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

This is so funny. This is negative reinforcement conditioning. The masses are being taught that if you are listening to music on a computer, you are stealing it.

Even though radio promotes the music and already pays ASCAP/BMI now they want radio to pay more money to the labels. They want our legislators to think that radio is now stealing music by playing it and are required to pay for it.

Pretty soon, the model that music industries will want to impose is one where if you want to listen to music, you will have to pay a monthly fee for each song you listen to. In other words, pay per play. That Beatles White album you enjoy listening to, will cost you for every time you hit play.

This is pure and simple greed. How many times will you have to pay for music before you see what a scam it all is? Ask the Beastie Boys how much they made for License To Ill. It sold over 5 million copies and the label gave the band $10,000 to be split 3 ways. If each copy sold for $10 (each sold for a lot more) That means the label earned $50 million on record sales only.

$49,990,000 for the label. $10,000 for the artists. Whom is really stealing from whom?

The whole industry is corrupt.

[edit on 10-7-2009 by xman_in_blackx]

having worked deeply on the label and management side of the business I can honestly say that the record industry IS shady as hell. Scummy, slimey, sophomoric, and very greedy. The artists don't make all that money, after their deals are over they go back to being broke.

The producers make the lions share, not the artists. I've seen a famous "producer" walk into a studio where tracking and recording by other producers under him has been going on for days. listen to the track once. put in some tiny, useless part of background crap, walk out 5 minutes later, and then gets no joke 1/3 of the writing credits. didn't write the song, didn't produce the song, didn't even listen to the song, didn't engineer the song, didn't master it, didn't really have anything other than a signature to do with the deal it's self and he makes a million dollars from the farce. Seen it with my own two eyes. the actual producers get assed out of the money, and this dude gets all the credit. corrupt.

reply to post by BASSPLYR

---

Sounds like you met Timbaland.

I agree with what you said but you also have to look at it like this the people put there selves in this situation if was a choice to sign the record contract in the beginning.

I have been in offices when artist have signed contracts and seen people come out to the artist with contracts that basically say

" we will give you an advance of 50,000 and you can do whatever you must have album done by XXX date and a single by XXX date that is radio friendly or you can have 400,000 and you lose some (alot) creative control"

Guess which one was picked the most by new artist first time signing a deal.

Greed is on both sides on the artist "Yeah I got deal, in your face i'm a cocky bastard" Label "sucker, mo money"

Both are guilty neither party is innocent when dealing with the music industry unless your family of the CEO, or Owner; otherwise the artist wouldn't be there if it was unfavorable to the label and therefore the artist had to cave on something.

Trust me If I was born I would have. Im about me first when it comes to business thats why I never do business with family and friends and they agree.

I'm like this If I can take advantage of the situation I may do it or a may tell you what I could have done depending on how you treated me while we interacted.

The reason for business is to make a profit and if your gullible or have no knowledge in this field and make not attempt to find anything out about that field I will take advantage of you.

However if the person has taken an attempt to learn about the field I will help you. I only help those we help there-self.

Congress needs to put the brakes on the RIAA/MPAA. They are acting out as a law enforcement agency and in the process commit multiple electronic felonies and suffer no consequences. Their methods of obtaining evidence are questionable and often wind up being accepted by courts as usable material. Something has to be done.

I read into some of this but i have to work soon so just gonna say my opinion on what i've read so far..

Unless i am getting the video and music for free where it can be put on my computer and/or transfered to a disc /mp3 /ipod player then i shouldnt have to pay royalties for viewing it, no one should unless they can 'own' it without paying for it.

If i had a forum and embedded a video from youtube on it, i didnt download it or steal it or anything...youtube allows this to happen....technically people, including the music companies, are giving them the content by uploading it onto their site...and we are simply linking to them for people to view it easily....we dont own it and didnt steal it.

this is just plain stupidity ..just rich people trying to get richer....

---

---

reply to post by tasim

---

I agree. If I can't transport the file and use it in multiple devices, I shouldn't have to pay for it.

To the person whose post got removed, I'd give you a reply if I had any clue what you posted. I'm generally open to U2U's if it was off topic and you'd still like to discuss it.


TA

[edit on 11-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

You pay for cable, satellite, or netflix and many other things on a daily basis which you do not own.

The labels are not giving them the content; check youtube about 1/2 of the music videos on there are not uploaded by the accounts of the record labels so they are not giving the content in those cases.

reply to post by jatsc

---

True enough that a good bit of the content isn't uploaded by the copyright holder. However with the cable/satellite/etc. thing, you can use a DVR to record what you want. Thanks for the replies, insight, stars and flags everyone.


TA

Another thought:

YouTube is a profit-making entity. They provide a place to upload and view videos in exchange for your viewing of the ads on the site. Shouldn't the holders of the copyrights go to them (YouTube) for a redress of grievances, rather than going after the end-user of their services? This just seems to be a 'bass-aackwards' way to go about things.