Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Time: YouTube Faces $1 Billion Lawsuit From Pharrell Williams, the Eagles and Others

PCS

By PCS
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

PCS

PCS

Posted
Posted

http://time.com/3645136/pharrell-williams-eagles-john-lennon-youtube-irving-azoff/

 

 

 

 

YouTube Faces $1 Billion Lawsuit From Pharrell Williams, the Eagles and Others Lawyers demand removal of around 20,000 videos

A representative for dozens of music superstars, including Pharrell Williams, is telling YouTube that it had better remove about 20,000 videos or face a $1 billion lawsuit.

Music-business heavyweight Irving Azoff, who founded the new legal group Global Music Rights, has told the video juggernaut that it does not have performance rights to thousands of songs by about 40 of his clients, including the Eagles, Chris Cornell and John Lennon, theHollywood Reporter says.

*Click Link for more* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bliz

Bliz

Posted
Posted

People used to make the same "new fans" argument for napster back in the day

Also, fyi, The Beatles aren't on spotify

Anyway, Spotify is probably their point. Spotify pays artists. You can listen to Abbey road straight through a hundred times on YouTube and the artists get nothing.

Spotify is good exposure. A music video on YouTube is maybe good exposure. Whole albums on YouTube is piracy, arguably at least. This has been a long time coming

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dont Taze Me Bro

Dont Taze Me Bro

Posted
Posted

When I was a crazy, raging 24-25 year old, downloading the hell out of **** off Napster and Mozilla, etc. I was pissed off when Lars Ulrich from Metallica spoke out against Napster and sued them.  I thought he was a sell-out, etc.

 

Older me, pushing 40 now.  I get it.  Doesn't matter how rich they are, why throw away money cause people like me can get on youtube right after their album drops and listen to the full album for free, anytime I want to.  Sure, if I really dig something, I'll buy the CD, that is never a problem for me.  But I don't have to, and plenty of people don't.  Honestly, I don't care anymore, let them fight it out.  

 

I still buy CDs, call me old fashion if you will, I never got an aux adapter cord for my car to use my cell phone on to play songs.  I can honestly say, I've never even bought one song off i-tunes or any other media site selling them.  I don't need to, I listen to them for free, someone, some site is always streaming them.  If youtube gets shut down on songs, etc., it will suck, but it won't impact my day that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93

BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93

Posted
Posted

And I'm assuming this is for videos that are posted by Joe Schmoes. In that case, it's ok. If they keep the actual songs on there through an official channel, that's cool and it makes sense.

 

To completely act like YT means nothing is lunacy 


People used to make the same "new fans" argument for napster back in the day

Also, fyi, The Beatles aren't on spotify

Anyway, Spotify is probably their point. Spotify pays artists. You can listen to Abbey road straight through a hundred times on YouTube and the artists get nothing.

Spotify is good exposure. A music video on YouTube is maybe good exposure. Whole albums on YouTube is piracy, arguably at least. This has been a long time coming

But a lot of those others are.

 

I bought Pharell's latest album after I listened to it on spotify. 


And I personally don't download music illegally but it is nice to be able to hear a few songs on spotify or youtube first before going in on an album unless it's someone I know is gonna bring hits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
codeorama

codeorama

Posted
Posted

I never "stream" music using YouTube. If a band I like has a new release, I preview it on iTunes and if I like it, I buy it. I do not purchase anywhere near the amount of music I did in the past. I have a ton of cd's. I've since burned them all into iTunes. The only physical CDs I've bought are from the band Tool, who are not on iTunes.

I probably would have liked streaming music when I was younger, but now, I want to hear what I want to hear. In the car, I mostly listen to sports talk radio. Music for me is usually for working out.

I understand both sides of the argument. I'm glad we are able to listen first. There's a lot of crap out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
Posted

I was under the impression that with services like Vimeo that work through youtube that artists were actually making money off of YouTube video plays.

I'm sure that everyone has listened to a YouTube rip that has the pitch of the song changed so that the song sounds slightly different. Why not have an "official" song so that artists actually get paid. I think everyone would much rather listen to an "official" son that has a small ad than a rip that doesn't sound quite right.

It seems like there is a better way than suing YouTube for a billion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bliz

Bliz

Posted
Posted
 

But a lot of those others are.

 

I bought Pharell's latest album after I listened to it on spotify. 

And I personally don't download music illegally but it is nice to be able to hear a few songs on spotify or youtube first before going in on an album unless it's someone I know is gonna bring hits. 

 

oh, I know.  I was just being a dick over the Beatles example.

 

But I think the point is the difference between previewing the album on spotify, where they see at least some revenue, vs previewing on youtube, where they see none.

 

I listen to Spotify a ton.  Pretty much every day.  I don't buy many albums anymore, because there's no difference to me in having an album stored on iTunes vs having it stored on Spotify. 

 

This debate over royalties from Spotify reminds me of an interesting story from a few months ago, about a band called Vulfpeck:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jul/25/vulpeck-the-band-who-made-20000-from-their-silent-spotify-album

 

The Michigan funk outfit made headlines in March when they released Sleepify, 10 songs of silence that varied between 31 and 32 seconds. The result was a five-minute album of nothingness that the band asked fans to stream on repeat while they slept. The aim was to generate enough royalties for the band to go on tour – promising free shows in return.

 

At the time, commentators questioned how much money it was possible to make from such a scheme, but now it seems they have the answer. According to a royalty statement shown to Billboard by Vulfpeck keyboardist Jack Stratton, the band's earnings from Spotify came in at $19,655.56. This figure could have ended up bigger had Spotify not removed the album in April (the company never specified why).

 

Spotify only pays $0.007 for each track streamed, but this soon starts to look like real money when you consider that 100 streams makes 70 cents. Throw in a modest fanbase and take into account that each track only lasts just over 30 seconds (the minimum required by the service to count as a full stream) and you can begin to see how the band cleverly used the streaming to their advantage.

 

 

I was going to post a youtube link to one of their songs, but now I'm not sure if I should...

 

Their newest (real) album, Fugue State, is on Spotify.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chew

Chew

Posted
Posted

Just googled Pharrell Williams' net worth, says he's got about $77M.  But this cornball is crying about not getting coins from youtube?  shut your **** ass up, dude. 

 

I'm seriously annoyed right now.  I always thought Pharrell was one of the good ones, spreading joy across the world with his song "Happy."  Bro, you've got 77 MILLION DOLLARS....yet you're making threats against Youtube, one of the best platforms out there for people to express themselves.  What a punk, I can't believe he'd go out like that.  **** Pharrell, he's a ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted

More evidence of the "entitlement" culture we have. People angry because artists who make their living by performing don't want their product available for free.

I mean how dare they expect to be paid for their work?

Yup 100% correct

  

Just googled Pharrell Williams' net worth, says he's got about $77M.  But this cornball is crying about not getting coins from youtube?  shut your **** ass up, dude. 

 

I'm seriously annoyed right now.  I always thought Pharrell was one of the good ones, spreading joy across the world with his song "Happy."  Bro, you've got 77 MILLION DOLLARS....yet you're making threats against Youtube, one of the best platforms out there for people to express themselves.  What a punk, I can't believe he'd go out like that.  **** Pharrell, he's a ****.

Pharrell has an obligation to other artists who don't have $77 million dollars to take a stand

And if I'm understanding you correctly, stealing is okay as long as it's from a rich person. Is that what you're saying?

Rhetorical question really, that's exactly what you're saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chew

Chew

Posted
Posted

Pharrell is a Gawd

Let's not get disrespectful Chewy lol

 

sorry.  but reading that pissed me off LOL. 

 

I saw the interview he had with Oprah where Pharrell broke down in tears when talking about that dancing video that group made in Iran to his "Happy" song, and they got in trouble for it and stuff.  he was all "fight the power" about it, crying about how blown away he was by the way his song brought so much joy to people across the globe

 

and now he's coming in with lawyers and threatening to file a billion dollar lawsuit?  That's like anti everything he supposedly stands for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

I always figure about half the people who complain about actions like these are doing so because they want to justify their own stealing and theft.  You get something for nothing and your chicks for free.... why would you ever want someone challenging that!

 

I've certainly had my work stolen and let me tell you it isn't really that much of an honor or a means to profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...