Comments on: YouTube Hurts Music Album Sales, Research Finds

By: Kyder Dog

Kyder Dog — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:47:00 +0000

So when did the middle class every buy music?

By: Guest

Guest — Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:52:00 +0000

Well done. Your monthly fee, paid in Cary Sherman’s ejaculation and toenail clippings, will be sent to you in the mail.

By: VIDEO INSIDER: BuzzFeed Comes To TV — Aereo To Expand — Comcast Buys Movieclips

VIDEO INSIDER: BuzzFeed Comes To TV — Aereo To Expand — Comcast Buys Movieclips — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:15:06 +0000

[…] YOUTUBE COSTS MUSIC LABELS MILLIONS PER YEAR: YouTube costs the music industry up to $40 million in lost album sales per year, according to a new study by Fairfield University and the University of Colorado. The study concluded, “the people listening on YouTube appear to be, to some extent people who would know about this album anyway, but may not buy it because of YouTube.” (TorrentFreak) […]

By: John Trapp

John Trapp — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:46:00 +0000

I never understoood how Youtube gets away with that being that Youtube is owned by Google which is a multi-multi-billion dollar company. So why isn’t Google getting its ass sued off? They have pretty much every song every recorded on that site, even entire albums that anyone can DL and convert to an MP3.

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 05:30:00 +0000

Way to not answer the questions posed above.

I’m already living a solution – not buying music, and not downloading it. But it appears to me that you’d rather I support the existing solution, which is to pay other organizations for money that artists might have gotten but didn’t – which, in itself, doesn’t reach the pockets of artists. And what’s troubling is that you seem to agree with this solution of extortionate reimbursement. Really? Since no perfect world solution exists, our only form of recourse is to pay faceless organizations who don’t pay the artists?

Sorry, I’m not buying that shit sandwich. And no, there is no getting past the RIAA talk, because RIAA talking points was how the shitstorm began to start with. They claim to represent all artists, so sure.

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 05:24:00 +0000

And that’s supposed to be a problem? Music being more readily available is supposed to be an undesired scenario?

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 05:23:00 +0000

The reason that happens is because reputation encourages them to lead lavish lifestyles and resultant expenditures.

Celebrities don’t bother me with their lifestyles, but when they start campaigning for laws that make my legal consumer behavior illegal because they can’t afford their seventy-second diamond-studded toilet seat, then yes, there is a problem.

By: PirateProtector

PirateProtector — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:51:00 +0000

Of course it doesn’t exceed the revenue loss.
It’s a great industry but the way people listen to music and consume other media has changed way to much. I have gotten used to free music,movies etc. If i like it i will buy. otherwise not.
That still stands, the article itself is interesting but not exacly why i commented so please tone down your voice a bit :P

By: Riaa whore

Riaa whore — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:43:00 +0000

Don’t respond to the paid troll

By: Music Albums Sales are Directly Affected by People Listening to Music on YouTube | Xcuz Me

Sun, 13 Apr 2014 05:42:08 +0000

[…] Check out the full article here and have your say. […]