Youtube And Copyright

[Guest Paul]

Regarding the points made about Refosoul...

As I think of iTunes as being a giant record store and Youtube as being a giant radio and TV station with millions of DJs and presenters, I thought of Refosoul as being a radio station - but a small and private non-profit station with no advertising income etc. And it could only be accessed by a small group of people (soulsource members) who had rules to follow.

So it wouldn't need a license and wouldn't be required to pay broadcasting fees etc.

In fact, it's a lot like a hospital radio station ...and we are the patients, chained to our beds while waiting for therapy treatment!

[Guest]

OK, very interesting thread...Can anybody clarify what the situation is regarding the following...

You upload a Soul record from youtube to your Facebook page...

Next time you go to play it, you can't and a graphic comes up saying 'recording disabled at user's request'....What is going on here then? Am I right in assuming people who do not even own the copyright to the material in the first place - are then able to ask youtube to 'disable' records in their accounts/files, from being transferred to other sites by other soul fans? It's happened to me quite a few times and those records were posted originally on youtube by normal people not record companies or royalty collecting societies, that's for sure...Seems bang out of order to me....

[boba]

I think you are talking about the error "embedding disabled at user's request". That means that they don't want their video embedded in another web page like facebook, ebay, or anywhere. You have to watch their video on youtube as opposed to on facebook. There is a link to take you to youtube to watch it.

If that's not what you're talking about I have no idea, but google reveals that nobody on the entire internet ever wrote the phrase "recording disabled at user's request".

[timthemod]

PRS do get music reporting from Youtube and pay royalties accordingly to the videos with the highest amount of hits. However some obscure video that's had 250 hits isn't going to recieve any royalties because it too low down on the 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.

[Guest Souldiegirl]

Mike all of your replies are antagonist and argumentative. As the Administrator of this site I'd like to ask you where is your professionalism? You definitely sound very defensive and paranoid. I didn't find anyone questioning the legality of this site or issuing any "dodgy accusations"....you need a vacation dude.

[Dave Pinch]

Mike all of your replies are antagonist and argumentative. As the Administrator of this site I'd like to ask you where is your professionalism? You definitely sound very defensive and paranoid. I didn't find anyone questioning the legality of this site or issuing any "dodgy accusations"....you need a vacation dude.

you`ve got off to a good start

[Tony A]

you`ve got off to a good start

[Chalky]

Mike all of your replies are antagonist and argumentative. As the Administrator of this site I'd like to ask you where is your professionalism? You definitely sound very defensive and paranoid. I didn't find anyone questioning the legality of this site or issuing any "dodgy accusations"....you need a vacation dude.

Hello and welcome to the site, glad to see you are making yourself at home.

Do you kind posting a brief introduction about yourself juts so that everyone knows a bit about you, who you are, where you are from etc.

Members Shouts and Intros

I hope you enjoy Soul Source.

[Mick Sway]

Hello,

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???

best,

spinne

Now this is a long thread and I don't pretend to have read every posting, however just in case anyone has missed it,

there has been a long standing legal case going on in Germany, which received coverage on the BBC a couple of weeks

ago on Radio 5 in particular. Basically a German based writers, artists and performers organisation has taken Google to

court and won in Germany,with regard to their performing rights (please refer to the links below) in respect of illegal

You-tube uploads (now blocked in Germany?).

I understand that as a result You-tube has now to filter out copyrighted material in Germany.

During the presenters discussion on the matter, the "experts" were saying that anyone illegally downloading material

could be prosecuted in the US Courts because all the main internet servers and their related companies are based in the US.

How aggressively offenders can be pursued however was a matter of conjecture due to their sheer numbers globally.

I am not trying to put the frighteners on anyone, but personally I am considering closing my You-tube account.

I enjoy sharing my tunes, in the same way that I might invite someone into the "music" room to play a tune or share with them a mix CD. I don't see any difference between this and You-tube uploads which give some very obscure artists (many now deceased)

a global audience.

Thanks

Mick

PS I am also surprised be the occasionally harsh responses of Soulsource staff, no need to say what an otherwise

great forum Soulsource is.

Links and quotes:

From BBC News 20/04/12:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17785613

"YouTube loses court battle over music clips:

A court in Hamburg ruled that YouTube is responsible for the content that users post to the video sharing site.

It wants the video site to install filters that spot when users try to post music clips whose rights are held by royalty collection group, Gema. The German industry group said in court that YouTube had not done enough to stop copyrighted clips being posted.

Rights battle

YouTube said it took no responsibility for what users did, but responded when told of copyright violations.

"Today's ruling confirms that YouTube as a hosting platform cannot be obliged to control the content of all videos uploaded to the site," said a spokesperson for the video site.

"We remain committed to finding a solution to the music licensing issue in Germany that will benefit artists, composers, authors, publishers and record labels, as well as the wider YouTube community," they added.

Gema's court case was based on 12 separate music clips posted to the website. The ruling concerns seven of the 12 clips.

If YouTube is forced to pay royalties for all the clips used on the site it will face a huge bill.

Gema represents about 60,000 German song writers and musicians.

If enforced, the ruling could also slow the rate at which video is posted to the site as any music clip would have to be cleared for copyright before being used."

Other reports:

https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57417664-501465/german-court-rules-against-youtube-in-rights-case/

https://support.google.com/googleplay/artists/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1728994

https://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/viacom-vs-youtube-copyright-battle-back-on-take-two/73343

From CBS news:

"A German court has ruled that online video platform YouTube must install filters to prevent users from uploading some music videos whose rights are held by a music-royalties collecting body.

German news agency dapd reported that the Hamburg state court on Friday mostly sided with Germany's GEMA, which represents about 60,000 German writers and musicians.

GEMA took Google Inc.'s YouTube unit to court over 12 temporarily uploaded music videos for which no royalties were paid.

YouTube has maintained that it bears no legal responsibility for the uploaded content - saying it checks and sometimes blocks content when users alert the firm about alleged violations of laws.

It was not immediately clear whether the ruling will be appealed."

[Guest]

Great Britain established the copyright law in 1710, that crippled the world of knowledge in the United Kingdom.

Germany, on the other hand, didn't bother with the concept of copyright till at least the 1840's.

I'm quite happy for most of my videos to be banned in Germany and on Soul Source.

Knowledge is power..

[spinneaussplit]

Mick, thanks for that.

I am sitting in Germany so I know about the court procedings, and already thought about adding to this thread but didn´t find the time.

If I got the things right the filter youtube has to install only concerns uploads by now. All the older stuff won´t be affected and so I think you cannot get in any 'trouble' for uploads you already made. But there where a few posts in this thread that pointed out that they where informed that they loaded up 45s where copyright lies at third persons, without any consequences. By now all these files will be blocked by youtube and it is sure, that there will be a slowdown of the upload of 45s on youtube, that is kind of annoying.

[Amsterdam Russ]

Rather interestingly, I uploaded a track to YouTube about an hour ago and to my surprised found it's been blocked in the USA and all American territories! This is at the behest of Warner Music Group.

I have just over 50 tracks on my YouTube channel and it's the first time any song been blocked from being visible in the States. Considering the audience share that comes from there, that's a huge loss of potential viewers and potential ad revenue for YouTube. Seems WMG would rather block content than earn from it.

[Guest]

all mine that have been blocked by UMG, are only blocked in Germany & Japan

surely it has more to do with censorship than copyright.

it suited them to have no copyright during their rapid industrial expansion of the 19th century, churning out bootlegged handbooks on topics such as chemistry, mechanics, engineering, optics and the production of steel.

this is yet another wall Germany are building.

[Mick Sway]

Mick, thanks for that.

I am sitting in Germany so I know about the court procedings, and already thought about adding to this thread but didn´t find the time.

If I got the things right the filter youtube has to install only concerns uploads by now. All the older stuff won´t be affected and so I think you cannot get in any 'trouble' for uploads you already made. But there where a few posts in this thread that pointed out that they where informed that they loaded up 45s where copyright lies at third persons, without any consequences. By now all these files will be blocked by youtube and it is sure, that there will be a slowdown of the upload of 45s on youtube, that is kind of annoying.

Re:BBC Radio report obout the German case

I would like to re-iterrate the point made during the BBC discussion, that according to what I recall was being said, any US copyright related breaches ( anywhere in the world) , may be tried in the US because it is the US companies that act as servers for the internet.

Although I would add the rider that I wasn't making notes at the time and am therefore going from memory, I was hoping that some one else may have heard this program.

It saddens me for the lesser known artists whose material may not have otherwise been heard.

I wonder whether Black Sugar II, would have been re-pressed without internet demand (I assume its a legit release)?

All this while the booteggers continue to ply their trade.

I admit to having enjoyed catching up with rare tunes through You-tube.

As for getting off my proverbial (as was stated by another pundit earlier) to hear the tunes, at 60 my knees have gone and I can't honestly see myself at a nighter anymore, my leanings are towards crossover and real soul, to which the same arguments of freedom of expression apply.

Neat thread.

Mick

PS are there any copyright lawyers out there, prepared to give a definitive view on this?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Mick Sway

[Guest Carl Dixon]

I would think if YouTube only transmitted/profiled lower audio bandwidth versions or even just mono, it would work and maybe these bigger labels would 'allow' such postings. People could enjoy the track with a view to maybe purchasing one day, YouTube still get their advertising revenue, writers and labers a royalty....