AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
-
** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
- Status
paige_orion
Cam Model
- Nov 13, 2013
- 2,734
- 19,314
- 213
- Twitter Username
- @paige_orion
- Tumblr Username
- paigexorion
- Clips4Sale URL
- http://clips4sale.com/studio/74335/Goddess-Paige
This was an interesting piece to read, though I felt like the article was trying to make this practice waaaaay more sinister than it really is. I doubt that Spotify is allowing this practice merely to avoid paying the original, bigger named artists. Cover songs are kind of a tradition and are popular all over the internet. I mean, look at Youtube! They are everywhere, so it makes sense to see those same artists on Spotify.
I might be a bit biased about this, though. I don't think that cover-artists are third-rate at all. In fact, I can't tell you how many times I've hated a popular song, and then I stumble across a cover song, and I fall in love with it. It's really neat to see a song done one way, and then another person takes those same lyrics and gives it a unique twist. Like... They'll turn a pop song into a metal song. Or a rock song into an acoustic song. Or a song sung by a man, instead sung by a woman, or vice versa. It's neat because twelve different people can take one song and redo it - and it will suddenly be twelve vastly different songs. I love it. Most of the time, I enjoy cover artists way more than the original artists, because I love those unique twists, and I love seeing the creativity shown in those reimaginings. So personally, I'm really glad that Spotify allows the cover artists to make money off of those works, because I'd much rather listen to those versions than the original, 9 times out of 10. And if I get so much enjoyment out of an artist's track, I enjoy knowing that they are being compensated for it.
But I personally don't think it is some insidious plot to fuck over original artists.
Of course, I'm not sure about the legalities behind covering a song, and perhaps that is where the waters can get murky? Because I'm not sure about copyright and royalties, etc. I've just seen millions of covers being created, so it's hard to assume that it's totally illegal. But if an artist takes the time to record something amazing, and it sounds good and it sounds unique to me, I'll totally want them to get paid, and I'm always keen to see the little-guys make money too.
Definitely an interesting topic, though I kind of support the exact opposite of what the article is trying to argue. But I guess that's only to be expected, since I'm a cover-song addict! ^_^
However, I do agree that the silent-track thing is bizarre and i can't really see how that is allowed. But I don't really see how cover-songs are anything superbad.
I might be a bit biased about this, though. I don't think that cover-artists are third-rate at all. In fact, I can't tell you how many times I've hated a popular song, and then I stumble across a cover song, and I fall in love with it. It's really neat to see a song done one way, and then another person takes those same lyrics and gives it a unique twist. Like... They'll turn a pop song into a metal song. Or a rock song into an acoustic song. Or a song sung by a man, instead sung by a woman, or vice versa. It's neat because twelve different people can take one song and redo it - and it will suddenly be twelve vastly different songs. I love it. Most of the time, I enjoy cover artists way more than the original artists, because I love those unique twists, and I love seeing the creativity shown in those reimaginings. So personally, I'm really glad that Spotify allows the cover artists to make money off of those works, because I'd much rather listen to those versions than the original, 9 times out of 10. And if I get so much enjoyment out of an artist's track, I enjoy knowing that they are being compensated for it.
But I personally don't think it is some insidious plot to fuck over original artists.
Of course, I'm not sure about the legalities behind covering a song, and perhaps that is where the waters can get murky? Because I'm not sure about copyright and royalties, etc. I've just seen millions of covers being created, so it's hard to assume that it's totally illegal. But if an artist takes the time to record something amazing, and it sounds good and it sounds unique to me, I'll totally want them to get paid, and I'm always keen to see the little-guys make money too.
Definitely an interesting topic, though I kind of support the exact opposite of what the article is trying to argue. But I guess that's only to be expected, since I'm a cover-song addict! ^_^
However, I do agree that the silent-track thing is bizarre and i can't really see how that is allowed. But I don't really see how cover-songs are anything superbad.
No one has so far either proved or disproved the the allegations.
And Vulture.com is a part of New York Magizine, not a fake news site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_(magazine)#Digital_expansion_and_blogs
The burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation. If the ACCUSER hasn't submitted proof then it's logical fallacy.
If I say, "Models only make money to buy drugs", it's on ME to prove that. It doesn't automatically become a fact because nobody had proven my statement wrong and it doesn't become more legitimate the more people source my statement.
The Vulture article doesn't say Spotify purposely is endorsing this, it just says how they could benefit from it and that they aren't taking actions to stop it.
Using an unsourced article to source another article leads to fake/misleading news. Any site that should be considered a legitimate news source SHOULD be able to prove source for their news.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
