The whole music industry was probably designed to rip off the artists in the first place. The sooner it dies the better.
On a slightly bigger scale, that's what Nine Inch Nails are doing.
Their last 2 albums were self produced, put out in various file formats for free under the Creative Commons License. Then physically released on CD and vinyl.
Apparently he's made a big profit from doing it that way. I think one of them was in Amazon's top selling albums for last year.
This is the way forward, not labels, liars - sorry, lawyers - and big headed twats who know nothing about music.
Anyways, this youtube malarkey, is it just videos from certain bands/labels or is it a blanket ban covering every official big label music vid?
what i gathered it was a blanket ban?
they still fail to realise that single songs/videos help people find out about bands people have never heard?
ie:- i post a song by say the oldham tinkers and somebodys not heard of them before, they click, like it, and buy stuff
instead...they treat fans like scum, and continue to rip em off
Professional Mel-the-Bell Simulator................"So realistic, I found myself reaching for the Kleenex King-Size!" - Richard Darling
Anyways, this youtube malarkey, is it just videos from certain bands/labels or is it a blanket ban covering every official big label music vid?
Wouldn't bother me if it was most of the best music vids on there are indy stuff and small scale label stuff trying to better themselves, and just get themselves out there.
Which is fair play,as they know what they want and they can put it out there, with no A&R types trying to tell them what to sing, what to play what to wear.
Blah blah blah, I'm stopping now, because I can feel my blood starting to angry up :D
Anyways, this youtube malarkey, is it just videos from certain bands/labels or is it a blanket ban covering every official big label music vid?
If it's the PRS they're at war against, then presumably it'll apply to everyone - including independents. Signing up with the PRS is pretty much the default first step for anyone setting out to be a professional musician - it's not like getting signed to a label - so anyone from a pub band upwards is likely to be covered by them.
The PRS is the organisation you need to get a licence off if you're playing commercial music on your radio station, or in your supermarket, or cover versions at the open mic night in your pub - so extrapolating from that, I have a sneaking suspicion (don't quote me on this) that it'll also apply to Youtube videos that borrow commercial music as their soundtrack (think YSRnRY). If so, that's got to be a massive percentage of all Youtube content - in which case this is going to be an interesting ride indeed.
Looking at the PRS tariffs, anything which isn't personal use within your own home is chargeable, so even wedding videos are affected (first dances, soundtracks, etc). They're pushing it, basically, and they know it.
Laughably, if you had a wedding video with a Louis Armstrong soundtrack, and you wanted to put it up on YouTube fully licenced, the PRS would like you to pay them a minimum of ?200 per year.
It's stuff like this that makes you realise that something has to give soon.
Laughably, if you had a wedding video with a Louis Armstrong soundtrack, and you wanted to put it up on YouTube fully licenced, the PRS would like you to pay them a minimum of ?200 per year.
It's stuff like this that makes you realise that something has to give soon.
Maybe not - I think I've now found the right package, which would be ?54+VAT, which presumably would give you a licence to use whatever the hell you wanted.
Apparently Pete Waterman only got ?11 from the PRS for the RickRoll video "Never Gonna Give You Up" on YouTube - and that's been viewed millions of times!
Apparently Pete Waterman only got ?11 from the PRS for the RickRoll video "Never Gonna Give You Up" on YouTube - and that's been viewed millions of times!
It's like the petrol stations here(USA) ... they are allowed to charge you an extra 90/100 of a cent ... I want my change, please.
Look for several music videos on youtube you knew used to be there, and I bet 2/3rds of them are gone. Several Music vids I used to occasionally look at are no more.
80's tunes seem to have suffered, as do early 90's tunes.
Annoyingly the recent live performances from some artists via mobile phones and such seem to remain, even though there's no point in watching them as all you hear are screams and distortion.
Apparently Pete Waterman only got ?11 from the PRS for the RickRoll video "Never Gonna Give You Up" on YouTube - and that's been viewed millions of times!
Probably ?11 because the PRS are so tight, I ber the PRS made much more than ?11 from the RickRoll video.
Probably £11 because the PRS are so tight, I ber the PRS made much more than £11 from the RickRoll video.
My thoughts precisely.
Edit: Well, maybe not precisely. I suspect that the PRS isn't divvying up the money such that everyone gets their share, rather than everyone getting a portion.
Look for several music videos on youtube you knew used to be there, and I bet 2/3rds of them are gone. Several Music vids I used to occasionally look at are no more.
I've only noticed that Royksopp's Remind Me is denied for us. Although you can still watch the normal video with a remix instead :???:
Oh, no. Every time you turn up something monumental and terrible happens.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
Google Video is now going through the same thing - the 1989 chapter is currently down. Instead of rolling over as I did with YouTube, I'm disputing this (arguing fair use together with limited appeal) as I'm curious as to whether or not that will work. If I win, I'll re-upload the files to YouTube and stand my ground, if I lose then it doesn't matter as I'll go back to small-fry status by just offering downloads via my site.
I won't be buying any albums from artists affiliated with money grabbing corporate dickheads. Especially when the artists can sometimes gain only pennies, companies or firms to use a better word like the PRS have no place in the 21st century.
They are the rats, raptors and barbarians of an industry that no longer needs them.
Google Video is now going through the same thing - the 1989 chapter is currently down. Instead of rolling over as I did with YouTube, I'm disputing this (arguing fair use together with limited appeal) as I'm curious as to whether or not that will work. If I win, I'll re-upload the files to YouTube and stand my ground, if I lose then it doesn't matter as I'll go back to small-fry status by just offering downloads via my site.
Don't worry too much, I think your complaint will be upheld. Hell, if mine was, yours should be too!
Quick update: 1989 now out of the sin bin as its case is being heard. 1987 now in the sin bin. The others are untouched, but it's just a matter of time.
I'm having to dispute another video of mine for containing "Ride of the Valkyries" - a piece not only using for parody under fair use, but also AFAIK out of copyright!
I'm having to dispute another video of mine for containing "Ride of the Valkyries" - a piece not only using for parody under fair use, but also AFAIK out of copyright!
The joys of automated searches!
I'm just wondering when (if?) I'll hear from Google if I get the all-clear for the two disputed videos of mine. They were back online a few days after my appeal was submitted, but I thought that there's meant to be a "final decision" after that point? This has been going on for three weeks now.
I'm just wondering when (if?) I'll hear from Google if I get the all-clear for the two disputed videos of mine. They were back online a few days after my appeal was submitted, but I thought that there's meant to be a "final decision" after that point? This has been going on for three weeks now.
I can't say for Google video, but with my resolved disputes on YT, you can see if it is final on the video page of your profile (not the page everyone else sees, your own account area). A button appears with the disputed video saying "Dispute Successful".
I can't say for Google video, but with my resolved disputes on YT, you can see if it is final on the video page of your profile (not the page everyone else sees, your own account area). A button appears with the disputed video saying "Dispute Successful".
Hmmm... I'm tempted to put the videos back up on YT to see what would happen - there's no mention of any disputes in my Google Video account pages.
I'm having to dispute another video of mine for containing "Ride of the Valkyries" - a piece not only using for parody under fair use, but also AFAIK out of copyright!
The composition is out of copyright. The recording probably isn't. On the other hand, the chances that Youtube's internal processes are able to reliably identify a specific recording of RotV are really quite minimal...
Sure we mentioned it before but i was always stunned when the Speccy version of Mikie featured 'a hard days night' by the Beatles ? (Sure that was the tune). There wouldnt have been any official permission asked there would there ?
Sure we mentioned it before but i was always stunned when the Speccy version of Mikie featured 'a hard days night' by the Beatles ? (Sure that was the tune). There wouldnt have been any official permission asked there would there ?
It was a different era. Football Manager used real footballers and team names and I'm pretty sure Kevin Toms didn't pay a licence fee.
The composition is out of copyright. The recording probably isn't. On the other hand, the chances that Youtube's internal processes are able to reliably identify a specific recording of RotV are really quite minimal...
My understanding is that you can't claim copyright for a piece of work that's out of copyright just on the basis of the recording of the performance.
Sure we mentioned it before but i was always stunned when the Speccy version of Mikie featured 'a hard days night' by the Beatles ? (Sure that was the tune). There wouldnt have been any official permission asked there would there ?
There wasn't any copyright problems using this Beatles tune - I assume that was all done and dusted when Konami produced the arcade game. Or just maybe nobody noticed!
Comments
they still fail to realise that single songs/videos help people find out about bands people have never heard?
ie:- i post a song by say the oldham tinkers and somebodys not heard of them before, they click, like it, and buy stuff
instead...they treat fans like scum, and continue to rip em off
Wouldn't bother me if it was most of the best music vids on there are indy stuff and small scale label stuff trying to better themselves, and just get themselves out there.
Which is fair play,as they know what they want and they can put it out there, with no A&R types trying to tell them what to sing, what to play what to wear.
Blah blah blah, I'm stopping now, because I can feel my blood starting to angry up :D
If it's the PRS they're at war against, then presumably it'll apply to everyone - including independents. Signing up with the PRS is pretty much the default first step for anyone setting out to be a professional musician - it's not like getting signed to a label - so anyone from a pub band upwards is likely to be covered by them.
The PRS is the organisation you need to get a licence off if you're playing commercial music on your radio station, or in your supermarket, or cover versions at the open mic night in your pub - so extrapolating from that, I have a sneaking suspicion (don't quote me on this) that it'll also apply to Youtube videos that borrow commercial music as their soundtrack (think YSRnRY). If so, that's got to be a massive percentage of all Youtube content - in which case this is going to be an interesting ride indeed.
It's stuff like this that makes you realise that something has to give soon.
Maybe not - I think I've now found the right package, which would be ?54+VAT, which presumably would give you a licence to use whatever the hell you wanted.
Just so long as it's not "general entertainment".
It's like the petrol stations here(USA) ... they are allowed to charge you an extra 90/100 of a cent ... I want my change, please.
80's tunes seem to have suffered, as do early 90's tunes.
Annoyingly the recent live performances from some artists via mobile phones and such seem to remain, even though there's no point in watching them as all you hear are screams and distortion.
Probably ?11 because the PRS are so tight, I ber the PRS made much more than ?11 from the RickRoll video.
My thoughts precisely.
Edit: Well, maybe not precisely. I suspect that the PRS isn't divvying up the money such that everyone gets their share, rather than everyone getting a portion.
I've only noticed that Royksopp's Remind Me is denied for us. Although you can still watch the normal video with a remix instead :???:
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
https://www.youtube.com/user/VincentTSFP
Well I hope the artists soon wake up and learn to do without the PRS.
I wonder how this move is affecting song and album sales?
They are the rats, raptors and barbarians of an industry that no longer needs them.
Don't worry too much, I think your complaint will be upheld. Hell, if mine was, yours should be too!
The joys of automated searches!
I'm just wondering when (if?) I'll hear from Google if I get the all-clear for the two disputed videos of mine. They were back online a few days after my appeal was submitted, but I thought that there's meant to be a "final decision" after that point? This has been going on for three weeks now.
I can't say for Google video, but with my resolved disputes on YT, you can see if it is final on the video page of your profile (not the page everyone else sees, your own account area). A button appears with the disputed video saying "Dispute Successful".
Hmmm... I'm tempted to put the videos back up on YT to see what would happen - there's no mention of any disputes in my Google Video account pages.
Hmmm, turns out my "deleted" YT videos are back in existence minus soundtrack - one dispute sent off, we'll see how that goes.
The composition is out of copyright. The recording probably isn't. On the other hand, the chances that Youtube's internal processes are able to reliably identify a specific recording of RotV are really quite minimal...
It was a different era. Football Manager used real footballers and team names and I'm pretty sure Kevin Toms didn't pay a licence fee.
My understanding is that you can't claim copyright for a piece of work that's out of copyright just on the basis of the recording of the performance.
There wasn't any copyright problems using this Beatles tune - I assume that was all done and dusted when Konami produced the arcade game. Or just maybe nobody noticed!