Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Will 'Frustrate' Some Users With Ads So They Pay for Music (bloomberg.com)

YouTube will increase the number of ads that some users see between music videos, part of a strategy to convince more of its billion-plus viewers to pay for a forthcoming subscription music service from the Google-owned video site. Bloomberg: People who treat YouTube like a music service, those passively listening for long periods of time, will encounter more ads, according to Lyor Cohen, the company's global head of music. "You're not going to be happy after you are jamming 'Stairway to Heaven' and you get an ad right after that," Cohen said in an interview at the South by Southwest music festival. Cohen is trying to prove that YouTube is committed to making people pay for music and silence the "noise" about his company's purported harm to the recording industry. The labels companies have long criticized YouTube for hosting videos that violate copyrights, and not paying artists and record companies enough.

191 comments

  1. and the logical followup by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    adblockers will become more adept at blocking Youtube ads not just in this context, but in every context.

    if DRM has taught us anything its that aggravating someone is the worst way to get them to participate in a market. Give me a link to the artist and I'd likely be far more interested in donating cash for certain songs in a live stream.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:and the logical followup by Voyager529 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      if DRM has taught us anything its that aggravating someone is the worst way to get them to participate in a market.

      Well, to be fair, the argument against DRM had to do with the fact that it affects users who have already directly paid for the content. People streaming on Youtube haven't paid for the content, and thus must pay with some other means.

      Youtube streaming is largely for convenience of getting to a single song easily; whether it would result in users paying for the tracks, paying for Spotify Premium or similar, or 'doing without' would accomplish the labels' goals...but the bigger concern I have is whether we'll see a renaissance in a Limewire-like service, which helps no one.

    2. Re: and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this isnt anything really.

      most of the listening is international.

      nobody is paying for those ads, the listener has no credit card.

    3. Re:and the logical followup by gnick · · Score: 2

      Youtube streaming is largely for convenience of getting to a single song easily; whether it would result in users paying for the tracks...

      That's what I go there for. Heard Limp Biskit's 'Behind Blue Eyes' on the way home yesterday and had to hear The Who when I got home. If Youtube ceases to be a convenient way to listen to indiviual songs, I'l pony up the extra $5/mo to upgrade from Pandora Plus to Premium.

      ...but the bigger concern I have is whether we'll see a renaissance in a Limewire-like service, which helps no one.

      If it helps no one, it won't come back. Limewire helped me a bunch back when I was a user.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:and the logical followup by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      1. Just as Adblockers will become more adept, companies are more adept at working around them.
      2. DRM made it possible for large labels to actually post their media on such streaming services. Companies are protective of their IP, and are not apt to let it flow free. DRM allowed people to have access to the music, with good enough protections.
      3. Do you have any data that the artist will make more money from donations vs royalty payments? Also will you continue to pay the artist for your favorite song over the next 20 years? Or will that one song that you loved so much be the end of that artist. Because after getting paid for that song, they will no longer have an income because their other songs are not so popular. Also will you be paying for all the artists you enjoy? Or just a few of your favorites?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:and the logical followup by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      I have to imagine that YouTube is going to eventually follow in the footsteps of some other video sites and begin injecting ads directly into the video stream in real time at the encoder as it streams out to the users. That would make ad blocking virtually impossible.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    6. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if DRM has taught us anything its that aggravating someone is the worst way to get them to participate in a market.

      Well, to be fair, the argument against DRM had to do with the fact that it affects users who have already directly paid for the content. People streaming on Youtube haven't paid for the content, and thus must pay with some other means.

      Youtube streaming is largely for convenience of getting to a single song easily; whether it would result in users paying for the tracks, paying for Spotify Premium or similar, or 'doing without' would accomplish the labels' goals...but the bigger concern I have is whether we'll see a renaissance in a Limewire-like service, which helps no one.

      Use a radio streamer service, available in any decent Linux distro. Lots of non-stop music of all kinds.

    7. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest argument against advertisers is that they continue to refuse to be responsible for their delivery platforms and regular deliver malware to users.

    8. Re:and the logical followup by rpresser · · Score: 1

      if DRM has taught us anything its that aggravating someone is the worst way to get them to participate in a market.

      Well, to be fair, the argument against DRM had to do with the fact that it affects users who have already directly paid for the content. People streaming on Youtube haven't paid for the content, and thus must pay with some other means.

      Youtube streaming is largely for convenience of getting to a single song easily; whether it would result in users paying for the tracks, paying for Spotify Premium or similar, or 'doing without' would accomplish the labels' goals...but the bigger concern I have is whether we'll see a renaissance in a Limewire-like service, which helps no one.

      Use a radio streamer service, available in any decent Linux distro. Lots of non-stop music of all kinds.

      You don't know how to read, do you?

      Youtube is for finding the single song that you want right now easily. Non-stop streaming is radio, whether curated or random.

    9. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, sorry to hijack your FP, but this is probably DRM-related and I couldn't find an answer anywhere.

      Tried saving a local copy of a youtube video the other day, discovered flashgot suddenly failed to find media sources on *any* youtube video, not just the ones you'd expect to have copy protection on.
      The add-on seems to work on other sites so I'm now wondering if youtube changed something in the last week or so, or if I'm the only one having this problem.

    10. Re:and the logical followup by rpresser · · Score: 2

      Also will you continue to pay the artist for your favorite song over the next 20 years?

      Why should I pay for a song more than once? Royalties continue over years because the streaming service / radio station has to pay for each use. Are you saying people shouldn't be able to play a song they bought over and over? That won't fly.

      Or will that one song that you loved so much be the end of that artist. Because after getting paid for that song, they will no longer have an income because their other songs are not so popular.

      Why should I pay someone for songs I hate and will never listen to voluntarily?

      Also will you be paying for all the artists you enjoy? Or just a few of your favorites?

      It's my wallet, isn't it? Each payment is my decision; if I decide not to pay and thereby go without some music that I might have enjoyed, that's my decision to make.

    11. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      youtube-dl
      Thats all.

    12. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..and those subscriptions will be canceled. I won't pay for ads. I have zero tolerance for time wasting bullshit when I pay for premium service.

    13. Re:and the logical followup by Monster_user · · Score: 1

      Video streaming is apparently a costly medium, and would likely have few options for malware delivery. Most streamers are passive, not active users. Ads which require interaction are a nuisance to a majority of users, which would mean low engagement and smaller numbers infected.

      Furthermore, if there was an incident of malware which could be traced back to ads on Youtube, there would be a change to prevent such ads in the future. Interactive streaming ads are a relatively new and niche medium at the moment and can be changed or killed off easily with minimal damage to the cashflow.

      So in this case I would say the typical argument against advertisements on the internet does not apply to YouTube.

    14. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if DRM has taught us anything its that aggravating someone is the worst way to get them to participate in a market.

      If history has taught us anything it's that people are incapable of learning from past experiences, especially those in marketing.

    15. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since FM radio is now a total waste of time, YouTube is the best free advertising that the music industry could have! Its one of the few remaining ways to find music these days. The RIAA/MPAA/publishers are gonna have to learn that people are not gonna pay for a song every time they listen to it, not gonna pay for a movie or tv show every time they watch it, not gonna pay for a book or ebook every time that they read it! I know that is what these entities dream about, but its NEVER gonna happen! I don'r mind paying for a copy of a song, TV show, movie, book or ebook once, but I am not going to keep paying for it after I have paid the first time!! We buy to own our copy, but the RIAA/MPAA/Publishers are trying to "rent" us that copy, and have us keep paying rent on it every time we listen to it, watch it, or read it!!! Its this rent-seeking attitude of the RIAA/MPAA/Publishers, outrageously high prices, and their use of DRM that only harms legitimate purchasers that drives copyright infringement!

    16. Re:and the logical followup by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      This is the ongoing cat-and-mouse game that Youtube plays with video downloaders. Just like virus/anti-virus one-upmanship, one side improves their tools, then the other must compensate with new and better tools on their side.

      Wait a week and try the latest version of the video downloader tool once they update it.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    17. Re:and the logical followup by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2

      > 3. Do you have any data that the artist will make
      > more money from donations vs royalty payments?

      It's not "data", per se. But take your pick of Steve Albini or Courtney Love, depending on how old you are, and read either of their essays about music industry royalties and the accounting shenanigans behind them. The tl;dr of it is that the royalties payments for the music are, and always have been, peanuts. And the internet did nothing to change that. If you go to their concert, and buy a $2 vinyl sticker with the band's logo from the merch table, you've given the band/artist more more money than if you bought their entire CD catalog. The album money goes nearly entirely to the RIAA parasites.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    18. Re:and the logical followup by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Um, what subscriptions? EvilSS is suggesting that *nonsubscribers" might receive injected ads.

    19. Re:and the logical followup by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      could also just use audacity and record the audio that way.

      It's tedious, and you have to copy in real time -- but here we are.

    20. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3. Do you have any data that the artist will make more money from donations vs royalty payments? Also will you continue to pay the artist for your favorite song over the next 20 years? Or will that one song that you loved so much be the end of that artist. Because after getting paid for that song, they will no longer have an income because their other songs are not so popular. Also will you be paying for all the artists you enjoy? Or just a few of your favorites?

      That is the exact attitude that makes most people not choose to buy your stuff and give you a single cent, and the rest of the people to have zero guilt (and zero moral conflicts IMHO) with pirating your stuff while also going out of their way to ensure no one else sends you a single cent.

      Do you have any data that the artist will make more money from donations vs royalty payments?

      Only my own, which you may or may not count as valid, but I'll detail it anyway.

      I purchase no CDs of music or DVDs/BDs of movies any longer. I don't watch broadcast TV and see their ads any longer. You're guaranteed to get zero dollars out of me that way.

      However I spend $310/month on Patreon supporting 14 artists I do watch - with an ad blocker mind you.
      The lowest pledge I have is $10 and only one of those for a every-other-month 20 minute show. The rest are at a minimum $20

      Also will you continue to pay the artist for your favorite song over the next 20 years?

      Of course not. If you refuse to sell your package of song(s) such that I am allowed to listen to each song more than once, then that artist can go to hell and die broke.
      Selling a song to be listened to multiple times is how music has worked for over a hundred years.
      You are just being greedy now.

      Or will that one song that you loved so much be the end of that artist. Because after getting paid for that song, they will no longer have an income because their other songs are not so popular.

      Well that depends. If that is the last song that artist creates, then yes, that artist choose to stop getting income from music, and that's his or her right.

      If they keep making songs then there is actually a chance above 0% that I may continue to like them, in which case I will continue to buy them.

      It's no different from your job or mine. I go to work, do what is required of me, and get paid for it.
      It should be obvious if I choose to stop going into work, that they will stop paying me. You should have learned this by now and I'm shocked that you think it works otherwise.

      Also will you be paying for all the artists you enjoy? Or just a few of your favorites?

      All, but we've already established that.

    21. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah. Youtube is for finding crappy covers of popular songs.

    22. Re:and the logical followup by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Used music stores are great for low cost CDs you can rip, put away, and often never touch again unless you need to re-rip for whatever reason

    23. Re:and the logical followup by Slugster · · Score: 1

      I may be remembering wrong here, but,,,,,

      A looooong time ago, They Might Be Giants did a Slashdot interview... And someone asked if it was better to buy the CD or to download the album off of whatever platform it was on at the time.
      They responded that they wanted people to buy the actual CD because they got paid 80 cents if you bought the CD, but only 10 cents if you bought the downloaded album.

      Why there was such a big royalty difference--especially when the download cost the customer about the same as the CD, but had almost no associated production/distribution costs--the record company did not offer to explain.

    24. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The music labels claim that nobody will "do without". They assert that the number of unpayed plays or downloads times the retail price is the amount of revenue they're losing. But I stopped listening to the big labels' music years ago, and mainly listen to punk, electroswing, ambient, and drum n bass music that the big labels don't even have.

    25. Re:and the logical followup by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      I would be fairly surprised if they're getting $0.80 per CD; unless perhaps it's at the merchandise table at one of their concerts. But even so, when purchased in bulk, that $2 sticker I mentioned costs somewhere between $0.05 and $0.25 to print, depending on the size of the run, it's dimensions, and how many colors of ink the design needs. So that $1.75-$1.95 still works out better than a $0.80 CD sale. And if the $0.10 figure is more accurate, then the sticker give the band more money than their entire catalog, unless they are exceptionally prolific anyway.

      For a point of reference, when I knew local bands and DJs, and how they promoted themselves, nearly everyone's go to vendor was The Sticker Guy. And TSG is low-volume/high-price compared to what a big name act like TMBG could command.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    26. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A single 45 second advertisement I can accept before a video on YouTube bit not before every video nor these seemingly recent double ad bundles before every video at least today.

    27. Re: and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean something like I heart Radio, which just broadcasts what is playing on an FM station?

      Yes, the same 15 songs over and over and over....

    28. Re:and the logical followup by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      On my PC, adblock completely blocks any and all youtube ads already. However on my Roku watching youtube on a larger tv, I don't have a good solution. I added some blacklists to my router but it's not so effective. So one of these days I'll find a better blacklist.

    29. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, just get YouTube Red and call it a day.

      Yes, they are doing slimy things to try to push you in that direction. No, that's not OK. But it also doesn't change the fact that, given its current price point, Red is a good deal.

    30. Re:and the logical followup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adblocker rulez :)

    31. Re:and the logical followup by stooo · · Score: 1

      >> That would make ad blocking virtually impossible.

      Nope.
      That would make Youtube non-useable.
      OR
      That would lead to innovation in the adblocking technology.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    32. Re:and the logical followup by stooo · · Score: 1

      >> Seriously, just get YouTube Red and call it a day.
      Nope.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    33. Re:and the logical followup by stooo · · Score: 1

      If you use only Youtube with your TV, use a whitelist instead.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    34. Re:and the logical followup by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Since when are artists getting royalties from their stuff being played over any media? (radio or youtube) Last I heard, ASCAP collects the money and labels get some of it, but artists are still waiting for that first royalty check.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  2. Ads on YouTube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Advertising on YouTube is a really terrible idea. I hope they never decide to put ads on it. That would ruin the site.

    1. Re:Ads on YouTube? by jonsmirl · · Score: 3

      Google Music used to have so many ads that it was unusable. They even ran ads saying "Don't like the ads! Subscribe for advertisement free music!". After I listened to that for a day, I deleted the app and did not try it again for two years. A few months ago I gave it try during an outage on another music service and the obnoxious ads were gone. So now I am using it again for background music. My new complaint -- the channel playlists are way, way too short before they endlessly repeat the same songs over and over. When you finish the playlist on a channel, why can't it just randomly play similar songs instead of looping the same playlist? Randomly playing songs has a very low royalty compared to on-demand.

      The lesson here -- obnoxious ads work to drive your customers away. But they may be more likely to go to a competitor than your own pay service.

    2. Re: Ads on YouTube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoeYouTube is committed to making people pay for musicâ

      Funny, isnâ(TM)t it? They didnâ(TM)t have this attitude when the RIAA wanted a cut. Now Google is getting into the business and theyâ(TM)ve decided to suddenly go all ethical. ...sssssuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrreeeeee.

    3. Re:Ads on YouTube? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I know what the first thing they will search for on YouTube is too.

      https://www.youtube.com/result...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Ads on YouTube? by Headw1nd · · Score: 2

      If you weren't purchasing anything from them, how do you consider yourself a customer?

    5. Re:Ads on YouTube? by jonsmirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are purchasing plenty from Google -- you pay with your personal data.

    6. Re:Ads on YouTube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are only donating patrons customers of a church?

    7. Re:Ads on YouTube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If youtube wants more customers it should consider potentials like him as well.

    8. Re:Ads on YouTube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obnoxious ads work to drive your customers away.

      When the company rep says ``You're not going to be happy'' then why exactly should we even go to that website? If anything, they should figure out a way to make money while keeping the most people happy---like their search: better search, more people happy, more revenue for them... making people miserable enough so that they pay you ... that's just... amm... perhaps he should go work in the health industry? :-)

    9. Re:Ads on YouTube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you weren't purchasing anything from them, how do you consider yourself a customer?

      Ad views (or in this case 'ad listens') require customers so they can get ad revenue.

    10. Re:Ads on YouTube? by novakyu · · Score: 1

      You joke, but ads on Pandora is what ruined the service for me. The worst ones are ads with music/sound qualities that are just completely different in character from the music I was listening to (like a loud car ad in the middle of a classical station).

    11. Re: Ads on YouTube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here to say this.

      He is actively sabotaging the site, then saying "you won't like it"

      Ok well you won't like when people no longer visit your site for music.

    12. Re:Ads on YouTube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You "hope they don't put on ads"? YouTube has had ads for years, including in the middle of videos. It increased the number of ads a few months ago to get people to buy YouTube Red or YouTube TC. Now it wants to increase them again.

    13. Re:Ads on YouTube? by stooo · · Score: 1

      Nope.
      A church has no such thing as "customers".
      What you describe is probably not a church.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    14. Re:Ads on YouTube? by stooo · · Score: 1

      That's not the case.
      A big chunk of the people today navigate the Internet ad-free. You should try.
      And that's proven to be good for your mental health, for your bandwidth, and for your IT security.

      --
      aaaaaaa
  3. Adgaurd and Adblock Plus by DatbeDank · · Score: 0

    Say hello to my little ad removing friends. Haven't seen an ad on YouTube for quite awhile.

    1. Re:Adgaurd and Adblock Plus by nospam007 · · Score: 0

      "Say hello to my little ad removing friends. Haven't seen an ad on YouTube for quite awhile."

      If you had read even the fucking summary you'd know that this is for music _listeners_ they will get audible ads.

    2. Re:Adgaurd and Adblock Plus by robinsonne · · Score: 1

      I don't see anywhere in the summary or the article (such as it is) about them being "audible" ads, just that ads will become more frequent.

      I'd say that parent post was correct, adblock and carry on.

    3. Re:Adgaurd and Adblock Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how will those be more difficult to block than the current ones?

    4. Re:Adgaurd and Adblock Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you had understood the summary and anything at all about advertising and blocking then you wouldn't have made such a stupidly ridiculous post.

    5. Re:Adgaurd and Adblock Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had read even the fucking summary you'd know that this is for music _listeners_ they will get audible ads.

      It's likely the ads will be in the form of un-skippable ads at the start of a video as we've seen in the past, only with longer and longer ads the more music videos that are seen in a single session.

      I wrote a script that monitors the "you can skip this advertisement in..." applet and mutes the sound automatically until the ad ends.

      GG YT

    6. Re:Adgaurd and Adblock Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You adblocked that part of the content you doofus

    7. Re: Adgaurd and Adblock Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen a nonskippable ad on YouTube in tears since I installed ad block plus. Yes, it blocks those video ads on YouTube.

    8. Re:Adgaurd and Adblock Plus by vivian · · Score: 1

      Audible ads wouldn't be so bad, and I could even see how they might be fair enough considering I'm getting to listen to music for free - but if there's one thing that pisses me off about them, its that the volume level is substantially louder than the music you are listening to.
      This is what really pisses me off about ads more than anything else - same for TV ads too.

      I shouldn't have to reach for the remote control to turn down the fucking volume for fear of going deaf every time an add break comes on.

    9. Re:Adgaurd and Adblock Plus by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

      With a standard ad-blocker (others are mentioning adblock plus, but I prefer ublock) you can block all ads on Youtube, unless they're actually part of the video.
      No ads before videos, no ads afterwards, no audio ads, no video ads, no banners. None.

    10. Re:Adgaurd and Adblock Plus by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      You know there are adblockers that just remove the youtube ads completely right?

  4. Alternative Sources by fussy_radical · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Alternatively: YouTube to frustrate users to use a different source for their music.

    1. Re:Alternative Sources by gnick · · Score: 2

      ...use a different source for their music.

      Bearshare is great, but Limewire's what the pros use.

      I'm at the $5/mo Pandora level. Unlimited skips and no ads. I might have to pony up the extra $5 for premium so I can pick the song like I do on Youtube.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Alternative Sources by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      YouTube is a great place to find interesting material to youtube-dl and watch it locally. It ceased to be useful for any other purpose since Google bought it screwed with the comment system. I predict intentionally irritating users further is only gonna backfire on them.

  5. Frustrating users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a sure way to get them to go elsewhere.

  6. youtube sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever listen to music on youtube? Might as well be AM radio.

    1. Re:youtube sucks by mccalli · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a person with some music up on youtube - yes. You have to upload as HD video, otherwise it goes to...err...96kbps? Something like that. Uploading as HD video gets you 192kbps audio, so even though it's literally just a static picture of the album cover all my stuff is uploaded as HD.

  7. Download them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I download all youtube unless I am just wandering around on youtube checking out new stuff. I download about 20 things a day from youtube, typically to mp3 formate as I don't care about the video aspect. I do it all with a free downloader online. It works great and I can load them up on my phone and listen all day without one commercial.

    1. Re:Download them by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure it's impossible for Google to do anything about that.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Download them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure it's impossible for Google to do anything about that.

      In fact it is.

      If then can present the audio to you on your device, you can store it.

      Just like any other electronic method of transferring anything ever.

  8. Light vs Sound by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

    Listening to MUSIC (sound) on a site dedicated to VIDEO (light).
    This continues to boggle me that people do this.
    Don't they know that the sound quality is a lot worse.

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    1. Re:Light vs Sound by bobbutts · · Score: 1

      I was putting together a playlist and in some cases it was the only place I could find certain songs. The sound quality varies widely by song and can be anywhere from awful to ok.

    2. Re:Light vs Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't like to change what they are accustomed to. And as for audio quality, if you encode it right it will be high enough for most people. Remember, audiophiles are a very small minority.

    3. Re:Light vs Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listening to MUSIC (sound) on a site dedicated to VIDEO (light).

      It's free and a lot of music "videos" have just a static image for the video track so data caps aren't really a problem.

      This continues to boggle me that people do this.

      Your lack of imagination is your problem alone.

      Don't they know that the sound quality is a lot worse.

      Yes, but given that I usually do this in the car it doesn't really matter. Handily, when I use the steering wheel controls the YT app will skip ads as soon as they load.

    4. Re:Light vs Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the company I work for blocked Pandora (presumably to reduce network load), I switched to YouTube. Blocking Pandora was pretty short lived.

    5. Re:Light vs Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol you assume that most listeners are audiophiles. you think those ear buds have sonic quality? lowest common denominator, man. most people cant tell the diff and definitely dont care.

    6. Re:Light vs Sound by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Most people don't give a rats ass about the sound quality. People have been listening to low bit rate MP3's for decades now. Most people are going to care about a few things when listening to music online; cost, convenience, and availability.

      The cost for listening on youtube is free, or as close as you're likely to ever get.

      The convenience is pretty good. When you find a video/song you like, it takes two clicks to add it to a playlist. There is a robust search feature to help you find anything you could ever want. And youtube is always keeping track of what you've accessed recently and recommending more stuff you might like.

      Everything is on youtube at some point. Only the most aggressively protected stuff is going to be kept off the site for long. As soon as the lawyers stop submitting take down notices whatever it is will likely pop right up.

    7. Re:Light vs Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listening to MUSIC (sound) on a site dedicated to VIDEO (light).
      This continues to boggle me that people do this.

      Back in the day, channels like MTV made their money by showing these odd things which combined VIDEO and MUSIC. I believe they were called music videos.

      People would either sit and watch them, or use it like a music station.

      I have personally witnessed this phenomenon, and can confirm that similar things exist in YouTube. I also know that artists put up their official music video to be viewed.

      Don't they know that the sound quality is a lot worse.

      Having seen and confirmed the existence of full HD instances of video on YouTube, my guess would be the audio is sufficient for most listeners.

      To most people, they simply don't care that much.

    8. Re:Light vs Sound by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

      For sound quality, I know most don't care, but how can they stand listening to something that is an equivalent to a 128 encoded MP3.
      Are they not bother by the hiss and crackles. They are completely obvious in most cases.

      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    9. Re: Light vs Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't pay a dime, if you subscribe with prime.

    10. Re:Light vs Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free MP3s with a little hiss and crackle?
      Back in the day we paid good money for cassette tapes.

    11. Re: Light vs Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah. I remember having to unwind tape from the pinch roller countless numbers of time whenever the take up reel in the cassette jammed for some reason (usually a shitty/damaged shell).

      And then I got the pleasure of hearing "crumples" and drop-outs whenever that now damaged section of tape was played.

      Sometimes when things got really screwed up, the tape itself would twist, and I would hear the wrong side playing backwards and muffled.

      At least I never had to untangle an .MP3

  9. think of the advertisers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the advertisers will be happy to pay YT for the privilege of their ad being used to 'frustrate' someone?

    1. Re:think of the advertisers by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The ad industry is used to paying for the privilege to piss people off, there's nothing new here.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Can Anyone Explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why YouTube gets a free pass on copyright infringement? How much you want to bet if I hosted a bunch of copyrighted music videos other users uploaded on my site which i then monetized by ads i would be in jail right now? Let's call this service "The Pirate Tube".

    1. Re:Can Anyone Explain by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Companies are afraid of making Google angry because they hold the gateway to most of the Internet for most consumers.

    2. Re:Can Anyone Explain by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      Because they bent over backwards to help the music industry monetize or restrict their music in other people's videos, and the music industry knows how important YouTube is to them financially these these days.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    3. Re:Can Anyone Explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why YouTube gets a free pass on copyright infringement? How much you want to bet if I hosted a bunch of copyrighted music videos other users uploaded on my site which i then monetized by ads i would be in jail right now? Let's call this service "The Pirate Tube".

      What free pass?

      The labels companies have long criticized YouTube for hosting videos that violate copyrights, and not paying artists and record companies enough.

      Emphasis mine. They are being paid. They just want more. They always want more, no matter how much they get.

    4. Re: Can Anyone Explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because yer an idjit.

  11. Ads on the internet?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and even on youtube?! Never seen one for at least 5 years....

  12. “Stairway to Heaven”? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

    What age group is YouTube after here, exactly? Are they trying to get a slice of that lucrative Social Security market?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:“Stairway to Heaven”? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      My guess is they're trying the market segment that cannot google "Youtube ad blocker".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:“Stairway to Heaven”? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that people never listen to music written before they were born? Seriously? I listen to classical music all the time, and I am pretty sure I'm not THAT old. My guess is that everybody who has heard a Beethoven symphony in the last few years was not alive when it was written.

      "Stairway to Heaven" came out the year I graduated from high school. It's still better than a lot of the crap out there now.

  13. Weird strategy by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've never understood this strategy, exactly. I mean, I know why Google/YouTube is doing it, but what's in it for the advertisers?

    Flooding the system with ads that are specifically meant to drive people to ad-free subscriptions means you're removing all the people that have the money to pay for stuff AND who can't tolerate ignoring ads. What you're left with is either people that don't have the money, or are so good at ignoring ads they don't care.

    (I know that ads work on a semi-conscious level; even someone that really claims not to be affected can't help but be to some extent. Still, I don't see it as a good value for advertisers.)

    1. Re:Weird strategy by tomhath · · Score: 1

      I've never understood this strategy, exactly. I mean, I know why Google/YouTube is doing it, but what's in it for the advertisers?

      It sounds like an admission by YouTube that the ads aren't generating enough revenue to pay the royalties.

    2. Re:Weird strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that ads work on a semi-conscious level; even someone that really claims not to be affected can't help but be to some extent.

      How do you know this? This is an epistemological question.

    3. Re: Weird strategy by edris90 · · Score: 1

      You're under estimating the influence advertising has over the process the brain goes through to create a want, advertising exploits man hijacks the way the human brain forms judgments. Advertising methods used commonly in today's world don't get processed as astatic. They are more can the viruses or Trojan horses. They inject malicious and erroneous payloads into the function logic that results in the generation of a desire. Social engineering. Hacking humans. And the man who believes he's capable web taking his way past such things to negate this effect, is even more susceptible to being steered because that arrogance also can be hijacked to be used against the consumer

    4. Re:Weird strategy by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Or someones bonus is tied to increasing subscriptions because it will look good on the quarterly earnings call.

    5. Re:Weird strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never understood this strategy, exactly. I mean, I know why Google/YouTube is doing it, but what's in it for the advertisers?

      Flooding the system with ads that are specifically meant to drive people to ad-free subscriptions means you're removing all the people that have the money to pay for stuff AND who can't tolerate ignoring ads. What you're left with is either people that don't have the money, or are so good at ignoring ads they don't care.

      (I know that ads work on a semi-conscious level; even someone that really claims not to be affected can't help but be to some extent. Still, I don't see it as a good value for advertisers.)

      \
      The question is what is the optimal balance between the two. You want to drive as many as possible to pay for the highest revenues, but you also don't want too may to leave. The answer, of course, lies in their user data.

    6. Re: Weird strategy by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Shhhhhhhh! People are sleeping, you might wake them.

    7. Re: Weird strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      strange, unless the ads I have seen are telling me not to buy stuff they have been useless at getting me to buy stuff.

      Some people may be susceptible to that shit, but not all.

      Grumpy cynical twats like me, just dont care what other people think and consider 80% of the people we meet are fucking idiots, and laugh at advertisers, because we actually check what we buy is best for purpose, not best for image (talking about you apple!).

      Idiots just need to learn a simple rule, if you see it in adverts dont fucking buy it.

    8. Re: Weird strategy by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      That all pre-supposes that someone sticks around for the advertising at all. I actually put my phone or tablet down—sometimes face down—and mute it. Even with audio ads, I'd be willing to turn the volume off.

      But yes, I agree with a lot of this. It still leaves a lot of people that are affected by advertising that are either unwilling or unable to pay for the product. If they had the money, they'd just buy their way out of seeing the ads at all.

  14. Good tactic, bad strategy? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will this tactic backfire? If people want to start paying for music, why does youtube think that youtube will be the vendor for those people?

    1. Re:Good tactic, bad strategy? by Paul+Neubauer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It won't. They might convince to pay for something. But they also convince me THEY don't get a penny of it.

      --
      I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
    2. Re: Good tactic, bad strategy? by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Sure wish this kind of crap would fly at the places I've worked. Just tell my boss hey could I just get endless Paychecks repeated for the work I did once. I know I already got paid for making this song but one of you guys just pay me over and over and over again but I never have to work again, it's okay you guys can just distribute my workload to live between all of you. I'll never understand why people think but they should get paid unlimited times repeatedly for one piece of work and the same people demonize others for trying to get paid properly the first time

    3. Re:Good tactic, bad strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will, at least for me. I never gave two shits about music videos before Youtube (since by the time I got to MTV it was already music video free). If Youtube becomes a pain in the ass for this content, I can go back to not giving any shits. Simple and done.

    4. Re: Good tactic, bad strategy? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Your employer is likely continuing to sell what you worked on. What you're doing is work for hire, lots of art is also done on this basis.

    5. Re:Good tactic, bad strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Sometimes I've found music on YouTube I liked so much and played so many times that I wanted to buy a copy of the album and remunerate the artist. I've sought out albums on 7digital, Qobuz, Bandcamp, physical CD...

    6. Re: Good tactic, bad strategy? by edris90 · · Score: 1

      My point is if you are getting paid multiple times for the same effort, somewhere that income has to be grifted from the paychecks of others. It's a indirect firm of fleecing the masses indirectly. Oh our broken economy that excels in keeping things away from where they are needed most

    7. Re: Good tactic, bad strategy? by edris90 · · Score: 1

      My point is that even though it's common occurrence, the philosophies behind it depends on a purposeful nievety and moral bankruptcy. If you want to get paid again, some more work.

    8. Re: Good tactic, bad strategy? by edris90 · · Score: 1

      I suppose in our county the culture is that any gain is justified as long as no one can stop you.

  15. It's called "calculated misery" by karlandtanya · · Score: 2

    You advertise something for free or low cost to get (in their case) eyeballs or the ability to legally say it costs some lowball price.
    You really want to sell the upgraded version, but you can't take away the original offer without pissing off your customers and sometimes the FTC (bait and switch).

    If your customers aren't going for the upsell, you just degrade the lowball product until they do.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    1. Re:It's called "calculated misery" by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If your customers aren't going for the upsell, you just degrade the lowball product until they do.

      Amazon Prime Shipping in a nutshell.

  16. so does that mean by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

    the money is actually going to the artists or is RIAA going to skim off it's 99%?

  17. You may learn from the mistakes of others, ya know by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Didn't you learn anything from webpages and what happened to their ad revenues when ads became more and more obnoxious? What did people do? Grin and bear it? Pay for the pages? Or install more and more sophisticated blockers for the nuisance?

    The only thing that will happen is that people install adblockers. Worse, you'll get people who did NOT use adblockers so far to use them. The ones that are your key audience. The ones that don't want to deal with "that computer shit" and just want their fix. The ones that still put up with your ads. You have already lost the ones that do care and that do know how to use adblockers. I haven't seen an ad on YouTube in ages.

    You are about to learn what the webpage ad industry learned: That you can actually make mountains move if you pester them enough. These are the people who put up with 20+ popups from some "free" software they installed. These are the people that dutifully close window after window every time they start their computer because they have no idea how to clean their autorun from uninstalled software that didn't quite uninstall properly. These are the people that surf on 5" browser windows on 30" screens because the rest of the browser real estate is hogged by "browser bars" they somehow installed and now don't know how to get rid of.

    The ad industry managed to piss THESE people off enough that they installed ad blockers!

    And now they are whining and begging and threatening and complaining that their ad revenue dried up. And they beg and plead to deactivate and uninstall those adblockers. But there is no going back. These people will continue to block. Worse, it's likely they don't even know how to deactivate it, even if they could be bothered to do it.

    YouTube, you're about to learn the same lesson. Why do you insist in touching the stove yourself, ain't it enough that everyone else is already crying over scorched hands?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The global head of music thinks if they piss me off enough, I'll give them money?

    They don't know me very well.

  19. Listen, you morons, I'll explain it once more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there are too many ads, I go somewhere else. Never ever have I thought or will I think: "Gee, these people show me annoying ads, I should give them money." The ads always come back, on top of the money people pay.

    1. Re:Listen, you morons, I'll explain it once more by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I think that is the plan. Youtube wants you to only view a small subset of corporate advertiser friendly channels.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  20. What ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't seen an ad on Youtube for years. Aren't that what ad blockers are for?

  21. Napster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Youtube = Napster Legalized (in video format)

  22. What Youtube Ads? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

    Since the adpocolypse, I block all ads on youtube. Any channel that I care about already got demonitized, so I pay them directly with Patreon or buying shit from them.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:What Youtube Ads? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Pretty much this.

      Ok, granted, I've been blocking that shit for ages, but now I at least have a moral justification.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:What Youtube Ads? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      How is drive-by-malware-installation not a moral justification?

      And anyone is free to display whatever parts of a website is sent to them that they like, and discard the rest. That's how the internet was designed. If you want complete control over what's on someone's screen, make an app.

      I get that we'e built an economy of serving ads on the web, but it's essentially building a house on quicksand. The underlying foundation is not stable, and not wise to build on. There is no requirement that what you send someone across the internet they have to look at, even if you bundle it with things they do want to look at.

      How did we get to the point where billions of dollars of income are based on people choosing to display the ads sent to them? That's insane.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  23. Bummer dude ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow, I play my collection of music I bought on CDs and ripped to MP3 in all sorts of ways, and I never hear ads.

    How tragic that when you stream your music from an ad platform that you get ... ads!

    That is mystifying.

    Sorry, no, I'm not subscribing to music. Not from Apple, not from Google, and definitely not from the music industry.

    I still buy CDs and support the artists, but once that transaction is done, it's nobody's business when, where, how, and how often I listen to it.

    When that option goes away, I'll stick with my huge collection of music and stop giving a damn.

    It's kind of hard to see how Google is fighting the perception that people are using it as a free music service and the content people aren't getting paid, when people are using it as a free music service and the content people aren't getting paid.

    Either the content is perfectly legal, in which case what's the issue? Or the content is infringing, in which case, why don't they take it down?

    Whatever, don't use YouTube, don't care.

    1. Re: Bummer dude ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing you spent 5 minutes telling everyone how you dont care so now everyone knows what a cool guy you are. Bravo. Whens recess?

  24. 1 ad? by houghi · · Score: 1

    The places I have seen them use it as a video service where pubs and they have adblock enabled in one way or another.
    The moments I use it as a music service, I will find a 10 hour video. The reason I look for a long music video is because I have autoplay disabled and do not want to enable it just for the one time and then forget it and have it enabled when I open my 20 tabs of things I want to see.

    I would think that a better solution would be to have less ads. That would encourage more people to use it and the result is more income. Otherwise they will look for alternative that is free with less ads. Online radio is a great alternative.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  25. Goodbye YouTube by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    They're starting to get too heavy handed. For a site that started due to Nipplegate I find it amusing. But then Google owns it so there's that.

  26. Google Music ftw by FUNMerlin · · Score: 1

    I have a Google Music subscription, so I get Youtube Red (no commercials) for free.
    The family plan is affordable and comparable to other services. And my son isn't bombarded with commercials on youtube. Win win.

    --
    "please could you stop the noise im tryin a get some REST? from all the unbornchikkenVoicesin my head?"
    1. Re:Google Music ftw by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I have a Google Music subscription, so I get Youtube Red (no commercials) for free. The family plan is affordable and comparable to other services. And my son isn't bombarded with commercials on youtube. Win win.

      Do you also enjoy paying HBO just to access Game of Thrones?

      How about Netflix for their exclusive content? Hulu Plus? UFC? Spotify Premium? Tidal? Hell, even PBS now has a fee-based subscription service.

      Sorry, but I don't call the continued fracturing of content across dozens of services a "win". It's death by 1,000 cuts, resulting in cord cutters financially "winning" about as good as a Charlie Sheen Truth tour. And when enough forced revenue is generated with this annoy-the-shit-out-of-the-customer sales model, they'll likely start charging you a separate fee for Google Music and YouTube Red. Why? Because they can.

    2. Re:Google Music ftw by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Did you really think they'd let cord-cutters win

      sensible_chuckle.jpg

      Above all else, they'll find a way to extract their revenue.

  27. I see ads almost every video by iTrawl · · Score: 1

    I see ads before almost every video, no matter how long it is. A few times I got ads much longer than the video itself. And I'm not even watching music videos. For music I already have Amazon Music and I don't care much about the videos.

    Are you saying they'll frustrate me even more than this? Some of the ads I even watch once - if I'm interested, and they still flood me as much as they do my friend who snipes the skip button.

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
  28. Be careful what you wish for, RIAA by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    It is actually possible for You Tube to get more paying subscribers and still not manage to pay artists or the RIAA any more, although I'll guess that maybe the RIAA will end up with slightly more money in that scenario. See Spotify, etc.

  29. Unless of course, war were declared. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless of course, war were declared.

  30. Convince, sure. But of what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will not convince people to pay for a subscription. They will convince people to not use Youtube.

  31. Re:"Stairway to Heaven"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  32. Who is the TRUE beneficiary? by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Cohen is trying to prove that YouTube is committed to making people pay for music and silence the "noise" about his company's purported harm to the recording industry..."

    Oh, so you wish to silence the purported noise by forcing customers to pay by annoying the shit out of them? Thanks for clarifying what 21st Century customer service has become for those Too Big To Fail. A Fuck You Very Much And Have A Nice Day mantra from you friendly owns-the-neighborhood mega-corp. I've said it before. Corporate Arrogance is not a good thing, but there's never enough people that give a shit enough to stop it, so it will continue to spread like a disease.

    "...The labels companies have long criticized YouTube for hosting videos that violate copyrights, and not paying artists and record companies enough."

    Oh, so THAT is the reason you're doing this? You care about the artists? Well, I'll be waiting for your financial statements that show that 100% of the revenue generated from this WILL be supporting that justification then. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.

    1. Re:Who is the TRUE beneficiary? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      You realize in this instance you aren't their customer, the music industry is.

    2. Re:Who is the TRUE beneficiary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only works as long as it's successful. YouTube recently increased ads to get people to subscribe to YouTube Red or YouTube TV. Apparently it wasn't successful enough so now they're shifting it into higher gear. But if it still isn't effective, then they'll will have to come up with a different strategy. Or shut down the free service and say, "We were just kidding about offering free videos."

    3. Re:Who is the TRUE beneficiary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commercials are *the* #1 reason I turned off cable...

  33. Makes sense to someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like I always say; the best thing to do to increase revenue is to frustrate your customers.

  34. Solutions: by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    (1) "mute" button
    (2) rip the music off the video for future use, saved locally.

    Problem solved without paying Gootube a dime.

  35. The good old days... by Comboman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you have any data that the artist will make more money from donations vs royalty payments? Also will you continue to pay the artist for your favorite song over the next 20 years? Or will that one song that you loved so much be the end of that artist. Because after getting paid for that song, they will no longer have an income because their other songs are not so popular.

    How on earth did artists ever survive back in the days when you just paid them once for a record/tape/CD that you could play over and over for the next 20 years without paying them again? Especially when the studio/distributor/retailers took the lion's share of that money?

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:The good old days... by rpresser · · Score: 1

      How on earth did artists ever survive back in the days when you just paid them once for a record/tape/CD that you could play over and over for the next 20 years without paying them again? Especially when the studio/distributor/retailers took the lion's share of that money?

      There were essentially no such days. Composers made money from published book royalties long before sound recording. Performers made money by performing. The first recorded performances from the 1890s onward were nominally protected by the same copyright laws, but they were poorly enforced; ASCAP started in 1914. Radio royalties started almost as soon as music started being transmitted.

    2. Re:The good old days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How?
      They toured and played live. They sold tee shirts and posters.
      In other words, they actually worked for their money.

    3. Re:The good old days... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Radio broadcast royalties
      Touring
      Merchandising

      The big names would be able to make a lot of money off of all three. And add media sales as a bonus.
      However other artists may only have a few options. They may not be good at Touring, but have a popular song on the radio.

      The problem is Radio (with the iHeart Media Bankruptcy) isn't as valuable as it use to be. And Artists need to switch to internet media vs Radio. If we download a song then that should be a single use license to play as much as we like, but if it is streaming, you tube is making money off of each stream to the artist should get a piece of that action.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:The good old days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...The lions share and then some the revenue from you tube will not go to performers unless they own the rights to their own music.
      Bands make money at live shows the 10-15 cents a cd is not worth much unless you sell millions.

  36. Desperate capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This are the tell-tale signs of desperate capitalism.

    Capitalism is a growth junkie: it wants some-percent of continuous growth.

    Since the (reachable) physical world is limited, this has to break at some point (I'm dismissing colonizing Mars for the moment). Thus the discovery "intellectual property is illimited, yay! back to the happy old times where we could stake claims in Africa and America, where nobody lives[1]!

    Now desperate capitalism is discovering that nobody is willing (perhaps able) to *pay* for all that beautiful "content", created with so much love! Oooh! What to do? Of course reduce the prices! That has worked throughout all of industrialization, hasn't it?

    Folks, I feel we'll be having more and more "financial crises" in the years to come. It won't be pretty (but pretty entertaining, mind you).

    Unless we somehow tame or get rid of this crazy gambling "financial elite".

    [1] Shut up, you dirty native and work in the mines, *smack*, *smack*

  37. THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE.. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Funny

    ..until morale improves.
    Signed,
    YouTube Management

  38. Really? by nagora · · Score: 1

    "The labels companies have long criticized YouTube for hosting videos that violate copyrights, and not paying artists and record companies enough"

    Just because that was, like, their entire business model.

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  39. Or more likely... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    Or the more likely scenario.. people will stop using youtube for passive music listening.

    I myself never relied on youtube for such things because there were already enough ads to make the experience more than a little irritating. So now they're going to add MORE ads?

    They really didn't think this through, did they?

  40. paying for streaming, you are doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like many stated I would much rather pay for the artist than for a 3rd party. I take every opportunity to pay the artist directly or use bandcamp (as far as I know they seem to be the service give back the highest % to them).

  41. Brave Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brave is the only company I've seen that is creating a new, innovative method for dealing with the monetization issue of digital content, including YouTube videos.

    1. Re: Brave Browser by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Fuck monetization.

  42. Concern for the music industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Utterbullshit

  43. YouTube-dl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My wife just downloads everything off Youtube now. Good job pushing ads.. it totally worked to drive her to find new ways to take your content.

  44. take careful aim at your foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...because customers just love giving money to companies who annoy them!

    I take "If you annoy me, fuck you!" to the extreme: if I see an annoying floating/autoplay/background ad for a movie or video game I make a conscious decision to avoid it. 99% of the time, it's something I was already aware of, and WOULD HAVE PAY TO PLAY/SEE if not for their choice to stick it in my face.

    Unfortunately, there's no box i can tick to tell them this - they just wonder why their revenues are down, and double-down on their bullshit advertising campaigns.

  45. ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elroy!

    Elroy!

    Elroy Cohen!

    Gets the gasface!

  46. Re:You may learn from the mistakes of others, ya k by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    If the ad market tanks, hopefully it will kill facebook and neuter google. Is that naive? It sounds naive.. but hope springs eternal.

    Dear god, please let that happen.

  47. Give up, Internet "ruined" music biz by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Recorded music is almost a commodity now. Trying to harvest it for the profit/revenue levels of yesteryear will fail.

    The first reason is the most obvious: the Internet makes it easier to pirate music.

    The second is there's more choice available now, thanks to the Web. If you make Option A too expensive, consumers will go with Option B, all the way down the alphabet (company name pun half intended).

    The third is that many make free music for the sheer fun of it and it's easy to put online. Career musicians have to compete with free music. Granted, most amateurs suck and people generally prefer professional artists. But if the professional music gets too expensive, people will turn to amateurs. (More specifically, there is personally enjoyable amateur stuff, it just takes a lot of sifting to find it.) Many amateurs also give some of the their music away in an attempt to break into the business. The ratio of people who want to be a star versus actual stars is very large.

    Concerts, events, and weddings are where the professionals will get most of their revenue, not sales of recordings.

  48. While in reality... by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1

    ... the plan is to increase the ad revenue.

  49. Not just ads after songs by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    My wife was listening to a playlist on Saturday and there was an ad for YouTube Red in the middle of one of the songs. I don't have a problem with YouTube supporting themselves with ad revenue, but to interrupt a song seems a step too far. It's as bad as the videos you see now on Facebook that are a minute long, but have a 30 second commercial inserted in the middle.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Not just ads after songs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I leave at that point and head off to a different site.

      Facebook / Messenger has already been deleted from my phone. I am using Bing and DuckDuckGo more often.

      I have options where and how my attention and my money gets used.

  50. napster redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Youtube users: if you ever want to watch it again, best download it now.

  51. Wait a second... by sorphin · · Score: 1

    Youtube has ads? I must be really lucky.. I never see any ads. lol

  52. Dump YouTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All Google / Alphabet products are used to track you and sold to the highest bidder or given to law enforcement without warrants.

    They along with FB and all other social media are now the de facto spying organization in the US. Illegal and unethical.

    1. Re: Dump YouTube by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      In Soviet America, entertainment watches you!

  53. Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All because Amazon is now worth more than Google....... now Google has to create more money to try and be 2nd again.

    Good thing I have this free service called a Radio that plays in the background, sure its has ads but its going to be no worse than Google.

    I have this other thing, a huge CD collection which contains the music I like.

  54. Yeah sure by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    YouTube Will 'Frustrate' Some Users With Ads So They use adblockers
    There, fixed.

  55. I'm okay with paying for music but by TheInternet01 · · Score: 2

    The problem I have is all the services want total control, I've flat out had songs removed from my playlist from an artist as they take them off the service, like google play, then have to go find the song on youtube.

    I almost forgot the name of the song and would have never known except one of my devices hadn't updated yet and had it removed.
    If there was more responsibility and accountability to provide proper access or notification if a song has been removed from the service it would be better.
    In the end, I pay about 10$ a month to listen to music every now and then, but if it keeps up bands are going to find it harder to get discovered, and I'll switch to buying music I like, taking it on medium I control, and that'll be the end of it.

    I'm okay with people being paid for their work, but I'm not okay with people dictating when they'll take it away from me, after taking my money.

    --
    Uplink Hosting - Web/email at an affordable price with high performance - https://uplinkhosting.ca/link.php?id=3
  56. Youtube already frustrates me by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

    Half their ads don't work right at all, either not loading or requiring a Windows box to display properly. The skip button on skippable ads is hit-or-miss if you're not running a bleeding-edge browser or have Noscript installed. Amateurish shit like that is the opposite of what would make me want to give them money.

  57. ads by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    They already interleave pretty nearly every video with an ad, meaning that (assuming 5min videos) per hour you're seeing about the same number of commercials (12) as broadcast tv... ...I wonder how THAT'S going to work out for them?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re: ads by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      YouTube - the same great viewer experience as broadcast TV, AND it reports your conversations to the Stasi!

  58. YOU can't hear the fuckin difference! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a fuckin ABX text, you snobist morons! 99% of you can't tell the difference AT ALL!

    But gotta masturbate that ego penis, amirite?!

  59. Making the same mistake as terrestrial radio by rnturn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The music-to-ad content became low enough that people started going elsewhere for music. YouTube will learn that this can happen to them as well.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    1. Re:Making the same mistake as terrestrial radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think YouTube would be too broken up about that.

      Hosting music draws them a lot of traffic, but it's pretty expensive traffic. It's almost invariably hi-res, so that's a fair bit of bandwidth right there. There's all the lawsuits and arguments over rights, royalties, piracy etc., at a much higher volume than for any other type of video. All this on top of the costs they incur from hosting other types of video.

      If all the music disappeared from YouTube tomorrow, their traffic and ad revenues might drop by 75% - but if their operating costs drop by 80%, that's still a good thing for them.

  60. Copyright is a distributors privilege. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its whole point is to leech on and abuse the work of artists, ro get free cocaine money all day without working one single fuckin bit for it.
    Now who's the pirates?!?

  61. Could be worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could be worse .. they could make you sit through various right wing propaganda / GOP conspiracy theories...

    Oh wait, nevermind ... that's what their recommendation engine is for.

  62. Re: You may learn from the mistakes of others, ya by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Here's to peace in Korea and a crash in the ad market. Cheers!

  63. They don't pay musicians / songwriter effin squat. by doginthewoods · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't mind paying --- if the extra money went to the artists. Right now, it doesn't. They don't pay musicians / songwriter effin squat. And they are proud of it. They want to run more ads- then pay the artists another 10 cents per play.

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
  64. Free unfortunately has limitations by foxalopex · · Score: 1

    The way I see it is that unfortunately at some point as annoying as it may be, YouTube needs to find a way to make money or at least break even on it's services. Nobody's keen on paying for a "free" service so stuck with ADs is how it's done. I know a lot of folks say that they're just going to hop to another "free" service but let's face it, you can't run a large global server service for free.

  65. And this frustrated user.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....will just use an Youtube to mp3/4 converter site (I won't say which one to protect Youtube from disabling it), so I can watch the video as much as I want without this bullshit!

    1. Re: And this frustrated user.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's OK, because as long as the suits keep comming up with stupid ideas like this, it may prevent them from doing real damage.

  66. All frustration no pay! by JasperNuyens · · Score: 1

    Here in Belgium, in the heart of the EU, it's only frustration. The more you look at YouTube, the more ads get stuffed into your content. But 'Youtube Red is not available in your area'. So we can't even pay. Added to that, the legislation in our country explicitly bans and regulates ads towards children. Effectively making these actions by Google not only frustrating but ILLEGAL!

  67. SUCH a poor idea.... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    One thing I haven't seen mentioned, even though LOTS of other intelligent comments were made on why this is a bad idea?

    A lot of people who are regular listeners to music via YouTube don't even care about the video content. They're strictly using it to stream the songs they want to hear. This would often be your pre-teens and teens who don't have money to pay for a music subscription but want to hear their favorite new music releases. If YouTube wanted them to consume less bandwidth, they could offer an option to simply listen to the tracks with the video disabled -- and I think many of the users would be just fine with that.

  68. "Lyor Cohen"? A lying jew? Shocked I tell you!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/a

  69. Bad strategy by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    So Youtube will take their main revenue stream and intentionally misuse it to try to convince their main target audience that they'd like to join the company's other revenue stream? This is bad business for so many reason...
    Advertisers should be ticked that their ads are being used not to convince people to buy their products, but to drive people away from the advertising model as a whole, and this is being done intentionally.
    Content creators shouldn't be too happy about this either, as the intended result also lowers their potential revenue base.
    Users obviously won't like this for obvious reasons, and many will never pay for Youtube services. If they become frustrated enough they'll simply turn to alternatives. Anyone remember Pandora?
    Admitting that you're going to try to make users mad is a bad look, and this doesn't seem like a sustainable way to structure a business, given that advertising is the main revenue stream. Adblockers will continue to get better, especially if the impetus grows stronger.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  70. The correct business model. by jondeanmack · · Score: 0

    Ones internet service provider bill should pay for ALL internet services. Google and others should be paid by the Internet service provider using the customer proceeds to the Internet service provider.

  71. Fuck youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goodbye

  72. Sheeple, c'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you use YouTube, or any other free service, you are not the customer. You are the resource being exploited in order to serve the customers.

    Either accept that or stop using the service. You do have a choice. Take some responsibility for yourselves.

    If you don't like getting fucked in the ass by Google, Facebook, etc. then stop using their products. On the other hand, if you enjoy bottoming for Silicon Valley douche bags, then go for it.

    But, for the love of God, will you just shut the fuck up about it already. Your incessant whining about how you are being victimized by your own willingly made choices is becoming really, really annoying.