So, the other point of view from the music on YouTube debate...

Discussion in 'Other Music' started by Ant, Apr 13, 2009.

  1. #1
    Ant

    Ant Ambient

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    0


  2. #2
    Luke

    Luke Mind Your Manners. LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    15,206
    Likes Received:
    236



    I don't care what he has to say. Someone with that kind of wealth shouldn't be bitching about such things. That's why I can't stand Gene Simmons.
     
  3. #3
    JJ

    JJ [i cant spoll preply]: LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    9,668
    Likes Received:
    10



    I personally cant stand Waterman whatsoever, and this infuriates me even more! Like Luke said he shouldn't be bothered about this in the slightest
     
  4. #4
    Jesse

    Jesse Out of the abyss. LPA Über VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,617
    Likes Received:
    588



    These
     
  5. #5
    Dean

    Dean LPA Addict LPA Addict

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    18,858
    Likes Received:
    140



    Has anyone actually made much money from Rickrolling before this? If there was a commercial aspect behind it I'd understand, but I don't think there is.
     
  6. #6
    Ant

    Ant Ambient

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    0



    Um, all of the advertisements that are shown on Youtube still reach the viewer of the link. So, Youtube makes plenty of money from the movie.

    I'm amazed with the "someone with that kind of money" comments. He HELPED CREATE the song. Why are you all so insistent on not giving people the money for their works of art? If you wrote a song and it got someone else money somehow, wouldn't you want your justified cut?

    I don't care how much money he has -- why should Youtube/Google get it and not him? By the logic here, Google is worth far more than Waterman, so why should they get the resulting money?
     
  7. #7
    Dean

    Dean LPA Addict LPA Addict

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    18,858
    Likes Received:
    140



    I didn't think of that. No need for the condescending tone. I was agreeing with you anyway - he's entitled to see something from it if it's making a lot of money for other people.
     
  8. #8
    barnes80

    barnes80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0



    Well I will start by saying, i don't believe he should be seeing a dime from youtube. Youtube was originally designed to be a free user upload site, and yes, a lot of people upload copyrighted material to it, but I think the extent that people are complaining is ridicules. Now that google has taken over and sided with music companies, it is impossible to find samples of music on there. I used to use youtube as a way to look up music... but now everything has been removed... even my own videos that i had music soundtracks to have been edited... its so annoying. Youtube is dead in my opinion.


    I don't believe Youtube should be making money off someone elses work though. The ads should be removed. It really shouldn't be a profit thing... it should make enough to host and thats it. I am strongly against youtube taking in any profits, but the claim that this guy should get payed for his song on youtube is silly. If thats the case, I want a check for all the hits I have ever gotten from my videos... they should give everyone a check. After all, we are all contributors to the success...

    If you want to pay this guy for people getting rickrolled, you should pay the guy who flings squirrels or laughing baby...




    One final remark. Google directs millions of people a day to sites based on what you search... but it doesn't charge anyone for it. It is an entire database of all the internet essentially, and it is how a majority of people find out about sites. It in itself is advertising. So if I use google to find a rick astley cd, and I buy it off the site Google gave me... doesn't Google deserve money for the advertisement that led me there?

    My point is, youtube points people to new bands, movies, shows, etc. It in itself is an advertising tool, just like Google. Yes, maybe Youtube leads to more pirating, but it also defiantly leads to some purchases. I know I have gone to see movies because of the pirated clips on youtube before... so should we remove these clips because they are pirated, or keep them because they lead to commerce? Should youtube pay the movie company because they made ad money, or should the movie company pay youtube because they got publicity.

    In my opinion, youtube should be a free and non profit site. Free publicity, free entertainment. Why must everyone make a buck off of everything???
     
  9. #9
    Neil

    Neil Super Duper Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    4,927
    Likes Received:
    8



    Because we all know Rick Astley had an amazing career before those youtube punks came and stole his music.

    Oh wait, they re-launched his career. Silly me.
     
  10. #10
    Dean

    Dean LPA Addict LPA Addict

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    18,858
    Likes Received:
    140



    And the guy who made coffee in his mouth :whistling
     
  11. #11
    Luke

    Luke Mind Your Manners. LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    15,206
    Likes Received:
    236



    These.

    I could care less if this guy feels he got screwed out of money, it just goes to show how greedy some people are. If I had 47 million I'd sit down, shut up and enjoy it. There's no case of anyone stealing art here. Stealing the Mona Lisa or ripping off a symphony for profit would be stealing art, not uploading someone's music to a video website - a video website that helped re-launch the artist's career.

    Fair enough Google doesn't need the extra money they've gained from this, but niether does this guy. It's not like someone ripped off his work anyway.

    By the way Ant perhaps if you don't like the response you're gonna get then don't post a thread like this. It doesn't matter how you view it because there's no correct opinion. ;)
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2009
  12. #12
    Blackee Dammet

    Blackee Dammet Feminism Is My God Now

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    156



    [​IMG]
    Theoretically he's a millionaire.
     
  13. #13
    Harlz

    Harlz More Scared Of You Than You Are Of Me LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    54



    You know I clicked a link from LP's own myspace, to a youtube video.
    And Warner has had it taken down.
    It's getting really fucking stupid.
     
  14. #14
    Astat

    Astat LPA Super Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,130
    Likes Received:
    319



    As far as licensing/royalties go, he's entitled to make money off of his work being viewed on Youtube, just as much as he is from it being played on the radio or used in a commercial. The problem is that Youtube wasn't created with any pre-existing licensing deals with...well, anybody. The major labels have since worked out deals with them (Warner chose not to renew theirs however), so in theory, the artists SHOULD be seeing money from their material being viewed on Youtube. I think the bigger issue here lies with the labels, as the deals they've worked out with Youtube either put most or all of the money in their pockets while leaving the artists out to dry, or they simply aren't getting enough from Youtube in the first place. Normally I wouldn't be for the labels asking for more money (they have enough as we all know), but Google is one of the richest corporations in the US, they can afford to part with enough money that the artists get paid fairly for their Youtube hits. Google's making a ton of money off of Youtube, the labels are at least making enough money off of Youtube to keep 3 of the "Big 4" happy, so obviously something isn't right, because the artists aren't making much, if anything.
     
  15. #15
    Ant

    Ant Ambient

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    0



    I'm sorry, how did they re-launch his career? How has he made much money from Youtube? Answer: he hasn't. The trend started in 2007, and he hasn't released a new album since 2005. And none of his songs have gained much airplay. So, tell me, how did they re-launch his career?

    They didn't re-launch his career. They made his name more widely known, sure, but they were the ones making money off it. Not him.

    @ Luke/Hellflame: I posted the topic for debate. I'm well aware that other people have differing opinions. That was the point :) To the rest of your post: how is it being greedy? If I do work, I want to be paid for that work. Sorry, but it's not being greedy. It's wanting what is rightfully yours. If an indie artist had 1 million hits on one of their songs on Youtube, but no one bought the album because the other songs weren't as catchy, should they not be paid because they're being "greedy"?

    @ barnes80: It can be argued Youtube was started as a free to watch site as much as you all want, but it takes a completely different meaning when users steal copyrighted material and upload it. You can say it's publicity, but why should Google get paid for it and not the artist?

    The argument about Google is also incorrect. Google uses advertising techniques on its search engine just like any company. Companies pay to be feature sites for specific searches, so yes, it gains money. Let's stop assuming on that, please. It's incorrect to say what's being said in this thread. If you're unsure of how Google makes money off its search engine, please go to the following link: http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/ads/ads_3.html
     
  16. #16
    esaul17

    esaul17 antichrist

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    1



    For the idea that we should make money for the videos we uploaded to Youtube, that is totally different. We chose to upload our stuff and have to follow their terms. This man never chose to upload this song, so he didn't agree to their terms. They just took his art, displayed it, and made a tonne of money off doing so. Seems fair that he deserves a cut.

    And it doesn't matter if you are in massive debt or massively rich, the law should apply to you the same way and you deserve what you deserve regardless. This is his property, he has the rights to it, he deserves a cut of the profits it makes.
     
  17. #17
    Dedicated

    Dedicated LPA Addict LPA Addict

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    15,038
    Likes Received:
    86



    I'm sure if they had struck a deal with the labels, the song writers would not be seeing anymore money than they are now from it. It'd just mean that the labels are getting more money.
     
  18. #18
    Astat

    Astat LPA Super Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,130
    Likes Received:
    319



    Look at it this way...if songwriting royalties regarding songs on Youtube were held to the same standards as songwriting royalties through radio airplay, this guy would have made approximately $14.5 million from 154 million views. Instead, he made about 20 bucks. Regardless of your opinion on whether or not people should be able to use other people's work in their videos, I think it's safe to say that something is wrong with that.
     
  19. #19
    barnes80

    barnes80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0



    Actually I'm not wrong about the google thing. you just either misinterpreted what i said or I didn't type it clear enough. Yes people pay to have their sites put on ads that google then pays other sites to host, and yes people do pay to have their sites in the featured pages section of google. But if you just google a giant chain of words, the sites that pop up do not pop up because they are paying (unless its in the features of ads section) they pop up because it is the most relevant.

    As an example, if you put "Linkin Park Forums" into google, ours is the 3rd one down. And this is not because we pay to have ours hosted on googles main page whenever people google "Linkin Park Forums" it is because we are that relevant to the search.

    Now if we had ads on our page, not google ads, but ads from some other company, then when people come to our page, our site makes money off their ads, or if people click on it, all depending on what type of ads we are using.

    So now who deserves the money from the ad? The site because they are on the site? Or Google, because people came to the site because of Google? Google serves as a portal and advertisement tool to websites, and it actually can help people make money from the ads on their page because Google gets them hits. But we do not pay google for this advertisement. It just occurs.

    Therefore, Google provides websites with free ads and ways of making money. As I pointed out, Google leads people to places to buy cds, and then that site makes money off the purchase, but Google never sees a dime for being the portal that led you there, and they never ask for it. They advertise your site for free.

    Youtube also advertises fro free. It has ads on it, just like google does. It makes money, just like google does. It doesn't charge people to upload their music and videos, just like Google doesn't charge you to appear on their search. It serves as a free advertisement for bands and movie companies, etc etc, just like google does.



    Again, I think it is wrong youtube is making any money to begin with. I like it better as a small independent site, but of course a major corporation is going to take advantage of it. But if he has a problem with his music not making any money on a site that is freely advertising him, he should just have it removed. And then no one will ever listen to his art again. And in the meantime I think all official sites relating to any of his work that happen to show up on google should be removed from its database so no one will ever find them again.




    I'm sorry, this just all makes me sick...

    It'd be like movie companies complaining that they are not recieving compensation from IMDB because their movies are helping it get money... should everyone who has anything related to the subeject on a website get paid for it??? NO!
     

Share This Page