4 ms·

The issue here isn't that it's Google, it's that Google is doing what they're told to do. Movie and music licensing has been absolutely destroyed recently and

The issue here isn't that it's Google, it's that Google is doing what they're told to do. Movie and music licensing has been absolutely destroyed recently and the hoops that you have to agree to are becoming untenable. Recently, I mentioned to a band it was sad they pulled their music off Spotify. Puzzled, they were not even aware that the licensing was pulled, and they had to go yell at their record label (who was unaware they were even on Spotify because they made less than a dollar in royalties per year on it) who has sat on it for over a year and refused to release the rights back to the artist so they can have it available on Spotify.

silisili 4y ago
With all due respect, I feel like Google is large enough to refuse to be told what to do. If they really cared...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nine_k 4y ago
  Refusing to be told what to do costs money. Say, Apple put its financial weight at labels with iTunes and iPod, and now we have 99¢ tracks as a norm. But to spend money on something, a company has to plan to get more in return. Apple did. What would be the plan for Google? What money-making machine of theirs would it enable?
  - silisili 4y ago
    At one time Google had a first class music service, and I think they still rent and sell movies. As for money making, I think a guarantee of 'yours forever, no takebacks' would put them way out front of their competition. But perhaps most people don't care enough for that to be true.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      > yours forever, no takebacks MP3s available form Amazon, iTunes, Bandcamp at the very least all have this commendable property. And the sale is once and forever, while an enticing revenue source is a recurring one %)
  - rakoo 4y ago
    Yeah, the only way things will change is if Google becomes a production studio. This won't be a better for situation for listeners nor for artists.
  - izacus 4y ago
    It's telling that Apple isn't able to persuade American content corporations into DRM free videos either. They're now biggest supporters and implementors of locked down DRM across their device portfolio.
    - sircastor 4y ago
      The music industry was so terrified at what internet piracy was doing that they agreed to Apples terms. The film and television industry saw what Apple had done to music, and were terrified of what it would do to them. They held onto the only playable card they had.
- di4na 4y ago
  No they are not. The courts have been swift and merciless on this shit for music, video and similar things. Google may seem big but they do depends on the law still.
  - silisili 4y ago
    In the current system where Google plays lame duck, sure. But all G has to do is say 'yeah if you want us to feature your content, you must agree to X' With 90% of the search market, half of phones, and who knows what percentage of the smartTV market, they could institute a death sentence to those they wanted to. IF they wanted to.
    - aemreunal 4y ago
      That sounds like a pretty big abuse of their power and potentially raises anti-trust concerns. They could easily wield that power for nefarious reasons and I don't think any of us would want that. We can change laws. Companies should abide by them, however insufficient they may be at a given point in time.
      - NackerHughes 4y ago
        > That sounds like a pretty big abuse of their power and potentially raises anti-trust concerns. They could easily wield that power for nefarious reasons and I don't think any of us would want that. As if google doesn't already abuse its power and weild it for nefarious reasons, or have massive anti-trust concerns? But god forbid they use their power to prevent others abusing theirs by forcing people to pay again and again for media they already own.
    - ehsankia 4y ago
      "How dare Google use their market dominance to do X" but also "Why doesn't Google use their market dominance to do X"
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- indrora 4y ago
  I thought this too for the longest time. Then I heard an anecdote from one of my colleagues that does licensing: The music licensing industry heads (RIAA/MPAA/ASCAP/etc) are tiny fish monetarily, but they own everything and control it. If the RIAA doesn't like you, they can make you go away. The issue is that if anyone wants to fight them on Antitrust grounds, this turns the big light of Antitrust litigation around on those big fish that depend on Very Carefully not being in the spotlight. Putting it differently: if Google tried to do anything, their counter would be calling the licensing bodies anticompetitive, which puts Google in the crosshairs next.
js8 4y ago
That's the funny part about corporations. Because of the large internal hierarchy, even if majority of Google employees thinks that these antics about control over user are a bad idea, everybody perceives there is an expectation not to bring it up internally.
- nine_k 4y ago
  They can bring it up internally all right; last I heard, Memegen is still a thing at Google. But it's not the majority, especially not the majority of the engineers, who makes decisions like that. (And if you'e so annoyed you'd rather leave than shut up, welcome to today's IT job market.)
- aappleby 4y ago
  Real Names Considered Harmful
manholio 4y ago
> The issue here isn't that it's Google, it's that Google is doing what they're told to do. Nice try. One of the largest tech companies of the world, which in most countries other than USA holds basically a monopoly on mobile computing, is not being pushed around by the creative industries. Remember when Youtube became a thing and the media companies wanted it gone? Google fought with them and created a technology stack that almost any media company today uses, because it was in their interest to do so. No, it's Google all the way down alright. They can force creative industries to accept real ownership of the media by the users, but this time it's just not in their interest to do so.
- supriyo-biswas 4y ago
  This is definitely not the case. If anything, Google is reportedly afraid of making any business changes[1] that may potentially come up as being anti-competitive, even at the cost of becoming obsolete in their existing markets. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/technology/ai-chatgpt-google-search.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/technology/ai-chatgpt-goo...
snowwrestler 4y ago
Based on the description it seems unlikely this is related to studio licensing. For one thing it was a purchased movie, so changes in streaming licensing should not apply. For another thing, the details of app updates and file caching are usually left up to the platform, for obvious reasons: the platforms know way more about that stuff than the studios.
leehuffman 4y ago
> Recently, I mentioned to a band it was sad they pulled their music off Spotify. Puzzled, they were not even aware that the licensing was pulled, and they had to go yell at their record label (who was unaware they were even on Spotify because they made less than a dollar in royalties per year on it) who has sat on it for over a year and refused to release the rights back to the artist so they can have it available on Spotify. That band didn't own their music and the "label" likely didn't either. They got fronted money that was never repaid (as per contract) and their shit traded hands multiple times. There was wild consolidation in this world over the last 10 - 25 years. What used to be money printing turned to "GOT EM!!" dollar signs in bold on contracts, which turned to small joints falling over (dollars and commas in bold didn't map on the backend) and now some banger owns their shit. Most likely the banger who owned their shit lost it in the shuffle of the more banger shit they owned, or the overhead of the split with the 5% the small label who was able to retain that cut didn't even render on the P&L and they just shoved it in the virtual vault because who gives a fuck?

silisili 4y ago

With all due respect, I feel like Google is large enough to refuse to be told what to do. If they really cared...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nine_k 4y ago
Refusing to be told what to do costs money. Say, Apple put its financial weight at labels with iTunes and iPod, and now we have 99¢ tracks as a norm. But to spend money on something, a company has to plan to get more in return. Apple did. What would be the plan for Google? What money-making machine of theirs would it enable?
- silisili 4y ago
  At one time Google had a first class music service, and I think they still rent and sell movies. As for money making, I think a guarantee of 'yours forever, no takebacks' would put them way out front of their competition. But perhaps most people don't care enough for that to be true.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    > yours forever, no takebacks MP3s available form Amazon, iTunes, Bandcamp at the very least all have this commendable property. And the sale is once and forever, while an enticing revenue source is a recurring one %)
- rakoo 4y ago
  Yeah, the only way things will change is if Google becomes a production studio. This won't be a better for situation for listeners nor for artists.
- izacus 4y ago
  It's telling that Apple isn't able to persuade American content corporations into DRM free videos either. They're now biggest supporters and implementors of locked down DRM across their device portfolio.
  - sircastor 4y ago
    The music industry was so terrified at what internet piracy was doing that they agreed to Apples terms. The film and television industry saw what Apple had done to music, and were terrified of what it would do to them. They held onto the only playable card they had.
di4na 4y ago
No they are not. The courts have been swift and merciless on this shit for music, video and similar things. Google may seem big but they do depends on the law still.
- silisili 4y ago
  In the current system where Google plays lame duck, sure. But all G has to do is say 'yeah if you want us to feature your content, you must agree to X' With 90% of the search market, half of phones, and who knows what percentage of the smartTV market, they could institute a death sentence to those they wanted to. IF they wanted to.
  - aemreunal 4y ago
    That sounds like a pretty big abuse of their power and potentially raises anti-trust concerns. They could easily wield that power for nefarious reasons and I don't think any of us would want that. We can change laws. Companies should abide by them, however insufficient they may be at a given point in time.
    - NackerHughes 4y ago
      > That sounds like a pretty big abuse of their power and potentially raises anti-trust concerns. They could easily wield that power for nefarious reasons and I don't think any of us would want that. As if google doesn't already abuse its power and weild it for nefarious reasons, or have massive anti-trust concerns? But god forbid they use their power to prevent others abusing theirs by forcing people to pay again and again for media they already own.
  - ehsankia 4y ago
    "How dare Google use their market dominance to do X" but also "Why doesn't Google use their market dominance to do X"
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
indrora 4y ago
I thought this too for the longest time. Then I heard an anecdote from one of my colleagues that does licensing: The music licensing industry heads (RIAA/MPAA/ASCAP/etc) are tiny fish monetarily, but they own everything and control it. If the RIAA doesn't like you, they can make you go away. The issue is that if anyone wants to fight them on Antitrust grounds, this turns the big light of Antitrust litigation around on those big fish that depend on Very Carefully not being in the spotlight. Putting it differently: if Google tried to do anything, their counter would be calling the licensing bodies anticompetitive, which puts Google in the crosshairs next.

js8 4y ago

That's the funny part about corporations. Because of the large internal hierarchy, even if majority of Google employees thinks that these antics about control over user are a bad idea, everybody perceives there is an expectation not to bring it up internally.

nine_k 4y ago
They can bring it up internally all right; last I heard, Memegen is still a thing at Google. But it's not the majority, especially not the majority of the engineers, who makes decisions like that. (And if you'e so annoyed you'd rather leave than shut up, welcome to today's IT job market.)
aappleby 4y ago
Real Names Considered Harmful

manholio 4y ago

> The issue here isn't that it's Google, it's that Google is doing what they're told to do. Nice try. One of the largest tech companies of the world, which in most countries other than USA holds basically a monopoly on mobile computing, is not being pushed around by the creative industries. Remember when Youtube became a thing and the media companies wanted it gone? Google fought with them and created a technology stack that almost any media company today uses, because it was in their interest to do so. No, it's Google all the way down alright. They can force creative industries to accept real ownership of the media by the users, but this time it's just not in their interest to do so.

supriyo-biswas 4y ago
This is definitely not the case. If anything, Google is reportedly afraid of making any business changes[1] that may potentially come up as being anti-competitive, even at the cost of becoming obsolete in their existing markets. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/technology/ai-chatgpt-google-search.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/technology/ai-chatgpt-goo...

snowwrestler 4y ago

Based on the description it seems unlikely this is related to studio licensing. For one thing it was a purchased movie, so changes in streaming licensing should not apply. For another thing, the details of app updates and file caching are usually left up to the platform, for obvious reasons: the platforms know way more about that stuff than the studios.

leehuffman 4y ago

> Recently, I mentioned to a band it was sad they pulled their music off Spotify. Puzzled, they were not even aware that the licensing was pulled, and they had to go yell at their record label (who was unaware they were even on Spotify because they made less than a dollar in royalties per year on it) who has sat on it for over a year and refused to release the rights back to the artist so they can have it available on Spotify. That band didn't own their music and the "label" likely didn't either. They got fronted money that was never repaid (as per contract) and their shit traded hands multiple times. There was wild consolidation in this world over the last 10 - 25 years. What used to be money printing turned to "GOT EM!!" dollar signs in bold on contracts, which turned to small joints falling over (dollars and commas in bold didn't map on the backend) and now some banger owns their shit. Most likely the banger who owned their shit lost it in the shuffle of the more banger shit they owned, or the overhead of the split with the 5% the small label who was able to retain that cut didn't even render on the P&L and they just shoved it in the virtual vault because who gives a fuck?