Record Labels, Once Again, Freak Out About Anyone Making Their Content Useful

from the moving-on... dept

Fri, Jun 3rd 2011 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

Another day, another story of the major labels freaking out that someone (for free!) has helped make their content more useful and valuable. About a week ago, I was one of the folks who passed along the news (via Twitter) of a new service called Youtify, which took the YouTube API and built a neat media player on top of YouTube that looked quite a bit like Spotify, the popular music service that's not yet available in the US. The concept really isn't all that new. Muziic has been around for years, and has a YouTube-based media player, and TubeRadio has a YouTube-based music player that looks just like iTunes. Honestly, TubeRadio and Youtify are really quite similar, except one uses the iTunes look and feel, and the other uses the Spotify look and feel.

Either way, it's a pretty useful and neat setup for listening to and discovering new music on YouTube.

So, of course, the labels have to kill it. Adam Singer points us to the news that just days after Youtify's launch started spreading... the major record labels have somehow blocked their music from appearing. Note that most of this is via Vevo -- the major label-owned service for posting videos to YouTube. In other words, these are authorized videos that have been uploaded and made available on purpose by the record labels. And... then the Youtify guys went and made an interface to make it easier to access and consume that music... and the labels/Vevo freak out and block them.

Because, apparently, that's how the major labels roll. If something makes the music more enjoyable and more valuable for free, but doesn't "pay" the labels, then too freaking bad. Is it really any wonder why the major labels are struggling?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: music, player, useful, youtify, youtube
Companies: spotify, vevo, youtify, youtube

146 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

AG Wright (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:54pm

Stealing
But if the major record labels aren't getting paid then their content is being STOLEN. We all know that this is true because the have told us so often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jim, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:06pm
  
  Re: Stealing
  Yeah you're right, it'd be different if all 4 labels had deals with YouTube to monetize their content.... Oh wait, they do!
  
  fail
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: Stealing
  What do you dorks care about the major labels?
  
  You rip off from indies more than the majors.
  
  Ripping off musicians is anarchism for pussies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 4 Jun 2011 @ 9:08am
    
    Re: Re: Stealing
    Another day, another Troll.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Stealing
    For Fuck's sake, it's not. Anarchism is a lack of orders, not a lack of order. There is a difference.
    
    Moreover, seeing as I CC 95% of my music, I get to sheep my donations to the artists directly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 2:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stealing
      Anarchism
      - noun
      3. See anarchy
      
      Anarchy
      �noun
      1. a state of society without government or law.
      2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
      3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
      
      Not sure what you mean by 'lack of orders' and not 'lack of order.' It's a lack of law or government.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing
        Anarchism as a political philosophy (definition 3 above) is actually quite nuanced and has significant amounts of literature backing it up, and its core assertion is that a lack of government results in a more orderly society. Note the line above - "voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society"
        
        Anyway, I'm not sure it's my cup of tea, and yeah the word can be used in a more general sense to mean disorder - but it is also an established political philosophy that means anything but
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing
        See definition 3, and then re-read my post. There's a difference between ORDER and orders.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:59pm

two third of the music from major label suck anyway. They should make everyone a favor take it off from everywhere. Lock it up somewhere so no one ever hear of it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Taylor, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:11pm

"Intellectual Property" is a broken model. You cannot "own" information. It doesn't make sense.

Optimising for scarcity in a memetic environment displays a profound misunderstanding of memetic environments - where the value comes from familiarity and attention.

Optimising for scarcity is optimising for obscurity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:22pm

Something tells me there is more to this story.

And if there is, you're going to be eating some serious "dirt".

Do you know for a fact that the labels are the ONLY ones protesting this? Or in your insatiable quest to crank on record labels, are just repeating an unsourced story verbatim?

If this is merely a different way of accessing the videos on youtube or vevo, the labels are still getting their hits and income.

You know who I'd imagine might have a problem with this? Spotify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:26pm
  
  Re:
  I've missed your desperate irony, TAM. Welcome back!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    All we have is an unsourced tweet that says the labels did it.
    
    Do you or anyone else have actual proof?
    
    No answer from the google people:
    
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube-api-gdata/uSeTTP05qgc
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "But after reaching YouTube, they confirmed it was the record labels, and not they, who had stopped access."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And how, exactly, would they do such a thing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Probably by sending threatening legal letters.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (also, when you make a youtube video, you can choose whether or not you want to enable embedding. Maybe it's related to that, perhaps they disabled embedding for Yotify/its Internet location).
        
        So, from what I gather, the record labels didn't 'kill' yotify altogether, they merely prevented it from working with 'their' content.
        
        While I think it's a bad move on their part, I suspect Yotify still works for other music and perhaps that will drive people away from mainstream music 'owned' by middlemen and towards independently controlled music that allows people to use their music with Yotify.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps what Yotify can do to make people dislike the record labels even more is to replace the removed videos with a message that says "this video has been removed from Yotify at the will of the RIAA" (or if it's not the RIAA, name whoever it is).
        
        Also, it should be noted that the RIAA is an organization that represents other corporations. It sorta takes the heat for these other corporations. If the corporations behind these bad moves can be more specifically named then our criticisms would have more impact. If not, perhaps the message should additionally list the organizations that the RIAA represents.
        
        "this video has been removed from Yotify at the will of the RIAA, an organization that (often) represents ..."
        
        Think about when Disney got that trademark on Seal Team 6. The negative publicity caused it to repeal its application. When Disney is criticized directly, a response is far more likely. When the RIAA is criticized, the organizations that it represents are less likely to react. It's sorta a scam designed to distract us from being critical of the underlying organizations behind these unpopular moves and we should be more resistant to this scam.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If that's really all there is to the story, then it's a stupid move and doesn't make any sense.
        
        Why would they do that? They make money off plays.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If that's really all there is to the story, then it's a stupid move and doesn't make any sense.
        
        Wow, and as we all know that is the first time EVER the labels acted this way!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you're finally catching on!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps you can ask them. But that would require more effort than simply repeating "there must be more to the story!" every time you don't like the story.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:56pm
  
  Re:
  "Something tells me there is more to this story."
  
  Yes, look for alternatives to the major labels.
  
  Looked up OCRemix on this site, been having fun with Youtify all day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 7:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Looked up OCRemix on this site, been having fun with Youtify all day."
    
    Don't forget this one: www.dmusic.com/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re:
  Something tells me there is more to this story.
  
  Here's a blog post from the Youtify site itself:
  Recently many rights holders (mainly record labels) chose to block Youtify for a large portion of the music videos on YouTube. We were caught by surprise by this action as they had made no attempt to contact us.
  http://blog.youtify.com/2011/06/users-can-play-their-favorite-music-in.html
  
  Incidentally: in that blog post, it talks about a new system. If the video you want is blocked, they say so, then the site points you to other, unofficial, videos that are still available on YouTube. So, good job driving people away from your content, labels.
  
  Furthermore, the same thing seems to be happening to TubeRadio. If you try to access some content (I'm looking at Bat For Lashes' "Glass"), this message pops up:
  This video contains content from EMI, who has blocked it from display on this website. Watch on YouTube
  
  Going to Muziik, however, and looking at the same content, will not display that message, and the video is displayed normally. So it does appear to be site-specific.
  
  Do you know for a fact that the labels are the ONLY ones protesting this? Or in your insatiable quest to crank on record labels, are just repeating an unsourced story verbatim?
  
  Since the Youtify author, Youtify blog, and article author all said it was "primarily record labels," I'd say fair is fair.
  
  If this is merely a different way of accessing the videos on youtube or vevo, the labels are still getting their hits and income.
  
  It used to be that ads were only displayed on YouTube itself, and not on videos embedded on other sites. So, the video uploaders would lose out on ad money in embedded content. But according to this post on the AdSense blog, that was fixed in 2008.
  
  So, you're right, the labels would still be getting their hits and income. Perhaps they're trying to force Youtify to pay additional fees. Or perhaps they care more about being gatekeepers than they do about actually making money.
  
  You know who I'd imagine might have a problem with this? Spotify.
  
  Why would they? Sure, it's competition... but not everyone tries to block legitimate competion. Even if they did have a problem with it, you know what they could do about it? Nothing. I'm pretty sure they're smart enough to realize that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ken, 5 Jun 2011 @ 11:51am
  
  Re:
  The irony is the music industry benefits from the very things they opposed when they were first introduced from the first recording devices to radio to cassette tapes to CDs and mp3.
  
  What ever happened to the rebellious side of Rock & Roll? The music industry now wants to beat everyone into submission.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim L, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:05pm

Why?
Youtify tweeted that they were back today, but it doesn't seem to be working well now.

Why would any musician in their right mind sign with a major label these days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liz, 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:20pm
  
  Re: Why?
  If you have a good agent, and an even better contract lawyer, you can get past the "Work for Hire" boiler plate contracts that are the standard for the big labels in the recording industry. Especially if you have a big enough following and can make a lot of money to have a greater say in negotiations.
  
  While selling plastic disks isn't really top billing these days, there is still a lot that the big labels can accomplish that smaller indie artists just don't have. And that's connections.
  
  A lot of business isn't what you know, but WHO you know. International concert promotions, larger scale production and distribution, merchandising, and large venue bookings generally require industry types like Warner Music or Sony BMG.
  
  Yes, the members of the RIAA do a lot of horrible things. Both to fans and their contracted artists. But even a large pile of manure can be used to grow something beautiful and sustainable if you know how to use it right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:59am
    
    Re: Re: Why?
    Just wait until someone figures out how to do the hard stuff that the labels do for a musician and charges a reasonable price for that service to the musician not the indentured servitude model the RIAA labels have now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 7:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why?
      How much do the labels charge?
      
      You're obviously an expert, so please tell us.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - cc, 4 Jun 2011 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        They take the copyrights to the artists' work and use them to bash the fans over the head with. Any artist who would give up her brain-children for pure monetary benefit deserves all the "horrible things" the members of the RIAA will do to her.
        
        And tell us, expert, how are the RIAA-members' resources spent on their contracted artists, huh? Do they give everyone an equal chance so each of their artists has an equal opportunity of getting international concert promotions and large venue bookings and such? Or is that determined by a bunch of suits who assign most of the artists to the bottom of the barrel to promote the 1% they believe will make them more money?
        
        If you are an artist who is not playing the most mainstream type of music with the very broadest appeal, you stand little chance of making money off the recordings you sign away and stand little chance of receiving serious promotion in mainstream channels. Furthermore, if you are an artist with even a modicum of love for what you do and a tiny bit of respect for your fanbase, you will avoid the majors like the plague.
        
        An artist's chances of making it without the labels have never been better. An overwhelming number of artists are already choosing to avoid the RIAA monstrosities and you know as well as I that that's a good thing for music.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        They take exclusive privileges to use that work. That's a lot. It's detrimental to our culture and to the artist who can't do what s/he wants with his own work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        Nobody forces an artist to sign with a label. It's their choice.
        
        Why are you anti-choice for artists?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        How did you move your goalposts so quickly?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        "Nobody forces an artist to sign with a label. It's their choice."
        
        Which doesn't negate the fact that the labels charge a lot.
        
        "Why are you anti-choice for artists?"
        
        I'm encouraging artists to make better choices.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        I'd like to encourage you to stand still while you repeatedly get kicked in the balls. So what?
        
        It's none of your business. The choices they make are theirs to decide, not yours.
        
        Stop being anti-choice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kaden (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        Seriously, your ball-kicking fantasies have no place in civilized discourse. Maybe you could find a kink pron site to fap to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        "I'd like to encourage you to stand still while you repeatedly get kicked in the balls. So what?"
        
        There is a difference between encouraging people to make good choices and encouraging them to make bad choices.
        
        "It's none of your business."
        
        I'm making it my business.
        
        As consumers, it is our business.
        
        Giving advice is different than deciding for others. Even if their personal choices maybe none of our business, providing advice to artists in public forums is within the scope of our business. It's no different than a weather newscaster suggesting that we wear a jacket on the news, what we personally do maybe none of their business, but publicly offering advice to whoever is listening is within the scope of the newscasters business.
        
        "The choices they make are theirs to decide, not yours."
        
        No one is making their choices for them, just offering suggestions.
        
        "Stop being anti-choice."
        
        Encouraging people to make better choices is not being anti-choice. You can choose to do illegal drugs, but I encourage you not to. I'm not being anti-choice, am I?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        "It's none of your business. "
        
        Why is the weather reporter telling me how to dress? It's none of his business.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        Mumbles to self
        
        *The weather man is telling me to wear a rain coat because it's going to rain outside. What a crock. It's none of his business.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        "Nobody forces an artist to sign with a label. It's their choice."
        
        Yes you are right, but I will just sit here, chain the exit doors shut, and charge you 90% of your income for life to let you out of the building I just set on fire.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 9:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        When you have to lie about things you know absolutely nothing about, you're just admitting you've lost the debate.
        
        But one of many examples:
        
        "In 1985, he was signed to a solo recording contract with Columbia Records. One album, Inside, was released by Columbia in 1986 to good reviews, but limited success.
        
        Sweet was then picked up by A&M Records where he released his second album, Earth (1989), again without commercial success. This period marked a personal and professional low point for Sweet, as A&M lost interest and his marriage failed.
        
        Sweet quickly recovered and formed a new band... the new group spent 1990 assembling Sweet's next work, originally titled Nothing Lasts.
        In 1990, A&M released Sweet from his contract, and he signed with rival Zoo Entertainment. The album, still under construction at the time, was retitled Girlfriend and released in October 1991. This album featured a classic set of pop-rock songs, was considered by many to be an artistic breakthrough, and quickly garnered impressive U.S. sales"
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sweet
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        What?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 1:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        Nobody forces an artist to sign with a label. It's their choice.
        
        And if they don't sign with a label, all the money they make won't be counted by Neilsen SoundScan, and will be counted as "lost profits" to the major labels.
        
        Then, they'll blame all those "lost profits" on piracy, and piracy alone.
        
        From there, it's one small step to convince lawmakers that any and all actions taken against "piracy" will be in the best interests of the U.S. economy.
        
        Know who those laws will affect the most? Musicians who don't sign with major labels. Anti-piracy litigation doesn't actually make piracy harder; it only makes legitimate competition harder. It primarily effects artists who are trying to become successful without signing to labels.
        
        Essentially, anti-"piracy" laws are really anti-choice laws.
        
        I'm absolutely pro-choice for artists. That's why I'm against "anti-piracy" laws. If you're truly pro-choice for artists, then you should be too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        And if they don't sign with a label, all the money they make won't be counted by Neilsen SoundScan, and will be counted as "lost profits" to the major labels.
        
        An unsigned artist doesn't sell enough albums to make a dent in SoundScan numbers.
        
        So while you probably thought your theory could pass as fact, it doesn't.
        
        As for the rest of your bullshit, enforcing piracy law has nothing to do with an artist being able to promote themselves on the net.
        
        Epic fail Karl. As usual.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        An unsigned artist doesn't sell enough albums to make a dent in SoundScan numbers.
        
        [citation needed]
        
        ...besides, if this is actually true, it kind of invalidates the whole "choice" argument, doesn't it? If you really are for freedom of choice for artists, you should try damned hard for unsigned artists to sell more records, so they will have better choices than signing with a label.
        
        That is, if you're not bringing up "choice" as a red herring...
        
        As for the rest of your bullshit, enforcing piracy law has nothing to do with an artist being able to promote themselves on the net.
        
        Right here, on this thread, another(?) Anonymous Coward claimed that Youtify is "an illegal commercial use of their music."
        
        Yet there is absolutely nothing illegal about Youtify. It is not infringing, and it is not in violation of YouTube's TOS. Instead, it is simply competition - and a useful service to both the public, and musicians themselves.
        
        The fact that this thread has turned into talk about piracy, when no piracy was ever involved in the first place, shows you're wrong. You yourself, by framing this in terms of "piracy," are just proving my point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 3:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        An unsigned artist doesn't sell enough albums to make a dent in SoundScan numbers.
        
        Jonathan Coulton, anyone?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 7:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        He's merely the exception to the rule and what do we want from our artists, to be exceptional? How absurd! They should all be mediocre. I like my art stiff as a board, thank you very much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 12:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        And I like mny mediocrity to be art, too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 11:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        Jonathan Coulton, anyone?
        
        Corey Smith brought in over $4 million. Giving his music away for free. As an unsigned artist.
        
        But apparently they don't make enough money, huh.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 8:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why?
      That's part of the problem with our monopolistic government. They wrongfully grant a government imposed monopoly on many of the distribution channels that artists could use to distribute their content (ie: broadcasting monopolies and cableco monopolies, not to mention laws that effectively deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers). In order to get ones content distributed through many of these channels, content creators must go through a govt imposed monopolist gatekeeper. Content that has gatekeeper access has a government imposed unlevel playing field. The effect is often that independently controlled or permissibly licensed content doesn't get broadcasted over these distribution channels. Content made from artists who have handed over their copy protection privileges over to a third party are more likely to get gatekeeper access.
      
      That's why we need to abolish cableco monopolies. It's why we need stronger penalties against collection societies that try to collect from or sue restaurants and other venues that want to host independent performers under the pretext that someone might infringe (unfortunately, the laws protecting the rich have steeper penalties). It's why we need to abolish the FCC, or at least make them act in the public interest. Handing over (or auctioning) exclusive monopoly power over to private corporations is not in the public interest.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        Stop spamming this manure; it doesn't make any sense. There are no gatekeepers anymore now that there is the internet. An artist can choose to release their material any way they wish.
        
        Your constant need to pretend there are boogeymen making monopolies is delusional. Artists are free to make the choice to sign with companies that will protect their IP. That's their choice. Stop being anti-choice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        Oh my god you are like a two-year-old who just learned a new phrase. Anti-choice! Anti-choice! Anti-choice! Anti-choice!
        
        In case you forgot, artists create art for the public. We are their customer. We don't particularly like when their product is overpriced and locked up in restrictive licenses - when we are prevented from remixing it and playing with it if we so choose - when we are prevented from sharing it freely with our friends - when we know we will not live to see the day that it becomes part of the public domain. We are well within our rights to implore artists to offer us a more desirable product. They don't have to listen, but we are their customers, so why shouldn't we tell them what we want?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        Art without an audience ain't art, it's merely a pathology.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        Art without an audience ain't art, it's merely a pathology.
        
        Couldn't have said it better myself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 7:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
        Well, what do I know, I'm only an artist! You're better off listening to the bean counters and lawyers if you really want to know anything about art.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why?
      Like Jeff Price?
      
      http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-music-insider-shatters-digital.html
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 8:41am
    
    Re: Re: Why?
    "there is still a lot that the big labels can accomplish that smaller indie artists just don't have. "
    
    Much of the reason for that is artificial in nature and has to do with getting content broadcasted across information distribution channels that are artificially monopolized thanks to the government.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 10:08am
    
    Re: Re: Why?
    Especially if you have a big enough following and can make a lot of money to have a greater say in negotiations.
    
    If this is true in the first place then why bother with a label to begin with? So they can get you on television? The radio? And after you get on television and the radio and you don't see an increase in your fan lists or sales, then what?
    
    That judge from American Idol just released some music recently, he used to be famous, is it #1? On the charts, I mean, he's on television, so it should be #1, is it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:12pm

Just wondering
Ok, i was reading this and at the same time my youtube playlist was going in another window and it kinda hit me. Why the f*ck are the labels freaking out about piracy????

I didn't pay for any of the music on my youtube playlist regardless of whether its on VEVO or not. Don't the labels get that people don't really differentiate between file sharing, itunes, youtube, grooveshark or other services? It's like watching TV or turning on a light for most of us, we turn it on and it works. We don't care about the distribution method.

We the consumers have figured out how to use the net as our modern ON DEMAND radio. We don't care about how the labels monetize the music, we've been trained that we can listen to it for free while someone else pays the ad revenue or whatever. Calling us thieves because we are doing the things we have done all our lives isn't going to change our behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:00pm
  
  Re: Just wondering
  WOW! Somone gets it! the cost of all media for the consumer is going to zero!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:58pm

Soon
I can't wait until all the major browsers include the rel="noreferrer" that sits in the HTML5 spec or go one further and include rel="samereferrer"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:37pm
  
  Re: Soon
  I can't wait until I have the slightest understanding of what you just wrote. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:24am
    
    Re: Re: Soon
    norefferer basically means that if enabled it would not allow the site you linked to to know where you came from (the referring link)
    
    Currently this in most browsers only happens when you link from something like your bookmarks or offline email with a link in it (or similar).
    
    What John was meaning, i assume, was currently if you view an embedded youtube video from say techdirt, youtube knows its from techdirt, where if noreferrer was used your browser would not allow youtube to know where the embedded video was viewed from, or even if it was embedded in the first place.
    
    This can be achieved already, but not easily. Though I do it a fair amount just becasue I don't like web metrics being created about my viewing habits from any tom dick or harry web site.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 2:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Soon
      :D Thank you, G. Appreciated.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 11:09pm

VEVO's End Game
They're trying to block specific sites because they don't want any third party to garner more page views than them. Pre-rolls and inline ads aren't enough. They want to display adjacent ads next to the content.

"Vevo believes that advertisers will be willing to pay much more to appear next to these videos" - CNET (12/10/2009)

The labels' previous setup with Brightcove forced sites who embedded to place their ads adjacent to embedded videos. However, advertisers would rather pay more money knowing they're going to be displayed on a single popular site, instead of several minor ones that nobody has heard about.

When their contract is up with Google, all signs point to them cutting Google out and running VEVO by themselves. Then they can block embedding on every video, set up VEVO as the sole hub of the RIAA, and ultimately sell music there too.

So there's your answer TAM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 11:25pm
  
  Re: VEVO's End Game
  I have zero problem with them cutting embeds out completely if that's their business model is, but what they're doing now is akin to trolling and is severely anti-competitive. You don't offer someone the ability to embed, but then cherry pick sites to be blocked just because they get a little popular. They also have a habit of sending DMCA takedown notices to sites who embed legally. Who knows, maybe they'll lie to ICE and get someone's domain name taken next.
  
  Stories like this look bad for both VEVO and Google. Unfortunately for the sites as well as anyone who is banned from any other walled garden, the companies have no ability to sue for lost development time when the rug is pulled out from under them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:01am
    
    Re: Re: VEVO's End Game
    the companies have no ability to sue for lost development time when the rug is pulled out from under them.
    
    oh please, nothing prevented them from checking to see if this would happen.
    
    This has become such a stale meme. When it comes to someone elses content, sites/developers shoot first, ask questions later, and then play the victim when it turns out there might have been some rules to play by first.
    
    And if the AC above you is correct, it's Google, along with Sony and UMG, jointly, that are losing out on the $$ and had the motive to pull it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: VEVO's End Game
      Google is not behind this otherwise the site would be banned from the YouTube API entirely. Google supplies every channel owner with the option to block domain names. That feature is simply being abused by one of the channels, VEVO, which Google coincidentally gives a lot of favoritism to.
      
      A major reasons why they even offer the YouTube API is for acquisitions. If a site using the YouTube API gained significant popularity they could just give them an offer (that they can't refuse?). Blocking them early on is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not only is it killing the acquisition opportunity, it's driving people away from using the platform when developers make assumptions like you just did.
      
      I also find it funny that you think Google has an equal advertising stake with the labels. Ha!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: VEVO's End Game
        I also find it funny that you think Google has an equal advertising stake with the labels. Ha!
        
        yea, ha.
        
        "The videos on VEVO are syndicated across the web,with Google and VEVO sharing the advertising revenue."
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vevo
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl Tannerg�rd, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:10am

Youtify
Hi,
Thanks for all the positive feedback. I just wanted to say that we "fixed" the problem with videos not showing or rather, we created a work-around.

The official videos still won't play, but we do an alternate search and show you a video that works.

You can find us on facebook, twitter or our blog blog.youtify.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:35am
  
  Re: Youtify
  Karl- why didn't you talk to Vevo, Google or the labels before you started this?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:46am
    
    Re: Re: Youtify
    He shouldn't have to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 7:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Youtify
      I agree. And I shouldn't have to ask if I can repeatedly kick you in the balls. Permission culture is so 20th century.
      
      Now then, shall we start?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        I can reasonably disagree with some laws without disagreeing with all laws. For instance, I can reasonably disagree with laws that would ban people from drinking water without disagreeing with laws that ban murder. Your argument assumes otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        Sorry, but you can't reasonably disagree with the rights that protect me, while simultaneously agreeing with the ones that protect you.
        
        So, stand still while I put my heaviest boot on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        "Sorry, but you can't reasonably disagree with the rights that protect me, while simultaneously agreeing with the ones that protect you."
        
        I agree with the laws that protect both you and me from violence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        But I don't agree with the laws that 'protect' either of us from infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        Doesn't matter what you agree or don't disagree with.
        
        I can disagree with the laws that protect both us from violence.
        
        So what?
        
        You can't disagree with rights that protect me if you want to agree with laws that protect you.
        
        And both laws are designed to protect both of us.
        
        If you don't want to avail yourself to copyright protection, make your own art and give it away. That's your choice. My choice is to avail myself to the protections copyright provides. My choice.
        
        Stop being anti-choice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        "Doesn't matter what you agree or don't disagree with."
        
        Democracy says we vote on that.
        
        "I can disagree with the laws that protect both us from violence."
        
        Sure you can.
        
        "So what?"
        
        So we can agree to disagree.
        
        "You can't disagree with rights that protect me if you want to agree with laws that protect you."
        
        I can agree with the laws that protect both of us from violence. I don't agree with the laws that protect either of us from infringement.
        
        "And both laws are designed to protect both of us."
        
        From different things. For example, I can reasonably disagree with laws that protect you and I from being poor by providing us with a government funded house while still agreeing with laws that protect us both from violence. Sure, I'm denying you the choice of living in a government funded house, but you're not entitled to a government funded house. Just like you're not entitled to a government imposed monopoly. You're not entitled to anything from the government.
        
        "If you don't want to avail yourself to copyright protection, make your own art and give it away."
        
        I don't want these protections to exist.
        
        "That's your choice."
        
        and if I choose to copy as I please, that should be my choice. If you don't like it, it's your choice not to publicly release any content that you create.
        
        "My choice is to avail myself to the protections copyright provides. My choice."
        
        and my choice is to copy it if I please. My choice.
        
        "Stop being anti-choice."
        
        It's my choice to freely copy what I please. You're the one that's being anti-choice and you're using the government to restrict my choices.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        Democracy says we vote on that.
        
        Yes, and we already have voted for politicians that have decided to keep copyright law.
        
        and my choice is to copy it if I please. My choice.
        
        So your choice is to break the law.
        
        Fine, then you'll have to agree to let me break the law.
        
        Now stand still while I put my other boot on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        "Yes, and we already have voted for politicians that have decided to keep copyright law."
        
        and I'm encouraging others to vote for other politicians instead. Why is that such a problem?
        
        "So your choice is to break the law."
        
        My choice is for the law to change so that people can copy as they please.
        
        "Fine, then you'll have to agree to let me break the law."
        
        I haven't chosen to break the law, I was merely pointing out that just because I disagree with the government providing you with a specific choice doesn't make me any more 'anti - choice' than me disagreeing with the government providing you with the choice of living in a government funded house makes me anti-choice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        The government should provide me with a free mansion and a Corvette and a Ferrari if I so choose. Oh, and I want the government to provide me with a free yacht too. My choice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        Oh, you don't want the government to freely provide me with these things? Now you're just being anti-choice here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        I'm totally down with that. It means I'd receive the same things.
        
        Vote those guys in.
        
        Good luck with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        You're down with people getting free monopolies and having the government and everyone else put up the expense and inconvenience and work required to abide by and enforce them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 3:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        Stop being anti-choice.
        
        Why don't you stop being anti-balls? Seriously, you've got a real obsession there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        (or rather, I don't disagree with the laws that protect both you and me from violence).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Kaden (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 9:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        Alla time with the eagerness to kick people in the balls... that's a helluva fetish you have there, Sparky.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        It's funny how you equate not asking permission to use our shared culture with physical violence, why is that? Did you write an amazing guitar riff that someone else got famous off of?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        You are 100% correct. When you provide me with a "kick you in the balls" API, I will not ask your permission to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtify
        I shouldn't have to ask if I can repeatedly kick you in the balls.
        
        I put out a TOS that says you can kick me in the balls. You agree to that TOS, and then kick me in the balls without asking permission. I can't really say you've done anything wrong, can I?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:10pm
    
    Re: Re: Youtify
    Because they broadcast the content publicly on the web, along with prominent links that say "Embed This" and provide prepared code for doing so.
    
    Was Karl supposed to interpret that as a warning to stay away?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ranzear (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:15am

Not just Youtify.
99% of Vevo videos are blocked on the YouTube application for my E73 (Symbian), but play just fine in the mobile's browser.

Likely the same method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
will, 4 Jun 2011 @ 2:35am

Struggle with you terms
So I@'m struggling with the youtube t&c's here. Paragraph 8b:
to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Service and under these Terms.

Which implies by uploading the label are permitting this. Then in paragraph 9 youtube immediately appear to revoke these permissions:
With the exception of Content submitted to the Service by you, all other Content on the Service is either owned by or licensed to YouTube, and is subject to copyright, trade mark rights, and other intellectual property rights of YouTube or YouTube's licensors. Any third party trade or service marks present on Content not uploaded or posted by you are trade or service marks of their respective owners. Such Content may not be downloaded, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written consent of YouTube or, where applicable, YouTube's licensors. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to their Content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SD (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:38am
  
  Re: Struggle with you terms
  IMO the first paragraph, the presentation of embed codes, and publishing the API satisfy "prior written consent".
  
  That second paragraph isn't even present on the U.S. Terms of Service page. Different pages are displayed based on geographical location. Here's a list of several of them.
  
  Most likely they are warning people in countries outside the U.S. that they reserve the right to ban people caught scraping the content with methods that aren't allowed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re: Struggle with you terms
  So I@'m struggling with the youtube t&c's here
  
  The two paragraphs deal with two different things: one deals with content the user uploads, the other with content the user does not upload (i.e. it doesn't "belong" to the user).
  
  What is your confusion, specifically?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:47am

Intellectual Property
Companies like Coca Cola know how to successfully secure their "intellectual property." They keep it secret and lock it up in a vault. Maybe the music companies could try this? Not half way with drm or anything - record new music in secret & lock it up in a vault! Once they have all of their music secured under lock and key they'll be able to quit suing people and can sleep soundly again! Genius!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:53am
  
  Re: Intellectual Property
  "They keep it secret and lock it up in a vault."
  
  but ... but ... but ... patents are supposed to promote transparency.
  
  Wait, that only works when the idea is obvious and doesn't need transparency for others to independently come up with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:49am

You said: "then the Youtify guys went and made an interface to make it easier to access and consume that music... and the labels/Vevo freak out and block them. "

Actually, I think it is more:

My version: "then the Youtify guys went and made an interface that let them add a bunch of advertising and branding that they profit from while helping people consume the music, without paying for any license for the music, and the labels/vevo realized that this was an illegal commercial use of their music and decided to block them".

The situation only looks out of hand if you choose to look at it in a very odd way. If you consider what they are doing, and consider the licensing charged to other music outlets, you will realize that where they were doing was trying to set up an unlicensed music service.

Youtube videos are not suppose to be the sole source material for other commercial services. They are certainly not intended to be the source material for an internet radio station.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:54am
  
  Re:
  "The situation only looks out of hand if you choose to look at it in a very odd way."
  
  Even the way you look at it, it still looks out of hand.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 10:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, it is out of hand. The site's owner is here point out that he is trying to work around the official videos to use the specifically unauthorized ones that are posted on youtube. That should tell you everything about their business model and morals.
    
    You can bet they have a short, short life online.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow, so you want to make illegal a skinning app for Youtube searching. Nice work killing off a free promotional avenue without you needing to do any work whatsoever.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The site's owner is here point out that he is trying to work around the official videos to use the specifically unauthorized ones that are posted on youtube."
      
      Shouldn't have to work around anything, should be allowed to use them regardless. Copy'right' law is what's out of hand.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "That should tell you everything about their business model and morals."
      
      Don't talk to me about morals. 95+ year copy protection lengths is an immoral business model and the RIAA et al are responsible for these atrocious laws.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        95 year copyright law doesn't affect you one iota.
        
        The stuff you people rip off is usually less than a couple years old.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "95 year copyright law doesn't affect you one iota."
        
        Of course it does. It prevents me from copying things. That affects me.
        
        "The stuff you people rip off is usually less than a couple years old."
        
        Even if true, that doesn't negate the fact that these copy protection lengths do affect me. Besides, you assume that I don't abide by the law, but I in fact make an effort to abide by the law, so I am affected by it. I can reasonably follow the law while seeking to change it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 6:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You wouldn't want to copy anything that is 50 years old. The public domain is brimming with stuff you would never copy. The only stuff you want to copy is hot new movies and music. You are harmed only by your own greed for content and being unwilling to pay for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kaden (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 7:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You have just implied that there is no audience interest in vintage jazz or blues.
        
        You are incorrect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You wouldn't want to copy anything that is 50 years old. The public domain is brimming with stuff you would never copy.
        
        I like quite a few things that are 50 years old, thanks. Not that it makes a difference, because 50 year old works are still under copyright.
        
        And the public domain is not "brimming" with anything. There is not a single piece of recorded music that is in the public domain, for example, unless the musicians deliberately placed it there (which is not easy).
        
        It is full of literary works, though. You're saying that nobody reads Shakespeare?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re:
  then the Youtify guys went and made an interface that let them add a bunch of advertising and branding that they profit from while helping people consume the music, without paying for any license for the music, and the labels/vevo realized that this was an illegal commercial use of their music and decided to block them.
  
  This is a load of B.S.
  
  YouTube's embedding API is a service that anyone is allowed to use, legally. That is the API they are using. There is absolutely nothing "illegal" about it.
  
  And licenses are being paid for the music. They're licensed by YouTube, who is the source of all the content. Youtify is not infringing in any way, shape, or form.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicedoggy, 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Also I like to note(complement really) that Youtube embed ad's so is not like they loose on advertisement it gets shown if the content owner so chooses too.
    
    Is like a guy that puts up a flyer somewhere and gets angry at others that go and put another ad on the side.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:26pm
  
  Re:
  You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music Lover, 4 Jun 2011 @ 6:38am

I used to buy a lot....
of CD's. Seriously 10 or so pretty much every week. Albums, "singles" whatever.

Then the price started creeping up, more and more.

I stopped. I stopped because of price and value.
Now at $0.99 an "album" costs around $12 .
Maybe that is reasonable, maybe not. If I was sure that MOST of that $12 was going to the artists I might not mind too much.

But the labels and RIAA are such disgusting entities that are doing exactly the WRONG thing - I do not want 10 cents going to them.

So I buy far less. I do not download free songs but I do not buy either.

The RIAA and industry labels have shot themselves in both feet and the head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jeff, 4 Jun 2011 @ 6:39am

zombie record labels.
I really look forward to the day when the big labels finally pay their respect to the free market and just disappear. Anyone care to place any bets on when their lobbying money runs out and they are added to history's list of failed business models? I estimate 30 years. Meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re: zombie record labels.
  They're never going away.
  
  Just watch. And check back in 10 years when you're graduating from college.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RadialSkid (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 4:04pm
    
    Re: Re: zombie record labels.
    Such pseudo-confident bravado. Kinda cute, really.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ida Tarbell (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 6:41am

I use Free MP3 Recorder to simply record rare tracks from youtube and have for years. There are also other more elaborate and difficult to operate programs that will do this. They take too long. Free MP3 recorder is similar to when I worked in radio, made commercials, used tracks to feed into a master and simply recorded from sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rochrist (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 7:07am

Youtify deserves to be put out of business for the simple reason that they thought 'Youtify' was a good name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aikiwolfie, 4 Jun 2011 @ 8:55am

We Don't Need Big Record Labels!
I wish bands would realise we just don't need major record labels any more. Any musician can put together a decent original track and post it on YouTube or wherever. The record industry is 100% redundant.

Some acts might argue their record labels work for them. But what is it exactly the record label is doing? Organising dancers and festival appearances? Sponsoring festivals and concerts? There are other ways to get this stuff done. Their are agencies out there who make it there business to organise all sorts of events. And they don't steal your copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 2:58pm
  
  Re: We Don't Need Big Record Labels!
  That's for them to decide, isn't it? It's their choice.
  
  Why are you anti-choice?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:19pm
    
    Re: Re: We Don't Need Big Record Labels!
    Sure, but what's wrong with suggesting that artists make better choices? Maybe that's what's being done here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 12:04am
    
    Re: Re: We Don't Need Big Record Labels!
    Why are you pro-monopoly?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:05am
    
    Re: Re: We Don't Need Big Record Labels!
    Where did he say it wasn't their choice? Besides in your delusions, of course.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 5 Jun 2011 @ 6:44am

Who cares.
It has become pretty obvious that the best thing for consumers AND artists would be for the industry to fail utterly. Anything I can do to push that along I would consider a favor to artists and consumers everywhere. They can ramble on all they like about how piracy etc is killing them... I only wish they were telling the truth about how bad it is, maybe they would be driven out of business sooner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 7:30am
  
  Re: Who cares.
  please, just STFU. People like you are such scumbags.
  
  If musicians wanted to give away their music, they would. You're just trying to rationalize your behavior. You have no idea what you're talkng about and you're a coward on top of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 11:52am
    
    Re: Re: Who cares.
    please, just STFU. People like you are such scumbags.
    
    Oddly enough, his opinion is shared among many musicians, including some musicians on major labels.
    
    I guess those musicians are "scumbags" too?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Who cares.
      His/her opinion is, *at best*, shared by very, *very* few musicians.
      
      Post the list of recording artists that support piracy.
      
      Post it right here:
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Who cares.
        Lady Gaga (but onyl the music)
        Trent Reznor (formerly label, were removed for unprofitability)
        Radiohead (as with Trent Reznor)
        Bob Dylan (but only for others' works)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 10:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Who cares.
        Joss Stone
        Radiohead
        Trent Reznor
        Jonathan Coulton
        Ronald Jenkees
        Angels and Filth
        Jamendo.com
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Who cares.
        Post the list of recording artists that support piracy.
        
        You know what I find interesting about this response?
        
        The fact that the original poster was not talking about piracy at all. Nor was I.
        
        But since you insist, here are a few quotes:
        
        [The internet] was one of the main things for me as it will spread whatever you have going on. I could put a song on there tonight and you could be in Croatia and the song will be there in ten minutes. . . [Piracy] is promotion for any artist. I love it.
        - Paul Wall
        
        I think I can look at the situation and say I can�t blame the fucking kids. I have to blame the industry for looking at a wall full of writing for many, many years and just going, 'Meh! The government will work it out.' You know what, they don�t do that anymore.
        - Robby Takac (Goo Goo Dolls)
        
        I�m sure record label executives don�t like filesharing because it doesn�t sell the one thing that makes them money, the recordings. But from a band�s perspective I think filesharing is fine.
        - Tim Nordwind (OK Go)
        
        There�s always been piracy. I made tapes when I was younger, and we�re all probably guilty of it. But kids are used to growing up not feeling guilty about it. They don�t see the connection between the music and the person that creates it. Sometimes you come out of a show and you meet fans and they say, �Oh my god, I love you, I�ve downloaded all your music!� And you know they didn�t download and pay for it. [laughs] And they haven�t made the connection about why you wouldn�t be happy about that. And in some ways I�m not unhappy because otherwise, they wouldn�t have come to the shows. It all evens out in the end, I think.
        - Imogen Heap
        
        I don�t mind it, doesn�t bother me. I like people to support the label, but as a musician, when I write a song I want it to be heard. So if you ask me would I rather have 200 people listening to that song or $200, I would take the 200 people. I don�t think it�s nearly as dire as the major labels do. The uproar over file-sharing, it really wasn�t damaging the major labels as much as they�re saying. They�re just predicting that if they don�t say something now it�s gonna get them later on. I say good riddance. If Dischord has to go as part of it, if it means destroying major labels, then I�m fine with that.
        The creation of the record created a consumable. At that point, for the first time, really in the history of music, there was something to sell. I understand you could sell sheet music, you could sell piano rolls, but the idea of owning music as a consumable item had not really happened before. The record labels have had over a hundred years of a monopoly on selling music and they�ve twisted and perverted music to their ends because they want to make money. They�ve had a good run, and if they lose out, tough shit.
        - Ian MacKaye (Fugazi, Minor Threat)
        
        It�s another part of how technology is changing the way things are done. Most of our fans will usually get our stuff anyway, because they like the artwork, but it�s just something else that you have to contend with. Record sales will probably drop if people have the option to get things for free. I mean, everybody downloads things, if they can get them, more copies of albums from their friends, you know? It�s just what you do. I did it when I was young, I copied tapes. So I don�t expect anyone to not do that now, when it�s such an easy option � why not do it, you know?
        At the same time like I was saying though, the cost of making an album has gone down, because of technology. So even if you�re selling less records, if it costs you less money to make an album, it can kind of even out, I think. People have the ability to try something out before they buy it. That was something that you didn�t have. Nowadays you can go to a website if you hear about a band, and listen to a free download or whatever, and make a decision on if it�s something you want to buy.
        It hasn�t been the negative effect that people think it is. We do better business now, not sales-wise, but for tours and stuff. Everything has been better over the last 3-4 years, which is when the whole downloading thing took off. So it hasn�t hurt us.
        - Cannibal Corpse
        
        I�m not worried about the music, maybe the industry itself. As much as the infrastructure of the industry has helped bands, it has hurt a lot of bands too so maybe the industry collapsing isn�t such a bad thing. Its bad that people at record labels have lost their jobs because there isn�t as much money floating around in the industry. On the other hand, its really bought the music onto a level playing field. Bands that didn�t have that marketing money can have a MySpace page and have the potential access to the same number of people that a Madonna or a Metallica would have. Everyone talks about how everyone is losing their jobs in the industry. But what no one talks about is the number of band that have been fucked over by labels. Majors and Indies � indies aren�t above fucking over their bands. So if someone lost their job at a label, I�m sorry to hear it but for every one person who lost their job at a label, there�s about 10 bands who got fucked over.
        - Danko Jones
        
        And I go: 'Wait a second, you've been stealing from the artists for years. Now you want me to stand up for you?'... I was telling kids download it illegally, I don't care. I want you to hear my music so I can play live. I don't agree with it. I think we should level the playing field.
        - Kid Rock
        
        It�s not just something that�s specific to a region anymore. It�s global. It�s global word-of-mouth. People can share ideas, share music files and stuff, and I think it�s good. It�s good for music because you don�t have to scratch far below the surface to find interesting music that doesn�t have the machinery of a big record label behind it.
        - Great Lake Swimmers
        
        And, of course, there's my favorite (and most apropos) quote:
        
        The record companies have eaten themselves, basically dissolved and are trying really hard to figure out how to resurrect a dying paradigm. And it�s right in front of them. This is one of the ways. Everything from car commercials to YouTube and an aborted Napster that should have been snapped up by the record companies a long time ago. It was obvious that the fans wanted it and they didn�t mind paying for it but the record companies just turned a blind eye to it and basically destroyed an industry...
        - Joe Perry
        
        That sums it up perfectly.
        
        More to the point, what the OP and I were actually talking about is summed up pretty succinctly by Steve Albini, Courtney Love, Michelle Shocked, Too Much Joy, or Janice Ian.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who cares.
        Fantastic post, Karl. Wonder if our friendly AC will bother showing up to respond.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who cares.
        Wonder if our friendly AC will bother showing up to respond.
        
        Oh, of course he will. He's even more pathological than I am.
        
        I've actually turned it into a drinking game. Drink every time he claims "piracy" when nobody else mentions it. Bend an elbow when he calls people "freetards." Raise a glass when he claims "your days of internet piracy are over." Take a shot when he says "Post it right here:".
        
        At this rate, I'm going to be forced into rehab by week's end.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RadialSkid (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 4:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Who cares.
    If musicians wanted to give away their music, they would.
    
    Of course. And if they prefer to lock it up under copyright and price it above market so that nobody ever hears it, that's their right, too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Who cares.
      Freetard definition of "above market":
      
      Above $.01
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Who cares.
        Well, seeing as msot of us here aren't obsessed with free as a price point for non-infinite goods, you're full of shit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RadialSkid (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 8:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Who cares.
        The market has spoken. Problem?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 5 Jun 2011 @ 8:07am

Funny how it's the maximalists who are spewing hate and bile here, while it's those who really understand these issues and know that the major labels really are doomed that are being civil and more or less polite. The difference in tone says more than you might think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 10:42am
  
  Re:
  Pretending that the major labels are doomed is hilarious. If that was going to happen it would have had to happen by now. It didn't.
  
  The first stage of grief is denial and you people are in denial.
  
  Your "golden age of piracy" is over. The wild west didn't stay wild forever either, once the sheriff showed up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    The internet isn't the wild west. They had run out of space in the wild west, they had nowhere to go except into the ocean.
    
    There is no space to run out of online, get it?
    
    And who's going to pay for the policing of the entire web? You? The taxpayer?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 12:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    And AMerica is clearly that sheriff [/sarc]
    
    You guys couldn't organise an orgy in a Brothel with free hookers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    "The first stage of grief is denial and you people are in denial."
    
    That's quite ironic given that the labels appear to be in complete denial of what's happening in the real world, and are struggling mightily to keep things the way they used to be, but will never be again thanks to what technology allows.
    
    "Your "golden age of piracy" is over."
    
    No, the "golden age" of labels is over, and "piracy" is a symptom of that. They'll always have a place in the music business, but they'll never again be strong as they were because many of the services they offer can can be had in other ways, ways that are cheaper and don't cede so much control.
    
    From your tone it's clear you have a vested interest in the labels' success, so your anger and bitterness is somewhat understandable. But it would be nice to see some mature, civilized discussion from you and your ilk rather than insults and name-calling. Not holding my breath though...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Of course, as soon as there's an article about piracy, you'll turn around, don your chicken little costume, and start spreading FUD about how the major labels *are* doomed unless we pass whatever law you're shilling for at that moment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Di Fiasco (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 2:26am

I predict that in twenty years, we shall only listen to music in authorized 'listening booths' where each listening is billed to an account or upon insertion of money. Playback will only begin once the booth has established that you are the only person in the booth (via thermal imaging scan) and that the soundproof door is securely closed (to prevent unauthorized listeners who might be standing outside the door from 'stealing.'

The notion of owning and listening to a radio will become a privilege of the wealthy who will be billed automatically for every song decoded on each instance of playback. For the rest of us, oversized noise-cancelling(preventing noise from leaking out, that is) headphones will be the norm where music on the go is accomplished via encrypted 5g connection and the popular music of the day are 1950's singles because they are short, old and cheap. Prepare for our brave new world! -where the rich and famous wander music-filled hallways while the rest of us walk around dressed as 'Cybermen' spending our pennies a couple hours a day to rock out with The Everly Brothers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AG Wright (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:31am

Band that made it with free
Maybe someone noticed it and I didn't notice on this thread but there was one band that totally and always was willing to have their fans share their music. You could lug any recorder into their concerts that you wanted and lug was what you did in those days.
Who?
The Grateful Dead
You can download hours and hours of their music free at http://www.archive.org/index.php and those that are still alive don't care and never did.
Free can work. It has always been something that was an option and could be built into the music business but the labels didn't like it.

AG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:36am
  
  Re: Band that made it with free
  Just saying, John Perry at the G8 summit was awesome.
  
  AND he founded the EFF? He's been promoted to badass in my book!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]