ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Welcome to the London After Midnight Community! Click here to join! It's free! If you have questions or problems registering just send an email to info (at) londonaftermidnight (dot) com
Search this Topic:
Posts: 481
Mar 24 11 12:00 PM
Posts: 14786
Mar 24 11 12:22 PM
Mar 24 11 2:02 PM
Sean Brennan wrote:Partial songs on YouTube is alright for promotion (but still a violation of their TOS). Maybe just half the song. If they were partial songs that linked to the band on iTunes, the official website, also disabled comments and directed people to the official forum and mailing list, etc, then I would have no complaints. The problem is people upload full songs and then use it like a radio, they don't link to official sites or places to buy the music, and the bands suffer. About fan support to radio and magazines, etc- it's about creating awareness. If magazines and radio kept getting requests for a particular band, eventually they may take notice. But it actually does work, too, providing enough people do this. The problem is people don't act in any way.Sean
Posts: 3898
Mar 24 11 7:50 PM
Mar 24 11 8:34 PM
Mar 24 11 9:16 PM
Posts: 2307
Mar 24 11 9:38 PM
Mar 24 11 9:47 PM
Mar 24 11 9:56 PM
Mar 24 11 10:05 PM
Posts: 2765
Mar 25 11 1:42 AM
Sean Brennan wrote: Our Soviet motto was "Art belongs to people". Art shouldn't be luxury items for the well-off only. Ability and necessity to consume "spiritual food" distinguishes people from animals. Should we consume only material things if we don't have spare money?Ok, if art belongs to the people, then where are the state run subsidies that are paid by the people supporting the artists? Are you willing to pay extra taxes so that you can listen to free music? Art doesn't magically appear, at no cost. It's cost a LOT of money and time to create. If you want art for free, that's fine- but then you need to be paying all artists a salary to create that art.
Our Soviet motto was "Art belongs to people". Art shouldn't be luxury items for the well-off only. Ability and necessity to consume "spiritual food" distinguishes people from animals. Should we consume only material things if we don't have spare money?
To clarify, YOUTUBE calls these people criminals, as does ESTABLISHED LAW. When you upload music to YouTube that you do not own the rights to it is an illegal act. You get three strikes with YouTube if you're caught uploading music that is not your own.
Mar 25 11 2:40 AM
Sean Brennan wrote: As for musicians, it really seems that they can earn a living only by live performances nowadays... And by the way, after concerts CDs (together with other merchandise) always sell well.Wow, where have you been? I've addressed this VERY point literally dozens and dozens of times over the years. Here we go again: 1. Not all artists perform live. 2. Not all artists WANT to be FORCED to perform live in order to earn a living. ALSO- you're asking the artist to be paid for only ONE aspect of his job- live performance (if indeed that artist performs live), and NOT the creation of the art.........
As for musicians, it really seems that they can earn a living only by live performances nowadays... And by the way, after concerts CDs (together with other merchandise) always sell well.
Posts: 4602
Mar 25 11 2:41 AM
Mar 25 11 4:57 AM
Posts: 6729
Mar 25 11 6:21 AM
Karina Blood wrote:I just think that there is difference between the media files that are uploaded illegaly to YouTube and those that are played on the radio stations. Will you purchase a CD if you don't like the song after you hear it on YouTube or LastFM? I can hardly believe this. As to the radio, as far as I know, they are to compensate to artists for the music they play on the air.
Mar 25 11 9:26 AM
Weirdie wrote:Sean Brennan wrote: Our Soviet motto was "Art belongs to people". Art shouldn't be luxury items for the well-off only. Ability and necessity to consume "spiritual food" distinguishes people from animals. Should we consume only material things if we don't have spare money?Ok, if art belongs to the people, then where are the state run subsidies that are paid by the people supporting the artists? Are you willing to pay extra taxes so that you can listen to free music? Art doesn't magically appear, at no cost. It's cost a LOT of money and time to create. If you want art for free, that's fine- but then you need to be paying all artists a salary to create that art.Totally agree! That's why I said that the system itself is vicious.
I'm talking NOT about those who upload music (and I've never tried to defend them!), but about those who watch Youtube. These people are not the same. For example, I watch youtube, but I've never uploaded a single song anywhere and I'm not planning to do so. From moral point of view, people watching videos online do nothing different from listening to radio or watching TV. These listeners/watchers can't even know which files are put there legally and which ones not. And they pay nothing to those who upload files, thus don't support illegal uploading...
Again, it's just my perception, and here's no need to argue at all.
Weirdie wrote:Sean Brennan wrote: As for musicians, it really seems that they can earn a living only by live performances nowadays... And by the way, after concerts CDs (together with other merchandise) always sell well.Wow, where have you been? I've addressed this VERY point literally dozens and dozens of times over the years. Here we go again: 1. Not all artists perform live. 2. Not all artists WANT to be FORCED to perform live in order to earn a living. ALSO- you're asking the artist to be paid for only ONE aspect of his job- live performance (if indeed that artist performs live), and NOT the creation of the art......... You got me wrong. I DO know that you don't like to tour, as well as some other musicians. I don't say that you have to.
And I'm not asking or requiring anything. Actually, I'm not talking about MY preferences at all! I only said that in current situation - in reality - it seems impossible for a musician to earn a living unless he/she performs live. And it's not even my personal opinion, but an opinion of some other musicians (they're probably more lucky than Birthday Massacre, since they get decent payments and their expences such as transportation are fully covered by concert organizers).
Mar 25 11 6:48 PM
Mar 26 11 1:06 AM
Posts: 439
Mar 26 11 1:44 PM
Mar 26 11 8:48 PM
SamhainRising wrote:Just chiming in to say that at least one person here buys LAM CDs, as well as t-shirts and other merch -- but only because some horrible jerk uploaded an LAM song to Youtube and I found out about the music . So much for record label promotion.Having said that, file-sharing can be tremendously hurtful to artists for obvious reasons. While I don't engage in it or promote it, it seems that that Apple and other distributors screw over artists pretty hard. I've heard that, depending on the label, a purchase of a 99-cent track on iItunes gives the artist between 10 and 40 cents. Is this true?
If so, I'd rather find a better way to pay LAM directly than just giving the money to Apple or whoever is getting the profit. Wouldn't it be cool if people were honest enough to download an album for free over filesharing networks and then send a check for 15$, 25$, or 30$ directly to the artist so all the middlemen were cut out?
Share This