Songs by Adele, Bob Dylan, Green Day, Many More Blocked by YouTube in Legal Dispute (variety.com) 28
An anonymous reader shares a report: Songs by Adele, Bob Dylan, Green Day, R.E.M., Burna Boy, Rush and many others are currently unplayable on YouTube in the U.S. due to a legal dispute between the platform and the performing rights organization SESAC. Attempts to play many, but not all, songs by those artists on Saturday met with the following message: "This video contains content from SESAC. It is not available in your country."
A similar dispute between Universal Music Group and TikTok raged on for several months earlier this year before being resolved. In a statement to Variety, a YouTube rep said: "We have held good faith negotiations with SESAC to renew our existing deal. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we were unable to reach an equitable agreement before its expiration. We take copyright very seriously and as a result, content represented by SESAC is no longer available on YouTube in the US. We are in active conversations with SESAC and are hoping to reach a new deal as soon as possible." A source close to the situation tells Variety that the previous deal actually does not expire until next week, and suggests that YouTube's move is a negotiating tactic. SESAC is far smaller than ASCAP and BMI -- with approximately 30,000 members and 1.5 million compositions while ASCAP has nearly 800,000 members -- but as the caliber of artists affected by the block shows, it represents a comparatively large percentage of the marketplace.
A similar dispute between Universal Music Group and TikTok raged on for several months earlier this year before being resolved. In a statement to Variety, a YouTube rep said: "We have held good faith negotiations with SESAC to renew our existing deal. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we were unable to reach an equitable agreement before its expiration. We take copyright very seriously and as a result, content represented by SESAC is no longer available on YouTube in the US. We are in active conversations with SESAC and are hoping to reach a new deal as soon as possible." A source close to the situation tells Variety that the previous deal actually does not expire until next week, and suggests that YouTube's move is a negotiating tactic. SESAC is far smaller than ASCAP and BMI -- with approximately 30,000 members and 1.5 million compositions while ASCAP has nearly 800,000 members -- but as the caliber of artists affected by the block shows, it represents a comparatively large percentage of the marketplace.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Dylan was woke? Listen to his lyrics some time.
"You coulda done better but I don't mind
You just kinda wasted my precious time"
Re: (Score:2)
Either way the argument is stupid. I don't really care about the beliefs of the person who made the art. I only care about the quality of the art. Saying that you wouldn't listen to a song because it was written or performed by someone who is woke isn't any different than
YouTube stopped being a Funny joke "long time ago" (Score:2)
FP was going for Funny, right?
Singing: "Where has all the competent moderation gone? Long, time passing..." [Okay, so the joke is about the song with flowers and young girls and stuff. Is that clear enough for the moderators to understand?]
I don't think it would make a difference, but at least it would be nice if the Google would start telling the truth about the money. Citation needed for research showing how businesses wrap their business models around the cash flows? At what point does something become s
'The Cloud' strikes again (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Or in this case, running metube+mediacms
Shrug (Score:3)
I mean, it's nice being able to watch Rush and Dylan videos on Youtube. However, Youtube doesn't have a right to SESAC's content, and SESAC doesn't have a right for their content to be on Youtube. I don't particularly care one way or the other.
It's the same with news blurbs and Google. If news sites don't want their content to be on Google, Google is happy to remove it. Typing www.latimes.com isn't more difficult than typing www.google.com/news.
Re: (Score:2)
The artists may have something to say about it. Many of them prefer their work to be freely available, because they make most of their money from touring and merchandise.
Re: Shrug (Score:2)
well from that short list (Score:1)
Hint for Industry: We Don't Care (Score:1)
I've bought music on every format which has existed except reel to reel, and you know what. I couldn't give a donkey's fart whether or not any of it was properly licensed, or if rights holders are recognized in any way. After the performing artists are compensated, the rest can piss off.
I hope every individual on both sides of that "conflict" gets ass cancer and dies in their own shit for making me aware that profiteers are having a lovers spat.
Two shitty groups having a Pissy-Fit (Score:2)
Can we please... (Score:2)
Re: Can we please... (Score:2)
Yep. 25 years after first publication seems reasonable. Until that happens, it's the pirate life for me! Arrrrr!
Re: (Score:2)
May the FSM touch you.
Unfortunately, this won't hurt either of those groups.
Re: (Score:2)
7+7 was considered fair by the pepple who created the power.
You can't just say that they would have been OK with 400 years, which the corrupt would love.
Then again they said we should violently overthrow anybody who tried such shenanigans, so there's that.
Or perhaps .... (Score:2)
I will get my popcorn and watch the battle. As I listen to all the open source music being played by the London Philharmomic Orchestra.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Do not rely on some bureaucracy if you don't have to. But be careful, because they will try to control the devices you use to play those CDs and MP3's. What? They already do?
And (Score:2)
Fallout effects (Score:2)
bad for video games with this music in it as well! (Score:2)
bad for video games with this music in it as well!