YouTube Demands the Removal of a Digital Music News Guest Post…

Because information wants to be free, as long as it’s your information.  Which brings us to this: YouTube is now threatening to completely sever its relationship with digital distributor ONErpm, thanks to some ‘over-sharing’ of information in a recent guest post on Digital Music News.  According to ONErpm founder Emmanuel Zunz, YouTube is unhappy that certain payout details and percentages were disclosed, with a complete blacklisting being threatened.

According to ONErpm, YouTube has demanded that the entire guest post – here – be ripped down, which would obliterate nearly 100 comments and the knowledgebase that comes with that (not to mention the detailed information in the post itself).

“Yt is threatening to cancel our agreement,” Zunz emailed.  “It’s a very serious issue for us.”

Digital Music News, however, has not been contacted directly about the pulldown.  In fact, YouTube (and Google) opted not to respond to our inquiry about the threats.

The post, written by Zunz, took sharp issue with a number of YouTube monetization details presented by Jeff Price, founder of Audiam.  Zunz, whose ONErpm directly competes with Audiam, directly challenges a number of Price’s claims about YouTube, including specific percentage payouts.

We’re unclear exactly what YouTube is so pissed about, and frankly, the story keeps changing.  Initially, ONErpm asked us to scrub payout percentages from the post, which would have confused the entire discussion thread (and neuter the post itself).  Subsequently, ONErpm revealed that YouTube actually wanted a complete removal but refused to offer any more information (the story has remained intact).  Again, YouTube and Google have chosen not to respond to our questions.

Adding to the sketchiness, Jeff Price says YouTube hasn’t been bothering him at all, even though Price has written several high-profile, highly-detailed posts on the matter over the past few months.  That opens the possibility that ONErpm’s payout details – including a heavily-disputed 65 percent payout figure – are simply incorrect.

“I really don’t think the problem is YouTube,” Price emailed.

More as we learn more.  The post in question:

  • Save
 August 15th, 2013: Why Jeff Price Is Horribly Misinformed About YouTube Monetization…

47 Responses

  1. excuse me?

    What the hell happened to “information wants to be free”?

    • Visitor

      That’s only one part of the maxime. The other and less known part goes:
      Information also wants to be expensive!

  2. Visitor

    Hey Paul, did you hear about this?
    SiriusXM sued for millions in ‘unpaid’ music royalties

  3. Fun Fact:

    Zunz and Price are both in breach of their contracts with YouTube for publicly disclosing rev splits.

      • Visitor

        So you think Google is entitled to censor 100 other user comments?

        • Mark

          It’s part of youtube’s TOS. If you want to use their system you have toi play by their rules. This has nothing to do with what either party are “entitled” to say about their business models. It is what they agreed to do (or not to do) when they signed on with youtube.
          Better to just run your business by the rules agreed to and shut the f up with petty squabbles on forums.

          • Visitor

            Yeah, Mark keeps nailing his foot to the floor over & over. 🙂
            Again, YouTube’s TOS can be ignored entirely by Digital Music News and anybody else who hasn’t signed a YouTube contract.

          • Visitor

            Yes, I think everyone understands that Digital Music News has done nothing wrong, that’s a given isn’t it?
            It’s the schoolyard morons with their competing copyfraud companies that are posting youtube “secrets” that they should not be posting.

  4. Visitor

    “According to ONErpm, YouTube has demanded that the entire guest post – here – be ripped down, which would obliterate nearly 100 comments”
    Paul, are you absolutely sure you got that right?
    Google is well known as a free-speech crusader, always fighting censorship.
    I simply refuse to believe that they not only want to delete Mr. Zunz’s guest post but also, um, my comments, amongst a lot of other contributions.
    This has to be a mistake.
    Imagine if it were true. It would make Google the most hypocritical company on the planet.

    • Paul Resnikoff

      Well, exactly as I wrote it, yes. I’m not sure why ONErpm would lie to me about that, but I’m merely conveying what they told me.

      • Visitor

        “I’m merely conveying what they told me”
        Peculiar. So we can reduce the mystery to two (serious) possibilities:
        1) Mr. Zunz is a liar, or
        2) Google is the most hypocritical company on the planet.
        Perhaps Mr. Zunz would care to elaborate?

        • Mark

          Both parties have violated Google’s TOS. If a post revealing business model details that were not supposed to be revealed goes against Google’s TOS then it should be removed.
          Google is not after the comments, just the post. I believe it would be difficult to delete the offending post without also deleting comments.

          • Visitor

            “If a post revealing business model details that were not supposed to be revealed goes against Google’s TOS then it should be removed”
            You gotta be joking. 🙂
            Google’s Terms Of Service are neither state secrets nor laws, and you should just ignore them unless you have signed a contract to the contrary with Google.
            The only part here who has a contract with Google is Mr. Zunz, and his problems are not relevant to Digital Music News, its readers or anybody else.

          • Mark

            Not sure what you mean. That is exactly what I am saying.
            Mr Zunz and Mr Price should not be revealing details of a contract that they have signed with youtube/google on open forums.
            It’s just a bad thing to do and in this case is a violation of the contract that the parties have signed to.
            Mr Renikoff of course did nothing wrong as he is simply a forum manager. I imagine he would wait until he has contacted directly with a take down notice.
            Or they can all three hide in the Ecuadorian embassy until it all blows over and they can find safe passage to Moscow or some such thing…

          • Paul Resnikoff

            “Mr Renikoff of course did nothing wrong as he is simply a forum manager. I imagine he would wait until he has contacted directly with a take down notice”
            And here you go again, nailing your feet to the floor for the third time…
            Mark, Google can send take down notices to Mr. Resnikoff till the cows come home — and Mr. Resnikoff can file ’em all where the sun don’t shine without any consequences.

          • Mark

            btw- I think you meant “me comprendes?” which means “do you understand me?”

            “comprendo?” means “I understand??”
            …or maybe that’s what you meant, apologies if that was the case.

          • Mark

            Despite your ravings and poor use of Spanish I’ve never said DMN would have to remove anything. What you are saying above is absolutely correct (apart from your Spanish).

            DMN has done nothing and does not need to do anything.
            It is ‘los tontos’ (Spanish for ‘the fools’) that posted trade secrets on a public form that will lose their right to do business with youtube and google.

            Vale? (Spanish for ‘ok?’)

      • Anonymous Coward

        If you are “merely conveying” the unsubstantiated allegation, perhaps the headline and body should reflect that, instead of reporting it as truth. “Resnikoff Doesn’t Factcheck” is not the same as “Resnikoff Doesn’t Factcheck, Alleges Anonymous Coward.”
        That Gandolfini pic is great. Where did you license it from?

        • Paul Resnikoff

          Let me expand then.
          I believe that YouTube made this demand of Zunz/ONErpm, based on the conversations and also the involvement of a very credible press person working for ONErpm (in my estimation; I won’t drag her into this if I can help it.)
          The more specific question in my mind is why they are making this demand exactly.
          Strange that YouTube chose not to respond to my inquiry about this. You make your own conclusions; I’ll gladly correct if I’m wrong.

          • hippydog

            QUOTE Paul Resnikoff “Strange that YouTube chose not to respond to my inquiry about this.”
            Not strange at all.. There is no upside for them in contacting you.. They can simply force Zunz to clean up his own mess, with no effort expanded on their part..
            Its all win-win for them..
            1.) main stream media wont pick it up.. not a big enough deal. win
            2.) If zunz cleans up his mess.. win
            3.) if he doesnt clean it up.. they can blacklist him, sending a message to any other idiot that wants to reveal details.

    • NotJustAPrettyFace

      You said “Google is well known as a free-speech crusader, always fighting censorship.”.
      If that is true, why do they prevent people disclosing their youtube percentages? The answer is: Because they are the most hypocritical company on the planet.
      More proof: Google also spends millions of dollars funding proxy organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation to campaign that ‘Information wants to be free’. BUT Google forces people to pay for THEIR information – all those bits and bytes floating around on Google’s advertising networks? You don’t get to use that for free, you have to pay for it.
      So Google’s hypocrisy is also this: YOUR information wants to be free. OUR information must be paid for.
      So yes, Google IS the most hypocritical company on the planet.
      Another example of Google’s hypocrisy: Their corporate credo is “Don’t Be Evil”. Except that they ended up being fined $500M for knowingly selling illegal drugs (and I don’t mean illegal in the US but legal in, say, Canada. I mean genuinely illegal drugs). See for a pretty full telling of the story. According to the Attorney General of Rhode Island, Larry Page knew what was going on.
      But hey, if you repeat the mantra “Don’t Be Evil” enough, people will be daft enough to believe it…

      • Mark

        “Because they are the most hypocritical company on the planet.”

        Give me a break. If Google has a business policy then the people that want to work with google need to abide by that policy.
        It’s been that way since google existed. Google does not allow you to post your personal data regarding their Adsense program either.
        I’m sure Google does evil things but this absolutely is not one of them.

      • Visitor

        “You said “Google is well known as a free-speech crusader, always fighting censorship.”.

        If that is true, why do they prevent people disclosing their youtube percentages? The answer is: Because they are the most hypocritical company on the planet.”
        Hm, it looks like you’re right.
        It’s just going to shock a lot of people. I mean, we have always heard Google say things like this:
        “If You Have Something You Don’t Want Anyone To Know, Maybe You Shouldn’t Be Doing It”
        Eric Schmidt, Google CEO

  5. Visitor

    “”I really dont think the problem is YouTube,” Price emailed.”
    So perhaps this is Price’s/Wells’ handiwork?
    Here’s what Mr. Wells wrote in the comment’s section after Mr. Zunz admitted that he didn’t have the rights to a track he uploaded to Audiam:
    “So if we hadn’t written you catching this, you’d have…what? Used our service in bad faith?
    Much, much more to say.”
    Anyway, I really don’t hope that Google is going to succeed in their alledged attempt to censor the comment section as it’s conclusion is extremely helpful to artists:
    It showed that services like Audiam and ONErpm are useless to artists for the simple fact that YouTube’s Content ID is free, available and easy to use without middle men — even for individual artists.
    The final proof was delivered by Zoe Keating in the comment section of this article:

    • Visitor

      Exactly. Neither of these companies offer anything that a composer can’t simply do themselves right here
      And then earn 100% of the revenue.
      I’ve seen strings of up to 4 contentID middlemen for some of the composers we represent. The composers themselves were never notified that their music was being monetized on youtube, and the composers never earned a cent from these middlemen.

      Why not just do it for yourself?

  6. Nothing new here, yet again

    I read the first two posts and asked why all the drama last time? Same question stands. BTW, I doubt Google cares about DMN enough to try and “censor” it.
    To my fellow lady musician friends (if there are any other besides me), stay away from these posts if you are looking for any actual help on how to monetise your music on youtube. The only advice from one strident “Visitor” (whom I suspect is Mr. Resnikoff, himself, trying to create sensation for his own post — if female intuition serves me correctly) is to do it yourself. I suspect that it was this same “Visitor” who accused me of not having rights to my own music in the last post when I said that my friend and I were having issues monetising. Correction, I think this “Visitor” accused me of uploading other’s music to my own channel which would hardly make me an artist now, would it? (Yes, “Visitor”, your reply to me was obnoxious and yes, this is my retaliatory post.) And, if this “Visitor” is not Mr. Resnikoff, as I suspect, I apologize. But, we can never really know for sure now, can we?

    Bravo to all of you gentlemen — Pulitzer stuff here — highly deserving of censorship for the groundbreaking nature of it! You’ve inspired me though — I have the beginning of scathing lyrics in my head about drama queens (the irony) diddling with their egos.

    • Yves Villeneuve

      You are giving women a bad name. You should ask Paul to delete your post. I support women.

      • Whatever

        Thanks but I think I’ll keep it. Plenty of men make men look bad all the time including on DMN. Thanks for your support of women. I support men too, just not morons.

        • GGG

          Yves makes humans in general look bad, so don’t take anything he says too personally.

  7. Visitor

    If you are referring to the post above yours it is was definitely from Mr. Resnikoff
    I posted it and have years of experience with the dark side youtube contentID and copyfraud companies.
    I represent more than 150 composers at
    A percentage of whom have had their production music revenue destroyed when copyfraud companies entered their catalog into the contentID system without their knowledge or permission.

  8. a6

    speaking of audiam, they haven’t found any of my stuff on youtube for a long time now and i’m missing out on tons of plays. not a great start.

    • JTV

      With ContentID it’s immediate (a few seconds), weird they did not find anything.
      BTW, we can do the same, with a 90% payout rate (so a 10% cut when they take 25%…)
      Get in touch!

      JTV Digital

  9. Visitor

    the terms of service for adsense say you can’t report revenue details.
    in any market, when one side has no information, that side loses
    in other words, google might call themselves revolutionary but this is the same old business cr*p


    Why don’t all of you guys read the book:

    HR-2281 And then the DMCA Didn’t Apply on the Earth (Viacom vs. Google) which is on AMAZON and find out how Google is ripping everyone off allowing every file to be downloaded (and the Bloomberg Television keeping that information from being known)… Mozilla’s Video DownloadHelper + their TOS asserting downloading, but then in US Federal Court, Google asserts no downloads.

    F’N LIARS. They are enabling catestrophic theft against all of us.

    Okay now that that has been said, everyone can keep complaining about Google for something else while they are stealing from you.

    Have a nice day.

  11. David

    Assuming that YouTube has a standard clause in its terms and conditions which prohibits users from disclosing the revenue split, that is hardly the end of the matter. Non-disclosure agreements (aka gagging clauses) have some legitimate uses, but it is difficult to see one in this case. Why would YouTube want to hide the revenue split? Does it offer different splits to different users, and if so why? Or does it just not want the world to know how much money it is making off continuing copyright infringement? A non-disclosure agreement between two equally matched parties is one thing, but a condition imposed by a monopolist like YouTube, also taking advantage of the legal privilege of safe harbor under the DMCA, is much more difficult to defend. The implied threat made by YouTube is ‘well, if you don’t accept our deal, we will take down the offending video, but we all know it will be back up again tomorrow. So be grateful for whatever we offer you’.

    • Farley Grainger

      And what Google is doing may be evil even if it is legally protected.

  12. hippydog

    @ Paul
    why would Google contact DMN? They know just as well as you do that they cant touch you..
    but they can pretty much Destroy ONErpm for breaking their agreement..
    If it was me I would tell Mr Zunz that the article is not being removed, but you would be willing to edit the article if he forwarded the exact details and reasons why Google needs it edited..
    The part I find most interesting, is I seriously doubt google is scouring the net looking “pay out terms” , I dont care how good their search engine is, the chances that they would have come across that article on their own is pretty low..
    the logical conclusion is SOMEONE went out of their way to contact Google and rat mr zune out..
    a heck of a LOT of ‘sketchiness’ going on here..