An artist make a record that they sell for $9, and it ends up on Youtube for free?

Discussion in 'The Sound Hound Lounge' started by Clifford-D, Feb 6, 2015.

  1. Clifford-D

    Clifford-D Member

    Messages:
    17,112
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Location:
    Close to the burn zone
    Julian Lage is bursting on to the scene with his amazing world class playing. I sort of see him as this generation's Pat Metheny.

    Julian just put a recording on the market and someone bought it and posted it on youtube, like the next day. Imo, not cool.

    All Julian is asking is $9 for his beautiful product.

    At the bottom of this page you hear the whole album once for free and then he asks for $9 for the second listen download, pretty darn fair imo.
    http://julianlage.bandcamp.com/releases

    How can this happen? Does Youtube allow this?

    I'm all for honoring the creative labors of Julian and others like him.
     
  2. Belmont

    Belmont Member

    Messages:
    3,470
    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver B.C.
  3. Guitar Josh

    Guitar Josh Resident Curmudgeon Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    18,687
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Location:
    TGP, Always TGP
    Whether it's cool or not, YouTube has 1 billion, that's right billion, unique visitors every month. That's free publicity you cannot buy for any amount of money. Like it or not, his CD being up on YT is giving him immeasurable fans and exposure, and will ultimately serve to increase his revenues from other sources. A small price to pay given the state of the music industry today.
     
    Clifford-D likes this.
  4. Belmont

    Belmont Member

    Messages:
    3,470
    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver B.C.
    hey, quit seeing the positive, this is supposed to be a negative thread about internet thievery.
     
  5. Clifford-D

    Clifford-D Member

    Messages:
    17,112
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Location:
    Close to the burn zone
    Ok, I can see that. I had even thought that out earlier, but you know,,,
     
  6. Clifford-D

    Clifford-D Member

    Messages:
    17,112
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Location:
    Close to the burn zone
    see little grasshopper, see
     
  7. skintknuckle

    skintknuckle Supporting Member

    Messages:
    748
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Location:
    Between the rivers and the highways
  8. slybird

    slybird Member

    Messages:
    5,341
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2014

    I just posted something about her last night on this board. She was on Studio360 talking about the Music Key contract. She is doing a big service for musicians by opening her books up so publicly.
     
  9. slybird

    slybird Member

    Messages:
    5,341
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2014
    From what I learned last night if an artist signs up with Music Key the artist is require to release all music they create to Google. If you release on Bandcamp you can't wait to release to Google's Music Key service. That said I don't know the artist you mentioned or if he has a contract with Google.
     
  10. Chrome Dinette

    Chrome Dinette Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    14,435
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    The promise of exposure may or may not be what it's cracked up to be.

    Everyone has to decide for themselves whether or not to allow their music on youtube. You can choose not to participate. You can also be vigilant and have unauthorized uploads removed.
     
  11. guitarjazz

    guitarjazz Member

    Messages:
    17,245
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    It'd be nice if they asked before they stole.
     
  12. dB

    dB Member

    Messages:
    3,774
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    I skimmed her blog, so maybe I missed something, or misinterpreted the gist of her argument. But, she seems to be under the impression that the free, no strings attached use of Youtube that she has grown so accustomed to, is some sort of inalienable right.
     
  13. hanales

    hanales Member

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Cleveland, OH
    I'm dubious of her claims. She says there are 9600+ videos of her on youtube, but when I search I only find a couple of hundred, most of which are live appearances or interviews. Content ID gets stuff wrong a LOT. Most people don't fight it because it's more work than it's worth.

    I think youtube is playing hardball. It may or may not work out for them. I can see their side of it, "If you don't play ball, you can't use our free service anymore". I can also see why the artists are annoyed by that concept, especially younger ones that are tuned into this type of content distribution.

    On the main topic, if he doesn't want the stuff on youtube he can have it removed, or monetize it. The choice is his as a content creator and musician. I won't be getting upset on his behalf unless he says something. Most of the artists I listen to don't seem to care much about youtube.
     
  14. Bennihana

    Bennihana Member

    Messages:
    714
    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Honestly, I buy many albums. Then, I created a thread here sharing YT upload of the version hopefully helping these artist get some more purchases if the folks here like it. Great way to spread the word.
     
    Clifford-D likes this.
  15. aram

    aram Member

    Messages:
    2,865
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Location:
    New York City
    Choice. The problem is with choice.

    If Julian is OKAY with his full album being up there, then that's great. It's his choice.

    If he's not okay with it, then it's his right to have it taken down.
     
  16. aram

    aram Member

    Messages:
    2,865
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Location:
    New York City
    http://crimeandtheforcesofevil.com/blog/2015/02/a-very-well-engineered-trap/

    "I’ve been thinking more about Google/YouTube’s new music streaming service terms – the ones that require your whole library, that require 320bps source, that require five year terms, and so on. I wrote about it last week, talking about how Google is letting the old labels dictate away crowdfunding rewards and the like.

    But I’ve been doing more thinking since that. It’s been churning in my brain. And I’ve realised the five-year term, the 320bps requirement, and whole library thing have a combined intent.

    And that intent is to take away literally every last music sale you might make. As in, every last music sale.

    It’s not presented as such, of course. I think they want artists to think of it as radio that pays. But two of the big streaming service problems have been 1. quality (smaller concern) and 2. stability of material (huge concern). All the television streaming services, for example, have been plagued by shows getting yanked on and off and moving around. Customers find that annoying.

    Meanwhile, you have the label involvement, discussed before. They were, from all reports, pretty tightly into this new set of terms. And one of the big problems for the labels the last several years has been the rise of indie artists. The crowdfunding/long-tail model has given indie artists something more to live on, ways to make money outside of the label ecosystem.

    This solves both sets of “problems.” Think about it:

    Google will have everything you do for five years, listen-anytime, at functionally CD quality. They’ll have everything, and they’ll have it first, at optimal quality. What’s that mean?

    It means Google/YouTube Music service members will have no reason to buy any ******* thing from any artist which is on the service. No more early-access advantages to entice crowdfunding backers. No more deep tracks on albums to discover. No more alt-takes, no more remixes, no more mailing-list exclusives – Google will have it all. Not exclusively, of course! But they’ll have it.

    If I’m reading this right, then even if you hold out on them – you don’t upload some tracks, in violation of the agreement – if and when somebody else does, and they identify it as yours, they’ll add it to the service automatically. Tell me I’m wrong (even though I’m not) because that’s what this sounds like:

    'So even if you don’t explicitly deliver us every single song in your catalog if we have assets and they are fingerprinted by content ID to contain that music then it will be included to the subscription service…'
    — Zoë Keating’s Google rep., in conversation with Zoë

    Which means there’s no more reason to buy anything from you. No reason for anyone to deal with you at all.

    Five years is a long time. There will be no long tail – at least, not for you. It’s all going to them. Five years is also plenty long enough to keep you locked in once you figure all this out. And five years is more than long enough to try to make this the new standard.

    That’s the point of this whole contract. To take everything else away, and thereby, to reinstate a kind of 1971, one managed by making both unlimited internet distribution and piracy completely irrelevant.

    I have to say – it’s brilliant. It end-runs around the post-scarcity environment entirely, by co-opting it. The pirates and illegal uploaders will make sure your entire catalogue is up there, even if you hold out, and it’ll be included whether you like it or not – it’s genius!

    Meanwhile, they’re “giving the music away” so you can’t make any money on it, stopping you from being able to reward patrons and backers so you can’t make any money there either, and tossing you a sharecropper’s pittance in ad revenue as a reward. And even that is a pittance you can never hope to make on your own. You don’t – and can’t – have the numbers.

    It’s a plan that takes away the entire internet/indie route as they understand it. It’s to make them – both the old labels and Google, in alliance – the only viable path. It’s a plan to make it so that once again, you have to go through them.

    And we all know what that has always meant, don’t we?

    Run. Run like hell."
     
  17. aram

    aram Member

    Messages:
    2,865
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Location:
    New York City
  18. jimlp

    jimlp Member

    Messages:
    614
    Joined:
    May 11, 2006
    I keep hearing this but it pales in the harsh light of reality, what artist has broken through by getting their copy written work put up on Youtube? This new "formula" has netted zero when it comes to breaking an artist.
     
  19. hanales

    hanales Member

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Cleveland, OH
    How come in that article you don't actually link anywhere to google "smearing zoe keating"? Why do you talk about some app in the google play store?

    I already pointed out factually incorrect information that she has put out once. What is there to believe? And what is google doing that is so bad? You can still get your stuff deleted from youtube. I know, I've seen it done a million times. (And who is zoe keating anyway? I've only ever heard of her in conversations about the industry on this site).
     
  20. The Captain

    The Captain Supporting Member

    Messages:
    11,745
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    So, out of curiosity, recalling that this same thing happened to you recently, how do you feel your "free exposure" affected your album sales ?

    Did the "free exposure" increase your album sales, or decrease them ?

    Disclosure - I look at a bit of stuff on youtube, not a lot, but if I want to listen again, I buy the music, either on iTunes or actual CD. Most of what I look at is live stuff that I can't buy anyway. I don't download music for free.
     

Share This Page