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 The press release was issued by WIN but rescinded when Google agreed to further discussions; The Associated Free Press and The Guardian have published stories based on that original release."
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
So THAT's what DRM in HTML5 was for...
Yes, it is a popular lullaby.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
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.
Thing is, consumers like portals, at least in numbers significant enough that if you are hosted on a site that has a large user base you will get more attention then having your own custom site that people have to search for.
For all of its problems, Youtube provides a consistent interface, relatively stable performance, and a linking system that encourages people to explore videos and artists that they are not already aware of or are aware of and seeing the 'suggestion' spurns interest in rewatching something.
"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.
No I don't think so, they made paid search listings look as if it were the top results not distinguishing them as paid ads. They were fined big time for it. That is true evil IMO.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Spotify pays 70% of its revenue to rights holders. They also include a chart on their site which shows royalties paid per million listens when compared to radio and other streaming services.
Viewers find videos like they find anything else, by looking for them in the places where the videos are.
The problem is that YouTube has done a good job of convincing users that the only "place[] where the videos are" is YouTube. How should one go about making people aware of a video not available on YouTube?