Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Universal Music Takes Down Fun Mashup Of Taylor Swift's 'Shake It Off' And 1989 Aerobics Video
from the because-universal-music-sucks dept
Last year, when Daft Punk released it's super popular single "Get Lucky" the first time I actually heard it was when someone I know linked to a fantastic video of the song put over a danceline from Soul Train. It's pretty amazing how well it works. You can see it here.As you may have heard, Taylor Swift recently came out with a new album, "1989," and she's at war with Spotify over it and making some statements about streaming royalties and such (which we've mostly been avoiding covering because this fight has gone on long enough already and it's silly and mostly misleading).
However, in the last day or so, someone tried to do the equivalent of the Soul Train/Get Lucky video above with Swift's song "Shake it Off." They matched the song to an aerobics competition video from (amusingly) 1989 -- and it worked quite well. It got lots of attention with the Huffington Post and Slate and others writing about it. So, I went to check out the video and got this instead:
It makes you wonder what's the point here? Yes, legally, Universal/Taylor Swift may have the legal right to pull the video down (though, some could make a reasonable fair use argument), but it seems pretty futile. Here are people having fun with her music, doing something of their own free will to get it more attention (I hadn't heard the song at all before this), and then it gets pulled down, because copyright.
In many ways, this is the antithesis of how music worked for ages. Music was always about people sharing and building on the works of others. Someone would create a song, and others would take it, resing it, adapt it, change it, mix it up with other things. That's how culture works. But not so much in an era with strict copyright laws and automated takedown systems. What a shame.
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: copyright, culture, mashups, shake it off, taylor swift, youtube
Companies: google, universal music, youtube
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Hadn't heard the song?!
Oh, blessed are thee without tween daughters.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Still let me make a point here. Without hearing something I build no attachment to any song. I don't have to buy nor hear this music. Without hearing it, there is no connection and therefore no idea of going out to purchase something unknown. At today's prices for music, going the authorized route, it's just not worth taking the chance given how much filler in the past has been used to make an album enough to package as one. I've been burned enough times buying an album for that one song that I don't do that any more. I'm sure not going to spend for something I don't know about and haven't heard.
It might have been possible I would have heard this through the parody though no chance of that happening now. So Taylor and crowd can keep their songs and I'll keep my money and we will both be happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*whack-a-mole*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/530609016531996672
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just imagine Taylor Swift being swatted in the middle of the night, slammed face-first into the ground by a hoard of screaming gunslingers, and hauled off to jail in handcuffs for the 'crime' of infringing copyright by tweeting a song. It's a sight many of us would love to see, but will never witness, because only the peasants and peons of society (that's us) get treated that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should just be thankful that its not a felony criminal offense (yet) to whip out a cell phone and record a few seconds of a concert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's why most people choose to "settle" with copyright trolls like Prenda and pay a couple thousand dollars to these criminal extortionists, since fighting them in court will cost people far more, with nothing to gain if they ultimately win and expose the fraud.
Prenda may have technically "lost" in court, but regardless, those criminals are laughing all the way to the bank, and Prenda's victims who were robbed of millions of dollars will likely never see a single penny of it returned.
This is the basic problem with copyright law, it's inherently unfair because those who scream "infringement!" automatically hold the upper hand, and that's without even factoring in the inequality of the court system itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hadn't heard the song?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's really no different from an actress playing a character in a movie or play, but in this case the stage is infinitely larger and --just like professional "wrestling"-- the scriptwriters, choreographers, and other backstage staff are never listed in the credits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At any rate, she took it down because they refused to leave them up only on the paid version, and not remove them from the free version. All the other streaming sites were fine with that so they're still up on those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Unlikely. That assumes at least the following:
- The people listening would simply buy the full album if a legal streaming option is not available.
- The people who were listening to Spotify don't just go to a competitor, listen via YouTube or, of course, just pirate instead.
- The people listening on Spotify had not already bought the album (I know I quite often listen to albums I've already bought on Spotify for the convenience factor - listening to something on Spotify does not mean you're in the market to purchase the album)
- The people listening weren't simply using it as a preview to see how many tracks were filler before they bought the album (buying only the tracks they actually think are worth it) - and are more likely to buy less tracks now (the ones they've heard) rather than blind buy some inevitable filler crap.
- The people listening only want to listen to "Taylor Swift" and not just "whatever's in the charts now". There's still plenty to listen to if you're not specifically looking for this album.
That's a lot of assumptions, and most of them are false.
"At any rate, she took it down because they refused to leave them up only on the paid version, and not remove them from the free version. All the other streaming sites were fine with that so they're still up on those."
Another supplier trying to dictate the business of a distributor, then. She's free to do what she wants, just don't whine too much when lower access to free plays doesn't magically result in huge numbers of additional sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I'm not wiling to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music," Swift told Yahoo! this week. "And I just don't agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free."
A fraction of a cent per play is not sustainable and does not compensate the artist. Saying they (Spotify) pay most of their money to artist while refusing to generate more income(ads, just like terrestrial radio) on a free service is misleading at best. It also highlights the flaw in the business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The big problem for many artists is that they have a contract with a label, which results in the label keeping most of the income. On the other they have often been paid enough in advances to make the record, so any extra income from it is a bonus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Advances aren't so much early payments for the music, so much as loans with atrocious terms attached to them. They have to pay it all back, and with how the labels tend to work, by the time they do(if they do), the label has generally made back their 'investment' several times over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Correction: It does not compensate the artist/label to the amount that they wish it would. They're always free to just not have their music available on streaming services, and enjoy the nothing per play that gives them.
As for why those payouts to the artist might be so low, you'd be better off looking at the labels, who tend to take the majority of any profits, with only a trickle actually making it to the artist themselves, thanks to one of the labels' favorite scams 'Sale or license?', where they define it based upon what will make them the most money at that moment.
Saying they (Spotify) pay most of their money to artist while refusing to generate more income(ads, just like terrestrial radio) on a free service is misleading at best. It also highlights the flaw in the business model.
Yeah, 'generating income' is not nearly that simple. It's not a simple matter of 'Do X and watch the profits rise'.
I don't use the service myself(I have no interest in the crap put out by the major labels, and I can more easily get my music elsewhere), but as I understand it the 'free' version of the services does have ads. If you want to get rid of them, you pay for a 'premium' account, for something like $10 a month or so.
And if you want to talk about flaws in Spotify's business model, this might make for a good read:
'The problem with the business model for streaming is that most artists still have contracts from the analog age, when record companies did all the heavy lifting of physical production and distribution, so only paid artists 8%-15% royalties on average.
Those rates, carried over to the digital age, explain why artists are getting such paltry sums from Spotify. If the rates were really so bad, the rights holders - the major record companies - would be complaining. The fact that they're continuing to sign up means they must be making good money.
That's not the fault of Spotify, but the labels.
Source:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131107/16343725173/billy-bragg-says-dont-blame-spo tify-blame-record-labels.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, this is correct. There used to be 3 tiers, but now I think it's free with ads or a monthly payment to remove them and gain access to some premium features (I'm not sure, as I've always been a premium subscriber so haven't kept an eye on the changes).
Perhaps he's whining that Spotify refuse to "generate" more revenue by forcing ads on to paying customers as well? If so, he's pretty dumb and short-sighted - no wonder he's carrying water for the major labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here's some back of the napkin calculations I came up with:
- Price of 1 CD = $15.00
- 12 songs on a CD = $1.25 per song
- Average lifespan of a CD = 10 years
(I cannot find any real good data on CD listening habits, so I am guesstimating here)
- Average weekly plays of a song on CD - let's go with 1 to be conservative
- 1 play x 52 weeks x 10 years = 520 plays
- $1.25/150 plays = 0.0024 per play
Now add in the fact that streaming revenues can conceivably last from now until forever and where does that put the figures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
- $1.25/520 plays = $0.0024 per play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to me it would be much more accurate if it read as follows:
Here are people having fun with her music, doing something of their own free will to get themselves the public attention they crave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
99.99% of the time NO ONE but friends and family know who is behind such clever remixes, NOBODY...
NO, it is ALL about the sharing, and the point obtains: stupid artistes should be THRILLED their art gets mixed and mashed and popularized through another avenue...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These concepts are not new. Once something is published, it's public and the public will do what it always has done...be inspired by the works of others.
Until the "artists" and labels get it, their industry will continue to suffer declines.
I'm not a fan of Swift or pop music in general but if Universal is supposed to be promoting her album, she should sue them because they killed off a smart and free promotional tool that was generating most interest and talk than was being generated without it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't she paid anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't she paid anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't she paid anyway?
You're ascribing far more intelligence to the MafiAA than they're capable of producing. Besides, most of the takedowns are done by bots, not human eyes and ears. They call this unavoidable collateral damage. Check out the numbers of takedowns Google has to deal with. There's not enough helldesk workers in the universe to keep up, *which ought to scream to them how popular their actions are*!
I'm amazed anyone *buys* anything from these idiots. How much abuse can anyone stand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't she paid anyway?
Let's keep in mind that the bulk of Taylor Swift's fans are 11-13 year old girls, a demographic that's probably not aware of either intellectual property issues or of the long history of gross misdeeds perpetrated by the recording industry.
It's ironic that the recording industry's very first (in 2003)lawsuit victim, 12 year-old Brianna LaHara, would have fit in perfectly among Taylor Swift fans today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
TD on the other hand does allow comments, by anyone, even if their stance on something is directly opposite of the writer of a given article, it's just if you act like a child by throwing around insults and name-calling and similar actions, well, don't be surprised if you get sent to time-out and your comment reported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now if this comment is "censored", he'll have to take it as gospel truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And in all but 3 cases, I wish I hadn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The futile "losses" argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cnet.com/news/hackers-show-gene-simmons-where-he-can-kiss-it/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AKB48 version
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but uh... that get lucky song... i was kinda diggin that & i think im gonna go check some more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point is that it's all about control
I assume this is a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway: the point is that the video was someone else's idea and it wasn't authorized by the owner, so it's "illegal".
And like another poster said, the person who created the video is now getting the attention, rather than Swift, her label, or another person involved in the official creation process. Plus, the label can't have some random YouTube user creating videos for nothing when they're spending millions on music videos, promotion, and marketing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insecurity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fix the link
Online Guitar Lab
[ link to this | view in chronology ]