4 ms·

The article reads like a pro-copyright/pro-SOPA hit piece, I would take it with a grain of salt. I don't see anything too evil here, just reasonable business d

The article reads like a pro-copyright/pro-SOPA hit piece, I would take it with a grain of salt. I don't see anything too evil here, just reasonable business decision forced to them by the ridiculous copyright framework. Google came with a simple solution: their way or the highway. Sounds harsh but anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer-vetting. They rather pull your stuff rather than risking the money with very little chance of recouping the investment. Zoe Keating, on the other side, disagrees and wants google to actually expend tons of money developing her "special case" into the system... Edit: removed redundant sentence

hahainternet 12y ago
It's a theregister article. They are deceptive and dishonest and haven't been able to produce quality journalistic pieces in about 6 years. I don't even bother reading them anymore.
icebraining 12y ago
anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer-vetting. Why would keeping the current system - which is essentially just allowing people to use ContentID without being forced into accepting new legal terms - require massive man-hours of development and laywer-vetting? What's so difficult about it? By the way, I fully agree vis-a-vis the SOPA comments. But it just goes to show the adversary of my adversary is not always my ally.
- fpgeek 12y ago
  Keeping the current system and not doing YouTube Music Key isn't very difficult - but there are more than a few reasons to think it is worth doing (all the people who block YouTube ads and/or use unauthorized downloaders, for example). Doing YouTube Music Key and writing in special cases for independent artists while simultaneously making sure not to open any loopholes that would let, for example, Sony hold the service hostage later... that strikes me as very difficult, at best.
toyg 12y ago
> The article reads like a pro-copyright/pro-SOPA hit piece It's from Andrew Orlowski, a professional media troll. He usually takes a contrarian position on any controversial tech issue.
dwild 12y ago
Wait what? Have you read the conversation? It's clear in the conversation that she could always just quit this deal and move to the normal Youtube Partner program to make cash out of ads like any other partner. What she would lose is automatic content identification that would also give her ads revenues from OTHER video that has her content. There's no alternative to that, she would have to send a ton of DMCA herself to remove that other content and that doesn't even allow her to get that revenue. I don't see this as a solution to the ridiculous copyright framework, it's a way to abuse the ridiculous copyright framework. They have a great tool that can help her fight against copyright infringement but the only way she can still use it is to either abandon her YouTube revenue or to give YouTube all her music right.

hahainternet 12y ago

It's a theregister article. They are deceptive and dishonest and haven't been able to produce quality journalistic pieces in about 6 years. I don't even bother reading them anymore.

icebraining 12y ago

anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer-vetting. Why would keeping the current system - which is essentially just allowing people to use ContentID without being forced into accepting new legal terms - require massive man-hours of development and laywer-vetting? What's so difficult about it? By the way, I fully agree vis-a-vis the SOPA comments. But it just goes to show the adversary of my adversary is not always my ally.

fpgeek 12y ago
Keeping the current system and not doing YouTube Music Key isn't very difficult - but there are more than a few reasons to think it is worth doing (all the people who block YouTube ads and/or use unauthorized downloaders, for example). Doing YouTube Music Key and writing in special cases for independent artists while simultaneously making sure not to open any loopholes that would let, for example, Sony hold the service hostage later... that strikes me as very difficult, at best.

toyg 12y ago

> The article reads like a pro-copyright/pro-SOPA hit piece It's from Andrew Orlowski, a professional media troll. He usually takes a contrarian position on any controversial tech issue.

dwild 12y ago

Wait what? Have you read the conversation? It's clear in the conversation that she could always just quit this deal and move to the normal Youtube Partner program to make cash out of ads like any other partner. What she would lose is automatic content identification that would also give her ads revenues from OTHER video that has her content. There's no alternative to that, she would have to send a ton of DMCA herself to remove that other content and that doesn't even allow her to get that revenue. I don't see this as a solution to the ridiculous copyright framework, it's a way to abuse the ridiculous copyright framework. They have a great tool that can help her fight against copyright infringement but the only way she can still use it is to either abandon her YouTube revenue or to give YouTube all her music right.