Youtube And Copyright

[Amsterdam Russ]

I've had many nofifications from the Orchard Group. It's a scam to make themselves known amongst the music world. None of the tunes in my vid's are owned by Orchard.

I've also had numerous notifications from YouTube that obscure 45s are apparently owned this organisation. A few weeks ago I was going to ask Paul Mooney (but forgot to) if he could shed some light on who they are exactly and whether they do own the material they claim to. In light of this thread, now seems like a good time.

[Tiberius]

decided to start to upload some 45s at youtube like many others here. But there is a mate who asked immediatley if this is legal? Maybe it is kind of naive but never thought about that. Sure i am not the owner of the copyright, so my question goes out to people who have specific experiences. Ever had Problems with posting music on youtube or the net in generally. If you have your own chanel on youtube are you paying for the right to do that???

Go for it, it can be a lot of fun. It's not legal but it is widely tolerated as stated elsewhere on this thread. There was a time when lot's of "music" channels got shut down for copyright but this doesn't seem to be the case currently. Just so long as you keep an eye on your account "standing" you should be alright.....until such time as youtube has a change of policy, or their relationship with the music industry changes for the worse.

[Guest]

Russell, there's two YouTube clips from a fellow peeved person that takes them to task...

[Tiberius]

I've also had numerous notifications from YouTube that obscure 45s are apparently owned this organisation. A few weeks ago I was going to ask Paul Mooney (but forgot to) if he could shed some light on who they are exactly and whether they do own the material they claim to. In light of this thread, now seems like a good time.

I tried an appeal against the Orchard Group over one of my vids........never got a reply from youtube. The add is still next to my vid. The annoying thing is it links to nothing, just says "available on....." It's a dead link.

Edited March 17, 2012 by tiberius

[Guest]

better if do it on forum Tim

as your post can be read a number of ways

I think he may be indicating that he wont upload any more tunes for those that download them and upload none of their own. Which no doubt will include me in his finger tapping message to you by way of a boring venom ridden PM ;-)

[Amsterdam Russ]

Russell, there's two YouTube clips from a fellow peeved person that takes them to task...

Thanks for that. Very interesting indeed.

His experience mirrors exactly a situation I had recently.

Some while back, I put together a video montage of some of my photographs. The theme of the photos is 'winter'. The soundtrack to it is Vivaldi's Winter, from the Four Seasons suite - an obvious and very appropriate choice.

I sourced it from the Internet Archive (www.archive.org), a brilliant database of public domain and creative commons licensed material.

Not long after uploading it to YouTube, I received a copyright notice telling me that the rights belonged to, guess who...? The Orchard Group.

I went through the dispute process, which seems to be nothing more than a case of someone sending YouTube an email and them rejecting it - and they did.

If you land on the video page you will see a panel stating that the soundtrack is recorded by such-and-such, and can be bought from iTunes.

Refresh the page and the panel identifies the music being by someone else altogether! Confused? Not half!

Having watched the vid above, I've now disputed YouTube's judgement that the music does belong to Orchard Group. They, it seems to me, are claiming to own something that is not theirs. Of course, mistakes may have been made and the tune could have been identified as belonging to them by mistake. On the other hand, perhaps it has been uploaded to the Internet Archive and made available to the public by mistake. We'll see...

[KevH]

"all rights of the manufacturer and works of the owner reserved.Unauthorised public perfomance and publication and copying prohibited."

Sales and copyrighting are two different beings.Playing tunes to the public also.If you seek out a tune on youtube (personal performance), is this the same as having a tune spoon fed you at a venue(public) or on a cd,for instance?

Edited March 17, 2012 by KevH

[Guest newone]

I've also had numerous notifications from YouTube that obscure 45s are apparently owned this organisation. A few weeks ago I was going to ask Paul Mooney (but forgot to) if he could shed some light on who they are exactly and whether they do own the material they claim to. In light of this thread, now seems like a good time.

[Guest newone]

there are several companies who pester you tube users with the claim they own the rights, they always claim on obscure music and most of the time they dont own it but take the chance the rightful owner is dead or does not use you tube, they supply youtube with notes of a tune ,youtube to cover their arse scans all music put on there, and then their software matches any tunes to those submitted by publishers etc, when it gets a match you get the messages that you get, if your tune is left there publishers etc are not bothered its on youtube or have never make a request to youtube

[Guest Phoenix8049]

"all rights of the manufacturer and works of the owner reserved.Unauthorised public perfomance and publication and copying prohibited."

Sales and copyrighting are two different beings.Playing tunes to the public also.If you seek out a tune on youtube (personal performance), is this the same as having a tune spoon fed you at a venue(public) or on a cd,for instance?

By rights in the strict term ALL DJs should have a licence to play in public,But i bet its less than 10% in the whole country that has one.

Stu.

[Chalky]

By rights in the strict term ALL DJs should have a licence to play in public,But i bet its less than 10% in the whole country that has one.

Stu.

Not true. The establishment should be licensed for live music and entertainment etc and that covers the DJ. All the DJ should do is provide the venue with a list of what he or she has played.

If a DJ plays in an unlicensed venue then that is a different matter.

[Guest Phoenix8049]

Not true. The establishment should be licensed for live music and entertainment etc and that covers the DJ. All the DJ should do is provide the venue with a list of what he or she has played.

If a DJ plays in an unlicensed venue then that is a different matter.

I stand corrected,i got that slightly wrong Duh.

[Ian Dewhirst]

Not true. The establishment should be licensed for live music and entertainment etc and that covers the DJ. All the DJ should do is provide the venue with a list of what he or she has played.

Yeah right. With a large hook LOL.

I have never, ever officially been asked for a list of what I've played in any gig over the last 40 years. I don't know anyone else who has either.

Ian D

Edited March 18, 2012 by Ian Dewhirst

[Sean Hampsey]

Yeah right. With a large hook LOL.

I have never, ever officially been asked for a list of what I've played in any gig over the last 40 years. I don't know anyone else who has either.

Ian D

I was asked to fill in a form only once, Ian.

Lyric Hall, Dinnington, 1973.

The old caretaker, Reg, was very strict about it.

We had to 'LOG' every record.

But I've never been asked to do so since (other than when a promoter wants a playlist for their own website or whatever!).

The 'logging' is down to the venue to enforce. They are the ones that hold the PPL & PRS License.

I'm finding that PRS are becoming much more active these days.

You aren't allowed to have music played in your place of work, without the owner having paid for a license (£40 - £100+ per annum depending on nature of business).

For pubs and bars etc, one obviously has to pay more.

Reproduction of music would (at one time) have come under MCPS (the 'physical' stuff still does (Vinyl / CD's etc.)

YouTube and Digital reproduction / Replication is 'technically' covered by PRS for Music, but it all seems pretty much up in the air at the minute as the organisations are all trying to deal with the transition and having to cope with mass duplication and 'broadcast' like never before (60 Hours of Video uploaded onto YouTube every minute).

Interesting thread.

Sean

[Guest]

out of the two hundered and seventy five thousand hits my channel has had in less than a year, i have never had one complaint. i have however had comments from the actual artists praising me for my uploads.

i feel saddened by the reaction on this thread, i do the channel for the love of it.

soulgirls blog opened me up to so much more that i wasn't getting from my soul nights out, especially the rnb, i can never thank her enough for the tunes i found on her website

[Sleeps45]

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

[boba]

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

I'm pretty sure playing the record on youtube doesn't qualify as fair use under the above criteria, and putting that phrase there won't prevent anyone from taking down your video. To make it more confusing, this is US copyright law, different countries have different copyright laws, different performing rights societies that collect broadcast royalties, many of whom even use different criteria than the US PRS' (ASCAP, BMI, etc.) to determine who gets paid and how much. Also, to make it more confusing, at least in the US there are two different copyrights that apply to each youtube music video posting -- there is the copyright of the actual written song (which is not a statutory rate as it is in pressing CDs) and there is the copyright of the recording. Someone like Paul Mooney could explain everything in more detail but it's so complicated that it's not the type of thing that someone could figure out from a simple message board posting.

[Amsterdam Russ]

out of the two hundered and seventy five thousand hits my channel has had in less than a year, i have never had one complaint. i have however had comments from the actual artists praising me for my uploads.

i feel saddened by the reaction on this thread, i do the channel for the love of it.

How much do you pay the artists for each play of the "two hundred and seventy five thousand" hits to your channel?

If your channel were a radio station then a royalty would be paid for every one of those "two hundred and seventy five thousand" hits.

So, why are you saddened?

[boba]

I was asked to fill in a form only once, Ian.

Lyric Hall, Dinnington, 1973.

The old caretaker, Reg, was very strict about it.

We had to 'LOG' every record.

But I've never been asked to do so since (other than when a promoter wants a playlist for their own website or whatever!).

The 'logging' is down to the venue to enforce. They are the ones that hold the PPL & PRS License.

I'm finding that PRS are becoming much more active these days.

You aren't allowed to have music played in your place of work, without the owner having paid for a license (£40 - £100+ per annum depending on nature of business).

For pubs and bars etc, one obviously has to pay more.

Reproduction of music would (at one time) have come under MCPS (the 'physical' stuff still does (Vinyl / CD's etc.)

YouTube and Digital reproduction / Replication is 'technically' covered by PRS for Music, but it all seems pretty much up in the air at the minute as the organisations are all trying to deal with the transition and having to cope with mass duplication and 'broadcast' like never before (60 Hours of Video uploaded onto YouTube every minute).

Interesting thread.

Sean

Most PRSes don't put in much work into distributing money to artists played in clubs, restaurants, etc. It's almost just like extortion of the clubs, and the money goes back to the PRS and terrible mainstream artists who didn't even earn the money. My college radio station has a 2-day BMI logging period every year, so they aren't trying to put much effort into paying the artists played on the station, and I imagine they throw away a lot of the logs that get sent in.

Someone was telling me that their record got played on John Peel's radio show and they did get a check though.

[boba]

If your channel were a radio station then a royalty would be paid for every one of those "two hundred and seventy five thousand" hits.

theoretically...

[Amsterdam Russ]

I'm pretty sure playing the record on youtube doesn't qualify as fair use under the above criteria, and putting that phrase there won't prevent anyone from taking down your video. To make it more confusing, this is US copyright law, different countries have different copyright laws, different performing rights societies that collect broadcast royalties, many of whom even use different criteria than the US PRS' (ASCAP, BMI, etc.) to determine who gets paid and how much. Also, to make it more confusing, at least in the US there are two different copyrights that apply to each youtube music video posting -- there is the copyright of the actual written song (which is not a statutory rate as it is in pressing CDs) and there is the copyright of the recording. Someone like Paul Mooney could explain everything in more detail but it's so complicated that it's not the type of thing that someone could figure out from a simple message board posting.

Ever thought of reading the posts before replying?

[Amsterdam Russ]

theoretically...

...and legally...

[boba]

Ever thought of reading the posts before replying?

You're cranky. What did I miss? That you mentioned Paul Mooney first? I don't see how my post isn't responding to the post it's responding to. I read through the thread, if I missed something important that contradicts my post, I'm sorry.

[boba]

...and legally...

I know, but In reality they do very little to go out of their way to collect on small clubs, small radio stations, etc. Different countries' PRSes are also supposed to cooperate in collecting and forwarding royalties but they are even worse about doing that, especially BMI.

[Amsterdam Russ]

I'm pretty sure playing the record on youtube doesn't qualify as fair use under the above criteria...

Glad you agree with this...

... and putting that phrase there won't prevent anyone from taking down your video.

...and that...

To make it more confusing, this is US copyright law, different countries have different copyright laws...

...and this too, (although admittedly I only mentioned US/UK legislation)

Someone like Paul Mooney could explain everything in more detail...

.

Beware repeating His name three (or is it six) times in a row whilst staring in a bootlegged mirror...

[boba]

I read the whole thread before posting, including your posts, and thought I was going into more detail. I will try to give you more credit in the future. Thanks.

[Amsterdam Russ]

And so you should give credit where credit is due.

Failure to give proper credit will result in your comments being appropriated by the Orchard Group!

[Guest Dave Turner]

Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society is another one of these parasites claiming copyright.

Their Facebook page (supposedly) ----

https://www.facebook....2819890?sk=wall

"You get the pleasure of posting videos

We get the pleasure of making money from your videos

It's a win-win situation"

"Our mission is to file copyright claims so that ads will be placed onto certain videos, and we will be able to make money off of them. We do not seek to have anyone's videos blocked in certain countries or disabled altogether, all we are trying to do is make a bit of money. That's not so bad, is it?"

Edited March 18, 2012 by Dave Turner

[Quinvy]

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

That was my point, JM's records are for sale, for profit.

[Quinvy]

Glad you agree with this...

...and that...

...and this too, (although admittedly I only mentioned US/UK legislation)

.

Beware repeating His name three (or is it six) times in a row whilst staring in a bootlegged mirror...

that made me laugh.................

[Chalky]

Yeah right. With a large hook LOL.

I have never, ever officially been asked for a list of what I've played in any gig over the last 40 years. I don't know anyone else who has either.

Ian D

Neither have I and I don't know of anyone either who has been asked but I think if you read the law the DJ should provide a list.

[boba]

Neither have I and I don't know of anyone either who has been asked but I think if you read the law the DJ should provide a list.

do you even read posts before responding? I'm just kidding.

anyway, this is what I was talking about, they are supposed to make payments to artists (e.g. dividing up their whole chunk of fees) based on the playlists... but the PRS really don't enforce it or attempt to get a list of tracks. But they do force the venue to pay their fees. So basically they are collecting money that they keep themselves and paying some of the money to totally different artists (pop stars) that didn't even earn that money.

[Chalky]

do you even read posts before responding? I'm just kidding.

anyway, this is what I was talking about, they are supposed to make payments to artists (e.g. dividing up their whole chunk of fees) based on the playlists... but the PRS really don't enforce it or attempt to get a list of tracks. But they do force the venue to pay their fees. So basically they are collecting money that they keep themselves and paying some of the money to totally different artists (pop stars) that didn't even earn that money.

Can you imagine the work involved chasing EVERY venue licensed to play music and having to wade through every list and then decide who gets what? I'd say pretty much impossible. Sorry if you said this already but obviously I haven't read it

[boba]

Can you imagine the work involved chasing EVERY venue licensed to play music and having to wade through every list and then decide who gets what? I'd say pretty much impossible. Sorry if you said this already but obviously I haven't read it

yes, and it's similar to the college radio example.I think it's almost like a gesture to show that they somehow are recording the lesser artists (even though they aren't).

with mainstream radio, audio fingerprinting has made it much, much easier for them to track artists / plays. It might not work for obscure college radio or obscure DJ sets but it could work for a lot of DJ sets I would think.

[davidwapples]

what happens about cover ups then if you have to list tracks played for the venue?

i can just see them at the bpi or whoever it is trying to locate spongebob billy and the witchdoctors version of an unknown 70's b side

[Sleeps45]

out of the two hundered and seventy five thousand hits my channel has had in less than a year, i have never had one complaint. i have however had comments from the actual artists praising me for my uploads.

i feel saddened by the reaction on this thread, i do the channel for the love of it.

soulgirls blog opened me up to so much more that i wasn't getting from my soul nights out, especially the rnb, i can never thank her enough for the tunes i found on her website

youtube is not a radio station first and foremost and most of the people against it are the 1st in line to see what new goodies have been posted! even if a person was to get paid per view it would be nothing compared to the thousands of dollars they invested on their collection.. I like yourself and many collectors have stumbled upon hundreds of tunes I would have never known about thanks to youtube..

whats wrong with sharing your collection with the world for the love of the music and knowledge "non profit"? I dont understand..this is not i-tunes..alot of haters out there plain and simple!

[Ian Dewhirst]

Can you imagine the work involved chasing EVERY venue licensed to play music and having to wade through every list and then decide who gets what? I'd say pretty much impossible. Sorry if you said this already but obviously I haven't read it

That's why it was such a ridiculous notion in the first place. They need to repeal their laws IMO. It wouldn't make a whole heap of difference for the majority of our Northern Soul heroes anyway, since they would all have to register with the UK PRS in order to derive a fee which would probably be smaller than the costs of the registration process!

Ian D

[Chalky]

youtube is not a radio station first and foremost and most of the people against it are the 1st in line to see what new goodies have been posted! even if a person was to get paid per view it would be nothing compared to the thousands of dollars they invested on their collection.. I like yourself and many collectors have stumbled upon hundreds of tunes I would have never known about thanks to youtube..

whats wrong with sharing your collection with the world for the love of the music and knowledge "non profit"? I dont understand..this is not i-tunes..alot of haters out there plain and simple!

On the other hand many of the records posted aren't out of their collections. Many rare rare records up there the person who posted only has an mp3.

And again for the sake of this being repeated, many of the records in collections are still copyrighted material.

[Amsterdam Russ]

You're cranky. What did I miss?

You're right. I was being cranky. My apologies.

Posting on here after having cycled 8 miles back from a soul night at four in the morning obviously doesn't agree with me!

I'm better now, honest!

[boba]

You're right. I was being cranky. My apologies.

Posting on here after having cycled 8 miles back from a soul night at four in the morning obviously doesn't agree with me!

I'm better now, honest!

no problem at all, thanks

[Guest Carl Dixon]

It's all about balance.......and.....new business models for collecting royalties. YouTube is a cracking way to get videos seen and music heard, with a view to the owners/writers getting some recognition or maybe even sales somewhere down the line. However, if the recordings are not yours to do so in the first place, they are somebody else's and maybe they do not want their works all over the place etc. Legislation provides protection....but is it in the song writers interest to pursue?

I use YouTube and Soundcloud to showcase my professional releases and demos. My PRS membership allows me to register mine and my co writers name(s) with the song title details. This is where I act of behalf of say, Spyder Turner, keeping an eye on our song writing interests here in the UK. A few years ago I was horrified to see a number of different Youtubers posting my intellectual property rights without my permission on there, just as I was hoping to sell mp3 versions of the song as a 'label' and song writer, as only just released. My concern was, that if people liked the song, they may be happy to try and download free of charge and not purchase, as this would deny the royalty, from a label perspective, back to Spyder. Yet, on the other hand....it became apparant that people were starting to hear the song and so what, they download the poorly captured mp3, but started to be curious about the recording maybe even actually buying a legal mp3 from ITunes or whoever. Late last year I collated every URL of my song compositions on YouTube and uploaded to PRS as they now have agreements together for the payment of royalties to song writers. This could be lucrative and an ironic turnaround to how I felt a few years ago. I felt that maybe if say one song got 1,000,000 hits and it earned say £0.006 pence per hit that would be £6000 without even one sale! I have yet to receive the quarterly statement that may include royalties for me. The interesting thing is, the song with the biggest hits I have had, has never been released. I question who will police the song writers interests for these older records if they do not know or understand these new mechanisms to collect a new wave of royalty opportunities? And could those who upload and enjoy the music become the allies of song writers and labels in the long term, without even knowing?

[Amsterdam Russ]

You illustrate the potential of YouTube and such outlets perfectly, Carl. If the mechanisms are in place for royalties to be paid, then the opportunities for rights owners are huge.

Exactly as you say, previously unreleased songs and other obscurities - which by their very nature always attract much interest - have the possibilities to receive much exposure and thus the financial returns.

I reiterate my view that YouTube and the like represent a new form of radio where fees can be collected every time a song is played anywhere in the world. Another way of looking at it perhaps is as a glorified and hugely personalised global jukebox that both aids in the promotion of music and (eventually) ensures through technical means that dues are paid.

Rather inevitably, many artists and songwriters won't benefit at all, but it is a new digital landscape for music and one that offers a greater sense of transparency and accountability - or at least the potential to - for rights owners.

[Guest Carl Dixon]

I agree Russell. The global jukebox on YouTube. I also recieved communication from YouTube as the owner of the recorded work about allowing commercials on my uploads with a pro rata payment from the advertiser on it. I need to get my head around that and the ramifications. What I find concerning is, I see adverts on clearly works, not owned by the uploader, which in effect is where they could be taking a financial credit for illegally uploading songs etc. It really is early days with this, but for me, terrestrial airplay is still king and marketing, which I am rubbish at.

As a fan of the music myself, and knowing some of the intricacies of the legal side of all this, I spend much of my time alerting song writers in the States to potential revenue streams that I am investigating like Sound Exchange in the US. Some just do not know what potential they have, especially if they played on the track as a featured artist or session musician.

[Britmusicsoulfan]

I have found the clips on you tube to decide if I want to purchase a record or not. There have been times I bought a record I heard a clip of a record I might not normally have chanced it on buying.

[boba]

I reiterate my view that YouTube and the like represent a new form of radio where fees can be collected every time a song is played anywhere in the world. Another way of looking at it perhaps is as a glorified and hugely personalised global jukebox that both aids in the promotion of music and (eventually) ensures through technical means that dues are paid.

I agree with this with the one caveat that most obscure, collector uploaded tracks on youtube sound like total crap. I don't know if it's youtube screwing it up, the collector not recording well, or it being an nth generation dub, but most music really is not radio quality.

[spinneaussplit]

So thanks for your experiences and opinions. Would like to give a short list, to get the points you mentioned sorted (especially for myself, but maybe someone needs this too?!).

1. Copyright, of course, lies on the side of the artist/producer etc.
   
2. Posting on Youtube or elsewhere on the net is in legal ways permitted...
   
3. ...as long as you don´t have the allowance of the copyright-owner.
   
4. In short you have to pays for this.
   

But it seams as if there are more than one points of view on the side of the owner:

1. On the one side there a copyright-owners are chasing offences against their copyright.
   
2. But this seam to be not that many, because of the fact many copyright owners of the 45 we collect are dead or do not know about the abuse of their property...
   
3. also, there are copyright owners, which see opportunities of profits in the future due to the fact that their property gets more attention and a bigger demand is created.
   

With reference to the posting on youtube, the facts are:

1. If you post a 45 you don´t have the copyrights of nor the allowance of the regular owner you are doing this illegal.
   
2. To get in trouble, the owner or a third person has to inform youtube about your offence.
   
3. If So Youtube will check the case and decide if your post is getting deleated or not.
   
4. If more than one of your posts on youtube will be deleated, then there is the chance that you´re banned from youtube.
   
5. To point out you´re post the soundfile in "fair use" seams to be no beware of copyright-abuse.
   

These are the facts. Personally I am still not sure if I will post on youtube, but the pure mass of 45s offered as clips on youtube without problems seam as a strong argument to me. At last

you have to take the risk of getting in trouble, if you want to offer the opportunity to hear good music out of another time and offer the artist the audience it deserves.

Thanks for the interest and help.

Best

Sven

[Amsterdam Russ]

Sven, I have a YouTube channel made up of soundfiles/vids of 45s and get a lot of pleasure out of it. It's been running for almost exactly two years, in which time I've had over 130,000 views.

In that time, I've never yet had any trouble from YouTube about copyright issues.

Yes, a number of tracks have been identified by YouTube as belonging to others (nearly always the previously mentioned Orchard Group), but it hasn't resulted in any of my videos being removed. Instead, some of them have ads at the beginning and I presume that the company claiming rights ownership receive a small amount of money each time the ad is shown.

I suggest you give it a try - upload one or two vids and see what reaction you get.

[boba]

if you're worried about getting in trouble, create an alternate anonymous gmail / youtube account that is not connected in any way to your regular accounts.

[Guest Paul]

Hello

This is an interesting topic but it's a complex subject so it's hard to address any points without going into great detail and getting a bit off-topic or boring people to death.

There's obviously a problem with the systems for digital licensing (for both sales and broadcasts) because they are very basic and general systems with many errors and grey areas. It would be cost-prohibitive to have full and accurate systems, the expense would probably exceed the value of any revenues.

My own experience is that I've had a couple of unexpected objections when I've uploaded some promo music video exerpts to Youtube. And these were small portions of recordings (and songs) which I own or cotrol. I think Ian Levine had the same problem and he had some of his own recordings removed from Youtube.

I challenged and won but it's a tedious thing to have to do. In one case the Youtube system triggered an automatic objection from a digital aggregator (effectively a distributor and licensor) who I assume had registered a prior interest to the title I was trying to upload. The aggregator was probably authorised by a physical distributor who had non-exclusive distribution rights to some content which had been licensed by me in the first place! So I just made a declaration that I controlled the rights and the objection was withdrawn.

But the purpose - and biggest advantage - of Youtube is to enable instant (and free) communication and exposure. I think of it is a giant virtual radio and TV station but with millions of unapproved contributors rather than a handful of appointed presenters, producers and programme directors with narrow playlists and schedules etc.

The problems arise when contributors (the public) upload full recordings of music or films without having the authority of the content owners. The most basic authority would be the right to broadcast the music or film and in many cases the owners would have no objections, especially if credit was given and even more so if the content was edited.

But we have to remember the reality that Youtube is much more than a virtual radio or TV station, it can also be used as a source for free music and films etc. So it's like a virtual retailer, such as iTunes, except that it isn't a licensed seller and no money changes hands. Content owners lose out. That's why Youtube has to have some systems to refuse certain content.

So if an upload isn't just an exerpt of a recording or it hasn't been authorised by the owners or if it can't justify being fair usage or whatever, Youtube has the right to object - or to allow owners or their agents to object.

That seems fair to me, or it would be if the systems of approval actually worked.

I want everyone to have easy access to music and films but I also want people to be prepared to pay a fair amount rather than getting a free copy of everything. Youtube is a great platform for free exposure but it also has the potential to reduce sales. Why would I buy a new CD or a film if I can access it instantly on Youtube without paying?

I think the general answer is to only allow uploads of partial music and film files unless a full upload has been approved by the owners (and many wouldn't object) or unless the recording is in the public domain or unless it can be justifed as fair use - such as music being featured as part of a radio show or in a non-profit documentary or whatever.

That seems reasonable and fair.

My other main concern is a moral issue, really, because I'm not at all convinced that the small revenues which are collected are actually distributed in fair portions to the real owners or creators of the music. There are millions of music owners and creators who haven't ever earned a penny from digital streaming, broadcasting or sales.

Someone is earning royalties from Youtube but it's the major publishers and therefore the major songwriters; those who've written many mainstream hits rather than those who wrote a few obscure songs.

It isn't much better than the licensing systems used by US societies such as ASCAP and BMI to collect and distribute broadcasting fees and royalties for radio play. They only monitor or survey a small sample of stations in certain regions at certain times of the day and then they make assumptions of which songs are typically being most played across the whole country. You can guess who wins with a system like that.

Here in the UK, PRS are better with monitoring broadcasting but there are problems when it comes to Youtube because nobody logs the broadcasts and much content is tagged by the uploaders in a way which doesn't determine the correct title, composer, publisher, artist, record company etc. Many uploaders don't have that information, many uploaders just tag their files as "Big Northern Soul Classic" or whatever ...who would earn any royalties from that?

I think we've all been spoiled in the last fifteen years or so and many of us have come to expect music and films to have no cost. It's a nice thought but we have to think about the people who create and finance things. And it's nice to know that Youtube is licensed by PRS and other societies these days but the reality is that very little (or any) of the revenues end up in the pockets of the more obscure songwriters etc.

It doesn't seem right that someone such as Russell is refused permission to upload some music in a fair usage capacity, especially when the objection comes from a company which probably doesn't own or control specific or exclusive rights anyway. What if the artist or the writers or the producer were happy to approve the upoload?

As always, those who win and those who have most control in these issues are those who are the most powerful or have the strongest lawyers etc.

Paul

[Tiberius]

I used to delete any of my youtube vids which were flagged as being in breach of copyright (very few as it happened). Usually they'd had the sound blocked so weren't much use. However, I'd posted a video of Leroy Hutsons - All Because Of You on 45 and at that time it wasn't already on there. It got loads of hits,far outstripping anything else on my channel. Eventually the sound got blocked but despite this seemingly major drawback I left it up for a while as it still continued getting literally hundreds of views. Now I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed,but I thought surely it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a previously untapped market for "people who enjoy watching the Curtom label spin round.....in complete silence".

At the current rate of bootlegging expect to see Curtom "blank groove" boots appearing on a well known auction site soon........

Edited March 21, 2012 by tiberius