18 ms·

What should I do about YouTube?

1391 points by radley 12y ago

no_future 12y ago
> All songs will be set to “montetize”, meaning there will be ads on them. Ha.
swang 12y ago
Trading one master for another.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  At least with labels, if you were sufficiently successful and your current label started tightening the screws on you, you could go to the others and try to negotiate a new deal with them. If Google decides to tighten the screws on YouTube performers, where else do they go? Where else can they go?
  - Twirrim 12y ago
    Vimeo? Umm.... and Vimeo? (I'm sure there are more out there, but I can't think of any off the top of my head)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - Hasu 12y ago
    >If Google decides to tighten the screws on YouTube performers, where else do they go? Where else can they go? To whatever startup(or other business) that successfully takes advantage of the market opening that Google has created by tightening the screws?
    - narrator 12y ago
      Monopolies eventually create revulsion and a market opportunity. Look at Internet Explorer or QuarkXPress for example.
    - bsder 12y ago
      You can't beat YouTube in the US. Google effectively subsidizes YouTube's bandwidth usage and that chokes off any alternatives. Even NicoNico in the US just wrapped the YouTube video with a comment system to save bandwidth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_Nico_Douga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_Nico_Douga
      - Hasu 12y ago
        That wouldn't stop anyone with deep pockets(Microsoft, Apple) from taking a shot. Netflix or Twitch may be in a good position to adopt departing YouTubers, as well. If the content creators leave YouTube, their audiences will follow them. It's definitely an opportunity for someone, the question is just "who?"
      - icebraining 12y ago
        I think that's looking too narrowly at the problem. For example, for years Spotify used P2P tech to reduce demand on their servers - nothing stops a Youtube alternative from doing the same.
      - mahyarm 12y ago
        Just like twitch can't beat youtube for some niche?
  - TillE 12y ago
    Well there's Vimeo, and a thousand dodgy sites where you can share copyrighted videos. But of course they don't have the audience of YouTube. In the past 10-15 years I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with the de facto centralization of the web. It's especially blatant and ironic with a site like GitHub. I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe something like RSS, now that non-geeks are getting used to the idea of podcasts.
  - squeaky-clean 12y ago
    Only if you have a good contract. It's pretty common for an artist to sign an overly restrictive contract early in their career which lasts for a certain number of releases, and they're stuck with it for a long, long time. An example would be the band Streetlight Manifesto, who have had a lengthy and rough relationship with their label, Victory Records. For years they've told fans to not pay for their music because of fights with their label, and instead buy merchandise from the band and pirate the music. Despite this, they've still been chained to Victory (and still are, I believe) and have to release music entirely through them. Most recently, with their newest album[0], Victory refused to send physical copies of the album to fans who pre-ordered through the band's website, leaving the band to deal with refunding their fans. And when the singer tried to independently release a solo album of acoustic covers of that same album (which he has successfully done in the past), Victory had it removed from Youtube, Amazon, etc. There's a reason many independent artists seems so scared of labels. While YouTube is definitely taking things too far, it doesn't compare to what some labels have been doing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hands_That_Thieve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hands_That_Thieve
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- jerf 12y ago
  I submit it's worse than that. Up to this point, she appears to have successfully avoided having a "master". Youtube was merely one of a rich variety of services she used to distribute. Now, quite suddenly, YouTube wants to hold hostage her usage of the service up to that point to install themselves as a quite powerful master, or else they'll take everything she's given them and break it. When looked at that way, I'd say the answer is quite easy in the long run: Tell them to go stuff themselves. But the short term is pretty cruel on YouTube's part. So in the PR sense I think it ought to be made clear that this is YouTube's move. If she's OK with a video using her music today, and OK with it tomorrow, and today YouTube permits the video and they block it tomorrow, any consequences of that action should be 100% on YouTube. In the interests of fairness, as Zoë points out, it's possible they aren't quite clear on just how grabby they're being. But that excuse dissipates with every passing minute that they stick to their guns.
  - fixermark 12y ago
    There is an inherent asymmetry between content creator and content host. If the host is okay with the content today and blocks it tomorrow, it is the creator that suffers along with the host; it's never been the case that the consequences fall 100% on the host. That's why markets have been valuing hosts of all sorts above their revenue for quite some time; gatekeeper is a valuable position to hold.
metaphorm 12y ago
I'm really glad Zoe decided to share this. It was interesting to read and I hope it helps raise awareness about the total hostility of the terms of that artist agreement. I'm having trouble imagining there are any independent artists at all that would be comfortable agreeing to those terms.
magicalist 12y ago
Interesting look at clash of interests. One interesting point (out of several in the post): > I will be required to release new music on Youtube at the same time I release it anywhere else. So no more releasing to my core fans first on Bandcamp and then on iTunes. I wonder if she's already agreed to the iTunes agreement, because my understanding was that iTunes required the same thing: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/iTunes_Americas_-Music_v16.pdf http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/i... (see section 3a) I wonder if the difference is in thinking of iTunes as a proper music distribution service and youtube as a place that has incidentally distributed a bunch of her music (as much of the blog post seems to put it) that is now demanding to be something different.
- eridius 12y ago
  From your link: > [...] at least in time for ITUNES to begin selling eMasters the earlier of a general release date, provided by COMPANY, or when any other distributor is permitted to begin selling, or making commercially available, COMPANY Content in any format. It appears that her Bandcamp is hosted at her own domain, at http://music.zoekeating.com http://music.zoekeating.com. Does that count as her distributing it herself, or as someone else distributing it? Except for the tiny footer saying "Bandcamp", it looks like self-distribution. In my relatively uninformed opinion, that seems like it means section 3a doesn't apply.
  - magicalist 12y ago
    I guess it depends who she signed with iTunes through? If it was herself then it seems like it would be covered by the "provided by COMPANY" clause, if not, then it seems like it would be readily covered by the "any other distributor" clause.
    - eridius 12y ago
      It says "a general release date, provided by COMPANY". I don't know what the definition of "general release date" is, but I would assume that's when it's released to the general public. I don't know if releasing to her Bandcamp fans counts or not. Edit: Another alternative is, does she offer it for sale when releasing just on Bandcamp? If that's available for free only, and doesn't have a "Buy now" option added until it's released on iTunes, then it seems like that would satisfy the "any other distributor is permitted to begin selling, or making commercially available, COMPANY Content in any format" bit (in this case assuming that her site counts as "any other distributor"). Ultimately, speculation about legal contracts by laypeople like us (well, me, but I assume you're not a lawyer either) is probably a pointless exercise.
pherocity_ 12y ago
"Do no evil" hasn't been followed for quite a while, but this is downright vile.
- magicalist 12y ago
  You'll have to be more specific. Which part is the vile part?
- lrem 12y ago
  One thing that I think nobody thinks about: there are two sides to this thing, other than Google. One is the artists, who have already spoken. The other one is the users, who probably want to be promised "all the music from X participating artists", rather than "some of the music from 10X participating artists"... I'm not 100% sure that Google standing by the second side is right, but surely it needs some consideration.
  - shkkmo 12y ago
    So... you think there are users who would rather have access to 0 Zoe songs on Youtube, rather than have access to 50% of Zoe's songs on Youtube? I'm sorry, I just don't see how this benefits the user.
    - koepked 12y ago
      The calculus behind this benefiting the user likely involves the belief that most artists are going to cave on the issue.
    - lrem 12y ago
      If Zoe says no, she will not be part of the deal, simple as that. I think that an offer saying "all the music from ten thousand artists" sounds better than "some of the music from a hundred thousand artists".
- pluma 12y ago
  Corporations are not good or evil. They're amoral. Google only appears to be acting in bad faith because they follow the (IMO dangerous) ideology that because humans don't scale everything needs to be automated. They are essentially doing the epitome of "one size fits all", especially in how they deal with customers / business partners. Yes, it's tone deaf, but it has nothing to do with being evil. The only reason this is at all a problem is that they're successful enough that it works.
whiddershins 12y ago
I am confused about the terms used in this post, some details need to be explicated. If a user uses a song they don't have the rights to in a youtube video, the content holder has the right to issue a DMCA takedown request. Google also, alternately, offers the rights holder the option to monetize that third-party use instead. Is Google seriously removing that monetization option unless the rights holder agrees to release ALL their music through Google, and on Google's terms? Because that's what Zoe's post is implying, and that would be some serious next level anti-trust bullying kind of nonsense.
- bsder 12y ago
  > Is Google seriously removing that monetization option unless the rights holder agrees to release ALL their music through Google, and on Google's terms? Yes, the independent artists have been screaming about YouTube licensing terms for a while now. > Because that's what Zoe's post is implying, and that would be some serious next level anti-trust bullying kind of nonsense. But there's competition. You know ... Vimeo, NicoNico, etc. That fact that they have less than .1% of the market in the US isn't relevant. </sarcasm>
  - hsod 12y ago
    iTunes, Google Music, Soundcloud, Spotify, etc. are all competitors in this situation. YouTube is a LOT less than 99.9% of the music distribution market.
    - bsder 12y ago
      And yet whenever any of the 15-30 year olds I know want a specific piece of music, they go straight to YouTube. I have yet to see anybody push "Buy" on any of those services "The average iTunes user spends ~$40 per year on the service" That matches my experience, and that's average. Presumably the in-app purchase whales are skewing that high; it's probably closer to $20. Between apps and video, that doesn't leave much for music. Almost all the money goes to Top 40 for that.
      - 12y ago
bsder 12y ago
Um, it's pretty clear what she needs to do. Let Google block and take her fans to a different service. And encourage other artists to do the same. And then sue Google for infringement when Google doesn't actually manage to keep their music off of YouTube. That's the only way that Google will ever pay attention. If she doesn't help overturn this, Google will just keep doing it. Yes, this is the standard problem. She, individually, has to take the hit so that the musicians, collectively, benefit. It sucks. The independent artists really need to get together and build their own service with the terms they need so they don't have to keep fighting Google, Spotify, etc.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  I bet independent artists would love to live in a world where they, even collectively, have the kind of money it would take to win a legal fight with Google, or to build a viable competitor.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Viacom has plenty of money, and even they lost. Twice, in fact.
    - bsder 12y ago
      Viacom weren't exactly the most sympathetic of defendants.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        Or maybe they simply didn't have a case. Like it or not, the safe harbor clause exists.
      - metaphorm 12y ago
        plaintiff. they were the plaintiff in that case.
    - vitd 12y ago
pavel_lishin 12y ago
So, if she does not accept their 'generous offer', she won't be able to publish her music on YouTube, right? But if other people happen to publish it, and Content ID doesn't snag it down, she'll have to go through their long and painful DMCA takedown process to get her music off of it?
- asuffield 12y ago
  No, that's not right. She can still publish her music on youtube either way. This is about signing up to the "monetisation" option where she can take some of the money from any third party video that ContentID says includes her content. She's currently using that service, and continuing to use it apparently requires signing up to the new agreement. I'm not completely clear on this part, but I think she can still get ad revenue from videos that she uploads herself. The article is definitely talking about third party video uploads.
  - pavel_lishin 12y ago
    Ah, okay; but any of her music that she did not upload - would it be taken down automatically via ContentId, or would she have to petition them?
    - JohnTHaller 12y ago
      No. Google will only use ContentId to handle monetization. And only on their lopsided terms, which the artist isn't very keen on. She'd have to file DMCA requests for every single video it showed up in herself.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Ok I think Zoe should create a t-shirt on tee spring with "I don’t think they are evil. I think they, like other tech companies, are just idealistic in a way that works best for them." that is such a great quote. And I agree it is bogus what Google is asking. Next step is the ContentID equivalent robot that runs as a service and just sends DMCA takedown notices to Google forcing them to remove the videos and get no ad revenue on them and piss off their users. She really does have the power in this fight, applying it will take some effort but I think it can be done.
- magicalist 12y ago
  > Next step is the ContentID equivalent robot that runs as a service and just sends DMCA takedown notices to Google forcing them to remove the videos and get no ad revenue on them and piss off their users You just described dozens (hundreds?) of scammy "infringement detection" companies that already exist :) e.g https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8867496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8867496
- icebraining 12y ago
  Next step is the ContentID equivalent robot that runs as a service and just sends DMCA takedown notices to Google forcing them to remove the videos and get no ad revenue on them and piss off their users. Yeah, but the problem is that those users are often her fans, and they'll be pissed at her too. And the fact is that she has more to lose than Google, no matter what she does.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    I think she describes it pretty well in the blog post, she uses the existing ContentID system which effectively DMCA's the video user internally and then gives them the option of adding Google advertising or taking it down. From the user's perspective, the change would be "Go here ... and request a sync license to this music content." rather than a checkbox to just turn on Google advertising. If they didn't want to do that then they would need to take down the video. She is already sending auto-takedowns, Google simply wants to double dip on the value, both getting advertising revenue from her work when fans use it in their videos and using it to attract more customers to their music service by giving her songs away for free when it pleases them.
goeric 12y ago
Use http://vid.me http://vid.me
- Joona 12y ago
  Do they re-encode videos?
  - lelandbatey 12y ago
    I'll bet they do, since I don't actually know anyone who doesn't re-encode their videos. Youtube certainly does, Vimeo does (at least some versions, since they offer different qualities) though uploaders have the option of offering the original for download. Re-encoding is generally always done, since users upload so many different formats, and few of them are suitable for streaming.
    - wshaef 12y ago
      Vidme co-founder here. We re-encode all videos to make sure they'll play well across devices.
      - Joona 12y ago
        That's a shame. Would it be possible to encode with specific settings (ffmpeg) and not have it re-encoded? Re-encoding butchers my videos terribly.
6stringmerc 12y ago
My perspective is as follows [1]: First, write a song and shoot a quick video about the desire to treat your fans with respect, and upload it ASAP to YouTube. Once the "MUST DO" deadline comes up, kick that serfdom YouTube contract to the curb and don't look back. Set up shop on VIMEO or DailyMotion, monetize as able. Lastly, talk to deadmau5 about the Pros/Cons of setting up a self-directed distribtuion platform. [1] Proud to be independent, distributed and listened to worldwide, and even if that only means I've made $14 in income from my music in the past two years, the music reaching people is my goal. DistroKid is my friend. YouTube is just another RIAA platform these days to me, and while I'm on there, the moment I apparently get big enough for them to care and try to shoot the hostages, I'll pick up shop and leave. YMMV.
notatoad 12y ago
I'm curious if they are really going to block her channel completely, or if block just means she can't be part of ContentID anymore. Blocking it sounds pretty unreasonable, but "we won't help you monetize your videos if you're going to favour some other music service" seems like fairly reasonable terms to me.
- whiddershins 12y ago
  No, it isn't reasonable. Every time they display an uploaded video that contains content which is protected by copyright, they are attempting to make money from someone else's work product. They've built their entire business on this practice, while leaving the burden of DMCA notices to the artist. The contentID system was an olive branch, a win-win. Now they are using it as a cudgel to force artists to participate in their platform on their terms. That's insanely messed up.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Clearly, the sane answer is to shut down YouTube until it can be remade in an artist-pleasing way. That this will mean creativity is stifled and everything has a "BUY" button on it is incidental and not at all important. Who wants user-uploaded content when you have artists? /s Realistically, the position of artists tends to be that any and all money involved should go to them. This tends not to sit well with tech companies that do things like handle the money and pay bandwidth bills.
    - whiddershins 12y ago
      How is a "BUY" button more offensive than the cascade of ads I am subjected to everywhere I go on the internet? And "creativity is stifled"? "The position of artists"? Give me a break. You are trolling. Artists have always struggled to be paid anything even remotely reasonable, and it is disgusting when people try to shame them for doing so. AFAIK no other profession has this problem to anywhere near this magnitude ... where nearly everyone makes use of the work, but the majority are not only unwilling to pay, but actually hostile to paying.
dhimes 12y ago
My first thought: She should form a subsidiary company that releases her stuff on YouTube. Then she can give the sub her music as she sees fit. That way she can still control her YouTube presence, but Google has the right to do what it needs to do with the stuff she releases to it. Would this work?
- 6stringmerc 12y ago
  This is a very interesting suggestion. I think you might actually have a point. The reason I state this is because this type of licensing is how movie studios and production companies, um, well, cook their books to the best of their ability. In the terms of technology and commerce, it seems very similar to licensing a patent / technology to a sub in a tax-haven jurisdiction. Isn't that what certain tech firms do (Google?) to minimize their exposure? What's good for the goose...
  - gknoy 12y ago
    If I understand this right, this would have the subsidiary be ONLY distributing to Youtube, and a different one distributing to the other services, which would then fall within the "release it here at the same time you release it anywhere else" clause, right? Seems like a clever hack, I like it.
    - philsnow 12y ago
      Reminds me of the main character in Accelerando, spawning and retiring side businesses automatically to serve his legal needs and hide his assets.
      - derefr 12y ago
        I'm working in smart contracts; completing the "Manfred Macx user story" is one of my core objectives. :)
        Terr_ 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cmurf 12y ago
Old woman=this artist and all artists. Proselytizers=Google rep. The Book=Google's service contract. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFUW6htvUss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFUW6htvUss
replicatorblog 12y ago
Zoe Keating is one of my favorite musicians. If you haven't listened, Imagine if someone was playing the Game of Thrones theme on a Cello, solo. She incorporates tech into her act in wildly impressive ways. This is a refreshingly level-headed blog post. There are pros and cons, but it's all presented as realistic tension between two creative organizations, each of which provides value (One having more leverage, of course). It's just such a nice break from the over-the-top demonization of the tech/corporate partner and ignoring the value they provide.
- carlob 12y ago
  > Zoe Keating is one of my favorite musicians. Check out Erik Friedlander!
  - amirouche 12y ago
    >> Zoe Keating is one of my favorite musicians. > Check out Erik Friedlander! Check out David Darling!
    - carlob 12y ago
      Will do, thanks!
- qntmfred 12y ago
  I went to see her live last week. I had only been vaguely aware of her before then, but I came away really really enjoying her work. She also mentioned during the performance that before she started playing full time she used to be a programmer, which was very cool. And totally not surprising given her very creative use of technology in her music. Also apparent in her writing as her understanding and insight of Youtube Music's technology and business model is on point.
  - darkmethod 12y ago
    The creativity in her work is inspiring. Also, I really enjoyed her Wired interview (she mentions her previous career as a programmer). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TTX0ryyoac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TTX0ryyoac
Kalium 12y ago
> Is such control too much for an artist to ask for in 2015? Yes. The world isn't designed around you playing mix-and-match with a bunch of different services. What Zoe has missed is not that the tech world doesn't understand things "outside their reality". It's that we in tech know we have to choose between what's best for the vast, vast majority of people and what's convenient for a tiny handful. Technology still changes the world for the better, Zoe. The only difference is now you're on the side of the old guard.
- 6stringmerc 12y ago
  Wrong! Look at your computer. It's a mix-and-match of a bunch of different components designed to serve you. Every bit of technology in communications is about sharing, and music is one of the most fundamental forms of communication known to our species. The only way technology changes the world for better is in its application. I honestly, genuinely believe YouTube/Google is not acting in a beneficial method for anybody but themselves/stakeholders. This would be a direct case of taking a net benefit for convenience for a handful of people (content creators) and the vast, vast world of humans (audience members) and going back to the Patronage system without any of the benefits whatsoever.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    > Wrong! Look at your computer. It's a mix-and-match of a bunch of different components designed to serve you. It's an Apple machine bought by someone else for my use. I had exactly zero say in the matter. It's a mix-and-match, but my opinion doesn't matter. My choice is to use the machine or not. EDIT: As for the patronage model, what makes you think we ever left that system? The economics of art have always rested on patronage.
    - 6stringmerc 12y ago
      But you're being blatantly ignorant on the mechanics of the world simply to suit your biased perspective. The machine won't work without many of the parts inside, that was my point. Go ahead and pull out the battery, because as you state, mix-and-match is not a viable system. I'm not going to bother with your postulation regarding the patronage system, because you're arguing from a false premise in a specific circumstance where this particular artist has successfully produced art and made income through a "fans-as-patrons" model that you claim is unworthy of further developing.
pasbesoin 12y ago
YouTube becomes TheirTube.
- pluma 12y ago
  *TheyTube Grammar.
marcusgarvey 12y ago
> I don’t think they are evil. I think they, like other tech companies, are just idealistic in a way that works best for them. I think this because I used to be one of them (*4). The people who work at Google, Facebook, etc can’t imagine how everything they make is not, like, totally awesome. If it’s not awesome for you it’s because you just don’t understand it yet and you’ll come around. They can’t imagine scenarios outside their reality and that is how they inadvertently unleash things like the algorithmic cruelty of Facebook’s yearly review (which showed me a picture I had posted after a doctor told me my husband had 6-8 weeks to live). This.
- sparkzilla 12y ago
  The idea that the computer and algorithms are more important than people causes a lot of harm.
- pgodzin 12y ago
  At the same time, the yearly review is meant to highlight the important moments of your year, not necessarily the positive ones. Obviously that post had a lot of engagement, and it was properly flagged as important. The user then has the option of whether or not they want to publish that or not.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Yearly Review was also totally broken if the language of your Facebook activities wasn't en_US. I don't know how well it worked for Americans, but across the pond it tended to pick up nonsense. Hell, the only photos that were in any way relevant or interesting on my Yearly Review were screenshots from Kerbal Space Program... I say it needs much, much more work.
- drapper 12y ago
  I found this very naive. Yes, engineers might be this way, designers, the "low-level" people (for a lack of better term), but the directors, the board, the money bunch - they know exactly what they're doing and how it will be bad for many, but they're going this way because it's 1. better for their product, 2. easier for them and finally 3. because "why care about some minnows?".
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
drawkbox 12y ago
Time for a new youtube...
comrh 12y ago
"The people who work at Google, Facebook, etc can’t imagine how everything they make is not, like, totally awesome." This is basically the premise of Dave Eggers' The Circle which takes it to a very scary conclusion.
reitanqild 12y ago
As an aside, seems she creates high quality music - without vocals - which is something I listen a lot to. So I bought a one download and might easily come back for more.
elidourado 12y ago
There's a new Twitter video service on the way. I'm sure they'll capture a lot of the disgruntled YouTube creators. https://video.twitter.com https://video.twitter.com
benwerd 12y ago
This seems kind of predatory from YouTube's perspective. This is the web: why can't Zoe publish her music on her own terms? The real reason people use YouTube is discovery. I can easily find new stuff to watch, and just hit play; artists can easily be discovered and grow an audience (or at least, that's the idea). Seems like it's time for a more open alternative.
- Kalium 12y ago
  She can publish her own music on her own terms. She just can't do it with YouTube's help on her own terms. Why should YouTube be obliged to meet a person on their arbitrarily chosen terms?
  - benwerd 12y ago
    They shouldn't. But right now, YouTube is a huge part of being discoverable as an artist online. There should be more of an ecosystem; more competition would result in more favorable terms. And seeing as this is the web, an ecosystem should still be browseable as a coherent whole. My wider point is: why isn't it as easy to discover an artist's work on the wider web as it is on YouTube? Isn't this an opportunity for someone?
    - Kalium 12y ago
      You would think that! It turns out that when every artist, label, publisher, and retailer under the sun has the same idea... discovery isn't actually any easier. All you get is noise. There was a huge and diverse ecosystem. It's mostly gone now. This for the most part works better for users, which is why that old ecosystem is mostly gone. As a rule, users don't want to bounce between five or ten or twenty sites to find what they want - users prefer one or two. More specifically, there's a huge number of startups hellbent on being that someone. I've personally had contact with several. That you didn't know this is an excellent comment on how big the perceived opportunity actually is.
wahsd 12y ago
It really seems like it is time to scuttle youtube. I'm serious, they keep trying the whole "it's not us, it's your isp" bs to explain why their service is all janky and glitchy even though other services work perfectly fine, and they keep pulling all kinds of bullshit moves, while also not really being all that great of a service and UI if we are honest with ourselves. Google has been mucking around with YouTube and its UI for basically a decade now without any real significant improvements. Things are even more fractured and disparate than before, the suggestions are just plain shit, and the content is akin to finding a needle in a pile of expended hypodermic needles. I am really kind of bored with youtube for many reasons. I think it's time for the artist community, and others, for that matter, to find new outlets.
- wshaef 12y ago
  We're working on building a creator-friendly video community at vid.me... would love any suggestions / ideas / feedback.
  - tylermauthe 12y ago
    I hope more people realise this and you give YouTube a run for its money. I would support you. ... But I do like watching videos on my Apple TV.
  - photorized 12y ago
    You aren't serving ads, and provide free accounts. What's your model?
    - beyti 12y ago
      nice question. grow first, monetize later I fear
splatsearch 12y ago
My first though is she should just sign up. This is how the industry is. Do it and be part of it or delete your stuff off the internet and start distributing on vinyl
Falkon1313 12y ago
If a company wants first pick of everything that someone produces and wants the right to monetize it and modify it regardless of the creator's wishes (for example, by inserting ads), then they should at least pay a salary in addition to a cut of the ad revenue. If they're not paying for those rights with a salary or recurring retainer, then the terms as described are plain exploitation designed to intentionally screw the artist. Also, 5 years is far too long for a contract like that. That gives someone else control of half a decade of your career. If you're just starting out and have a 40 year career ahead, that's 1/8th. If you're older, that could be 1/4 or more.
kazinator 12y ago
What you can do about YouTube is to use it like any ordinary person who uploads videos of their dog doing something cute, or whatever. They are not being threatened with having their channels blocked unless they sign some agreement. Release and market your music in any way you want, and use YouTube to host some vids, so you can embed them into your web pages without having to use your own bandwidth. Here is a little quote: > "[...] no matter how I explained my hands-on fan-supported anti-corporate niche thing, I was an alien to them. I don’t think they understood me at all. " See, if you want to be in a fan-supported anti-corporate niche thing, then don't feed your music to some Content ID "Borg" machine, intended to harass people who share. Of course those people didn't understand. They were probably thinking, "why do you want our help in content-ID-ing your material and clamping down on duplication, forcing copies to be removed or monetized by you, if you are anti-corporate and fan-supported? We are, like, corporate and revenue-supported."
avodonosov 12y ago
reject!
pistle 12y ago
Put it there. Monetize it. Then, build the core fan community, yourself elsewhere to the extent that the core community continues to support you knowing why they support you there and don't primarily support you via your "brand-building" channels. Cheap/free distribution for indies via various corporate entities is something that didn't exist as it does 10 or 20 years ago. This is the unstoppable future. Get ahead of it vs twisting, with angst, in its wake. Previously, artists bowed down to record labels. The new "labels" were bound to fill the digital void. She, and other artists, can carve a better direct-to-fan relationship in other mediums by using broad spectrum as a funnel into the core fan community. Then there will be niche services that grow to help cultivate that fan+ model and someone in there will dominate or be swallowed by the behemoths. Rinse and repeat. Art that can be digitized will become freely pervasive and licensing models barely keep up. We are all running our own personal kickstarters if we aren't willing take a W2 from a corporate entity. Viva la 1099!
mark_l_watson 12y ago
I am sorry that she is having these problems. I had never heard of Zoe Keeting before, but after listening to some tracks on her web site, I just bought her Into The Trees album - nice stuff. Instrumental music to code to :-)
drivingmenuts 12y ago
My first response is to (politely stated) tell Google to go fly a kite. It's such an easy and important medium to use, though, that it may be impossible. It resonates with consumers brilliantly. It's sad that they have to resort to such strong-arm tactics instead of coming out with a better system that stands out from the crowd on it's own merits. It sounds like they are completely blind to the idea that someone might not be totally comfortable with their solution. While "Don't be evil" may still be in play, apparently "Don't be a @$#%@#^@&%#$%$ jackass" hasn't even crossed their minds. At this point, I hope their new system goes the way of Google Wave.
fivre 12y ago
I think it's this: you should tell Youtube/Google to give you the amount of money they think is right given how many times your music has been plaid on their service (they know), given the actual dues according to copyright law thrown to the wind. How much is deserved, from how much was earned, according to the law? Nobody knows; it would take an army of lawyers and musicians to figure that out. How do you price art? How do you price the emotions felt when someone heard a song? You can't. No one can. I felt an emotion once, listening to a song, and the person that made that song is dead. What was the dollar amount attributable to that emotion, and what does that dead person need with that money? There's no answer; you can't put a price on emotion. And when you get down to it, that's what music is--emotion. Emotions don't have a price, music doesn't have a price--there are some people that would like to tell you otherwise, and they're wrong. Someone should get paid, yes. The persons who profited from that performance should ask the person that heard that song: how much should we charge you for feeling love? If those parties can come an agreement regarding what that cost, then yes, that's what it cost. Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.
ajani 12y ago
I don't have any legal knowledge. Hope someone who does can shed some light on these questions: Aren't antitrust laws designed to protect the customers from the power that a company can wield due to it's monopoly? Isn't this what Youtube is doing? - Exercising it's power to 'force' her to move from ContentID to a new product. And wouldn't this then also qualify as bait and switch? And isn't this according to some law illegal?
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >Aren't antitrust laws designed to protect the customers from the power that a company can wield due to it's monopoly? Yes >Isn't this what Youtube is doing? - Exercising it's power to 'force' her to move from ContentID to a new product. Yes But, good luck getting the William J. Baer at the DOJ to bring a suit, though. Youtube is not Aaron Swartz.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- raldi 12y ago
  Antitrust law kicks in when consumers have no choice, usually due to large barriers to switching. For example, in 1998, if you wanted to run WIN32 apps, you had no choice but to buy from Microsoft. Note that the definition above does not mention market share. For example, Google dominates websearch market share, but competition is just a click away; if Bing or Yahoo or DDG built a better mousetrap, you could switch in an instant. Since you, as a consumer, can easily switch to a different music provider, it's hard for me to see how you can argue that YouTube is wielding monopoly power over you. And similarly, Zoe can (and does) easily distribute her music on non-YouTube platforms. Also, antitrust law is primarily about protecting consumers from harm (usually, higher prices). It's not about protecting other companies. So the core of Microsoft's antitrust defense was, "Yes, driving the price of the browser to $0 was terribly harmful to Netscape, but it was actually beneficial to consumers."
  - pgeorgi 12y ago
    Zoe can't decide that other people don't put her works on YT. And ContentID, which is a way to deal with that situations, seems to come with some interesting additional terms now.
teddyh 12y ago
> It’s a violation of my agreement to say how much […] Youtube plays pays. To me, that would have been a tip-off.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
drapper 12y ago
Well, the problem is that YouTube, similarly to Google and Facebook, is becoming a monopoly (a natural monopoly I'd say), which seems to be a general way of how Internet works, and we should, rather sooner or later, start to think about some regulations (YT is also the future TV and TV is regulated) to deal with cases like this one.
datashovel 12y ago
I would love to see the actual language used in the contract. The terms as described in the post sound quite harsh, but unless it's a lawyer who has transcribed these terms, or she was discussing this with a lawyer at Google, my hunch is some of the interpretation may be off.
joelthelion 12y ago
This is what happens with monopolies.
- raldi 12y ago
  Wikipedia defines a monopoly as "when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" If YouTube is a monopoly, what is the commodity in question?
  - joelthelion 12y ago
    YouTube users? As a content provider, on which site do you expect to get the most viewers?
    - raldi 12y ago
      Would you say reddit is also a monopoly, since it's the only supplier of reddit users?
johnlbevan2 12y ago
Does anyone know why Google ("organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible" ¹) don't allow people to disclose their YouTube earnings ("It’s a violation of my agreement to say how much a comparable number of Youtube plays pays" ²). Or have I misunderstood her quote; since last year she did reveal such figures ("more than 1.9m views of videos on YouTube – mostly those uploaded by other people featuring her music – earned her $1,248" ³) - 1 http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i-do-about-youtube - 2 https://www.google.co.uk/about/company/ - 3 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/24/zoe-keating-itunes-spotify-youtube-payouts
graycat 12y ago
My guess: Google/YouTube just had a really bad day and tried to shoot themselves in the foot. As they continue with such nonsense, they will get a lot of push back. Then, or eventually, they will see their mistakes, wise up, and quit being nasty. In the meanwhile, Zoe has little option but to f'get about YouTube and let them hurt themselves and, then, consider YouTube again after YouTube wises up. But it should be not too difficult for Zoe to bring up her own Web site that permits downloading and/or streaming her music/videos. E.g., consider http://www.carolinegoulding.com/ http://www.carolinegoulding.com/ the Web site of violinist Caroline Goulding which at times has had some streaming of some of her music and links to some relevant video of hers. And then there is also for her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNiUK9sNBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNiUK9sNBA If such a site for Zoe becomes popular, then Zoe could run some ads to get revenue to pay for the site. A site that is small or even larger than small should be fairly inexpensive, especially if just hosted at Amazon or some such. Or, a computer plugged together from parts for less than $2000 and with, say, 35 Mbps upload speed to the Internet for, say, $90 a month, should be able to be a significant start. Get usage enough to max out the capacity of that site, and should be able to get some revenue way beyond what is needed to run the site. There is something fundamental here: The basic technology in infrastructure software, Moore's law, whatever the similar law is for disk space, optical fiber data rates, and the prices of these that permit YouTube to send so much content free to users and for many months with few or no ads permits many others, including even a single artist, to put their content on the Internet also. Good luck to Zoe.
stinos 12y ago
The people who work at Google, Facebook, etc can’t imagine how everything they make is not, like, totally awesome. If it’s not awesome for you it’s because you just don’t understand it yet and you’ll come around. They can’t imagine scenarios outside their reality and that is how they inadvertently unleash things like the algorithmic cruelty of Facebook’s yearly review (which showed me a picture I had posted after a doctor told me my husband had 6-8 weeks to live). Dave Eggers' The Circle, all over again (or should it be 'avant la lettre'?)
ableal 12y ago
There's an update from Jan 24 (today), at the bottom. Very relevant items. Only got around to reading this over a day late, but I'm glad I did. Very clear and well written, the insider's low-down on the new-media realities that are replacing the old ones.
enterx 12y ago
...fuck YouTube? :D EDIT: no. install an email server. start opening accounts. collect the captchas. outsource. :)
apricot 12y ago
Thought-provoking article, and it contains this gem: "I don’t think they are evil. I think they, like other tech companies, are just idealistic in a way that works best for them." This is such a wonderful turn of phrase, and has caused me to spend a major part of last evening in self-contemplation. I think it applies not only to tech companies but to many bright young people who adapt their mental model of the world to their own strengths and passions.

1391 points by radley 12y ago

no_future 12y ago

> All songs will be set to “montetize”, meaning there will be ads on them. Ha.

swang 12y ago

Trading one master for another.

smacktoward 12y ago
At least with labels, if you were sufficiently successful and your current label started tightening the screws on you, you could go to the others and try to negotiate a new deal with them. If Google decides to tighten the screws on YouTube performers, where else do they go? Where else can they go?
- Twirrim 12y ago
  Vimeo? Umm.... and Vimeo? (I'm sure there are more out there, but I can't think of any off the top of my head)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- Hasu 12y ago
  >If Google decides to tighten the screws on YouTube performers, where else do they go? Where else can they go? To whatever startup(or other business) that successfully takes advantage of the market opening that Google has created by tightening the screws?
  - narrator 12y ago
    Monopolies eventually create revulsion and a market opportunity. Look at Internet Explorer or QuarkXPress for example.
  - bsder 12y ago
    You can't beat YouTube in the US. Google effectively subsidizes YouTube's bandwidth usage and that chokes off any alternatives. Even NicoNico in the US just wrapped the YouTube video with a comment system to save bandwidth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_Nico_Douga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_Nico_Douga
    - Hasu 12y ago
      That wouldn't stop anyone with deep pockets(Microsoft, Apple) from taking a shot. Netflix or Twitch may be in a good position to adopt departing YouTubers, as well. If the content creators leave YouTube, their audiences will follow them. It's definitely an opportunity for someone, the question is just "who?"
    - icebraining 12y ago
      I think that's looking too narrowly at the problem. For example, for years Spotify used P2P tech to reduce demand on their servers - nothing stops a Youtube alternative from doing the same.
    - mahyarm 12y ago
      Just like twitch can't beat youtube for some niche?
- TillE 12y ago
  Well there's Vimeo, and a thousand dodgy sites where you can share copyrighted videos. But of course they don't have the audience of YouTube. In the past 10-15 years I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with the de facto centralization of the web. It's especially blatant and ironic with a site like GitHub. I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe something like RSS, now that non-geeks are getting used to the idea of podcasts.
- squeaky-clean 12y ago
  Only if you have a good contract. It's pretty common for an artist to sign an overly restrictive contract early in their career which lasts for a certain number of releases, and they're stuck with it for a long, long time. An example would be the band Streetlight Manifesto, who have had a lengthy and rough relationship with their label, Victory Records. For years they've told fans to not pay for their music because of fights with their label, and instead buy merchandise from the band and pirate the music. Despite this, they've still been chained to Victory (and still are, I believe) and have to release music entirely through them. Most recently, with their newest album[0], Victory refused to send physical copies of the album to fans who pre-ordered through the band's website, leaving the band to deal with refunding their fans. And when the singer tried to independently release a solo album of acoustic covers of that same album (which he has successfully done in the past), Victory had it removed from Youtube, Amazon, etc. There's a reason many independent artists seems so scared of labels. While YouTube is definitely taking things too far, it doesn't compare to what some labels have been doing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hands_That_Thieve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hands_That_Thieve
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
jerf 12y ago
I submit it's worse than that. Up to this point, she appears to have successfully avoided having a "master". Youtube was merely one of a rich variety of services she used to distribute. Now, quite suddenly, YouTube wants to hold hostage her usage of the service up to that point to install themselves as a quite powerful master, or else they'll take everything she's given them and break it. When looked at that way, I'd say the answer is quite easy in the long run: Tell them to go stuff themselves. But the short term is pretty cruel on YouTube's part. So in the PR sense I think it ought to be made clear that this is YouTube's move. If she's OK with a video using her music today, and OK with it tomorrow, and today YouTube permits the video and they block it tomorrow, any consequences of that action should be 100% on YouTube. In the interests of fairness, as Zoë points out, it's possible they aren't quite clear on just how grabby they're being. But that excuse dissipates with every passing minute that they stick to their guns.
- fixermark 12y ago
  There is an inherent asymmetry between content creator and content host. If the host is okay with the content today and blocks it tomorrow, it is the creator that suffers along with the host; it's never been the case that the consequences fall 100% on the host. That's why markets have been valuing hosts of all sorts above their revenue for quite some time; gatekeeper is a valuable position to hold.

metaphorm 12y ago

I'm really glad Zoe decided to share this. It was interesting to read and I hope it helps raise awareness about the total hostility of the terms of that artist agreement. I'm having trouble imagining there are any independent artists at all that would be comfortable agreeing to those terms.

magicalist 12y ago

Interesting look at clash of interests. One interesting point (out of several in the post): > I will be required to release new music on Youtube at the same time I release it anywhere else. So no more releasing to my core fans first on Bandcamp and then on iTunes. I wonder if she's already agreed to the iTunes agreement, because my understanding was that iTunes required the same thing: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/iTunes_Americas_-Music_v16.pdf http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/i... (see section 3a) I wonder if the difference is in thinking of iTunes as a proper music distribution service and youtube as a place that has incidentally distributed a bunch of her music (as much of the blog post seems to put it) that is now demanding to be something different.

eridius 12y ago
From your link: > [...] at least in time for ITUNES to begin selling eMasters the earlier of a general release date, provided by COMPANY, or when any other distributor is permitted to begin selling, or making commercially available, COMPANY Content in any format. It appears that her Bandcamp is hosted at her own domain, at http://music.zoekeating.com http://music.zoekeating.com. Does that count as her distributing it herself, or as someone else distributing it? Except for the tiny footer saying "Bandcamp", it looks like self-distribution. In my relatively uninformed opinion, that seems like it means section 3a doesn't apply.
- magicalist 12y ago
  I guess it depends who she signed with iTunes through? If it was herself then it seems like it would be covered by the "provided by COMPANY" clause, if not, then it seems like it would be readily covered by the "any other distributor" clause.
  - eridius 12y ago
    It says "a general release date, provided by COMPANY". I don't know what the definition of "general release date" is, but I would assume that's when it's released to the general public. I don't know if releasing to her Bandcamp fans counts or not. Edit: Another alternative is, does she offer it for sale when releasing just on Bandcamp? If that's available for free only, and doesn't have a "Buy now" option added until it's released on iTunes, then it seems like that would satisfy the "any other distributor is permitted to begin selling, or making commercially available, COMPANY Content in any format" bit (in this case assuming that her site counts as "any other distributor"). Ultimately, speculation about legal contracts by laypeople like us (well, me, but I assume you're not a lawyer either) is probably a pointless exercise.

pherocity_ 12y ago

"Do no evil" hasn't been followed for quite a while, but this is downright vile.

magicalist 12y ago
You'll have to be more specific. Which part is the vile part?
lrem 12y ago
One thing that I think nobody thinks about: there are two sides to this thing, other than Google. One is the artists, who have already spoken. The other one is the users, who probably want to be promised "all the music from X participating artists", rather than "some of the music from 10X participating artists"... I'm not 100% sure that Google standing by the second side is right, but surely it needs some consideration.
- shkkmo 12y ago
  So... you think there are users who would rather have access to 0 Zoe songs on Youtube, rather than have access to 50% of Zoe's songs on Youtube? I'm sorry, I just don't see how this benefits the user.
  - koepked 12y ago
    The calculus behind this benefiting the user likely involves the belief that most artists are going to cave on the issue.
  - lrem 12y ago
    If Zoe says no, she will not be part of the deal, simple as that. I think that an offer saying "all the music from ten thousand artists" sounds better than "some of the music from a hundred thousand artists".
pluma 12y ago
Corporations are not good or evil. They're amoral. Google only appears to be acting in bad faith because they follow the (IMO dangerous) ideology that because humans don't scale everything needs to be automated. They are essentially doing the epitome of "one size fits all", especially in how they deal with customers / business partners. Yes, it's tone deaf, but it has nothing to do with being evil. The only reason this is at all a problem is that they're successful enough that it works.

whiddershins 12y ago

I am confused about the terms used in this post, some details need to be explicated. If a user uses a song they don't have the rights to in a youtube video, the content holder has the right to issue a DMCA takedown request. Google also, alternately, offers the rights holder the option to monetize that third-party use instead. Is Google seriously removing that monetization option unless the rights holder agrees to release ALL their music through Google, and on Google's terms? Because that's what Zoe's post is implying, and that would be some serious next level anti-trust bullying kind of nonsense.

bsder 12y ago
> Is Google seriously removing that monetization option unless the rights holder agrees to release ALL their music through Google, and on Google's terms? Yes, the independent artists have been screaming about YouTube licensing terms for a while now. > Because that's what Zoe's post is implying, and that would be some serious next level anti-trust bullying kind of nonsense. But there's competition. You know ... Vimeo, NicoNico, etc. That fact that they have less than .1% of the market in the US isn't relevant. </sarcasm>
- hsod 12y ago
  iTunes, Google Music, Soundcloud, Spotify, etc. are all competitors in this situation. YouTube is a LOT less than 99.9% of the music distribution market.
  - bsder 12y ago
    And yet whenever any of the 15-30 year olds I know want a specific piece of music, they go straight to YouTube. I have yet to see anybody push "Buy" on any of those services "The average iTunes user spends ~$40 per year on the service" That matches my experience, and that's average. Presumably the in-app purchase whales are skewing that high; it's probably closer to $20. Between apps and video, that doesn't leave much for music. Almost all the money goes to Top 40 for that.
    - 12y ago

bsder 12y ago

Um, it's pretty clear what she needs to do. Let Google block and take her fans to a different service. And encourage other artists to do the same. And then sue Google for infringement when Google doesn't actually manage to keep their music off of YouTube. That's the only way that Google will ever pay attention. If she doesn't help overturn this, Google will just keep doing it. Yes, this is the standard problem. She, individually, has to take the hit so that the musicians, collectively, benefit. It sucks. The independent artists really need to get together and build their own service with the terms they need so they don't have to keep fighting Google, Spotify, etc.

smacktoward 12y ago
I bet independent artists would love to live in a world where they, even collectively, have the kind of money it would take to win a legal fight with Google, or to build a viable competitor.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Viacom has plenty of money, and even they lost. Twice, in fact.
  - bsder 12y ago
    Viacom weren't exactly the most sympathetic of defendants.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Or maybe they simply didn't have a case. Like it or not, the safe harbor clause exists.
    - metaphorm 12y ago
      plaintiff. they were the plaintiff in that case.
  - vitd 12y ago

pavel_lishin 12y ago

So, if she does not accept their 'generous offer', she won't be able to publish her music on YouTube, right? But if other people happen to publish it, and Content ID doesn't snag it down, she'll have to go through their long and painful DMCA takedown process to get her music off of it?

asuffield 12y ago
No, that's not right. She can still publish her music on youtube either way. This is about signing up to the "monetisation" option where she can take some of the money from any third party video that ContentID says includes her content. She's currently using that service, and continuing to use it apparently requires signing up to the new agreement. I'm not completely clear on this part, but I think she can still get ad revenue from videos that she uploads herself. The article is definitely talking about third party video uploads.
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  Ah, okay; but any of her music that she did not upload - would it be taken down automatically via ContentId, or would she have to petition them?
  - JohnTHaller 12y ago
    No. Google will only use ContentId to handle monetization. And only on their lopsided terms, which the artist isn't very keen on. She'd have to file DMCA requests for every single video it showed up in herself.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Ok I think Zoe should create a t-shirt on tee spring with "I don’t think they are evil. I think they, like other tech companies, are just idealistic in a way that works best for them." that is such a great quote. And I agree it is bogus what Google is asking. Next step is the ContentID equivalent robot that runs as a service and just sends DMCA takedown notices to Google forcing them to remove the videos and get no ad revenue on them and piss off their users. She really does have the power in this fight, applying it will take some effort but I think it can be done.

magicalist 12y ago
> Next step is the ContentID equivalent robot that runs as a service and just sends DMCA takedown notices to Google forcing them to remove the videos and get no ad revenue on them and piss off their users You just described dozens (hundreds?) of scammy "infringement detection" companies that already exist :) e.g https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8867496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8867496
icebraining 12y ago
Next step is the ContentID equivalent robot that runs as a service and just sends DMCA takedown notices to Google forcing them to remove the videos and get no ad revenue on them and piss off their users. Yeah, but the problem is that those users are often her fans, and they'll be pissed at her too. And the fact is that she has more to lose than Google, no matter what she does.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  I think she describes it pretty well in the blog post, she uses the existing ContentID system which effectively DMCA's the video user internally and then gives them the option of adding Google advertising or taking it down. From the user's perspective, the change would be "Go here ... and request a sync license to this music content." rather than a checkbox to just turn on Google advertising. If they didn't want to do that then they would need to take down the video. She is already sending auto-takedowns, Google simply wants to double dip on the value, both getting advertising revenue from her work when fans use it in their videos and using it to attract more customers to their music service by giving her songs away for free when it pleases them.

goeric 12y ago

Use http://vid.me http://vid.me

Joona 12y ago
Do they re-encode videos?
- lelandbatey 12y ago
  I'll bet they do, since I don't actually know anyone who doesn't re-encode their videos. Youtube certainly does, Vimeo does (at least some versions, since they offer different qualities) though uploaders have the option of offering the original for download. Re-encoding is generally always done, since users upload so many different formats, and few of them are suitable for streaming.
  - wshaef 12y ago
    Vidme co-founder here. We re-encode all videos to make sure they'll play well across devices.
    - Joona 12y ago
      That's a shame. Would it be possible to encode with specific settings (ffmpeg) and not have it re-encoded? Re-encoding butchers my videos terribly.

6stringmerc 12y ago

My perspective is as follows [1]: First, write a song and shoot a quick video about the desire to treat your fans with respect, and upload it ASAP to YouTube. Once the "MUST DO" deadline comes up, kick that serfdom YouTube contract to the curb and don't look back. Set up shop on VIMEO or DailyMotion, monetize as able. Lastly, talk to deadmau5 about the Pros/Cons of setting up a self-directed distribtuion platform. [1] Proud to be independent, distributed and listened to worldwide, and even if that only means I've made $14 in income from my music in the past two years, the music reaching people is my goal. DistroKid is my friend. YouTube is just another RIAA platform these days to me, and while I'm on there, the moment I apparently get big enough for them to care and try to shoot the hostages, I'll pick up shop and leave. YMMV.

notatoad 12y ago

I'm curious if they are really going to block her channel completely, or if block just means she can't be part of ContentID anymore. Blocking it sounds pretty unreasonable, but "we won't help you monetize your videos if you're going to favour some other music service" seems like fairly reasonable terms to me.

whiddershins 12y ago
No, it isn't reasonable. Every time they display an uploaded video that contains content which is protected by copyright, they are attempting to make money from someone else's work product. They've built their entire business on this practice, while leaving the burden of DMCA notices to the artist. The contentID system was an olive branch, a win-win. Now they are using it as a cudgel to force artists to participate in their platform on their terms. That's insanely messed up.
- Kalium 12y ago
  Clearly, the sane answer is to shut down YouTube until it can be remade in an artist-pleasing way. That this will mean creativity is stifled and everything has a "BUY" button on it is incidental and not at all important. Who wants user-uploaded content when you have artists? /s Realistically, the position of artists tends to be that any and all money involved should go to them. This tends not to sit well with tech companies that do things like handle the money and pay bandwidth bills.
  - whiddershins 12y ago
    How is a "BUY" button more offensive than the cascade of ads I am subjected to everywhere I go on the internet? And "creativity is stifled"? "The position of artists"? Give me a break. You are trolling. Artists have always struggled to be paid anything even remotely reasonable, and it is disgusting when people try to shame them for doing so. AFAIK no other profession has this problem to anywhere near this magnitude ... where nearly everyone makes use of the work, but the majority are not only unwilling to pay, but actually hostile to paying.

dhimes 12y ago

My first thought: She should form a subsidiary company that releases her stuff on YouTube. Then she can give the sub her music as she sees fit. That way she can still control her YouTube presence, but Google has the right to do what it needs to do with the stuff she releases to it. Would this work?

6stringmerc 12y ago
This is a very interesting suggestion. I think you might actually have a point. The reason I state this is because this type of licensing is how movie studios and production companies, um, well, cook their books to the best of their ability. In the terms of technology and commerce, it seems very similar to licensing a patent / technology to a sub in a tax-haven jurisdiction. Isn't that what certain tech firms do (Google?) to minimize their exposure? What's good for the goose...
- gknoy 12y ago
  If I understand this right, this would have the subsidiary be ONLY distributing to Youtube, and a different one distributing to the other services, which would then fall within the "release it here at the same time you release it anywhere else" clause, right? Seems like a clever hack, I like it.
  - philsnow 12y ago
    Reminds me of the main character in Accelerando, spawning and retiring side businesses automatically to serve his legal needs and hide his assets.
    - derefr 12y ago
      I'm working in smart contracts; completing the "Manfred Macx user story" is one of my core objectives. :)
      - Terr_ 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

cmurf 12y ago

Old woman=this artist and all artists. Proselytizers=Google rep. The Book=Google's service contract. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFUW6htvUss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFUW6htvUss

replicatorblog 12y ago

Zoe Keating is one of my favorite musicians. If you haven't listened, Imagine if someone was playing the Game of Thrones theme on a Cello, solo. She incorporates tech into her act in wildly impressive ways. This is a refreshingly level-headed blog post. There are pros and cons, but it's all presented as realistic tension between two creative organizations, each of which provides value (One having more leverage, of course). It's just such a nice break from the over-the-top demonization of the tech/corporate partner and ignoring the value they provide.

carlob 12y ago
> Zoe Keating is one of my favorite musicians. Check out Erik Friedlander!
- amirouche 12y ago
  >> Zoe Keating is one of my favorite musicians. > Check out Erik Friedlander! Check out David Darling!
  - carlob 12y ago
    Will do, thanks!
qntmfred 12y ago
I went to see her live last week. I had only been vaguely aware of her before then, but I came away really really enjoying her work. She also mentioned during the performance that before she started playing full time she used to be a programmer, which was very cool. And totally not surprising given her very creative use of technology in her music. Also apparent in her writing as her understanding and insight of Youtube Music's technology and business model is on point.
- darkmethod 12y ago
  The creativity in her work is inspiring. Also, I really enjoyed her Wired interview (she mentions her previous career as a programmer). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TTX0ryyoac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TTX0ryyoac

Kalium 12y ago

> Is such control too much for an artist to ask for in 2015? Yes. The world isn't designed around you playing mix-and-match with a bunch of different services. What Zoe has missed is not that the tech world doesn't understand things "outside their reality". It's that we in tech know we have to choose between what's best for the vast, vast majority of people and what's convenient for a tiny handful. Technology still changes the world for the better, Zoe. The only difference is now you're on the side of the old guard.

6stringmerc 12y ago
Wrong! Look at your computer. It's a mix-and-match of a bunch of different components designed to serve you. Every bit of technology in communications is about sharing, and music is one of the most fundamental forms of communication known to our species. The only way technology changes the world for better is in its application. I honestly, genuinely believe YouTube/Google is not acting in a beneficial method for anybody but themselves/stakeholders. This would be a direct case of taking a net benefit for convenience for a handful of people (content creators) and the vast, vast world of humans (audience members) and going back to the Patronage system without any of the benefits whatsoever.
- Kalium 12y ago
  > Wrong! Look at your computer. It's a mix-and-match of a bunch of different components designed to serve you. It's an Apple machine bought by someone else for my use. I had exactly zero say in the matter. It's a mix-and-match, but my opinion doesn't matter. My choice is to use the machine or not. EDIT: As for the patronage model, what makes you think we ever left that system? The economics of art have always rested on patronage.
  - 6stringmerc 12y ago
    But you're being blatantly ignorant on the mechanics of the world simply to suit your biased perspective. The machine won't work without many of the parts inside, that was my point. Go ahead and pull out the battery, because as you state, mix-and-match is not a viable system. I'm not going to bother with your postulation regarding the patronage system, because you're arguing from a false premise in a specific circumstance where this particular artist has successfully produced art and made income through a "fans-as-patrons" model that you claim is unworthy of further developing.

pasbesoin 12y ago

YouTube becomes TheirTube.

pluma 12y ago
*TheyTube Grammar.

marcusgarvey 12y ago

> I don’t think they are evil. I think they, like other tech companies, are just idealistic in a way that works best for them. I think this because I used to be one of them (*4). The people who work at Google, Facebook, etc can’t imagine how everything they make is not, like, totally awesome. If it’s not awesome for you it’s because you just don’t understand it yet and you’ll come around. They can’t imagine scenarios outside their reality and that is how they inadvertently unleash things like the algorithmic cruelty of Facebook’s yearly review (which showed me a picture I had posted after a doctor told me my husband had 6-8 weeks to live). This.

sparkzilla 12y ago
The idea that the computer and algorithms are more important than people causes a lot of harm.
pgodzin 12y ago
At the same time, the yearly review is meant to highlight the important moments of your year, not necessarily the positive ones. Obviously that post had a lot of engagement, and it was properly flagged as important. The user then has the option of whether or not they want to publish that or not.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Yearly Review was also totally broken if the language of your Facebook activities wasn't en_US. I don't know how well it worked for Americans, but across the pond it tended to pick up nonsense. Hell, the only photos that were in any way relevant or interesting on my Yearly Review were screenshots from Kerbal Space Program... I say it needs much, much more work.
drapper 12y ago
I found this very naive. Yes, engineers might be this way, designers, the "low-level" people (for a lack of better term), but the directors, the board, the money bunch - they know exactly what they're doing and how it will be bad for many, but they're going this way because it's 1. better for their product, 2. easier for them and finally 3. because "why care about some minnows?".

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

drawkbox 12y ago

Time for a new youtube...

comrh 12y ago

"The people who work at Google, Facebook, etc can’t imagine how everything they make is not, like, totally awesome." This is basically the premise of Dave Eggers' The Circle which takes it to a very scary conclusion.

reitanqild 12y ago

As an aside, seems she creates high quality music - without vocals - which is something I listen a lot to. So I bought a one download and might easily come back for more.

elidourado 12y ago

There's a new Twitter video service on the way. I'm sure they'll capture a lot of the disgruntled YouTube creators. https://video.twitter.com https://video.twitter.com

benwerd 12y ago

This seems kind of predatory from YouTube's perspective. This is the web: why can't Zoe publish her music on her own terms? The real reason people use YouTube is discovery. I can easily find new stuff to watch, and just hit play; artists can easily be discovered and grow an audience (or at least, that's the idea). Seems like it's time for a more open alternative.

Kalium 12y ago
She can publish her own music on her own terms. She just can't do it with YouTube's help on her own terms. Why should YouTube be obliged to meet a person on their arbitrarily chosen terms?
- benwerd 12y ago
  They shouldn't. But right now, YouTube is a huge part of being discoverable as an artist online. There should be more of an ecosystem; more competition would result in more favorable terms. And seeing as this is the web, an ecosystem should still be browseable as a coherent whole. My wider point is: why isn't it as easy to discover an artist's work on the wider web as it is on YouTube? Isn't this an opportunity for someone?
  - Kalium 12y ago
    You would think that! It turns out that when every artist, label, publisher, and retailer under the sun has the same idea... discovery isn't actually any easier. All you get is noise. There was a huge and diverse ecosystem. It's mostly gone now. This for the most part works better for users, which is why that old ecosystem is mostly gone. As a rule, users don't want to bounce between five or ten or twenty sites to find what they want - users prefer one or two. More specifically, there's a huge number of startups hellbent on being that someone. I've personally had contact with several. That you didn't know this is an excellent comment on how big the perceived opportunity actually is.

wahsd 12y ago

It really seems like it is time to scuttle youtube. I'm serious, they keep trying the whole "it's not us, it's your isp" bs to explain why their service is all janky and glitchy even though other services work perfectly fine, and they keep pulling all kinds of bullshit moves, while also not really being all that great of a service and UI if we are honest with ourselves. Google has been mucking around with YouTube and its UI for basically a decade now without any real significant improvements. Things are even more fractured and disparate than before, the suggestions are just plain shit, and the content is akin to finding a needle in a pile of expended hypodermic needles. I am really kind of bored with youtube for many reasons. I think it's time for the artist community, and others, for that matter, to find new outlets.

wshaef 12y ago
We're working on building a creator-friendly video community at vid.me... would love any suggestions / ideas / feedback.
- tylermauthe 12y ago
  I hope more people realise this and you give YouTube a run for its money. I would support you. ... But I do like watching videos on my Apple TV.
- photorized 12y ago
  You aren't serving ads, and provide free accounts. What's your model?
  - beyti 12y ago
    nice question. grow first, monetize later I fear

splatsearch 12y ago

My first though is she should just sign up. This is how the industry is. Do it and be part of it or delete your stuff off the internet and start distributing on vinyl

Falkon1313 12y ago

If a company wants first pick of everything that someone produces and wants the right to monetize it and modify it regardless of the creator's wishes (for example, by inserting ads), then they should at least pay a salary in addition to a cut of the ad revenue. If they're not paying for those rights with a salary or recurring retainer, then the terms as described are plain exploitation designed to intentionally screw the artist. Also, 5 years is far too long for a contract like that. That gives someone else control of half a decade of your career. If you're just starting out and have a 40 year career ahead, that's 1/8th. If you're older, that could be 1/4 or more.

kazinator 12y ago

What you can do about YouTube is to use it like any ordinary person who uploads videos of their dog doing something cute, or whatever. They are not being threatened with having their channels blocked unless they sign some agreement. Release and market your music in any way you want, and use YouTube to host some vids, so you can embed them into your web pages without having to use your own bandwidth. Here is a little quote: > "[...] no matter how I explained my hands-on fan-supported anti-corporate niche thing, I was an alien to them. I don’t think they understood me at all. " See, if you want to be in a fan-supported anti-corporate niche thing, then don't feed your music to some Content ID "Borg" machine, intended to harass people who share. Of course those people didn't understand. They were probably thinking, "why do you want our help in content-ID-ing your material and clamping down on duplication, forcing copies to be removed or monetized by you, if you are anti-corporate and fan-supported? We are, like, corporate and revenue-supported."

avodonosov 12y ago

reject!

pistle 12y ago

Put it there. Monetize it. Then, build the core fan community, yourself elsewhere to the extent that the core community continues to support you knowing why they support you there and don't primarily support you via your "brand-building" channels. Cheap/free distribution for indies via various corporate entities is something that didn't exist as it does 10 or 20 years ago. This is the unstoppable future. Get ahead of it vs twisting, with angst, in its wake. Previously, artists bowed down to record labels. The new "labels" were bound to fill the digital void. She, and other artists, can carve a better direct-to-fan relationship in other mediums by using broad spectrum as a funnel into the core fan community. Then there will be niche services that grow to help cultivate that fan+ model and someone in there will dominate or be swallowed by the behemoths. Rinse and repeat. Art that can be digitized will become freely pervasive and licensing models barely keep up. We are all running our own personal kickstarters if we aren't willing take a W2 from a corporate entity. Viva la 1099!

mark_l_watson 12y ago

I am sorry that she is having these problems. I had never heard of Zoe Keeting before, but after listening to some tracks on her web site, I just bought her Into The Trees album - nice stuff. Instrumental music to code to :-)

drivingmenuts 12y ago

My first response is to (politely stated) tell Google to go fly a kite. It's such an easy and important medium to use, though, that it may be impossible. It resonates with consumers brilliantly. It's sad that they have to resort to such strong-arm tactics instead of coming out with a better system that stands out from the crowd on it's own merits. It sounds like they are completely blind to the idea that someone might not be totally comfortable with their solution. While "Don't be evil" may still be in play, apparently "Don't be a @$#%@#^@&%#$%$ jackass" hasn't even crossed their minds. At this point, I hope their new system goes the way of Google Wave.

fivre 12y ago

I think it's this: you should tell Youtube/Google to give you the amount of money they think is right given how many times your music has been plaid on their service (they know), given the actual dues according to copyright law thrown to the wind. How much is deserved, from how much was earned, according to the law? Nobody knows; it would take an army of lawyers and musicians to figure that out. How do you price art? How do you price the emotions felt when someone heard a song? You can't. No one can. I felt an emotion once, listening to a song, and the person that made that song is dead. What was the dollar amount attributable to that emotion, and what does that dead person need with that money? There's no answer; you can't put a price on emotion. And when you get down to it, that's what music is--emotion. Emotions don't have a price, music doesn't have a price--there are some people that would like to tell you otherwise, and they're wrong. Someone should get paid, yes. The persons who profited from that performance should ask the person that heard that song: how much should we charge you for feeling love? If those parties can come an agreement regarding what that cost, then yes, that's what it cost. Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.

ajani 12y ago

I don't have any legal knowledge. Hope someone who does can shed some light on these questions: Aren't antitrust laws designed to protect the customers from the power that a company can wield due to it's monopoly? Isn't this what Youtube is doing? - Exercising it's power to 'force' her to move from ContentID to a new product. And wouldn't this then also qualify as bait and switch? And isn't this according to some law illegal?

crdoconnor 12y ago
>Aren't antitrust laws designed to protect the customers from the power that a company can wield due to it's monopoly? Yes >Isn't this what Youtube is doing? - Exercising it's power to 'force' her to move from ContentID to a new product. Yes But, good luck getting the William J. Baer at the DOJ to bring a suit, though. Youtube is not Aaron Swartz.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
raldi 12y ago
Antitrust law kicks in when consumers have no choice, usually due to large barriers to switching. For example, in 1998, if you wanted to run WIN32 apps, you had no choice but to buy from Microsoft. Note that the definition above does not mention market share. For example, Google dominates websearch market share, but competition is just a click away; if Bing or Yahoo or DDG built a better mousetrap, you could switch in an instant. Since you, as a consumer, can easily switch to a different music provider, it's hard for me to see how you can argue that YouTube is wielding monopoly power over you. And similarly, Zoe can (and does) easily distribute her music on non-YouTube platforms. Also, antitrust law is primarily about protecting consumers from harm (usually, higher prices). It's not about protecting other companies. So the core of Microsoft's antitrust defense was, "Yes, driving the price of the browser to $0 was terribly harmful to Netscape, but it was actually beneficial to consumers."
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  Zoe can't decide that other people don't put her works on YT. And ContentID, which is a way to deal with that situations, seems to come with some interesting additional terms now.

teddyh 12y ago

> It’s a violation of my agreement to say how much […] Youtube plays pays. To me, that would have been a tip-off.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

drapper 12y ago

Well, the problem is that YouTube, similarly to Google and Facebook, is becoming a monopoly (a natural monopoly I'd say), which seems to be a general way of how Internet works, and we should, rather sooner or later, start to think about some regulations (YT is also the future TV and TV is regulated) to deal with cases like this one.

datashovel 12y ago

I would love to see the actual language used in the contract. The terms as described in the post sound quite harsh, but unless it's a lawyer who has transcribed these terms, or she was discussing this with a lawyer at Google, my hunch is some of the interpretation may be off.

joelthelion 12y ago

This is what happens with monopolies.

raldi 12y ago
Wikipedia defines a monopoly as "when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" If YouTube is a monopoly, what is the commodity in question?
- joelthelion 12y ago
  YouTube users? As a content provider, on which site do you expect to get the most viewers?
  - raldi 12y ago
    Would you say reddit is also a monopoly, since it's the only supplier of reddit users?

johnlbevan2 12y ago

Does anyone know why Google ("organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible" ¹) don't allow people to disclose their YouTube earnings ("It’s a violation of my agreement to say how much a comparable number of Youtube plays pays" ²). Or have I misunderstood her quote; since last year she did reveal such figures ("more than 1.9m views of videos on YouTube – mostly those uploaded by other people featuring her music – earned her $1,248" ³) - 1 http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i-do-about-youtube - 2 https://www.google.co.uk/about/company/ - 3 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/24/zoe-keating-itunes-spotify-youtube-payouts

graycat 12y ago

My guess: Google/YouTube just had a really bad day and tried to shoot themselves in the foot. As they continue with such nonsense, they will get a lot of push back. Then, or eventually, they will see their mistakes, wise up, and quit being nasty. In the meanwhile, Zoe has little option but to f'get about YouTube and let them hurt themselves and, then, consider YouTube again after YouTube wises up. But it should be not too difficult for Zoe to bring up her own Web site that permits downloading and/or streaming her music/videos. E.g., consider http://www.carolinegoulding.com/ http://www.carolinegoulding.com/ the Web site of violinist Caroline Goulding which at times has had some streaming of some of her music and links to some relevant video of hers. And then there is also for her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNiUK9sNBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNiUK9sNBA If such a site for Zoe becomes popular, then Zoe could run some ads to get revenue to pay for the site. A site that is small or even larger than small should be fairly inexpensive, especially if just hosted at Amazon or some such. Or, a computer plugged together from parts for less than $2000 and with, say, 35 Mbps upload speed to the Internet for, say, $90 a month, should be able to be a significant start. Get usage enough to max out the capacity of that site, and should be able to get some revenue way beyond what is needed to run the site. There is something fundamental here: The basic technology in infrastructure software, Moore's law, whatever the similar law is for disk space, optical fiber data rates, and the prices of these that permit YouTube to send so much content free to users and for many months with few or no ads permits many others, including even a single artist, to put their content on the Internet also. Good luck to Zoe.

stinos 12y ago

The people who work at Google, Facebook, etc can’t imagine how everything they make is not, like, totally awesome. If it’s not awesome for you it’s because you just don’t understand it yet and you’ll come around. They can’t imagine scenarios outside their reality and that is how they inadvertently unleash things like the algorithmic cruelty of Facebook’s yearly review (which showed me a picture I had posted after a doctor told me my husband had 6-8 weeks to live). Dave Eggers' The Circle, all over again (or should it be 'avant la lettre'?)

ableal 12y ago

There's an update from Jan 24 (today), at the bottom. Very relevant items. Only got around to reading this over a day late, but I'm glad I did. Very clear and well written, the insider's low-down on the new-media realities that are replacing the old ones.

enterx 12y ago

...fuck YouTube? :D EDIT: no. install an email server. start opening accounts. collect the captchas. outsource. :)

apricot 12y ago

Thought-provoking article, and it contains this gem: "I don’t think they are evil. I think they, like other tech companies, are just idealistic in a way that works best for them." This is such a wonderful turn of phrase, and has caused me to spend a major part of last evening in self-contemplation. I think it applies not only to tech companies but to many bright young people who adapt their mental model of the world to their own strengths and passions.