YouTube Is About To Delete Independent Artists From Its Site - Forbes
what a bunch of douchey ass motherfuckers
what a bunch of douchey ass motherfuckers
Youtube to pull independent music from site
- Thread starter supertouch_sl
- Start date
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 44,694
- 93,408
I thought google was benevolent?
Wait a minute, this might not be bad if it unclogs the shit that has clogged up youtube.
dak
Bronze Knight of the Realm
- 183
- 1
Two questions:
1. Does this mean some random guy in his basement making Vaporwave or Dubstep and posting it to a channel under a moniker is going to have his shit taken down?
2. How do they plan to enforce this? I can literally type any band name followed by "full album" and get a full version of their album as the top search result. Possibly slightly pitch-shifted, but it's there. They don't seem too capable of restricting the availability of music.
In the end, this is the direction all of the internet is going. Limit the availability of easily accessible content to only items that the "big labels" have a vested interest in.
The only reason I don't see this is as a big deal currently, is people are still fully capable of saying "fuck you Youtube". Someone will will take their place with the old, preferred model. As net neutrality fades, this will become less of an option though.
Maybe Youtube can get together with Comcast and work in unison to throttle access to content that competes with what they receive kickbacks for.
1. Does this mean some random guy in his basement making Vaporwave or Dubstep and posting it to a channel under a moniker is going to have his shit taken down?
2. How do they plan to enforce this? I can literally type any band name followed by "full album" and get a full version of their album as the top search result. Possibly slightly pitch-shifted, but it's there. They don't seem too capable of restricting the availability of music.
In the end, this is the direction all of the internet is going. Limit the availability of easily accessible content to only items that the "big labels" have a vested interest in.
The only reason I don't see this is as a big deal currently, is people are still fully capable of saying "fuck you Youtube". Someone will will take their place with the old, preferred model. As net neutrality fades, this will become less of an option though.
Maybe Youtube can get together with Comcast and work in unison to throttle access to content that competes with what they receive kickbacks for.
I guess the music industry wants to end people being able to do this.
How dare they not sign their lives away!
Mist
Eeyore Enthusiast
- 30,430
- 22,246
So if someone takes your stuff, sells it, and gives you a penny on the dollar, you should be happy because at least you got a penny right?
Okay, obviously not. So there's clearly room for negotiating somewhere between 1% and 100%. Smart people don't just accept whatever shitty deal they're offered.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
From how I understand; the moment someone gets really popular, Google will essentially force them to sign a contract to allow Google to stream the song without ads (So no ad Revenue, but they get a Sub cut--so it's probably a wash), and let people download it while giving the artist a cut. If the artist refuses because he doesn't like the terms of the contract (Which is what is happening now); then Google will blockallcontent from them (Including free content that makes money off Ad Revenue). If I had to guess, if you could see the contracts, there is probably some guarantee that whatever contract google offers, can't be as good as the the recording studios Google already is contracted with (So if Google offers you .01$ per download, Sony's contract will be .02). Which, in essence, will make Google's "offer" a path to get new and popular artists to either sign with a label, or lose their outlet on Youtube. (And Google is probably getting a reprieve in terms of copyright suits ect for this capitulation).
In essence; Youtube is being backed into the same corner as TV and Radio were--where the record labels extorted control over what the radio played, by holding their libraries hostage, and therefor could clobber new artists into terrible contracts by controlling the means of distribution. (Sell your songs to us, or we will make sure no one can hear them.)
A couple years ago, I would have said that, luckily, the Internet makes it easy to set up competing distributors--so no big deal, Free-Tube, or some other distribution site, willcertainlycome out soon. But it's funny that this deal comes on the eve of Net Neutrality's demise. How many "new" streaming services do you think could compete with Youtubes ability to pay for higher speeds?......Yep..I mean, maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I don't think so.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. (In this case, the new Boss has the old Boss' boot on their throat. Write your congressmen about Net Neutrality!)
Mist
Eeyore Enthusiast
- 30,430
- 22,246
It's Youtube. If you don't upload your shit, someone is going to throw it up on the internet somewhere anyway. That's why I said take.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
Ironically, that's one of the things Google is using to get people to play ball. Right now, if someone else throws up your song, you can just take a cut of their Ad-money. Which, most people who are using music back drops ect, are thrilled to do because it means their content doesn't get taken down--and big artists make a fuck ton of money off rebroadcasts. It's a pretty damn efficient system and it lets artists make money through a form of instant licensing without the record companies taking a cut.
However, if you don't play ball--then the only choice you have to stop usage, is the old dispute method--which is essentially poisoning the well (You don't get anything, and the person doesn't get anything, because the video gets nuked.) So 10 million view video that you and the creator might have each gotten 50k from? Now you both get nothing, or you have to let him keep it all. Nice, right?
Mist
Eeyore Enthusiast
- 30,430
- 22,246
It's not ironic. It's exactly why I said it.
But the argument that people should just take whatever crappy deal Google offers because it's better than nothing is a stupid argument. Smart people find ways to negotiate from positions of weakness all the time.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,440
- 73,513
What I don't get is why can't google just say, "Hey, sign this contract allowing us to stream your video without giving you ad revenue but giving you a cut of the sub-money instead. If you don't sign we won't give you revenue for anything but still won't take your video down." ?
Are record labels getting together to ensure google can't do this somehow?