Read what I wrote: The courts side with the copyright owner.
The music industry sued single moms, college kids, and people on welfare, and the courts ruled in favor of the industry. Look it up.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
It's 2015! Time to get rid of the '70s.
- Thread starter CurtisNEPA
- Start date
Read what I wrote: The courts side with the copyright owner.
The music industry sued single moms, college kids, and people on welfare, and the courts ruled in favor of the industry. Look it up.
For Spanish music, this one could interest me especially "nueva ola" Please let me know when it's up.
The original Napster, correct?
M
Music Lover
Guest
I do the same thing. I use YouTube to sample music I'm on the fence about buying.
I'm optimistic that the little guys will win. I think paid streaming will remain an optional choice.
Last edited:
Yeah, legal download sites have way, way too many fakes and re-records out there, especially the older stuff from pre-1980's. It's amazing they can really get away with that, selling unoriginal versions for nearly the same price as the original radio versions. You gotta be careful. YouTube has been a tremendous help.
The "little guys" in this discussion are the songwriters, and they will win. Because it's their music. You will pay.
So who's going to buy these artists' music if they've "aged out" of terrestrial radio and have pulled their own work from satellite/streaming media? Out of sight (or hearing), out of mind. They'll be forgotten by everyone who doesn't already have their recordings. Nobody will be profiting off these artists, but conversely, they won't be generating more than a pittance in royalties or fees for themselves or anyone else as a result of removing their work from the only media that will play it in 2015.
Oh, and you realize YouTube is a glorified game of Whack-a-Mole. Once something gets taken down, it goes right back up again because it is so easy to fool YouTube with variant spellings, not-quite-correct names, etc. I'm a boxing fan who never buys a PPV fight, because I know the fight is going to be on YouTube within an hour of its conclusion. I just have to misspell one of the fighters' names.
Last edited:
M
Music Lover
Guest
The little guys in this discussion are the listeners who can't always afford monthly subscription prices increasing. That's why webcasters are constantly fighting Congress and the music industry over royalty rates increasing.
Once again: The courts side with the copyright holders. Try to understand that. The music industry would love to have webcasters go away. They don't care. Music is not free and it's not a right. If you can't afford it, then learn how to play an instrument. Look it up. That's what the music industry keeps saying. You're living in some dream world.
They don't care.
To quote Garth Brooks: "You Tube is the devil." He's not the only one. That's what he said on Access Hollywood.
M
Music Lover
Guest
The Davids in this world have won before against the Goliaths in this world and I'm optimistic that they'll win again. http://textpattern.kurthanson.com/kurtsblog/720/behind-the-new-pureplay-webcaster-license
Garth's in the middle of a big comeback and wants to sell new material again. He has a very good reason to want to keep his stuff off YouTube. And it looks like he's done a nice job of getting his studio recordings deleted. Congrats to him and his crack legal team. However, YT is still full of old video of TV appearances, concerts, etc., not to mention wannabe Garths sitting on the sofa with their guitars singing "If Tomorrow Never Comes" and "Friends in Low Places." See? Whack-a-Mole.
I wouldn't call that a "win." Read the comments. That was selective reporting.
M
Music Lover
Guest
YouTube is beneficial for music of independent artists to be discovered.
YouTube is beneficial for the stockholders of Google, who own it. Those independent artists would make more money if they just bought stock in Google.
You need money, lots of it, to buy enough Google stock to set you up for life, and that's something undiscovered artists don't have. As for its usefulness, Colbie Caillat -- whose dad used to be IN THE BUSINESS, for pete's sake -- used YouTube to get her music out and eventually scored a record deal and stardom. And now she makes money for her producer, publisher and label. Plenty of other acts have gained traction on YouTube and gone on to make money for the people who want to sue YouTube out of existence.
And you still haven't explained how exposure on YouTube for artists who don't have a home on radio anymore and might just be able to sell some CDs to nostalgic old fans -- and younger people just now discovering their music -- is a bad thing for the songwriters, publishers, musicians and labels. The labels get to sell catalog product that otherwise would gather dust and everyone gets their few shekels.
Not my job to explain. Ask them. I'm not in the music business, but I get to hear them talk about it all the time. They are very clear and very direct. There are lots of interviews out there.
Here's one of them demonstrating the tensions that exist between indie artists and YouTube.
https://www.futureofmusic.org/blog/2014/05/29/indies-battle-better-terms
Exposure is great. But money is better. They don't want to get exposure without proper compensation for their work.
The Future of Music Coalition is actively campaigning for better compensation for artists and songwriters from new media. In the long run, the cost of better compensation will be passed on to you the consumer. There will either be more advertising, or new fees, or both.
Exposure IS money (assuming the product is worthwhile but that is the consuming public's option as the artist doesn't get to determine what his/her compensation is until they become established).
That's what WE say. But they disagree. But go ahead....talk to the artists and RIAA about it. Make my day. Let me know what they tell you.
Thousands of us have tried, and the music industry has come up with all of their own studies and explanations why we're wrong. It's like Radio Discussions, except for money.
M
Music Lover
Guest
YouTube, web-radio, etc. have introduced me to new artists that I've found I really liked and, more importantly for the music industry, I've bought discs and downloads. Taylor Swift has it wrong. Illegal downloads is the problem, not streaming. Streaming has actually helped reduce piracy.
Last edited:
- Status