely. Some people use it the right way...they listen, the like it, they buy it. The majority does not. This adds up year after year and the next thing you know, you're a popular artist that doesn't have enough income coming in.

So Youtube is honoring artists because if they had to pay for licenses, they couldn't afford all the ones they'd have to purchase. If someone does a cover like the covers we have here on this site that are pretty much private due to login etc, we can get away with it because we are not exploiting the songs to millions of people. When you hit Youtube or Facebook or Myspace with a cover, it's gonna get pulled unless you have a license from the publisher that grants you the exclusive right to use the song and perform it.

We as artists have been forced to exercise these rights. If people were buying music, buyin tabs and all the stuff we can steal off the net for free, there would not be usage rights being tossed about. This is just one of the ways artists are fighting back. Youtube is only honoring publishing companies like ASCAP, BMI, Seasac, and licesning companies like the Harry Fox agency. All these companies protect artists and the artists have cracked down and copyright laws have become more strict. The only people to blame for this bro...are the ones that have been stealing billions of dollars for free on the net I'm afraid. But you can't blame Youtube or anyone else that has taken this stand. When food is taken off your table and you have rights, you have to exercise those rights in any way you see fit...and that's what we're seeing here. The bigger star you are, the more money you lose these days...so you have to have some good investments to back yourself up. The smaller artists (like myself) really usffer from this because every little sale of any kind helps. A few sales shy, you lose a country that sells and licenses your music. As sales drop off and stealing keeps going on, more and more countries drop off. The next thing you know, you lose your record deal. So it's all protection man and in reality, it has always been the law...it's just recently that it's been exercised.

[midiwiz]

Local radio stations play lots of songs back to back with out ever citing who it was by. I have have to google a line from the lyrics then search the song on youtube to make sure it's the right tune. Requiring youtube to pull uncopyrighted music succeeds only in casting scores of smaller bands into anonimity, where they'll be "here today & gone tommorrow". Probably the reason you only see certain music pulled and not all music. The musicians who can use the publicity youtube provides will always be there those that don't and can afford lawyers will be the ones sending cease and desist orders.

[davros]

I dont blame youtube, I beleive they are being asked to pay well over what they should, I dont know the amount I just read this was the case.
illegal file sharing is one thing, you expect that to be well.... illegal! but I think this particular case sucks. If I access youtube from the US I can watch a video if I access the same site from the UK I cant.
I still dont believe this move saves the artist any money at all, I think it will lose them more. They have the like of Lars from Metallica video blogging about how the band loves to hear fans covers of their material on youtube why? because it means more people hear metallica!
Metallica get it! why force such a massive platform like youtube to pull songs which will give bands more exposure.
you wont see any up and coming bands shying away from something like youtube thats for sure.
Its annoying because its not file sharing and I think ultimately bands will lose out on potential fans. Im also not so sure that I would be be making loads of cash if I had a popular cover version on youtube, more likely the people who have viewed MY version would have went and viewed the original... and maybe liked the original even better?

you have this case and now the scheme where everything in a music video is 'clickable' and takes you to a store to buy it. so if you are watching a pussycat dolls video and like the lead skanks bra or boots you can click and buy............. thats not rock n roll.

[Guitarpima]

Everyone should get what is due them. If they invest their time to write a song and go through the process and ultimately is released to the public, they should get what's due them. It's amazing though the stance the artists are taking as opposed to the publishers. The artist writes the song but the record companies are the one making the real money.

I read an article somewhere, I'll try and find it but it was years ago, which came down to a group getting signed but they would have done better to flip hamburgers as far as the money was concerend. (I'll try and find this. Maybe someone else know of it).

Everything always boils down to money. Whomever has the most is making the rules. What's worse is the finacial crisis. Here's a great example of the finacial crisis. The Geico comercial where the old man wants to fall back and the gekko is supposed to catch him. The old man is the rich (few) people and the gekko (the rest of us) have to catch the fucker and push him back up. And were supposed to be greatful to have had the chance to do it.

In god we trust. All others pay cash.

What's the point?

As for the stealing. I have but only stuff I already own and just to lazy to make my own mp3's. Well, I had to make my own of Danny's cd for my mp3 player. The software? I've installed pirated software. I used Addictive Drums a lot. One day I saw a sale ad and went and bought it. Other than that, any software I've pirated just gets uninstalled. I never use them anyway so why bother. I do like the try before you buy aspect though.

[Highway Star]

If I wrote songs to pay the mortgage and they were worth paying for.... I'd like to get paid for them. I can afford to buy music so I do.

Youtube?? Well... the quality ain't all that really and I always looked on it as a shop window.

I have spent hundreds of pounds on music after "visiting the shop window" Youtube in other words. I have no worries about watching a Youtube video, that's what they were made for isn't it? An ad for the band right?

Oh well..... Dailymotion now then.

Farl

[davros]

Youtube?? Well... the quality ain't all that really and I always looked on it as a shop window.

I have spent hundreds of pounds on music after "visiting the shop window" Youtube in other words. I have no worries about watching a Youtube video, that's what they were made for isn't it? An ad for the band right?


Farl
agreed. 'visiting the shop window' is a good analogy. a video or clip of a live show isnt robbing the band of any money, the total opposite I reckon.

I'd like to hear some of the actual bands views on it though rather than the men in suits.

I read an article recently where some artists had voted against penalising fans who were guilty of illegal downloading. Youtube is nothing like illegal downloads so it would be interesting to hear if the bands are happy that millions of people dont get to hear them.

[Shep]

There was a story by Kid Rock where he said that all throughout his career, record labels took the majority of the money made from sales etc. and that he made the majority of his money through gigging.

Then one day the label came up to him and told him to demote music piracy as the label was losing tonnes of money because of it. He turned around and told them that he was getting more exposure because people were listening to his music for free and that he was making the money back and more by people attending his gigs.

Something along those lines anyways, it's an interesting topic to say the least.

[Danny Danzi]

Everyone should get what is due them. If they invest their time to write a song and go through the process and ultimately is released to the public, they should get what's due them. It's amazing though the stance the artists are taking as opposed to the publishers. The artist writes the song but the record companies are the one making the real money.

Robert, here's the deal with that....in case you're interested that is. :) A bit off topic here, but here's how it all works and why it is the way it is and why the labels make the money.

If you get a major deal, the label has to shell out big bucks for you since you are their investment. So lets say we record an album and that album costs $200k to do. No one in the creation of that album sees what is due in full EVER. The reason? The point system. Have you ever heard "so and so will get so many points on the album."?

Every person involved in the creation of an album gets points which are $$$. The engineer that recorded the session, the producer, the mastering engineer, the artists and the label. Now, the label needs to get you on radio. They have to shell out $2500 per major station, per play just to get you to the "try or die" bin. This investment alone grants them approximately 88% of your publishing. Now, though that is a lot, without them, you don't get radio airplay or publishing in that light. All you get is mechanical royalties for units sold and MAYBE a performance royalty.

My point is, without radio airplay and sales...the points don't accumulate. This means not just the label and the artist are suffering. The studio's, the engineers, the mastering engineers and the producers are all counting on these points which equal sales. The more airplay and exposure you get, the more sales. If your sales are way less because of file stealing, your points are down which means you can't continue to feed the investment.

As your points drop, your per country quota drops as well. Once you fall below a country's quota, that country will not license your music any longer. Once your countries drop off, your territories get smaller. Once your territories get smaller, your advance for your next album gets smaller and the artist is now forced to cut corners. Once this happens, you are left with shit recordings, filler material and if it continues, you lose your following and you lose your deal.

This is the side that people do not see that they need to learn about. There are many different people involved in pushing an album that the record company either fronts a portion of money to, or they settle it with "points" per sale. They then have attorney fee's and some of the attorney's get points too! Or, if you have a songwriter involved that wrote your song. If it is a big enough hit, that songwriter will chose points instead of a full buyout on the song. When you add all this up, everyone is getting screwed.

You have to understand that all the artist risks in all this is his music. He has no investment other than his time. The financial burden comes from the label and the people that work for the label. This is why they get so much money and if you think about it, it's rightfully so.

So to compensate for the losses everyone is feeling here, the industry is exercising it's rights that it should have been exercising years ago. Licensing has always been a law, yet no one has ever jumped on it. For exmaple, if I put that Bryan Adams tune on one of my albums, I have to pay a licensing fee to the publisher. I will get nothing from that song other than exposure. Yet, if I go and play the tune in a cover band in a club, I get paid for it! This is against the law in reality. No one has the right to be paid for performing another man's work. No one has the right to post the original or the cover of another mans work on the net, on youtube or anywhere else without consent.

This is why they are cracking down. Though people will say "I like to try before I buy" or "I like to preview at this place" etc....in all my years bro, I have never had anyone say to me "I heard your stuff on Kazaa so I deiced to buy your album" or "someone posted a tune of yours on youtube and I heard it, so I'm ordering your album".

The fact of the matter is, the net has allowed all of us to privately steal, preview, download, borrow, call it what you will...at any time and it is exploited in a way that has a blinking sign on it. If you have a silent prostitution establishment in your town, chances are you may be around for a while until someone lets the cat out of the bag. If you have a blinking sign on top of your building that says "Come get laid" you'll last 2 hours.

The thing is, this is major exploitation and not enough people are "trying before they buy". There are quite a few that do it the right way, but most do not. Why on earth would any of us want to buy something that we could have for free? Seriously, think about it. Whether your honest or not doesn't matter. Do you really need to stupid little cd jacket insert that shows pics and lyrics that you can't see anyway without a magnifying glass? I sure as hell don't. I gave up on artwork and lyrics etc when vinyl died.

But can you see my point man? It's much more vast than common folks know. You have to live in this business to know the extent of what this is all about. For example, there's a tune my band wants to cover. In reality, if none of us had the tune, we have to go to the store and buy it, correct? Or, buy it off the net using one of those services. Instead, we go to youtube and all learn the song in real time online and keep playing it over and over until we learn it. Did we really do anything wrong? We didn't download or steal the song. We used the net as a weapon....but we also cost that artist a sale. Why should we go and buy a tune when we can hear it as many times as we want on youtube? We don't even like the band or the song...we just need to learn it because it's popular and the band should play it. See my point man?

I'm not at all trying to be confrontational with any of this....I'm just trying to make a few points that I think are important that so many miss. Follow me at all? It's just one big ball of shit really. And it snowballs and by the time it gets to the music lovers, the labels look bad. Without them though it's like do you want to be a no name like Danny Danzi or big name like Van Halen? For major stuff, you need major labels and with major labels comes major investments of every shape and form. This is what it's really all about and what goes on behind the scenes bro. ;)

[Stew]

Danny I must be in the sad minoroty that still like to have CD in front of me and read the leaflet and look at the artwork as for me it is part of the whole experience not just the music. I hope I am not in the minority but guessing i am probably am these days which is kind of sad really.

[Shep]

May I also add it's not just the music industry which is suffering tremendously. DVD's are getting ripped left, right and centre and posted on various warez sites. As are games, if a game studio stops making games, then the whole gaming community is in uproar when they're the ones who've put them out of business to start off with! Hyprocrites! It's extrordinary how much piracy is going on these days and one can only imagine how much money has been lost since day one!

Danny, you make a really interesting point though, who wants to pay for something when you can get it for free? It's human nature to want something without giving up something of your own and I believe piracy will grow and grow unless some genius figures out a way to end it all.

[Guitarpima]

May I also add it's not just the music industry which is suffering tremendously. DVD's are getting ripped left, right and centre and posted on various warez sites. As are games, if a game studio stops making games, then the whole gaming community is in uproar when they're the ones who've put them out of business to start off with! Hyprocrites! It's extrordinary how much piracy is going on these days and one can only imagine how much money has been lost since day one!

Danny, you make a really interesting point though, who wants to pay for something when you can get it for free? It's human nature to want something without giving up something of your own and I believe piracy will grow and grow unless some genius figures out a way to end it all.

Nobody wants to end it all. Not really anyway. It's a nice thought and everyone has them. Nobody is willing to see it throught though.

:tumbleweed2:

[ZappaFan]

The main issue is with youtube and the performing right association here in the UK, this is what has caused some video's to be blocked.

The performing rights association are there to protect and the rights of the artists and ensure that they get paid the correct royalties for public performance and airplay. The issue they have is that youtube do not want to pay the required going rate for publishing the copyright material. Yet they use that material to draw people to the youtube video's and then get revenue from the advertising carried alongside the copyright material. Whilst they aren't selling the material they are indirectly profiting from them. It is this level of revenue back to the artists that the PRA are trying to establish. Whilst they were attempting to sort this, google just said, well OK, we'll just pull them from the UK audience and therefore not pay any royalties at all.

When you consider that google is one of the richest companies in the world it seems only right that they should pay their dues to the artists that they are effectively profiteering from. They would sooner give it to their fatcat shareholders though.

I am glad that the PRA were brave enough to stand up for the rights of the artists. They are being exploited by Youtube in order to boost their profits and it's the most blatant form of piracy about.

Missing a few videos is no great loss to me, In fact as a result I have stopped using youtube almost completely. No great loss !! I have been using Last.FM to listen to new music and then choose to buy if I like it. At least they get the money back to the record companies and ultimately the artists.

[Guitarpima]

Thanks for pointing out Lastfm. Cool site!

[davros]

according to youtube though the PRA have increased their fee. youtube were already paying the going rate for a license were they not? when this came round for renewal they were (according to youtube) facing an increase in the fees which were so high they would lose money on every video viewed.
Ive no idea of the fees involved, I'd just be surprised if youtube had previously been on a lower than normal rate.


In fact as a result I have stopped using youtube almost completely
end of the day though Im just the same. I dont vist the place to listen to music anymore, even though I could with the firefox plugin, I just dont bother.

I actually have heard bands on youtube and went and bought their CD though so I think it was a decent platform. Still, no worries, I'll just stick to my old 80's metal and spend my cash on something else!

[ZappaFan]

according to youtube though the PRA have increased their fee. youtube were already paying the going rate for a license were they not? when this came round for renewal they were (according to youtube) facing an increase in the fees which were so high they would lose money on every video viewed.
Ive no idea of the fees involved, I'd just be surprised if youtube had previously been on a lower than normal rate.


end of the day though Im just the same. I dont vist the place to listen to music anymore, even though I could with the firefox plugin, I just dont bother.

I actually have heard bands on youtube and went and bought their CD though so I think it was a decent platform. Still, no worries, I'll just stick to my old 80's metal and spend my cash on something else!

Sounds like a cool plan to me.

[mullyman]

Danny I must be in the sad minoroty that still like to have CD in front of me and read the leaflet and look at the artwork as for me it is part of the whole experience not just the music. I hope I am not in the minority but guessing i am probably am these days which is kind of sad really.

Nah, man, you aren't the only one. I'll admit I've downloaded a shitload of music over the years but most of the stuff I downloaded I already have on CD, I never know how to get the songs into my computer. Now that I have iTunes though I can rip them right off the CD. I still buy CD's though. I like the look of a full CD shelf, I like having the artwork etc...

You know, if record companies want to sell their CD's they're going to need to start getting creative. In my opinion they're just tossing the law out to everyone and being total dicks. Why don't they put a little more money into the system and put things with the CD that you can't download like pics etc... I know there are some out there that have that stuff but if they really want to up CD sales again then they're going to need to give something more than the disk and the sleeve.
MULLY