Faceplams Faceplams:  0
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 108

Thread: Trent signs RIAA supported petition.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    the beginning of the end
    Posts
    9,342
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    @allegro those are cool links.
    but regarding what i was watching not getting enough hits to generate ads...

    a HUGE part of what i watch is youtube, and mostly what i've done for damn near a year is watch tv.
    I'm talking eminem videos, RT, Danger Dolan...no ads on anything for several days.
    Again, maybe it was a glitch

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by elevenism View Post
    @allegro those are cool links.
    but regarding what i was watching not getting enough hits to generate ads...

    a HUGE part of what i watch is youtube, and mostly what i've done for damn near a year is watch tv.
    I'm talking eminem videos, RT, Danger Dolan...no ads on anything for several days.
    Again, maybe it was a glitch
    Yes, but, again, maybe what you were watching hasn't generated the number of hits required to generate ads, I think it's over 250,000.

    We know people with boats in marinas who get shitty or no cable, and instead of using a DVD player they download YouTube TV shows and movies to a flash drive and watch those via a USB port on their TVs on their boats at night in the marina. So people use YouTube for all kinds of shit, yeah.

    But YouTube not generating revenue on hugely popular videos for a while, that's more than just a GLITCH.
    Last edited by allegro; 06-24-2016 at 03:01 PM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    Yes, I mean "pay" as in "pay them a fair share" which obviously the artists do not feel they are getting. And the majority of people who have signed that Petition are artists.
    Who determines what's fair? There are two sides to every negotiation. YouTube says it is fair, a small number of artists, and the mega-corporations behind them say it isn't.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,187
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    The person who's selling sets the price. That's what's fair to them, and unless it hurts other sellers by setting the bar too low that's what "fair" is.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrz View Post
    The person who's selling sets the price. That's what's fair to them, and unless it hurts other sellers by setting the bar too low that's what "fair" is.
    Well, that and what is fair as defined by "industry standard." Which the artists and the competition obviously feel isn't happening, here.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrz View Post
    The person who's selling sets the price. That's what's fair to them, and unless it hurts other sellers by setting the bar too low that's what "fair" is.
    Okay. In this case YouTube already has an existing contract with the music labels. The music labels now want more.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,187
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Except that when I upload a clip I downloaded earlier, this isn't covered by any contract, and any benefits go to Google and myself, while the artists see nothing, which is the point Reznor was making. He's not talking about VeVo here...

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HurtinMinorKey View Post
    Okay. In this case YouTube already has an existing contract with the music labels. The music labels now want more.
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrz View Post
    Except that when I upload a clip I downloaded earlier, this isn't covered by any contract, and any benefits go to Google and myself, while the artists see nothing, which is the point Reznor was making. He's not talking about VeVo here...
    From the prior link posted:

    [quote]“The consumption of music is skyrocketing but revenues for creators have not kept pace. In 2015, fans listened to hundreds of billions of audio and video music streams through on-demand ad-supported digital services like YouTube, but revenues from such services have been meager  —  far less than other kinds of music services. And the problem is getting worse. Check out the alarming disparity between the growth in the number of ad-supported streams compared to the growth in revenues generated from those streams:

    Last edited by allegro; 06-24-2016 at 02:27 PM.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrz View Post
    Except that when I upload a clip I downloaded earlier, this isn't covered by any contract, and any benefits go to Google and myself, while the artists see nothing, which is the point Reznor was making. He's not talking about VeVo here...
    Except that the "artists" want higher rates on the stuff that is legitimately uploaded, too. That should tell you something.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,187
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    That they feel they're getting assfucked by streaming/digital services in general since they're equally complaining about Spotify, Amazon, Apple Music, YouTube...

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HurtinMinorKey View Post
    Except that the "artists" want higher rates on the stuff that is legitimately uploaded, too. That should tell you something.
    I think they are only talking about legitimately uploaded, and they are moving for the removal of most illegitimately uploaded material.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    [QUOTE=allegro;306634]From the prior link posted:

    “The consumption of music is skyrocketing but revenues for creators have not kept pace. In 2015, fans listened to hundreds of billions of audio and video music streams through on-demand ad-supported digital services like YouTube, but revenues from such services have been meager  —  far less than other kinds of music services. And the problem is getting worse. Check out the alarming disparity between the growth in the number of ad-supported streams compared to the growth in revenues generated from those streams:

    Allegro,

    Finding reliable data on the music industry revenue is very difficult. Clearly much of it is slanted to make a point, and doesn't come close to accounting for all sources of revenue. But what we know for sure is the upper crust of pop-stars (like the ones in the RIAA letter) are certainly no worse off then their counterparts from say the early 2000s. E.g. Taylor Swift and Rihanna are both worth more than either Brittany spears or Christina Aguilera. Justin Beiber is worth more than Eminem. Hardly something you'd expect to be true if the top end of the music industry was getting "robbed."

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HurtinMinorKey View Post
    From the prior link posted:

    Finding reliable data on the music industry revenue is very difficult. Clearly much of it is slanted to make a point, and doesn't come close to accounting for all sources of revenue. But what we know for sure is the upper crust of pop-stars (like the ones in the RIAA letter) are certainly no worse off then their counterparts from say the early 2000s. E.g. Taylor Swift and Rihanna are both worth more than either Brittany spears or Christina Aguilera. Justin Beiber is worth more than Eminem. Hardly something you'd expect to be true if the top end of the music industry was getting "robbed."
    This reminds me of the time one of my family members borrowed $3,000 but then never paid it back and said "well, you have more money than me." As if that alone is a reason for their unjust enrichment. Funny, to me, I worked for that money, you didn't, and how much I have isn't relevant. That family member smoked 3 packs a day, though. So choosing to buy expensive cigarettes instead of repaying a car loan? Yeah.

    Look, you can spin this as "greed" in YouTube's direction but nobody wants to do that. Because they benefit from YouTube.
    Last edited by allegro; 06-24-2016 at 02:57 PM.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,187
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Just because you're well off doesn't mean you don't get ripped off. Those are arena players with loads of various products and ventures, that doesn't make their share of the streaming revenues any fair.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    This reminds me of the time one of my family members borrowed $3,000 but then never paid it back and said "well, you have more money than me." As if that alone is a reason for their unjust enrichment. Funny, to me, I worked for that money, you didn't, and how much I have isn't relevant. That family member smoked 3 packs a day, though. So choosing to buy expensive cigarettes instead of repaying a car loan? Yeah.

    Look, you can spin this as "greed" in YouTube's direction but nobody wants to do that. Because they benefit from YouTube.
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrz View Post
    Just because you're well off doesn't mean you don't get ripped off. Those are arena players with loads of various products and ventures, that doesn't make their share of the streaming revenues any fair.
    Okay, so then we can stop pretending this is about supporting artists and acknowledge this is a business issue.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,187
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    When can we stop pretending this discussion isn't about both, about the artists' business?
    Somehow artists supposedly work for the greater good and shouldn't be paid a decent wage on the work and entertainment they provide? Of course it's about business! Of course it's about the right for every artist to get their fair share of the revenues generated by content they created, may it be Bieber or my struggling writer friend!

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrz View Post
    When can we stop pretending this discussion isn't about both, about the artists' business?
    Somehow artists supposedly work for the greater good and shouldn't be paid a decent wage on the work and entertainment they provide? Of course it's about business! Of course it's about the right for every artist to get their fair share of the revenues generated by content they created, may it be Bieber or my struggling writer friend!
    So you are fine with YouTube ceasing to exist as we know it, because the RIAA strengthens copyright laws such that it becomes impossible for users to freely upload their own content? This may be an extreme case, but if all you care about is eliminating piracy (because that's what's fair), no matter the cost, then you should be fine with this.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,187
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Who said YouTube would cease to exist again, I need that quote. And I'm perfectly okay with creators sharing their own content, as long as it's their own, and I don't see why protecting an author's work should impact the ability of another author to share his own creations as he sees fit. That's not the issue here.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrz View Post
    Who said YouTube would cease to exist again, I need that quote. And I'm perfectly okay with creators sharing their own content, as long as it's their own, and I don't see why protecting an author's work should impact the ability of another author to share his own creations as he sees fit. That's not the issue here.
    Because "protecting the author's" work through tougher IP laws has consequences, one of which could be YouTube having to severely limit what users can upload. In the worst case scenario it could make YouTube impossible to function.

    i.e. YouTube isn't breaking any laws currently, but if the RIAA has its way, that could change. So the question we have to ask ourselves is whether strengthening Copyright law makes sense for society, especially when a very small percentage of people will see any benefit, while many could be harmed.

    Personally, I see stronger copyright law as being equivalent to a regressive tax, as for the most part it will transfer wealth from the relatively poor (consumers) rich to the wealthy (rock stars).

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    I agree with @Khrz , I have not seen anybody or any entity demanding that YouTube cease to exist. YouTube is owned by the very profitable Google and would continue to exist based on and from the sharing of copyrighted material after YouTube pays out the proper fees to the owners of said copyrights.

    Quote Originally Posted by HurtinMinorKey View Post
    Personally, I see stronger copyright law as being equivalent to a regressive tax, as for the most part it will transfer wealth from the relatively poor (consumers) rich to the wealthy (rock stars).
    WHAT? In this case, the END USER isn't paying CRAP. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH. AND NEVER WILL, AND NOBODY IS ASKING THEM FOR IT, NOBODY, NOT EVEN THE RIAA. The end user isn't even subject to being SUED, per the Act. The only complaint per the Petition is that the Act be revised to reflect the more activity on YouTube that YouTube isn't catching, wherein now YouTube's profits soar but they aren't paying their their fair percentage. But in no way does that cause any kind of hardship to the end user.

    See that Chewbacca lady up there? The link? She got a BUTTLOAD OF FREE SHIT FROM KOHL's for mentioning Kohl's her in own video. Then, because her video got SO MANY FUCKING HITS, she can probably send all of her kids to college because of YouTube ads. And this is all somehow a hardship how? That lady is getting more money than some little indie band. AND NOBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT, NOT EVEN THE RIAA.

    Quick, somebody dig up Karl Marx.

    I lived in the days before digital, before CDs, shit ... BEFORE FUCKING CASSETTES .... and somehow we managed to SURVIVE with copyright laws. We bought albums on vinyl, maybe somebody we knew had a fancy reel-to-reel machine and recorded a bunch of albums to tape but that required a bunch of money, otherwise nobody was reciting some fucking Socialist Manifesto about copyright stopping us poor high school students from being able to buy the latest Jethro Tull album so we had to go steal it from the record store; no, we bought the fucking thing and used the cover to clean seeds from our weed. But once people get used to FREE SHIT, then all they want is free.
    Last edited by allegro; 06-24-2016 at 04:28 PM.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    I agree with @Khrz, I have not seen anybody or any entity demanding that YouTube cease to exist. YouTube is owned by the very profitable Google and would continue to exist based on and from the sharing of copyrighted material after YouTube pays out the proper fees to the owners of said copyrights.


    WHAT? In this case, the END USER isn't paying CRAP. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH. The end user isn't even subject to being SUED, per the Act. The only complaint per the Petition is that the Act be revised to reflect the more activity on YouTube that YouTube isn't catching, wherein now YouTube's profits soar but they aren't paying their their fair percentage. But in no way does that cause any kind of hardship to the end user.
    You keep using the notion of "fair". I think it's "fair" to point out that YouTube is currently complying with Copyright Law as written today. You seem to think that changing the law to the benefit of the RIAA et Al is more "fair".

    To this end, long as we agree that whatever the proposed changes to Copyright Law end up being, the ultimate decision should be based on what it best for society as a whole (as I was saying earlier). If YouTube could seamlessly apportion revenue generated by Copyrighted content to the content owners, with no impact on the general user's (everyday people) experience, then there isn't much to argue about (in terms of potential costs to society).

    I'm just very wary that (1) this is the case, (2) there could be far reaching and unintended consequences for user generated content sites in general that harm society.

    BTW, @allegro @Khrz thanks for taking the time to debate the issue. You guys have have laid out your arguments well, and your overall points are well taken.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HurtinMinorKey View Post
    To this end, long as we agree that whatever the proposed changes to Copyright Law end up being, the ultimate decision should be based on what it best for society as a whole (as I was saying earlier).
    The purpose of copyright law is to benefit the artist AND society, not JUST society. If it only benefitted society, there would be no real incentive to create. You can't assume that all artists are those people on the Petition; they are only the ones with enough money to put up a fight, but they represent the little people at the bottom, too.

    Here is the DMCA, in full, see Page 15. The provisions are old and outdated. See this article:

    The DMCA was initially enacted in 1998, well before lawmakers could take YouTube's impact on the music industry into account. Because of that, the artists argue that "sensible reform that balances the interests of creators with the interests of the companies who exploit music for their financial enrichment" is needed.

    "As songwriters and artists who are a vital contributing force to the U.S. and to American exports around the world, we are writing to express our concern about the ability of the next generation of creators to earn a living," the petition said. "The existing laws threaten the continued viability of songwriters and recording artists to survive from the creation of music. Aspiring creators shouldn't have to decide between making music and making a living. Please protect them."
    Last edited by allegro; 06-24-2016 at 04:51 PM.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    The purpose of copyright law is to benefit the artist AND society
    Not to split hairs here, but artists are part of society. i.e. IP law is not intended to specifically benefit artists. Just like with patents, it recognizes that intellectual property has value, and that there should be some incentive to create new works, and the incentives come in the form of legally established market power, market power which reduces social welfare (in the econ 101 sense). The rationale behind this inefficiency is that society is better off in the long run, because new works will satisfy unmet needs, so that in the long run, the loss of social welfare in the short-run is offset. Thus IP law specifically takes into consideration the value of innovations, and tries to weigh them against the inefficiency created by market power. e.g., society wants new cancer drugs, so they incentivize the creation of new cancer dugs by establishing legal monopolies for a limited number of years.

    In the case of music, the benefit to society is less clear, new music would still be created in a world without copyrights (contrary to your statement above) because (1) money isn't the only incentive for creating music or any other art-form (thank god), (2) musicians have other avenues for generating revenue like performances, which is in fact where most of their money is made anyway. But that's not to say I think no copyright law should exist. To the contrary, I think it should exist, but only to the extent that it provides the majority of artists some means for making a living, and not be perverted to serve the intrests of the extremely wealthy 1% of "artists"

    "The existing laws threaten the continued viability of songwriters and recording artists to survive from the creation of music. Aspiring creators shouldn't have to decide between making music and making a living. Please protect them."

    It's this type of language that makes the RIAA petitioners look bad. We can argue about whether or not YouTube is unfairly enriched, but the notion that the RIAA gives a fuck about the next generation of creators is laughable. Show me the struggling artist that is getting killed by YouTube.
    Last edited by HurtinMinorKey; 06-24-2016 at 05:26 PM.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    837
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Wait. So this isn't an issue about artists - it's about corporations, right? But the people that will benefit from this are the "1%" (or was it 0.01%?) of artists? Or is it that it will only benefit artists but there are fewer artists than "fans" so none of the artist's interests really count?

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by m15a View Post
    Wait. So this isn't an issue about artists - it's about corporations, right?
    It's about the "Corporations" that are YouTube and Google getting a bigger share than the artists, and more than the record labels (who are actually getting a way bigger share than the artists, too).

    Honestly, the vast majority of videos on YouTube are probably NOT copyrighted music, or music videos or movies. They're just general videos (gone viral) by people who have figured out how to monetize their YouTube channels.
    Last edited by allegro; 06-24-2016 at 05:54 PM.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HurtinMinorKey View Post
    "The existing laws threaten the continued viability of songwriters and recording artists to survive from the creation of music. Aspiring creators shouldn't have to decide between making music and making a living. Please protect them."

    It's this type of language that makes the RIAA petitioners look bad. We can argue about whether or not YouTube is unfairly enriched, but the notion that the RIAA gives a fuck about the next generation of creators is laughable. Show me the struggling artist that is getting killed by YouTube.
    They don't mean that there are, literally, people out there who can't eat this week because YouTube stole their revenue; they mean that YouTube is setting a legal precedent for the future and if something isn't done about it, the longer it's in action, the more it creates the lack of incentive to be creative for fear of not being able to make a living (hence the "choice"). Yes, it's true that touring is the way most musicians make a living these days (not true in film), but that doesn't take away his/her copyright protection.


    The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

    United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8
    Last edited by allegro; 06-24-2016 at 06:05 PM.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,306
    Mentioned
    277 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrz View Post
    That they feel they're getting assfucked by streaming/digital services in general since they're equally complaining about Spotify, Amazon, Apple Music, YouTube...
    A friend of mine has a track on Spotify that has just under 500,000 plays. You know how much he got from them for plays? $70.

    It's not right. But times are changing and the music industry has to adapt. Vinyl is coming back strong and die-hard music fans will always want to have physical copies. Trent has said in the past that touring is the way that you can make up money for the record sales. But the smaller musician has a struggle when they are not the ones well established. My whole look at it is that I support any artist as they put a lot of time and hard work into their final product. I know not everyone wants to shell out money and have a record collection. Overall, this conversation can go in loops on how we can dissect the new age of music distribution.

    I'm just happy that Trent supports live concert recordings and allowing to have an archive of his performances on the internet.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Bayonne Leave It Alone
    Posts
    5,338
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ninlive View Post
    A friend of mine has a track on Spotify that has just under 500,000 plays. You know how much he got from them for plays? $70.
    not saying your friend doesn't deserve far more $ for those plays, b/c he/she absolutely does. At the same time, Spotify still loses a shit ton of $ every year, right? Maybe I'm wrong about that. But I remember seeing numbers for them, Apple Music/Beats Radio & Pandora and I believe they are all operating at a loss, some staggering. So MY hope is these companies collapse. Sure, Apple isn't closing down, but maybe this streaming venture will.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Chekhov, Russia
    Posts
    2,020
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    see, this is a signal to rethink our priorities. i don't like an idea that youtube or spotify will one day send a few bucks to artists who i listen to, so i'll use streaming just for tasting something new to decide if i want to buy it and stick with local files for everyday play. and i prefer buying whole album, much less an ep or single. if it's some obscure song long out of print, then is it my fault not even being born when it was hot? absolutely not, it's guilt-free no matter what are the labels plans for the rare stuff. a huge holy grail boxset to cash it after musician dies? sorry, my life may as well be shorter than <insert star name> here. it was a good point given that many musicians work day jobs. maybe if more corporate suits worked real jobs we wouldn't have this unhealthy topic at all...

    i'm also curious how much this will affect those big names (reznor and yorke) and their productivity, with all this fight for the justice how much time they have left for creation?
    Last edited by BenAkenobi; 06-25-2016 at 03:16 AM.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    the beginning of the end
    Posts
    9,342
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    Yes, but, again, maybe what you were watching hasn't generated the number of hits required to generate ads, I think it's over 250,000.

    We know people with boats in marinas who get shitty or no cable, and instead of using a DVD player they download YouTube TV shows and movies to a flash drive and watch those via a USB port on their TVs on their boats at night in the marina. So people use YouTube for all kinds of shit, yeah.

    But YouTube not generating revenue on hugely popular videos for a while, that's more than just a GLITCH.
    i'm not trying to argue with you on this, but i'm talking videos that most DEFINITELY had millions of views.
    I am almost certain they were testing it in some areas or something.
    and you are forcing my hand here-to get you to see what i'm saying, i guess i have to tell you that i watch youtube 4-8 hours a day.
    And watchmojo and such, all those videos get 250,000 hits in the first few hours they are up.

    I think they were testing an add free model in some areas to see how much consumption went up so that they could possibly rationalize a subscription fee.
    And i shuddered in fear.

Posting Permissions