Youtube: ethics and reactions

[Ilja]

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.

[jerfilm]

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

[Ilja]

I haven't seen any complete Naxos works on their own YT channel though, just trailers, excerpts, interviews and so on...

[TerraEpon]

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.

[Alan Howe]

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...

[Mark Thomas]

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?

[Ilja]

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), 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

"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.

[Mark Thomas]

Of course the only YouTube rips which we'll allow here are those which appear to be already public domain.

[Double-A]

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.

[Gareth Vaughan]

I note that the Damrosch Symphony has now been taken down, apart from the second movt.

[Ilja]

@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.

[Richard Moss]

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

[Double-A]

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.

[eschiss1]

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...)

[mikehopf]

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.