Follow The Wolves
Aerospace Student
- Sep 26, 2011
- 214
- 0
- 16
As the World Bleeds on YouTube
- Thread starter Arkatox
- Start date
What do you think happens when you upload to YouTube? Google & advertisers make money off work that doesn't belong to them. Your own logic supports not uploading stuff you don't own to YouTube.
Google and the companies they support with advertising aren't warm-hearted people out for your best interests. They are corporations interested in leveraging anything they possibly can to turn a buck and compensating as few people in return as possible.
But hey, its free for you, so whatever...
Elecguitardude27
New Metal Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 22
- 0
- 1
As a youtube user (yes i do sometimes download songs from youtube) I think people putting songs on it can help a band to get recognition, and many more people will listen to music on youtube that they don't already know of. Not saying its "legal" or "illegal" but I know that bands i love now, i would not love if i didn't hear it on youtube first (Theocracy may have been one of them).
So it can work both ways. Its awesome that the record company put up some songs though. Youtube seems to be a huge way of promoting music now a days.
So it can work both ways. Its awesome that the record company put up some songs though. Youtube seems to be a huge way of promoting music now a days.
Once again, that wasn't the question.
You brought that up, but I won't argue about this topic, not with you and certainly not on this forum.
That's exactly the way it is. The only stuff I uploaded to YT is at least partially my own work.
A lot of things regarding copyright, downloading, sharing, etc. is a grey area and a lot of things don't make sense. IMHO it's mostly ones own responsibility to do the right thing and support the artists.
SeaStorm
Member
And intellectual property laws would agree with 2/3 of that. They don't apply to ideas or thoughts.
There's a very good reason intellectual property laws apply regardless of whether or not the third party makes money out of it: because the detrimental effect on the artist is the same either way.
If you are trying to sell the piece of music you created (which Theocracy is trying to do), it makes no sense to say you don't want Russian Pirate Guy selling it for very cheap because it lost you 10,000 sales, but you're fine with him giving it away for free, when that also costs you 10,000 sales (in fact, it might have cost you even more, since more people will take it for free than will pay a small amount for it). Either you, Russian Pirate Guy has deprived you the artist of your right to sell your own creative efforts.
This is not universally true. In my country I can go to a library, lend a bunch of CDs and make copies for myself and even a couple of friends. But I'm not allowed to sell any of those. It's also a huge difference between uploading MP3s for free and selling them via an online shop.
I disagree, but let's leave it to that.
I wouldn't care about lost sales either way, but I wouldn't like it if others made money of it, that's a difference.
The way I see it is if you can't live with the fact that a lot of people listen to your music without paying you, you probably shouldn't make music or keep it to yourself, because that's something that most likely will never change.
I would focus on those people who pay and give my best for them, because they're my customers and therefore the ones who deserve my attention. I would gain nothing by whining about "lost sales".
Aish!
-Аиш!
@Yoykex: WAS DENKEN SIE?!? SIND SIE VERRUCKT?!?
This must be a cultural thing because I find the argument stupid and offensive!
This must be a cultural thing because I find the argument stupid and offensive!
After successfully ignoring the rest of the thread I just wanted to butt in and say how ripping from youtube is a complete waste of your time, there are far more easier and productive ways to get a hold of a high quality rip of a certain album. I approve of this when it comes to bands who are split up and get no revenue from album sales any more and bands you can't possibly find locally and online. But I'm not telling anyone how it's done ;D
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but maybe you should be a bit more precise about what you find offensive and why...
Just because YOU would be okay with it doesn't mean you can fairly or reasonably expect an artist (or record label. Let's be honest - Ulterium makes more money off of a copy of As the World Bleeds than Theocracy does.) to be. Especially a smaller band like Theocracy, where they're trying to be able to make their livelyhood on just being a band - and if anyone deserves to be able to do that, Theocracy does.
As an artist you might be okay with that. Heck, Theocracy might be okay with that. But I guarantee Ulterium/your hypothetical promoter would not nor will ever be. For labels, music is business - it's what they do.
Finally, I'd like to leave you with this - Romans 14:13 tells us that, even if you hold no conviction that what you do is wrong, if someone else does, you shouldn't have them do it, or even argue it's "righteousness" with that person, lest you cause him to stumble.
As an artist you might be okay with that. Heck, Theocracy might be okay with that. But I guarantee Ulterium/your hypothetical promoter would not nor will ever be. For labels, music is business - it's what they do.
Finally, I'd like to leave you with this - Romans 14:13 tells us that, even if you hold no conviction that what you do is wrong, if someone else does, you shouldn't have them do it, or even argue it's "righteousness" with that person, lest you cause him to stumble.
I don't expect it, but at least to the artists I would recommend it. That doesn't mean they should like it, but I don't think there's anything useful they can do against it directly so focusing on their actual customers/fans would be a much better choice.
Agreed.
I agree, but it's a completely different thing if you're talking about a record label. UR has all the rights to take down the YT vids and everything and that really might have a positive effect on the sales, although I'm not sure about that.
Big words. Do you know how many brothers stumble upon other brothers listening to and playing Rock Music? Thanks to modern communication there certainly are LOTS all over the world, so by that argument Matt and the guys should burn their records and start playing the "good ol' hymns" instead.
My listening to rock music doesn't directly affect anyone else though - I'm not forcing them, or even asking them, to listen or like it. In fact, that chapter is primarily about that - if something is okay for you, but wrong for someone else, then by all means do it, but not in the prescence of your brothers that it is wrong for.
For example, I'm a Biblical Studies major (I switched from Psychology) with the intent of being a minister some day. I like metal, but I'm sure as heck not going to play Christian metal in a church. I'll stick to Chris Tomlin and Hillsong United in that setting.
For example, I'm a Biblical Studies major (I switched from Psychology) with the intent of being a minister some day. I like metal, but I'm sure as heck not going to play Christian metal in a church. I'll stick to Chris Tomlin and Hillsong United in that setting.
Not you listening, but Theocracy(and other bands like this) playing. Ever read on av1611.org?
He he, that depends on the church I'd say. In our church we normally stick to that kind of worship, too, but I'm certainly open to bring some metal in if it is suitable.
An organization that claims to bring truth but fails to back it up biblically doesn't concern me.
Ephesians 5:19 says "Sing and make songs from your heart to the Lord. It does NOT say "Sing hymnals for the Lord"
Ephesians 5:19 says "Sing and make songs from your heart to the Lord. It does NOT say "Sing hymnals for the Lord"
SeaStorm
Member
IMO, the sad endpoint of your worldview is that it leads to less good music for us. If artists can't get paid enough money to live on, then they have to find other livelihoods.
Theocracy is a perfect example. I can think of specific times in the past where they were unable to tour because they couldn't get time off from their "non-music" day jobs. Once a band can earn enough money to reach the status of full-time musicians, everything changes. I actually talked to Sabaton about this recently and it was interesting to hear their stories of how everything took off once they could quit their non-music jobs and could afford to focus on music full-time: more music, better music, and more live shows for the fans.
If all the music is free for the taking and only a small number of hardcore fans pay for it, then the only music we'll get are from independently wealthy artists or people who do it as their hobby (which automatically means less music and less touring). Yuck, I hate that world
Elecguitardude27
New Metal Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 22
- 0
- 1
IMO, the sad endpoint of your worldview is that it leads to less good music for us. If artists can't get paid enough money to live on, then they have to find other livelihoods.
Theocracy is a perfect example. I can think of specific times in the past where they were unable to tour because they couldn't get time off from their "non-music" day jobs. Once a band can earn enough money to reach the status of full-time musicians, everything changes. I actually talked to Sabaton about this recently and it was interesting to hear their stories of how everything took off once they could quit their non-music jobs and could afford to focus on music full-time: more music, better music, and more live shows for the fans.
If all the music is free for the taking and only a small number of hardcore fans pay for it, then the only music we'll get are from independently wealthy artists or people who do it as their hobby (which automatically means less music and less touring). Yuck, I hate that world
So true! Imagine if Theocracy got enough resources and opportunity to go full time into music!! They would be the next Blind Guardian as far as i'm concerned (in fact i already love Theocracy more than them, which is saying a lot)! One day perhaps...
I'm just being realistic, nothing else. It is a fact that a lot of music is spread across the world without permission and everyone who wants to make a living of music has to live with that.
However, I don't think this will lead to less good music. Theocracy is indeed a perfect example here. They released two great albums before they became popular and now they're in the billboard charts although everyone with even a basic understanding of computers could download their music for free.
Quality will always be paid for, so I really don't understand your concerns. I just don't think that there's anything to be gained by wasting a minute of thought on those people who don't pay...
SeaStorm
Member
My concerns come completely from knowing and speaking to many, many musicians and hearing them tell me the impact it has on them.
By your logic, Ulterium should simply accept reality, stop trying to prevent people from taking Theocracy's music for free, and not worry about it. But I can guarantee you Ulterium's efforts do make a difference and result in more people actually buying Theocracy. You seem to divide the music world into two halves: hardcore "free music" people who will always find a way to take it for free and hardcore fans who will always pay for it. What bands and labels know is there that is actually a HUGE group in the middle who are somewhat casual: if it's easy and free, they'll grab it (like it was in the Napster/Limewire/Morpheus days), but if there are significant hurdles and the threat of legal action, they will go through the proper routes and buy it. Tons of people stopped stealing music when the labels started taking down the P2P sites. A lot of people who used those easy sites would never take the next step deeper into pirating and learn how torrents works. I fall into that category. Interestingly, I probably felt more like you do, until I starting meeting bands and actually seeing how this hurts them.
This same thing happens in other areas of commerce. I play(ed) online poker. Prior to April 15, it wasn't unclear how legal it was in the US and it was simple to login and play. After the US govt cracked down and took out the Top 3 providers, 95% of the poker players have stopped playing online. Oh, the hardcore folks can still play - they have to know more about the industry and jump through more hoops, but the overwhelming majority of players have said: screw it, I don't want the hassle and it's a little more clear that I'm not supposed to be doing this, so I'm not. This is despite the fact that the technical ability is still there and waiting for them on the Internet.
Efforts to limit access *do* make a difference with the casual middle in a customer base and that's why it's worth time thinking about and reacting to people who might not otherwise pay.
By your logic, Ulterium should simply accept reality, stop trying to prevent people from taking Theocracy's music for free, and not worry about it. But I can guarantee you Ulterium's efforts do make a difference and result in more people actually buying Theocracy. You seem to divide the music world into two halves: hardcore "free music" people who will always find a way to take it for free and hardcore fans who will always pay for it. What bands and labels know is there that is actually a HUGE group in the middle who are somewhat casual: if it's easy and free, they'll grab it (like it was in the Napster/Limewire/Morpheus days), but if there are significant hurdles and the threat of legal action, they will go through the proper routes and buy it. Tons of people stopped stealing music when the labels started taking down the P2P sites. A lot of people who used those easy sites would never take the next step deeper into pirating and learn how torrents works. I fall into that category. Interestingly, I probably felt more like you do, until I starting meeting bands and actually seeing how this hurts them.
This same thing happens in other areas of commerce. I play(ed) online poker. Prior to April 15, it wasn't unclear how legal it was in the US and it was simple to login and play. After the US govt cracked down and took out the Top 3 providers, 95% of the poker players have stopped playing online. Oh, the hardcore folks can still play - they have to know more about the industry and jump through more hoops, but the overwhelming majority of players have said: screw it, I don't want the hassle and it's a little more clear that I'm not supposed to be doing this, so I'm not. This is despite the fact that the technical ability is still there and waiting for them on the Internet.
Efforts to limit access *do* make a difference with the casual middle in a customer base and that's why it's worth time thinking about and reacting to people who might not otherwise pay.
I was talking about the artists, not the record labels. The labels' job is different and of course it makes sense for them to take some countermeasures.
But indeed they also have to accept that these are limited. A very high number of people just won't (or can't) buy, no matter what. It's way too easy to get the stuff online...
