Recently, the Warner Music Group have been having Youtube videos containing music published by them muted or taken down. Personally, I think this is an incredibly stupid move by a corrupt, greedy corporation. Why not let us play music on our videos, where the music has the chance to be advertised and spread around?
List of WMG artists (Which will get your video muted/removed if you submit them with any of the following content)
Normally, this kind of behaviour might be described as a "tantrum". However, where the music industry "greats" such as WMG and EMI are concerned, I'd describe them as "death-throes".
These companies are dying. Music isn't, but these companies are. They've slipped off the edge of the cliff of progress. They had no idea, when they were screwing us over for CDs at £20 a time, that we'd ever have an answer. They thought we'd always just simply have to "take it up the ass".
However, the people's answer came in the combined form of the internet and the MP3. The biggest mistake businesses make is to assume that the new company on the block will play by the same rules as you.
It's like in fencing, there's no need to fear an experienced and skilled opponent. What you should fear is the new guy who, having no experience whatsoever and having no appreciation for established traditions and protocols, violently cuts and slashes his way to an unpredictable, violent and unforseen victory.
By pulling this kind of crap, WMG (and RIAA and IFPI etc) are just going public about their own suicides.
They're muting all the audio on videos you upload, with this music in them. Even, as happened to a friend of mine, if the music is just playing on the kitchen-top stereo in the background. Her entire video blog audio was just wiped.
:throwrose My old boss gimme the fencing idea, where he got it from I'm not sure - more than likely from Michael Hammer (who's just died.. sad loss for the business world).
Now that there are 10million apps that rip YT vids/audio, it has just become another place to share music. All of The Prodigy's latest album was on there before it was released in the shops, just a static image with audio. It is because of users abusing it in this way that they have taken this approach.
I ahve a vid on there using Scooters Logical Song as a soundtrack to some in-car footage of a road rally. A couple of years ago I got the email about infringing content and feared the worst, but all they want to do is track views and place ads apparently.
Well I had a short video with about 10seconds of a Linkin Park song (not even lyrics, just a very staccato guitar sequence) and they came at me and just muted the sound on the video
... Yet the video had 29 views and it had been on for a day...then a video of the actual song that had 4000+ views still hasnt been removed
They do it cos it's how they make money - governing the distributing channel and spreading the music, that's why artists gives a part of the income to them.
But as media is more and more accessible to the public and everyone has a PC can reach out to millions of audience the idea of a music label might just be obselete, hence they are doing every bit to delay the inevitable demise and buy time to look for new ways to make the money back.
I have no objection to their practice, afterall it's their profession in choosing where/when and how their music are published, and the fact the artists paid them part of their income to do so represents that they are trusted to get their job done. There are real work involved in getting the right music to the right audience and doing all the needed promotions, an artist basically is a branded product nowadays, it's all about positioning and giving it a suitable character - and I can understand why they will want their brand to appear in an desired manner, in desired places, associated with a desired cultural statement.
if you are put off by this you can always listen to some indie stuff, the price is just that you will have to actively look for it, instead of depending on label companies to relay them to you for free.
Yeah, I have a couple of songs from the Sony Music group and they just add one of those "buy this song on I-Tunes" add on it. However, it fails to take into account what other songs there are in the video, it's completely ignorant and childish behaviour IMO. What difference does it make if a video has one of 'their' songs in it?
The act makes provision for it but the software developed by Google, that "listens" to the audio as it's being uploaded and mutes the audio if it detects copyrighted music, doesn't or can't make the distinction. There's no recourse AFAIK, either. The audio is as good as lost. Youtube can't or won't turn it back on and if you re-upload the same video, it'll just lose its audio again.
And you couldn't find a way around it? Such as by delaying the start of the music, or adjusting the volume, or cutting it up into chunks, but setting them next to each other so it plays as one continuous track?
I'm guessing it does it by the thingies that I've forgotten the name of.. the spikes of music that are unique to each song..?
The larger labels will probably die within the next 20 years (good), the mainstream pop industry will be severely harmed (good) and acts with talent won't be that significantly harmed.
I use Spotify myself, I'm a bit peeved that certain acts aren't on it - but hey, nothing's perfect.
I haven't found a way around it because I've not uploaded a video on Youtube since the new system came in. Let us know how you get on.
It probably works by matching audio patterns with its database of track samples, and it would be difficult to circumvent a well-written pattern matching system.
Good on Google for not giving in to the PRS, although reminding them that the service is based in the US rather than the UK could have been an interesing option ...
My old boss gimme the fencing idea, where he got it from I'm not sure - more than likely from 
