YouTube Videos and Synchronization Royalties?

[TRichardsbass]

There have been a lot of questions lately about the millions of lip synched videos popping up on YouTube.

In the music publishing biz, if a TV show, movie or other medium wants to run your music in the background for effect, and you hold either a PA or SR copyright, you would normally get an agreement for a "Synchronization Royalty." And, if they used your actual performance, you are also due a "Performance Royalty."

So, the question is, since YouTube is the host, in a sense acting like a TV station, and they in fact make money from advertising, like a TV station, aren't the musicians who are being lip synched to and uploaded due both a synchronization royalty AND a performance royalty.

I know that there are probably a bunch of lawsuits pending, but I want to know from you here, do you agree with me that you should be getting a royalty from your work being used by people and uploaded to YouTube?

[stratovani]

Sorry, I may be a geezer, and obviously I'm not getting it, but why would someone want to lip-synch to a song, then post the video to YouTube for the whole world to make fun at? Sounds to me like something little giggly teenage girls might want to do, and in their immaturity show to their friends so they can all giggle like little girls!

[Lowtonejoe]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

There have been a lot of questions lately about the millions of lip synched videos popping up on YouTube.

In the music publishing biz, if a TV show, movie or other medium wants to run your music in the background for effect, and you hold either a PA or SR copyright, you would normally get an agreement for a "Synchronization Royalty." And, if they used your actual performance, you are also due a "Performance Royalty."

So, the question is, since YouTube is the host, in a sense acting like a TV station, and they in fact make money from advertising, like a TV station, aren't the musicians who are being lip synched to and uploaded due both a synchronization royalty AND a performance royalty.

I know that there are probably a bunch of lawsuits pending, but I want to know from you here, do you agree with me that you should be getting a royalty from your work being used by people and uploaded to YouTube?

No....and yes.

I think that we need a forum that is free to post to and also to get free advertisement from along with international exposure. Thank you YouTube!

For every knucklehead with a webcam to have to be paid for the original garbage they put on YouTube would be ridiculous and would eventually put the company out of business! Then we would all lose out. However, if it is good enough and goes viral, their opportunity to make money from other sources could show up! They could even plug their own website in the comments area on which they could have a link to PayPal asking for donations (on their website, not YouTube)!

Let's say said knucklehead posts a cool animation with someone else's or ANYBODY else's tune, that goes viral. Should the authors of the commercial tune be compensated by YouTube? No! They are getting free advertisement! Their choices should be:

1. Pay the person who made the video and then market it themselves

2. Leave it alone and get the free advertising

3. Have the video pulled down...it is their song after all.

Since it is in YouTube's interest to bring in watchers, maybe viral videos should be offered some compensation based on the number of unique hits? But then we might see the number of fake accounts go viral and ruin that for us too!

Besides, if your vid goes viral and you get butt hurt because no one will pay you for it you can always take it down! But seriously, who would do that? It's free advertising! A minute in the spotlight!

Until YouTube starts CHARGING for their service, paying for videos should be their option.

IMHO.



Joe.

[Fridge123]

If I am correct, in the UK YouTube does pay royalties for original music through the PRS, and this is funded by the adverts on the videos.

I don't know about synchronisation and performance, but they certainly get something.

[TRichardsbass]

Good points, however the free advertising thought has been argued a million times. There are no reall good studies or any proof that a viral video's music generates significant increases in sales. It may have made Rebecca Black infamous, but even the publishers of the song, using the YouTube affiliate program, only netted about $20K.

YouTube does not need to charge in order to pay. They make money from advertisers, so in effect they gain profit and revenue from the content on their website. They started the affiliate program because of it as they are looking to add content that increases advertiser dollars. So entice the big boys with a piece of the pie.

Now that I think about it YouTube should absolutely be paying the copyright holders for the video plays, period.

Under copyright law you have, in this case, two specific licenses needed. First, the kidiots making the video should obtain a "synchronization license." So, in theory they should have my permission to use the song. Lets assume I don't say anything, and by default therefore grant them a free synchronization license.

Then there is the performance license. Usually pennies paid to BMI and ASCAP based on plays (and YouTube definitely tracks the number of views, so they can do the accounting.) Your local bar, radio and TV station all obtain and have to pay for them, and track plays so that BMI and ASCAP can pay the artists.

Now, YouTube is really an online TV station, only they don't pay for content. As it would be covered as a TV or radio station, they control everything, including advertising, and make profit from the advertisers.The advertisers are there because of the traffic generated by the views and viewers. Under typical copyright law, the burden of the performance license would be on YouTube, as they are the hosts and therefore the broadcaster.

I agree, I can contact them and have the video taken down. But interestingly, if they agree to take it down they also admit they are responsible for any monetary obligation until the time they take it down, no matter who posted it.

That's my take. I'd lilke the lawyers who lurk here to add to the conversation please.

[TRichardsbass]

The other point LowtoneJoe, is that we are not talking about paying the idiots who post anything. We are talking about copyright protected works that we, the copyright holders, did not give permission to use nor to YouTube to make money off of. Its one thing if I post a video of my big toe wiggling in the sand at the beach. Its another if I take that video and put it to the Beach Boys "Hawaii."

Interesting that in the UK it looks like there is a license of some kind in place.

I wonder about with us in the US. I am pretty sure there is none.

[Febs]

You should take a look at the district court's summary judgment decision in Viacom v. Youtube, and take a look at some of the briefs that have been filed in the ongoing appeal of that decision:

Viacom v. YouTube | Electronic Frontier Foundation

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by stratovani

Sorry, I may be a geezer, and obviously I'm not getting it, but why would someone want to lip-synch to a song, then post the video to YouTube for the whole world to make fun at? Sounds to me like something little giggly teenage girls might want to do, and in their immaturity show to their friends so they can all giggle like little girls!

Its actually something a ton of people do on YouTube, although normally its the younger generation, and they do it for a multitude of reasons, like to get laughs, to show off their video production skills, yada yada. I saw a vid on YouTube of a kid who made a video of himself lip synching to a song with 8 harmony parts. He put himself in the video doing each part simultaneously. It was a pretty good video from a kid who looked to me to be no more then about 18.

I'm just starting to really question some things. I see the performers end of the music biz really getting squeezed, and a lot of it comes from this "sharing" mentality.

Does the internet provide and outlet to millions of otherwise unknown musicians with talent? Yes. Does that mean that those who have paid their dues and have played by the book, and are due some compensation for their efforts should just have to suck it up? No.

There are a couple of videos on the web with kids doing things to a song I wrote. I, however, sold my ownership in it a long time ago. But I was thinkiing about all these guys who still hold the copyrights who are essentially getting screwed.

Being young does not make you above the law, and ignorance is no excuse. But today it seems no one other then Gene Simmons and Lars Ulrich really work hard at protecting what is theirs.

In this case I'm looking at it from the purely business side. There are laws and rules that I have to abide by. The one benefit is that under the law I am entitled to compensation for certain things as long as I've complied with the law. YouTube as a company and website, no matter how much they try and how many lawyers they pay, has to abide by the same.

In my mind, YouTube has to pay the performance royalty. If they want to pass the responsibility off to the poster of the content, then they have to sue the poster. They can't avoid paying me, they have to reclaim their loss from the content poster.

I don't understand why I am the only one who seems to get this, or at least why I don't see a ton of legal actions out there. There is big money to be made by the lawyers on this one. Normally that means they swarm....

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by Febs

You should take a look at the district court's summary judgment decision in Viacom v. Youtube, and take a look at some of the briefs that have been filed in the ongoing appeal of that decision:

Viacom v. YouTube | Electronic Frontier Foundation

I was looking for something like this. I'll have to look at the summary judgement and see how the looney judge came up with this.

I didn't look deeply in the two minutes, but I'm guessing that the Grokster case was deeply cited.

I was reading some of the briefs and I think the argument using the "massive intent" is a bad argument. Just like some other cases I know, if you hinge on the "massive intent" you lose. The DCMA was meant to encourage creativity and give the website or host some freedom because they cannot nor would not be able to know everything that was posted that was protected or not.

However, after a certain amount of posted vids it became clear that they knew there was a "massive amount" of infringement and they really didn't do anything to try to curb it. Yes, we have to police our own stuff, but clearly YouTube knows there are a billion copies of infringed Beatles stuff on there.

I'm going to read the summary judgement now. Thanks again for the links. I actually think I should join the appeal team...

[Lowtonejoe]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

The other point LowtoneJoe, is that we are not talking about paying the idiots who post anything. We are talking about copyright protected works that we, the copyright holders, did not give permission to use nor to YouTube to make money off of. Its one thing if I post a video of my big toe wiggling in the sand at the beach. Its another if I take that video and put it to the Beach Boys "Hawaii."

Interesting that in the UK it looks like there is a license of some kind in place.

I wonder about with us in the US. I am pretty sure there is none.

Re-read my post. It accounts for this. (Hint, it is the part with the numbers in it.)

YouTube is NOT like TV. When's the last time you could choose to be on TV any time you wanted.

YouTube is a free venue that you can play at any time and have an audience of one or an audience of millions depending on what you have to offer.

It would be unfortunate for greedy bastards to screw this up for us.

As long as they keep their service free I applaud and thank them. If they ever start charging...that will change the whole ballgame.



Joe.

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by Lowtonejoe

Re-read my post. It accounts for this. (Hint, it is the part with the numbers in it.)

YouTube is NOT like TV. When's the last time you could choose to be on TV any time you wanted.

YouTube is a free venue that you can play at any time and have an audience of one or an audience of millions depending on what you have to offer.

It would be unfortunate for greedy bastards to screw this up for us.

As long as they keep their service free I applaud and thank them. If they ever start charging...that will change the whole ballgame.



Joe.

Actually Joe, the internet is covered in the documents empowering the FCC, in the same sections as TV. Only three mentions, but its there, so from a quasi legal perspective, YouTube and TV are treated the same.

This isn't about greedy bastards. YouTube and Google are making a huge amount of money from the website. The DCMA was meant to foster innovation. At this point I could say that YouTube is no longer a platform for "innovation" but rather a platform for "huge cash profit." But that is for another argument another day.

I can and have had material removed from YouTube. The issue is, however, if while my content was there and viewed YouTube made any money off the ads when it was viewed, once I notify them they must take it down, but they are absolved from making restitution to me. I can sue the video poster, and in one case I did, but for the small guy its too costly. In my suit all I got out of it was a lien against the guys business for my attorney's fees. He then filed bankruptcy and closed the business. I wound up with one third of the amount after he liquidated this video equipment.

Hey, if you want to post pictures of your big toe, go ahead. If you want to do it to some cool music, either make it yourself or get the permission of the person who owns it. You'd be surprised how easy it would have been for them to ask me to use my song, and if they were polite and asked I probably would have let them use it gratis and only asked for payment after a certain number of views.

I hope YouTube stays too, however once Google purchased them I believe they stepped away from some of the protections of the DCMA. Again, in 1998 they were trying to foster new innovation on the internet. Today YouTube is a big business, not a business incubator.

[Lowtonejoe]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

Actually Joe, the internet is covered in the documents empowering the FCC, in the same sections as TV. Only three mentions, but its there, so from a quasi legal perspective, YouTube and TV are treated the same.

This isn't about greedy bastards. YouTube and Google are making a huge amount of money from the website. The DCMA was meant to foster innovation. At this point I could say that YouTube is no longer a platform for "innovation" but rather a platform for "huge cash profit." But that is for another argument another day.

I can and have had material removed from YouTube. The issue is, however, if while my content was there and viewed YouTube made any money off the ads when it was viewed, once I notify them they must take it down, but they are absolved from making restitution to me. I can sue the video poster, and in one case I did, but for the small guy its too costly. In my suit all I got out of it was a lien against the guys business for my attorney's fees. He then filed bankruptcy and closed the business. I wound up with one third of the amount after he liquidated this video equipment.

Hey, if you want to post pictures of your big toe, go ahead. If you want to do it to some cool music, either make it yourself or get the permission of the person who owns it. You'd be surprised how easy it would have been for them to ask me to use my song, and if they were polite and asked I probably would have let them use it gratis and only asked for payment after a certain number of views.

I hope YouTube stays too, however once Google purchased them I believe they stepped away from some of the protections of the DCMA. Again, in 1998 they were trying to foster new innovation on the internet. Today YouTube is a big business, not a business incubator.

Ah, so this is not a hypothetical question...you have an agenda.

If you can prove they made money off your music, by all means, you should go after them. That not only does not contradict anything I said but also supports the concept of fairness I feel I have promoted.

You shouldn't be so sneaky about it. Maybe your question should have been "This happened to me, do you guys think this is fair?". There is too much about 'law' and not enough about 'fair' going on these days.

Unless the 'little guy' you sued made money off you, I think going after him was in bad taste. Taking the vid down should have been enough. It's because of crap like that I quit listening to Metallica. (No, not identical situations but close enough.)

But if he did make money off you, then you did the right thing.

Nothing's easy ain't it?



Joe.

[TRichardsbass]

Lately I have a huge agenda. I like bread on my table and a roof over my head. Part of that comes from the music I write and the journalism I write that the government has me pay to copyright and therefore get exclusive use and ownership of it.

As a side note I just read an article today that Google's lawyers were speaking at some meeting or conference today and here is the direct quote:

"Software patents are gumming up the works of innovation." Brilliant.

The underlying thought process, based on reading all the statements, was that Google has almost no patents other then on search engine code, and they don't want to pay for the rights to use certain patented items. In additon, you can hear a lot of sour grapes and "why can't I just use it man, it should be free for me" in them.

Sort of what I have been ranting about for the past couple of days. All these guys are now filthy rich, and don't want to grow up. In the early days I'm sure they stole and "borrowed" technology and intellectual property they shouldn't have, but they were young and stupid. Now they are making huge money, and are beginning to see that if you are a grown up there are rules you have to play by.

I giggled on this. Basically the entire competition has shut Google out of the smart phone business in a very large way, and they did it legally. Google has no innovative path of their own, so they now are stuck with having to pay the piper or not be in the business. Unfortunately for them the smartphone/touch pad is the wave of the future and they can't get in.

Crap happens.

But I love the thought process...patents and copyrights stifle innovation.

So what they are really saying is the only people who should cash in on their ideas or hard efforts are the kidiots at Google.

Maybe Google can produce pencils. I understand all the protections on those ran out about fifty years ago....

[Febs]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

I giggled on this. Basically the entire competition has shut Google out of the smart phone business in a very large way, and they did it legally. Google has no innovative path of their own, so they now are stuck with having to pay the piper or not be in the business. Unfortunately for them the smartphone/touch pad is the wave of the future and they can't get in.

Um ... Android?

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by Lowtonejoe

Ah, so this is not a hypothetical question...you have an agenda.

If you can prove they made money off your music, by all means, you should go after them. That not only does not contradict anything I said but also supports the concept of fairness I feel I have promoted.

You shouldn't be so sneaky about it. Maybe your question should have been "This happened to me, do you guys think this is fair?". There is too much about 'law' and not enough about 'fair' going on these days.

Unless the 'little guy' you sued made money off you, I think going after him was in bad taste. Taking the vid down should have been enough. It's because of crap like that I quit listening to Metallica. (No, not identical situations but close enough.)

But if he did make money off you, then you did the right thing.

Nothing's easy ain't it?



Joe.

Because of the cost to me I don't just sue people Willie Nillie. In this case he put my music to a highly racist and just plain bad video, and I didn't want my name or music associated with this crap. He had done this with a some other, larger artists songs as well, so it was becoming a trend with him. I just wanted to shut him down and make sure he couldn't come back for a while. So far, he hasn't popped back up, as far as I can tell, and its been about two years.

Lars Ulrich was right. The problem with everyone wanting everything for free is that thought process is normally only aimed at music and entertainment. If you wan't to be able to get Metallica's music for free, then Metallica and the guys should be able to get you to work for them for free too. You can't pick and choose. If you personally want to get paid for the work you do (I'm sure you do in whatever your daily vocation is) then why shouldn't Lars and Metallica? Just because they are big and famous now shouldn't make them exempt from getting compensated for what they do.

Heck, I HATE the tv show "Jersey Shore" but I can't argue that if they want to get paid for being on it and someone is willing to pay them that much money that they shouldn't get it. Truth is if someone were to pay me to do the same thing I'd probably do it in a heartbeat.

Lars and Gene Simmons (and now a large extent me) are highlighting some of the issues that have to be resolved as technology outpaces life and law.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that we have created a generation of kids and now adults who don't truly know what hard work is and what sacrifices often have to be made to just survive. They all expect to be rewarded for almost no effort. They don't understand that you do have to compensate people for their effirts and contributions, especially if they did the work and you didn't.

I see it all the time when kids come into my studio to record a demo. Zero preparation, they think you just plug in and turn on a mic, do your thing, walk away and the guy at the console magically makes it great for nothing. I had to explain to one set of kids that you are paying $350 bucks for a simple, live studio demo up to three songs, and you get up to 4 hours of being in the studio. I will do one initial mix, let you listen to it, then give you one chance to make simple changes or corrections. Then I will do a final mix and give you the .wav files. My time after they record is up to 4 hours total. So, you get only 4 hours of my time before it costs you more. And if you just give me crap, it will take ten times that to fix it.

Either way, another rant.

But hey, lay off Lars. In my other life as a professional sports writer I got to know his dad, Torben Ulrich, pretty well. Interesting character, and one thing he did do is raise a polite, informed, educated son and an all around good citizen.

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by Febs

Um ... Android?

Yes, but they are having problems moving forward because just about all of the improvements on Android infringe on a ton of patents, and I believe they already lost one suit having to do specifically with Android.

Read the article or two that are out there. Its pretty interesting. Google wouldn't be crying if they weren't currently about to get their butts whooped.

[Lowtonejoe]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

Lately I have a huge agenda. I like bread on my table and a roof over my head. Part of that comes from the music I write and the journalism I write that the government has me pay to copyright and therefore get exclusive use and ownership of it.

As a side note I just read an article today that Google's lawyers were speaking at some meeting or conference today and here is the direct quote:

"Software patents are gumming up the works of innovation." Brilliant.

The underlying thought process, based on reading all the statements, was that Google has almost no patents other then on search engine code, and they don't want to pay for the rights to use certain patented items. In additon, you can hear a lot of sour grapes and "why can't I just use it man, it should be free for me" in them.

Sort of what I have been ranting about for the past couple of days. All these guys are now filthy rich, and don't want to grow up. In the early days I'm sure they stole and "borrowed" technology and intellectual property they shouldn't have, but they were young and stupid. Now they are making huge money, and are beginning to see that if you are a grown up there are rules you have to play by.

I giggled on this. Basically the entire competition has shut Google out of the smart phone business in a very large way, and they did it legally. Google has no innovative path of their own, so they now are stuck with having to pay the piper or not be in the business. Unfortunately for them the smartphone/touch pad is the wave of the future and they can't get in.

Crap happens.

But I love the thought process...patents and copyrights stifle innovation.

So what they are really saying is the only people who should cash in on their ideas or hard efforts are the kidiots at Google.

Maybe Google can produce pencils. I understand all the protections on those ran out about fifty years ago....

Dude, I totally understand and see where you are coming from now.

I have been dealing with the same thing on a different scale. It's difficult to maintain a balanced perspective with all the BS going on in business and politics these days. If the economy was better we could ignore it and to a certain degree we always do. But the situation now is that the balance of wealth is so grossly disproportionate almost all of us are hurting in some way because of it and the way it became so.

Like I said, there's too much 'law' and not enough 'fair'. If you can prove you were wronged, go for it and best of luck to you. Heck, I wish I could help you out.



Joe.

[Lowtonejoe]

Originally Posted by TRichardsbass

Because of the cost to me I don't just sue people Willie Nillie. In this case he put my music to a highly racist and just plain bad video, and I didn't want my name or music associated with this crap. He had done this with a some other, larger artists songs as well, so it was becoming a trend with him. I just wanted to shut him down and make sure he couldn't come back for a while. So far, he hasn't popped back up, as far as I can tell, and its been about two years.

Oh yeah? Well, good for you then. I would have the same problem.

Lars Ulrich was right. The problem with everyone wanting everything for free is that thought process is normally only aimed at music and entertainment. If you wan't to be able to get Metallica's music for free, then Metallica and the guys should be able to get you to work for them for free too. You can't pick and choose. If you personally want to get paid for the work you do (I'm sure you do in whatever your daily vocation is) then why shouldn't Lars and Metallica? Just because they are big and famous now shouldn't make them exempt from getting compensated for what they do.

I absolutely agree with the concept. The thing is we have been having the same argument since the advent of the 8-track tape and the copy machine. We can't stop technology so I guess we need to come up with another economic model.

Heck, I HATE the tv show "Jersey Shore" but I can't argue that if they want to get paid for being on it and someone is willing to pay them that much money that they shouldn't get it. Truth is if someone were to pay me to do the same thing I'd probably do it in a heartbeat.

I hope I wouldn't but I really can't say for sure.

Lars and Gene Simmons (and now a large extent me) are highlighting some of the issues that have to be resolved as technology outpaces life and law.

Yes, that is a fact.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that we have created a generation of kids and now adults who don't truly know what hard work is and what sacrifices often have to be made to just survive. They all expect to be rewarded for almost no effort. They don't understand that you do have to compensate people for their effirts and contributions, especially if they did the work and you didn't.

I see it all the time when kids come into my studio to record a demo. Zero preparation, they think you just plug in and turn on a mic, do your thing, walk away and the guy at the console magically makes it great for nothing. I had to explain to one set of kids that you are paying $350 bucks for a simple, live studio demo up to three songs, and you get up to 4 hours of being in the studio. I will do one initial mix, let you listen to it, then give you one chance to make simple changes or corrections. Then I will do a final mix and give you the .wav files. My time after they record is up to 4 hours total. So, you get only 4 hours of my time before it costs you more. And if you just give me crap, it will take ten times that to fix it.

No, I think this is a social issue...and a huge one. I agree with you on that.

Either way, another rant.

But hey, lay off Lars. In my other life as a professional sports writer I got to know his dad, Torben Ulrich, pretty well. Interesting character, and one thing he did do is raise a polite, informed, educated son and an all around good citizen.

I'm sure he is but jeez, how rich do these guys need to be?

Nothing's easy these days.



Joe.

[masonsjax]

Hey Tom. I want you to know that I have a great deal of respect for what you've accomplished in your career, and for the fact that you so freely share what you have learned. You are indeed a valuable resource on this forum.

However... (here it comes)... I disagree with a lot of the things you've been ranting about lately. I don't personally have a dog in this fight, so my opinion is just that, but I'm not ignorant either. Both of my parents were professional musicians, and my older brother is a touring, very successful, major label guitarist.

I honestly empathize with what you and many in your industry are struggling with, and venting about your situation is fine by me, I do it all the time. Also, if you have the law behind you, by all means, use whatever you have at your disposal to ensure those laws are upheld.

Personally I have mixed feelings about file sharing. I don't entirely disagree with you, in some situations it could potentially cost someone a handful of record sales, but there are a lot of valid arguments in favor of that model. From my point of view, it is a very exciting time for prospective musicians (film-makers, artists, etc.), but the evidence I see is largely anecdotal, so spewing it here would be a waste. This whole argument may be moot anyway. 20 years from now the entertainment industry will be entirely different than the way we know it now. Musicians of today will have adapted to the changes, or vanished altogether.

I actually had to sell my once successful business about 10 years ago because of large national companies moving in to my territory, lowballing bids and outsourcing much of the work to illegal immigrant labor that can work for next to nothing and get paid cash. I couldn't compete, so I changed the way I feed my family.

Regarding software patents, you clearly don't understand the real issues at play. Software patents are being abused by the big boys to gang up on the little guys specifically to stifle competition and innovation. If that's the way the game will continue, everyone else will have to adapt, or move on. It's not fair, but it is what it is.

I think discussion is healthy, so please don't take my comments as anything more than that.

Ok, one small personal comment: I can't count how many times I purchased "Master of Puppets" when I was younger. I lost it, lent it out, wore it out, bought it on cassette, upgraded to CD, etc.. How many more times should someone be expected to pay for the right to listen to those tunes? Same goes for the Star Wars films. At least MoP wasn't reworked with new special effects though. I'd probably pay for Star Wars again if the returned the Greedo scene to it's original glory.

[TRichardsbass]

Originally Posted by masonsjax

Hey Tom. I want you to know that I have a great deal of respect for what you've accomplished in your career, and for the fact that you so freely share what you have learned. You are indeed a valuable resource on this forum.

However... (here it comes)... I disagree with a lot of the things you've been ranting about lately. I don't personally have a dog in this fight, so my opinion is just that, but I'm not ignorant either. Both of my parents were professional musicians, and my older brother is a touring, very successful, major label guitarist.

I honestly empathize with what you and many in your industry are struggling with, and venting about your situation is fine by me, I do it all the time. Also, if you have the law behind you, by all means, use whatever you have at your disposal to ensure those laws are upheld.

Personally I have mixed feelings about file sharing. I don't entirely disagree with you, in some situations it could potentially cost someone a handful of record sales, but there are a lot of valid arguments in favor of that model. From my point of view, it is a very exciting time for prospective musicians (film-makers, artists, etc.), but the evidence I see is largely anecdotal, so spewing it here would be a waste. This whole argument may be moot anyway. 20 years from now the entertainment industry will be entirely different than the way we know it now. Musicians of today will have adapted to the changes, or vanished altogether.

I actually had to sell my once successful business about 10 years ago because of large national companies moving in to my territory, lowballing bids and outsourcing much of the work to illegal immigrant labor that can work for next to nothing and get paid cash. I couldn't compete, so I changed the way I feed my family.

Regarding software patents, you clearly don't understand the real issues at play. Software patents are being abused by the big boys to gang up on the little guys specifically to stifle competition and innovation. If that's the way the game will continue, everyone else will have to adapt, or move on. It's not fair, but it is what it is.

I think discussion is healthy, so please don't take my comments as anything more than that.

Ok, one small personal comment: I can't count how many times I purchased "Master of Puppets" when I was younger. I lost it, lent it out, wore it out, bought it on cassette, upgraded to CD, etc.. How many more times should someone be expected to pay for the right to listen to those tunes? Same goes for the Star Wars films. At least MoP wasn't reworked with new special effects though. I'd probably pay for Star Wars again if the returned the Greedo scene to it's original glory.

No offense taken, and it is a good discussion. You have valid points.

I guess I've chess boarded this in my head and I can see the future being essentiallly without any protections for your intellectual property. At that point its worthless to do anything creative unless you are only doing it for the love of it.

I encourage everyone to watch "Before the Music Dies". its a documentary available free on Hulu. While it does try to push an attitude that life will go on and survive, they spend a good amount displaying the evils and perils of sampling.

To a large degree a lot of popular music today is a pure rip off of songs that someone spent time writing many years ago. I don't necessarily consider rewording "Every Breath" is all that creative. I prefer the original. Vanilla Ice and his two pure rip offs? They all knew they were ripping off Queen and Wild Cherry but didn't ante anything up until they got sued.

I don't have a problem with torrents in themselves. They can be great ways to spread YOUR music and as a tool for your personal efforts. I also don't really have issues with P2P for the same reasons. However, these things quickly go from being a useful tool developed to assist in a certain situation to being a way to get things like music and movies for free.

I had a discussion with a software engineer today and I asked him to name the types of files that would really benefit by the use of bit torrents. Number one from him was operating systems and updates. Number two? Movies. Number three? music. He pretty much summed it up. The only files that really benefit technically from bit torrents are huge files. The most prevelent huge files available today are movies and videos followed by music. So I would have to say that the originators had to understand that would be one of the uses.

Again, I think I'm gonna slow the rant down. I frustrate myself the most, because I can see where some of these things are going and know that for the most part very few either understand or care.

I was raised to open doors for women, respect my parents, work an honest day's work, defend the defenseless and stand up for and do what is right and proper, even if that means it will cause me some pain or other inconvenience. I believe that integrity and respect are much more important and valuable then being liked . I am willing to stand for something and be public about it.

The new generation I fear does not have the capacity to understand the importance of being civil and having integrity. The internet alone has made it possible for people to act like animals because of its anonymity.