Google seems determined to make exactly the same mistakes with YouTube Music that it made trying to pushing Google+ down people's throats.
I.e., abuse a dominant position in one area to force users onto its other services whilst completely ignoring both the collateral damage caused and the actual stated preferences of their users. This is exactly the kind of thing that people used to (rightfully) castigate Microsoft for & it's predictable but depressing to see Google treading the same path. (I know "don't be evil" was just a slogan, but there was a time when Google stood for the principle of winning simply by being better than everyone else & it's saddening to see them resort to these kind of underhanded tactics to force their products into the marketplace.)
These kind of tactics do work in the short term of course, but ultimately they have a corrosive effect on your long term success because users cease to trust that you'll treat them fairly. Meanwhile the execs involved run off into the sunset with their bonuses extracted by burning the company's goodwill in order to drive short term metrics the way they need them to hit whatever internal targets they've set themselves.
Really it's bizarre because the service they're offering on its own is quite valuable, so they'll get user adoption eventually I imagine - maybe not 100% but that's greedy or unreasonable at minimum. Far more damage is done with an aggressive/controlling stance, future long-term revenues and negative mindshare.
I really don't understand the scandal here. This just confirms that Google is offering musicians the choice that's been suspected ever since YouTube Music Key just a rumor:
(a) Go all in on monetization (ads, Content Id, Music Key, etc.)
(b) Go all out on monetization (upload videos for free, no other commercial relationship).
They aren't offering this choice because it helps them kill puppies or whatever, but for what should be a blindlingly obvious reason: People who pay money for a service that gets rid of ads on music videos are going to be pretty ticked off if they still see ads on music videos.
You can call this evil, but you should be crystal-clear on what you're saying: Google trying to offer a service that lets people pay to get rid of YouTube ads (something lots of people say they want) is evil.
Personally, I think this isn't good or evil, but an example of the inevitable problems and complications that arise when you try to add subscriptions to a hugely popular ad-supported service with many different stakeholders. I suspect that this sort of thing is an underappreciated reason why Google is hesitant to offer paid subscriptions as an alternative to ads in other contexts.
Your (b) there means that people can upload all the licensed songs they want and no money goes to the artist and the artist has no choice in this except to agree to (a). (A) is a binding 5 year contract that forces her to release music on youtube as soon as it is done and cannot sign any other exclusive release deals on any music. Both choices remove all "choice" from the artist in regards to their own work. Imagine if github did the same to you with any code on their site, every programmer would leave for a new site the same day.
Not everyone wants to be all-in or all-out. Maybe she wants her best work monetized, but has additional content she wants available for free. Ad-stamped content can be really annoying and turn people off from watching/listening when there isn't sufficient desire for the content to put up with it. Free content, unladen of ads, can help draw in followers who become willing to pay. Kinda like throwing a low-cost concert for free in hopes people who otherwise wouldn't come will, facing low/no friction, come and enjoy the free content enough to buy CDs and pay for a more sophisticated concert.
Plenty of times I've stumbled across an unknown musician playing for free, I've stopped & listened for a while when I'd have not paid to, and then bought the CD. Google wants to slather ads on the "free" performance just so the performer can offer a paid CD.
Google is demanding all-in or all-out on mixed-demand content...and is demanding adherence to those terms & decisions for 5 years, which can be a very long time for a performer.
If Youtube wants to make people choose between two options, that is Youtube's choice. That doesn't mean those two options are the only possible ones though. They could have gone with a new contract that was much like what they have today, with slightly modified terms. Instead they are throwing their weight around to force musicians into unfavorable terms. That's what the scandal is.
I don't really care about the choices offered by YouTube here, but at this point you can have a scandal without them. The fact that they're lying to journalists and making such an ass of themselves in the PR department is interesting on its own now.
[Update: Sat. morning: After discovering that Keating was taking detailed notes of her conversation with a YouTube representative, YouTube appears to be re-grouping to clarify their policies and figure out exactly what artists are being told. They have also not clearly explained why they are demanding a retraction from Digital Music News. More as it develops.]
Addendum - what is key here is that Zoe's original post was balanced and rational and even-handed. Even if YouTube disputed the factual aspects of it then this was a really poor way to go about it and has merely confirmed the feeling that they are throwing their weight around with small artists.
They could have turned things around by engaging in dialog and still got their point across.
Someone at YouTube needs to go back to PR school after this.
> Google spends billions on marketing, paying lobbyists and buying influence. It funds over 150 organisations and overtook Goldman Sachs last year as the biggest corporate political donor in the USA.
Google and Microsoft wanted nothing to do with this culture, until they grew too big and those threatened started drafting legislation to curtail them. Once faced with a government action, both companies started having presences in the Capitol. It needs to buy influence to protect itself from its competitors, who already have entrenched lobbying efforts. The author's attempt to paint Google as evil from lobbying efforts fails to note the reason for this, government ability to critically damage a company.
1. Microsoft lawsuit over bundling Internet Explorer
2. Google had an FTC investigation regarding its search engine share
3. Google refused to stop advertising illegal pharmaceuticals after repeated warnings from the FDA and then eventually received one of the heaviest fines ever handed down by the US government (half a billion USD)[1].
As a Massachusetts resident, this brings the question of "two-party consent" to the forefront for me. There are many times I would like to record conversations, but cannot legally do so.
Who does two-party consent benefit more, the large corporations or the individual's right to privacy? Or is it not black and white?
I hate that law. It makes me think that some politician got caught talking about something immoral or illegal and sought to make phone conversations "safer." It certainly doesn't help, for example, a victim of domestic violence who receives threatening phone calls. He/she has to go to the authorities and receive permission.
On the other hand, in a conversation with like this with a corporation she could simply announce that she is recording it. Corporations do it all the time, in part at least to help train their customer service. And if the corp decides they don't want to have the conversation on the record, then they don't get to have the conversation at all. In other words, you say, "I am recording this conversation" rather than asking, "Is it ok if I record this conversation?"
Are you sure you can't record them? All you have to do is tell them that you're recording. Then they can either take it or leave it. I'm not sure how many people will hang up on you if you say that, but it's worth a try. Also, as I understand it, if you call in to a place that has a notice that they're recording you (i.e. the ubiquitous "this call may be recorded or monitored for quality or training purposes") that also suffices as permission for you to record them. (Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, yada yada.)
The article reads like a pro-copyright/pro-SOPA hit piece, I would take it with a grain of salt.
I don't see anything too evil here, just reasonable business decision forced to them by the ridiculous copyright framework.
Google came with a simple solution: their way or the highway. Sounds harsh but anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer-vetting. They rather pull your stuff rather than risking the money with very little chance of recouping the investment.
Zoe Keating, on the other side, disagrees and wants google to actually expend tons of money developing her "special case" into the system...
anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer-vetting.
Why would keeping the current system - which is essentially just allowing people to use ContentID without being forced into accepting new legal terms - require massive man-hours of development and laywer-vetting? What's so difficult about it?
By the way, I fully agree vis-a-vis the SOPA comments. But it just goes to show the adversary of my adversary is not always my ally.
It's clear in the conversation that she could always just quit this deal and move to the normal Youtube Partner program to make cash out of ads like any other partner.
What she would lose is automatic content identification that would also give her ads revenues from OTHER video that has her content. There's no alternative to that, she would have to send a ton of DMCA herself to remove that other content and that doesn't even allow her to get that revenue.
I don't see this as a solution to the ridiculous copyright framework, it's a way to abuse the ridiculous copyright framework. They have a great tool that can help her fight against copyright infringement but the only way she can still use it is to either abandon her YouTube revenue or to give YouTube all her music right.
Could someone tell me what this whole thing is about? From what i gather it is the following:
1. Users currently can monetize using contentID - any videos uploaded anywhere using their shit and they get a cut of the ads (if there are any).
2. Google is making paid streaming version, artists now have two options:
2a) Agree to have everything on paid and free side and get money. Also, everything you release everything must also release to Youtube (I assume this is the main sticking point??).
2b) Don't agree and only have shit be on free side and not get money. You can upload whatever you want when you want.
2a) … The release on Youtube must happen at the same time and in a specified quality.
2b) … Everything that has been uploaded by her before will be deleted.
The obligation to release on Youtube is of course completely unacceptable. I like to think it would be quite illegal in many countries outside the US as well.
The Register article goes on for a while about the "weakening" of copyright law that allowed this to happen, but never actually says what legal change occurred that makes this possible. Anyone know?
If I had to guess, I'd say they mean the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions; which allows a user-content site like Youtube to exist at all - previously, you could be liable if you were distributing any kind of unlicensed content, so I believe that legally, you had to vet each upload.
Can anyone make sense of what the Google representative is saying in the last paragraph of the transcript, the part that goes "your channel will be separated from the deal and you can enter into a regular youtube partner commercial terms which allows you to monetize the content"? What music would be monetizable under that scheme?
From what I understand about the Youtube Partner thing, it essentially allows you to make money from the videos uploaded to your channel, but not from videos uploaded by other users, even if you hold the copyright to those.
Essentially, they pay you for the "service" of uploading the videos and drawing users.
Dear journalists who are covering this story. (1) get the actual contract. Does it back up what this artist is claiming? (2) Find out the name of the Google employee who was telling the artist these things, corroborate the testimony of the artist and determine whether the employee was a high-level executive or lawyer within Google, or if they were just a customer service representative who had no authority to be giving legal advice to a customer on behalf of the company.
With all due respect this article does not go into any specific detail of what real evidence exists to back up this story.
The same thing will happen to any competitor. You get big enough and record companies will want to control the shit out of you. They will sue you and write laws against you and intimidate the crap out of you.
At the risk of being modded down along with you (hi Google fans!), I'll say that even though I have a much lower opinion of Google lately, I was still surprised by their actions in this case. I know that Google has never, ever cared about the individual, but this is surely an abuse of copyright far worse than what the record labels could ever dream of.
Still, I have to wonder if this is just the Youtube division of Google acting this way, and perhaps once the big heads at Google HQ get wind of what's going on (or more accurately, the PR department), they will intervene on Ms. Keating's behalf.
Then again, that would open the door for who knows how many other independent artists under Youtube's Draconian contract to go after them for the same deal.
And of course, I'm happy to see that Ms. Keating is getting some free publicity out of all of it. Even if she ultimately can't pursue Youtube for lost ad revenue, she still has the power to publish her works in other media.
[+] [-] pja|11 years ago|reply
I.e., abuse a dominant position in one area to force users onto its other services whilst completely ignoring both the collateral damage caused and the actual stated preferences of their users. This is exactly the kind of thing that people used to (rightfully) castigate Microsoft for & it's predictable but depressing to see Google treading the same path. (I know "don't be evil" was just a slogan, but there was a time when Google stood for the principle of winning simply by being better than everyone else & it's saddening to see them resort to these kind of underhanded tactics to force their products into the marketplace.)
These kind of tactics do work in the short term of course, but ultimately they have a corrosive effect on your long term success because users cease to trust that you'll treat them fairly. Meanwhile the execs involved run off into the sunset with their bonuses extracted by burning the company's goodwill in order to drive short term metrics the way they need them to hit whatever internal targets they've set themselves.
[+] [-] loceng|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fpgeek|11 years ago|reply
(a) Go all in on monetization (ads, Content Id, Music Key, etc.)
(b) Go all out on monetization (upload videos for free, no other commercial relationship).
They aren't offering this choice because it helps them kill puppies or whatever, but for what should be a blindlingly obvious reason: People who pay money for a service that gets rid of ads on music videos are going to be pretty ticked off if they still see ads on music videos.
You can call this evil, but you should be crystal-clear on what you're saying: Google trying to offer a service that lets people pay to get rid of YouTube ads (something lots of people say they want) is evil.
Personally, I think this isn't good or evil, but an example of the inevitable problems and complications that arise when you try to add subscriptions to a hugely popular ad-supported service with many different stakeholders. I suspect that this sort of thing is an underappreciated reason why Google is hesitant to offer paid subscriptions as an alternative to ads in other contexts.
[+] [-] nosequel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctdonath|11 years ago|reply
(c) monetize some, but not all, content.
Not everyone wants to be all-in or all-out. Maybe she wants her best work monetized, but has additional content she wants available for free. Ad-stamped content can be really annoying and turn people off from watching/listening when there isn't sufficient desire for the content to put up with it. Free content, unladen of ads, can help draw in followers who become willing to pay. Kinda like throwing a low-cost concert for free in hopes people who otherwise wouldn't come will, facing low/no friction, come and enjoy the free content enough to buy CDs and pay for a more sophisticated concert.
Plenty of times I've stumbled across an unknown musician playing for free, I've stopped & listened for a while when I'd have not paid to, and then bought the CD. Google wants to slather ads on the "free" performance just so the performer can offer a paid CD.
Google is demanding all-in or all-out on mixed-demand content...and is demanding adherence to those terms & decisions for 5 years, which can be a very long time for a performer.
[+] [-] tomp|11 years ago|reply
you can't release any music without also putting it on YouTube at the same time
Which is a pretty draconian clause.
[+] [-] smackfu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathanb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andybak|11 years ago|reply
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/01/23/breakin...
This is getting interesting.
[+] [-] andybak|11 years ago|reply
They could have turned things around by engaging in dialog and still got their point across.
Someone at YouTube needs to go back to PR school after this.
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|11 years ago|reply
[0] http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/109312851929/clarity
[+] [-] Agustus|11 years ago|reply
Google and Microsoft wanted nothing to do with this culture, until they grew too big and those threatened started drafting legislation to curtail them. Once faced with a government action, both companies started having presences in the Capitol. It needs to buy influence to protect itself from its competitors, who already have entrenched lobbying efforts. The author's attempt to paint Google as evil from lobbying efforts fails to note the reason for this, government ability to critically damage a company.
1. Microsoft lawsuit over bundling Internet Explorer
2. Google had an FTC investigation regarding its search engine share
[+] [-] anon1385|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/google-forfeits-500-million-ge...
[+] [-] cowsandmilk|11 years ago|reply
Who does two-party consent benefit more, the large corporations or the individual's right to privacy? Or is it not black and white?
[+] [-] dhimes|11 years ago|reply
On the other hand, in a conversation with like this with a corporation she could simply announce that she is recording it. Corporations do it all the time, in part at least to help train their customer service. And if the corp decides they don't want to have the conversation on the record, then they don't get to have the conversation at all. In other words, you say, "I am recording this conversation" rather than asking, "Is it ok if I record this conversation?"
[+] [-] mistermann|11 years ago|reply
Is the act of recording illegal, or just sharing the recording?
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vpeters25|11 years ago|reply
I don't see anything too evil here, just reasonable business decision forced to them by the ridiculous copyright framework.
Google came with a simple solution: their way or the highway. Sounds harsh but anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer-vetting. They rather pull your stuff rather than risking the money with very little chance of recouping the investment.
Zoe Keating, on the other side, disagrees and wants google to actually expend tons of money developing her "special case" into the system...
Edit: removed redundant sentence
[+] [-] icebraining|11 years ago|reply
Why would keeping the current system - which is essentially just allowing people to use ContentID without being forced into accepting new legal terms - require massive man-hours of development and laywer-vetting? What's so difficult about it?
By the way, I fully agree vis-a-vis the SOPA comments. But it just goes to show the adversary of my adversary is not always my ally.
[+] [-] toyg|11 years ago|reply
It's from Andrew Orlowski, a professional media troll. He usually takes a contrarian position on any controversial tech issue.
[+] [-] dwild|11 years ago|reply
It's clear in the conversation that she could always just quit this deal and move to the normal Youtube Partner program to make cash out of ads like any other partner.
What she would lose is automatic content identification that would also give her ads revenues from OTHER video that has her content. There's no alternative to that, she would have to send a ton of DMCA herself to remove that other content and that doesn't even allow her to get that revenue.
I don't see this as a solution to the ridiculous copyright framework, it's a way to abuse the ridiculous copyright framework. They have a great tool that can help her fight against copyright infringement but the only way she can still use it is to either abandon her YouTube revenue or to give YouTube all her music right.
[+] [-] hahainternet|11 years ago|reply
I don't even bother reading them anymore.
[+] [-] howeyc|11 years ago|reply
1. Users currently can monetize using contentID - any videos uploaded anywhere using their shit and they get a cut of the ads (if there are any).
2. Google is making paid streaming version, artists now have two options:
2a) Agree to have everything on paid and free side and get money. Also, everything you release everything must also release to Youtube (I assume this is the main sticking point??).
2b) Don't agree and only have shit be on free side and not get money. You can upload whatever you want when you want.
[+] [-] onli|11 years ago|reply
There are some additions:
2a) … The release on Youtube must happen at the same time and in a specified quality.
2b) … Everything that has been uploaded by her before will be deleted.
The obligation to release on Youtube is of course completely unacceptable. I like to think it would be quite illegal in many countries outside the US as well.
[+] [-] coding4all|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moyix|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vilhelm_s|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|11 years ago|reply
Essentially, they pay you for the "service" of uploading the videos and drawing users.
[+] [-] josteink|11 years ago|reply
Ever since Youtube Music was launched, youtube has had all its music removed in the parts of the world where Youtube Music isn't yet "launched".
So by that standard, none at all, because you'll have no visitors & no viewers.
I'm thoroughly impressed about the size of the clusterfuck Youtube has managed to make this whole thing.
[+] [-] datashovel|11 years ago|reply
With all due respect this article does not go into any specific detail of what real evidence exists to back up this story.
[+] [-] blister|11 years ago|reply
[0] http://blog.launch.co/blog/i-aint-gonna-work-on-youtubes-far...
[+] [-] jbob2000|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masklinn|11 years ago|reply
[0] the alternative being torrents, and they're very much non-instant.
[+] [-] delinka|11 years ago|reply
"As Silicon Valley has been very successful in persuading the public to throw away their strong legal protections, Google may well get away with it."
What "strong legal protections" have been removed?
[+] [-] pdpi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrBunny|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silverlight|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmfrk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisconroy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrucci|11 years ago|reply
Just look at the titles of articles published by this author: http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2578
What the hell does this means?
[+] [-] andybak|11 years ago|reply
And the irony has slipped into being just a house style now - one which is rather uneven in quality and appropriateness.
[+] [-] beyondcompute|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fndrplayer13|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morganvachon|11 years ago|reply
Still, I have to wonder if this is just the Youtube division of Google acting this way, and perhaps once the big heads at Google HQ get wind of what's going on (or more accurately, the PR department), they will intervene on Ms. Keating's behalf.
Then again, that would open the door for who knows how many other independent artists under Youtube's Draconian contract to go after them for the same deal.
And of course, I'm happy to see that Ms. Keating is getting some free publicity out of all of it. Even if she ultimately can't pursue Youtube for lost ad revenue, she still has the power to publish her works in other media.