Blocked videos on YouTube lately?

To me, the scariest stuff is when they profile you by collecting and aggregating information about you, and then sell your profile as a product. Some of the companies you listed don’t do that very much. For others, it’s their primary business model.
 
Would you expect a car dealership to give you a car? Would you expect a free cake from a bakery? Free clothes from Dillard’s? Then why do y’all expect free music from musicians? It is not wrong for a musician to expect payment for their work.
 
Would you expect a car dealership to give you a car? Would you expect a free cake from a bakery? Free clothes from Dillard’s? Then why do y’all expect free music from musicians? It is not wrong for a musician to expect payment for their work.
This issue seems to follow the thinking "Hey man, what's the big deal? We're not really hurting anyone". It is rather ironic that the complaints in the top 2 videos address how it affects their income, not their fanbase or followers. Adversity always reveals character.
 
Would you expect a car dealership to give you a car? Would you expect a free cake from a bakery? Free clothes from Dillard’s? Then why do y’all expect free music from musicians? It is not wrong for a musician to expect payment for their work.

I don't. But that's not what this about. The problem is that Google/Youtube has set up a mechanism by which anyone (whether or not they have a truthful and legit claim) can be judge, jury, and executioner of a video. As such, they have completely bypassed the legal systems of the countries involved. They permit the use of copyright claims as a weapon or as mere vandalism. Now, you can say that they're a business and they can do whatever they like. I'd argue that Youtube has become a vital global public utility and needs to be treated as such. Sadly, we're not going to solve this by yapping on a forum though.
 
Would you expect a car dealership to give you a car? Would you expect a free cake from a bakery? Free clothes from Dillard’s? Then why do y’all expect free music from musicians? It is not wrong for a musician to expect payment for their work.

Is it okay for a musician to say stop it when somebody is making free advertisement for his music?

Well, obviously it is legal. But is it smart? If fewer people get exposed to your music you will have less revenue then you could have had. And yeah, that guy making free advertisement is making some money of your music too. But A: if it means more fans for your music too then its win-win instead of loose-loose. We got to move away from the ridiculous notion this zero sum notion that is copy right. It's not about you use something from me, therefore you take from me. Everybody can be a winner if you play things right. And blocking is not playing things right, just like the legal actions Metallica took against Napster did not make it a winner either.

And it still remains, the biggest thieves of artists copy right and revenues are not people on youtube, but the record labels. Always have been, always will be.

That's because so much of their music is pilfered from the "dinosaurs" to begin with. :rolleyes:

No, they understand that this is not a zero sum game. That you can be a winner too if others share your music. It probably also helped that this generation of musicians has never experienced anything other then the post Napster world. They grew up in a world where music was either fileshared for nothing or streamed for very little. They never experienced a time when you could live off your record sales. They know they have to engage their fans, not piss them off with law suits and blocking.
 
All for artist's being compensated for their work, but a Dsus2 chord really?

Not following the logic here from the artist point of view. How does someone teaching a part/song deprive them (the artist) of income? If anything you would think it would benefit them as the student would still use the original song for reference, resulting in (some, albeit small) royalty from a service(Spotify, iTunes, etc..) that provides the original. That student then starts playing said song out, which may in turn trigger members of the audience to stream the same or add to their playlist, again adding to their revenue. Who is the victim here?
 
Basically, the whole issue boils down to 'is someone making money using someone else's original works'.
And so why do we care? - We want to receive as much great music as we can possibly consume, so we reward those who create popular music so they will want to make more of it for us.

The pre-mp3 era had money as the energy source to present great musicians to a world audience, while it capitalized on great musicians, and set up channels to grow on that energy. We still need that energy source, and if the only people they are copyright restricting are 'for profit' i think we are OK, until someone comes up with a nice new model that protects the artists and the value of the products - the movie people did it for their products and their measures are strict - we could do something less draconian and still pay for a music industry. :) And this time keep the money in the model closer to the creators of the original works.
 
I wonder how these "School of Rock's" that are seemingly everywhere these days deals with this. Are kicking up to Jimmy Page every time they teach stairway?
 
It doesn't matter how "flimsy" the reason is. Again, if you want to use copyrighted material, pay the copyright fee. Making money off of other people's work is why they exist. If you're unable to obtain the copyright or are denied the copyright, don't play the material.

Just because they're suddenly being enforced "rigorously" doesn't mean the laws have changed, just their enforcement.

I agree, especially with how long YouTube has been around, that there should be a blanket copyright one could purchase that would allow the use of material in an instructional video. Until then, this is the way things are and as Pete pointed out, there are ways around it if your primary goal really is to help others.
No fair use considerations to be had?
 
Really?

They are a company that provides entertainment... How does that qualify as a public utility?

That's a narrow definition...and one that I'm sure they would prefer. They'd love to become like Netflix. In reality though, YouTube has become a communications medium, an experimental international community with very nearly free speech, and a remarkable repository of knowledge. Well that and cat videos. ;)
 
i emailed several Performing Rights Organizations. i told them i am a musician who wants to play copyright music/recordings/covers on live streams on sites like YouTube, Mixer, Twitch, etc. i said i would like to pay for the right to do that, let me know how much to pay.

they said i literally cannot do that. the "venue" is responsible for paying that, and the musician absolutely cannot get that right in any way shape or form. so that means YouTube would have to pay for the rights.

the entire system is messed up. it needs a change.
 
Well, the company I work for recorded our own arrangement of a public domain song. We sell the sheet music and backing track for it, and we have a video on YouTube with a clip of it. We just got notice from YouTube that EMI is laying claim to it. We tried the dispute options, which were minimal. The answer from YouTube was that EMI still says it's theirs, not ours. There is nobody for us to call. Nowhere for us to dispute it any further. They are slapping an ad on it, and EMI is now making money off of our recording. That's right up there with a claim on a Dsus2 chord. Very frustrating.
 
It’s ironic that YouTube became so huge by allowing other people’s IP to be uploaded and monetized by YouTube illegally.
Without illegal content hosted by them they wouldn’t have had a whole lot of content especially in the beginning.
They’ve turned into “The Man”
 
Back
Top Bottom