Is YouTube worth it anymore?

[syncopeter]

The 1950s re-issue possibly yes, the 2010 CD one definitely not, if you're not the copyright owner of that issue. Apart from the artistic rights there is also such a thing as mechanical copyright. On the 1950s issue that may have lapsed, on the 2010 issue definitely not! There is copyright on audio restorations too, you know. So in many countries it is no problem to post your own restoration of a 1929 issue, posting someone else's is, and rightly so I think. There are a lot of small companies, doing great work and needing the money of every CD sold to keep going. Two friends of mine run such companies and I wouldn't dream making copies of their CD's. They have to run on shoestring budgets and have trouble to even keep up with expenses, let alone making a small profit. One of them is dependent on external sponsorship for some productions.
I'm not concerned with the big ones though. They are doing everything short of Mafia tactics to squeeze out every last penny they can get.

[Valecnik]

The 1950s re-issue possibly yes, the 2010 CD one definitely not, if you're not the copyright owner of that issue. Apart from the artistic rights there is also such a thing as mechanical copyright. On the 1950s issue that may have lapsed, on the 2010 issue definitely not! There is copyright on audio restorations too, you know. So in many countries it is no problem to post your own restoration of a 1929 issue, posting someone else's is, and rightly so I think. There are a lot of small companies, doing great work and needing the money of every CD sold to keep going. Two friends of mine run such companies and I wouldn't dream making copies of their CD's. They have to run on shoestring budgets and have trouble to even keep up with expenses, let alone making a small profit. One of them is dependent on external sponsorship for some productions.
I'm not concerned with the big ones though. They are doing everything short of Mafia tactics to squeeze out every last penny they can get.

I agree with your view on the re-issue CDs. They allow us to own music that most of us would never get to hear otherwise. I've bought many CDs from the small companies you are referring to.

[syncopeter]

When our Dutch record collectors' society celebrated its 25 years jubileum we issued a CD with famous Dutch artists making advertising records. Apart from around 15 members supplying very rare records, some of which had the only one known existing copy, master restorer Harry Coster did all the restoration work for a flat fee of 400 euro. It was a huge success, department store HEMA bought 2,000 copies for their employees and so did other companies. It had to be repressed twice and now stands at 8,000 sold copies. It actually made the society a nice bit of money. But that was an exception to the rule, normally these albums struggle to sell more than 1,000 copies and that may take years.
Like many jazz 78s in the 1930s, normally no more than 500 copies were pressed initially. And I've had records of which no more than 50 copies were pressed in all.
Today a lot of people think that anything under 20,000 copies is a failure. But records were a luxury back then, costing as much as a day's wages from the average working man.

[EdisonSquirrel]

I hear you, Bill!

It boggles the mind that record companies concern themselves with old music afficionados who share their old discs and cylinders with a handful of like-minded individuals throughout the world. How petty can they get! This is beyond greed; it's utter stupidity! Really now....is a record company going to suffer financially if I decide to share a hundred-year-old Byron G. Harlan sentimental song?

I commented on Bill's Youtube piece on the Public Domain issue that if Youtube were to remove everything that could conceivably be subject to copyright, we would be left with a Youtube devoted almost exclusively to insipid videos of babies, pets, and kids' pranks.

Rocky

[syncopeter]

I've subscribed to the channels of a few people who publish their own restorations of sometimes very famous records. In many cases the sound quality is far superior to the commercial re-issue, because they can afford to take the time to do it properly. Also, because of the thinning market for these 'old' records the big companies simply aren't interested in re-issuing because there is no decent profit to be made. It's the small labels and the enthousiasts posting on Youtube that make this music available to the public. They have zero or only small overhead cost, so can afford to deliver high quality restorations.
Most people use Youtube as a streaming medium, so officially there wouldn't even be a copyright issue in many countries for material that is over 50 years old. It is not as if people rip the music and sell it on at a profit...

Peter.