Slashdot Mirror
Google: Indie Musicians Must Join Streaming Service Or Be Removed
Sockatume writes: In a statement to the Financial Times and reported by the BBC, Google has confirmed that it will remove the music videos of independent artists unless they sign up to its upcoming subscription music service. Many independent musicians and labels have refused to do so, claiming that the contracts offer significantly worse deals than the likes of Spotify and Pandora, and that Google is unwilling to negotiate on the rates it offers artists. A Google spokesperson indicated that the company could start removing videos within days.
Read the arcticle so you don't have to:
This is about removing artists from Youtube, not from the Google search engine.
Google, how the fuck is this not evil?
I suppose you mean "or be removed FROM YOUTUBE"???
TFS does not match TFA. Google is going to remove a number of videos of artists whose "independent labels" have refused permission for them to be on YouTube.
Trying to make this about Google's upcoming subscription service is a complete misrepresentation of TFA.
What's an "Indie Musician"? My kids singing Happy Birthday©?
Have gnu, will travel.
A few weeks ago a couple of characters in Doonesbury were looking for a new slogan for their company. Their choice was: "Don't be Google". This stuff just adds more weight to their decision.
So don't be Google!
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I wonder if this will turn out to be Youtube's first step towards irrelevance to the youth market.
This seems like a familiar story from Microsoft and IBM: think your company is so indispensable that you start demanding more of your users and/or partners. And in doing so, make people start looking for alternatives.
First, as pointed out, it is removed from YouTube, not google search results. This is annoying to the artists, but Youtube belongs to google. They set the terms for you hosting videos there at no cost to you. If the terms are unfair, simply go elsewhere. Perhaps Vimeo. Google is not killing babies or clubbing seals or blackmailing your momma to get you to publish on their streaming service. In fact, I do not know that their streaming service has much share against the likes of iTunes, Amazon, Pandora, Spotify, etc. Many of these companies do not offer good rates either. However, the market will see who wins here, and forcing people over seems like a mistake that will not aid Google's streaming servies in the long run.
Silence is a state of mime.
Hello Google. How the fsck do you think this won't get you large fines for unfair competition practices in the European Union? By forcing people to have you represent them, you are being unfair competition to other streaming web sites and small record labels. You may have oodles of lawyers up your sleeve, but even they won't be able to get away with this in the EU.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
So ditch'em.
Move to soundcloud.
I'm a fan of a lot of artists that put their stuff up on either youtube or soundcloud. Might be time to switch off of youtube.
Hate to say it. I saw the rise of Google and a lot of money and effort went to really good things.
They offered their services for free using the knowledge gained to make a buck off better advertising. Things were good. They certainly had/have a shit-ton of power and people rallied against that. Claiming that they could abuse it and be a terrible blight upon the land. But they didn't. Until now. And I've seen similar sort of moves by Google of late. The sun sets eventually. Kinda sad, but perhaps it's time to move on.
Now, of course I'm still going to have a gmail account for a long time, and using google-docs is still crazy useful. Hell I still have the yahoo account where I throw spam. But rather than simply being happy with the bright future of the new young blood in the market, I'll be looking for some place to jump ship to. And I'll tell others as much.
ASK TOOLBAR!!!!!!!!!!! RAGE!
Google is not such a huge market leader for video than Microsoft is for Desktop OS. In the video platform market there is still something like real competition.
Sounds like an opportunity for MySpace to try to reclaim some of that territory. Anybody know if MySpace has the chops to turn this into a good thing for them?
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
DON'T BE EVIL.
Kill Google Now - before you are forced into their self-driving cars, and legally required to use their thermostat.
SHARE AND ENJOY!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Hello Google. How the fsck do you think this won't get you large fines for unfair competition practices in the European Union?
Maybe they're not worried. (Unlike MicroSoft) they've been fined before in Europe and the US and found a way to get out of it by promising relatively minor changes to how they do business for a limited time.
I am not a crackpot.
And what happens when soundcloud does the same thing?
There's a long history of companies getting their users to create their content, and then deciding they own the content.
The problem is that now Google has suddenly decided that a platform to post free videos, available to pretty much anybody, isn't the same when you are someone who has commercial interests.
And I wonder how, exactly, this is different from when companies put up their own videos. Is Google going to say "we want a cut of your product or we'll take down your video".
I see this as extortion, plain and simple. "Nice video, shame if something happened to it".
This just seems like they're selectively treating one class of videos as different from another, specifically in the case where they want to make money from it.
So what happens when I post a how-to video, and in a year or so Google decides they're going to charge for access to that really helpful video? If I don't agree to get paid 1 cent for every million views, they'll take down the video? Maybe they'll decide that by posting it they already own the video?
This is straight up appropriating the work of others for their own gain, and treating anything they stand to make money from as somehow different from all the rest of the videos.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Tell it to the kids, who stopped watching television, and only watch streaming media.
Well, google can offer two options.
Join and get paid.
After we take you down, post it again but this time no ads and therefore no money.
You can still show your videos all you want.
Google does not have to pay their price for showing their videos.
Killer. So I can go to Target and I should be able to set the price I want to pay for an item and if they do not sell it to me for that price then they are evil bastards? So fucking awesome!
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
What makes an organization a "music label"? I was under the impression that the closest concept in law to a "music label" was the owner of copyright in a sound recording. For example, an artist who owns his own recordings, either by having bought the masters from his previous label or by not having signed a "work made for hire" agreement in the first place, is his own label.
OK; I have a few Youtube accounts. I'm a musician, but I don't depend on that for income (which would make me an independent musician by some definitions). Sometimes I put videos with music I composed myself up on Youtube. I generally write my own music for home videos etc.
So: is Google threatening me that I have to sign up for their commercial service? Or is this purely for independent artists who are attempting to promote their commercial music via music videos on Youtube? How does Google tell the difference -- by checking to see if there's an audio match with something for sale on Amazon or iTunes? By targeting independent publishing labels?
I don't see how this can work out correctly, as it's basically saying that Google doesn't allow independent publication of music videos on YouTube (once you sign with Google, you're not really independent anymore).
Anyway, my first thought was that Vimeo must be enjoying the flood of new content. Depending on how things fall out, I might join them.
Because YouTube is not a monopoly and it's not unreasonable or unfair of it to try to recover costs (or, gasp, make a profit) somehow.
Nothing stops you nor anyone else hosting elsewhere or on your own physical server etc etc. I have several (media) servers around the world but for the latest media I put up YouTube was convenient and fast and free. Bandwidth is not free, even for Google.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
YouTube will remove music videos by artists such as Adele, Arctic Monkeys and Radiohead, because the independent labels to which they belong have refused to agree terms with the site.
Whoever wrote that summary clearly has an agenda.
How would YouTube go about determining whether a particular video is a "music video" by a "music label"? If I compose and record original music to accompany a video that I have produced, and I upload the video to YouTube, does that make me a "label" and make the video a "music video", thus requiring me to formally release its soundtrack? I found nothing in the BBC article or the Guardian article about this.
If I'm really interested in a band, I'll go to their website first. Usually they have links to their music and videos, it doesn't matter where they are actually hosted (Youtube, Vimeo, their own servers, etc).
Maybe it's just me, but I think of Youtube as having "unofficial" content, it wouldn't be the first place I look for a bands official content.
So now evil is "If you do not like our terms then we will stop doing business with you."?
It depends on who's saying this. If you have a lot of other options you can go somewhere else. If the company saying this controls the vast majority of the market and is effectively blacklisting you, that certainly isn't good.
There are still alternatives to Google's service so it's not evil for them to say this, but I think the feeling behind the GP's post is concern that Google is rapidly getting to the point where they will have too much information and control over markets.
How is this not an abuse of monopoly regulations? They're using their influence in one sector - online videos - to strong-arm customers in another sector. That's what Microsoft got in trouble for with Windows and IE, right?
It's more like: ... ok now that we are the 800 pound gorilla we want to change the service and if you don't like it we will kick you to the street. Oh incidentally, the other 800 pound gorilla (RIAA) like the terms we gave them but that's a coincidence and you shouldn't see too much into that.
Please put your content on our service so that that we both benefit (you get some ad revenue and exposure, we get ad revenue and become the 800 pound gorilla of online video)... [some time passes]
It says that musicians, who are signed with an indie label that has not agreed to the "terms", will have their videos removed/blocked.
What "terms"? How does this affect indie musicians who are not signed to an affected indie label (or an indie label at all)? Do they also have to agree to these so-called "terms"?
Maybe if Google had someone who wasn't a low-grade moron marketroid answering such questions with real answers, they could avoid egg on their face, as well as rotten tomatoes, then torches and pitchforks.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Do we just believe the PR from the indie labels on this, where's the contract? Someone have a link?
> Because YouTube is not a monopoly
In your mind, how much of the market does it take for youtube to qualify as a monopoly? Are you one of those sophists who says it isn't a monopoly as long as there is somebody else, anybody else, no matter how small their marketshare?
Because youtube has 94% of the market. And by the definition of most reasonable people that easily qualifies as a monopoly.
> it's not unreasonable or unfair of it to try to recover costs (or, gasp, make a profit) somehow.
They are making a profit, they are showing ads on the videos on youtube. This is above and beyond that and it is only for certain videos. They are doing price discrimination based on the content rather than their own costs. They make just as much money per play from a 30 second video of an elephant taking a dump as they do from a 30 second music video. But they are adding extra requirements to the music video.
In your geekheart you know that's unfair. The question isn't whether they can do it, clearly they can do it, the question is if we as their paying customers think it is fair (yes we pay with our personal information, if it weren't valuable google wouldn't have a market cap in the billions).
1. How do you find out about the band in the first place? Fact is, YouTube is the place for a lot of indies to make it big.
2. You haven't visited YouTube in a while, have you? Everybody has their official content there. You can even rent movies there.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
I am confused. Does Google/YouTube already ad share with these Indie labels or are the labels just posting up their artists content on YouTube on a channel they created? If it's the latter how is the video any different than a cat video sissy456 posted with a background of Journey's Don't Stop Believing? If it's the former then I support Google's right to set the terms of how they pay content providers on their web property. I couldn't find that anywhere in the article.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I have to say the whole point of the 'VEVO' part of youtube was started because of a push by the big labels to 'have our own section of youtube for music video' and not so much because Youtube/Google wanted to segregate music videos from other content on the site. Or at least what information I've heard about suggests this is the case. Google made it subscription based for a variety of reasons, some of which included the big labels wanting to reduce ads on their music pages (or at least control what ads appear). To do this Youtube/Google needs some way to make money off of hosting the Content for the companies in question.
Now the only change here is that Youtube/Google is saying they don't want advertising supported music videos in the other section while all the other 90% of music videos are within VEVO. Which I think makes a lot of sense to them since 'we have this cool place that hosts 90% of our music video content, these other videos seems vastly out of place outside of it'. It may even also include the emphasis that this could reduce music video takedowns against 'normal' users by the large labels.
Is it kind of shitty to the lesser 10% that didn't want to switch? Sure. However this is hardly the 'crime against humanity' some people are making it out to be.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
but IF they already have their videos on youtube, wouldnt it be like getting a new source of money that you didnt have before by going into the streaming?
That depends on whether the revenue exceeds how much it costs to register for the streaming service. For example, Chrome Web Store for Chrome apps costs $5 and Google Play Store for Android apps costs $25, plus the cost of the time spent on the process of registering. Apparently, registering for Google Play Music requires first moving to one of these 28 countries and then paying a $25 sign-up fee.
Which raises the question of how people discover the band in the first place. On YouTube, you can end up in the right rail recommendation list of another band's video. Elsewhere you have to buy an ad.
Bing (formerly Live Search), Outlook.com (formerly Hotmail), and OneDrive (formerly SkyDrive) do those in a web browser. Which "major platforms" are you referring to?
I'm waiting for the video of Hitler bitching about it
Would "Google: Indie Musicians Must Join Play Music Or Leave YouTube" have worked?
If a person records themselves singing or playing a song that they made, are they disallowed from putting that video on youtube now?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So now evil is "If you do not like our terms then we will stop doing business with you."?
Killer. So I can go to Target and I should be able to set the price I want to pay for an item and if they do not sell it to me for that price then they are evil bastards? So fucking awesome!
The company's "Don't Be Evil" motto used to be about their own actions -- that you would want to frequent the business because they WERE a moral positive. They've pretty much abandoned that stance, which is why they get so much flak with mocking "evil" comments.
As an indie musician (not tied to a label at all), this blows my mind.
I myself, as well as numerous other friends, love to look up indie artists on YT before we hit a show, or when we're deciding who we're going to go see. I myself frequently research other bands I'm performing with (especially if they cover a tune that I also cover).
Musicians sign to labels so the label can handle a lot of the administrative work, as well as provide financing for production. If a label is unable to handle the time-sink of YT uploads (which is extremely important for the SEO of a band when done properly), that's one more thing the musician has to take care of by hand.
Increasing the overhead, or reducing the income to indie labels hurts the indie artists. That's what Google does when they force already well-squeezed labels (most indie labels don't pull down the huge chunks major labels, or even the major vanity labels do) to cut their limited profits more.
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
Sure.
But as we've seen many times over, exposure and promotion are important parts to a band's success.
You need a label, or someone who does what a label usually does. That's why the Indie world is a tough one.
Google thinks YouTube is too big to fail. That it's become so entrenched in culture that people will never leave and find another source of online videos or music or whatever.
They apparently have not learned the lesson of MySpace.
YouTube could easily become obsolete. Google is not the only online outfit. Maybe it would do them some good to really take it in the teeth once or twice.
I have no intention of ever using Google's music streaming service. I'm perfectly happy with Spotify. And I could be perfectly happy using a different video streaming website. YouTube's community is so broken anyway.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So now evil is "If you do not like our terms then we will stop doing business with you."?
It depends on who's saying this. If you have a lot of other options you can go somewhere else. If the company saying this controls the vast majority of the market and is effectively blacklisting you, that certainly isn't good.
Correct so far.
There are still alternatives to Google's service so it's not evil for them to say this
Incorrect. In antitrust law the question is whether a company is able to exercise "market power", which does not depend on the mere existence of alternatives, but the relative market power with respect to the alternatives.
but I think the feeling behind the GP's post is concern that Google is rapidly getting to the point where they will have too much information and control over markets.
Which is governed mainly by the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts. But the GP's actual point was about evil, which is a moral and ethical issue. The legal questions are related to morality and ethics, but they are not the same. GP's point is about whether Google has unambigously crossed the line where evil begins. It seems apparent to me that, in this case, Google has done exactly that.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
This is what happens wherever we have allowed too much to be aggregated into the hands of the few.
Umm. No. Music was segregated due to the demands of the Music industry. Not Google.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
So. The fact that what they are doing is not evil does not matter to you because Google!
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Ads? What ads? There are ads in YouTube?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Do Indie bands and labels even need Youtube? It seems like the big loser would be Youtube itself, both through a loss of freely submitted content, and through the terrible backlash that this is going to cause.
Little by little, Youtube posters have been jumping ship as the deal has gotten progressively worse. In the end, what good is a media service with no content? Or even worse, with only low-quality and corporate content?
What if an independent musician has their own website with their music videos? Will google deindex them from search results?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yes, this is the same distribution channel which Google develops and maintains - at significant expense I should point out, including the monitoring and servicing of DMCA take down notices. They use advertising to make money, which covers the cost of operations plus a profit. Youtube was purchased for $1.6 Billion 8 years ago and took more than 4 years to make a profit, pouring - conservatively - $8 Billion into the operation to get it profitable, and costing Google $4.5 Billion per year to run and maintain.
Remind me again how Google is providing no value in this equation?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Did you know that each one of those artists has a monopoly on their music? If they say you can't play it, you're fucked. There is no appeal, no court, no power that allows you to play their music unless they agree to it. It's all in the copyright law.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Of course we'll be forced in to driving cars (eventually. Though they might not be made by Google)
First the early adopters tout their safety, and how much money they save on insurance or whatever
Self driving cars become cool and fashionable, and it starts to become socially unacceptable to not have a self driving car. (due to the children, dontchaknow)
Then the insurance companies jack up the rates for non-self driving cars to the point where very few people can afford to not have a self driving car.
Finally some do-gooder congressman decides to make a name for himself by pushing a bill mandating that all new cars sold after 20XX be self driving. (again, because of safety and thinking about the children)
End game: Human controlled cars are relegated to Jay Leno's garage, like some external combustion powered steam car.
Youtube has the most eyeballs by far, and many "influencers" use it to discover new acts. This makes Google's policy an "Abuse of Dominance".
http://www.competitionbureau.g...
For anyone not smart enough to run things like adblock, yes.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Would a Google car sacrifice you for the sake of the many?
Google self-driving cars are presumably programmed to protect their passengers. So, when a traffic situation gets nasty, the car you're in will take all the defensive actions it can to keep you safe.
But what will robot cars be programmed to do when there’s lots of them on the roads, and they're networked with one another?
We know what we as individuals would like. My car should take as its Prime Directive: “Prevent my passengers from coming to harm.” But when the cars are networked, their Prime Directive well might be: “Minimize the amount of harm to humans overall.” And such a directive can lead a particular car to sacrifice its humans in order to keep the total carnage down. Asimov’s Three Rules of Robotics don't provide enough guidance when the robots are in constant and instantaneous contact and have fragile human beings inside of them.
It’s easy to imagine cases. For example, a human unexpectedly darts into a busy street. The self-driving cars around it rapidly communicate and algorithmically devise a plan that saves the pedestrian at the price of causing two cars to engage in a Force 1 fender-bender and three cars to endure Force 2 minor collisionsbut only if the car I happen to be in intentionally drives itself into a concrete piling, with a 95% chance of killing me. All other plans result in worse outcomes, where “worse” refers to some scale that weighs monetary damages, human injuries, and human deaths.
Or, a broken run-off pipe creates a dangerous pool of water on the highway during a flash storm. The self-driving cars agree that unless my car accelerates and rams into a concrete piling, all other configurations of joint actions result in a tractor trailing jack-knifing, causing lots of death and destruction. Not to mention The Angelic Children’s Choir school bus that would be in harm’s way. So, the swarm of robotic cars makes the right decision and intentionally kills me.
In short, the networking of robotic cars will change the basic moral principles that guide their behavior. Non-networked cars are presumably programmed to be morally-blind individualists trying to save their passengers without thinking about others, but networked cars will probably be programmed to support some form of utilitarianism that tries to minimize the collective damage. And that’s probably what we'd want. Isn’t it?
But one of the problems with utilitarianism is that there turns out to be little agreement about what counts as a value and how much it counts. Is saving a pedestrian more important than saving a passenger? Is it always right try to preserve human life, no matter how unlikely it is that the action will succeed and no matter how many other injuries it is likely to result in? Should the car act as if its passenger has seat-belted him/herself in because passengers should do so? Should the cars be more willing to sacrifice the geriatric than the young, on the grounds that the young have more of a lifespan to lose? And won't someone please think about the kids—those adorable choir kids?
https://medium.com/@dweinberger/would-a-google-car-sacrifice-you-for-the-sake-of-the-many-e9d6abcf6fed
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
They refused to agree to the revised terms which are unnegotiable, which indies are claiming to be unfavorable.
Twinstiq, game news
Those guidelines seem pretty [expletive] clear.
If you feel so strongly about it, then perhaps you could help explain these. First, on what basis does Vimeo determine whether a particular uploader is an "independent production company, artist, or non-profit"? Second, because Vimeo allows "No screen-captures of video games or gameplay videos, even if edited", on what service that isn't Vimeo or YouTube should one post a review of a video game?
As I read it, this has nothing directly to do with music videos hosted on YouTube - except that they won't let you host them there unless you also sign up to host your music streams on Google Play music - or whatever their Spotify competitor is. That's kind of veering toward evil-ish. Nobody has to host videos on YouTube, but it became ubiquitous by allowing anybody to host stuff there. Now it's requiring you to support another Google site as a condition. Not cool. If the other Google site is good enough, it'll get content on its own...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Why limit yourself to the auditory domain? Art has no limitation to just audio.
There are still alternatives to Google's service so it's not evil for them to say this Incorrect. In antitrust law the question is whether a company is able to exercise "market power", which does not depend on the mere existence of alternatives, but the relative market power with respect to the alternatives.
so really google should start making shittier products so there is a more equal playing field to choose from, is that what you're suggesting?
I admit I have underestimated google's market share. Of course antitrust applies here.
there are a zillion other video services begging to be considered that really are just as good technically... they obviously lack the huge library of cat videos that youtube has amassed. However, a specialty music site might be a better fit for the independent artists.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
There are still alternatives to Google's service so it's not evil for them to say this
Incorrect. In antitrust law the question is whether a company is able to exercise "market power", which does not depend on the mere existence of alternatives, but the relative market power with respect to the alternatives.
so really google should start making shittier products so there is a more equal playing field to choose from, is that what you're suggesting?
Please do not put words in my mouth. I suggested that Google has crossed the line to the evil side by its action in this matter, which has moral and ethical implications. I noted that the GP meant to draw attention to those. I further noted that there are also legal implications. The sticky legal issue is abuse of market power, not market power per se, provided of course that said market power is amassed through legal means.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Ayn Rand was a prophet!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPSCmDc0uYY
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I do not think Apple is evil. I think Apple users are stupid. :)
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
And... so? None of this will happen until self-driving cars are in fact the safer alternative. At which point, great. Since when do you get to endanger others because you think it's fun?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Good grief, I have already seen posters on slashdot saying that people should be forced into self-driving cars as soon as they are available. Are you trying to say that politicians and bureaucrats will not encourage such sentiments so that they can control where we go?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
At which point, great, you will only be able to travel to those places which your betters determine that it will be good for you to travel (primarily so that you do not pollute the places they want to be by your presence).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Freedom and volition entail some risk.
If we let it get out of hand, this bubble-wrap mentality will be the worst thing that's ever happened to mankind.
Well...what would actually happen years and years before the level of AI that is required for prime directives, is that a slight error in the *very detailed* map used for navigation - in combination with an unexpected external factor, will cause a car to happily run over half a school class without even noticing.
And it will be so far from human reasoning and performance that self driving cars will be banned.
At which point, great, you will only be able to travel to those places which your betters determine that it will be good for you to travel (primarily so that you do not pollute the places they want to be by your presence).
What a load of crap. They could decide where you can and can't go right now, that has absolutely nothing at all to do with which technology is steering the car. Get off the lawn, your stupid is killing the grass.
These arguments are so stupid, and made by the people ready to kill me in traffic because they think their slit-second decisions are going to be better than those of traffic engineers.
You NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER are supposed to swerve. You're supposed to keep enough distance in front of you that you can stop safely, and if there is a problem or accident, maintain your lane while stopping!
There is NEVER a situation in traffic where you choose between different people's lives. Figure out which lane you're in, maintain your lane, follow the traffic rules. That is what you're supposed to do already now! That is exactly what a self-driving car will do a much better job than you at.
Not only do people come up with absurd answers to this supposed moral dillema, they fail to see that simply presenting it as a choice is already proving failure to understand the moral issues. Endangering people's lives by violating accepted rules isn't just an ethical failing, it is morally clear; evil.
I can, have and will again spend large amounts of money for pieces of tech that I think are worth it. The hardware on an iPhone is not worth the price. The added "benefit" of the walled garden to protect me from settings and the scary abilities of customization are of no worth to me.
On the other hand the technologically lazy and those who happen to like the "Dumping shortcuts on screens" usability of iOS might find some use in it.
One would have to be pretty walled in to think that iPhone users are the only ones dropping prodigious amounts of money on high end phones. HTC One M8 $750, Samsung S5 $599.00, Note 3 $749.00, The top of the line iPhone 5s is only $100 more than the Note 3 or the M8. If I am going to spend $750 do you think I would get a phone I do not want to save $100? Really? This is not about money. It is about what you get for it. For $100 more you get a smaller screen with the Apple (You dont have to think to be safe) protection plan that you pay extra for in cash and also have to pay for in a lack of customization. Not worth it to me.
Of course now that you realize that the "iPhones are the successful peoples phone" and all who do not like it can not afford one statement holds no water, What will you do to continue to feel special?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Non-paywalled link to original FT story
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0...
TL;DR version:
Google is removing them *from the premium streaming platform*, not from YouTube entirely, unless they agree to a specific streaming royalty structure AND agree to some changes to how their free content is handled as well. The objection is primarily to the free content rules, which artists, who are mostly represented by the rights agency Merlin, believe will undercut sales of their music. The refusal to sign away the rights on their free content mean they are being delisted from Google's premium streaming service, which is only a loss for them if that service takes off, and their content isn't their to receive stream royalties.
FTFY
(For the record, I don't think all classes of Apple users are stupid. The MacBook Air has the highest power-to-weight ratio of any machine that runs Unix, so it's a rational choice for many people. No, I don't own one.)
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
10 years ago I was paranoid because I said the Government agencies were recording everything you do. Now it is common knowledge. So am I paranoid or are you nieve?
Yes. Nieve Campbell.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If the map in your self-driving car says that there is no such address as 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC, your self-driving car will not be able to go there. It is a lot easier to limit people in that fashion than any method they can use today.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If you're a production company, you should have incorporation documents that you could use [etc]
Thank you. With that having been clarified, now my concern shifts to where "showcas[ing] your creative work" ends and "upload[ing] videos with a commercial intent" begins.
How you post a review of a video game is therefore not their problem.
I fully agree with you that it is not Vimeo's problem. But it is the problem of anyone who suggests Vimeo as an example of a full replacement for YouTube.
I don't understand how asking what alternatives people use automatically equals "feeling entitled".
Its well known that services like Spotify don't make much money. They charge the cost of a CD a month, which is way more than I used to spend on CDs. Yet, everyone in the chain is struggling.
http://www.businessweek.com/ar...:
" Roger Entner of Recon Analytics says streaming music services should be sustainable when they reach 10 million paying users. "
I am not sure how big the streaming market will become, but 10 million users just to break even sounds like a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now only two or three streaming services are actually profitable.
Those 2 or 3 companies will wield all the power and eventually re-negotiate deals that are horrid for the music industry.
I worry that the (indie) labels are just being short sited. They should welcome several players in the streaming market and charge them a reasonable rate. That's the best way they can ensure the streaming music industry is alive and healthy.
No.
What part of "Pay for the service your ilk required us to set up or get out is evil?
I wish it were evil. Because until the independents stand up against the RIAA and the Labels I want evil done to them.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Ads? What ads? There are ads in YouTube?
Yes, I see them periodically on Android when I haven't got the Xposed Framework loaded (for the youtube ad blocker) and I actually happen to view a "premium" video.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That is how I read it too. Basically google is trying to use Youtube to leverage it's way into the audio streaming market. This in itself isn't evil, but the means they're using (brute force) is a bit shitty and the contracts they offer are also (allegedly - I haven't read one) shitty. That would be evil, or at least not good.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
...with black jack...and hookers. Etc.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I think it's more along the lines of: "Pay for a membership to our Legitimate Businessman's Social Club, or we'll run you out of town."
Monopoly is not a problem per se, and there's plenty of entities that have a monopoly. The issue is when they use the power of monopoly in one area to gain an unfair advantage in another area where they have no monopoly.
Is it just a complete refusal or inability to see the facts.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
And... so? None of this will happen until self-driving cars are in fact the safer alternative. At which point, great. Since when do you get to endanger others because you think it's fun?
Afraid I'll get a woosh for this, but I'll respond...
As I understand it, they already are safer. Thus far, no moving violations and no accidents (to my knowledge). Google's car was in an accident while it was being manually driven. Google is touting 700,000+ accident-free miles now.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Alternatives? Not really.. And the whole idea that if you post some music you've made, and it gets piulled down because you haven't "signed up".. I have some friends that just do it for fun.. And post it upo on YT with essentially no accompanying video.. And what about people that post album cuts with a picture of the LP? I think that THIS is the real target...
Alternatives? Not really.. And the whole idea that if you post some music you've made, and it gets piulled down because you haven't "signed up".. I have some friends that just do it for fun.. And post it upo on YT with essentially no accompanying video.. And what about people that post album cuts with a picture of the LP? I think that THIS is the real target...
An additional thought.. how do they decide what's a "music video"? I think this is wasy more serious than people are realizing... What about an expose of corruption with a "music score"? Is THIS classed as a "Music Video"? BAsically, they can apply this rule to wipe out every single bit of free speech... Somebody better inform the EFF.. please!
Cool story, bro.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
By providing terms of service that you agree to use their service or you don't get the service.
You're not forced, go with another provider or make your own.
YouTube isn't a public market, it's a service.
Cool story, bro.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
It's fine that you're not interested in the iPhone. Leave it at that. Don't badmouth people who have their own reasons for liking them. It's as stupid as thinking that only unsuccessful people use Android.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Before I download stuff to my phone I check the number of downloads, publisher and permissions requested. Then I make my decision. I am safe on Android. Now if I did not want to go through all that and still be relatively safe I could pay extra for the Apple experience and be mostly safe downloading what ever was available.
Now if you want to talk about the parent to the post I was replying to then yes. I in the post you are not replying to (maybe Apple has decided this was the post you wanted) I did make the statement that I think Apple users are stupid. Let me amend that ... Apple users come in three flavors. the Stupid, the Vain, the Lazy and those 8 people that actually think that dumping every app installed onto a screen is the awesome UI.
The phone is more expensive, smaller screen, less power, offers almost no customization and has just lately come around to the thinking that maybe that screen real estate can be used for something other than an icon dumping ground.
What you get for making those trade offs is that "It just works" except for when it does not and an App store you do not have to think in. For some it may be a trade off that is worth it. For most it is just laziness or an inability to see the limits put on you.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
We don't know how many times the driver in the cars have had to intervene to prevent an accident, do we?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
You can't drive on the road now without having a drivers license and insurance. You may call that a bubblewrap mentality that curtains your freedom and volition. You're free to have that opinion, I just want to be able to get from point a to point b without some idiot slamming into me. Reasonable restrictions to that end are fine by me.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
We don't know how many times the driver in the cars have had to intervene to prevent an accident, do we?
No, but do you know how many (minor, major, and fatal) collisions there are per mile driven?
I know there are around 2 fatalities per 100m miles driven, but I can't find rates for minor and major accidents. I suspect the vast majority of collisions are non-fatal, so a human driver probably has good odds of being in a collision by 700k.
Do you have any evidence that self-driving cars are unsafe, or that human intervention has been necessary?
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Do you have any evidence that self-driving cars are unsafe, or that human intervention has been necessary?
None at all, that's my only point. I'm extremely optimistic that automated cars will be safer than human drivers within the decade if they aren't already. It's not a very high bar to attain, really.
Their record so far is excellent, but the tests are still being done with professional drivers behind the wheel. We don't know what sort of weather conditions the cars have had to deal with, or how much the drivers have needed to intervene. Have they gone out in thunderstorms and blizzards and still have never needed driver intervention? It's possible, I don't know.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Um, I'm not stupid, I'm not vain, and I'm not all that lazy. Nor do I think that dumping every app onto the screen is awesome (it is usable, though).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes