'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google • Hacker News Board

Re: 'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google

#31

Post by ProAm » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:10 PM UTC

mironathetin wrote: post #27

TeMPOraL wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone at YouTube needs to go back to PR school after this. I'd say that someone just needs to be repeatedly hit in the head with a copy of Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People". Seriously, every single PR flop I've seen discussed here (or anywhere else) was a result of failing to adhere to a single basic rule: don't be a douchebag. It's really that simple . Do we really need PR schools to teach peo…

" Do we really need PR schools to teach people how to be decent human beings?" It looks like after coming back from law school or business school, this basic education has been lost indeed.

No, there is something inherently untrustworthy about a person who needs someone else to tell them to be a good person.

Re: 'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google

#32

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:11 PM UTC

Gustomaximus wrote: post #14

masklinn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The huge problem is Youtube is the go-to place when teenagers and young adults want to listen to a piece[0] and they know it. [0] the alternative being torrents, and they're very much non-instant.

> go-to place when teenagers and young adults... Doesn't that make it easier to disrupt? Younger people are less habit forming and more likely to try new services. I would think the licencing with record labels & infrastructure requirements would be the tough part for a new entrant.

> Younger people are less habit forming and more likely to try new services.

Younger people are not less prone to forming habits. There are, of course, always new young people who may not have the same habits as the last round of young people, though.

Re: 'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google

#33

Post by howeyc » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:15 PM UTC

Could someone tell me what this whole thing is about? From what i gather it is the following:

1. Users currently can monetize using contentID - any videos uploaded anywhere using their shit and they get a cut of the ads (if there are any).

2. Google is making paid streaming version, artists now have two options:

2a) Agree to have everything on paid and free side and get money. Also, everything you release everything must also release to Youtube (I assume this is the main sticking point??).

2b) Don't agree and only have shit be on free side and not get money. You can upload whatever you want when you want.

Re: 'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google

#34

Post by fpgeek » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:16 PM UTC

I really don't understand the scandal here. This just confirms that Google is offering musicians the choice that's been suspected ever since YouTube Music Key just a rumor:

(a) Go all in on monetization (ads, Content Id, Music Key, etc.)

(b) Go all out on monetization (upload videos for free, no other commercial relationship).

They aren't offering this choice because it helps them kill puppies or whatever, but for what should be a blindlingly obvious reason: People who pay money for a service that gets rid of ads on music videos are going to be pretty ticked off if they still see ads on music videos.

You can call this evil, but you should be crystal-clear on what you're saying: Google trying to offer a service that lets people pay to get rid of YouTube ads (something lots of people say they want) is evil.

Personally, I think this isn't good or evil, but an example of the inevitable problems and complications that arise when you try to add subscriptions to a hugely popular ad-supported service with many different stakeholders. I suspect that this sort of thing is an underappreciated reason why Google is hesitant to offer paid subscriptions as an alternative to ads in other contexts.

Re: 'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google

#35

Post by Agustus » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:20 PM UTC

> Google spends billions on marketing, paying lobbyists and buying influence. It funds over 150 organisations and overtook Goldman Sachs last year as the biggest corporate political donor in the USA.

Google and Microsoft wanted nothing to do with this culture, until they grew too big and those threatened started drafting legislation to curtail them. Once faced with a government action, both companies started having presences in the Capitol. It needs to buy influence to protect itself from its competitors, who already have entrenched lobbying efforts. The author's attempt to paint Google as evil from lobbying efforts fails to note the reason for this, government ability to critically damage a company.

1. Microsoft lawsuit over bundling Internet Explorer

2. Google had an FTC investigation regarding its search engine share

Re: 'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google

#36

Post by forgottenpass » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:20 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #21

andybak wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addendum - what is key here is that Zoe's original post was balanced and rational and even-handed. Even if YouTube disputed the factual aspects of it then this was a really poor way to go about it and has merely confirmed the feeling that they are throwing their weight around with small artists. They could have turned things around by engaging in dialog and still got their point across. Someone at YouTube needs to go…

> Someone at YouTube needs to go back to PR school after this. I'd say that someone just needs to be repeatedly hit in the head with a copy of Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People". Seriously, every single PR flop I've seen discussed here (or anywhere else) was a result of failing to adhere to a single basic rule: don't be a douchebag. It's really that simple . Do we really need PR schools to teach peo…

Do we really need PR schools to teach people how to be decent human beings?

Probably not, but it's bad for business to be decent human beings. PR/x-relations/etc is about faking decency while unapologetically pushing a business agenda, that does take training.

Re: 'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google

#37

Post by dangerlibrary » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:24 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #30

dhimes wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate that law. It makes me think that some politician got caught talking about something immoral or illegal and sought to make phone conversations "safer." It certainly doesn't help, for example, a victim of domestic violence who receives threatening phone calls. He/she has to go to the authorities and receive permission. On the other hand, in a conversation with like this with a corporation she could simply announ…

> In other words, you say, "I am recording this conversation" rather than asking, "Is it ok if I record this conversation?" I'm not sure that is legal. I've had a few job interviews that were recorded, and in all of them I was told I needed to consent to being recorded on tape . So basically the interviewer would say, "are you okay with me recording this conversation?" and then I would say, "yes, that's fine."

I think one has a strong implied consent argument if the other party keeps talking after recording has been announced.

Re: 'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google

#38

Post by moyix » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:26 PM UTC

The Register article goes on for a while about the "weakening" of copyright law that allowed this to happen, but never actually says what legal change occurred that makes this possible. Anyone know?

Re: 'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google

#39

Post by mistermann » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:27 PM UTC

cowsandmilk wrote: post #12

As a Massachusetts resident, this brings the question of "two-party consent" to the forefront for me. There are many times I would like to record conversations, but cannot legally do so. Who does two-party consent benefit more, the large corporations or the individual's right to privacy? Or is it not black and white?

"However, Keating appears to have kept verbatim notes – strongly indicating that a tape was running"

Is the act of recording illegal, or just sharing the recording?

Re: 'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google

#40

Post by nosequel » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:27 PM UTC

fpgeek wrote: post #34

I really don't understand the scandal here. This just confirms that Google is offering musicians the choice that's been suspected ever since YouTube Music Key just a rumor: (a) Go all in on monetization (ads, Content Id, Music Key, etc.) (b) Go all out on monetization (upload videos for free, no other commercial relationship). They aren't offering this choice because it helps them kill puppies or whatever, but for wh…

Your (b) there means that people can upload all the licensed songs they want and no money goes to the artist and the artist has no choice in this except to agree to (a). (A) is a binding 5 year contract that forces her to release music on youtube as soon as it is done and cannot sign any other exclusive release deals on any music. Both choices remove all "choice" from the artist in regards to their own work. Imagine if github did the same to you with any code on their site, every programmer would leave for a new site the same day.