WTF? Youtube is now rejecting all types of music videos.

[Ben...]

-i would not pay a monthly fee to veiw anything on the internet.
-record companies have been so greedy in the past and screwed so many artist that they deserve to fail.
-hearing music and watching videos should be free. holding a disc with artwork in your hand should cost you $10 or less and should go directly to the artist.

but that's just my .02

i would like to see a website that lets you stream any song by any band for free, without the ability to download the songs/videos. just listening, viewing videos, etc.
like myspace for music. have a free account where you store your music collection and playlists. and on top of that have the ability to click something to order the cd/dvd, with artwork. with the internet growing the way it is i could see the ipod replaced with your regular digital communicator (cell phone) with constant internet access therefor access to you free music account so you can hear whatever you want, whenever you want.

make listening to the music and watching the videos free, charge for the CD/DVD with artwork. Bands will make their money on touring and merch and CD/DVD sales.
cause the collector will always want to hold the product in there hands.

i know this will never happen cause they won't find a way to make enough money on it. since we all know money runs the world.

I agree with everything this man says.

I'm the type of person who "wants to hold the product in their hands". I refuse to use iTunes or any of that stuff because I would rather have the album somewhere in case my computer shoots itself in the head because then I can still listen to it on a CD player.

I hate all of this digital download crap. Here's an example of why buying the actual disk is better: This one video game company charges a $5 fee to download their game along with the regular price plus if you uninstall it and put it on another computer it's another $5 each time after a certain amount of time. If you go to the store and buy the disk it's the base price and you can put it on as many computers as you want. Sure, downloading it is convenient but it will cost you way more in the long run.

I trust computers as far as I can drop kick them.

[Newc]

The problem with this concept is that Joe Mama that wrote a song 30 years ago that hasn't been played in the last 29 years also gets a part of that pot while doing nothing to earn it.

If Joe Mama wrote the song, they did everything to earn their money, whether or not the song was a hit when it was written.

Slade were unknown until Quiet Riot came along, then Slade got a second chance to hit it big because of someone else playing their songs.

-i would not pay a monthly fee to veiw anything on the internet.
-record companies have been so greedy in the past and scewed so many artist that they deserve to fail.
-hearing music and watching videos should be free. holding a disc with artwork in your hand should cost you $10 or less and should go directly to the artist.

but that's just my .02

i would like to see a website that lets you stream any song by any band for free, without the ability to download the songs/videos. just listening, viewing videos, etc.
like myspace for music. have a free acount where you store your music collection and playlists. and on top of that have the ability to click something to order the cd/dvd, with artwork. with the internet growing the way it is i could see the ipod replaced with your regular digital comminicator (cell phone) with constant internet access therefor access to you free music account so you can hear whatever you want, whenever you want.

make listening to the music and watching the videos free, charge for the CD/DVD with artwork. Bands will make their money on touring and merch and CD/DVD sales.
cause the collector will always want to hold the product in there hands.

i know this will never happen cause they won't find a way to make enough money on it. since we all know money runs the world.

The problem with that is that most folks know Windows Sound Recorder or any other sound app will record streaming audio unless the online media player monopolizes the sound card and recording functions. You can even find programs that will download (or do streaming video capture) any Flash-based video - YouTube, MySpace, even from sites that use dynamic/coded links to prevent people from typing in the direct link to the file.

[Shawn Lutz]

User generated content is asking for legal issues. 99% of YouTube content that people want to watch are illegal the other 1% no one cares about. All the TV shows, videos of bands etc are all illegally uploaded to youtube. Youtube can yank em but the user will just upload them.

Just because I pay 40 bucks for a concert DVD, doesnt give me the right to transcode it and upload it on youtube....

[joelayres]

If Joe Mama wrote the song, they did everything to earn their money, whether or not the song was a hit when it was written.

My point was that Joe Mama gets paid the same as AC/DC - even when his song is never played - EVER. The pot gets split evenly regardless of who's music is actually earning the money.

You can even find programs that will download (or do streaming video capture) any Flash-based video - YouTube, MySpace, even from sites that use dynamic/coded links to prevent people from typing in the direct link to the file.

Here it is - works quite well too:

http://keepvid.com/

[UFORocks]

User generated content is asking for legal issues. 99% of YouTube content that people want to watch are illegal the other 1% no one cares about. All the TV shows, videos of bands etc are all illegally uploaded to youtube. Youtube can yank em but the user will just upload them.

Just because I pay 40 bucks for a concert DVD, doesnt give me the right to transcode it and upload it on youtube....

I agree, under copryright law as it is today that is the case, but why can't that change, why shouldn't it? You can't find a fraction of the stuff you find on youtube in a store, or even on amazon or ebay. There's some shit you will never ever find through the currently legal methods. The only alternative is file sharing.

The whole model needs to change. The industry needs to get off CDs and DVDs all together as the primary way of distributing media. Dig a hole, throw the old model in, and cover it with dirt, let it die.

There are always going to be people that want something for nothing. Suing google and youtube isn't going to change that, and neither is levying enormous fines on people for sharing music.

The harder and more complex it is for people to find and pay for the stuff they want to see the more likely it is that they will look for alternative ways of obtaining it.

There are a million different ways to distribute content, retain copyright, and make sure everyone gets their dues. The problem here is NOT people people sharing files, the problem is the RIAA and organizations like it that refuse to let go of a dying business model. The fact that revenues are down despite all their lawsuits is a clear example of that. They're not providing quality content at a fair price in a convenient way.

-Steve

[roodyrocker]

The problem is they want to charge for anything related to the music and they aren't succeding at it. Today they want their MBI and ASCAP fees from local bars for cover bands, prevent uploading videos to Youtube that would otherwise not be seen cause they aren't going to sell that much video, last year they tried to ding the free online tab websites and never mind that tabs are used to play their music which promotes it! And now from what I hear they have hired a law firm to enforce their ASCAP crap on the local bars. So that must cost them money too, right? In my area they don't seem to be recouping those costs as the bars are choosing option B, namely don't pay their fee and dump the cover bands. Now how much is that check amount going to be for the artists?

[Rsmacker]

Slade were unknown until Quiet Riot came along, then Slade got a second chance to hit it big because of someone else playing their songs.

Whoa right there!
Point of order here - Slade were most definitely NOT unknown until Quiet Riot came along. In fact, play "Cum On Feel The Noize" by Quiet Riot to the man on the street here in the UK and he WILL tell you it is Slade. He won't have a clue who Quiet Riot were, even though they were nice enough to cover "Mama Weer All Crazee Now" as well. I guess they wanted to be a Slade tribute band!

Noddy Holder and co are a British institution (even if we only know him and Dave Hill), none more so than at this time of year, because we have been listening to "Merry fucking Christmas Everyone" since October everywhere we go. (After 26 years, the record has never been re-released - it never gets deleted, they just keep pressing it!!!!)
Yet another Brummie product (or more accurately Yam Yam land), supported Ozzy and supported BY Thin Lizzy among others, they were Rock n Roll Royalty at one time.

Noddy Holder was even offered the job as AC/DC's vocalist after Bon Scott died. (He also used to scare the shit out of me when I was a little kid, and not in that Michael Jackson kinda way. I think it was those staring eyes and fucking huge sideburns)

Right, Slade break over, as you were.......

[joelayres]

I hear they have hired a law firm to enforce their ASCAP crap on the local bars. So that must cost them money too, right? In my area they don't seem to be recouping those costs as the bars are choosing option B, namely don't pay their fee and dump the cover bands. Now how much is that check amount going to be for the artists?

And that is a BIG part of the problem. I'll bet that they are not only trying to get the bars to pay the fees, but are trying to levy past fees and fines as well - the more the lawyers can extract, the more they get paid. I've long said that a license to practice law or medicine is a legal license to steal.

Fuck them all - I'm going to look for some torrents!

[Spivonious]

My point was that Joe Mama gets paid the same as AC/DC - even when his song is never played - EVER. The pot gets split evenly regardless of who's music is actually earning the money.

Source? It was my understanding that the money goes to the writer of the song that was performed, not an even split.


Just because you don't agree with the record business doesn't give you the right to break the law. As far as a license to practice medicine being a license to steal...blame the health insurance companies and hospital administrators, not the people trying to help you. Do you think the doctors and nurses staffing the free clinics are trying to steal from you? Honestly, you come across sounding like you're 15.

Oh, and the RIAA is a completely separate entity from ASCAP.

[joelayres]

Source? It was my understanding that the money goes to the writer of the song that was performed, not an even split.

Take a look at the BMI licensing agreement I posted earlier. The license holder pays their fee, but nowhere does it require a list of songs performed and their artists to be listed. How would they determine who to pay - roll of the dice? I am nor surmising anything - the contract speaks for itself.

[Rsmacker]

If they just divided everything up equally, then I'd write a song called "Lick My Bollocks", release it, it would NEVER get played, but I'd then sit back and wait for my share of AC/DC's loot to roll in - leeching on the backs of those with real songwriting talent, so obviously that's not the way it works.

They decide on the division of the money in several ways, there are different levels of licences. That contract you posted is probably the basic one, that's why it's a basic fee (regardless of whether it's fair or expensive).

Large radio stations with seriously high licence fees submit detailed playlists, as do large clubs.
Of the smaller places, they do random samples of playlists, or simply observe/listen to draw up a picture of what's being performed on random days.

Obviously, Coldplay's latest thing is going to be on loadsa lists, ads etc, so they go to a high revenue band. Mr Nobody from 1969 who hardly ever gets played goes into a lower band. Maybe Mr Nobody gets played "regularly", every 3 months without fail, but the samplers don't hear it, well tough tits, relatively speaking, he is still in the lowest band compared to Coldplay who probably get heard in 10,000 places every day. There is no way they are going to be missed by a sample.

Every live venue, DJ etc should submit a playlist to the PRS, to enable the loot shared out to go to the right people. If an "underground" track gets heard in clubs everywhere, but none of those clubs are submitting lists and the samples happen to miss those performances, the poor sap who wrote it doesn't get a fig.

The more places that take the time to fill out playlist forms, the more smaller writers may get more of their dues, and the fairer/more accurate the division of royalties would be.