Follow Us

DMN on Feedburner
Connect with:
divider image

Lostprophets Music Still Available on iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, Pandora, Rdio, VEVO, YouTube…

Last week, Lostprophets singer Ian Watkins pled guilty to ‘attempted’ rape of an 11-month-old baby, as well as numerous counts of sexual assault involving minors (story).  Despite these developments, Watkins and the disbanded Lostprophets are still receiving royalties from nearly all online music platforms.

I. iTunes

lostprophetsitunes

II. Spotify

lostprophetsspotify

III. Amazon

lostprophetsamazon

 

IV. Pandora

lostprophetspandora

 

V. Rdio

lostprophetsrdio

 

VI. VEVO

lostprophetsvevo

 

VII. YouTube

lostprophetsyoutube

 

blue bar background graphic
Comments (70)
  1. anon

    I’m sorry what? Just because one member is a terrible human the entire band, the label, and the rest involved have to take a hit and remove the music from everywhere? this article is garbage.


    Reply
    1. Yves Villeneuve

      It’s an issue of compassion towards the victims. I imagine they can sue for victims compensation, especially for the torment received while this guy is earning royalties in prison and his music and lyrics are defended by other secret paedophiles.


      Reply
      1. anon

        … again what? I refer to the frontman as an awful human and you refer to me as a secret “paedophile” (i think you meant pedophile). The point is you don’t destroy a brand because the CEO goes to jail, and if you pull their music you hurt a larger group than the one person. I guarantee the copyrights of most of these songs are not soley owned by Ian Watkins, this blog usually supports copyright owners against bullying, however in this case it seems to be an all or nothing situation. I could understand if there was some mention of asking the band to remove their music, but it is not the job of the digital distributor or the digital broadcasters to take a moral stand on band politics.


        Reply
        1. Yves Villeneuve

          First of all, a retailer has a right to choose what it carries in its inventory. It can choose on the basis of behaviour of its suppliers(artists) or the product itself. The retailer has the right to defend itself from any association of crimes committed or anything disturbing to its customers.

          Second, the CEO that you speak of has not been removed from the product he helped create. If the band wants to remove his vocals and replace with someone else’s then your analogy would start to make more sense. Based on the lyrics excerpt above in the article, he had his fun molesting babies and made his mark on them… I suggest the lyrics be replaced as well since they will always be associated with paedophilia… Get yourself a dictionary, paedophilia or pedophilia has the same meaning.

          If you’re defending the rights of this molester under the guise of defending his business associates then you know what they say, “If the shoe fits then wear it.”


          Reply
          1. anon

            yikes. where to even begin on this one. “The retailer has the right to defend itself from any association of crimes committed or anything disturbing to its customers” currently drugs are illegal. Should we get rid of all music by artists who have anything to do with the distribution of illegal substances? How about getting rid of metal music because some of the artists choose to make references to satanism? That has disturbed plenty of people in the past. How about we actually make sure that we keep “black” music off the shelves like in the 1950’s? Some people probably find that offensive. Your argument is based on a vague blur of censorship that would only alienate potential artists from using major distributors. If we keep going with the child molester argument, why hasn’t Michael Jacksons’s music been pulled? I mean I know he wasn’t convicted but still, we shouldn’t let them get away with things like this. I understand what you are saying and its truly awful that his victims can still see him making money, however playing morality police on artistic expression is not an appropriate response. And in response to you and GGG I merely chose the handle “anon” because I wasn’t coming up with something clever. I am a huge supporter of artist rights and despise a lot of what they advocate for.


            Reply
            1. Yves Villeneuve

              As you said, MJ was never proven guilty, no one has proof or witnesses to those crimes… Watkins pleaded guilty.

              It all comes down to the customer, what is deemed a criminal conviction and the priorities of the retailer i.e. artistic expression vs artistic integrity, customer satisfaction vs business profits, criminal support vs victim support.

              If you’re not Anon then change your name so we are all clear on this. So far, I don’t buy your explanation.


              Reply
              1. anony

                is my name all better now? My response is this: why not allow for the customers to decide. The band will be blasted for this scandal and odds are people will not be buying their music. I personally think their careers are already over, but why is it so necessary for iTunes, YouTube, Spotify, etc. to get involved? If people find it detestable they need not spend their money on it. Personally I would be more dissatisfied with a company that requires artists only be associated with pristine members of society in order to make money. If you consider that they have been signed on Sony Music why would a distributor decide to remove music from a huge label? I get you are upset about this but it simply doesn’t make sense to think that these companies are going to remove this content.


                Reply
                1. Yves Villeneuve

                  I am not going to predict either way. A major British retailer has already removed their content. Maybe more major retailers coming.

                  I think their lyrics should be officially recognized as paedophile anthems of a convicted paedophile, and the best way to do this is to remove the content as an act of disgrace toward this content and paedophilia in general. In honour circles, it’s called standing up to proven atrocities against children and humanity.

                  You can use “anony” as much as you like even if I think it’s a stupid name and you don’t revert back to “anon” and his dumb/criminal ethics.


                  Reply
        2. GGG

          Don’t take it personally, Yves calls everyone a paedophile. It’s by far his favorite word, and at times makes me think he doth protest too much…


          Reply
          1. Yves Villeneuve

            So protesting against paedophilia is an “evil” according to you? I know where you stand if you can’t allow protests against paedophilia anthems. It’s disgusting that you are allowing a little rivalry get in the way of good judgement involving crimes against children.

            Isn’t Anon (“Anonymous”) the name of an infamous computer hacker? If so, I understand your quick response to defend him since you like to hang out in the same secret chat rooms as they do. I was able to discern as much from your comments long ago. You can deny but I won’t believe you.


            Reply
            1. GGG

              I guess I shouldn’t have expected you to know what some Shakespeare means, but that phrase, as it’s used in the modern day, does not mean I don’t think the subject is evil. It means you bring it up so much and often so arbitrarily that you’re obviously trying as hard as possible to pretend you are not some sort of pedophile yourself.


              Reply
              1. Yves Villeneuve

                Whatever. You’re simply using a little rivalry getting in the way of me defending victims of paedophilia. You’re a douche for it.


                Reply
                1. GGG

                  Well, self-professed home body who doesn’t get out much, has a weird pedo-fetish, and uses a photo of himself in a child’s bedroom as an artist photo….as you say, if the shoe fits…


                  Reply
                  1. Yves Villeneuve

                    You’re a douche.

                    By your definition, I guess I must be gay and a musical virtuoso too because I’ve stated I’m a heterosexual and not a musical virtuoso, and have heterosexual and musical fetishes.

                    Once a douche, always a douche. Maybe you should stop attacking protests against paedophilia. You should also take note, the article references paedophilia. You’re attacks are out of line. However, I do understand your loyalty to the Internet’s underbelly and want to discredit anyone against it.


                    Reply
                    1. GGG

                      Well, you may be gay and I’d have no problem with that. But you got me on musical virtuoso. I’ve heard your music and that is one thing you are definitely not. So touché.


                  2. Yves Villeneuve

                    I’ve taken note. You’ve called my anti-paedophilia stance as being “weird”. Out of the several hundred articles I commented on, including this one, there might have been only 3 or 4 in which I rail against paedophiles, pirates and hackers. I guess my pirate and hacker fetish makes me one too, by your definition.


                    Reply
                    1. GGG

                      I didn’t call your anti-pedophile stance weird. Nice try. I called your use of the word pedophile in 99% of your posts, no matter what we’re talking about, weird. I’m sure if I looked around the internet there’s an argument you’re having about like broccoli or something and you call someone a pedophile.


                    2. Yves Villeneuve

                      I challenge you to find those purported comments.

                      By your definition, a Liberal politician always railing against conservative policies is actually a Conservative.

                      Your brand of logic is starting to make sense to me now.


                    3. GGG

                      Jesus, you really take everything I say 100% seriously, don’t you…you are a stranger person, Yves.


                    4. Yves Villeneuve

                      I knew you were trolling. I thought I would go along with it for “better arguments” sake.


        3. Anonymous

          Paedophile is the correct way of spelling the word. Pedophile is only used in USA and Canada. and it’s pronounced pee do file


          Reply
      2. mdti

        compassion toward the victims? aren’t the other bands members’ vicvtims ?
        typically french to blame the person, his brother and his dog, just for being acquainted to the person….


        Reply
    2. Paul Resnikoff

      “I’m sorry what? Just because one member is a terrible human the entire band, the label, and the rest involved have to take a hit and remove the music from everywhere?”

      They can do what they want. If I ruled one of these stores, I’d not only rip down the material, but issue a statement publicly, esp. for those searching for the content.


      Reply
      1. anony

        that’s understandable, I just think it’s rather idealistic to think these companies would do that on their own accord. Also I think it’s terribly sad for Ian’s bandmates and team who have worked so hard to get where they are just to be torn down completely.


        Reply
      2. PiratesWinLOL

        I would do the same, also so that the users doesn’t get an unpleasant experience. Using for example Pandora, you could easily have the unintended misfortune of suddently listening to their material. That would be disgusting and would make me feel sick. They should protect their listeners from such unpleasant experiences.


        Reply
  2. jw

    Obviously there are real victims to these repulsive crimes, & not to in any way downplay or minimize the longterm effects that are sure to result, but that band Lost Profits should just go ahead & change their name now.

    I could see all of these services taking LostProphets songs out of their radio services, but I’m not sure the band needs to be erased from the internet, or that it’s any of these services’ responsibilities to monitor the behavior of the artists whose music they sell. You can also find the music of Charles Manson, Gary Glitter, & Phil Spector on most or all of these services.

    Someone might want to pull up LostProphets on Spotify & look for clues about his behavior in their lyrics. For all we know, that might be therapeutic for someone.


    Reply
    1. Yves Villeneuve

      Therapeutic? That’s a dumb statement. Paedophiles are the least remorseful of their crimes.


      Reply
  3. Faza (TCM)

    And your point is?


    Reply
  4. Clif

    Chris browns music stayed up after he hit Rihanna .


    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    Yes but he didn’t abuse kids


    Reply
  6. Yves Villeneuve

    There could be a natural delay in taking down this music since it is Thanksgiving week in the USA. I know that the iTunes legal staff were on holidays all this week.


    Reply
  7. Alaya Wyndham

    Shame


    Reply
  8. Eric

    I have to support Anon/Anony’s point here. Just because one person is bad it should not mean that the FIVE other members of the band (plus the label and publishers that invested a huge amount of money into them) should be restricted from making a living.

    As an ethical point, then apply for Ian Watkins’ royalties to be frozen or redistributed to the victims and their families. It is completely unacceptable to punish everyone else for a crime they did NOT commit. Stop the scaremongering!

    Gary Glitter – a convicted pedophile – still has music available on a multitude of services AND in HMV. The latter’s withdrawal of Lostprophets content stinks of a company that is failing and trying to get some positive publicity out of a very bad story.

    Call a spade a spade people – point at HMV for making such a desperate play for extra revenues, not at the services that still carry the band’s catalogue.

    Yes, Ian Watkins did an unforgivable thing, but a vast number of people associated with the band should NOT be punished in the same way as he should.

    Anyone that thinks this is acceptable is the equivalent a torch-wielding villager, looking for witches. Basically, AN IDIOT!


    Reply
    1. Yves Villeneuve

      If I was a band member of lostprophets, I would be ashamed to be associated with those lyrics.


      Reply
      1. Yves Villeneuve

        I bet the rest of the band members and the label would make more money if they removed the vocals from the songs and volunteered to permanently take down those songs with vocals. Major retailers should give the band the opportunity to volunteer takedown notices before forcing the takedown.

        Those who want to keep the vocals most likely support paedophilia anthems by a convicted paedophile. I see no other reasons to keep the vocals in the face of paedophile convictions.


        Reply
        1. Eric

          1 – Do you have ANY idea how the recorded music industry works?
          2 – Do you think he relinquishes royalties because his vocals are removed from the track – because that isn’t how Publishing works either – so, to rephrase my first question, do you have ANY idea how the music publishing industry works?
          3 – Which lyrics – specifically – are condoning pedophilia, and which the band should be disassociated from?
          4 – Are you saying that anyone that has EVER bought a Lostprohpets album is actually a pedophile?
          5 – To reiterate my other points made elsewhere on the page, are you an idiot?!


          Reply
          1. Yves Villeneuve

            Briefly, I don’t need to answer all your misguided and misinformed questions.

            3 – All lostprophets lyrics will automatically be associated with paedophilia, especially when paedophiles hear or read them, because of paedophilia convictions received by the lyricist, assuming the convicted frontman is the lyricist.


            Reply
            1. Eric

              So, the answers to 1, 2 and 4 are NO, and 5 is YES?

              Gotcha. Thanks for clearing things up!


              Reply
              1. Yves Villeneuve

                You are putting some unwanted words in my mouth. I don’t need to respond to questions with obvious answers shared by most working professionals in the music industry who represent most readers of this site. You are mostly wasting everybody’s time. You are obviously not in the music industry and have little knowledge of it.


                Reply
                1. GGG

                  Yes, putting a record out on iTunes makes you a music industry professional…hahahah.

                  Anyway, I’m done for the day, always fun to see you get a little riled up.


                  Reply
                2. Eric

                  More than 13 years working professionally in music and VASTLY more experienced than you, clearly.

                  Your spamming is laughable – because your misinformed views are nothing more than spam.

                  Also, don’t make twatty comments if you aren’t willing to have them debated. If anything, this site is about debate and not you claiming everyone is a pedophile.

                  Idiot.


                  Reply
                  1. Yves Villeneuve

                    I don’t believe you know what is “spam”.

                    I don’t believe you are in the music industry, period.

                    I call people who are sympathetic to paedophile anthems, “paedophiles”.

                    Don’t believe GGGs false info. He likes to rile people up, by his admission. He’s a douchebag for reducing the seriousness of paedophilia because of an old rivalry between us and his loyalty to the Internet’s underbelly.


                    Reply
                    1. GGG

                      Did you just learn the words douche and douchebag today or something?


                    2. Eric

                      As base a response as this is, it’s all I’ve got left… I think you’re having your period!

                      1 – Lostprophets songs are the anthems of pedophiles.
                      2 – The singer of Lostprophets is a convicted pedophile.

                      How can you not see that these are completely different statements? The first is factually incorrect and the second is a legally validated point.

                      Ask Helienne Lindvall if I work in Music. I’m sure she can vouch for my credentials across management, labels, publishing and digital.


                    3. Yves Villeneuve

                      I don’t need to ask Helienne Lindvall. Just provide your last name and I’ll google it.

                      Did the convicted serial paedophile singer of lostprophets write the lyrics to lostprophets songs? If yes then they are paedophilia anthems for paedophiles since the lyrics can easily be attributed to the mentality of a paedophile.


          2. anony

            it’s really sad how he responds to these comments. I am a music industry student and I think I understand the industry much more than he does. It’s kind of like talking to a wall though, I’ve given up.


            Reply
            1. Yves Villeneuve

              As far as I’m aware, you’re a student of computer hacking.

              Lyricists receive 50% of songwriter royalties.

              100% of songwriter royalties of a song without vocals go to music writers.

              A separate catalog of recordings without vocals do not earn a previous vocalist of a band additional royalties.

              I concede I might be wrong. If you are a student of music then you can directly link to the section in Copyright law that says songs with vocals turned into instrumentals will continue to earn the lyricist and vocalist royalties.


              Reply
              1. anony

                have you ever heard the phrase “three in a room”? Odds are, Ian did not just write the lyrics, and if there was no said agreement before the creation it is implied that each member of a band receives an equal percentage of copyrights. Therefore, what you are saying is true, if Ian was only a lyricist. However even instrumentals would probably pay out royalties to him. And to address copyright law: these would be considered “joint works”. Consider Elton John and Bernie Taupin. Bernie would be considered the lyricist, however since they write together instead of using a work made for hire situation, Elton and Bernie split the work in it’s entirety


                Reply
                1. Yves Villeneuve

                  There are countless bands where the vocalist is the sole lyricist I.e. Van Halen, Nirvana

                  Very unlikely that Elton John would receive songwriting credits for lyrics that Bernie Taupin wrote or the latter received musical credits for Elton John’s music writing.

                  That said, unusual distribution of songwriting credits are always possible.


                  Reply
                2. Yves Villeneuve

                  By the way, Elton and Bernie’s songwriting relationship was considered “two rooms”.


                  Reply
                  1. anony

                    you’ve missed my point entirely. A joint work implies that the lyrics and melody are intertwined and those who add to a song get an equal part of the whole. The phrase three in a room usually means no matter how little someone adds to a song they get a third. It can be as simple as changing the lyric from black pants to blue jeans and as long as you were there you get a third of the copyright. I think you are misunderstanding the concept that a lyricist is also a co writer. Ever noticed how Beyonce has more than 12 writers on some of her songs? Maybe the markets you have been in operate differently than those I am aware of, but a joint work does not separate lyrics from the rest of the song. Ian would remain a co writer unless the band had previously signed an agreement or he chooses to now.


                    Reply
              2. Anonymous

                If a paedophile wrote cheese on a piece of paper. Should all chesse be removed from Supermarkets


                Reply
  9. bigboy99

    Ydiot!


    Reply
    1. Yves Villeneuve

      Whenever there is mention of protest against paedophilia, the same people come out if the woodwork to do their own protesting of the opposite nature.


      Reply
  10. Yves Villeneuve

    You’re going to see support for lostprophets who want to maintain paedophilia anthems by a convicted paedophile. It gives them inspiration to keep moving forward in their quests to molest children.

    Some will support lostprophets because they support the underbelly of the Internet such as criminal hackers who are connected to paedophiles, pirates, drug dealers and gangsters.


    Reply
    1. Eric

      I can’t believe that you can say that with a straight face, because, clearly you’re joking, right?

      Seriously? If you’re not joking, then you appear to be the King of all idiots!


      Reply
      1. Yves Villeneuve

        If the shoe fits then wear it.


        Reply
  11. Eric

    To kick morons in the face? Yes, I think I might.


    Reply
  12. john

    can we get this guys mug off the headline story already? come on man i visit to many times a day to keep seeing this shit.


    Reply
    1. Paul Resnikoff

      Can I just say, it’s awesome that you visit multiple times a day. New stories will be rolling in this morning.


      Reply
      1. jw

        Beginning to think you should start a side blog that just covers pedophilia. You seem to have an audience for it, & it could clean up the DMN comments section considerably.


        Reply
        1. Yves Villeneuve

          If protests against paedophilia in an article related to paedophilia bothers you then just admit it. Don’t be a douchebag about it.


          Reply
          1. jw

            What’s a douchebag?


            Reply
            1. Yves Villeneuve

              Dumb jerk.


              Reply
              1. jw

                Look, man. You probably want to cool it on calling people computer hackers & pedophile sympathizers. There’s not a single person commenting on DMN who is either of those. What this guy did, he did in private, & now that it’s been made public, everyone is disgusted & he’s going to get what he deserves. There is no conspiracy enabling such things that ties into mainstream music piracy, & certainly not involving anyone in these comments.

                Give it a rest.


                Reply
  13. Anonymous

    There are thousands of rape and CP videos publicly availabl eon Pirate Bay and similar sites, but I don’t see any blogger writing about it. Noone dares to make a post.

    But let’s blame Apple (iTunes) for…waiting for the lawyers to tell them what to do with some albums.

    Hey, at least Apple has some guidelines in place, you know, they don’t operate like 4chan.


    Reply
  14. Chris

    There are lots of artists who’ve been jailed for paedophilia and even some for murder – I don’t see stores removing Gary Glitter releases for one


    Reply
  15. Paul Resnikoff

    To date, I’ve only learned of one removal: at HMV physical retail stores. Everything else remains the same on all of the above digital stores.


    Reply
  16. Yves Villeneuve

    I’m a douchebag.


    Reply

Leave a Reply

Connect with:


7 × nine =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  1. OUR SPONSORS

  2.  
  3. Most Heated!