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

71–80 of 107 posts

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

#71

Post by smosher_ »

morganvachon wrote: post #26
fndrplayer13 wrote: post #7

Googs being terrible? Who would've guessed.

At the risk of being modded down along with you (hi Google fans!), I'll say that even though I have a much lower opinion of Google lately, I was still surprised by their actions in this case. I know that Google has never, ever cared about the individual, but this is surely an abuse of copyright far worse than what the record labels could ever dream of. Still, I have to wonder if this is just the Youtube division of G…

Your parent was modded down for bringing nothing to the conversation. It might as well have read "lol google."

Unfortunately other similar media aren't as lucrative. Even if they pay as well, not being on YouTube creates an exposure problem. I hope there's some way to work this out, but to be honest, Google still seems to me like the least sleazy company to help you monetize your music, and that's not a compliment to Google.

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

#72

Post by fpgeek »

icebraining wrote: post #56
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…

Keeping the current system and not doing YouTube Music Key isn't very difficult - but there are more than a few reasons to think it is worth doing (all the people who block YouTube ads and/or use unauthorized downloaders, for example).

Doing YouTube Music Key and writing in special cases for independent artists while simultaneously making sure not to open any loopholes that would let, for example, Sony hold the service hostage later... that strikes me as very difficult, at best.

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

#73

Post by jonas21 »

pjc50 wrote: post #67
smackfu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Big win for an old technology there. Are there any text entry UIs that can keep up with a trained shorthand writer?

The stenotype (used by court reporters and closed captioning people)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype

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

#74

Post by aidos »

fpgeek wrote: post #55
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…

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…

By your analogy, any code you put on bitbucket would also have to be uploaded to github at the same time.

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

#75

Post by tomp »

raldi wrote: post #64
tomp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Can you quote the part you're referring to?

It's actually from the HN comment thread. I don't know if it's true or not.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8937187

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

#76

Post by onli »

raldi wrote: post #69
onli wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> nosequels gist is correct: the artist has now less choice than before I don't think that's a fair summary of the original comment, which also asserted that the artist is losing the choice to enforce their copyright unless they join the new program.

Ah, now I get how you meant that. Still, that is less choice than before in general. One could before let his music be tagged and was not obliged to do anything with Youtube. Now, to have the same as before, they are trying to bind artists with a 5 year contract and release obligations. That is pretty evidently less choice, and (probably) still having the option to not get paid but remove music from fans does not make up for that.

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

#77

Post by lmm »

pjc50 wrote: post #67
smackfu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Big win for an old technology there. Are there any text entry UIs that can keep up with a trained shorthand writer?

My PDA back in ~2005 supported shorthand input. I'd be disappointed if there wasn't someone selling it as an input method for android.

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

#78

Post by onli »

cloudwalking wrote: post #68
onli wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, this is also incorrect. Artists can still upload and monetize to their own channel just like every other YouTube creator.

That is not the same monetization as using ContentID to add ads to all other videos with the music. That ability would be lost when an artist is not accepting the new terms.

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

#79

Post by kbart »

masklinn wrote: post #9
blister wrote: post #3

I think it's time for a serious YouTube competitor with more favorable terms for the content creators. Jason Calacanis seems very prescient now [0]. [0] http://blog.launch.co/blog/i-aint-gonna-work-on-youtubes-far...

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.

I don't know how about in other circles, but recently Bandcamp and Soundcloud are much more popular among my friends (of whom a lot are musicians) as it offers better terms and control of how your music used. They skip Youtube altogether and if music "video" still ends up there, it's usually uploaded by a fan. Sadly, I don't know any really good video alternatives to Youtube yet.
Post reply on HN