Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

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

#41

Post by ceejayoz »

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'm not sure that is legal.

I'm pretty sure it is, considering the number of companies who have a "This call may be recorded" warning as part of the phone tree.

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

#42

Post by ceejayoz »

mistermann wrote: post #39
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?

Wiki indicates it's the act itself, even if unshared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United...

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

#43

Post by mrucci »

It's hard to believe that articles in this newspaper are not generated by a markov chain or some other machinery.

Just look at the titles of articles published by this author: http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2578

What the hell does this means?

    "MI5 boss: We NEED to break securo-tech, get 'assistance' from data-slurp firms"

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

#44

Post by ctdonath »

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…

Problem: the lack of:

(c) monetize some, but not all, content.

Not everyone wants to be all-in or all-out. Maybe she wants her best work monetized, but has additional content she wants available for free. Ad-stamped content can be really annoying and turn people off from watching/listening when there isn't sufficient desire for the content to put up with it. Free content, unladen of ads, can help draw in followers who become willing to pay. Kinda like throwing a low-cost concert for free in hopes people who otherwise wouldn't come will, facing low/no friction, come and enjoy the free content enough to buy CDs and pay for a more sophisticated concert.

Plenty of times I've stumbled across an unknown musician playing for free, I've stopped & listened for a while when I'd have not paid to, and then bought the CD. Google wants to slather ads on the "free" performance just so the performer can offer a paid CD.

Google is demanding all-in or all-out on mixed-demand content...and is demanding adherence to those terms & decisions for 5 years, which can be a very long time for a performer.

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

#45

Post by anon1385 »

Agustus wrote: post #35

> 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 p…

3. Google refused to stop advertising illegal pharmaceuticals after repeated warnings from the FDA and then eventually received one of the heaviest fines ever handed down by the US government (half a billion USD)[1].

[1] http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/google-forfeits-500-million-ge...

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

#46

Post by vpeters25 »

The article reads like a pro-copyright/pro-SOPA hit piece, I would take it with a grain of salt.

I don't see anything too evil here, just reasonable business decision forced to them by the ridiculous copyright framework.

Google came with a simple solution: their way or the highway. Sounds harsh but anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer-vetting. They rather pull your stuff rather than risking the money with very little chance of recouping the investment.

Zoe Keating, on the other side, disagrees and wants google to actually expend tons of money developing her "special case" into the system...

Edit: removed redundant sentence

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

#47

Post by smackfu »

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…

If Youtube wants to make people choose between two options, that is Youtube's choice. That doesn't mean those two options are the only possible ones though. They could have gone with a new contract that was much like what they have today, with slightly modified terms. Instead they are throwing their weight around to force musicians into unfavorable terms. That's what the scandal is.

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

#48

Post by loceng »

pja wrote: post #25

Google seems determined to make exactly the same mistakes with YouTube Music that it made trying to pushing Google+ down people's throats. I.e., abuse a dominant position in one area to force users onto its other services whilst completely ignoring both the collateral damage caused and the actual stated preferences of their users. This is exactly the kind of thing that people used to (rightfully) castigate Microsoft…

Really it's bizarre because the service they're offering on its own is quite valuable, so they'll get user adoption eventually I imagine - maybe not 100% but that's greedy or unreasonable at minimum. Far more damage is done with an aggressive/controlling stance, future long-term revenues and negative mindshare.

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

#49

Post by smackfu »

mistermann wrote: post #39
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?

BTW, she says she took notes with shorthand, so recording laws don't apply.

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

#50

Post by andybak »

mrucci wrote: post #43

It's hard to believe that articles in this newspaper are not generated by a markov chain or some other machinery. Just look at the titles of articles published by this author: http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2578 What the hell does this means? "MI5 boss: We NEED to break securo-tech, get 'assistance' from data-slurp firms"

The Register originally aimed to parody the style of headline writing in British tabloids.

And the irony has slipped into being just a house style now - one which is rather uneven in quality and appropriateness.

Post reply on HN