Fun Stuff > BAND

"Don't be Evil"? Google's YouTube screws over indie artists

<< < (3/6) > >>

hedgie:

--- Quote from: Gareth on 18 Jun 2014, 00:55 ---Those motherfuckers, and they aren't even guilty about it either. Jesus.

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

Kugai:
Sometimes one has to agree with that line from Shakespeare

Jimor:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page