Songs by Adele, Bob Dylan, Green Day, Many More Blocked by YouTube in Legal Dispute (variety.com) 53
An anonymous reader shares a report: Songs by Adele, Bob Dylan, Green Day, R.E.M., Burna Boy, Rush and many others are currently unplayable on YouTube in the U.S. due to a legal dispute between the platform and the performing rights organization SESAC. Attempts to play many, but not all, songs by those artists on Saturday met with the following message: "This video contains content from SESAC. It is not available in your country."
A similar dispute between Universal Music Group and TikTok raged on for several months earlier this year before being resolved. In a statement to Variety, a YouTube rep said: "We have held good faith negotiations with SESAC to renew our existing deal. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we were unable to reach an equitable agreement before its expiration. We take copyright very seriously and as a result, content represented by SESAC is no longer available on YouTube in the US. We are in active conversations with SESAC and are hoping to reach a new deal as soon as possible." A source close to the situation tells Variety that the previous deal actually does not expire until next week, and suggests that YouTube's move is a negotiating tactic. SESAC is far smaller than ASCAP and BMI -- with approximately 30,000 members and 1.5 million compositions while ASCAP has nearly 800,000 members -- but as the caliber of artists affected by the block shows, it represents a comparatively large percentage of the marketplace.
A similar dispute between Universal Music Group and TikTok raged on for several months earlier this year before being resolved. In a statement to Variety, a YouTube rep said: "We have held good faith negotiations with SESAC to renew our existing deal. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we were unable to reach an equitable agreement before its expiration. We take copyright very seriously and as a result, content represented by SESAC is no longer available on YouTube in the US. We are in active conversations with SESAC and are hoping to reach a new deal as soon as possible." A source close to the situation tells Variety that the previous deal actually does not expire until next week, and suggests that YouTube's move is a negotiating tactic. SESAC is far smaller than ASCAP and BMI -- with approximately 30,000 members and 1.5 million compositions while ASCAP has nearly 800,000 members -- but as the caliber of artists affected by the block shows, it represents a comparatively large percentage of the marketplace.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: All 3 are... (Score:2)
Yeah my woke brain can bbq whole hogs and feed 1000 while still caring for others besides those in my clanâ¦
Maybe itâ(TM)s time for you to go out and see the actual world for a bit
Re: (Score:2)
And by liberal "skills" you of course mean the ability to adapt to a changing work environment, something businesses look for in their employees.
I always like when people try to brag about some job they think they can't be replaced at by someone who has no knowledge of that job. Running a forklift, driving a truck, or using a crane to lift shipping containers is something a large number of people could do. Wou
Re: (Score:2)
We'll have own on un-woke society, with un-woke gambling, and un-woke booze, and un-woke hookers. Hell, forget the gambling and booze!
Then we'll run the society led by our un-educated scientists (because schools cause wokeness and exposure to woke ideas like mathematics). Everyone will live in their one acre (no woke metric system!), which will be utopias that the owners create the rules for themselves. There are no roads because nobody dares cross into the land of the neighbors lest the get shot by un-w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dylan was woke? Listen to his lyrics some time.
"You coulda done better but I don't mind
You just kinda wasted my precious time"
Re: (Score:2)
Either way the argument is stupid. I don't really care about the beliefs of the person who made the art. I only care about the quality of the art. Saying that you wouldn't listen to a song because it was written or performed by someone who is woke isn't any different than
Re: (Score:2)
Well, but you could consider whether you are giving them money if you listen to their song. That's another reason it's better to download it, and not let a autocracy decide what you can listen to.
YouTube stopped being a Funny joke "long time ago" (Score:2)
FP was going for Funny, right?
Singing: "Where has all the competent moderation gone? Long, time passing..." [Okay, so the joke is about the song with flowers and young girls and stuff. Is that clear enough for the moderators to understand?]
I don't think it would make a difference, but at least it would be nice if the Google would start telling the truth about the money. Citation needed for research showing how businesses wrap their business models around the cash flows? At what point does something become s
Re: (Score:2)
The entire world is woke! Time to get on the ship to Mars!
'The Cloud' strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Or in this case, running metube+mediacms
Re: (Score:1)
That doesn't help YouTubers such as TheHappySpaceman, who make videos that review music albums and movies containing music.
Shrug (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, it's nice being able to watch Rush and Dylan videos on Youtube. However, Youtube doesn't have a right to SESAC's content, and SESAC doesn't have a right for their content to be on Youtube. I don't particularly care one way or the other.
It's the same with news blurbs and Google. If news sites don't want their content to be on Google, Google is happy to remove it. Typing www.latimes.com isn't more difficult than typing www.google.com/news.
Re: (Score:2)
The artists may have something to say about it. Many of them prefer their work to be freely available, because they make most of their money from touring and merchandise.
Re: Shrug (Score:1)
Bob Dylan's fans are all drum-circle hippies, they don't have any money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The hippies of the late 60's are the "boomers" of today.
Most of them weren't even poor back then and most of them have a good amount of money today.
Part of why Dylan and his contemparies can continue touring for the past 6 decades or so.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, who else is paying $900 for Rolling Stones tickets for the past 30 years?
Re: Shrug (Score:2)
well from that short list (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hint for Industry: We Don't Care (Score:4, Insightful)
I've bought music on every format which has existed except reel to reel, and you know what. I couldn't give a donkey's fart whether or not any of it was properly licensed, or if rights holders are recognized in any way. After the performing artists are compensated, the rest can piss off.
I hope every individual on both sides of that "conflict" gets ass cancer and dies in their own shit for making me aware that profiteers are having a lovers spat.
speculation on global reasons (Score:2)
These disruptions in traditional entertainment - movies, radio, music, etc. - seem to be a long march to dismantle one of the USA's most successful exports: Entertainment.
While each of the musicians / acts may receive a good amount of licensing royalties from Youtube, it's likely so small that Youtube won't miss any advertising revenue.
Second speculation: We're at the last 5 years of boomers being a big consumption of media and entertainment, they're collectively aged out of many consumption areas and their
Two shitty groups having a Pissy-Fit (Score:2)
Can we please... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Can we please... (Score:3)
Yep. 25 years after first publication seems reasonable. Until that happens, it's the pirate life for me! Arrrrr!
Re: (Score:2)
May the FSM touch you.
Unfortunately, this won't hurt either of those groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. 25 years after first publication seems reasonable. Until that happens, it's the pirate life for me! Arrrrr!
Personally I'd go with 5 years for free, each year after that has an increasing fee to secure a copyright up to a maximum of 15. Lets say year 10 costs twice as much as year 5, and doubles for each year after year 10.
Artists earn their money via live performances, so it will hardly affect them if someone can download a 20 year old song for free because going to an actual concert is a completely different thing, if anything it's free advertising for the artist as their old material can more easily get new
Re: (Score:2)
7+7 was considered fair by the pepple who created the power.
You can't just say that they would have been OK with 400 years, which the corrupt would love.
Then again they said we should violently overthrow anybody who tried such shenanigans, so there's that.
Or perhaps .... (Score:2)
I will get my popcorn and watch the battle. As I listen to all the open source music being played by the London Philharmomic Orchestra.
Re: (Score:3)
The scores are in the public domain. You can use your own orchestra and compile them into audio as you wish.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Do not rely on some bureaucracy if you don't have to. But be careful, because they will try to control the devices you use to play those CDs and MP3's. What? They already do?
And (Score:2)
Fallout effects (Score:2)
bad for video games with this music in it as well! (Score:2)
bad for video games with this music in it as well!
Re: (Score:2)
an easy fix is that any police use has no copyrigh (Score:2)
an easy fix is that any police use has no copyright and can't not be taken down by an DMCA request.
Re: Fallout effects (Score:2)
Yes, Youtube is blocking videos such as live-performed church music that the Youtube copyright bot determines are too close to some copyrighted performance of the same songs.
I volunteer as a church audio video team member, and I'm a member of various social media groups on the topic. There were complaints from our European counterparts this weekend that they've had somd of their videos blocked entirely, and can't even get to some of their videos to edit out the sections that Youtube's bot doesn't like.
Streaming (Score:2)
Why I don't trust any streaming service. Unless you own the media it can be taken away from you at any time.
Does music on youtube cost the record companies? (Score:1)
Some of Dylan's songs go back over 60 years. Are those albums really hot sellers today?
I would think that, in most cases, if any money is to made on an album, or movie, or book, about 98% of that money will be made in the first year. After that, sales go down to a trickle - if even that.
After this legal action, will the record companies really make any more money? Or will people just do without, or download from the torrents instead?
Another win for piracy (Score:2)
Good riddance, I hope you had the time of your life
How else would you listen to them? (Score:1)
There shouldn't be contracts in the first place, they should get a share of the advertising revenue and that's it. Google takes a cut and the video owner takes a cut. Who negotiates that cut? Algorithms.
If I purchase a song, and want to use it on a video or record myself playing it in the background, I should be able to, I purchased it. If anyone else wants to use it too they shoul