How Important Is It To Preserve Our Digital Heritage?
Gwiz's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

Record Labels, Once Again, Freak Out About Anyone Making Their Content Useful

Music Industry

from the moving-on... dept

Fri, Jun 3rd 2011 07:39pm -

Another day, another story of the major labels freaking out that someone (for free!) has helped make their content more useful and valuable. About a week ago, I was one of the folks who passed along the news (via Twitter) of a new service called Youtify, which took the YouTube API and built a neat media player on top of YouTube that looked quite a bit like Spotify, the popular music service that’s not yet available in the US. The concept really isn’t all that new. Muziic has been around for years, and has a YouTube-based media player, and TubeRadio has a YouTube-based music player that looks just like iTunes. Honestly, TubeRadio and Youtify are really quite similar, except one uses the iTunes look and feel, and the other uses the Spotify look and feel.

Either way, it’s a pretty useful and neat setup for listening to and discovering new music on YouTube.

So, of course, the labels have to kill it. Adam Singer points us to the news that just days after Youtify’s launch started spreading… the major record labels have somehow blocked their music from appearing. Note that most of this is via Vevo — the major label-owned service for posting videos to YouTube. In other words, these are authorized videos that have been uploaded and made available on purpose by the record labels. And… then the Youtify guys went and made an interface to make it easier to access and consume that music… and the labels/Vevo freak out and block them.

Because, apparently, that’s how the major labels roll. If something makes the music more enjoyable and more valuable for free, but doesn’t “pay” the labels, then too freaking bad. Is it really any wonder why the major labels are struggling?

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: spotify, vevo, youtify, youtube

146 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Record Labels, Once Again, Freak Out About Anyone Making Their Content Useful”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
146 Comments
Any Mouse (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Stealing

Anarchism
– noun
3. See anarchy

Anarchy
?noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Not sure what you mean by ‘lack of orders’ and not ‘lack of order.’ It’s a lack of law or government.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Stealing

Anarchism as a political philosophy (definition 3 above) is actually quite nuanced and has significant amounts of literature backing it up, and its core assertion is that a lack of government results in a more orderly society. Note the line above – “voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society“

Anyway, I’m not sure it’s my cup of tea, and yeah the word can be used in a more general sense to mean disorder – but it is also an established political philosophy that means anything but

Nick Taylor says:

“Intellectual Property” is a broken model. You cannot “own” information. It doesn’t make sense.

Optimising for scarcity in a memetic environment displays a profound misunderstanding of memetic environments – where the value comes from familiarity and attention.

Optimising for scarcity is optimising for obscurity.

Anonymous Coward says:

Something tells me there is more to this story.

And if there is, you’re going to be eating some serious “dirt”.

Do you know for a fact that the labels are the ONLY ones protesting this? Or in your insatiable quest to crank on record labels, are just repeating an unsourced story verbatim?

If this is merely a different way of accessing the videos on youtube or vevo, the labels are still getting their hits and income.

You know who I’d imagine might have a problem with this? Spotify.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

(also, when you make a youtube video, you can choose whether or not you want to enable embedding. Maybe it’s related to that, perhaps they disabled embedding for Yotify/its Internet location).

So, from what I gather, the record labels didn’t ‘kill’ yotify altogether, they merely prevented it from working with ‘their’ content.

While I think it’s a bad move on their part, I suspect Yotify still works for other music and perhaps that will drive people away from mainstream music ‘owned’ by middlemen and towards independently controlled music that allows people to use their music with Yotify.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Perhaps what Yotify can do to make people dislike the record labels even more is to replace the removed videos with a message that says “this video has been removed from Yotify at the will of the RIAA” (or if it’s not the RIAA, name whoever it is).

Also, it should be noted that the RIAA is an organization that represents other corporations. It sorta takes the heat for these other corporations. If the corporations behind these bad moves can be more specifically named then our criticisms would have more impact. If not, perhaps the message should additionally list the organizations that the RIAA represents.

“this video has been removed from Yotify at the will of the RIAA, an organization that (often) represents …”

Think about when Disney got that trademark on Seal Team 6. The negative publicity caused it to repeal its application. When Disney is criticized directly, a response is far more likely. When the RIAA is criticized, the organizations that it represents are less likely to react. It’s sorta a scam designed to distract us from being critical of the underlying organizations behind these unpopular moves and we should be more resistant to this scam.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Something tells me there is more to this story.

Here’s a blog post from the Youtify site itself:
Recently many rights holders (mainly record labels) chose to block Youtify for a large portion of the music videos on YouTube. We were caught by surprise by this action as they had made no attempt to contact us.
http://blog.youtify.com/2011/06/users-can-play-their-favorite-music-in.html

Incidentally: in that blog post, it talks about a new system. If the video you want is blocked, they say so, then the site points you to other, unofficial, videos that are still available on YouTube. So, good job driving people away from your content, labels.

Furthermore, the same thing seems to be happening to TubeRadio. If you try to access some content (I’m looking at Bat For Lashes’ “Glass”), this message pops up:
This video contains content from EMI, who has blocked it from display on this website. Watch on YouTube

Going to Muziik, however, and looking at the same content, will not display that message, and the video is displayed normally. So it does appear to be site-specific.

Do you know for a fact that the labels are the ONLY ones protesting this? Or in your insatiable quest to crank on record labels, are just repeating an unsourced story verbatim?

Since the Youtify author, Youtify blog, and article author all said it was “primarily record labels,” I’d say fair is fair.

If this is merely a different way of accessing the videos on youtube or vevo, the labels are still getting their hits and income.

It used to be that ads were only displayed on YouTube itself, and not on videos embedded on other sites. So, the video uploaders would lose out on ad money in embedded content. But according to this post on the AdSense blog, that was fixed in 2008.

So, you’re right, the labels would still be getting their hits and income. Perhaps they’re trying to force Youtify to pay additional fees. Or perhaps they care more about being gatekeepers than they do about actually making money.

You know who I’d imagine might have a problem with this? Spotify.

Why would they? Sure, it’s competition… but not everyone tries to block legitimate competion. Even if they did have a problem with it, you know what they could do about it? Nothing. I’m pretty sure they’re smart enough to realize that.

Liz says:

Re: Why?

If you have a good agent, and an even better contract lawyer, you can get past the “Work for Hire” boiler plate contracts that are the standard for the big labels in the recording industry. Especially if you have a big enough following and can make a lot of money to have a greater say in negotiations.

While selling plastic disks isn’t really top billing these days, there is still a lot that the big labels can accomplish that smaller indie artists just don’t have. And that’s connections.

A lot of business isn’t what you know, but WHO you know. International concert promotions, larger scale production and distribution, merchandising, and large venue bookings generally require industry types like Warner Music or Sony BMG.

Yes, the members of the RIAA do a lot of horrible things. Both to fans and their contracted artists. But even a large pile of manure can be used to grow something beautiful and sustainable if you know how to use it right.

cc says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Why?

They take the copyrights to the artists’ work and use them to bash the fans over the head with. Any artist who would give up her brain-children for pure monetary benefit deserves all the “horrible things” the members of the RIAA will do to her.

And tell us, expert, how are the RIAA-members’ resources spent on their contracted artists, huh? Do they give everyone an equal chance so each of their artists has an equal opportunity of getting international concert promotions and large venue bookings and such? Or is that determined by a bunch of suits who assign most of the artists to the bottom of the barrel to promote the 1% they believe will make them more money?

If you are an artist who is not playing the most mainstream type of music with the very broadest appeal, you stand little chance of making money off the recordings you sign away and stand little chance of receiving serious promotion in mainstream channels. Furthermore, if you are an artist with even a modicum of love for what you do and a tiny bit of respect for your fanbase, you will avoid the majors like the plague.

An artist’s chances of making it without the labels have never been better. An overwhelming number of artists are already choosing to avoid the RIAA monstrosities and you know as well as I that that’s a good thing for music.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Why?

“I’d like to encourage you to stand still while you repeatedly get kicked in the balls. So what?”

There is a difference between encouraging people to make good choices and encouraging them to make bad choices.

“It’s none of your business.”

I’m making it my business.

As consumers, it is our business.

Giving advice is different than deciding for others. Even if their personal choices maybe none of our business, providing advice to artists in public forums is within the scope of our business. It’s no different than a weather newscaster suggesting that we wear a jacket on the news, what we personally do maybe none of their business, but publicly offering advice to whoever is listening is within the scope of the newscasters business.

“The choices they make are theirs to decide, not yours.”

No one is making their choices for them, just offering suggestions.

“Stop being anti-choice.”

Encouraging people to make better choices is not being anti-choice. You can choose to do illegal drugs, but I encourage you not to. I’m not being anti-choice, am I?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Why?

When you have to lie about things you know absolutely nothing about, you’re just admitting you’ve lost the debate.

But one of many examples:

“In 1985, he was signed to a solo recording contract with Columbia Records. One album, Inside, was released by Columbia in 1986 to good reviews, but limited success.

Sweet was then picked up by A&M Records where he released his second album, Earth (1989), again without commercial success. This period marked a personal and professional low point for Sweet, as A&M lost interest and his marriage failed.

Sweet quickly recovered and formed a new band… the new group spent 1990 assembling Sweet’s next work, originally titled Nothing Lasts.
In 1990, A&M released Sweet from his contract, and he signed with rival Zoo Entertainment. The album, still under construction at the time, was retitled Girlfriend and released in October 1991. This album featured a classic set of pop-rock songs, was considered by many to be an artistic breakthrough, and quickly garnered impressive U.S. sales”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sweet

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Why?

Nobody forces an artist to sign with a label. It’s their choice.

And if they don’t sign with a label, all the money they make won’t be counted by Neilsen SoundScan, and will be counted as “lost profits” to the major labels.

Then, they’ll blame all those “lost profits” on piracy, and piracy alone.

From there, it’s one small step to convince lawmakers that any and all actions taken against “piracy” will be in the best interests of the U.S. economy.

Know who those laws will affect the most? Musicians who don’t sign with major labels. Anti-piracy litigation doesn’t actually make piracy harder; it only makes legitimate competition harder. It primarily effects artists who are trying to become successful without signing to labels.

Essentially, anti-“piracy” laws are really anti-choice laws.

I’m absolutely pro-choice for artists. That’s why I’m against “anti-piracy” laws. If you’re truly pro-choice for artists, then you should be too.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Why?

And if they don’t sign with a label, all the money they make won’t be counted by Neilsen SoundScan, and will be counted as “lost profits” to the major labels.

An unsigned artist doesn’t sell enough albums to make a dent in SoundScan numbers.

So while you probably thought your theory could pass as fact, it doesn’t.

As for the rest of your bullshit, enforcing piracy law has nothing to do with an artist being able to promote themselves on the net.

Epic fail Karl. As usual.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Why?

An unsigned artist doesn’t sell enough albums to make a dent in SoundScan numbers.

[citation needed]

…besides, if this is actually true, it kind of invalidates the whole “choice” argument, doesn’t it? If you really are for freedom of choice for artists, you should try damned hard for unsigned artists to sell more records, so they will have better choices than signing with a label.

That is, if you’re not bringing up “choice” as a red herring…

As for the rest of your bullshit, enforcing piracy law has nothing to do with an artist being able to promote themselves on the net.

Right here, on this thread, another(?) Anonymous Coward claimed that Youtify is “an illegal commercial use of their music.”

Yet there is absolutely nothing illegal about Youtify. It is not infringing, and it is not in violation of YouTube’s TOS. Instead, it is simply competition – and a useful service to both the public, and musicians themselves.

The fact that this thread has turned into talk about piracy, when no piracy was ever involved in the first place, shows you’re wrong. You yourself, by framing this in terms of “piracy,” are just proving my point.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Why?

That’s part of the problem with our monopolistic government. They wrongfully grant a government imposed monopoly on many of the distribution channels that artists could use to distribute their content (ie: broadcasting monopolies and cableco monopolies, not to mention laws that effectively deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers). In order to get ones content distributed through many of these channels, content creators must go through a govt imposed monopolist gatekeeper. Content that has gatekeeper access has a government imposed unlevel playing field. The effect is often that independently controlled or permissibly licensed content doesn’t get broadcasted over these distribution channels. Content made from artists who have handed over their copy protection privileges over to a third party are more likely to get gatekeeper access.

That’s why we need to abolish cableco monopolies. It’s why we need stronger penalties against collection societies that try to collect from or sue restaurants and other venues that want to host independent performers under the pretext that someone might infringe (unfortunately, the laws protecting the rich have steeper penalties). It’s why we need to abolish the FCC, or at least make them act in the public interest. Handing over (or auctioning) exclusive monopoly power over to private corporations is not in the public interest.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Why?

Stop spamming this manure; it doesn’t make any sense. There are no gatekeepers anymore now that there is the internet. An artist can choose to release their material any way they wish.

Your constant need to pretend there are boogeymen making monopolies is delusional. Artists are free to make the choice to sign with companies that will protect their IP. That’s their choice. Stop being anti-choice.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Why?

Oh my god you are like a two-year-old who just learned a new phrase. Anti-choice! Anti-choice! Anti-choice! Anti-choice!

In case you forgot, artists create art for the public. We are their customer. We don’t particularly like when their product is overpriced and locked up in restrictive licenses – when we are prevented from remixing it and playing with it if we so choose – when we are prevented from sharing it freely with our friends – when we know we will not live to see the day that it becomes part of the public domain. We are well within our rights to implore artists to offer us a more desirable product. They don’t have to listen, but we are their customers, so why shouldn’t we tell them what we want?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Why?

“there is still a lot that the big labels can accomplish that smaller indie artists just don’t have. “

Much of the reason for that is artificial in nature and has to do with getting content broadcasted across information distribution channels that are artificially monopolized thanks to the government.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Why?

Especially if you have a big enough following and can make a lot of money to have a greater say in negotiations.

If this is true in the first place then why bother with a label to begin with? So they can get you on television? The radio? And after you get on television and the radio and you don’t see an increase in your fan lists or sales, then what?

That judge from American Idol just released some music recently, he used to be famous, is it #1? On the charts, I mean, he’s on television, so it should be #1, is it?

Josef Anvil (profile) says:

Just wondering

Ok, i was reading this and at the same time my youtube playlist was going in another window and it kinda hit me. Why the f*ck are the labels freaking out about piracy????

I didn’t pay for any of the music on my youtube playlist regardless of whether its on VEVO or not. Don’t the labels get that people don’t really differentiate between file sharing, itunes, youtube, grooveshark or other services? It’s like watching TV or turning on a light for most of us, we turn it on and it works. We don’t care about the distribution method.

We the consumers have figured out how to use the net as our modern ON DEMAND radio. We don’t care about how the labels monetize the music, we’ve been trained that we can listen to it for free while someone else pays the ad revenue or whatever. Calling us thieves because we are doing the things we have done all our lives isn’t going to change our behavior.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Soon

norefferer basically means that if enabled it would not allow the site you linked to to know where you came from (the referring link)

Currently this in most browsers only happens when you link from something like your bookmarks or offline email with a link in it (or similar).

What John was meaning, i assume, was currently if you view an embedded youtube video from say techdirt, youtube knows its from techdirt, where if noreferrer was used your browser would not allow youtube to know where the embedded video was viewed from, or even if it was embedded in the first place.

This can be achieved already, but not easily. Though I do it a fair amount just becasue I don’t like web metrics being created about my viewing habits from any tom dick or harry web site.

Anonymous Coward says:

VEVO's End Game

They’re trying to block specific sites because they don’t want any third party to garner more page views than them. Pre-rolls and inline ads aren’t enough. They want to display adjacent ads next to the content.

“Vevo believes that advertisers will be willing to pay much more to appear next to these videos” – CNET (12/10/2009)

The labels’ previous setup with Brightcove forced sites who embedded to place their ads adjacent to embedded videos. However, advertisers would rather pay more money knowing they’re going to be displayed on a single popular site, instead of several minor ones that nobody has heard about.

When their contract is up with Google, all signs point to them cutting Google out and running VEVO by themselves. Then they can block embedding on every video, set up VEVO as the sole hub of the RIAA, and ultimately sell music there too.

So there’s your answer TAM.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: VEVO's End Game

I have zero problem with them cutting embeds out completely if that’s their business model is, but what they’re doing now is akin to trolling and is severely anti-competitive. You don’t offer someone the ability to embed, but then cherry pick sites to be blocked just because they get a little popular. They also have a habit of sending DMCA takedown notices to sites who embed legally. Who knows, maybe they’ll lie to ICE and get someone’s domain name taken next.

Stories like this look bad for both VEVO and Google. Unfortunately for the sites as well as anyone who is banned from any other walled garden, the companies have no ability to sue for lost development time when the rug is pulled out from under them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: VEVO's End Game

the companies have no ability to sue for lost development time when the rug is pulled out from under them.

oh please, nothing prevented them from checking to see if this would happen.

This has become such a stale meme. When it comes to someone elses content, sites/developers shoot first, ask questions later, and then play the victim when it turns out there might have been some rules to play by first.

And if the AC above you is correct, it’s Google, along with Sony and UMG, jointly, that are losing out on the $$ and had the motive to pull it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: VEVO's End Game

Google is not behind this otherwise the site would be banned from the YouTube API entirely. Google supplies every channel owner with the option to block domain names. That feature is simply being abused by one of the channels, VEVO, which Google coincidentally gives a lot of favoritism to.

A major reasons why they even offer the YouTube API is for acquisitions. If a site using the YouTube API gained significant popularity they could just give them an offer (that they can’t refuse?). Blocking them early on is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not only is it killing the acquisition opportunity, it’s driving people away from using the platform when developers make assumptions like you just did.

I also find it funny that you think Google has an equal advertising stake with the labels. Ha!

Karl Tannerg?rd (user link) says:

Youtify

Hi,
Thanks for all the positive feedback. I just wanted to say that we “fixed” the problem with videos not showing or rather, we created a work-around.

The official videos still won’t play, but we do an alternate search and show you a video that works.

You can find us on facebook, twitter or our blog blog.youtify.com

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Youtify

Doesn’t matter what you agree or don’t disagree with.

I can disagree with the laws that protect both us from violence.

So what?

You can’t disagree with rights that protect me if you want to agree with laws that protect you.

And both laws are designed to protect both of us.

If you don’t want to avail yourself to copyright protection, make your own art and give it away. That’s your choice. My choice is to avail myself to the protections copyright provides. My choice.

Stop being anti-choice.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Youtify

“Doesn’t matter what you agree or don’t disagree with.”

Democracy says we vote on that.

“I can disagree with the laws that protect both us from violence.”

Sure you can.

“So what?”

So we can agree to disagree.

“You can’t disagree with rights that protect me if you want to agree with laws that protect you.”

I can agree with the laws that protect both of us from violence. I don’t agree with the laws that protect either of us from infringement.

“And both laws are designed to protect both of us.”

From different things. For example, I can reasonably disagree with laws that protect you and I from being poor by providing us with a government funded house while still agreeing with laws that protect us both from violence. Sure, I’m denying you the choice of living in a government funded house, but you’re not entitled to a government funded house. Just like you’re not entitled to a government imposed monopoly. You’re not entitled to anything from the government.

“If you don’t want to avail yourself to copyright protection, make your own art and give it away.”

I don’t want these protections to exist.

“That’s your choice.”

and if I choose to copy as I please, that should be my choice. If you don’t like it, it’s your choice not to publicly release any content that you create.

“My choice is to avail myself to the protections copyright provides. My choice.”

and my choice is to copy it if I please. My choice.

“Stop being anti-choice.”

It’s my choice to freely copy what I please. You’re the one that’s being anti-choice and you’re using the government to restrict my choices.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Youtify

Democracy says we vote on that.

Yes, and we already have voted for politicians that have decided to keep copyright law.

and my choice is to copy it if I please. My choice.

So your choice is to break the law.

Fine, then you’ll have to agree to let me break the law.

Now stand still while I put my other boot on.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Youtify

“Yes, and we already have voted for politicians that have decided to keep copyright law.”

and I’m encouraging others to vote for other politicians instead. Why is that such a problem?

“So your choice is to break the law.”

My choice is for the law to change so that people can copy as they please.

“Fine, then you’ll have to agree to let me break the law.”

I haven’t chosen to break the law, I was merely pointing out that just because I disagree with the government providing you with a specific choice doesn’t make me any more ‘anti – choice’ than me disagreeing with the government providing you with the choice of living in a government funded house makes me anti-choice.

will (profile) says:

Struggle with you terms

So I@’m struggling with the youtube t&c’s here. Paragraph 8b:
to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Service and under these Terms.

Which implies by uploading the label are permitting this. Then in paragraph 9 youtube immediately appear to revoke these permissions:
With the exception of Content submitted to the Service by you, all other Content on the Service is either owned by or licensed to YouTube, and is subject to copyright, trade mark rights, and other intellectual property rights of YouTube or YouTube’s licensors. Any third party trade or service marks present on Content not uploaded or posted by you are trade or service marks of their respective owners. Such Content may not be downloaded, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written consent of YouTube or, where applicable, YouTube’s licensors. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to their Content

SD says:

Re: Struggle with you terms

IMO the first paragraph, the presentation of embed codes, and publishing the API satisfy “prior written consent”.

That second paragraph isn’t even present on the U.S. Terms of Service page. Different pages are displayed based on geographical location. Here’s a list of several of them.

Most likely they are warning people in countries outside the U.S. that they reserve the right to ban people caught scraping the content with methods that aren’t allowed.

Steve (profile) says:

Intellectual Property

Companies like Coca Cola know how to successfully secure their “intellectual property.” They keep it secret and lock it up in a vault. Maybe the music companies could try this? Not half way with drm or anything – record new music in secret & lock it up in a vault! Once they have all of their music secured under lock and key they’ll be able to quit suing people and can sleep soundly again! Genius!!

Anonymous Coward says:

You said: “then the Youtify guys went and made an interface to make it easier to access and consume that music… and the labels/Vevo freak out and block them. “

Actually, I think it is more:

My version: “then the Youtify guys went and made an interface that let them add a bunch of advertising and branding that they profit from while helping people consume the music, without paying for any license for the music, and the labels/vevo realized that this was an illegal commercial use of their music and decided to block them”.

The situation only looks out of hand if you choose to look at it in a very odd way. If you consider what they are doing, and consider the licensing charged to other music outlets, you will realize that where they were doing was trying to set up an unlicensed music service.

Youtube videos are not suppose to be the sole source material for other commercial services. They are certainly not intended to be the source material for an internet radio station.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yes, it is out of hand. The site’s owner is here point out that he is trying to work around the official videos to use the specifically unauthorized ones that are posted on youtube. That should tell you everything about their business model and morals.

You can bet they have a short, short life online.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“The site’s owner is here point out that he is trying to work around the official videos to use the specifically unauthorized ones that are posted on youtube.”

Shouldn’t have to work around anything, should be allowed to use them regardless. Copy’right’ law is what’s out of hand.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“95 year copyright law doesn’t affect you one iota.”

Of course it does. It prevents me from copying things. That affects me.

“The stuff you people rip off is usually less than a couple years old.”

Even if true, that doesn’t negate the fact that these copy protection lengths do affect me. Besides, you assume that I don’t abide by the law, but I in fact make an effort to abide by the law, so I am affected by it. I can reasonably follow the law while seeking to change it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

You wouldn’t want to copy anything that is 50 years old. The public domain is brimming with stuff you would never copy. The only stuff you want to copy is hot new movies and music. You are harmed only by your own greed for content and being unwilling to pay for it.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

You wouldn’t want to copy anything that is 50 years old. The public domain is brimming with stuff you would never copy.

I like quite a few things that are 50 years old, thanks. Not that it makes a difference, because 50 year old works are still under copyright.

And the public domain is not “brimming” with anything. There is not a single piece of recorded music that is in the public domain, for example, unless the musicians deliberately placed it there (which is not easy).

It is full of literary works, though. You’re saying that nobody reads Shakespeare?

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re:

then the Youtify guys went and made an interface that let them add a bunch of advertising and branding that they profit from while helping people consume the music, without paying for any license for the music, and the labels/vevo realized that this was an illegal commercial use of their music and decided to block them.

This is a load of B.S.

YouTube’s embedding API is a service that anyone is allowed to use, legally. That is the API they are using. There is absolutely nothing “illegal” about it.

And licenses are being paid for the music. They’re licensed by YouTube, who is the source of all the content. Youtify is not infringing in any way, shape, or form.

Music Lover says:

I used to buy a lot....

of CD’s. Seriously 10 or so pretty much every week. Albums, “singles” whatever.

Then the price started creeping up, more and more.

I stopped. I stopped because of price and value.
Now at $0.99 an “album” costs around $12 .
Maybe that is reasonable, maybe not. If I was sure that MOST of that $12 was going to the artists I might not mind too much.

But the labels and RIAA are such disgusting entities that are doing exactly the WRONG thing – I do not want 10 cents going to them.

So I buy far less. I do not download free songs but I do not buy either.

The RIAA and industry labels have shot themselves in both feet and the head.

aikiwolfie (profile) says:

We Don't Need Big Record Labels!

I wish bands would realise we just don’t need major record labels any more. Any musician can put together a decent original track and post it on YouTube or wherever. The record industry is 100% redundant.

Some acts might argue their record labels work for them. But what is it exactly the record label is doing? Organising dancers and festival appearances? Sponsoring festivals and concerts? There are other ways to get this stuff done. Their are agencies out there who make it there business to organise all sorts of events. And they don’t steal your copyrights.

Michael says:

Who cares.

It has become pretty obvious that the best thing for consumers AND artists would be for the industry to fail utterly. Anything I can do to push that along I would consider a favor to artists and consumers everywhere. They can ramble on all they like about how piracy etc is killing them… I only wish they were telling the truth about how bad it is, maybe they would be driven out of business sooner.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Who cares.

Post the list of recording artists that support piracy.

You know what I find interesting about this response?

The fact that the original poster was not talking about piracy at all. Nor was I.

But since you insist, here are a few quotes:

[The internet] was one of the main things for me as it will spread whatever you have going on. I could put a song on there tonight and you could be in Croatia and the song will be there in ten minutes. . . [Piracy] is promotion for any artist. I love it.
– Paul Wall

I think I can look at the situation and say I can?t blame the fucking kids. I have to blame the industry for looking at a wall full of writing for many, many years and just going, ‘Meh! The government will work it out.’ You know what, they don?t do that anymore.
– Robby Takac (Goo Goo Dolls)

I?m sure record label executives don?t like filesharing because it doesn?t sell the one thing that makes them money, the recordings. But from a band?s perspective I think filesharing is fine.
– Tim Nordwind (OK Go)

There?s always been piracy. I made tapes when I was younger, and we?re all probably guilty of it. But kids are used to growing up not feeling guilty about it. They don?t see the connection between the music and the person that creates it. Sometimes you come out of a show and you meet fans and they say, ?Oh my god, I love you, I?ve downloaded all your music!? And you know they didn?t download and pay for it. [laughs] And they haven?t made the connection about why you wouldn?t be happy about that. And in some ways I?m not unhappy because otherwise, they wouldn?t have come to the shows. It all evens out in the end, I think.
– Imogen Heap

I don?t mind it, doesn?t bother me. I like people to support the label, but as a musician, when I write a song I want it to be heard. So if you ask me would I rather have 200 people listening to that song or $200, I would take the 200 people. I don?t think it?s nearly as dire as the major labels do. The uproar over file-sharing, it really wasn?t damaging the major labels as much as they?re saying. They?re just predicting that if they don?t say something now it?s gonna get them later on. I say good riddance. If Dischord has to go as part of it, if it means destroying major labels, then I?m fine with that.
The creation of the record created a consumable. At that point, for the first time, really in the history of music, there was something to sell. I understand you could sell sheet music, you could sell piano rolls, but the idea of owning music as a consumable item had not really happened before. The record labels have had over a hundred years of a monopoly on selling music and they?ve twisted and perverted music to their ends because they want to make money. They?ve had a good run, and if they lose out, tough shit.
– Ian MacKaye (Fugazi, Minor Threat)

It?s another part of how technology is changing the way things are done. Most of our fans will usually get our stuff anyway, because they like the artwork, but it?s just something else that you have to contend with. Record sales will probably drop if people have the option to get things for free. I mean, everybody downloads things, if they can get them, more copies of albums from their friends, you know? It?s just what you do. I did it when I was young, I copied tapes. So I don?t expect anyone to not do that now, when it?s such an easy option ? why not do it, you know?
At the same time like I was saying though, the cost of making an album has gone down, because of technology. So even if you?re selling less records, if it costs you less money to make an album, it can kind of even out, I think. People have the ability to try something out before they buy it. That was something that you didn?t have. Nowadays you can go to a website if you hear about a band, and listen to a free download or whatever, and make a decision on if it?s something you want to buy.
It hasn?t been the negative effect that people think it is. We do better business now, not sales-wise, but for tours and stuff. Everything has been better over the last 3-4 years, which is when the whole downloading thing took off. So it hasn?t hurt us.
– Cannibal Corpse

I?m not worried about the music, maybe the industry itself. As much as the infrastructure of the industry has helped bands, it has hurt a lot of bands too so maybe the industry collapsing isn?t such a bad thing. Its bad that people at record labels have lost their jobs because there isn?t as much money floating around in the industry. On the other hand, its really bought the music onto a level playing field. Bands that didn?t have that marketing money can have a MySpace page and have the potential access to the same number of people that a Madonna or a Metallica would have. Everyone talks about how everyone is losing their jobs in the industry. But what no one talks about is the number of band that have been fucked over by labels. Majors and Indies ? indies aren?t above fucking over their bands. So if someone lost their job at a label, I?m sorry to hear it but for every one person who lost their job at a label, there?s about 10 bands who got fucked over.
– Danko Jones

And I go: ‘Wait a second, you’ve been stealing from the artists for years. Now you want me to stand up for you?’… I was telling kids download it illegally, I don’t care. I want you to hear my music so I can play live. I don’t agree with it. I think we should level the playing field.
– Kid Rock

It?s not just something that?s specific to a region anymore. It?s global. It?s global word-of-mouth. People can share ideas, share music files and stuff, and I think it?s good. It?s good for music because you don?t have to scratch far below the surface to find interesting music that doesn?t have the machinery of a big record label behind it.
– Great Lake Swimmers

And, of course, there’s my favorite (and most apropos) quote:

The record companies have eaten themselves, basically dissolved and are trying really hard to figure out how to resurrect a dying paradigm. And it?s right in front of them. This is one of the ways. Everything from car commercials to YouTube and an aborted Napster that should have been snapped up by the record companies a long time ago. It was obvious that the fans wanted it and they didn?t mind paying for it but the record companies just turned a blind eye to it and basically destroyed an industry…
– Joe Perry

That sums it up perfectly.

More to the point, what the OP and I were actually talking about is summed up pretty succinctly by Steve Albini, Courtney Love, Michelle Shocked, Too Much Joy, or Janice Ian.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Who cares.

Wonder if our friendly AC will bother showing up to respond.

Oh, of course he will. He’s even more pathological than I am.

I’ve actually turned it into a drinking game. Drink every time he claims “piracy” when nobody else mentions it. Bend an elbow when he calls people “freetards.” Raise a glass when he claims “your days of internet piracy are over.” Take a shot when he says “Post it right here:”.

At this rate, I’m going to be forced into rehab by week’s end.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Pretending that the major labels are doomed is hilarious. If that was going to happen it would have had to happen by now. It didn’t.

The first stage of grief is denial and you people are in denial.

Your “golden age of piracy” is over. The wild west didn’t stay wild forever either, once the sheriff showed up.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:

“The first stage of grief is denial and you people are in denial.”

That’s quite ironic given that the labels appear to be in complete denial of what’s happening in the real world, and are struggling mightily to keep things the way they used to be, but will never be again thanks to what technology allows.

“Your “golden age of piracy” is over.”

No, the “golden age” of labels is over, and “piracy” is a symptom of that. They’ll always have a place in the music business, but they’ll never again be strong as they were because many of the services they offer can can be had in other ways, ways that are cheaper and don’t cede so much control.

From your tone it’s clear you have a vested interest in the labels’ success, so your anger and bitterness is somewhat understandable. But it would be nice to see some mature, civilized discussion from you and your ilk rather than insults and name-calling. Not holding my breath though…

Di Fiasco (profile) says:

I predict that in twenty years, we shall only listen to music in authorized ‘listening booths’ where each listening is billed to an account or upon insertion of money. Playback will only begin once the booth has established that you are the only person in the booth (via thermal imaging scan) and that the soundproof door is securely closed (to prevent unauthorized listeners who might be standing outside the door from ‘stealing.’

The notion of owning and listening to a radio will become a privilege of the wealthy who will be billed automatically for every song decoded on each instance of playback. For the rest of us, oversized noise-cancelling(preventing noise from leaking out, that is) headphones will be the norm where music on the go is accomplished via encrypted 5g connection and the popular music of the day are 1950’s singles because they are short, old and cheap. Prepare for our brave new world! -where the rich and famous wander music-filled hallways while the rest of us walk around dressed as ‘Cybermen’ spending our pennies a couple hours a day to rock out with The Everly Brothers.

AG Wright (profile) says:

Band that made it with free

Maybe someone noticed it and I didn’t notice on this thread but there was one band that totally and always was willing to have their fans share their music. You could lug any recorder into their concerts that you wanted and lug was what you did in those days.
Who?
The Grateful Dead
You can download hours and hours of their music free at http://www.archive.org/index.php and those that are still alive don’t care and never did.
Free can work. It has always been something that was an option and could be built into the music business but the labels didn’t like it.

AG

Leave a Reply to JMT Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

How Important Is It To Preserve Our Digital Heritage?
Gwiz's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...