1. #1
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts 11,627
    Rep Power 536871428

    Default goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    Hamburg Higher Regional Court endorsed the opinion of the lower court, Hamburg Regional Court, and confirmed YouTube's interferer liability. "The Higher Regional Court's ruling shows that YouTube cannot evade responsibility for copyright infringements and cannot shift responsibility for monitoring infringements of rights on to the copyright holders", said GEMA's CEO Dr. Harald Heker.

    The ruling is an important signal for the approx. 70,000 members of GEMA, on whose behalf the collective management organisation is fighting for adequate remuneration. The Higher Regional Court's decision is not yet final.

    http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=184808
    The background to the dispute is the claim by GEMA that authors of musical works should be paid an adequate compensation for the use of their copyright protected material on the YouTube platform. I

    n the last years, YouTube has paid GEMA no royalties at all for using music on its online video platform, although it generates enormous advertising income from the music.
    That has a familiar ring to it :p

    For GEMA, responsibility clearly lies with YouTube: "Confirmation of interferer liability by the appeal court once again underlines the fact that online services have a responsibility when they rely on business models without proper licensing of the necessary rights", declared Thomas Theune, GEMA's Director of Broadcasting and Online.

    "However, as YouTube earns substantial revenue through the commercial exploitation of music works, it is our goal to finally get YouTube to pay adequate compensation for the use of our members' works, in the same way as other music services on the market do. This is the only way of ensuring that in the digital age, creative people are able to make a living from their creative activities."
    Man! You have GOT to try a hit of this RANGE SUNSHINE!

    IMTBO = In My Thoroughly Biased Opinion
    CMIIW = Correct Me If I'm Wrong
    Never underestimate the amount of contempt a failed musician has for those of us who are still trying.
    If the party's good enough, you can actually suck to a remarkable degree.

    Greedle
  2. #2
    Join Date Jan 2015
    Location Northern Colorado
    Posts 972
    Rep Power 536870974

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    This is the only way of ensuring that in the digital age, creative people are able to make a living from their creative activities.
    By an large, I don't disagree with any of these efforts. It just so happened that this particular quote summed up a sentiment that rubs me the wrong way(and keeps getting shoved in my face by shitty bands and their overly excited management on Facebook.(Facebook? Well there's your problem)) Maybe I'm taking the statement too literally.

    As it relates to the overarching topic, creating a place where creative efforts (good and bad) are protected from being stolen ... that seems obvious and is key to providing a place where creative people can try and bring their creativity to market. But it doesn't ensure that you'll make a living. It only provides you the opportunity.

    Meh ... I may be reading too much into it.

    -r
    Sign Here

    X________________________________________________
  3. #3
    Comfortably dumb Commissioner of Rock and Roll!
    Join Date Jun 2008
    Location Krautistan
    Posts 1,265
    Rep Power 536871063

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany


    As it relates to the overarching topic, creating a place where creative efforts (good and bad) are protected from being stolen ... that seems obvious and is key to providing a place where creative people can try and bring their creativity to market. But it doesn't ensure that you'll make a living. It only provides you the opportunity.

    Meh ... I may be reading too much into it.
    Yes, you do.
    The GEMA is a rather strict and elitist association; for example they still distinguish between "pop" and "earnest" music, and the "earnest" music gets higher royalties as the "Schöpfungshöhe" is higher.
    So, the GEMA is by far no "free lunch for every wannabe" lobby group.

    All the best,
    the keks
    Cape 8: Team Millionaires, Team Relentless



    The accordion - sometimes an instrument .... often just a bag pipe gone wrong.
    (Immanuel)
  4. #4
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts 11,627
    Rep Power 536871428

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    By an large, I don't disagree with any of these efforts. It just so happened that this particular quote summed up a sentiment that rubs me the wrong way(and keeps getting shoved in my face by shitty bands and their overly excited management on Facebook.(Facebook? Well there's your problem)) Maybe I'm taking the statement too literally.

    As it relates to the overarching topic, creating a place where creative efforts (good and bad) are protected from being stolen ... that seems obvious and is key to providing a place where creative people can try and bring their creativity to market. But it doesn't ensure that you'll make a living. It only provides you the opportunity.

    Meh ... I may be reading too much into it.
    Yes, you are. There is nothing in any of that which suggests that anyone is guaranteed a living.

    There is nothing in the statement "creative people are able to make a living from their creative activities." that in any way indicates that "most" or "many" creative people are able to make a living.

    Never in history has there ever been more than an opportunity to make a living in the arts. Long before massive internet piracy, people who persued the arts as a way to earn a living were considered quixotic fools unless and until they were successful at it.

    My mother had a one-in-a-million job painting people's portraits for good money despite everyone and his sister having a camera.
    Man! You have GOT to try a hit of this RANGE SUNSHINE!

    IMTBO = In My Thoroughly Biased Opinion
    CMIIW = Correct Me If I'm Wrong
    Never underestimate the amount of contempt a failed musician has for those of us who are still trying.
    If the party's good enough, you can actually suck to a remarkable degree.

    Greedle
  5. #5
    Join Date Sep 2009
    Location Quake City
    Posts 11,778
    Rep Power 536871398

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    May not have read the post I was responding to correctly. Will try again tomorrow.
    http://www.johnnyoklahoma.com/

    Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson
    Everything is some mixture of awesome and suck. We simply want the awesome to be highlighted sufficiently that it distracts listeners from the suck.
    Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson
    The appropriate role for science is the study of observed phenomena to gain an understanding. It is not dictating what people ought or ought not to be observing.
    Hey, if I'm Grumpy, where the hell is Snow White????
  6. #6
    Comfortably dumb Commissioner of Rock and Roll!
    Join Date Jun 2008
    Location Krautistan
    Posts 1,265
    Rep Power 536871063

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    Yes, you are. There is nothing in any of that which suggests that anyone is guaranteed a living.

    There is nothing in the statement "creative people are able to make a living from their creative activities." that in any way indicates that "most" or "many" creative people are able to make a living.

    Never in history has there ever been more than an opportunity to make a living in the arts. Long before massive internet piracy, people who persued the arts as a way to earn a living were considered quixotic fools unless and until they were successful at it.

    My mother had a one-in-a-million job painting people's portraits for good money despite everyone and his sister having a camera.
    Dunno, I hear this "I make arts I put efforts in it, I should be living decently off it!"-attitude that Reno refers to a lot,
    and damn sure this is wrong.
    You are not entitled to fucking anything because of your goddam miserable and failing efforts!

    OTOH you have a lot of musicians who would have made a satisfying living with their records once,
    who attract a lot of fans willing to pay, play great shows, make albums that are popular,
    but who suddenly are not able to pay their bills anymore, just because the way of distribution changed.
    Plus you see the guys'n'gals at Spotify check in crazy sums of stock value based on the new distribution system, so there is money in jazz, so to speak, but it does not end up with the musicians.
    And these popular, marketable but financially craving musicians have every right to bitch, if you ask me.

    all the best,
    the keks
    Cape 8: Team Millionaires, Team Relentless



    The accordion - sometimes an instrument .... often just a bag pipe gone wrong.
    (Immanuel)
  7. #7
    Join Date Jan 2015
    Location Northern Colorado
    Posts 972
    Rep Power 536870974

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    OTOH you have a lot of musicians who would have made a satisfying living with their records once,
    who attract a lot of fans willing to pay, play great shows, make albums that are popular,
    but who suddenly are not able to pay their bills anymore, just because the way of distribution changed.
    Plus you see the guys'n'gals at Spotify check in crazy sums of stock value based on the new distribution system, so there is money in jazz, so to speak, but it does not end up with the musicians.
    And these popular, marketable but financially craving musicians have every right to bitch, if you ask me.

    all the best,
    the keks
    I hear ya ... and everyone has the right to bitch about whatever they want. (That freedom has given rise to the great television "news" stations here in the States) But some of this is hard for me to not hear it as a little hypocritical. I say that because I feel like 99 times out of 100 I could turn around and find the band that was bitching on Spotify. Which means they keep contributing their works to a thing that's screwing them and then complaining about it?? Why?
    It has forced me to believe that whatever they are getting in return must be wort it. It might not be what they want, but it's worth it. I don't know how else you could justify it.

    Here's my bad analogy.
    If you stick your hand in a lions mouth and it bites you...oh shit, we've got a bad situation here and I'm inclined to help. But if you turn around stick your other hand in the lions mouth ... I'm more likely to think wtf man?? At that point you share some blame with the lion. Maybe you should quit sticking your hand in the lions mouth?? And in the I'm much less inclined to help or be empathetic to your situation.

    I'm not trying to defend the lion here ... but I can't for the life of me figure out why people keep putting their hand in it's mouth.

    -r
    Sign Here

    X________________________________________________
  8. #8
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts 11,627
    Rep Power 536871428

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    I think we would have to look at the contracts and judge on a case by case basis.

    Some contracts are devised such that there is a big up front payment and very little on the back end. So the company could be recouping losses. Same as the 20th century, except through streaming rather than sales of physical media.

    And they might not have the final say as to whether their songs are on spotify.


    And they might not know what's in the contract, which is tickling the lion's epiglottis. In up to the elbows. Bad contracts seem to usually be the result from bad managers.

    That has to be separated out from the royalty rate that spotify pays out. But basically you need to know how many streams of the song, what spotify paid out, the terms of the specific contract, and how much the artist(s) got.

    They might be barking up the wrong tree, or they may have a point. Hard to tell from here.
    Man! You have GOT to try a hit of this RANGE SUNSHINE!

    IMTBO = In My Thoroughly Biased Opinion
    CMIIW = Correct Me If I'm Wrong
    Never underestimate the amount of contempt a failed musician has for those of us who are still trying.
    If the party's good enough, you can actually suck to a remarkable degree.

    Greedle
  9. #9
    Join Date Sep 2009
    Location Quake City
    Posts 11,778
    Rep Power 536871398

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    I think that the problem is this:

    With the corporatization of nearly all terrestrial radio the chances of an act that does not fit withing very narrow, Madison Avenue controlled guidelines receiving airplay and exposure to the mass audience is nil - and that role has been taken over almost entirely by Pandora and Spotify. If that was as far as it goes it would be more-or-less OK, inasmuch as US radio was "OK" before the takeover.

    But that's not as far as it goes because streaming services - especially "on demand" services like Spotify have also cannibalized record sales, thereby eliminating the major revenue stream for most artists. So an artist has a choice - either you put your music on the streaming services where there's a chance that the mass audience will get to hear you - and at the same time pretty much kill your chance of making any money or you don't get exposed to the mass audience and pretty much kill your chances of making any money. What do you do? In most cases the act will try to build their audience so that when they "go on tour" they can draw enough people and sell enough t-shirts to be able to pay for enough gas and food to make it to the next gig.

    It's the old "play for exposure" racket on steroids.
    http://www.johnnyoklahoma.com/

    Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson
    Everything is some mixture of awesome and suck. We simply want the awesome to be highlighted sufficiently that it distracts listeners from the suck.
    Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson
    The appropriate role for science is the study of observed phenomena to gain an understanding. It is not dictating what people ought or ought not to be observing.
    Hey, if I'm Grumpy, where the hell is Snow White????
  10. #10
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts 11,627
    Rep Power 536871428

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    The thing is, if the artist has control over whether the songs are available on spotify, they can opt out entirely or put their non-premium content such as interviews, outtakes, and live, bootleg sounding stuff on spotify and leave their albums off of it.

    The same can't be said for torrent sites which is the real underlying problem.
    Man! You have GOT to try a hit of this RANGE SUNSHINE!

    IMTBO = In My Thoroughly Biased Opinion
    CMIIW = Correct Me If I'm Wrong
    Never underestimate the amount of contempt a failed musician has for those of us who are still trying.
    If the party's good enough, you can actually suck to a remarkable degree.

    Greedle
  11. #11
    Join Date Jan 2015
    Location Northern Colorado
    Posts 972
    Rep Power 536870974

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    I think that the problem is this:

    With the corporatization of nearly all terrestrial radio the chances of an act that does not fit withing very narrow, Madison Avenue controlled guidelines receiving airplay and exposure to the mass audience is nil - and that role has been taken over almost entirely by Pandora and Spotify. If that was as far as it goes it would be more-or-less OK, inasmuch as US radio was "OK" before the takeover.

    But that's not as far as it goes because streaming services - especially "on demand" services like Spotify have also cannibalized record sales, thereby eliminating the major revenue stream for most artists. So an artist has a choice - either you put your music on the streaming services where there's a chance that the mass audience will get to hear you - and at the same time pretty much kill your chance of making any money or you don't get exposed to the mass audience and pretty much kill your chances of making any money. What do you do? In most cases the act will try to build their audience so that when they "go on tour" they can draw enough people and sell enough t-shirts to be able to pay for enough gas and food to make it to the next gig.

    It's the old "play for exposure" racket on steroids.
    That makes sense. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But it also reinforces my point that, it can't be so bad that artist are revolting. The majority seem to be inclined to continue with it.

    I still haven't seen/heard anything that explains why the industry, in the broader sense, thinks they are held hostage to this. They control the product that these companies are reselling. Without the product to resell...there is no more Spotify.
    As I see bits and pieces of the story shared here, I really start to question the industry "leadership" (if there is such a thing). You guys are out to crucify the ownership of the streaming services .. but where's the outrage for the guy on the other side of the deal? Who ever it is that signs/signed the deal with Spotify and the like? My sense is, they are getting a hell of a kickback and are happy to let the industry suffer as they upgrade the hardwood floors of their new private jets.

    I guess that's really my rub with the majority of what I see posted here. I get the frustration with what the streaming companies are doing. But I see an unfair balance of blame. I don't see anyone from the music industry questioning how or if the music industry is doing right by it's people. To me...it doesn't seem like they are.

    -r
    Sign Here

    X________________________________________________
  12. #12
    Join Date Oct 2011
    Location caprica
    Posts 1,558
    Rep Power 536871031

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany


    Here's my bad analogy.
    If you stick your hand in a lions mouth and it bites you...oh shit, we've got a bad situation here and I'm inclined to help. But if you turn around stick your other hand in the lions mouth ... I'm more likely to think wtf man?? At that point you share some blame with the lion. Maybe you should quit sticking your hand in the lions mouth?? And in the I'm much less inclined to help or be empathetic to your situation.

    I'm not trying to defend the lion here ... but I can't for the life of me figure out why people keep putting their hand in it's mouth.

    -r
    your analogy is incomplete. It lacks context.

    Now let's say there's a piece of bread on the lion's tongue, and you're literally starving. That's the only hope you have of surviving. There's no food anywhere else. You either risk getting your hand bitten by the lion, or starve anyway. It's a rotten deal.

    That makes sense. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But it also reinforces my point that, it can't be so bad that artist are revolting. The majority seem to be inclined to continue with it.
    The majority of artists are starving and brainwashed.

    I still haven't seen/heard anything that explains why the industry, in the broader sense, thinks they are held hostage to this. They control the product that these companies are reselling. Without the product to resell...there is no more Spotify.
    As I see bits and pieces of the story shared here, I really start to question the industry "leadership" (if there is such a thing). You guys are out to crucify the ownership of the streaming services .. but where's the outrage for the guy on the other side of the deal? Who ever it is that signs/signed the deal with Spotify and the like? My sense is, they are getting a hell of a kickback and are happy to let the industry suffer as they upgrade the hardwood floors of their new private jets.
    They're held hostage to it because the other option, at this point, is piracy. The leadership has to come from within, and from the artist themselves. That's what we're really lacking. Some artists are growing the balls to stand up to it, but many of those artists are immediately dismissed as "out-of-touch", despite a long history and career. (David Byrne and Pink Floyd come to mind). We really need the younger artists to influence their fans and the community rather than let themselves be influenced and pushed around by tech companies.

    I guess that's really my rub with the majority of what I see posted here. I get the frustration with what the streaming companies are doing. But I see an unfair balance of blame. I don't see anyone from the music industry questioning how or if the music industry is doing right by it's people. To me...it doesn't seem like they are.
    The reason for this is that, despite how rotten record companies can be, it is not generally in their best interest to do so. That, and they invest IN the record business, while streaming companies do not. It's a little easier to forgive someone who has a dog in the fight. The streaming companies' entire strategy is to reap the benefits without having their own skin in the game. It's not hard to see.
    TAP TO MASTER
  13. #13
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts 11,627
    Rep Power 536871428

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    That makes sense. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But it also reinforces my point that, it can't be so bad that artist are revolting. The majority seem to be inclined to continue with it.

    I still haven't seen/heard anything that explains why the industry, in the broader sense, thinks they are held hostage to this. They control the product that these companies are reselling.
    No, they don't. They used to, but not any more. That's the point you seem to be missing.

    Without the product to resell...there is no more Spotify.
    There will still be piracy, a point that spotify makes early and often.
    As I see bits and pieces of the story shared here, I really start to question the industry "leadership" (if there is such a thing). You guys are out to crucify the ownership of the streaming services .. but where's the outrage for the guy on the other side of the deal? Who ever it is that signs/signed the deal with Spotify and the like? My sense is, they are getting a hell of a kickback and are happy to let the industry suffer as they upgrade the hardwood floors of their new private jets.
    I'd rather see facts and figures than someone's guess. The industry is down 40% and tech companies demand 30% of what's left. Daniel Ek is worth $400,000,000. I don't think any record company execs are.
    I guess that's really my rub with the majority of what I see posted here. I get the frustration with what the streaming companies are doing. But I see an unfair balance of blame. I don't see anyone from the music industry questioning how or if the music industry is doing right by it's people. To me...it doesn't seem like they are.
    Do you have any specifics? Otherwise this just seems like the usual knee jerk record companies are evil meme.

    They might be in some cases, but I'd like to see some specific evidence of it rather than jump to conclusions.
    Man! You have GOT to try a hit of this RANGE SUNSHINE!

    IMTBO = In My Thoroughly Biased Opinion
    CMIIW = Correct Me If I'm Wrong
    Never underestimate the amount of contempt a failed musician has for those of us who are still trying.
    If the party's good enough, you can actually suck to a remarkable degree.

    Greedle
  14. #14
    Join Date Jan 2015
    Location Northern Colorado
    Posts 972
    Rep Power 536870974

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    (I've use you and your in here a lot. I'm not aiming anything at a person, i'm using it as short hand for some holistic representation of music industry. Never any ill intent meant to anyone)
    your analogy is incomplete. It lacks context.


    Now let's say there's a piece of bread on the lion's tongue, and you're literally starving. That's the only hope you have of surviving. There's no food anywhere else. You either risk getting your hand bitten by the lion, or starve anyway. It's a rotten deal.
    Merging our context or lack there of... are there not enough of you standing at the lions mouth to mount some meaningful defense against the it. Hell, even an offence. Eat the damn lion rather than the bread on it's tongue. Yes... some could be hurt or killed in the process, but in the long term there's no more lion to deal with. (god forbid you eat Cecil though)

    They're held hostage to it because the other option, at this point, is piracy.
    I'm not sure I understand this statement. Are you saying that if the industry band together and said "no, we want a different deal" to the streaming services, that they would all shut down and somehow the demand for streaming services would suddenly go away? I don't think it would. I'd be pissed if it went away. I love the service.
    In the worst case scenario, lets say they all shut their doors and now the music industry has to build it's own service from scratch. I don't for a second think that they couldn't. I mean Sony runs the PlayStation platform/network for god sake. It's not like computers confuse them. And if you somehow convince me to believe they don't have the ability to produce a music delivery service like Spotify...I will immediately be trying to convince you that they shouldn't be heads of the music industry.

    What seems more likely is one of the existing services would figure out how to run a profitable company after adjusting the share of their profit. When given the choice of playing fair or not playing at all, I'd bet on someone playing fair.
    I mean seriously, offer someone that deal ... "What, I only get 2 mill a year not 10, to run a company that the music industry is happy with and people have shown a demand for? Uh, let me think about that. Yes."

    Getting into a grey area of my knowledge ... a common statement I hear about the streaming companies is that none of them are profitable. I don't know that I understand the implications of that statement well enough to dispute it. But in the same breath I've heard the accusing party quote how much money an executive of the company made that year. So how can I not think there's profit somewhere. And if there's money to be made (from the service with a fair split), I stand by my statement that someone will do it.

    The reason for this is that, despite how rotten record companies can be, it is not generally in their best interest to do so. That, and they invest IN the record business, while streaming companies do not. It's a little easier to forgive someone who has a dog in the fight.
    I guess I can understand this to a degree, but I'm reluctant to agree with it. Until they are also held accountable, I don't see how that helps you move forward. Why would a head of a major label change their strategy if they aren't being questioned about it. I wouldn't. I see these articles talking about undisclosed deals being given to record labels in exchange for rights to artist. Artist have no idea how much money was just exchanged for their works and they know they won't see a dime from it ... but because they are family it's overlooked.
    Well, I'd keep trading your work for revenue bonuses from my company topped with shares in the streaming companies profits too. My 5 year plan to cash out as executive vice whatever of mega music company whatever ... it just can't be bothered by needs of the industry to survive over the next 20 years. I just met a 20 year old who going to get a ring and some fake tits.
    Granted, that's my fairly cynical view of hypothetical happenings. But I've based that view on what I see happening across industry in general. It's possible the executive leadership of these companies are strong moral characters, with long term compassion for the music industry and it's members...but is it likely? I say no. I submit that you're being had equally by both sides, only you're favoring one of them over the other because it simplifies things.

    -r
    Sign Here

    X________________________________________________
  15. #15
    Join Date Jan 2015
    Location Northern Colorado
    Posts 972
    Rep Power 536870974

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    No, they don't. They used to, but not any more. That's the point you seem to be missing.
    Yes... I was under the impression that the "music industry" was in control of the music being created, provided or whatever. Can you explain how they aren't. When a record label puts a song out with an artist, how do they lose control of it?

    thx!

    -r
    Sign Here

    X________________________________________________
  16. #16
    Join Date Oct 2011
    Location caprica
    Posts 1,558
    Rep Power 536871031

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany


    Merging our context or lack there of... are there not enough of you standing at the lions mouth to mount some meaningful defense against the it. Hell, even an offence. Eat the damn lion rather than the bread on it's tongue. Yes... some could be hurt or killed in the process, but in the long term there's no more lion to deal with. (god forbid you eat Cecil though)
    So who's going to be the sacrificial human? If there's no lion, there's still no food, so everyone starves anyway. It sounds like you're actively trying not to grasp the point.

    I'm not sure I understand this statement. Are you saying that if the industry band together and said "no, we want a different deal" to the streaming services, that they would all shut down and somehow the demand for streaming services would suddenly go away? I don't think it would. I'd be pissed if it went away. I love the service.
    In the worst case scenario, lets say they all shut their doors and now the music industry has to build it's own service from scratch. I don't for a second think that they couldn't. I mean Sony runs the PlayStation platform/network for god sake. It's not like computers confuse them. And if you somehow convince me to believe they don't have the ability to produce a music delivery service like Spotify...I will immediately be trying to convince you that they shouldn't be heads of the music industry.
    I'm really not trying to be an asshole here, but you're not getting it. The reason Sony doesn't try to build a streaming service is because it DOESN'T WORK. Not because they're stupid or because they can't. They're NOT stupid enough to try to build a business that cannibalizes their own record labels and then fizzles out in a few years. That's great you love the service - I do, too. As a listener, it's wonderful. But it's not fair to artists. What you don't understand, or are ignoring, is that streaming services could never have gotten their feet in the door if it wasn't for piracy. Piracy started this entire thing by taking the real-world value of music down to absolute zero. That's the competition.

    What seems more likely is one of the existing services would figure out how to run a profitable company after adjusting the share of their profit. When given the choice of playing fair or not playing at all, I'd bet on someone playing fair.
    I mean seriously, offer someone that deal ... "What, I only get 2 mill a year not 10, to run a company that the music industry is happy with and people have shown a demand for? Uh, let me think about that. Yes."
    Are you kidding? What kind of magical thinking is this? In what world does this conversation even occur? You do understand that the entire streaming business model is about inflating worth and cashing out before the whole thing bottoms out. There was a dot com burst in the late 90's... this is essentially the same thing except with media. This has been done before. The writing is on the wall.

    Getting into a grey area of my knowledge ... a common statement I hear about the streaming companies is that none of them are profitable. I don't know that I understand the implications of that statement well enough to dispute it. But in the same breath I've heard the accusing party quote how much money an executive of the company made that year. So how can I not think there's profit somewhere. And if there's money to be made (from the service with a fair split), I stand by my statement that someone will do it.
    That's called blind faith, or 'putting your head in the sand'. You really think this problem will solve itself?


    I guess I can understand this to a degree, but I'm reluctant to agree with it. Until they are also held accountable, I don't see how that helps you move forward. Why would a head of a major label change their strategy if they aren't being questioned about it. I wouldn't. I see these articles talking about undisclosed deals being given to record labels in exchange for rights to artist. Artist have no idea how much money was just exchanged for their works and they know they won't see a dime from it ... but because they are family it's overlooked.
    Well, I'd keep trading your work for revenue bonuses from my company topped with shares in the streaming companies profits too. My 5 year plan to cash out as executive vice whatever of mega music company whatever ... it just can't be bothered by needs of the industry to survive over the next 20 years. I just met a 20 year old who going to get a ring and some fake tits.
    Granted, that's my fairly cynical view of hypothetical happenings. But I've based that view on what I see happening across industry in general. It's possible the executive leadership of these companies are strong moral characters, with long term compassion for the music industry and it's members...but is it likely? I say no. I submit that you're being had equally by both sides, only you're favoring one of them over the other because it simplifies things.
    It actually seems like that's what you're doing by trying to equate them.

    Record labels pay for albums to be recorded and promoted. Streaming services don't. In that sense, I suppose, it's very simple.

    The people I've met from bigger labels all seemed to really love what they did. They loved music. They fought for their artists and went to bat for them and I saw how much passion there needed to be on the business side of things in order to make an act successful. My particular act at the time wasn't successful by their standards, but I learned a LOT by watching those people work. Your assertion that these people are "just as much to blame" is fueled by this juvenile ideal that record labels are these big evil asshole people. That's simply not the truth. You're making up scenarios in your head to support arguments that others have made in blog posts.

    There is an answer to all of this, and it is in written history. I'm still learning, but the more I learn, the clearer the picture is. Now I do everything I can to make sure others realize what is happening behind the scenes. Unfortunately, the streaming and tech side of things have done a great job convincing artists to fight for their own demise rather than their future. The fact that we are arguing about this is evidence of that.
    TAP TO MASTER
  17. #17
    Join Date Oct 2011
    Location caprica
    Posts 1,558
    Rep Power 536871031

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    Reno, I received this book recently as a gift - I haven't read it yet, but it looks like it tells some of the story you're missing. Maybe you will find some of the answers you are looking for in it, if you're into reading about this kind of stuff.

    Steven Witt - "How Music Got Free - The End of an Industry, the Turn of the Century, and the Patient Zero of Piracy"

    http://stephenwittbooks.com/books/how-music-got-free-hc
    TAP TO MASTER
  18. #18
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts 11,627
    Rep Power 536871428

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    Yes... I was under the impression that the "music industry" was in control of the music being created, provided or whatever. Can you explain how they aren't. When a record label puts a song out with an artist, how do they lose control of it?
    They immediately lose control of distribution. It is often on torrent sites before the record company gets a chance to release it
    Man! You have GOT to try a hit of this RANGE SUNSHINE!

    IMTBO = In My Thoroughly Biased Opinion
    CMIIW = Correct Me If I'm Wrong
    Never underestimate the amount of contempt a failed musician has for those of us who are still trying.
    If the party's good enough, you can actually suck to a remarkable degree.

    Greedle
  19. #19
    Join Date Jan 2015
    Location Northern Colorado
    Posts 972
    Rep Power 536870974

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    I don't think you're being an asshole at all man. And you're right... I don't necessarily get it.
    I'm doing my best to try and get something that makes sense to me. So I definitely bait with my questions sometimes, but it's not because I'm trying to be suborn. And I'm not trying to start or win an argument. I'm trying to present what I see/think/here and gain further understanding. I don't mind being seen as inept or called it here either...because I am when it comes to a lot of this stuff.

    Incorrectly maybe, I have been working under the idea that streaming services were bringing in enough money to support their service and pay out a profit to all involved.
    You're saying they are not. That it's more or less a ponzi scheme at the music industries expense?? Asking in earnest ... I see groups like Apple jumping in the market so I assume it's a viable business.

    -r


    -r
    Sign Here

    X________________________________________________
  20. #20
    Join Date Jan 2015
    Location Northern Colorado
    Posts 972
    Rep Power 536870974

    Default Re: goog tube not considered above the law in Germany

    They immediately lose control of distribution. It is often on torrent sites before the record company gets a chance to release it
    I thought that might be what you meant.

    I'm going to hold to my thoughts until I get some clarification on my last questions about the viability of streaming services in general.

    Thanks nooby

    -r
    Sign Here

    X________________________________________________

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts