Hi all,
A few days ago, I noticed that the YouTube user known as KuhlauDilfEng<insert number here> posted the very recent Toccata recording of Leopold Damrosch's Symphony in A major. This caused me to re-think the prevalent ethics behind YouTube classical music uploads. On this forum, Damrosch's symphony has been described as a "magnificent failure" (or words to that effect) and I think rightly so. Yet it is an important work in its genre, and I am very glad it is for all to listen to. We don't just need the "masterpieces" recorded, we need as much music as we can get to gain some insight into the complexities of the musical landscape. Without sound, a piece of music doesn't really exist. Someone, however, has to foot the bill.
In the past, I've been involved in the recording of (IMO) unjustly ignored music, and there are a couple of productions that I contributed to in a small way, and that I am also rather proud of. The margins for such recordings are slim; it takes years to break even on investment. Moreover, the market is smalll, and it mainly consists of collectors. Typically, these buyers of unsung music are driven by curiosity – by the thrill of discovering something they don't know yet. It is here that the problem with YouTube channels such as KuhlauDilfEng's occurs. Youtube offers the same satisfaction that commercial releases offer, but at a much lower cost. Moreover and crucially, the party that invested time, money and effort in getting a work recorded, sees nothing of this investment returned. In the end, this is an unsustainable situation. The impetus to record new works will suffer from the impossibility of getting any realistic return on investment.
Seeing such recently published works being uploaded on YouTube makes me wonder whether we don't have a responsibility to react as a community, or at least discuss ways to do so. There's no point in attempting to police the internet, and I have no immediate solution, but it pains me to see it because I can't imagine that such practices don't undermine the likelihood of new initiatives.
N.b. 1: I know copyright holders may monetize Youtube videos if they have a claim, but the revenue is in no way comparable to what they would make if they sold a CD or download.
N.b. 2: Yes, it is the primary responsibility of the copyright holders to tackle this problem, but considering the amount of uploads and the way Youtube is organized, just keeping up can be quite a chore.
Strange, too, that Naxos, for example, seem to provide copies of new recordings to YouTube. Knowing that downloads are a breeze, are they just depending on folks to be honest, listen and then buy the CD or download? I find that odd.
Jerry
I haven't seen any complete Naxos works on their own YT channel though, just trailers, excerpts, interviews and so on...
Also note that YT uploads are at best equivalent to a 256kps Mp3 (IIRC), so while they can be ok to listen to (and for a large percentage of people, 'transparent'), they aren't CD quality, and most actual downloads are at least marginally better.
Not to mention if someone is willing to use a downloader to get stuff from YT they are just as just as likely to be willing to get something from a more direct source.
I think it's a scandal that commercial recordings are made available in this way. An absolute scandal. It pains me too. But I just can't think of a solution that would work - save for a mass protest. Perhaps that's where we could come in...
Alan (as is so often the case) has said what I would have said, but sooner and more succinctly. I'd only add that UC's membership of 600 or so (and of those only around 150 active members) is hardly enough to mount a "mass protest" which would influence anyone, least of all Google/YouTube, which is as much the guilty party here as are the copyright infringers. YouTube is providing the platform which allows these people to post commercial recordings. It has the ability to police it, but clearly doesn't. Where I guess we could help is by notifying a recording label if we see one of its recordings being posted. YouTube will surely take action on a copyright infringement complaint from the copyright holder, won't it?
The problem with YouTube is that its reactions are so inconsistent. There is a form on its site to report copyright infringements (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en)), but from what I've heard the speed with which it reacts to, say, RIAA complaints is very different from the reaction to complaints by smaller parties (such as independent music labels). And then there's the over-reaction that can take place in case of legitimate "fair use" cases. So there is really no telling what is going to happen, usually.
In reply to TerraEpon: I suspect that for the huge majority of people, a 256kbps MP3 will be more than enough. And the
Quote"if someone is willing to use a downloader to get stuff from YT they are just as just as likely to be willing to get something from a more direct source"
argument may be true for some – even if it is never an excuse – but don't forget just how easy it is made for people to rip music off YouTube - there are multiple apps and browser plugins designed for that purpose, and it doesn't take a lot of digging to find them.
Although I hate to tell on other people, I've alerted Toccata to the Damrosch upload, and I hope they take action. They're the only ones who can.
Of course the only YouTube rips which we'll allow here are those which appear to be already public domain.
Two comments:
- Example Onslow piano trios. For some time almost the complete cycle of the piano trios was available on youtube. The person who posted it had the same last name as one of the performers--one assumes the brother or husband. The recordings have now mostly been taken down, only a few movements were still there last time I checked. I believe it was an attempt to advertize: People don't even know these recordings exist, neither do most of them have any idea if the hear the name Onslow. If it worked I could not tell, but I don't see many better ideas.
- It is true that copy right infringements have become easier with the advent of the internet. But now the enforcement is much more diligent than it has ever been and I think it would be really nice if at least the duration is reduced in compensation. 70 years after death means that the great-grand children of creators still cash in. Is this really the idea? 20 years seems ample to cover surviving spouses. Everybody else should not have any rights. Why should descendants have so many rights? As it is (sheet) music that is way more than 100 years old is still covered. This is ridiculous.
I note that the Damrosch Symphony has now been taken down, apart from the second movt.
@Double-A: ridiculous as aspects of copyright may be (I agree totally on weirdness of the 70-year rule), and chaotic as the consequences often are, that doesn't make a total disregard for author's rights or interests the only alternative – or even a sensible one. There is already a more-or-less established practice where older recordings, although perhaps not formally in the public domain, are being treated as such by their copyright holders - who may use YouTube to monetize recordings that would otherwise generate no income at all. It serves everyone's purpose, in my view, to walk this tighrope well - i.e., to protect both new recordings' possibility of getting a commercial return, and by extension maintain our possibility to enjoy many works that have already done so. To upload works that have been released only recently not only violates copyright – it also demonstrates very poor judgment.
@Gareth: Wow. That's quick. But I'm glad Toccata has taken action. That second movement was uploaded by the orchestra themselves as a teaser.
N.b. it is of course possible that the uploader is a member here and decided to take the video down themselves. Concerning the speed of events, that is rather what I suspect.
Where is the government's (or EU) voice in all this?
Would they equally be so abjectly and pathetically absent if it were say free PDFs of popular fiction or even actual counterfeit car parts or whatever? Uploading a sample to whet our appetites is one thing but further to comments from members in a similar thread a few years ago, I now always try to ensure anything I listen to /download from YT meets the 'UC' criterion (of not being currently commercially available, I believe - apologies if I've got that wrong). If I think something is 'iffy', I either bin it or buy it. (Having said that, there is no master database against which I can check if something is iffy - could the PRS do a public service here??
I suspect this all goes back to the USA (?) with 'their' problem of Napster and the pros and cons of file sharing (and the UK's track record of seeming to always be saying yes the Uncle Sam regardless!)
If I lend you one of my CDs for free so you can listen, that is a private arrangement but if I effectively publish it so all and sundry can listen, that is a different category and similarly if I buy a 2nd-hand CD - in all cases, the copyright holder gets no income! Never mind my 'rights' if I (think I) own a download (e.g. one that I have purchased?!)
Since the law always appears to be a very convoluted 'ass' in these situations and the prospect of objectivity, corporate honesty, clarity and simplicity are beyond the reach of the known universe, I guess we'll have to rely on (i) individual record companies (e.g. Toccata, Hyperion etc.) and individual honesty (or lack of!).
I think I'll now retire the soapbox in favour of some albums I've just downloaded from e-music in the half-price sale!
Cheers
Richard
I certainly do not want to excuse people who post other people's property on the web. I do as you do when going to youtube.
It is true though that in the old times non-digital practices of similar effect were silently tolerated (they did not have the reach of file sharing and such of course). There were also flat fees for certain areas, e.g. when you bought a tape recorder a fee was charged at the sale that bought you the right to record radio broadcasts for private use. Such rules could be modified for certain needs of the digital world (I would be curious how much the administration of modern copyright law costs society).
The fact is that the lobbying in this area comes almost exclusively from the holders of large copyrights (like "Gone with the Wind") who want to milk them for more and more money. Consumers and small creators have no voice in the legislating.
I do think it is probably good practice to notify the holder of copy rights if one sees them violated. The example here shows that that can work.
Does the 70 year rule apply to recordings in the EU? I know that the rules in the US for print publications and scores on the one hand (very complicated, but basically think 1922/23 1st pub date) are quite different from the rules for recordings (nothing is out of copyright yet- not even Edison's cylinders- though one can put one's own recordings in CC license and distribute them if no one else already owns the (c) to them...)
So, where do you stand with Qobuz? For a small monthly charge, one can download complete newly issued recordings from most of the major record companies in high quality CD sound. All the record companies involved must readily agree to their recordings being offered in this way but any return to them from multiple legal downloads must be miniscule. Presumably, the marketing benefits they reap from actual sales must justify their participation.
Hi Mike, first of all I'm fine with any business model that is endorsed by the copyright holders. Ideally it might help fund new recordings, but it is also their right to make (smart or stupid) business decisions with their material.
Looking at Qobuz, it looks as though one can either choose a regular download at iTunes-esque prices, or pay a subscription fee and stream tracks a la Spotify. I don't see a subscription for endless downloads here.
eschiss: I don't copyright does exist for the Edison cylinders. There is a company, rediscovery.us, that takes LPS and transfers them to CD or makes downloads available - and not Edisons, either, but LPs from the Golden Age. I have several Paray recordings from Mercury that never made it to CD. And the Scherchen Gliere 3rd among others. They are meticulous in choosing mint or near-mint condition LPs and then doing minimal processing and the sound is rather extraordinary. Somehow in the copyright process, the LPs were overlooked and copyrights ran out and all this is legal. Copyright law is indeed mysterious and complex.
Hi Ilja
OK it is a streaming service but in "True Quality CD sound" and with a couple of minor exceptions all tracks are available and can be continuously streamed from first to last unlike with Naxos where it is one track at a time. I get around 20 CDs per week this way which at Australian prices works out about $ 600 or $ 30,000 per year. Even if they were all available here .. which they aren't.. my pension would not even cover a tenth of the cost. Viva Qobuz!
QuoteThere's no point in attempting to police the internet...
However (other than inflexible profit motive) what reason could Google give for failing to police their own site more effectively than they are doing? It would need a combination of more prominent and clear legal upload language and a couple of annual salaries that, in Google's scheme of things, would be smaller than a financial flea bite.
In fact, I believe Google already polices their YouTube site when stakeholders have deep enough pockets to at least threaten legal action. For example, I've been hard pressed to find recent recordings from DG on YouTube. Their Trifonov releases, say. No, it is chiefly the more idealistic publishers of recent classical recordings who get ripped off day after day on YouTube.
I am not sure "policing" youtube would be such a small matter. The issue goes way beyond classical music uploads (any private recordings of almost any sort of public performances for example would have to be policed also. Some kid playing a Mazas etude is fine, but the same kid playing one of Martinu's rhythmic etudes isn't).
Maybe they are busy test driving the self policing YouTube...
Unfortunately, some of my own Sterling and Naxos recordings still can be downloaded from YouTube! In the past there were dozens! Now, since I pushed a few investigations, after which the responsibles could be traced and penalized, there remain just a few. I have nothing against making available a few excerpts for promotional purposes, but not complete recordings! Especially in cases where the composers are still under copyright. Google does not really care: all my letters to them remain unaswered... I had to contact foreign copyright societies, since, even in Switzerland, they are too indolent and pesismistic to take action in cases like this.
Adriano, I know that Bo Hyttner has been fairly successful in getting most Sterling material removed from YT - even if by now some stuff has returned. As far as I know, YT is no longer a part of Google; rather, both are now subsidiaries of Alphabet, the parent monolith. Your best chance is therefore to fill in the infringement form I linked to above.
Thanks Ilja.
Just notice that Bo, when I first complained years ago about this, said, that he had nothing against these Youtube publications, that this would help selling the CDs! I went utterly mad at him... And I insisted and tried through other channels...
Quote from: mbhaub on Wednesday 11 May 2016, 01:19
eschiss: I don't copyright does exist for the Edison cylinders. There is a company, rediscovery.us, that takes LPS and transfers them to CD or makes downloads available - and not Edisons, either, but LPs from the Golden Age. I have several Paray recordings from Mercury that never made it to CD. And the Scherchen Gliere 3rd among others. They are meticulous in choosing mint or near-mint condition LPs and then doing minimal processing and the sound is rather extraordinary. Somehow in the copyright process, the LPs were overlooked and copyrights ran out and all this is legal. Copyright law is indeed mysterious and complex.
I am familiar with rediscovery and have downloaded material from them
I really feel that for me Utube is like FM radio. If I like what I hear I'll purchase it. When I had no money for LP's I would record material off the FM radio.
Tom :)
"I think it's a scandal that commercial recordings are made available in this way. An absolute scandal."
It's funny that no one seems to complain of the contrary, when a company like PremiereOpera (and others) commercializes and makes profit off of recordings (usually radio broadcasts) without having ever paid any "rights" to anyone... I've just checked the list of their production, which is indeed very impressive, but which seems to me totally illegal, for the larger part. These people probably have got these recordings from sites like this one which makes available for free radio recordings from arious countries (which is not illegal), to commercialize them and make profit without rewarding the artists that made them (which is totally illegal).
Of course, like most people here, I'd rather see these recordings available to a larger audience that rotting away on some INA or BBC shelves, but still, if one wants to question the legal aspects of it...
You make a fair point, of course.
And thus, if you strictly stick to your policy of taking off the site the broadcast downloads (which might very well benefit their "business model") when they are "commercially issued"...
;)
That's assuming they get them from us...
No, no, they are many sources where they can get them of course.
BUT I've seen already at least 3 recordings that they have "issued commercially", which are still offered here (and that's only because I've not checked any further).
My point, of course, is that one should be clear about what "issued commercially" means, and we probably should add "and legally".
We remove off-air recordings if they are issued commercially. A pirated recording issued commercially is still a pirated recording, and I don't see why we should remove a broadcast recording from our site because of it. The pirates' sales might be affected, but they're hardly in a position to complain, are they? I must own up, though, to having quite a few of PremierOpera's sets, and they are generally well produced and often in good sound.
Me too!
A couple of questions
1. How much does a FM radio station has to pay to broadcast say the Grandos Dante Symphonic Poem?
2. If I copy it from the broadcast is it illegal?
"If I copy it from the broadcast is it illegal?"
I would believe that it would be legal to record a broadcast just for your own personal use. Anyone can confirm ?
Next question :
If I record a broadcast live concert, is it legal ? (I personally would think YES)
Is it still legal to share it, even for free (like we all do). (I personally would think BORDERLINE)
I believe it's (technically) illegal to copy (even for private use) a CD/DVD rented from a library, even though I figure most of us do or have done it....
The problem is that whether something is legal or not may depend very much on what country you're living in. Terms like "personal use" and "fair use" are defined differently in various places, and they determine to a large extent what one is allowed to do.
That's why I prefer to focus on what is justifiable - morally but mostly practically. If I put a recently released CD on Youtube, it may be morally wrong but at least as importantly, it countervenes everything we as a community stand for because it will diminish a record label's ability to make a profit off that recording and, subsequently, reduce the likelihood that said label is going to produce new CDs/downloads. And that is all I want.
I can't agree with what you have to say about Youtube. The overall quality is quite poor and if I hear something that I like on Youtube I'll buy it. I guess I can agree with you if all you need is poor to average quality. I even find 320kps digital files to be inadequate. They lack the fullness and richness that a CD has. From what I understand in the US it is illegal to copy something off of FM and then distribute the recording even if no money changes hands. The same would be true of a Youtube copy. Copying of any kind is illegal. If a new recording comes out the only way to get an idea of the sound is to listen to (not copy) audio clips from the website. Being older I miss the days of being able to go to Tower Records and listen to whatever they had in stock. For Tower it increased their sales. For me today most audio clips are inferior.
Tom :)
I fully agree with you, sdtom... And, as far as CDs are concerned, such platforms should be only function as "promotional clips" collections, and it should be forbidden in there to upload complete CDs. I am being older too, and have quite some difficulties (as a composer and conductor) with today's abuse of copyrighted files. People taking advantage of this have no idea what were the engagement, efforts and costs behind such productions. Especially in the case of Naxos and Marco Polo artists, who were paid with dog's fees (or even conducted some CDs free of charge, in order to be able to get a project realized) and get no royalties at all - and with whose products the companies still make a lot of money after years and years. I can sing a song about that...
A copyright anecdote - one of quite a few regarding my musical activities - showing what it brings, having agreed with Naxos to cede them all reproduction rights of the recorded sound carrier: Watching one day the (great) two-part feature "Angels in America" I heard some background music which sounded familiar to me - and I discovered they had used two tracks of my Naxos-Marco Polo CD "La Belle et la Bête". I am sure they had to pay a nice sum of money for using this, far superior to my conductor's fee. But I was more wexed to see that in the film's end titles, my name was not even mentioned, there was only the orchestra's name. In the list of all used music, there was also a piece conducted by Henri Mancini, but, of course, his name was fully mentioned!
@sdtom: these days Youtube sound quality can go up to 192 kbps AAC @ 44,000 KHz (IIRC). Tests seem to indicate that a majority of people are not able to distinguish a 192 kpbs MP3 recording from higher bitrates. That means that for the vast majority of listeners, the sound is "good enough", and that free Youtube recordings form a real threat to paid commercial ones.
The situation is a bit different for pre-2012 videos, where the sound was maxed to 152 kbps. Prior to 2011, the maximum was 128 kbps.
In the Netherlands, prior to the digital age the use and non-commercial exchange of audio cassettes was condoned with the argument that the quality of a cassette copy was significantly inferior to that of the original product. As I can see, for Youtube that argument doesn't hold up any longer – for most people – particularly keeping in mind how easy it is to rip audio off YT.
Rather than engaging in this rat race to upload and take down videos, a better solution might be to restrict flagged videos to, say, 96 kbps (the same bitrate commonly used for podcasts and the like), so that there is again a significant difference in audio quality and the purchase of a recording offers added value once again.
1. I didn't realize that the quality was that high. Far below a wave file but still high enough for most folks. Your solution of reducing it to 96kps is a sound idea. Since I now have a nice stereo system I'm happy with getting the physical CD.
Tom :)