Pearl Jam, Jack White, Trent Reznor, Beck, More Join Petition Against YouTube

JustaPJFan

I understand their point on complete albums who are on Youtube. Those should be deleted and you should actually buy them. Yet, when talking about full concert, I hope that will stay. Otherwise I will never be able to watch another proshot again, which would be a shame. Concert vids should stay.

my2hands

DeLukin said:

And here I thought exposure to ones music was a GOOD thing. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back. Seems kind of out of touch with the way things are to want to fight that, but considering that record companies and congress are involved maybe it shouldn't surprise me.

Nami

imo this will hurt the artists in the end. How many times has a friend introduced me to a new band through the use of youtube, Even here on the PJ site, we have many people saying check out this band, performer etc. If i enjoy the music i will buy their work, if not i move on.

Thats how i started with all the Pink Floyd albums, listened to them on youtube and the eventually bought the ones i liked anyways. If this format wasnt available that would have been a lost sale.

yes, I also realize that this is not always the case for most people, buying full albums, but if people want it bad enough they will find it for free regardless.

I for one think youtube is a great outlet for exposing ones music to the masses.

Tristelune

FR181798 said:

But are people really not buying music because it can be accessed anytime on YouTube. I think if people don't want to pay for music they will find a way.

You're right, still there's no reason for YouTube to generate traffic and money through copyright violation.

Ultimately there would be no creation if nobody was willing to pay for it then why would some pay while others would leech on YouTube I'm not sure.

DeLukin

Nami said:

How many times has a friend introduced me to a new band through the use of youtube, Even here on the PJ site, we have many people saying check out this band, performer etc. If i enjoy the music i will buy their work, if not i move on.

Thats how i started with all the Pink Floyd albums, listened to them on youtube and the eventually bought the ones i liked anyways. If this format wasnt available that would have been a lost sale.

yes, I also realize that this is not always the case for most people, buying full albums, but if people want it bad enough they will find it for free regardless.

I for one think youtube is a great outlet for exposing ones music to the masses.

Agree 100%. You can't stop it, and less exposure will only hurt artists. That's what's so great about technology. And the inability to adapt to change is why record companies are suing everyone they can (including housewives). I understand the true intent - to protect starving artists - but this lawsuit just comes across as self-serving and out of touch to me and aimed at hurting the people who will ultimately support the artists they love by buying their records, seeing their shows, merch, etc.

Spiritual_Chaos

Doesn't all artists managements just report the content on youtube and get the ad revenue instead of the uploader?

And that ad revenue gives them a bigger cut than Spotify if I recall correctly.

So...

Spiritual_Chaos

tempo_n_groove said:

Radio for example plays music. For free. Has for years. Radio stations make money off of artists music.

So explain to me how that's different?

mfc2006

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

2-feign-reluctance said:

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

Agreed.

In a most sincere way would you be offended if cluthelee was to become viral?

As the other half of Cluthe/Lee and the lyricist, yes it would bother me if people stole the music that Chris & I created.

I can't speak for him, but that's my take.

"Viral" is different than stealing. Viral implies originating at a legitimate source, then spreading from there.

Now, if someone were to ask & we said yes..that's a different story.

cp3iverson

Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that

PJ_Soul

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

Radio for example plays music. For free. Has for years. Radio stations make money off of artists music.

So explain to me how that's different?

Yes I LOVED napster. I got to download songs I would never in a million years pay for. I also got to hear live songs that were only available via expensive bootlegs so it was a win win for me.

If I really enjoy an artist I'll buy there album. Artists make real money from touring and merch now anyway...

You're really going to compare a song being randomly played on radio to someone being able to play almost any song they want as many times as they want by typing it in on YouTube from any mobile device in the world? Sure I can record the song off radio, but good luck being able to listen to every song and have it in a high quality format very easily.

I see their point. I definitely don't use it for that but it is how I watch some of my favorite bands live performances, whether in concert or on broadcast TV. Those old PJ on SNL and Letterman performances are great. I'd definitely pay for an official release of all those by the band.

Artists get royalties for radio play folks (through what are basically radio royalties brokerages).

demetrios

https://twitter.com/MikeMcCreadyPJ/status/745660817622728704

Spiritual_Chaos

cp3iverson said:

Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that

Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.

PJ_Soul

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cp3iverson said:

Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that

Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.

Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.

igotid88

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cp3iverson said:

Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that

Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.

Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.

Sales have decreased. Especially full albums. Most people buy singles. And PJ aren't really a singles oriented band.

igotid88

I don't think last week's #1 album even broke 100k in sales. Maybe the Chili Peppers can next week.

Of The Aggie

This is a complicated issue and one that I have changed my feelings on over the years. I was a Napster user and was sad when it got shutdown. It was a brand new concept- anything you wanted for free, and it was exhilarating. The quality was terrible, but I didn't care. I still bought CDs of the stuff I really wanted but I finally had a way to just get a song here or there without having to buy a whole album.

Years later I did come to realize that it did have a profound effect on the music industry and that artists were losing out because of it. I don't think music should be free. It was nice to preview things to buy and I am still on of those who buys physical products and I have been turned on to a lot of stuff by Spotify, Napster, Youtube, etc. But just because I and others on this board still go out and buy music, there are countless others who do not and feel that they should get everything for free just because the technology is out there. This is where the problem lies.

I understand these artists want change, but shutting down the pipeline of free music is just not going to happen. The industry is going to have to keep evolving to figure out how to appease their customers while still paying artists their fair share.

PJ_Soul

igotid88 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cp3iverson said:

Love being able to listen to anything (live or studio) on youtube. Great for old music videos etc. i would absolutely miss that

Most music videos artist have decided themselves to upload, so don't see that dissapearing.

Yeah, I think this is just about all the videos that the artists themselves don't post (which is most of them). But this really does suck. A lot of artists don't even bother posting their music on youtube, so user posts are really important to youtube (and to me personally). This could make it harder to be able to find any way to listen to some music without buying it... and who the fuck buys music they have never heard?? This could actually decrease artists' sales, not increase them. It's stupid.

Sales have decreased. Especially full albums. Most people buy singles. And PJ aren't really a singles oriented band.

I know, but I think that this will further decrease them, not improve sales.
The only way artists are making money now is through vinyl sales and touring. Digital album sales and streaming royalties are basically a lost cause; this isn't going to help them at all. People are just going to go from youtube to Spotify and other streaming services (most are using a combo now), which artists also seem to hate, but use anyway. I think this petition is completely pointless in the long run. If they succeed in getting these changes made they are not going to get any richer.

nate_j_y

tempo_n_groove said:

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

AceCool said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Well there goes the the greatness of Youtube... They killed Napster and now they'll ruin this next.

So, if you were a musician/artist/author etc. and you worked long and hard to create an original piece of intellectual property for which you would expect to be compensated if said piece of intellectual property were to be acquired or used by other people you would have no problem if somebody took that property and uploaded it onto a website where pretty much everybody in the entire world could procure your piece of intellectual property for free and you, the artist who created it, would get jack fucking squat....forever? In other words, you condone stealing that which is not yours? That's what Napster was and that's what somebody putting an album of music on Youtube is.

Radio for example plays music. For free. Has for years. Radio stations make money off of artists music.

So explain to me how that's different?

Yes I LOVED napster. I got to download songs I would never in a million years pay for. I also got to hear live songs that were only available via expensive bootlegs so it was a win win for me.

If I really enjoy an artist I'll buy there album. Artists make real money from touring and merch now anyway...

Radio plays music for free? Are you 10 years old or do you simply have zero concept of the way things work in this world? There is absolutely 100% NOTHING that is free. It all gets paid for either directly (That'll be $35 plus shipping for that Pearl Jam poster you just purchased from pearljam.com) or indirectly (Up next we're going to play the latest song from Pearl Jam's newest record....after these words from our sponsors). That's right, I said sponsors. You know all those annoying commercials you have to suffer through while listening to FM radio (for free)? Those companies pay a shitload of money to bombard you, the listener, with PAID advertisements for their products. The radio station in turn pays a portion of those fees to BMI and ASCAP which sees to it that the artist (or royalty owner) gets compensated for the use of their intellectual property. This is all predicated on the radio listener being subjected to a barrage of commercials or paying a subscription to a satellite or streaming service.

You may have loved Napster but the reason that they got the equivalent of a prison shank in a dark alley was because their business concept was based on overt thievery. Piracy. Stealing. One person would buy a CD and upload it. Royalty owner would get paid for one unit. Millions of tempo_n_groove types would "share" direct copies of that copy righted property without a penny of compensation going to the rights holder. That is the literal definition of theft.

I understand the economics of radio but you forgot that I pay ZERO for it.

Also since I'm not 10 I remember music companies going batshit about copying albums on cassette. The Dead Kennedys famously left a side blank on a cassette.

If you make good music then I'll buy it, go to your show and buy some merch.

YouTube is the best thing for the one hit wonders. its great for bands also. A lot of people were trading shows back in the day. How is that any different?

But you do pay for it my friend. You pay for the radio to listen to. And when you shop at a store that advertises on radio ANYWHERE their advertising costs are are part of your purchase cost.

igotid88

I think if you were a one hit wonder before youtube. You made more money. Especially if you wrote the song. From what I've heard. People who've gone viral don't make that much.

PJ_Soul

Yeah, nothing's free on the radio. The money that advertisers pay to radio stations is ultimately supplied by the consumers.