Post
by A_MichaelUK » Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:49 pm
>I'd say he cares about Youtube.
Really? Why would he care about a multi - billion dollar organisation?
> He took the time to post his improved sound video.
How is that caring about YouTube though? It shows he cares about improving sound. It doesn't show me "he cares me about Youtube" though.
> Could you please provide some examples of artists who have lost their livelyhoods thanks to Youtube and the like?
I didn't say ANYTHING about "artists who have lost their livelyhoods" and it's becoming clearer that you're not really following this discussion. You are reacting in a 'knee - jerk' way as a result of your own perception. I actually only referred to "artists" AFTER your post. I was referring to people who worked at record companies, at publishing houses, in record stores, in studios and in warehouses, all of whom have been affected by copyright infringement. Why do you think record stores, including small independent stores have been closing down? Why do you think less and less labels exist? Why do you think less labels are taking on new artists if you think there is no problem? Are you really saying that the record industry has NOT been affected by file - sharing and other online activity? Have you not picked up a newspaper or watched the news in the last fourteen years or so? I don't deny some artists have actually been helped by file - sharing (ironically, Metallica's rise was helped by their audience sharing their music on cassettes, before the internet as we know it existed) but that doesn't help those artists who don't achieve the kind of success that Metallica did and it was sites like Megaupload and RapidShare that were making fortunes by ensuring the artists were being paid. I don't even deny that in some cases, the record companies damaged themselves by charging high prices for recorded music and by fighting against "Youtube and the like" instead of finding a way to work with 'the enemy' to make sure everyone gets paid it (which they are now frantically trying to do). It just seems strange that some people would be happy to basically steal from the artists that they claim to be supporters of by helping the pirates make all the money. It doesn't make sense. That isn't to say file - sharing can't help break new artists but it has to be monetized so that they can be paid and it doesn't seem right that YouTube will make more money from "School's Out" than, say, Michael Bruce will, just because so many people have illegally uploaded that track (and that's before you consider the bands and artists that is also going to happen to and which will never experience the success that Michael did). Dave Rowntree (of Blur), Robert Smith, Bono, Gene Simmons and Prince have all spoken out against online piracy and not just for their own selfish reasons but because there are artists who don't have the security they have. Prince and Kiss (for a while) refused to record anything until they found a solution that met their needs. Perhaps you'd be happy for example for Alice or Dennis Dunaway to never record again as a result. There are also many artists (such as Dave Grohl or Joss Stone)who are happy not to get paid but some artists don't have that luxury and as I said, it isn't just the artists who are affected. However, if you STILL think there are no"examples of" bands who are struggling because of piracy, I suggest you use a search engine and do some research. You will learn what bands such as Vernian Process, Escape the Clouds, and Clockwork Dolls have to say about the issue.
> Maybe you should harass Bill Gates and the companies that made VHS machines,cassette recorders,cd and dvd copiers.
Try infringing any of Bill Gates' rights and see what happens! However, you're confusing what went on from the sixties onwards with what happened in the nineties and beyond, which was piracy on an unprecedented scale and that is down to the technology (and by the way, I'm aware of the irony that in the early days, Alice Cooper was funded by the sale of bootleg albums).
>I can give you the names of some companies if you like.
My employer actually does business with Gates personally, so I can track him down myself if I need to, but thanks.
> I trust you have now paid back all the royalties on your VHS copies and bootleg tapes that you didn't pay for now that you are not a " self righteous prig with a sense of entitlement ".
Again, you're missing the point. I never said I had a problem with sharing material per se - just that the infrastructure as it exists now (as you put it "Youtube and the like") is not sharing it's revenues and if you post material online so that it is available to the entire world, that is different from sending it to one specific individual directly. If you think "the companies that made VHS machines,cassette recorders,cd and dvd" enabled copyright infringement in the way that say, Pirate Bay did, then you haven't understood the issue. You are also confusing software with hardware, but that's a different debate. As Lucious Mothem said, if Toronto Bob wanted to provide a link, he could have provided the Shout Factory link. Otherwise, if we extend your logic, nobody will ever pay for music ever again. The trick is to find the balance between the technological infrastructure and those that create the content. That is why I encourage everyone to join Spotify (or Pandora in America) which for all it's faults, could eventually reduce the amount of illegal file - sharing that happens because it just won't be worth it.
Last edited by
A_MichaelUK on Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:39 pm, edited 6 times in total.
