The Art-Music Forum
December 16, 2018, 02:20:29 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Here you may discover hundreds of little-known composers, hear thousands of long-forgotten compositions, contribute your own rare (non-copyright) recordings, and discuss all the Arts in an erudite and decorous atmosphere full of freedom and delight. To participate, simply log in or register.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Links to videos of compositions by little-known composers


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Links to videos of compositions by little-known composers  (Read 1783 times)
Greg K
Level 4
****

Times thanked: 81
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2018, 05:16:29 pm »

I have temporarily resumed the role of administrator, solely so as to avoid the threatened catastrophic loss of vital data.

In due course a poll of all our members may be arranged.

Normal service will not be interrupted.

S.G.


I don't get it.  Was this like a coup?  Are the former administrators being held in detention, with their posting privileges suspended?
Report Spam   Logged
soundwave106
Level 2
**

Times thanked: 1
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2018, 06:39:59 pm »

What gets posted on You Tube is the business of You Tube and not our business.

I think that, um, the content of the hyperlink does indeed matter in the end. Elsewise posting recent CDs uploaded to The Pirate Bay or Rutracker or some other torrent site would be entirely kosher.  Tongue

Youtube's a strange case, though, because it's not explicitly a site for pirates (it has a takedown mechanism and a way to report videos) and it does have a "content ID" system that tries to compensate musicians for the playback, even if they did not upload the work. A lot of musicians are unhappy at Youtube's meager streaming pay rate though (plenty of articles about that).

I think the risk to this forum is non-existent. If the original record companies wanted to take down the copyrighted content, they'd report it to Youtube directly, not to the small sites linking to it. So it's more of an ethical question in the end.
Report Spam   Logged
Jolly Roger
Level 8
********

Times thanked: 47
Offline Offline

Posts: 2013


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2018, 03:55:30 am »

Personally I would have no objection. All forms of commercialism - buying and selling - seem wrong to me; not activities to be supported. So please feel free to do whatever you yourself feel right. The more (high quality) links you post the merrier!
That's all very well, but whatever gets uploaded to YouTube or wherever else cannot be so without such commercialism, since it all costs money. Furthermore, far too many people upload copyright material without first requesting the permission even of the artists, record companies, broadcasters &c., let alone the copyright owners, which is downright rude as well as disadvantageous to all those who have an interest in such material.

I've had to use YouTube's takedown facility more times than I can remember. I detest having to do it because in one sense it flies in the face of my rôle to promote certaion music, but there's a simple answer and that is to try to encourage such uploaders only to upload extracts under the equivalent to the "fair use" policy applicable to literary writings; this not only avoids copyright infringements but also can encourage those who listen to those extracts to buy the recordings (in the case of those which are commercially available).
Report Spam   Logged
Jeff
Level 2
**

Times thanked: 4
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2018, 06:23:13 am »

I don't understand why for example,Toccata Classics are available to download on youtube.

It says,'Brought to you by Naxos of America.'
Why do they do this,when it is so easy to download in whatever format you want?

Surely this is hurting a very fine company?
Report Spam   Logged
Neil McGowan
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 76
Offline Offline

Posts: 1316



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2018, 02:51:55 pm »

Could we please have a clear statement as to who is/are now the moderators of this messageboard?
Report Spam   Logged
the Administration
Administrator
Level 3
*****

Times thanked: 37
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2018, 05:59:00 pm »

Could we please have a clear statement as to who is/are now the moderators of this messageboard?


A STATEMENT (from Dundonnell)

Neil asks a legitimate and reasonable question. It is a question which must have occurred to other members over the past week. Indeed Greg as already made humorous comment on the situation.

The delay in responding to Greg and in restating a position I had already outlined over a week ago was because I wished to reflect on all the implications and ramifications of the current sad situation. "Sad" because of the echoes of what happened on another forum a few years ago. I also wanted to reflect on what other members had posted. Unfortunately Latvian (Maris) has not been on the forum since Tuesday of last week and I have been unable to contact him directly and get his perspectives.

There are three aspects to the situation in which Sydney Grew has chosen to post links to You Tube Videos which are in fact taken directly from commercially available cds issued by BIS, CPO and (in the most recent case of the Louis Glass symphonies) Danacord. ( I must make it clear that I am not referring to and have no issue with any links to music not commercially available.)

The first aspect is legal or quasi-legal. I have taken legal advice on this. The uploading by individuals to You Tube of commercially available cds is a clear breach of the company concerned copyrights. Alluding to the existence of these recordings on You Tube is one thing but posting links, in fact reposting the entire videos on this site, is quite another.

As an administrator I could be held liable for such flagrant breach of copyright.

The second aspect is the ethical dimension. The companies which issued the cds in question depend on the income generated through customers either purchasing the cds or paying to download their content. Downloading the music for free from You Tube is in my opinion unethical and flies in the face of the standards to which we have always adhered on this forum. The inevitable consequence of such a practice is to put at risk the financial viability of the companies themselves and make it much less likely that the music we love or would wish to see recorded ever makes it to disc.

Sydney has said that You Tube is a "reputable company". I would not wish to make any comment on that statement; it would be improper of me to do so. The uploading of commercially available cds to You Tube is not however, in my judgment, "reputable". He writes that what happens on You Tube is their business. Indeed it is...but what happens on this site is our business.

Sydney says that he will take down the videos if he is contacted by someone with "authorisation". Authorisation derives from my perceived role as forum administrator and is based on my view of the ethical dimension of what has happened.

The final aspect of this (and the one which directly goes to the heart of Neil's question) relates to the duties and obligations of an administrator.

In March Sydney indicated that for perfectly valid and personal reasons he wished to stand down from the role of administrator. I took on that role, in partnership. I have to carry out my duties as I see them to be in honesty and with due recognition of my ethical and legal obligations.

For anyone who has voluntarily resigned the role of administrator to then six months later "return as temporary administrator", without any reference to the current administrators, is to place the latter in an impossible and intolerable situation. This is made worse by a clear difference of view about the policy and practices of the forum.

This forum belongs not to me or to any one individual. It belongs to the membership which supports it through their interest and their contributions through posts.

If my views are unacceptble to the membership then the road ahead is clear. However as long as I do remain an administrator it is my duty to make the membership fully aware of what these views are and my reasons for adhering to them.

I have not to date removed any of the posts which are involved.
Report Spam   Logged
Latvian
Level 5
*****

Times thanked: 42
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2018, 09:46:14 pm »

My apologies to all for my protracted absence in the midst of this unexpected development. In short, as I've explained to Colin privately, my 89 year old mother has been hospitalized for the past week and I've been attending to her while continuing to work and prepare for upcoming concerts.

I am in full agreement with Colin that Sydney should have no expectation of reclaiming the administration of this forum after definitively relinquishing it earlier this year, nor is it appropriate for him to assume that he can just step back into his role with no consultation, much as he relinquished it with no consultation or discussion.

Further, as I understand the rules of this forum it is a violation of our forum's "prime directive" to post commercially available recordings, regardless of the format. Part of our mission here is to help record companies stay in business and continue to release music and performances we want to hear and own, and not take away potential business from them. Sure, we can all go to YouTube and listen to recordings in the course of considering whether to purchase the actual release. No problem in mentioning existence of such YT uploads here in the course of discussion, either, but let's not load up the forum with the actual recordings, linked or otherwise. We've always been very careful to take down uploads here once it's been shown any particular recording is in print.

Maris ("Latvian")
Report Spam   Logged
guest54
Guest
« Reply #22 on: October 04, 2018, 12:07:28 am »

One day ago some one changed the administration password for this forum. They must have used some hacker's tool to do so.

A few minutes after the password was changed, you made a long post as administrator using the changed password and stolen user-name.

I must now ask you, Dundonnell, to tell us, who committed this act, and how was the pirate password communicated to you?

What is the present administration password of this forum, and who, apart from you, knows it?

Your long-term future at this forum depends on your honesty in responding to these questions.

Report Spam   Logged
Neil McGowan
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 76
Offline Offline

Posts: 1316



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2018, 12:30:00 am »

I am sure none of us joined this message-board to witness this sad charade. 

Report Spam   Logged
the Administration
Administrator
Level 3
*****

Times thanked: 37
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2018, 02:24:34 pm »

I gave a commitment to remove the Franco Alfano thread for the reasons given at the time but to preserve all the comments made by members on that thread. It is impossible to simply delete the first post in a thread and keep all the others. As I promised I have undertaken a copying and pasting exercise and have used this thread for that purpose. I have not edited or amended any comments made by members on the Alfano thread. I had hoped to do this some days ago but it has taken much longer than expected to check the YT videos copied and identify those taken directly from a commercially available cd.

Dundonnell, September 27:

I am extremely unhappy to find these two Alfano symphonies here!

The You Tube performances are taken directly from the CPO cd which is still commercially available.

As I said in relation to the Hilding Rosenberg Symphony No.3 I do NOT think that we should be "hosting" these here.

My inclination as an Administrator is to take these down. I am extremely sorry that this will no doubt upset the former administrator who posted them.

I shall consult my fellow Administrator, Maris.

In the meantime any comments by members would be very much appreciated!!

Paul Corfield Godfrey, October 6:

YouTube is invaluable as a source for material that is otherwise unobtainable or impossible to obtain. I have had no objection to the posting on that forum of excerpts from my own music - it encourages interest and enables listeners to gain acquaintance with music with which they would not otherwise be able to encounter without difficulty. It is also frequently very useful as a means of viewing video and television recordings which have long been withdrawn from commercial circulation (although the quality can be highly variable).

On the other hand, the release of commercially available material, especially if it is still listed for sale in current catalogues (I exclude exorbitantly-priced second-hand copies on Amazon), is decidedly dangerous. I know from my own experience the small levels of sales for rare material experienced by record companies who step off the well-beaten path, and I have little doubt that listeners who can download their recordings free of charge from YouTube are effectively diminishing their sales still further. It is clearly for similar reasons that some popular entertainers have taken steps to restrict or ban their recordings from streaming services, since the loss in sales and royalties is significant.

It is difficult enough to get record companies interested in out-of-the-way material as it is (although of course the situation has improved immeasurably in recent decades) without restricting their commercial returns still further. As a composer myself, I hardly dare mention the issue of royalties...

Report Spam   Logged
the Administration
Administrator
Level 3
*****

Times thanked: 37
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2018, 02:27:38 pm »

The Administration, October 6:

Thank you very much, Paul !

Your observations are made the more telling and pointed based on your own personal experience of the damage done to record companies by the practice you describe. The increasing difficulties small record labels face in attempting to find the funding to record more "obscure" music are well-known and have been highlighted repeatedly on this forum.
These difficulties can only be made more acute if potential customers are "encouraged" to download for free  the cds which the companies have struggled to release.

This is the reason why we have a policy on this forum. That policy has been restated repeatedly over recent days.

In line with forum policy and for the reasons articulated above these links will be deleted. This will entail deleting the thread itself.

Once other links have been properly checked and their origin verified those- and only those-which breach forum policy will also be deleted.

Members have posted thousands of links which derive from other sources. I have downloaded most of them during my time as a member. These links will not be deleted!


Sydney Grew, October 7:

1)   they are not "hosted" here at all, never have been and never will be. The member has no understanding of my post.
2)   the member has no authority and is just posing as an administrator, secretly using a hacked
      password and stolen account. I think he should now admit it, give up this charade, and return   
      the forum to its honest members.

Latvian, October 7:

It's time to put an to Sydney's wild accusations. Here is the text of the personal message Sydney sent me on March 8th of this year. If he denies having sent this message then either his account was hacked at that time, or he clearly has a severe memory issue. I see no indication in this message that this was intended to be a temporary relinquishment and that he expected to return to administration of the forum. Indeed, in his first sentence he says he is handing over the forum:

“Gentlemen (and ladies?). The time has come to hand over the admin of this forum to some one younger. (Specifically, my eye-sight has become poor and it is difficult to read the screen easily.)

No one has so far volunteered, so I think the best thing to do will be to give the password to a few of the most active and responsible members.

I have found that there is very little needing to be done of late - perhaps I should have done much more to develop new features.

So, once you have decided on who will be the new administrator or administrators, he, she or they can log in with the user and password:

[user ID and password deleted]

Please let me know if there are any questions or problems.

Thanks for all the pleasure and interest you have given in the past, and I look forward to much more.

Sydney Grew”

Report Spam   Logged
the Administration
Administrator
Level 3
*****

Times thanked: 37
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2018, 02:29:57 pm »

Greg K, October 7:

While the irrevocable nature of Sydney's "handover" of AMF administration to other members seems evident (even if not explicit), it was advisable that the eventual (rather inchoate) assumption of such authority and duties by Colin and Maris be formally validated by a change in the system password with Sydney's imprimatur AT THAT TIME (the new password being known only to the new administrators).

This not having been done has disastrously allowed the current impasse of discordant understandings and inflamed emotions among the parties involved to threaten the forum's flourishing (if not its continuance) in my judgment.

Provoked by the YouTube imbroglio, Sydney now claims the successor administrators possess no legitimacy, and those current administrators now surreptitiously lock Sydney out of all access to administrative functions he again insists on.

Sydney effectively resigned, and cannot be allowed to regain his former position.  But the new administrators were never clearly and cleanly installed, which leaves something of a taint.

Conclusively though, Sydney must bear the brunt of blame for so incompetently managing a transition he himself initiated, and endure the consequences for himself of that mishandling.

I suggest he accept a status of no more than contributing member, and realize that however scrambled the history he now rebels against, it is in no wise going to be reversed.

Sydney Grew, October 8:

On 28th September, when I dismissed Dundonnell, I set a new simple password: just seven letters "s.....W"

That should still be in place. Only some hacker could have changed it. Who hacked it and why? No one has had the courage to come forward and admit doing it. And why is it being witheld from me?

Greg K, October 8:

What does it mean to "own" a site such as AMF, and can such ownership be effectively distinguished from the function of "administering" or "managing" it?  Does Sydney have any possibly valid argument in contending that he never gave up ownership of AMF, but only allowed others to take over its administration, - an allowance he could subsequently revoke (as continuing owner) should he become displeased with the course taken?

Greg K, October 8:

Quote from: the Administration on October 06, 2018, 10:11:23 pm
Thank you very much, Paul !

Your observations are made the more telling and pointed based on your own personal experience of the damage done to record companies by the practice you describe. The increasing difficulties small record labels face in attempting to find the funding to record more "obscure" music are well-known and have been highlighted repeatedly on this forum.
These difficulties can only be made more acute if potential customers are "encouraged" to download for free  the cds which the companies have struggled to release.

Making somewhat ambiguous your argument here is the fact (noted on the forum previously) that Naxos of America have themselves posted on YouTube a voluminous number of their own distributed commercial recordings for easy access by interested consumers (in the US, for example, virtually the entire catalogue of Toccata Classics, - and other labels).

Report Spam   Logged
the Administration
Administrator
Level 3
*****

Times thanked: 37
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2018, 02:32:52 pm »

Latvian, October 8:

Greg K wrote:

“While the irrevocable nature of Sydney's "handover" of AMF administration to other members seems evident (even if not explicit), it was advisable that the eventual (rather inchoate) assumption of such authority and duties by Colin and Maris be formally validated by a change in the system password with Sydney's imprimatur AT THAT TIME (the new password being known only to the new administrators).

This not having been done has disastrously allowed the current impasse of discordant understandings and outraged emotions among the parties involved to threaten the forum's flourishing (if not continuance) in my judgment”

There seemed to be no need to change the password at the time of the handover. Sydney not only relinquished the administration of the forum but essentially tossed it in our laps, unbidden, and walked away.

No outraged emotions on my part, nor Colin's from what I've read so far. Sydney seems to be the only outraged voice here. Me, I'm tending more toward bemused disappointment at Sydney's absurd behavior. I find it sadly reminiscent of a certain well-known American politician who refuses to acknowledge past statements and actions even in the light of irrefutable documentation.

Sydney Grew wrote:

“On 28th September, when I dismissed Dundonnell, I set a new simple password: just seven letters "s.....W"

This is an absurd statement. I don't know where he thinks he set this alleged password but no one has hacked anything. If Sydney "dismissed Dundonnell" as he claims and then set this new password then why didn't he effectively assume control of the forum at that time, rather than whine about hacking?

This foolishness has gone on long enough. So far, I haven't seen a single public post or private message indicating member support for Sydney's wild accusations, and his behavior has become an unwelcome distraction to members engaged in civil discussion and our shared passion for music. If Sydney has a valid case to make, let him make it now, calmly and clearly, with appropriate proof. Otherwise, the administration will consider more serious measures to put this matter to rest if he persists in violating forum rules and making unsupported accusations.


Neil McGowan, October 9:

Quote from: Latvian on October 08, 2018, 07:49:21 pm
This foolishness has gone on long enough.

Indeed it has. Thank you to Latvian and Dundonnell for taking appropriate action.


Report Spam   Logged
the Administration
Administrator
Level 3
*****

Times thanked: 37
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2018, 02:34:30 pm »

Paul Corfield Godfrey, October 14:

When I responded on 6 October to Dundonnell's request for comments, I hardly anticipated the storm of invective and counter-accusation that resulted. Clearly there are issues here which call for resolution between the parties involved.

However the most important feature which my comment on 6 October - the need to ensure that record companies and performers continue to explore the outer fringes of the repertory with some prospect of financial return - seems to have been comprehensively overlooked with the exception of Greg K on 8 October who commented that my arguments appeared to be "somewhat ambiguous". I daresay that the matter is not entirely clear cut either one way or the other, but the argument that Naxos in the USA have posted recordings on YouTube themselves cannot be regarded as conclusive. In the first place, my understanding is that most if not all of Naxos's releases are (or at any rate were at one time) paid for outright at the time of issue and that, therefore, once the initial costs of pressing, distribution and payment to the artists were covered, no further royalties were paid. This means effectively that Naxos can release the recordings on YouTube free of charge without incurring any loss - a commendably generous attitude by the company, but one without any financial consequences either for the label or the artists. The same considerations probably apply to other labels.

Where, however, the company issuing the recording has entered in a contractual agreement with the performers and/or composers to pay royalties on the basis of ongoing sales, the availability of the recording on YouTube will undercut this - and this was the principal point I was trying to make in my original comments on 6 October. This in turn may influence companies and performers to shy away from future releases - which is presumably something which nobody involved with this form wants.

The issue as to whether the recording is being "hosted" on this site or simply "linked" to it is peripheral to this more fundemental consideration. And I have no doubt whatsoever that some of the YouTube links are in breach of the copyright owner's rights, if those owners chose to challenge these (many no doubt will regard the fuss involved as prohibitive, but that is their concern). The existing and long-standing policy, that commercially available recordings should not be made freely available on the internet, seems to me to be both just and eminently sensible. The sheer volume of riches available (including quite a few otherwise unavailable recordings I have myself made available) is surely worth preservation.

Soundwave 106, October 14:

As I've said in another thread, Naxos has an official channel of which I find no complete postings, just excerpts. I am suspicious that Naxos would ever officially release a full version of any commercial CD on Youtube, regardless of what someone has said on a posting. Personally I imagine Naxos would much rather you utilize their own subscription streaming service instead -- I am strongly doubtful that they would undermine their own streaming service by posting works to Youtube. Anyone can write "provided by Naxos of America" in their description and copy logos when posting a piece of music, that doesn't mean that the company officially supports it.

It is possible, of course, that they "look the other way". That doesn't mean it's "official" however. As a matter of a fact, it is easy enough to see people complaining about Naxos of America issuing copyright claims against a Youtube work (see this Reddit thread on someone being given notice for using game music from Civilization 5) so it might be more of a case of "why bother?" for a low viewer count piece of obscure classical music that the poster might not even be trying to monetize.

Report Spam   Logged
the Administration
Administrator
Level 3
*****

Times thanked: 37
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2018, 02:35:52 pm »

Greg K, October 14:

Naxos of America (assuming it's truly Naxos of America) isn't posting their own recordings on YouTube but rather those of labels they distribute.  I mentioned Toccata Classics as one of them, virtually the entire catalog of which seems to have been made available there.  Is it plausible to believe some individual would so systematically and voluminously (and recklessly) do this posing as "Naxos of America", soundwave106?   In my case, at least, this hasn't had a bad outcome for Toccata Classics sales, inasmuch as after listening to many of their releases on YouTube I've purchased numerous CD's I otherwise might not have without the opportunity to hear the music beforehand.   I've questioned (elsewhere) how Toccata Classics themselves might evaluate Naxos's practice in this regard, but apparently Naxos has contractual rights to do so as they see fit (or so another poster in that previous discussion affirmed).  I agree with any prohibition here of posting links to YouTube material in commercial circulation, and don't believe individuals uploading copyrighted recordings there should be doing so, but if recording companies or their distributors are themselves practicing (or even just indulging) such, the rationale of our Administrators (beyond legal considerations) for establishing such a rule can at least be questioned.


Soundwave 106, October 15:

Quote from: Greg K on October 14, 2018, 06:40:02 pm
Naxos of America (assuming it's truly Naxos of America) isn't posting their own recordings on YouTube but rather those of labels they distribute.  I mentioned Toccata Classics as one of them, virtually the entire catalog of which seems to have been made available there.  Is it plausible to believe some individual would so systematically and voluminously (and recklessly) do this posing as "Naxos of America", soundwave106?

The way I evaluate if a channel is truly official is to go to the official web page and click on the Youtube social media link. You are usually directed to the official Youtube channel.

In the case of Toccata Classics, this is their channel. And it does appear like, for a certain select period (up until 2015), they were "okay" enough including full works that were uploaded by others (note: as far as I can tell, none of the complete works were uploaded by the channel) that they incorporated the release into their channel.

It's difficult to tell what happened here -- maybe this is the result of some bot work that switched the monetization of other people's uploads, maybe the uploaders are affiliated. But it is my personal opinion that it is okay to post any Youtube link that is validated as being okay with the record company (if an official record channel source has the release on their channel, I take this as a sign of approval.)
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy