3 ms·

Note: In this specific instance, YouTube is using the automated system to monetize it for themselves and give a portion of the proceeds to the creator. This is

Note: In this specific instance, YouTube is using the automated system to monetize it for themselves and give a portion of the proceeds to the creator. This is an important distinction. Also, they are dictating rights with respect to distribution. For comparison, Best Buy purchases the CDs outright from the Publisher/Label/Artist collective, and often sells below cost (first week release) to incentivize customers to patronize their store. In your mind, should Best Buy be taking a cut of the Publisher/Label/Artist agreement like YouTube is proposing in this case?

Kalium 12y ago
If Best Buy were to replace their markup with that agreement and offer labels the option of working with that or not, I wouldn't see a problem. It offers the supplier the option to walk away and do business with someone else. Unlike Best Buy, YouTube can only guess at who the creator is. Best Buy has the luxury of a known supply chain.
- WillNotDownvote 12y ago
  YouTube chooses to only guess who the creator is, because that's convenient for their business model. There are other choices available to them, they weren't forced into this one. They chose it because it's easy for them, and most importantly, it allows them in rapidly increase the amount of user-generated content they offer.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    There is no reliable way to know who a creator is while still allowing general user uploads.
    - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
      Of course there is. It's just slower and more cumbersome than YouTube would like to deal with, for the sake of their business model.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        Really? What is it? Are you thinking of using humans? Bear in mind that determining the legal status of a given bit of IP is generally the slow and expensive work of a squadron of attorneys.
        WillNotDownvote 12y ago
        That's exactly what I have in mind. And it's entirely possible to do. That fact that it's slow and expensive is only an issue because it conflicts with YouTube's business model. Frankly, that's YouTube's problem.
        Kalium 12y ago
        It's a problem that derives from the complexity of copyright law. The result is that the only way to be certain renders user-generated content sites completely unworkable. If your intent is to have a chilling effect on free speech on the internet, requiring a huge and messy legal process to publish something is a good way to do it.
        6stringmerc 12y ago
        "In technology-land, it's unethical to not give companies the content they want on the terms they want. Because their service is the most important thing in the world. I know that sounds sarcastic, but it's actually how a lot of technology firms behave and speak." - Kalium's Argument, Paraphrased
        Kalium 12y ago
        I don't know any tech people or companies who believe that about their services. I know a lot of artists who do. Unscientific sample, obviously. I'm also not arguing that Zoe should accept what YouTube is offering. Just that YouTube isn't obligated to offer her want she wants. Tell you what. Want to start a company offering distribution services to artists on the terms they want? Sounds like your kind of thing. I'm sure artists, publishers, labels, and customers will all love it and shower it with money.
- 6stringmerc 12y ago
  So, sort of like Apple did with the Publishers in order to move in on Amazon's turf? I believe what you're describing is against anti-trust laws, if not in exact legal terms, then certainly in the spirit of the law. Best Buy still has exclusive releases (as does Wal-Mart, Target, Amazon, iTunes), but they are part of a larger dynamic market. YouTube effectively has monopoly status as a "Videos-with-music" service. iTunes/Spotify/Pandora/Beats/Deezr/Rdio are a different service class, so don't even try and throw those into the pot, because that won't fly.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    YouTube is a monopoly in the same way that iTMS is a monopoly. Many of the terms (like the release-here-first) ones are reminiscent of how Amazon and iTMS do their pricing.
    - 6stringmerc 12y ago
      Release-here-first is not mandatory for all artists on iTunes, I know this first-hand. Maybe it is for certain artists with record label contracts, but they signed those contracts through other parties. I signed no such contract, and if I want to release something first on Soundcloud, Facebook, VIMEO, YouTube, or by burning CDs and leaving them tacked to boards in coffee shops, it is not in my distribution contract with iTunes or Amazon beyond the negotiated pricing platform.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        Might I ask you to re-read my comment? I never claimed that iTMS used that particular stipulation. I compared it to a common pricing-relate stipulation.
        6stringmerc 12y ago
        You're conflating pricing with monopoly status, willfully, to suit your own ends. I'm done here.

Kalium 12y ago

If Best Buy were to replace their markup with that agreement and offer labels the option of working with that or not, I wouldn't see a problem. It offers the supplier the option to walk away and do business with someone else. Unlike Best Buy, YouTube can only guess at who the creator is. Best Buy has the luxury of a known supply chain.

WillNotDownvote 12y ago
YouTube chooses to only guess who the creator is, because that's convenient for their business model. There are other choices available to them, they weren't forced into this one. They chose it because it's easy for them, and most importantly, it allows them in rapidly increase the amount of user-generated content they offer.
- Kalium 12y ago
  There is no reliable way to know who a creator is while still allowing general user uploads.
  - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
    Of course there is. It's just slower and more cumbersome than YouTube would like to deal with, for the sake of their business model.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Really? What is it? Are you thinking of using humans? Bear in mind that determining the legal status of a given bit of IP is generally the slow and expensive work of a squadron of attorneys.
      - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
        That's exactly what I have in mind. And it's entirely possible to do. That fact that it's slow and expensive is only an issue because it conflicts with YouTube's business model. Frankly, that's YouTube's problem.
        Kalium 12y ago
        It's a problem that derives from the complexity of copyright law. The result is that the only way to be certain renders user-generated content sites completely unworkable. If your intent is to have a chilling effect on free speech on the internet, requiring a huge and messy legal process to publish something is a good way to do it.
        6stringmerc 12y ago
        "In technology-land, it's unethical to not give companies the content they want on the terms they want. Because their service is the most important thing in the world. I know that sounds sarcastic, but it's actually how a lot of technology firms behave and speak." - Kalium's Argument, Paraphrased
        Kalium 12y ago
        I don't know any tech people or companies who believe that about their services. I know a lot of artists who do. Unscientific sample, obviously. I'm also not arguing that Zoe should accept what YouTube is offering. Just that YouTube isn't obligated to offer her want she wants. Tell you what. Want to start a company offering distribution services to artists on the terms they want? Sounds like your kind of thing. I'm sure artists, publishers, labels, and customers will all love it and shower it with money.
6stringmerc 12y ago
So, sort of like Apple did with the Publishers in order to move in on Amazon's turf? I believe what you're describing is against anti-trust laws, if not in exact legal terms, then certainly in the spirit of the law. Best Buy still has exclusive releases (as does Wal-Mart, Target, Amazon, iTunes), but they are part of a larger dynamic market. YouTube effectively has monopoly status as a "Videos-with-music" service. iTunes/Spotify/Pandora/Beats/Deezr/Rdio are a different service class, so don't even try and throw those into the pot, because that won't fly.
- Kalium 12y ago
  YouTube is a monopoly in the same way that iTMS is a monopoly. Many of the terms (like the release-here-first) ones are reminiscent of how Amazon and iTMS do their pricing.
  - 6stringmerc 12y ago
    Release-here-first is not mandatory for all artists on iTunes, I know this first-hand. Maybe it is for certain artists with record label contracts, but they signed those contracts through other parties. I signed no such contract, and if I want to release something first on Soundcloud, Facebook, VIMEO, YouTube, or by burning CDs and leaving them tacked to boards in coffee shops, it is not in my distribution contract with iTunes or Amazon beyond the negotiated pricing platform.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Might I ask you to re-read my comment? I never claimed that iTMS used that particular stipulation. I compared it to a common pricing-relate stipulation.
      - 6stringmerc 12y ago
        You're conflating pricing with monopoly status, willfully, to suit your own ends. I'm done here.