Regarding You-Tube videos......................

[Ray Montee]

Numerous videos on You Tube have of late, been removed due to third party copy-rite infringement.

Who can do this?

Who ACTUALLY removes the disputed item?

Is this getting more common or just imagination?

[Jim Cohen]

Who ACTUALLY removes the disputed item?

Employees of YouTube.

[John RJ Wilson]

Make no mistake it is becoming more and more common, mainly due to the greed of the record companies, they only see the possible loss of sales, without considering that folk may buy recordings because they saw a vid on You Tube.
A poster can opt for an in between solution which involves ads.

[Alan Brookes]

There are so many videos being posted on YouTube every day that there's no way that YouTube employees can check even a small sample, so all sorts of copyrighted material gets on there. They're so concerned that they could be sued or shut down that they over-react, and they respond to the slightest complaint about copyright infringement.

I've noticed that, whenever a remake of an old movie goes into circulation, they block the new movie and the original gets blocked too. To my mind the movie companies are shooting themselves in the foot doing this, because it prevents people from comparing the remake with the original.

Sometimes they block a movie but they don't realise that someone has posted the movie with a different name, or in a foreign language, and this will escape cutting. Often this movie is still in English but with foreign subtitles, so if you're happy to put up with the subtitles they're worth watching.

Talking about subtitles, have you ever noticed that the subtitles are often completely different from the actual dialogue? I remember watching the movie Nashville in a cinema in Antwerp, Belgium. The movie had Franch and Dutch/Flemish subtitles. The soundtrack was so bad that I found myself reading the subtitles. It soon became apparent that the French and Dutch subtitles were not only different from the English dialogue, they didn't even match each other. Most confusing.

[Jerry Jones]

Make no mistake it is becoming more and more common, mainly due to the greed of the record companies, they only see the possible loss of sales, without considering that folk may buy recordings because they saw a vid on You Tube.
A poster can opt for an in between solution which involves ads.

Don't really believe this is necessarily the case. If allowing free postings on YouTube could be proven to produce new sales rather than cannibalizing sales, record companies would be all over it. Record companies spend millions of dollars every year to produce new recordings and they must protect their investment if they plan on making a profit and staying in business, that is. It's not just record companies either, music publishers have much to lose, as well. Record companies may be seen as greedy, but every record sold puts money in the pockets of working artists, musicians, writers, and composers.

[Ray Montee]

Several of the videos I was referring to were removed from the JBFC. It came as surprise but woooooosh! They were gone.

So, some very valuable and rare footage has disappeared, never to be seen again. So sad..........

[Jim Cohen]

Ray, there is software available online that you can use to download YouTube videos to your own computer for safe-keeping so that doesn't happen to you again in the future.

[John RJ Wilson]

Make no mistake it is becoming more and more common, mainly due to the greed of the record companies, they only see the possible loss of sales, without considering that folk may buy recordings because they saw a vid on You Tube.
A poster can opt for an in between solution which involves ads.

Don't really believe this is necessarily the case. If allowing free postings on YouTube could be proven to produce new sales rather than cannibalizing sales, record companies would be all over it. Record companies spend millions of dollars every year to produce new recordings and they must protect their investment if they plan on making a profit and staying in business, that is. It's not just record companies either, music publishers have much to lose, as well. Record companies may be seen as greedy, but every record sold puts money in the pockets of working artists, musicians, writers, and composers.

You make a valid point from the point of view of the record companies. We could debate this point for weeks. But the record companies release there own vids on to youtube to promote songs, so they are manipulating the system. Pink Floyd is a classic too. More and more Floyd vids are being deleted, whilst at the same time the record company released the whole Floyd catalogue onto Spotify. Granted there will be payments being made, but I could if I wanted audio capture the whole lot for free. Except that I have bought them all already. Watching a video on youtube is not going to stop me buying an album I have already got,
The great strength of You Tube is archive video material, rare footage that has long been forgotten, like the JBFC material. For youngsters or not so youngsters who missed out 1st time or even 2nd and 3rd time the availability of this archive material is gold dust, if even to show them what we are going on about. Most is posted as a tribute and the uploader is making nothing out of it, apart from the odd, "thanks for posting I've been looking for that for years."

[John RJ Wilson]

Several of the videos I was referring to were removed from the JBFC. It came as surprise but woooooosh! They were gone.

So, some very valuable and rare footage has disappeared, never to be seen again. So sad..........

Ray are the videos just gone or when you click on the link, do you get a message stating it has been removed for copyright reasons. If it is just gone, the original uploader could have removed them themselves, the second is the publisher/music company or in the case of the Jerry/Buddy vid, that looks like YouTube, and to terminate an account means a much bigger picture, not the odd video I would think.

[Alvin Blaine]

Google, the parent company of YouTube, pays ASCAP & BMI $70,000 a month in royalty fees and, as of this year, Soundscan now count YouTube views towards Billboard chart ratings.

Whenever Google gets a complaint about copyrighted material they will remove the video. The complaints are usually someone who doesn't know that YouTube does pay royalties and will even offer advertising fees if a video gets more than average hits. It's not much money, something like $0.002 for each time someone views a video, but Google got sued over it 5 or 6 years ago and are now court ordered to pay up on copyrighted material.

[Stuart Legg]

The problem is the industry doesn’t want you to have access to old music whether you pay for it or not.
They want you to buy new music or digitally enhanced new old music of what I call the Elvis Factor (some new conglomeration of songs of a dead guy they think we can’t live without).

Sheet music is in the crapper because they haven’t kept up with technology.
No one wants a bunch printed material that you have to have a mini library to use it.
It should be downloaded to your I-whatever, Note Pad or laptop.
The down load should play in midi in addition to the notation and should have the capability to transpose.
And! The price shouldn’t from $5 to $10 a song for singles and $20 plus for a collection.

[Alan Brookes]

The problem is the industry doesn’t want you to have access to old music whether you pay for it or not....

Stuart is touching on a good point here. Nowadays we're so used to being surrounded by music wherever we go, but it hasn't always been that way. If you go back before the industrial revolution, most of the people worked in the fields. They had no radios, so they would sing to themselves. Their only exposure to music would have been in church on Sundays or in the local tavern in the evenings. In church the music would be the same as their forefathers had been singing for generations, and in the tavern they would be folk songs also going back many centuries. In other words, they were exposed to the same music as their grandfathers and their grandfathers' grandfathers.

Let's face it, if no more songs were written, no more movies made, no more music recorded, there's enough material already out there to last everyone a lifetime. We don't need any more music, but the record companies need us to think that we do, or they would go out of business. It's in their interest that fashions change and that the kids don't like the same music as their parents. If they did, then the kids would be content to just pull out their parents' old records, and they would never buy new ones.

Sometimes that doesn't sound like a bad idea.

[Tom Grosz]

There is an entertaining video on YouTube's copyright policy on their website.
http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/

[Pete Finney]

The problem is the industry doesn’t want you to have access to old music whether you pay for it or not.

I'd be interested to know what experience, knowledge or evidence you base that statement on, because the truth is the exact opposite. The evidence is everywhere, it's not just my opinion.

There has never been a time when so much old music has been available from all genres, going back to the very beginning of recorded music. Both on CD and legitimate downloads there is more old obscure country, blues, rock, jazz, classical and whatever than has ever been available.

The actual simple fact is that record companies love to sell older music - there are no production costs, they don't have to spend much on promotion like they do new artists, and if it's old enough sometimes they don't even have to pay any royalties. Most of the costs for a record company's back-catalog have already been paid so any sales are pure profit.

[Alan Brookes]

Pete is right. When I was a kid I was a great rockabilly fan, but there was very little of it available. There's more 50s music available now than there was in the 50s.

But I think the record companies and film companies do lose out to YouTube. I used to buy a lot of CDs and DVDs, and I have a large collection of both, but I gave up buying them about a year ago. I now have many gigabytes of movies and music on my hard drives, downloaded from YouTube, in fact enough to keep me occupied well into the foreseeable future, so it's unlikely I shall ever buy any more DVDs.

[Stuart Legg]

I base my statement on common knowledge that now days it is only the artist who must sell their music in order to stay in business.
Unlike the physical music store of yesteryear that needed to sell the CDs and vinyl sitting on their shelves to make money, the digital music stores and services of today (Pandora, iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, and others) can make money without ever selling — or even streaming - all the music they “stock." In this digital age, amongst the new ways music is being utilized for profit, the sale or streaming of music is almost an afterthought.
They make their money selling their products.

[Pete Finney]

That's all a whole different subject than your original statement... And the simple fact is record companies will continue to profit by selling their back catalog in whatever form, and keeping it accessible.

[Stuart Legg]

I was referring to the Artist and estates of. I generalized and just referred to it as the industry. So maybe you can agree with the statement written in the following manor.
The problem is the Artist doesn’t want you to have access to old music whether you pay for it or not.
The Artist wants you to buy new music or estate of an Artist wants digitally enhanced new old music of what I call the Elvis Factor (some new conglomeration of songs of a dead guy they think we can’t live without).
Technology companies and venture capitalists have taken over. All sectors of the music industry are no longer being run by people from the music industry
In today's new music industry of peer-to-peer file sharing, download stores, and on-demand streams, it's hard for an artist to make money by selling their music.
Seems to me in view of these factors the present and future of old music is not a priority and isn’t high up on money chart for the world's largest music distributors and stores who carry all the songs in world but don't need to sell any of them in order to make money?
no matter just an educated guess at best, cut and paste of a bunch random past notes from my archieves.

[Pete Finney]

The problem is the Artist doesn’t want you to have access to old music whether you pay for it or not.

Once again I would like to see even the slightest shred of evidence supporting that... But you won't find one, trust me, because it has nothing to do with any realities in the actual music business.

There is nobody motivated to suppress the re-release of "old" music, that's just pure made-up fantasy (a polite word for what I was going to say). Artists make money on it (usually) and the record companies and copyright owners make money.

Enjoy yourself, I'm done...

[Stuart Legg]

Sorry for some reason I didn’t get the memo that you had to show proof and list sources for everything you say here.
There is to my knowledge no burden of proof here nor is it mandatory for everyone or anyone to agree on what is said.
I am not conceded enough to believe that my opinions taken without proof will somehow effect folks life in an adverse way.

[Bo Legg]

The problem is the Artist doesn’t want you to have access to old music whether you pay for it or not.

There is nobody motivated to suppress the re-release of "old" music, that's just pure made-up fantasy (a polite word for what I was going to say). Artists make money on it (usually) and the record companies and copyright owners make money.
Enjoy yourself, I'm done...

Stuart would agree with you on "nobody is motivated to suppress the release of "old" music. Why would they take the time when they don't care about it.
Stuart never said they wanted to suppress the release of "old" music. That was your fantasy.
Stuart listed some acceptations to "Old Music" sales which you seem to have ignored.
You were too busy saying "Prove it" which I take to be putting the “Prove it” chip on your shoulder.
Personally I’m glad you’re done

[Pete Finney]

Stuart never said they wanted to suppress the release of "old" music.

That's pretty much exactly what he said, twice.

The problem is the industry doesn’t want you to have access to old music whether you pay for it or not.

The problem is the Artist doesn’t want you to have access to old music whether you pay for it or not.

I didn't ask for proof, and never used the word, just any evidence at all to support statements that can be easily disproven by just spending a little time at Amazon.com or the itunes store.

[Stuart Legg]

[Bud Angelotti]

Jim said

Ray, there is software available online that you can use to download YouTube videos to your own computer for safe-keeping so that doesn't happen to you again in the future.

Ray - use Firefox for your web browsing. It's free.
There is whats called an add-on, also free, called download helper.
You can download those videos and save them to your computer immediatly, before they go away.
Hope that helps.

[Alan Brookes]

...use Firefox for your web browsing. It's free. There is whats called an add-on, also free, called Download Helper...

You can also use ZiggyTV, which is similarly free. I've used it successfully to download many gigabytes of videos and audios from YouTube.