Topic: "Don't be Evil"? Google's YouTube screws over indie artists (Read 12324 times)

pwhodges · « **on:** 17 Jun 2014, 12:11 »

http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/17/5817408/youtube-reportedly-block-videos-indie-artists

YouTube is now a record label like any other.

Barmymoo · « **Reply #1 on:** 17 Jun 2014, 12:24 »

Right, well I guess that means I'm not using YouTube any more.

Kwaping · « **Reply #2 on:** 17 Jun 2014, 13:53 »

Try screen.yahoo.com (in my biased opinion).

Method of Madness · « **Reply #3 on:** 17 Jun 2014, 14:12 »

Why the hell would anyone pay for YouTube? The entire point of using YouTube for music is that it's free.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #4 on:** 17 Jun 2014, 14:52 »

Well, Vimeo is gonna have to upgrade their servers...

Thrillho · « **Reply #5 on:** 18 Jun 2014, 00:55 »

Those motherfuckers, and they aren't even guilty about it either. Jesus.

Detachable Felix · « **Reply #6 on:** 18 Jun 2014, 01:04 »

Goddamn.
I wonder, how good is Vimeo for embedding here? You know, so I can start sharing things via that instead :/

pwhodges · « **Reply #7 on:** 18 Jun 2014, 01:07 »

I have found a mod to embed Vimeo, but not yet installed it - it's actually a version of the one for YouTube, but I made some changes to that, so I may have to do the same for the extended version. This gives me a reason to take that trouble; so, patience.

jwhouk · « **Reply #8 on:** 18 Jun 2014, 07:35 »

Please do.

Kwaping · « **Reply #9 on:** 18 Jun 2014, 08:52 »

pwhodges, I'm a software developer for Yahoo - let me know if you need any front-end or back-end programming help. (This is also my disclosure regarding my screen.yahoo.com suggestion above.)

hedgie · « **Reply #10 on:** 20 Jun 2014, 16:00 »

Quote from: Gareth on 18 Jun 2014, 00:55

Those motherfuckers, and they aren't even guilty about it either. Jesus.

Sociopaths don't feel guilt.

This reminds me of when Trent Reznor told a bunch of Australian fans to just pirate his new record since it was nearly twice the price of the mass-produced pop shite that was out at the time.

pwhodges · « **Reply #11 on:** 07 Aug 2014, 02:18 »

Two things:

(1) You can now embed Vimeo here. See the V icon next to the YouTube one. There are some limitations on the URLs it accepts, but I may improve that.

(2) The Twitch video game streaming site is implementing automated detection and muting of some copyright audio:
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/twitch-to-mute-copyrighted-music-in-video-on-demand/

ev4n · « **Reply #12 on:** 07 Aug 2014, 11:53 »

#2 was inevitable. It's unfortunate but also inevitable that it will be an automated system.

Kugai · « **Reply #13 on:** 07 Aug 2014, 17:08 »

Sometimes one has to agree with that line from Shakespeare

Jimor · « **Reply #14 on:** 27 Jan 2015, 00:12 »

An independent musician reports on what Google/YouTube have been telling her about the new deal she must take to continue to monetize her music on YouTube.

In short, just like the independent labels, she must take ALL of the deal with the new service in order for her music to continue to be monetized via YouTube. If she were to upload her own videos, she could claim the standard YouTube partner revenue for them as the video owner, but she'd lose all revenue from other people who use her music in their own videos. in her case, that's most of it.

YouTube strikes back at a couple of sites that re-posted her blog trying to get them to change their headline as 'patently' false. This link includes the correspondence with the YouTube rep.

I think they're trying to get a clarification like I posted above, that it would still be possible for independent musicians to post their music, but it would only be *without* the safety net of content ID. This has 2 major problems, the first being loss of revenue from others who post their own videos including the music. The only options there would be to allow the unauthorized use, or use the unwieldy DMCA takedown procedure on each and every individual video (Scott Manly, who makes gaming videos like Kerbal Space Program, gave an example where he filed a DMCA takedown that was disputed, so YouTube simply allowed the offending video to stay on the site unless Scott could then come up with an actual court filing against the offender. Since they were based in Turkey and it would cost him thousands to file in court, they're showing that it basically takes a reply e-mail to YouTube to get away without outright theft of any video).

The 2nd main problem is that without a content ID fingerprint in the system, copyright trolls will have a field day. While they too would have to sign on to the overall deal, I suspect that they'll take full advantage of the lag time between making the false claim and the time it would take to find it and dispute it. This all depends on how tough Google gets with accounts that try this tactic, but there has been little to no known sanctions of troll accounts up to this point under the current agreement regime.

I don't think most musicians would mind if it were just about the level of payments, they're pretty used to being screwed in this regard by now, but the fact that the deal requires not only that Google be always first with every song, and that the ENTIRE musician's catalogue must be included or else makes this a deal breaker for most as outlined in Zoë's blog.

Jyakt · « **Reply #15 on:** 20 Mar 2015, 11:01 »

Wow, what straight jackbooted e-thuggery. That's crazy, viral videos and stuff literally put artists like OK Go on the map. Brutal

chaospersonified · « **Reply #16 on:** 20 Mar 2015, 13:04 »

Quote from: hedgie on 20 Jun 2014, 16:00

This reminds me of when Trent Reznor told a bunch of Australian fans to just pirate his new record since it was nearly twice the price of the mass-produced pop shite that was out at the time.

Never much cared for NiN's music, but Trent Rezner is fucking awesome.

I'm pissed off about this. Youtube's given independent artists a platform to be heard from. Lke Jaykt has pointed out, OK GO would be nothing like the phenomenon they've become if they'd been kept from uploading that treadmill video, and who knows how many amazing bands would be kicked off of youtube!

When I find a new band, Youtube is my first destination to hear specific tracks. My internet is too bad for vimeo, and the way Spotify pays the artists is complete horseshit. They're gonna have problems when they try to roll this out.

Stoon · « **Reply #17 on:** 22 Mar 2015, 19:47 »

Actually, Google dropped the motto "Don't be evil" in 2009 because, you know, their evil.
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/google_quietly.php

chaospersonified · « **Reply #18 on:** 22 Mar 2015, 20:29 »

Quote from: Stoon on 22 Mar 2015, 19:47

Actually, Google dropped the motto "Don't be evil" in 2009 because, you know, their evil.
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/google_quietly.php

Well shit. There goes the world.

Active Madness · « **Reply #19 on:** 26 Mar 2015, 02:29 »

Was that before or after they started buying up DARPA contractors?

Pilchard123 · « **Reply #20 on:** 08 Apr 2015, 15:01 »

Apparently now it's going to every video.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/8/8371131/youtube-paid-subscription-offline-video

YourBuddyBill · « **Reply #21 on:** 08 Apr 2015, 16:46 »

I don't know why we're surprised, really. It was inevitable that they would realize they could more or less do whatever the fuck they wanted to everyone and they'd still get all the business cause nobody can be assed to go elsewhere unless it turns into an absolute shithole.

Thrillho · « **Reply #22 on:** 09 Apr 2015, 00:38 »

It's early and I'm pre-coffee, so help me out here - does that basically say that all videos are going to be private unless you sign up to be a part of the subscription service?

bhtooefr · « **Reply #23 on:** 09 Apr 2015, 03:54 »

Except there's no "I Agree" button, there's no signing up, it just happens for partners, and nothing happens for regular YouTube users I believe. So, I think the article's wrong.

Basically, if you're running ads right now, on June 15, you'll automatically be migrated to the new terms (which is basically, you get 55% of the ad revenue on your videos, and 55% of your videos' share (calculated on clicks and runtime) of all subscription fees). If you don't want to agree to them, you can notify YouTube that you want to end the agreement, and your videos will no longer be monetized. (Or you can make your monetized videos private yourself, or you can demonetize them individually.)

If you're not running ads, I believe nothing happens (except maybe YouTube will start running ads? This bit is unclear). You weren't getting any money anyway, and these terms updates are regarding how people who have monetized their videos get paid.

And, the only reference to private videos in regards to this is in the FAQ:

Quote

What happens if I do not want to participate in new paid offerings?

If you choose not to participate in our new paid offerings, you can change your video settings to private to keep videos hosted on YouTube. Though you can always choose whether to host any or all of your videos on YouTube, we strongly believe that any fan who's willing to pay for a feature like an ads-free experience on YouTube deserves to access the exact same content that exists on the ad-supported site. A paid YouTube offering will give fans a compelling new way to enjoy their favorite content uninterrupted while offering partners a new way to earn revenue from their videos, benefits we feel are overwhelmingly positive for everyone.

So, basically, the way this is reading is that if you don't want a video to be available without ads (but you still get revenue if it's monetized, because it's paid), you make it private. I'm trying to figure out the opposition to this, and other than possible screwiness in the revenue model, I'm not seeing it.

The biggest issue I can see is that now YouTube will most likely aggressively work around or refuse to work with ad blockers running, and I do use one with YouTube after the 2012 US presidential election campaigns. (I live in a swing state, so I was subjected to ALL of the ads.)

Thrillho · « **Reply #24 on:** 09 Apr 2015, 04:02 »

This has severe ramifications for me even as a fan.

I watch Game Grumps literally every day of my life, and I know that show is how Danny and Arin make a living. They can't run it without ads, because they'd lose all their income, but if they go behind a paywall they'd probably lose a shit-ton of fans.

I know they could always keep doing it as well as a real job, but the point is... they shouldn't have to do that. They've been successful on their own terms and are living their dream, and they will lose it, or we as fans will lose them, entirely because YouTube are being assholes.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #25 on:** 09 Apr 2015, 04:24 »

It's worth noting that in this case anyway, it's not a paywall (unless they want to go behind a paywall, which has been an option for a while now), it's a pay to shut ads off, and they'll get the revenue from either ads (for those that don't pay) or payments (for those that do pay).

YourBuddyBill · « **Reply #26 on:** 09 Apr 2015, 06:46 »

To be honest, I'm not sure if Youtube is adblock-friendly right now. I mean, I thought it wasn't, but I'm running Adblock Plus right now, and it seems to work fine (and ads don't usually crop up, so I guess it works?)

Kugai · « **Reply #27 on:** 09 Apr 2015, 12:58 »

I have a feeling that this is going to come back and bite YouTube in the ass.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: "Don't be Evil"? Google's YouTube screws over indie artists (Read 12324 times)