4 ms·

Trading one master for another.

by swang 12y ago

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.

Trading one master for another.

by swang 12y ago

Trading one master for another.

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.