Pearl Jam, Jack White, Trent Reznor, Beck, More Join Petition Against YouTube

demetrios

http://pitchfork.com/news/66252-jack-white-trent-reznor-beck-more-join-petition-against-youtube/

by Evan Minsker
Associate Editor, News

Dozens of big names have signed a petition advocating Congress for reform of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which regulates the circulation of copyrighted work. Previously reported names signing the petition included Paul McCartney, Taylor Swift, U2, Vince Staples, Kings of Leon, and Carole King. Now, the full list is here, and it includes Beck, Jack White, Trent Reznor, David Byrne, the Black Keys, U2, Spoon, Pusha T, Miguel, Nirvana’s Krist Novoselic, Pearl Jam, Pharrell, Yoko Ono, Ryan Adams, TV on the Radio, Roy Ayers, Mark Ronson, Fleetwood Mac’s Lindsey Buckingham, Lady Gaga, Guns N’ Roses’ Duff McKagan and Slash, Elvis Costello, Desiigner, Kacey Musgraves, Sade, Ronnie Spector, Rod Stewart, the Who’s Pete Townshend, and many more.

Nineteen companies, including three major labels, the Recording Academy, and the Recording Industry Association of America, also support the petition. Find the petition and the full list of signees below, via Yahoo.

The petition is aimed at curtailing the practices of sites like YouTube, which allows users to upload copyrighted material for anyone to hear. (YouTube, however, isn’t specifically named in the petition.) Under the DMCA, YouTube and companies like them are given “safe harbor” from copyright infringement lawsuits as long as it complies with takedown notices. “The tech companies who benefit from the DMCA today were not the intended protectorate when it was signed into law nearly two decades ago,” the petition reads.

The petition says the DMCA “has allowed major tech companies to grow and generate huge profits by creating ease of use for consumers to carry almost every recorded song in history in their pocket via a smartphone, while songwriters’ and artists’ earnings continue to diminish.” It notes that the law was passed in a “technologically out-of-date” era, and also calls for “sensible reform that balances the interests of creators with the interests of the companies who exploit music for their financial enrichment.”

YouTube has been attacked by musicians who’ve criticized its approach to paying artists. The Black Keys’ Patrick Carney said “I probably can find 250 songs that are available which the artist isn’t getting paid for” within five minutes of surfing YouTube. Trent Reznor said the service was “built on the backs of free, stolen content.” In December, Radiohead’s Thom Yorke compared YouTube and parent company Google to Nazi Germany. Both Carney and Reznor signed the petition.

buck502000

I am okay with this - as a side note -maybe everyone will put away the damn cell phones at shows!!!!!

tempo_n_groove

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

AceCool

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

DeLukin

And here I thought exposure to ones music was a GOOD thing. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back. Seems kind of out of touch with the way things are to want to fight that, but considering that record companies and congress are involved maybe it shouldn't surprise me.

benjs

Just a thought - what if artists put their videos on Spotify and Apple Music and get royalties for those as well?

2-feign-reluctance

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

Agreed.

PJfanwillneverleave1

2-feign-reluctance said:

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

Agreed.

In a most sincere way would you be offended if cluthelee was to become viral?

Dr. Delight

I certainly dont go to Youtube for my music listening source.
I will on occasion use it to preview certain music/albums. In the end, if I like something, it is purchased on vinyl or not at all.

tempo_n_groove

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

Radio for example plays music. For free. Has for years. Radio stations make money off of artists music.

So explain to me how that's different?

Yes I LOVED napster. I got to download songs I would never in a million years pay for. I also got to hear live songs that were only available via expensive bootlegs so it was a win win for me.

If I really enjoy an artist I'll buy there album. Artists make real money from touring and merch now anyway...

Dr. Delight

.

tbergs

tempo_n_groove said:

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

Radio for example plays music. For free. Has for years. Radio stations make money off of artists music.

So explain to me how that's different?

Yes I LOVED napster. I got to download songs I would never in a million years pay for. I also got to hear live songs that were only available via expensive bootlegs so it was a win win for me.

If I really enjoy an artist I'll buy there album. Artists make real money from touring and merch now anyway...

You're really going to compare a song being randomly played on radio to someone being able to play almost any song they want as many times as they want by typing it in on YouTube from any mobile device in the world? Sure I can record the song off radio, but good luck being able to listen to every song and have it in a high quality format very easily.

I see their point. I definitely don't use it for that but it is how I watch some of my favorite bands live performances, whether in concert or on broadcast TV. Those old PJ on SNL and Letterman performances are great. I'd definitely pay for an official release of all those by the band.

SomethingCreative

If you want it free, just do the work. Can't blame anyone for not wanting their shit stolen THAT easy

ldent42

You tube audio isn't high quality. At all.

I don't use YouTube to listen to albums, but I've grown quite fond of the concert videos and I'll be disappointed to see those go.

mookeywrench

DeLukin said:

And here I thought exposure to ones music was a GOOD thing...

Yes, because that meant the listener ultimately bought the artist's album...not so much anymore.

Tristelune

For me there's no debate on the substance. The real subject is on the form in a society where people tend to consider things as granted just because they can be done. History's march should not be mistaken with cynical oportunism, it all comes to make money after all and YouTube is no salvation army.

FR181798

So are they talking proper album recordings etc. How would they ever police that. If I want to watch a new or old video I'll use you youtube, if I want to hear what something Im interested in buying sounds like then Free Spotify then I purchase the vinyl for 2or3 times the price of the other formats. Neither Spotify or YouTube stop me from buying a record because I can get it there. For me its just a resource to determine whether or not I want to own it. Its a good promo tool for artists but I guess its their work that some might take advantage of. I dont always think its fair for labels to expect consumers to buy something without hearing what it sounds like first.

AceCool

tempo_n_groove said:

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

Radio for example plays music. For free. Has for years. Radio stations make money off of artists music.

So explain to me how that's different?

Yes I LOVED napster. I got to download songs I would never in a million years pay for. I also got to hear live songs that were only available via expensive bootlegs so it was a win win for me.

If I really enjoy an artist I'll buy there album. Artists make real money from touring and merch now anyway...

Radio plays music for free? Are you 10 years old or do you simply have zero concept of the way things work in this world? There is absolutely 100% NOTHING that is free. It all gets paid for either directly (That'll be $35 plus shipping for that Pearl Jam poster you just purchased from pearljam.com) or indirectly (Up next we're going to play the latest song from Pearl Jam's newest record....after these words from our sponsors). That's right, I said sponsors. You know all those annoying commercials you have to suffer through while listening to FM radio (for free)? Those companies pay a shitload of money to bombard you, the listener, with PAID advertisements for their products. The radio station in turn pays a portion of those fees to BMI and ASCAP which sees to it that the artist (or royalty owner) gets compensated for the use of their intellectual property. This is all predicated on the radio listener being subjected to a barrage of commercials or paying a subscription to a satellite or streaming service.

You may have loved Napster but the reason that they got the equivalent of a prison shank in a dark alley was because their business concept was based on overt thievery. Piracy. Stealing. One person would buy a CD and upload it. Royalty owner would get paid for one unit. Millions of tempo_n_groove types would "share" direct copies of that copy righted property without a penny of compensation going to the rights holder. That is the literal definition of theft.

tempo_n_groove

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

Radio for example plays music. For free. Has for years. Radio stations make money off of artists music.

So explain to me how that's different?

Yes I LOVED napster. I got to download songs I would never in a million years pay for. I also got to hear live songs that were only available via expensive bootlegs so it was a win win for me.

If I really enjoy an artist I'll buy there album. Artists make real money from touring and merch now anyway...

Radio plays music for free? Are you 10 years old or do you simply have zero concept of the way things work in this world? There is absolutely 100% NOTHING that is free. It all gets paid for either directly (That'll be $35 plus shipping for that Pearl Jam poster you just purchased from pearljam.com) or indirectly (Up next we're going to play the latest song from Pearl Jam's newest record....after these words from our sponsors). That's right, I said sponsors. You know all those annoying commercials you have to suffer through while listening to FM radio (for free)? Those companies pay a shitload of money to bombard you, the listener, with PAID advertisements for their products. The radio station in turn pays a portion of those fees to BMI and ASCAP which sees to it that the artist (or royalty owner) gets compensated for the use of their intellectual property. This is all predicated on the radio listener being subjected to a barrage of commercials or paying a subscription to a satellite or streaming service.

You may have loved Napster but the reason that they got the equivalent of a prison shank in a dark alley was because their business concept was based on overt thievery. Piracy. Stealing. One person would buy a CD and upload it. Royalty owner would get paid for one unit. Millions of tempo_n_groove types would "share" direct copies of that copy righted property without a penny of compensation going to the rights holder. That is the literal definition of theft.

I understand the economics of radio but you forgot that I pay ZERO for it.

Also since I'm not 10 I remember music companies going batshit about copying albums on cassette. The Dead Kennedys famously left a side blank on a cassette.

If you make good music then I'll buy it, go to your show and buy some merch.

YouTube is the best thing for the one hit wonders. its great for bands also. A lot of people were trading shows back in the day. How is that any different?

Tristelune

Copyrighted performances of any kind should only be uploaded by the copyright owner. That should be pretty easy to understand.

FR181798

But are people really not buying music because it can be accessed anytime on YouTube. I think if people don't want to pay for music they will find a way.

JustaPJFan

I understand their point on complete albums who are on Youtube. Those should be deleted and you should actually buy them. Yet, when talking about full concert, I hope that will stay. Otherwise I will never be able to watch another proshot again, which would be a shame. Concert vids should stay.

my2hands

DeLukin said:

And here I thought exposure to ones music was a GOOD thing. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back. Seems kind of out of touch with the way things are to want to fight that, but considering that record companies and congress are involved maybe it shouldn't surprise me.

Nami

imo this will hurt the artists in the end. How many times has a friend introduced me to a new band through the use of youtube, Even here on the PJ site, we have many people saying check out this band, performer etc. If i enjoy the music i will buy their work, if not i move on.

Thats how i started with all the Pink Floyd albums, listened to them on youtube and the eventually bought the ones i liked anyways. If this format wasnt available that would have been a lost sale.

yes, I also realize that this is not always the case for most people, buying full albums, but if people want it bad enough they will find it for free regardless.

I for one think youtube is a great outlet for exposing ones music to the masses.

Tristelune

FR181798 said:

But are people really not buying music because it can be accessed anytime on YouTube. I think if people don't want to pay for music they will find a way.

You're right, still there's no reason for YouTube to generate traffic and money through copyright violation.

Ultimately there would be no creation if nobody was willing to pay for it then why would some pay while others would leech on YouTube I'm not sure.

DeLukin

Nami said:

How many times has a friend introduced me to a new band through the use of youtube, Even here on the PJ site, we have many people saying check out this band, performer etc. If i enjoy the music i will buy their work, if not i move on.

Thats how i started with all the Pink Floyd albums, listened to them on youtube and the eventually bought the ones i liked anyways. If this format wasnt available that would have been a lost sale.

yes, I also realize that this is not always the case for most people, buying full albums, but if people want it bad enough they will find it for free regardless.

I for one think youtube is a great outlet for exposing ones music to the masses.

Agree 100%. You can't stop it, and less exposure will only hurt artists. That's what's so great about technology. And the inability to adapt to change is why record companies are suing everyone they can (including housewives). I understand the true intent - to protect starving artists - but this lawsuit just comes across as self-serving and out of touch to me and aimed at hurting the people who will ultimately support the artists they love by buying their records, seeing their shows, merch, etc.

Spiritual_Chaos

Doesn't all artists managements just report the content on youtube and get the ad revenue instead of the uploader?

And that ad revenue gives them a bigger cut than Spotify if I recall correctly.

So...

Spiritual_Chaos

tempo_n_groove said:

Radio for example plays music. For free. Has for years. Radio stations make money off of artists music.

So explain to me how that's different?

mfc2006

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

2-feign-reluctance said:

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

Agreed.

In a most sincere way would you be offended if cluthelee was to become viral?

As the other half of Cluthe/Lee and the lyricist, yes it would bother me if people stole the music that Chris & I created.

I can't speak for him, but that's my take.

"Viral" is different than stealing. Viral implies originating at a legitimate source, then spreading from there.

Now, if someone were to ask & we said yes..that's a different story.

cp3iverson

Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that

PJ_Soul

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

Radio for example plays music. For free. Has for years. Radio stations make money off of artists music.

So explain to me how that's different?

Yes I LOVED napster. I got to download songs I would never in a million years pay for. I also got to hear live songs that were only available via expensive bootlegs so it was a win win for me.

If I really enjoy an artist I'll buy there album. Artists make real money from touring and merch now anyway...

You're really going to compare a song being randomly played on radio to someone being able to play almost any song they want as many times as they want by typing it in on YouTube from any mobile device in the world? Sure I can record the song off radio, but good luck being able to listen to every song and have it in a high quality format very easily.

I see their point. I definitely don't use it for that but it is how I watch some of my favorite bands live performances, whether in concert or on broadcast TV. Those old PJ on SNL and Letterman performances are great. I'd definitely pay for an official release of all those by the band.

Artists get royalties for radio play folks (through what are basically radio royalties brokerages).