Slashdot Mirror
Trent Reznor: YouTube Is Built On the Back Of Stolen Content (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Singer and record producer Trent Reznor has become the latest artist to attack Google's video service YouTube. "I find YouTube's business to be very disingenuous. It is built on the backs of free, stolen content and that's how they got that big," said Reznor in an interview with Billboard. Reznor was not speaking purely as an artist, however. He is also chief creative officer at Apple Music, the streaming service launched by Apple in 2015, which is one of the key rivals to YouTube in the digital music world. "I think any free-tiered service is not fair. It's making their numbers and getting them a big IPO and it is built on the back of my work and that of my peers. That's how I feel about it. Strongly," said Reznor, widening his criticism to other rivals like Spotify in the process.
Well that's news to everyone
Never mind all of the car reviews, device reviews, musical gear reviews, prank shoes, and tutorials people watch on there............no, it's all about "his" stolen music.
Tori Amos said it best:
Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
slave screams he spends his life learning conformity
slave screams he claims he has his own identity
slave screams he's going to cause the system to fall
slave screams but he's glad to be chained to that wall
You are fat and old Trent, go back to the drugs and give me some more downward spiral and the fragile please.
What a plot twist!
On a related subject, who? I'm sure I could look him up, but I don't want to. What has Trent done that I should appreciate?
This makes a difference now? It's water under the bridge man. I mean, let's just keep going back in time and complaining and whining about all the other water under the bridge. I next nominate the US industrial revolution. We stole a lot of IP to make that shit happen and get big. I propose that whatever his solution is here with YouTube that we also apply it to him and the fruits of the American Industrial Revolution.
How does one steal content?
Radio isn't fair?
Log in or piss off.
What is it now? Or is Mr. Reznor insinuating that (gasp!) free == stolen?
Ahh... that's Intellectual Poverty, I guess!
Really, I never heard that name before.
He's jealous that he's not that creative and people aren't using iTunes as much to actually put up useful videos. I watch tutorial videos / how-to's on Youtube all the time. They're great.
All copyrighted content is built on the backs of stolen culture. Human rights > right to profit. At least one would hope.
But the legal bar for "stolen" is incredibly low. Not available in your country? Stolen. Used to illustrate a point? Stolen. Used for critique? Stolen.
"I find YouTube's business to be very disingenuous. It is built on the backs of free, stolen content and that's how they got that big,"
That's how Disney was started.
And content is based on stolen public domain.
Why is it that a patent only gives you a few precious years to earn your money back while requiring a LOT more investment (for actual inventions) but copyrights seemingly keep getting extended until the heat death of the universe?
especially until they hit critical mass. Now YouTube is the default platform in and people are generating content exclusively for it.
...widening his criticism to other rivals like Spotify in the process.
And Apple Music is different from other streaming services exactly how?
I see the point for youtube as everyone and his dog upload stuff there without giving any thought to copyrights and/or compensation (at least ContentID and monetizing has been added as an afterthought) but streaming services in general?
bickerdyke
How many times have record labels gotten caught not meeting their contractual obligations out of malice rather than inability? A lot. So on that basis alone, YouTube is clearly a better platform for artists because it not only doesn't sink its claws into them, but provides them unlimited resources to reach their audience since its business model is simply "we'll provide them hosting and advertisement, you provide the crowd; we'll scale together."
"I also don't like this new thingamajig, radio!
Radiowaves travelling through the air, it's witchcraft!"
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
The studios steal from the creators via abusive contracts as much, if not MORE than YouTube steals from the musicians.
Despising one and not the other is hypocritical.
Part of the major problem is that the value of music has gone down and musicians dislike that. Music used to be a rare skill that was incredibly expensive to distribute. But distribution costs went down, they refused to lower the price, we found ways to use computers to enhance music (auto tune is just one of many such advancements), and the number of people that want to do it went up.
How many kids want to be rock stars? They depressed the market causing the prices to drop - it's simple supply and demand.
The profit went away but it wasn't YouTube's fault.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This is coming from the man who told others to steal his content to fight price hikes. Get back on drugs, Trent. Your music isn't worth stealing when you're sober.
"I find YouTube's business to be very disingenuous. It is built on the backs of free, stolen content and that's how they got that big," said Reznor in an interview with Billboard. Reznor was not speaking purely as an artist, however. He is also chief creative officer at Apple Music, the streaming service launched by Apple in 2015, which is one of the key rivals to YouTube in the digital music world.
I find pretending to be on the side of artists against Google when you are drawing a paycheck from one of their biggest competitors to be "very disingenuous".
Of course I don't find Apple Music to be much of a rival at all to YouTube so this may be much sound and fury signifying nothing. Apple pretending to respect the intellectual property of others is a bit rich.
Is when FALSE DMCA Notices have the content torn down and its income siphoned away with never so much as a mild slap for their blatant disregard towards law or fair usage.
I think Apple music service is losing customer to google and one of their mouthpieces is poo-poo'ing the rival, hoping that people will change opinion and come back. Boiler plate marketing ploy when you are losing market share. He is no one to me and will continue to be no one. So, why bother reading what he says?
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
tell us more about the olden days when musicians could get paid for creating music.
Trent Reznor is in the business of making cat videos? That's news to me.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
Does YouTube contain a lot of illegally-posted media? Sure, I can find lots of full-album rips on it. But much like bootleg audio tapes back in the day, it helps me discover a lot of new bands and sample their music. At least half of the CDs I've purchased were of bands/albums I found through YouTube. Are increased sales now considered a bad thing?
Here I was ready to pay attention to what Mr. Reznor was going to say about YouTube and the backs of whatever.
And then I saw that he is a paid shill for Apple. Imagine my shock at an Apple paid shill griping about the competition.
Look. You came late the party. Now you have to blow everyone to get a beer. That's just how it goes dude/Apple. You are of course free to leave the party if you don't want to blow everyone.
Hi, I help run a competitor to the most popular music-sharing site in the world. I think that site is bad and this is why. You should come to my site instead, it is cool!
Where is the artist who told us (Australians) to pirate all his music because it costs too much? When I watch your stuff on youtube, I am just doing what you told me to!
I think you mean "arthritis". This old dinosaur needs to go back to his TR-808 and scream some more.
now that trent reznor is being paid by big bucks apple®
prior to that he was against big companies capitalizing on artists. basically he's full of it.
Sure, people can just cut and snip and paste, etc. and come up with something interesting enough to get views. That isn't the point though.
But YouTube is built using cameras. And there's not nearly as many exclusionary barriers to success as there were in the 'good old days.'
Trent is threatened by that, sadly.
...said competing content provider.
In my opinion, Youtube shows that people would create content without all of this artificial scarcity bullshit.
Copying isn't theft
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
So, let's be clear, about 99% of YouTube (my viewing of it anyway) is people posting crap that they are interested in, you know, like how to weave a paracord bracelet, or how to change a solenoid that controls a butterfly valve in an intake manifold, sometimes with some music playing, somewhere... and to be honest, when I hear music in any YouTube video, proper attribution is given...
My not responding to your flame is in no way indicative of my submission to your statement, it just means I don't have t
All of Alphabet's other businesses, though youtube is particularly egregious. They are some of the biggest crooks currently on the face of the earth. I guess given that, it's no surprise the white house has thrown in with them.
'nuff said.
He was famous long before YouTube existed. The idea of a clueless little millenial calling someone like that "boy" is beyond amusing, so as a troll, I guess it had *some* reaction....
Never heard of him, sounds like a made up name. Looking up on Wikipedia...
Ah, another narcissistic rich kid who ends up as a high level corporate executive for a company that's also desperate to re-invent itself.
just needs some attention - doesn't he?
Maybe deprived from mother-milk after he was born....
Add your other possible reasons: ....
Now go do some searches and file your DMCAs
100% of my content is made by me and I just hit 2 million views. Copyright holders can come in and remove any video and destroy any channel and he thinks people are still frebooting content on the site? FUCK YOU, TRENT!
Let's ask Trent whose back his work is built on.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Honestly the content created on YouTube is a lot like how he creates his music, or how any artist creates anything.
Apple thrives on the top-down "you are the consumer, we are the producer" business model. I can't say I'm particularly shocked to see an apple exec whining about youtube (although I must say, I'm disappointed that it the exec in question is Trent Reznor). To say that Youtube is "built" on content piracy is extremely disingenuous. Yes, it obviously happens there, but if someone were to remove all of the pirated content from Youtube, only a very small percentage of users would even care.
These are the words of a company that would like to see user-generated content made illegal, on the basis that a small percentage of users occasionally use it for piracy. Youtube is a tremendous example of "substantial non-infringing use".
Lest the internet make fun of you for thinking you invented video streaming. Youtube started as a video hosting site that allowed YOU to upload content. Youtube has an EXTENSIVE and AUTOMATIC system to deal with "stolen content" and, of course, sends any ad revenue to the content owner. so no, Trent doesn't have a valid point, he's a vapid fuckwit who wants to appeal to authority because his idea to rip off youtube and make it a paid service hasn't wiped youtube off the net. Go suck on a tail pipe, it would be more productive for all of us if you did.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lotti-dotti/id1091188162?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D4
If YouTube wasn't there among a few other sites that hold "stolen content", i wouldn't have ever found a good portion of my favorite music bands and artists. My listening experience would have been emptier, and the many artists i decided to support would have emptier wallets.
Let alone YouTube, i can solely thank RuTracker and PirateBay for expanding my list of electro-lounge and lounge music with Middle Eastern sounds from various VA uploads, and stuff like Al-Pha-X.
If i never found them in this way, i can confidently say that i would never have found them at all (or at least not for another who knows how many years), and many of the artists would have had 1 less listener buying their shit, let alone being aware of their existence.
Trent Reznor and the rest of you narrow-minded self-important anti-piracy douches; myself and any artists with the open-mindedness to recognize my aforementioned statements have only 3 words for you: Fuck your mothers!
Apple's entire resurgence is based off MP3 piracy. Before they made their first smartphone, they made billions off their iPod sales, which were 100% filled with pirated MP3s. Nobody was paying 10k to fill an iPod. Nobody.
Then when they made their first billion, they started a music service and started charging for music and decried piracy, the very thing that made their entire corporate existence possible.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
And Trent Reznor's music was built on musical notes discovered by other people centuries ago, which he's just reusing without attribution- sue that freeloader!
Just kidding, but Trent Reznor go just fuck right off. No one forces anyone to upload content to Youtube, and has a shitload of content scanners to try and keep copyrighted material off their network. If you doubt me, just try and upload an episode of nearly any broadcast TV series or a movie and see how fast it gets flagged and bagged.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Trent admitted to Down In It being a total rip off of Dig It by Skinny Puppy. Seems he doesn't have a problem profiting from other peoples work either.
> It is built on the backs of free, stolen content and that's how they got that big. It's true, but the reason is because there's a demand for the content that is not getting fulfilled through traditional channels. Essentially this is the market punishing the music industry for: - not innovating. The music industry could have been way ahead of the curve with this but decided to whine and bitch and continue to act as though people only wanted physical media or what is thrown at them on the radio. Some people are like this but they are all old and the demographic is dying. They completely ignored what young people were doing with the Internet regarding music, etc. and how they wanted things to be in the future. - not cooperating and caring more about controlling the entire market than trying to get a piece of it. Fuck your exclusive deals and contracts. I don't have the time or money to subscribe to 20 different streaming services because one artist/their company is on one service only, another artist/their company doesn't like service X, Y, Z, etc. Artists should release their work into a combined or universal broker service and then those wishing to distribute it via streaming should be able to easily pay for the rights to anything they need without having to deal with separate companies and terms, etc.
Fuck Off.
That is all.
Radio is exactly comparable to other free tier (i.e. ad-supported) services. We're talking Pandora, Spotify, and most Internet radio stations
Pandora yes, Spotify not so much. There's a big legal difference between Pandora and Spotify, analogous to like the difference between radio and a jukebox, or between broadcast TV and video on demand. Pandora lets the user choose a musical style, such as the style associated with a particular recording artist, and then builds a huge playlist around that style that satisfies the "performance complement" requirement of the statutory license for public performance of sound recordings through an electronic transmission. This requirement limits how many songs from a particular artist or album may be played per hour and limits the control that the user has over the playlist so that does not substitute for a purchase. Complying with the "performance complement" allows Pandora to pay a lower rate and not have to negotiate with individual record labels. Spotify has to pay more in royalties because it gives the user far more control over the playlist.
I bought albums from Atari Teen Age Riot and Eat Static because I saw their new tracks on YT.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The days of musicians making money off recordings of their music is essentially over. That business model is dead. They can go perform live, sell merch, get a cushy job at Apple but no more selling albums to make their millions.
"He was famous long before YouTube existed."
That's kind of the point. He's a has been. If not for YouTube, only angry old geezers stuck in the past would have any clue who he is. You might as well be rambling on about the Bay City Rollers.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I find YouTube's business to be very disingenuous.
Yeah? And what about your how to destroy angels album? You never really took the time to explain this was a new band, rather, you springboarded your talented wife on the shoulders of Nine Inch Nails to limitless failure. Mariqueen Maandig is a talentless millennial styled rocker, meaning shes just another mumford and suns "ho ho hey hey oooh ooh" regurgutation of 40 year old folk music, freeze dried and repackaged as some living fucking anachronism of the bygone era of hair flowers and legitimate lyricists as singers. She will never be Roger Whittaker, she will never be the Almond brothers, and your bullshit contribution of rehashed samples from the downward spiral only served to highlight the fact that you lied to us.
You should have titled the band, "how to castrate a legend." Angels is a passionless and apathetic ode to the foot-shuffling special snowflake ripoff artists that infest modern rock like a plague.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Let's ask Trent whose back his work is built on.
If he wants to be a credible voice for artists then he can't afford conflicts of interest. If Trent Reznor wants to resign his post with Apple and speak on his own behalf then I'll consider his position on the matter. Until then he's just playing the role of corporate stooge even if he actually believes what his is saying.
Let's ask Trent whose back his work is built on.
He didn't invent a genre or anything like that, but he did create his music out of hard work. I was listening to industrial music at the time when he became popular and his music became popular because it was good, not just because he got hitched up to the right wagon — though that never hurts.
On the other hand, he is whiny and full of it. Playing people's songs for free is about the last thing I go to Youtube for. I do it, mind you, but only rarely.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You didn't have to use such pseudo-intellectual dictionary and fedora poetry.
Saying that he had his girl do nudes as marketing and attention suffices. That's after all the first thing that came up on google images after googling her, and the fact that it's first is telling in itself.
will you bite the hand that feeds you, Trent?
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
and don't be evil means lie, spy, die, and fry.
[6] But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. [7] And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard. [8] Be not you therefore like to them, for your Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him. [9] Thus therefore shall you pray:
Our Father who art in Heaven hallowed be Thy Name. Thy Kingdom come Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespasses. Lead us not into temptation but
deliver us from evil Amen.
So I guess he doesn't want his music to get any airplay on free-to-air radio stations either....
I don't listen to your music on youtube. Or at all.
For a while I was ok with Google having a blind eye to pirated content. Youtube is a very big place and it's impossible for them to watch every single video especially with the way that pirates mask their content to make automated systems impossible to detect it.
When they started launching the ads and then started charging for their Youtube red service their "plan" became apparent. Here's what they did.
Introduced Chrome Cast so you could watch Youtube on your TV.
Increased the video length to accommodate full length movies.
Did very little to protect copyright allowing illegal content to flourish.
Introduced ads slowly into the system.
Increased the ads steadily over time not to offend their viewers of illegal content.
Introduced Youtube Red Subscription.
Increased the ads to an offensive level to bolster their Youtube Red Subscription model.
This was a careful and intentional plan. I used to occasionally watch some of the pirated content until I finally realized Google's plan. While I might be ok with watching the occasional pirated movie I'm sure as hell not going to pay for the privilege. For an individual to overlook copyright occasionally is not the greatest thing but hardly criminal. When a large well known corporation banks on piracy of this nature and uses it to make a profit that goes beyond the idea of occasionally watching a pirated movie. It's outright fraud and and intentional piracy.
If google did not have a choke hold on the search market the studios would sue the crap out of them. They don't because google would retaliate against them and their content using their search engine. Proving google's retaliation would be impossible just as proving they intentionally planned to profit off of pirated content would be difficult to prove. Google is banking on these factors.
They are scumbags. Do no evil? My ass!
Will he bite the hand that feeds him, or will he buy a ring and put it on that same hand?
Digital copying is easy, sharing with friends is natural and human. The media industry is built on the principle of taking away our ability to copy and share, and on the idea that it is hard to do so. What would be rightfully ours under the original copyright laws is no longer ours, what we would have the right to do in the absence of copyright laws we no longer have the right to do. As for youtube, it is built on the hard work of those who invented the hardware and software technology to make it possible, and the efforts of many users. A little copyright infringment happens as 'collateral damage', and that is largely because copyright at present is so distant from what is natural, easy and straightforward. We could function without Trent's last album quite happily, but the ability to share information, events and enthusiasm is so much more important.
John_Chalisque
Your logic does not follow. The top-100's total plays are an infinitessimal fraction of the total youtube usage. One cannot look at that and say that there isn't a lot of pirated usage. Furthermore, is the criteria "most" usage has to be pirated to declare it a problem?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
What did he use to create his work? Did he profit off the creation of the electronica genre by Giorgio Moroder? The modern Blues genre by B.B. King? The piano, invented by some Italian name Cristofori? The guitar, built on the bakc of its predecessor, the Lute?
What image did he take, and who at the time was popular and using that image? Was it grunge? Punk? 80s rock? Does his music have the sound of the popular period music he made his fame in? On top of whose hard work of building fame around a particular style did he slide in and make himself famous?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"I think any free-tiered service is not fair.... is built on the back of my work and that of my peers. That's how I feel about it. Strongly," said Reznor
That's hilarious, because I doubt Reznor or any of these other artists would bitch that MTV/VH1 was stealing from them, yet it does exactly the same as Youtube, presenting their music to the populace for free with ad revenue paying the bills.
because he hasn't made anything any good in years. Maybe he should stop worrying about business and go back to caring about music.
I used Youtube to watch a video from your latest album which then prompted me to go onto iTunes to purchase said album. I guess I'll go return that album since I came across your music in such an immoral fashion.
Cover Bands also subsist on the stolen works of others. Why don't we go after Cover Bands?
Right, they don't have any money.
How much should you charge someone who is going to commit suicide and listen to your musik? Maybe it should be free...
Over 55% of millenials were created before YouTube existed. I guess they're just old and stuck in the past...
Much of the content on youtube is stolen from the uploaders because it happens to match a faint fingerprint of something else. You trolls aren't even good at trolling.
I thought you were dead!
...or if you buy the cd, should it come with a dr. kevorkian homekit, ummm one needle, one bottle of cyanide and one hello kitty band-aid?
Game, point, match.
Sounds like he's suggesting we shouldn't any longer, "steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin'." 'Cause that sounds worse than just taking advantage of freely given and legal services.
He must have changed his mind because... because.... he has a different employer now?
he described the music tracker Oink as being 'The worlds greatest record store' and that users aren't 'stealing it because they're going to make money off of it; they're stealing it because they love the band."
My first exposure to Nine Inch Nails came from a friend who gave me a copy of Pretty Hate Machine. You can thank that bootleg tape I got in 1990 for all the money I've spent on NIN over the years since then. Tapes, CD's, concert tickets and shwag have all made you (and other bands) richer. I was turned on to NIN and the industrial/electronica genre in general by that one sale you lost out on. Likewise, I've become a fan of and supported many bands that I encountered while doing a little random YouTube browsing and clicking things that looked interesting. I'm so very sorry you don't get a cut of every single play (sarcasm), but you're still winning in the long run.
now doesn't that make you feel better? the pigs have won tonight now they can all sleep soundly and everything is all right
Silence is a state of mime.
What the article is claiming that youtube is illegal, and based on stolen content. I don't think that claim to be true. But I have different, but equally important argument for youtube's illegality.
It's based in minimum wage. Companies who want to use other people's work effort, must pay them at least minimum wage. Youtube does not keep large amounts of people as their employees, but instead they're licensing the work contained in their service. Unfortunately, the rates they're paying while licensing, does not leave much room to pay salary to the people whose work is being bought in their licensing tricks (in their web page). The main argument goes like this: 1) When youtube insists on licensing videos from people with very cheap price 2) they must know someone in their food chain is being ripped off, since the money is not enough to pay salary for the effort being licensed, not even minimum wage 3) based on this, the service as a whole is illegal.
Normally while licensing work, companies that pay bad rates to people working for them, can usually claim that they're not the only entity who gets access to the work, and thus the rates they pay don't need to cover the whole cost of producing the work. Unfortunately that argument is unavailable to youtube, since most of the videos in their catalog are not available anywhere else. Thus they should ensure that their whole supply chain gets the rates that they deserve.
Basically youtube's licensing in their web page is based on subcontracting large work amount. But they're systematically avoiding paying salary for the work. They should instead consider everyone contributing to their service as employees of the company, based on the huge work amount in that community.
(otoh, other internet companies have similar problems, including wikipedia etc.. So youtube is not unique.)
This from the guy that told people at a concert to 'steal it', refering to music and telling the RIAA to fuck off? Yeah, Trent. You used to be cool.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
step 1: say something idiotic about how (internet villain of the week) is stealing from you when really they are driving fans and money to your door.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
"but he did create his music out of hard work"
Are you sure? I don't know about this artist specifically but there are many examples (in fact I think a few "top 10" videos on Youtube cover this) of artists big and small pilfering the work of other artists practically word for word, recording it as their own and raking in "stolen" profits. Large parts of the content industry seem to have a major hypocrisy problem, they expect everyone else to come up with 100% original content (or preferably no content at all) but they can take plenty of "influence" from other peoples work.
He always seemed to be the bad guy, a real asshole.
Only at the end did we realize that he had to be the one to kill Dumbledore.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
One word.
Nirvana.
Rip Kurt.
He was famous? To what all of three people Cleveland?
I didn't click your link, but it seems obvious to me that it is theft of PERMISSION (to copy). If you copied my song without being authorized by me, and then gave it to your little sister, you took away my ability to control who copies it. Now, she might copy it for someone else and they both might not now that only I had the legal right to give it away. You stole my sole ability to give permission to copy my work.
call the wahmbulance. next!
The real problem is that Trent and all musicians seem to think their content is so awesome they can lease it to us instead of respecting the concept of ownership.
The fact is copyright laws are BS. If I want to film myself listening to or dancing to a song i own, that's my right and nothing Trent, record companies or the government says is even going to come close to changing my view.
Fans uploaded those and fans watched those and fans like YouTube. Anybody who goes against YouTube is going to lose. People love their YouTube. People are not going to ever agree that they don't have the right repurpose music they own. If I own a car and I race it on YouTube, I don't have to pay the maker of the car. If I want to listen to music with friends, they don't have to own the song. If a school plays a song at a dance, they don't have to get the rights to the song. Bars and clubs replay songs all the time and don't pay an dime extra most of the time.
For some reason when you scale things up to millions of people, everyone loses their shit. I guess God Money gets a lot more persuasive when it has more zeros behind it.
Pirates commit crimes such as murder, kidnapping, and rape on the high seas. The RIAA / MPAA has framed "copyright infringement" as piracy to subvert rational discussion about the issue, and skew the argument in their favor.
Your use of the word "pirate", intentional or not, plays into their trap. This is similar to a prosecuting lawyer referring to a "tank-top shirt" as a "wife-beater" during a spousal abuse case.
snicker
Social media is an echo chamber. You have to be lucky to get someone with a big enough following to share your content and then someone else and someone else after that. Once you are big enough then your success builds upon itself. Otherwise you are invisible in a sea of other people. Better work still gets drowned out. Then we add in the fact that instead of corporate types directly picking the creators that will be put forward instead they are controlling the algorithms that decide which content you are going to see. It's the same thing just done more indirectly.
I don't see why musicians deserve any money if they aren't practicing their craft. When I write an automation script for my employer, I don't expect to get a check every time it gets run. I expect to go write new code, fix new problems, and get paid for working on that stuff. Likewise, an musician should get paid for practicing their craft and they should have to continue working if they want to continue to get paid. There is a thing called "live concerts" where this practice takes place, and the more people that appreciate your art via services like youtube, the more people that will come to your "live concerts" and pay you to work at your art.
All those royalties have gone to Reznor's head. Like Lars and the other RIAA nobles, now Trent thinks he is actual royalty and he is mad that the peasants aren't compelled to pay every tax he dreams up.
The top-100's total plays are an infinitessimal fraction of the total youtube usage.
Zipf's law and power law distributions would suggest otherwise. Even if it has a "long tail" distribution, there's not really any way for the majority of the consumed content to not also be the most popular content. They also have an extremely effective system (ContentID) of removing the most popular pirated content from their videos.
If Trent Reznor really thought that his works were being illegally used, he'd have prepared a lawsuit instead of a public statement. I'm quite sure that as a major label artist his work is protected by ContentID, though. If there is a problem with unauthorized content, it's not his problem. It's also not Google's problem -- the only entity responsible for policing copyrights is the copyright holder.
GP's logic is consistent with statistical laws. Reznor's accusation is false, and even if it were true, he is only complaining about his own failure to protect his copyright.
People on this site tend to lose their minds when it comes to copyright.
YouTube did grow rapidly in their early days directly due to hosting films, television shows, and music produced by big corporations without authorization to do so. There were no iOS or Android devices with video cameras. It preceded the Flip video cameras. The clunky webcams in the early to mid 2000s produced fuzzy and grainy video. However, we could rip DVDs to our hard drives and employ ffmpeg to make formats suitable for uploading to YouTube. Denying that YouTube did not benefit greatly from high quality, professionally produced copyrighted material is dishonest.
This isn't something new for Youtube, so why is just *now* complaining? It seems a bit suspect that he says this after becoming a part of Apple Music.
The only living members in that garage Band are infact the attornies and luwyers. The others are obsolete appliances he bought from a pawn sbop and that cant stand up cor themselves shen Trent samples them!
That's because grunge is dead.
In his defence, he did introduce the industrial genre to the mainstream audiences. And he was a pretty good artist, but it's over now. When I heard he accepted a C-level position with Apple's music division, that's when I knew it wasn't just the hippies from the 60's who get to experience all of their heroes selling out to the Man, us 90's hippies (whatever we're supposed to be called), the ones who thought the digital age would bring freedom and enlightenment just like the hippies thought they were doing, we get to see all of our people sell out and our dreams of freedom and enlightenment crushed by the system, too.
"It is built on the backs of free, stolen content and that's how they got that big"
hahahahaha... that's pretty much EXACTLY the leverage that apple used to get so big again starting with the ipod... without napster, without the ability to fill the ipod with up to 10,000 songs, apple not have become the huge entity it is now.
apple owes its primacy to piracy. so reznor should be careful of tossing 9 inch nails in glass houses.
"but he did create his music out of hard work"
Are you sure?
Yes. In the case of Trent Reznor, I am quite sure. It's not like he had no inspiration. It's that he created something new. That's why [many] posers and music fans alike love[d] NIN.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Losing respect for NIN right about now.
not quite.. He released it first on the downward spiral and it had a fucking awesome video too for teh single release.. Johhny Cash covered it ad changed the line "I wear my crown of shit" top "... crown of thorns), from what i gather it was a tribute to wife recently departed wife at the time. back from 1989's pretty hate machine through to the fragile( where it all started to get a bit crap) He was very influential on the Goth/industrial scene. Seems like he has VERY much become the very guy he used to rant about in his music. It was true when another poster mentioned he was better out his tits on drugs... he really was... now he's just a fucking total sellout. yeah.. middle aged goth ehre.. Dj'd on the scene for years before not enough fucks were given really.
All true, but why should any of this surprise you? His music was always full of self-loathing, in fact it features prominently on "Hurt." So a guy who hates himself has finally managed to turn himself into something different - it's exactly what one would expect. It's just unfortunate for us all that the new Trent happens to be a music industry lapdog asshole, and doubly unfortunate that the new Trent can't seem to compose truly relevant music anymore, but hey, whatever works, right? The transition appears to be working for him on a personal level, so it's all good.
The constant huckstering by record companies, and the trying to extract license fees amounts to little more than modern day piracy. Looking at the dictionary definition of piracy, I think record companies more than qualify. Before we worry about youtube, let's sort out the whole nonsense of extracting license fees for music by middle men, by making it illegal to take money for electronic distribution, which has essentially no cost. If composers don't want to distribute content on youtube, then they are loosing valuable free advertising. Any such people should just shut up, and go away. I don't want their music, and I don't want to be contributing to their copyright maximalist agenda.
Dude, they're just following your advice.
[...]she will never be the Almond brothers[...]
Hah. Then again, neither will The Allman Brothers Band...
Trent is missing the forest for the trees.
Let's ask Trent whose back his work is built on.
That was addressed in head like a hole..
The answer is "The backs of the bruised"
Trent is clearly "Not one to choose"
You can't take that away from him.
This is an age old technic not invented by the Internet. The colonial countries like England and Spain imposed very strict property laws in the colonies were virtually everything was stolen content (land, water, animals). This is how they hour that big. Like Google and YouTube and Microsoft etc. Same old story.
Once something exists it will be given away for free.
Stop bitching and just accept it.
1) Who, exactly is "Trent Reznor" anyway... I dont't really feel like googling the name, but would guess that is is an actual person because it sounds like something that an editor would counsel an author not to use in a work of fiction.
2) Having established that one T. Reznor in fact exists, why is his opinion interesting ?
3) Even if interesting, why on Slashdot... is Resnor (Resnor? I forget...) a Nerd?
4) My Post-as-AC 'CAPCHA' challenge is "travesty"... Is that Interesting, Insightful or perhaps Prophetic?
TrollFlame... OFF!
Johnny Cash....
I just love his hydraulic press channel.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
As in subject.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
1) Trent Reznor is a talented musician/songwriter/producer who made (the existing genre) of industrial music wildly more popular in the late 80's / early 90's. His work and style was distinctive, his own and was much copied by later artists. He's had multi-platinum albums, toured extensively, founded his own record label, fallen out with record labels, had many tracks featured on more video games and movies than most people realise, and released some of his work and original materials for free back in a time when this was still unheard of. He's gone on to write and produce with many, many other artists.
2) His opinion on the topic he's commenting on is interesting because he's extremely well qualified to comment on it, far more so than most, in fact. However, the original interview has been turned into clickbait by suggesting that he said something that he didn't, and Slashdot has played along with that and gone chasing after a completely different subject (nobody bothers to read the original article anyway).
3) No idea, he worked extensively with electronics. So.. maybe? In his own field? Who knows; it's all clickbait anyway.
4) The response is contained in my own Post-as-AC CAPCHA, "deserves"
God money I'll do anything for you.
Then you'd make your own comments on the disassembly. This already happens underground (see SMBDis), and in a world without copyright, it'd just become above-board.
In a really copyright-free world I'd be able to grab Emacs' source code, add some modifications and redistribute the binary blob without providing source code.
In a world without copyright, someone would disassemble your binary blob, find your changes, and send them back upstream to Emacs maintainer John Wiegley.
If you aren't deliberately trying to copy something, the possibility space of music is fucking vast.
Let me calculate how vast. There are seven notes in any given key of the Western musical scale, and a note can be short or long, for a total of 7 * 2 = 14 possibilities. The pitch and duration of the last note don't matter because a melody can be transposed to end on any note, and its duration is meaningless without a following onset. Thus the eight-note "hook" of your piece has seven intervals from one note to the next. With 14 possibilities per interval, this gives 14^7 = 105.4 million hooks. And only a small fraction of these will be musically pleasing.
Now compare this to the size of BMI's repertoire alone. It currently exceeds 10.5 million songs, not even counting ASCAP and SESAC. That's a one in ten chance.
Just make something and if it's got some complexity it'll be different.
So in your opinion, did George Harrison lose the Bright Tunes case because "My Sweet Lord" lacked "some complexity"? Or should he have just pulled All Things Must Pass from the market once notified of the mistake?
It might even benefit society in the end to have ever-increasing copyright terms, if it keeps the GPL strong. We talk about losing our shared cultural history if we can't reuse copyrighted material but most of that was shit anyway and if we just let it fade maybe we can create something new.
Until the owner of copyright in a decades-old "shit anyway" work sues a later author for accidental copyright infringement, as I mentioned earlier. The looming threat of such a lawsuit may discourage people from attempting to "create something new." See "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson.
While I would concur with Mr. Reznor, there is a lot of music that can no longer be purchased or easily found to purchase. I'm thinking for example, early 70s French Progressive Rock or Progressive rock in general. Old 50's Jazz, etc. Try finding those records/CD's etc. Or perhaps 30's classical music from Russia or England, etc. The devil is in the details and he should understand that.
"Yes, there are bands, but their name is registered IP so we are not at liberty to name them."
What is their latest album?"
Also trade marked, and we cannnot tell you unless you pay to hear their name.
Do you have any samples of their music?
Sorry sir, you will have to buy their album in order to hear their music"
"But I might not like it!"
" So what?"
"Never mind"
"Fucking pirates are destroying the music industry!"
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
that's only because youtube won't let people post porn
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Trent, I think there are some good videos on YouTube that will explain to you what an IPO actually is. While you are at it, look for "Terms of Service" and read the section about "Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
The great thing about the tracks just being played directly from the CD while playing the game was that you could leave any CD in the drive and it would play them instead. I substituted the Nine Inch Nails Quake CD for an imported version of Nine Inch Nails Further Down The Spiral, which worked even better as it actually made some levels seem even more scary and evil.
He is not wrong. Meet the new boss - same as the old boss.
Listen to yourselves whine. You all want something for nothing. Go get a job instead of jerking off with your cell phone all fucking day. You might feel differently if you actually had to work for something.
Looks like the worlds only Skinny Puppy fan is still suffering from sour grapes!
Trent got his start by ripping off skinny puppy . . .
"Last time I was here, I was doing a lot of complaining about the ridiculous prices of CDs down here. And that story got picked up and got carried all around the world and now my record label all around the world hates me, because I yelled at them, I called them out for being greedy fucking assholes. I didn't get a chance to check, has the price come down at all? I see a no, a no, a no... Has anyone seen the price come down? Okay, well, you know what that means - STEAL IT. Steal away. Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin'. Because one way or another these motherfuckers will get it through their head that they're ripping people off and that that's not right." Source
love me some almond bros.