YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos.

1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turned into a gigantic industry.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#6

Post by crazypyro » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:39 PM UTC

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #2

In the case of the Happy Birthday song, falsely claiming rights over public domain content was expensive for the putative rights-holders.[1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-warner-music-lawsuit-sett...

Doesn't seem that expensive when the article also mentions they were making $2 million per year in royalties.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#7

Post by boomboomsubban » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #2

In the case of the Happy Birthday song, falsely claiming rights over public domain content was expensive for the putative rights-holders.[1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-warner-music-lawsuit-sett...

It says they took in over $2 million a year, so the false claim still likely made them millions over the decades.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#8

Post by smoldesu » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #5

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. 1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turne…

This is my least popular opinion, but NFTs should have been applied here. We desperately need a legally binding, decentralized and distributed way for us to attest ownership of digital products. Sure, sure, "blockchain bad" and "don't apply crypto to everything", but this genuinely seems to me like the most mutually beneficial way to proceed.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#9

Post by jazzyjackson » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

This mentions something that has always irked me, YouTube trying to be informative about who the music is licensed by. For one, it's completely useless on classical piano music because the Content ID algo finds similarity in a dozen different recordings. But even when there is one canonical recording, such as Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up, I'm informed that the music is licensed by:

(on behalf of Sony BMG Music UK); UMPI, Kobalt Music Publishing, LatinAutor, Warner Chappell, BMI - Broadcast Music Inc., UNIAO BRASILEIRA DE EDITORAS DE MUSICA - UBEM, LatinAutor - UMPG, SOLAR Music Rights Management, AMRA, UMPG Publishing, CMRRA, LatinAutorPerf, LatinAutor - Warner Chappell, and 15 Music Rights Societies

What is happening here? Does YouTube have legal arrangements with all of these bodies to make sure they get their penny per kiloview?

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#10

Post by jimbob45 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

smoldesu wrote: post #8

munk-a wrote: post #5

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. 1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turne…

This is my least popular opinion, but NFTs should have been applied here. We desperately need a legally binding, decentralized and distributed way for us to attest ownership of digital products. Sure, sure, "blockchain bad" and "don't apply crypto to everything", but this genuinely seems to me like the most mutually beneficial way to proceed.

What problem do NFTs really solve here? They just make sure that a ledger (in this case, of rights) is immutable but...is anyone worried that record companies are mutating the rights to begin with?

It seems like what would really help would be to make rights public and easily accessible. However, making the rights platform into an NFT platform specifically wouldn't really help.