A new licensing program to support the news industry • Hacker News Board

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#61

Post by LockAndLol » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:25 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #47

tannhaeuser wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GOOG, FB, and AMZN extract all value out of the web, the music industry, retail, IT/cloud, soon e-learning, and basically everything, with content creators getting nothing. In music, we've already seen the effect of no monetary feedback for too many years now; save for very few counterexamples, we haven't seen any innovation since the 1990's; instead we have raised a generation of YouTube addicts. That is the problem…

What’s wrong with YouTube? I frequently find far better content there than anywhere in the traditional media. I think we’re really lucky to have YouTube - it’s one little ray of hope.

YouTube is the biggest site for music copyright infringement. Not even the pirate could've dreamed of such a massive music distribution network that doesn't remunerate artists.

YouTube is also a monopoly that wields its power with impunity. Content creators can be in business one day and out of it the next. Large corporations can claim nearly anything theirs and Google won't do anything about it while smaller content creators can see their IP infringed upon by the former and have no recourse.

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#62

Post by jjice » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

eplanit wrote: post #45

doublesCs wrote: post #11

Just to get a sense for the crowd: am I the only one who doesn't care much about the news industry? Keeping with what's new in society is important insofar as having an informed population is vital for the correct functioning of a democracy. But the "news industry" is 95% gargabe and contributes zero to getting people informed. I firmly believe that if the news industry disappeared tomorrow, we wouldn't be much worse…

News Industry == a branch of the Entertainment Industry, so no. Journalism has been subverted by Activism, so we're in a bad state of things. I would love to see a new model take form, one that restores actual journalism. A good business model to sustain is the hard part.

It is really interesting how news has shifted to a "cost-per-click" model, and how that has hindered journalism. I'm interested to see how things play out in the next decade, since clickbait style news seems to be the big seller these days.

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#63

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

LockAndLol wrote: post #61

chrisseaton wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s wrong with YouTube? I frequently find far better content there than anywhere in the traditional media. I think we’re really lucky to have YouTube - it’s one little ray of hope.

YouTube is the biggest site for music copyright infringement. Not even the pirate could've dreamed of such a massive music distribution network that doesn't remunerate artists. YouTube is also a monopoly that wields its power with impunity. Content creators can be in business one day and out of it the next. Large corporations can claim nearly anything theirs and Google won't do anything about it while smaller content…

> that doesn't remunerate artists

I think if you use copyright music YouTube detects that’s automatically and gives them the ad revenue? That’s what the Vevo agreement was.

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#64

Post by LockAndLol » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #63

LockAndLol wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is the biggest site for music copyright infringement. Not even the pirate could've dreamed of such a massive music distribution network that doesn't remunerate artists. YouTube is also a monopoly that wields its power with impunity. Content creators can be in business one day and out of it the next. Large corporations can claim nearly anything theirs and Google won't do anything about it while smaller content…

> that doesn't remunerate artists I think if you use copyright music YouTube detects that’s automatically and gives them the ad revenue? That’s what the Vevo agreement was.

It remunerates labels and copyright trolls way more than it does artists. It's also been known to incorrectly identify sources of copyright infringement and unjustly take away ad revenue. I long stopped following it, but I imagine there's a subreddit called /r/youtubedrama (or the like) that documents that quite well.

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#65

Post by CM30 » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:33 AM UTC

tannhaeuser wrote: post #3

> ... these events are happening at a time when the news industry is also being challenged financially Yeah, and what's challenging to the "news industry" is the monopolistic situation on the web and the utter lack of action on the part of US antitrust authorities and their allies. I find it very worrying that Der Spiegel , once the most frequently visited ad-supported news sites in the "old" German web, sees no othe…

Nah, it's because the internet lets you find hundreds or thousands of news sources very easily, and the lack of willingness for people to pay for subscriptions/ease of setting up an ad supported news site means there's no reason to pay money for any of them.

The traditional media only surived because they had little competition and there's a decent barrier to entry when it came to publishing information/news. Now they're competing with every other media outlet in the world, plus anyone with a blog or YouTube channel. Add this to ways the news is discussed online (people can just paraphrase details from stories and discuss them on social media), and the value of a news story has just completely crashed.

Does that mean Google and Facebook haven't done any damage? No probably not. The fact they control so much of the advertising market has had some effects, and some might say things like requiring paywalled stories to be viewable without a subscription in search has had an effect too.

But the fundamental issue isn't that. It's that the internet and technology has fundamentally broken the business model these outlets used to rely on, and there's basically nothing they can do to change that.