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

21–30 of 107 posts

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

#21

Post by TeMPOraL »

andybak wrote: post #5
andybak wrote: post #4

[Update: Sat. morning: After discovering that Keating was taking detailed notes of her conversation with a YouTube representative, YouTube appears to be re-grouping to clarify their policies and figure out exactly what artists are being told. They have also not clearly explained why they are demanding a retraction from Digital Music News. More as it develops.] http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/01/23/brea…

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 people how to be decent human beings?

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

#22

Post by dhimes »

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?

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 announce that she is recording it. Corporations do it all the time, in part at least to help train their customer service. And if the corp decides they don't want to have the conversation on the record, then they don't get to have the conversation at all. In other words, you say, "I am recording this conversation" rather than asking, "Is it ok if I record this conversation?"

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

#24

Post by icebraining »

vilhelm_s wrote: post #10

Can anyone make sense of what the Google representative is saying in the last paragraph of the transcript, the part that goes "your channel will be separated from the deal and you can enter into a regular youtube partner commercial terms which allows you to monetize the content"? What music would be monetizable under that scheme?

From what I understand about the Youtube Partner thing, it essentially allows you to make money from the videos uploaded to your channel, but not from videos uploaded by other users, even if you hold the copyright to those.

Essentially, they pay you for the "service" of uploading the videos and drawing users.

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

#25

Post by pja »

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 for & it's predictable but depressing to see Google treading the same path. (I know "don't be evil" was just a slogan, but there was a time when Google stood for the principle of winning simply by being better than everyone else & it's saddening to see them resort to these kind of underhanded tactics to force their products into the marketplace.)

These kind of tactics do work in the short term of course, but ultimately they have a corrosive effect on your long term success because users cease to trust that you'll treat them fairly. Meanwhile the execs involved run off into the sunset with their bonuses extracted by burning the company's goodwill in order to drive short term metrics the way they need them to hit whatever internal targets they've set themselves.

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

#26

Post by morganvachon »

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 Google acting this way, and perhaps once the big heads at Google HQ get wind of what's going on (or more accurately, the PR department), they will intervene on Ms. Keating's behalf.

Then again, that would open the door for who knows how many other independent artists under Youtube's Draconian contract to go after them for the same deal.

And of course, I'm happy to see that Ms. Keating is getting some free publicity out of all of it. Even if she ultimately can't pursue Youtube for lost ad revenue, she still has the power to publish her works in other media.

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

#27

Post by mironathetin »

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?"

It looks like after coming back from law school or business school, this basic education has been lost indeed.

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

#29

Post by ctdonath »

dhimes wrote: post #22
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?

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…

Someone solved this once by configuring a voice menu to answer & direct the call (to the single phone): started with the heard-so-often-everyone-ignores-it line "this call may be monitored or recorded for _______ purposes; please press 1 for ..." and the sting subject fell for it when calling. Notification of recording made, implicit permission granted for continuing the conversation.

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

#30

Post by jeffreyrogers »

dhimes wrote: post #22
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?

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."

Post reply on HN