Last updated: Friday, 7:10 pm PT
Sat., 10:25 am PT
Mon., 11:30 am PT.
YouTube is now aggressively responding to Zoë Keating’s post about Music Key, calling her claims about content removal ‘patently false’. They have also demanded a retraction from Digital Music News. The conversation is mid-stream, here’s the communication so far:
[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.]
[Update: Monday morning: No response yet. YT told DMN on Friday that they were ‘reaching out’ to Forbes as well; Forbes hasn’t changed a very similar headline]
Haha. About this “removal,” you see, we prefer to call it “selective content de-indexing”.
Google begins to sound like North Korea.
Here’s the really disturbing part:
We only learned about Google’s censorship attempt and mafia tactics because Paul had the guts to print their mails.
But exactly how common are these Google threats to freedom of speech?
Did the company also try to stop The Guardian, BBC, Forbes and other media from bringing similar headlines last summer, or is it just the music press?
We need a full transparency report.
This is all about a pre-emptive strike by Google / Youtube over the impending changes to Section 512 of the DMCA in the US and the elimination of the Safe Harbor provision that youtube and other alleged pirate sites have been hiding behind since 1999.
The transparency report that Google eventually had to publish confirms that over 345 million take down notices were filed just last year and just to Google. The absurdity and ineffectiveness of the simple ‘take down’ notice is inescapable.
Now the question becomes, how much of this is understood and filters down to musicians and if musicians and songwriters have the courage to finally say no to devastatingly bad deal.
The book guys did it and won a temporary victory over Amazon. Are musicians brave enough to say “we want and deserve a future.”.
“The transparency report that Google eventually had to publish confirms that over 345 million take down notices were filed just last year and just to Google. The absurdity and ineffectiveness of the simple ‘take down’ notice is inescapable.”
Yes.
Imagine if you could invent some kind of automatical replacement for DMCA takedowns — perhaps a bot that could check the ID of all CONTENT and block illegal files from being indexed by Google in the first place…
Sigh, now there’s more work to do for our heroes in Google’s Department Of Censorship.
Today, it’s a patently false Hypebot headline:
“Google Tells Zoe Keating: Sign Music Key Deal or We’ll Block Your YouTube Channel”
Here’s the patently false Hypebot headline:
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/01/google-tells-zoe-keating-sign-music-key-deal-or-have-your-youtube-channel-blocked.html
Music industry or musicians DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT NEED YOUTUBE for music monetization.
YouTube with idiotic, label run VEEVOOO on board, brings more damage than goodwill to music.
Time to convert Radio and streaming to $100B music store. We do not need YOUTUBE for any purpose.
Live grade musicians will be created by Radio and streaming DJs as that make money for their employers, music industry and musicians! Pandora, iHeart, Spotify, Shazam, Gracenote …and few more let’s get together and show YouTube and Google how to stop music prostitution and make money and happens as we serve music!
PLEASE print the transcript Zoe
“Please send over the link when it’s updated”
If you don’t want to find the head of your best horse in your bed tonight, that is…
quite a bit of arrogance from this YouTube rep, expecting a retraction like that…ending with “Cheers”…wow..
this guy has obviously never read, much less dealt with, Digital Music News before…
Zoe is my hero.
Irving Azoff is also fighting aggressively against what he views as exploitation of artist works by YouTube. Personally I think he’s right; YouTube is largely using legal loopholes (many dating back to the 40s) and their own copyright constructions to pay artists horribly low rates (if they get paid at all).
Azoff is fighting back with his own loopholes, which we’ve documented. It will be really interested to see how this pans out.
Yes — Azoff is also my hero. 🙂
Here’s the link to the basic terms of service referenced by Mr. McLernon:
https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
…and they are the worst terms on the planet.
Could Google actually lose its war against artists?
If YouTube insists that this headline — YouTube Is Removing Any Artist That Refuses to License Its Subscription Service — is wrong, then it means that YouTube can’t threaten to block artists for that reason ever again.
This is a fantastic situation!
I can’t see how the Google guy’s going to weasel himself out of this one. Anything YouTube says now can and will be used against them in court.
Ownership is crucial innit?
I wonder why no one ever bothered thinking up the mind-blowing idea of building their own platform to service their fans, clients and employees??? …
Sadly all the alternatives thus far that dream of competing with youtube just ultimately fall flat in their user experience and eye appeal… It aint web 2.0 anymore guys, youtube wouldnt scale if it was new and unveiled today, with its look and functionality…
I’m not too happy about how most of the music business treats its customers, so as a listener and waning fan, i like youtube and am happy for all of these people punishing the industry into providing widepsread easy access to their content…
As an artist, writer and producer, well, i work with it, if some army has more troops then me or the advantage on the field, i spend the time strategizing a way to use that to my advantage… Heading to the front lines to whine to the other sides infantry troops is never any good, unless used as a diversion or distraction or some other means…
For those with no other options or skills and fully reliant on some backend royalties to cover the costs of living, i feel your pain and struggle, but in this day and age it’s just not a prudent play to have all your eggs in one basket, regardless the constant marketed push towards specialization…
The reality is, the Majors and anyone in bed with them are just fine, as they have the muscle and leverage to work out and negotiate what they need and how they need it, and anyone not with them gets flattened and annihilated, as it always was, is and likely will be…
im not too interested in the whole mono game, its not a benefit to society or the world or the people, and governments should be taking a long hard look at it all, if they want to remain relevant and useful beyond their core purpose… but if you can get down with the right people you get along with, ultimately who cares right? its far too much trouble to do anything about it and is best left to the g to regulate, so pressure needs to be applied accordingly across the board to the right people at the right time… at the end of the day each and every artist, writer and producer is looking to make as much money as possible, when you get down to the core of it anyways…
As i said many moons ago, consolidate power, its the only way…
sadly my offer of being involved in that music wise, is long gone… i would have got diggy down, but no one wanted to, which is fine actually, im back baby, 2015 is of to a flying start and life is phenomenal again and my biggest music goal is to never be pulled back down into that pit, into that hole, into that coliseum, into that kind of game…
good luck…
🙂
Wait — I don’t get this…
Google wants to censor DMN and delete this headline:
YouTube Is Removing Any Artist That Refuses to License Its Subscription Service
But I just found a similar headline on The Guardian:
YouTube to block indie labels who don’t sign up to new music service
And another on Forbes:
YouTube Is About To Delete Independent Artists From Its Site
And yet another on BBC:
YouTube to block indie labels as subscription service launches
And guess what? All of them have now been available for more than half a year — and Google hasn’t done anything about it.
Why not? Is Google only harrassing the music press? Are BBC too big, or what?
Here are links to the “illegal” headlines on BBC, Forbes and Guardian:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27891883
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/17/youtube-indie-labels-music-subscription
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2014/06/18/youtube-is-about-to-delete-independent-artists-from-its-site/
What happened to freedom of information, Google?
Hm?
Here are links to the “illegal” headlines on BBC, Forbes and Guardian:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27891883
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/17/youtube-indie-labels-music-subscription
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2014/06/18/youtube-is-about-to-delete-independent-artists-from-its-site/
What happened to freedom of information, Google?
Hm?
That’s a really good point.
Glad you could use it.
YouTube (Matt McLernon) just told me he’s pressuring Forbes now; I’m assuming this is on the 6 month old story linked above but he hasn’t confirmed. So far no changes from Forbes. I’ll keep updating.
I think Mr. McLernon forgets how it all started. Why don’t we remind him:
On June 17, 2014, Financial Times ran this story:
“YouTube is about to begin a mass cull of music videos by artists including Adele and the Arctic Monkeys, after a number of independent record labels refused to sign up to the licensing terms for its new subscription service.”
So who planted this patently false piece of disinformation in the first place?
Was it Digital Music News? Zoe Keating? North Korea?
Nope.
It was Robert Kyncl — YouTube’s head of content and business operations — who told Financial Times in June 2014 that YouTube would start blocking videos “in a matter of days” to ensure that all content on the new platform was governed by its new contractual terms.
Here’s the headline:
YouTube to block indie labels as it launches paid music service
I’ll post a link to the article in a comment below.
Here’s the link.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ea6728e2-f568-11e3-afd3-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3PmhzGU69
So many patently false articles to delete, so little time.
Paul, it seems that Mr. McLernon was lying when he told you that Ms. Keating’s claims were “patently false”.
McLernon has previously confirmed to TIME Magazine that videos would be blocked in a manner that appears to be consistent with Keating’s description.
Here is an update to a TIME article from June 17, 2014:
Update: McLernon, the YouTube spokesman, later clarified that the videos in dispute [music videos deleted by YouTube over contractual disputes] will not be permanently deleted from YouTube in any markets but will instead keep their viewcounts, comments, likes and presence in users’ playlists in case they are later restored.
So they would indeed be deleted, or blocked, which means Ms. Keating probably should consider suing McLernon for defamation.
I’ll post a link to the TIME article in a comment below. The headline was — and is — “YouTube Removing Indie Bands’ Videos Ahead of Streaming Music Launch”, by the way. Mr. McLernon apparently failed to convince the good people at TIME that they should change their headline…
Here’s the TIME link:
http://time.com/2890115/youtube-indie-labels/
The update mentioned above was made on June 18 2014, so none of this should be news to Mr. McLernon.
Matt McLernon, Google: “Can you remove my email address from the story you just posted? […] having my daily email address openly SHARED […] isn’t helpful”
But… I thought sharing was caring, Matt? That all information should be free? That this kind of censorship would destroy the internet?
I’m really puzzled — can I contact you at mattmclernon(at)google.com?
Right sir, let’s blame the victim.
manson was the victim?
yikes, im hightailing it out of here then…
Not sure what you mean, we’re not discussing Manson…
ultimately ive been so screwed and taken advantage of by the music business and many of those mono corps, and im also a music consumer and artist, writer and producer, i put forth the reality of the situation and remove myself from the equation allowing an unbiased, open and honest view on things as they are as opposed to how id like them to be… im under no NDA, im not being paid by anyone to push any agenda or angle, im not in any gang, legal or illegal acting, im under no ones reins or authority, so i speak with experience, from an outsider and insiders viewpoint, therefore making what i say some of the most relevant and worthwhile stuff around…
im the true victim here, and not one whos revenues are down due to time moving on and market conditions, ive been so screwed over by the industry at large yet still will just straight up tell it like it is, still listen to the industries music if i like it, and give honest opinions if asked, free from any bias…
so please, dont be whining about who is and who isnt the victim here…
thanks for your time, have a good life…
🙂
I hate corporate punks as much as the next guy, but their argument starts out about the headline. That’s Digital Music New’s headline, not Zoe’s. Zoe’s headline on her site is simply, “What should I do about youtube?”
Nowhere in HER words does it ever say, “YouTube Is Removing Any Artist That Refuses to License Its Subscription Service…”
“Nowhere in HER words does it ever say, “YouTube Is Removing Any Artist That Refuses to License Its Subscription Service…””
Which part of her “I need to sign on to the new Youtube music services agreement or I will have my Youtube channel blocked” did you miss?
And again, Paul’s headline is similar to tons of existing headlines like the ones I quoted in a comment above — headlines Google never tried to remove.
This is just Google vs. music all over again.
Zoe has detailed notes on the conversation, in which a YouTube representative told her that her long-established channel would be blocked, and ineligible for monetization if she didn’t participate in Music Key. Blocked means no one can access it; it basically doesn’t exist. According to everything I’ve seen so far, this means that her designated channel would be effectively gone and so would its monetization possibilities — as well as accumulated likes, shares, comments and inclusion in playlists, etc. The previous links probably wouldn’t work either, leading to some serious linkrot and problems with all sorts of fan pages with embeds, etc.
That sounds like a removal to me. Again, if that’s misinformation, then I’ll change it. But I haven’t really seen information to suggest otherwise. I’ll await more information from YouTube and Google to make sure we have the most accurate story of what’s going on.
I think you wanted to reply to Sam, not me…
Anyway, these YouTube articles are incredibly useful — thanks for bringing them!
“Peace is for tombstones”
Im not much of a tombstone guy, i will be cremated in full and then have my remains spread among a flower garden with flowers that feed the bees, so they can suck my sweet nectar, and if my cells somehow permeate to them, perhaps help another species evolve, and either way, ill remain, for eternity, one way or another… i certainly dont need some tombstone with some achievement ledger on it so some other humans can come and lay flowers down upon the soil that covers some box that i decompose in… ill be the flower, regenerating forever…
im at peace myself bro, sorry you feel that way, peace is cool, fighting for it, well that never brings peace does it??
im like JAC from Last of the Mohicans, if war is coming and it doesnt fit into my ideoligies, ill head north and make a subtle turn west…. PEACE!!! lol
🙂
I saved that mail-jpg. 🙂
Never know when it might come in handy…
I’m gonna show my Mom!
YouTube owns the platform, even if they were wrong, they make the rules and can change them as they see it fit, within legal reason.
So you think it’s OK that Google
1) won’t use ContentID to remove stolen content, unless the owner signs a contract you have to be suicidal to sign, and
2) demands that Paul “corrects” a headline that is similar to headlines on BBC, Forbes, Guardian and other news sites?
Newsflash for you: YouTube owns the site — but not the content.
According to one source (see below*), Google/YT say that Zoe (or others in the same position) would still be able to use ContentID to remove infringing videos if they wish, even if they refuse to sign up to the new terms. Which is useful if true. I thought that ContentID was only available to YT ‘Partners’, but on a closer look at the description of the system, it should be available to any copyright owner with a large enough body of work. But a standard part of ContentID at present is that content owners have the option of ‘monetising’ third-party videos that use their content. Zoe’s post is pretty clear that (according to her) she would not be able to monetise any videos if she does not sign up to the new terms. So it seems that either:
a) Google/YT’s representative gave Zoe an inaccurate description
b) Zoe has misinterpreted what she was told; or
c) the ContentID system will be changed so that content owners who have not signed up to the new system will still have the option of ‘taking down’ infringing videos, but will not have the option of monetising them.
My money is on (c). Google have been quoted in various sources as saying that the new system will be the only way of monetising music, so they would need to amend the options of ContentID to ensure this.
* The claim is in Gizmodo India, which may or may not be a reliable source. The relevant quote is:
” A Google spokesman was frankly surprised that Keating was so upset by the new term, given that they simply provide another avenue for artists to make money. The spokesman denied that Keating would removed from YouTube or that her videos would be blocked, however, they did say that if Keating was going to monetize her music, she would need to go all in. The spokesman also noted that if Keating still wanted to manage who was using her music in videos using ContentID, she would still be allowed to. “
The India source is wrong, you can’t use ContentID without signing.
Zoe says she was told her 1) channel would be blocked and 2) she would no longer be able to monetize videos on ContentID. To put her own videos on Youtube she would have to make a new channel.
We’ve got ourselves a kerfuffle here!
What to do about youtube? Good question zoe.
The claim that Google describes as ‘patently false’ occurs only in DMN’s headline, which is presumably not chosen by Zoe Keating herself. Everything in her blog post appears to be materially true. At least, Google have not yet challenged it. They say it is ‘false’ that her YouTube channel would be ‘blocked’, but this appears to be a semantic wriggle. She would still be able to upload videos, but only as a ‘regular citizen’, not as a channel owner.
“The claim that Google describes as ‘patently false’ occurs only in DMN’s headline”
It is almost similar to what Keating said: “I need to sign on to the new Youtube music services agreement or I will have my Youtube channel blocked” — and to what The Guardian and other news sites said last summer, based on information from Google:
“YouTube to block indie labels who don’t sign up to new music service”
I have no idea what’s going on.
LOL
I just put an update at the bottom of my blog about this. here’s an excerpt:
—
I didn’t realize until late last night how widespread my blog went. Some people are saying that surely I must have misinterpreted what Google said to me. I based what I wrote off the transcript of our conversation ( after 9 months of dealing with the health insurance company I’ve gotten good at taking transcripts).
The rep said Google would “have to block my channel” if I didn’t sign the new music services agreement. They went on to say that if didn’t sign the agreement and wanted to keep my videos up I would have to unlink my channel so that it is not connected to the music agreement and then make a new channel under their regular non-music partner terms. In other words if I wanted to upload my own videos to youtube i would have to create a new account so my own music could be treated not like a partner account but like 3rd party videos (who would get the soundtrack share of the revenue I wonder?)
“the music terms are outdated and the content that you uploaded will be blocked. But anything that we can scan and match from other users will be matched in content ID and you can track it but won’t be able to participate in revenue sharing.”
“All music content has to be licensed under this new agreement. We can’t have music in the free version that is not in the paid version”
I had them explain it again to be sure.
“Wow, that’s a bit harsh,” I said.
“Yeah, I know,” they said.
Zoe, come and join us on videscape, it’s non exclusive and we would welcome you on board. You really have nothing to lose by trying it out
Best
Tom Oswald
Zoe, I think Tom Oswald makes sense (and there’s a bit more about his service in the comment section of the other DMN article about you).
Here’s what I’m thinking at the moment:
His site is obviously in beta right now (launches in March, according to Mr. Oswald), and I wouldn’t currently rely on it as a stand-alone alternative to any existing services.
BUT it could be used for embedded videos everywhere — on Twitter, Facebook, personal websites, etc. — instead of YouTube, simply because it doesn’t matter if you use an unknown or a well-known video host in all these cases. You already have the traffic!
And Videscape pays significantly better than YouTube: 0.61 cents per stream, according to Oswald.
This is indeed interesting!
…also, here’s another way to use Videscape, even while it’s in beta:
1) Upload your songs to Videscape.
2) Upload short, unmonetized clips to YouTube — but don’t sign with YouTube Music Key.
3) Link to your Videscape songs from the short YouTube videos.
In this way, you get the best from YouTube (its huge user base), and the best from Videscape (it pays significantly better, it’s artist-friendly and it allows exclusive iTunes releases).
It’s like that old music industry joke:
LABEL: “Sign the contract!”
ARTIST: “I can’t.”
LABEL: “Sure you can!”
ARTISTS: “No, you just broke my arms.”
Hey Zoe – this is all pretty important, but I know that you and your family are dealing with even more important issues. Really appreciate your taking the time to post this info and engage publicly with this for the benefit of your fellow artists. Wishing you luck next week too.
+1
+3 x 1000
Is it possible to have YouTube automatically block uploads which match contentID of one’s works?
Or will one manually have to still do DMCA tedium for each one (i.e. whack-a-mole)?
– Versus
Yes, YouTube automatically blocks illegal content — if you sign the contract.
The service does allow users to upload illegal files if you don’t sign, though.
That’s pathetic. Another strong-arm tactic. So if one doesn’t sign, the music creator has to take on the impossible whack-a-mole task of first finding videos that use his or her music (impossible since such videos may or may not include the music name in the title or keywords), and then issue DMCA takedowns for each.
GoogleTube needs to be sued to death, and damages awarded to all whose intellectual property has been misused without proper compensation and attribution.
The “she can say what she wants” but the “headline” needs to be changed is the typical Google doublespeak. Like when they got caught serving ads to pirate sites.
Where does J&H Productions fit in with this situation?
Hummph! I don’t know of a time in the last 10 or more years when someone from corporate Google has ever told the truth. Given a choice between believing a perjurer, a congenital liar and some one from Google the former two would have the edge. Has there ever been a time when the truth didn’t have to be dragged out of Google? Wifi data snaffling, illegal drug advertising, EU right to privacy, SOPA, the list goes on and on. Now we see them threatening and bullying to shut everyone up. Small Florida blues label, Mississippi State prosecutor, this site, Zoe Keating the list goes on and on.
They need to be sued out of existence.
After discovering that Keating was taking detailed notes of her conversation with a YouTube representative, YouTube appears to be re-grouping
More like: retreating back to their Sicilian mountain lair.
Haha, indeed!
Attacking innocent artists — and strong-arming the press to remove the evidence — is a new low for Google.
Expect heads to roll.
Google flax are always surprised that artists have a brain which always puts the lie to how stoopid the flax really are. “Rut roh, she like took notes and shit. She’s a smart one, we need to call the lawyers.”
Even worse:
“Bitch used to be a software developer, she knows our secrets.”
I own a small label and used to run AdSense for a few months, just to test the platform. Right before I pulled the plug, I talked with the rep who anxiously tried to talk me into staying (and paying more…). I told him I was very concerned about all the piracy sites making money from AdSense. He defended Google and even the piracy sites with the most ridiculous excuses. Would DMN be interested in receiving a log of the conversation? I can forward the emails to you.
Sounds interesting — I think you should send Paul a mail instead, not sure he reads all the comments.
Yes, I would be very interested in seeing this conversation. My email address is above.
U guyz got me reved up wanting to see google capitulate. Dirty dogs. Creepy nerdy d bags w a score to settle from high school resentments.
“Creepy nerdy d bags w a score to settle from high school resentments.”
I’m an artist so I’ve heard quite a few unflattering descriptions of our Googleplex friends — but this may be the best.
Phrase you’ll never hear:
“I for one welcome our new musician overlords.”
O.K. so if I have the whole picture, we have an artist that has placed their music on Youtube for public enjoyment – this coupled with other posts by 3rd parties of that artist’s music.
This same artist has been extended the opportunity to derive some income from their content that has been uploaded to Youtube (irrespective of the amount involved) provided that the artist sign an agreement to this effect.
Youtube have now amended their criteria for participation in this scheme that essentially affords that artist an opportunity to derive some monetary return from the content that is uploaded to Youtube and ask that the artist formally agree to the changes that the provider has made – should the artist decline to formally agree, they would be excluded from any financial return and the previously established “channel” featuring that artist’s material would be discontinued.
That same artist, having declined the new agreement, is still free to upload any & all of their material to the site, but would not participate in any financial benefit from the site.
Have I got this straight so far?
Youtube have no responsibility to protect the copyright of anybodies IP – if someone uploads a posting of your material that you are not happy with, you can lodge an objection with the service provider and then commence action against the poster of that material.
Therefore, when the service provider offers the artist an opportunity to actually derive some income from the posting of their material – again, they have no obligation to do so; I cannot understand the objections raised.
Youtube are not trying to assume ownership of the material, they are not trying to defraud the artist out of income (that again they have no obligation to offer in the first place) – they are simply refining their own legal parameters.
To me it is quite simple – you want your material to be available on Youtube – uploaded personally or by a 3rd party; then great! If you want to derive some financial return from that same material – easy… Play by their rules!
“I cannot understand”
Obviously not.
Pete: You’re like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know …
Walter; what a fatuous comment.
If you cannot or are unable to formulate a lucid argument against a comment – then why bother?
If you have an opinion then let’s hear it my friend, otherwise don’t waste other people’s time!
Anonymous;
You are right – I don’t understand what the issue is here.
FACT: Youtube is a hosting site – it does not have any proprietary interest in any of the content uploaded to their site.
FACT: People have the ability to upload content to Youtube and the responsibility for ensuring IP rights are maintained rest with the poster of the material.
FACT: An artist can choose to upload their material to Youtube or alternatively, their material may be uploaded by a third person – with or without the artist’s knowledge. Again the IP issue is between the artist and the person that uploaded the content.
FACT: An artist may elect to upload their own content with a view to obtaining a wider audience for their material in the hope that this wider audience will lead to greater success.
FACT: Third party posters of an artist’s material may do so in the attempt to promote that artist to a broader base – again a benefit to the artist.
Youtube have recognised this situation and have offered these artists an opportunity to derive some financial benefit by having their content available on their site – do they need to do this? The answer is of course NO!
But Youtube have done this – subject to the artist signing an agreement to participate.
If that artist decides that they do not wish to be involved, then that is their prerogative.
The artist needs to be mindful that Youtube does not pay “royalties” for content, but they are able to share a percentage of advertising that appears on the artist’s content – the more views the artist receives; the higher the return to the artist… It’s not rocket science here!
I would like to take the opportunity to share a subsequent comment on this subject by vno which, perhaps more succinctly, brings the issue into perspective;
Googles stance is: sign up and get paid, or don’t sign up and don’t get paid, thats the gist of it really.
Signing up brings terms with it, like having to release all your music as well, which seems to be a bone of contention with Zoë, which is something Google should probably change, but the issue there would then be, what if someone else uploaded a work that Zoë hasn’t released to Google, what now?
Anyway, the way Google does things can be seriously frustrating and seem unfair at times, but the main issue here is, sign up and get paid, else don’t expect payment.
Apparently “patently false” is business speak for “100% accurate”
Googles stance is: sign up and get paid, or don’t sign up and don’t get paid, thats the gist of it really.
Signing up brings terms with it, like having to release all your music as well, which seems to be a bone of contention with Zoë, which is something Google should probably change, but the issue there would then be, what if someone else uploaded a work that Zoë hasn’t released to Google, what now?
Anyway, the way Google does things can be seriously frustrating and seem unfair at times, but the main issue here is, sign up and get paid, else don’t expect payment.
Actually, Google’s position is: sign up and we share your music for free, or don’t sign up and we share your music for free.
+1
vno: Nice reply, I’m pleased that someone else can see the core issues.
I took the liberty of including your reply in a response to my original post – hope you don’t mind!
Just because your comment forms part of my reply, I have copied it below.
Anonymous;
You are right – I don’t understand what the issue is here.
FACT: Youtube is a hosting site – it does not have any proprietary interest in any of the content uploaded to their site.
FACT: People have the ability to upload content to Youtube and the responsibility for ensuring IP rights are maintained rest with the poster of the material.
FACT: An artist can choose to upload their material to Youtube or alternatively, their material may be uploaded by a third person – with or without the artist’s knowledge. Again the IP issue is between the artist and the person that uploaded the content.
FACT: An artist may elect to upload their own content with a view to obtaining a wider audience for their material in the hope that this wider audience will lead to greater success.
FACT: Third party posters of an artist’s material may do so in the attempt to promote that artist to a broader base – again a benefit to the artist.
Youtube have recognised this situation and have offered these artists an opportunity to derive some financial benefit by having their content available on their site – do they need to do this? The answer is of course NO!
But Youtube have done this – subject to the artist signing an agreement to participate.
If that artist decides that they do not wish to be involved, then that is their prerogative.
The artist needs to be mindful that Youtube does not pay “royalties” for content, but they are able to share a percentage of advertising that appears on the artist’s content – the more views the artist receives; the higher the return to the artist… It’s not rocket science here!
I would like to take the opportunity to share a subsequent comment on this subject by vno which, perhaps more succinctly, brings the issue into perspective;
Googles stance is: sign up and get paid, or don’t sign up and don’t get paid, thats the gist of it really.
Signing up brings terms with it, like having to release all your music as well, which seems to be a bone of contention with Zoë, which is something Google should probably change, but the issue there would then be, what if someone else uploaded a work that Zoë hasn’t released to Google, what now?
Anyway, the way Google does things can be seriously frustrating and seem unfair at times, but the main issue here is, sign up and get paid, else don’t expect payment.
No one needs Google YT. That is the fact that Google are attempting to hide. People aren’t discovering music via YT, and YT is not driving people to purchase music. The baloney is nothing but Google making believe that they actually offer any service to musicians. They don’t! They just the skim pennies from the billions of blatant copyright violations that their site is designed to facilitate.
So Paul, did Google’s Department Of Censorship delete those 80 other comments? 🙂
…and now they’re back.
Here’s an idea.
Maybe a site could be set up whereby artists looking to get their material out to a worldwide market could place their content on the site in the hope of increasing their exposure.
BUT, this will cost them $5 per song, per month. In return, they get worldwide exposure and potential for a global audience!
Still it has to be cheaper than any other media advertising campaign!
But wait! Maybe this site could sell external advertising & place it on the clips uploaded by the artist to help offset the operational costs AND return a percentage of any profits made to the artists!
O.K. who’s in on this deal?
No… I didn’t think so!
Artists are currently getting worldwide exposure at NO cost on Youtube – several of whom have turned this exposure into a substantially successful career.
Once again it is worthwhile considering exactly how much an advertising campaign in any form of local media cost?
But then on the other hand you have a situation where a site offers artists an opportunity to get FREE worldwide exposure and potential financial benefit from being on their site and yet the artist still complains?
I am all for artist’s rights, but really?
You get something for nothing and you still complain?
What point am I missing here?
The point you’re missing is that it is Google which is getting content for free, and making money by selling the adspace.
You’re not quite getting yet that Google is not a philanthropic operation, but a business making money by selling ads.
They attract eyeballs and clicks for those ads using said content, content they did not always pay for.
And apparently, according to you, it’s fine if they happen to make money from pirated content, just a coincidence really, they’re not responsible for what they’re hosting.
You seem to have missed the part where they can identify all content automatically, using fingerprints, so they could actually ban that pirated content in an eyeblink. If they wanted to. Which they don’t, because they like to sell their ads.
Clearer now?
Well, YouTube was founded on piracy, and it’s a bit late for people to act shocked at the idea that they want everything for free. So, yes, YouTube is evil, just like it always was.
Well, YouTube was founded on piracy
No, they are helped by other people uploading property they dont own, done in such a ridiculous and vast amount, for who knows what reason, some stupid firesale theyve been sold or some bring down the majors or big corps scam they were sold, just a bunch of idiots screwing around with stuff they dont own, bitter and jealous because they dont have the creative chops to do their own else all jealous and bitter and jaded because they desperately want to be famous or something else its some socialist play to try and ruin capitalism and instill their system, i mean, its anything but what they say it is you can be sure of that…
google et all just create a platform, others abuse the thing, and then google et all drag their feet, cause it costs a lot of money cause its just so out of control still…
its stupid, any USA corp based property and content will just continuously get annihilate by people who hate the USA, so good luck everyone, big time war midst a bunch of other massive wars, so yeah, that gittar and picket sign will certainly bring forth the change yall want… lol