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."
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.
Radio isn't fair?
Log in or piss off.
All copyrighted content is built on the backs of stolen culture. Human rights > right to profit. At least one would hope.
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."
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
"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
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)
Made a breakthrough album in his free time while working as a studio engineer. Made some more important records. Legendary live performer. Made a couple of film soundtracks. Ran his own label. Had bust-ups with his labels. Told Australian fans to steal his album Year Zero because the prices in the shops were too high. Released an album under Creative Commons NC and made money off the deluxe editions. Released another project under "pay something or don't, up to you". Released an album for free online. Makes remix stems available to all and hosts a site for community remixes. He's probably one of the most qualified people out there to talk about music production and distribution. And Slashdotters are going to ignore that because they don't like what he's saying.
...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.
Was that before or after Apple thrust their mighty hand up his sockpuppet butthole?
I like Trent and I like a lot of the things he's done, but that doesn't mean he is always right about everything.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
He's not qualified to say that copying is theft because it isn't factually true.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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!
He got his attention and attained his success the 'old' way by grinding away until he got lucky.
Everybody is capable of making music. Unfortunately a lot of us just sit back and listen. Performers who get a 'breakthrough' were almost always get handed that from on high, after a ton of grinding.
YouTube and similar distribution forms remove a lot of barriers, and change things so 'getting lucky' isn't as important.
Getting a seat at the table doesn't quality somebody to talk about music production and distribution. Oh, right. Actually it does, under the current regime.
He wrote one of Johnny Cash's best songs.
Let's ask Trent whose back his work is built on.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
Actually, Johnny Cash covered one of Trents songs and made it something more than the usual self indulgent whine.
Everybody is capable of making music.
How is everybody capable of avoiding accidental infringement while doing so? If you write a song, and the song is substantially similar to one of the millions of songs in the BMI and ASCAP repertories, and the owner of copyright in one of those older songs shows in court that you have heard or reasonably should have heard the older song, then your song infringes copyright in the older song. The key case for accidental infringement is Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.
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...
> 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.
So you're ten years old AND your mother won't let you use any search engines?
I am sure it is rough for you now, kid, but believe me when I say "It gets better." When you are a little older and your mom let's you use Google you won't believe how easy things will become! In the meantime, here, have a peppermint...
"I was there" and I still think that Reznor is a no talent nobody.
He's the perfect example of an old has been that can't cut it so he needs to lash out. Either that or he was always a crass corporate sell out.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
He wrote one of Johnny Cash's best songs.
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.
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*
"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.
He's part of Nine Inch Nails and write most of their music. If you don't know then either you must be young.
not quite he IS Nine Inch Nails.. any other band members are just for playing live
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.
Exactly. Pirated music has always been a red herring. The real threat of the web has always been user generated content including silly cat videos.
The real threat of the Internet is cat videos.
The music industry still thinks they have a monopoly in mobile devices.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.'"
And Slashdotters are going to ignore that because they don't like what he's saying.
Slashdotters are going to ignore it because it's not relevant; what's on topic today is what he said in the Guardian, and that (at least in part) is bullshit. All his previous deeds, good or bad, don't make his claims that "youtube is built on the back of stolen content" or that "any free-tier service is not fair" true.
Before youtube, pretty much all video content that we watched came via tv and movie studios. With youtube, now anyone can be a tv presenter. When I want to fix something, the first thing I do is go on youtube and find a video of somebody showing me how to do it. When I want to buy something, I go on youtube and look for a video review, because nothing beats actually seeing something in action. People can write and preform songs in their bedroom and broadcast them to the world on youtube. I personally like to watch various nutters building and testing dangerous inventions in their backyard, stuff that you'd really never have seen pre-youtube. And on and on. We bandy about words like "disruptive" and "transformative" far too cheaply these days, but youtube actually deserves those adjectives. Sure, some copyright-infringing content may get put up there from time to time, but that certainly isn't central to what makes youtube great.
And as for "any free-tier service is not fair"; while I can see how that would seem the case from the artist/music industry perspective, it's disingenuous. Pre-internet, it cost money to produce, distribute and retail the physical records/tapes/CDs that music was disseminated on, and that was where the money was made. With the advent of the internet, the fact is that it costs virtually nothing to distribute a song or album to millions of people. This fact means that it simply does not make any sense to try and apply the pre-Internet business model to the post-Internet world. Change can seem unfair, but we all have to deal with it when reality imposes it on us. The music industry is adapting to the post-Internet world, and re-evaluating where and how the money is to be made, but artists and industry people that have been around long enough to remember the old days still find it hard to get their heads around it. They will adjust in time.
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?
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!
Now, sometimes I whistle when I am alone, and run songs through my head silently, but music is for the most part a social action. We all hum the tunes we've heard, then augment and rearrange the notes. It is ALWAYS a matter of copying.
Business people insert themselves into the process and try to meter and measure everything. Ostensibly this is to facilitate a distribution network, because those darn expensive vaccum tubes in the recording studio don't make themselves, ya know.
The distribution cost and the barrier to enter the distribution network has flattened tremendously. Since everybody can make music, it's time to jettison a whole lot of the rent seekers trying to block our access to the infrastructure.
Nah, he's qualified to say that copying is not theft, because the US Supreme Court ruled as such, and the law is the law, and the US is the primary party lobbying anti-piracy bullshit in the world (which makes this ruling all that more important and valid):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States
You are just being a contrarian pseudo-intellectual wuss. Get with the times.
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.
Reznor should be ignored just based on that alone.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
But he's not wrong that youtube was built mostly on copyrighted works. Once it was large enough, other content started making its way there, but the growth factor was copyrighted works compared to numerous other services available. Now the real question is whether that was largely fair use or was it full copies in violation of copyright? I'd say quite of bit of the former initially, but then more and more of the latter showed up as its popularity grew.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
He had permission to use the studio. This is quite well-known.
Re: copying and success, he did the giveaway albums after the multi-platinum record and before the Hollywood soundtracks so... I don't really understand what you're trying to say?
Made a breakthrough album in his free time while working as a studio engineer. Made some more important records. Legendary live performer. Made a couple of film soundtracks. Ran his own label. Had bust-ups with his labels. Told Australian fans to steal his album Year Zero because the prices in the shops were too high. Released an album under Creative Commons NC and made money off the deluxe editions. Released another project under "pay something or don't, up to you". Released an album for free online. Makes remix stems available to all and hosts a site for community remixes. He's probably one of the most qualified people out there to talk about music production and distribution. And Slashdotters are going to ignore that because they don't like what he's saying.
I'm seeing a lot of hipocracy. "Released ... free, told fans to steal it because... released under CC, pay something or don't". Now he's complaining about competing with free, when he's released his own stuff free (or near free) for years.
you have heard or reasonably should have heard
Fucking ridiculous.
Sounds like comic book super villainy. In a world where the corrupt 0.01% churn out new music, shows and movies to cover off as many unique ideas as possible and pump it all into everybody's head (or enough people to write off outliers as liars) so they can penalize anyone who claims to have an idea of their own. Great way to keep the populace locked up or indebted or just prevent them from ever thinking for themselves.
Good citizens sit idly by and let the media powers that be pump their focus group approved bullshit into their head.
The sheer amount of popular media, in all forms, that I have never bore witness to and some asshole lawyer/judge is just gonna sit there on his fat ass and say "well (everybody else has because it's constantly being broadcast) you probably did so your own creative work that happens to be kinda similar is a no-no". I must be a terrorist.
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.)
Yeah, but it's +2, Troll, which is always cool. :)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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.
LOL! it's a very vibrant scene with some quality music and bands.If you hate Reznor then you'll really hate Skinny Puppy.. so i suggest you look em up! LOL
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.
Nah, I don't really have a beef with Reznor's music, or industrial. I had a goth girlfriend back in the day though, and it put me off black eye shadow and tattoos permanently. She's an evangelical Christian now and posts cute sayings and bible verses on Facebook.
I like the NIN ambient stuff, too.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No because his music was irrelevant and derivative of what people did before, during, and after. The Britney Spears of his time.
Actually he is when Google pulls down content when they are notified. But can we talk about Trent's contract dispute with TVT Records and Interscope.
Don't forget to mention that he posted some of his own material to The Pirate Bay in 2006, most notably the DVDs for Broken and Closure that have never seen an official release.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Please do not compare that poser to Skinny Puppy.
The Britney Spears of his time...
He was famous? To what all of three people Cleveland?
Soundtrack to "The Social Network" film.
Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
Oh Snap!
How the times have changed...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I think a lot of what you said is true AND contributes to the reason that today there is such a dearth of good music to listen to, and keep and cherish and remember for more than a day or two...
It started with musicians and bands lifting from other artists of the past, and using it to build and move forward on.
You had Rock and Roll come from country and blues....Chuck Berry lifted his guitar sound and licks from his piano player (hence the strange reason so many of Chuck's songs are in piano keys)....groups like the Stones took Chucks work and with the older Delta bluesmen, and packaged it into something new. Zeppelin, took from the old blues guys and gave us heavy blues rock.
This patten continued and you got an evolution of music, until something about the yearly 90's I'd say....and this evoluton music, for whatever reason....stopped.
Something just changed...I know there are lots of factors, like the splintering of f few genres into hundreds of them. I think rap had something to do with it personally (you may like it, but I consider the words "rap" and "music" to be mutually exclusive terms, but that's just my opinion)....where you went from people actually singing and playing their own instruments...to just shouting, and sampling other musicians' music ...nothing really as original really as from in the past when they nicked or lifted licks from other musicians of the past.
It just isn't the same....and I think that loss of continuity just left future artists kind of lost. They don't have solid roots any more.
I do seem some trying t change that...reaching back to where the gap started and trying to grap a little of that and make it their own, but there is a long road to go before we ever see the type of music and musicians that are going to be able to put out music for the ages, that people will be listening to for the next 20-50 years after release.
I mean...I can still hear Beatles songs today, and anticipate I will far into the future (like we hear Mozart). Will anyone even know a Katy Perry song in 10 years from now? Will they know who Katy Perry was?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
He did some work for movies as well. His soundtrack to the Social Network was quite effective and he shared a Best Score Academy Award with Atticus Ross.
Plus, the song he wrote for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo makes for one of the better music videos I've seen.
call the wahmbulance. next!
Re: copying and success, he did the giveaway albums after the multi-platinum record and before the Hollywood soundtracks so... I don't really understand what you're trying to say?
He's trying to say that Trent is being hypocritical. That "it was ok when I did it, but not when you do it." He's outright encouraged fans to "copy" because he wanted them to screw over his label, but he can't stand it if others do it.
I know how musicians can survive - the same way they did for thousands of years prior to the advent of recording - it's called performing. Yup, it requires on-going work so it's probably a bummer for some of the artist types. Still, it's how the vast majority of the world earns their keep. I mean, I'd love to do something for my company and then have it pay me for that thing for the rest of my life (and then continue to do so for my estate), but that just isn't how most of the world works. Lame.
You are talking now. Just because Google pulls it down now doesn't mean youtube did prior to the Google acquisition. IIRC, Google added the take down mechanism post youtube purchase, and prior to that it was pretty shoddy.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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.
If you copied my song without being authorized by me, ... you took away my ability to control who copies it
Who cares? Whenever somebody is granted monopoly privilege it should certainly be "stolen" in this manner.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
No it isn't hypocrisy - there's a huge difference between _choosing_ to do something with ones work and having others choosing to do something with ones work.
Why is it that a patent only gives you a few precious years to earn your money back while requiring a LOT more investment
Because there are a lot more business interests involved that need patents to expire so they can be used to make more products.
Copyright expiration let's people use old copyrighted works for free.
Really not many moneyed interests to benefit from copyright going to public domain.
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.
more im ignoring him because his rant is pointless. its always the pirates doing music has simply died off in its old form. does you tube still get pirated stuff of course but its also full of animal videos, memes, documentary, reviews, and original content. to say you tubes sole reason for being so huge is due to some pirated cd is dumb.
"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.'"
That's the joke.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Something just changed...I know there are lots of factors, like the splintering of f few genres into hundreds of them. I think rap had something to do with it personally (you may like it, but I consider the words "rap" and "music" to be mutually exclusive terms, but that's just my opinion)....where you went from people actually singing and playing their own instruments...to just shouting, and sampling other musicians' music
Yeah, what happened is that education was dismantled in America, and schools didn't have money for music programs. So rapping and beat boxing came out of not having any other outlet for musical talent. Whether rap is music is irrelevant, although some styles clearly are. Rap isn't the first musical style to feature people speaking the words rather than singing them.
If we want more new music, we're going to have to reinvest in music education.
I mean...I can still hear Beatles songs today, and anticipate I will far into the future (like we hear Mozart). Will anyone even know a Katy Perry song in 10 years from now? Will they know who Katy Perry was?
Yes. You will hear her in the supermarket. That is where old, bad music goes to linger on forever instead of dying. Her most popular songs will probably even be rearranged as muzak and played in elevators.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, Johnny Cash covered one of Trents songs and made it something more than the usual self indulgent whine.
Yeah, now it's a really slow self indulgent whine
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
And Slashdotters are going to ignore that because they don't like what he's saying.
In my opinion just as an ad hominem attack against a person's position is wrong, ad hominem support for their position is wrong to. Bad guy who says something good is still a bad guy, and they still said something good. Good buy says something bad is still a good guy, and they still said something bad.
Note: I am neither arguing for or against what Reznor has said, just stating that I think you're committing an argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy by implying Slashdot readers are wrong and should support what Reznor says today because of what he has done yesterday.
Dude, they're just following your advice.
I said he is qualified to talk about these issues, not that he is infallible on them. Obviously the remarks themselves are fair game. The Slashdot readers I intended to criticise are those posting "lol what does this joker know" and assuming he's a standard clueless industry guy because he happens to align with them on this issue.
then you should have a listen to Skinny Puppy then bud. there were a big influence on Reznor as were Cabaret Voltaire and the likes. .. shite.. i am showing my age now with that :P
hmm
Me and the Mrs still very gothy but more chilled about it really as happens when yer fartage gets old!
I am not comparing them.. I am saying they were a big influence and some would say he ripped off much of their sound.
I'll take skinny Puppy over NIN any day of the week.
I'm actually more of a Einstürzende Neubauten kind of guy, but Red Mecca is good stuff.
You are welcome on my lawn.
BREAK THOSE BUILDINGS! their last album "Lament" was absolutely brilliant
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?
Because Disney aren't in the patent game.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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...
Metallica weren't doing it because Apple were paying them to. Trent, apparently, is. So probably worse TBH. Especially seeing as he has a different opinon on record from before.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Made a breakthrough album in his free time while working as a studio engineer. Made some more important records. Legendary live performer. Made a couple of film soundtracks. Ran his own label. Had bust-ups with his labels. Told Australian fans to steal his album Year Zero because the prices in the shops were too high. Released an album under Creative Commons NC and made money off the deluxe editions. Released another project under "pay something or don't, up to you". Released an album for free online. Makes remix stems available to all and hosts a site for community remixes. He's probably one of the most qualified people out there to talk about music production and distribution. And Slashdotters are going to ignore that because they don't like what he's saying.
And now he whinges about YouTube because Apple pay him money to. Way to go Trent.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
How is everybody capable of avoiding accidental infringement while doing so?
With ease.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You say the steps to ensure originality are easy. What are these easy steps, exactly?
There are no steps. If you aren't deliberately trying to copy something, the possibility space of music is fucking vast. Just make something and if it's got some complexity it'll be different.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.
Presumably the longer term of copyright balances out the independent re-creation defense. Independent reinvention is not a defense to patent infringement, whereas independent re-creation is in theory a defense to copyright infringement. (But in practice, circumstantial evidence for the alleged infringer's access to a work, such as a song's having been played on broadcast radio, makes this defense more difficult to pull off.)
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.
Who gives a fuck, I get to watch stuff free, that's all I care about.