Musician posts call transcript after Google says her claims are 'patently false'



Anyone who begins all their answers with the word ‘so’, is acting suspiciously like they’ve rehearsed.


I’ve just read Zoë’s blog, and I’m now consumed by the overwhelming urge to shower, even though I’m not ENTIRELY sure WTF he was on about, I don’t speak Googlese. And my brain hurts.

Is Google going to start charging for YT…? Or for watching music vids on YT, at least…? Is that it? If so, it knows what it can do with THAT plan.

I’ll just have to hope the Reg covers it, it usually explains stuff in a non-brain-hurty way.

1 Like

She should upload the actual call to You Tube.


Google’s 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 don’t 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, they’re forcing publishers to sign the new contract, by disabling their content if they don’t sign the new contract.


She can say what she’d like in the post, but the headline is patently false and I need y’all to correct it.

The headline that he is referring to is:

YouTube Is Removing Any Artist That Refuses to License Its Subscription Service…

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 isn’t part of the Content ID program. Zoe’s 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 google’s new streaming service.

I’d say that if you are trying to head off a PR disaster playing headline word police probably isn’t the best idea. Especially when you pretty much imply that everything else was accurate. A headline that doesn’t 100% accurately represent the contents of the article? SHOCK!

PS: y’all seriously? Very professional.


Yeah, it’s harsh and trust me, it is really difficult for me to have this conversation with all of my partners but we’re really…

They’re not partners. Not in any normal, english language sense of the word.


I suppose Google doesn’t need to adhere to their ‘don’t be evil’ 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 “their ‘don’t be evil’ slogan anymore now that they are…”

If so, I assure you they are adhering to it. But since being ubiquitous and everywhere allows them to define evil…


There is nothing “patent” 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! I’ve only seen her once live (last year!) but have been enjoying her music for years.

1 Like

I haven’t 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 :

“An 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
*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 “Hey artist starving for exposure, if you’d 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.”

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.




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 didn’t mean people to take it seriously.

I am not making this up.

1 Like

At first I thought: “Well, this is only a big deal for those who want to monetize (ugh) their stuff on YouTube!”. 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 haven’t 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 don’t! It’s 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 composer’s details in the info box. For years Youtube advised me that I’d actually used a track from some synthpop band (who were apparently very experimental) :neutral_face:


This jives with what I’ve heard. I didn’t 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 “protections” could get even far worse than the are now.


JWZ’s 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, I’m 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 they’re not allowed to whether or not they’ve signed a contract with YouTube.

PS: I think you mean:

“y’all”? Seriously? Very professional.