To conclude a massive copyright infringement lawsuit launched by the major recording labels, Grooveshark shut down a few hours ago. Acknowledging mistakes had been made and apologizing profusely, the company said that it would delete all stored music and hand over its website and intellectual property to the RIAA.
Quote by overmykneenow
Various YouTube clips.
Quote by Liz
Subtle, lol. Do I take it you were not a fan of the auto-start profile music playlists?
Quote by nicola
I'm sure Gav will find another solution
I am not a big fan of auto-starting profile music, it's so 2008 "myspace"
It makes me wonder if we should remove the playlists totally, considering the copyright implications.
Quote by Magical_felix
He should see about having your featured YouTube video on your profile autoplay when someone visits. Then people can have all kinds of obnoxious shit going on. It would be great!
Quote by Buz
I'm looking for a barefoot hillbilly boy band humming 'Deliverance'.
Quote by SereneProdigy
Dammit, just after I took a great deal of time editing my Grooveshark playlist. That said, if their practices weren't fully endorsed by the RIAA (or other recording associations), I have no other choice but to comply myself.
And I don't know if you guys noticed, but since recently a lot of YouTube videos are restricted from playback on external websites. I'd say that nearly 50-75% of my own YouTube videos won't play on my profile anymore:
It's always hard to figure out if you're behaving according to the artist's will with all those music streaming platforms. Different artists have different perspectives on the matter: some don't want their music to be distributed freely at all, some don't exactly mind because they rely much more on their shows to finance their careers, some go as far as freely distributing their own music themselves.
Artists typically only make around $1 per record sold through 'conventional' methods (ie. record stores, iTunes), which represents a mere 5% of what the consumer is paying; all the rest (95%) goes to different mega-corporations implicated in the distribution process (ie. associations, record labels, record stores chains, etc.). That way, what the associations/labels/chains and what the artists are advocating themselves are often two different things entirely: a lot of artists actually prefer to have their music distributed freely to the public than to have dozens of corporations making big money out of their artistic outlets.
As Ian MacKaye (musician, songwriter, label owner) puts it himself:
"Music is a gift. Then you have a choice with that gift: you could keep it to yourself, you could pass it on as a gift, or you could polish it up and sell it. But when you sell it, it's no longer a gift. In the early 90s, in that Nirvana era, a lot of people polished up that shit and sold it. And that was very discouraging I thought, because I felt "It's a gift!". And when I make it to somebody, they should give it to somebody else; we should keep it out of the market place."
"We didn't actually make tapes to put on our shelves. You make a tape and you give everybody copies of it because you want them to know the songs, because you want them to sing along at the shows. In the commercial world of music, in the industry, people go on tour to support records. But in my mind, records exist to support the tour. The show is the point, the performance is the point; that's the event, that's the gathering. Fugazi had this motto forever: record is the menu, show is the meal."
And Bad Religion stream their latest records in their entireties on YouTube: True North / The Empire Strikes First / The Process of Belief
Bad Religion is on Epitaph Records by the way, which was founded by their guitarist in the early 80s, so they have perfect freedom when it comes to promoting their records and making commerce decisions:
"Epitaph Records is a Hollywood, California based independent record label owned by Bad Religion guitarist Brett Gurewitz. The label was originally "just a logo and a P.O. box" created in the 1980s for the purpose of selling Bad Religion records, but has evolved into a large independent record label."
So anyway, free music streaming isn't necessarily as 'evil' as the RIAA would want it to be; I'm personally a lot more concerned about the artists' will on an individual basis. That said, their opinions on the matter vary so much that it's hard to know when you're behaving rightfully or not. And legally speaking, associations/labels (like the RIAA) still have the right to control how the music that they own is distributed.
Quote by SereneProdigy
Dammit, just after I took a great deal of time editing my Grooveshark playlist. That said, if their practices weren't fully endorsed by the RIAA (or other recording associations), I have no other choice but to comply myself.
And I don't know if you guys noticed, but since recently a lot of YouTube videos are restricted from playback on external websites. I'd say that nearly 50-75% of my own YouTube videos won't play on my profile anymore:
It's always hard to figure out if you're behaving according to the artist's will with all those music streaming platforms. Different artists have different perspectives on the matter: some don't want their music to be distributed freely at all, some don't exactly mind because they rely much more on their shows to finance their careers, some go as far as freely distributing their own music themselves.
Artists typically only make around $1 per record sold through 'conventional' methods (ie. record stores, iTunes), which represents a mere 5-10% of what the consumer is paying; all the rest (90-95%) goes to different mega-corporations implicated in the distribution process (ie. associations, record labels, record stores chains, etc.). That way, what the associations/labels/chains and what the artists are advocating themselves are often two different things entirely: a lot of artists actually prefer to have their music distributed freely to the public than to have dozens of corporations making big money out of their artistic outlets.
As Ian MacKaye (musician, songwriter, label owner) puts it himself:
"Music is a gift. Then you have a choice with that gift: you could keep it to yourself, you could pass it on as a gift, or you could polish it up and sell it. But when you sell it, it's no longer a gift. In the early 90s, in that Nirvana era, a lot of people polished up that shit and sold it. And that was very discouraging I thought, because I felt "It's a gift!". And when I make it to somebody, they should give it to somebody else; we should keep it out of the market place."
"We didn't actually make tapes to put on our shelves. You make a tape and you give everybody copies of it because you want them to know the songs, because you want them to sing along at the shows. In the commercial world of music, in the industry, people go on tour to support records. But in my mind, records exist to support the tour. The show is the point, the performance is the point; that's the event, that's the gathering. Fugazi had this motto forever: record is the menu, show is the meal."
And Bad Religion stream their latest records in their entireties on YouTube: True North / The Empire Strikes First / The Process of Belief
Bad Religion is on Epitaph Records by the way, which was founded by their guitarist in the early 80s, so they have perfect freedom when it comes to promoting their records and making commerce decisions:
"Epitaph Records is a Hollywood, California based independent record label owned by Bad Religion guitarist Brett Gurewitz. The label was originally "just a logo and a P.O. box" created in the 1980s for the purpose of selling Bad Religion records, but has evolved into a large independent record label."
So anyway, free music streaming isn't necessarily as 'evil' as the RIAA would want it to be; I'm personally a lot more concerned about the artists' will on an individual basis. That said, their opinions on the matter vary so much that it's hard to know when you're behaving rightfully or not. And legally speaking, associations/labels (like the RIAA) still have the right to control how the music that they own is distributed.
Quote by Mysteria27
That's too bad. I always enjoyed the songs. I loved picking them out for my page and enjoyed them on other people's pages.
Darn....
Hugs,
Mysteria
xo
Quote by nicola
I've always browsed members' YouTube selections rather than the playlists. With the amount of music on YT, it was effectively doubling up the music listings anyway having both.
Quote by Jinxy
I noticed the first video will work, but the rest won't.
Quote by VanGogh
totally understandable ... but I am going to miss hitting Magical_Felix's page for his start up music .... I don't know the name of the song he had .... but I sure liked it!
(note, I was not stalking Jack ..... honestly!!)
Quote by Magical_felix
I noticed that as well. I use chrome. Not sure if it's like that with all browsers.
Quote by Jinxy
I use Chrome, but the boyfriend uses FF and has same issue. I asked a few friends and they all said the same thing.
Quote by Magical_felix
Sounds like you may have found a bug with the site.
Quote by nicola
I can click YT videos on my profile, they play fine.
Some are restricted from playing on anywhere other than YT, but that has always been the case.
I think Gav has either fixed it, or YT have.
Quote by Magical_felix
...something's fucky.
