4 ms·

It's not ethical for a distributor to strong-arm the hands that feed it on a 5 year basis, no matter how small a slice of the pie it may be. Google has DMCA ta

It's not ethical for a distributor to strong-arm the hands that feed it on a 5 year basis, no matter how small a slice of the pie it may be. Google has DMCA takedown capabilities. I'd suggest simply hiring a third party to monitor Google and send appropriate take-down notices. Then, on an annual basis, submit the invoice to Google. It's dirty pool, but then again, when has the music industry ever been a transparent and constructive and profitable enterprise for anybody outside of the top 1% of performers/acts/songwriters?

icebraining 12y ago
Then, on an annual basis, submit the invoice to Google. I doubt Google would be liable for such expenses.
Kalium 12y ago
> It's not ethical for a distributor to strong-arm the hands that feed it on a 5 year basis, no matter how small a slice of the pie it may be. In the business world, this is known as negotiation. It's normal and ethical. Here, it's like being in a big store. You can buy the thing on the shelf or not, but you don't get to haggle over the price. Zoe wants to haggle over the price until it's something convenient for her. > I'd suggest simply hiring a third party to monitor Google and send appropriate take-down notices. This is abuse. This will have a chilling effect on free expression.
- 6stringmerc 12y ago
  Really? It's abuse? Then what has RIAA been doing to actively patrol Google, YouTube and other services all these years? I'll tell you what: https://www.dmcaforce.com/ https://www.dmcaforce.com/
  - Kalium 12y ago
    The RIAA has been actively abusing the DMCA for as long as it has existed. It was unethical then and it's unethical now.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      As far as most anyone is concerned, monitoring YouTube for user-initiated copyright violations to send takedown notices is precisely what the DMCA was intended to be used for.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        When "user-initiated copyright violations" means "Fair Use doesn't exist", then you have abuse.
        chris_wot 12y ago
        Agreed. My then-3 year old daughter danced to the tune of Da Funk and I uploaded it. The sound was removed, even though it was in the background. It was Fair Use for sure. Shame on YouTube, quite seriously - I didn't cost Daft Punk anything!
- WillNotDownvote 12y ago
  It's certainly not a "negotiation". It's take it or leave it terms. Very different animal.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Does this Starbucks unethical? Because that's how they sell me coffee.
    - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
      I didn't say anything about ethicality. But I would certainly object to calling a Starbucks purchase a "negotiation". It is not.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        Terms are offered. You can accept them or reject them. I do see your point, though. It's not really a negotiation. There's not enough money involved to be worth negotiating over. It's a service being sold.
        britknight 12y ago
        "Terms are offered. You can accept them or reject them" Isn't this the exact opposite of a negotiation? By definition, doesn't "negotiation" imply that both parties enter into a discussion in an attempt to reach an agreement. When you buy a cup of coffee, Starbucks doesn't force you to sign a legal document saying that you will only drink Starbucks coffee for the next five years, or that whenever you buy a cup of coffee from somewhere else you must simultaneously buy a cup from Starbucks. Also, if you refuse to buy the cup of coffee, Starbucks will not post your picture in every branch in the country to prevent you from ever buying a cup of coffee from them again.
        Kalium 12y ago
        Zoe has the choice to not agree to the terms here. What she wants is a product that YouTube has decided they will no longer offer. That happens in every line of business and we accept this. Why is this one different.
- x0x0 12y ago
  No, it's a monopoly (youtube: online video) using its market power to juice its nascent music subscription business.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    If there were forces artificially propping up YouTube beyond quality of product, I would be concerned. Right now, YouTube is already in music business. They are just shifting model.
    - x0x0 12y ago
      And google uses search, in turn, to juice their own properties (such as youtube) by pushing them higher in the SERPs. See, eg, the europe antitrust stuff for demonstration.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Zoe's music is the product here, not Google's service; it's Google that's unilaterally demanding she monetize or block it, and trying to prevent her from entering into any exclusive agreements with any other distributor.
baddox 12y ago
Why is that not ethical? The artists can choose whether or not to agree to the contract.
- Kalium 12y ago
  In artist-land, it's unethical to not give artists the services they want on the terms they want. Because art is the most important thing in the world. I know that sounds sarcastic, but it's actually how a lot of artists behave and speak.
  - jack9 12y ago
    > In artist-land, it's unethical to not give artists the services they want on the terms they want. It's extortion. So your characterization is flawed. When videos are not popular, unsurprisingly, you aren't selected to be extorted.
  - Bahamut 12y ago
    To clarify, this has more to do with controlling distribution - most artists want to retain ultimate control over when they can choose to terminate distribution. To add a firsthand story, I am a part of an online music community, OverClocked Remix (http://ocremix.org http://ocremix.org ), that had to craft a formal content policy agreement for legal reasons to protect itself in the event a game publisher/rights owner decided to sue the site for hosting rearranged music from one of their games (the site only sells officially licensed music - the rest is free), or if an artist imposed many fickle demands such as 5+ artist handle change requests or a sudden takedown request of a track, which would affect distribution methods such as torrents. The site solicited feedback from the community, and we came to the decision to require a non-exclusive right to distribute with an identifier of our copyright (meta information in ID3v2 tags and the file name), no DRM), while the artists would maintain full rights of their track. Termination of distribution is left at the site's hands. A few artists balked at this, and expressed strong disagreements based on the view that artists should retain full rights over distribution. They ultimately signed and most, even those who complained, ended up content with it.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
ProAm 12y ago
5 years is way to long for a social media platform that iterates almost every 2 weeks to the newest fad/trend/pop song. These contracts should be for 1 year max. Especially since they force to you release all and any of your new work there for free and pay. WAY to long of a time for that kind of control.

icebraining 12y ago

Then, on an annual basis, submit the invoice to Google. I doubt Google would be liable for such expenses.

Kalium 12y ago

> It's not ethical for a distributor to strong-arm the hands that feed it on a 5 year basis, no matter how small a slice of the pie it may be. In the business world, this is known as negotiation. It's normal and ethical. Here, it's like being in a big store. You can buy the thing on the shelf or not, but you don't get to haggle over the price. Zoe wants to haggle over the price until it's something convenient for her. > I'd suggest simply hiring a third party to monitor Google and send appropriate take-down notices. This is abuse. This will have a chilling effect on free expression.

6stringmerc 12y ago
Really? It's abuse? Then what has RIAA been doing to actively patrol Google, YouTube and other services all these years? I'll tell you what: https://www.dmcaforce.com/ https://www.dmcaforce.com/
- Kalium 12y ago
  The RIAA has been actively abusing the DMCA for as long as it has existed. It was unethical then and it's unethical now.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    As far as most anyone is concerned, monitoring YouTube for user-initiated copyright violations to send takedown notices is precisely what the DMCA was intended to be used for.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      When "user-initiated copyright violations" means "Fair Use doesn't exist", then you have abuse.
      - chris_wot 12y ago
        Agreed. My then-3 year old daughter danced to the tune of Da Funk and I uploaded it. The sound was removed, even though it was in the background. It was Fair Use for sure. Shame on YouTube, quite seriously - I didn't cost Daft Punk anything!
WillNotDownvote 12y ago
It's certainly not a "negotiation". It's take it or leave it terms. Very different animal.
- Kalium 12y ago
  Does this Starbucks unethical? Because that's how they sell me coffee.
  - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
    I didn't say anything about ethicality. But I would certainly object to calling a Starbucks purchase a "negotiation". It is not.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Terms are offered. You can accept them or reject them. I do see your point, though. It's not really a negotiation. There's not enough money involved to be worth negotiating over. It's a service being sold.
      - britknight 12y ago
        "Terms are offered. You can accept them or reject them" Isn't this the exact opposite of a negotiation? By definition, doesn't "negotiation" imply that both parties enter into a discussion in an attempt to reach an agreement. When you buy a cup of coffee, Starbucks doesn't force you to sign a legal document saying that you will only drink Starbucks coffee for the next five years, or that whenever you buy a cup of coffee from somewhere else you must simultaneously buy a cup from Starbucks. Also, if you refuse to buy the cup of coffee, Starbucks will not post your picture in every branch in the country to prevent you from ever buying a cup of coffee from them again.
        Kalium 12y ago
        Zoe has the choice to not agree to the terms here. What she wants is a product that YouTube has decided they will no longer offer. That happens in every line of business and we accept this. Why is this one different.
x0x0 12y ago
No, it's a monopoly (youtube: online video) using its market power to juice its nascent music subscription business.
- Kalium 12y ago
  If there were forces artificially propping up YouTube beyond quality of product, I would be concerned. Right now, YouTube is already in music business. They are just shifting model.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    And google uses search, in turn, to juice their own properties (such as youtube) by pushing them higher in the SERPs. See, eg, the europe antitrust stuff for demonstration.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Zoe's music is the product here, not Google's service; it's Google that's unilaterally demanding she monetize or block it, and trying to prevent her from entering into any exclusive agreements with any other distributor.

baddox 12y ago

Why is that not ethical? The artists can choose whether or not to agree to the contract.

Kalium 12y ago
In artist-land, it's unethical to not give artists the services they want on the terms they want. Because art is the most important thing in the world. I know that sounds sarcastic, but it's actually how a lot of artists behave and speak.
- jack9 12y ago
  > In artist-land, it's unethical to not give artists the services they want on the terms they want. It's extortion. So your characterization is flawed. When videos are not popular, unsurprisingly, you aren't selected to be extorted.
- Bahamut 12y ago
  To clarify, this has more to do with controlling distribution - most artists want to retain ultimate control over when they can choose to terminate distribution. To add a firsthand story, I am a part of an online music community, OverClocked Remix (http://ocremix.org http://ocremix.org ), that had to craft a formal content policy agreement for legal reasons to protect itself in the event a game publisher/rights owner decided to sue the site for hosting rearranged music from one of their games (the site only sells officially licensed music - the rest is free), or if an artist imposed many fickle demands such as 5+ artist handle change requests or a sudden takedown request of a track, which would affect distribution methods such as torrents. The site solicited feedback from the community, and we came to the decision to require a non-exclusive right to distribute with an identifier of our copyright (meta information in ID3v2 tags and the file name), no DRM), while the artists would maintain full rights of their track. Termination of distribution is left at the site's hands. A few artists balked at this, and expressed strong disagreements based on the view that artists should retain full rights over distribution. They ultimately signed and most, even those who complained, ended up content with it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

ProAm 12y ago

5 years is way to long for a social media platform that iterates almost every 2 weeks to the newest fad/trend/pop song. These contracts should be for 1 year max. Especially since they force to you release all and any of your new work there for free and pay. WAY to long of a time for that kind of control.