You and the music label companies

[Mooshi]

I know alot of you browse video sharing sites. The most popular being Youtube. I'm also sure that you've also run into videos that had its audio muted or maybe clicked on an old link that had a disclaimer that said the video was deleted. Usual culprit being WMG. The excuse being "Copyright Infringement". How does this make you feel? Do you support their decision? Do you think they are being greedy and losing millions of customers to anger? Discuss.

[Kobuk]

I'm going to put in a "preemptive warning" in this thread and please ask all members not to discuss anything illegal as it may or may not apply to this topic. I understand that a lot of people like to download, share, etc., music, videos, and other material on the Net, whether legally or illegally. But anything illegal cannot be discussed per the rule here:

3. Topics that are never allowed are sex with or between minors (human or anthro), hatred/slander against individuals or a group of people, and illegal activities or the encouragement thereof.

[Mooshi]

You do realize that some artists do have their own Youtube channels and the like, right? Not someone trying to score free music, the people who actually made the song. Even they still get the same treatment. It isn't copyright protection, it is greed. Just because they aren't making money on the side from it, they act like 2 year olds and take their ball and go home. If the artist is also getting their stuff pulled they uploaded themselves because a greedy label isn't getting anything from it directly - how can you still justify that? I say directly because smart labels get their extra revenue indirectly. People hear a song in a video background, like it and then support the artist when they find out who they are. But no, companies like WMG are too idiotic to realize this. Audio gets nuked and no music for anyone. Not surprising their stocks are low.

[Spirit]

Just because they aren't making money on the side from it, they act like 2 year olds and take their ball and go home.

That's my music! I'm telling!
Yeah, it's stupid. Actually, if the person isn't making financial gain from the video, isn't it good publicity for the artist, or even the company itself? I learned about TATU from AMVs, quite a few of which got taken down, and I actually ended up paying money to get their music off of itunes!

[Mooshi]

Exactly. People who make AMVs, tribute vids, song covers ect. aren't getting paid. They aren't doing it to somehow swindle a music label out of cash. They do it to entertain other, honour someone and for fun. I find it really disgusting when tracks get muted on a memorial video. The LAST thing on a grieving person's mind is money.

[Landrav]

I might point out that it is the companies' legal right to do so.  It sucks, yes, but even in cases where it is an artist's own work there is still a question of who owns rights to the song.  Did you know: Michael Jackson bought up all the rights to the Beatles' songs, and years later Paul McCartney had to pay him to perform songs he had written himself!

Sure, they could be smarter about it (and more sensitive in cases like the memorial videos), but in the end it's their right.  Personally, I don't plan on infringing those rights.

[Mooshi]

Doesn't make it any less drastic and tasteless in some cases. Some labels look at it as free advertisment and don't have a fit if someone uses one of their songs as a background track. So much legality and petty bickering from these huge corperations. Here is the deal though, things like this challenges that to some degree. This is a random quote from the comment section on Youtube.

BobbyRossRacing93 (August 05, 2010) @TygerWDR my friends video got removed by wmg but there was one problem, the only music it had was his own, that he made by him self and some of his friends, aint that abunch of crap

[Yip]

I often use youtube as a way to check out songs to see if I'll like 'em. If I find something I like, and find myself returning to listen to it, then I'll actually buy it.  It's a good way to "try before you buy". I think the smart thing is when they add links to the video on where you can buy the song. I've seen that frequently on youtube.

[Avan]

Technically, though it doesn't affect me, it is rather rude to behave like WMG does.

[Mooshi]

Not like any CEO will ever read this..but I have a fair compromise. If it's an outright official Music Video, I think they should feel free to remove it - leave the vid alone if it's a background song or even a short 10 sec soundbite. Muting 10 mins of video over 10 secs of audio is horrible. If an artist themself uploads official songs, leave them alone. Without their talent, the label will be worth nothing. Var also has a point. I use sites like YT to preview songs as well. It's not different than the radio in a sense. (Anyone else remember the days when we recorded our fav station onto cassette tapes? ) If you use a song, always include the info in your credits and include a link somewhere on where to buy the song. Seems more reasonable to me that way.

[Drake Blackpaw]

I might point out that it is the companies' legal right to do so.  It sucks, yes, but even in cases where it is an artist's own work there is still a question of who owns rights to the song.  Did you know: Michael Jackson bought up all the rights to the Beatles' songs, and years later Paul McCartney had to pay him to perform songs he had written himself!

Sure, they could be smarter about it (and more sensitive in cases like the memorial videos), but in the end it's their right.  Personally, I don't plan on infringing those rights.

I pretty much agree with Landrav.  It is their right to remove them.  Now are some of the companies overhanded with removing things, yes, but they can do it.

Right now the music industry as a whole is pretty broken and this issue is a reflection of this.  The record companies haven't figured out how to make money in the digital age.  Artists, except for the handful that make it really big, never did well in the music industry, but now they are doing worse. 

[Avan]

Just because something can be done, does not imply that it should be done. Like... bad ms paint art. MY EYES!

[Mooshi]

I dunno. Pissing off your fanbase to the point of sparking boycotts and an anti movement is pretty bad business practice. Sure it's their right to, but is it worth losing hundreds-thousands-millions of customers? If anything, nasty attitudes like that is encouraging people to pirate music like a digital middle finger. Those overpaid executives lose money, but the real losers in this are the artists.

[Nicholai]

If anything, nasty attitudes like that is encouraging people to pirate music like a digital middle finger.

Ditto.

Take a look at this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups

If you ask me, the music industry still has A LOT of wising up to do when it comes to information age culture.

Yeah, it's stupid. Actually, if the person isn't making financial gain from the video, isn't it good publicity for the artist, or even the company itself? I learned about TATU from AMVs, quite a few of which got taken down, and I actually ended up paying money to get their music off of itunes!

A month ago I was browsing fursuit videos on Youtube when I came across a video with someone's computer playing music in the background. I liked the song, so I looked it up, and bought it on iTunes. There's a story I should tell to the "itchy trigger finger" labels.

 

I often use youtube as a way to check out songs to see if I'll like 'em. If I find something I like, and find myself returning to listen to it, then I'll actually buy it.  It's a good way to "try before you buy". I think the smart thing is when they add links to the video on where you can buy the song. I've seen that frequently on youtube.

I do this with 95% of the songs/albums I buy.

[Avan]

The music I like... is not the music people sell, with all the irony it implies. It's all originally composed stuff, VGM remixes & whatnot, that people put up on youtube or newgrounds or whatever for everyone to enjoy. For free.

However I find what these label companies are doing is rather immature. I am... admittedly part of the music business, in a very small and niche way, and occasionally must make calls on cases involving stuff like this, but I'd never go around doing things like that. There's a line between being a control-freak who wants to punish everyone who looks at you funny even if it is in a way of questionable legality, and being rational about these things & actually talking to the people about it as opposed to throwing a fit.

[Murkrow]

this is what i think: artists make songs for ALL to hear; its entertainment. music videos containing certain songs are entertainment. many of the fans state that the music isnt theirs, & neither is the video content. they are just showing their love for music artists & the shows they watch. if the company doesnt want the song to be use in anything, then it should just be radio only; not released to the internet.

i tried making a music video, a harmless but hilarious video, with a song to it. it was hilarious with that one song on it!...it got muted. & i found PLENTY of other videos with the exact same song to it (which were uploaded later than mine), but much shorter. so why did my video get muted, but theirs hasnt? why are they targeting me when the guy beside me is uploading videos up the wazoo with the same song over & over again?

plus, alot of the artists i listen to today came from these videos. 

[Sigurd Volsung]

I often use youtube as a way to check out songs to see if I'll like 'em. If I find something I like, and find myself returning to listen to it, then I'll actually buy it.  It's a good way to "try before you buy". I think the smart thing is when they add links to the video on where you can buy the song. I've seen that frequently on youtube.

Actually Vararam is right about how things actually work in the real world. It is a proven fact that when people can listen to a song a couple of times for free they are far more likely to buy it since they have had a chance to find out if they actually like the song. Also it's amazing how often official sites for bands will have their songs removed by companies by accident.

[Avan]

Well, I know at least one label has automated scripts that search for an exact match for any segment of the music over a certain length. There is a bypass (or rumor of one), but I will not discuss it, due to it being of questionable legality & legitimacy (as in, I don't even know if its real or just a rumor). I never tested it out; I just happened to see it mentioned by chance in a video where the sound had been muted.

Likely that is why yours got muted and the others did not. (Just wanted to give you a little closure)

[Murkrow]

Well, I know at least one label has automated scripts that search for an exact match for any segment of the music over a certain length. There is a bypass (or rumor of one), but I will not discuss it, due to it being of questionable legality & legitimacy (as in, I don't even know if its real or just a rumor). I never tested it out; I just happened to see it mentioned by chance in a video where the sound had been muted.

Likely that is why yours got muted and the others did not. (Just wanted to give you a little closure)

that makes sense. but there are even times where the song will be short, yet the little ad pops up saying what song it is. i had that same song in my video, & it got muted. D: that pisses me off; i make videos to make somebody laugh. that is how i am paid, in laughter, not money.

[Avan]

I don't think its for them an issue of you getting money or not, but of them thinking they are being cheated out of money, regardless if it was for profit or not. Not saying its right or not, but the methods they go about it... are far less than optimal. 

[Mooshi]

Replace music with furry and a specific music label with "Furtopia". Picture a furry that uploaded a video and in this video they named off sites that catered to furries. The goal of the vid to show their love for these communities. Of the names mentioned, Furtopia was mentioned along with the logo. Say someone gave you a link to the video and when you clicked it you got:

This video has been removed by Furtopia due to infringement.

Why? Because WS didn't get slipped cash to mention this site. What happens? Furs and friends of furs will look at Furtopia as a site that has nazi control freak issues. Would be furs and the like will be all "So furries really are whiny drama queens!" Everyone loses. Now do you get it?

[Narei Mooncatt]

I also voted it's their right and don't have much to add that wasn't already said along those lines. Like it or lump it, if you don't own the rights or have expressed permission, you shouldn't be using them in your work. So instead, I'll throw out a couple other observations. I'm not so sure it is always about money. I've seen several furry videos that were removed that had short audio and video clips from various cartoons and music (similar to AMVs). One media corporation had them removed, but considering the context in which they were used I think thik it had to do with the company's image than worrying about loosing money. If you consider the thousands of artists the big music companies have on file, it would be near impossible to watch each video and make a case based decision, so they just have a blanket infringement policy to make it easier on them. Which would also explain why memorial vids have been removed.

One other thing that I can't help but laugh at is when someone posts a song, usually the full track, and then puts in the description some sort of "disclaimer" saying it's not theirs and not claiming any copyright infringement. As if that somehow makes what they're doing legal. 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.

[Avan]

Its not so much that the argument is necessarily bogus in context of... the whole issue, but simply in context of the legality of it.

anyways, um, why do we even need these large companies anyways?
Ok, well, I don't even have any interest in the music, so I'm not entirely sure of what is going on... so yeah

[Mooshi]

Aside from promotion, I'll have to agree with Avan. Why do we have these companies? They don't actually contribute much. The artist themselves should be the ones who have the final say so in how their music gets used. Not some corperate fat cat. Most of the stuff I listen to is actually independant, but even I smell a rat. Just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean you have to excersise it. If something is done without monetary intensions, what's the harm in that? WMG's stock is worth around $4.59. At one point it was $2 a share when the backlash was starting. That should tell you it was a major business mistake. Even if you did go through all the channels, do you honestly believe a CEO will bother reading every single request?

[Narei Mooncatt]

Just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean you have to excersise it.

That statement reminded me of something we were taught in that copyright class I mentioned earlier. Apparently Coca-Cola lost its trademark to the simple name of "cola" long ago because they didn't go after people that were using that name for so long that it became a general word before they did try to sue people for it. I couldn't find any info one way or the other for this post on if that is true, but even if it isn't I could see how that principle would affect music companies aggressive tactics on things like this.