8 ms·

The major labels try to frame the discussion around piracy, which confuses everyone else because YouTube bends over backwards when it comes to copyright law. I

The major labels try to frame the discussion around piracy, which confuses everyone else because YouTube bends over backwards when it comes to copyright law. If you dig deeper, its not about piracy - its about control. What do the majors get from Spotify/Apple music that they don't get from YouTube? If the majors don't like their deal with Spotify (whether its 80% of the revenue, or no free listeners), the majors can walk, and if any of their music appears on Spotify, the majors can sue them out of existence. With YouTube it's different - 1.) YouTube is the largest streaming site so users will always look for music there 2.) Anyone can upload music to YouTube 3.) YouTube isn't financially responsible when someone uploads infringing material. These 3 factors mean, if the majors decide they want 80% of YouTube's revenue rather than 50% and YouTube walks, there is a chance (more like a given) that someone will upload Taylor Swift's new album on there pitch shifted by 13% (to evade content id), and will go on to generate millions of views. And since YouTube is protected by the DMCA, the majors can't sue them out of existence. That's why the majors hate the DMCA, as it applies to YouTube. There effectively isn't a "scorch-earth" policy for music on YouTube, and the majors can't leverage their army of lawyers to force YouTube to submit to them if "scorch-earth" fails. Now I doubt "we need to kill the DMCA so we can sue YouTube for billions" is very PR-friendly, but "muh piracy" always is.

desde_mona 10y ago
Paying someone to be an artist is like paying someone to be an alcoholic, and the more I hear Artists collectively complain about the lifestyle I'm failing to enable, while I sit lashed to a desk all day, the more I want to destroy their every dream and aspiration.
- ehnto 10y ago
  You seem to be lambasting what you see as entitled behavior, while making it very clear that you are simply bitter that they live a life you either don't agree with or perhaps, are envious of. Either way it isn't up to you to decide who will pay for what, and your assumption that every artist is a drunken freeloader is clearly false. Most working artists also have to hold down a job and will get very little in return for their efforts. They aren't providing nothing, and very clearly people want what they are providing. It takes time, effort and opportunity costs to produce music and to expect that it be given to you for nothing because you think it's frivolous is ridiculous. Do you pay for DVDs? Pay to see movies? What about the artwork on your clothing, or the design of your car? You pay for all of those things directly or indirectly and they could all be considered frivolous in one way or another, yet someone worked hard to make it happen and people are willing to pay for that.
  - simplexion 10y ago
    Recorded music is the advertising for the musician. I don't understand why I should pay for that advertising. What they are advertising is their ability to perform music and they will receive my money when I pay to watch them perform or purchase their merchandise. EDIT: Let me elaborate in regards to ehnto's argument. DVDs, clothing and cars are all physical items I am paying for and therefore I am happy to pay for that. I am also happy to pay to see a movie because movies could not exist prior to being able to film. Movies are the end product that I want to see. All of these are different to music. Music existed well before the ability to record it did. All that recording did was make it more accessible. Back when you had to purchase a record or CD there was a physical item you ended up with to listen to that music. Therefore something that was worth paying for. I bought a lot of CDs. The music is not the end product. The live show where I go to see the musician perform is. I don't get paid for people to use my work without any involvement from me past the fact I created something. Why should a musician be paid for you listening to the music they created. They aren't putting in any hours for me to hear that past the original creation. What are they getting paid for? This is why I love artists like Hoodie Allen and Chance the Rapper. They release the majority of their music for free. Hoodie Allen was unable to release one of his albums for free on iTunes, so he charged the minimum. He was constantly on social media telling people they can download his album for free from multiple locations and that they didn't have to buy it on iTunes. People still paid for that album like crazy. On that note... fuck the music industry.
    - invertedPustule 10y ago
      Agreed, and very much so. I pay hundreds of dollars for the wire to my house I pay hundreds or dollars for the radio signals to my antenna. I pay hundreds of dollars to stand in the presence of a live performance. How many more hundreds of dollars shall I pay? Hundreds more for a spoon-fed recording I could have already made? Hundreds more to stream each recording sent my way, every time it's sent my way? Hundreds per month for a subscription that provides artists D, F and H. And then hundreds more for yet another subscription which provides exclusive access to artists A, B, C, E and G? When do I get paid?
    - shivsta 10y ago
- noonespecial 10y ago
  You mean : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ulrich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ulrich when you write that. But I think of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomplamoose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomplamoose so I disagree very much.
tripzilch 10y ago
> someone will upload Taylor Swift's new album on there pitch shifted by 13% (to evade content id) maybe 13% is enough to evade content id, you need at least 25% to make it sound good.

desde_mona 10y ago

Paying someone to be an artist is like paying someone to be an alcoholic, and the more I hear Artists collectively complain about the lifestyle I'm failing to enable, while I sit lashed to a desk all day, the more I want to destroy their every dream and aspiration.

ehnto 10y ago
You seem to be lambasting what you see as entitled behavior, while making it very clear that you are simply bitter that they live a life you either don't agree with or perhaps, are envious of. Either way it isn't up to you to decide who will pay for what, and your assumption that every artist is a drunken freeloader is clearly false. Most working artists also have to hold down a job and will get very little in return for their efforts. They aren't providing nothing, and very clearly people want what they are providing. It takes time, effort and opportunity costs to produce music and to expect that it be given to you for nothing because you think it's frivolous is ridiculous. Do you pay for DVDs? Pay to see movies? What about the artwork on your clothing, or the design of your car? You pay for all of those things directly or indirectly and they could all be considered frivolous in one way or another, yet someone worked hard to make it happen and people are willing to pay for that.
- simplexion 10y ago
  Recorded music is the advertising for the musician. I don't understand why I should pay for that advertising. What they are advertising is their ability to perform music and they will receive my money when I pay to watch them perform or purchase their merchandise. EDIT: Let me elaborate in regards to ehnto's argument. DVDs, clothing and cars are all physical items I am paying for and therefore I am happy to pay for that. I am also happy to pay to see a movie because movies could not exist prior to being able to film. Movies are the end product that I want to see. All of these are different to music. Music existed well before the ability to record it did. All that recording did was make it more accessible. Back when you had to purchase a record or CD there was a physical item you ended up with to listen to that music. Therefore something that was worth paying for. I bought a lot of CDs. The music is not the end product. The live show where I go to see the musician perform is. I don't get paid for people to use my work without any involvement from me past the fact I created something. Why should a musician be paid for you listening to the music they created. They aren't putting in any hours for me to hear that past the original creation. What are they getting paid for? This is why I love artists like Hoodie Allen and Chance the Rapper. They release the majority of their music for free. Hoodie Allen was unable to release one of his albums for free on iTunes, so he charged the minimum. He was constantly on social media telling people they can download his album for free from multiple locations and that they didn't have to buy it on iTunes. People still paid for that album like crazy. On that note... fuck the music industry.
  - invertedPustule 10y ago
    Agreed, and very much so. I pay hundreds of dollars for the wire to my house I pay hundreds or dollars for the radio signals to my antenna. I pay hundreds of dollars to stand in the presence of a live performance. How many more hundreds of dollars shall I pay? Hundreds more for a spoon-fed recording I could have already made? Hundreds more to stream each recording sent my way, every time it's sent my way? Hundreds per month for a subscription that provides artists D, F and H. And then hundreds more for yet another subscription which provides exclusive access to artists A, B, C, E and G? When do I get paid?
  - shivsta 10y ago
noonespecial 10y ago
You mean : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ulrich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ulrich when you write that. But I think of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomplamoose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomplamoose so I disagree very much.

tripzilch 10y ago

> someone will upload Taylor Swift's new album on there pitch shifted by 13% (to evade content id) maybe 13% is enough to evade content id, you need at least 25% to make it sound good.