• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

YouTube to block indie labels as subscription service launches.

i bet someone will come up with a youtube replacement ... bout time too, the adds on that place are killing it for me
 
you only have to put up with them for 5, or 20 seconds at worse, that is a very small price to pay for such a huge range of music, though i have allready noticed that a few quite big artists allready keep most of their studio recordings off there, artists like Bob Dylan and Michelle Shocked.

Michelle Shocked seems to be embroiled in some racism controversy or other which is fucking annoying as i have no means of listening to her music which i happen to be very fond of :? I allready purchased the cassettes and vinyl when they were released, dont particularly want to have to shell out again for the CDs though i may have to. And I dunno how and why Dylan has done that, seeing as copyright expires after 50 years anyway, last time i heard about that, so the copyright on his pre 1964 recordings is allready beginning to expire. Even Metallica havent bothered to go down that road, and they were particularly stroppy about piracy and their revenue streams.
 
Last edited:
Not good... i use youtube as my main music player. bollocks

and sod those ads, download ad blocker
 
If I was not a broke fucked up degenerate I would pay for a massive server and create a youtube type thing but with just the music, no ads and no sound compression. Aiff's and wav's only, strictly no mp3's. Youtube compresses and converts music into shite and mp3s sound like shit to start with...
 
The original purpose of copyright was to encourage authors and composers to share their work with society at large, and offer them a measure of protection from rip-off publishers, by offering them a time-limited exclusivity over their work. If you, as an author, promised to give your creation to society at large to do whatever they wanted with then, as a bribe encouragement, you would be offered a few years' exclusive control over it; during which time anybody who wanted a copy of it would need your permission. This gave you the right to earn from your work, while still ensuring that it would be shared with wider society one day. And it made sense in times when the barrier to entry into the publishing business was so high.

Unfortunately, in the intervening years, the concept that the copyrighted work would eventually fall into the Public Domain for everybody's benefit somehow got overlooked; and the publishing industry, motivated by sheer greed, has repeatedly lobbied for extension after extension to the period of exclusivity. And the Public Domain has been the loser.

Copyright has failed to ensure that the body of works in the Public Domain is growing (it clearly isn't, as copyright restrictions keep getting extended to keep works away from the Public Domain) and the system desperately needs review. The term of exclusivity needs to be shortened -- or even eliminated altogether, if a better way can be found to persuade authors to contribute works to the Public Domain. Sir Cliff Richard is still getting paid royalties on songs he wrote half a century ago -- but I bet he wouldn't be happy about it if his plumber came around, demanding to be paid every time he flushes his toilet. And yet they have the gall to accuse us of having a sense of entitlement!
 
Seems bloody daft if you ask me. Its not like these people ain't rick enough it's all money, money, money.
I would imagine if you did a proper search on YT, the majority of the views would be music - so they're shooting them selves in the foot.

BecomingJulie said:
Sir Cliff Richard is still getting paid royalties on songs he wrote half a century ago -- but I bet he wouldn't be happy about it if his plumber came around, demanding to be paid every time he flushes his toilet. And yet they have the gall to accuse us of having a sense of entitlement!
Click to expand...

Brilliant example and comparison. Totally agree!

Evey
 
5StarSquatHotel said:
Yeah they are ok for home systems mate but if you play them through moniter speakers they sound flat and horrible. Its even worse when they play them in clubs on cheap and bad sound systems, ear rapage.
Click to expand...

Even through my home system I can't be doing with it unless I have to. Spotify is well worth a couple of quid a month to have reliable quality (though will be gutted if this new youtube policy affects sets).
 
^ which people? People on independent labels (if I'm understanding this correctly?) are seldom wealthy these days.
I mean, I have quite a few friends that are world famous musicians - they all have day jobs to pay the rent.
I'm not agreeing with these apparent new content conditions, mind you - but the idea that well-known musicians are all filthy rich is thoroughly outdated.
The recording industry completely collapsed about 10 years ago (much as the publishing industry and print media are going through at the moment) because of changes in the way people communicate and consume music (and various forms of writing, literature and news media, respectively).
It always amuses me how people blame the artist(s) for greed or whatever, when in a lot of cases, the contracts they've signed (in order for their work to reach larger amounts of people or whatever) are just as restrictive on them as artists.
YouTube has certainly become a lot less of a free-for-all than it once was, which is a shame for the consumer, as it has become such a repository of archived culture - and a shitload of randomness also.
Like all of the Internet giants that have come and gone in the last 20 odd years , though, I suspect it's day will come sooner or later, when a company offering a superior service (whatever that may mean) comes along.
The more corporate YouTube becomes, the more redundant it may be, I can't help but feel. Having said that, I'm sure the constant legal squeeze would be difficult to maintain for too long, without the company getting serious about copyright infringements and so forth.
But I wouldn't blame the artists themselves. The few big record companies left (Universal, Sony and Warner are quoted in the article - and that's about it in terms of "majors" these days; the pop music market that was artificially inflated for ~50 years finally fell apart and the big boys in the game all ate each other up) have always been - and still are - greedy bastards.
Which isn't to say some pop stars aren't also - but times have definitely changed in the 'business' side of music.
Being famous does not equate to being rich; if anything, preventing smaller labels from using YouTube for publicity will hurt the musicians, I would guess. Then again, it might be a blessing for the genuinely independent artists who don't rely on contracts, lawyers or record labels or distributors to release their music.
It could have positive effects for some music and musicians. Who knows?
 
Yeah, I know lots of people in all manner of bands.
The wealth created from playing music used to be from record sales.
People don't buy anywhere near as much physical product as they used to, so nowhere near as much income is generated.
Older, established artists may have a nest egg, or royalties that still roll in from sales or (more likely) licensing of music for commercial or soundtrack use (etc) - but even muso friends that have a huge following, have released dozens of records or whatever (unless they were huge in or before the early to mid 90s) have to work to survive. Not to be rich, but to survive - like any other honest profession.
The only established musicians I know that don't have day jobs spend 9 (or more) months of the year away from home, touring.
Live performance (and merch sales at those live performances) are the vast, vast majority of musician incomes these days.
That includes some of the world's biggest acts, believe it or not.
The whole myth of "getting rich and famous making music" just isn't how it works these days.
And from a musical point of view, that has both negative and some positive effects. Music is a more direct, grass-roots, personal experience these days, with less power in the hands of business types in suits.
But it would be nice if artists had more time and energy to focus on their art.
Either way, it ain't going to change any time soon - just make sure you go buy tickets to see your favourite acts, and try to support local stuff as well. There is a lot of great music being made these days, but the onus is on listeners to go find it, as the record industry has retreated even further up it's own arse in the face of such "hardship". IMO music is too special to be whored around by corporate industry types, even if their demise has meant the rest of the music world has suffered along with them.
Live performance is where it's at anyway - we're just going back to an earlier ethos that appreciates that.
YouTube - like radio or tv - plays a role in that, but is not the be-all and end-all.
 
mydrugbuddy said:
And I dunno how and why Dylan has done that, seeing as copyright expires after 50 years anyway, last time i heard about that, so the copyright on his pre 1964 recordings is allready beginning to expire.
Click to expand...

List of Countries' Copyright Lengths

Those are the current copyright lengths. They were quite possibly different back when the songs were made & these things are not retrospective. The key point to note here is it is <x> years AFTER the death of the artist.

I wouldn't expect Bob Dylan's songs to appearing up anytime soon regardless of what else is going on. :(
 
Bob Funkhouse said:
Genuinely?

I'd have thought world famous musicians would be doing more than alright financially. Have they just became known in the past few years as opposed to established musicians? Mind you, I do realise that you can be a famous pop star and essentially be worth fuck all.



Illegal downloading is pretty much socially acceptable stealing. Not judging cos I don't really give a fuck. I do like to buy most of my music though.
But I reckon in about 10 years there'll be less illegal downloading in general. I reckon somehow it will become socially unacceptable. That's the only way the music industry will be successful in getting people to buy more music and film.
Click to expand...


spacejunk said:
- but even muso friends that have a huge following, have released dozens of records or whatever (unless they were huge in or before the early to mid 90s) have to work to survive. Not to be rich, but to survive - like any other honest profession.
Click to expand...

I agree with these two posts in particular.

Julie, I agree with your Cliff Richard toilet analogy too, but Cliff is from a bygone age of high record sales and a music industry that worked in an entirely different way to how it does now.

The idea that anybody in the music business, especially those who are to some degree 'famous' are doing 'better than us' is totally outdated. As spacejunk rightly points out, most professional musicians spend most of their lives touring (something that might sound glamorous but really isn't) in order to make what you or I would consider an adequate living.

Take my beloved Swans. Household name? Not exactly, but they're in every 'Best Album of 2012' list, constantly featured in Pitchfork (hipster online music 'zine) and other publications and lauded to the hilt as 'legends' and 'pioneers'. Yet they have to finance the recording of their album by releasing live recordings on the cheap. Michael Gira and his wife still mail out the records.

This band is FAR 'bigger' than a lot of the rappers you see on music channels, but they're not rich by anybody's standards. Do I deserve to take for free something that they've put a lot of time, effort, care and their own money into creating?
 
Last edited:
there will be a youtube replacement soon I hope, that place is going to shit.
first the ads, and now that new horrible layout (without even counting the neverending flaming chains in the comments, ewwww)

oh well, I download all my music anyway
 
Going to shit? Bullshit. and download Adblocker. Easy. and yes i agree the layout is kinda shit, but its not hard to get used to it

and youtube pays people per views on original material, i doubt anything is gonna replace it
 
I've no doubt that an agreement will be reached between YouTube and the dissenting labels, and the ones that don't want to be on YouTube will carry on as before.

It doesn't matter anyway. Music was ruined at some point in the nineties, and it ain't going to ever be the same.
 
ColtDan said:
Going to shit? Bullshit. and download Adblocker. Easy. and yes i agree the layout is kinda shit, but its not hard to get used to it

and youtube pays people per views on original material, i doubt anything is gonna replace it
Click to expand...

i do have adblock.
if they do actually do this thing it will lose a lot of viewers, since the mayority of people (at least people I know) go on youtube to listen to music.
I agree that it's not going to fail anytime soon, it's too famous and used right now.

(when I said it's going to shit I meant that it's becoming shit btw not that's it's gonna fail)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top