Music Ownership Weirds Me Out, Here’s Why

I love music. Music is the one thing that keeps me alive and thriving in the increasingly wicked world. As a music YouTuber, making music is incredibly rewarding and enjoyable. However, the one thing I hate about music is the industry, particularly the copyright and originality side of it. Why is that?

One common trend is that music is getting simpler and simpler over the years. Although we see Silk Sonic with sophisticated chord progressions and Kendrick Lamar’s incredibly insightful and witty lyrics (and music, too). Music was still much simpler compared to the famous musicians at least 30 years ago. Music is lowering its barriers to entry compared to back in the 60s, with new technology like digital audio software (music software where you literally make music) and streaming services. Because music is getting more uncomplicated and straightforward, copyright infringement is rising more often. It seems that way. I will tell you a couple of examples of this.

The first example is the Marvin Gaye vs Ed Sheeran lawsuit. Ed Sheeran, in 2015, released a song called “Thinking Out Loud”, in which the estate of one of Marvin Gaye’s songwriters, Ed Townsend, sued the music for something. According to the state of Ed Townsend, “Let’s Get it On,” a Marvin Gaye song, has a chord progression and bassline that Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” stole. Traditionally, copyright infringement is based on the lyrics, melody, and significant sections of the songs. However, the “Blurred Lines” and “Got to Give it Up” lawsuits questioned all of this. The case failed to pass on to a decision verdict because the chord progression and bassline were just a couple of sentences and essential words. The estate of Ed Townsend didn’t have credible evidence to prove that “Thinking Out Loud” stole the song. If you go further, the chord progressions for “Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get it On” share a resemblance with other songs like an Aria from Bach and “Earth Angel.” This lawsuit is one of the most ridiculous regarding copyright infringement in which the use of the copyright is more like the use of censorship.

the chord progressions for “Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get it On” share a resemblance with other songs like an Aria from Bach and “Earth Angel.”

Another example of a large-scale copyright lawsuit is the Katy Perry vs Flame lawsuit back in 2019. The case is about the ostinato (descending notes in the riff) riff that “Dark Horse” and “Joyful Noise” share. Flame claims this to be the melody for both songs and sues Perry for religious imagery, which does not make legal sense. Marcus Tyrone Gray (the real guy behind the rapper Flame) wins the lawsuit. Perry’s legal team eventually claimed that the claims did not infringe on the song for the same reason as the Ed Sheeran lawsuit. Flame’s claims do not make sense because it shares a lot of tunes, including the chief attorney, Todd Decker’s most beloved song, “Ol’ Man River.”

From these two examples, well-established musicians and businessmen can sue people and put the artist into legal trouble, which is not great considering the relative inexperience in business. And some claims, however outrageous they can be, can prove to be substantial to convince the juror’s opinion, like the “Blurred Lines” and “Got to Give it Up” lawsuits. So, these lawsuits can cost so much time and money that, in some ways, musicians have the chance to be in debt. And more lawsuits are happening around the corner with minimal claims to prove copyright infringement. One such case is the “Levitating” lawsuit by Artikal Sound System, in which no shares can back it up. The claimed material is laughably common, and the court decides to not go further in the case. But these false copyright infringements are not the only ones I dislike about music publishing. There is another one that hurts emerging musicians and educators more in the rise of technological and algorithmic platforms.

As a music YouTuber, I have a lot of copyright infringement. Luckily on YouTube, the owner of a song demonetise my videos which is fine, and it happens sometimes. But sometimes, the owner of a piece bans my video from being viewable worldwide. For example, on my Keshi videos, UMG just bans my videos for people in Russia and Belarus, which is understandable due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, I recently uploaded a tutorial video to a Beatles song, and UMG blocked the song worldwide, so nobody could see the video. This blocking is a huge issue among a lot of YouTubers in music. It prevents great artists from being exposed to new people and hurts record companies financially. These music YouTubers who analyse music have problems working with the YouTube algorithm because of their numerous demonetisations and blockings. Adam Neely, a music educational channel, discusses how UMG and many well-established record and publishing companies can take down videos through YouTube’s Content ID system. And for Adam Neely, music companies can manually claim videos to earn money in weird ways. For example, in his video regarding the “Dark Horse” lawsuit, Warner Chappel (publishing company for Katy Perry) manually claimed a section of “Joyful Noise.” That section is not even the melody as part of the melody for “Dark Horse.” It means that Adam Neely splits the money with Warner Chappel for the wrong claim.

It was absurd that a losing company would do such a thing, and there are no good options now. As far as I know, music YouTubers must change the pitch and the tempo to allow the video to be demonetised. I don’t like that because everyone knows I’m doing this for the money. So, I ended up expecting most of my videos to be demonetised. But how can I make money?

Most YouTubers are basically clear because there’s this service called Lickd. Lickd is a service that licenses some popular music (not all of them) to content creators for a fee. The best part of Lickd is that you can get your videos monetised. But I don’t because I talk about music. I see Lickd as a platform for creators who want to use popular music as background music for their videos. Unfortunately, music educators and people like me must contact the artist’s legal team. The artist’s legal team sent the message to another legal team of the record label and the publishing company and expected a cut from the profits from a YouTube video. This solution is ridiculous.

I see Lickd as a platform for creators who want to use popular music as background music for their videos.

Sure, TikTok and short-form video formats allow you to use popular music without permission, and record labels have their licences on these platforms. Still, those platforms are not an option for me and my long-term plans. Short-form videos are out of touch for Adam Neely because you are cramming a lot of information in 60 seconds, and they may not get a lot of views. Short-form videos can rob my long-term videos away and, potentially, you guys. So, I cannot consider these solutions to deal with the ridiculous copyright. But the artists are not dumb and should do something about these false copyright claims. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be the case.

Taylor Swift said that most artists you listen to don’t own their masters (finished recordings of songs). She said that at the moment of Scooter Braun’s takeover of her first six albums from the purchase of Big Machine Records. Big Machine Records was Swift’s label since she was 15 and owned all her records up to that point. Swift hated Braun for being a manipulative bully and having the vision to drive down her musical value in any way. The owner of Big Machine Records refused to offer Swift a deal to own her records, at least in an acceptable condition. Fortunately, Swift held the composition of her songs. So, she can re-record these songs to own these songs back, which was what she did. But it took Swift a massive portion of her life just to realise that she could not use the pieces she wanted, a saddening misfortune.

You know what? I can only think of a solution in the distant future. I would cite music as a source for my essay and claim them as fair use for my educational purposes. So, I can monetise videos without having to worry about blocking videos. Basically, I am making songwriting rules to avoid copyright infringement claims and potentially make music-making fairer again. First, I must cite all the songwriters and producers associated with making my song to ensure they get the recognition and the pay they deserve. Second, I must pay the copyright to use these songs for the original recordings and credit them when necessary under a separate label to avoid lawsuits from Ed Sheeran or Katy Perry. Lastly, I should make a publishing company to protect these copyrights and control the final recordings myself. That way, I can licence music to other forms I approve of and you guys for your future projects. This solution works great if I can time adequately and am buying that time.

My multi-step solution is excellent, but I am somewhat worried about the implications of implementing this plan. It’s really just getting the more-established people from the American music industry and enforcing these rules to popular music and mass media to improve things. Although this solution is one thing to solve a big unsolvable problem, it can move the key to a centimetre. And it makes music fairer, more engaging, and playable for pooer people. It just makes better music.