Another TIDAL Exclusive Goes Straight to YouTube…

tidalmadonna1

tidalmadonna3

tidalmadonna2

33 Responses

  1. Anonymous

    Perhaps Madonna’s team just forgot to submit the video. Content ID can’t block content it doesn’t know.

    But we are beginning to see quite a lot of Content ID failures.

    Reply
  2. Me2

    Strike two, it should be clearer now that this is likely not a Content ID failure. I think this could have been preventer, we’re there a will to do so. At worse, there is a cynical and troubling message to all whom would contest they who shall not be named..

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      If it isn’t Content ID failure, then what?

      Here are the possibilities:

      1) Madonna’s team forgot to submit a file for fingerprinting.
      2) Madonna’s team did submit the file, but allowed monetizing (which would make their ‘Exclusive’ claim false marketing).
      3) Content ID screwed up.
      4) YouTube allowed the upload (bye-bye YouTube).

      Reply
      • Me2

        Yep. There’s a 5th too, That the Tidal crew deliberately didn’t register content ID.
        My pick is number 4.

        Reply
      • Me2

        And remember that recently, with the launch of Music key, that YouTube in effect used participation in Content ID conditional on their five year ‘catalog’ plan for indies.

        Reply
        • Me2

          So, supposing Content ID doesn’t even work , which I still contend does work when desired, what is the bargaining power here? It’s a solution to a problem that YouTube created!

          Reply
          • Anonymous

            “It’s a solution to a problem that YouTube created”

            But is it even a solution?

            *Content ID doesn’t seem to be available for indie labels unless they sign YouTube’s Music Key contract.
            *Content ID is not available for most indie artists unless they pay aggregators like Tunecore and Audiam.
            *Content ID is not available via Tunecore and Audiam for artists who use sample-based keyboards or sample libraries (and that’s just about everybody today).
            *Content ID makes a lot mistakes that result in complicated disputes.
            *YouTube pays less for user generated content than for legitimate videos.
            *Content ID can only be used to monetize 50% of a music video — the audio part — via aggregators like TuneCore and Audiam, YouTube keeps the rest.

            So you’re back at square one: Takedown notices.

            But YouTube makes money from the stolen song as long as it’s available on the service.

            And you don’t get a cent.

      • JTVDigital

        I vote for 1)
        Content ID failures are quite rare, especially on content like this one which is of acceptable quality.
        And even if it fails to detect the audio automatically, it can still be claimed manually by the content owner.

        Reply
    • FarePlay

      Re-ignite the conversation about Internet piracy and have Congress take a hard look at what’s not working with our current anti-piracy laws.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        Good luck on that one, Will. The Registrar of Copyrights has said in front of interested audiences that we shouldn’t expect a meaningful change to DMCA safe harbor in the proposed “Copyright Review” and copyright lobbyists speaking off the record say it’s naive to think that Judiciary Chair Goodlatte will actually move any legislation until late in his 6 year possible term as committee chair because it’s too rich a fund-raising topic to not maximize for his own political benefit. The market is going to need to sort this on our own if we don’t want to all hold our breaths for the next 4+ years.

        Reply
        • FarePlay

          Totally disagree. I’ve watched the hearings and that is not the stated position of key members of the Congressional Subcommittee. The number of take down notices and their actual effectiveness is obscene. Probably the best thing the RIAA has done has been to pursue this tactic and expose the hypocrisy of Section 512, a provision never intended to create a Safe Harbor for repeated criminal activity.

          Until Congress closes this loophole criminals will continue to thumb their noses at any mention of controlling Internet piracy. Current policy is an undeniable capitulation to piracy.

          Reply
          • FarePlay

            “Interested Audience” and “copyright lobbyists speaking off the record”. Who are you referring to? The EFF, Chilling Effects and Google’s cadre of lobbyists?

            No secret that “take down > stay down” is one nightmare Google wants to avoid in a major way. In the past Google has been able to deflect these problems through their third party mouthpieces, but things are shifting both in this country and Europe.

  3. Name2

    Awesome. So Tidal goes instantly from a niche service for the audio-conscious to the brand name exclusive distributor of fresh Madonna videos.

    When does the music start having “THIS is a TIDAL exCLUSive” every 30 seconds?

    Reply
  4. Yep

    Holy Jesus…take a look at the backlash on Rihanna’s Facebook page!

    She is really going to have to consider the effects on her career now.

    Reply
    • steveh

      seems like there is a nightmare digital streaming death spiral occurring. Tidal, Youtube , Spotify locked in a 3 way fatal embrace…

      Reply
  5. Anonymous

    The last time Madonna released an album she made $34,577,308.62 that year, not including synchs, merch or sponsorships, which im guessing also includes paid appearances, so tack on another bunch of millions to that…

    It was also, according to certain factions, catastrophically pirated, so something is going on, because when i compare earnings to back in the hey days, its really not that different, so while the industry at whole has gone way down, they seem to have made up the shortfall somewhere, somewhere that the everyone else isnt able to do or doesnt even know of…

    And Rihanna rejudging her career? People are cynical, all they want to do nowadays is slag, slag, slag, especially her core demographic and fanbase, they jump on the internet and just cyberbully, anyone, anywhere, so shell be checking her bank account to see how her career is doing, and she seems to be just raking it in, especially for an artist who doesnt produce and doesnt write, she makes a killing…

    Fashion shows and other media outlets just want clicks and views and buzz, these days that seems to come best in the form of controversy and negativity and slag fests, so she gets nice appearance fees to attend events and wear some fabric and smile for the cameras, and then everyone can click in to slag off, and she buys another sports car, yacht and mansion and gets whatever milly or billy guy she wants today, sipping champagne and anything she wants, all while the majority of the industry whines about her problems that she never seems to mention anywhere…

    If there is something else going on here and the proper information needs to come out so we or i can have a better understanding, then please come out with the proper information, otherwise its pretty plain to see whats happening, and if you arent a marketable celebrity to be, then music might not be the play, cause even those big label artists who dont write and dont produce, are making a killing and have become incredibly influential people on the worlds stage, where her opinion and voice matters about topics she doesnt even engage in, and those who actually do it, are meaningless, are spit, are worthless, are dung on the bottom of Goliaths sandle…

    Reply
  6. Musicservices4less

    For all those comments regarding DMCA safe harbor not changing, that may not be accurate. Sure the copyright registrar and lobbyists may have their opinions but the new sheriff in town is FCC Chairman Mr. Wheeler and his agenda. And before you go off on the initial net neutrality statement that these new regs will not interfere with copyright, etc., also take a look about those regs use of the term “illegal content.” It is mentioned a number of times. The question will come down to whether YouTube/Google’s business practices are reasonable in light of the past 15 years of actual experience in the operation of their websites.

    And to Anonymous who is using Madonna’s earnings to prove a point regarding the vast majority of artists, well, that’s just stupid. Madonna and most, if not all, mega stars are just like the one percent in general. No matter what happens they will continue to make billions as they have not matter the state of the music industry. And if you really think that the rest of the one percenters care about taxes, you are totally naive. They only care about their power and money. And when you have that much money, you have the best tax advisers and tax lawyers in the world and those professionals protect their money from taxes and all else not matter the rate or treatment.

    So its really silly when I read comments regarding mega stars in any entertainment business. The music economy and its rules do not apply to them.

    The piracy issue effects all new, middle level people and businesses. It is now becoming more and more apparent that the tech distribution side of the business is doing nothing, absolutely nothing except lip service. While I detest iTunes for devaluing music to 99 cents, their concept of a walled garden does make sense but only if piracy is kept under a management control.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    From where i am sitting, seeing what i see, knowing what i know, Interscope looks like nothing more then a Criminal Syndicate, as they engage in Copyright INfringement and Intellectual Property theft, character defamation, ruining reputations and public humiliations… That would then make Universal Music Group either complicit in the crimes or else aiding and abetting criminals, which then makes Vivendi either complicit in the crimes or else aiding and abetting criminals, luckily the jurisdictional border jumping makes it much trickier…

    Here is the thing, Vivendi is sitting on BILLIONS in cash, BILLIONS!!!! If me, a law abiding hard working citizen has more then $10000 cash on me, the Police immediately CONFISCATE it as an assumption it has to be proceeds of crime… So because they deem it near impossible to be able to legally have $10000 of cash on you without it being some proceeds of crime, how is it possible then that they are able to have BILLIONS of dollars of cash on them?? And no one blinks an eye that it might be proceeds from crime, and instead they are heiled as genius business people, deities and visionaries, applauded and rewarded everywhere, and the best part, the kicker, i get threatened even more, i mean i even obtain music legally and i face a firing squad over it… They owe me millions of dollars from crimes committed against my person and my property, they have zero justification for it, are brazenly and boldly out in public bragging about it, albeit it cleverly, continue to do it, get celebrated and rewarded for it, and if i come up with $10000 of cash it will be taken away from me as an assumption its from crime???

    Wow…

    If those top guys are legal honest players, then they need to spend some time in the trenches, as their employees are engaging in mass theft and infringement and are bragging about it as they make more millions, win awards, laugh and smile all the way to the bank, and america and every other jurisdiction and all law enforcement just let them get away with it…

    It is certainly a crime being poor, be rich and get away with just about anything i guess…

    Reply
  8. Paul Resnikoff
    Paul Resnikoff

    Quick update:

    The original YouTube video that we found (displayed in the article) has now been pulled.

    BUT, another one has instantly appeared in its place:

    Reply
    • Paul Resnikoff
      Paul Resnikoff

      I should also add: our backend automatically embeds a video in comments if you enter a link, but I’m guessing this one will be gone after a while.

      I’m also guessing another one will quickly replace it.

      Reply
      • Name2

        Actually, it still plays as of 6:15 PM Eastern Friday night.

        How does it feel to be contributing to infringement??

        Reply
    • Anonymous

      “The original YouTube video that we found (displayed in the article) has now been pulled.
      BUT, another one has instantly appeared in its place”

      Yes. There’ll always be a version.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *