|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 15:16:44 GMT -6
OK - here you go. This article is straight up. And guess what - it's BLOCKED using a google search. Gee whiz. Wonder why : I got no time to duke it out with you pro-Googlites. If you want to support them, feel free. Virtually every pro-Songwriter, pro-Music organization does battle with them. Ascap and BMI are hell bent in lock down battle against them. Hell, they put their vp of Legal Affairs into the justice department to help keep laws almost 100 years old in place at the detriment of music and other creative artists to help youtube to continue their pro-piracy and underpayment tactics. But yeah, they love and fight for us "little guys". have at it mr straw man. Explain how this is good for musicians. www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/#234c585a4530You're making my case for me. I don't have a stake in this. I don't even know what my opinion is. I just like and respect a solid case, whatever the subject. I asked you if you think the niche market of musicians and their unique economics is indicative of Google's effect on the general economy at large. And your response is, "Oh, you're Pro-Google, ok then, you tell me how Google is good for musicians." That is the definition of a Straw Man argument. In other words, it's weak. I mean, hell, you might even convince me to agree with you if you gave it a college try. If you're argument is really just, "I believe Google is bad for musicians and music producers in general therefore I do not support them," then fine. And if you put it in those terms, I can totally respect it. If you want to make the case that Google is a bad actor in general, you're going to have to support it elsewise. "The Gerneral Economy At Large" is all in the way you look at it. Since Google is, in fact, part of the economy from one viewpoint anything good for Google is good for "the economy". The Mafia could make the same argument based on the same logic. The real question is whether Google is good for other businesses and for particular sectors of the economy. And the answer to that all depends on what sector of the economy you're in and what your business is. Google has been a disaster for any segment of the econopmy that depends onm intellectyal property inm genertal and copyright in particular. Their philosphy is that thety have the right to copy and distribute the intellectual property of any other entity,whithout renumeration. Of cvourse when asked to disclose THEIR inlellectual property it's an entirely different matter. That seems rather hypocritical and dishonest to me. It also benefits Google to the detriment of entire industries.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 15:18:51 GMT -6
You cannot assume gov't is an honest broker. 'Cause it isn't. The only freedom we truly have left is the areas in life the government hasn't yet gotten around to regulating. With government, enough is never enough. Government is "honest" in direct proportion to the amount of money you can give them. Or have in the bank.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 15:21:13 GMT -6
I think your talking point was legitimate in 1980. In 2017 monopolies and corporate control of elections are much more a threat to our Democracy. Corporate control? You mean how the DNC completely rigged the nomination of H. Clinton making sure Sanders would not be an obstacle? Trump had absolutely NO backing from any corporation or establishment! Ironically his being elected has frustrated the entire establishment (Republican & Democrat) the media, & the rest of the tiers of pro & long term government personnel. For those that are semantically arguing about our form of government, it is, technically, a Representative Republic ... but it IS a Democracy. It's an oligarchy. If it was a representative republic the candidate that had the most votes would be president.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 15:28:16 GMT -6
You cannot assume gov't is an honest broker. 'Cause it isn't. The only freedom we truly have left is the areas in life the government hasn't yet gotten around to regulating. With government, enough is never enough. So you don't think Wall Street should be regulated at all Don? How about pollution? Do you think what is put in our rivers, lakes and oceans should be regulated? Or, should anybody be able to dump whatever they want whenever they want? I think Don is talking about the way things ARE and you're talking about THE WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. Regulation is often good, even necessary. Bad regulation is a nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 13, 2017 15:33:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 13, 2017 16:14:31 GMT -6
So you don't think Wall Street should be regulated at all Don? How about pollution? Do you think what is put in our rivers, lakes and oceans should be regulated? Or, should anybody be able to dump whatever they want whenever they want? I think Don is talking about the way things ARE and you're talking about THE WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. If you're saying our government should protect our natural resources from businesses that would destroy them and our economy from fraudulent schemes I agree.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 16:22:36 GMT -6
BTW, I don't have to be in the room with Google, it's legion of lobbyists or the politicians they influence to make an educated decision about what I think their motives are. You've never done the work a day in your life. You accused someone you've literally never met/known of being unethical. (Still waiting on that name btw.) Your posts reveal that you generally have no clue how the processes that you're bashing actually work. What part of that is educated to you? (Rhetorical question, I don't expect you to answer with anything that remotely addresses the issue.) Their publicly accessible actions speak on their own. Google's own published mission statement lays it out pretty clearly. They present themselves as Robin Hood, stealing from the big, bad, rich songwriters, authors, grahic artists, musicians, journalists, and photographers, to name just a few, and distributing their assets to pretty much anyone who wants them for "free", while somehow managing to rake in billions off of advertising and sales of people's private data (also uncompensated). And they fund a truly massive proppaganda machine to influence the public and politicians to supportt therir thievery. It's literally impossible to calculate the amount spent on propaganda and lobbying because so much of it is in the form of "grants", "philanthropical contributions", etc. For example, Google functionally owns Wikipedia, which on paper is an independent nonprofit, by the simple technique of matching evey public contribution dollar for dollar. That sounds like a lovely, gernerous policy until you realize that it means that by contolling half their funding, when Google says "frog" Jimmy Wales JUMPS. Which in turn means that evry single thing you read on Wikipedia that's remotely concerned with anti-piraracy or artist's rights legislation is carefully vetted and adjusted to serve Google's agenda. That's HUGE. And it's only one example of the many institutions, academic entities, and think tanks they control via the same methods. Not to mention all the "independent" blogs. It's possible that by researching the publicly visible money trail to get a good idea of the essential ways they operate to control public opinion, but there's no way to estimate the true scope of it, except to say that the total cash involved is probably greater than the GDP of many small nations.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 16:29:20 GMT -6
Coming around the impact of Citizens United, who was supposed to benefit from that? www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/Clinton raised and spent almost twice what Trump did in 2016, almost $1.2 billion, to Trump's $650 million, and Obama raised more than Clinton in 2012. Trump's victory supports a notion that money isn't necessarily that important, and Citizens is hardly the boogieman it's portrayed to be. Drill down in that Bloomberg article, you'll see most of Clinton's money came from large donations. But then the Clintons spent years pre-selling influence on the premise of a sure-thing victory in 2016. It's not a partisan issue. I dislike Hillary nearly a much as I dislike Trump. They're cut from the same cloth, the primary difference is that Hillary is more or less competent at what she does and knows enough not to make a fool out of the country on the world stage.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 16:39:57 GMT -6
Aw, [david] I thought we were doing great here discussing potentially contentious topics. I think those of us posters that feel we know each other can converse without taking or giving offense. Not trying to 'gotcha' Frank, just making a point that IMO, Citizens hasn't turned out to be much of an influence one way or the other on national politics, anyway. As for Dodd-Frank in the wake of the 2008 Wall St. debacle, these articles make my point about the unintended consequences of Washington's determination to fix the barn door after the horse is gone. It sure has! If you have any interest in ecological issues (such as not having the state you live in go up in flames or being drowned out of existence by rising sea level - or having a giant oil spill in either a major fishery or in the middle of your state when the pipeline breaks) the effect of Citizen's United is obvious when politicians of both parties are bought off to support long term destructive policies that are beneficial to the short term interests of big corporations. And that's only ONE of many ways it makes a difference. Sadly, we no longer live in the 18th century when things were small enough to not need much regulation.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 13, 2017 17:34:00 GMT -6
Coming around the impact of Citizens United, who was supposed to benefit from that? www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/Clinton raised and spent almost twice what Trump did in 2016, almost $1.2 billion, to Trump's $650 million, and Obama raised more than Clinton in 2012. Trump's victory supports a notion that money isn't necessarily that important, and Citizens is hardly the boogieman it's portrayed to be. Drill down in that Bloomberg article, you'll see most of Clinton's money came from large donations. But then the Clintons spent years pre-selling influence on the premise of a sure-thing victory in 2016. It's not a partisan issue. I dislike Hillary nearly a much as I dislike Trump. They're cut from the same cloth, the primary difference is that Hillary is more or less competent at what she does and knows enough not to make a fool out of the country on the world stage. I actually fear Hillary more than I fear Trump as I regard Hillary as a compentent psychopath while Trump appears to think he's still in an episode of 'The Apprentice'. Apart from Fox Hillary has had a free pass from the Liberal media inspite of her myriad of documented lies and deceit. Regardless of which 'Commander in Chief' occupies the oval office they are predominantly under the control of larger unseen forces. George Carlin summed up the state of US politics (Western politics) in his 'The American Dream'.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 13, 2017 17:42:53 GMT -6
OK - here you go. This article is straight up. And guess what - it's BLOCKED using a google search. Gee whiz. Wonder why..... Wheres the net neutrality in that censorship? Bing seems to find it easily. Look, I got no time to duke it out with you pro-Googlites. If you want to support them, feel free. Virtually every pro-Songwriter, pro-Music organization does battle with them. Ascap and BMI are hell bent in lock down battle against them. Hell, they - google - put their ex-vp of Legal Affairs into the justice department to help keep laws almost 100 years old in place at the detriment of music and other creative artists to help youtube to continue their pro-piracy and underpayment tactics. But yeah, they love and fight for us "little guys". There's my straw man. If you feel like it, please explain how this is good for musicians. www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/#234c585a4530Google can change piracy any time they decide to. They can block pirate and torrent sites, they can quit stealing intellectual property, they can call up youtube and ask them to start paying their fair share. It's actually pretty simple. If they are so ethical, why fight so hard against what's right? sorry, you're wrong: www.google.com/search?q=the+real+reasons+google+killed+sopa+pipa&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS699US702&oq=the+real+reasons+google+killed+sopa+pipa&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3.5354j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8it is the first result returned. just wanted to add that Maria Schneider is wrong about a lot of things in her post. Has she not been on youtube recently and seen all of the channels that use Patreon to support themselves? PBS SpaceTime, SciShow, Smarter Every Day, MinuteEarth, Minute Physics. drbill regarding your $65 for a million+ spins, you're doing it wrong. Start a youtube channel, monetize it, and then post your songs as animated videos on your channel. Google pays 45-55% of whatever ad revenue they sell on your channel. Your payments suck because OTHER PEOPLE are using your music on THEIR channel. So, put your music on YOUR OWN CHANNEL and you'll get all of that 45-55%. Also, make videos documenting your process for creating the songs. Basically, do what this guy does with regard to selling music on youtube.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 13, 2017 18:15:09 GMT -6
I take your point, Ragan. Can you give examples of where Gov't got it right, and where the market didn't self-correct after an abusive f'up? What I see is, every crisis, real or imagined, is an excuse for gov't to proscribe more of our freedom, the crisis often resulting from previous gov't interventions. I have more faith in the hive-mind of humans and chaos theory to work out problems than I do in Congress and DC bureaucracies, especially those that fall beyond the original intent of the federal government's purpose and power. Which is why I don't support DC making rules about the internet that would, by making any rules, inevitably favor some constituencies and harm others. Sure. A couple that pop into my mind. I've done a good bit of real estate work (flipped houses for the last few years). I think that it was correct of the government to enact the Fair Housing Act. I don't think if a black dude is just as qualified as a white dude, the bank should be able to give the loan to the white dude and deny the loan to the black dude. Which was common practice for a long, long time. I also don't think loan officers or realtors should be able to engage in steering or blockbusting (steering - only showing the black dude listings in the black part of town, blockbusting - generating listings by telling the white dudes that a bunch of black people are moving into the neighborhood so they should sell their houses pronto). I'm also glad the gov put an end to something many consumer banks were engaged in. They (the banks) would hold your deposits until the end of the day and run your debits/withdrawals first in the hopes of rigging it so that you get overdraft fees. This happened to me many times when I was a broke-ass 20-something musician. I'd deposit a check from a customer (I ran my own small window cleaning business for 13 years) in the morning, then I'd, say, grab a coffee and a sandwich for lunch later. I was always hovering around empty in my checking account. But I'd think, "well, I just put $300 in, so I should be good" when I grabbed lunch. My bank would hold off on clearing the deposit until after they'd run any spending from the day and sometimes that coffee/sandwich would dip me below zero. So $35 overdraft fee there. Then maybe I got a bottle of water or a six-pack later. They'd run that before the deposit. Couple more $35 overdraft fees. Then after that, they'd release my deposit from the morning and suddenly my $300 deposit only brings me back to $180 or so. This happened dozens of times. Sometime around 2009 or 2010, this kind of shit was outlawed. There was a class-action suit and in like 2015 I got a check for $100 or something. I spent around $3k in overdraft fees during those lean years (granted, not all of it was from bank sleaze, some of it was me being a young idiot). Anyway. I'm glad that practice isn't allowed. I'm glad it's regulated. My older brother (and longtime drummer in my various bands) has been in social work his whole adult life. He's now a probation counselor. He deals with kids whose situations you would not believe. He takes his job so incredibly seriously and is so goddamn good at it. When I'm in Eastern Washington, in the rural area where I grew up, I hear people bitch and moan about social services. They use all the tired tropes about the safety net becoming a hammock. They talk about how these people have no incentive to better themselves and they should just work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps and blah blah blah. I don't even totally disagree with them. There are cases where that perspective is correct. What they remain willfully ignorant about is the fact that while their little darlings are going to good, safe schools and getting tutoring and extra attention when they need it, the kids my brother is trying to help are living in their junkie mother's car while she turns tricks. One of his kids saw the closest thing he'd had to a dad shot in their living room when a drug deal went bad. My brother worked with this kid for years. Helping him get job training, encouraging him to keep his ass in line and not run with the gang-bangers, telling him over and over that he doesn't have to go down the path of his parents. Just being an invested, older male presence who gave a shit about the kid. And advocating for him legally too. Talking to judges, cops. Sometimes it doesn't work. He (my brother) has had his heart broken many times when a kid he's trying to get out of that life does something dumb and goes off to prison. But sometimes it does work. He gets to see a kid who's come from an absolutely nightmarish background go to college. Get their own place. Pay their own bills. Get the fuck out of that life. He (my brother) doesn't make a lot of money. Yet he's still excoriated by rightwing mouth pieces who cling fiercely to the narrative that all government is bad and all government workers are lazy, entitled, teat-suckers. And these guys bellowing out the talking points have kids who are in private school. Who, when they get busted for popping opioids in class, don't face the criminal justice system the way my brother's kid smoking a joint does. They get a pretend stern talking to as daddy reminds the principal about the sizable donation his rotary club will be making again this year. I do not think it's a waste of money for a guy like my brother to be paid a modest salary to try and help 'the least of these' make something of their lives. I think it's appropriate and a good use of resources. Or, while I'm talking about brothers, take my oldest brother. He's schizophrenic. It came out of nowhere in his 20s and led to a decade of incredible struggle and heartache for my family. When he was finally hospitalized (forcibly), he was there for over a month. And ever since then he sees a psychiatrist he can't pay for, he gets meds he can't pay for, he gets subsidized housing he can't pay for. My parents are (now retired) pastors. And my mom taught piano and voice from age 15 to 65. They made extremely modest incomes their whole lives. We were just into the middle class. But even with those paltry financial resources, they were able to eventually save enough to buy a house, where they lived for 30 years. They never spent beyond their means. They saved what little they could, looking towards one day retiring. When my brother got sick and went into the hospital, if they had had to pay those bills, they would have been bankrupt in about a week. They didn't have to pay them. Several charities that get huge grants and subsidies from the government covered them. They kept their house, and my brother to this day gets to have his meds. I don't think this is the government fucking things up. I think it's the government playing a practical and appropriate role. Those are just a couple off the top of my head. You'll never hear me arguing the government can do no wrong. There is massive waste and fraud and valid criticisms abound. But it's just utter nonsense in my opinion to try and prop up the curated narrative that everything the government touches, it fucks up. It's just not the case.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 13, 2017 18:31:24 GMT -6
OK - here you go. This article is straight up. And guess what - it's BLOCKED using a google search. Gee whiz. Wonder why..... Wheres the net neutrality in that censorship? Bing seems to find it easily. Look, I got no time to duke it out with you pro-Googlites. If you want to support them, feel free. Virtually every pro-Songwriter, pro-Music organization does battle with them. Ascap and BMI are hell bent in lock down battle against them. Hell, they - google - put their ex-vp of Legal Affairs into the justice department to help keep laws almost 100 years old in place at the detriment of music and other creative artists to help youtube to continue their pro-piracy and underpayment tactics. But yeah, they love and fight for us "little guys". There's my straw man. If you feel like it, please explain how this is good for musicians. www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/#234c585a4530Google can change piracy any time they decide to. They can block pirate and torrent sites, they can quit stealing intellectual property, they can call up youtube and ask them to start paying their fair share. It's actually pretty simple. If they are so ethical, why fight so hard against what's right? sorry, you're wrong: www.google.com/search?q=the+real+reasons+google+killed+sopa+pipa&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS699US702&oq=the+real+reasons+google+killed+sopa+pipa&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3.5354j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8it is the first result returned. just wanted to add that Maria Schneider is wrong about a lot of things in her post. Has she not been on youtube recently and seen all of the channels that use Patreon to support themselves? PBS SpaceTime, SciShow, Smarter Every Day, MinuteEarth, Minute Physics. drbill regarding your $65 for a million+ spins, you're doing it wrong. Start a youtube channel, monetize it, and then post your songs as animated videos on your channel. Google pays 45-55% of whatever ad revenue they sell on your channel. Your payments suck because OTHER PEOPLE are using your music on THEIR channel. So, put your music on YOUR OWN CHANNEL and you'll get all of that 45-55%. Also, make videos documenting your process for creating the songs. Basically, do what this guy does with regard to selling music on youtube. Well, I'm not wrong on my computer or browsers. Not sure what's up with that. I can search and connect on Bing or by searching on Forbes, but Google will not let me connect the link. Thanks for the youtube tip. May go there someday, but have no time for it now. Cheers, bp
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 13, 2017 18:42:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Dec 13, 2017 19:03:01 GMT -6
I searched the headline of the Forbes article (hours ago, out of curiosity) and it was the top result. Chrome on El Capitan, no ad blockers.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 21:04:43 GMT -6
I take your point, Ragan. Can you give examples of where Gov't got it right, and where the market didn't self-correct after an abusive f'up? What I see is, every crisis, real or imagined, is an excuse for gov't to proscribe more of our freedom, the crisis often resulting from previous gov't interventions. I have more faith in the hive-mind of humans and chaos theory to work out problems than I do in Congress and DC bureaucracies, especially those that fall beyond the original intent of the federal government's purpose and power. Which is why I don't support DC making rules about the internet that would, by making any rules, inevitably favor some constituencies and harm others. When the market didn't "self correct" after a monumental screwup? Ever heard of the Great Depression? The only reason this has not reoccured is government regulation. Where government "got it rtight"? How about all the time between Roosevelt and the rise of Reagan who systematically attacked all the checks and balances instituted by government in the wake ofg the of the Great Depression. There have been ZERO good results from Regan's policies, just as a slow doward spiral and and an increaing funning of wealth into the hands of the undeserving filthy rich. Our founding fathers believed in and attempted to set a system of checks and balances. Since then there has been a continupous onslaught by the rich to destory those checks and balances with the intent of feathering their own nests. Sadly the founding fathers were less than clairvoyant and had no way to foresee the the sustained assault on the system they constructed. I have little faith in the the "hive mind" of gullible humans in the fact of professional liars. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 21:19:25 GMT -6
It's not a partisan issue. I dislike Hillary nearly a much as I dislike Trump. They're cut from the same cloth, the primary difference is that Hillary is more or less competent at what she does and knows enough not to make a fool out of the country on the world stage. I actually fear Hillary more than I fear Trump as I regard Hillary as a compentent psychopath while Trump appears to think he's still in an episode of 'The Apprentice'. Apart from Fox Hillary has had a free pass from the Liberal media inspite of her myriad of documented lies and deceit. Regardless of which 'Commander in Chief' occupies the oval office they are predominantly under the control of larger unseen forces. George Carlin summed up the state of US politics (Western politics) in his 'The American Dream'. You have just stated the case for getting rid of "Citizens United". And, as much it disgusts me to say it, I would trust Hillary's experience and expertise infintiely more that I would trust a totally green egomaniacal psychopath like Trump to avoid getting us into a hot war with a rogue nuclear power like North Korea. The last the the world or the USA needs is have a psychopath get us (I started to say "lead", but Trump isn't qualified to lead a pet dog) into a nuclear conflict with another psychopath.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 21:30:11 GMT -6
OK - here you go. This article is straight up. And guess what - it's BLOCKED using a google search. Gee whiz. Wonder why..... Wheres the net neutrality in that censorship? Bing seems to find it easily. Look, I got no time to duke it out with you pro-Googlites. If you want to support them, feel free. Virtually every pro-Songwriter, pro-Music organization does battle with them. Ascap and BMI are hell bent in lock down battle against them. Hell, they - google - put their ex-vp of Legal Affairs into the justice department to help keep laws almost 100 years old in place at the detriment of music and other creative artists to help youtube to continue their pro-piracy and underpayment tactics. But yeah, they love and fight for us "little guys". There's my straw man. If you feel like it, please explain how this is good for musicians. www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/#234c585a4530Google can change piracy any time they decide to. They can block pirate and torrent sites, they can quit stealing intellectual property, they can call up youtube and ask them to start paying their fair share. It's actually pretty simple. If they are so ethical, why fight so hard against what's right? sorry, you're wrong: www.google.com/search?q=the+real+reasons+google+killed+sopa+pipa&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS699US702&oq=the+real+reasons+google+killed+sopa+pipa&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3.5354j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8it is the first result returned. just wanted to add that Maria Schneider is wrong about a lot of things in her post. Has she not been on youtube recently and seen all of the channels that use Patreon to support themselves? PBS SpaceTime, SciShow, Smarter Every Day, MinuteEarth, Minute Physics. drbill regarding your $65 for a million+ spins, you're doing it wrong. Start a youtube channel, monetize it, and then post your songs as animated videos on your channel. Google pays 45-55% of whatever ad revenue they sell on your channel. Your payments suck because OTHER PEOPLE are using your music on THEIR channel. So, put your music on YOUR OWN CHANNEL and you'll get all of that 45-55%. Also, make videos documenting your process for creating the songs. Basically, do what this guy does with regard to selling music on youtube. Nonsense. Why should he have to pay more money to have videos produced just to get a a miniscule pittance raised to to slightly less minuscule pittance? The royalty for music use should be equal for any use of one's music on the the site. Other people have no right to use one's music without permission and if YT is going to permit them to get away with it the royalty should the same if not greater.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 21:40:54 GMT -6
It's not a partisan issue. I dislike Hillary nearly a much as I dislike Trump. They're cut from the same cloth, the primary difference is that Hillary is more or less competent at what she does and knows enough not to make a fool out of the country on the world stage. I actually fear Hillary more than I fear Trump as I regard Hillary as a compentent psychopath while Trump appears to think he's still in an episode of 'The Apprentice'. Apart from Fox Hillary has had a free pass from the Liberal media inspite of her myriad of documented lies and deceit. Regardless of which 'Commander in Chief' occupies the oval office they are predominantly under the control of larger unseen forces. George Carlin summed up the state of US politics (Western politics) in his 'The American Dream'. Actually most of the documented proof in all thew Hillary "scandals" supports Hillary. The nasty stuff she's involved in has never been publicized - because it's exactly the same crap that her enemies are neck deep in.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 13, 2017 21:44:48 GMT -6
sorry, you're wrong: www.google.com/search?q=the+real+reasons+google+killed+sopa+pipa&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS699US702&oq=the+real+reasons+google+killed+sopa+pipa&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3.5354j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8it is the first result returned. just wanted to add that Maria Schneider is wrong about a lot of things in her post. Has she not been on youtube recently and seen all of the channels that use Patreon to support themselves? PBS SpaceTime, SciShow, Smarter Every Day, MinuteEarth, Minute Physics. drbill regarding your $65 for a million+ spins, you're doing it wrong. Start a youtube channel, monetize it, and then post your songs as animated videos on your channel. Google pays 45-55% of whatever ad revenue they sell on your channel. Your payments suck because OTHER PEOPLE are using your music on THEIR channel. So, put your music on YOUR OWN CHANNEL and you'll get all of that 45-55%. Also, make videos documenting your process for creating the songs. Basically, do what this guy does with regard to selling music on youtube. Nonsense. Why should he have to pay more money to have videos produced just to get a a miniscule pittance raised to to slightly less minuscule pittance? The royalty for music use should be equal for any use of one's music on the the site. Other people have no right to use one's music without permission and if YT is going to permit them to get away with it the royalty should the same if not greater. He doesn't have to pay anything. YouTube is all about self-production. You shoot it yourself, you edit it yourself, you release it yourself. Some channels get pretty large and they try to produce shows with actual creative teams (because they have an operation budget), but the rest of us do it all ourselves. Go look at gaming channels, youtubers just use a webcam to show their face and an app like OBS to stream 1080p PS4 footage to YouTube and viewers tune in to watch. You folks should stop fighting the system and learn to manipulate it just like how guys like PewDiePie did. That guy has something like 50 million subscribers and has earned several MILLION dollars in ad revenue from YouTube because people like his banter while he plays computer games.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 21:46:17 GMT -6
just wanted to add that Maria Schneider is wrong about a lot of things in her post. Has she not been on youtube recently and seen all of the channels that use Patreon to support themselves? PBS SpaceTime, SciShow, Smarter Every Day, MinuteEarth, Minute Physics. Allowing a plea for a Patreon handout is NOT a substitute for paying a fair royalty. Patreon has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with YouTube's legal obligations. Musicians should not be forced to beg for a handout when a huge corporation owes them thousands of dollars in unpaid leagally mandated royalties.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 13, 2017 22:08:17 GMT -6
Nonsense. Why should he have to pay more money to have videos produced just to get a a miniscule pittance raised to to slightly less minuscule pittance? The royalty for music use should be equal for any use of one's music on the the site. Other people have no right to use one's music without permission and if YT is going to permit them to get away with it the royalty should the same if not greater. He doesn't have to pay anything. YouTube is all about self-production. You shoot it yourself, you edit it yourself, you release it yourself. Some channels get pretty large and they try to produce shows with actual creative teams (because they have an operation budget), but the rest of us do it all ourselves. Go look at gaming channels, youtubers just use a webcam to show their face and an app like OBS to stream 1080p PS4 footage to YouTube and viewers tune in to watch. You folks should stop fighting the system and learn to manipulate it just like how guys like PewDiePie did. That guy has something like 50 million subscribers and has earned several MILLION dollars in ad revenue from YouTube because people like his banter while he plays computer games. Don't make me laugh. When I put out my last album and approached a a really old friend who runs the East Bay Bay Media collective (a community non-profit) about shooting a video he quote me a "buddy deal" of a minimum of $1000 just to do the the shoot, plus editing costs estimated at another grand or more, Sure, you can put out a crappy looking and sounding phone cam video, but that's not going to do you any good. Maybe that'll pass on facebook, but it's not going get any serious response on YT.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 13, 2017 22:14:46 GMT -6
He doesn't have to pay anything. YouTube is all about self-production. You shoot it yourself, you edit it yourself, you release it yourself. Some channels get pretty large and they try to produce shows with actual creative teams (because they have an operation budget), but the rest of us do it all ourselves. Go look at gaming channels, youtubers just use a webcam to show their face and an app like OBS to stream 1080p PS4 footage to YouTube and viewers tune in to watch. You folks should stop fighting the system and learn to manipulate it just like how guys like PewDiePie did. That guy has something like 50 million subscribers and has earned several MILLION dollars in ad revenue from YouTube because people like his banter while he plays computer games. Don't make me laugh. When I put out my last album and approached a a really old friend who runs the East Bay Bay Media collective (a community non-profit) about shooting a video he quote me a "buddy deal" of a minimum of $1000 just to do the the shoot, plus editing costs estimated at another grand or more, Sure, you can put of a crappy looking and sounding phone cam video, but that's not going to do you any good. Maybed that'll pass opn facebook, but it's not going get any serious response on YT. That sounds like you haven't watched anything that people have produced these days with just their cellphone and good lighting. Just like with music, it's about the person behind the lens, not the lens itself. Lighting is everything when it comes to video. You don't need to hire videographers to make amazing videos. Just like you don't need to hire Steve gadd to have great drums on your song.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 13, 2017 22:15:15 GMT -6
Yes. Blocked. 2 different computers with 2 different OS's, 3 different browsers - Chrome, Safari, Firefox. 6 fails.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Dec 13, 2017 22:24:39 GMT -6
He doesn't have to pay anything. YouTube is all about self-production. You shoot it yourself, you edit it yourself, you release it yourself. Some channels get pretty large and they try to produce shows with actual creative teams (because they have an operation budget), but the rest of us do it all ourselves. Go look at gaming channels, youtubers just use a webcam to show their face and an app like OBS to stream 1080p PS4 footage to YouTube and viewers tune in to watch. You folks should stop fighting the system and learn to manipulate it just like how guys like PewDiePie did. That guy has something like 50 million subscribers and has earned several MILLION dollars in ad revenue from YouTube because people like his banter while he plays computer games. Don't make me laugh. When I put out my last album and approached a a really old friend who runs the East Bay Bay Media collective (a community non-profit) about shooting a video he quote me a "buddy deal" of a minimum of $1000 just to do the the shoot, plus editing costs estimated at another grand or more, Sure, you can put out a crappy looking and sounding phone cam video, but that's not going to do you any good. Maybe that'll pass on facebook, but it's not going get any serious response on YT. John, you wouldn't believe how low-fi and straight up crappy some of those million view videos are. The quality really is not that important. I've looked up a lot of music on youtube that was just a song playing with a static background w/ maybe some text. You can also easily download some stock images, legally and legitimately, from both free and pay sites. Edit together a few animated stock landscapes and boom: pretty lights floating around on a screen while your song plays.
|
|