180 Artists, Labels Including Taylor Swift Take On YouTube, Join Copyright Plea (cnn.com)

Chloe Melas, reporting for CNN: Taylor Swift, U2, Kings of Leon and Paul McCartney are some of the 180 recording artists and labels petitioning Congress to reform the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (D.M.C.A.) In an open letter to Congress, they write that the current online copyright law has allowed YouTube and other sites to "generate huge profits by creating ease of use for consumers to carry almost every recorded song in history in their pocket via a smartphone, while songwriters' and artists' earnings continue to diminish." The letter, which is being published in The Hill and Politico this week, goes on to call for "sensible reform." "We ask you to enact sensible reform that balances the interests of creators with the interests of the companies who exploit music for their financial enrichment. It's only then that consumers will truly benefit." YouTube's parent company, Google, declined to comment Tuesday, but in a statement in April said, "Any claim that the DMCA safe harbors are responsible for a 'value gap' for music on YouTube is simply false." This comes days after musician Trent Reznor said YouTube is built on the back of stolen content.

Comments

I agree somewhat

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube is great for pirating music. Sure the quality isn't great, but it's so easily accessible.

I just don't think they'll win, because everyone has grown accustomed to having all the music available for free.

Re: I agree somewhat

[epyT-R]

It's terrible. It's only slightly better than satellite radio.

Re: I agree somewhat

[bmk67]

...which is plenty good for the vast majority of people.

Re: I agree somewhat

[Anonymous Coward]

Many places with municipal water distribution ban personal wells.

Re: I agree somewhat

[Trashcan Romeo]

It's 192 kbps AAC (for 720p or higher videos), according to this: https://www.h3xed.com/web-and-... That's transparent or pretty damned close in common listening situations.

Re: I agree somewhat

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if songwriters were banned.

Re: I agree somewhat

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they ban using them, or do they ban drilling new ones?

Re: I agree somewhat

[Anonymous Coward]

...who had no standard to begin with; they MIGHT notice when their netflix steps up from 240p midstream.

Re: I agree somewhat

[Anonymous Coward]

What the actual fuck, seriously?

Re: I agree somewhat

[thundercattt]

It's not the small guy who earns $$ on YouTube with 14 million views.

Re: I agree somewhat

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Well, why bother if it can't get better than those modern shitty masters anyway? Likewise, stupid songs will stay stupid no matter what the technical quality is. So surely there's vast swathes of music on YT that isn't harmed in the least.

Re: I agree somewhat

[TechyImmigrant]

Many places with municipal water distribution ban personal wells.

So I'm not allowed to play my guitar any more?

Re: I agree somewhat

[tepples]

So I'm not allowed to play my guitar any more?

Not unless the public venue in which you play licenses the right to perform the songs publicly from ASCAP or BMI (or applicable foreign counterparts).

Re: I agree somewhat

[TheReaperD]

Not unless the public venue in which you play licenses the right to perform the songs publicly from ASCAP or BMI (or applicable foreign counterparts).

And, it's even worse. Since, as an independant, you are not a member of ASCAP or BMI, you do not get your portion of the fees they collect on *ahem* your behalf *bullshit!*. Note that they still collect them but, unless you belong to one of the big labels that is a member, you will never see them.

Re:I agree somewhat

[Xest]

Yes, I'm unable to find much information on what these artists actually want other than they're not happy with the fact that the DMCA protects hosts from the actions of their users. This implies that they actually just want to make the DMCA far, far worse.

The problem they're talking about where artists get fucked by labels is a problem with copyright and is trivially solved by making copyright non-transferable from the author. That way the music industry can still offer them contracts and help them produce and sell, but can never take ownership of their creation and fuck off and make all the profits on it without paying the artist a penny.

As such you'll have to colour me sceptical that the artists aren't just doing this on behalf of the music industry, because what they're suggesting will destroy the technology industry to the benefit of not the artists, but the very companies they're complaining about.

As such I will treat this list of artists as the list of artists I will not pay a penny to as what they're suggesting is anti-progress, anti-consumer, anti-technology, and pro-big music industry.

Re:I agree somewhat

[Whibla]

The problem they're talking about where artists get fucked by labels is a problem with copyright and is trivially solved by making copyright non-transferable from the author. That way the music industry can still offer them contracts and help them produce and sell, but can never take ownership of their creation and fuck off and make all the profits on it without paying the artist a penny.

Ah, copyright attributed to or 'owned by' an individual or individuals, not a corporation, with those individuals then able to grant performance and distribution rights to companies or other individuals. I love it. While we're at it, that's almost an essential first step in returning to a more sane, and ultimately fair, version of copyright, with respect to duration. I'd happily accept the (first) revision of the law allowing 28 years plus an additional 14 years if the author is still alive.

The reason it's unlikely to happen any time soon (well, read ever...) is written in the last sentence you wrote that I quoted. Money talks, and at the moment it's saying screw the creators, screw the consumers, and screw posterity.

Re: I agree somewhat

[Anonymous Coward]

This. The richest people on the planet are complaining they don't get paid enough. Boo fucking hoo.

Re:I agree somewhat

[lsatenstein]

Taylor Swift, U2 and others talk about looking out for the small guy, but it's self enrichment that they are really after. These 'artists' were happy with DMCA when people like Jamie Thomas paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading a song. They weren't signing petitions then. Now that YouTube is making money, they want a bigger piece of the pie. Nothing wrong with wanting more money, but "consumer benefit" is a lie.

  YouTube has done more to bring music to the poor, by being free, than these clowns.

ARE YOU SURE?

Re:I agree somewhat

[peawormsworth]

That way the music industry can ... make all the profits on it without paying the artist a penny.

Music distributors want to keep limits and control over your selection of music. They do this by limiting the number of artists that they market into 'super stars'. This way they do not have to divide their profits with too many people. They can pay these luck few lots of money, but it is far cheaper than paying many many more just a fair share. The artists who are signing this partition are the lucky few who get an unfair amount of the profits funnelled to them alone.

The cost of distribution has gone to zero... since you and I pay for the bandwidth to get it into your home. Music companies pay nothing except marketing. So if you are like me and wish for distribution companies to die, then stop listening to the marketing. And if something is marketed to you, then stop listening to it. Once the distributors die, there will be far more money to go around and be directed into the pockets of those who made the art.

Finally. Pop artists rarely make their own music. Especially the "super stars". You think they write all that junk they play?

Re:I agree somewhat

[shutdown -p now]

What they're complaining about is that they have to actively police YouTube for their content to issue takedown notices. They want Google to shoulder that financial burden.

Re: I agree somewhat

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd give them full control over their copyrighted IP (as they are asking for in this article) in exchange for a 14 year, once renewable copyright term then mandatory public domain (that cannot be messed with by legislation).

Re:I agree somewhat

[djinn6]

I guess you're not familiar with Content ID. YouTube does police their content for them.

Re:I agree somewhat

[Xest]

I saw a bit about that, but as someone else pointed out, and as Google pointed out to them in the article I read, Google does already shoulder the burden and has done for some time with tools and staff supporting the whole business of takedowns on YouTube.

I'd ask a question though as to why artists are special, every other industry has to pay for their own policing, whether it's a guy with a convenience store paying for CCTV to prevent shoplifting, a cinema or train station paying for people to check tickets on entry, or an independent software developer issuing his own takedown notices.

Everyone else has to take this on as a cost of doing business, why should artists be treated as special cases?

I agree down with the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

I say get rid of the DMCA and then see well these artists are compensated. See what happens when you give them an illegal bill of rights violating inch?

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[Joe_Dragon]

no they want DMCA 2 where you can't even copy a song from a cd that you own to idevice with out reburying the full CD for the idevice .

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[Tharkkun]

no they want DMCA 2 where you can't even copy a song from a cd that you own to idevice with out reburying the full CD for the idevice .

No. That's not what they want. They don't want youtube to make money off ads/advertising on music that is copyrighted and should've been taken down.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[Hognoxious]

with out reburying the full CD

And recycling it as firelighters.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[epyT-R]

Well, then the artists should get the shit people are listening to up on youtube legitimately. Vevo does not count.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that though is what happens to music that shouldn't have been up there in the first place is based on what the record companies say. And they own the rights to this music, not the artists. If the record company says they want it removed, it'll be removed, if they say they want ads and have it be monetized, then that's what'll happen.

If these guys have a problem with the music not being removed, they should file their complaints with their labels. Now, this is not a defense of the auto-take down system Youtube has, as it often incorrectly flags things that shouldn't be and leaves the original author with little recourse, but that's a different discussion.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[lgw]

No. That's not what they want. They don't want youtube to make money off ads/advertising on music that is copyrighted and should've been taken down.

YouTube already gives a share of ad revenue to the artists. The ContentID systems aren't perfect, but if someone uploads a video of, say, a cute girl dancing to popular tune, the plumbing is already there to auto-detect the tune, associate it with the artists, and share ad revenue. Taking down the video would be lose-lose.

Google could probably make it easier for artists to engage with this system, could possibly make ContentID better, and could certainly give the artist a bigger share. However, I'm baffled why anyone would think it appropriate to take down the video, except in the narrow case where the YouTube video is nothing but the album cover (adds no value) and the artists has an official video on YouTube. But any video that adds any value at all, even lyrics on screen, can only bring in more views, and thus more ad revenue, for the artist.

This all sounds like either a negotiating ploy for a bigger cut from Google, or a hopeless attempt to force listeners to listen via some other system they can charge more for (good luck with the latter, as YouTube ad the streaming companies are just the modern version of radio, and the voters actually care about this, unlike most stuff on /.).

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

It gives a share to the copyright owners which are the labels. The artists earn pennies on the dollar from the sale of music and most of them earn nothing when you factor in advances. The folks complaining really have a problem with how their publishing contracts are structured. Even Trent Reznor had the same complaint; he went independent for a few years before returning to a major label when he realized the marketing he lost. Musicians make money on performing and it has always been this way. This is much ado about nothing.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[MightyMartian]

There was a time when recording and publishing royalties did make up a significant part of recording artists' revenues. In particular publishing rights could be quite significant, particularly where other artists covered a song. Recording royalties usually depended greatly on the clout the artist and their negotiators could bring to the table. A lot of artists were heavily screwed over by contracts signed early in their careers. The Beatles were notoriously paid pennies a song in recording royalties, even as they brought in EMI huge profits, and part of the reason they broke up was debates within the band over which new management could negotiate a better recording contract, because the original 1962 contract was just plain awful.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[LesFerg]

Their problem is more likely related to all those people loading up high resolution copies of an artists entire album, then labeling it with "I do not own this content, I am putting it here for educational purposes only".

There does not seem to be any effort by youtube management to discourage these posts, both they and the account holder responsible are happy taking all the hits from people happily using the content, and nobody seems to care that the artist is receiving nothing for it. Sure we can all point out that if the artist had made the same content available then maybe we would be viewing their channel and they would be receiving the advertising benefits etc, but that does not make it any less scummy for people who have no rights to the music posting it on their own accounts and making it freely available to all.

I can't understand how so many people posting here seem to think that the artists are the bad guys in all this. They have to pay for food and somewhere to live just like the rest of us. Many of them have to get by with equipment and facility costs etc in the preparation of an album which will not be returning any income for them until after they have completed it and sent it to market, during which time they still have the cost of living to think about. Don't go pointing at the mega-success bands using cash for toilet paper(*) and assume that all artists have achieved that level of income.

*this example may be fictitious

Re: I agree down with the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a list of all the artists filing this law suit? I'd like to boycott them if I already don't.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The ContentID systems aren't perfect,

Yes, starting with the fact that you must "apply" to be part of it, and it's entirely up to Youtube to determine whether or not you meet the criteria they've laid out for participating.

If you do, then you MIGHT get a share of the ad revenue Youtube makes off of those videos. If you do not, then you get bupkis.

Guess who this disproportionately affects? No, not Taylor Swift - whoever owns the rights to her music is probably already participating in ContentID. No, the people who are affected are the "smaller" artists who Youtube has deemed unfit for participation in their ContentID system - those artists who would most benefit from a few bucks from Youtube to support them. Under Youtube's system, you're either mass-market popular, or you don't exist.

What this sounds like to me is that some wildly popular artists are actually making a plea to force Youtube - who profits mightily off of their video collection - to share profits with the people who need it the most. You see, some people are capable of arguing for a position that doesn't need to benefit them financially, because it's the right thing to do.

Re: I agree down with the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

There are millions of hours uploaded every week. If you don't tell YouTube what your content is and claim copyright on it how the hell are they supposed to know?

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[imgod2u]

While it is indeed a legitimate complaint, the originators of this complain are all successful and wealthy artists. So it's difficult to swallow the "this is a cry for the little guy" line. Moreover, their primary complaint is their own albums being uploaded to Youtube without consent. While it's a legitimate complaint, whether or not we amend public law to help these artists is another debate.

Youtube, for their part, tries to do what it can to auto-detect content and share ad revenue. The problem is that Swift and the other mega-rich (and yes, all the ones on the list are rich) artists don't agree with how *much* they're being paid. That's not fairness, that's greed.

I also highly doubt the vast majority of the unlicensed-uploading-of-an-album you describe is done for relatively little-known, shoe-string budget artists. By very definition that if someone were well known and famous enough to reach tens of millions of viewers, they either are or will be very soon, pretty wealthy. A law forcing some type of draconian take-down system or god forbid one-sided ad-share rates would primarily and grossly benefit only large, established and *wealthy* artists.

Most "little guys" starting out love Youtube. It's a great way to promote themselves and reach a larger audience with the hopes that they'll reach critical mass to one day complain about not being paid enough.

Re: I agree down with the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that people now use Youtube to find new music like they did using napster perhaps they should not complain.

What I would like to see is better integration with a song wallet so I can buy videos I like, have a local copy on mp3 and mp4, and be able to choose which songs to sync to my phone. This will not happen. They do not want my money.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[currently_awake]

Expecting U-tube to police their network for copyright infringement is like expecting Ford to prevent their cars from being used to rob banks. The only reason the copyright holders are not responsible for this is because they want to offload the work and cost to someone else, AKA maximize profit.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[LesFerg]

Expecting U-tube to police their network for copyright infringement is like expecting Ford to prevent their cars from being used to rob banks.

Heh, from what we have been hearing in the news lately, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody in America tried to sue Ford for something that has been done with one of their cars.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do think you get to determine how much money someone makes from legitimate work? It is not a crime to be successful and make a lot of money. How do you know that the free distribution of their work will result in any tangible benefits for the one producing the work? Did you do some in-depth economic analysis and forecasts to arrive at your conclusion or are you just full of shit and bitter towards anyone making more money than yourself? Judging by the comments here people are trying to dismiss copyright infringement as not being illegal. And the loudest voices most likely come from people who have never did anything in their life worth copyrighting or patenting. Vilifying legal success and any monetary rewards that come with that success is a losers argument that only stirs up animosity from the proles who have their hand out asking for free stuff. The entitlement generation need a good wack upside the head to remind them they are not entitled to jack shit in this world and you better get busy doing something productive.

Re: I agree down with the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you just made all that up. These people are salty because they aren't getting a cut.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Google could probably make it easier for artists to engage with this system, could possibly make ContentID better, and could certainly give the artist a bigger share. However, I'm baffled why anyone would think it appropriate to take down the video, except in the narrow case where the YouTube video is nothing but the album cover (adds no value) and the artists has an official video on YouTube. But any video that adds any value at all, even lyrics on screen, can only bring in more views, and thus more ad revenue, for the artist.

There are two problems with your plan. For the artist, the problem is that YT doesn't force ads on videos that get caught by ContentID. When ContentID flags the video and the poster can't collect on it, the poster simply goes back and makes it an ad-free video and the amount of revenue generated is exactly 0. They can take a 100% cut of 0 and still have a semi-legit reason to complain. For the consumer, the problem is that YT can't force the artist to upload a non-fucked version of their video to the site. Have you ever noticed that there are all kinds of stupid sound effects and other bullshit in nearly every video these days? That's because of YT downloaders. You can't get a clean version of the song without paying for it... or adding "lyrics" to your YT search.

The fix is for the artists to 1) price their product in a competitive manner and 2) make their product available easily and without requiring lots of personal information (i.e. no login required to get the product).

I'd be willing to pay maybe a few cents for a song (down from a dollar, back in the last decade). I absolutely will not pay for a non-standard format, a stream, a login, or a version that has audible markers in it.

Personally, I use YouTube, Audacity, and the "stereo mix" input from my motherboard sound driver. I find a clean, non-official copy of whatever music I want. And then I block ads, so nobody gets a cut of the ad revenue. Because fuck 'em all. If you take this method away from me, I'll find something else that provides what I want (everything) for the price I want (nothing).

There's no going back. Music just isn't that important to me.

At least they're not the movie industry. I don't even watch movies, regardless of price or format. Sucks to be you, MPAA.

Re: I agree down with the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they already make more money off one concert than most people do in a year.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[stealth_finger]

no they want DMCA 2 where you can't even copy a song from a cd that you own to idevice with out reburying the full CD for the idevice .

No. That's not what they want. They don't want youtube to make money off ads/advertising on music that is copyrighted and should've been taken down.

No, that's not what they want. They want the money. All of it.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[afidel]

Their problem is more likely related to all those people loading up high resolution copies of an artists entire album, then labeling it with "I do not own this content, I am putting it here for educational purposes only".

Uh, Youtube already has a mechanism to stop that activity, it's called content ID and the labels can either block the upload or monetize it, most are choosing to monetize as it's free revenue from their perspective. The artists are complaining that they aren't being compensated because those views don't count as a song or album sale, but that's a contract issue between them and the label, not some fault of the DMCA.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[houghi]

Also, when this is detected, the person who posted the video will not get anything (except Internet fame) and the companies can opt in or opt out to do this.e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... has 35MM hits. Not that bad. However https://www.youtube.com/watch?... has 217MM hits. Yep, three times as much. (To be fair, the second one is WAY better)

So why would they want it taken down when they multiply their income by 4?

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[lgw]

Yup, a video with a cute girl dancing with a popular tune in the background isn't really bringing in the hits because of the music, so it's all windfall for the artist.

Re: I agree down with the DMCA

[Coren22]

You mean like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Look at the description, contains all the links for iTunes, Google Play, etc.

Re:I agree down with the DMCA

[Coren22]

In this case, since the artist themselves puts up their videos, don't you think they have already agreed to the profit sharing that Youtube offers?

https://www.youtube.com/user/t...
https://www.youtube.com/user/U...
https://www.youtube.com/user/k...
https://www.youtube.com/user/P...

As for other people putting up their work, that should be handled by a DMCA takedown according to the official procedures, but Alphabet is kind enough to offer the compromise of Content ID with personalized settings on how to share the profits.

obviously

[desdinova 216]

what needs to be done is stiffer penalties for DMCA takedown abuses.

Re:obviously

[theM_xl]

What needs to be done is the removal of all the content and accounts of the artists on that list from YouTube, because they obviously don't want to be on there... That will make them happy, right? RIGHT?

Re:obviously

[Zaelath]

They made the same whining complaints about radio and taping radio, etc, etc.

The people that only listen to music on YouTube are cash poor and wouldn't buy their stuff anyway, no loss of revenue. The same people that used to tape music off the radio.

The people that have cash tend to /find/ music on YouTube then go and buy a decent copy of it that they can keep without having to download it every time they want to listen to it, or fiddle about with a downloader to scrape YouTube and demux the mp3. Cutting these people off will just see a loss of revenue.

What they actually want is free advertising and to be paid for the privilege, which is pretty breathtaking in it's audacity.

Re:obviously

[davester666]

It's a start. I would suggest also removing them from all online licensing and streaming sites until this matter is resolved.

Re:obviously

[jwhitener]

Artificial scarcity as a business model is a losing fight. Artists should not be able to copyright songs, just like fashion designers are currently unable to copyright clothing designs. Artists should be paid for performing songs. If the songwriter is different from the performer, then the performer and the songwriter can work out a contract between each other as to how much the performer should cut the songwriter in per performance (or flat out buy the writes from the songwriter).

Songs should be advertisements, not products. The product should be the performance.

This parallels open source software somewhat: I pay companies for services and support, I don't pay for the software (not all the time obviously).

Awfully full of themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's only then that consumers will truly benefit"

I'd say the consumers are benefiting just fine as it is. The content is available, it's easy to access, and costs next to nothing. If you add DRM, more advertisements, easier exploitation of laws like the DMCA, you're just going to drive people to alternative sites or back to torrenting. It's that simple.

Is it really about the money for rockstars like U2 and Paul McCartney? Or is it about control? If copyright law hadn't become the monstrosity it is today most of these musician's works would have been in the public domain. Can't have that now can we?

Re:Awfully full of themselves

[AmiMoJo]

It's their own fault for not understanding or engaging with new platforms. Younger artists are doing it and profiting greatly. They put up their music, monetize it and make sure other people who use it link back to them. Against that you have U2, who thought it would be a great idea to ram their shitty album onto everyone's iPod by force, and Paul McCartney who didn't want his music on iTunes.

Re:Awfully full of themselves

[mrops]

I agree, if anything great talent like Paul McCartney and U2 would still be releasing albums adding content to collective human culture, now they sit around and eat off work they once did. How is the consumer benefiting from lack of content.

Re:Awfully full of themselves

[imgod2u]

It is about control. But I think it's legitimately about their idea of what's "fair". Copyright holders and media companies have spent decades to implant the idea into anyone they can that copyright == property.

In reality, that's not the case. Never was the case. Ideas aren't owned. That's why there are expiration dates on patents and copyrights but no expiration on ownership of physical items.

You don't *own* a song or an invention. You are granted, through public law, *limited* exclusive control of a song or invention because the public feels granting said limited exclusive control encourages innovation and benefits the public.

I can imagine their righteous indignation. I'd feel it too if I had my property taken away. The problem is they don't realize -- and it's in their financial interest to not realize -- that copyrights aren't the same as property.

Re:Awfully full of themselves

[gsslay]

U2's last album = 2 years ago.
McCartney's last album = 3 years ago

What was your point again?

McCartney is 74 years old. Does he get to retire? Or is that also "sitting around and eating off work he once did"?

Re:Awfully full of themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

McCartney is 74 years old. Does he get to retire? Or is that also "sitting around and eating off work he once did"?

Why not do what normal people do, put some income aside from you work to pay for your retirement. Why do you think his retirement should be funded from ongoing royalties?

Re:Awfully full of themselves

[Coren22]

I would say they are engaging with YouTube pretty strongly:

https://www.youtube.com/user/t...
https://www.youtube.com/user/U...
https://www.youtube.com/user/k...
https://www.youtube.com/user/P...

Not sure why they are whining, but if I were Alphabet, I would remove all the music from every one of them until this dispute is settled.

Less money but more creators?

[innocent_white_lamb]

There may be less money in this stuff for the creators, but it's my understanding that there are more creators and more content being created than ever before.

So why does the less money part matter to the public and all of the creators who aren't expecting to buy a yacht or two with their earnings? In the "old world", most of those folks wouldn't be able to buy a yacht anyway, and their creations wouldn't be seen or heard by more than six people -- now they can perform for the world.

Re:Less money but more creators?

[Gr8Apes]

The real issue is they're looking at an era when high quality recordings first became available and people switched to that new media en masse, causing an artificial blip as people not only bought new music, but replaced their favorite current recordings as they came available. It also came at a time that singles (45s) were phased out, forcing people that wanted their latest band to purchase full albums. That time is past, and we should be looking at numbers that take into account those artificial boosting effects. So total revenue is a bad number. Don't forget to factor in that CDs cost a fortune to manufacture in the 80s and early 90s, and are less than $1 today.

Re:Less money but more creators?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many indie artists are giving their stuff away on their official YouTube channels now with links to where to buy the music. I guess they've figured out that the pirates are going to pirate no matter what so they're making themselves easier to find for the types of people who are willing to support an artist by buying the album but want to first see if they like it enough. The only artists who are complaining here are those who are still getting rich off of the old label system.

Re:Less money but more creators?

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

The thing that struck me about their point that YouTube enabled people to carry virtually every song ever in their pocket... well I was just thinking, yep, that's fucking amazing. So, what exactly is it that these artists have done that's so worth hindering human advancement?

I think you're absolutely right, and I also agree with Gr8Apes comment about the relatively recent music industry basically being a blip.

Re:Less money but more creators?

[qubezz]

Most of the music that comes up with a search is authorized, uploaded by the record companies, and monetized by them. Many catalog files are uploaded there with just the music files by labels.

Files uploaded by other users have the song recognized by fingerprint, and will have the revenue hijacked by music companies instead of blocked or silenced like the old days. Music that may just be incidental, like even music playing on a TV in a background, or may be completely fair use. It is likely the artist never sees a dime from this, but the record company is getting the payola.

The artists can send DMCA notices if they have the rights to do so, but it is likely that they signed away all the rights and revenues in their contracts. The automatic takedown system and monetization is a sweetheart deal for RIAA members.

Re:Less money but more creators?

[Anonymous Coward]

Applying that logic to any other field and you'll get why it is flawed.

Should programmers be excited for the chance to "code for the world", also back in the old days they didn't even exist let alone get paid, so they should be happy for both.

Re: Less money but more creators?

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't hindering anything, the alternative to stoping piracy is less attention. Everyone will just turn around and find some indie artist to throw on as background noise. Fuck Taylor Swift.

Re:Less money but more creators?

[innocent_white_lamb]

Since there are more content creators of this sort than there have ever been before, most of them must be happy with the situation.

And lots of people code for free and for fun too.

I do both, myself. I write open source code (usually BSD), closed source code on contract occasionally, and I play a fancy digital piano too. Never been paid a dime for my music but I do it for my own personal enjoyment and the challenge.

So there you go.

Re:Less money but more creators?

[Anonymous Coward]

most of those folks wouldn't be able to buy a yacht anyway, and their creations wouldn't be seen or heard by more than six people -- now they can perform for the world.

The interesting part here is that most artist have problems paying rent and their music is never heard by more than a handful of people, but the ones you hear complaining are those who would be able to buy several yachts. (Unless they have signed really really bad deals with the record companies and are retarded enough to believe them when they say that the reason they aren't seeing any money is because of the intertubes.)

It's an over-saturated market, you can't crawl to the pub without having to take detours around wannabe artists. Plenty of artists have it as a hobby that gives some extra income on the side of a "real" job.
Record companies are abusing it to dangle horrendous deals in front of no-names, telling the artist that they could be the next big thing if they just sign and are lucky with the marketing and front all the costs themselves with a small loan from the company. With the other hand they pick up some nitwit teenager that looks pretty enough and bring in a producer and marketing team to create the next big hit.
You never hear from the artists that got scammed for real, after all you never heard anything from them.

They deserve profit

[jdavidb]

generate huge profits by creating ease of use for consumers to carry almost every recorded song in history in their pocket via a smartphone

Heaven forbid that somebody do something that makes my life more wonderful and get massively rewarded for it.

Re:They deserve profit

[BoberFett]

Yes, because at an estimated net worth of $200 MILLION, Taylor Swift is not being rewarded...

These wealthy artists can fuck right off. Keep touring if they want to keep getting paid. That's how the rest of the world works. You get paid for what you do, not for what you did. These scammers who want to skate by their entire lives getting paid over and over again until the end of time for the same work are parasites.

Re:They deserve profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because at an estimated net worth of $200 MILLION, Taylor Swift is not being rewarded...

"No matter how much you got, how do you turn your back on more?"
--Swift, to her cats' other other stylist's chauffeur
--Also, Todd from Breaking Bad, to his neo-nazi prison gang uncle, Jack

Re:They deserve profit

[jdavidb]

Right, YouTube is doing something for me right now. Artists getting paid for something they performed years ago are not doing something right now. The service that is being provided to me is being provided by the distributor, and I am fine with them being rewarded. It's their network, and mine, doing the work today.

It does need Reform

[OverlordQ]

But not what they want. YouTube's system is too easy to abuse by large players to shut down legitimate content.

Highest earning artist in america

[Anonymous Coward]

wants more money.

fuck you bitch

Re:Highest earning artist in america

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the exact same thought :)

Re:Highest earning artist in america

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup

Re:Highest earning artist in america

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd drink her pee just to see where it came from but yeah I agree, this lady is getting greedy. She thinks her shit doesn't stink. I guarantee it does, also I'd sniff that just to see where it came from too. In conclusion Taylor Swift is way finer than Natalie Portman ever was, but at least Natalie knew to take her paycheck and shut up, this was factually confirmed by Netcraft.

Funny, google thinks they make more every year

[Anonymous Coward]

"while songwriters' and artists' earnings continue to diminish."

[citation needed]

Taylor Swift annual income $80 million

U2 annual income $78 million

Kings of Leon annual income $58 million

POOR FUCKING THEM. BOOHOO. I feel so sorry for them. Honestly I do.

Re:Funny, google thinks they make more every year

[Anonymous Coward]

You named performers, they are neither songwriters nor artists.

Performers aren't artists? I wonder why there is such a thing as performing arts

Also, while I don't follow Taylor Swift, the last time I checked she wrote or co-wrote every song on every one of her albums. I'm also not her accountant, so I can't say what she earned for performing and what she earned for songwriting, but either way it invalidates your statement.

Re:Funny, google thinks they make more every year

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you know nothing about the music industry

Taylor swift wrote the 2010 album Speak Now entirely on her own

We know Bono writes all the lyrics for U2 and the band has known each other since high school

Kings of leon are brothers, who write their own stuff.

Then there's McCartney's legendary songwriting contributions.

Yes even Trent Reznor writes his own music.

It's up to the underlings to negotiate a contract with a record company that benefits them in the royalty department, and these 180 artists are definitely NOT speaking up for the underlings.

This is exactly what is going on here.

Re:Funny, google thinks they make more every year

[barc0001]

> Songwriters and artists are behind the scenes and vastly underpaid.

I see you have ZERO understanding of how the music industry works. Behind the scenes mainly get paid a going rate as work for hire, whether the album sells 1 or 1 million copies. SONGWRITERS are the ones who make the most royalties on sales. That's why the richest artists tend to be the ones who also have songwriting credits on some or all of their songs. PERFORMERS are usually last at the royalty trough.

Re:Funny, google thinks they make more every year

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's my fault that the "performers" are so greedy they don't pay their songwriters? Maybe we need a new law and a surcharge on the price of burgers because the guy who delivers hay to the cattle farms doesn't get paid enough too.

Re:Funny, google thinks they make more every year

[Anonymous Coward]

So god damn tired of rich asshats telling me abouit how they can't make more money.
Asshole ruined life in general with this monjey shit. No life was meant to sit around earning cash to buy shit it doesn't need and yet here we are.

So lame.

Hurry up robot overloards We need you to control us more every day!

Re:Funny, google thinks they make more every year

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the A.C. you replied to.

Maybe it's time for performers to get a better cut? Well, especially if their music does better.

I was going to mention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Rock_Hard somewhere here, but I see the post https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9273141&cid=52362205 mentioned something already I think.

Re:Funny, google thinks they make more every year

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. We just don't CARE how the music industry works.

All we see is a bunch of millionaires whining like little fucks that they don't make enough money.

They're selfish. Just like all of us who want their shit for free. Who are not millionaires.
So fuck them.

Re:Funny, google thinks they make more every year

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why performers are often credited as writers even if they were never involved in the writing process.

Re:Funny, google thinks they make more every year

[NoSalt]

Relevant

Can't stop the signal...

[Fire_Wraith]

Unfortunately for them, they're trying to put the genie back in the bottle. It won't work. The advance of technology is what enabled me to carry around access to virtually every song there is, not something caused by the absence of artificial legal barriers. Barriers which, I might add, will not enable the recording artists and companies to perpetuate the old model indefinitely - it'll just move it back to the illegal realm, at best, at which point they'll get no money.

Also, increasingly, places like YouTube, along with streaming services, are where people discover new music. I don't listen to radio anymore, so the majority of the new bands I discover come from the suggestions that pop up, or the random songs I let be slotted in based on what I've been listening to. This may not be great for someone like Taylor Swift or Bono who are already famous, but for smaller bands, it's kind of a big deal.

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[Tharkkun]

Unfortunately for them, they're trying to put the genie back in the bottle. It won't work. The advance of technology is what enabled me to carry around access to virtually every song there is, not something caused by the absence of artificial legal barriers. Barriers which, I might add, will not enable the recording artists and companies to perpetuate the old model indefinitely - it'll just move it back to the illegal realm, at best, at which point they'll get no money. Also, increasingly, places like YouTube, along with streaming services, are where people discover new music. I don't listen to radio anymore, so the majority of the new bands I discover come from the suggestions that pop up, or the random songs I let be slotted in based on what I've been listening to. This may not be great for someone like Taylor Swift or Bono who are already famous, but for smaller bands, it's kind of a big deal.

There's a big difference between streaming services and youtube even if content is delivered by streaming. Something like Spotify needs to license an artists music and the artists receive a kickback for this. Youtube does the same on their Vevo channels or other licensed channels. But on the non licensed channels where people upload the songs themselves the Artist no longer receives compensation. In fact the individual who illegally uploaded the music could actually receive money based on hits due to advertising revenue being shown. That's where the problem is. Youtube doesn't effectively police what can be uploaded and every ad is profit for them regardless of it being a legal or non legal song.

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[Anonymous Coward]

have you even tried to upload anything including public domain music to youtube ? it gets flagged instantly.
if you dont think youtube's automatic algorithms are good youre smoking something.

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[cdrudge]

But on the non licensed channels where people upload the songs themselves the Artist no longer receives compensation.

Except for when Youtube's algorithms detect copyright music that you don't own the rights to, and force ads to be displayed and revenue goes back to the rightsholder. Rightsholders have the ability to show ads, mute the video, or prevent the video from playing at all.

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like its time to go back to personal music collections and keep intrusions like iTunes off my systems.

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[Anonymous Coward]

Youtube can't police what can be uploaded in the context of copyright. It is not their job to enforce copyrights on behalf of other people, and two seconds of thought would illuminate why this is the desirable situation. For example, you upload a recording of a song I wrote and performed; nobody knows who we are, much less our musical endeavours. Should Youtube be responsible when they fail to enforce my copyright, a copyright they have no feasible way of knowing exists, never mind verifying?

Well, the obvious solution is to use automatic detection of copyrighted works submitted by the owners. Such an obvious solution, that Youtube already does this. What more can they feasibly do?

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[anegg]

The problem could be removed, easily. Eliminate the completely artificial premise that just because a person makes a particular noise, they have the right to control all subsequent times that noise is made, and to be enriched by all subsequent times that noise is made. Will society really cease to function if that premise is no longer valid? Will all music suddenly vanish? If all corporately-produced music did vanish, would our lives be left less rich and meaningful?

Musical performers would still be able to make a living, if they are good enough, putting on live performances for other people to attend. They would probably have to adjust the cost of a live performance to account for the competition from recordings and other performers with the same music/sound... and some of them would have to find another line of work.

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[MightyMartian]

That's ultimately my view. There was a brief period of time when an initially natural and later artificial restriction of supply (due to cost of manufacturing and distribution) allowed record companies, and sometimes (but not always) artists to make shitloads of money off of recorded music. But that period was really less than a century, and with the advent of digital music AND a wide-scale network, that scarcity has disappeared.

Even publishing royalties have only been around a few hundred years, a mere blip on the timeline of human history. The rest of that time, a lot of art was created that was either paid for up front, or was paid for by performance. In other words, troubadours and minstrels and the like got paid for performing music, whether their's or someone else's. That was the "business model", as it were, for thousands of years, and it's quite possible that may be the business model again. And yes, it will suck for small acts, but in the future the only way a small act is going to become a big act is basically by giving away the music on services like Youtube in the hopes that listeners will go "That wild band I just watched on the Internet's going to be in town in a few weeks!"

Re: Can't stop the signal...

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious solution is that I as the rights holder goes after the infringing content.

Youtube algo is a concession that isn't required.

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[SuricouRaven]

What you propose would be legally difficult, as it violates several international agreements, but as a hypothetical... what would be the effects on music?

Well, music would still be made. Always has been. We're awash in music now - for every famous artist there are thousands of others who are just as good but never got their lucky break. Most people making music don't do it for the money.

It might spell the end of the super-rich mega-star. Those few elites who have both the business connection and talent to sell so much they can actually grow rich of it. I think the loss of the Biebers might actually be a good thing.

The number of performers making a living off of playing live would be very small. Why hire a band when a sound system can play it cheaper? But the world doesn't owe everyone wannabe musician a career. Reality serves to crush people's dreams quite effectively. Only the best and most famous will be able to get a real gig often enough to make a living, though a lot more people might be in an on-and-off part-time band to make a little extra income. Not as their main job.

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[imgod2u]

I see two problems here:

1. You can't just separate out "music" any other types of copyright just because you think it isn't worthwhile. What criteria do you use to decide whether or not something is copyrightable? Or are you advocating abandoning the copyright system altogether? What about books, articles, paintings or movies? What video games?

2. Whether you think the current industry of mega-hit music is enriching or not, a lot of people seem to find it valuable enough to spend $$ on it. What you propose would eliminate an entire industry. On an individual basis, the loss of top-40 hits might not be so rough but in aggregate, it is a huge hit on total wealth. In aggregate, people would be missing something they otherwise would value. That's a decrease in aggregate wealth, which is not something an economy should aim for.

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[EEPROMS]

I would say a very small percentage of music uploaded illegally stays up as google has tools to fingerprint songs and remove them. Also many of the so called illegal flags are also wrong in that the music being played although similar to another artists is neither performed or written or owned by the artists/music company complaining. I have had a indie writer/artists post a few of his songs only to have youtube remove them because some record companies copyright bot stuffed up. The problem is artists are combining the false copyright infringement reports with the removed uploads to make it look as though youtube has lots of illegal uploads that stay up when the reality is far different. It is about time artists learn the thinning of the numbers has nothing to do with piracy but the fact "there are now too many people producing music". There are now hundreds of really good indie bands virtually giving away albums just so they can some public interest. Gone are the days of huge studios and millions in recording equipment, now for a few thousand you can build a top shelf recording studio in your basement and produce songs for a fraction of a penny in the dollar based on 10,000 unit sales at $1.99 per album.

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you propose would be legally difficult, as it violates several international agreements

This shit again? Did you miss the whole "We must harmonize the laws, so let's go for the most extreme version we can find and add a couple of years to it!"
If it weren't possible to revoke international agreements then the UK wouldn't consider leaving the EU.
International agreements are changeable, they change all the time. Sometimes they even change to a more open market with less protection (But not in the music industry.)
For copyright they have even taken the step to apply the protection retroactively, despite it being unconstitutional in many countries.
If the will exists there is no problem in reducing or abolish copyright, you can even do so locally without it being the end of the world. Have a look at the Antigua case for a practical example.
The problem is that the will doesn't exist. Politicians aren't bothered by DMCA abuse, they are bothered by the record companies lobbyists.

Re:Can't stop the signal...

[k6mfw]

Unfortunately for them, they're trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

But what they can do is make it more difficult for people like me who use youtube to watch vintage concert and TV show clips of footage some random fan found someplace and decide to share it (or me posting something interesting I dug up in my VHS tapes collection). The artist may no longer be phenomenally famous and hasn't done concerts in decades but there are many longtime fans that would be thrilled to see a rare clip of a performance i.e San Remo in 1960s. Hey, the big boys are not going to provide that footage from what they have in the vaults, isn't worth their time. May as well burn it as pretty much all those performances that was filmed is considered permanently locked away. It's the little guy who happen to come across a VHS cassette that his grandparents left behind, and miraculously the video is still viewable. This little guy shouldn't be crushed to share a video of same performance the big boys will never release from the vault.

Another gripe I have is futzing with computer dongles (why the hell it's so hard to do?), I sometimes wonder perhaps all this anti-piracy measures make it difficult to simply use newer technologies. At least I can still moan and bitch on the forums.

Artists: We don't make enough money

[Anonymous Coward]

Labels: Yeah, we don't make enough money!

We want more

[ADRA]

Youtube has two uses: Legitimate and Illegitimate.

If Youtube is violating DMCA, shame on them and file a suit.
If they're not violating the DMCA, you want congress to give you a law forcing YouTube to pay more for your legally provided content because you weren't able to do do using contract negotiations? YouTube is very popular, but is NOT a monopoly. This article and the artists are ridiculous.

Re:We want more

[Luthair]

They want a magic universe where someone reviews every Youtube video by hand and magically knows whether something included in the video has a copyright that the uploader does not have a license for and can isn't fair use. (OK, so they probably don't want fair use allowed either...)

Re: We want more

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse, after that magic human figures it out, they want to force Google to pay them more than they earn from the ads and leave it online.

If Google take it offline that's censorship, and they want the money anyway.

This is the German newspapers all over again. Google are too good at advertising our content to paying customers, we demand that Google pay us to advertise for us. And google are cheating if they decide not to advertise for us instead of paying us.

180 rich people, firms may not be rich enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Film at 11.

Give'm what they want

[Camel Pilot]

And then less known artist who don't mind having their music shared will get more exposure. When Prince died I hardly knew any songs he had ever done, despite all the hype yada yada on how important he was. Evidently he was very protective of his music.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's only then that consumers will truly benefit?"

How will this bring any extra benefit to consumers?

Balance

[mwvdlee]

"We ask you to enact sensible reform that balances the interests of creators with the interests of the companies who exploit music for their financial enrichment. It's only then that consumers will truly benefit."

Yes, only when the interests of consumers are completely ignored, will consumers truly benefit.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

To give them credit, they are focusing in the right place.

There are three parties involved: artists, publishers, and consumers. The purpose of copyright law is to control publishers, and in particular to give artists some leverage over them.

But publishers have hijacked that law, and used it - acting in the name of artists - to screw over consumers.

Publishers are the ones who need to be reined in. Artists - well, some of them are fine, some are dickheads, but on balance they're probably not a big enough group to be much of a pain. But publishers, now - they're a multi-billion-dollar industry, they're costing us real money and we need to control those fuckers.

Re:Balance

[robinsc]

Like resetting copyright to a flat 14 year period !

Re:Balance

[mwvdlee]

Guess those artists shouldn't have signed away their copyrights.
Their beef is with extortionist publishers, not with a law intended to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.

DMCA 2 needs court oversite and no auto take down

[Joe_Dragon]

DMCA 2 needs court over site

and no auto take down system that hurts the small time people and let's the big boys like fox get the profit from a video they took pasted in to family guy and let the auto take down shut down the video they ripped off.

Collective worth

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure someone will calculate the collective worth of the 180 companies and artists. The biggest problem I have with the industry is how only a handful of companies and artists make nearly all of the money. There is not much of a middle class in the music industry. (atleast that's how it appears to me)

Greed.

[JustNiz]

...because Taylor Swift and Paul McCartney are obviously not already rewarded well enough for just having written a few songs.

I'm happy with artists/publishers being in total control over new songs, just as long as they also agree to laws that make the music revert to public domain after a reasonable time, say 10 years, not the 100 or so years that a few years ago Sony managed to convince the courts was necessary, which is patently ridiculous.

Re:Greed.

[JustNiz]

Update: it appears its actually 70 years not 100 years, which IMHO is still fucking ridiculous.

Re:Greed.

[dargaud]

Yeah, and also as someone who write (software instead of music), I get paid for what I write, and then next week I'll starve if I don't write anything. Why aren't they the same ? And don't give me the bullshit that song writing is 'creative'. Software is just as creative.

Can you imagine if you paid your plumber for a new toilet, but then you also had to pay him every time you used it ?!? Why do they want cake and the cake's money as well ?

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Taylor Swift doesn't have enough private jets.

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true, but artists are allowed to use tons of drugs for their creative process. Software engineers are tested for this and if found to be using such a process, they are weeded out/blacklisted.

Re:Greed.

[cdrudge]

Yeah, and also as someone who write (software instead of music), I get paid for what I write, and then next week I'll starve if I don't write anything. Why aren't they the same ?

They could be. Just license your software so that it's subscription or usage based.

Re:Greed.

[PopeRatzo]

I'm happy with artists/publishers being in total control over new songs, just as long as they also agree to laws that make the music revert to public domain after a reasonable time, say 10 years

This. I'm thinking more along the lines of 25 years, for the musicians and composers out on the "long tail" so they can make a few bucks too.

But there is absolutely no reason why the Frank Sinatra/Tommy Dorsey records that were recorded in the 1940s, and were written even earlier than that should not be in the Public Domain. That's how crazy it's gotten. There are IP protections for artistic works where everyone involved in their creation are long dead. Now how does that help culture?

Re:Greed.

[chipschap]

Can you imagine if you paid your plumber for a new toilet, but then you also had to pay him every time you used it ?!?

Don't say that too loudly or the plumbers union will start lobbying for it.

Re:Greed.

[lgw]

Plus, wasn't it Sonny, not Sony? (The Sonny Bono copyright extension.)

Re:Greed.

[Jack_the_Tripper]

Can you imagine if you paid your plumber for a new toilet, but then you also had to pay him every time you used it ?!?

The last time the plumber came by to empty the coin box he was talking about this newfangled 'internets of thing' upgrade that not only did auto-billing but also analysed my diet so that I could save up to 35% on my health care coverage.

Re:Greed.

[SumDog]

> Update: it appears its actually 70 years not 100 years, which IMHO is still fucking ridiculous.

Unless it's Disney and Mickey Mouse. That fucking rodent should be in the public domain by now.

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and also as someone who write (software instead of music), I get paid for what I write, and then next week I'll starve if I don't write anything. Why aren't they the same ? And don't give me the bullshit that song writing is 'creative'. Software is just as creative.

Can you imagine if you paid your plumber for a new toilet, but then you also had to pay him every time you used it ?!? Why do they want cake and the cake's money as well ?

That just means you have a crappy code monkey job.

If you are as a programmer skilled and creative in a unique and commercially meaningful way, you should strike out on your own and put out your own software. Then you will indeed be able to write once and sit back and be paid every time someone wants to download a new copy, as long as people continue to want to do so.

Re:Greed.

[Fire_Wraith]

Artists should be reasonably compensated for their work. The problem is that their definition of what is reasonable compensation far outstrips what the rest of us tend to think is remotely reasonable.

Re: Greed.

[cyber-vandal]

I don't understand why Disney want this so badly. All their characters are trademarked so no one can use them even if their films enter the public domain.

Re: Greed.

[cyber-vandal]

Not everyone can be a good amongst developers like yourself. Remind me what you've written again oh Exalted One.

Re:Greed.

[SuricouRaven]

Try UK law. We have different terms for books, audio recordings, lyrics, plays, broadcast events, sheet music, databases, films and Peter Pan. All have their own rules.

Re:Greed.

[tepples]

There are IP protections for artistic works where everyone involved in their creation are long dead. Now how does that help culture?

The rationale behind the present "life of grandchildren" copyright term is that those descendants who knew the composer personally would be in the best position to carry out the composer's will in commercially exploiting them.

Re: Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard if you call them you could save up to 15% in just 15 minutes.

Re:Greed.

[PopeRatzo]

The rationale behind the present "life of grandchildren" copyright term [pineight.com] is that those descendants who knew the composer personally would be in the best position to carry out the composer's will in commercially exploiting them.

Well, isn't that a bunch of happy horseshit. The assumptions in that rationale are amazing. First, who's to say that a work that old should be exploited commercially at all?

Intellectual property isn't really property. It's a fiction created to encourage creativity and the public good. Having grandchildren live off the creativity of such distant ancestors does neither.

Re:Greed.

[Pfhorrest]

How about we just make it so that if a copyrighted work already existed when you were born, you have free license to use it and immunity to prosecution for doing so? It's part of your cultural heritage.

Re:Greed.

[PopeRatzo]

How about we just make it so that if a copyrighted work already existed when you were born, you have free license to use it and immunity to prosecution for doing so?

I don't get it. If I was born the week after the Beatles recorded the White Album then I should not be bound to respect the copyright?

Why not just let copyright die after 25 years, or even 40 years, so the artist can make some dough? The notion that copyright should exist until the last grandchild dies does not conform to the reason copyright was created in the first place. IP is not really property, it's a cultural subsidy.

Re:Greed.

[Pfhorrest]

Yeah, I agree with the overall notion that IP is not real property and should not last very long (if at all). I just think the idea of setting the cutoff point automatically by the life cycle of the producer and the consumer instead of some arbitrary number seems elegant. If the consumer and producer are both alive when the work is made, then it's protected for so long as they're both alive. If the consumer wasn't even alive yet when it was made, then from their perspective it's always existed, is part of their cultural heritage, and they should be free to use it. And if the producer is dead, well there's nothing left to protect, so it's free for all to use. The products of past (dead) generations are free for anyone of this or future generations, and future (unborn) generations are free to use anything from this or past generations. Where those meet, those who are (still) alive can be allowed to profit from those who are (already) alive.

Just an idea.

Re:Greed.

[Gramie2]

Actually, it's until the death of the creator plus 70 years (in the U.S.; in Canada it is plus 50 years), so potentially 130 years or so for a song written when the creator was about 20.

Re:Greed.

[PopeRatzo]

I see. Kind of a thought experiment. Wouldn't it be interesting if in Intellectual Property the rights of the consumer were given the same weight as the rights of the producer? Especially since the consumers are the ones actually paying for everything.

It reminds me a little bit of the writings on economics by the French mutualist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who posited that profits are really just a tax on productivity. It flies in the face of our trickle-down, supply side oligarchy, but it created new insight into the transactions that make up society. That the social contract goes two ways and it's always worth viewing such things from both perspectives and maybe the perspective of the people at the bottom of the pyramid might actually be even worth more? We're conditioned to see everything through the viewpoint of ownership, wealth and power, because it's ownership, wealth and power that control the narrative.

Thanks for giving me something to think about.

Re:Greed.

[deadwill69]

You are mostly correct: The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States. Since the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship. The 1976 Act also increased the extension term for works copyrighted before 1978 that had not already entered the public domain from twenty-eight years to forty-seven years, giving a total term of seventy-five years. The 1998 Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.[1] Copyright protection for works published prior to January 1, 1978, was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Confused

[bestweasel]

"We ask you to enact sensible reform that balances the interests of creators with the interests of the companies who exploit music for their financial enrichment. It's only then that consumers will truly benefit."

The companies they're talking about are clearly the record companies but I don't understand how giving them more money will benefit consumers.

OK, do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remove ALL content from Youtube for of the above artists who are complaining about 'stolen' content here. Then, see music piracy ramp up again for all those artists who were removed.

'Updating' the DMCA, in response to this absurdity, on perceived loss of revenue, is tantamount to the movie studies claiming Star Wars 7 made no profit. Their 'LOSS' , is entirely based on perception, and not reality. "Since we can't control where our music is being played from, we have to be losing money". Fuck them all!

Home taping didn't kill them yet?

[Kartu]

I mean, poor industry:
http://turntabling.net/wp-cont...

They want their cake and to eat it too

[JoeyRox]

Either you accept the huge value you get from the free distribution of your promotional materials (ie videos) and make the money on your actual album sales and tours or you start asking people to pay to watch them and make nothing on your albums and tours. Your choice.

Maybe don't put your music on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see tons of official videos on YouTube, if this was such a problem I'm sure no artists would do this in the first place.

Oh please Google!!!

[future assassin]

take down every video by the artists in the suit from YT. Just leave a video with a statement explaining that artists didn't want them anymore. Watch those same artists whine about the removal and fan revolt in 3,2,1...

http://www.mtv.com/news/971500...

Re:Oh please Google!!!

[future assassin]

Funny shit they still continue http://www.salon.com/2016/04/1...

Bullshit.

[CrashNBrn]

There has been far more music created that is NOT available ANYWHERE than ALL of the Music services combined.

they write that the current online copyright law has allowed YouTube and other sites to "generate huge profits by creating ease of use for consumers to carry almost every recorded song in history

How many songs have been recorded since the beginning of time?

James Piazza, Music Archivist, Audiophile
Paul Mawhinney's record collection consists of ~1 million LPs and ~1.5 million singles. The Library of Congress conducted a study of Mawhinney's collection and found that only 17% of the titles were available to the public on CD. A smaller fraction still were made commercially available in a digital file format like MP3 or FLAC.

And to take it one step further, the majority of the LPs in Paul's collection are American and UK recordings. That doesn't even begin to consider the musical output of the rest of planet earth.

The iTunes library (or that of Spotify for that matter) comprise a tiny, tiny fraction of the history of recorded music. 26 million digital songs is a starting point, but the world's catalog of recorded sound extends so much farther than that.

And once you've finished the lifetimes it would take to play through official recordings from the Library of Congress and other national archives, you could then move on to the libraries of the universities of the world which will open you up to demos and performances from some of the greatest composers in the world, none of which are available commercially.

Without some concrete figures from the LOC, national archives and from universities, I cannot provide even a ballpark of an exact total track duration, but I hope my answer gives you some perspective beyond the limitations of digital music.

Re:Bullshit.

[Wrath0fb0b]

That sounds about right. The Pareto Principle suggests that the top 20% of all titles are responsible for 80% of all the sales/listens/interest. Digitizing the remaining 80% of the titles that make up the remaining 20% of interest is simply not worth it. Each one of those titles would be interesting to a smaller and smaller audience until you were doing it for practically no reason at all.

In fact, since the Pareto Principle is recursive, after two iterations you've got 36% of the titles digitized representing 96% of the total interest. Now you're suggesting that it makes sense for anyone to digitize the remaining 64% despite that representing less than 4% of the total value of those recordings?

Re: Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also a vast amount of recordings held by broadcasting organizations

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have the technology and the capacity to literally digitize everything. Why should we artificially limit the works we attempt to preserve for the future? Even if 0% have "interest" in the bottom, say, 30-40% of the "remaining 64%" as you calculated it, it should still be preserved.

People never learn, and this is why there will always be works created that end up "lost to time", even when we technically have the ability to save it all.

Re:Bullshit.

[ToddInSF]

Yeah, because everything that's ever been recorded really should be preserved for eternity.

The record labels

[inode_buddha]

You sure it isn't really the record labels that are saying this? Last I heard, they get most of it, so if its anybody's fault that the artists are getting less, its the labels. Or BMI/ASCAP

foreget that..

[Anonymous Coward]

lets look at the othere side ofthe coin..

why arent artists asking the record companies to lower their gouging tactics against the artists?

I see everyone clammering about loss of money,. but
do the record companies reduce their end of things, NO why should they..
fuck it, lets go after everyone as long as the record companies get paid...

bullshit..
see it for what it really is..

First reform needed:

[QuietLagoon]

Return copyright back to its original concept of a short time period, and take it away from being seen as a long-term revenue generator by greedy media companies.

Are there any videos on YouTube

[Hognoxious]

Are there any videos on YouTube of people playing *really* small violins?

Re:Are there any videos on YouTube

[powerlord]

Are there any videos on YouTube of people playing *really* small violins?

Its the interwebs.

Better to ask, "Can someone link some Youtube videos of people playing *really* small violins?", to which I will happily answer, "Enjoy"

This one seems apropos ... since its using canned music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxauqa7rJgI

Here's someone REALLY playing a violin that size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ESgWlzQQag

and lastly ... since we're discussing Fair Use and the DMCA, this is appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jrKXf2G-AA

Re:Are there any videos on YouTube

[Hognoxious]

That's a ogre's double bass compared to the one I was thinking of.

Re:Are there any videos on YouTube

[Hognoxious]

"a ogre"

Click. BANG. Thunk.

boo hoo?

[argStyopa]

"Taylor Swift, U2, Kings of Leon and Paul McCartney are some of the 180 recording artists and labels petitioning Congress to reform the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (D.M.C.A.) In an open letter to Congress, they write that the current online copyright law has allowed YouTube and other sites to "generate huge profits by creating ease of use for consumers to carry almost every recorded song in history in their pocket via a smartphone, while songwriters' and artists' earnings continue to diminish."

Net worth:
Taylor Swift: $200 million
Bono: $600 million
Paul McCartney: $660 million

If they're really just doing it for the poor little indie artists that are being "taken advantage of" then perhaps they could between them drop a cool $1 billion toward those artists - and with their piles of cash they'd never even notice.

Re:boo hoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I permanently augment my memory, will they demand I pay them every time I recall the song?

Re:boo hoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! What happens when you get a song stuck in your head? You'll never forget that song when the bill comes in. Then it gets stuck in your head again!
Note to self: No data cable to head!

Re:boo hoo?

[TheGratefulNet]

that's not taylor, its becky. RIP

Re:boo hoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't notice if almost two thirds of your net worth was gone, really?

Re:boo hoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention EVERY indie artist that I follow on Twitter wants to me to go and check out their newest video on YouTube! Even if they don't have an actual video they have their music up on Youtube

Re:boo hoo?

[argStyopa]

If someone's worth $100 million or $600 million, does it *really* impact their daily existence?

Do they say "you know, if I was worth $600 mill I could shop at Target, but with only $100 mill I guess it'll have to be Wal-Mart".
Is that the driver behind their choice of Chipotle or Taco Bell?
Does it determine if they fly first class or tourist?

So the short answer is no, I do not believe that if someone worth even as "little" as $100 million lost 2/3 of their net wealth, that they'd even NOTICE.

DMCA, TicketMaster....

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this is why I have CDs, and a home stereo system.
I probably would go to a concert if I can get a ticket somewhere other than the big corp thieves...
( last concert was ZZ Top, 1981, WOW! )
I might buy more CDs if they weren't just one good song and musical roughage...
( Buffet, Simon and Garfunkel, Pink, Martina McBride, others... so far ).
Otherwise, all of this is just an argument without any real solution - corporations, artists, and consumers will not ever agree....
Much noise, little result....

well, there not entirely wrong

[nimbius]

but its hard to imagine 180 recording artists snored through 40 years of being bankrupted by the RIAA, MPAA, and Ticketmaster only to suddenly give a shit when www.youtube.com started returning their names in search queries. These arent artists, theyre brands owned by their respective copyright holders. And those copyright holders --the RIAA and MPAA -- have decided to use their purchased products to shill congress. its really no different than, say, an automaker driving to Washington in a hybrid SUV that will never see production, only to beg for a bailout

Re:well, there not entirely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, the lobbyists have more say than all voters combined. The Clinton Foundation does TOO well. That's why I will vote Trump.
I hope Trump says 'Your not paying American taxes or your fair share - so git', after he wins.

Ridiculous and unsolvable

[bluefoxlucid]

Youtube is a user-generated content site. It's impossible to police all user-generated content without adding massive costs--just running the site at a given capacity is a drop in the bucket compared to policing the site at that capacity. Perhaps this is why the content creators aren't doing so themselves. Any open platform granting individual access on such a large scale--the entire Internet itself, for example--will have these problems; we can see this in peer-to-peer applications such as Limewire or Gnutella, which require no central authority, and will probe the Internet or use a shipped, pre-discovered list of known Gnutella peers to discover *other* peers.

On the other side, people are now unwilling to pay high mark-ups for music. They're consuming through streaming services, which are shipping more music at decreased revenues. The cost of distribution itself is lower, and the IP holders pay almost no cost--not to press CDs, not to ship the product, not to handle logistics. They handle production and licensing, and the per-customer costs are offloaded and *minimal*. That means scaling, which used to be expensive, is now free; and licensing fees are pure revenue. It also means a huge revenue stream is now facing market pressure driving prices down, converting lower costs into lower prices rather than massive profits.

Everyone hates not being billionaires.

Re:Ridiculous and unsolvable

[lgw]

Actually, YouTube is already quite good at policing all user-generated content. They can absolutely check every uploaded video for audio that matches any copyrighted track (at least, any that the artist has told YouTube about via the ContentID system). They used to constantly take down videos for using copyrighted background music, now they usually just share the ad revenue with the artist. They might not match poorly-played cover songs, but those don't hurt the real artist.

They auto-match video too. YouTube movie reviewers have problems with that, since the system knows nothing of fair use.

These are solved problems - perhaps YouTube' system isn't very good technically (hard for artists to use?), but that's something to be addressed technically.

Re:Ridiculous and unsolvable

[danbert8]

Exactly, the supply of music will only increase over time and the demand for music is more or less constant. Economically, it's absurd that musicians have been able to charge as much as they have for so long.

Re:Ridiculous and unsolvable

[bluefoxlucid]

Youtube has made an effort with some non-zero success, and that means Youtube has 100% success and any failure is malicious intent?

Re:Ridiculous and unsolvable

[lgw]

Are you replying to the right post?

Re:Ridiculous and unsolvable

[bluefoxlucid]

I summarized the argument you made.

Re:Ridiculous and unsolvable

[lgw]

No, you really didn't. You imagined a bunch of stuff that wasn't in my post, perhaps thinking it was implied? I was pointing out that YouTube's already does, sort of, what the artists should reasonably ask them to.

Are they asking them to do better at this reasonable thing? No. They're asking for something else entirely - the end of "new radio" in some fantasy that that will drive more sales than the lost ad revenue.

Re:Ridiculous and unsolvable

[bluefoxlucid]

You pointed out that YouTube already does it, implying that the complaint is 100% valid; except YouTube appears to not do it, so what's the big deal? Is Google maliciously allowing copyrighted works?

Google can't readily assemble a list of all songs requiring a certain action, and can't readily determine what is fair use. They have been able to work with artists to compromise on the fair use angle by triggering ads via detection.

Some labels claim Google isn't 100% squashing anything that they haven't agreed is allowed. A video which contains some music is actually fair-use and not necessarily infringing; a video which is some music is infringing. The distinction can be a matter of legal debate. For example: you can argue the first video's primary entertainment value is its original content, and that it's enhanced by the music, and thus is fair use; while you might argue an AMV is derivative of music (it's a video made to express music, rather than an entertainment piece given a musical backing), and thus not fair use.

This seems strange to people because most of us like to analyze state; a lot of law relies on analyzing how state gets reached. One person tried to explain it as lawyers identifying computer bits as having color, even though we know bits can't carry any such information.

So how does Youtube know the difference?

Way too late guys and gals

[bravecanadian]

The system for taking down content is obviously setup to be abused because no content owner could possibly keep up with all the postings.

This ship has sailed and Google gets to keep the lion's share of the $.

Disney "owns" the song notes A-flat and G natural.

[Joe_Dragon]

So we can't let the DMCA get even more power.

Magic sticks?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how mere kindling could accomplish such a feat, america is quite weak I see!

Labels making the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm not mistaken the last report on earnings in the industry showed they were up (quite a bit). If the 'song writers & artists' aren't getting any of that perhaps they should take it up with the labels NOT Congress.

Re:fags will destroy america

[JenovaSynthesis]

Closet case

If it wsn't for YT

[future assassin]

I would never have know and bought ATR, Et Static or The Prodigy new albums. Just don't have the time like I use to, to be in touch with "music". I went to YT, looked up old tracks and lo and behold there were new albums on the side panel. Whipped out the CC and bought them at where the artists wanted me to buy their album.

Re:If it wsn't for YT

[Quirkz]

That's what I was thinking. Nearly all the music I've listened to on YouTube I either already own (just don't have on the present device) or I'm researching with the intention to buy. Maybe I'm an odd case, but YouTube has been a net plus for artists and record companies, based on my usage.

Pretty much every music video is VEVO

[ZorinLynx]

Whenever I search for music on YouTube it's pretty much always a VEVO video, which I presume is licensed.

What exactly are they complaining about?

Weird Al Quote

[slapout]

"Don't take away money from artists just like me/How else can I afford another solid-gold Humvee?"

Re:Weird Al Quote

[Pfhorrest]

I came here to eat dinner and make that comment, and I'm all done with dinner... and you already made that comment.... shit.

Make the Aliens pay

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when all the Aliens in the galaxy/universe start actually receiving all those signals we've been sending out to space will the artist demand payment from them because they are 'receiving the broadcast for free'...I just wish I'd live long enough to see them attempt that.

This again

[GeekWithAKnife]

It was the radio once...essentially the end of music as we knew it.

Cassette players and recorders were the doom of all revenue for recording artists and labels.

A bit later lycos MP3 search killed all the artists and dried up all the cash flow streams.

Napster came. The great satan of music. The record labels lost more money and more artists went hungry...Napster stole food from their baby's mouths it was awful.

Then was Kazaa, Bearshare, Morpheus and a slew of gnutella apps - these truly put the nail in the coffin of countless poor studios.

Everyone moved on to torrents and then there was The Pirate Bay and ISO hunt. After these came about there were no more artists in the world because there was no money it.

So really I don;t even know who is complaining about youtube, a sharing platform. After all, all the artists moved on to working for a living (read performing) and there were no more record labels or studios left as they all ran out of business because of evil file sharers.

Let them sue YouYube. Let them sue the next platform that HELPS THEM spread their work and by popularity HELPS THEM secure more lucrative deals that end up HELPING THEM become richer.

Ignorant twats.

Re:This again

[PCM2]

You forgot CD burners, which were so evil that Canada agreed to charge tax on every blank CD-R, regardless of whether they were used to store music.

Re:This again

[Anonymous Coward]

In their eyes, it doesn't help them. This is because it spreads the work of the 180,000,000+ artists, that don't have a net worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars, at roughly the same speed and at negligible cost. They may appear to be behaving like Luddites, but they're just businessman who recognize that this much competition in their market has, is, and will continue to diminish their value.

Anyway, thanks for the list! Now I have a handy compilation of artists I'll be sure to refrain from supporting in the future.

Re:This again

[radarskiy]

John Philip Sousa on recorded music in 1906:

"These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape."

Re:This again

[brantondaveperson]

I'd say that he was probably about right.

Re:This again

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just Canada, this crazy law is around in a lot of countries.

Re:This again

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the radio once...essentially the end of music as we knew it.

I know this wasn't your particular point, but for me youtube is like radio.

I don't listen to radio (except PBS), don't watch any music TV, don't subscribe to a streaming service, don't spend my Saturdays wandering around malls, so the only way I get exposed to new music is either recommendations by friends or thru youtube. On youtube I pick something to listen to, & then use recommendations to explore.

I do still buy CDs ... of artists that I've discovered, or checked out, on youtube.

If an artist is not on youtube, I won't buy their music.

The same U2?

[GreatOldOne]

Is this the same U2 that shoved an album down everyone's throat wit the Apple iTunes debacle?

foreign content

[Anonymous Coward]

The situation for foreign content is even worse. 99% of content on youtube from Indian artists is pirated.

My open letter to artists

[sootman]

I'll agree to stronger copyright enforcement if you'll agree that the duration of copyright protection should go back to 14 years. Until then, STFU. If you're going to steal from the public domain, I'm going to steal from you.

Side note: I wonder if this could be defeated by representing it as a world's-smallest-violin-worthy plea from the 1%? Seriously, look at who signed this, and look at their net worths.

TSwift is a Hypocrit

[JenovaSynthesis]

It's funny how Taylor Swift is the champion for artists rights in these situations but yet she's the biggest hypocrite. A year ago she called out Apple Music on its free month and about how artists would not get paid for that, yet she demanded photographers surrender their rights to images they take of her for worldwide use in perpetuity without any compensation. Junction10 Photography covered this on their blog post "An open response to Taylor Swift’s rant against Apple".

Now she's going after the "safe harbor" clause in the DMCA and about how YouTube is so bad, yet she has no problem abusing the DMCA to have YouTube take down videos that are clearly protected by fair rights usage. In 2014, amidst "The Interview" controversy, she had Shane Dawson's parody video of "Blank Space" taken down. She objected to it because it was "too violent" yet abused copyright law to do it. The only reason it was restored was because Dawson threatened to sue her over it and she knew she'd lose.

Re:fags will destroy america

[PopeRatzo]

orlando was just the beginning we must ban fag-ism now.

Trump 2016

My kid just talked me into iMusic

[rsilvergun]

For her iPhone. YouTube is strictly for funny cat videos. These guys are full of it.

Solution

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Here's a reasonable solution: YouTube gives the artist all the ad revenue they earned on ads for a particular video between the time it was (illegally) posted and YouTube received a takedown notice.

It's all computers and they know this info already.

Re: fags will destroy america

[Anonymous Coward]

People are People

Sorry you misappropriated a song titled "People are People." Please remit your payment to the copyright holder immediately or a court order will be drafted forthwith.

Fine YouTube $1 per view

[Anonymous Coward]

Since YouTube is basically a "Napster on steroids," it truly boggles the mind that the feds haven't yet raided Page and Brin's homes like they did Kim Dotcom. But stay tuned folks, the party's just getting started. Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.

Filthy rapaciousness

[Anonymous Coward]

How much money is enough for these people. Google should just remove every reference to these greedy copright hucksters. Why should they get free publicity from Youtube/Google, with that attitude.

More bullcrap from root of the problem

[deviated_prevert]

Youtube cashing in on advertising revenues is only a symptom of what is wrong with the RIAA and all the other bullshit so called "art" oriented organizations. There are many very talented musicians now being recognized world wide for their gifts because of youtube, many get concert dates and huge numbers of fans because they are exposed to the public in a new way that the RIAA and the old school "labels' cannot achieve.

Berta Rojas is a good example. Her art is something which the recording industry is not capable of delivering to the public precisely because she plays for a segmented audience and does not have mass appeal the way the overproduced pap of today's so called "pop" music does.

More and more people who know turn to youtube not to listen to new pop that the RIAA churns out in an endless stream. Instead youtube is becoming the best way for the worlds best artists to find an audience. Yes there is a plethora of pop posted to the 'tube" but there is also some stuff that would never be available and this is the most important aspect of what is going on.

FUCK THEM ALL

[Anonymous Coward]

> This comes days after musician Trent Reznor said YouTube is built on the back of stolen content.

How is something stolen if nobody is missing anything? Were they out to sea on a sea-wary vessel and boarded by some un-gentleman-like savages carrying oranges?

aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrr

Re:FUCK THEM ALL

[Anonymous Coward]

> This comes days after musician Trent Reznor said YouTube is built on the back of stolen content.

How is something stolen if nobody is missing anything? Were they out to sea on a sea-wary vessel and boarded by some un-gentleman-like savages carrying oranges?

aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrr

Yea meanwhile the government is hosing taxpayers to the tune of $20+ TRILLION USD and far more if you factor in the risk of derivatives outstanding. Just the cost of servicing that debt annually is more than those artists have in all of their bank accounts combined.

Shouldn't you discuss things that matter more? Taylor Swift is stinking rich. She has no place crying about mp3's and mp4's.

This is just another lawyer feeding frenzy. Obama is a lawyer too, go figure.

Where's the full list of those 180 artists?

[vadim_t]

I want to make sure I don't accidentally give them any money.

Re:Where's the full list of those 180 artists?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the undersigned is "Estate of Judy Garland". Never heard of this band before, but if they are any good, I'm sure a change to the digital millennium copyright act will encourage them to produce large quantities of quality music for years to come.

Re:Where's the full list of those 180 artists?

[houghi]

Hint: You most likely wont find them on sites like http://bandcamp.com/

Taylor Swift - Nazi Princess

[PopeRatzo]

I'm just going to leave this here:

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/0...

Re:Taylor Swift - Nazi Princess

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are... not the most reputable sources.

Even though they're completely wrong about this and I fear Congress will happily give them whatever they want, I'm not quick to believe those sources even if I might be inclined to believe bad things about them based on how much they're trying to hose us all for their own greed.

IT WAS NAPSTER !!

[Anonymous Coward]

that killed the beast !!

what they really want...

[Lead Butthead]

is to be paid anytime when you even so much as thinking of lyrics or melodies in your head. the only thing that's stopping them right now is their inability to read minds.

So who are the other 176?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the official list of dirty sellouts whom you should not pay.

Not really a whole lot on that list to miss... although I'm terribly disappointed to see Rush backing this kind of disingenuous horseshit. What happened to the spirit of radio, guys?

And thanks for your continuously superb journalism, CNN! Next time don't even fucking bother writing an article.

Re:So who are the other 176?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. You'll note the heading "DMCA no longer works for creators", but if you look at the signatories, it's mostly acts from 2-4 decades ago that aren't creating much of anything these days.

Re:So who are the other 176?

[Gramie2]

Rush (or at least their drummer, Neil) has been blunt about their desire to control their music. Not outspoken or inflammatory, but consistent and clear that they don't like music being copied and shared without their consent (and without them receiving a cut, it's not clear which is the biggest issue for them).

I bought several of their albums on vinyl, cassette, and CD over the years, and have been to several of their concerts. I've been a supporter even when they weren't "cool".

Interesting that in some of Neil's books he refers to listening to compilations of music made for him by friends, presumably without the knowledge or enrichment of those artists.

So is any of the 180 independent artists?

[Torp]

I bet at least 179 of them are in slavery contracts with the major record labels.

My advice

[sootman]

Paul: Let It Be.
Taylor: Shake It Off.
Bono: Walk On.
Kings of Leon: Spiral Staircase. (Sorry, couldn't find a good one for you guys.)

Re:My advice

[Anonymous Coward]

Kings of Leon: Use Somebody

FTFY.

Is it really for the artists?

[kheldan]

Are they really looking for overall reform of the copyright and royalties system with regards to recorded music, or are they just shilling for the recording industry? If what they want just puts more money in the pockets of the recording industry and not into the actual pockets of the artists and other content creators, then I say "Fuck that".

Corporations verses individuals.

[siamesevodka]

Something I have never understood about the internet.If you download pirate bay music, you can be fined pretty heavily. If however your a giant corporation like Google with youtube, you are not doing anything wrong by displaying works of artist without recompense. The tracking of you through "cookies" is legal, but you tracking someone with a key logger is not. Essentially both actions end up with the same results. Google also reads your email. You have no privacy anymore. But if I decide to track somebody's digital life I'm guilty of a crime. If A big corporation does it no harm no foul. It would be interesting for a person to see what a Giant corporation like Google has on you and who they are sharing it with.There should be a requirement that somebody like Google has to share that information with you once a year like a credit report. It should also be required by law. It should be put into the bill of rights.I know some of you might think my approach here is a little simplistic, but there does seem to be a double standard here when it comes to digital rights, privacy and individual rights verses a corporation. If a corporation has rights to free speech, it should also have responsibilities as the individual does to respecting other peoples properties and privacy as well. As Mitt Romney says "Corporations are people too."

Re:DMCA 2 needs court oversite and no auto take do

[thegarbz]

No it doesn't. The DMCA 2 needs to be entirely written by consumers with absolutely no input from the content industry.

We tried it the other way with the first version and they weren't happy so it only makes sense to go for the opposite.

The record companies allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

If the owners of the music didn't want it on youtube, it wouldn't be there. Look at how much of Prince's music was on youtube until after he died.

Youtube were lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucky for the directors of Youtube, they aren't fat, german and living in New Zealand.

Or else there servers would have been seized, along will all content, and they would be facing deportation and a criminal court case.

Google = Rip OIff

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is Evil.

They cause poverty by not paying there fair share of Tax. Yep, Google is the cause of suffering, thru no Tax $$$ for health, education, etc....

Artists like Macca & Bono are financially OK, the obvious issue is Google ripping off new artists, by under paying them.

Screw Google.

It's always "sensible reform"

[swb]

I just love how this one rhetorical trick gets used so often.

Obviously their reforms are sensible, but opposing them is nonsense and unreasonable.

Re:It's always "sensible reform"

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed that, too. Like "common sense" gun legislation.

Solution to DMCA problems...

[psherman2001]

Copyright plea -- we're not rich enough!
Solution: Make copyright on music good for one year.
Don't allow any unauthorized use in that time. After that it's all public domain.
Music is very trend-oriented, artists can make plenty in a year plus performance for many, many years.

A few other thoughts:
Do we really owe the grand-kids of artists a living?
Why must artists be paid in-perpetuity, while the rest of us schmucks that often make concrete, useful things get paid wage or by the hour?
If I build someone a nice picnic table, do I expect them to pay me every time one of the buyer's friends uses it?

I don't mind paying for my music

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mind pay for my music, I have at least 100 singles in my collection, about 20-30 albums. Maybe there are reasons people aren't buying their "music" may it is COMPLETE AND TOTAL GARBAGE! I mean, a Taylor Swift Album is a complete waste of PVC to press.

This is some really self-centered shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is absolutely crazy that these people think that Youtube is "built on the back" of any music product at all, stolen or otherwise. I bet the percentage of Youtube's traffic that is people listening to music (with music videos included) is very, very small. This is a business that is built on the backs of an awful lot of different things.

Music (or more precisely, the music business) is the primary thing on these people's minds at all times so they view everything as an extension of that, but honestly if someone removed all the videos that are just songs (again, music videos included) tomorrow I bet Youtube's traffic wouldn't be affected very much.

Not enough money, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Artists flying around in private jets making 8, 9 figures and getting bent out of shape about people using a media converter.

This problem is 100% due to the music labels

[DrJimbo]

As has been obvious for over a decade, consumers overwhelmingly want to be able to use recent technological breakthroughs so then can listening music easily and conveniently. Most are willing to pay for this and most probably want to support the artist.

The music labels have been fighting this tooth and nail pretty ever since it was possible to download music via the internet. This is slightly bizarre since part of the service they are supposed to be providing to society is to streamline the distribution of music (hence the RIAA curve, etc). Instead, perhaps due to somewhat sociopathic CEOs, they try to cripple distribution of music in order to create false scarcity which harms society and harms the artists and only benefits the labels.

The only reason a 3rd-party can make money from this is because the labels are totally failing at the task of distributing music in the best and easiest way possible. The answer is not to close off 3rd parties who are doing the job the record labels are supposed to be doing. The answer is for the record labels to do their damned job and distribute music in a reasonable way given current technologies. The tighter the labels grip, the more revenue will slip through their fingers. There is no way consumers are going back to buying a vinyl album and then a cassette and then a cd of the same music.

The actual cost for distributing music has plummeted to near zero. If the record labels are not going to take advantage of this and distribute music in a reasonable way then good for Google and for anyone else who steps up and removes the artificial scarcity and artificial inefficiency create by the music labels.

While we're at it let's shorten the length of time copyright stays in effect. That way these rock stars won't be lumping their recent music together with music that was made back in the 30s and 40s by people who have long been dead.

Not declining for the industries!

[afgun]

Looking at https://www.riaa.com/wp-conten..., I see that net "value" of shipped units including both physical and digital went up from 2014 to 2015: $6,950.5 to $7,015.9 (in millions) And according to http://www.billboard.com/artic..., ASCAP generated revenues of $1.014 billion, up 1.14 percent from the $1.003 billion generated in 2014. So, if artists and composers/arrangers are making less, either they're spreading the peanut butter around to more participants, or the industries are keeping more of the pot. OR, the artists bellyaching are being misled by their industry as to the real situation...

Multimillionaires

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I see, the multimillionaires are complaining that they are not making enough money off of us? Too bad. music should be in the public domain after five years.

A = B

[sgrover]

If A = [Some Muscian]
and B = [ Some coporation ].

"We ask you to enact sensible reform that balances the interests of creators with the interests of the companies who exploit music for their financial enrichment" can can be reworded as as
"We ask you to enact sensible reform that balances the interests of 'A' with the interests of 'B' who exploit music for their financial enrichment.
Or do I have that backwards?
"We ask you to enact sensible reform that balances the interests of 'B' with the interests of 'A who exploit music for their financial enrichment.

I'm a little confused who the "bad guy" is intended to be here.

My Heart Gently Weeps for them...

[Simulant]

Oh shit, now I'm probably going to get sued.

The easy way to fix this is to force Google to disable all advertising in questionably legal video content. That way, they will not be able to profit from the works of these poor struggling artists. Problem Solved !!!!

That's really the only ethical dilemma I see here.

Re: My Heart Gently Weeps for them...

[Anonymous Coward]

My guitar gently weeps****

George Harrison of the Beatles.

Or they could admit...

[AndyKron]

Or they could just admit that they're losing money because their music sucks wad balls.

If you can't beat em ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't all these artists create their own Youtube channels and upload their stuff?

There would be a drastically reduced market for pirated youtube content if it was all available legitimately. And the artist could control the content, make sure good versions are uploaded (I've heard several copies on YouTube speed up the songs to beat content ID), and self-advertise in the process. If I'm going to listedn to a Taylor Swift song, I'd probably like to hear about her upcoming tour, or her new album, or her fragrance line or whatever else.

Re:If you can't beat em ...

[Anonymous Coward]

pirated youtube content

Sure thing sweetheart, if there ever was such a thing as youtube made an album or boats full of despicable one eyed patch wearing scoundrels removed youtube's cassette tapes.

Youtube has a new push to "protect artists" by making it harder to save a local copy. Welp guess what, it's not harder. Anything that can be seen and heard can be recorded. If you want to be selfish with noise and images just play your videos in your closet.

If it were reasonable to dictate who can listen to your noises you should put them on your own website. For Youtube to greedily acquire content then consider dictating who can see the entirety of Earth is outrageous. If you only want people who pay you money to listen to you sing then do concerts. If they record you then take their money and buy tissue for your tears. Then do another one.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Silly...

[101percent]

Creators and their sacred bits.

So anyway...

[sootman]

... why is the DEC attached to this story?

Re:I agree with UPZ

[mmell]

How'd this dude get downmodded to zero? I'm guessing Taylor or one of the other 179 used d-bags managed to buy mod points somehow.

Somebody with points fix that. UPZ is dead on-target and (IMHO) +1 insightful.

Its hard to feel bad for Taylor Swift

[Anonymous Coward]

No really, cry some more millionare. Please don't tell me that propping up your unprofitable business model with government force is anything other than armed robbery.

Here is the thing

[M0j0_j0j0]

Google should have to approve every single video uploaded, and I really mean it, no wonder they make tons of money, they take the advantage without the responsability!

no creativity without society

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, pretty much all the rock and pop riffs were from blues and jazz from 50 years prior. There is really isn't much in music that is totally original, especially popular music (else it wouldn't be very popular). Stealing chord progressions and vocals from gospel doesn't really make Taylor Swift an "artist".

Music requires a society with a cultural heritage to build on. All musicians stand on the shoulders of giants.

But trent told me to steal it

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall a concert in Australia where mr reznor told everyone to steal his album because it was priced at 20 bucks not 10 like he wanted.

Don't bitch Trent. I did steal it and will continue to do so.

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

We made it this deep into the conversation about copyright without using the P word! Actually, its only use in this thread is in a proper name followed by the word "Bay". Congratulations folks, you are not letting the industry frame the argument.

Who is losing

[Archfeld]

The production/publishing companies are making a fortune, and yet the artists and performers keep getting less and less. It MUST be pirates, cause we all know the sweet and gentle labels only have their slaves*cough* employees best interests at heart.

Dastar v. Fox

[tepples]

A U.S. trademark cannot be used as an ersatz copyright. Dastar v. Fox.

Righting Wrongs

[fibonacci8]

This is clearly a plea to correct the issue where Rick Astley isn't the richest man on earth.

Any chance we can organize a boycott?

[BlueCoder]

There should be ways that we can boycott music groups, both through our software, current playlists and though current sales. Maybe even organize a new law that allows us to turn in our old purchases and get partial refunds.

Lars Ulrich

[Anonymous Coward]

Lars Ulrich is probably wondering where all these artists were when he was taking on Napster.

those days are gone forever

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual slashdot comes in with the standard techie arguments [ insert mom's basement one handed typing reference here ]
Being a musician was a low end day job before recording and radio. For a brief, historically speaking, moment there was a large amount of money to go around on top of a culture that supported live music. We got Pet Sounds etc, audio that will outlive the generational shifts. There are now generations for which recorded music is supposed to be mostly free (I know, you'll buy your friends disk when he gigs twice a year but he makes his living elsewhere), entertainment is a few media sphere super stars or the bartenders itunes playlist, and instrumentalism is a hobby. Live underground rock / jazz is audiences of friends, secretaries come to support someones hobby

I moved on after a lifetime in the trenches but still gig 2 to 15 times a month for music sake but there's no money anywhere for anyone. Many I knew with occasional face on cover of music magazine careers are gigging but mostly living off their wives. Like writing and many things it's not a way to make a living now, period. That time passed.

Don't worry slashdotters, you can still make money playing minecraft on youtube or complaining about legacy php, which is more the usual skill set in these comment threads.

Unlike the snooty tech frenzy of generic slashdot thread I appreciate what Sir Paul et. al. ( just wanted to type that ) are doing but it's over. It's like trying to close the barn door after the barn burned down and the excavators are already prepping the ground for a convenience store. Over a long time ago. Oh yeah.

Why is she complaining?

[rossz]

She's rich as fuck (woth $200 million) because people are buying her music and she's complaining that she might have been shorted a buck?

No wonder she can't keep a boyfriend. She's a spoiled bitch.

Generous, unless it is their wealth

[Texmaize]

So, it doesn't strike anyone else as funny/sad that as a group, these artists claim to be among the most liberal people on earth? They have made such huge fortunes writing so many songs about how love is all you need, and how we should all just share more. They preach about this at concerts, and wag their fingers at others who dare live by a profit motive. Yet, these "egalitarians" make about 1000 times the common man. Worse, they bitch if art is made more free and accessible.

Artists want more money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Greedy artists want more money?... then make them the old fashion way we the normal folks do it- work. For you this will equate to doing concert tours and make those millions by being exhausted at the end of the workday... novel idea? Hardly.

Naughty list

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice, now i have a list of greedy fucks i won't be giving a fucking cent.

Re:Naughty list

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.hypebot.com/.a/6a00d83451b36c69e201bb09147a7b970d-popup
There's the list.
Too bad about the fall out boy, queens of the stone age and linkin park. I can live without your music, there are betters, and one more thing... ... FUCK YOU.

Sure...

[wkwilley2]

I'm really glad Spotify doesn't stream Taylor Swift anymore, like I want to listen to that garbage.

Litmus test

[ThatsNotPudding]

If you're a musician known to 99.9% of people, you already have more money than 99.9% of people will ever have, yet somehow it's still not enough.

Greed: more addictive than heroin.

PS - "But the record company... " Then that makes you even more of a greed pig. The crocodile tears of the famous, whining about the middle men *after* they've become famous by signing on the dotted line. The folks you've never heard of have a valid complaint, but modern-era superstars? STFU, as you're really no different than Larry 'never enough money' Ellison.

Re:DMCA 2 needs court oversite and no auto take do

[houghi]

You mean like no DMCA at all and just use the laws that were already in place concerning copyright. Got it.

Shedding no tears for them

[JasoninKS]

You know, because Taylor Swift, Paul McCartney, etc can only afford the medium sized solid gold jacuzzi. They obviously deserve the large one. I'm sorry, but how the hell does restricting YouTube benefit me, the consumer?

YT? What about Spotify?

[AnalogDiehard]

Have you seen the pittance that Spotify pays for plays? They literally pay a millionth of a dollar per play.

Missing the point. Again.

[wertigon]

Look. The entire Streaming rights/*Copy*right thing doesn't make any sense whatsoever on the internet. It's like getting angry on fish for swimming in the ocean and avoiding a bathing tax. A very futile effort.

What does make sense is regulating who makes money on certain content. Something like, a content creator has the right to all revenue that can directly or indirectly be tied to his or her work - unless otherwise contracted, of course. But that won't ever happen because it's not in the record companies interest.

Therefore we're looking at atleast 50 more years of these copyright shenanigans. Weee... :)

Who are they talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the interests of the companies who exploit music for their financial enrichment."

How ironic. They think they're referring to YouTube here, whereas most people would consider this a more apt description of the record labels they're shilling for.

Wrong audience

[psycheitout]

For all I care to know maybe these musicians have a valid point and YouTube is drastically cutting into their profits. Just like how downloading off of bearshare and Kazaa was going to ruin the music industry entirely 12 years ago. But I can't help but feel like going to YouTube and telling people that their favorite content creators (a lot of which have been claiming constantly how our current copyright system is too restrictive and that fair use should be expanded) and trying to make the point that the current content ID system is too weak and needs to be restricted is just going to fall on deaf ears. Deaf racist/homophobic ears that banged your mom last night.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Bunch of useless cunts.

[zentigger]

So, if I have this right: A bunch of useless cunts can't figure out how to exploit their own talents to make money, but god forbid anyone else should know how to do it.

Fuck Off!

So called intellectual property is an artificial monopoly to begin with, and it is becoming more and more clear that it is not suitable in the digital era. Just as the popularization of the printing press created a need for reformed perceptions and essentially the founding the intellectual property principles, the digital revolution requires some radical changes in perceptions.

The most balanced approach would probably some form of mandatory licensing. If you are the producer of a creative work, you must apply for a copyright registration, and set a value to your work. If someone wishes to use it, they can purchase a license for that value or not. No registration, no copyright. That essentially creates a free market for creative works while still protecting the creators rights. At the same time it protects the consumer from the anti-competetive behaviours we see with "exclusive distribution rights" etc. Any party has an equal opportunity to access any media.

This does not completely cut out the middle-man, but makes that role much more competitive and puts the power back in the hands of the artists, while putting more money back in the pockets of the artists.