Weismann VC1 from cpo

[Alan Howe]

I can confirm that cpo will be bringing out Julius Weismann's VC1, with Laurent Albrecht Breuninger and the Nordwestdeutsche Philharmonie under Alun Francis. No release date as yet, though.

[Alan Howe]

This appears to be the above-mentioned but never released recording:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNx3KgkNHvo

[britishcomposer]

I uploaded this WDR3 broadcast in 2011 to the members of our forum. I suppose Mr Rufinatscha took it from there and uploaded it to youtube. He didn't ask me. I don't feel comfortable with this because I don't own the rights on this recording. I upload here because I can remove my upload when it becomes available commercially. But when someone crossposts it at youtube or at other sites I have no chance to deal with this.

[Alan Howe]

Oh dear. It wasn't done with our knowledge, let alone approval. Of course, the recording has never actually appeared commercially, after some 13 years...

[britishcomposer]

Oh dear. It wasn't done with our knowledge, let alone approval.

No, of course it wasn't. And one cannot check the whole internet every day.

[Maury]

I don't understand why the YT user or YT itself can't be contacted to demand removal of this content? Is there something that prevents such action?

[eschiss1]

the YT user in question has been banned from this forum so won't see this thread, even if someone were to link it to them.

[Maury]

eschiss I'm sorry that I don't see the connection between what I said and what you said. I'm referring to member "british composer" who I assumed was the aggrieved party. Why can't he contact the YT user or YT to demand removal?

[Ilja]

Because he is not a rights holder to the original recording. Only those who are can make such a request. These days, they will often opt to monetize the recording through YouTube rather than request removal. The more so because others may upload the recording again as soon as it's taken offline.

Our forum is a corner of the internet like any other. If you really don't want recordings to be shared wider, it'd be best to not share them here, either.

But who's to say that this is BritishComposer's recording? If he could get it off WDR3, others could as well.

[Maury]

Ah thank you Ilja. I misunderstood as I thought "british composer" had some rights to the sound file. Yes unfortunately copyright control  is just about dead these days unless you have 24/7 legal teams that YT actually is concerned about.

[Alan Howe]

the YT user in question has been banned from this forum

Yes, quite so. This would be another of his nefarious acts.

If this was supposed to be released by cpo, it's about time they got on with it!

[Ilja]

To be fair, I don't think there's much legal difference between uploading a recording to UC's forum or to YouTube if you don't hold the rights to that recording. One might even argue that YouTube may be preferable because in that case the recording has a much larger audience and can be monetized by the rights holder (which, as I indicated, is a common thing). 

In theory, at least. In practice, these days those uploads often compete with the labels' own releases. First for money, even if they are monetized: they usually pack the entire work into a single upload (unlike labels' practice to divide a work into individual movement streams), further reducing already diminutive sum of money. Secondly in terms of presentation: it simply draws attention away from the label's own upload, and the presentation itself is often decidedly amateurish. 

I think there's an ethical way to share music, but it remains something of a minefield.

[Maury]

Ilja,

The issue with YT is that it encourages its users to infringe copyright because it will monetize their infringement with ads. But they piously keep their hands clean by not infringing copyright directly.  The income derived from classical music streams is minimal compared to real money makers that have hundreds of thousands or millions of subscribers and views. So YT monetization is not a factor for the users that are related to this or other classical music sites, but the constant infringement makes it ever more uneconomical to wring a profit from these recordings.

[Ilja]

Classical record labels do release music on a regular basis to YouTube for that reason, though. As I indicated on an earlier occasion the revenue on the big platforms is small but apparently still worth the trouble, the more so because it is usually surplus revenue - meaning, the recording has already been paid for by the point of release. Presto give a good breakdown of the revenue from different services here. Short summary: if you want to support he industry, stream via Qobuz or Presto.

However, you're not wrong; if the rights holder doesn't monetize a video, YouTube will do so itself.* And since it's a nightmare to keep track of so many recordings in so many versions on such a chaotic platform, it's fair to assume that the site itself earns far more from these recordings than the actual creators do in ad revenue. The tolerance of infringement has real benefits for them; they're not the only ones on the internet, but they do probably benefit from it the most. It's quite understandable that most labels have adopted a "if you can't beat them, join them" approach.

*unless the channel owner pays them not to. But even that doesn't always work, and YouTube support is really something else.

[Alan Howe]

Perhaps cpo aren't going to release this at all...