Ultra Records Suing You Tube Star

M.C.-Exclusivo

M.C.-Exclusivo

Break yo'self fool!
Ultra Records and it's publishing department are suing You Tube personality Michelle Phan over copyright infringement. She has allegedly used 50 different songs of the labels discography for her You Tube videos and is apparently making a very lucrative career off the back of You Tube.

Ultra Records are looking for compensation of £88k($150k) for each proven copyright infringement.

What are your thoughts on this?

Personally, I think it's pretty greedy on the labels part. According to the BBC article, one of the artists (Kaskade) was in disbelief by the developments. It seems it's not even the artists that are seeking compensation.

Is this another story of record labels taking advantage of their rights? I believe so. These aren't even "struggling" artists. I'd feel deprived of a lot of money if it was me, today, now. But on the whole, I don't believe I would be annoyed or seeking compensation from the You Tuber. Instead more annoyed that I hadn't monetised a stream properly, and allowed You Tubers to have used my labels body of work before.

Have Ultra not heard of You Tubes content ID system? Did they know they can share the ad revenue from the You Tuber? Seems like they are seeking compensation for something they forgot to do and now can't get You Tube to pay the share since it's so late. Most labels seems to be adopting the strategy of either not allowing their catalogue of music to be on You Tube, OR monetizing any videos that the music is in.

Interesting story anyhow. Let me know what you guys think...

And here's the link: BBC News - YouTube star Michelle Phan sued over copyright breach
 
"The BBC was unable to verify the claim that Ultra granted Ms Phan permission to use the music. A lawyer for the label and publisher did not respond to a request for comment."


Watch her bust out an email and kill this whole thing.

:4theloveofgod:
 
You know what's ****ing crazy? Owner of the Ultra Records started rap label PayDay Records back in 1992 (Jeru The Damaja, Group Home, Showbiz and AG, O.C.,JayZ) He also managed Gangstarr and Preem throughout their whole career. He's responsible for a lot of great records, but you know there's at least one uncleared sample somewhere in his catalog. :)
 
How is that greedy? If you're generating money using my intellectual property, I deserve a cut of that. That's not greed. What does the financial status of the person making the claim have to do with anything? It doesn't matter if I am sitting on millions or a sack of coal, if someone wants to include my music in income-generating content, they are pbligated to pay up or face consequences. Michelle should have done her due diligence (if she hasn't already) and made sure those sound clips were legit for use. Otherwise-FAIL.
 
stokeI said:
You know what's ****ing crazy? Owner of the Ultra Records started rap label PayDay Records back in 1992 (Jeru The Damaja, Group Home, Showbiz and AG, O.C.,JayZ) He also managed Gangstarr and Preem throughout their whole career. He's responsible for a lot of great records, but you know there's at least one uncleared sample somewhere in his catalog. :)
Click to expand...

Patrick Moxey, right? Probably the case. Ironic if it is.

Pumpthrust said:
How is that greedy? If you're generating money using my intellectual property, I deserve a cut of that. That's not greed. What does the financial status of the person making the claim have to do with anything? It doesn't matter if I am sitting on millions or a sack of coal, if someone wants to include my music in income-generating content, they are pbligated to pay up or face consequences. Michelle should have done her due diligence (if she hasn't already) and made sure those sound clips were legit for use. Otherwise-FAIL.
Click to expand...

Greedy on the labels part. Kaskade, who's music was the main artist in Ultra Records infringement report, doesn't even want to sue. That's greed. That's not their true intellectual property. When I start saying my artists music released on my label is my intellectual property, then you can bet I've sold my soul to the Devil for some extra pocket change in the form of £88k * 50.

Kaskades networth is $20 million apparently. He doesn't even care about getting another million or whatever he'd get after the label take their publishing cut of his 30 songs from the 50 reportedly infringed. I imagine Moxey's net worth is much more. Hence, greed.

May I add... If she was making more money than I, I would be pissed she wasn't sharing...

But let's agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Pumpthrust said:
How is that greedy? If you're generating money using my intellectual property, I deserve a cut of that. That's not greed. What does the financial status of the person making the claim have to do with anything? It doesn't matter if I am sitting on millions or a sack of coal, if someone wants to include my music in income-generating content, they are pbligated to pay up or face consequences. Michelle should have done her due diligence (if she hasn't already) and made sure those sound clips were legit for use. Otherwise-FAIL.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this, and I'll add that this is a case of the label protecting the artist. Isn't that a good thing? Would you prefer your label let anyone use your music to make money - without cutting you a piece - anytime they want? Artists would freak out if this were allowed all the time. Maybe Kaskade doesn't need the money, but this isn't just about him.
 
Last edited:
IPM Music said:
I agree with all of this, and I'll add that this is a case of the label protecting the artist. Isn't that a good thing? Would you prefer your label let anyone use your music to make money - without cutting you a piece - anytime they want? Artists would freak out if this were allowed all the time. Maybe Kaskade doesn't need the money, but this isn't just about him.
Click to expand...

There should be liaising. By the sounds of things, they haven't. Kaskade was reported as surprised. Aren't you missing that? He had no say. That's not protecting rights. That's control lol

EDIT: Record labels are supposed to work as a unit with the artist. Not as separate entities. The record label and artists are engraved in each others brands.
 
Last edited:
Pumpthrust said:
How is that greedy? If you're generating money using my intellectual property, I deserve a cut of that. That's not greed. What does the financial status of the person making the claim have to do with anything? It doesn't matter if I am sitting on millions or a sack of coal, if someone wants to include my music in income-generating content, they are pbligated to pay up or face consequences. Michelle should have done her due diligence (if she hasn't already) and made sure those sound clips were legit for use. Otherwise-FAIL.
Click to expand...

What about the guys doing audio gear reviews? Should they be sued by Native Instruments? How about the gamers? Video game walkthroughs get millions of views, that's some nice ad $$$
 
M.C.-Exclusivo said:
Patrick Moxey, right? Probably the case. Ironic if it is.



Greedy on the labels part. Kaskade, who's music was the main artist in Ultra Records infringement report, doesn't even want to sue. That's greed. That's not their true intellectual property. When I start saying my artists music released on my label is my intellectual property, then you can bet I've sold my soul to the Devil for some extra pocket change in the form of £88k * 50.

Kaskades networth is $20 million apparently. He doesn't even care about getting another million or whatever he'd get after the label take their publishing cut of his 30 songs from the 50 reportedly infringed. I imagine Moxey's net worth is much more. Hence, greed.

May I add... If she was making more money than I, I would be pissed she wasn't sharing...

But let's agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
The problem with all this is.....Kaskade is not an independent artist. The company owns part (if not most of) the publishing related to his material, which gives them a right to sue. Kaskade's approval is only a formality, really. If he disagrees with their action, he should leave the label. Their relationship is a partnership, the label does not work for him, and as such, they should be looking out for their interests-as any company should. Once again, not greed.
 
M.C.-Exclusivo said:
There should be liaising. By the sounds of things, they haven't. Kaskade was reported as surprised. Aren't you missing that? He had no say. That's not protecting rights. That's control lol

EDIT: Record labels are supposed to work as a unit with the artist. Not as separate entities. The record label and artists are engraved in each others brands.
Click to expand...

Signing with a label is an agreement to have other people work or "control" certain aspects of your music. So as it was said in another post, Kaskade doesn't have to know about it, or approve. He signed up for this control...
 
stokeI said:
What about the guys doing audio gear reviews? Should they be sued by Native Instruments? How about the gamers? Video game walkthroughs get millions of views, that's some nice ad $$$
Click to expand...

audio gear reviews are expected to be one of providing a written critique or in this day of vlogs an audio-visual critique of the product. It is in the companies interests to have such a-v spectaculars done on their gear because the more positive reviews out there showing who the product actually works the better in terms of free marketing.

Secondly in most cases, these reviews are solicited by the company concerned - they send the product to the magazine or reviewer for their critical assessment of the product.

Game companies allow a certain amount of license to gamers who are fans of the product, even mediocre production of of a great review is better than no review at all

Bottom line both of these companies do not lose copies of their product in the process of being reviewed even if the reviews stay around forever.

A cover version, or a just a direct lift from the original recording, is cutting into mechanical, publishing, synchronisation and basic copyright royalties for the label and the artist - infractions may be costing pennies on the iteration (being played once) but with thousands or more iterations that starts to turn into hundreds of dollars/pounds and eventually thousands

8c on the play is standard mechanical royalty for radio playback on terrestrial radio:
10 plays is 80c
100 pays is $8
1000 plays is $80
1000000 plays is $80000 -

for internet plays the royalty is closer to 1c a play (unless we are talking Pandora, where it is closer to 0.01c per play) , so divide those numbers by 8

10 plays is 10c/0.1c
100 pays is $1/10c
1000 plays is $10/$1
1000000 plays is $10000/$1000

serious money that is lost if an unlicensed version of the material is getting the bulk of the on-line plays
 
Last edited:
I'm no laywer but in simplest terms I'd think;If she's making money, she's liable. I could see her doing it hoping no one notices but to act surprised she got sued is kinda surprising to me.
 
Pumpthrust said:
The problem with all this is.....Kaskade is not an independent artist. The company owns part (if not most of) the publishing related to his material, which gives them a right to sue. Kaskade's approval is only a formality, really. If he disagrees with their action, he should leave the label. Their relationship is a partnership, the label does not work for him, and as such, they should be looking out for their interests-as any company should. Once again, not greed.
Click to expand...

In 2014, Business comes with ethics.

From there on everything is debatable. Especially the control thing, so we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Though I agree that the label is doing what they should be doing (maximising all revenue streams - like any business), I've made the point that it seems to be a case of trying to get money back for something they forgot/didn't realise they could do. Which was monetize this You Tube star fairly, from the start. Now they've missed the boat so either sue or forget about it.

If they had monetised Michelle Phan's channel, or made her remove her videos from You Tube, it would be a different story, and in my opinion well in their rights. However, chasing her up for compensation is just plain greed. It's like saying "We ****ed up, now the money we want is You Tube's so we'll go after the You Tube star for our share instead. It's easier and we can." That's what makes it greedy. It's entirely selfish. No thought of the future revenue streams they could generate by saying "We'll let it blow over, and offer an easy way to allow our music to be used for You Tube personalities"

Remember Metallica being against piracy? To the point where everyone thought they were dicks? Yeah...

As for the control thing, it's of my understanding that Ultra are an indie label, who distribute through a major. But that's an entirely different AND long discussion I don't want to be involved in.

Therefore, we'll agree to disagree.
 
M.C.-Exclusivo said:
In 2014, Business comes with ethics.

From there on everything is debatable. Especially the control thing, so we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Though I agree that the label is doing what they should be doing (maximising all revenue streams - like any business), I've made the point that it seems to be a case of trying to get money back for something they forgot/didn't realise they could do. Which was monetize this You Tube star fairly, from the start. Now they've missed the boat so either sue or forget about it.

If they had monetised Michelle Phan's channel, or made her remove her videos from You Tube, it would be a different story, and in my opinion well in their rights. However, chasing her up for compensation is just plain greed. It's like saying "We ****ed up, now the money we want is You Tube's so we'll go after the You Tube star for our share instead. It's easier and we can." That's what makes it greedy. It's entirely selfish. No thought of the future revenue streams they could generate by saying "We'll let it blow over, and offer an easy way to allow our music to be used for You Tube personalities"

Remember Metallica being against piracy? To the point where everyone thought they were dicks? Yeah...

As for the control thing, it's of my understanding that Ultra are an indie label, who distribute through a major. But that's an entirely different AND long discussion I don't want to be involved in.

Therefore, we'll agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense, and none of that really matters. What matters is Michelle Phan used copywrited music in her videos (alledgedly) without permission and those videos have been generating income. Whether or not Ultra should have foreseen potential revenue generating possibilities is irrelevant. Whether or not Ultra could have pursued other options beyond suing is also irrelevant. If I were a patent holder, and someone stole one of my patents and made money off it, according to you, I would be in the wrong suing for compensation because I did not figure out how to monetize that patent beforehand? So what you're saying is, theft is justified because "well, you weren't doing anything with it, anyways, let someone else make some money." Its not even a matter of ethics, you're just muddying the waters here with your sense of entitlement. If we're gonna mutually agree on anything in this discussion-its that neither of us are lawyers, experts, or even have all the facts. The thing anyone should come away with from this discussion is that entitlement is also form of greed.

As for your Metallica example, if you're being stolen from you have every right to be a dick about it. Culturally accepted forms of greed and theft is still wrong. In some countries and cultures, its perfectly okay to kill your wife if you even suspect she's been adulturous. Its still murder, its still a prosecutable crime, but because its culturally acceptable-no big woup. Those human rights groups are just being dicks about it.
 
if they waited this long to sue.... it's smart on their behalf... it's like sampling.. yea you could sample any song you want realistically but once it blows up.. the people you sampled are going to come running wanting their cut.. this is no different
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top