"Don't be evil"
Yet another reason that Google should abandon that motto ...
It's not often a $450bn multinational is humbled by a single classical musician with a tape recorder. Yet that seems to be what happened this weekend. 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 …
"According to her website her husband is sick with lung cancer.
Dealing with that and the Google corporation must be horrific."
Hence the comment on the transcript I imagine ("Youtube is not at the top of my priority list right now").
So I just bought her most recent work as a 320 Kb/s mp3 download from the efficient and well organised bandcamp Web shop. I suggest we all do the same.
"According to her website her husband is sick with lung cancer.
Dealing with that and the Google corporation must be horrific."
"YouTube is not at the top of my priority list right now" on the blog post linked in OA. One can understand why.
Ms Keating's most recent bandcamp release is Into the Trees. Apocalyptica meets Helen Jane Long. It is growing on me. I'm doodling on the piano along with it. I think you should all drop the price of a coffee and bun on a copy.
If you believe in freedom, there is a simple solution. Just to be safe, I better clarify that I am talking about freedom as meaningful and unconstrained choice, not the Microsoft version of freedom (now adopted by Google et alia) where you are only free to choose the flavor of your cancer. The problem with cancer as an model of ideal growth is that it always kills the host, even if the cancer is smart enough to bribe legislators. (BtW, did you read the recent article about Google as #1 in lobbying among high-tech companies?)
So the solution is to give us choice. Easiest to illustrate with Microsoft, but basically the same can be done with the google. The solution is LIFE as in reproduction on the model of an amoeba rather than a cancer.
Cut Microsoft (or the google) into 2 to 4 pieces. Give each of the child companies a copy of the code, databases, and an equal share of the employees and facilities. Shareholders get equal shares in each of the child companies. Then they compete against each other. They can even exchange information about standards and interfaces, as long as it is shared in public and everyone else can see it, too. The children will naturally start to diverge, and we (the customers) have the freedom to make meaningful choices.
Right now the customers of Microsoft (and the google) are treated with less respect than the fleas on a dog. If you're the only dog in the neighborhood, why should you care what the fleas think?
It always surprises me how enthusiastically the new 'man' in the shape of Google is greeted in comparison to the virtual monopolies we had in the 90s and early 2000s. Google is far worse. It used to just be you had one choice what OS to put on your computer, but nobody then really did much about what you actually did with it after that. Google wants to control your phone, your computer, where you find information and gradually virtually everything you do with a computer. The fact they use a variety of open source software is not necessarily a positive, as shown here, appropriating the work of others for free and then monetizing it is their primarily business model, they've just moved on from just doing it with software, they now want to do the same with music and video rights.
Not just music & video rights. Images, documents, personal information and your first born.
And more than that. Ever read the book 1984? Google wants control for control's sake. Power for the sale of power. People that think like that are the ultimate evil.
It doesn't stop until they can decide who lives, and who dies. Or being banned from the internet - forever.
The thing about Google at the minute is it's a dominant force in search - but it has very low lock-in for the average guy in the street. If they keep on this path of screwing content creators and burning goodwill they could be in for a massive disruptive shock.
To take Youtube as an example, there is nothing stopping a rival video service gaining massive traction overnight. If my favourite Youtubers were to rebel en masse and defect to some new service started by Amazon or NetFlix for example I'd follow them in a heartbeat - beyond the content it hosts there is nothing keeping me loyal to Youtube.*
*And even a fair few reasons that would push me to switch - the video player itself is good, but the rest of Youtube's layout can be a confusing PITA
"... defect to some new service ..."
What about Vimeo and similar services that I've noticed or read about? I don't keep up with these developments so I'm wondering if they are a viable alternative platform for people who want their work to be noticed and to make money for themselves.
I think it comes down to catch 22.
Youtube was the main service, pretty much the only place to host video like this. So all the content was on there, and all the users go there.
Content creators will not (unless forced somehow) move away from that massive user base. The users will not move to another service with less content.
Google's new terms may be the tipping point, but there would need to be a huge leap by content creators away from Youtube, with the realisation that their viewership will be hurt in the short term. If this happens, the users will move too. But it's risky.
As for Google retaining ownership of the content, that's definitely evil. It is likely that it was in the T&Cs, but I would like to see it go to court. Sounds like an unfair term to me, which could be quashed.
There isn't a massive userbase on Google for any creator. No one 'finds' music or film on Google that they weren't already aware of, usually by some personal recommendation by way of a link. But the link can be anywhere. You like a song you want your friend to hear it, you look for it on YT and post the link. But you could just as well of looked for the musicians site and linked to there.
YT currently holds the content not through the efforts of the creators but by fans putting it there, and a loophole in US copyright law which they use to plunder the Zoe Keating's of the world.
Agree with your down vote.
This usage of 'of' may well be founded in illiteracy.
I'm not sure of the origins of this, but I can imagine, using spoken English for step two:
Just as well have -> Just as well've -> Just as well of
Step one to step two, have abbreviated to 've, followed by step two to step three, person who hears the 've abbreviation and attempts to write it as it sounds because they don't know how to append 've to well when they write.
Why did I just write all of this guff? I might "just as well of" not bothered.
Any competitor that has a UI that isn't total shit has a chance, but the tricky part is getting momentum. It would likely need marketing/backing from someone like Amazon or Facebook, or a load of content creators rebelling at once. I mention the last one as I can see it as a possibility in the not too distant future; many game reviewers have videos slamming Youtube's overreaching policies and automatic takedowns that assume guilt on the part of the Youtuber.
Vimeo still has a sucky engine, and too much crap on the screen and control just like Youtube.
The best option is to come up with one where we can keep 100% control if we like, but the more control people are willing to relinquish, the more features they get. Although,that has pitfalls also.
"To take Youtube as an example, there is nothing stopping a rival video service gaining massive traction overnight"
"The thing about Google at the minute is it's a dominant force in search"
... which is probably the single biggest obstacle to rival video services. These days, we don't "search the web" for stuff - we "google" it. So where is this hypothetical average man going to go to find the video he's looking for? Google.
So all Google need to do is keep an eye to the competition and massage their search results so that anyone who looks like they're starting to erode YouTube's share by any significant margin slowly starts to slip down the search rankings... and the New World Order is restored.
Until Google's effective stranglehold over web search is broken, they will be in a position to control what happens with competitors to their other services. And this breaking of the stranglehold is not a technological issue - rather, it needs to happen in people's minds. I had a rather depressing incident a while ago where someone I was explaining something to did not understand what I meant by "searching the web" until I actually used the phrase "google it"...
"So all Google need to do is keep an eye to the competition and massage their search results so that anyone who looks like they're starting to erode YouTube's share by any significant margin slowly starts to slip down the search rankings... and the New World Order is restored."
And you have absolutely no evidence that they've done that. Do you? It's just random spewings.
Try searching for a video on vimeo through Google. Guess what, it works
"And you have absolutely no evidence that they've done that. Do you?"
Spoken like a good little Google sheep.
I never said they were doing this - rather that it's all they would need to do. I'm saying that should Google deem that Vimeo was cutting too heavily into YouTube's share, it would be a simple matter for Google to tweak their search engine over time so that Vimeo slowly drops down the rankings and into obscurity - they have the power to do this, and have been accused of doing this before.
But I never even claimed that this is what is happening now.
Try reading the actual context of a comment before throwing knee-jerk reaction accusations in future.
"And you have absolutely no evidence that they've done that. Do you?"
Spoken like a good little Google sheep.
I never said they were doing this - rather that it's all they would need to do
You do realise you're being a consistantly personally-insulting FUD spreader who wouldn't get their posts past a premoderator, don't you?
*sighs* - if *I* called someone a 'good little ...'. Hennywaze..
Seems I accidentally subconsciously primed awareness of the moderatorial presence and penalties somewhere near the top of an increasingly emotional exchange where insults were beginning to fly. Tut. Careless.
Or.. maybe that's what I *want* you to think. People don't *do* that! Safer not to trust him. Simplifies everything. *MWUHAHAHAHAAA*
To the AC who believes that Google doesn't massage search results in its own favour: try the following experiment.
Pick up a book by a well known author who died more than 75 years ago. (Charles Dickens is my go-to choice for this purpose, but there are plenty more.) Open the book at random. Find a phrase that's distinctive enough to be unique, but not profound enough to appear in anyone's collection of favourite quotes. (From Dickens:
"'What a mooney godmother you are, after all!"
"wiped his corrugated forehead from left to right several times"
"Suddenly a very little counsel with a terrific bass voice arises")
Then Google that phrase.
For the above 3 examples, there are lots of complete, easily-readable texts on the web. Yet the second result, in each case (as tried by me just now), is the Google Books hit - which is ugly and unreadable, and doesn't even link to a complete version of the text. (For the last of these, nine of the top 10 results point to books.google.com, despite the fact that it's far and away the least useful and accessible version on the web.)
Missing the point a bit. Try searching for a video that's on vimeo through Google and see if it suggests it. They may show you vimeo results if you specifically ask for them, but for vimeo to become an alternative to youtube the search ranking needs to show no respect to the site hosting the video. Do Google favour youtube or does youtube's popularity put it at the top of the search results?
This is the classic point, continually downvoted here but not rebuffed, that Google search can't be trusted to be fair when they have a product to promote.
People go where their friends go, as relayed by IM, FB, word of mouth.
That's the truth of it. After all, that's how Google and YouTube got so big in the first place.
One niche artist won't make much of a difference other than to highlight the problem but if some major artists - and particularly record labels - take a stand then their fans are very likely to go with them.
The danger of being evil while pretending not to be is that, if you bite the hand that feeds too hard, those being milked just might realise and take exception to that.
Warner Music Group once blocked anything on YouTube containing its music (or music published by its publishing arm Warner/Chappell Music) in a dispute over copyright / royalty payments, and even threatened to not license its work to any free streaming site or to any video game as they were getting peanuts.
However, because no credible alternative streaming site exists (at least partially because in order to get up and running they'd need to implement something akin to Content ID to avoid annoying major record labels), they eventually brokered a deal with YouTube.
It wouldn't surprise me if this new Google Music thingy is designed to keep the major record labels sweet and negotiated on their terms and conditions, which favour them and disfavour independent / unsigned artists.
You have it backwards.
If I made a kick-ass video and post it on youtube, it's a chance of getting popular. People find it, views go up, which means it starts appearing on the recommended page and the related videos list, bringing in more people. Youtube isn't just a video host: It's a powerful recommendation engine. A person can spend hours just following the chain of videos youtube presents.
If I put the same video on vimeo or blip.TV, it's not going to get even a fraction of the view count. Which means no-one bothers putting video up there unless they already have a high-traffic website in place on which to embed the video.
It works fine for me.
I do not use Google, I use Duckduckgo instead, Vimeo instead of Youtube and Palemoon instead of Chrome. I block Googleanalytics and other Google spyware with Noscript and PrivacyBadger etc.
I could go on but that would be tedious.
It can be done though it takes a bit of thinking about and I wouldn't expect my granny or sister to have all the knowledge required but as an ex IT pro I can and do keep Google as far away from my data as possible.
Right you are. I was just in China recently and to my surprise they had blocked Google entirely, rather than just YouTube like earlier. I've already weaned my way out from Gmail and use StartPage for search so thought it wouldn't matter much. But the likes of StartPage and DuckDuckGo use Google results and are therefore also blocked, and no Play store on Android and no Google Maps were troublesome, and while Baidu works well in Chinese, in English it's even worse than Bing, and that's saying a lot. However, the main issue came from the many not Google-related sites including things like a small Google map to find them, as such pages then took forever and a day to open. Felt relieved returning and having Google back. Who would've thought?
An abomination. I'm taking it that, by your comment, you've never actually attempted to use it, and I'm mystified as to why so many bands and artists still do. It actually wasn't too bad, until Murdoch got his hands on it, and destroyed it, as is his wont.
I'm firmly in the Bandcamp, er, camp - or I would be if the search didn't suck. For example, I discovered a new - well new to me, at least, darkwave artist called Eduard Reik so, naturally, I search for him on Bandcamp. But, Bandcamp, instead of telling me 'no results found for your search string', or whatever, presents me with at least 20 pages of 'Edward', 'Ed', 'Eduardo', 'Eddy', 'Edd', 'Eddie', etc., all organised by surname, so I had to flick through around 15 pages to the 'Rs' to find he wasn't listed! I even tried enclosing his name in quotes, using Boolean operators, results were identical. Fuck you, Bandcamp, if he's not there, just tell me he's not there, FFS, DON'T make me wade through umpteen pages of results to FIND he's not there! Allmusic's search is just as bad, if not worse, because there you CAN specify genre, but it'll ignore it.
I eventually tracked him down on Soundcloud and it transpired that, despite the unusual name, he's a London boy. I'm so outta touch with the homegrown industrial/EBM/synth-pop/goth/darkwave scene, because those genres don't get any airplay on UK radio (I heard this guy on a station based in Brooklyn).
In short, Bandcamp would be brilliant if it weren't for the shittiness of its search. There's also ReverbNation, of course, but it's not iOS-friendly (causes every iOS browser I've tried to crash, and it's not like it's coz it uses Flash, coz it doesn't).
Zoë's work really isn't my cup o' char, but I will buy her latest, perhaps it'll grow on me…
You probably mean the English East India Company (or possibly the Dutch one)? It's proper name was "[Governor and | United] Company of Merchants of [London | England] Trading into the East Indies". There was nothing other than London or England in the name; that's a modern PC change made by other parts of the UK not wishing to be ignored.
The medium might be new (Internet), but the model is essentially the same: you want to expand your business infinitely (greed is good, more greed is better) and one way which works, is by monopolizing the supply channel. You can call it roses, but it's still driving for monopoly by hook or by crook (depends on how much cash you have, and how much resistance there is). And while I hate Google as much as I used to champion for them in their infancy, I can't say they're are worse than any other bully, in the past or present, in any area where there's money to be made. This is not an excuse to pat them on their back and shrug it off, but honestly, they're no more evil than any other (near) monopolist, they're all scumbags.
Google should never have been allowed to buy YouTube and the other internet giants it bought in the early 2000s. It now lacks competitors in many areas and the internet has stagtated from Google and the loss of a free market.
This Youtube debacle reminds me of Tesco fleecing milk farmers here in the UK. Like Google, Tesco generates no "content" but acts as a gatekeeper. It deals with suppliers sharply, and milk prices are forced so low many farmers go bankrupt or worse. The way Tesco talks to suppliers is similar to that conversation between Keating and Google (according to Panarama). We are happy to by the cheap milk. We won't be so happy when Farmer Giles sells out to a householder who will promptly put 1000 new "starter" homes on our doorstep.
If you like to look at the cows out of your window, you have to pay for the milk. Maybe we are the ones bending the market, with our impossible expectations of free stuff.
The scariest thing in all of this is the fact that even though there are stories like this one, when you discuss with most of the "regular people" about Google, their opinion is always the same - it's the best thing ever. People love Google for GMail, Maps, Drive and you-name-whatever-service-they-provide-for-"free". Businesses love Google for Google Apps for Business. Because it all "just works" and is pretty and up-to-date etc. Hell, some people even donate their time and effort FOR FREE to Google - see Google Map Maker. Why the hell would you do that instead of contributing to OpenStreetMap, I will never know...
Looks like we all have a love affair with Google. Nothing left but a happy ending, right?
Boy, are we all in for a very very rude awakening some day.
Yeah, totally evil that is, wanting to continue to pay an artist for their music even when someone else uses it in their upload. The only thing they are actually saying is that unless the artist signs up to the new service terms then they'll stop paying the artist when someone else uses their content in an upload.
"unless the artist signs up to the new service terms then they'll stop paying the artist when someone else uses their content in an upload."
You mean, violate her copyright with commercial infringement? OK, so glad you have confirmed that Gootube is extorting her with threats of commercial copyright infringement if she doesn't sign. Exactly the same as "nice little place you have here, shame if anything happened to it".
"Surely the uploader is violating her copyright? not Google."
Yes, but Google currently provides the Content ID system which allows such uploads to be identified (although not perfectly) and the artist can then either earn a little money from it, or block it.
What the guy in Zoe's transcript said is that if she doesn't agree to the new terms so her stuff's available on Music Key, she can't just carry on with the current system. Her own uploads will be blocked, and content ID will no longer be available - she will no longer receive any earnings from existing uploads by others that are recognised as containing her music, and she won't be able to use it to identify such uploads.
So although it's the uploader who is technically violating her copyright, Google are making it considerably harder for her to identify such violations - and when she does, the only option will be a DMCA take down, rather than allow the upload to earn her money.
Agreeing to the Music Key terms obviously solves that problem - but there are pitfalls with doing that, as explained in the David Lowery post Andrew linked, such as not being able to release anything online anywhere else initially, which they may want to do for exclusive promotions etc.
@VinceH: "Her own uploads will be blocked, and content ID will no longer be available - she will no longer receive any earnings from existing uploads by others that are recognised as containing her music, and she won't be able to use it to identify such uploads."
Re-read that transcript, Content ID would still be available and she would still be able to use the anti-piracy tracking for free.
Bullshit. From the transcript:
"...the content that you directly upload from accounts that you own under the content owner attached to the agreement, we’ll have to block that content."
So UNLESS SHE AGREES TO THESE NEW TERMS, Google not just stop giving her monies but also block her access. But others, in clear breach of copyright, using her music is fine and dandy by Google (again, not monetised back to the artist).
Do try to read what is writ, @Badvok.
@Anon Coward: "Do try to read what is writ, @Badvok."
I did, you obviously didn't. See the bit about "content owner attached to the agreement" which can be changed (as mentioned in the transcript) and if it was changed then nothing would be blocked.
She is still entitled to issue take downs for any Copyright infringements, Google will not automatically pay her when someone uses her stuff, they'll just tell her that someone is doing so instead.
Interesting that the droid from YouTube described this as "a loophole" though. Wonder if they'll close it at some point.
Mind you, the more important point is that - as I understand it both from the transcript and from reading about this elsewhere - you can go down this route, but the consequences are:
1) that they'll track content for you, but won't take it down (so you have to be constantly issuing DMCA takedown notices if you want to manage your content/presence on YouTube, etc.)
2) not only will they not pay you if a third party uses your content, but they won't pay you if you use it yourself either. So if YouTube was one of your existing revenue streams and you want to keep any kind of revenue from it at all, you have no option other than to sign up and accept whatever terms they want to shove at you. Including all the restrictive crap about simultaneous releases, having to have all your material on Music Key if you want it on YouTube, etc.
So, as agreements go, it still stinks to high heaven. And Google trying to imply to the press or media that the person complaining about this is somehow lying about it or has got it wrong when the transcript makes it pretty clear that the things she is complaining about are - largely - true (give or take a "loophole") just stinks even higher. As Lowery's article points out, it's not vastly different from the pile of festering dung that Google/YouTube gave the indie labels.
>>"The only thing they are actually saying is that unless the artist signs up to the new service terms then they'll stop paying the artist when someone else uses their content in an upload."
Isn't that thing actually quite a big thing? The artist in this case certainly seems to think so and should Google be able to force people to accept their terms or let them do what they want anyway?
The issue is not that copyright is weak; try telling that to Disney who still retain Mickey after god knows how long.
The issue is that it's becoming nigh impossible for a regular Joe/Jane to interact with massive international organisations on anything other than their terms. Whether it's cutting a deal you can live off for your music or suing them for just taking your stuff without permission, it will always be an uphill battle against an entity that can afford dozens of lawyers and scores of employees to deal with your case if they don't feel like backing down.
Exactly right. The legal tidal wave unleashed by such large corporate entities exerts market pressures that clearly skew things. Little surprise that virtually all of these corporations also contribute heavily to political campaigns and lobbying efforts.
Of course, none of that would matter if the central government didn't have such supreme powers or such large payouts over which to compete.
it will always be an uphill battle against an entity that can afford dozens of lawyers and scores of employees to deal with your case if they don't feel like backing down
It's even worse - it also takes years. I have totally lost trust in any kind of justice coming from our legal system for the average citizen or small business. I think it was Mark Twain who said that courts are where justice is dispensed with.
Also, try doing this when you have someone desperately ill at home (which is true in her case).
Not that it was positive to start with, but my opinion of Google's approach to business has now reached a state where my expression of it would be unprintable.
I agree 100%.
In the article I would take issue with the statement that google were the new man, just like the old but worse.
I can't see that it's any worse. (and that is _not_ a good thing)
back in the day the recording label had exactly the sort of power that youtube do today - in fact more! they had the studios, pressing plants, distribution networks and retail outlets pretty much all locked up. even worse than google they then 'loaned' you the money to use all their kit, and levied hefty interest charges on the back end - which got paid back as soon as possible after release, meaning most artists made $0 from their first album -irrespective of sales.
sure google are fucking providers in the ass, but at least they give em a kiss first.
you were lucky in the old days to be able to get your trousers off first
"I would take issue with the statement that google were the new man, just like the old but worse."
There's a rather valid reasoning behind that statement. Record companies of old used to make big investments into the future market. They searched actively for new and promising artists, nurtured them in many ways - access to recording facilities, professional guidance, lots of pocket money, advertising, distribution, etc. This really helped young musicians to get going. Albeit for a lion's share of the future income.
Digital model seems cheaper, as new bosses take a cut of around 30% (iTunes model), but... they sell only existing music and bugger else! Nothing from their cut goes to the yet-unknown artists, aka the future of music. They just reap and do not sow. That is the problem here. Maybe it'll change, maybe not, but it's definitely a massive disruption.
dunno about your dad, but when i got a job he didn't insist i repay _all_ my pocket money plus 25% before I got to keep _any_ of my earnings. (+ rent, food and clothing)
As for the investments, I'm not sure exactly how much google have spent on server farms and comms, and coding, and indeed marketing, but i'll give you a pound to a pinch of shit that the figure would make a typical Sony BMG exec run home to his mummy.
all of which is available for 'free' no contract, no lock in (the OP notwithstanding) plus they do all that stuff the old industry did! and if you met many a&r men you would know that it is infinitely more enjoyable to have a conversation with a php script. :-)
It's a quaint idea that the record companies ever had anything to do with 'the future of music' they never did, any more than google, spotify or itunes do today, they are businesses. they do market research and when they see something sell, they buy something similar... cheap (and therein lies the rub).
EMI never taught anyone E A and B7, or suggested syd barrets eyes were like black holes in the sky.
I really can't see a difference today, apart from the consumers perspective where music is infinitely more available than before. The world is still full of kids sweating it out over E A and B7, one day maybe he'll be the next john lennon - in which case he'll end up loaded, or on the other hand he almost certainly won't - and get a steady job as a painter and decorator. same as it ever was.
If my previous post left an impression that I'm a fan of record companies - that's not the case. Far from it.
My argument in a nutshell - Google/Apple/Spotify/etc are just digital distributors of the finished product. Nothing else. They have no hand in production. Whereas record companies used to operate more like a venture capital - making investments in a number of upstarts, in exchange for a hefty share. Plus production facilities, marketing, distribution.
Which means that these two models are radically different and cannot be compared directly.
Downsides of the old model are well-known. No need to argue about that. Maybe it's gotten even worse - I wouldn't be surprised if the Big Five have outsourced all meaningful work to the smaller companies and just funnel money to and fro. Doesn't really matter. They're toast anyway. Big question (and a big concern) is about the future market.
FWIW: David Lowery did that 'worse than old boss' argument in a length. Highly recommended reading.
Go look up the definition of *de facto*, you fucktard. If you surveyed 100 people in the street and asked them to name a user-uploaded video streaming service, what are they most likely to respond…? Ergo, a *de facto* monopoly.
I'd love to know what these "plenty of other places" are to which you refer; the only one I can think of off-the-top-of-my-head is Vimeo. Where else did you have in mind …?
@joeW - did you actually bother to read the transcript? Obviously not. Keating has taken a lot of things as mandatory when that was not what was said. She's published a transcript that does as much or more damage to her case as it does to Google's - the only thing saving her is that most people like you probably will not bother actually reading it.
maybe there is no way for artists to make money from selling copies of their work. They got peanuts from records (except the mega stars) and now they get peanuts from YouTube (except the mega stars)
Here's an idea: why not launch an open platform for music where the artist stay in control. If the platform is advertised at every concert or other venue, then it should gather traction.
But there is no way anyone would go into so much trouble. Especially artists :-)
"is google now saying it owns all the material you post on youtube "
Nope, Google is saying that if you want to continue to monetize your content when others use it in their videos (as you currently can) then you need to sign the new agreement. Otherwise they are not going to pay you when other people put your stuff on YouTube, however you can still track the use of your content and issue a take down request if you want.
No account, no content ID. So you can't use our automatic anti-piracy tools. It would be such a shame if loads of our users were to put up your content for free, and we get all the advertising revenue anyway.
That's silly. Of course you can still use Content ID. In fact, it was always possible to use Content ID without an account.
The difference is that now, you cannot use Content ID to put ads against the pirated content, only block it.
As far as I can tell, you can still upload music, and block or allow third-party videos using your music as you please. BUT you cannot monetise any of it without agreeing to the new conditions.
The new conditions say that you have to monetise everything; you cannot block third-party videos, and they must be monetised.
So you can't monetise the third party material? Seems sensible as a lot of the content blocks are bogus - and where legitimate why wouldn't you take it down. If you feel that a particular channel (say a hour long show that uses your track as a jingle owes you money - which they would you can block the channel and make a contract with each other so that they have the right to use your music, by I don't know, paying you for it.)
So it doesn't sound particularly evil at all. Content block everything, set up private agreements where you feel it's worth while, don't where you don't. No particularly reason to subside off of the ad revenue. And if the third party decides to cut the segment with your IP then fairs fair, but if you really think they used your shit you can then go on to DMCA them and take legal action to gain fair payment.
Wow so Google are saying if you want to use, without charge, this incredibly expensive infrastructure we maintain in order to make money you have to agree to our terms or go somewhere else?
What a bunch of evil, evil people. Won't somebody think of the creatives!
As a developer I write stuff for a variety of App stores. Guess what. I have to agree to their terms and conditions too or I get no money, I don't even get to upload. Where were the bleeding hearts to save me when I had to check that box.
Maybe it's because having to write shedloads of Objective-C isn't considered as creative and lovey as playing a freaking cello.
I think the big issue here is that too many people have come to the conclusion that sites like Youtube are now theirs, they belong to them: "How dare Google tell us how we are going to use Youtube!", "Uploading my stuff to Youtube and getting money for ad hits is my right!", etc, bunch of idiots.
And by the way Register, just to check, that black and white image you keep using of the children with the freaky eyes from a horror/sci-fi flick I can't remember the name of (but parodied in the Simpsons as "The Bloodening") are you paying for that?
Don't you specify what the app will cost in the end?
Do you have to put up with others uploading your app and you get payed whatever the hosting site thinks it might be worth, take it or leave it?
Perhaps you are glad that the app is locked into a safe app store, and can't be spread willy-nilly, as that would wreak havoc with your attempt to set the price of the app? That doesn't seem to be true for
Youtube material, and Google seems to take advantage of this fact, don't you agree?
I think what they're saying is that you have to accept their contract and their small amount of revenue and control in order to have a Youtube account and get paid for ads run with your stuff. The artists with the majors get better terms - although who knows if the big boys pass all of that across?
Otherwise you can bugger off, and no money for you. Of course at that point you can respond OK, fair enough. We don't agree terms. So I'll remove all my content from Youtube. That's fair negotiation after all.
But what Google then say is. Oh dear. Sir doesn't appear to have a Youtube account. No account, no content ID. So you can't use our automatic anti-piracy tools. It would be such a shame if loads of our users were to put up your content for free, and we get all the advertising revenue anyway. And you're left with fuck-all, and we still get your work. Oh of course we're not doing this deliberately. Of course we'll comply with the law. Ahem. You'll just have to search Youtube every few seconds, and put in a DMCA takedown for every instance of pirarcy, and we'll take that down after a few days.
What Google are saying is deal with us and we screw you. Don't deal with us and we screw you harder.
Youtube was always build on stealing other peoples' content. That's what made it popular, as a way to see stuff people had recorded. Sure you also had people uploading original stuff too, but it's always been a place to see copyrighted content for free. That mattered less when Youtube were a startup - that never made any money. Artists and content owners were sort of losing out, but as there was no real alternative, or revenue stream, they probably weren't losing much. And it's not like anyone else was getting paid either, so they weren't being stolen from - so much as maybe losing a potential opportunity for other revenues.
Then Google bought Youtube. Suddenly it was a different kettle of fish. They had to clean their act up somewhat, as Youtube was full of other peoples' stuff. But now Google owned it, and Google have money. But also Google bought it to make money. So they shoved advertising all over it. And they were forced to build tools to help copyright owners, as they were now knowingly making cash from other peoples' stuff, with no rights to it. OK Google still weren't uploading it themselves, and could try to argue they weren't responsible, but that was a pretty thin argument.
But it seems now they've decided they're powerful enough to try to go back to the old way of doing things. They've bought off the majors, who have many lawyers. And now they're trying the protection racket on the indies. "This is a nice shop you've got here. But these books are very flammable. It would be a shame if something was to... happen to them... Like a fire perhaps... Oh no! We wouldn't dream of doing anything like that. But you see those guys over there... Well we could help you control them, but well... That'd cost us you see... So hand over most of your money or else."
Google are pissing off so many people, in so many areas at once. It can't last. Despite all that money they pay to politicians, and their army of supporters, they're still cruisin' for a bruisin'. In the end there'll just be too much pressure to do something. The EU are looking likeliest. Axel Springer's support for his candidacy was what got Juncker the gig as EU Commission President. Merkel would probably have blocked him without the outcry in the German press. And that favour has been repaid already, as the new Commission have made much tougher noises in Germany. But then online privacy and data protection has been a huge political issue in Germany for the last 15 years anyway. The French don't like Google for being American, and the association with the NSA hasn't helped anything, so I suspect the EU may clip their wings somewhat. And because they compete with the mainstream media, who are getting increasingly desperate for revenue, it's going to be very easy for them to whip up some anti-Google publicity, and get the voters onside.
In my opinion Google are Microsoft of around 2000. Anti-competitive, arrogant, bloated, rich, but woefully ignorant/careless about security, making way too many enemies at once and risking massive damage to their public image that will take decades to recover from.
"With strong copyright, neither Old Man nor New Man could get away with such actions as YouTube has attempted here"
You can have the strongest copyright possible but when the Man demands that you assign it to him - he gets the benefit of the strength, not you. And however strong a copyright is, unless it is made totally unalienable by law, the Man will be able to grab it from you if he wants to...
... or reform copyright to make it only assignable to individual humans as authors for a strictly limited time (20-50 years).
Make it non-transferrable as well, and retroactively make all transferred copyrights invalid.
There you have, free artist with power to control their own work.
Only it won't happen. So all copyright MUST be abolished, since it is nowadays the primary tool of corporate oppression.
The above is simply not true.
EDIT: I don't usually make such bald and unexplained posts, but in this case you have made an assertion that you cannot support - that copyright strength is irrelevant. What more is there to say other than that you can't back that up?
> but in this case you have made an assertion that you cannot support - that copyright strength is irrelevant
Actually, the case was clearly stated. In the "old days", the record company said "assign me your copyright or else", nowadays you're complaining that Google are doing exactly that. Neither of those situations would be affected one way or the other by any definition of copyright.
You are taking this out of context.
Copyright "strength" IS irrelevant as a way of protecting the author against the Man because the Man takes the copyright, weak or strong, away from the author. Hence, the author no longer HAS the copyright and it protects the Man from now on.
Open a book - you will most likely find that the copyright is with the publisher. Take a CD - the copyright is with the label.
This is just deplorable strong arm robbery and intimidation from a company that should be more responsible. Due to Google's size and presence, they have a lot of power to either make the Internet (and the world at large) a better place, or just continue the age-old sleazy tactics employed by cheap swindlers since money was invented. The bigwigs at Google should be ashamed. I wonder if the EFF would be interested in taking this case...
If I recall correctly, SOPA would have done next to nothing to fix the Google landgrab issue. It would, however, have done a great deal towards making many more people criminals than currently are by making ripping CDs and DVDs illegal. Ripped all your CDs to iTunes? Oh that's a $2 million dollar fine and a thousand years in jail. Next criminal please...
...and what extra powers SOPA did hand to copyright owners were almost designed for abuse by the traditional copyright pantomime villains, rather than helping artists. Rotten all the way through and no amount of 'big copyright' PR is going to change that.
'Stronger copyright' is a dangerous tool, more likely to be abused wholsesale than help.
Actually, awful as this is, record companies were worse. Why? Because if you didn't sign up to their deal, your music would never be heard on record, and if you did, you were not only signing all your rights over to them, but also usually the next few albums (aka years of work) over to them as well.
I know a lot of people hate Google (it's no surprise this was another Orlowski piece), but it's too easy to forget that they seem bad because you can see what they are doing, whereas when it was record companies / publishers / ..., all that stuff was much less widely known.
Not true; a lot of bands at the end of the 60s and the first half of the 70s established their own labels just so they could avoid this - indeed some famously refused to sign over their copyright to the record companies.
Indeed this was a growing trend until the industry switched to the more compatible UK punk movement.
I'd also like to know what the people on this site would say if they were Google and they had Google's issues, and the decisions they took directly affected the money in their pockets.
Apparently they are all lovely people and would agree to every request, happily let anyone in any way use the services they weren't paying for, take any legal responsibility for anything that goes wrong, insulate people from all the problems with copyright violations and take down requests, and then presumably, skip happily hand in hand to the land of Candyville, to listen to cello recitals by the stream, where they would agree to host the files and pay the money in perpetuity never changing a single thing on the site or a single part of the operation just in case it one angry blogger unhappy. "No, no, young gentlemen, you are special, you play the trumpet, and sad and forever alone that you would have been before this site existed aside, you tell us what terms and conditions you want and we'll happily sign them for you".
This is the site the other day where one guy basically said "GOOGLE ARE EVIL THEY AUTO COMPLETE MY SEARCHES".
The BBC has the same kind of "brand appeal", and has both a commercial arm and a powerful online presence including visual media.
Maybe it's time they introduced another half tonne gorilla to online video. I'd imagine we'd see a rapid reverse ferret from Google about then. That or a meeting with the UK government to try and reel it in, which would certainly be a circus.
"It has politicians and regulators firmly where it wants them"
Have you been paying attention at all to the copyright crap going through the courts (APIs) or the things happening in the EU commission and EU parliament? Or China? Or Germany? Or Spain?
Simple fact of the matter is that lobbying for influence if your a big company is an arms race, you lot can bandy about "don't be evil" til the cows come home but I bet if Google wasn't shoveling this money at lawmakers the other interested parties would rip them apart within a month.
I don't think this is true :"overtook Goldman Sachs last year as the biggest corporate political donor in the USA." Not even close. There are quite a few places to check this info, including opensecrets.org. Andrew is a smart man and good at writing (evidenced by how well he provokes comments) but this time the misdirection (or downright lying?) is not hidden very well.
Of many bad things on the internet. Google is the worst (they might even be worse then Paypal). Google Adsense for instance is now so difficult to get into that it is almost impossible. Unless you get tens of thousands of views pr day. Youtube is getting worse and they are slowly moving it towards subscription model.
Google search is now getting rather useless due to the filter bubble that exits. That filter bubble is preventing good results appearing in the search results and it is now also heavily filled with advertisements and sponsored links. There many more things that I could count up. But most people get the idea what I am saying (I hope).
The source matierial shows google didnt say "YouTube is EVIL.". The reg has added that as a quote when its not true.
The way I see it the options are:
1) Sign up to the new payment scheme.
2) Remove your content and submit DMCA requests when someone else uploads it - a way out.
3) Use the content ID system and let people view it for free.
That doesnt seem too bad to me. Its just a pitty enough people are stupid enough that google probably wont loose their position in streaming, even if smart artists abandon the platform.
Yes, except the transcript doesn't cover all of the ground around this. It's not as simple as you make out. The new terms include a few interesting provisions that are, at best, unacceptable restraints of trade and, at worst, just completely screwing the artist over for Google's profit. All in all, it amounts to something little different from the worst excesses of the old-style recording industry. That's the very industry that some of the Internet/web cheerleaders used to say would be brought to heel by the wonderful, open access that our new technology provided. Unfortunately, they didn't go on to mention that the new corporate behemoths that would be controlling this amazing electronic utopia would turn out to be even worse, more acquisitive and more duplicitous than the old ones.
"Say hello to the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss"
This shit needs to end now.
I refuse to use Google and their services and it galls me when I see all the Google tools that Ghostery and NoScript block when I go to a web site.
But I can't give up Youtube and I can't stand that Google owns them and jacked up my user account to try and tie it to Google+
... Are you idiots?
Stronger copyright is completely irrelevant here. There is literally no way copyright law helps.
This is a monetization issue, and an issue with Google using their clout to say "hey if you want to make money from us you have to follow our rules"
Copyright literally does not even come into play here.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019