Taylor Swift versus YouTube

[BeefCake 15]

Taylor Swift is on a new adventure to take on the Tube!

Taylor Swift took on Spotify two years ago and now she's taking on media giant, YouTube.
Swift, U2, Kings of Leon and Paul McCartney are some of the 180 recording artists and labels petitioning Congress to reform the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (D.M.C.A.) In an open letter to Congress, they write that the current online copyright law has allowed YouTube and other sites to "generate huge profits by creating ease of use for consumers to carry almost every recorded song in history in their pocket via a smartphone, while songwriters' and artists' earnings continue to diminish."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/21/entertainment/taylor-swift-dmca-youtube/index.html

 

[kryten2]

A certain South Park episode comes to mind.

 

[BeefCake 15]

I'm surprised libraries haven't gotten bankrupt yet with DMCA letters...

 

[vkd]

Not surprisingly, these people (Swift et al.) are thoroughly politically correct in being completely unsatisfied with their already-banked millions and billions of $$$ and will not rest until they have every last penny they can get within their coffers. Even then their uncontrollable lust and greed will not be satisfied but that is more of a philosophical issue that needs another arena for discussion.

 

[BigPrince]

Not surprisingly, these people (Swift et al.) are thoroughly politically correct in being completely unsatisfied with their already-banked millions and billions of $$$ and will not rest until they have every last penny they can get within their coffers. Even then their uncontrollable lust and greed will not be satisfied but that is more of a philosophical issue that needs another arena for discussion.

I think the already successful artists risk less voicing their opinion than a rising star. I don't think t's all greed.

 

[rdowns]

Not surprisingly, these people (Swift et al.) are thoroughly politically correct in being completely unsatisfied with their already-banked millions and billions of $$$ and will not rest until they have every last penny they can get within their coffers. Even then their uncontrollable lust and greed will not be satisfied but that is more of a philosophical issue that needs another arena for discussion.

What makes you think you're entitled to enjoy someone's work for free?

 

[bent christian]

What makes you think you're entitled to enjoy someone's work for free?

I am not sure what makes anyone involved think that if the songs weren't placed on YouTube, people would have gone out and spent money on that song or album. Good luck proving damages.

Posters to YouTube are operating well within the bounds of Fair Use in U.S. law, as very few people use the service as song library. The host can't be responsible for checking all of the thousands of files posted daily, that's why they have a reporting system and will regularly pull unauthorized, copyrighted material. These musicians are fighting a battle they absolutely cannot win.

 

[rdowns]

I am not sure what makes anyone involved think that if the songs weren't placed on YouTube, people would have gone out and spent money on that song or album. Good luck proving damages.

Posters to YouTube are operating well within the bounds of Fair Use in U.S. law, as very few people use the service as song library. The host can't be responsible for checking all of the thousands of files posted daily, that's why they have a reporting system and will regularly pull unauthorized, copyrighted material. These musicians are fighting a battle they absolutely cannot win.

If people aren't using it as a song library, how do you explain the scores of Youtube to mp3 converters?

 

[bent christian]

If people aren't using it as a song library, how do you explain the scores of Youtube to mp3 converters?

How can I explain the scores of other useless software that exists on the Internet? Hobbyists? I don't know. Some people just like to build things. Have you ever tried this? The compressed bit rates of YouTube videos are hardly worth the time and energy of a single application download. At this point, anyone under the age of 50 knows about Mediafire, anonymous torrenting, and the various music blogs that exist. I don't know why anyone would go to YouTube for the highly-compressed garbage that ends up being posted. Full albums don't have track breaks. Who, in the year 2016, is going to want that?

 

[elf69]

It's these youtube to mp3 converters that are at fault then.

youtube does not allow files to be natively downloaded as per copyright.

these converters are breaking copyright?

I do not think it is all greed with the performers, they are just trying to protect their work.

same as a painter would be most upset if his/her work was copied without consent.

 

[vkd]

What makes you think you're entitled to enjoy someone's work for free?

Nothing makes me think that, rdowns. What makes YOU think that I think that?

 

[BeefCake 15]

What makes you think you're entitled to enjoy someone's work for free?

You should stop free loading off of great professionals' work at the library as well.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

You should stop free loading off of great professionals' work at the library as well.

Well the libraries paid for everything they loan out. Does YouTube pay for the music that people can listen to? I'm honestly asking, I don't know.

 

[boast]

But there are many unknown artists who would love to be Youtube famous, no? It would very much help in selling concert tickets.

 

[Tinmania]

Well the libraries paid for everything they loan out. Does YouTube pay for the music that people can listen to? I'm honestly asking, I don't know.

I believe in some cases YouTube either pays, or gives a commission on sales to the artists. This might not be the case now.

I remember years ago when I would post a video with a soundtrack that was from a non-public domain song (not the whole song) and I would get a response from YouTube that was either a.) they removed the sound from the video or b.) they added a credit to the artist and a link to buy the song (and it was mostly option b). Presumably if it was option b the artist agreed to it and got something in return.



Mike

 

[thats all folks]

Not surprisingly, these people (Swift et al.) are thoroughly politically correct in being completely unsatisfied with their already-banked millions and billions of $$$ and will not rest until they have every last penny they can get within their coffers. Even then their uncontrollable lust and greed will not be satisfied but that is more of a philosophical issue that needs another arena for discussion.

or, established, financially well off are likely the only ones who can make even a little bit of noise as well as pay for the lawyers and research needed to bring such a charge to light.

 

[Matthew.H]

Always got to love artists who moan about people listening to their music for free. To an extent Youtube gives artists free advertising. They are some artists I listen to now that I would never have heard of without sites such as Youtube. The band "Sunset Sons" springs to mind. I first heard one of their tracks on a Youtube advert. Since then I've bought most of their EP's and their debut album.

I'm willing to bet artists have gained a lot of customers over the years through Youtube and other sites.

 

[8692574]

Not surprisingly, these people (Swift et al.) are thoroughly politically correct in being completely unsatisfied with their already-banked millions and billions of $$$ and will not rest until they have every last penny they can get within their coffers. Even then their uncontrollable lust and greed will not be satisfied but that is more of a philosophical issue that needs another arena for discussion.

Being paid or what you do is not greed, the fact that they make million does not entitle people to "steal their work" or make profit thanks to their work without contributing.


Immagine yourself doing a job you like...but still a job, you get paid you like 5k a week to do it, and all of a sudden the a guy next to you uses your work to make himself money, but in the process you stqart loosing and you "only" make 4k still doing the same exact work would you be happy?
It is not about the 1k you lose because obviously you still make plenty, but the fact that someone else is gaining from your "hard work" and you are losing because of it.

 

[satcomer]

Maybe Tayor Swift should stop using AutoTune in her records and then I will pay attention to her!

 

[0007776]

What makes you think you're entitled to enjoy someone's work for free?

You aren't, but if they were successful in getting all of their songs off of youtube they would lose a lot of free advertising. It may not hurt the bigger artists where people can still hear their music on the radio if they want it for free, but for a new artist starting out it makes it much harder for people to find out about them.

 

[thats all folks]

You aren't, but if they were successful in getting all of their songs off of youtube they would lose a lot of free advertising. It may not hurt the bigger artists where people can still hear their music on the radio if they want it for free, but for a new artist starting out it makes it much harder for people to find out about them.

how about they get to chose. and YouTube (Google) makes money off you your views, why shouldn't the content creators? radio stations are also advertising and they pay per play. most anywhere you hear music in a commercial setting (bars, stores, amusement parks, movies... ) they are paying licensing.

the only point you are making is that you want free and unlimited access to whatever you want.

 

[0007776]

how about they get to chose. and YouTube (Google) makes money off you your views, why shouldn't the content creators?

I would definitely support Google paying the artists a portion of the earnings from advertisements on YouTube. Pulling all of their music off of YouTube is almost impossible without impacting fair use, and it isn't in the artist's best interest anyway.

 

[vkd]

Slightly related is the fact that Lionel Messi and Neimar, both footballers who earn more per match than someone I know has in the savings that they hope to live off, via interest gained on investment, for the rest of their lives, yet they are both facing criminal charges for tax fraud. Why? Not satisfied with their untold millions. Still want more. In other words, uncontrolled greed.

I am not saying recording artists have uncontrolled greed, of course.

 

[0388631]

Who? Perhaps these artists can go to the old timey method of having their agents take a generous cut of everything. If it stops me having to listen to another airing of rolling in church or whatever that stupid song is.

 

[MacNut]

I would definitely support Google paying the artists a portion of the earnings from advertisements on YouTube. Pulling all of their music off of YouTube is almost impossible without impacting fair use, and it isn't in the artist's best interest anyway.

I thought YouTube signed an agreement with Vevo.