i had my daughters wedding sound muted by them just sad and not sure were the infringement was unless it was songs played during the wedding itself...tooo sad i dont think the artist think it was bad to use it do you/
@bwd1963 It actually was likely because of songs at the event which ended up in the background of your video. Crazy, isn't it? There was a case on here that made the news where a person's video of their toddler was deleted because in the video a song was playing on a stereo in the room next to where the video was shot. YouTube's database recognized the audio as a song whose owning record label didn't want it posted on here, and therefore deleted the whole vid.
@94weisse You are correct in both your take on why "In Rainbows" worked for Radiohead and your opinion on why such a business model wouldn't work for a less-established musical act.
I don't think the problem in the music industry is the bands/artists, nor is it the fans. I think the problem is the labels, and the refusal by many of them to adapt and change.
@94weisse "In Rainbows" was a rousing success for Radiohead. Then again, they were well established enough at the time that they could afford to attempt it. But it endeared them even further to fans. Many bands say, "You'll give us $15 for this CD" and many music fans say, "No, I'll download it somewhere for free." Radiohead said we could have "In Rainbows" for free and it got the reaction of people saying, "No, I'll pay you for it. You've earned it."
They're bastards. Thumbs up on this comment if you agree to never pay for another album unless it comes from a legitimate label that doesn't sue its artists' fans
Its funny how the very industry that promises that all they want is to provide the public with music------holds their artists music hostage for a 15 dollar a CD ransom.
somethings not right with that...
By the way, i Hear LOTS of new artists on youtube, then i buy their music---otherwise i would never know they existed
I have had something like this happen to me before, and I have seen it happen before. What really bothers me is that, when someone posts something on youtube, they aren't making money from it, and they are not responsible if someone is going to waste their time recording bad audio quality music just so they don't have to pay for it. Warner music even does this to live performances of some artists, if someone who doesn't apparently own the rights to it, the video gets dubbed with some other audio
I agree. It's not like we're making money off of the song. They would be the only ones profitting because there are numerous times where I have gone to iTunes after hearing a song originally on YouTube.
1700 CDs at an average cost of $12 each. That works out to at least $20,400 that you have invested in your music library. This doesn't count vinyl and tapes that you probably bought back in the day too. The record industry wants it to be 1996, but its not and the harder the fight, the more they lose.
In my opinion, we all need to organize and get together a massive petition, or even a global protest on this issue. I can't see anyone winning a class-action lawsuit against WMG or Google (not enough evidence to convict, plus THEY have the "rights"), and boycotting WMG would hurt the artists as much as the label, if not more so.
But good on you, silverladder, for speaking your mind! At least there's still such a thing as free speech...I think.
Spot on man. You need to expand on this topic and post another video. You have the verbal skills and the wit to get the facts out there. Far too often the industry underestimates the power of free advertising.
And I've picked up about 30 more CDs since making this video. I typically buy them at used music stores or thrift stores anymore. It's rare for me to buy them at retail.
I'm nearing the point where I'm thinking about getting a 1+ terabyte hard drive and archiving a ton of my music collection on it.
!!!! A 200-disc carousel player?? I didn't even know they made those! Wow. How much did that cost you, out of curiosity? (Not that I can imagine ever being able to afford such a thing!)
I don't remember how much it cost. It was a gift I received in 1998, and, being prior to the age of iPods, it was a pretty big deal at the time. They shouldn't be hard to find used now for dirt cheap. CDs are dead. With the MP3 era firmly established, people are actively getting rid of their CDs and CD players due to the amount of room they take up. Then again, I'm still acquiring CDs. But I'm a total music fanatic though.
LOL, I guess I'm old-fashioned (and no I'm not old). I still shop for CDs at HMV or local outlets. There's just something about opening up a CD and reading the liner notes that listening to an mp3 just doesn't have. Losing all my mp3s would royally suck, but I'd cry if all my CDs burned in a fire.
But thanks for the info. Not that I really need a 200-disc changer, lol! Not in this age of giant hard drives! I must have sounded like such a noob, sorry! :p
I completely agree with you on the liner notes. In the day and age of MP3s, that is completely lost. That's why I like CDs and like records even more. Records do one better than CDs: the liner notes are larger and sometimes include much more in-depth art, information, even comic books or posters sometimes. Also MP3s have been the death of the album. People listen to individual songs now and lose the beauty of a cohesive work in full album form. "Dark Side Of The Moon" is a prime example.
"Dark Side of the Moon" is one my favorite albums ever! I much prefer hearing the whole album or one side of the record all at once, rather than hearing "Money" or "Time" all on their own. I completely agree that records are superior, often even in sound fidelity. All CDs will be unlistenable in less than 100 years, and mp3s are starting to be phased out of existence. Records and wax cylinders will be listenable for a long time yet, assuming we still have players and needles in the future.
I think you're exactly right about the effect of your 20 second clip on WMG's sales, but I also think you asked for it when you just stuck their licensed material on your video without asking. That's not how it's done in the "professional" production world, even when fair use applies. But now that us YouTube users are getting exposed to how ***'ed up the system is, maybe lawmakers will start to hear another side of the issue and stop letting the lobby walk all over us.
You have a valid point about the fact that WMG does indeed own the rights and can therefore do what they want.
However, by referring to the "professional production world," you make me think of video productions created for business ventures or to otherwise derive some type of income. I completely understand the need to get clearance for those, as the person making them stands to profit and is using material owned by (and more importantly, created by) someone else (a song, etc.) ...continued
...continued: But WMG's decision to go after people who are not using their artists' material for personal profit, and aren't even using entire songs (nor making them downloadable in any usable format) in their YouTube/Google/etc. videos is an extremely unwise choice and, frankly, overkill.
All they are accomplishing by doing this is alienating lifelong music fans who will no longer buy their products based on principle alone.
Strange. Over time, the quality of this video on here has degraded. It's become more choppy (just in the last day or so), as if there are far fewer frames per second all of a sudden. That's really weird. And annoying.
I'm just guessing, but I believe the "processing" you get after uploading entails re-encoding the video at multiple levels of crappiness, so that in the event of server overload it can stream you a downgraded version of the video. Next time the upgrade their hardware you'll see it jump back to where it was. Just a guess tho. It could also be your imagination.
i had my daughters wedding sound muted by them just sad and not sure were the infringement was unless it was songs played during the wedding itself...tooo sad i dont think the artist think it was bad to use it do you/
bwd1963 4 months ago
@bwd1963 It actually was likely because of songs at the event which ended up in the background of your video. Crazy, isn't it? There was a case on here that made the news where a person's video of their toddler was deleted because in the video a song was playing on a stereo in the room next to where the video was shot. YouTube's database recognized the audio as a song whose owning record label didn't want it posted on here, and therefore deleted the whole vid.
silverladderdotcom 4 months ago
@94weisse You are correct in both your take on why "In Rainbows" worked for Radiohead and your opinion on why such a business model wouldn't work for a less-established musical act.
I don't think the problem in the music industry is the bands/artists, nor is it the fans. I think the problem is the labels, and the refusal by many of them to adapt and change.
silverladderdotcom 9 months ago
@94weisse "In Rainbows" was a rousing success for Radiohead. Then again, they were well established enough at the time that they could afford to attempt it. But it endeared them even further to fans. Many bands say, "You'll give us $15 for this CD" and many music fans say, "No, I'll download it somewhere for free." Radiohead said we could have "In Rainbows" for free and it got the reaction of people saying, "No, I'll pay you for it. You've earned it."
silverladderdotcom 9 months ago
Super video! So true! IDIOTS FROM WMG AND SONY!
justanotherfreak2008 1 year ago
They're bastards. Thumbs up on this comment if you agree to never pay for another album unless it comes from a legitimate label that doesn't sue its artists' fans
spartan688082 1 year ago
FUCKING FUCK WMG
AND UMG
AND SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT
Dark6Metal6inside6 1 year ago
One thing is for sure I will make sure to never buy music from a WMG artist, no matter how much I like that artist.
Nomadxx11B 1 year ago
Its funny how the very industry that promises that all they want is to provide the public with music------holds their artists music hostage for a 15 dollar a CD ransom.
somethings not right with that...
By the way, i Hear LOTS of new artists on youtube, then i buy their music---otherwise i would never know they existed
TheGreatDeciever55 1 year ago
I thought that anything under 50 seconds is protected from copyright.
BillyCauseyjr 1 year ago
@BillyCauseyjr I thought so too. Try telling that to Warner Music.
silverladderdotcom 1 year ago
I totally agree with your statement. I've had videos pulled by them too.
tdomega 1 year ago
I have had something like this happen to me before, and I have seen it happen before. What really bothers me is that, when someone posts something on youtube, they aren't making money from it, and they are not responsible if someone is going to waste their time recording bad audio quality music just so they don't have to pay for it. Warner music even does this to live performances of some artists, if someone who doesn't apparently own the rights to it, the video gets dubbed with some other audio
EthMan09 1 year ago
I agree. It's not like we're making money off of the song. They would be the only ones profitting because there are numerous times where I have gone to iTunes after hearing a song originally on YouTube.
AniSparks 2 years ago
Actually it helps them get people to buy it
redwv 2 years ago
I think it's wrong for WMG to accuse pepole of false copyright thats just wrong. They should get in trouble for that.:)
pinkflowers28 2 years ago
This is one of the reasons I don't buy music. Most of my bands aren't signed to the major labels, but either way, I won't buy music when it's free.
MurderSoul216 2 years ago
WMG YOU FUCKIN SUCK BALLS
doglover1997 2 years ago
In the words of Les Grossman, WMG needs to "take a big step back, and literally...FUCK YOUR OWN FACE!"
bgordon647 2 years ago
1700 CDs at an average cost of $12 each. That works out to at least $20,400 that you have invested in your music library. This doesn't count vinyl and tapes that you probably bought back in the day too. The record industry wants it to be 1996, but its not and the harder the fight, the more they lose.
greatbison 2 years ago
Tell them how you feel:
wmg. com
/contact
PokerChipNut 2 years ago
In my opinion, we all need to organize and get together a massive petition, or even a global protest on this issue. I can't see anyone winning a class-action lawsuit against WMG or Google (not enough evidence to convict, plus THEY have the "rights"), and boycotting WMG would hurt the artists as much as the label, if not more so.
But good on you, silverladder, for speaking your mind! At least there's still such a thing as free speech...I think.
datalal624 2 years ago
I never buy any product from Warner any more, we should all boycott them
dowed1 2 years ago
I'll prefer to warez all WMG-owned media as a protest.
blakegriplingph 2 years ago
Spot on man. You need to expand on this topic and post another video. You have the verbal skills and the wit to get the facts out there. Far too often the industry underestimates the power of free advertising.
nickonoise 2 years ago
1700 cds? fuck i only got about 500 or more.
I think you could've said 20sec sub audio crap instead of snipet.
loool 5/5
OutCtrl85 2 years ago
And I've picked up about 30 more CDs since making this video. I typically buy them at used music stores or thrift stores anymore. It's rare for me to buy them at retail.
I'm nearing the point where I'm thinking about getting a 1+ terabyte hard drive and archiving a ton of my music collection on it.
silverladderdotcom 2 years ago
Yea yard sales, swap meets and ebay
now i also buy dvds used not the new types the old ones that are like 12'' vinyls.
And i only buy them for bragging rights.
How do you listen to them if you dont have the cds on your pc?
OutCtrl85 2 years ago
I have multiple CD players, including a 200-disc carousel player.
silverladderdotcom 2 years ago
!!!! A 200-disc carousel player?? I didn't even know they made those! Wow. How much did that cost you, out of curiosity? (Not that I can imagine ever being able to afford such a thing!)
datalal624 2 years ago
I don't remember how much it cost. It was a gift I received in 1998, and, being prior to the age of iPods, it was a pretty big deal at the time. They shouldn't be hard to find used now for dirt cheap. CDs are dead. With the MP3 era firmly established, people are actively getting rid of their CDs and CD players due to the amount of room they take up. Then again, I'm still acquiring CDs. But I'm a total music fanatic though.
silverladderdotcom 2 years ago
LOL, I guess I'm old-fashioned (and no I'm not old). I still shop for CDs at HMV or local outlets. There's just something about opening up a CD and reading the liner notes that listening to an mp3 just doesn't have. Losing all my mp3s would royally suck, but I'd cry if all my CDs burned in a fire.
But thanks for the info. Not that I really need a 200-disc changer, lol! Not in this age of giant hard drives! I must have sounded like such a noob, sorry! :p
datalal624 2 years ago
I completely agree with you on the liner notes. In the day and age of MP3s, that is completely lost. That's why I like CDs and like records even more. Records do one better than CDs: the liner notes are larger and sometimes include much more in-depth art, information, even comic books or posters sometimes. Also MP3s have been the death of the album. People listen to individual songs now and lose the beauty of a cohesive work in full album form. "Dark Side Of The Moon" is a prime example.
silverladderdotcom 2 years ago
"Dark Side of the Moon" is one my favorite albums ever! I much prefer hearing the whole album or one side of the record all at once, rather than hearing "Money" or "Time" all on their own. I completely agree that records are superior, often even in sound fidelity. All CDs will be unlistenable in less than 100 years, and mp3s are starting to be phased out of existence. Records and wax cylinders will be listenable for a long time yet, assuming we still have players and needles in the future.
datalal624 2 years ago
I think you're exactly right about the effect of your 20 second clip on WMG's sales, but I also think you asked for it when you just stuck their licensed material on your video without asking. That's not how it's done in the "professional" production world, even when fair use applies. But now that us YouTube users are getting exposed to how ***'ed up the system is, maybe lawmakers will start to hear another side of the issue and stop letting the lobby walk all over us.
stickyfox 2 years ago
You have a valid point about the fact that WMG does indeed own the rights and can therefore do what they want.
However, by referring to the "professional production world," you make me think of video productions created for business ventures or to otherwise derive some type of income. I completely understand the need to get clearance for those, as the person making them stands to profit and is using material owned by (and more importantly, created by) someone else (a song, etc.) ...continued
silverladderdotcom 2 years ago
...continued: But WMG's decision to go after people who are not using their artists' material for personal profit, and aren't even using entire songs (nor making them downloadable in any usable format) in their YouTube/Google/etc. videos is an extremely unwise choice and, frankly, overkill.
All they are accomplishing by doing this is alienating lifelong music fans who will no longer buy their products based on principle alone.
silverladderdotcom 2 years ago
You make a brilliant point
fathia100 2 years ago 3
This is a wonderful video, thank you.
Legmaco 2 years ago 9
Strange. Over time, the quality of this video on here has degraded. It's become more choppy (just in the last day or so), as if there are far fewer frames per second all of a sudden. That's really weird. And annoying.
silverladderdotcom 2 years ago
I'm just guessing, but I believe the "processing" you get after uploading entails re-encoding the video at multiple levels of crappiness, so that in the event of server overload it can stream you a downgraded version of the video. Next time the upgrade their hardware you'll see it jump back to where it was. Just a guess tho. It could also be your imagination.
stickyfox 2 years ago
Thanks, stickyfox. That makes a lot of sense that, at times of YT's servers being heavily taxed by traffic, I'd be streaming a poorer quality version.
Also, the part about my imagination is indeed always quite possible. =)
silverladderdotcom 2 years ago
I agree, not just warner, but the whole music industry has gone crazy... copyright is now not doing the job it was designed to do... :(
I don't know if you have seen this, but check it out...
goodcopybadcopy(dot)net
chickitty 2 years ago 6
eff the man.
scaremongerR 2 years ago 5
"Thanks Shane Watson. Now I don't need any Jane's addiction CDs"
I shot sierra mist out of my nose at that line.
Kudos
bakavaka 2 years ago 5
Warner music has been taking this too far. Thank you for making this video silverladderdotcom
ThisWyatt 2 years ago 8