The Music is Gone

[Reverend Joe]

Has anybody noticed that it has become basically impossible to find the studio versions of songs on Youtube lately? I think it's quite disappointing. Youtube used to be my primary source for finding old music to buy (and yes, I actually buy my music) but now it has become impossible to "preview," so to speak, music that I might want to buy.

Does anyone know of a good source for listening to songs free on the Internet aside from Last.FM? I find Last.FM to be good, but lacking when it comes to many groups who choose to only release 30-second samples rather than full songs. Note that I'm not actually trying to download the music, as I am willing to pay for music I like.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Playlist.com (http://www.playlist.com/)

Imeem.com (http://www.imeem.com/)

[Lemur]

I knew that Warner Music was on a jihad against YouTube, but I wasn't aware of any other labels yanking their libraries. I better read up ....

[a completely inoffensive name]

This gives me an idea for a backroom thread....

[Thermal]

Most music I listen to has stayed, but apparently there are copyright issues on some. :no:

[Csargo]

I noticed the same thing. Imeem is what I've been using lately.

[Hooahguy]

youtube, but taking off the music, is quickly shooting down popularity.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Ah, I thought only the users of German Youtube were the poor sods who were banned from music. Obviously I was wrong.

It is time that music industry realises its death. The times of printing money with releasing crappy songs and hyping under-talented clone-groups is over. Music is free for anybody who wants to listen to it. The 21st century holds no room for people who want to make other people pay for a solely private pleasure. Musicians can earn their money from giving concerts and being invited to talkshows or whatever. That's enough. They don't need golden bathroom applications in each of their dozen 40 million $-estates. There is absolutely no way to justify having to purchase a license (that's buying a CD or paying for a download) just to have the right to listen to something whenever you want. That is grossly immoral. That is like imposing a tax on the right to breath.

[Hooahguy]

the one thing i could never understand is why artists would want their music taken off youtube, since so many times i have listened to songs on youtube then bought the album a bit later, obviously making income for the band which made the album.

[Lemur]

For the most part artists don't want to be taken off YouTube (with the exception of a few certifiable whack-jubs, like the Artist Formerly Known As). But the musicians have no say in the matter, unless they own (a) the rights to their composition, (b) the rights to their recording (those are separate legal matters, mind) and (c) the rights to their video.

Very few musicians have any of those, much less all three.

[Reverend Joe]

So what if they post one of their own songs? Could they be sued for copyright infringement on one of their own songs?

:inquisitive: :dizzy2:

[miotas]

Wouldn't that depend on who owned the song?

I suppose there are a few big name artists that still own their own songs but for the most part the songs would be owned by the record labels wouldn't they?

[Lemur]

Could they be sued for copyright infringement on one of their own songs?
Short answer: Yes, absolutely. But it would be terrible PR, so the label probably wouldn't sue, say, Bruce Springsteen for posting Born to Run.

But they could if they wanted to. It's a royally gah-ed up business. Won't be sad to see it die.

[Caius]

What they do is to repleace songs. I mean, that sucks!