Embedding a YouTube Video May Cost You a Bundle in ASCAP Bills

reply to post by LucidDreamer85


www.belowtopsecret.com...

Check out Sauron's post, he explains how to do that.


TA

reply to post by muzzleflash


Well if you are dead what does it matter? Do you need cash in Heaven or Hell.

Regardless the royalties go to the estate of the deceased and whoever inherits it.

Do you know Einstein's heirs make like 28 million dollars a year off of the Baby Einstein stuff and other royalties related to his likeness?

Originally posted by Lazyninja
If imbedding a Youtube video is illegal, Youtube should not be supplying the imbed code.

touché

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Artists get royalties as well if they wrote the song. It is not just producers and media execs.

So Elvis, Jim Morrison, Jimi, MJ, etc are getting royalties?

I am confused I thought they were dead.

Do they just Western Union that to Heaven/Hell or what? How does that work out?

Elvis makes more money dead then alive......same with tupac and a ton of other artists......it goes to the family or estate along with a percentage to the company who holds their royalties .

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by zorgon
Youtubers will just have to switch to music that is in the public domain, create their own music

I can imagine the next "Micheal Jackson" being discovered from creating his own Youboob video music when he needed non copyrighted music in his "Anti-Fish" Video.

Now that would be funny.

Well you said it.....so now it will happen.....may be 10 years from now but watch it happen....lol.....things tend to work like that in life.

reply to post by Lazyninja


Not all embeded videos are illegal. If you have permission or it is public license or just some yahoo then it is not illegal.

Do you really expect royalties or care if someone embeds a video of your kid having exploding diareaha that you posted on youtube?

reply to post by jatsc


Oh for sure. People that don't hold the copyright and upload the song should be made to take it down or pay a licensing fee. They don't have the rights to the content. And Youtube is failing on that part.

reply to post by LucidDreamer85


That is the way it should work, but if you fill the copyright out wrong you will think you own the copyright and you won't know until a year later that your music is not protected.

Also most people don't have the money hire a good lawyer and pay the court fee's. The major producers just make it too expensive for people to do anything about it.

Also if you don't have the copyright paper from the government a lawyer isn't going to take your case. Then you have to find an entertainment lawyer. It's not as easy as just taking them to court.

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by LucidDreamer85

 

www.belowtopsecret.com...

Check out Sauron's post, he explains how to do that.


TA

Nice ! Thanks a ton for the link....i starred you for that....ha

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

Oh for sure. People that don't hold the copyright and upload the song should be made to take it down or pay a licensing fee. They don't have the rights to the content. And Youtube is failing on that part.

That, I agree with. One poster suggested that Youtube shouldn't be posting the embed code. That may be a little too drastic a measure, but they could monitor the uploads a little better to determine which should be embeddable and which shouldn't. Thank you all for the replies, stars and flags.


TA

reply to post by TheAssociate


No they should post the embed code, it is up to the poster of the video to practice due diligence and turn off the embed function.

I could see the record labels uploading songs then screwing people because the record labels didn't do their due diligence.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I could see the record labels uploading songs then screwing people because the record labels didn't do their due diligence.

Good point. Wouldn't put it past them. It's a difficult situation and it's going to be interesting to see how/if it gets resolved.

reply to post by TheAssociate


That it will. Personally I think we need to rewrite IP laws. Something like pharmaceutical companies can't patent drugs.

Unfortunately, there needs to be a clause that if you contribute to the song then you just be justly compensated for it. So stupid artist can't sign their lives away. I'm not saying they should get 100% but if they wrote the song then they should get at least a third. A contributed content clause so to speak.

Now if a performer just performs a song or just plays an instrument then that is on them. If the only thing they did was lend their voice or talent and somebody else wrote the piece then it's up to them to negotiate payment.

That is how I feel at least. I'm a capitalist but I know there has to be consumer and employee protections, and there is no reason why laws can protect the consumer and still have businesses be profitable.

But we will see how this plays out. Of course the only thing that is going to happen is, as other posters have mentioned, other video sites will pop up and fill the void.

It's not the duty of the end user to know the copyright status of the content on youtube. It's the uploaders responsibility. There are simply too much stuff there. This is rather ridicilous.

No one outside of the Britney Spears of the world actually make any money from record sales. Indie artists make very little money off of record sales. The money they make comes from merchandise and from playing in clubs. If an artist is covered in the MSM and on the radio they are doing just fine...

Most indie bands release their own music and tour. They sell records on the road or off their websites, itunes, cdbaby etc. They make more money from doing this then signing with a label.

If they develop a following from touring for a few years or so then they will usually get approached by an independent label. At this point they have a decent following and are able to somewhat dictate the terms of the contract. Most bands aren't signing with a label to make money from record sales, they are signing for the connections the label has. The label can book them shows, get them press, and help license their songs for commercial works.

The days of million dollar signing bonuses do not exist anymore, and the vast majority of real bands are completely fine with that. It was normally a scam anyway with the band being in debt to the label for their whole career.

Legislation like this has NO effect on real working musicians. It only is a desperate act to try and protect the phony corporate created bands and artists.

Playing music is a job like any other, if you do not actually work and PLAY you will not make a living it is as simple as that.

Thankfully the excesses of the last 30 years are finally coming to an end. If you are willing to search it out on the internet you will find more good music now then anytime in the 20th century.

The major labels, radio and MTV are dead. I could not be happier about that,

This will never happen, but

If the labels and what not are so concerned with digital copies of music the answer is simple.

STOP RELEASING MUSIC DIGITALLY!!!!!!

Every band I listen to still release albums on vinyl. Most don't even release CDs anymore. Just straight digital downloads on top of the vinyl.

You would have to rip the vinyl and convert it to a digital format. Which the majority of people have no idea how to do it, would spend the time or purchase the gear. With a analog to digital conversion there would be many variables. Preamps, levels, fades etc... I personally would not settle for the individual choices of the person doing the conversion.

This is another shinning example of how Lawyers are ruining every fascit of life for everyone...everywhere. This probably was not even an issue until some law firm got the idea of how to go after people simply so they can make more money for themselves.

reply to post by drock905


You have got to be joking; even the big names make no real money from
music.

Most of the time there money is either from producing the song,
writing/composing the song, endorsements and touring


Most well known artist make about 2.50 per cd and even less for downloads.
There are only artist that I can think of that actually made or make real money off of there music
Michael Jackson, Madonna, Celine Deon, Paul McCartney, Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey, Tim McGraw and a few other country stars who I can't think of at the moment. Michael Jackson made about half of the wholesale price of his music.

Justin Timberlake/Nsync, Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Nelly, Diddy, Bow Wow, etc didnt really make that much off of music.

The price of the cd's you see in a store are usually sold to the store at about 7.25 wholesale and then the store adds markup from that 7.25 comes

label profits, manufacturing cost, promotion, production, distribution to the stores, royalties to songwriters and then after all that money to the artist.

They even charge manufacturing and distribution fees on downloads which have no manufacturing cost

Some artist have had clauses in there contracts where sometimes state they may get all profits from cd sales, download sales (such as itunes/amazon etc) or sales from there website (which most of the time is ran by the label)

Sometimes artist get lucky and get nice contracts but the other 98% of the time the contracts are shady as hell.

Some contracts state that the label owns the name of your band or your identity if you don't use your real name and that if you leave you must change your name.

Some contracts are called 360 deals in which the label gets profits from all ventures endorsements/clothing/music/movies/producing etc.

Most of the advances label give out is money that is paid back from cd sales and the artist gets nothing until the label gets paid. sometimes the labels will give out advances where you don't have to pay back but those are very seldom.

Most of the time an advance from a label is from $50,000 to about $ 800,000 ; the only time they give out big advances are when you have 360 contracts or they think you can sell a lot.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by jatsc]

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by Lazyninja

 

Not all embeded videos are illegal. If you have permission or it is public license or just some yahoo then it is not illegal.

Do you really expect royalties or care if someone embeds a video of your kid having exploding diareaha that you posted on youtube?

Nice troll post. Replying to pedantry is always fun.

Since a large chunk of youtube IS copyrighted material, Youtube throwing around imbed code is tantamount to entrapment.

Liability here should not be 100% with the user. There should be corporate accountability.


And a site for Zorgon here: www.jamendo.com...

This is a nice place where people create and upload their own music, simply for the joy of sharing it.



[edit on 10-7-2009 by Lazyninja]

I'm glad no one ever thought of this crap back during the 60's. I used to tape (Yes that old recorder type that almost no one uses anymore) all the local radio shows and music to send to my buddies that where over seas in places that only had Military radio to listen too. (Seen 'Goood morning Vietnam' ?) I sent thousands of feet of tape over there so they could hear from their hometown and boost their moral and I wonder what they would have charged me for that. This whole thing is the greedy thinking that they can control everything from beginning to end in the music and video industry! There will be more of either piracy or outright boycott of both if they keep this up!

Zindo

Legal embeds must be the ones with commercials first.
I browse out on those, twice today.
Wonder how that will work out.

Free shows only help the popularity of the actor or show on tour
and should give nothing to others falsely claiming rights.
What will happen is artists will not work if monetary claims will
be placed on their performances.