6 ms·

I really don't understand the scandal here. This just confirms that Google is offering musicians the choice that's been suspected ever since YouTube Music Key j

by fpgeek 12y ago

I really don't understand the scandal here. This just confirms that Google is offering musicians the choice that's been suspected ever since YouTube Music Key just a rumor: (a) Go all in on monetization (ads, Content Id, Music Key, etc.) (b) Go all out on monetization (upload videos for free, no other commercial relationship). They aren't offering this choice because it helps them kill puppies or whatever, but for what should be a blindlingly obvious reason: People who pay money for a service that gets rid of ads on music videos are going to be pretty ticked off if they still see ads on music videos. You can call this evil, but you should be crystal-clear on what you're saying: Google trying to offer a service that lets people pay to get rid of YouTube ads (something lots of people say they want) is evil. Personally, I think this isn't good or evil, but an example of the inevitable problems and complications that arise when you try to add subscriptions to a hugely popular ad-supported service with many different stakeholders. I suspect that this sort of thing is an underappreciated reason why Google is hesitant to offer paid subscriptions as an alternative to ads in other contexts.

nosequel 12y ago
Your (b) there means that people can upload all the licensed songs they want and no money goes to the artist and the artist has no choice in this except to agree to (a). (A) is a binding 5 year contract that forces her to release music on youtube as soon as it is done and cannot sign any other exclusive release deals on any music. Both choices remove all "choice" from the artist in regards to their own work. Imagine if github did the same to you with any code on their site, every programmer would leave for a new site the same day.
- raldi 12y ago
  This is incorrect. The artist can still have their music removed from YouTube when third parties upload it without permission. The option that's being lost is for the artist to leave the infringer's video up and slap ads on it. The replacement for this option is to join the new subscription-based, ad-free monetization program.
  - onli 12y ago
    That is not the only option lost (though you are right, you can chose a and remove everything). The artist is indeed loosing the choice to just monetize the content he wants, and he indeed loses the ability to monetize content on youtube without being bound to release on Youtube first/at the same time. nosequels gist is correct: the artist has now less choice than before.
    - cloudwalking 12y ago
      No, this is also incorrect. Artists can still upload and monetize to their own channel just like every other YouTube creator.
      - onli 12y ago
        That is not the same monetization as using ContentID to add ads to all other videos with the music. That ability would be lost when an artist is not accepting the new terms.
        cloudwalking 12y ago
        Right, but they aren't losing the ability to monetize the content they want, as the parent comment suggests. They are restricted from ContrntID, but they can still upload and monetize video. Personally I don't really like these changes, but let's not be disingenuous.
    - raldi 12y ago
      > nosequels gist is correct: the artist has now less choice than before I don't think that's a fair summary of the original comment, which also asserted that the artist is losing the choice to enforce their copyright unless they join the new program.
      - onli 12y ago
        Ah, now I get how you meant that. Still, that is less choice than before in general. One could before let his music be tagged and was not obliged to do anything with Youtube. Now, to have the same as before, they are trying to bind artists with a 5 year contract and release obligations. That is pretty evidently less choice, and (probably) still having the option to not get paid but remove music from fans does not make up for that.
- fpgeek 12y ago
  Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. In many ways that's even more far-reaching than what YouTube is asking, but that hasn't stopped programmers from flocking to them in droves. That does, however, suggest to me an option (c) that Google isn't offering: Musicians pay Google to run Content Id on their behalf to simplify the takedown process. While I'm sure there are some win-wins they're missing by not offering that (possibly including Zoë Keating), I really can't fault them for that. I expect the PR and legal complications would dwarf the storm that's already here.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. Publicly available yes, open source no. You're free to choose whatever license you want: You're under no obligation to choose a license. It's your right not to include one with your code or project, but please be aware of the implications. Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.
    - ldng 12y ago
      The requirement used to be open-source and publicly available It is now only publicly available
  - dagw 12y ago
    All github require for their free users is that they're OK code is made viewable to the world. Nothing about github requires open source and you're free to chose any license you want.
  - aidos 12y ago
    By your analogy, any code you put on bitbucket would also have to be uploaded to github at the same time.
ctdonath 12y ago
Problem: the lack of: (c) monetize some, but not all, content. Not everyone wants to be all-in or all-out. Maybe she wants her best work monetized, but has additional content she wants available for free. Ad-stamped content can be really annoying and turn people off from watching/listening when there isn't sufficient desire for the content to put up with it. Free content, unladen of ads, can help draw in followers who become willing to pay. Kinda like throwing a low-cost concert for free in hopes people who otherwise wouldn't come will, facing low/no friction, come and enjoy the free content enough to buy CDs and pay for a more sophisticated concert. Plenty of times I've stumbled across an unknown musician playing for free, I've stopped & listened for a while when I'd have not paid to, and then bought the CD. Google wants to slather ads on the "free" performance just so the performer can offer a paid CD. Google is demanding all-in or all-out on mixed-demand content...and is demanding adherence to those terms & decisions for 5 years, which can be a very long time for a performer.
- cloudwalking 12y ago
  There is a (c) as you describe it, OP just neglected to mention it. The third option is to just monetize videos uploaded to the official channel. They can continue uploading only specific songs they want to monetize on their channel.
  - pavel_lishin 12y ago
    I thought that if Keating didn't agree to (b), her channel would be removed?
    - cloudwalking 12y ago
      That was the initial threat; later the rep mentioned a "work around" where her channel would not be removed.
smackfu 12y ago
If Youtube wants to make people choose between two options, that is Youtube's choice. That doesn't mean those two options are the only possible ones though. They could have gone with a new contract that was much like what they have today, with slightly modified terms. Instead they are throwing their weight around to force musicians into unfavorable terms. That's what the scandal is.
tomp 12y ago
I think the main complaint is that option (a), which is the option most artists would choose, also includes: you can't release any music without also putting it on YouTube at the same time Which is a pretty draconian clause.
- ta_544264 12y ago
  To play devil's advocate, though, why should Google provide access to the network they have and the value it provides, while making it easy to dilute the value content creators provide? In other words, from Google's point of view, Zoe Keating provides content for Google, for Google's benefit, not her benefit, or the benefit of her fans. In exchange, she doesn't have to run her own multimillion dollar content server. Recognizing the business they're in (advertising driven by user-provided content) doesn't seem 'draconian,' and there are other options available. If she can't accept alternatives then perhaps it proves that she needs Google a lot more than they need her.
  - kemiller 12y ago
    Well, they do have that right, but Zoe also has the right to expose those terms to public scrutiny. Google and other monetization networks tend to promote the fact that buy paying them you're also supporting the artists, and if that's a lie, end users are rightly going to be pissed.
nathanb 12y ago
There is another option...share some of the money users paid to get rid of ads with the artist. But that's just crazy talk.
mikeash 12y ago
I don't really care about the choices offered by YouTube here, but at this point you can have a scandal without them. The fact that they're lying to journalists and making such an ass of themselves in the PR department is interesting on its own now.

by fpgeek 12y ago

nosequel 12y ago

Your (b) there means that people can upload all the licensed songs they want and no money goes to the artist and the artist has no choice in this except to agree to (a). (A) is a binding 5 year contract that forces her to release music on youtube as soon as it is done and cannot sign any other exclusive release deals on any music. Both choices remove all "choice" from the artist in regards to their own work. Imagine if github did the same to you with any code on their site, every programmer would leave for a new site the same day.

raldi 12y ago
This is incorrect. The artist can still have their music removed from YouTube when third parties upload it without permission. The option that's being lost is for the artist to leave the infringer's video up and slap ads on it. The replacement for this option is to join the new subscription-based, ad-free monetization program.
- onli 12y ago
  That is not the only option lost (though you are right, you can chose a and remove everything). The artist is indeed loosing the choice to just monetize the content he wants, and he indeed loses the ability to monetize content on youtube without being bound to release on Youtube first/at the same time. nosequels gist is correct: the artist has now less choice than before.
  - cloudwalking 12y ago
    No, this is also incorrect. Artists can still upload and monetize to their own channel just like every other YouTube creator.
    - onli 12y ago
      That is not the same monetization as using ContentID to add ads to all other videos with the music. That ability would be lost when an artist is not accepting the new terms.
      - cloudwalking 12y ago
        Right, but they aren't losing the ability to monetize the content they want, as the parent comment suggests. They are restricted from ContrntID, but they can still upload and monetize video. Personally I don't really like these changes, but let's not be disingenuous.
  - raldi 12y ago
    > nosequels gist is correct: the artist has now less choice than before I don't think that's a fair summary of the original comment, which also asserted that the artist is losing the choice to enforce their copyright unless they join the new program.
    - onli 12y ago
      Ah, now I get how you meant that. Still, that is less choice than before in general. One could before let his music be tagged and was not obliged to do anything with Youtube. Now, to have the same as before, they are trying to bind artists with a 5 year contract and release obligations. That is pretty evidently less choice, and (probably) still having the option to not get paid but remove music from fans does not make up for that.
fpgeek 12y ago
Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. In many ways that's even more far-reaching than what YouTube is asking, but that hasn't stopped programmers from flocking to them in droves. That does, however, suggest to me an option (c) that Google isn't offering: Musicians pay Google to run Content Id on their behalf to simplify the takedown process. While I'm sure there are some win-wins they're missing by not offering that (possibly including Zoë Keating), I really can't fault them for that. I expect the PR and legal complications would dwarf the storm that's already here.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. Publicly available yes, open source no. You're free to choose whatever license you want: You're under no obligation to choose a license. It's your right not to include one with your code or project, but please be aware of the implications. Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.
  - ldng 12y ago
    The requirement used to be open-source and publicly available It is now only publicly available
- dagw 12y ago
  All github require for their free users is that they're OK code is made viewable to the world. Nothing about github requires open source and you're free to chose any license you want.
- aidos 12y ago
  By your analogy, any code you put on bitbucket would also have to be uploaded to github at the same time.

ctdonath 12y ago

Problem: the lack of: (c) monetize some, but not all, content. Not everyone wants to be all-in or all-out. Maybe she wants her best work monetized, but has additional content she wants available for free. Ad-stamped content can be really annoying and turn people off from watching/listening when there isn't sufficient desire for the content to put up with it. Free content, unladen of ads, can help draw in followers who become willing to pay. Kinda like throwing a low-cost concert for free in hopes people who otherwise wouldn't come will, facing low/no friction, come and enjoy the free content enough to buy CDs and pay for a more sophisticated concert. Plenty of times I've stumbled across an unknown musician playing for free, I've stopped & listened for a while when I'd have not paid to, and then bought the CD. Google wants to slather ads on the "free" performance just so the performer can offer a paid CD. Google is demanding all-in or all-out on mixed-demand content...and is demanding adherence to those terms & decisions for 5 years, which can be a very long time for a performer.

cloudwalking 12y ago
There is a (c) as you describe it, OP just neglected to mention it. The third option is to just monetize videos uploaded to the official channel. They can continue uploading only specific songs they want to monetize on their channel.
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  I thought that if Keating didn't agree to (b), her channel would be removed?
  - cloudwalking 12y ago
    That was the initial threat; later the rep mentioned a "work around" where her channel would not be removed.

smackfu 12y ago

If Youtube wants to make people choose between two options, that is Youtube's choice. That doesn't mean those two options are the only possible ones though. They could have gone with a new contract that was much like what they have today, with slightly modified terms. Instead they are throwing their weight around to force musicians into unfavorable terms. That's what the scandal is.

tomp 12y ago

I think the main complaint is that option (a), which is the option most artists would choose, also includes: you can't release any music without also putting it on YouTube at the same time Which is a pretty draconian clause.

ta_544264 12y ago
To play devil's advocate, though, why should Google provide access to the network they have and the value it provides, while making it easy to dilute the value content creators provide? In other words, from Google's point of view, Zoe Keating provides content for Google, for Google's benefit, not her benefit, or the benefit of her fans. In exchange, she doesn't have to run her own multimillion dollar content server. Recognizing the business they're in (advertising driven by user-provided content) doesn't seem 'draconian,' and there are other options available. If she can't accept alternatives then perhaps it proves that she needs Google a lot more than they need her.
- kemiller 12y ago
  Well, they do have that right, but Zoe also has the right to expose those terms to public scrutiny. Google and other monetization networks tend to promote the fact that buy paying them you're also supporting the artists, and if that's a lie, end users are rightly going to be pissed.

nathanb 12y ago

There is another option...share some of the money users paid to get rid of ads with the artist. But that's just crazy talk.

mikeash 12y ago

I don't really care about the choices offered by YouTube here, but at this point you can have a scandal without them. The fact that they're lying to journalists and making such an ass of themselves in the PR department is interesting on its own now.