Taylor Swift versus YouTube

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by BeefCake 15, Jun 21, 2016.

  1. BeefCake 15 macrumors 65816

    BeefCake 15

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Location:
    near Boston, MA
    #1
    Taylor Swift is on a new adventure to take on the Tube!

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/21/entertainment/taylor-swift-dmca-youtube/index.html
     
  2. kryten2 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Location:
    Belgium
  3. BeefCake 15 thread starter macrumors 65816

    BeefCake 15

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Location:
    near Boston, MA
    #3
    I'm surprised libraries haven't gotten bankrupt yet with DMCA letters...
     
  4. vkd macrumors 6502a

    vkd

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    #4
    Not surprisingly, these people (Swift et al.) are thoroughly politically correct in being completely unsatisfied with their already-banked millions and billions of $$$ and will not rest until they have every last penny they can get within their coffers. Even then their uncontrollable lust and greed will not be satisfied but that is more of a philosophical issue that needs another arena for discussion.
     
  5. BigPrince macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    #5
    I think the already successful artists risk less voicing their opinion than a rising star. I don't think t's all greed.
     
  6. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6
    What makes you think you're entitled to enjoy someone's work for free?
     
  7. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #7
    I am not sure what makes anyone involved think that if the songs weren't placed on YouTube, people would have gone out and spent money on that song or album. Good luck proving damages.

    Posters to YouTube are operating well within the bounds of Fair Use in U.S. law, as very few people use the service as song library. The host can't be responsible for checking all of the thousands of files posted daily, that's why they have a reporting system and will regularly pull unauthorized, copyrighted material. These musicians are fighting a battle they absolutely cannot win.
     
  8. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #8
    If people aren't using it as a song library, how do you explain the scores of Youtube to mp3 converters?
     
  9. bent christian, Jun 23, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2016

    bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #9
    How can I explain the scores of other useless software that exists on the Internet? Hobbyists? I don't know. Some people just like to build things. Have you ever tried this? The compressed bit rates of YouTube videos are hardly worth the time and energy of a single application download. At this point, anyone under the age of 50 knows about Mediafire, anonymous torrenting, and the various music blogs that exist. I don't know why anyone would go to YouTube for the highly-compressed garbage that ends up being posted. Full albums don't have track breaks. Who, in the year 2016, is going to want that?
     
  10. elf69 macrumors 65816

    elf69

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2016
    Location:
    Cornwall UK
    #10
    It's these youtube to mp3 converters that are at fault then.

    youtube does not allow files to be natively downloaded as per copyright.

    these converters are breaking copyright?

    I do not think it is all greed with the performers, they are just trying to protect their work.

    same as a painter would be most upset if his/her work was copied without consent.
     
  11. vkd macrumors 6502a

    vkd

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    #11
    Nothing makes me think that, rdowns. What makes YOU think that I think that?
     
  12. BeefCake 15 thread starter macrumors 65816

    BeefCake 15

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Location:
    near Boston, MA
    #12
    You should stop free loading off of great professionals' work at the library as well.
     
  13. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #13
    Well the libraries paid for everything they loan out. Does YouTube pay for the music that people can listen to? I'm honestly asking, I don't know.
     
  14. boast macrumors 65816

    boast

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Location:
    Phoenix
    #14
    But there are many unknown artists who would love to be Youtube famous, no? It would very much help in selling concert tickets.
     
  15. Tinmania macrumors 68040

    Tinmania

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Location:
    Aridzona
    #15
    I believe in some cases YouTube either pays, or gives a commission on sales to the artists. This might not be the case now.

    I remember years ago when I would post a video with a soundtrack that was from a non-public domain song (not the whole song) and I would get a response from YouTube that was either a.) they removed the sound from the video or b.) they added a credit to the artist and a link to buy the song (and it was mostly option b). Presumably if it was option b the artist agreed to it and got something in return.



    Mike
     
  16. thats all folks macrumors 6502a

    thats all folks

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Location:
    Austin (supposedly in Texas)
    #16
    or, established, financially well off are likely the only ones who can make even a little bit of noise as well as pay for the lawyers and research needed to bring such a charge to light.
     
  17. Matthew.H macrumors 6502

    Matthew.H

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Location:
    Norwich, UK
    #17
    Always got to love artists who moan about people listening to their music for free. To an extent Youtube gives artists free advertising. They are some artists I listen to now that I would never have heard of without sites such as Youtube. The band "Sunset Sons" springs to mind. I first heard one of their tracks on a Youtube advert. Since then I've bought most of their EP's and their debut album.

    I'm willing to bet artists have gained a lot of customers over the years through Youtube and other sites.
     
  18. 8692574 Suspended

    8692574

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    #18
    Being paid or what you do is not greed, the fact that they make million does not entitle people to "steal their work" or make profit thanks to their work without contributing.


    Immagine yourself doing a job you like...but still a job, you get paid you like 5k a week to do it, and all of a sudden the a guy next to you uses your work to make himself money, but in the process you stqart loosing and you "only" make 4k still doing the same exact work would you be happy?
    It is not about the 1k you lose because obviously you still make plenty, but the fact that someone else is gaining from your "hard work" and you are losing because of it.
     
  19. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #19
    Maybe Tayor Swift should stop using AutoTune in her records and then I will pay attention to her! :eek:
     
  20. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #20
    You aren't, but if they were successful in getting all of their songs off of youtube they would lose a lot of free advertising. It may not hurt the bigger artists where people can still hear their music on the radio if they want it for free, but for a new artist starting out it makes it much harder for people to find out about them.
     
  21. thats all folks macrumors 6502a

    thats all folks

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Location:
    Austin (supposedly in Texas)
    #21
    how about they get to chose. and YouTube (Google) makes money off you your views, why shouldn't the content creators? radio stations are also advertising and they pay per play. most anywhere you hear music in a commercial setting (bars, stores, amusement parks, movies... ) they are paying licensing.

    the only point you are making is that you want free and unlimited access to whatever you want.
     
  22. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #22
    I would definitely support Google paying the artists a portion of the earnings from advertisements on YouTube. Pulling all of their music off of YouTube is almost impossible without impacting fair use, and it isn't in the artist's best interest anyway.
     
  23. vkd macrumors 6502a

    vkd

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    #23
    Slightly related is the fact that Lionel Messi and Neimar, both footballers who earn more per match than someone I know has in the savings that they hope to live off, via interest gained on investment, for the rest of their lives, yet they are both facing criminal charges for tax fraud. Why? Not satisfied with their untold millions. Still want more. In other words, uncontrolled greed.

    I am not saying recording artists have uncontrolled greed, of course.
     
  24. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #24
    Who? Perhaps these artists can go to the old timey method of having their agents take a generous cut of everything. If it stops me having to listen to another airing of rolling in church or whatever that stupid song is.
     
  25. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #25
    I thought YouTube signed an agreement with Vevo.
     

Share This Page