YouTube Music Content Takedown Continued 291
pregnantfridge writes "In the ongoing conflict between
PRS for Music and
YouTube over the takedown
of all music related content in the UK, PRS for Music have created a new site,
fairplayforcreators.com,
exposing the views of
the music writers impacted by the YouTube decision.
I am not certain if these views have been editorially compromised, but by reading
a few pages, it's clear to me that Music writers represented by PRS for Music are
largely clueless about what the Internet and YouTube means to the music
industry. Kind of explains why the music industry is in
such a decline — and also why so much litigation takes place on the music
writers' behalf."
So the music writers, don't get it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like they just want to take their ball home since they don't get to be the star player (or even get their way).
SO be it. Give them what they want. Take down all music related content everywhere that isn't on their own sites. That means: Discussion boards about their music, Fan sites about their music, album reviews, links to amazon, etc. All of it.
Boycott these people up the wazoo... and just to make it fun... pick on someone specific to make and example of them.
Start by removing their Wikipedia page then systematically begin contacting websites which are highly ranked in Google for their name... ask them to participate in protest.
It doesn't have to be permanent (though the 301 responses need to be ;-p ) - just long enough to make the point.
"Hey [music writer who is famous], what happened to all your google hits? i can't find anything about you anywhere... it's like you don't exist except on your 'official' site. Aren't you supposed to be famous.
Keep it up long enough and maybe they'll even see an economic impact.
Compromised? Heavens no! (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not certain if these views have been editorially compromised but by reading a few pages
Compromised? Certainly not. Specially hand picked by the group? Most definitely possible.
You wouldn't be able to say for certain however unless a UK musician comes forth and says his/her opinions in favor of youtube exposure was not added to the site.
Bitchy yes, but they do have a point (Score:4, Interesting)
While I will concede that they do seem completely out of touch with the benefits of internet notoriety, there is a very salient point here: How do you hold content aggregator sites accountable for their content sources? Is it really fair that google makes billions a year while their most popular site is powered by stolen material??
Now you could argue that the real solution is for these writers to start their own channel and provide better copies of the content in a regulated manner. Some of my favorite artists have done just that in response to a plethora of their videos being on youtube.
That's only a couple of steps short of extortion though, and doesn't respect the right of the content owner to boycott google and it's hyper saturation of popular culture. And it still doesn't stop xXxRockerBOI from uploading his favorite song of yours with pictures of his girlfriend and lightning pictures as a slideshow.
When will we get a meaningful dialogue about intellectual property and royalties? These people always come across as greedy assholes, but that doesn't mean that they're entirely wrong about there being a problem, just wrong headed about articulating it.
Just my
Look at the membership (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Free from unfair competition (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course that's not what they want. They want to get paid for their content while receiving free publicity without hosting costs.
These people expect to get paid for what should be a hobby while the majority of other people have to shell out money for theirs.
Re:Well said... (Score:1, Interesting)
Somewhere the public perception of copyright (and other IP rights) went from "a time limited incentive to encourage the creation of novel content" to "content creators have the right to get paid in perpetuity".
What did you THINK would happen when copyright was determined to not expire until X years AFTER you die? People have no concept of thinking about how life will continue after they die. So as far as they're concerned, it's perpetual and unending.
"Royalties are vital in nurturing creative talent" (Score:4, Interesting)
I call bullshit.
Or at least, I don't see this at all. I know a few people who have been creating music for quite some time. And most of the time they didn't get paid.
Also, I and a bunch of others organize a festival (*) every year on the campus of the University of Twente. The performers don't receive any payment, maybe a compensation for fuel. Not getting paid at all hasn't stopped the performers from wanting to show up and show their creative talent.
And to extrapolate this beyond music creators. Not receiving royalties hasn't stopped from people creating mods for computer games. It hasn't stopped creators of open source software.
The only people who are stopped by not receiving royalties are people who are in it for the royalties.
*) it's not a big festival, only about 1000-1400 guests. But compared to other student organized parties it's the biggest event. It's completely organized by people in their spare time. Nobody gets paid to do anything.
"No opt out"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well said... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep, it's as stupid as plumbers adding a debit/credit card swipers on every toilet they set up and make you pay every time you go to the bathroom.
MP3s and youtube videos is the same as advertisements for your crap. As in it should be free, and the best advertisement in and of itself for your stuff.
It's a shame things are as they are.
Re:"No opt out"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Say I want to perform a set of my music in a pub, no covers, just stuff I wrote. The pub has to have a PRS performance license and has to pay the PRS for my performance even if I'm not registered with them.
It's extortion, and as usual it's the artists who get screwed - the number of places to play is dropping for the small local artist as landlords stop paying the PRS tax.
It's a balancing act (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand where these artists are coming from but this is the fallout from a badly balanced system as it was started. Music was well overpriced to begin with, the internet has forced that into a more realistic pricing model and those who benefited from a little-effort-multi-millionaire lifestyle now see their gravy train coming to a crashing stop. It's no wonder they are trying to keep the train moving.
When the record labels, executives, advertisers, promoters etc are making billions from artists and fans it's no wonder the artists want their share of the cash. When both the means to record, release and promote were limited to those with serious money they held all the cards, and so could charge much more than it cost to make and distribute an LP, tape or CD. They also set the rules on what the artists had to give up to get a small slice of the pie. They screwed both ends of the chain and made a fortune off their backs. The internet has bust that gravy train right off the tracks and they just don't see it.
Part of the excuse for high product prices was that it cost so much to make and distribute them. With the internet, people can access the same stuff with little cost.
Part of the excuse for record companies charging for EVERYTHING was that the art of making the music was a skill reserved for specially talented people who needed to spend 6 months in Barbados to "get into the right headspace" to write a 3 minute tune which would gain a high chart position and therefor make them tonnes of cash. This means the artist is treated like some spoiled brat and given whatever they request. Look at the excesses of the large 70's and 80's acts for plenty of examples.
They don't see music as an art, they see spreadsheets with comparisons of chart positions and sales figures.
Part of the excuse is that they play a key role as a gobetween the artist and the fans, in the form of TV appearances, radio appearances, interviews etc.
All of the excuses the recording industry have used over the years to justify their extortionate fees are evaporating as people are bypassing them, legally and illegally. Many artists are choosing to go their own routes, giving them more control and a larger slice of the profits of their work and a direct relationship with their fans.
Costs have come down dramatically and the point of entry is now very low if you want to make music for a living but the days of Elton John or Queen type earnings are long gone, no matter how good you are; the public have changed and the mediums have changed....and won't change back, no matter how much they wish it so.
It's now possible to put a band together with decent quality equipment and record on a simple mixer / PC to get a reasonably professional sound, which coupled with some internet savvy thinking can get you decent earnings.
It's early in the morning and I think I'm starting to ramble so I'll end it there.
Write to the Lib Dems again (Score:5, Interesting)
Call their bluff (and capitalism) (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember also, the 100 million plays are for YouTube *worldwide* but the £11 is just for the UK YouTube audience.
A crap estimate: there are about 300M native English speakers worldwide according to Wikipedia (sounds a bit low?). There are about 58M native English speakers in the UK.
100M YouTube plays scales to about 19M UK YouTube plays, or about 3 plays on BBC Radio 1, or about £60.
Re:Difference of Opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
Ahem. I actually *like* that song. It reminds me of when I was riding on the schoolbus and first heard it play on the radio, first crushes on the opposite sex, and it's certainly not "the worst" pop song. It's no worse than what Hannah Montana and Jonas Brothers are putting out today. Worse songs include stuff put-out by Kris Kross, Vanilla Ice, and Wreckz-N-Effex (rumpshaker).
OFFTOPIC question -
I just received my "2nd Notice of Copyright Infringement" for Burn After Reading and Evan Almighty. Does anyone know if Verizon DSL has a three-strike rule that might result in my suspension? If so I'm going to stop downloading movies completely (since today's movies are largely crap).
in the 80s... (Score:1, Interesting)
We used to tape shit off each other.
If we heard something good on the radio, in the club or from a friend we would tape it.
If we liked it we bought the album for ourselves.
If we really liked it we bought the CD as well once that format came out for the better sound quality.
If I like an artist I will buy their stuff because I want to thank them for making my life a little bit better.
So its a question of what the music is worth to me - which is how a market works last time I checked. So I have, do and would pay $15 for a Killing Joke cd. But I wouldnt pay a dime for some Rick Astley popcorn shit. But for me to make that decision I want to make an informed choice and that is not going to happen with seeing or hearing the song once or twice on the radio or on the telly.
So for me todays "youtubing" and "ripping" is exactly the same as taping in the 80s. So if "100 million" Rick Astley viewings on youtube hasnt translated to sales its not "stealing" its because the musics shit. And if its shit it has no value. Conversely if videos on youtube do translate into sales (and I cant believe there arent ways to find out) its because the music is good. And good music has value.
The artists' share... (Score:2, Interesting)
What I find interesting is how the artists are complaining that they see very little money appearing on their "PRS for music"-cheque despite having so many views on their Youtube song.
Youtube is refusing to pay as much money that "PRS for Music" is charging.
Wouldn't this be about time for some document to appear on Wikileaks concerning how much money google paid "PRS for Music" in royalties last years, and how much of that was paid to the artists?
Anyone wanna bet on how high the percentage cut is for artists? 1%, 0.1% or 0.01% ? :)
Re:"No opt out"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting - in Canada we have a similar system in place (SOCAN fee). I believe that there is no opt out here for any public place, but now, since I see it is not entirely what the hard PRS rules are, I wonder if our SOCAN "law" is similarly worded to cause confusion?
SOCAN fees - because Celine Dion should get payed when you play someone else's music at the pub!
Re:Google ANSWERS questions, then DOES NOT shoot (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't. The mods would mark my post flamebait or troll ;-)
You really still don't get it at all, do you:
It is good to think about the problem before expounding upon it, but even better if you at least have some idea what the actual issues and facts are. [OK. I went for blunt in the end anyway] ;-)