Adion
Except when Ed Sheeran's label made a deal with Youtube to be compensated when someone else uploads an Ed Sheeran track.
Why does it matter so much for you that Youtube made the deal or that you made the deal?
Why does it matter so much for you that Youtube made the deal or that you made the deal?
Posté Sun 19 May 19 @ 9:46 am
groovindj
Adion wrote :
Except when Ed Sheeran's label made a deal
No - not "except when...". The fact that YouTube are having to pay license fees does not make it OK for people to upload copyrighted material!
I'm sure I've been over this here already. Yes YT are paying fees for licensing - but that's because millions of people are ignoring the copyright laws and uploading stuff to YT that doesn't belong to them. They're not paying fees because they want to. They're not saying "Hey everybody, just upload what you want, and we'll pay. We don't mind".
The copyright notice on (e.g.) a CD hasn't changed. It still says what it always has. It doesn't say "You can do what you want with this because someone else has paid a fee".
It doesn't matter to me who pays. It matters that people are being misled into thinking it's OK to break copyright.
I'm just trying to post accurate information, not misinformation. That's what I always try to do. If someone posts incorrect/misleading info then I'll do my best to counter that. It's not a personal argument with anyone. It's done so that anyone reading it is not misled.
Posté Sun 19 May 19 @ 10:05 am
Adion
You might argue about why they had to make the deal, but the fact is that *now* they have deals.
Also they don't *have* to make deals, and as you can already see, they didn't manage to make deals with everyone, they can either make a deal and pay, or don't make a deal and remove the video.
The copyright notice on a cd is always only relevant when no other deals are in place, otherwise you would not be allowed to use them as a public dj either, but you can because despite what rights buying the cd gave you, you have an additional deal with an organization representing the rights of the artists in case of public performance.
Also they don't *have* to make deals, and as you can already see, they didn't manage to make deals with everyone, they can either make a deal and pay, or don't make a deal and remove the video.
The copyright notice on a cd is always only relevant when no other deals are in place, otherwise you would not be allowed to use them as a public dj either, but you can because despite what rights buying the cd gave you, you have an additional deal with an organization representing the rights of the artists in case of public performance.
Posté Sun 19 May 19 @ 10:12 am
groovindj
This is just going round in circles now. I've posted the information. If people can't understand it, or refuse to accept the reality then I can't do anything more.
Posté Sun 19 May 19 @ 10:42 am
zzzonedotnet
And what about Mixcloud?
The ONLY content on their site is dj mixes.
Without that content, they would not exist.
Is it illegal to upload there?
The ONLY content on their site is dj mixes.
Without that content, they would not exist.
Is it illegal to upload there?
Posté Sun 19 May 19 @ 11:25 am
groovindj
You really need to ask - or is that rhetorical?
Here -> https://www.mixcloud.com/terms/
Here -> https://www.mixcloud.com/terms/
Posté Sun 19 May 19 @ 11:42 am
zzzonedotnet
Per Wikipedia:
Mixcloud restricts its users from downloading audio content from its website for licensing reasons. Co-founder Nikhil Shah commented on this restriction: “Not offering downloads has been a challenge for us in terms of persuading the content creators to use a platform like ours.”[10]
He also compared Mixcloud to the model of its competitor Spotify: "So it's very similar to the Spotify model. Spotify's competitor is illegal downloading and they are trying to cannibalise illegal downloading by offering a streaming-only and superior alternative."[10]
According to the Mixcloud's main website, the platform is licensed only to provide its audio content through streaming, such that royalties are attributed to their respective artists.
Mixcloud also requires its users to attribute their audio uploads with correct Artist and Song metadata in order to preserve intellectual property rights.[11]
Mixcloud restricts its users from downloading audio content from its website for licensing reasons. Co-founder Nikhil Shah commented on this restriction: “Not offering downloads has been a challenge for us in terms of persuading the content creators to use a platform like ours.”[10]
He also compared Mixcloud to the model of its competitor Spotify: "So it's very similar to the Spotify model. Spotify's competitor is illegal downloading and they are trying to cannibalise illegal downloading by offering a streaming-only and superior alternative."[10]
According to the Mixcloud's main website, the platform is licensed only to provide its audio content through streaming, such that royalties are attributed to their respective artists.
Mixcloud also requires its users to attribute their audio uploads with correct Artist and Song metadata in order to preserve intellectual property rights.[11]
Posté Sun 19 May 19 @ 12:38 pm
groovindj
So you didn't bother reading the terms? You'd rather rely on wikipedia?
Posté Sun 19 May 19 @ 1:00 pm
zzzonedotnet
From Digital DJ Tips:
"Mixcloud has always been a smart choice for DJs who want to stream their DJ sets to the world. It is 100% legal, to start with, meaning DJs needn’t worry about their work being taken down. It is also one of the more reliable names in the industry, meaning the chances of it just disappearing one day are relatively low."
Yes, it's a lot easier to find summaries of the extremely long, T&C written by the legal department. Seriously NO ONE reads the Terms and Conditions for anything.
From https://www.ft.com/content/3aba4512-71ab-11e5-9b9e-690fdae72044
"Founded in 2008 by two friends from Cambridge university, Mixcloud is one of the few music sites to have obtained the necessary licences from copyright holders to allow anyone to upload legally a DJ mix, podcast or radio show containing songs."
The "case" is pretty closed on Mixcloud: it's perfectly legal to upload content to Mixcloud.
If one chooses to base their argument on everything uploaded being illegal, and then one example of that is definitely NOT illegal, it would seem the whole argument would begin to crumble.
"Mixcloud has always been a smart choice for DJs who want to stream their DJ sets to the world. It is 100% legal, to start with, meaning DJs needn’t worry about their work being taken down. It is also one of the more reliable names in the industry, meaning the chances of it just disappearing one day are relatively low."
Yes, it's a lot easier to find summaries of the extremely long, T&C written by the legal department. Seriously NO ONE reads the Terms and Conditions for anything.
From https://www.ft.com/content/3aba4512-71ab-11e5-9b9e-690fdae72044
"Founded in 2008 by two friends from Cambridge university, Mixcloud is one of the few music sites to have obtained the necessary licences from copyright holders to allow anyone to upload legally a DJ mix, podcast or radio show containing songs."
The "case" is pretty closed on Mixcloud: it's perfectly legal to upload content to Mixcloud.
If one chooses to base their argument on everything uploaded being illegal, and then one example of that is definitely NOT illegal, it would seem the whole argument would begin to crumble.
Posté Sun 19 May 19 @ 1:48 pm
groovindj
groovindj wrote :
This is just going round in circles now. I've posted the information. If people can't understand it, or refuse to accept the reality then I can't do anything more.
Posté Sun 19 May 19 @ 2:03 pm
zzzonedotnet
Well, everyone else, feels that YouTube and Mixcloud accept user generated content from artists, and monetizes it for themselves and the artists.
If someone has a different opinion, that's fine, but it doesn't change anything. No one is going to stop posting and in fact, as time goes forward, there will be more and more streaming of this type of content. SoundCloud just put their toes in the water. Beatport LINK is staring to rev it's engines. Spotity has licensed itself to Algoriddim.
The writing (not Terms & Conditions) is on the wall.
If someone has a different opinion, that's fine, but it doesn't change anything. No one is going to stop posting and in fact, as time goes forward, there will be more and more streaming of this type of content. SoundCloud just put their toes in the water. Beatport LINK is staring to rev it's engines. Spotity has licensed itself to Algoriddim.
The writing (not Terms & Conditions) is on the wall.
Posté Sun 19 May 19 @ 3:46 pm