speedyxjs
|
| posted on 10/3/09 at 01:56 PM |
|
|
Music vids and youtube
Music videos have been dropped from youtube!  Linky
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 10/3/09 at 02:02 PM |
|
|
So instead of the aritsts making a few bob from the tracks..
Fans are going to upload the videos themselves and that artists will see no money atall...
Quality!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
Findlay234
|
| posted on 10/3/09 at 02:20 PM |
|
|
I say good on google. This whole expectation that music performers and producers have that they deserve the money they get is ludicrous!!! They pi$$
and whinge that theyre being made destitute by people downloading music but really all it means is that they cant afford two bentleys and they have to
suffice with one!!!if royalties werent still so expensive then the cost of downloading legal songs would be cheaper and less people would download
illegally. Now I cant condone illegally downloading music or films but I do think half the problem is their own greed. Well done to google for
standing up to them, they will loose money by not having music videos for sure but they may save more by not bowing down to the pressure of the
royalty collectors.
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 10/3/09 at 04:38 PM |
|
|
It's the PRS giving them shit, to be able to play a bit of music in my very small shop I have to pay them £120 a year, plus another £125 + to
another copyright organisation, it really takes the piss......
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
dhutch
|
| posted on 10/3/09 at 07:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Findlay234
I say good on google. This whole expectation that music performers and producers have that they deserve the money they get is ludicrous!!! They pi$$
and whinge that theyre being made destitute by people downloading music but really all it means is that they cant afford two bentleys and they have to
suffice with one!!!if royalties werent still so expensive then the cost of downloading legal songs would be cheaper and less people would download
illegally. Now I cant condone illegally downloading music or films but I do think half the problem is their own greed. Well done to google for
standing up to them, they will loose money by not having music videos for sure but they may save more by not bowing down to the pressure of the
royalty collectors.
I agree ultimatly.
- I currently use Spotify for music that i dont have in MP3 format locally but is nice to see the videos once or twice too.
Ofcause ulitmatly the real question, i which is the next best place to watch music videos for free, and how much are they paying whom!
Daniel
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 10/3/09 at 07:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jasper
It's the PRS giving them shit, to be able to play a bit of music in my very small shop I have to pay them £120 a year, plus another £125 + to
another copyright organisation, it really takes the piss......
They rang my friend at his bike shop and asked for a payment and he told them he doesn't have any music in the shop to which the caller replied
he could hear music in the background. He told him it was someone outside with a car radio on and that he was going to shift him as he was fed up of
the row. They never pursued it any further, this was the performing arts society.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 10/3/09 at 07:41 PM |
|
|
There was a PRS man on the news last night - he pointed out that while a few performers get huge money, by far the majority are lucky to get £10K per
annum, and many don't even get that.
The bit of cash that the PRS pass on to them is appreciated...
(just playing devil's advocate)
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 11/3/09 at 02:13 AM |
|
|
I would venture to guess that most artists have been ripped off over the years, and not by downloaders. Draw your own conclusions...
Name a big act from the 60's and 70's that did not have to sue their management/record company et al for better royalties? Can't can
you? Someone's made a lot of money. Business and art/artists don't seem to be good mates at the best of times, and they certainly
don't seem to be now either.
|
|
|
