You and the music label companies

[Mooshi]

Yush. Don't think I'm one of those loonies that thinks copyrights should be ignored and things be passed out as they please. Content creators work hard and should be paid for their work if they chose to go that route. (Not all artist make music for fame and fortune, however.) It's unfortunate that poor management not only screws over the fans, it also screws over their own artists at times.

[Landrav]

I had to take a copyright class in college because of my major, but in this digital era where this kind of stuff is so easy and rampent, I'm beginning to think they should include it in highschool courses. Then they'd realize that their argument of "I bought the music, so I can do what I want with it" is bogus.

The dirty secret of the digital age of music is that you're not actually buying music; you're buying the license to play it.  It's hidden in the TOS agreements of many music download sites.

[Narei Mooncatt]

I had to take a copyright class in college because of my major, but in this digital era where this kind of stuff is so easy and rampent, I'm beginning to think they should include it in highschool courses. Then they'd realize that their argument of "I bought the music, so I can do what I want with it" is bogus.

The dirty secret of the digital age of music is that you're not actually buying music; you're buying the license to play it.  It's hidden in the TOS agreements of many music download sites.

Actually that's nothing new and has been around pretty much since music has been sold.

And Moosh, all I was doing was putting out possible reason music companies are so anal about their copyrights. I'm not even trying to defend them. Just trying to put out a possible explanation from their point of view. I don't even buy much music any more since I have Sirius radio, much less from the big companies. But my choice of music is electronic and most of those artists are either self produced or belong to smaller labels (with the exception of the big superstars that is). I agree that the big companies do rip off the artists when it comes to royalties. Unless you're a superstar, I've heard you really don't make much at all through them.

[Foxxhoria]

I've found practically all the music I currently enjoy through Youtube, and while I may have only bought 4 albums yet, I would not have known about them to buy them if it wasn't for the ability to hear them for free; and yet I'm only 17 and don't even have my own income yet, so I have a whole life to go and buy all my stuff.  I may be enjoying it without any right (as some would clearly argue), but I am enjoying it nonetheless, and that translates (for me anyway) into both wanting to show appreciation for the wonderfully inspired artists, and wanting to have something to hold in my hand at home and look at in some kind of admiration.

My point is that while I may not have bought much of it yet, I certainly wouldn't have bought if it it wasn't for much of their music being somewhat available for free on sites like Youtube.  And while it may be their right to mute videos and such, laws are ultimately superfluous and may not be best informed in every case.  (I say not every case).  I think they should make rather more informed decisions, rather than merely exercising their right.

(I hope I didn't come across too annoyed or anything...)

[Arbutus]

It's unfortunate that poor management not only screws over the fans, it also screws over their own artists at times.

Oh! Oh! Story time. This is surreal.

So one of my favorite artists is Amanda Palmer, formerly of the Dresden Dolls. After the Dolls sort-of broke up, she spent a couple of months recording a solo album, and was all ready to release it. Except then the label she was signed to decided - preemptively - that the album took too many risks and it wouldn't sell. So they refused to promote it. Just refused. They didn't send advance copies out to reviewers, they refused to produce any music videos (she had to make them herself on a shoestring budget with friends), they refused to do anything that would actually, you know, alert people to the record's existence. They also refused to finance any tours she went on after releasing that album, so when she went on tour, she literally had to sleep on fans' couches and send people out into the audience with tip jars to cover her costs.

And yet, they ALSO refused to fire her. She was contracted to put out a certain number of albums, and by god, they were going to squeeze every one of those albums out of her - despite the fact that they didn't plan to promote or try to sell any of her future work. So there was literally no financial reason for their actions, it was just a power game. It got to the point where she was literally begging them to let her go, but they refused... and all the while, she wasn't allowed to release any music at all unless it was through them. (She did not play along.)

Happily, she finally got free of her contract earlier this year. Now she's flipped the bird to record labels and set up her own independent store on Bandcamp, where people can download her albums and merchandise for any price they want. She can release whatever she wants, whenever she wants, and 85% of the money goes directly to her. She's now pulling in headlines like "Bandcamp Artist Sells $15K of Music, Merch in 90 Seconds." I read her blog, so I've been following this whole saga for years now, and she is so much better off now.

SO BASICALLY, that's how I feel about record labels.

[Kobuk]

As the old saying goes: "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

Money (and information) are power. And those who control it can do whatever they want. 

[Nicholai]

As the old saying goes: "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

Money (and information) are power. And those who control it can do whatever they want. 

Alas, truer words never spoken. 

[Mooshi]

I think we've come to the conclusion that..just because you have the right to do something, it isn't always the right thing to do. Content should not be stolen, period, however things aren't so black and white. Most people make videos for fun with no intention of profiting. Youtube and other sites are great for previewing music and often leads to discovery and future purchases/support. Treating your base like trash is horrible business sense. Both for moral reasons and for profitability. The mainstream consumer isn't the only one being targeted, the artists themselves are also subject to a royal screwjob. (As Arbutus pointed out) Conclusion = Record executives should get a real job and leave the business decisions and copyright to the people who actually have talent.

[animagusurreal]

I had several videos muted by WMG, including my most popular video (in terms of hits), set to "Putting Out Fire" by David Bowie.

From my understanding, YouTube and WMG had worked out an agreement by which YouTube users could use their music library and WMG would get paid. So therefore, at the time, users uploading WMG copyrighted material was actually legal. Then WMG decided they weren't getting a big enough share of the ad revenue from Google (which owns YouTube), and that's where the trouble started. It was basically a battle between two corporate giants over money. The YouTube users, many of whom had put a lot of time and effort into their videos, and who were not getting any of the revenue made off of them, got caught in the middle.

Here's a picture I made at the time to illustrate the point:



As others have said, while they had the right to remove the music, I don't think it was the best move for them. Besides making them look like the bad guy to millions of music-loving YouTube users around the world (i.e., their potential customers,) it didn't accomplish completely removing the songs' availability from YouTube. Most of the songs that were removed from my videos were still available on numerous other videos.  

Since then, all of my videos have been un-muted. I'm guessing the companies came to an agreement. Some of my videos now have ads for buying the music on them, which I'm fine with. I don't know which company is out there currently muting videos, I think that it would serve them better to adapt to the changes which are beyond their control and find new ways to make money off of music. Maybe they could follow the example of Amanda Palmer in Arbutus' post above. (Great story, BTW ).

The one good thing about the whole WMG debacle is that it encouraged me to put more original, self-composed music into my videos.

[Narei Mooncatt]

I don't know which company is out there currently muting videos, I think that it would serve them better to adapt to the changes which are beyond their control and find new ways to make money off of music.

Not sure if they have any music contracts, but Fox has removed some of their tv show clips others uploaded, and the BBC has put regional restrictions on their work so you can't view it in the U.S. without removing it completely. Now that I think about it, I've seen more video's removed than music lately.

[Sigurd Volsung]

More and more bands even big bands are starting their own record labels usually with the help of independent recording facilities like the ones at music schools. In fact the music college across the street from me, McNally Smith (Often referred to as the Juilliard of Rock and Roll) supports more labels then I can think of. Also there a labels owned by bands such as Green Day, The Offspring, Rob Zombie, yadda yadda yadda which are out there not only to promote the band that created the label but to also help new bands get started in the industry.

My brother-in-law is a musician and for a while was traveling around the country preforming and dumping a lot of time and money into recording albums. I told him that my dad had connections to a fairly small label that specialized in modern folk music which is what my brother-in-law plays, my dad's connection with the company was so good that if he told them to give a group a chance nine times out of ten they'd sign them. The annoying part was that while he constantly complained about how expensive it was to record his music he wouldn't even give the recording company a chance.

My point is, is that while recording labels serve a purpose they are starting to become outmoded by the internet and how easy it is for people to self produce via programs like Apple's Garage Band.

[Serra Belvoule]

Well, teeeeeeeeeechnically it's their right to put it down altogether since the copyright infringement states so, unless covered by a legal loophole such as the parody ones or some other non-commercial uses (like playing it at your home stereo or using your paid-for music to make a home video).
Still, legal rulings is such a weird world for which I don't have a big taste for. I don't think we've all benefited from free distribution but a fair amount of us probably have.
I just think it's too much to ask for both sides to share? 
I wanna say I love the last voting option. Boo hoo, indeed, dear mooshi.