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.
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.
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.
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.
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)