MR

It sure was nice when you could go to YouTube.com, type in a band and/or song name, and post a link to the original version of a song on your favorite forum for discussion. Now you have to find a live version, a karaoke version, or a cover version to link to instead. That completely sucks! It's like giving people electric can openers and then taking them back away from them.

I was going to post a link on a different thread to one of my earliest favorite rocks songs, Bad Company's "Feel Like Making Love," but unfortunately it has been pulled from YouTube. I didn't want to bore you with the cover version. I guess the live version would suffice, but it doesn't have that 1970's studio sound and feel to it like the original did. Major suckage.

Even when YouTube had the original versions of songs, I never once said, "Oh goodie... now I don't need to buy the song." If anything it made me want to get on Itunes and click the one-touch order button and download it.

Sometimes I think the record companies are wasting too much energy trying to scrape for every loose penny when they need to be focused on putting out some good new product that is actually worth paying for. When the cash registers are ringing, who gives a damn if it's on YouTube or not?

+ 1000
I totally agree... there have been many times I have purchased songs...even CDs... due to listening to them first on youtube.

http://progressiverock.smartvideochanne ... D0F3C3B2B3

Kickass version right there. BadCo 197?

StoneCold wrote:http://progressiverock.smartvideochannel.com/media/playvideo.aspx?cid=6C79C06981724EA0BF2F95D0F3C3B2B3

Kickass version right there. BadCo 197?

Absofuckintutely...

;^)

I think the abilty to create playlists is what caused problems. We can use Arnel as an example. People were linking his videos together and watching them to the point where they were getting one million hits. But no one was going out and buying the survivor albums or Aerosmith albums or heart albums. They preferred the free playlists instead. With a dozen videos that's a potential loss of 1 million dollars in royalties for the songwriters and publishers. They decide to threaten Youtube who has no choice but shut down the guy's account who is hosting the videos. It's not like he is going reimburse to them if they get sued. If I was a songwriter I guess I would be bent too if I wasn't getting paid properly for something I created.

I actually figured out a little trick. I couldn't post a certain music video on YouTube because they now have an automatic analyzer that scans the audio wavelength of the song to see if it finds a match in the ASCAP database. If it finds one, it rejects the video due to copyright infringement. I did a test with one of the videos that was rejected by putting the audio portion of it into Pro Tools and added an intro and footer audio track to it, mixed it back down to an MP3, and then uploaded it to YouTube without it getting rejected. I'm not saying I used this method or that anyone else should, I'm just saying that it's not a foolproof system.

At first it was people like Prince who just wanted to be arrogant about it. Now the greed has taken over the music companies and they are pulling the plug on everything. I mean, c'mon - listening to the live version of a song doesn't allow me to see if I want to buy the studio version. It's like test-driving a used version of a new car that you are thinking about buying.

Gunbot wrote:I think the abilty to create playlists is what caused problems. We can use Arnel as an example. People were linking his videos together and watching them to the point where they were getting one million hits. But no one was going out and buying the survivor albums or Aerosmith albums or heart albums. They preferred the free playlists instead. With a dozen videos that's a potential loss of 1 million dollars in royalties for the songwriters and publishers. They decide to threaten Youtube who has no choice but shut down the guy's account who is hosting the videos. It's not like he is going reimburse to them if they get sued. If I was a songwriter I guess I would be bent too if I wasn't getting paid properly for something I created.

I agree. I would be bent as well, Gunbot, but let me play Devil's Advocate a little here. It seems to me that if a video is posted on YouTube & that video should not be shared, then why post a link allowing viewers to copy the video? What am I missing? The solution seems simple to me. Still, I'm flexible so I won't get defensive if someone wants to correct me. I've seen videos get pulled after links have been posted here on MR & it's happened to a number of us, myself included with my "I'm Too Sexy" link. I've seen it happen to veteran posters as well. It's even happened to you, Gunbot: Aerosmith, "Dream On" in the Haunting Melodies thread. So it just seems to me that if the video is not meant to be shared, then there shouldn't be a link allowing it to be shared & if there is a link, then the video should be fair game. After all, how hard can it be for YouTube to engage a method preventing the posting of a video link?

Hope that makes sense, what I just wrote. If not, I will clarify myself tomorrow. I'm half asleep typing this & I really gotta go to bed now. Bye.

JasonD wrote:

Gunbot wrote:I think the abilty to create playlists is what caused problems. We can use Arnel as an example. People were linking his videos together and watching them to the point where they were getting one million hits. But no one was going out and buying the survivor albums or Aerosmith albums or heart albums. They preferred the free playlists instead. With a dozen videos that's a potential loss of 1 million dollars in royalties for the songwriters and publishers. They decide to threaten Youtube who has no choice but shut down the guy's account who is hosting the videos. It's not like he is going reimburse to them if they get sued. If I was a songwriter I guess I would be bent too if I wasn't getting paid properly for something I created.

I agree. I would be bent as well, Gunbot, but let me play Devil's Advocate a little here. It seems to me that if a video is posted on YouTube & that video should not be shared, then why post a link allowing viewers to copy the video? What am I missing? The solution seems simple to me. Still, I'm flexible so I won't get defensive if someone wants to correct me. I've seen videos get pulled after links have been posted here on MR & it's happened to a number of us, myself included with my "I'm Too Sexy" link. I've seen it happen to veteran posters as well. It's even happened to you, Gunbot: Aerosmith, "Dream On" in the Haunting Melodies thread. So it just seems to me that if the video is not meant to be shared, then there shouldn't be a link allowing it to be shared & if there is a link, then the video should be fair game. After all, how hard can it be for YouTube to engage a method preventing the posting of a video link?

Hope that makes sense, what I just wrote. If not, I will clarify myself tomorrow. I'm half asleep typing this & I really gotta go to bed now. Bye.

I understand what you're saying but youtube can't watch all the uploads, they are more reactive than proactive. Videos get pulled when the publisher notices them, and also when the uploader changes his mind about sharing. Rick had a video of higher place that Sony notfied him about. They wanted to work a deal. Let them monitor the hits on his video and run a litttle advertising but with the sole descretion to pull the video when they decided enough was enough. People alter the titles, do what Voyager suggested, anything to get past the youtube filters. Even big companies are not immune. Cadbury got in trouble for playing phil Collins on one of their videos. Youtube can't catch it all so they have a tattle tale form you can fill out to help them also. If youtube blocked all the shares automatically. Myspace and those places would have to look elsewhere for videos killing Youtube's business. They want you to share, just not anything that gets them in trouble, but they cant keep watch on everything so they have to rely on the honor system and complaints.

So....you peeps would be ok if you created something to sell that is either viewed or heard, and I placed it on a website where peeps could hear or view it for free without even giving you a cent? If you're ok with that, then carry on.

texafana wrote:So....you peeps would be ok if you created something to sell that is either viewed or heard, and I placed it on a website where peeps could hear or view it for free without even giving you a cent? If you're ok with that, then carry on.

I take your point, but I also think the issue is about 'old media' thinking and 'new media' thinking. Record companies have been trying to shut down people making copies of bought music since audio tape became affordable, and still haven't managed it. What they've never bothered considering is how people actually behave with music: finding it, sharing it and buying it. If I walk into a music store, I'm not going to buy an album from a band I've never heard of, let alone listened to, based on it being on the shelf, or on special, or because of it's cover, although I might do that with a book, because books have this convenient thing called a blurb on the back, which gives me an idea of what I'm buying.

I've bought a few albums based on the reviews they got, but those are in the minority. The bulk of my rather large music collection was bought because I heard at least one track by someone and liked what I heard, then decided to invest my money in a copy of an album (not necessarily one with the track I've heard). Some of those songs were heard on the radio, but most of it was because friends made me a copy of something they had discovered and thought I would like. Some of them I liked but not enough to spend money on, but those are also the tapes/copied CDs I don't listen to. The ones I do like, I've gone out and spent money on, and wouldn't have otherwise. I've also bought other albums that I haven't heard before, because I've got a copied album from the same band/artist that I like.

The change has come now because of downloads and digital files, and it's changing how people relate to and buy music. I'll still buy a physical album rather than download it, because I value the complete package of art work, liner notes, etc, but I recognise that's partly because of my age and my past history with music (I miss full sized LP album art!!) Younger people's experience of music tends to be digital, download and track based, so that's not an appeal, and that's where the music companies are suffering the most. What they're missing with YouTube is exactly what they were missing in the 70s and 80s when they were up in arms about recordable audio tape, and then later with burnable CDs - it's a great way to share music. When I want to share with a friend music that I like, the easiest thing for me to do these days is send them a YouTube link. Just look at how many threads are here on MR that are base on exactly that thing. And I've easily bought 50 CDs in the last year that I would never have bought if I hadn't clicked on a link, listened to a clip on YouTube, thought 'that's pretty good' and then bought the album when I've found it later in a shop.

But that mentality doesn't fit into how recording companies think, because it isn't based on new releases, it isn't based on controlled radio airplay, it isn't based on latest trends or advertising, or any of those things that they currently use to try to sell music. It's based on people talking to other people and following what they like, not what they are told to like, or told is trendy/popular/etc. The problem is, digitisation and downloads has ensured that this is the future of music, not the 'traditional' ways the record companies are clinging onto. Herbie said in one interview that his experience of record companies was that they didn't have a clue about how to market music. It was true in the 70s and 80s when he was getting Journey heard by getting their music played in stores and shopping malls, and it's true now with file sharing, internet social networking and YouTube.

If the issue with YouTube was people making playlists, as has been suggested, then surely the answer would be to ask YouTube to get rid of playlists, instead of the same old short sighted, money grubbing thinking that has been shown.

This rambling, slightly incoherant message brought to you by the Long Winded Thought Company