Showing posts with label copyright violation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright violation. Show all posts

Monday, August 17, 2015

Users Up In Arms As Soundcloud Begins To Remove Content

Soundcloud logo image
If you're been using Soundcloud to distribute your songs you know that it's a wonderful service that's almost too inexpensive to be true. The problem is that the company hasn't been able to be profitable and now they're under some pressure from investors to turn that around.

In an effort to stem the tide and perhaps even turn a profit, Soundcloud recently entered into licensing deals with Warner Music Group and Merlin (the organization that represents a large number of indie labels), but part of that deal meant that the platform had to begin to enforce copyright rules.

As a result, last week Soundcloud began an offensive on variety of copyright violations including unlicensed tracks, tracks that include unlicensed samples, remixes with unlicensed tracks and even bootleg remixes that that bear a recognizable resemblance to an original. Not only that, the platform has even deleted accounts of users that it deems to be major offenders.

This has caused a group of Soundcloud users, mostly DJs, to go ballistic since they're the ones that are mostly being targeted. That said, any musician with an unauthorized cover song or sample could also feek the company's wrath.

To be clear, Soundcloud has long been a welcome home for copyright violations, but it's only now that it's had the will to actually clamp down. That said, money (or lack of it) has a way of making you do things that you don't necessarily want to, something that musicians, artists and bands are faced with every day.

Soundcloud Takedown Notice imageA sample takedown notice


UPDATE: Sources are saying that Soundcloud has also reached a licensing agreement with Universal Music Group, which might further explain the takedown spree last week.


Tuesday, March 12, 2013

The Harlem Shake Gets Busted

Harlem Shake image from Bobby Owsinski's Music 3.0 blog
Harlem Shake - Kansas Basketball Style
Use a sample, go to jail. Well, not exactly, but unless you get permission, you're going to be hearing from an attorney. The latest episode of uncleared samples comes with the recent viral hit "Harlem Shake" by Baauer. It seems that the DJ used pieces of Hector El Father's 2006 single "Maldades" and Plastic Little's "Miller Time" without getting permission first, and now they want some money.

The fact of the matter is that most major labels have business affairs departments that would've made sure that all samples were cleared before the song was released, but "Harlem Shake" was on the tiny Mad Decent Records, who had no such resources. It was only after the video for the video went viral with it's crazy dance (if you can call it that) that the song became a hit.

"Harlem Shake" has spent the last 3 weeks at the top of the Billboard Hot 100 chart and had over 800,000 downloads, and the video has over 27 million views. All of that has been very recent though, as the song was actually released last May and until the video broke, was destined to be one of the many songs that with little traction in the marketplace.

To a small record label who considers a couple of thousand sales a hit, clearing samples is hardly a priority. Chances are that the sample owner will never hear it, and if they do, there's hardly enough money involved to make a legal case of it. That all changes when the song is a hit however.

It will be interesting to see just how much El Father and Plastic Little settle for. I've known people in the past who know that they're being infringed upon and purposely wait until the song is a big hit before they announce the situation to the world. You get a bigger payday that way.

Regardless, it's just another lesson that if you don't get the proper clearances, it will cost you in the end.

----------------------------------

Interested in the Music 3.0 archives? Buy The Music 3.0 Guide To Social Media. The best of over 800 posts.

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Lyric Sites Now A Target For Music Publishers

song lyrics image from Bobby Owsinski's Music 3.0 blog
Several years ago music publishers, looking for new revenue streams, began to pursue lyric websites for violation of copyright for hosting the lyrics to popular songs without permission. One of the biggest wins in the publishers favor recently came at the expense of LiveUniverse.com and its owner Brad Greenspan, who were recently hit with a $6.6 million default judgement for not paying a license fee.

The judge arrived at the amount by charging $12,500 for each of the 528 songs whose lyrics LiveUniverse was accused of infringing from Peermusic, Warner Chappell Music and Bug Music. Some of the songs included "China Girl" by David Bowie, "Old Time Rock n' Roll" by Bob Seger, "Moondance" by Van Morrison and "Georgia On My Mind" performed by Ray Charles.

The irony is that Greenspan could have made a license deal with the publishers for much less than the judgement, but basically chose to try to stick it in everyone's face by not showing for depositions and hearing, not following the court's instructions, and going through a long line of attorneys that slowed the entire process down to a crawl. It wasn't like he didn't have the resources either, having been an original investor in MySpace and cashing out when it was purchased for $580 million by News Corp in 2005.

The fact is that there are a lot of lyric sites out there that offer lyrics legally. Lyric aggregator LyricFind has licensed lyrics.com, lyricsmode.com, lyricsfreak.com, songmeanings.net, lyricsty.com, leoslyrics.com, lyricsbay.com, lyrics.net, lyricsfly.com, musicsonglyrics.com, lyricsoverload.com, and many more.

The fact of the matter is that these sites make big bucks on advertising and they should share a part of the wealth with the originators of the music that made it all possible. If you make money on someone else's creation, you have to share; simple as that.

-----------------------------------
You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

UMG Does Their Own Takedowns

YouTube logo image from Bobby Owsinski's Music 3.0 blog
One of the hard things for most people to realize is that they don't automatically have the right to use a song in a video, even though it might be as simple as your six-year old singing "Happy Birthday" or a bunch of school kids singing "Rudolph The Red Nosed Raindeer" at the school Christmas play. The copyright to these songs are not public domain, therefore you have to pay their respective record labels and publishers for their use, regardless how trivial that use may seem.

But still millions of people put videos on YouTube every day of themselves lip singing to "Born This Way" or "Party Rock Anthem," but the publisher and/or record label has the legal right to ask YouTube to take these videos down. In fact, most record labels now have teams that do nothing but scour the Internet for just these sorts of copyright violations.

That said, YouTube is very good about complying with a takedown request, as evidenced by numerous videos that are here today and gone tomorrow. YouTube is not actually liable as long as they don't upload the videos themselves. If someone else does, they're in the clear.

Even though YouTube is very liberal with takedown requests, they seem to have given Universal Music Group unusual leeway by allowing them to directly remove any video that they don't like themselves. According to an article in techland.com, there's "an agreement between the company and YouTube that allows UMG to use a “Content Management System” that can remove or “file block” certain videos on the site if it finds them objectionable. The agreement in question is not public, meaning that no one outside of those companies knows exactly how long UMG’s reach within YouTube actually is."

Here's the scary part. Does UMG have the right to control what videos YouTube allows on the site, even if no copyright infringement is occurring? Does that mean it can block it's competition if it wants to? Does that mean it can take down a video even if it has nothing to do with UMG? What happens if it makes a mistake?

As an artist myself, I'm all for protecting copyright, but I find it disconcerting that a major label has this kind of power. YouTube is already very good about acting on any copyright violation request, and they do it fast (I've done it myself). But UMG's new powers can be deadly in the wrong hands.

There's more to this intrigue as UMG and the cloud site Megaupload continue in a battle over just this issue, so it will be interesting to see what the new year brings.

Happy Holidays everyone!
-----------------------------------

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.








LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...