Don't feed a dying monster

by Volker Weber

Mail from Youtube:

Dear vowe,

Your video, Driving to the conference, may have content that is owned or licensed by Sony Music Entertainment.

That is quite possible. There was something playing on the radio of the Toyota Prius I was driving. Anyway, you have seen "Sony Music Entertainment" on Youtube before. I suggest the next time you buy a CD, just turn it over and make sure the content is not owned or licensed by Sony Music Entertainment. If these guys want to go down, we better make it quick.


... but where is the youtube video? I can't find it on

Eva Quirinius, 2010-08-21

Well, I was quick to divorce Sony Music Entertainment.

Volker Weber, 2010-08-21

what kind of money do they invest in harvesting this kind of info, I wonder. And what kind of analysis system allows to identify things from a car stereo in a video as being "theirs"?

Somebody made a good buck in selling the IT that does this to them. Or is this just your everyday neighbor blockwart spy telling them stuff?

I was wondering, whether maybe, just naming another option this was a job for the vagabonding nigerian cybercafe population as a means of a second income, since hardly anyone responds to the ubiquitous "south african bank manager" who wants you to take care of a couple of millions for him although you never heard of him and neither were formally introduced.

While waiting for the few responses to their own scams, they can use their wits to identify Sony stuff on youtube and listen to licensed music all the time.

Plus learn about a lot of things, e.g.the topic of Driving to the conference video - whatever it was before it got deleted.

Armin Roth, 2010-08-21

Well I expect they want (more) money from Google/YouTube. To get it they have to annoy as many users as possible with nice messages like
"This (removed) video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment."
The four major labels control 80% of the music market with Sony owning 25% of it. If you still buy music, ignoring Sony can be a tough job.
The music business is really suffering from this oligopoly.

Henning Heinz, 2010-08-21

@Henning: You always can resort to singing in the bathtub --- until you require a license for that too.
:-) stw

Stephan H. Wissel, 2010-08-22

When they say "may have content " the question to be answered is: Did it or NOT? If yes - delete it. If no: Whats the fuzz? I am constantly annoyed by those Sony guys. Whenever I click on a yt link - and that is seldom, I get confronted with them. Sure it is their IP, but what if they don't advertise it?

If the music fits the video and there is an ad in the video "you can buy this wonderful music at ..." then OK, I may be tempted to do so.
But if I get presented a screen with "This video has been removed because it contains Sony material", then I am NEVER gonna buy it, because I had no chance to hear it.

Jörg Hermann, 2010-08-22

I wouldn´t worry about them. My guess is, they will not go down before you or me.

Erich Bonnert, 2010-08-22

Just reading the title, before seeing the article, made me think the topic would be different.

Craig Wiseman, 2010-08-22

So they won. That lets them think they have done right. From my point of view claiming 'fair use' would have been the better choice.

They understand only one thing: 'loosing money is bad'. And loosing money together with public shame would be the final sanction for them. In other words: priceless for us.

Richard Kaufmann, 2010-08-22

So let me take another viewpoint for sake of discussion. For many years, if you use a song in any form other than personal enjoyment, the record company collects a use fee. This is how artists get paid* royalties into the future. This is true for radio and TV in the states. Heck, if you sing "Happy Birthday" you need to pay a royalty fee if your doing it at a place of business - there is a famous court case against TGI Fridays in the states. That is why they made up their own birthday song they sing.

The internet is just another medium. Why should they not collect royalties for use with videos? It's not for personal use - once others can view it the "personal use" clause it broken.

How does a company make money if not protecting its intellectual capital?

* yeah, I know, that is in practice. Artists have claimed for years they don't see any of that money

john head, 2010-08-22

Well, John, not everything is about "making money". Second, they are already making money if something plays on the radio. And third, they won't be getting any royalties from me, for recording something, where I cannot control what's in the background. And finally, jurisdiction ends at your border. You'd be surprised that copyright does not apply here. Our jurisdiction protects the creator, not the merchant.

As I said, not everything is about "making money". This very site would not even exist otherwise.

Volker Weber, 2010-08-22

it is YouTube who - of course by demand of IP owners - has implemented the algorithms for finding copyrighted material out of 100 years of uploaded videos per day, in real time. See it explained in a TED video.

Thomas Griesbaum, 2010-08-23

Artists have claimed for years they don't see any of that money.

Which is true. The Royalty system works well for really big stars, only.

Hanno Zulla, 2010-08-24

Fuck Sony Entertainment - Sid der Liedermacher

Olav Brinkmann, 2010-08-27

Old archive pages

I explain difficult concepts in simple ways. For free, and for money. Clue procurement and bullshit detection.


Paypal vowe