3 ms·

In the article, Green states: >If you don’t want your song on YouTube, upload it into the ContentID database and issue a blanket takedown for all videos using

In the article, Green states: >If you don’t want your song on YouTube, upload it into the ContentID database and issue a blanket takedown for all videos using that song. Boom. Done. Yet Azoff states: >So, if you are going to continue to force artists to notify you when an infringing song is on YouTube, once an artist tells you that she wants her song taken off YouTube, you should keep it off. When the artist sends a "take down," it should be a "stay down." I want to know which one of them isn't being truthful. I get the feeling it's both of them. Can't really pinpoint why, other than both have vested interests in claiming their perspective is right. However, with this kind of wiggle-room, factually speaking, somebody should clear this garbage up. I won't hold my breath. But it's needed.

nemothekid 10y ago
For those of us familiar with the YouTube Content ID system, Green is correct, and I had the same reaction. Upload your music to the system, set the policy to take down. To give you an idea on how well this works, this is what the movie studios do - upload the entire move to YouTube and set it to takedown (usually if the matched portion matches more than 1 minute or something). The movie studios have a comparatively less stink about YouTube. Secondly, its unclear if Azoff has a direct relationship with YouTube and has his own CMS or if he's using a third party service to manage YouTube. In that case the third party could be misrepresenting the options YouTube has (and it could be the case that the 3rd party makes a revenue cut of the UGC set to monetize rather than takedown, giving them an incentive not take down [/speculation]). However a percentage of the major labels music content is licensed via the partially-Google owned VEVO. Third, with the release of RED and Google Play Music, and some of the rumored contracts that Google has with music producers, it could just be we aren't privvy to the special contracts Google has with music rights holders. Maybe, due to the way their contracts are setup, that can't issue takedowns. I remember Indies got particularly pissed[1] when RED was released. My own personal opinion is that despite whatever content protection tools YouTube provides, the music industry won't be happy until all their music is behind a paywall like Spotify Premium or Apple Music. I suspect their beef will always have to do with the "for free" aspect, regardless if the content is legitimate or pirated. If the issue were really about illegitimately consumed content, and if YouTube ContentID system was that bad for rights holders, I'd assume more than just the music industry would be annoyed. (It seems to be the other way round, ContentID is railed against for being much more generous to rights holders). [1] http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2014/06/23/fk-heres-entire-youtube-contract-indies/ http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2014/06/23/fk-heres-entire-y...
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Thanks for taking the time to explain your view - I can totally understand the points you're making and pretty much agree on all counts. I'm with you thinking Azoff might be using a third-party system, and that could be the friction. That third point though - it's something that Green's point kind of glosses over - YouTube's Indie contract (according to Zoe Keating, who posted here) essentially said the artist(s) MUST join YouTube Red, or otherwise none of their material would be included in the ContentID system. That essentially meant a free-for-all on piracy because YouTube - apparently - was playing fast and loose with Safe Harbors. I don't think there was much clarity in the aftermath of the agreements, and Azoff doesn't help his case when he can't directly refute what Green states (he needs to if he can) - and I can't say I'm all gung-ho about either side in this situation either. I am but the chaff in the money making wheat crop of those two.

nemothekid 10y ago

For those of us familiar with the YouTube Content ID system, Green is correct, and I had the same reaction. Upload your music to the system, set the policy to take down. To give you an idea on how well this works, this is what the movie studios do - upload the entire move to YouTube and set it to takedown (usually if the matched portion matches more than 1 minute or something). The movie studios have a comparatively less stink about YouTube. Secondly, its unclear if Azoff has a direct relationship with YouTube and has his own CMS or if he's using a third party service to manage YouTube. In that case the third party could be misrepresenting the options YouTube has (and it could be the case that the 3rd party makes a revenue cut of the UGC set to monetize rather than takedown, giving them an incentive not take down [/speculation]). However a percentage of the major labels music content is licensed via the partially-Google owned VEVO. Third, with the release of RED and Google Play Music, and some of the rumored contracts that Google has with music producers, it could just be we aren't privvy to the special contracts Google has with music rights holders. Maybe, due to the way their contracts are setup, that can't issue takedowns. I remember Indies got particularly pissed[1] when RED was released. My own personal opinion is that despite whatever content protection tools YouTube provides, the music industry won't be happy until all their music is behind a paywall like Spotify Premium or Apple Music. I suspect their beef will always have to do with the "for free" aspect, regardless if the content is legitimate or pirated. If the issue were really about illegitimately consumed content, and if YouTube ContentID system was that bad for rights holders, I'd assume more than just the music industry would be annoyed. (It seems to be the other way round, ContentID is railed against for being much more generous to rights holders). [1] http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2014/06/23/fk-heres-entire-youtube-contract-indies/ http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2014/06/23/fk-heres-entire-y...

6stringmerc 10y ago
Thanks for taking the time to explain your view - I can totally understand the points you're making and pretty much agree on all counts. I'm with you thinking Azoff might be using a third-party system, and that could be the friction. That third point though - it's something that Green's point kind of glosses over - YouTube's Indie contract (according to Zoe Keating, who posted here) essentially said the artist(s) MUST join YouTube Red, or otherwise none of their material would be included in the ContentID system. That essentially meant a free-for-all on piracy because YouTube - apparently - was playing fast and loose with Safe Harbors. I don't think there was much clarity in the aftermath of the agreements, and Azoff doesn't help his case when he can't directly refute what Green states (he needs to if he can) - and I can't say I'm all gung-ho about either side in this situation either. I am but the chaff in the money making wheat crop of those two.