# Youtube - and Copyrighted Material - opinions?



## mikebarry (Jun 16, 2012)

I've been really into Beethoven the last few weeks, I had the DVD Deutsche Grammophon Zimerman and Bernstein on Beethoven's Piano Concerti in my cart at amazon but then i remembered its probably on youtube for free - and indeed it was. The whole concerti #4 uploaded, its probably one of the finest recording of this piece 

http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/s ... NR=0734514

The question is how is youtube allowed to do this? As a casual viewer I am just enthralled that I can switch between the best musicians on basically any piece - yet as a consumer it seems absolutely ridiculous. Why would I pay to support DG's releases when it is on there for free. 

What a crazy culture this is. Is this a gift to all or a death curse for those who sell such materials? How can money be recovered by those making these productions? How can such a pirated industry continue to exist? 

I can't get my mind straight on it.


----------



## RobertPeetersPiano (Jun 17, 2012)

I never fully understood the copyright-youtube-thing.

Whenever you upload something to youtube that has some copyrighted material in there (Youtube has some sort of filter for that) they will place adds on that video, so that the copyright holder gets part of the profit youtube made because of you. So in that way, they get money without doing anything thanx to you.
However, I think this is more intended to be used when you make a video, and for instance put some existing music under it.

What professional artist can do, is open up a channel, where they upload their copyrighted material. Since they are able to sell it, they have already cleared the copyright issue, so it wouldn't be that much work to clear it for youtube too. In that way, they will get money, without doing to much extra. And they will be able to monitor it in a better way.


----------



## david robinson (Jun 17, 2012)

copyright?
used to be easy, 'cos recording and publishing co's had all the equipement and money.
and most important - distribution.
nowadaze? ehhhh.
put anything on the net and it's fair game.
unless you are a millionaire, you'd have big trouble policing your work.
and, as a millionaire why even bother with music or art in general.
the only ppl benefiting from art now, are the punters.
they get it for free.
j.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 17, 2012)

The trouble with the Youtube model is that there is no evidence that it is working for the majority of people.

For example, when you sell a copy of a track to someone, either with a physical CD or a download from Amazon (or something similar), there is a guaranteed amount of income, however small, going to the Copyright holders. However, this copy of your music can be played as many times as the purchaser wants, without any further payment. With Youtube theoretically with every play the Copyright holders get paid, so on the surface it should be a good system. However, where it falls down are:

1) The number of plays that you need to make any money is very large, so unless your music is aimed at huge numbers of listeners, you will make nothing.

2) There is no proof that the advertising on Youtube works at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if the revenue it generates for Youtube was to drop substantially, meaning less money in the end for the Copyright holders.

So from personal experience, having earned nothing from Youtube or Spotify, for that matter, selling one track on Amazon would pay more than all of my Youtube and Spotify earnings put together.

D


----------



## david robinson (Jun 17, 2012)

RobertPeetersPiano @ Sun Jun 17 said:


> I never fully understood the copyright-youtube-thing.
> 
> Whenever you upload something to youtube that has some copyrighted material in there (Youtube has some sort of filter for that) they will place adds on that video, so that the copyright holder gets part of the profit youtube made because of you. So in that way, they get money without doing anything thanx to you.
> However, I think this is more intended to be used when you make a video, and for instance put some existing music under it.
> ...



money from YT? lol.

at $1.00 a play, my income would be close to one half a million dollars right now.
i'd settle 4 a tenth of that, thanks.
and i not BS'ing re: the view count.
j.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 17, 2012)

Daryl is right - you need substantial numbers of views (on already 'monitised' material) to get anything worthwhile. They do pay out, and I get a steady stream of money each month (there are a few videos with my music on with 10 million + views combined), though I'm not about to retire on the proceeds :D 

Cheers


----------



## midphase (Jun 17, 2012)

This article relates to the thread and should be read by all:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/tech/web/ ... hpt=hp_bn5


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 17, 2012)

Most of these videos being posted are not by the company but just random folks with a copy of handbrake


----------



## rgames (Jun 17, 2012)

midphase @ Sun Jun 17 said:


> This article relates to the thread and should be read by all:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/tech/web/ ... hpt=hp_bn5


It's sort of a catch-22, isn't it? The streaming model makes it easier to make sure you're getting paid, but when you do get paid, it's a lot less.

One things's for sure: the streaming model is unlikely to be worthwhile to the music creators (unless the current deals change). Remember Lady Gaga's Spotify royalties? $200 or something like that? And how many people get as many plays as she does?

I guess I'm a dinosaur but I don't stream anything. And I still buy CD's, though I do often check them out via downloads (eMusic) before deciding to buy them. Streaming won't help you in 10 years when you want to go back and listen to something that's no longer streamable. I often go back to my mp3 collection and sort by composer and star rating when I need inspiration for a piece. Odds are that will never work in the streaming world.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Jun 17, 2012)

I hate to admit it, but in the past year or so I've bought maybe 2 albums from iTunes. 

I'm just not particularly interested in most music that's out there, soundtracks bore me, pop music is insipid, and most electronica is simply unlistenable. 

I'm listed as a Music Supervisor somewhere (because I have been a music sup on a few films) so I get all these bands to send me links to their mp3's...some of it is ok, most of it is unlistenable junk.

I look at myself as an old-school dude and I find it hard to motivate myself to go out and buy stuff, so I can only imagine that teens nowadays are that much more removed from the purchasing instinct.

I don't pirate music if that's what you're wondering, I just don't like most of it enough to want to buy it. Every once in a while I'll check out some video on the VEVO channel which satisfies my short term curiosity.

I think the last album I purchased was Skrillex, or maybe Nero...can't remember. The problem with both of those artists is that after ODing on their stuff, I have no desire to listen to it again (ever?). 99% of the music I do find myself wanting to listen over and over is on the CD's that I own, stuff from Peter Gabriel, Depeche Mode, NIN, M.Ward, etc. 

I dunno...sorry for rambling on, I just see the music market as having become too over saturated. The internet didn't help in my view, democratization of the process has destroyed it. I'm not the only one thinking this way, this big promise of the net and technology allowing everyone to be creative and get their voice heard...it hasn't worked. All it's done is added more noise, more tech junkies with Ableton LIVE cranking shit out and making the chance of a good artist being heard even slimmer. Same is true with movies, I can't tell you how much crap there is on Netflix. And don't say "shitty films have always been around" because we've never seen this amount of crap before. 

Ultimately we're still relying on the studios and record labels to act as filters. We're still flocking to see the big Hollywood films while ignoring the indie ones for the most part. Same with music, I am aware of One Direction because TV shows keep pushing them hard, they have the marketing muscle to put them out there as the new de facto pop sensation. All the while nobody has ever heard of Drokk, I have no idea how much money their album has made, my guess is very very little.

I forgot where I was going with all this...


----------



## david robinson (Jun 18, 2012)

don't worry kays, you'll catch up on of these days.
lol.
j.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 18, 2012)

midphase @ Mon Jun 18 said:


> I hate to admit it, but in the past year or so I've bought maybe 2 albums from iTunes.
> 
> I'm just not particularly interested in most music that's out there, soundtracks bore me, pop music is insipid, and most electronica is simply unlistenable.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## rgames (Jun 18, 2012)

midphase @ Sun Jun 17 said:


> I dunno...sorry for rambling on, I just see the music market as having become too over saturated. The internet didn't help in my view, democratization of the process has destroyed it. I'm not the only one thinking this way, this big promise of the net and technology allowing everyone to be creative and get their voice heard...it hasn't worked. All it's done is added more noise



If it's any consolation it's not just the music industry that suffers from this problem. If you were a scientist/engineer/mathematician thirty years ago you probably had two or maybe three primary references that you had to keep up with to stay current. Nowadays it's impossible: there are so many sources of information that it's impossible to keep up. And, as in the world of music, most of it is crap (e.g. there's a Journal of Teflon - really? An entire journal devoted to Teflon?). Same thing in the world of photography (and the arts in general).

It's a tough call. I guess allowing people a greater voice is a good thing.

The trouble is most of those people don't have anything meaningful to say...

There was an interesting article several years ago that argued that the number of "geniuses" that show up in a generation hasn't changed in the last thousand years or something like that. So even though global population has exploded, the number of people really changing the world has remained basically constant.

OK - now I'm going to go post something on Facebook.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Jun 18, 2012)

You're absolutely right.

If anything I see the dumbing down of the word genius. What a few years ago used to be considered well-crafted (music, story, movie, you name it) is now considered genius. And what a few years ago used to be considered mediocre is now thought of as completely acceptable.

Compare and contrast: 

Beatles <--> Radiohead

Marlon Brando <--> John Hamm

Michael Jackson <--> Justin Bieber

Bob Dylan <--> Bon Iver

Alien <--> Prometheus

'nuff said!


----------



## Daryl (Jun 19, 2012)

midphase @ Tue Jun 19 said:


> If anything I see the dumbing down of the word genius.


I don't think that IQ tests and the like have helped. Once you start to label someone a genius, just because they pass a particular test at a particular time in their life, it seems to diminish the whole idea of people with special abilities (no, not super heros, as I know you don't like those sort of people!).

D


----------



## Inductance (Jun 19, 2012)

mikebarry @ Sat Jun 16 said:


> As a casual viewer I am just enthralled that I can switch between the best musicians on basically any piece - yet as a consumer it seems absolutely ridiculous. Why would I pay to support DG's releases when it is on there for free.



I'd still buy it. For the most part, Youtube videos have poor video and audio quality (for now). If it's a performance that I really like, I still prefer to get the DVD or Bluray. But I do use Youtube to "try out" videos I'm interested in purchasing. Which means that I might wind up not buying videos I otherwise would have bought... which might be bad news for video production companies anyway...


----------



## wqaxsz (Jun 19, 2012)

midphase @ Tue Jun 19 said:


> You're absolutely right.
> 
> If anything I see the dumbing down of the word genius. What a few years ago used to be considered well-crafted (music, story, movie, you name it) is now considered genius. And what a few years ago used to be considered mediocre is now thought of as completely acceptable.
> 
> ...



Ah,ah, " che carinu' ", thank you for the laughters.
If anyone ever thought of any in your left column as geniuses... The "dumbing down" has started before those years.

Speak for oneself almighty.

LorenzOHoh


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 19, 2012)

My point was that the distributors/creators of this music aren't making a dime since they didn't upload - and somehow our culture is ok with this? 

and I can scarcely think of a better band in the last 20 years then what Radiohead has accomplished, very creative bunch. 

Google is back in court defending their right to "pirate" in a vague way - we will see what happens.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 19, 2012)

mikebarry @ Tue Jun 19 said:


> My point was that the distributors/creators of this music aren't making a dime since they didn't upload - and somehow our culture is ok with this?
> 
> and I can scarcely think of a better band in the last 20 years then what Radiohead has accomplished, very creative bunch.
> 
> Google is back in court defending their right to "pirate" in a vague way - we will see what happens.



Mike it actually doesn't matter who uploaded the music, if you own the copyright, you can get you tube to pay out. You just need an agreement with them and use their fingerprinting system. my publisher does this. 

The issue is not that you can get payments, but IMO the level of payments is ridiculously low so you need millions of views to get anything decent out of it. 

Cheers


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jun 20, 2012)

Kind of a related development. Not going to stop ita as a whole...but small steps forward to stop ripping mp3s from youtube videos.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406018,00.asp


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Jun 24, 2012)

Well, having music on YouTube can drive sales to merchandise. From personal experience, I've noticed that having my music on YouTube (in full) has seemingly led to MORE, not fewer, album sales. It's easy to share, send or embed a YouTube link. From there, an interested party can just click once in the video description to go to a purchase page. I look at it as another mechanism of discovering and consuming music that can be an effective tool in building a fanbase and selling products (be it music, sample libraries, etc.)


----------



## david robinson (Jun 24, 2012)

IMHO, it is much better to use a secondary mix
to upload to YT.
this is not the one released on the CD but close.
at least that way the Cd shopper gets something of better quality than YT.
(i just simply use a rejected mix and leave off any mastering).
it works.
j.


----------

