I get that this article is trying to make it out that this record company is being a huge asshole, but to play the devils advocate...
She's been making a living using copyrighted music she didn't pay or ask for, so... I dunno, they're both in the wrong aren't they?
For reference this woman easily makes 6 figures a year from youtube, probably a LOT more (based off pewdiepie confirming he earned $6,000,000 in 2013 at approximately 3x her sub count)
ultra i thought you were cool
[QUOTE=Scot;45465563]ultra i thought you were cool[/QUOTE]
They're a major record label, it was only a matter of time before they brought up a case like this.
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;45465629]They're a major record label, it was only a matter of time before they brought up a case like this.[/QUOTE]
Monstercat is a relatively large recordlabel (they have big names anyway,Pegboard Nerds and Tristam for example) and they're entirely cool if you use their music if you credit them.
[QUOTE=Zotobom;45465640]Monstercat is a relatively large recordlabel (they have big names anyway,Pegboard Nerds and Tristam for example) and they're entirely cool if you use their music if you credit them.[/QUOTE]
No offence to Monstercat but when you compare them to Ultra, they're still relatively small. Ultra are owned by Sony so they are gonna be ruthless when it comes to copyright infringements.
[QUOTE=Adsone;45465401]I get that this article is trying to make it out that this record company is being a huge asshole, but to play the devils advocate...
She's been making a living using copyrighted music she didn't pay or ask for, so... I dunno, they're both in the wrong aren't they?
For reference this woman easily makes 6 figures a year from youtube, probably a LOT more (based off pewdiepie confirming he earned $6,000,000 in 2013 at approximately 3x her sub count)[/QUOTE]
Correction: she's been making a living making make-up tutorials.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;45465760]Correction: she's been making a living making make-up tutorials.[/QUOTE]
Okay sure they're just make-up tutorials, but when you're receiving
[quote]The label also said she "has been featured in a high-profile and multi-platform advertising campaign for YouTube, which features some of YouTube's most popular personalities".
"[Ms] Phan has also been featured in national advertising for Dr Pepper," it said. [/quote]
You can't just keep using random bits of music as though you're some tiny youtube channel. If a television show used these tracks without getting permission at all they'd be in the same deep shit and nobody would complain.
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;45465676]No offence to Monstercat but when you compare them to Ultra, they're still relatively small. Ultra are owned by Sony so they are gonna be ruthless when it comes to copyright infringements.[/QUOTE]
That's true,but i'm just trying to show that you can be a recordlabel with relatively large names without needing to sue everyone.
And what about Never Say Die and Circus? I'm not sure on their stance but I *think* they're alright because i've never seen a copyright strike by them. And they're huge. Never Say Die has Zomboy,SKisM,MUST DIE!,Eptic,501,Dodge & Fuski and Far Too Loud for example,and Circus includes Doctor P,Flux Pavilion,Cookie Monsta and FuntCase.
[quote]
Kaskade, whose work features most prominently in the record label's complaint, said: "Copyright law is a dinosaur, ill-suited for the landscape of today's media."
[/quote]
Here here!
[QUOTE=Zotobom;45465820]That's true,but i'm just trying to show that you can be a recordlabel with relatively large names without needing to sue everyone.
And what about Never Say Die and Circus? I'm not sure on their stance but I *think* they're alright because i've never seen a copyright strike by them. And they're huge. Never Say Die has Zomboy,SKisM,MUST DIE!,Eptic,501,Dodge & Fuski and Far Too Loud for example,and Circus includes Doctor P,Flux Pavilion,Cookie Monsta and FuntCase.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't disputing that, I'm just saying that labels owned by larger music companies scrutinise copyright infringement more thoroughly.
[QUOTE=Adsone;45465401]I get that this article is trying to make it out that this record company is being a huge asshole, but to play the devils advocate...
She's been making a living using copyrighted music she didn't pay or ask for, so... I dunno, they're both in the wrong aren't they?
For reference this woman easily makes 6 figures a year from youtube, probably a LOT more (based off pewdiepie confirming he earned $6,000,000 in 2013 at approximately 3x her sub count)[/QUOTE]
Actually, she claims she did get permission to use their music:
[quote]A spokesman for Ms Phan said the lawsuit "lacks any merit". She said: "Ultra agreed to allow Michelle to use the music and Michelle intends to fight this lawsuit and bring her own claims against Ultra.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Lord Fear;45466751]Actually, she claims she did get permission to use their music:[/QUOTE]
[quote]The BBC was unable to verify the claim that Ultra granted Ms Phan permission to use the music. A lawyer for the label and publisher did not respond to a request for comment.[/quote]
At this point it's the word of a woman who's made money using their works against the word of the company who actually owns the works.
I'm still not okay with the way this article is trying to paint the company in the wrong, especially by emphasizing the whole "£88,000 per infringement" thing, it reads as though they're going for shock value sort of like "RIAA sues woman for 9 million dollars a song" except this time there's no context about the fact her top videos which use copyrighted songs have literally made at LEAST $50,000 each, and they emphasize the 'youtube' aspect to make her seem like some random amateur. She's been signed into advertising deals with PEPSI, this isn't just some small time girl who 'forgot to ask' and put some song in her windows movie maker production.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
