Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner youtube and legalities

Joey asked this in another forum, but I feel that it deserves its own thread:


There are many (few? too few? too many? no idea) cases where people do get a seize and desist email/letter. Our own piano*dad* had a case with his son. Now the problem is that his son was performing his own performance of a well known classical work, without copyrights (old work). So the case wasn't there in the first place. And thus EMI was wrong!

such cases create issues for EMI and very bad press.

On the other hand, if you think hard about it, anything that I compose is mine by definition, by copyright, by publishing, by law, by whatever. But if you buy a score I can't really stop you from posting your recording on youtube, can I? Legally I can, but how would that look? I'd look like a complete fool!

And then we come to the other hardcore cases, with people who, as you say, upload commercial recordings again and again and grab zillions of views and money as well! These people could be sued, but which company has the funds to sue all of them? Nobody has the power to do that!

Bottom line: Since January I've gotten $0.00620000 from Spotify. Legally! It's a screwed up system that's giving nothing to the composers and the artist. There are many reasons for that (youtube and the free availability of everything is one. The easiness of piracy is another. The fact that a recording is not really music, but a canned music digital file is another (big one), etc).. But I did get half a cent from Spotify. Legally! I repeat that.

So why should I stop anyone from uploading my music in youtube? Because I won't control it, because I won't be able to send more people in my website, because I have the right to do it. But eventually how much do we control inside the Internet? Very little is the honest reply. Can we do something about it? If we spend all of our time chasing ghosts, then perhaps we can. But I've got other things to do: To publish more works, to compose more works, to perform more and to talk more about all these troubling things.

Thanks for the opportunity to talk about this!

I'm probably old fashioned. I still buy CDs. Most of those I've purchased lately, are of artists I've discovered via YouTube. So on the one hand there can be some benefit to those who deserve it. On the other hand I can't imagine myself ripping a CD and posting it to YouTube, I don't understand those who do.

In the case of amateur performance of copyrighted works, I don't see how these harm the copyright holders. I think this may benefit the copyright holders, in that it may spur some people to obtain legit copies of the real thing.

My pleasure, but I still wonder why people like Lang Lang and Kissin and Wang, admittedly high-paid artists, don't complain to their labels because of the lost revenue and threaten to boycott making CD's unless the labels threaten YouTube with thousands of lawsuits unless they remove these commercial videos. One video, Beethoven's 9th has roughly 10 million hits. That has to translate into a loss of at least a million discs. And this is just one among millions of videos, some with hundreds of thousands of hits. That's a lot of bread.

I definitely know your video would have hits in the thousands now, but it is being obscured by hundreds of videos of Rach's 2nd Concerto played by every pro pianist on the planet.

LOL. Do you work for the RIAA?

Studies have proven that postings on YouTube (and even "pirated" downloads) actually increase legit sales. Many of those "million hits" viewers are being introduced to Beethoven and other classical works via YouTube. Many viewers wouldn't have exposure without, which translates into NO discs sold.

Absolutely no one buys what they don't know about.

Then there are others like myself who listen to works on YouTube we already own because YouTube queues up related items of interest. Fifty of those hits on that Beethoven video are probably mine, but I'm not buying fifty more copies of that CD - but I may buy something else I see that I like and don't have!

Point of information, Nikolas (welcome to "English as a Second Language" class, here... ): that would be "cease and desist," which is typical legal mumbo jumbo straight from the CYA Department of Redundancy Department, that, translated into real English, means, "Stop! And, not only that, stop doing it!"

Sheesh... I'm SO bad. And I actually googled to get the word "desist" right and paid NO attention to the first word, thinking that it's already ok.

Gargh... (But I do know what it means and all that)

Joey: There's no way that 10,000,000 views equal 1,000,000 buys! Not by a long shot! Try 1,000 or something at best. I don't have access to stats to give you an exact number, but I know some facts from other people, etc...

Nikolas,

I do not have to think hard about it at all! In fact, I have been writing critically about this exact problem almost since I became a member on the Forums. The whole business is an out-of-control mess, with the artist(s) (composers, arrangers, conductors, soloists, vocalists, instrumentalists, recording engineers, sound technicians, and publishers) relinquishing any control, and any “rights” to their property. I am glad that YOU are finally adding your voice to that chorus!

And then, in spite of Joey bringing a huge problem to light, there’s this:

What does “hits in the thousands” have to do with anything? This “brave new world” is totally focused on clicks of a mouse, instead of upon MUSIC and MUSICIANS.

Nikolas ( for example) is a composer, who writes music worthy of performance. His works in the educational field are worthy of study, and investigation, for what they can teach. Because he is good, he deserves to be compensated for his talent and efforts. This is where the emphasis needs to be – on the music. Any technology that does not directly contribute to this composition, performance, learning, and getting paid, gets in the way.

In the ages prior to YouTube, we had a fairly well-established music industry. It grew up serving music and musicians. Just like with any other industry, the profit motive was alive and well. But there was also a striving for excellence, both musical and technical, and the rewards were there when excellence was achieved.

And now? It’s a brave new world, gang, where everything is free to everyone. And it IS better - I know because studies and research have shown it to be better. I just cannot see how.

Tararex made good points. I do my research on YouTube. I listen to music being performed by different artists on YouTube. The decision to purchase is based on my needs, likes and dislikes.
I do hear people getting financial reward from posting on YouTube. If someone can figure out a way to satisfy the mass majority, I would think financial reward follows. Coming up with ideas to get rewarded would be the tricky part.

As far as legal issues such as copy rights and such, I do not believe in illegal copying nor do I support that. It is best to just leave it up to the lawyers.

I don't think it's really so much youtube, it's just that classical music at the end of day resonate less and less with the modern life. Personally, I don't listen to operas, in fact other than for sake of being "well-rounded", the opportunity cost for me listening to an opera is just too high. I don't think anybody can reasonably expect a growth industry from something centuries old. Perhaps classical music will make a revival with changing of times, but today, it's something that needs lots of subsidies and moneys from foundations and charities.

Prior to roughly the mid-1800s, I understand that piracy of music scores by the most famous composers and most famous pieces was rampant. In fact, it was only in the 19th century that Hummel threw his considerable weight behind getting that piracy stopped and getting the laws changed. So maybe this world isn't so new after all.

And, BTW, speaking of stealing, I think this story is amusing and interesting. Mozart lifted a theme from a Clementi piece and made it famous in an opera overture, without giving any credit to Clementi. Clementi, in the next edition of that piece, added a footnote explaining that he was the one who had invented the theme, not Mozart, and that fact could be verified by the first publication date of his piece. In a funny way, that seems like a precursor of various kerfuffles in our own time over over various types of stolen pop materials.

Unless you know the details of the recording contracts of the likes of Wang, Kissin, and Lang and the actual bean-counter numbers involved (and you don't), it's meaningless to speculate about how they see unauthorized videos (not to mention how their own management sees it - which may be as relatively inexpensive PR).

Regardless of what the situation is for the inhabitants of the stratosphere of fame and glory, it's my understanding that by and large, musicians these days see CDs as PR product rather than as an income source.

Well, the plutocrats who own the world would disagree with you. Who knows, some amateur performance of something might go viral and be a big hit for about 15 minutes, and if they don't get their rightful cut, they can get very vindictive. Playing music is all about money and nothing else, right?

I was thinking of playing something for one of the Unsung Heroes e-citals here that I knew was still under copyright. So I went to some trouble trying to research exactly how to give everybody whatever might be due. And you know what? They made it more or less impossible for an ordinary amateur who wanted to do the right thing to even find out what needed to be done. So much for the stated purpose of the copyright laws - these days it's all just about greed on a large scale, and to Hades with honest amateurs.

I generally agree that classical music is not appreciated or embraced by most people. But what is there about our “modern life” that creates or perpetuates that situation? The answer(s) could fill several books! And while YouTube does not actually CAUSE the neglect of serious music, the preponderance of musical garbage that is available at the click of a mouse certainly does not HELP our cause.

Also, phrases like:

. . . are corporate speak, and have little to do with society’s appreciation of good music.

The demand side of the supply/demand equation is not there - I absolutely agree. The real question is, How have we allowed this to happen?

Ed

This is precisely why the music rights groups (EMI etc) DO threaten YouTube, and why YouTube uses a matching program to identify and block offending videos.

Unfortunately, the matching program is CRAP for classical music.

Nikolas mentioned my son. He is constantly harassed by YouTube. One little Mozart video has been attacked at least five times. On one occasion I had to go nuclear and find a lawyer inside of EMI to whom I could complain (thank you, readers of Norman Lebrecht). Alas, the harassment continues, and I can no longer monetize that video for my son. YouTube is asking me to prove I have permission from the rights holders, despite the fact that I have beaten off ALL of them repeatedly. I AM the rights holder!!!

The lawyer for EMI actually confessed that they should just allow all classical music stuff through. He said that it isn't worth their while to protect that stuff given all the false accusations they wind up making. They realize the PR black eye they take. Their real motive is to remove videos that use hot pop stuff as audio background, but the filters sweep up every kid playing Mozart and Beethoven right along with the people who have dubbed the Beatles or Pink Floyd over their commercial videos.

Hem...

In the world of classical music, most publishing houses are actually 'dinosaurs' in the words of other composers and musicians (not mine, though I agree!). The move slow, do not care to change or alter anything at all. Not even their crappy old editions of well know composers (Beethoven, Bach, etc). This is why Henle is the BEST! Their scholarship in every edition, their efforts to print inthe best material, etc...

Youtube is a way to advertise, not much else really... Anyone hoping to make money from it is delusional! Very few people make money. People like PSY (Gangam style), Lady Gaga, etc. Even the 10,000,000 hits of a Beethoven record makes minimal money.

And there IS another side in youtube and the Internet that we need to remember (and keep in mind that this is coming from a composer and a publisher): There's so many things unavailable commercially, that we're VERY lucky to have access to them from youtube, or P2P sites! And I'm not talking about copyrighted stuff, but free stuff that are simply not there anymore.

Example: I've been looking into getting a great score, from a composer I don't know. I found the score in an e-shop in the netherlands I think and I have 3 emails trying to get them to send it to me. Pretty much impossible and I still don't have the score. I was SO annoyed that I think I'll contact the composers to republish with me!

One should also keep in mind that a recording involves a passive action: Listening. A music score involves an active... action: Performing. This is why music scores still hold value, while recordings have diminished to pretty much nothing!

Yes, especially if by "money" you mean "I can quit my day job." But I wonder if people like Lisitsa add a few thousand per year from advertising. Heck, my son is getting his first $100 check from AdSense shortly.

You Tube is just another medium of advertising, it can turn virtual "nobody's" into
somebody's...a friend mentioned several new artists to me, and my response was
...WHO???? so I checked them out on you tube, I would've never spent money for a CD
on a newbie artist..you tube is free advertising for new people and not so new
pitching their product..

YAY! Is he allowed on beer, or not yet? If so get him one!

Really though, if youtube is here to stay and nobody can stay out (I certainly can't, neither can piano*son, neither can Lisitsa, or Valentina, or anybody else), are we in the time when ALL recordings and video belong to the free world of the internet then?