The arrogant douche strikes back

I just discovered the epitome of mega-douche. Uploading someone's ENTIRE album without permission, and then getting pissed off and angry when the legal copyright owner makes youtube removing it... how much more arrogant and crass one can be... unreal!

Check it out, its self-explanatory:

It happened a few years ago with Manilla Road. It's a two-sided argument.

Painkiller wrote:

It happened a few years ago with Manilla Road. It's a two-sided argument.

It's a one-sided argument. Don't touch someone else's intellectual property without permission. It's illegal. Pretty simple.

Eyesore wrote:

It's a one-sided argument. Don't touch someone else's intellectual property without permission. It's illegal. Pretty simple.

Not always the case. I tend to side with the musicians more, because every situation is different. There are bands that have yet to receive a dime from all the hard work that they put into their studio work. Labels have ripped off bands in the past, and will continue to do so. It's mostly the major labels that have sabotaged bands.

Not everyone who uploads something on YouTube is necessarily trying to monetize from it. In the case of obscure bands, such people are doing a public good by making their music more accessible, and most will comply with copyright claims. That, however, doesn't mean that whoever uploads something should be scrutinized and made out to be the worst kind of person. Such stigma ignores all the time and effort put into creating each and every video, rendering them, and then having to sit for a combined total amount of hours for the uploads to go on up. Most of them have actively encouraged listeners to go out and buy the music. Thus, they are a dependent source. Not everyone can cough up money that easily, and that's made even more apparent when you live in a third-world country.

Individual YouTube users who go out of their own way to spread the word about a band shouldn't be ostracized.

Painkiller wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

It's a one-sided argument. Don't touch someone else's intellectual property without permission. It's illegal. Pretty simple.

Individual YouTube users who go out of their own way to spread the word about a band shouldn't be ostracized.

Owners of the music don't need rogue "fans" to upload their music. If they wanted to, they'd upload some songs on Youtube themselves. Leave it up to the makers of the music to decide how much "promotion" they want, and maybe even get ad revenue. Or choose to keep some of the music and only sell on CD/iTunes/Spotify.

Painkiller wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

It's a one-sided argument. Don't touch someone else's intellectual property without permission. It's illegal. Pretty simple.

Not always the case. I tend to side with the musicians more, because every situation is different. There are bands that have yet to receive a dime from all the hard work that they put into their studio work. Labels have ripped off bands in the past, and will continue to do so. It's mostly the major labels that have sabotaged bands.

Not everyone who uploads something on YouTube is necessarily trying to monetize from it. In the case of obscure bands, such people are doing a public good by making their music more accessible, and most will comply with copyright claims. That, however, doesn't mean that whoever uploads something should be scrutinized and made out to be the worst kind of person. Such stigma ignores all the time and effort put into creating each and every video, rendering them, and then having to sit for a combined total amount of hours for the uploads to go on up. Most of them have actively encouraged listeners to go out and buy the music. Thus, they are a dependent source. Not everyone can cough up money that easily, and that's made even more apparent when you live in a third-world country.

Individual YouTube users who go out of their own way to spread the word about a band shouldn't be ostracized.

ALWAYS the case. It's the law, dude. There is no argument. If it's not your art, don't put it online.

Lari wrote:

Owners of the music don't need rogue "fans" to upload their music. If they wanted to, they'd upload some songs on Youtube themselves. Leave it up to the makers of the music to decide how much "promotion" they want, and maybe even get ad revenue. Or choose to keep some of the music and only sell on CD/iTunes/Spotify.

Spotify rips off bands.

Eyesore wrote:

ALWAYS the case. It's the law, dude. There is no argument. If it's not your art, don't put it online.

Well, you know what? I think "the law" is a load of bullshit. I don't disagree that there are copyright laws broken and some people definitely crossed the line, but when it comes to ethics, I think it's wholly corrupt and easily abused by the "powers that be". I've seen YouTube channels get strikes for all the wrong reasons, and even successfully terminated by companies that didn't necessarily own the content. People who put so much work into their content, getting subscribers, etc. have went through all that idiocy of corporations. Freedom on the Internet continues to shrivel out. That only furthers all the more reasons people have been using VPNs, Tor, etc. to bypass unreasonable content restrictions based on their country, not wanting to be tracked down easily, etc.

Like I said, I take no sides in this. I'm glad to be able to afford to have a collection and all, but I can understand why people would have to resort to downloading. In fact, what about weeding out all the bootleggers who continue to populate the market? Even buying official releases from a random collector doesn't give the labels or even the bands a penny back. It all goes straight to that seller. Maybe it should be unlawful to sell back copyrighted albums? Return them to the store with a receipt for a half refund? That's silly. Just more stupid shit being pulled from corporate asses. It's not like they're going bankrupt anytime soon. So, "the law" can go F*ck itself. Not going to stop downloading at all.

That's my take on it all, and I'm just going to leave it at that.

Will you stop going on about how much work people put into this. Hitler put an awful lot of work into the third reich, it doesn't make it a good thing!

You also can think that the law is bullshit, it doesn't care and your opinions don't affect that. It can also 'go F*ck itself', just don't start crying if it comes back and f*cks you. You miss the blindingly obvious reality that it should be a decision made by the bands and those that support them what goes on YouTube or not because believe it or not they have actually put in MORE work, money and talent into creating what you are enjoying.

Personally I think it's smart business for a band to make their stuff available as I've lost count of bands that I've discovered on Bandcamp and then either paid for downloads or physical product, but that's just me and the way I like to purchase music/support artists. There are always two sides to a story and some labels and bands are assholes. (I really hate the way that Pledge & Kickstarter have been ruined by greedy bastards just using it as a way to charge rip of prices for pre-orders of industry funded albums) but that doesn't alter the fact that choice is really important and it's the bands choice to market themselves and it's my choice to keep my money in my pocket or spend it on a band who aren't dicks.

You seem to think that if someone creates something you want, you have the right to just take it. No matter how you dress it up or cry 'unreasonable' it's just theft dude, always has been.

Well, the title of this thread ended up being a helluva coincidence...

S.D. wrote:

Well, the title of this thread ended up being a helluva coincidence...

Lari wrote:

Painkiller wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

It's a one-sided argument. Don't touch someone else's intellectual property without permission. It's illegal. Pretty simple.

Individual YouTube users who go out of their own way to spread the word about a band shouldn't be ostracized.

Owners of the music don't need rogue "fans" to upload their music. If they wanted to, they'd upload some songs on Youtube themselves. Leave it up to the makers of the music to decide how much "promotion" they want, and maybe even get ad revenue. Or choose to keep some of the music and only sell on CD/iTunes/Spotify.

That's the stance I take, Lari.

Painkiller wrote:

Spotify rips off bands.

It's legal. And technically it's the record labels ripping off the bands because they are the ones making the deals with Spotify and pocketing 70% of all the revenue.

Don't want to get ripped off? Self-finance and release your album and avoid record labels so you retain full 100% ownership and control of everything. Then you can decide whether to participate in Spotify or not.

S.D. wrote:

Don't want to get ripped off?  Self-finance and release your album and avoid record labels so you retain full 100% ownership and control of everything.  Then you can decide whether to participate in Spotify or not.

It is getting easier to self-finance your music nowadays, since even an average laptop can be used to record music that sounds good enough to put out.

Boris2008 wrote:

Will you stop going on about how much work people put into this. Hitler put an awful lot of work into the third reich, it doesn't make it a good thing!

You also can think that the law is bullshit, it doesn't care and your opinions don't affect that. It can also 'go F*ck itself', just don't start crying if it comes back and f*cks you. You miss the blindingly obvious reality that it should be a decision made by the bands and those that support them what goes on YouTube or not because believe it or not they have actually put in MORE work, money and talent into creating what you are enjoying.

Personally I think it's smart business for a band to make their stuff available as I've lost count of bands that I've discovered on Bandcamp and then either paid for downloads or physical product, but that's just me and the way I like to purchase music/support artists. There are always two sides to a story and some labels and bands are assholes. (I really hate the way that Pledge & Kickstarter have been ruined by greedy bastards just using it as a way to charge rip of prices for pre-orders of industry funded albums) but that doesn't alter the fact that choice is really important and it's the bands choice to market themselves and it's my choice to keep my money in my pocket or spend it on a band who aren't dicks.

You seem to think that if someone creates something you want, you have the right to just take it. No matter how you dress it up or cry 'unreasonable' it's just theft dude, always has been.

I think you're twisting my words around. I'm fine with what bands do, because it is their music that we're talking about. Never implied that my opinions changed anything. After all, I'm just expressing my views on it. It's a matter of perspective. You're entitled to your opinion, and so am I.

Thing is, most major labels are criminals who take advantage of "the law" and sabotage bands by milking them dry. For example, Lemmy Kilmister said in 2012 not to buy the Motörhead boxed set that was almost around five hundred dollars.

Also, your Hitler analogy is non sequitur.

Painkiller wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

Will you stop going on about how much work people put into this. Hitler put an awful lot of work into the third reich, it doesn't make it a good thing!

You also can think that the law is bullshit, it doesn't care and your opinions don't affect that. It can also 'go F*ck itself', just don't start crying if it comes back and f*cks you. You miss the blindingly obvious reality that it should be a decision made by the bands and those that support them what goes on YouTube or not because believe it or not they have actually put in MORE work, money and talent into creating what you are enjoying.

Personally I think it's smart business for a band to make their stuff available as I've lost count of bands that I've discovered on Bandcamp and then either paid for downloads or physical product, but that's just me and the way I like to purchase music/support artists. There are always two sides to a story and some labels and bands are assholes. (I really hate the way that Pledge & Kickstarter have been ruined by greedy bastards just using it as a way to charge rip of prices for pre-orders of industry funded albums) but that doesn't alter the fact that choice is really important and it's the bands choice to market themselves and it's my choice to keep my money in my pocket or spend it on a band who aren't dicks.

You seem to think that if someone creates something you want, you have the right to just take it. No matter how you dress it up or cry 'unreasonable' it's just theft dude, always has been.

I think you're twisting my words around. I'm fine with what bands do, because it is their music that we're talking about. Never implied that my opinions changed anything. After all, I'm just expressing my views on it. It's a matter of perspective. You're entitled to your opinion, and so am I.

Thing is, most major labels are criminals who take advantage of "the law" and sabotage bands by milking them dry. For example, Lemmy Kilmister said in 2012 not to buy the Motörhead boxed set that was almost around five hundred dollars.

Also, your Hitler analogy is non sequitur.

You were making a point that someone deserves immunity from moral and ethical judgement based on the fact that they had put in some work (however illegal and immoral that work might be)

How could drawing a comparison between that and someone who had put lots of work into something highly illegal and highly immoral ever be considered non sequitur?  

Just because you say things in a high handed way doesn't mean that you have the fitst clue what you are talking about.

Boris2008 wrote:

You were making a point that someone deserves immunity from moral and ethical judgement based on the fact that they had put in some work (however illegal and immoral that work might be)

How could drawing a comparison between that and someone who had put lots of work into something highly illegal and highly immoral ever be considered non sequitur?  

Just because you say things in a high handed way doesn't mean that you have the fitst clue what you are talking about.

What is "morality"? Seems like everyone defines it differently.

Comparing an average downloader to someone who was responsible for mass genocide is a slippery slope fallacy. It's a stupid argument.

It doesn't bother me that you don't see things my way. I've already had my say in the matter, and that is that.

Painkiller wrote:

Comparing an average downloader to someone who was responsible for mass genocide is a slippery slope fallacy. It's a stupid argument.

Maybe it is although the principles are the same with a much exaggerated scale to prove that your argument is clueless.

But that wasn't the point I was making. The point that I was making that it could in no way ever be considered non sequitur by anyone with a remedial grasp of the word.

Boris2008 wrote:

Maybe it is although the principles are the same with a much exaggerated scale to prove that your argument is clueless.

But that wasn't the point I was making. The point that I was making that it could in no way ever be considered non sequitur by anyone with a remedial grasp of the word.

In that case, it's not a debate anymore. Just getting defensive and shutting someone else down for not holding the same opinion.

Painkiller wrote:

What is "morality"? Seems like everyone defines it differently.

Well yes and no. Some aspects of personal morality that don't have any real consensus can be considered personal and open to individual beliefs such as whether eating meat is wrong.

Others have reached a consensus and societies deem them mandatory (through laws), these can differ with different ethnic and sociological groups and can change with time but one that has remained pretty much constant since the beginning of societies has been.


Don't steal other people's shit!

Boris2008 wrote:

Well yes and no. Some aspects of personal morality that don't have any real consensus can be considered personal and open to individual beliefs such as whether eating meat is wrong.

Others have reached a consensus and societies deem them mandatory (through laws), these can differ with different ethnic and sociological groups and can change with time but one that has remained pretty much constant since the beginning of societies has been.


Don't steal other people's shit!

Like I said, most labels aren't about to run out of business because some guy in Peru uploaded a bunch of songs. Also, what about when labels release a band's music without their written consent? Sure, it may be technically legal, but that was what I was making my point about.

You keep reiterating "don't steal other people's shit", but businesses have taken advantage of the law far more than the average consumer. Just saying.

Painkiller wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

Well yes and no. Some aspects of personal morality that don't have any real consensus can be considered personal and open to individual beliefs such as whether eating meat is wrong.

Others have reached a consensus and societies deem them mandatory (through laws), these can differ with different ethnic and sociological groups and can change with time but one that has remained pretty much constant since the beginning of societies has been.


Don't steal other people's shit!

Like I said, most labels aren't about to run out of business because some guy in Peru uploaded a bunch of songs. Also, what about when labels release a band's music without their written consent? Sure, it may be technically legal, but that was what I was making my point about.

You keep reiterating "don't steal other people's shit", but businesses have taken advantage of the law far more than the average consumer. Just saying.

I have on many occasions criticized the music industry and the way it's run, but these days bands actually have a choice, if they want to stay out of the clutches of 'the machine' they can and there are platforms like Bandcamp, Soulseek and YouTube to get their music out there and heard if they choose to take that route and things like Kickstarter and Pledge Music if they want to independently fund.

My point is that whether they do any of this or go to a big label or an indie guy like Stormspell it is their choice as the artist and owner of the art. If you don't respect that artist or their property then you are stealing directly from them, not a big faceless corporation. Most of the bands I buy music from are not rich, they are probably worse off than me! I have lost count of how many handwritten notes I get from bands thanking me for support because without that support the records wouldn't get made, (although I imagine you think that they should get second jobs to pay for recordings and just be grateful that you are on hand as their unofficial 'promoter'to give out their work for free.)

Boris2008 wrote:

I have on many occasions criticized the music industry and the way it's run, but these days bands actually have a choice, if they want to stay out of the clutches of 'the machine' they can and there are platforms like Bandcamp, Soulseek and YouTube to get their music out there and heard if they choose to take that route and things like Kickstarter and Pledge Music if they want to independently fund.

My point is that whether they do any of this or go to a big label or an indie guy like Stormspell it is their choice as the artist and owner of the art. If you don't respect that artist or their property then you are stealing directly from them, not a big faceless corporation. Most of the bands I buy music from are not rich, they are probably worse off than me! I have lost count of how many handwritten notes I get from bands thanking me for support because without that support the records wouldn't get made, (although I imagine you think that they should get second jobs to pay for recordings and just be grateful that you are on hand as their unofficial 'promoter'to give out their work for free.)

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you that Bandcamp is an ideal platform. With the way the music industry works nowadays, it's probably better to fund your own distribution. Having full control of your music is a feeling like no other. A good friend of mine from Europe sent me his band's CD, and he covered shipping expenses without even asking me about it. Out of respect, I offered to send him money to show my appreciation for his work, and he gladly accepted.

Anyway, I was criticizing the greed of most major labels, and not at all the smaller ones. For the most part, they are more loyal to their bands. There is a line to be drawn on whether big business or the music itself is more important. You can't really go with both at the same time. If you buy secondhand music, you're not paying the bands at all, and that's even more the case with obscure NWOBHM bands that only put out a single or an EP on a private label.

That is a point but at least the band has been paid for that disc and it's all swings and roundabouts as I wouldn't like to think how many times I've paid Angus & Co for Back in Black (I went on a horrible run of unintentionally destroying that record.)

It is becoming more common for bands to have distribution-only deals with labels.  The band finances all the recording and production costs, the label then pays for the manufacturing, distribution and advertising for a cut of the sales.  The band retains full ownership of their music, masters and publishing.    

Of course it requires having the investment money to begin with, which could be an option for a Kickstarter campaign if the band is cash-poor.

Boris2008 wrote:

That is a point but at least the band has been paid for that disc and it's all swings and roundabouts as I wouldn't like to think how many times I've paid Angus & Co for Back in Black (I went on a horrible run of unintentionally destroying that record.)

Depends on who paid them and how much of the salary they received. I was referring to sellers on eBay and Discogs who charge hundreds or even thousands for music that's no longer in print. In the end, all the money goes straight to them, and not any of the band members. That's why I don't have an issue with someone uploading cult metal videos on YouTube. If the band asks them to take it down, then so be it.

Painkiller wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

That is a point but at least the band has been paid for that disc and it's all swings and roundabouts as I wouldn't like to think how many times I've paid Angus & Co for Back in Black (I went on a horrible run of unintentionally destroying that record.)

Depends on who paid them and how much of the salary they received. I was referring to sellers on eBay and Discogs who charge hundreds or even thousands for music that's no longer in print. In the end, all the money goes straight to them, and not any of the band members. That's why I don't have an issue with someone uploading cult metal videos on YouTube. If the band asks them to take it down, then so be it.

I do think that's kind of a separate issue and the reason that you see so many of those videos up is because the artists themselves think it's pretty cool and often you will see one of the band members or a child of a band member in the comments section. Some guy who released one EP 30 years ago will not be depending on income from that record to recoup recording fees/eat, and if he is he will most likely be living in a dumpster and not have access to the internet anyway  . Even so it's still the band's material and if they tell you to take it down then I think that you should do and not make a YouTube vid to piss and moan about how unfair it all is.

The second hand record thing is tricky, you have bought a recording of someones music, that specific record belongs to you, it doesn't give you the right to make copies or play it at a public venue but if you decide to sell that record then it is your property and I don't see the issue.