Slashdot Mirror
Google Using YouTube Threat As Leverage For Cheaper Streaming Rights
Sockatume writes: "According to a press release issued by WIN, a group representing independent musicians, Google is threatening to de-list musicians' videos from YouTube if they do not agree to the terms for its unannounced streaming music service. The template contracts issued to musicians are described as 'undervalued' relative to other streaming services, and are not open for negotiation. The press release was issued by WIN but rescinded when Google agreed to further discussions; The Associated Free Press and The Guardian have published stories based on that original release."
I should agree to terms that haven't been made available? Sure, I'll sign away ALL my rights blindly, why not? What could possibly go wrong?
Look, unless its an actual group of independent musicians, can we just assume WIN is a group of agents, managers, and lawyers suckling for cash? Its not as though the musicians couldnt form their own group, start up a listserv, and send a strongly worded email to google insisting they be paid fairly in order to stream content.
Good people go to bed earlier.
you can say google is evil,but spotify doesn't let anyone upload videos for free for the whole world to see
Pushing a new service (streaming) by exploiting a market-dominating position in another area (video sharing on YouTube) sounds like a gross violation of antitrust laws.
Famous?
Where do I sign?
Google strong-arming musicians like the worst of the music industry? I dunno, sounds pretty evil to me.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Youtube is a cesspool these days. Soon someone will create a musician-friendly site that has STANDARDS that favor musicians. I would be all over that.
HTML5 video means you don't need Youtube anymore to successfully distribute videos. Torrent or stream yourself.
P2P is the answer.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
So wait.... Youtube is approaching labels that represent musicians and not the musicians themselves So that means that if a musician still wants to put his own video up on Youtube, and that video is not the property of any label, then there should be no problem, right? Or am I misunderstanding something?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Google grows. Google more and more often takes business steps that are increasingly monopolistic, duh.
I, for one, would be interested to see some sort of psychological study to see at what point on the spectrum from start up to monopoly the general population considers a company to be more a monopoly than just your standard, run of the mill company.
Personally I think Google has crossed that mark. They are certainly not a textbook monopoly, but they behave far too close to one for me to have a positive view of them despite all their positive innovation.
Do no evil
...claims the terms of the contract are non-negotiable, and undervalue the music of these labels in comparison to Spotify, Rdio, Deezer and other subscription streaming services.
other subscription streaming services aren't profitable precisely because of those fees.
So THAT's what DRM in HTML5 was for...
This will certainly backfire not very long from now: basic reasons why youtube is big is because a) was early, and b) is a high-bandwidth streaming service that you can dump (and find) more-or-less what you want. Take this away, or make it complicated, and soon the tech-savvies or the home/small business people will pull out; and the middle class iPad living room seniors surfers will --sooner or later-- follow.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Contrary to some misconceptions, being a monopoly is not illegal.
What is illegal is using one's monopoly position in one market, to expand into another.
Congratulations, Google. You are following Microsoft's steps.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why cant they just let us download the videos legally.That would be very cool.
"Don't be evil" =/= "Don't be an asshole"
Nonsense.
Google spends time, effort and resource to create the infrastructure for a music streaming service that requires daily, constant effort to maintain, and so gets to define the terms.
Musicians spend a few hours/days/weeks/months/years creating songs, then look for ways to milk that brief period of productivity for a lifetime (and for their descendants or estates as well, because copyright).
What musicians don't do: create their own music streaming service built on their own terms and funded by them, asking for the fees they sincerly believe they deserve. And then test it in the free marketplace and discover what the true value of their work actually is. And adjust their model until they have come up with a viable and sustainable business. That's what musicians don't do.
Yet when someone else does all the work for them but actually wants to get something for THEIR effort that actually reflects the cost and effort involved, it's evil and exploitative.
Strong arming? Threat? De-listing? Bullshit. Use the music service someone else created for you, find another that suits you better, or create your own. That should be how things work in a free market.
I can't blame those who are actually doing the hard work for refusing to cater to the exaggerated sense of entitlement that pervades the culture of 'creatives'. For every artist that is sitting on their duff crying out about the unfairness of these services, there are probably a hundred hard working people that get up every single day to collect their tiny paycheck in order to make that service viable so the artists can reap the rich benefits they think they are due.
I think this is the most blatantly evil thing Google has ever done, am I wrong?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Of course it's a cesspool, it's popular. The Internet is a cesspool, everyone is on it, and 90% of everything is shit. The good bits float to the top through word-of-mouth, links, reviews, votes, likes, and crazed midgets getting video addresses tattooed on their forehead.
Dear god are you actually trying to digest ALL of youtube, picking videos at random? How horrifying!
HTML5 with it's video tag means you can now host your own videos. Just like you could before with some other container. Do you want to pay the price of serving that content?
Wait, you say HTML5 means artists don't need Youtube to distribute.... and then tell people to torrent or stream? HTML5 is for websites, if the artist goes through the effort of starting up their own website, but people torrent or stream the music, then that effort is wasted as everyone is bypassing their site. I guess they could set up their own streaming server? Maybe you think artists will host their own torrents?
But no. Here we go:
Youtube (or a HTML5 equivalent) is the window dressing/easy access/teaser that artists use to attract new customers. They sell albums, high-def version, shirts, concerts, other songs, whatever. The whatever they sell behind the pretty storefront can go through ANY OTHER ONLINE STORE, be distributed through whatever.
Because youtube allows you to add links in the comments.
If you get big enough, you can even have Youtube show some ads and make a buck off the people coming up to your store window.
Ever notice that it is Musicians when it comes to some deal the riaa wants? The vast majority of the money would be coming out of the riaa's pocket and that is good news to weaken them.
I've played in garage and bar bands and my brother plays in a bar band that's making progress they have a sponsor but they are wanting to get signed to one these indie labels because some of the problems they are facing is how to distribute/promote their music, manage their online presence, and contract gigs
{they have actually played gigs that they didn't know how much they were getting paid, what time sound check was, or if they were going to be able to sell their merchandise, because some of the members have no idea how to do the business side}
These are indie bands and oddly if you ask the artists many of them would probably love for a few John Q Fanboys to make a tribute video that's posted and reposted all over youtube. They probably also have their own youtube channel and make advertising dollars on the channel.
If I were a musician with a large following such as say Metallica (just an example). I would just look to google and say goodbye. Why should I be forced to something in another service just because I use YouTube for the music videos? Especially when anyone can currently upload to YouTube for free. I would then pull all my videos and music from the play store, YouTube, etc... and then start a campaign against this sort of thing with my cult fan-base. Considering some of the stores then revoke the music from those with subscriptions to Google Play and/or do not allow re-download if you forget to back up your local DRM (Had this happen with a couple of services) even though you paid for the service, who would be the one to suffer long term? I bet at that point, you would see a bunch of people leaving or using a service less and less.
Just my opinion anyway. Take it for what it is worth.
And soon they'll own the musicians.
How is that different to iTunes?
It's not. Nor to Facebook. Or even, to a much lesser extent, Slashdot. Many, maybe most, major network services have integrated aspects that create a barrier to competition which is not directly related to the quality of their core service.
It's not even necessarily an entirely bad thing in and of itself. Like monopolies, the problem is not the market situation itself, but the potential for abuse that comes with it. It is that potential that YouTube is attempting to exploit by coupling YouTube privileges to accepting a music service contract.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
do k no w evil.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
No, youtube does not do massive copyright theft. Some people using youtube violate copyright law.
There is a difference.
I"M sorry, but you just sound like a whiny douche the is angry because they can no longer abuse a free service to sell their music.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
YouTube allows the video uploader to add URLs to the video description. One such URL might be that of a WebM copy of the video hosted on an external service.
> HTML5 video means you don't need Youtube anymore to successfully distribute videos. Torrent or stream yourself.
But you still need youtube for other people to find your videos and especially music since youtube browsing is the #1 way teenagers find new music.
Soon someone will create a musician-friendly site that has STANDARDS that favor musicians.
I'm interested. Could you describe these standards?
HTML5 video means you don't need Youtube anymore to successfully distribute videos.
Hosting costs and promotion remain. YouTube provides hosting at no charge (provided you're not trying to make fair use of a work whose copyright is owned by a publisher with a special Content ID deal), and YouTube recommends only YouTube videos as "related videos" for YouTube videos.
P2P is the answer.
How so, especially among customers of ISPs that use carrier-grade network address translation? ISPs deploy this for two reasons: to conserve scarce IPv4 addresses and to enforce the ban on publicly accessible servers that's common among residential acceptable use policies.
Anonymous Coward asked for a free software web application that replicates YouTube, perhaps something like GNU MediaGoblin. Are you looking for something that runs even on shared web hosting, or is something that requires a VPS acceptable? I imagine that a lot of web hosts don't want a bunch of CPU-heavy FFmpeg transcoding jobs to run on entry-level hosting. You probably won't be able to reach iPhone and iPad users with only free software because these devices can't play any unpatented video formats. And even then, good luck getting your own video into the "related videos" on other people's copies of this web application.
I can't think of anything that keeps a video's uploader from choosing to offer the video for download in WebM format through an external service and linking to that download.
This doesn't seem like something Google would do. I'm also curious about this supposed new Google subscription streaming music service. Why would Google launch a new service to compete with their existing Google Music All Access service?
This article doesn't make sense to me. I'm skeptical.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
YouTube will never show a non-YouTube video in "Related videos". If you're not on YouTube, how will viewers find your videos?
HTML5 video means you don't need Youtube anymore to successfully distribute videos. Torrent or stream yourself. P2P is the answer
Um, HTML5 video doesn't have anything to do with P2P. If you want to create an HTML5 video streaming site you still need the heavyweight backend and bandwidth that Youtube has, the only difference is you wouldn't be using Flash.
Youtube has had content recognition for ages. Try to upload a commercial song and you'll soon be slapped with either ads (with the proceeds going to the copyright holder) or blocked depending what options the copyright holder has set.
No, youtube does not do massive copyright theft. Some people using youtube violate copyright law. There is a difference.
I"M sorry, but you just sound like a whiny douche the is angry because they can no longer abuse a free service to sell their music.
The music is given away free. What YouTube has done is undermine the market for downloaded/streaming music. Of course, they aren't the ones violating copyright, but they aren't enforcing it at all either. If I were an artist who did not want my work distributed on YT or any of a million streaming sites, I would have to spend a lot of time sending takedown notices, probably all my time.
The industry has been screwing over the artists for many years. Now it's just a slightly different industry.
Steve Albini wrote about this about twenty years ago. Some things just never change.
"Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end, holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed.
"Nobody can see what’s printed on the contract. It’s too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody’s eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there’s only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says, “Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim it again, please. Backstroke.”"
Courney Love read that article and wrote a rambling summary of it in 2000, and I would like to thank everybody here who for not referring to her version first.
I understand that Google-bashing is pretty popular in these comments, but speaking as someone connected to the music industry, this is exactly what musicians have been trying to achieve, though they may not know it. Musicians have (foolishly) been trying to deregulate music licensing to allow for fair market rates, negotiable, as opposed to statutory licensing models currently used. Never mind that the publisher takes a greater share off the top, this is what a fair market rate looks like. Publicity isn't a right; it will either be worth it to musicians or not to accept new licensing terms. If enough say no, then Google's services will be devalued in turn. This is exactly what musicians and songwriters wished for, and now they're getting it.
It's very likely google knows how much it really costs to get videos and music streamed to consumers and has made a streaming rights offer that lets them stay in business rather than launch and then crash ALA MP3.com.
I use the google music streaming service at $8 a month, but would easily pay $16 if it encompassed all artists (glaring holes like Led Zepplin and the Beatles leave it incomplete) yet I discover new stuff all the time using the "I'm Feeling Lucky" feature.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Napster was #1 way of finding new music, too. Before that
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
From RCA, Warner (70's and up), Arista, Capitol, and a whole host of orther companies that have ALWAYS had musicians sign forma they didn't or couldn't read, or were never even shown?