Gaga joins the War

[Swan Heart 7,382]

Honestly, I do think it's quite stupid.

But I don't want to judge Gaga or any of these artists since I have doubts on how much they have contributed to this decision themselves.. or it is just their label/team/whoever doing it. Especially the big names, I don't think this would be their job to do.

[DanMonster 185]

I haven't posted in here in ages but I feel like I need to now.

I seriously can't understand what all of your problems are with Gaga doing this. There are serious issues with the way music is now being consumed and the laws surrounding it now that the internet is such a huge part of everyone's lives. There needs to be changes in laws if we want the music industry to thrive (not just survive) for at least the next decade or so. 

I understand people think that hugely successful, rich artists just want to get richer but honestly you would be ridiculously cynical to think that every artist on that list just wants to get richer. Changing laws and how music is consumed is important for the smaller artists that want to make some kind of a living off of there music and many of these bigger artists are wanting to change laws or how there music is consumed to help that out.

As for some of you attacking Gaga (which seems to be a daily thing here now), I honestly can't believe you think she is selling out or going against what she has said in the past. Just because she cares more about art than money doesn't mean she is going to let the industry just disappear - she has stated before about how bad a state the industry is in. Seriously everyone just chill out for a minute these changes in the industry need to happen and there's nothing wrong with Gaga feeling there needs to be change! 

Sorry for the essay but I just felt I needed to post this because once again there is a huge overreaction and I'm sick of Gaga being slaughtered by some of you for simply wanting a change in the laws surrounding music consumption - like seriously chill out there is nothing wrong with what she did!

Please don't feel attacked by me if you were angry at Gaga for this but I'm seriously over the drama and feel like she needs to be defended in this fan base right now cause this is just getting rediculous.

 

[xeynuraf 191]

the days of people posting videos from performances and tours will be over. those i will miss.  

one of the artist who was really into copyright drama was prince. when he died it was difficult to find his stuff in most cases and millions of performances will never be seen again... only vivo stuff.

if this is what they want then it will suck for most of us who love music. oh well. more torrents then.

[Stewful2929 786]

13 minutes ago, Kinsey said:

I don't see a problem.  It's not greedy to claim copyright.  

How would a photographer feel if a studio artist used their reference photos without paying royalties?  I'd imagine they would be upset; and they can rightfully sue.

That's how a musician feels when people take to YouTube with their rightful material. 

 

4 minutes ago, jezze0410 said:

I am baffled by those who think she is contradicting herself.

"Music not the bling" was a statement of the purpose of her music-making, viz. she would make music due to music being her passion, and not change her music just to cater to public tastes or wherever the money might come from. It is not some anti-copyright mantra welcoming others to take her and other artists' works without payment.

One must also bear in mind that Youtube itself generates a huge amount of revenue from all the videos it hosts. As the platform grows, surely it is not unreasonable to demand that more of the revenue generated by their music returns to the original artists?

Here's the thing when people say "take" their art... It's not "taking" their art when the person isn't getting paid for it. So let's say some couple danced to a song at their wedding, is that legal? Where is the line is my thought 

[jezze0410 393]

1 minute ago, Domino said:

 

Here's the thing when people say "take" their art... It's not "taking" their art when the person isn't getting paid for it. So let's say some couple danced to a song at their wedding, is that legal? Where is the line is my thought 

The line, i.e. what constitutes fair use, is clearly defined. The information below is from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.

2. Nature of the copyrighted work.

3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.

4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Dancing to a song at a wedding would usually fall under fair use, unless it is somehow commercialised; a video of a couple dancing to a song at a wedding that becomes viral and starts generating revenue for the uploader of the video and Youtube would probably infringe on fair use.

The petition that Gaga signed ought not be at all controversial. They aren't calling for tougher copyright laws, merely that the existing ones are better upheld and loopholes closed.

 

[eifulien 2,961]

Such threads give so much food for the dumb and there are SO many here. Please think a bit before you start judging and acting like you're a professional and competent about every f*cking thing that happens.

As I understand it, this petition is not aimed at all at consumers. It's the artist against the corporation. So in that sense Gaga is just following what she's been about especially during ARTPOP. She didn't rant for fun. The petition is a wake-up call about the artist, big and small, losing power over their art, while some corporations and consumers are benefitting unfairly. 

Music not the bling is yet another thing 95% of you take out of context much like everyhting about ARTPOP. This statement is not related to not willing to make money at all. It's about preferring NOT to change/dumb down etc. your art, your statement for the sake of it being commercially successful. She is just saying - if I always have to make music for the charts, the sales, etc. and my voice gets lost in it, I'd rather go back to the bar, and I'd still be doing music and be happpy. And this is completely different from the aim of this petition. So please, Gaga signing it is a further step of deffending and standing up for what she believes in, not contradicting herself (this time!) 

Will any changes in this act affect the usage of content by users? I have no idea. I'm on the artists' side when it comes down to crushing the iron grip of the corporations, but I wouldn't want YouTubers see their rights of use limited. I think VEVO videos are legal and beneficial to the artist. But I'd also argue that people that speak about albums, like reactions, or using bits of songs in their videos doesn't harm them, it actually serves as a promo and yet another way to dicover new music. (One possible frustrating scenario for the consumer is if videos from tours and other events are taken down). If some of these artists believe that limiting the use of their music on YouTube would boost sales they're in for a big disappointment. People who use YT as a daily driver for music (does anybody actually use it that way?) won't buy the music anyway. There are torrents and many other options to get music for free.

[Morphine Prince 106,064]

LMFAO at the meltdowns  

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

Hmm i think this could be helpful in making sure the charts are as honest as possible

I know so many people who download songs from videos off youtube and put them on their computer.

I'm here for this.

 

[LanasNerfGun 4,679]

Everyone is so quick to call these artists greedy and money-hungry yet you all seem to forget about minor artists who are just starting out.  Let's say a indie artist's song goes viral and accumulated millions of views in a short time span, if the video is uploaded by some random 12 year old kid who violated copyright law that artist won't ever get to see any of the revenue the video could have produced had it been theirs.  Small acts need that money to pay their bills just like us.  While yes, this will give more money to artists who are already extremely wealthy this helps out all artists in the long run.

[Speechless94 545]

29 minutes ago, DanMonster said:

I haven't posted in here in ages but I feel like I need to now.

I seriously can't understand what all of your problems are with Gaga doing this. There are serious issues with the way music is now being consumed and the laws surrounding it now that the internet is such a huge part of everyone's lives. There needs to be changes in laws if we want the music industry to thrive (not just survive) for at least the next decade or so. 

I understand people think that hugely successful, rich artists just want to get richer but honestly you would be ridiculously cynical to think that every artist on that list just wants to get richer. Changing laws and how music is consumed is important for the smaller artists that want to make some kind of a living off of there music and many of these bigger artists are wanting to change laws or how there music is consumed to help that out.

As for some of you attacking Gaga (which seems to be a daily thing here now), I honestly can't believe you think she is selling out or going against what she has said in the past. Just because she cares more about art than money doesn't mean she is going to let the industry just disappear - she has stated before about how bad a state the industry is in. Seriously everyone just chill out for a minute these changes in the industry need to happen and there's nothing wrong with Gaga feeling there needs to be change! 

Sorry for the essay but I just felt I needed to post this because once again there is a huge overreaction and I'm sick of Gaga being slaughtered by some of you for simply wanting a change in the laws surrounding music consumption - like seriously chill out there is nothing wrong with what she did!

Please don't feel attacked by me if you were angry at Gaga for this but I'm seriously over the drama and feel like she needs to be defended in this fan base right now cause this is just getting rediculous.

 

This so so so much. She's not digging money out of our pockets. A lot of you are acting like she personally requested money from you every time you watched a video of hers on youtube. Tour and promo and outfits and hair and makeup and imagery all require money. Sadly that's the truth. If a million people are listening to songs of hers on youtube via random a person's uploads and sh**ty lyric videos, that's a huge loss of income. Everyone is saying she doesn't need it (which is true about her personal funds) but 10s of millions of views that aren't accounted for is a huge amount of money, I mean were talking hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in royalties. If ya'll want another world tour that has a better production quality than the artRAVE, let the woman collect her coins. Instances like this, where its such a huge cut compared to what she would have gotten if those views were via her official videos or on a streaming service, could determine what kind of money she has for stage designs, advertising, and promotions. 

And we all know how we chewed her our for a lack of all those things during the artRAVE 

[Sizzily 14,543]

Not you all being predictable by flip flopping and writing essays cuz Gaga's involved now.  I don't support this.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 hours ago, Hooker said:

YouTube remove the copyrighted material when they get requests,what more do they want from them? 

It doesn't matter if it's a fan lyric video, a reaction video or even just a random video with the song in the background- removing the audio is not going to generate any more money for the labels. I mean if anything I'm more likely to purchase music if I discover it in a YouTube video first, and this seems like counter-productive move that is just going to remove potential promotion. 

And let's be real, if people don't want to pay to listen to music they're not going to be stopped by this.  

 

 

This is the tea. The most they can do is be tougher on things, but then its like, fan videos that use background music; which is copyrighted material, but that does some hurt to artists as well in terms that it limits and restricts music spreading. So much music becomes popular or even viral because of YouTube even when its technically copyrighted material. I get that maybe mroe artists will get money from their official streams and what not, but if theres a limit to the outer exposure the songs will get, artists would have to draw up interest in other more active ways. Lots of artists become kind of indie darlings because of YouTube, tumblr, social media in general, even though its copyrighted material. Think of indie artists like Ryn Weaver. Tumblr, Youtube, brief radio exposure; that's all they had. Word of mouth with very very little promotion and being a small act at some music festivals that people often skipped or paid no attention to. She still managed to sell like 15,000 copies of an ALBUM because of word of mouth and the things I've said. If we took out Youtube from that equation (where most people hearing her for the first time are not just looking up "Ryn Weaver" on youtube and watching her music videos  ) how much lower would that be? 

People who find music they really like and or are interested in from other sources usually do go to youtube and watch or listen to official streams of songs just to ensure that its the highest quality, etc. I don't think this will be effective in the long run for the small artists; getting more from streaming won't matter that muchif less people are streaming in the first place. I wish I had more official numbers, because this is pretty speculatory, but I don't think any of it is false really; its just a matter of depth. We could look at google searches and research them along with dates and things like that, youtube searches etc. but still. I personally can't think of how many artists I would not be listening to or following if it hadn't been through social media exposure (like YouTube) that wasn't from an official source.

Like someone else said, we all make fun of TIDAL even though it did try to give back to the artists, but it was definitely a more respectable move in my mind than like, Apple Music as a whole, or this initiative is. Apple Music had to be "coerced" into doing so so they originally gave 0 ****s about the artists they'd screw over and this just seems like it wasn't all that thought out.

Then there's the whole fact that this will do nothing to curb people from illegally DOWNLOADING music instead of streaming it. 

[Gypsy Life 118,907]

She'll never release music ever again, so that's pointless.

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

When did "music not the bling" translate don't buy all of my **** and leak Applause? She even specified in the song she wants to make the music she wants and not necessarily what the label wants her to make. How about you go out there on your job and work for free? I'm sure your boss will be happy.

[M I M I Z 946]

Gaga lies a lot so I don't take anything she says seriously anymore. She changed her opinion about almost everything

1. Fame

2. Pop music

3. Her relationship with her fans

4. Her relationship with her peers

5. Hollywood

6. Plastic surgery

etc..... 

so i'm not surprised at all