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

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

#51

Post by hahainternet » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:41 PM UTC

vpeters25 wrote: post #46

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…

It's a theregister article. They are deceptive and dishonest and haven't been able to produce quality journalistic pieces in about 6 years.

I don't even bother reading them anymore.

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

#52

Post by onli » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:44 PM UTC

howeyc wrote: post #33

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…

Basically, yes. She points it out pretty clearly in http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i...

There are some additions:

2a) … The release on Youtube must happen at the same time and in a specified quality.

2b) … Everything that has been uploaded by her before will be deleted.

The obligation to release on Youtube is of course completely unacceptable. I like to think it would be quite illegal in many countries outside the US as well.

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

#53

Post by cloudwalking » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:45 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #44

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 wh…

There is a (c) as you describe it, OP just neglected to mention it. The third option is to just monetize videos uploaded to the official channel. They can continue uploading only specific songs they want to monetize on their channel.

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

#54

Post by raldi » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:45 PM UTC

nosequel wrote: post #40

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…

This is incorrect. The artist can still have their music removed from YouTube when third parties upload it without permission. The option that's being lost is for the artist to leave the infringer's video up and slap ads on it. The replacement for this option is to join the new subscription-based, ad-free monetization program.

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

#55

Post by fpgeek » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:49 PM UTC

nosequel wrote: post #40

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…

Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. In many ways that's even more far-reaching than what YouTube is asking, but that hasn't stopped programmers from flocking to them in droves.

That does, however, suggest to me an option (c) that Google isn't offering: Musicians pay Google to run Content Id on their behalf to simplify the takedown process. While I'm sure there are some win-wins they're missing by not offering that (possibly including Zoë Keating), I really can't fault them for that. I expect the PR and legal complications would dwarf the storm that's already here.

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

#56

Post by icebraining » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:50 PM UTC

vpeters25 wrote: post #46

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…

anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer-vetting.

Why would keeping the current system - which is essentially just allowing people to use ContentID without being forced into accepting new legal terms - require massive man-hours of development and laywer-vetting? What's so difficult about it?

By the way, I fully agree vis-a-vis the SOPA comments. But it just goes to show the adversary of my adversary is not always my ally.

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

#57

Post by MrBunny » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:51 PM UTC

Would it be possible for her to have 2 accounts? One for paid stuff and one for free? Or would that mess with the content id stuff?

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

#58

Post by onli » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:53 PM UTC

raldi wrote: post #54

nosequel wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is incorrect. The artist can still have their music removed from YouTube when third parties upload it without permission. The option that's being lost is for the artist to leave the infringer's video up and slap ads on it. The replacement for this option is to join the new subscription-based, ad-free monetization program.

That is not the only option lost (though you are right, you can chose a and remove everything).

The artist is indeed loosing the choice to just monetize the content he wants, and he indeed loses the ability to monetize content on youtube without being bound to release on Youtube first/at the same time. nosequels gist is correct: the artist has now less choice than before.

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

#59

Post by tomp » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:54 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…

I think the main complaint is that option (a), which is the option most artists would choose, also includes:

you can't release any music without also putting it on YouTube at the same time

Which is a pretty draconian clause.

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

#60

Post by tomp » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:55 PM UTC

raldi wrote: post #54

nosequel wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is incorrect. The artist can still have their music removed from YouTube when third parties upload it without permission. The option that's being lost is for the artist to leave the infringer's video up and slap ads on it. The replacement for this option is to join the new subscription-based, ad-free monetization program.

Are you sure? IIRC from her article, she was saying that the only way for her to keep removing stuff from YT would be to issue DMCA complains for each and every video (which is obviously impossible).