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."
Radio isn't fair?
Log in or piss off.
This is the sort of thing people on slashdot always say until someone rips of open source code without giving changes back...
Or until they have had their own work stolen and then it is somehow a different story.
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.
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.
He wrote one of Johnny Cash's best songs.
I think the biggest issue is the expansion of 'IP'. Culture builds on what comes before it, it always has and always will. However in 'modern' times we (or more specifically companies) keep trying to lock culture away behind walls of laws about 'IP'. Culture however will do as culture always does and build on what has come before, laws be damned. I have news for the companies as well: Culture will win in the end.
Though I personally find Trent's comments funny since Youtube's copyright claim system is so badly abused that certain youtuber's, like Jim Sterling, can get companies to fight over the IP shown in brief snippests (most of which is review or satire and so technically protected) within their videos. Look up Jim's 'Copyright Deadlock' video as an example. Or heck look into E3 videos based on the Twitch streams. ItmeJP commented that his Youtube videos got multiple claims within minutes of being uploaded even though the video stream was provided to commentators for use.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
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.
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.
Trent has been purchased by Apple, and they are just realizing value out of owning him.
Apple has declared war on 'free content on the internet' and are striving to make everything of significance cost money. They can't do this without tearing down every other business model, and as always at Apple (going all the way back to the Apple II clone/compatible makers who they ran out of business, and the multiple 'Windowing System' makers who they ran out of business, handing the platform ownership to deep-pockets Microsoft in the process) lawyers will be wielded against anybody who doesn't do things 'The Apple Way.'
People act like there isn't a reason some of us fucking hate Apple.