Anyone who begins all their answers with the word āsoā, is acting suspiciously like theyāve rehearsed.
Iāve just read ZoĆ«ās blog, and Iām now consumed by the overwhelming urge to shower, even though Iām not ENTIRELY sure WTF he was on about, I donāt speak Googlese. And my brain hurts.
Is Google going to start charging for YTā¦? Or for watching music vids on YT, at leastā¦? Is that it? If so, it knows what it can do with THAT plan.
Iāll just have to hope the Reg covers it, it usually explains stuff in a non-brain-hurty way.
She should upload the actual call to You Tube.
Googleās starting a YouTube branded, paid (advertising free), music/video streaming service. Where the problem starts is that their existing contracts with music publishers are only for advertising revenue. In order for them to use music/video in their paid service, there has to be a new contract. They donāt want stuff to be available on the free (advertising supported) side and not on the paid side, as that would look like a bad deal to the customers. So, theyāre forcing publishers to sign the new contract, by disabling their content if they donāt sign the new contract.
She can say what sheād like in the post, but the headline is patently false and I need yāall to correct it.
The headline that he is referring to is:
YouTube Is Removing Any Artist That Refuses to License Its Subscription Serviceā¦
As far as I can understand he is correct that headline is not true. Zoe Keating can upload any of her music to youtube even if she isnāt part of the Content ID program. Zoeās problem is that she wants to remain part of the Content ID program so she has control over any of her music that is posted (not just by herself) on youtube but not be part of googleās new streaming service.
Iād say that if you are trying to head off a PR disaster playing headline word police probably isnāt the best idea. Especially when you pretty much imply that everything else was accurate. A headline that doesnāt 100% accurately represent the contents of the article? SHOCK!
PS: yāall seriously? Very professional.
Yeah, itās harsh and trust me, it is really difficult for me to have this conversation with all of my partners but weāre reallyā¦
Theyāre not partners. Not in any normal, english language sense of the word.
I suppose Google doesnāt need to adhere to their ādonāt be evilā slogan more that they are ubiquitous and everywhere.
On a different note. Zoe Keating is a wonderful musician, huge fan of her personal work and her stints with other musicians like Rasputina.
Did you mean ātheir ādonāt be evilā slogan anymore now that they areā¦ā
If so, I assure you they are adhering to it. But since being ubiquitous and everywhere allows them to define evilā¦
There is nothing āpatentā about this at all. It is complex and difficult and over the head of at least one reasonably well-educated reader. Plus, it cuts off in the middle of a
Yep, I gotta agree that Zoe is a wonderful muscian! Iāve only seen her once live (last year!) but have been enjoying her music for years.
I havenāt posted in a long time but the article from yesterday got me wondering if the deal would be good for musicians or not at all. Seeing as how you have to put your ENTIRE catalog up immediately combined with the numbers I looked up in this article :
TLDR here is the crux of what the article builds up to :
āAn artist needs to generate THREE MILLION PLAYS on the two largest and
most popular streaming platforms* to equal just 1,125 album downloads
from Itunes. This is an important metric to put in context. In 2013 only
4.8% of new album releases sold 2,000 units or more. So if only 4.8% of
artists can sell 2,000 units or more, how many artists can
realistically generate over four million streams from the same album of
material?ā
*YouTube and Spotify combined is what they are referring to
Also for perspective apparently 1 million YouTube plays pays roughly $1,750.
This combined with the fact your ENTIRE catalog (every song and variation that you wish to sell or even give away) must be available to the service. You cannot use YouTube as a hook in hopes of selling other material on the side since all of it is now available and nobody will buy it except out of pity basically. YouTube is essentially saying āHey artist starving for exposure, if youād like to be known, we certainly can help with that so long as you make it virtually impossible to sell any of your songs for yourself.ā
Even if this were a yearly contract I might consider it fair if exposure were important to me but a five year contract? Odds are whatever steam you might build would run its course before you could finally limit your catalog to people willing to pay you more than peanuts.
yep
IIRC, when someone tried to pigeonhole Sergey Brin about it a few years ago he said that it was just a figure of speech and he didnāt mean people to take it seriously.
I am not making this up.
At first I thought: āWell, this is only a big deal for those who want to monetize (ugh) their stuff on YouTube!ā. But I suspect that it goes beyond that. I know many people who have had their own original work taken down for running afoul of infringement algorithms somehow - or even simply appropriated entirely by other fraudulent posters. I havenāt used their Content ID system myself, but I suspect that users posting stuff without this have little or no protection against this sort of thing. Sorry, that Russian aggregate channel has a Content ID marker on their copy of your video, and you donāt! Itās theirs now. SOL, my friend! Not good.
ContentID is a load of BS. I recut an animatic from The Witcher 2 and mixed it together the title track from the old Polish TV show based on the same books. Even put the composerās details in the info box. For years Youtube advised me that Iād actually used a track from some synthpop band (who were apparently very experimental) 
This jives with what Iāve heard. I didnāt mean to imply that the service works. But it sort of offers some poor protection for somebody posting content. I could easily see denying music video posters from using Content ID as a pretext for challenging their ownership/authorship of their content. Not unlike when somebody makes a copyright claim that they made your video and files a DMCA takedown against you. It happens! If YouTube is making revenues from them using your stolen work, but not from you posting it - I think their āprotectionsā could get even far worse than the are now.
JWZās summary of the whole stinking mess is pretty coherent.
I already wrote this in the last post about this, but here you go:
If this is true, Iām not sure how this jives with DMCA safe harbor protection. Seems like they have to at least TRY to see if people are uploading stuff theyāre not allowed to whether or not theyāve signed a contract with YouTube.
PS: I think you mean:
āyāallā? Seriously? Very professional.
