Jump to content

Open Letter to YouTube, "Pushers of Piracy"


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Tell it like it is, Maria...and here's an open letter from Irv Azoff.

 

Musicians create, YouTube takes. I won't bore you with my story of trying to deal with YouTube on how I could compensate artists whose songs I've covered in my own channel...bottom line was I couldn't.

 

As a consumer, I love the fact that I can hear just about any piece of music from any era. But with YouTube being the #1 source for music playback, there needs to be some way to compensate the musicians whose work is all over the site, and in most cases, uploaded without consent from the copyright holder.

 

This isn't just about "artists should be compensated," it's written more from a legal standpoint about how existing laws are being broken. As Google, Chrome, and YouTube amass ever more power, at some point "Alphabet" will have enough power not just to flaunt the laws, but create them. At that point control becomes irreversible.

 

Guess it's time to switch to Firefox...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was surprised recently when a friend of mine posted a link to one of my songs on his FB page. The link went to YT. I never gave permission for that. Yeah, it bothers me but I`m not sure what to do and to be completely honest, I`m not exactly raking it in so I have resigned myself to just accepting the fact that my songs are out there for anyone to listen to and download if they`re creative without me seeing a penny.

 

I have said this for years, the record industry did not fall behind with the Internet as many believe. The real issue is an ethical one. The Internet allows for piracy and until that is regulated (I`m not holding my breath), its the wild wild west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have said this for years, the record industry did not fall behind with the Internet as many believe. The real issue is an ethical one. The Internet allows for piracy and until that is regulated (I`m not holding my breath), its the wild wild west.

 

I finished reading Craig's links and found Maria's article fairly compelling. But the only way "fair" treatment of musicians (or of course anyone) is going to happen is if there is a consensus of principles a large minority, at least, of musicians begin to uphold. Unfortunately the internet is not structured to abide by users principles. Users are to be used. Like many of you, when I first started using the internet, Corporate Claws hadn't really hooked in,& there seemed to be the opportunity for egalitarianism.

 

I'm reminded of this quote from writer Jerry Mander:

"In this culture, we have science and technology as religion. We no longer have a religious or

philosophical basis for making choices regarding the evolution of technology. All those decisions are

made in the corporate world. But there are other societies where taboos, the very concept of

taboo still exist. Taboo is probably the only concept that is taboo in this society..."

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have mixed feelings about the availability of music and other copyrighted material on youtube. On one hand, like most people I like listening to and sharing songs. On the other hand I'm sad to see how much less opportunity there is today to "Make it in music" as we defined it before the Internet came along.

 

On the other-other hand... isn't this Socialism... what so many people are clamoring for? I can't tell you how much free information I've given away since the Internet arrived, information that at one time people would pay consulting fees for.

 

The natural state of the Internet gravitates toward a bartering system. Some of us provide info that we're still paying off college loans to have expertise in a given field. Like this forum and many others on many other topics... you google it and you find free consulting. So on that other-other hand there's a part of me that feels I'm doing my part in this Interweb of free stuff, so why shouldn't I be able to listen to free music.

 

And then there's another concept I've mentioned in past discussions about youtube and other free streaming media. I mostly listen to music I've already paid for at some time in the past. At some point in my life I bought Boston's debut album on vinyl, cassette, and CD. I wasn't paying for the physical medium, but rather the right to listen to the material on that medium. IMO when the medium wears out that doesn't take away my right to listen to the songs on that album, which I already paid for.

 

So "More Than a Feeling" is mine, only my CD copy of it didn't last forever as Sony promised. My audio cassette of the album still plays... sorta...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I have mixed feelings about the availability of music and other copyrighted material on youtube. On one hand, like most people I like listening to and sharing songs. On the other hand I'm sad to see how much less opportunity there is today to "Make it in music" as we defined it before the Internet came along.

 

On the other-other hand... isn't this Socialism... what so many people are clamoring for? I can't tell you how much free information I've given away since the Internet arrived, information that at one time people would pay consulting fees for.

 

The natural state of the Internet gravitates toward a bartering system. Some of us provide info that we're still paying off college loans to have expertise in a given field. Like this forum and many others on many other topics... you google it and you find free consulting. So on that other-other hand there's a part of me that feels I'm doing my part in this Interweb of free stuff, so why shouldn't I be able to listen to free music.

 

And then there's another concept I've mentioned in past discussions about youtube and other free streaming media. I mostly listen to music I've already paid for at some time in the past. At some point in my life I bought Boston's debut album on vinyl, cassette, and CD. I wasn't paying for the physical medium, but rather the right to listen to the material on that medium. IMO when the medium wears out that doesn't take away my right to listen to the songs on that album, which I already paid for.

 

So "More Than a Feeling" is mine, only my CD copy of it didn't last forever as Sony promised. My audio cassette of the album still plays... sorta...

 

The socialist perspective is one I have pondered in recent years as well because as you know, I lean towards a Democratic Socialist system (as I think most people do but don`t know it).

 

As I have said many times before, this is an ethical issue. We all enjoy art of some sort whether its music, photography, sculpture, etc... Artists deserve and need to be paid for their work if they are to continue making art. I would love to spend more time in the studio writing and recording but I need another job or two to pay for my lifestyle and the gear I use to make my art. God knows, if I depended on song royalties or album sales, I would have died from starvation years ago.

 

I expect NYC to provide sanitation, a public library, street lights, a public school system, parks, etc... . I pay my taxes and the City of New York provides certain services for those taxes. We need to pay for art because it serves us all in a certain capacity.

 

Since 2016 started, I think I have purchased 10 albums in iTunes already. Yes, I could have gone to YT to listen to those records but I sincerely believe in supporting an artist with my hard earned cash. Its an ethical decision I have made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

The natural state of the Internet gravitates toward a bartering system. Some of us provide info that we're still paying off college loans to have expertise in a given field. Like this forum and many others on many other topics... you google it and you find free consulting. So on that other-other hand there's a part of me that feels I'm doing my part in this Interweb of free stuff, so why shouldn't I be able to listen to free music.

 

And then there's another concept I've mentioned in past discussions about youtube and other free streaming media. I mostly listen to music I've already paid for at some time in the past. At some point in my life I bought Boston's debut album on vinyl, cassette, and CD. I wasn't paying for the physical medium, but rather the right to listen to the material on that medium. IMO when the medium wears out that doesn't take away my right to listen to the songs on that album, which I already paid for.

 

So "More Than a Feeling" is mine, only my CD copy of it didn't last forever as Sony promised. My audio cassette of the album still plays... sorta...

 

Couple of thoughts:

 

You always had the right to make one "archive" or "backup" copy of that album for exactly the problem you describe. Obviously that needs to be done sooner rather than later, to capture the recording in as good condition as possible.

 

The bartering concept is interesting. However, the way you wrote this reads as if you're expecting to be able to take anything in exchange for what you've given. A fair barter is making the deal with another person before the transaction takes place. Simply taking someone's work without permission, because it appears on the internet, and because you feel you've contributed to the internet, is not a barter. It's like parking your car at a lot and expecting to drive off later with any car you find parked nearby.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author
I was surprised recently when a friend of mine posted a link to one of my songs on his FB page. The link went to YT. I never gave permission for that. Yeah, it bothers me but I`m not sure what to do and to be completely honest, I`m not exactly raking it in so I have resigned myself to just accepting the fact that my songs are out there for anyone to listen to and download if they`re creative without me seeing a penny.

 

I have said this for years, the record industry did not fall behind with the Internet as many believe. The real issue is an ethical one. The Internet allows for piracy and until that is regulated (I`m not holding my breath), its the wild wild west.

 

There's a tendency to forget that Facebook has little to no privacy...because giving anyone other than yourself access to something means giving the world access if that person (in this case, your friend) can't be trusted to maintain your privacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

There's a tendency to forget that Facebook has little to no privacy...because giving anyone other than yourself access to something means giving the world access if that person (in this case, your friend) can't be trusted to maintain your privacy.

 

My friend went on YT to find my song, then shared it on FB. I wasn`t upset with him, I was upset that YT had my song in its entirety for anyone to listen to and make a copy of if they wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Couple of thoughts:

 

You always had the right to make one "archive" or "backup" copy of that album for exactly the problem you describe. Obviously that needs to be done sooner rather than later, to capture the recording in as good condition as possible.

 

Yes, but perhaps the availability of free streaming audio is a legitimate backup system along with the traditional forms we've always recognized. There is a downside for the listener however, or at least listeners like me. We still prefer analog and/or hi resolution digital, so a lot of what is available for free is inferior. But it will do in a pinch like FM radio did, or even AM radio did.

 

The bartering concept is interesting. However, the way you wrote this reads as if you're expecting to be able to take anything in exchange for what you've given. A fair barter is making the deal with another person before the transaction takes place. Simply taking someone's work without permission, because it appears on the internet, and because you feel you've contributed to the internet, is not a barter. It's like parking your car at a lot and expecting to drive off later with any car you find parked nearby.

 

One thing I did not clarify is that this bartering system was not my idea. I feel I'm just observing something that society has created together. It's a silent agreement with no contracts. The agreement is manifest by the silently agreed upon behavior. For example, Common Law Marriage. Nobody ever said, "I do" but after a period of time the state says, "You are." I'm actually very conservative, so I have to decide how much if any I want to p[participate in this system that has evolved.

 

Then there is one more element that doesn't make it free anyway in most cases, the same way television is not free even with an antena for "Free" broadcast and radio was not/is not free. Commercials. We sit through commercials from 15 seconds to sometimes a minute long before we can listen to a song. These sponsors are paying youtube, so someone is getting paid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The socialist perspective is one I have pondered in recent years as well because as you know, I lean towards a Democratic Socialist system (as I think most people do but don`t know it).

 

Yes, and it is hard to pass up a free stuff... whatever it is.

 

As I have said many times before, this is an ethical issue. We all enjoy art of some sort whether its music, photography, sculpture, etc... Artists deserve and need to be paid for their work if they are to continue making art. I would love to spend more time in the studio writing and recording but I need another job or two to pay for my lifestyle and the gear I use to make my art. God knows, if I depended on song royalties or album sales, I would have died from starvation years ago.

 

Yep, I can't disagree with that, but today the line that separates professional and hobbyist is pretty blurry. People can and do create create fully professional sounding music and other arts just for the satisfaction of being recognized. That is, they don't ask for or expect payment. The old system of the record companies being in charge is gone. So the question is and has been for a while, how do we make a living as artists? Are those days gone never to be seen again? I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud when it comes to that.

 

I expect NYC to provide sanitation, a public library, street lights, a public school system, parks, etc... . I pay my taxes and the City of New York provides certain services for those taxes. We need to pay for art because it serves us all in a certain capacity.

 

Public libraries where we’ve always been able to go to read or checkout free books, and later free music and movies. So there are some things in the balance such as copyright vs preservation, fair use and educational use, etc. Preservation without public access is pointless. Thus the library has always been an important institution in American society. Does youtube function like a cyber public library in some capacity? I think one could make a case for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

Yes, but perhaps the availability of free streaming audio is a legitimate backup system along with the traditional forms we've always recognized. There is a downside for the listener however, or at least listeners like me. We still prefer analog and/or hi resolution digital, so a lot of what is available for free is inferior. But it will do in a pinch like FM radio did, or even AM radio did.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the license to make backup copies applies only to the actual media you purchase. If you buy a vinyl record, you may use that as the source. If you d/l from iTunes, that's your source (good luck copying that), if CD, well you get the picture.

 

 

One thing I did not clarify is that this bartering system was not my idea. I feel I'm just observing something that society has created together. It's a silent agreement with no contracts. The agreement is manifest by the silently agreed upon behavior. For example, Common Law Marriage. Nobody ever said, "I do" but after a period of time the state says, "You are." I'm actually very conservative, so I have to decide how much if any I want to p[participate in this system that has evolved.

 

Then there is one more element that doesn't make it free anyway in most cases, the same way television is not free even with an antena for "Free" broadcast and radio was not/is not free. Commercials. We sit through commercials from 15 seconds to sometimes a minute long before we can listen to a song. These sponsors are paying youtube, so someone is getting paid.

 

I wasn't under the impression that was your idea...we're just talking about concepts and observations.

 

Indeed, YouTube has a racket. Where else can you earn money from advertising, and have almost no overhead costs for the "product or service" you provide? It reminds me of a local situation...an old rail line spur was abandoned by CSX a few years ago when the only remaining shipper bailed. A wealthy guy decided to buy the line for cheap, and open his own tourist line.

 

He bought some derelict cars, a few old locomotives, and then asked for volunteers to restore the equipment. If you've ever known a "railfan", you know how these folks can be. He quickly had dozens of suckers doing hard labor to restore the track and equipment (NOTHING on a railroad is either clean or lightweight). Compare this with the average musician looking for his "break"..he'll play for free for "exposure". This isn't a charitable organization or a non-profit...the guy is charging $40 per ticket for a 12 mile round trip.. just as YouTube is a for-profit venture. Obviously he has considerable cash invested, but imagine what 15 or 20 employees' salary and benefits would cost annually....

 

Nice racket, if you can manage to set it up......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

Yes, and it is hard to pass up a free stuff... whatever it is.

Yep, I can't disagree with that, but today the line that separates professional and hobbyist is pretty blurry. People can and do create create fully professional sounding music and other arts just for the satisfaction of being recognized. That is, they don't ask for or expect payment. The old system of the record companies being in charge is gone. So the question is and has been for a while, how do we make a living as artists? Are those days gone never to be seen again? I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud when it comes to that.

 

 

 

Public libraries where we’ve always been able to go to read or checkout free books, and later free music and movies. So there are some things in the balance such as copyright vs preservation, fair use and educational use, etc. Preservation without public access is pointless. Thus the library has always been an important institution in American society. Does youtube function like a cyber public library in some capacity? I think one could make a case for that.

 

It only functions in that regard if all of the content landed there in a legal manner. Otherwise it's little more than a shady pawn shop that accepts stolen goods along with legit stuff.

 

How to make a living as a musician is indeed the question. It feels as if the ready availability of both "exposure" (through online media), and cheap production (via computer based recording tools) have given some would-be artists the impression that it's "easy" to become a star. The reality, of course, which most of us know all too well, is the only thing that's happened is we have increased the number of participants fighting to come out on top. It may have made things much more difficult, in my opinion, because there's probably a far smaller chance of being discovered by a record company and getting any real support from them. The forest is immeasurably larger, and you're but one tree....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yes, and it is hard to pass up a free stuff... whatever it is.

 

 

Just for the record, I own every piece of music in my iTunes library. I own all the software I use. I think people hear "Democratic Socialist" and they think "bunch of hippies who want everything for free". Thats a false idea floating around thanks to the corporate media and the extreme right wing politicians...

 

I believe in paying my fair share of taxes because people should pay for the services they enjoy including the street lights to the fire department to the police department to music!

 

I love YT even though a lot of content on there is illegally shared. I honestly would not have an issue paying for the site.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It only functions in that regard if all of the content landed there in a legal manner. Otherwise it's little more than a shady pawn shop that accepts stolen goods along with legit stuff.

 

 

 

I love YT even though a lot of content on there is illegally shared. I honestly would not have an issue paying for the site.

 

 

IMO part of what we're witnessing is a redefinition of what is legal and what is not. We're in transition... a reevaluating what something is worth as well as what belongs to whom, what is right and wrong. Every generation does this reevaluation of the status quo to some degree. As a society in general the last ten years has seen a great deal of redefining... more than any other decade in my lifetime anyway. Whether these changes have been for the better or worse is still a matter for debate. I think this is just another thing.

 

Anyway, on this particular topic some of what we're discussing is new and some of what we're discussing is as old as the first integrated stereo system with a switch on it that provided for recording from radio, vinyl, or from cassette to cassette.

 

Did TDK and Maxell know that their high fidelity cassette tapes were being used primarily to copy copyrighted work? Of course they did and they made money hand over fist. And later came the debate over digital tape and recordable CD. Now faced with ever changing methods of delivery each side is trying to level the playing field, but in the business world a level playing field is not level at all, but will favor one side or the other.

 

So what to do about youtube? Let's assume for a moment that it is evil. Who else is culpable? Who are accessories to the crime? In legal terms, “Aiding and Abetting.” Forums like this that allow us to embed youtube videos? Firefox? Microsft? adobe? How about even your internet service provider? It can get pretty complicated when sorting out all those benefiting from the “free stuff.” How do we not throw the baby out with the bathwater? How do we protect speech and encourage the free exchange of ideas and yet keep music or any other art form as a commodity at the same time? Is it even possible anymore?

 

Concepts of what is fair and lawful change with technology and societal values. The web has become an extension of our physical environments.

 

In time past we had to invite friends over to listen to music we wanted to share or somehow be in the same physical location such as a car. Now we communicate with friends around the world on social media.

 

For example, quite often since I've been on facebook I have conversations break out on my wall that involve participation of large numbers of people. What happens when we want to share a music recording as though we're all in the same room or car? So there is youtube. At that moment are we using youtube for unlawful storage or lawful transmission?

 

We communicate with music, both our own and the works of other artists. We also communicate with visuals... pictures and clips, both our own and the works of other artists. I do a lot more with my own written words than most of my friends, but so much of what we have to say is beyond words.

 

IMO my facebook wall is an extension of my living room. We're living in times where definitions are changing with new methods of social interaction. Should I see the web as pirate radio or is it more like having people over to my house to talk and listen to music? Does my facebook wall fall under the private home exemption? It's a matter for debate.

 

I could go on with many other examples, but my central point is there are a many legitimate things to consider as technology allows us to gather together in ways not anticipated when the old laws were drafted. There are many questions yet to be addressed as technology moves faster than people can keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

How to make a living as a musician is indeed the question. It feels as if the ready availability of both "exposure" (through online media), and cheap production (via computer based recording tools) have given some would-be artists the impression that it's "easy" to become a star. The reality, of course, which most of us know all too well, is the only thing that's happened is we have increased the number of participants fighting to come out on top. It may have made things much more difficult, in my opinion, because there's probably a far smaller chance of being discovered by a record company and getting any real support from them. The forest is immeasurably larger, and you're but one tree....

 

I pretty much completely agree with that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
[/size]

 

I think people hear "Democratic Socialist" and they think "bunch of hippies who want everything for free". That's a false idea floating around thanks to the corporate media and the extreme right wing politicians...

 

 

Most people don't understand any form of ism to any great degree, even the isms which they identify with. Most people who are part of a group understand little about their own group, much less opposing groups. Politics and religion can be hard to tell apart and that's becauause they often overlap. Different members of your church will define your religious afiliation differently than you do. Other members of the political party you identify with will define it in terms differently than you do. But most of all these terms are simple and shallow for most "Believers."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...