Does You Tube equal widespread copyright amnesia?

[nomis]

I thought this would be an interesting topic - It seems to me regard for copyright has gone right out of the window due to You Tube -die hard fans of an artist will post rare footage of their idols for other fans -but do they have the right? They dont own the material they are posting and yet are you a fan of someone if you deprive them of income? i used to work at various record companies and have a huge library of footage I collected that is rare i dont post it on the net because I don own it _ I just have a physical copy in my hands..and yet if I want to see something on you tube I just jump on and watch when I would prefer in many cases to buy a legit dvd of the artists work.
I think this subject raises lots of questions - bootlegs have been around forever some fans will say "well if they are too slow not to see the market for their work hell I'll grab a bootleg.." but isnt this taking away an artists right for them as owners of that work to decide for themselves what makes the public arena..not the fans.?
Will West Grand Media ever release TCB or GIT if bootleg dvds circulate and Fans post clips on You Tube or in this day and age does anyone care about their artists actually being paid for the catalog..look forward to your thoughts cheers

[paladin]

"I think this subject raises lots of questions - bootlegs have been around forever some fans will say "well if they are too slow not to see the market for their work hell I'll grab a bootleg.." but isn't this taking away an artists right for them as owners of that work to decide for themselves what makes the public arena..not the fans.?
Will West Grand Media ever release TCB or GIT if bootleg DVDs circulate and Fans post clips on You Tube or in this day and age does anyone care about their artists actually being paid for the catalog..look forward to your thoughts cheers"

Nomis when it comes to DVD's of actual performances, I think the artists readily can identify the market for their wares, unfortunately they don't own the rights. Now as for music rights, how often have we discussed the thousands or artists who either knowingly or unknowing signed away their rights to future royalty's. ? The truth is as the technology becomes available, I'm sure you'll see more bootlegs than not because you'll have more and more people having the ability to produce[[ reproduce) outstanding material. I once made it a habit not to buy bootleg movies or DVDs because I would be the last one to take money away from an artist. But the technology of the Internet has blurred the lines so that I can hardly tell what the hell I'm doing at any given moment.

There are quite a few artists today who own their work, Michael Henderson & Prince to name a few..... and Prince routinely gives you tube fits.

Your question about West Grand Media has its own built in answer. Sure their are still quite a few of us who would cough up the cash for a premium edition of TCB or other performances, but hell even the folks at the Don Kirsher Rock Concert & Midnight Special had you splayed out like a dead fish to subscribe to their series of DVDs or get none, what a rip. In short I think a lot of the companies simply don't know what the hell they are doing.

May haps we have to view this entire situation like drugs or prostitution , as long as there are buyers there will be sellers, supply will meet demand in most every case. Is it fair ? probably not but then in our world today Exploitation equates to Cash, period.

And speaking of exploitation, artists have been exploited for as long as they have existed. And like any other media fueled enterprises, some people are identified as being supportive and helping the artists while others are being identified as hurting the artists by not providing them their just due. There is a definitive danger here because both are doing the same thing and the bottom line is cash, with the artist always coming out on the short end.

[nomis]

Thanks for the great post Paladin- its complex issue but the bottom line is if you buy unathorised releases you are depriving an arist of a royalty payment.. I think You Tube has heightened the sense of entitlement by the consumer and also we live in a sound byte culture and ramifications and responsibilies are by the way side..

[soulster]

Well, this happened just two months ago:

http://www.sitepronews.com/2010/08/2...or-blog-sites/


http://iptablog.org/2010/06/24/youtube-finds-s.html

[nomis]

The devils in the details -
"...promptly block access or take down allegedly infinging materials IF they receive a notice from a copyright owner claiming infringments..".......Thats one whopper of an "If"..IF they dont..they dont take it down..the whole legal argument stands on that IF..

"..Or if the service provider has "Actual knowledge"that it is hosting infringing material"...holy cow You Tube dosent have "Actual Knowledge" that Warners own Madonna videos ?? that Sony owns MJ solo work ? that unlicensed Harpo Oprah interviews are on its site?..dont piss on my leg and tell me its raining- we aint all in the ipod generation yet ! some folks can still think..can anyone say pirate???

[uptight]

Thanks for the great post Paladin- its complex issue but the bottom line is if you buy unathorised releases you are depriving an arist of a royalty payment.. I think You Tube has heightened the sense of entitlement by the consumer and also we live in a sound byte culture and ramifications and responsibilies are by the way side..

"...You Tube has heightened the sense of entitlement by consumers..." Well said, Nomis.

[soulster]

Forget the fact that artists and media companies benefit from YouTube exposure, authorized or not.

[paladin]

Quite true Soulster, I was going to bring that up but as indicated this is a very complex issue. Since I am not a musician or vocalist, I tend to tread softly here because I don't feel that I am qualified from a contractual or copyright standpoint to speak too loudly.

However there is more I have to say, I just haven't formulated it in my mind to enable folk to understand my inferences.

[tsull1]

Yes, it does infringe on copywrites. Yes, the artists should get paid. Yes, the internet consumer culture wants everything for free, which is crippling artists, musicians, writers, painters, anyone with an original thought around the globe. I posted that people that this shouldn't be free a few months ago and was ripped for it.

As much as I like the internet, I hate what it's done. I worked in the newspaper industry for years and as soon as they stupidly put everything on the web for free, it killed the industry. Kids growing up today get everything free, and I mean everything.

The world was better when you had to pay for albums, newspapers, magazines, art work, sculptures, etc. It just was.

I see some YouTube videos of Temptations that have reached the millions. I think "My Girl" at 20 million views. Pay up, folks! Sorry, that's the way I feel. People WORKED to make this music and worked to make these videos. Period, case closed, end of story. Pay them for it, period.

The leech society is what it is. Pay for it, chumps.

[nomis]

Thank you Tsull1 - folks dont want to admit their stealing songs and video for free when they are..and You Tubes very own dont-ask-dont -tell copyright infingment policy is pitiful - sure music gets exposure and promotion but with no payment and industries and livelihoods collapse but folks dont want to think of that they just want their free TCB show on you tube...

[paladin]

Although I respect both you and Tsull's opinions, I believe thats its not that simple. First of all can we at least agree that the "artists" musicians, writers and producers should get paid for their work? Yeah I know thats the simple part.

Then you get the companies who front the money for, lets say the environment they work in........

You got filmmakers, grips, directors, make-up folks etc...all who have to get paid......

Then promoters, Lawyers, venue owners, unions, politicians...shessh...this is making my head hurt........

Lets just not say the "internet" because to me thats akin to saying that you shouldn't call your Mom on the telephone.

The internet has caused plenty of problems thats for sure, but have you ever really noticed that Soulful Detroit is part and parcel of the internet ?

Hell I wouldn't know you or Tsull if not for that...and so on and so forth..........

We come here everyday and ask questions and search for answers about the very artists we adore and what happens next.....a you tube video pops up to illustrate, define or educate one member or another about our opinion.

For instance I say and maintain that Jerry Butler's or Walters Jackson's song was the real shizzet and nobody has done it better ...then next thing you know its an all out discussion augmented by You Tube Video to prove a point in order to educate and inform the very membership of this forum.

I buy my songs and albums based upon who I like. I use search engines like everyone else in an attempt to locate the music that I want to enjoy. I pay the price because I believe artists should get paid, but according to people on this forum and very knowledgeable ones at that, I find that "bootlegs" have made it into my vast collection and not because I knew it, it was because the lines have become so blurred that unless you are Jsmith, Wonder B, Melandthensome, Grapevine or Bankhouse Dave [[ among others), you'd have a hell of a time trying to differentiate. Believe me 'I aint blaming the internet, it goes deeper than that. If I was smart enough to sling mud at all the different players , you all know dam well I would, but I aint gonna sit here and say its the internets fault....oh hell no.......

Heres a rather odd example for you...maybe about twenty years ago, they came up with an idea for us to communicate, it was called the cell phone...no problem, you walked around with this little product that enabled you to make phone calls without a wire ?

Today that same phone or rather the improved version, can start your car, turn off your lights, play games with you, play your music for you, set your environmental controls in your house, turn your lights on and off, talk to your refrigerator or stove and let the company that made them know whats wrong with it, make reservations on a plane for you, tell you the time and weather, even take your dam picture. Outside of the cell phone company carrier, I couldn't tell you who was getting paid for what ? So what I am to do blame the phone company ?

[nomis]

Fair point but were not talking about ignorant Lady Gaga teenyboppers who download songs and couldnt even spell copyright let alone grasp the concept of it..
Most people who are on this forum are intellegent,articulate and know full well of copyright and hard road many of their beloved artists have trodden..Its about individual responsibilty if you watch or download the music you have to take the responsibitly that you are adding the to the theft of copyright owners legal right..
Bootlegs before the internet had limited release and promotion,Ive worked for several independent and retail chain music stores that wouldnt stock them...now thats by the wayside and its just a download streaming from one computer to the next..so what we dishonour moral obligation in the name of technological advancement?
We call ourselves fans yet dont respect the artist enough to pay the cost of a "7 single and justify it by the stock answer -everybodys-doing-it-so-I'll-do-it- to?
Some artists wouldnt be bothered Ive heard artists say many times "Its amazing what the fans get hold of.." but that was before you could see 200,000 hits on a Chaka Khan song on You Tube that 200,000 cents in the dollar she aint getting and You tube is a joke to say "well we didnt know who owned the copyright"..nearly all songs are copyrighted under that music registration system..Its pure greed by You tube to get as many viewers as it can without checking the publishing copyright it is distributing for free world wide..They are responible they are only getting away with it because of greed by the consumer to absorb music and images for free..so they feign ignorance..thats why they take anything down if challenged they dont have a legal leg to stand on and they know it..its corporate and consumer greed,a real ugly turn for humankind that is going to have disastrous consequences on human kind in the next decades..
I own a bookshop - you wouldnt walk into my shop pick up abook,tell me your not paying and just walk out..yet we do that with songs,videos and movies without a thought whats the difference?
Im guilty - Ive downloaded songs but Im questioning what is happenning to the music industry I love -Have we all sold our souls to the conglomorate devil that technology owners are?
Free distribution of art and music makes the artists slaves,victims of consequence of a so called digital revolution..I dont want to hear "Thats the way it always been" argument - what there was You Tube thirty years ago? No there wasnt..and If thats the way it is for artists being ripped off surely now were educated in the subject then protecting artists work is foremost to thank them for their contribution to society..? Just some of my thoughts Im not good at expressing myself as Ive had limited education but I believe there is validity in opening this thread..I look forward to your comments..

[pshark]

Like you guys never post vids here. If youtube decides to delete all music vids you'll be bitchin about it. A lot of of these vids were videotaped by fans
in attendance and was never intended to be in the market. I know a lot of artists are happy to see these vids. They even post them on their myspace,
facebook and whatever site they be in. Its the record company thats complaining, not the atists in most cases. Prince & a few other artists are the exceptions.
George Clinton even offered an award to anybody who might have taped a SF concert he did about 15 yrs ago when Stevie Wonder unexpectedly joined them on stage.
But hey anytime you view or post a vid you can always send the artists a check

[nomis]

Ive never posted a video in my life..I dont know how to.

[soulster]

Like you guys never post vids here. If youtube decides to delete all music vids you'll be bitchin about it. A lot of of these vids were videotaped by fans
in attendance and was never intended to be in the market. I know a lot of artists are happy to see these vids. They even post them on their myspace,
facebook and whatever site they be in. Its the record company thats complaining, not the atists in most cases. Prince & a few other artists are the exceptions.
George Clinton even offered an award to anybody who might have taped a SF concert he did about 15 yrs ago when Stevie Wonder unexpectedly joined them on stage.
But hey anytime you view or post a vid you can always send the artists a check

And, it's the record companies who are making most of the money. They are the ones who rip off the artists. Don't be like the tea-baggers. Always be very careful about what you complain and support. Don't feed the hand that bites you.

[abfan]

Well I can tell you they have muted the audio on several of my videos..............I do own my material I use to make my Anita Baker small videos....I think my videos do show her in a great light..but she has yet to capitalize or make anything for the fans since 1986...hell she needs to pay me lol...............nothing but free PR all day


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9EldG3GUlk

[tsull1]

Whether I post videos or not isn't the question. [[It's easy by the way, go to the address, cut it, and paste it here.)

The fact is artists no longer sell many CD's, music is stolen and burned on the computer. This has been the biggest downfall of the music industry and where they lost the most money. Read "Appetite for Self-Destruction" a great book about the bumbling, greedy music industry.

So who owns the videos and rights to them? Someone does. Same reason you're not supposed to tape movies or football games and charge people to watch them at your home. Do people do it? Probably, doesn't mean it's right.

On the exposure thing, I read time and time again of youngsters posting on YouTube that this classic soul music is "great" and today's music "sucks." I'll bet you anything these same kids are not buying these artists.

I just don't believe everything should be handed out free. Why does the artist sell his goods at the art musuem? By today's standards, they should just hand it out for free, right?

Sorry, I think artists should be paid for their work, even if it's 5 cents on the dollar for each time their video is played on YouTube.

[paladin]

"Whether I post videos or not isn't the question. [[It's easy by the way, go to the address, cut it, and paste it here.)"

No Tsull that is part of the equation. You can have and maintain any position that you want but until you get the mathematics right its still wrong.

There is no need to read the book when you explain quite eloquently what "part" of the problem is, greed is self explanatory.

"So who owns the videos and rights to them? Someone does. Same reason you're not supposed to tape movies or football games and charge people to watch them at your home. Do people do it? Probably, doesn't mean it's right."

Agreed another factual statement of the problem, I certainly indicated that much in my post. The technology that allows the record companies to make music and sell it is the same technology that allows anyone to do it.

Dam right the kids are not buying these artists they use the technology to listen and then steal !

Tsull I wish that these artists could get paid for their exposure, but who is supposed to pay them ? Legally and contractually this system is all f-ked up ! And you'd think with all the lawyers in the world someone would have the answer, I wish I did but I don't. Tell you what, at the rate things are going now, we'll probably have an answer soon, and this I do know, we'll probably get stuck with the tab !

PS: technology is signaling the end of the CD, along with society's innate ability to listen, consume and then discard music as if its toilet paper. I have never viewed music in this fashion and never will, but that doesn't mean I can't see the forest for the trees, and the outlook is bleak, the artists are becoming more and more automated, in the old days we never would have accepted "Avatar" a 3D video game masquerading as a movie
we would have called it a cartoon ! but face it the future is now.........

[jillfoster]

I suppose my use of youtube differs from what the kids do. No surprise there. One can argue that it's a great promotional tool. As long as your'e not one who goes out and steals the songs after you hear them. in the last 3 months I have bought 6 CD's as a DIRECT result of discovering said artist on youtube. And for two of them, the videos of old TV peformances were uploaded by the ARTIST THEMSELVES. So for those who might poo-poo such things, what do you think of that? There have also been a dozen or so cases that I have seen a video performance on youtbe that was so clear and nice, I KNEW it had to come from a commercial DVD. So I found out which DVD it was [[It was always a UK or dutch title or some such thing) and I bought the DVD. Because I want it crystal clear on my TV. Now, if youtube were to make HD or Stereo disabled on stuff, then I wouldn't have a problem with that. you could still hear stuff and tell if you like it, but buy the item to get sound quality.

[tsull1]

OK, Paladin, let's say I have to pay 5 cents to watch each video, or create an account for my YouTube useage. I'll do it for the artists.

Let's say I don't want to do it, then I guess I don't post my videos here. That's how I see it. If YouTube wants to charge me for the good of the artists, I'll pony up. They're not charging me -- actually there's nowhere for me to pony up -- so I'm not paying.

Bottom line, the artists are getting screwed. Yes, there's too many middle men, but the artists are still getting screwed. I think if "My Girl" has 30 million views -- I think it has more if you combine all the different "My Girl" clips, I think The Temptations [[and Funk Brothers, and producers of that tune, and Smokey the writer) should get 5 cents for each viewing, period. Or if you really want to low ball it 1 cent per viewing.

That's what I'm asking for, and sorry, there's not a soul on this board or ANYWHERE who can change my mind.

[jillfoster]

Well, Tsull... I guess it comes down to that age old controversy, if you consider TV appearances an actual "product" by the artists, or advertizement for the product, which is the records. Now Youtube videos which just have the record playing over a slideshow don't fall into this, of course. But back in the day, TV appearances were advertizement, or a promotional tool to sell your records and your live concert shows. And it is a valuable tool to expose artists to the younger generation, and even people I had not heard of before from that time period which are "New to me"... and I have bought a TON of CD's and DVD's over the last several years because of it. What if youtube were to restrict such things to 30 or 60 second sample clips? Would you feel better about it then?

[jobeterob]

This is a good thread; Nomis, you start some good ones. And really good responses by Paladin and Tsull and Jill.

From a legal point of view, I think that the only real issue if you tape with your cellphone and post is with the artist because you are using their likeness. There is no way for artists like Lady Gaga to stop everything that is out there. Even if you are a heritage artist like Diana Ross, there are too many videos for her to hope to stop them. It is a waste of the artist's time to try so most of them don't bother.

Yes, it is a great promotional tool for sure.

Both the artists and the companies have suffered incredibly. CDS and those companies may be in a sunset industry. Their values are nowhere near what they once were and the sales are down massively; it's been ten years of decline and layoffs. And the heritage artists that had a little royalty income have lost it; artists like Jerry Butler, Mary Wilson, Lesley Gore, and all the Motown groups have lost their incomes. If you can still perform and still draw a decent crowd, you have an income; but your royalty income is finished.

Posting videos on YouTube can be stopped as some of you are suggesting; but it is a job with no end. Those videos are owned by an artist or a company and they can stop it. They will never stop it completely though; another one or another dozen will pop up tomorrow.

Is it bootlegging and illegal? Yes. Can it be stopped? No.

[paladin]

Tsull I don't think anyone here disagrees with you or wants to change your mind. This issue as cited by the forum members who have responded are in line with your viewpoint. Your "dream request" is a simplistic solution to a very complex problem. If we all could vote and establish for a fact that the artists or their estates could benefit then this thread would not be necessary.

Royalties be dammed, as jobeterob indicates whats done is done and whats gone is gone. Summarily of more importance to artists like Mary Wilson, Jon Bauman, Otis Williams [[lol) and others are "fake groups" who pop up as at a moments notice pretending to be someone they are not, pocketing money thats not rightfully theirs and heading out to the next show like thieves in the night. We have discussed, fake Marvelettes, Drifters,Intruders, Delphonics, Stylistics and the list goes on and on. Many of the old school groups such as the Manhattans, Enchantment, Dells, really make their money performing live at various locales throughout the country. In fact Mary Wilson & Bauman have been at the forefront establishing and pushing legislation to prevent these fakes from performing.

There are so many tentacles to this problem that I honestly believe a "catch all proposition like yours is simply impossible"......well intentioned and commendable but its not about to happen.

Furthermore, I even question organizations like PBS who have seemingly jumped on the DVD/CD bandwagon, when it comes to the artists we know and love. How are they paid ? What type of compensation do they get for making millions for PBS. I don't know but I'm not afraid to ask! It also struck me as odd that an organization like Time-Life uses footage /images of our beloved artists great performances to sell you a set of CD's containing all the hits, while many of us would rather have the footage of the performances because we already own the hits ! But no, we just get glimpses to whet our appetites for the artists we love, yet did you ever ask yourself, how in the hell did they get that footage, ooops I wonder how much those artists got paid for that infomercial ?????

Yeah Tsull in a perfect world...........and the band played on.........believe it or not.............

[tsull1]

Well, in response to Jill, Paladin, and others, I'm not sure how I'd feel if things were charged. I have no answer for everything. I'm of the theory that artists should be paid for their work. Today's youth have been raised in a totally free society, particularly artistically. Everything, and I mean everything, is free, which means the VALUE of it isn't much.

So, well, yeah, if they want to charge me for TV [[which I don't have, and actually they do with cable fees), for videos, for downloads, etc., charge away. I'll pick and choose what I believe has value and pay for it.

I'm not sure how YouTube would figure it out, that's why they have lawyers, I guess.

I think artists need to be paid. I don't have the answer on how, but they should be paid -- even for YouTube videos. If that keeps me from posting, so be it, I'll pay for the right to watch them. Others who love this free society where artists, musicians, writers, should give away everything for free, wouldn't like it. I'm old school: pay up.

[soulster]

tsull,

I agree, artists should get paid. But, the baby's out of the womb, and it isn't going back in. YouTube could start charging people, but another site will pop up. You see what happened to Craigslist banning sex ads. Many other alternate sites popped up, and, last time I checked, Craigslist is still hosting "sex" ads. Point is, the free stuff will not go away. If content providers go after the IPS, there could be privacy issues.

[jobeterob]

Youtube is here to stay and it's likely of the perennial variety - like love; and it's going to stay "free" too.

I was told once that labels like Motown and Sony can put a song on a compilation CD and the fee to the artist is $500.00! That's what you get for a song on a compilation CD.

Now, I'm sure there have been major artists over time like Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Barbra Streisand......the ones that lasted...........Ross, even the Temptations, that also get paid a royalty on top of the fee. But I bet it's pretty slim and skinny.

And I bet you that Ben E King and the Drifters and Ruby and the Romantics are lucky if they see $500 when Stand By Me, Save the Last Dance for Me or Our Day Will Come shows up on Billboards Hits of 1957 or1964.

[tsull1]

Oh, I agree that things won't revert back to pay, I just think they should.

Here's the deal: The founders of YouTube are billionaires, yes, that's billion with a "b" not million. They sold it for billions to I believe Google, the owners/founders of that also billionaires.

Now of course many artists are rich, others not so much.

I'm not feeling sorry for the techie billionaires who get all this content for free.

I just think they ought to pay the people who make their sight for profitable.

You can side with the billionaire owners or the artists.

I choose the artists.

[jobeterob]

It would be nice if the artists could get something; doesn't need to be a lot..........just something. But that is a bureaucratic nightmare and it just won't happen as things developed.

It is a shame for so many artists who had a few hits and were relying on a little retirement income which evaporated.

[pshark]

So Nomis, you're a dj. You're getting paid, the club you dj at is getting paid, how 'bout the artists of the records/cds you play? You paying them?
Youtubers are not getting paid for uploading vids. That's the difference.

[pshark]

Still waiting for an answer.

[soulster]

Youtube is here to stay and it's likely of the perennial variety - like love; and it's going to stay "free" too.

I was told once that labels like Motown and Sony can put a song on a compilation CD and the fee to the artist is $500.00! That's what you get for a song on a compilation CD.

Now, I'm sure there have been major artists over time like Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Barbra Streisand......the ones that lasted...........Ross, even the Temptations, that also get paid a royalty on top of the fee. But I bet it's pretty slim and skinny.

And I bet you that Ben E King and the Drifters and Ruby and the Romantics are lucky if they see $500 when Stand By Me, Save the Last Dance for Me or Our Day Will Come shows up on Billboards Hits of 1957 or1964.

That's exactly why you keep seeing the same old songs on comps, the artists don't get paid much. It's also why you rarely, if ever see big artists on comps, they can afford not to have their songs on them. They would rather people buy whole albums, or comps with new songs on them, unless the contract is set and the record label owns the rights.

[soulster]

BTW, I think it's perfectly fine if YouTube starts charging to see videos. But, it would be a useless move, because other sites would pop up. In fact, many have ever since YouTube started pulling unauthorized copyrighted works off.

[jillfoster]

Actually... today's society is not a "get eveything for free" society. You guys tell me this... did you pay to watch TV in 1965? No you didn't. People download... and in 1975, they used a cassette player and taped songs off the radio. When radio was INVENTED publishers of sheet music fought it, and were convinced that it was going to kill their business of people buying sheet music. Who's going to spend the money to tally all this information on youtube views, and how to distribute the money? It would cost more to do the leg work than the artist would get. Unions demand residuals and royalties... I have a friend who was a writer for As the World Turns, now that the show is cancelled, he just recieved final dispensation for all of his residuals. Do you know what it was? 27 checks ... and EACH ONE was less than 50 cents. See what happens when you open that can of worms? what's the point? and how much did accountants have to be paid to figure all that?