don’t you think that the artist should have to consent or approve of his-her material being uploaded to youtube, spotify, soundcloud etc? why isn’t this the case?
bridget st john: YES. why isn’t this the case? I don’t think we were paying attention when – for example – youtube started up. or we didn’t even know until someone told us that our work was uploaded – and at that point what do you do? it’s hard to find phone numbers for websites. and then there is the ego which is flattered to see how many people have viewed a particular video – and in the end you rationalize it by saying it’s like having a visual business card and it might help live gigs, cd sales etc…
erin a girl called eddy: yes I do. and again, I truly believe that no one is getting paid through these outlets (certainly no one that I know) and stupifyingly, no one seems to care. all I hear is “it’s just the way the business is now” etc. independent artists are taking an incredibly passive attitude about this and I’m not quite sure why.
fran cannane: I don’t know how it works as regards money but I am constantly surprised anyone is interested so good luck to them…and it cannot do any harm that people have a chance to hear the music. I am more appalled by live concert footage. we had it good in the past! but I do not watch it for my own mental health.
hannah grass widow: I actually have no idea but recently someone told me they listened to us on spotify, so that was news to me that we were on there.
stephen the real tuesday weld: yes. youtube is owned by a company that sells advertising.
corin tucker: yes. most of us don’t have the money to pursue a legal case against youtube, but it is illegal. no, I don’t think anyone makes royalties from these.
andrew eggs/talk it: spotify is a matter between you and your record company, if you have one, or you and spotify. the other things…how can you possibly police that?
matt lorelei: the royalties from streaming services like spotify are percentages of pennies. for textilesounds I used IODA (mike slumberland does/did as well; IODA is now a part of the orchard) to have them handle the licensing and manage the collection of royalties. they handle spotify, rdio, last.fm, et. al. but amounts to very little. certainly not enough to cover the pressing of any of the records being streamed.
pete paphides: spotify is the biggest rip-off ever. 99% of artists – and I’m talking about the ones who actually sell reasonable amounts of records – couldn’t afford to buy a cheese sandwich on a week’s spotify royalties.
stephin the magnetic fields: that is beginning to happen, and will get more professionalized as the industry solidifies.
james dump/yo la tengo: we can’t all hire prince to straighten out that shit for us (although I wish we could). also, I heard dick cheney gets $100 from every youtube view and spotify play, and $150 from every internet comment.
gordon the fan modine: copyright holders do have to consent to all three of those services. the stuff that slips through on youtube and soundcloud can be stopped with a heads up to those companies. youtube and spotify pay royalties. soundcloud is a royalty-free service intended to give copyright holders an easy way to share their audio on their own behalf. some people use it differently and probably shouldn’t.
tim dagger: artists/musicians should get paid for their work.
allen clapp: you get like .007 cents per play or something like that…I get these royalty statements that say “X” song has been played XX,000 times, and you look over at the right column and there’s like 16 cents over there. I don’t really get it. I mean, every little bit helps, but when you think about these businesses building their futures on the availability of a product that costs them almost nothing, it makes you wonder who’s benefiting. I have no idea.
kim baxter: I just made 1 cent for selling a song on spotify. I took that penny straight to the candy store and bought 1/8th of a mini tootsie roll.
gail cf: it’s absolutely appalling that any old chump can upload video of a band without the band’s permission. appalling. terrible. the worst thing about the internet is that it needs to be policed and intellectual property protected. I know I sound like an old fogey but I don’t care. using other people’s content without their knowledge and consent is rude and should be illegal. as a photographer I abhor pinterest and tumblr for this reason, but youtube has hundreds of my photos up without my permission or credit too.
shaun brilldream: I have no idea, but of course they should give consent. I’m sure most would.
clarissa cf: when your work is in the world, it’s in the world. what people pay for is no longer access to the work, it’s (the suggestion of) your personal approval of their having access to the work.
jennifer o’connor: technically you do have to consent. you could spend a lot of time getting them all taken down, but I don’t really see the point. spotify pays minuscule royalties.
ian musical chairs: yes. nobody bothers fighting it unless they think it’s costing them more potential revenue than the lawyer would cost.
joe pines / foxgloves: I expect chickfactor’s views on this subject are correct. I would like to add that ‘digital culture’ is not the level playing field of universal access that is sometimes implied. people’s levels of technological capacity are variable and it is sadly possible to get left behind.
does anyone make royalties from these?
ian musical chairs: supposedly, but not enough to buy a sandwich or anything. the idea that any subscription-type service is the answer to save the failing music industry is hilariously absurd and for people who choose to ignore math.
daniel handler: someone gets paid for those ads, I hope.
stephen the real tuesday weld: hahaha.
bridget st john: yes – in my limited knowledge I know that for instance if you have a publishing company assigned to the harry fox agency and opt in to their agreement with youtube – then you will be paid a (small) amount for your work being on youtube.