Slashdot Mirror
Universal Sends DMCA Takedown On 1980 Report
An anonymous reader writes "For many, many years, every time some new technology has come along, the music industry has insisted that it's going to "kill" the industry. The player piano was supposed to kill live music. So was the radio. And, of course, every time this happens the press is willing to take the industry's word at face value. In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done. Someone posted that 20/20 episode to YouTube a few years back, where it sat in obscurity until people noticed it a couple weeks ago. And suddenly, Universal Music issued a takedown notice for the show. Universal Music does not own 20/20, and there were only brief clips of music in the show. It appears the only reason for Universal to issue the takedown is that it doesn't want you seeing how badly it overreacted in the past."
I noticed a bunch of home-filmed performances of amateur pianists playing various Mozart stuff had been taken down, because some random publishing company claimed ownership, just to plaster them with ads -- and the company gets the ad revenue.
Anybody with a brain would realize that the work is hundreds of years old, and the performance in question is owned by the poster (the guy sitting at the piano), but apparently forcing your ads onto other peoples youtube vids in this manner has become a trendy revenue stream for cocksuckers. Almost as trendy as the sucking of the cock in the first place.
Except rick astley's stuff.
Seriously, media companies are very interested in web trend so it's likely they noticed the video when it got popular. Since they also sue people for unreasonable amount of money I think they are perfectly capable of using DMCA takedown to avoid eggs in the face.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Specifying FM radio clout is somewhat unfair, as that mentality is tied into the idea that the style of marketing performed by the big labels is the only valid style of marketing. If you believe that, then you're pretty much tied to Universal or someone of their ilk - if you're lucky you'll get very rich with their help, and I certainly see the appeal of that, but signing one of those contracts is a major gamble. Depending on your connections and your style of music, that gamble may or may not have the best odds for you; sure, you'll be stuck playing by the rules of those asshats for a while even if it does pay off, but to be honest I'd probably take those terms myself if I thought they were going to throw enough resources my way to make me a major seller.
The other option, also a gamble, is to promote yourself and/or employ a good PR firm. Viral videos (the kind people actually like to watch - think OK Go; although they may have had a major label behind them, the idea doesn't require one), gigs in the right places, low-cost high-volume sales on iTunes, and the right kind of image could be plenty to earn you the notoriety that leads to a very decent living. The maximum win probably isn't as high as that which you might get with the major labels, but the freedom is greater and the chance of some success, rather than either tens of millions or abject failure, may well be higher.
I recently came across an old copy of Modern Recording magazine from early 1981. There is an article about how cassette decks are evil and home taping is hurting the record industry and the RIAA commissioned a study that that they hoped to take to congress as proof that new laws were need.
But a funny thing happened. The report was shelved when it revealed that people who owned home recording equipment spent 75% more money buying music than people who didn't own an evil cassette deck.
Then you'd see first hand from the late Mortimer I. Luddite III with his frantic pleas to stop those infernal horseless carriages from destroying his buggy-whip business he made just days before being struck down and killed by a Model T going a whopping 10 miles an hour through the town square.
Innovation and progress is only good so long as the established powers that be profit by it.
I think you already know this, but to clarify for others: Even when the shows/movies DO license the music, the license was often only for the original medium. That's why many shows (e.g. WKRP, 21 Jump Street) have messed up music on the DVD releases.
My favorite counter-example: The last episode of "The Prisoner", which has a Beatles song in it. At the time, they got a perpetual license, that has AFAIK covered home video, DVD, streaming, etc., usage too.
The cool thing is their greed is being eaten away from the other side as well - home recording, powerful computers/software, and the internet is making it easier and easier for artists to get a quality product to an audience, bypassing the "music industry" altogether - at least for recorded music.
I don't think the **AA-type organizations have any coherent picture on what the future of media should be, other than "everyone should buy every release of the same shit over and over again".
Only it won't work. I just learned about the Streisand effect from the recent article about officer Bubble, and I already have a situation in which to apply it. That's convenient.
Yeah, I was thinking about that too, except I now think that the Streisand effect is not that effective.
If you say "the recording industry doesn't want you to see this this video" or "Officer bubbles will arrest you for assaulting him with a viewing of this video", then there are a certain type of people who will seek out the video. These people are probably the type who like to form opinions for themselves, and are probably also the type who don't mindlessly follow the authority claimed by big business or abusive government organizations. Those willing to risk being sued for a million dollars for making Officer bubbles feel foolish for acting like a ridiculous crybaby bully, probably already believe that police sometimes abuse their authority. Those who want to see the recording industry expose their lies and deception probably already know that the record company people are shadyyyy.
I believe that something like this (Officer bubbles or 20/20) is of interest to this type of person... slashdot people... knowledge and understanding seekers. Then occasionally it gains enough attention that it becomes a meme, and others... facebook people... those interested in what's popular... they will catch on. They will pay attention because others are.
I believe it's the second group of people that groups like RIAA fear, because they can be swayed easily by a message, and stuff like Officer bubbles and 20/20 are "uncontrolled messages," that may have an undesirable effect on an organization's brand management.
And I don't mean to say that individuals can be separated into one group or the other, but rather that as a collective, groups of people can act like flocks of sheep. I think it's the flocks that steer the recording industry or the police. The Streisand effect affects individuals, not flocks.
What if the 60 minutes segment - which is, after all, about music videos - contains incidental audio from the videos? ("Dear Google. The CBS show '60 Minutes' infringed on our music by including it in a news report 30 years ago. A third party has since uploaded CBS's infringing content to your website. As owners of the little snippet of music at time index xx:yy, we demand that you pull this content."
Sorta like how you can't get the "WKRP in Cincinnati" TV show in its originally-aired form because the sitcom, which was set in a radio station, included scenes with DJs playing music ... and the rightsholder of the TV show couldn't get the rights to resell the show with the original samples.
My favorite counter-example: The last episode of "The Prisoner", which has a Beatles song in it. At the time, they got a perpetual license, that has AFAIK covered home video, DVD, streaming, etc., usage too.
British dramas seem to have benefited from a lot more leniency in this area. The theme song to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is an old Eagles song, for example, and I've seen "real" pop music showing up in all kinds of shows. I've always wondered whether their copyright laws/licenses are worded differently than those in the U.S.
Breakfast served all day!
My interesting idea is to go ahead and share music, never paying a cent until the music industry is very actually teats up.
Musicians will once again be able to make a living playing music. Give it away and charge for performance. It really is the only realistic way for music to even work. Give it away and charge for performance. Music will thrive with actual musicians rather than office flunkies controlling it.
Yes, kill the industry completely f**king dead. We don't need them, never have, and would've ALWAYS been better off without them.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!