Nine Inch Nails' Trent Reznor: YouTube is built on the back of stolen content

[Theinsanegamer]

What is the difference in people discovering new music from services like YouTube or hearing something new on the radio that they may have never heard before? If anything, I would think YouTube would give more people the opportunity to be discovered. I'm not personally in the industry, so maybe there is more to it than I understand.

When it was on the radio, you'd be like, "whoa, I like that!" The D.J. would then tell you the name of the song and the artist, and if you wanted to hear it again, you'd go to the record store and buy the album.
With Youtube, it's on demand, anytime you want it, no purchase required.

Shill detected.

Today, you listen to it on youtube, go "woah, I like that", go onto amazon and find they have a CD with more music, and buy it. Not everyone has unlimited data wherever they go. Or continue to watch it on youtube, supporting them with the ads that play before videos. Patreon is also becoming a popular way to fund independent content creators as well.

The people who only stream music and never buy it are the same kind of people who never bought music before. They would rip borrowed CDs or just not bother, or would pirate it. They wouldnt go "Oh, its not on youtube anymore, better go buy it!"

If an artist cant sell their work without restrictive DRM and mega corporations dictating what they do, their work is probably complete trash anyway. The talented artists on youtube somehow find themselves making a LOT of money. The old dinosaurs that cant adapt, just like the movie and gaming industry, will cry and whine that technology is crushing their innovation, while actual talented artists making actual art, not making whatever a label wants them to make, will thrive in the new environment.

 

[Tommy Peru]

What is the difference in people discovering new music from services like YouTube or hearing something new on the radio that they may have never heard before? If anything, I would think YouTube would give more people the opportunity to be discovered. I'm not personally in the industry, so maybe there is more to it than I understand.

Why aren't there and video stores? Why aren't there any record stores? Why are magic stores closing?
That's right, magic tricks. What were once a big secret, are pretty much over. ALL BECAUSE OF DOWNLOADING.
Because the internet and downloading has pretty much made it so that nobody wants to pay for information.
Free isn't great. Nobody values free.

 

[Raoul Duke]

While I don't like how many 'content' providers act (music biz notorious for ripping off artists, DVD/Blu-ray region codes etc) many people are uploading stuff that is ripping people off. Then they rip you off trying to watch the ripped off stuff with the ads you see and then find out you've been duped and the content isn't there. But seriously people shouldn't upload whole albums etc unless as someone pointed out, the stuff isn't out there anymore to buy even if you wanted to.

 

[jalmos]

What is the difference in people discovering new music from services like YouTube or hearing something new on the radio that they may have never heard before? If anything, I would think YouTube would give more people the opportunity to be discovered. I'm not personally in the industry, so maybe there is more to it than I understand.

What is the difference in people discovering new music from services like YouTube or hearing something new on the radio that they may have never heard before? If anything, I would think YouTube would give more people the opportunity to be discovered. I'm not personally in the industry, so maybe there is more to it than I understand.

When it was on the radio, you'd be like, "whoa, I like that!" The D.J. would then tell you the name of the song and the artist, and if you wanted to hear it again, you'd go to the record store and buy the album.
With Youtube, it's on demand, anytime you want it, no purchase required.

Shill detected.

Ignorance Detected.

Those "talented artists on youtube" that you believe make a bunch of money do exist. There's about a half dozen of them. And they're not paid for making music; they're paid for making music videos. Big difference.

That said...

I am constantly baffled by willfully ignorant people parroting this nonsense of 'well, if it's good you can sell it and you don't need some record company.'

What planet is it that you live on where, just because someone has musical talent, they are magically granted the additional skills of recording, engineering, marketing, videography and distribution - all before making a single dime to put food on the table while all of that gets played out?

Over here on earth, people struggle for years trying to get all that worked out, and 99% of them never make any money at it, no matter how talented they are. Some people on this planet think it might be nice if the half-trillion-dollar juggernaut company that owns YouTube didn't make it quite so easy for others to distribute their work for free.

 

[WizTekNet]

Trent Reznor hardly releases anything honestly NEW, what exactly is there to get a copy of? It's all old stuff he created almost 20yrs ago, sheesh... Guess u washed up Trent. Look out how many releases FLA did in your time span of greatness!

 

[Thrackerzod]

So musical innovator and brilliant guy Trent Reznor is a dinosaur, and we should accept Youtube making it impossible for many artists to make money releasing their music because of crappy bubble gum pop Justin Bieber. Check.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but musical innovator? Please...I haven't heard anything interesting from him in 20 years. Also I was using Bieber as one example of an artist who has made it big on Youtube, as much as I can't stand him or his music. It's not just "bubble gum pop" artists either, it's any genre you can imagine. There are tons of really great artists out there doing just fine with sites like Youtube and Bandcamp. The days of major record labels are coming to an end and if you can't get by as an artist in 2016 because of Youtube then you're either doing something very wrong or your music just isn't very good.

 

[mbrowne5061]

What is the difference in people discovering new music from services like YouTube or hearing something new on the radio that they may have never heard before? If anything, I would think YouTube would give more people the opportunity to be discovered. I'm not personally in the industry, so maybe there is more to it than I understand.

Radio stations have VERY strict song tracking policies, for the purpose of royalties. What the average listener calls a "playlist" is called a "log" in a radio station. This log determines what songs and commercials get played when, and how often. They both make sure every artist gets paid for every play, and make sure that various rules set forth by the copyright holder are followed. Some of these rules would be things like "no playing an entire album, track for track - even out of order or interrupted by DJ/commercials", or "no playing more than X-number of songs by Y-artist in a Z-time span". There was also no way to get 'just one song'. They offered rights like cable packages. "Want to play the latest song? Ok, you also need to pay for this other content you don't want as well". These were rules and compromises that took decades to hammer out between radio stations and content owners.

Youtube on the other hand, ignores each and every one of these rules. Whether you agree with youtube or Reznor, it still goes against established policies.

Personally, I agree with Reznor more than I agree with youtube. I think a good compromise would be youtube building a "library" of tracks that their users have the rights to play on their videos. If it is not in this "library", no more than 30 seconds of it can't be in a user's video. If they are an indie artist, they should be able to work out a deal with youtube to add their content to youtube's "library". Then anytime a song is added to a video, the video's description includes links to where the viewer can buy the song, and the uploader and content owner split the Ad and link profits.

If they could make this work, youtube could turn itself into the "Steam of the music industry". But having had to personally deal with content owners over licensing, this doesn't seem likely. They were some of the most pig-headed, uncompromising, and entitled individuals I've ever had the displeasure of working with.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]....Personally, I agree with Reznor more than I agree with youtube. I think a good compromise would be youtube building a "library" of tracks that their users have the rights to play on their videos. If it is not in this "library", no more than 30 seconds of it can't be in a user's video.

30 Seconds of anything is bulls***. Christ, Enya takes a good 2 minutes to put out anything besides and "oo" or an "ah", with some sludge from a synth in the background. I still have some integrity, and if I find an album I might want to buy, I'll hunt down the whole thing on YouTube listen to it, then buy it. I can't and won't speak for anyone else. Some people base their self worth on having half a million stolen tracks. They might not listen to it, might not like it, and might not give it away, but they have it. So what?

The time I'm from, you might get a Beatles's album with 10 out of 12 good tracks on it, but some of the other s*** which was going around, barely had the one hit which was listenable.

In fact you could hardly hear that track on the radio, as our local, "infatuated with the sound of his own voice" DJ, would run his mouth through the entire song, and then forget to credit the artist. (Google, Jerry Blavit, "the Geeter with the Heater") f******* a****** is more apt.

One big problem with a lot of "art" is that it only resonates with its creator. That said, of course they're going to be screaming they were ripped off. But, YouTube hits aren't dollar bills, sometimes people get the two concepts confused.

I won't even buy an Mp3, If there's enough material on a CD to make it worthwhile buying. Let's say, "at least half".

If they are an indie artist, they should be able to work out a deal with youtube to add their content to youtube's "library". Then anytime a song is added to a video, the video's description includes links to where the viewer can buy the song, and the uploader and content owner split the Ad and link profits.

If they could make this work, youtube could turn itself into the "Steam of the music industry". But having had to personally deal with content owners over licensing, this doesn't seem likely. They were some of the most pig-headed, uncompromising, and entitled individuals I've ever had the displeasure of working with.

Well, somebody else is claiming they have staff working 24/7 tracking down copyright issues. It is unfortunately very easy to sit on the sideline saying what should be done, and some of the "pig headedness" I presume, is Google not being willing to trade profits for employee salaries.

As far as it goes, the difference between "artists", and, "management", is an MBA. And an "MBA", is something I consider a "parasite's license".

 

[noc81]

Begs the question, which promotes piracy more.. a system where users can upload whatever, publishers can automatically flag anything that might be theirs via screen grabs and other tech, and anybody that can prove the content is theirs can claim a percentage of ad revenue; or a draconian publisher who has been proven to fix prices at any level, sues any competition on the grounds that their own product is inferior, and that tries to manipulate the market by creating a massive catalog of exclusive content and releases.

I've lost what little respect I have left for Reznor.. Gone is the radical artist who betrayed the recording industry by leaking his own content on TPB, insisting that music is an art, not a product, that should be freely enjoyed by all. In his place we have just another shill, who has abandoned his craft in favor of executive positions at the same evil behemoths he pledged to dismantle his entire career.

 

[noc81]

What is the difference in people discovering new music from services like YouTube or hearing something new on the radio that they may have never heard before? If anything, I would think YouTube would give more people the opportunity to be discovered. I'm not personally in the industry, so maybe there is more to it than I understand.

Why aren't there and video stores? Why aren't there any record stores? Why are magic stores closing?
That's right, magic tricks. What were once a big secret, are pretty much over. ALL BECAUSE OF DOWNLOADING.
Because the internet and downloading has pretty much made it so that nobody wants to pay for information.
Free isn't great. Nobody values free.

The reason record stores went to crap was the inflated pricing set by the publishers.. A cd may of costed 60c max to put together in bulk in the early 90s, yet record stores were forced to buy them for $15+. Even worse, they'd have to agree to contracts to get the music they actually wanted, being forced to purchase huge catalogs of pop garbage at full price, which they either had to sell or absorb the loss (publishers don't buy back unsold content -- even if it's their content to blame for going unsold). The publishers created an industry where the stores that relied solely on content sales got the shaft, as big box stores like Best Buy could negotiate cheaper purchases for thousands of stores at a time, and could afford to discount cd's to $10 or less when they were paying $12 or more, as they could make back plenty by selling electronics that have a much heftier profit margin.

That's the same reason video stores failed as well.. How can a mom and pop store compete when they have to spend $60+ on a dvd that could be purchased from Walmart for $15.

 

[Baldanders]

I won't write negatively of Trent Reznor as an artist. I've been a fan of NIN since its inception. I also like most of his recent releases. However, it is strange to hear a copyright rant from the same man who was a member of the old Oink tracker and at the time praised it as a vast musical library unlike anything previously available to music lovers.

 

[captaincranky]

I won't write negatively of Trent Reznor as an artist. I've been a fan of NIN since its inception. I also like most of his recent releases. However, it is strange to hear a copyright rant from the same man who was a member of the old Oink tracker and at the time praised it as a vast musical library unlike anything previously available to music lovers.

It would seem he unwittingly stumbled into the old, "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it", trap. (Like so many of the rest of us).

 

[lripplinger]

I'm not really getting the "Youtube built on the stolen free content" bit here entirely. Youtube is just a hub for content creators or otherwise to upload stuff. Youtube is of course going into other areas, including their own music service. But I imagine they pay for licensing to stream stuff, or I believe they have their own artists anyway? And isn't Youtube ad driven to make revenues? I guess you might be able to argue that they make revenue from the ads of free content uploaded by people...but...I don't know if that is valid or not?

 

[Ascaris]

Getting "signed" means giving up what...80% of what your music brings in..to the publisher? Why aren't artists talking about that?

They have, but a lot of them (like Trent Reznor) have their own labels now, for that reason exactly. He can control that because he's big enough to have a label of his own, but he can't control Youtube.

The "traditional" way was that the record label handled the promotion, sent the samples to radio stations, etc., and in exchange, got most of the money. The artist's real payday came from concerts. The more money the record label got (through album sales), the more people would want to go to a concert.

If that paradigm is still in place, it seems that some of the role of the label is fulfilled by Youtube-- whether the artist wishes or not. I can see the anger at having the stuff you worked hard to make being freely exchanged by people without your consent, and not all of it is about money: the point is that it is yours, you have a copyright, and people are just doing all of this stuff anyway.

On the other hand, if the artist still makes most of the money with concerts, Youtube will just broaden their appeal, and there is also the revenue from having their own Youtube channel, as most do. Having the unauthorized stuff out there would seem to reduce the number of hits on official videos, etc., when the same content is available from unauthorized sources.

 

[Heatshiver]

Says someone from a country built on the back of a stolen country...

 

[captaincranky]

Says someone from a country built on the back of a stolen country...

But isn't that true of most countries? Even if the land isn't stolen, the control of it, is, has been, or likely will be stolen at sometime in the future.

 

[yodecat]

while now music on youtube gives ad revenue to the right ppl because of content ID, in the past it wasn't like that.
as for radio, you have to licence the music before you play it.

Well, you sure do need a licence to play music on the radio! You need a separate one for streaming; if you have a restaurant, you need a licence to play music in your bar; if you have a speaker playing music on the street you need a separate licence for that as well. Pretty screwed up, yes?

You are paying licencing companies who supposedly keep track of the music being played and pay the royalties to the copyright holders. In actuality, however, they don't do a very good job for anyone but themselves. I could go on and on about copyrights, but I think I won't. Pisses me off too much.

 

[mito88]

Stolen?

remand all youtue users in custody!


steal: to secretly take something that belongs to someone else. Example: Burglars broke in and stole a computer
stolen: past participle of steal

to take: to get and carry something with you when you go somewhere.
Examples:
I always take my umbrella with me
To remove something without asking someone: Someone’s taken my coat!
To get hold of something and move it: He reached across and took the glass from her
To study a subject: He’s taking chemistry and physics


Ergo, youtube users are students.

 

[TeeJay]

Seriously... these "artists" are part of the "1%" that nutjobs like OWP protested against. Not that I'm a fan of Google. I'm not. But to hear these artists complain when they earn millions is well, downright greedy.

 

[captaincranky]

Seriously... these "artists" are part of the "1%" that nutjobs like OWP protested against. Not that I'm a fan of Google. I'm not. But to hear these artists complain when they earn millions is well, downright greedy.

I used to campaign on the part of copyright holders fairly vigorously.

However, after those same a** holes in Britain managed to have it made illegal to compile a mixed tape, I have no sympathy left for them. Zip, zero, zilch, nada.

Anyone with a product or service to sell seems to believe they are entitled to your "disposable income", in its entirety. Note that attaches to doctors, dentists, and your landlord, to name just a few actors. Well, "they can't all have it all". Not that you'll ever get that through their greedy heads.

 

[Panda218]

Sounds like another greedy old dinosaur needs to get with the times. Youtube is making artists these days, there is no need for record companies anymore. Like him or not Justin Bieber would not be a thing without Youtube and there are tons of other artists becoming famous and making big money solely because of Youtube.

So musical innovator and brilliant guy Trent Reznor is a dinosaur, and we should accept Youtube making it impossible for many artists to make money releasing their music because of crappy bubble gum pop Justin Bieber. Check.

Trent Reznor is a giant ****, you give him far too much credit.

 

[nomfdeplume]

Trent who? Seriously though the nin song with the most hits is Closer with 11,000,000. People like Psy, Katy Perry, Megan Trainor have songs with over a billion hits, and youtube pays someone in the music industry licensing fees so it's not free, stolen content. Someone is not happy with a smaller piece of the pie.