moimoi
AV Clubber 
Posts: 5,003 
|
Post by moimoi on Oct 20, 2015 10:38:44 GMT -5
This isn't an article idea, so much as an article-like thought:
As I was enjoying the 90s R&B classic "The Kissing Game" by Hi-Five on Youtube recently (and posting it to this site), I started to wonder if any of these artists are benefiting from the wide availability of their work on Youtube. I know music streaming services pay artists a pittance, but what about Vimeo, VEVO, Daily Motion, etc? Presumably, revenue is generated by pageviews, but is an artist able to upload their old music video (which is what most people want to see) and get that benefit (which I assume isn't much more than the knowledge that thousands of people remember you fondly, but hey, that's something)? The Hi-Five video was on Vimeo, so I assume it wasn't a random person who uploaded from some old VHS.
So who are the people who make money off of Youtube nostalgia? How often is it the artist themselves vs. some other enterprising person? Is the record company still the middle man in all this? Do artists feel shafted or does it help them keep their name out there? I think it would be interesting to do a sample with a few artists to see what they're up to and if they're on this internet gravy train.
Other thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ron Howard Voice on Oct 20, 2015 10:45:21 GMT -5
Related, perhaps not to your questions, but definitely to the topic in general:
|
|
|
|
Post by MyNameIsNoneOfYourGoddamnBusin on Oct 20, 2015 16:41:36 GMT -5
I remember not too long ago Nikki Sixx from Motley Crue (whom I go to for all of my tech news) made a comment that was picked by some music news site. The way he explained it was that artists don't really see much revenue from these sources because of record company loopholes that were created to deny royalty payments for physical media that were destroyed or damaged in shipping that was somehow being applied to online video views. I don't remember the exact terminology but it was something along those lines. Although I imagine with record sales and even digital sale revenue down, video streaming would offer a significant comparative revenue so any artist with clout would be foolish to sign off on a contract not guaranteeing a good percentage of that revenue.
|
|
moimoi
AV Clubber
Posts: 5,003
|
Post by moimoi on Oct 21, 2015 0:26:56 GMT -5
I remember not too long ago Nikki Sixx from Motley Crue (whom I go to for all of my tech news) made a comment that was picked by some music news site. The way he explained it was that artists don't really see much revenue from these sources because of record company loopholes that were created to deny royalty payments for physical media that were destroyed or damaged in shipping that was somehow being applied to online video views. That's bs - a good legal team could probably fight that, but I suppose one-hit-wonder artists are unlikely to go to the trouble...unless they made it a class action suit... |
|
wrath of kong
TI Forumite
It was like that when I got here.
Posts: 188
|
Post by wrath of kong on Oct 21, 2015 3:20:16 GMT -5
Sort of related note: over the weekend I was listening to "Da' Dip" by Freak Nasty, and I wondered what Freak Nasty is up to these days. I'd be psyched if viewing "Da' Dip" on youtube generated Freak Nasty some coin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gamblin' Telly on Oct 21, 2015 4:09:10 GMT -5
I think most of the 'classic' one hit wonders, have zero rights on their own songs, most are happy when they're allowed to perform their one hit and kinda live of that nostalgia road show. But even those who haven't been put in a studio and performed a song by some composer/producer team, but have the rights to their self-composed hit could not upload the music video and make money from it. It would most likely be taken down because the rights for the video are an entirely different matter, there's a guy who directed it, a record company who paid for it etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lt. Broccoli on Oct 23, 2015 10:19:43 GMT -5
My parents liked a Canadian garage rock band in the 60s called Mother Tucker's Yellow Duck. It was impossible to find an actual physical copy of their album when I tried to buy one for them. Even in the Napster age it was hard to find mp3s. But now all their songs are easily available on YouTube.
|
|
moimoi
AV Clubber
Posts: 5,003
|
Post by moimoi on Oct 23, 2015 12:33:41 GMT -5
My parents liked a Canadian garage rock band in the 60s called Mother Tucker's Yellow Duck. It was impossible to find an actual physical copy of their album when I tried to buy one for them. Even in the Napster age it was hard to find mp3s. But now all their songs are easily available on YouTube. I know! It's great - I have to say - as a sometime DJ, youtube is an invaluable resource. It's like the wikipedia of music. But from an intellectual property standpoint, I think it's a mess. Just today, I found that a link I made yesterday to Frankie Beverly's "Joy and Pain" had been shut down due to "multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement". Who are the first and second parties? The content (Frankie Beverly & Maze), the content producer (whoever shot the video in the first place), the owner of the content (probably some record company), the uploader of the content whose account got deleted? And who's the third party that complained? Somebody's lawyer? "Multiple" lawyers? I believe record companies should pay artists in every possible way, but if that means limited access to music, I'm agin' it! |
|
fab
TI Forumite
strange days
Posts: 1,617 
|
Post by fab on Aug 14, 2017 9:34:20 GMT -5
I feel like necro-ing this thread because these digital wrinkles interest me.
it's great that I can inadvertently discover music that I wouldn't have otherwise bumped into courtesy of the automatic mixes and such, but it really sucks when more obscure or unique stuff that infringes is taken down.
copyright etc. really needs a serious overhaul, but there's just so much money in lobbying to keep it on tight lockdown that I can't see it happening any time soon, unfortunately. :/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 10:49:35 GMT -5
I never made a cent from youtube videos, but I don't allow people to put ads on my videos so I guess that's on me.
I will say that I'm grateful for the exposure I got from a couple of simple videos some dude in Greece posted to youtube way back in 2009. Those videos have no ads and 50,000-100,000 hits. I think I'd be annoyed if people posted every song of an album, but I have no issues with people spreading the Gospel of Billy so long as they're not making money off it.
I did have a really annoying experience with my last album when I got a local company to put the music up on Spotify, ITunes, Applemusic, etc. They engaged a company called "Orchard Music Group", who immediately sent copyright infringement notices to me, the artiste, for posting my own music from my own label. I complained to youtube, explained that this was me, etc., and youtube still said nope. Finally I got the local company to get Orchard to back the fuck off youtube and pretty much anyone can post a song (again, so long as there's no ads).
If someone posts a video of my song WITH ads, then as copyright holder I can apply to receive that money. Youtube has a fund for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Luc de Lemur on Aug 14, 2017 13:10:09 GMT -5
I feel like necro-ing this thread because these digital wrinkles interest me. it's great that I can inadvertently discover music that I wouldn't have otherwise bumped into courtesy of the automatic mixes and such, but it really sucks when more obscure or unique stuff that infringes is taken down. copyright etc. really needs a serious overhaul, but there's just so much money in lobbying to keep it on tight lockdown that I can't see it happening any time soon, unfortunately. :/ Youtube’s also been a big boon in terms of discovering new music for me—much of what I listen to now was stuff randomly recommended on youtube, and of all the various streaming services they tend to be best at “here’s something similar you might be interested in” rather than “here’s more of the same,” though that may also be due to the more abstract nature of music. I’ve taken to screencaps so I can remember stuff that gets mentioned on the side. |
|
|
|
Post by 🐍 huss 🐍 on Aug 16, 2017 13:34:36 GMT -5
I feel like necro-ing this thread because these digital wrinkles interest me. it's great that I can inadvertently discover music that I wouldn't have otherwise bumped into courtesy of the automatic mixes and such, but it really sucks when more obscure or unique stuff that infringes is taken down. copyright etc. really needs a serious overhaul, but there's just so much money in lobbying to keep it on tight lockdown that I can't see it happening any time soon, unfortunately. :/ I got banned from YouTube for some out-of-print music documentaries I uploaded (about the works of 20th-century composers John Cage, Meredith Monk, Philip Glass, and Robert Ashley). I had uploaded them during the days when you could only do things in 10-minute increments, so there were 24 videos. Seven years later, some different company bought the rights, and all my uploads were dinged all at the same time. I was banned without a chance to fix or contest it. I tried emailing the new rightsholders but never heard back, and it's impossible to talk to a human at YouTube. |
|
fab
TI Forumite
strange days
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by fab on Aug 16, 2017 14:14:38 GMT -5
I got banned from YouTube for some out-of-print music documentaries I uploaded (about the works of 20th-century composers John Cage, Meredith Monk, Philip Glass, and Robert Ashley). I had uploaded them during the days when you could only do things in 10-minute increments, so there were 24 videos. Seven years later, some different company bought the rights, and all my uploads were dinged all at the same time. I was banned without a chance to fix or contest it. I tried emailing the new rightsholders but never heard back, and it's impossible to talk to a human at YouTube. losing access to my old Gmail address was fun. I don't know why the hell they provide forms to submit requests for account recovery or info when there's literally nobody on the other end to even attempt to assist you in any meaningful way. automation is great at certain things, and I realize the scale of something like YouTube does require some permissions to be handed off or deferred to other parties... but yeah. Google is beyond abysmal at actually dealing with presumable end users. (much like Facebook et al. we're ultimately a means to an end and not actually their customers, of course.) I really wish the classic copyright system would come back. 15 - 25 years max, and after that, it's public domain. creators should still retain the right to be CREDITED for their work, but there shouldn't be punitive damages or any other ridiculousness. this would still give folks a chance to make money off exclusive rights / publishing / licensing, and society at large should benefit from the fruits of their labour, as no creative work just spontaneously forms in a cultural vacuum apropos of nothing. the relative lawlessness of the Internet and ease of digital reproduction is a huge pushback against stuff like this. here's a tip, corporations -- want to know why I've probably spent upwards of a grand (very conservative estimate, I don't want to think about it) on the Steam marketplace and will have a Netflix subscription for a very long time? it's convenient and has most of what I want. there are major benefits to these services that (mostly) outweigh any misgivings I might have. they're also pretty darn affordable for what you can get if you're patient or if the service fits your needs, and a lot of their content functions like loss leaders in physical stores. this concept isn't exactly new... I wish I could slap the asshats that shut down the original powertabs.net archive. maybe I can use the Wayback Machine / Internet Archive to scrape some of those files, but I think they were hosted on the FTP at the time. that was a hugely useful resource for me as a novice teenage guitarist. it had more accurate transcriptions for certain arrangements and artists than I've seen anywhere on the internet, with the bonus that you could also screw with the tempo playback and mute individual parts, loop bars, etc. that was a bit OT but damn. this kind of stuff when poorly executed makes me pretty annoyed. |
|
