3 ms·

Corporations and their industry organizations operate by a different set of rules. The important ideological concept in my opinion is not just the idea of copyr

Corporations and their industry organizations operate by a different set of rules. The important ideological concept in my opinion is not just the idea of copyright, but the idea of net neutrality itself when it comes to accessing content. The web is not a TV nor a newspaper or magazine. A web browser is not a set-top box, it's a user agent for HTTP. Net neutrality, in my opinion, is not just a fight to keep content transmission neutral but the content access neutral as well. My set-top box (aka web browser) should not limit the content I have access to, regardless of whether I'm using Chrome, Firefox, curl, wget, or youtube-dl. This type of net neutrality was co-opted by content platforms who used it to lower their rates in a fight with the ISPs. The voice of individual internet subscribers was lost in this. They, YouTube, RIAA, et al, do want to have their cake and eat it too. They took advantage of the internet and rushed to put their content on open networks, without fully understanding how that network operates fundamentally. Now they want to change how we communicate to suit their business models, and in the case of YouTube, do whatever they can to shut the door behind them so no one else can go through.

hnlmorg 9y ago
> They, YouTube, RIAA, et al, do want to have their cake and eat it too. They took advantage of the internet and rushed to put their content on open networks, without fully understanding how that network operates fundamentally. If there is one thing you can't accuse of RIAA of it's rushing to embrace the internet. Think about how long it's taken for digital downloads to become a first class citizen for music purchases! About how many streaming services have shut down under because they couldn't get enough labels to licence their music. etc I'm sure the only reason many labels have official YouTube channels is because people were uploading music videos already so they figured they might as well get that ad revenue themselves. Otherwise they'd just be licensing their content the old way to radio networks, TV stations and, more recently, the limited number of streaming services who can afford their expensive contracts.
- decasteve 9y ago
  I agree in the sense that they weren't rushing to the internet in terms of early adoption. The rush was reactionary, by embracing YouTube (eventually), but I do think the nuance of the web still escaped their grasp. Maybe they finally realized it was easier/unavoidable to broadcast and litigate than it was to control distribution in fine-grained fashion. In any case, (incoming analogy) the church is better off with the printing press and allowing the bible to be translated from Latin. Its distribution and reach has expanded greatly. And it can still burn heretics.
  - hnlmorg 9y ago
    I don't think "rush" is the right term - reactionary or not. Lots of artists still don't have an official YouTube presence and those that do often find their content blocked in some countries due to regional distribution licences. Plus they only started adopting YouTube several years after people had already been uploading videos independently. Their adoption couldn't have been slower if they tried - which I honestly believe they did try because YouTube doesn't fit their traditional licensing models. What possibly helped their their adoption of YouTube - and I'm just speculating on this last point so please take this with a pinch of salt - was how software has become good enough to run automated scans across YouTube and raise DMCA reports on any infringing content. This means record labels / distributors can not only block unwanted content but also ensure their own YouTube content gets all the ad revenue. I'm not saying this was a major contributing factor but it probably doesn't hurt their opinions of the platform.

hnlmorg 9y ago

> They, YouTube, RIAA, et al, do want to have their cake and eat it too. They took advantage of the internet and rushed to put their content on open networks, without fully understanding how that network operates fundamentally. If there is one thing you can't accuse of RIAA of it's rushing to embrace the internet. Think about how long it's taken for digital downloads to become a first class citizen for music purchases! About how many streaming services have shut down under because they couldn't get enough labels to licence their music. etc I'm sure the only reason many labels have official YouTube channels is because people were uploading music videos already so they figured they might as well get that ad revenue themselves. Otherwise they'd just be licensing their content the old way to radio networks, TV stations and, more recently, the limited number of streaming services who can afford their expensive contracts.

decasteve 9y ago
I agree in the sense that they weren't rushing to the internet in terms of early adoption. The rush was reactionary, by embracing YouTube (eventually), but I do think the nuance of the web still escaped their grasp. Maybe they finally realized it was easier/unavoidable to broadcast and litigate than it was to control distribution in fine-grained fashion. In any case, (incoming analogy) the church is better off with the printing press and allowing the bible to be translated from Latin. Its distribution and reach has expanded greatly. And it can still burn heretics.
- hnlmorg 9y ago
  I don't think "rush" is the right term - reactionary or not. Lots of artists still don't have an official YouTube presence and those that do often find their content blocked in some countries due to regional distribution licences. Plus they only started adopting YouTube several years after people had already been uploading videos independently. Their adoption couldn't have been slower if they tried - which I honestly believe they did try because YouTube doesn't fit their traditional licensing models. What possibly helped their their adoption of YouTube - and I'm just speculating on this last point so please take this with a pinch of salt - was how software has become good enough to run automated scans across YouTube and raise DMCA reports on any infringing content. This means record labels / distributors can not only block unwanted content but also ensure their own YouTube content gets all the ad revenue. I'm not saying this was a major contributing factor but it probably doesn't hurt their opinions of the platform.