When December Avenue's Zel Bautista launched an attack on "people who use someone else's work for money," one would think that he was killing off the local music scene based on the reactions.

Aggrieved fans were quick to criticize him for supposedly looking down on those who do song covers, claiming that these artists are actually doing them a favor by promoting their music.

If you want instant Fame, copy other people's work and suck from it. You get the money but not the glory and respect. You dont have a voice, you dont even belong. ❌

— Zel Bautista (@zelbautista) December 18, 2018

This is my perspective as an artist. I did not mention any names nor anything about covers. This is for people who uses someone else's work for money and that they dont belong in this creative world. Read it again.

— Zel Bautista (@zelbautista) December 22, 2018

This week, pitchforks were apparently aimed at Bautista as these same fans play connect-the-dots with his rant and the decision of Agsunta, a popular cover band, for "signing off" and deleting their work online.

They argued that people should be free to do covers as these are good launchpads for aspiring artists and can be considered as free publicity for the original writers of the song, both of which overall helps paint a supposed healthy music industry.

If only things were as idealistic and simple.

Clem Castro, frontman for one of the country's most iconic bands, Orange & Lemons, tried to lay out how song covers could be problematic as he aired his thoughts on the issue on Twitter.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Clementine (@clemcastro) on Jun 14, 2018 at 10:21pm PDT

He began by labeling both bands as "victims of the ever-changing landscape of the music industry."

The @Agsunta and @decemberave issue sets a precedent for future intellectual property concerns. I don’t take sides on this matter and I have very little knowledge of the full story. But I believe they are both victims of the ever changing landscape of the music industry.

— Clementine (@clemcastro) January 31, 2019

I started out as a Beatles cover band in high school and progressed to a New Wave cover band before injecting original songs little by little during sets. It’s essential for any band to develop their sound and style through their influences. It is a normal part of the process.

— Clementine (@clemcastro) January 31, 2019

But back then there was no YouTube or online streaming sites. Everything was done live and marketing is through word of mouth. You can’t just record a cover song and have it played on the radio or TV cause you’ll need a license for that.

— Clementine (@clemcastro) January 31, 2019

He then explained that Agsunta's "novel goal of promoting OPM" crossed a line when the band decided to sign with a major music label back in 2017 and "use their brand for commercial purposes."

When Agsunta started, they have a novel goal of promoting OPM. They even covered one of my songs from O&L. They sure did a great job. The problem is, the initial goal of being an OPM cover band crossed a fine line when they decided to use their brand for commercial purposes.

— Clementine (@clemcastro) January 31, 2019

The advent of YouTube is phenomenal for showcasing talents and was used to augment music promotion alongside live performances. But nowadays, it surpassed live performances in terms of geographical reach and fan building, which is a good thing.

— Clementine (@clemcastro) January 31, 2019

When YouTube decided to monetise “original” content, herein lies the problem. If you are a commercial brand (artists included) using another brand to monetise content, that is indeed questionable. Agsunta became a “major brand” the moment they signed with ABS-CBN.

— Clementine (@clemcastro) January 31, 2019

As a major brand, you now have a moral responsibility to adhere to industry practices. You are no longer just cover band but a professional artist. Especially if there is a huge following. Agsunta is caught in between this transition.

— Clementine (@clemcastro) January 31, 2019

"As a major brand, you now have a moral responsibility to adhere to industry practices. You are no longer just cover band but a professional artist," he said.

Castro added that song covers may "seem harmless" but will "unknowingly incite unhealthy competition" when it is released too close to the original, as what apparently happened between Bautista's December Avenue and Agsunta.

In the case of a newly released song by Brand X being covered by Brand Y, it may seem harmless and perhaps considered added leverage for the song to others, it will unknowingly incite unhealthy competition since Brand X is still in the middle of promoting the song.

— Clementine (@clemcastro) January 31, 2019

Worse if it is monetised. I do believe the best way to resolve this is not social media. Artist to artist, publisher to label. A legal notice perhaps. If it is indeed monetised, a simple take down or settle with a licensing agreement w/o involving fans who are clueless of such.

— Clementine (@clemcastro) January 31, 2019

An issue like this is a double edged sword that will have negative repercussions on both parties and music fans. I cite this from experience, believe you me.

— Clementine (@clemcastro) January 31, 2019

"I do believe the best way to resolve this is not social media. Artist to artist, publisher to label. A legal notice perhaps. If it is indeed monetised, a simple take down or settle with a licensing agreement w/o involving fans who are clueless of such."

"An issue like this is a double edged sword that will have negative repercussions on both parties and music fans. I cite this from experience, believe you me," he concluded.

Bautista has already clarified that his tweet was not pertaining to any particular artist or covers in general, while Agsunta also issued a statement that the reason for them "signing off" was just to take a short break.