Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Music Content Takedown Continued

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the get-rid-of-it dept.

Music 291

pregnantfridge writes "In the ongoing conflict between PRS for Music and YouTube over the takedown of all music related content in the UK, PRS for Music have created a new site, fairplayforcreators.com, exposing the views of the music writers impacted by the YouTube decision. I am not certain if these views have been editorially compromised, but by reading a few pages, it's clear to me that Music writers represented by PRS for Music are largely clueless about what the Internet and YouTube means to the music industry. Kind of explains why the music industry is in such a decline — and also why so much litigation takes place on the music writers' behalf."

cancel ×

291 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Difference of Opinion (1)

panoptical2 (1344319) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338807)

I noticed on some of the comments on the site that there was a vast difference of opinion between the actual songwriters and, for example, the chief exec of Making Music...

Re:Difference of Opinion (2, Funny)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338825)

I co-wrote 'Never Gonna Give You Up', which Rick Astley performed in the eighties, and which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube - owner Google. My PRS for Music income in the year ended September 2008 was £11.

-- Pete Waterman, songwriter - 24 March 2009

Why would you admit to writing what has been largely deemed the worst pop song in modern history? If that's the kind of music writers should be paid lots of money for, I'm glad the negotiations broke down.

Re:Difference of Opinion (5, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338845)

and which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube

Is he really owed all that money? Pete, dude, nobody was actually enjoying that song, you know. It's basically the work safe version of goatse.cx

Re:Difference of Opinion (1)

CyberSlammer (1459173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338903)

If it gets taken down, just record the song on YouTube being sung by a regular user and post it as the new Rick Roll. Then Pete Waterman can cram his royalties up his ass.

Re:Difference of Opinion (1)

VVrath (542962) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338965)

If you re-recorded it, Pete Waterman would have to cram his *performance* royalties up his ass. Unfortunately, making a cover version does not remove his entitlement to *mechanical* royalties.

Either way under the current rules the guy gets money for work he did over 20 years ago. I wish my wages worked like that!

Re:Difference of Opinion (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339135)

Pete, dude, nobody was actually enjoying that song, you know. It's basically the work safe version of goatse.cx
Indeed, and a lot of people get enjoyment out of watching other people suffer (otherwise rick rolling and goatse would never have existed).

Payback time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339655)

> Is he really owed all that money? Pete, dude, nobody was actually enjoying that song, you know. It's basically the work safe version of goatse.cx

You just gave me a brillant idea! If his work is equivalent to being sent to goatse, all we have to do is send HIM 100 million copies of goatse and we'll be even...

Who's with me?

Re:Difference of Opinion (2, Insightful)

darthvader100 (1482651) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339045)

Never mind that never gonna give you up was written in the 80's. How many other products sell themselves 20 years after you create them? Even Coke have had several rebrandings/new flavours/numerous promotions.

What does Pete still do to promote and grow his song? He should take advantage of the new popularity to release a "rickrolled-remix" or something. Look what Id software is doing with wolfenstein 3d 9opensource the iphone port but also sell it)

of course £11 was worth a lot more when he wrote it...

And this is £11 that he would NEVER have gotten if google hadn't posted it.

---
Copyright should only last 10 years. After that you are on your own.

Re:Difference of Opinion (1)

drosboro (1046516) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339145)

An interesting tidbit... on the "news" section of the FPFC site, it shows a short video clip of Waterman ranting about his 11 quid...

http://vimeo.com/3836793 [vimeo.com]

My favourite bit is how he talks about Youtube running a "Rick-Rolling" campaign.. I suppose perhaps he means the April Fools thing last year, but still...

Re:Difference of Opinion (5, Informative)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339157)

As a musician myself, I was compelled to comment there. They won't put it up though.

I take the opposite view. I have one album up for sale on iTunes and Amazon and another being uploaded right now - http://tinyurl.com/cdx44l [tinyurl.com] I don't actually want to be represented by the PRS, but I have no choice. There is no opt out. You will collect royalties on my behalf whether or not I want you to. If I wish my music to be available free for streaming on Internet radio, you will not let me. So who's worse, Google for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or the PRS for extortion?

Re:Difference of Opinion (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339263)

hehe. find a journalist, tell them that you were not allowed to explain your opinion on the site - try to create streisandeffect ;)

Re:Difference of Opinion (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339285)

"So who's worse, Google for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or the PRS for extortion?"

To paraphrase a refugee I once saw on TV; It makes no difference. PRS shoot then ask questions, Goggle ask questions then shoot.

"No opt out"? (2, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339445)

Can any lawyer comment on this? As I understand it, and I quote, "The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 means that if you use copyright music in public, you must first obtain permission from every writer or composer whose music you intend to play." What is the legal status of a composer/performer combination, not a member of the PRS, posting material to YouTube with a statement to that effect?

Re:"No opt out"? (5, Interesting)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339551)

You can opt out of collecting your royalties from the PRS. You can't stop the PRS collecting from the broadcaster.

Say I want to perform a set of my music in a pub, no covers, just stuff I wrote. The pub has to have a PRS performance license and has to pay the PRS for my performance even if I'm not registered with them.

It's extortion, and as usual it's the artists who get screwed - the number of places to play is dropping for the small local artist as landlords stop paying the PRS tax.

Re:Difference of Opinion (1)

avanderveen (899407) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339637)

If only countries took the position [slashdot.org] of the Songwriters Association of Canada: Pay a small monthly fee and pirating Canadian music is legal for you, and you can opt-out of the fee if you want. But even Canada doesn't agree with it's songwriters.

I guess that's just wishful thinking though. It seems that even if everyone (including the songwriters) want this, large corporations will still find a way to lobby the government so that they can support their tactics of bullying the consumer. And that's what it comes down to in most cases: large corporations and their government involvement.

What's the big deal? From the FPFC website (5, Insightful)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338809)

Fair Play for Creators was established after Internet-giant, Google, made the decision to remove some music content from YouTube.

Google's decision was made because it didn't want to pay the going rate for music, to the creators of that music, when it's used on YouTube.

If Google doesn't want to pay the rate, so doesn't broadcast the music, I don't see the issue. Lower the rate and maybe Google will pay.

Re:What's the big deal? From the FPFC website (5, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338867)

If Google doesn't want to pay the rate, so doesn't broadcast the music, I don't see the issue. Lower the rate and maybe Google will pay.

I know! These idiots want to get paid for their work, but instead of working with Google or just setting up their own site, all they can think of is to bitch. Come to think of it, this is the we-don't-have-the-budget-for-flesh-eating-lawyers version of what the RIAA is currently doing.

Re:What's the big deal? Artists missing out (3, Insightful)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339513)

Using YouTube as a nostalgia trip, I've seen many artist come back to 'life' from the combination of fan power and the Web. Careers have been revived, arenas filled, records sold - all money in the bank. But now its being taken away, those fairly narrow opportunities are reducing every day this runs on, all done by the people who are supposed to help artists generate money. Something is badly wrong http://goffee-freelance.blogspot.com/2009/03/finally-affected-by-internet-politics.html [blogspot.com] "Anyone can find a fan page, maybe even the original artists and kick back in nostalgia mode, old albums can be purchased (money for the record companies - a good thing), even re-released (even better), a lot of acts are touring now, who without the net to spread the word would be sat on their arses."

Re:What's the big deal? From the FPFC website (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339029)

This reminds me of a situation I was recently in. My neighborhood was approached by a natural gas drilling company who made a bid to purchase mineral rights for our property. Many of us accepted their bids and now receive a few hundred dollars a year from them. However a large group decided they would hold out, forming an alliance that demanded 4x what we got. Well, after 2 months, the company withdrew their bids and those people who were greedy got nothing.

They acted as if the oil company had stolen money right out of their pockets. Quite pathetic.

Waaah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27338815)

I don't want to first post... Waaaah!

Re:Waaah (0, Offtopic)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338875)

Congratulations, you didn't.

Re:Waaah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339053)

This is an instance of douchebaggery. No offense intended.

So the music writers, don't get it... (5, Interesting)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338823)

Sounds like they just want to take their ball home since they don't get to be the star player (or even get their way).

SO be it. Give them what they want. Take down all music related content everywhere that isn't on their own sites. That means: Discussion boards about their music, Fan sites about their music, album reviews, links to amazon, etc. All of it.

Boycott these people up the wazoo... and just to make it fun... pick on someone specific to make and example of them.

Start by removing their Wikipedia page then systematically begin contacting websites which are highly ranked in Google for their name... ask them to participate in protest.

It doesn't have to be permanent (though the 301 responses need to be ;-p ) - just long enough to make the point.

"Hey [music writer who is famous], what happened to all your google hits? i can't find anything about you anywhere... it's like you don't exist except on your 'official' site. Aren't you supposed to be famous.

Keep it up long enough and maybe they'll even see an economic impact.

Re:So the music writers, don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339269)

Problem is, these people doesn't seem to understand internet culture enough to know that's a bad thing. And when their wallets just keep getting ligther; they'll still blame it on the wrong things.

"Nobody buys the song I wrote in 1974 anymore! Those stupid pilates!"

Re:So the music writers, don't get it... (1)

Av8rjoker (1212804) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339577)

SO be it. Give them what they want. Take down all music related content everywhere that isn't on their own sites. That means: Discussion boards about their music, Fan sites about their music, album reviews, links to amazon, etc. All of it.

Boycott these people up the wazoo... and just to make it fun... pick on someone specific to make and example of them.

What will there be to boycott then? Nothing...

I agree with you. Those unfortunate fools don't realize what they are doing to themselves.

Compromised? Heavens no! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27338833)

I am not certain if these views have been editorially compromised but by reading a few pages

Compromised? Certainly not. Specially hand picked by the group? Most definitely possible.

You wouldn't be able to say for certain however unless a UK musician comes forth and says his/her opinions in favor of youtube exposure was not added to the site.

Re:Compromised? Heavens no! (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339281)

like this [slashdot.org] ?

Translation (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27338865)

> I co-wrote 'Never Gonna Give You Up', which Rick Astley performed in the eighties, and which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube - owner Google. My PRS for Music income in the year ended September 2008 was £11.

Translation: I did some work back in the 80's, and I still want collect paychecks from it.

Re:Translation (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338941)

> I co-wrote 'Never Gonna Give You Up', which Rick Astley performed in the eighties, and which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube - owner Google. My PRS for Music income in the year ended September 2008 was £11.

Translation: I did some work back in the 80's, and I still want collect paychecks from it.

Wow. How can I find this wonderful world of make-believe? Will I find Candy Mountain? Oh please, oh please!

Well said... (5, Insightful)

Siener (139990) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338963)

Just ran out of mod points, so I'll rather add this:

Somewhere the public perception of copyright (and other IP rights) went from "a time limited incentive to encourage the creation of novel content" to "content creators have the right to get paid in perpetuity".

Because of the technological and legal environment of the 20th century it was possible for content creators and distributors to make insane amounts of money for a very limited amount of work.

That created the idea that they have some god-given right to get paid for absolutely everything that ever gets done with their content or anything that is derived from it. That has not been the case for most of history and it will almost certainly not be the case in the future ... and no that will not mean the end of music and art.

Re:Well said... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339309)

Somewhere the public perception of copyright (and other IP rights) went from "a time limited incentive to encourage the creation of novel content" to "content creators have the right to get paid in perpetuity".

What did you THINK would happen when copyright was determined to not expire until X years AFTER you die? People have no concept of thinking about how life will continue after they die. So as far as they're concerned, it's perpetual and unending.

Re:Well said... (2, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339373)

Somewhere the public perception of copyright (and other IP rights) went from "a time limited incentive to encourage the creation of novel content" to "content creators have the right to get paid in perpetuity".

The latter would be more "content creators and their children, grandchildren, (great) nieces/nephews, etc ..."

Re:Well said... (4, Interesting)

Kashgarinn (1036758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339451)

Yep, it's as stupid as plumbers adding a debit/credit card swipers on every toilet they set up and make you pay every time you go to the bathroom.

MP3s and youtube videos is the same as advertisements for your crap. As in it should be free, and the best advertisement in and of itself for your stuff.

It's a shame things are as they are.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339093)

My favorite part is that he doesn't seem to understand that the only reason Never gonna give you up was played so many times is that it was so bad.

I wonder what his reaction will be when he finally comprehends that the reason people sent so many you tube links of Rick Astley was to torture the eardrums of their victims.

Having to pay for that song would be like the inmates in Guantanamo being forced to by commemorative t-shirts for their stay.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339165)

In that case, he should receive royalties for use of his music as a torture device.

Re:Translation (5, Insightful)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339191)

I'm sorry, did I just hear Pete Waterman complain about not having any money?

Stock Aitken Waterman, sometimes known as SAW, were a UK songwriting and record producing trio who had great success during the mid-late 1980s and early 1990s with many of their productions. The three can be considered to be the most successful songwriting and producing partnership of all time, scoring more than 100 UK top 40 hits, selling 40 million records and earning an alleged $104 million).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_Aitken_Waterman [wikipedia.org]

To date, Waterman has scored a total of twenty two UK number one singles with his various acts and he claims upwards of 500 million sales worldwide (inclusive of singles, albums, compilation inclusions, downloads, etc). Pete has also appeared in the Steps video "Tragedy".

Waterman is worth £30 million[4] according to the Sunday Times Rich List.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Waterman [wikipedia.org]

We're talking about a guy who collects railways. Not "trainsets" or "model trains", he collects railway networks.

So, yes. Translation: "I started doing coke off hookers' tits every day in the nineties and I'd like it to continue indefinitely please."

Fuck off Waterman, fuck you and all the other McMusic parasites who turned popular music into fast food. Rather than demanding money from me you should be thanking me that I don't spit on the ground at the mention of your name.

Re:Translation (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339569)

>I'm sorry, did I just hear Pete Waterman complain about not having any money?
No, he said he didn't get enough given the number of plays.

Re:Translation (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339355)

> I co-wrote 'Never Gonna Give You Up', which Rick Astley performed in the eighties, and which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube - owner Google. My PRS for Music income in the year ended September 2008 was £11.

Translation: I did some work back in the 80's, and I still want collect paychecks from it.

Paid for it? He should be shot for it.

Re:Translation (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339481)

>Translation: I did some work back in the 80's, and I still want collect paychecks from it.
That's the way royalties work. Duh.

Re:Translation (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339503)

>which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube - owner Google.
>My PRS for Music income in the year ended September 2008 was GBP11 Just to put this in perspective, if the song had been played 100m times on UK National Radio, he'd have been paid GBP2-5bn instead of GBP11. *That's* how much Google are underpaying compared to market rate.

Re:Translation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339651)

And how much would a radio station with 100 million listeners pay him to play it once?

100 million views cannot be compared to 100 million radio plays.

Re:Translation (1)

PMBjornerud (947233) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339661)

> I co-wrote 'Never Gonna Give You Up', which Rick Astley performed in the eighties, and which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube - owner Google. My PRS for Music income in the year ended September 2008 was £11.

Translation: I did some work back in the 80's, and I still want collect paychecks from it.

'Never Gonna Give You Up'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickroll [wikipedia.org]

He wants to collect paychecks for an Internet meme making fun of his music.

It is as if Matt Groening should sue Slashdot for usage of the "evil overlord" meme.

people buy music when they're exposed to it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27338869)

Except the traditional avenues of music exposure hardly exist any more. free radio payola? music video shows? ... Nobody listens or watches those things anymore. It's all about word of mouth and seeking out stuff that seems interesting to each individual.

I couldn't count how many times I've found an interesting band or solo artist though youtube, and then go straight to iTMS or amazon and buy their album.

The old process doesn't work anymore. Having youtube pull music will do nothing except kill publicity for whatever you're trying to protect.

Hah, this time I won't fall for this news! (2, Funny)

imrehg (1187617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338895)

I co-wrote 'Never Gonna Give You Up', which Rick Astley performed in the eighties, and which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube

... this is just rickroll 2.0!!

I don't get it (4, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338899)

They seem to be complaining that Google chooses not to play their music and hence not pay them. How much sense does that make? Are car dealerships going to complain that I'm not buying a new car?

Re:I don't get it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339173)

Are car dealerships going to complain that I'm not buying a new car?

Isn't that essentially what they said when they convinced the US Gov to give them tax money?

Re:I don't get it (1)

Elindor (84810) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339279)

Yes [abc.net.au] , they are. A proposed plan from the Motor Trader's Association for the Australian Government to provide a $3000 voucher towards the purchase of a new car, if you take your vehicle (which is more than 10 years old) to the wreckers.

decline? (4, Insightful)

drDugan (219551) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338921)

I only see *large, traditional* music in decline, and organizations built on the assumption those organizations are the only ones with talent - but not the "industry". Such is the effect of rapid change.

See collections, for example:
http://www.jamendo.com/en/ [jamendo.com]
http://bt.etree.org/ [etree.org]
http://beta.legaltorrents.com/netlabel-music [legaltorrents.com]
http://uaradio.net/ [uaradio.net]

and others, going strong and growing

plus *lots* of great, independent net labels and organizations building up to use the Internet the way it works, and an emerging set of well-known artists breaking free from these old organizations to embrace new methods.

What about the victims of their song writing? (4, Funny)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338957)

I co-wrote 'Never Gonna Give You Up', which Rick Astley performed in the eighties, and which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube - owner Google. My PRS for Music income in the year ended September 2008 was £11.

I've had that damn song forced upon my ears for most of my life. I deserve restitution, he owes me £11!

Re:What about the victims of their song writing? (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339453)

I co-wrote 'Never Gonna Give You Up', which Rick Astley performed in the eighties, and which must have been played more than 100 million times on YouTube - owner Google. My PRS for Music income in the year ended September 2008 was £11.

I've had that damn song forced upon my ears for most of my life. I deserve restitution, he owes me £11!

Exactly. Just because lots of people viewed the video, (and I'm sure he dragged that number out of his ass), does not mean they liked/would pay for it.

So if they don't like Google's proposed deal, how about letting people vote for clips? Click to share the ad revenue generated by this page with the...well, who? Should be the song's author & the performing artist, I guess.
The trick would be to also allow people to vote songs down; just bacause I stumbled across a clip does not mean I agree to share the ad revenue my visit is generating for Google.
So, hate the song? Vote it down for no cash.

I don't see how the various trade associations could complain, since this is pretty much how the market works today.

One would think.... (1)

Fotograf (1515543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338971)

that it is good promotion for them. This ultimate greed will simply backslash.

Thanks For Killing The Music (5, Insightful)

CyberSlammer (1459173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338973)

Millions of people have discovered music that was once thought lost through Youtube...artists have gained new fans, even restarted their careers by people rediscovering their music through the magic of Youtube.

Now that medium is silenced. Way to go fairplayforcreators, you are going to lose more revenue than you know.

And by the way:

FUCK YOU

Bitchy yes, but they do have a point (4, Interesting)

SunSpot505 (1356127) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338995)

Sigh...

While I will concede that they do seem completely out of touch with the benefits of internet notoriety, there is a very salient point here: How do you hold content aggregator sites accountable for their content sources? Is it really fair that google makes billions a year while their most popular site is powered by stolen material??

Now you could argue that the real solution is for these writers to start their own channel and provide better copies of the content in a regulated manner. Some of my favorite artists have done just that in response to a plethora of their videos being on youtube.

That's only a couple of steps short of extortion though, and doesn't respect the right of the content owner to boycott google and it's hyper saturation of popular culture. And it still doesn't stop xXxRockerBOI from uploading his favorite song of yours with pictures of his girlfriend and lightning pictures as a slideshow.

When will we get a meaningful dialogue about intellectual property and royalties? These people always come across as greedy assholes, but that doesn't mean that they're entirely wrong about there being a problem, just wrong headed about articulating it.

Just my .02 ...

Re:Bitchy yes, but they do have a point (1)

DMalic (1118167) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339041)

According to Google, they make very little off this copyright content. While Youtube may be big and powerful, it's not necessarily easy to monetize without losing most of its userbase.

Monetize=Advertise, why don't we trade ads? (4, Insightful)

SunSpot505 (1356127) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339351)

While it's true that youtube may [watchmojo.com] or may not [zdnet.com] be making money I think that the companies financial status is really irrelevant to the source of their content.

Unless they are a registered non-profit, they are in it for the money, and we know Google is certainly in it for the money and doing well. Our music writers? Whether they wrote the shittiest song of all time or a mega-hit, they really should get something for their work and they aren't. WHY should they be paid you ask?

Here on slashdot we too often side with the open information movement. I myself use open source software as much as possible. Microsoft? F@#$ em. OpenOffice is great. Linux runs my company servers, email, etc. I use Opera and Firefox, Thunderbird for internet. We all do. These sets of software have figured out how to work in an opensource economy. Since we use them and largely subscribe to this vague notion of "free and open is good" we sometimes jump at the music industry for not going the same way.

But there is a HUGE difference.

Open source software provides a solutions to a predetermined goal. It gives it away for free, and then covers costs by selling support for that solution and licensing professionals to do the same.

Suppose we were to open source music. How would that go? We all need to write a song that will accomplish the task of making us feel happy when everything in life is crushing our spirit. Let's start a community for it, open up our development process, track bugs, let users request features such as a second bridge that modulates the chord progression up one half step. Perfect, we have the something so generic that everyone can use it without caring. That's what music is for right, just a mindless background tool that helps you accomplish a task. Just like Thunderbird or Apache.

Then how do set up a community of consultants or license specialists in your song, genre, etc? The problem requires a much different outlook that we have with FOSS or general OSS, because the creativity that goes into writing music is not the same as that which goes into software. It requires personal investment of emotion, a dialogues between a writer and a listening transmitted by another frequently overlooked party, the artist (which in some genres looks more like a programmer these days, but that's beside the point).

We are so used to the idea that the internet is in some way this awesome tool that if you don't get on board and use that we say "you are the short sighted moron" to the musicians struggling to make it. Now don't get me started on record labels, because I think they are really the enemy here, but writers and musicians get caught in the crossfire and treated the same.

IP for software and IP for music are so different, even though their distribution models are almost identical (write it, test it, package it, advertise it, copy it to a zillion CDs and then mark it up to make some $$) While both industries are undoubtedly facing a myriad of challenges in finding alternate distribution methods that focus on web content we need to recognize that there is a real difference.

No one will be making Sgt. Pepper 2.1.18, or Bethoven's 5.2th, they are unique and aesthetically set in stone. You might improve the packaging or remaster the recording but that is a footnote not a new release. There is no competitive improvement to promote by limiting IP. As for monetizing, YouTube thankfully is light on the Advertising, which I appreciate. Perhaps they should offer free ads to people who find their work on the site? Or prioratize ads from legit vendors of their works? Have you ever done a torrent search? Lots of those big torrent sites do just that, why not YouTube? This would allow them redirect watchers to their site, or a vendor like Amazon or iTunes where a legal purchase can be made.

I guess what Irked me about the initial article is just the whole "oh those bitchy music industry folks complaining again about copyright" Damn straight! I'd be pissed if everyone was streaming my source code to youtube, wouldn't you?? I'm not greedy, but I do need to make a living. When you're making 11.00 a year on a video that has 15 million hits [youtube.com] I understand being upset (Ironically there was an ad for Rick Astley ring tones next to the video, Guess how much Rick's writer makes from THAT? HAHAHAHAHA! NOTHING). We just need a sane way to compensate artists and writers for their work, and since most websites are monetized in advertising I think that YouTube should just trade advertising for artist controlled domains for the right to have the works in their collection. Win-Win.

My additional $.10

Re:Monetize=Advertise, why don't we trade ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339517)

Personally I think musicians should be paid for performances, this whole idea of 'owning' a certain series of sounds is just silly.

Re:Bitchy yes, but they do have a point (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339095)

Your two cents is pretty accurate, really. A lot of the content on youtube is over the line. I'm guilty of viewing some old videos of artists that I may have heard of, but never saw before. Some acts by artists that I knew, but hadn't seen that act. And, we are'nt talking of short snippets - look around long enough, you can find entire performances, I'm certain. Yes, a lot of users go well beyond what common sense should dictate as "Fair Use". And, somewhere in that mess, Google really should step up, and draw the line. Yeah, half the world will call them assholes for drawing a line at all, and the rest of the world will be divided over where the line should be drawn. But, right is right, and wrong is wrong. I love bashing the greedy folk at RIAA, but the greed on the other side is just as bad.

Re:Bitchy yes, but they do have a point (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339617)

The thing is though, and it's not apparent you realise it from your post, is that the artists have been getting paid by Google for the songs on Youtube. The argument here is not whether they should be paid, both Google & the PRS agree that they should be but how much they should be paid.

The music industry has a long history of asking for, and co-ercing lawmakers into forcing content providers to pay enourmous sums of money for their songs and now Google has turned round and said "That's too much. We want to pay you what we think is a reasonable amount and not what you're demanding" and until the PRS agree they have removed a lot of music videos from their site.

Obviously the PRS is desperate for the money they have been getting Google because they're making a big fuss of this all and seem to be demanding Google start showing their videos again and pay them whatever they ask for for the pleasure.

Hopefully once the PRS cave in, as the certainly must, and agree to a more reasonable fee this will restrict the amount they can reasonably demand from other content providers and the whole thing can get onto a more sensible footing.

Re:Bitchy yes, but they do have a point (1)

Fotograf (1515543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339307)

why would music videos be subscription based? IT is PROMOTION lookup that word in wiki. it is like charging for movie trailers

Re:Bitchy yes, but they do have a point (1)

Fotograf (1515543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339327)

p.s. they should monetize companies using Utube as their publish medium for garbage content (Spore comes to mind, as well as many pros using it to publish their ads) if they want some moneys out of it, imho

Re:Bitchy yes, but they do have a point (1)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339353)

Music videos started off as promotion, but I don't think that's the case any more. Some people who consider themselves music fans don't buy CDs (downloads, whatever), but they leave a video jukebox TV channel on all day.

Re:Bitchy yes, but they do have a point (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339581)

>IT is PROMOTION lookup that word in wiki. it is like charging for movie trailers
Not really. If it was a 10 second clip of the best bits it would be like a movie trailer.

Who is clueless here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339011)

Clueless or not, they have the IP rights and they can ask them to be taken down. When was the last time you spent time appreciating/making friend with the thief when you found your wallet was stolen? Is the moral ground in U.S. so low that the thief is louder than the victim?! And you think Wall Streeters are the only crooks? No, the whole nation is morally bankrupt. Yes, I'm pointing at you.

Re:Who is clueless here? (1)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339325)

Clueless or not, they have the IP rights and they can ask them to be taken down.

The material has been taken down. The PRS is most upset about it. Effectively Google has demonstrated that it can manage without this content.

Free from unfair competition (5, Insightful)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339013)

I read TFAs and the comments and do not understand the outrage. Google disagreed on the amount of royalties and obliged the authors and other interested parties by removing the music. That should be considered a win, right? I mean now the authors are free from unfair competition to open their own streaming website and offer their music at what they consider a fair price. Isn't that what they want?

Re:Free from unfair competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339101)

Mod up please

Re:Free from unfair competition (3, Interesting)

NoisySplatter (847631) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339117)

Of course that's not what they want. They want to get paid for their content while receiving free publicity without hosting costs.

These people expect to get paid for what should be a hobby while the majority of other people have to shell out money for theirs.

Re:Free from unfair competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339265)

They think that their music is going to end up on Youtube whether they give permission or not. Because of that, they think they are in a position to demand that Google give them more money for it.

Google can't possibly prevent their music from being played via Youtube completely. One user uploads a video, another one watches it, and even if it's taken down before a second user can watch it, they still consider that to be royalties lost.

It's completely stupid. They're just targeting Google because of the popularity of Youtube. If there were 1000 sites similar to and of equal popularity to Youtube, what could they do?

my poor youtube (1)

sussane (1111533) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339023)

i wonder why everybody is after youtube, china is after youtube again.. Damn. My poor Utube.. Plz stop harrassing Youtube. Regards, Sussane http://itshumour.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Nice to have a list of artists to boycott (3, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339031)

I'm so glad some "artists" have chosen to come out and show us who not to buy records from. Thanks guys, don't expect a cent from me.

great money making scheme (1)

kwikrick (755625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339039)

1. put your own music on youtube
2. ask google for money
3. profit? ah.. rats!

question to poster (2, Insightful)

kernkopje (414100) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339069)

"(...) by reading a few pages, its clear to me that Music writers represented by PRS for Music are largely clueless about what the Internet and YouTube means to the music industry. Kind of explains why the music industry is in as much decline â" and also why so much litigation takes place on the music writers behalf."

Question to poster: how does it follow from their statements that the music writers are clueless?

Granted, most of us feel that the music business has taken loads of wrong approaches - the sad lawsuits against individuals by the RIAA for example, or the music business not understanding the concept of selling more by giving away something else.

However, we are not talking record companies here. We are talking music WRITERS. Creators. People that compose the music and write lyrics, that have (in most cases) somebody else sing or play it. These people don't make money by performing the songs, or by marketing it in a clever way. In most cases, all they have is their royalties.

I don't claim to have the full answer to this complex issue, but to disqualify all the comments on the PRS for music website just like that is really quite silly.

Also, the fact that we all love YouTube and would hate to see it shutdown or block certain content is not a very good reason to counterattack anyone who's attacking their way of working.

Re:question to poster (1)

tick-tock-atona (1145909) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339253)

However, we are not talking record companies here. We are talking music WRITERS. Creators. People that compose the music and write lyrics, that have (in most cases) somebody else sing or play it. These people don't make money by performing the songs, or by marketing it in a clever way. In most cases, all they have is their royalties.

Then they need to get their royalties from the people who are directly using their content to make money. This includes the people that perform the songs, and the record companies.

As mentioned in a comment above, creators do not have a god-given right to get paid for absolutely everything that ever gets done with their content or anything that is derived from it.

If a performer is directly using your composition on an album or your lyrics in a song, then get that performer to pay. They are the ones making money by performing your work.

It seems to me that the only creators who are not also performers are those who write for the Britney Spears' of this world - and there are certainly people making more money with their work than google is, so go get it from them!!

Re:question to poster (5, Insightful)

phulshof (204513) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339283)

Question to poster: how does it follow from their statements that the music writers are clueless?

Very simple: they seem to focus on how much money Google is making, and how much money they think their music is worth. The question they SHOULD be asking is: how much money is my music WORTH to Google? How much revenue would Google lose if my music was pulled from YouTube tomorrow, and what % of that money might I fairly claim? They should also ask themselves the question: how much money will I lose/gain if my music was NOT on YouTube? If the payment is not enough for you, then don't complain when Google removes your music.

Re:question to poster (1)

Spasmodeus (940657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339379)

Question to poster: how does it follow from their statements that the music writers are clueless?

The individual songwriters' requests for compensation injects cognitive dissonance into the minds of the people who insist that only Big Evil Corporations with their Obsolete Buisiness Model want people to pay for music (to finance Lear jets and hot tubs full of hookers for fatcat executives), and that the Brave New World of music is that all music is free and all artists support themselves through touring and merchandise, and all the greedy recording executives are out of a job, and therefore you are entitled to download whatever copyrighted works you can find for free while congratulating yourself for helping to bring about a new utopia for musicians.

Therefore, the music writer's statements must be discarded as clueless, otherwise you have to accept that you're not just sticking it to The Man when you download free stuff, you're sticking it to the actual creator.

Re:question to poster (1)

phulshof (204513) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339423)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here. I am not condoning copyright infringement, but this is a business deal between two parties. The songwriters wish to get paid for their work being up on YouTube, but don't like the amount Google is willing to pay. Without a deal, Google has to remove said music from YouTube upon request (conform European copyright law), but when they do so the songwriters protest even more. It is clear to me that they have a very different view of what their music is worth from what it is worth to Google, but they can either come to an agreement or have their music removed. They cannot force Google into an amount just because they think it is justified. Failure to understand this is what makes them clueless.

Re:question to poster (1)

Spasmodeus (940657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339627)

Actually, I agree with you, and I think the organization's approach to the matter is dumb, and Google has every right to just remove the content.

I just think it's telling that of the actual quotes being addressed by /. posters, most of them are along the lines of "fuck that greedy bastard who wrote that Rick Astley song and is already rich and wants even more money for his 20 year old song so boycott him and everybody else who is a member of that organization", rather than even grazing the larger questions about how songwriters can be compensated for their work when the younger generations have been raised to believe "if it's available on the Internet, it's free"?

Look at the membership (3, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339071)

https://apps.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/apps/memberadmin/Registration.asp?primaryAcc=1 [mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk] I looked for a signup, thinking I just MIGHT have some little say. No way. You have to have a CAE Number to even sign up. Is that like a tax number, a club membership number, or what? Obviously, no colonials are welcome, whatever it might be. And, just as obviously, if you don't agree with the stated mission of squeezing money out of everyone online, your views are MOST unwelcome. I'll bet they have a voice in the ACTA treaty, though, unlike any voting American citizen.

Re:Look at the membership (0)

Homburg (213427) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339123)

You have to be a member of the PRS to access the members section of their site? How shocking!

Re:Look at the membership (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339183)

You miss my point: I cannot BECOME a member. Go ahead, try it. If you don't have that magic identity number, you can't join. And, no, your facetious "shocking" statement still won't be on target. It isn't really "shocking" that a private club of greedy bastids don't want to allow some working stiff to join. Sad, yes, but not shocking. ;)

Re:Look at the membership (1)

Homburg (213427) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339273)

The page you linked to is the sign up form for members to get access to the web site. If you want to join the PRS, you want their online application form [prsformusic.com] .

Hey man Abba is signed on (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339079)

Or at least their songwriter is. They should just be glad anybody would choose to listen to their garbage, free or not. I would need a gun to my head to indulge in their shit.

Re:Hey man Abba is signed on (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339549)

>They should just be glad anybody would choose to listen to their garbage, free or not. Apparantly 25m people buy their albums annually so clearly some people do choose to listen. I think you'll find the Mama Mia film/musical has done rather well too.

Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339089)

100 million views, strange i always looked to youtube to find new bands and see how the band performs live etc. if they are decent i go out and buy their albums, if anything youtube is making them money, i dont see why they want to complain. 100 million views = 100 million possible customers. The artists should be cheering that their song has become so famous and that their song has reached a much wider audience then they could ever hope for in their own country.

stupid, stupid, stupid (1)

mnbjhguyt (449178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339127)

all it takes to make everybody happy is require video uploaders who use copyrighted music to clearly state the song they are using, so that youtube can automagically link the video to a 'buy this song now' place

it's so obvious that I think that the only reason this has not been implemented yet (and the real reason for artists' rants) it's that they have not agreed yet on which webstore should sell the music.

Youtube is not about making money... (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339131)

It's about free expression. That's also what making music should be about unfortunately the music industry has been blinded by the fact that they've been such big shots the last century. If they want to make money streaming they're music online they should start their own site doing so.

Doesn't add up (2, Insightful)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339235)

I had a video that had about 25,000 views in total and when I got my PRS for Music cheque through, I think I made two or three pounds off that maximum ...
Sam Isaac, songwriter

So let's be generous and say 1% of those views resulted in an ad click-through. This guy wants to make serious money out of 250 ad clicks?

Re:Doesn't add up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339315)

The reality of the ad-clicks is certainly less than 1%. On average for every 10,000 ads served I get around 16 clicks.

They are reaping what they sowed.. (4, Informative)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339247)

Originally the "Music Video" was designed as a way for the industry to promote a song when the Artist was not available to play it live. In a sense it was designed from the start to be a 'Loss leader' for the music industry. That the playing of the track itself was promoting the artist and song, so the money they lost in making the video was recouped in the form of larger sales of the track involved. Now with less money going around the Industry are wanting more ways to create income, turning the traditionally loss making music video in to a money stream in it's own right.

"Royalties are vital in nurturing creative talent" (3, Interesting)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339375)

I call bullshit.

Or at least, I don't see this at all. I know a few people who have been creating music for quite some time. And most of the time they didn't get paid.

Also, I and a bunch of others organize a festival (*) every year on the campus of the University of Twente. The performers don't receive any payment, maybe a compensation for fuel. Not getting paid at all hasn't stopped the performers from wanting to show up and show their creative talent.

And to extrapolate this beyond music creators. Not receiving royalties hasn't stopped from people creating mods for computer games. It hasn't stopped creators of open source software.

The only people who are stopped by not receiving royalties are people who are in it for the royalties.

*) it's not a big festival, only about 1000-1400 guests. But compared to other student organized parties it's the biggest event. It's completely organized by people in their spare time. Nobody gets paid to do anything.

Re:"Royalties are vital in nurturing creative tale (1)

SunSpot505 (1356127) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339461)

You are of course correct. If you can do it for free and it's good enought, why should anybody get paid for doing it great? Nevermind that everyone involved is a student or i otherwise employed. If they can do their hobbies for free, why can't professionals?

If/When you graduate you may/will have a job and your employer will expect you to do it very well and you may/will expect to be paid depending on much of this you get.

Why does it matter what the occupation is suddenly? I know a lot of people who are accountants for fun and they've never complained about not getting paid. RIGHT. If you are the best at something you have a right to be compensated for your expertise, especially when that is your means of making a living.

Of course I'm sure that you have never paid for quality professionally produced music. It's all the same after all and your friends do it for free for you. And you even organized their record label too. Out of the goodness of your heart. What a guy. Perhaps you put that on your resume when you look for a real job. I'd hire you in a second as long as you did a great job and never asked for money.

Of course perhaps you have paid for music or even a concert, in which case I call bullshit, because you have enough aesthetic sense to tell that something is worth paying for. Just because you can do it for free doesn't mean that everyone else should. Get over it. Or come work for me for free. I've got plenty for you to do and I won't pay a cent.

Your occupation doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339529)

FOSS coders have jobs. They do FOSS programming as a hobby. Unless you have a REALLY understanding boss, you won't be allowed to do your hobby at work.

Only directors and C*O's get to do that.

NOBODY gets to do their hobby at work. And most people have to PAY to do their hobby.

So take all that straw away and give it to some needy ponies. It's not worth anything here.

Re:Your occupation doesn't matter (2, Insightful)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339603)

FOSS coders have jobs. They do FOSS programming as a hobby.

A lot of FOSS software is written by software professionals as part of their job.

But let's put that aside, and think only of the hobbyist FOSS writers. Many people when they first learn about free software, instinctively decide that it must be second rate. "OK, so I can't afford the good stuff, I can make do with free software." It's quite a leap for these people to realise that non-free software is frequently poor quality, and that free software is frequently of a very high quality.

So it is with music. Some amateur music is better than some professional music.

Could society get on with only amateur music? I doubt we'll ever find out. But I don't think there's a case the argument that if we don#t protect musicians' revenue streams we'll have to live in a world without music.

It's always about the money (1)

ryanw (131814) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339415)

This might look like PRS is being the lame ones, but if you actually know a bloody thing about the music industry you would understand better what this really is about.

Youtube/Google makes millions upon millions of ad revenues from youtube. A clip that gets seen a lot generates more revenues. If it contains music that is 'copywritten' there should be a performance royalty associated to that clip. This is a movement to control the cash-flow of the music industry. There is no sense for Google to retain all the profit and not pay the writers and creators of the content while they rake it in.

Look at all the moving parts before slandering a group going after your "sainted" google.

Re:It's always about the money (3, Informative)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339447)

Google was already paying royalties. The issue at hand is, how high should those royalties be.

The PRS argument seems to percieve that a 'view' is worth a lot more than makes sense (see the comment on the page about getting 25,000 views and expecting more than a couple of pounds in royalties).

Google does make billions, but it makes those billions by serving trillions of pages. 1000 video views might result in one ad click. One ad click is only worth a few pence.

If they paid what the PRS is asking, Google would make a loss. So, they said "no thanks".

PRS aren't being realistic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339443)

Think about it, they claim that musicians earning less than £10k a year are being taken advantage of. I'm pretty sure the majority of music vids on youtube that are under the PRS earn a fair bit more than that! The majority of the views are for the superstars, not the underdogs.

It's a balancing act (2, Interesting)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339639)

I understand where these artists are coming from but this is the fallout from a badly balanced system as it was started. Music was well overpriced to begin with, the internet has forced that into a more realistic pricing model and those who benefited from a little-effort-multi-millionaire lifestyle now see their gravy train coming to a crashing stop. It's no wonder they are trying to keep the train moving.

When the record labels, executives, advertisers, promoters etc are making billions from artists and fans it's no wonder the artists want their share of the cash. When both the means to record, release and promote were limited to those with serious money they held all the cards, and so could charge much more than it cost to make and distribute an LP, tape or CD. They also set the rules on what the artists had to give up to get a small slice of the pie. They screwed both ends of the chain and made a fortune off their backs. The internet has bust that gravy train right off the tracks and they just don't see it.

Part of the excuse for high product prices was that it cost so much to make and distribute them. With the internet, people can access the same stuff with little cost.

Part of the excuse for record companies charging for EVERYTHING was that the art of making the music was a skill reserved for specially talented people who needed to spend 6 months in Barbados to "get into the right headspace" to write a 3 minute tune which would gain a high chart position and therefor make them tonnes of cash. This means the artist is treated like some spoiled brat and given whatever they request. Look at the excesses of the large 70's and 80's acts for plenty of examples.

They don't see music as an art, they see spreadsheets with comparisons of chart positions and sales figures.

Part of the excuse is that they play a key role as a gobetween the artist and the fans, in the form of TV appearances, radio appearances, interviews etc.

All of the excuses the recording industry have used over the years to justify their extortionate fees are evaporating as people are bypassing them, legally and illegally. Many artists are choosing to go their own routes, giving them more control and a larger slice of the profits of their work and a direct relationship with their fans.

Costs have come down dramatically and the point of entry is now very low if you want to make music for a living but the days of Elton John or Queen type earnings are long gone, no matter how good you are; the public have changed and the mediums have changed....and won't change back, no matter how much they wish it so.

It's now possible to put a band together with decent quality equipment and record on a simple mixer / PC to get a reasonably professional sound, which coupled with some internet savvy thinking can get you decent earnings.

It's early in the morning and I think I'm starting to ramble so I'll end it there.

PRS HELL ON EARTH (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339647)

Utter rubbish

PRS AND ITS SUPPORTER BURN IN HADES

They nothing more than fascist common thieves.

Play radio the in your local independent garage well ?

Guess what yer goanna be sued, public performance.

Your children sing happy birthday at school , PRS no where's the money!

Your law enforcement guys what to listen to the radio they fine them too.

School kids raseing money by singing Christmas carols to give more unfortunate children a Christmas, Not till PRS takes there SHARE, they will fine you too.

But by worst is there new License that all places need to play music. So I now need a License to play my own guitar with my own material in my local pub. So in reality I need to pay IFPI,RIAA to play my own stuff when they have no rights top any of it.
See a trend here anybody.
PRS Screwing You Since 1941 there mission ? to send the human back to the warter were they came from.

YOUR NEXT

This says it all (2, Insightful)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 5 years ago | (#27339665)

"It is important...for future generations of music creators, that they can rely on earning an income from their songwriting."

Why?

Art is everywhere. Art is cheap. How many people are members of garage bands? Play an instrument? Sing? Maybe even give the occasional performance? How many people paint, write, compose, sculpt or dance in their spare time? Most have no expectation of making money - it's a hobby, something they do for fun.

Earning real money with any of this - composing, performing, writing, dancing, whatever - is very, very difficult. But the sense of entitlement from wannabe professionals is amazing: "My work is so great, I deserve to make a living at it". When they find that they can't, why then "life is unfair" and they are being cheated.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>