3 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. In the business
by 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 agoReally? 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 agoThe 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 agoAs 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 agoWhen "user-initiated copyright violations" means "Fair Use doesn't exist", then you have abuse.
- chris_wot 12y agoAgreed. 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 agoIt's certainly not a "negotiation". It's take it or leave it terms. Very different animal.
- Kalium 12y agoDoes this Starbucks unethical? Because that's how they sell me coffee.
- WillNotDownvote 12y agoI didn't say anything about ethicality. But I would certainly object to calling a Starbucks purchase a "negotiation". It is not.
- Kalium 12y agoTerms 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 agoZoe 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 agoNo, it's a monopoly (youtube: online video) using its market power to juice its nascent music subscription business.
- Kalium 12y agoIf 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 agoAnd 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 agoZoe'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.