Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by J0_k3r 2011 days ago
Let's say you're a youtuber or streamer who listens to a variety of different music, are you really going to pay to license every one of your favorite songs for business use? No.

Instead they go to No Copyright Sounds or Kevin McLeod and grab their stuff instead because why are you going to sacrifice that money to license the music when you're small and starting out?

1 comments

When streamers are streaming, they are working. If you want to listen to your favorite music, you can do that in your own private time. In a business context, other rules apply.

> why are you going to sacrifice that money to license the music when you're small and starting out

Does this also apply to utility bills?

Just use non-copyrighted music. If that isn't enough, you need to pay or just live with it.

The original post talked about this causing a lack of discovery for the new music. If the streamer doesn't pay and just uses non-copyrighted music no harm done to the streamer. It's still great fun. But the users don't get exposed to potentially interesting music content.

Why should the streamer pay for the privilege of being basically an advertisement platform for a commercial product? And they don't, and thus there is less discovery. Hence what is meant by the music industry shooting itself in the foot.

I personally listen mostly to music I listened as a teenager and early 20's. Sometimes I learn of something new and nice from my friends, but otherwise I find discovering new music quite hard.

A new game comes out: Tons of reviews and letsplays and whatnot. Looks interesting, I'll buy. New music comes out: Its advertised maybe in Spotify but that's it. Making a review or analysis is not possible (without paying extra), so I can't encounter it. And thus I won't listen it.

You are assuming that no copyright content is not interesting. That's often the case, but this is a chance for artists who don't subscribe to the exploitative model offered by most labels. People discover new music just fine, only that it doesn't come from greedy labels.
\>Does this also apply to utility bills?

If people could cut costs by using electricity that isn't from their local state monopoly then definitely.

\>Just use non-copyrighted music. If that isn't enough, you need to pay or just live with it.

The original post is complaining about a lack of discovery, and you don't seem to care about finding any sort of solution to the problem originally posed.

No one's going to pay to advertise your crap, thus no one is going to listen to it.