Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Universal Music Takes Down Fun Mashup Of Taylor Swift's 'Shake It Off' And 1989 Aerobics Video
from the because-universal-music-sucks dept
Last year, when Daft Punk released it’s super popular single “Get Lucky” the first time I actually heard it was when someone I know linked to a fantastic video of the song put over a danceline from Soul Train. It’s pretty amazing how well it works. You can see it here.
As you may have heard, Taylor Swift recently came out with a new album, “1989,” and she’s at war with Spotify over it and making some statements about streaming royalties and such (which we’ve mostly been avoiding covering because this fight has gone on long enough already and it’s silly and mostly misleading).
However, in the last day or so, someone tried to do the equivalent of the Soul Train/Get Lucky video above with Swift’s song “Shake it Off.” They matched the song to an aerobics competition video from (amusingly) 1989 — and it worked quite well. It got lots of attention with the Huffington Post and Slate and others writing about it. So, I went to check out the video and got this instead:
It makes you wonder what’s the point here? Yes, legally, Universal/Taylor Swift may have the legal right to pull the video down (though, some could make a reasonable fair use argument), but it seems pretty futile. Here are people having fun with her music, doing something of their own free will to get it more attention (I hadn’t heard the song at all before this), and then it gets pulled down, because copyright.
In many ways, this is the antithesis of how music worked for ages. Music was always about people sharing and building on the works of others. Someone would create a song, and others would take it, resing it, adapt it, change it, mix it up with other things. That’s how culture works. But not so much in an era with strict copyright laws and automated takedown systems. What a shame.
Filed Under: copyright, culture, mashups, shake it off, taylor swift, youtube
Companies: google, universal music, youtube
Comments on “Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Universal Music Takes Down Fun Mashup Of Taylor Swift's 'Shake It Off' And 1989 Aerobics Video”
I haven’t lost anything with this. Don’t believe I’ve ever heard one of her songs.
Still let me make a point here. Without hearing something I build no attachment to any song. I don’t have to buy nor hear this music. Without hearing it, there is no connection and therefore no idea of going out to purchase something unknown. At today’s prices for music, going the authorized route, it’s just not worth taking the chance given how much filler in the past has been used to make an album enough to package as one. I’ve been burned enough times buying an album for that one song that I don’t do that any more. I’m sure not going to spend for something I don’t know about and haven’t heard.
It might have been possible I would have heard this through the parody though no chance of that happening now. So Taylor and crowd can keep their songs and I’ll keep my money and we will both be happy.
Two of the three ‘other’ examples have already been taken down. But I’m sure there are hundreds of others by now.
*whack-a-mole*
Even better, Swift herself tweeted a link to the HuffPo article on the mashup, seemingly approvingly:
https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/530609016531996672
Re: Re:
Maybe UMG can sue her for copyright infringement since she admitted as much.
Re: Re: Re:
Right, just like that happened with EMI and Lily Allen.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But just as we’ve seen with the Wall Street banking scandal, the rules never seem to apply to those at the top of the food chain, no matter how egregious their crimes. (it’s the people at the bottom that get the Book of Law thrown at them)
Just imagine Taylor Swift being swatted in the middle of the night, slammed face-first into the ground by a hoard of screaming gunslingers, and hauled off to jail in handcuffs for the ‘crime’ of infringing copyright by tweeting a song. It’s a sight many of us would love to see, but will never witness, because only the peasants and peons of society (that’s us) get treated that way.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I think I might even PAY to see that happen 😀
And why not? If it’s considered copyright infringement to film your baby dancing while a radio plays in the distant background, then using a digital copy of a recording certainly qualifies.
We should just be thankful that its not a felony criminal offense (yet) to whip out a cell phone and record a few seconds of a concert.
Re: Re:
Except that case was ruled fair use.
Re: Re: Re:
How a case might ultimately get decided in court makes little difference to the average person, since few can afford the cost of going up against a deep-pocketed litigant in a system that’s heavily weighted against the side with less money to burn.
That’s why most people choose to “settle” with copyright trolls like Prenda and pay a couple thousand dollars to these criminal extortionists, since fighting them in court will cost people far more, with nothing to gain if they ultimately win and expose the fraud.
Prenda may have technically “lost” in court, but regardless, those criminals are laughing all the way to the bank, and Prenda’s victims who were robbed of millions of dollars will likely never see a single penny of it returned.
This is the basic problem with copyright law, it’s inherently unfair because those who scream “infringement!” automatically hold the upper hand, and that’s without even factoring in the inequality of the court system itself.
Hadn't heard the song?!
Oh, blessed are thee without tween daughters.
Other mashups I have seen taken down include one of figure skater Nicole Bobeck from a 1995 figure skating event, where someone replaced the music she was skating to with “SOS” by Rihanna, which, frankly, fit the routine better than the stuffy old classical music she orignally skated to when performing that routine back in 1995.
I respect her talent, drive and business acumen. But when it comes to technology, Taylor Swift is an absolute idiot.
Re: Re:
The vast majority of recording industry “stars” — especially the younger ones — are just the visible front of a team of marketing experts who make all the decisions about literally everything. And not just clothing, hair, and makeup, but how they walk, how they talk, and everything else about them.
It’s really no different from an actress playing a character in a movie or play, but in this case the stage is infinitely larger and –just like professional “wrestling”– the scriptwriters, choreographers, and other backstage staff are never listed in the credits.
Re: Re:
Going by her recent move to take all her music off Spotify, I agree. What did she have to gain from that move?
Re: Re: Re:
A shit-ton of sales?
At any rate, she took it down because they refused to leave them up only on the paid version, and not remove them from the free version. All the other streaming sites were fine with that so they’re still up on those.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, the old “if a cheaper alternative doesn’t exist everyone must buy the costlier one” argument.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“A shit-ton of sales?”
Unlikely. That assumes at least the following:
– The people listening would simply buy the full album if a legal streaming option is not available.
– The people who were listening to Spotify don’t just go to a competitor, listen via YouTube or, of course, just pirate instead.
– The people listening on Spotify had not already bought the album (I know I quite often listen to albums I’ve already bought on Spotify for the convenience factor – listening to something on Spotify does not mean you’re in the market to purchase the album)
– The people listening weren’t simply using it as a preview to see how many tracks were filler before they bought the album (buying only the tracks they actually think are worth it) – and are more likely to buy less tracks now (the ones they’ve heard) rather than blind buy some inevitable filler crap.
– The people listening only want to listen to “Taylor Swift” and not just “whatever’s in the charts now”. There’s still plenty to listen to if you’re not specifically looking for this album.
That’s a lot of assumptions, and most of them are false.
“At any rate, she took it down because they refused to leave them up only on the paid version, and not remove them from the free version. All the other streaming sites were fine with that so they’re still up on those.”
Another supplier trying to dictate the business of a distributor, then. She’s free to do what she wants, just don’t whine too much when lower access to free plays doesn’t magically result in huge numbers of additional sales.
Re: Re: Re:
I’d say 1.287 million first week sales. I applaud the move. If they aren’t going to pay realistic royalty rates, other artist will follow.
“I’m not wiling to contribute my life’s work to an experiment that I don’t feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music,” Swift told Yahoo! this week. “And I just don’t agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free.”
A fraction of a cent per play is not sustainable and does not compensate the artist. Saying they (Spotify) pay most of their money to artist while refusing to generate more income(ads, just like terrestrial radio) on a free service is misleading at best. It also highlights the flaw in the business model.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A fraction of a cent a play to the artist, over millions of plays, is a good income for the work of making a recording. While they may have, including practice time, spent a month or two on a record, that should not entitle them to an income for life.
The big problem for many artists is that they have a contract with a label, which results in the label keeping most of the income. On the other they have often been paid enough in advances to make the record, so any extra income from it is a bonus.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
On the other they have often been paid enough in advances to make the record, so any extra income from it is a bonus.
Advances aren’t so much early payments for the music, so much as loans with atrocious terms attached to them. They have to pay it all back, and with how the labels tend to work, by the time they do(if they do), the label has generally made back their ‘investment’ several times over.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A fraction of a cent per play is not sustainable and does not compensate the artist.
Correction: It does not compensate the artist/label to the amount that they wish it would. They’re always free to just not have their music available on streaming services, and enjoy the nothing per play that gives them.
As for why those payouts to the artist might be so low, you’d be better off looking at the labels, who tend to take the majority of any profits, with only a trickle actually making it to the artist themselves, thanks to one of the labels’ favorite scams ‘Sale or license?’, where they define it based upon what will make them the most money at that moment.
Saying they (Spotify) pay most of their money to artist while refusing to generate more income(ads, just like terrestrial radio) on a free service is misleading at best. It also highlights the flaw in the business model.
Yeah, ‘generating income’ is not nearly that simple. It’s not a simple matter of ‘Do X and watch the profits rise’.
I don’t use the service myself(I have no interest in the crap put out by the major labels, and I can more easily get my music elsewhere), but as I understand it the ‘free’ version of the services does have ads. If you want to get rid of them, you pay for a ‘premium’ account, for something like $10 a month or so.
And if you want to talk about flaws in Spotify’s business model, this might make for a good read:
‘The problem with the business model for streaming is that most artists still have contracts from the analog age, when record companies did all the heavy lifting of physical production and distribution, so only paid artists 8%-15% royalties on average.
Those rates, carried over to the digital age, explain why artists are getting such paltry sums from Spotify. If the rates were really so bad, the rights holders – the major record companies – would be complaining. The fact that they’re continuing to sign up means they must be making good money.
That’s not the fault of Spotify, but the labels.
Source:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131107/16343725173/billy-bragg-says-dont-blame-spotify-blame-record-labels.shtml
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“I don’t use the service myself(I have no interest in the crap put out by the major labels, and I can more easily get my music elsewhere), but as I understand it the ‘free’ version of the services does have ads. If you want to get rid of them, you pay for a ‘premium’ account, for something like $10 a month or so.”
Yes, this is correct. There used to be 3 tiers, but now I think it’s free with ads or a monthly payment to remove them and gain access to some premium features (I’m not sure, as I’ve always been a premium subscriber so haven’t kept an eye on the changes).
Perhaps he’s whining that Spotify refuse to “generate” more revenue by forcing ads on to paying customers as well? If so, he’s pretty dumb and short-sighted – no wonder he’s carrying water for the major labels.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
@ LAB, you appear to be under the delusion that the royalties paid go straight to Taylor Swift. They don’t. She’s at the back of a queue of those who get them first, and she’s probably not the rightsholder, anyway.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A fraction of a cent per play is not sustainable and does not compensate the artist.
Here’s some back of the napkin calculations I came up with:
– Price of 1 CD = $15.00
– 12 songs on a CD = $1.25 per song
– Average lifespan of a CD = 10 years
(I cannot find any real good data on CD listening habits, so I am guesstimating here)
– Average weekly plays of a song on CD – let’s go with 1 to be conservative
– 1 play x 52 weeks x 10 years = 520 plays
– $1.25/150 plays = 0.0024 per play
Now add in the fact that streaming revenues can conceivably last from now until forever and where does that put the figures?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Oops. That last line should read:
– $1.25/520 plays = $0.0024 per play
Re: Re: Re:
Taylor Swift’s move to take all her music off of spotify (which pays artist’s almost nothing) forced people to go buy her album, 1989, which likely contribute to why it has vastly out-sold her peers.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed.
Re: Re:
On her talent and drive I agree. But I think the business and tech side of things are areas where she’s probably quite average, not particularly talented or idiotic. Both will very much be being driven by her label, and her pronouncements about “value of music” sound very stage managed. I’m sure she believes the advice they’re giving her, but it’ll be advice that benefits them, not necessarily her.
Doesn’t YouTube pay licensing fees to the record labels so users CAN use music in their videos? What exactly is UMG’s standing here?
Just bought Get Lucky on iTunes. That’s a nice song. Never knew what Daft Punk was all about.
Re: Re:
Yep, they’re bit too heavy on the Vocoders. Tron 2 soundtrack was fitting though.
Is the name Universal seem more and more like an oxymoron to anyone else , or is it just me (cough cough comcast cough cough).
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but my understanding is that Ms. Swift has her own recording label, which likely means that any copyright to the songs on her new album would be in either its or her name. How UMG comes into play is not clear given the paucity of facts presented here.
Re: Re:
She’s a robot.
Re: Re:
That label’s output is distributed by Universal
“Here are people having fun with her music, doing something of their own free will to get it more attention.”
Seems to me it would be much more accurate if it read as follows:
Here are people having fun with her music, doing something of their own free will to get themselves the public attention they crave.
Re: Re:
oh shut up, urine idjit…
99.99% of the time NO ONE but friends and family know who is behind such clever remixes, NOBODY…
NO, it is ALL about the sharing, and the point obtains: stupid artistes should be THRILLED their art gets mixed and mashed and popularized through another avenue…
“Artists” and labels may have written, recorded, and published music and even hold the rights to it but once the music is released and people like it, the fans owns the music. The music becomes theirs. Theirs to sing along with, to dance to, to memorize misheard lyrics, to misinterpret meanings and apply them to their own lives and situations. Theirs to dub over, play/sing in other keys and time signatures, mashup, mutilate, and cover. That’s the beauty of music. It touches everyone differently and personally.
These concepts are not new. Once something is published, it’s public and the public will do what it always has done…be inspired by the works of others.
Until the “artists” and labels get it, their industry will continue to suffer declines.
I’m not a fan of Swift or pop music in general but if Universal is supposed to be promoting her album, she should sue them because they killed off a smart and free promotional tool that was generating most interest and talk than was being generated without it.
Isn't she paid anyway?
Swift is making money every time that song streams on YouTube, right? If they have the technology to recognize that its her song but not the official video, what is so hard about adding all the mash-up plays to her account so she gets paid? Then everybody wins. The fans can use the music, and Taylor’s $50 billion empire makes $85 more dollars on fan use of the song.
Re: Isn't she paid anyway?
Same reason as ever – it’s not really about the money, it’s about control.
Re: Isn't she paid anyway?
You’re ascribing far more intelligence to the MafiAA than they’re capable of producing. Besides, most of the takedowns are done by bots, not human eyes and ears. They call this unavoidable collateral damage. Check out the numbers of takedowns Google has to deal with. There’s not enough helldesk workers in the universe to keep up, which ought to scream to them how popular their actions are!
I’m amazed anyone buys anything from these idiots. How much abuse can anyone stand?
Re: Re: Isn't she paid anyway?
“I’m amazed anyone buys anything from these idiots. How much abuse can anyone stand?”
Let’s keep in mind that the bulk of Taylor Swift’s fans are 11-13 year old girls, a demographic that’s probably not aware of either intellectual property issues or of the long history of gross misdeeds perpetrated by the recording industry.
It’s ironic that the recording industry’s very first (in 2003)lawsuit victim, 12 year-old Brianna LaHara, would have fit in perfectly among Taylor Swift fans today.
“we’ve avoided covering it because of the horrendous beatdown and mocking our silly and misleading propaganda would undoubtedly experience.”
FTFY
Re: Re:
The term “fixed” is rather subjective.
Re: Re:
Coming as it is from someone I’m guessing is on the label’s side, I gotta say, that ‘fix’ of yours is all sorts of funny. Nobody does laughable and mock-able propaganda like the *AA’s.
Re: Re:
The censors at Techdirt strike again!
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not sure why, but I, and I’m sure lots of others, will look to see what it is that has gotten reported. Very, very rarely is it ever worth while though.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Facts are always reported/censored here at Techdirt. You see, reality has no business trying to compete with propaganda!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No no, you’re thinking of the maximalist blogs and whatnot, you know, those places that either don’t allow any commenting, or remove completely any comments that don’t agree with the articles being presented, no matter how backed by evidence, or polite they are. You want pure propaganda, those are your go-to sources.
TD on the other hand does allow comments, by anyone, even if their stance on something is directly opposite of the writer of a given article, it’s just if you act like a child by throwing around insults and name-calling and similar actions, well, don’t be surprised if you get sent to time-out and your comment reported.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.
Now if this comment is “censored”, he’ll have to take it as gospel truth.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I always click to read the flagged comments.
And in all but 3 cases, I wish I hadn’t.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I used to click on them, but I’ve learned that if the non-hidden responses suggest that the hidden one is full of shit, it usually is. Despite their paranoid whining, I rarely see a comment that’s hidden that doesn’t deserve to be, and even the most reported comment isn’t censored.
Re: Re:
It’s funny how often AC’s claim Techdirt is “mocked” and “beat down” by people who supposedly know much better, but I recall seeing very little evidence of such treatment apart from a few extreme types with little exposure or influence. I know they want to think Techdirt is viewed this way but it sounds more like wishful thinking…
Re: Re: Re:
It’s the congregation of average_joe’s laptops again.
The futile "losses" argument
While there may be some people who do not buy a record (or download) of a certain song or piece of music because they found it “free” online, still many more will listen to it that had never before listened to it and NEVER would have listened to it on a pay-to-play basis. The argument is simply erroneous. A hundred thousand downloads never means that, had the “track” not been online, that a hundred thousand “fans” would instead have paid for it. Maybe ten more, maybe a hundred more, maybe a thousand in rare cases. But the equation is clearly wrong. Like with illegal software copies: these college kids will never shell out 11,000 dollars for a full AutoCAD version – they just would not use it at all. Chances are though that if they did download it as illegal torrent, eventually after graduation they might get their employer to buy it. ad their employer saves a lot on retraining that employee. While I am not advocating breaking the copyright this whining about revenue that would never have materialized in the first place gets on may nerves!
The way things are going, Taylor Swift may be on her way to becoming the next Chaim Witz (AKA Gene Simmons) regarding his advice about how to treat fans:
http://www.cnet.com/news/hackers-show-gene-simmons-where-he-can-kiss-it/
AKB48 version
Call me when the AKB48 version of her song comes out. Better yet, drop me an email when she gets canned by her label and starts working as an AV artist.
seeing how i dont care for her music in the first place, i must say UMG, way to go about making damn sure i continue to not hear her music going forward.
but uh… that get lucky song… i was kinda diggin that & i think im gonna go check some more
The point is that it's all about control
It makes you wonder what’s the point here?
I assume this is a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer it anyway: the point is that the video was someone else’s idea and it wasn’t authorized by the owner, so it’s “illegal”.
And like another poster said, the person who created the video is now getting the attention, rather than Swift, her label, or another person involved in the official creation process. Plus, the label can’t have some random YouTube user creating videos for nothing when they’re spending millions on music videos, promotion, and marketing.
Insecurity
UMG thought the video was way cooler than their own. Not happy being one-upped, so they just had to take it down.
Fix the link
“This video contains content from UMG”? Could you please check again and replace the broken video?I love your article and hope to receive the feedback soon!
Online Guitar Lab