Taylor Swift versus YouTube

[phrehdd]

Always got to love artists who moan about people listening to their music for free. To an extent Youtube gives artists free advertising. They are some artists I listen to now that I would never have heard of without sites such as Youtube. The band "Sunset Sons" springs to mind. I first heard one of their tracks on a Youtube advert. Since then I've bought most of their EP's and their debut album.

I'm willing to bet artists have gained a lot of customers over the years through Youtube and other sites.

Matthew, if an artist or group puts their music on Youtube then I would agree with you but we both know that is not the case. I can go on Youtube and at times get entire albums/cds worth of music that someone other than the artist/group put on Youtube. While just opinion, I find your logic flawed.

 

[bent christian]

I can go on Youtube and at times get entire albums/cds worth of music that someone other than the artist/group put on Youtube. While just opinion, I find your logic flawed.

With the prevalence of torrenting, mediafire and other hosting services, people are not doing this en masse. At most, it is a few, very sheltered users.

 

[Matthew.H]

Matthew, if an artist or group puts their music on Youtube then I would agree with you but we both know that is not the case. I can go on Youtube and at times get entire albums/cds worth of music that someone other than the artist/group put on Youtube. While just opinion, I find your logic flawed.

I can see your point. However just because tracks are uploaded by a 3rd party doesn't mean the artist won't make money from the content. People may still choose to buy the albums and support the artist even though they could listen to it for free.

 

[phrehdd]

I can see your point. However just because tracks are uploaded by a 3rd party doesn't mean the artist won't make money from the content. People may still choose to buy the albums and support the artist even though they could listen to it for free.

Matthew, shouldn't that type of "promotion" be up to the artist and companies that put out the music originally? This is taken out of their hands. I fully agree that some of us are inspired to make the purchase but we don't have any statistic showing this is the majority of cases. We still live in a world where 128 bitrate MP3 are good enough for many and those people avoid paying wherever possible. If Taylor Swift and related music business prefer a select or promoting her music she should have that ability and not be subject to the whims of others.

 

[Teon]

as said to my Arab friends: Taylor leads the Jihad against the resource of heretics