3 ms·

Is there any good reason for content creators to refuse to sign? It sounds like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue? Sure, being forced to sign a

Is there any good reason for content creators to refuse to sign? It sounds like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue? Sure, being forced to sign a contract is lame, but the new contract doesn't seem to harm them in any way.

rspeer 11y ago
Zoe Keating, as an independent musician, held out for a while: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keating-youtube-google-music http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keatin... Her biggest objection was that Google was purporting to tell her when she could or couldn't release a new song on various music services. It seems they've backed down on that. Google claims they were never asking for that, while Keating claims they quietly changed the terms. She also objects to Google dictating a very narrow range of options for how she interacts with people who use her music. She doesn't like the "stick ads on all of it" option that Google is steering her toward, because that's not a strong enough enough response to people who are using her music commercially without licensing it, but also she would rather not stick ads on her fans.
falcolas 11y ago
> It sounds like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue? If you produce content which is of average or above length. If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under the revenue sharing model. It's also unclear what happens to your share of revenue if you have sponsored content.
- jonas21 11y ago
  > If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under the revenue sharing model. I'm not sure that's true. The revenue split is based on total watch time, so shorter videos will make less per view. However, short informative videos would presumably tend to be more popular than long, uninformative videos, leading to a much larger view count and a greater total watch time.

rspeer 11y ago

Zoe Keating, as an independent musician, held out for a while: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keating-youtube-google-music http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keatin... Her biggest objection was that Google was purporting to tell her when she could or couldn't release a new song on various music services. It seems they've backed down on that. Google claims they were never asking for that, while Keating claims they quietly changed the terms. She also objects to Google dictating a very narrow range of options for how she interacts with people who use her music. She doesn't like the "stick ads on all of it" option that Google is steering her toward, because that's not a strong enough enough response to people who are using her music commercially without licensing it, but also she would rather not stick ads on her fans.

falcolas 11y ago

> It sounds like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue? If you produce content which is of average or above length. If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under the revenue sharing model. It's also unclear what happens to your share of revenue if you have sponsored content.

jonas21 11y ago
> If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under the revenue sharing model. I'm not sure that's true. The revenue split is based on total watch time, so shorter videos will make less per view. However, short informative videos would presumably tend to be more popular than long, uninformative videos, leading to a much larger view count and a greater total watch time.