Record Companies Removing Songs From YouTube

[ToonaRockGuy]

Any opinions here? Personally, I think it sucks. I understand if someone posts something like "Avatar" on YouTube, but a FREE music video? Seriously, it's getting a tad out of hand. It's not like any of us that post music vids there make any money on them, so WTF?

I do think this is totally different from the classic Napster vs. Metallica case. The average joe schmoe used Napster to download music without paying for it, as most people are doing now with BitTorrent, LimeWire, FrostWire and the like. YouTube is streaming. Unless you go out and search for a player and use Firefox to save the vid, you can't keep it. And the compression on the vids is horrid anyway, so who would want to muck about with the effort? Most people just surf YouTube looking for cool vids. It's time for the record companies to back the fuck off.

[f.sciarrillo]

They been doing it for a while now. Just lately seems like they are really pushing it. I just been downloading as many as I can while they are still there.

I do think them removing it from youtube will have some affect on record sales. Not like they are stellar now anyhow ..

[witchhunt]

The Rush songs that moxham123 posted have been removed.

[Blue Reality]

The bottom line rules the day. Youtube is another vehicle that allows people to engage music without purchasing it. It's not the same as Napster, but it has a significant effect. I haven't purchased a song or CD for a long time. If I want to hear s song, I'll look it up on Youtube. This is helping to end music as we have known it. How is a musician supposed to make a living? We're all a part of it......

[KeithReynolds]

How is a musician supposed to make a living?

The same way they always have...touring and merchandise.


I dont think it makes any sense to remove stuff from youtube. I guess thats their right though. Music should be about people hearing it...not about how much money you can make from it. Atleast I think. I dont see how videos on youtube can even effect record companies.

[Blue Reality]

Touring and merchandising. Good answer, but for the fact that technology is changing the way people interact with music and each other. People don't attend concerts or clubs or relate with each other as they used to. Youtube plays a role in that. It's not about selling music. It's about a whole shift in the way people view music, copywrite and what they should or shouldn't have to pay for. It affects everyone from Rush to the local band.

[Blue Reality]

How many of us need to learn a song for a band rehearsal and youtube it instead of buying it off Itunes or even buying the CD? I didn't go see Van Halen tour with Roth because I saw the Youtube clips. I didn't buy the DVD of the Cream reunion gigs becuase I saw what I wanted on Youtube. Youtube provides a way to engage music on a casual basis without purchasing anything. I'm sure that people watch a Youtube clip and are compelled to part with cash. It does help in some ways. But it causes more damage than help or the Companies wouldn't waste their time.

[KeithReynolds]

You certainly have good points. I think of things a little different though. People dont go to shows because they either cant afford it, have something better to do, or they think there isnt a band worth them seeing. I dont think youtube effects people going to shows. Atleast it shouldnt!! If they are really a fan of the band, they would go see them. Watching crappy quality videos on youtube isnt the same as going to see a band live at all. Sure, its cool to watch live videos on youtube, but its not anywhere the same. I feel the same about a dvd from a band. Dvd is MUCH better quality than what youre gonna get on youtube. One cool thing about youtube, is it features alot of live stuff that is hard to find.

[felix'apprentice]

will they be taking off peoples covers of songs???? just curious.

- kayla.

[KeithReynolds]

will they be taking off peoples covers of songs???? just curious.

- kayla.

Probably. Unless the owner of the song's rights says its ok for the song to be covered by the people doing it.
Record companies wont be happy until they are all making billions of dollars again. Theres alot of wasted money in the corporate record companies. They could save money all sorts of ways, but no one wants to give up their lifestyle. Instead, they are blaming all sorts of other things for the money loss. Their asses cant take not sitting in a $3000 chair.

[timemoney0]

Let's set up a lemonade stand and prohibit all who dare from partaking of our commodity unless they get it from our stand. My guess is that the public would tell us where to jump off.

[Mysterytrain]

So... the way I see it... from a bands standpoint...

... with so many millions of bands out there you would think that fans who are watching youtube videos of your own band (no matter how big the band is) and downloading songs and creating a buzz from those new online avenues would only help keep you in the circle of current music.

That and the fact that there are so many distractions that didn't exist even 20 years ago when music was more the focus of nightlife, concert attendance, local music hotspots etc. I would think keeping the attention on your band is more important than ever.

I also realize that as music related companies are gaining complete power and control of what is being heard in the mainstream then those bands that join that path for exposure will live and perhaps die by their choice.

I'm just sayin'...

[bassist_25]

I always have mixed feelings when these types of topics come up. While I do think that the recording industry crying over videos on YouTube is just a tad bit asinine for all the reasons mentioned above by other posters, I still have trouble buying into (no pun intended) the idealistic notion that it is some how morally or socially reprehensible for art to be a commodity. Art costs money to create, whether it's payment for studio time, paint brushes, sculpting clay, or tap shoes. While there are no halos hanging over my head with regard to digitized music, keep in mind that choosing not to purchase a signed artist's music is keeping that artist in debt to his, her, or their record company. Signing a record deal is the musical equivalent of signing a mortgage...only with a mortgage, you're investment has a lot better chance of gaining value.

It's been around a while, and a lot of Rockpagers have probably read it already; but Steve Albini's commentary on the recording industry is a sobering analysis of things: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html Remember that when you think you're only sticking it to the fat cat record companies by getting free music.

While I've checked out my share of stuff on YouTube, I still prefer my music in a tangible package. I like the idea of having an album with all of its corresponding cover art and liner notes. An album is an experience to me. My father gave me an MP3 player for my birthday, and while it is quite convenient, I really haven't used it. Unfortunately, I know that I'm not representative of the average music consumer.

[Drum-Wolf]

Record companies shouldn't remove the music videos from YouTube. YouTube is music television on the computer now.