You are here

This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Advice on everything from getting your music heard to setting up a label and royalties.

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby blinddrew » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:40 pm

Sam Inglis wrote:The music industry really screwed up the transition to digital, with the result that there is now a widespread perception that music has no intrinsic value and should be available for free.
I'd agree with this, in fact they're still screwing it up now. Take, as an example, the fact that due to industry lobbying it is illegal in the UK (again) to rip music from a cd. It's like they're deliberately trying to be the bad guys.
What also doesn't help is the model* that the majors adopted throughout the 'heyday' of the industry, whereby a tiny number would become hugely successful, a small number would have a brief career and the vast majority would never get a look in. This very inequitable split made it very easy for the naive or unscrupulous to persuade people that they were somehow 'sticking it to the man' and that the money never reached artists anyway.
The history of the music industry is largely one of greed, excess and ego. In many ways we should be surprised it's turned out this well. :)


* i'm strictly talking pop music here, i don't know about the classical market.
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 8318
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby Watchmaker » Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:48 am

y'know, before radio and the music industry, very few musicians made anything remotely like money. Some, if they were exceedingly lucky, scraped out a meagre living under patronage, some wrote for Church and God, but in the west anyway, if the Bishop and the aristocracy didn't back you on some level, you didn't get played. To a very small audience of aristocrats.

Or you played secular music either travelleing alot, or playing with your kin and close associates.

This whole "I get to make money off of music" nonsense really annoys the crap outta me :headbang:
User avatar
Watchmaker
Frequent Poster
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:00 am
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Take my advice, I'm not using it.

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby Guest » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:58 am

blinddrew wrote:

* i'm strictly talking pop music here, i don't know about the classical market.

Classical music is either as fashion conscious and fickle as the worst teenagers or else musicians under 30 playing to a retired audience over 65. Exactly the same repertoire is played - Haydn wrote more than 125 string trios but most trios play the same one.
The other type of classical music is subsidised, experimental ideas from the 1940s-60s passed off as new and innovative.
Classical music uses gimmicks and substandard marketing and promotional ideas. There is a concert of South African composers coming up, one work is by a South African composer, the other is by Beethoven, because it is a "revolutionary quartet". Perhaps the administrators think Ludwig Van Beethoven is an Afrikaans name.
Regarding money this example explains it all: a string orchestra, consisting entirely of female attorneys and doctors in America, was committed to promoting works by female composers. I recommended the perfect work by a female composer in California but they wouldn't play it because they said the score and parts must be completely free of charge - they refused to pay for music.
Guest

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby Kinh » Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:38 am

blinddrew wrote:
Kinh wrote:
blinddrew wrote:How many people are actually doing this?
A lot. Probably more people than those buying.
Without any statistics this is just speculation. This is not a sound basis regulation.

Kinh wrote:
blinddrew wrote:Alternatively, they're huge fans and they want more people to know about the work. ContentID reallocates any advertising spend to the copyright holder so all that's happening is that the band are getting some advertising dollars that they wouldn't have got. Every play on youtube is not equal to a lost a sale.
Do you seriously think members of Fleetwood Mac or Duran Duran who are worth millions have any interest monitoring the chump change they make in youtube advertising vs the money they're losing in publishing?
2 things here, firstly most monitoring is done by bots administered by third parties under contract from a record label. If your bot is not doing a good job there are plenty of other companies out there offering alternative ones.
Secondly, it's not chump change. If a 6-year-old kid can make $11m in one year with a toy review channel then if you're a A-list band who can't turn over more than a pittance then that is a failure of your business model not of the system. The world changes, your business model needs to change too.

Kinh wrote:
blinddrew wrote:Nobody has a 'right to make a profit' and a piece of work is only worth what people will pay for it. The DMCA allows copyright owners to remove infringing content - a lot of stays up because they choose to allow it and reap the benefits of the advertising income.
Wrong. A piece of work, in this case a CD/mp3 is a set price, set not by the buyer but the seller. I dont think you know what's going on at the moment with the DMCA and how the industry's been fighting youtube for a fairer deal for years. The 'coypywrite owners' are not happy and are pushing for change so I dont know why you'd have that opinion, it doesn't make sense, especially from someone who (presumably) works in the music industry.
You can set your price at whatever you like, but if no-one buys it then it's wrong. The market determines the price it's willing to stand. This is a business model problem again.
The industry has been fighting youtube for years because they're unwilling to adapt to new technology, despite being in the best position to make a profit from it. Consistently the content industry fights any new technology tooth and nail until eventually it realises how it could have been making a profit from it for years.
"Copyright owners" is a very loose term, the major labels have been fighting this for years, a lot of indies and artists are actually very happy with the new tools and distribution mechanisms.

Kinh wrote:
blinddrew wrote:Well firstly, youtube is about much more than just music sharing. It is still, first and foremost, a video sharing platform. The high level stats of how the content breaks down are available. Secondly, Youtube 'shouldn't' be anything apart from what it's users decide it should be. It's social media, no-one gets to make the rules about what gets shared other than the users.
Really?? So why is there no porn on youtube, why is there no Islam extremism being promoted?
Not sure what your point is here? Youtube is a private company, they can choose what they want on their platform and they've decided not to have porn on it. Porn is easily identifiable and flagged by users, there is plenty of extremism on there but this is a far, far more complex moderating issue. As is music licensing and fair use. But the fact remains that thousands of DMCA takedowns are issued and acted upon every day. If a video remains up it's either because it has a strong legal argument or it has been permitted.

Kinh wrote:
blinddrew wrote:Alternatively it's providing a vital marketing and income stream, for free, to thousands upon thousands of content creators across the globe.
Not for free; at a price. The price is the cost of a CD or Mp3 that would have otherwise been purchased by the listener/pirate/thief had it not been in an easily accessible format.
2 things again. firstly every stream is not a lost sale. It just isn't, whether it's convenience, try before buy, research, whatever, it is simply inaccurate to assume that everyone who listens to a track on youtube would otherwise have bought a physical copy. More likely they simply wouldn't have listened at all.
Secondly, as Still Vibrations points out, CDs (and any form or hard medium) are a dying format. In fact, owning music is increasingly dying out as a concept. If your business model cannot react to how your customers behaviours are changing then your model is flawed.

Just to get a couple of things clear, I am not pro-piracy. I buy my music. But did I tape songs off the radio when I was kid? Sure I did. And probably bought a copy further down the line. Did I make copies of mates cassettes when they bought them (and vice versa)? Sure I did. And subsequently bought a copy of the CD further down the line. There may be some here who never engaged in this kind of practice but probably not many I'll wager. Home taping didn't kill music and neither will youtube, it will just lead to a new and different market.
As to copyright, I think it has largely lost the plot. Since we're talking about youtube, let's talk about the US version of copyright. It's a mechanism. People often forget this. The purpose is the creation of new works. The mechanism to inspire this is a limited-term monopoly on the works, i.e. copyright. The return value to the citizen/state is the move of these works to the public domain at the end of the copyright term. In my opinion that limited term is far, far too long.

(here's hoping I've got the quote marks in the right place)
I dont know why you think copying a cassette and giving it to one friend is the same as giving it to several million, but anyway. And the little 6 year old would've made that money through endorsements, not youtube directly. If I owned a toy company Id gladly pay him good money too. TV advertisements are ridiculously expensive. Do you have any ideas on how a band such as Fleetwood Mac can make that sort of money by having their music on youtube?? If you do, please share as Id be interested too.

And no offense, but I think it's a little naive to say the majority listening to these albums on youtube are just trying them out so they can then pay for them on itunes an get the same quality format.
Also it's not the business models in this case that need to adapt to customers' behaviors, it's the law. We need to enforce new laws to stop piracy, like they've done in the film industry. People in this country are scared shittless to illegally download movies and the film industry flourishes as we speak. If we tighten our privacy laws like they've done in Japan, I dont see why we cant change consumer trends. If people are aware downloading from youtube and others is wrong then we start bringing back value to music, it no longer appears like a disposable, cheap product, worthy to be stolen.
Those who have no respect for authority are that way because they're spoiled rotten or they live in a country with loose laws. As Trump said recently "people dont deal drugs in Singapore because they'll get the death penalty". The laws need to be compatible with the era and the technology and they're just simply not.
Kinh
Regular
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:00 am

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby BigRedX » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:07 am

Lat time I looked, any of the copyright holders involved can have a YouTube video removed if it uses their music without permission. I've successfully used it a couple of times to have some poor quality live clips of bands I've been in taken down.

That to me would suggest that the interested parties have decided that having these videos in place is doing the band more good in publicity and performance royalties than harm through lost sales CD or download sales
User avatar
BigRedX
Frequent Poster
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:00 am
RockinRollin' VampireMan

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby blinddrew » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:16 am

Hi Kinh, i could continue to debate this with you, but i've been doing this for years and it's tiring. These are essentially ideological arguments and as a result there is very little chance of either of us changing our minds unless some overwhelming data becomes available.
If that happens, i'll happily pick up the discussion then. In the meantime, that's not why I visit this forum. Hopefully i can at least leave you with the idea that it's not as black and white as you suggest and that there are no easy solutions.
Have fun making music. :)
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 8318
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby ManFromGlass » Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:02 pm

Just to be clear regarding copyright -
Copyright is a law that gives you ownership over the things you create. Be it a painting, a photograph, a poem or a novel, if you created it, you own it and it’s the copyright law itself that assures that ownership. The ownership that copyright law grants comes with several rights that you, as the owner, have exclusively. Those rights include:

The right to reproduce the work
to prepare derivative works
to distribute copies
to perform the work
and to display the work publicly
These are your rights and your rights alone. Unless you willingly give them up (EX: A Creative Commons License), no one can violate them legally. This means that, unless you say otherwise, no one can perform a piece written by you or make copies of it, even with attribution, unless you give the OK.

Inversely, if you’re looking for material to use or reuse, you should not do any of these things without either asking permission or confirming that the work is in the public domain, which means that the copyright has expired and all of the above rights have been forfeited. Simply put, if the work isn’t in the public domain and you don’t have permission to use a piece, you put yourself in risk of legal action, regardless of your intentions.

Because, beyond fair use and parody, the holder of a copyrighted piece has near carte blanche to do what they want with their work. It’s no different than owning a car, a house or a pen. One can lend it out to a friend, sell it, modify it or even destroy it. In short, if you own the copyright to something, you have the same rights that you do with anything else and, in some instances, even more. After all, you did create it. It only makes sense that you would own the fruits of your labor. That’s what copyright law is all about.
User avatar
ManFromGlass
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2290
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:00 am
Location: In the woods in Canada
 

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby BikerDude » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:27 pm

The record companies often takes things off of Youtube.
It's a matter of what is viewed as best for the artist.
Will having albums on youtube potentially generate sales or not?
For a new album it will kill sales.
But for an artist who's sales have leveled off long ago any attention is good attention.
At least that's the theory.

The artist or record company can have youtube take it down.
They do know that it's there.
BikerDude
Poster
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby Watchmaker » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:40 pm

Notice that copyrights don't include a right to monetization...

Also, the OP argues that music is devalued, so cheap it's worth stealing...I'm afraid that doesn't make sense to me. Why steal something valueless?
User avatar
Watchmaker
Frequent Poster
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:00 am
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Take my advice, I'm not using it.

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby Guest » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:04 pm

Here's an excerpt from a talk given by Lyor Cohen, Global Head of Music at YouTube and Google.

"But he was persuaded to take up his current role at YouTube in part by his fear of a consolidation of power between Apple and Spotify. He drew a comparison between those two companies, which he said exist to sell a product, and other platforms like Snapchat, which exist for social purposes. YouTube, he claimed, combines both. "The industry is going to return and grow by ads and subscriptions. People are willing to pay, and we'll convert them to paid subscriptions," he insisted. "We know we're late to the party, but it's OK.""

I don't know if I agree with what he said, and I am not convinced his opinions are truly objective as he works for Youtube, but here are the key points of his talk:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/lyor-cohens-sxsw-2018-keynote-things-we-learned-w517884
Guest

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby Kinh » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:10 pm

ManFromGlass wrote:Just to be clear regarding copyright -
Copyright is a law that gives you ownership over the things you create. Be it a painting, a photograph, a poem or a novel, if you created it, you own it and it’s the copyright law itself that assures that ownership. The ownership that copyright law grants comes with several rights that you, as the owner, have exclusively. Those rights include:

The right to reproduce the work
to prepare derivative works
to distribute copies
to perform the work
and to display the work publicly
These are your rights and your rights alone. Unless you willingly give them up (EX: A Creative Commons License), no one can violate them legally. This means that, unless you say otherwise, no one can perform a piece written by you or make copies of it, even with attribution, unless you give the OK.

Inversely, if you’re looking for material to use or reuse, you should not do any of these things without either asking permission or confirming that the work is in the public domain, which means that the copyright has expired and all of the above rights have been forfeited. Simply put, if the work isn’t in the public domain and you don’t have permission to use a piece, you put yourself in risk of legal action, regardless of your intentions.

Because, beyond fair use and parody, the holder of a copyrighted piece has near carte blanche to do what they want with their work. It’s no different than owning a car, a house or a pen. One can lend it out to a friend, sell it, modify it or even destroy it. In short, if you own the copyright to something, you have the same rights that you do with anything else and, in some instances, even more. After all, you did create it. It only makes sense that you would own the fruits of your labor. That’s what copyright law is all about.
Yeah I understand all this but these laws are ancient. They are in many cases no longer applicable today and need to change accordingly otherwise it's just a bloody free for all, like the pillaging of Rome - hordes of barbarians taking what they can before there's nothing left...and that by the way, I'm not just talking about pirates, also entrepreneurs like that bloody Daniel Ek who feeds off the weakness. That guys is nothing but a bloody leach. He doesn't know it but he's at the very top of my enemy list.
Kinh
Regular
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:00 am

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby Kinh » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:18 pm

Watchmaker wrote:Notice that copyrights don't include a right to monetization...

Also, the OP argues that music is devalued, so cheap it's worth stealing...I'm afraid that doesn't make sense to me. Why steal something valueless?
because the guilty conscience doesn't work as good when you steal things of lesser value
Kinh
Regular
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:00 am

Re: This really annoys the crap out of me!!

Postby CS70 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:25 pm

Watchmaker wrote:y'know, before radio and the music industry, very few musicians made anything remotely like money. Some, if they were exceedingly lucky, scraped out a meagre living under patronage, some wrote for Church and God, but in the west anyway, if the Bishop and the aristocracy didn't back you on some level, you didn't get played. To a very small audience of aristocrats.

Or you played secular music either travelleing alot, or playing with your kin and close associates.



True, but absolutely irrelevant. Before computers, there was no software industry. Before mobile phones, there was no mobile phone industry. Before the advent of cinema actors made as much money as musicians. Before the advent of cars there was no car industry. Before TV, it wasn't possible to make money from football TV rights. And so for for countless examples.

Music is a product that people consumes. Back before radio and records, large distribution was next to impossible and thus the market was very small. Radio and recording technology enabled the creation of a market several orders of magnitude larger and therefore the amount of revenues available grew of the same orders of magnitude. It happened with the printing press, for example, a few centuries before, and many other industries where a new technology factor enabled a change in distribution or lowered costs of production (say aluminium, or spices, or dozen others).
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 4378
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video  and the FB page

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users