Katy,Xtina + More push for anti-piracy law reforms

[Haroon 49,685]

22 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

As always, it's the millionaires who are shouting the loudest. The artists who have several houses, several cars, yacht, private jet, designer gear, the latest gadgets, world vacations...and they still want more. In the words of Gaga, "How much money do these people really need?" Notice how the poorer artists don't really speak up? Because they appreciate any support of their music, even if they're not always getting top dollar for it. They know their stuff being out there for free can be one of the best forms of promo. They're the ones who illegal downloading harms and yet they just get on with it. But the ones who have more money than they'll ever spend in a lifetime are the ones kicking up a fuss. They can't afford a gold plated swimming pool, it'll have to be a regular one. Cry me a freakin' river.

Well, Gaga wouldn't because she's said before that it doesn't bother her, but I'd say the same thing no matter who said it. I have no time for greedy, complaining millionaires. Thankfully, most other people don't either, which is why the majority of these big ideas don't go anywhere.

The smaller artists don't really speak up because they don't have a big enough voice or platform to. The bigger artists speaking out about this helps the smaller artists, and it also helps the other people involved with the album that don't have their name in the spotlight.

Also, what's wrong with the rich being given money that they deserve for their workt?  They should shut up and not say anything because they're rich so it's totally okay to take their things for free?  

[StrawberryBlond 14,866]

30 minutes ago, Haroon said:

The smaller artists don't really speak up because they don't have a big enough voice or platform to. The bigger artists speaking out about this helps the smaller artists, and it also helps the other people involved with the album that don't have their name in the spotlight.

Also, what's wrong with the rich being given money that they deserve for their workt?  They should shut up and not say anything because they're rich so it's totally okay to take their things for free?  

Not every small artist keeps quiet, though. Now, social media gives them a platform to vent and they can go viral because of it. Most of them are totally cool about their music being streamed for free. They'd rather that than have it be like the old days where their music would exist purely in physical form, on a forgotten shelf in a record store, nobody knowing it exists. Now the online world opens up people to a whole new realm of music that they wouldn't have discovered back then. Listening to it for free can turn into a concert ticket which can turn into a record sale. The smart ones know how it works these days and are grateful for it.

Point is, this is a job these big names are being paid millions for. If you get paid $10 million a year and suddenly are getting paid $9 million, you'd be a bit perplexed, but you'd move on, since you'd be rolling in it. What difference is a couple million here and there going to make to these people? They already have everything they could want and more - what else are they going to buy with these millions they make every year? Also, being a singer isn't a fixed wage like normal people. Some years, they make more, some years, they make less, depending on their success. So there isn't a benchmark that they go "Oh, I should have earned more than this." It's a business where there's no guarantees, including wages. They're just greedy. There's so much music we're made aware of nowadays - how are we supposed to buy it all? Buying your favourite and streaming everyone else is the way that a normal person has to function now. How dare these artists try to take our rights away from us because we don't have endless amounts of money to spend like them! Music is an art form that everyone should be given the right to hear, including for free. It's just how the art form operates (hearing it on the radio in passing, watching a promo performance on tv, etc). If these crybabies had their way, there'd be no music played, anywhere. Then they'd wonder why their funds were drying up! Guess what, nobody knows your new work exists as you don't allow it to be freely available!

[Jed 7,716]

1 hour ago, BrianxRyan said:

That has nothing to do with her and was not brought up in court. It could be very well that he did not rape her. Whatever the case Katy is not obligated to do anything just because Kesha is a celebrity. She's probably not even friends with the girl. Everyone including celebrities do not have to speak on something. I'm so sick of you guys saying this. There's nothing wrong with Katy not opening her mouth. Use your own voices. If you do not feel that your voice or the other celebrities that spoke out is enough, that says a lot about you and not Katy Perry.

So because I don't think enough people were upset about an alleged rapists actions I'm in some way not a good person? Seems a bit backwards to me. I fee the same way about this I did about Nicki Minaj and Drake during the meek mill beef.. If Nicki really thought so highly of drake she should've publicly defended him. Using your voice publicly is a strong thing and Katy's voice means more in the industry than mine does. Katy uses her voice for piracy laws, which in itself is fine, but her decision to not use it during such an important time is a bit telling.

[Whispering 18,865]

4 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Buying your favourite and streaming everyone else is the way that a normal person has to function now. How dare these artists try to take our rights away from us because we don't have endless amounts of money to spend like them! Music is an art form that everyone should be given the right to hear, including for free. It's just how the art form operates (hearing it on the radio in passing, watching a promo performance on tv, etc). If these crybabies had their way, there'd be no music played, anywhere. Then they'd wonder why their funds were drying up! Guess what, nobody knows your new work exists as you don't allow it to be freely available!

You've made this exact argument before and it has been explained to you that the music people hear on the radio, on tv or even in stores is not something that is given away for free. Advertisers have paid for the radio and tv air time. Also, streaming services are paid for by subscriptions or by advertisers. 

If these "crybabies had their way", their music would still be played on radio, tv shows, in stores, and on paid streaming services. Your argument here isn't how it works. 

[HauntingHollow 4,310]

as if anybody wanted to pirate their music 

[Haroon 49,685]

34 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Not every small artist keeps quiet, though. Now, social media gives them a platform to vent and they can go viral because of it. Most of them are totally cool about their music being streamed for free. They'd rather that than have it be like the old days where their music would exist purely in physical form, on a forgotten shelf in a record store, nobody knowing it exists. Now the online world opens up people to a whole new realm of music that they wouldn't have discovered back then. Listening to it for free can turn into a concert ticket which can turn into a record sale. The smart ones know how it works these days and are grateful for it.

Point is, this is a job these big names are being paid millions for. If you get paid $10 million a year and suddenly are getting paid $9 million, you'd be a bit perplexed, but you'd move on, since you'd be rolling in it. What difference is a couple million here and there going to make to these people? They already have everything they could want and more - what else are they going to buy with these millions they make every year? Also, being a singer isn't a fixed wage like normal people. Some years, they make more, some years, they make less, depending on their success. So there isn't a benchmark that they go "Oh, I should have earned more than this." It's a business where there's no guarantees, including wages. They're just greedy. There's so much music we're made aware of nowadays - how are we supposed to buy it all? Buying your favourite and streaming everyone else is the way that a normal person has to function now. How dare these artists try to take our rights away from us because we don't have endless amounts of money to spend like them! Music is an art form that everyone should be given the right to hear, including for free. It's just how the art form operates (hearing it on the radio in passing, watching a promo performance on tv, etc). If these crybabies had their way, there'd be no music played, anywhere. Then they'd wonder why their funds were drying up! Guess what, nobody knows your new work exists as you don't allow it to be freely available!

I'm not sure why you've gone into talking about online VS physical when this is about piracy  Having the online world doesn't excuse piracy, there are ways to purchase music online or even stream legally. Listening to it for free via streaming is very different to pirating, don't get them muddled up  

You completely avoided what I said about it not being about the one in the spotlight, the ones outside of that may not be being paid millions upon millions and it definitely makes a difference to them. It's also not our place to say "you don't need more money, you already have X + Y + Z", one man's trash is another man's treasure  What they choose to do with their money is their decision, not yours. 

"How dare these artists try to take our rights away from us" - pirated material isn't a right  There are ways that people can listen to things for free (for us) with it still contributing money to them, but if an artist doesn't want to provide that then that's that really. Your whole argument comes off very entitled - it's their work so they'll set the value on it.

[Poot 719]

queens better not be missing any dimes

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

3 hours ago, Jed said:

So because I don't think enough people were upset about an alleged rapists actions I'm in some way not a good person? Seems a bit backwards to me. I fee the same way about this I did about Nicki Minaj and Drake during the meek mill beef.. If Nicki really thought so highly of drake she should've publicly defended him. Using your voice publicly is a strong thing and Katy's voice means more in the industry than mine does. Katy uses her voice for piracy laws, which in itself is fine, but her decision to not use it during such an important time is a bit telling.

At the end of Katy is a person. If I was famous especially not knowing the situation... I might not join the bandwagon.
Celebrities are human beings she does not owe anyone anything about alleged incidents and a bad contract. I do not know why you guys think like that... truly a groupthink mentality. That's all.

[StrawberryBlond 14,866]

23 hours ago, Whispering said:

You've made this exact argument before and it has been explained to you that the music people hear on the radio, on tv or even in stores is not something that is given away for free. Advertisers have paid for the radio and tv air time. Also, streaming services are paid for by subscriptions or by advertisers. 

If these "crybabies had their way", their music would still be played on radio, tv shows, in stores, and on paid streaming services. Your argument here isn't how it works. 

And my argument keeps getting misunderstood each time. I'm not talking about the people who have paid for the services, I'm talking about the people who HEAR it. You can be at a friend's house and they play music in the background - you've heard it for free. You can be at a cafe and the radio plays a song - you've heard it for free. You can watch tv with your parents (which you're not paying the license on) and see an artist promoting their new song on a tv show - you've heard it for free. You've got YouTube - no explanation needed. I hear music for free in legal forms everywhere I go. That's how music works. It's always the way its worked. Naturally, people will always look for ways to get free music. It's the way it's always going to be. No point trying to fight it. The best way is to work with them, not against them. That's why Vevo was founded - it pays money to the artists for so many views and suchlike. Same with free streaming. And so far, its been really effective. Much better than playing whack a mole, as mentioned before. Unless there's something really seriously illegal online, don't try to eradicate it because it's never going to work.

23 hours ago, Haroon said:

I'm not sure why you've gone into talking about online VS physical when this is about piracy  Having the online world doesn't excuse piracy, there are ways to purchase music online or even stream legally. Listening to it for free via streaming is very different to pirating, don't get them muddled up  

You completely avoided what I said about it not being about the one in the spotlight, the ones outside of that may not be being paid millions upon millions and it definitely makes a difference to them. It's also not our place to say "you don't need more money, you already have X + Y + Z", one man's trash is another man's treasure  What they choose to do with their money is their decision, not yours. 

"How dare these artists try to take our rights away from us" - pirated material isn't a right  There are ways that people can listen to things for free (for us) with it still contributing money to them, but if an artist doesn't want to provide that then that's that really. Your whole argument comes off very entitled - it's their work so they'll set the value on it.

I'm not supporting piracy, I'm supporting the idea of LISTENING to music for free. I gather that free streaming is legal, which is part of the point I'm making - if it's legal, don't try to end it. The public doesn't like that.

But my point is that the ones who it is affecting don't seem bothered. They're grateful. They're true artists, who aren't just about the money.

I didn't say pirated material was a right, I'm against that. I was saying listening to music for free is a right. It's not about being entitled - we won't know music exists and therefore won't buy it if it's not made known to us. That was the reason why I hardly listened, yes, LISTENED to music until the age of YouTube and streaming. If I don't know if it's any good, or even know it exists, why would I be interested? If you limit the ways your music is listened to, you'll end up poorer. Unless you're an insatiable businesswoman like Taylor Swift who can make her fans do whatever she tells them. It's the artists who are entitled, not us. They want their money? They need to make music for us and make it available in many formats. Above all, we need to try before we buy. Too many artists think they can get away with making good singles and not trying for the rest of the album. And its not just like this in the digital age, it's always been like this (seriously, try listening to some "classic" albums sometime). Streaming on the day it comes out can stop a regretted purchase. And these artists are crapping themselves over this and it's hilarious. You want money? Work hard to give us good material and not only will we stream it, we'll pay for it too. But don't respect us and don't try and don't be surprised when people won't buy your work.

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

On 4/2/2016 at 11:59 AM, Haroon said:

The smaller artists don't really speak up because they don't have a big enough voice or platform to. The bigger artists speaking out about this helps the smaller artists, and it also helps the other people involved with the album that don't have their name in the spotlight.

Also, what's wrong with the rich being given money that they deserve for their workt?  They should shut up and not say anything because they're rich so it's totally okay to take their things for free?  

The bold part I would think would be obvious. Everything you said is spot on.

[Arizonadream777 184]

On April 1, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Prismatic said:

A kiii and a cackle at some of the post. If Stefani did the same thing, almost every bottom would be like "yasssss Gaga, Queen of music, Queen of legal music". 

The problem is that you're a bottom to.

[Whispering 18,865]

5 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

And my argument keeps getting misunderstood each time. I'm not talking about the people who have paid for the services, I'm talking about the people who HEAR it. You can be at a friend's house and they play music in the background - you've heard it for free. You can be at a cafe and the radio plays a song - you've heard it for free. You can watch tv with your parents (which you're not paying the license on) and see an artist promoting their new song on a tv show - you've heard it for free. You've got YouTube - no explanation needed. I hear music for free in legal forms everywhere I go. That's how music works. It's always the way its worked. Naturally, people will always look for ways to get free music. It's the way it's always going to be. No point trying to fight it. The best way is to work with them, not against them. That's why Vevo was founded - it pays money to the artists for so many views and suchlike. Same with free streaming. And so far, its been really effective. Much better than playing whack a mole, as mentioned before. Unless there's something really seriously illegal online, don't try to eradicate it because it's never going to work.

I'm not supporting piracy, I'm supporting the idea of LISTENING to music for free. I gather that free streaming is legal, which is part of the point I'm making - if it's legal, don't try to end it. The public doesn't like that.

Yes, you hear it for free...but someone paid for it. Radio and "free streaming services" aren't free. Advertising is paying for these services. You get to hear the music for no cost, but the service is paid for in some way. That's why they can offer music "for free" to listeners....because advertisers are paying the bill. TV is paid for by advertising dollars, as well. Cable, Premium channels and services such as Netflex have a cost to the consumer. 

Free streaming is legal because of the advertisements that consumers see. 

This isn't difficult to understand. 

[Prismatic 4,789]

2 minutes ago, Igeekgaga said:

The problem is that you're a bottom to.

Receipts? 

[Arizonadream777 184]

58 minutes ago, Prismatic said:

Receipts? 

Every time you post.

[Prismatic 4,789]

54 minutes ago, Igeekgaga said:

Every time you post.