Looking for alternative to YouTube

Comments

Spectralis wrote on 5/31/2015, 3:45 PM
The other problem with playing the morality card is whose morality is being imposed here? As I mentioned before I don't have much respect for an entertainment industry that steals ideas from other people, forces interns to work for nothing to gain entry and gouges the public at the expense of the artists they're meant to represent. There's another word for that, hypocrisy. If the industry continues to act in such a hypocritical manner then who will believe in their morality? The bottom line is that it's not the multinationals who suffer from this arrangement but up and coming creators and our potential customers. The industries morality is often like a foot on the back of the neck and that hypocrisy doesn't benefit anyone.
riredale wrote on 5/31/2015, 11:32 PM
Interesting discussion.

I first began using Vegas in 2002, and began posting on this board back then. Every year or two the copyright question would reappear. The pro and con arguments are always the same, because the law hasn't changed. Some of the commenters have changed. Spot was a fierce advocate of copyright because he had a considerable catalog out there.

I remember the Harry Fox agency being mentioned back then. My recollection is that they stopped doing the simple licensing years ago. So the only options are to try to negotiate with various nebulous entities or just use the music. Legal or illegal, the lawyers are not interested in little players because there's no money to be made. So they go after the big offenders.

What sticks in my craw is the idea that copyright is almost forever, totally unlike patents. I've had several patents. After a certain limited time, the stuff becomes public domain. So why should copyright be any different? After all these decades, the lawyers knock on the door if a restaurant sings "Happy Birthday" to its patrons? Absurd.

So no one jumps through the copyright hoops because the hoops have been made permanent (that's not fair) and extremely tiny. I would LOVE to have a clearing house where a popular work can be used for a modest fee--and where the mechanism for licensing was trivial.

farss wrote on 6/1/2015, 2:14 AM
[I]" I would LOVE to have a clearing house where a popular work can be used for a modest fee--and where the mechanism for licensing was trivial."[/]

That's what YouTube have effectively been trying to do. You can let YT hand over all the advertising revenue from your video to the copyright owner in return for them agreeing to it being used in your YT video.

That's all well and good except what about the work we put into the video.

Bob.
ushere wrote on 6/1/2015, 2:24 AM
i repeat, i object to being accused of copyright infringement when i own the right to use the music, as in needle drop, and youtube simply ignores my protestations.

it's a weighted game and we're very much the lightweights ;-(
dxdy wrote on 6/1/2015, 9:25 AM
RIredale, Harry Fox Agency still does do "simple" licensing for song covers, you can buy the mechanical rights for up to 2500 copies and sell them. They also do sync rights, but you cannot sell the copies.