It probably varies by label. WB were especially cunts regarding "infringement". Maybe the rest recognize the reality of their situation, and accept the dollars they wouldn't otherwise be getting by attaching ads to the videos.
What I was noticing from the "Moody blues" thread was all of their album's are on YT in their entirety and not uploaded by EMI who owns the rights, basically a MB's fan just did it on his own. Honestly the quality is poor to medium at best but still like I had said, so was Napster, most stuff on it was 128K, some was lower but dial-up ISP's were still common at that time as well.
In the Napster days they were still under the delusion of stopping the flood. Any label employee still under that delusion should be fired, cause they're useless to the business.
So "digital anarchy" is the new reality?
They may put ads on the video and make money for the record company -- a shit ton of money. Not a bad business model: you don't just make money off the single sale, you make it perpetually when someone comes back to listen to the song.
There are articles on this. Too lazy to find for you, but they're there.
Damn it, here:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/04/record-labels-making-money-youtube
People can download music illegally on the internet now? I am shocked.
Wonder how that works for those of us with adblock.
They may put ads on the video and make money for the record company -- a shit ton of money. Not a bad business model: you don't just make money off the single sale, you make it perpetually when someone comes back to listen to the song.
There are articles on this. Too lazy to find for you, but they're there.
Damn it, here:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/04/record-labels-making-money-youtube
I get a kick out of how music is played in the bar where I hang out. Normally, the bartender plays Pandora on his smart phone. But they're all too cheap to purchase a Pandora One subscription, so there are ads played. If they want to play a specific song, which Pandora doesn't let you do, they pull up a YouTube video and play it in all its crappy sound quality.
OK. thanks, I see what they are doing, makes sense. I wonder if it matters if the album is uploaded from the label or an individual user, for instance most all of the "moody blues" albums have been uploaded by one user, maybe EMI (the copyright's holder) just notifies YT and starts collecting. I would think that the labels would want to upload low-sampling rate copies do discourage people from wanting to strip out the audio (if that's possible) from a flash or HTML5 format.