Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Using YouTube Threat As Leverage For Cheaper Streaming Rights

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the not-playing-fair dept.

Youtube 197

Sockatume writes: "According to a press release issued by WIN, a group representing independent musicians, Google is threatening to de-list musicians' videos from YouTube if they do not agree to the terms for its unannounced streaming music service. The template contracts issued to musicians are described as 'undervalued' relative to other streaming services, and are not open for negotiation. The press release was issued by WIN but rescinded when Google agreed to further discussions; The Associated Free Press and The Guardian have published stories based on that original release."

cancel ×

197 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No Way (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065237)

I should agree to terms that haven't been made available? Sure, I'll sign away ALL my rights blindly, why not? What could possibly go wrong?

worked in the old days (4, Insightful)

Thud457 (234763) | about 4 months ago | (#47065371)

Famous?
Where do I sign?

Google strong-arming musicians like the worst of the music industry? I dunno, sounds pretty evil to me.

Re:worked in the old days (1)

imatter (2749965) | about 4 months ago | (#47065893)

but the lesser of two evils.

Re:worked in the old days (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47066377)

i heart goog! call me!

Re:worked in the old days (3, Funny)

phrostie (121428) | about 4 months ago | (#47066091)

I was an early supporter of Google but it just keeps getting worse and worse.

Google has become the Karma Sutra of the internet.
you are going to get screwed, just choose a position or they will chose it for you.

Re:worked in the old days (3, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47066411)

Let me ask you a question:
you can sell a product for a dollar, 40% off which gets eaten up by middle men.
OR
you can sell it for 70 cents, directly to your customers; which makes more money for you?
What are the middle men going to try to do to keep 'their' 40% Maybe put a bad spin on it and claim the musician are worse off? maybe lie to the musician to generate outrage?

You letting someone feed right into your narrative and you keep lapping it up.

Re:worked in the old days (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47066351)

except they aren't doing that.

Merlin is making a beg deal and trying to spin it because Youtube is going directly to the musician instead of using Merlin.

This is BETTER for the musician because there are less, to no, middlemen between the musician and the money.

Re:No Way (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 4 months ago | (#47065393)

In the internet age, distributors are dime a dozen. Spotify already undervalues music they stream, and the new google music service values music even less than spotify.

Say no to these leeches. How hard is it for musicians to hire web developers to create their own music streaming website?

Re:No Way (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065567)

Undervalued? There is already more music available than I can possibly listen to in a lifetime.
Being able to find what I like is worth way more than the music itself.

Re:No Way (3, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 4 months ago | (#47065729)

Thing is, consumers like portals, at least in numbers significant enough that if you are hosted on a site that has a large user base you will get more attention then having your own custom site that people have to search for.

For all of its problems, Youtube provides a consistent interface, relatively stable performance, and a linking system that encourages people to explore videos and artists that they are not already aware of or are aware of and seeing the 'suggestion' spurns interest in rewatching something.

Re: No Way (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 4 months ago | (#47065923)

I subscribed to Spotify, and now play music, because it had all the music (for properly small values of all), minor because it had one album.

Re:No Way (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 months ago | (#47065423)

I should agree to terms that haven't been made available? Sure, I'll sign away ALL my rights blindly, why not? What could possibly go wrong?

Hey, is that you Wyclef Jean [youtube.com] ?

Re:No Way (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 months ago | (#47065645)

Sure, I'll sign away ALL my rights blindly, why not

Your rights to the use of a Google service? I wasnt aware that those existed.

Maybe you're new to the internet, so Ill spell it out for you: when you enter someone's domain / website, its not a democracy, its a dictatorship, and your "vote" is to leave the site if you dont like their rules.

Re: No Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065875)

Perhaps whatever country you are from they don't give people rights that protect them from (monopoly type) companies taking extreme advantage over their market control but in the us where Google is based we have laws sadly so many people think the internet magicially voids them but it doesn't

Re: No Way (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 months ago | (#47065921)

Google doesnt have a monopoly over streaming, or over online video.

Re: No Way (1)

knightghost (861069) | about 4 months ago | (#47066365)

Google doesnt have a monopoly over streaming, or over online video.

It's not about ability, its about marketing. Google has people's attention, so people go will to google for streaming. "Build it and they will come" was thoroughly debunked 2 recessions back.

Re:No Way (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 4 months ago | (#47066417)

They would be referring to signing away rights to their music, I assume. Something of real, monetary value (for some).

Re:No Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47066425)

you both must be new to the internet. this is a place for the free and open exchange of information, be it music, video, or text.

Re:No Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47066273)

Who said the terms were unavailable to the musicians? I doubt it would be legally binding if the terms of the contract weren't presented.

a group representing independent musicians (2, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about 4 months ago | (#47065281)

Look, unless its an actual group of independent musicians, can we just assume WIN is a group of agents, managers, and lawyers suckling for cash? Its not as though the musicians couldnt form their own group, start up a listserv, and send a strongly worded email to google insisting they be paid fairly in order to stream content.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#47065353)

yeah, because someone who wants to spend their days making music should spend 20% of their time negotiating contracts as well

Re:a group representing independent musicians (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065409)

Yes.
Either way you have to do that.
Either you negotiate with your agent, manager whatever, or you negotiate with google directly.
If you don't then you can go sit on the street playing for coins.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#47065457)

most of these contracts are very similar. that's why they have the musician organizations like ASCAP that you join who negotiate royalties on your behalf and send you a check. and that's why you hire an agent.

so all you do is make music, record and perform.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 4 months ago | (#47065559)

If the contracts are very similar, why do you need to give money to leaches like ASCAP and agents to do it for you?

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#47065585)

because no one wants to negotiate with a thousand different people

why do people buy from amazon or big box stores instead of visiting a dozen different mom and pop stores? because it saves time and a lot of gas money

Re:a group representing independent musicians (2)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 4 months ago | (#47065545)

Either you negotiate with your agent, manager whatever, or you negotiate with google directly.
If you don't then you can go sit on the street playing for coins.

So, if I want to make music for a living, I could spend time on the phone, writing emails, etc. hashing out contracts for every random dude who wants to use my music. (Some speaker wants to use my song as an intro for his presentations... great... gotta negotiate. Some people want to play my song at a public ceremony or wedding or bar mitzvah... time to negotiate... etc.)

OR -- I could just join some sort of association that sets standard fees for use of the music, and/or have a manager who keeps track of these things. I negotiate once or twice, rather than every other day of the week.

Which sounds more reasonable to you?

Re:a group representing independent musicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065677)

Or you could spend a day or two researching and come up with your own standard fees for minor uses and post them on your website as take it or leave it deals.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#47065765)

so what happens when someone a thousand miles away plays YOUR music for their PROFIT without paying you?

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 4 months ago | (#47066457)

Same thing that happens when represented by ASCAP or similar. Enforcement is still going to have a huge gap.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

Imagix (695350) | about 4 months ago | (#47065685)

Or, set an acceptable price to you. $1 per play (or whatever). No negotiation. Look at all of the time you just saved.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#47065889)

Or, set an acceptable price to you. $1 per play (or whatever). No negotiation. Look at all of the time you just saved.

... and look at all the streaming services and radio stations that are NOT playing your music because they prefer standard licenses and bulk deals. Look at all the people that are playing your music and NOT paying you because you have no way to enforce your license, or even know that it is being violated. Look at the local nightclub cancelling your gig because their customers prefer bands they have actually heard of. Look at you talking to the manager at McDonalds, asking if you can work an extra shift to make ends meet.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47065853)

The problem is that ASCAP and friends have gotten the law twisted in their favor. You don't really get to pick your representative. They will collect royalties for your music whether you join or not. They will apportion it as they see fit without regard to whos music was actually being played. Even if you conscientiously object, they will still claim to represent you and assrape your friend who plays your music in his shop with your blessing. Insult to injury, you won't even get the money they collect from him so you can give it back.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065959)

Hey, I'm interested in the ass raping thing (IANAL/BI). I'm in the bay area if you want to hook up and do some role playing.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (2)

Critical Facilities (850111) | about 4 months ago | (#47065995)

This is just patently false. I've been an ASCAP member for over 10 years. I have multiple licensing agreements with multiple firms. ASCAP only gets involved where appropriate, and does not in any way control what I choose to charge or not charge someone to use my music. I've allowed my stuff to be used for free many, many times for independent, small budget productions or student films, and ASCAP in no way prevents this.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

mfh (56) | about 4 months ago | (#47065519)

It's so true. Nothing saps creative energy like the business side and it's the music business because someone has to pay for those crazy hats, skin tight pants, stages, lights, promo, food, booze, drugs and whatever else you can think of that helps grease the machine.

A group of independents would be kind of an oxymoron wouldn't it? The technology exists to enable each musician to become truly independent of the music industry but it's tough to become a strong signal through so much noise. Youtube has essentially replaced radio play as the most popular medium of our day. That's changing however.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 4 months ago | (#47065663)

You are right, of course. But nimbius also has a point - the summary is a bit misleading, as it takes the "poor artists beaten down by big corporation" angle, when in fact it is a pretty large trade group that is getting beaten down. And really this is just a continuation of a longer-term trend where the oversupply of music is resulting in it becoming practically free. In the past, the labels (even the indy labels) combined with limited infrastructure (only so much room at the record shop, only so many radio stations) could keep the supply controlled a bit. Now any jackass can put anything they want up on YouTube. That kind of flood of goods will bring down the value in any market.

Google may or may not be a bad guy here - but they won't alone stop the trend toward lower-valued music.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (2)

N1AK (864906) | about 4 months ago | (#47065951)

Google may or may not be a bad guy here

If Google did threaten to screw musicians on YouTube that didn't sign up for their streaming service then Google ARE the bad guys here. I like Google and I think they do a lot of good, but let's not pretend that using your dominance of one market to force musicians to accept your terms in another isn't a jackass move.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 4 months ago | (#47066161)

I don't really have a dog in this fight - if Google is evil than so be it. I'm not a big fan of the recording industry, either.

My broader point was that artists have been and will be getting less money in the future as the means of distribution becomes trivial and cheap or free, and that whoever wins this particular fight won't change very much. Not that "artists" were ever making very much - most of the money has always gone to the support industry, with the exception of a few high-profile long-term successes.

As always, the government could step in at any time and change the game.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 months ago | (#47065675)

Im not sure what you're proposing, but I guess I dont see the problem here. Google has terms for youtube / their streaming service; if musicians /viewers dont like it they can let google know and leave the site.

But this is, at the end of the day, a matter between Google and the musicians, so it seems like it should be the musicians who (collectively, if they want to) negotiate with Google.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (5, Informative)

Critical Facilities (850111) | about 4 months ago | (#47066037)

As a composer and a musician, I totally, 100% agree with you. This really isn't a big deal. It's a non-exclusive agreement. If you don't like the terms, sign with someone else, or start your own thing. No one's being backed into any corners here. Plus, there's also the aspect of considering that even though it is alleged that YouTube is going to pay less than other services, the amount of traffic on YouTube compared to other sites could quite possibly generate significantly more "sales" to an artist, so really it becomes a question of price vs volume (sales volume, not sonic volume).

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47065801)

The problem is, the cash that gets tossed their way won't find it's way to the musicians they claim to represent.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

imatter (2749965) | about 4 months ago | (#47065989)

is it that hard? http://www.wikihow.com/Earn-Mo... [wikihow.com] Maybe Billy Bragg should read that wiki page. I have to imagine that there is one fucker in their entourage that that will do that just to keep hanging out with them.

Re:a group representing independent musicians (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 4 months ago | (#47065673)

Look, unless its an actual group of independent musicians, can we just assume WIN is a group of agents, managers, and lawyers suckling for cash?

So does that mean you haven't even bothered to determine who members of this organization are before posting? You're just arbitrarily ranting, in case something *might* be true?

As it stands, WIN is basically an organization of organizations. It basically advocates for "independent" labels and such. You could read about their supposed priorities in their manifesto [winformusic.org] .

1. We, the independents, will work to grow the value of music and the music business. We want equal market access and parity of terms with Universal, Warner and Sony, and will work with them in areas where we have a common goal. We will work to ensure that all companies in our sector are best equipped to maximize the value of their rights.

2. We support creators' freedom to decide how their music may be used commercially, and we will encourage individual artists and labels to speak out directly against unauthorized uses of music as well as commercial uses of music that stifle that freedom. We support creators' right to earn a living from their work, which should be respected as a basic human right. We expect any use of music by commercial third party operators to be subject to fairly negotiated licensing terms, in a market where any use of music is an end in itself, not so-called promotion driving a subsequent sale.

3. We support independent music labels that treat their artists as partners and who work with them on reasonable commercial terms, noting that labels are investors who deserve a fair return alongside their artists.

4. We promote transparency in the digital music market; artists and companies are entitled to clarity on commercial terms.

........

Etc.

Is this empty rhetoric? I don't claim to know for sure. But these are the top points (out of their 10 "manifesto" statements), much of which seems to be about giving voice and power to creators, as well as maintaining transparency in the way creators deal with other people.

Its not as though the musicians couldnt form their own group, start up a listserv, and send a strongly worded email to google insisting they be paid fairly in order to stream content.

Many musicians don't want to worry about the technical details required to do recording, distribution, etc. Many don't even have that expertise. So they get independent labels to help them with those aspects. This is an organization formed from those groups. Maybe it's evil... but maybe it's also just a practical distribution of labor thing, which can allow artists to do what they're actually best at.

youtube is free advertising (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#47065343)

you can say google is evil,but spotify doesn't let anyone upload videos for free for the whole world to see

Re:youtube is free advertising (3, Insightful)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#47065561)

... and lock users into their platform by not allowing downloads of videos ... and suck personal info out of your users by coupling the platform to google+

Re:youtube is free advertising (4, Insightful)

Yebyen (59663) | about 4 months ago | (#47065749)

How much personal information are you really putting into Google+?

Have you heard of youtube-dl? It is actually possible to download videos from YouTube.

Re:youtube is free advertising (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#47065817)

Yes, youtube-dl breaks every two months, because Google changes their protocols, or is actively taking countermeasures.

Re:youtube is free advertising (1)

Payden K. Pringle (3483599) | about 4 months ago | (#47065877)

Just a thought: It's also possible to stream a Youtube video with VLC media player by drag/dropping the link into the player. Which effectively lets you avoid the adds and have normal playback (i.e. no "smart" buffering).

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some way you could use that to download the video too, since, effectively, that's what a stream is. Downloading the video.

Re:youtube is free advertising (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#47065907)

Still, this method is not endorsed by Google.
I.e., it could be disabled at any moment.

Re:youtube is free advertising (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 4 months ago | (#47065963)

JDownloader [jdownloader.org] allows easy downloading from all sorts of sites, including YouTube. It's Java and thus a bit of a resource hog, but very useful.

Re:youtube is free advertising (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about 4 months ago | (#47066059)

OK, but youtube-dl is much older than two months. So, it's legal free video downloads (assuming these "active countermeasures" are not classified as "devices for copyright control" in the DMCA/trafficking sense of the word), supported by community efforts. The fact is it's broken every few months, and also fixed again, for a couple of years running now. They have not implemented any "strong" copyright protection measures that would prevent its fixing. Where is the netflix-dl?

Re:youtube is free advertising (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#47066087)

If a sufficient number of users would use youtube-dl, you can bet that Google will take countermeasures.

Every time I use youtube-dl, I'm just praying that it still works...

Re:youtube is free advertising (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about 4 months ago | (#47066243)

And if Google would just put up Download links on every video that didn't require some obscure special software that just us nerds know to use, many artists from their target market would pack up their videos and leave. You have to imagine that a lot of artists want to be able to broadcast without enabling free copying for everyone, even when that sounds just as obviously technically impossible as say... uniquely identifying a person across repeated visits without actually storing any token of their identity.

Re:youtube is free advertising (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#47066389)

The point is: Google isn't even giving us the choice.

Re:youtube is free advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065829)

There are tons of sites out there that one can use to download and convert YouTube videos to any number of formats.

Re:youtube is free advertising (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 4 months ago | (#47065987)

What's your point? That's like dismissing complaints about companies putting DRM on products because ways around the DRM exist if you go and look for them.

Re:youtube is free advertising (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about 4 months ago | (#47066151)

So now, in a world where someone can be arrested and driven to suicide by law enforcement just for following all of the links and downloading all of the things to a place where they can be easily re-indexed and consumed en-masse by public, you're saying it's actually not enough to just provide a free service that abides by copyright law and pays copyright owners and does not use DRM, and that you actually have to put up the download links where uneducated people can find them, and actively enable/promote this kind of free-copy bypass-the-advertising behavior, or you're "just as evil as DRM"?

It's not just like putting DRM on your products. It's actually just like not putting DRM on them.

Re:youtube is free advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47066317)

Firefox can easily download YouTube videos. Also, a ton of programs can do the same. Stop being stupid.

Re:youtube is free advertising (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 4 months ago | (#47065979)

you can say google is evil,but spotify doesn't let anyone upload videos for free for the whole world to see

Given the advertising revenue Google makes off YouTube I don't think they, or you, will get very far trying to pretend it's some kind of charitable service that somehow justifies them being dicks (if they in fact are) about something else.

Antitrust violation (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065351)

Pushing a new service (streaming) by exploiting a market-dominating position in another area (video sharing on YouTube) sounds like a gross violation of antitrust laws.

Re:Antitrust violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065655)

antitrust laws get enforced in usa? someone should also warn microsoft, oracle, and intel!

Re:Antitrust violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065821)

Antitrust? I've heard of that before. Wasn't that a movie?

Re:Antitrust violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065943)

indeed, also known as Conspiracy.com

Re:Antitrust violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065973)

USA sold the rights on the antitrust to Disney! They will make a sequel "antitrust 2" which will BREAK PREVIOUS TRUST [0.0.0.0] !

To Google everyone is named Ben Dover (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065385)

Again Lives Fletch

Do no evil. (see, speak and acquiesce to evil tho) (1, Interesting)

mfh (56) | about 4 months ago | (#47065435)

Youtube is a cesspool these days. Soon someone will create a musician-friendly site that has STANDARDS that favor musicians. I would be all over that.

HTML5 video means you don't need Youtube anymore to successfully distribute videos. Torrent or stream yourself.

P2P is the answer.

Re:Do no evil. (see, speak and acquiesce to evil t (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47066223)

Of course it's a cesspool, it's popular. The Internet is a cesspool, everyone is on it, and 90% of everything is shit. The good bits float to the top through word-of-mouth, links, reviews, votes, likes, and crazed midgets getting video addresses tattooed on their forehead.

Dear god are you actually trying to digest ALL of youtube, picking videos at random? How horrifying!

HTML5 with it's video tag means you can now host your own videos. Just like you could before with some other container. Do you want to pay the price of serving that content?

Wait, you say HTML5 means artists don't need Youtube to distribute.... and then tell people to torrent or stream? HTML5 is for websites, if the artist goes through the effort of starting up their own website, but people torrent or stream the music, then that effort is wasted as everyone is bypassing their site. I guess they could set up their own streaming server? Maybe you think artists will host their own torrents?

But no. Here we go:
Youtube (or a HTML5 equivalent) is the window dressing/easy access/teaser that artists use to attract new customers. They sell albums, high-def version, shirts, concerts, other songs, whatever. The whatever they sell behind the pretty storefront can go through ANY OTHER ONLINE STORE, be distributed through whatever.

Because youtube allows you to add links in the comments.

If you get big enough, you can even have Youtube show some ads and make a buck off the people coming up to your store window.

Re:Do no evil. (see, speak and acquiesce to evil t (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47066357)

People love to harp on the "Do no evil" mantra of Google.

I mean, they only took two little letters from the slogan. What's the big deal?

Not sure what the fuss is about for indies..... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 4 months ago | (#47065441)

fta

WIN, which represents independent labels worldwide, claims that YouTube is approaching labels directly with a "template contract" and threatening that if they do not sign it, all their music videos will be blocked on YouTube.

So wait.... Youtube is approaching labels that represent musicians and not the musicians themselves So that means that if a musician still wants to put his own video up on Youtube, and that video is not the property of any label, then there should be no problem, right? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Re:Not sure what the fuss is about for indies..... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#47065507)

Or am I misunderstanding something?

Possibly. What Google is saying is "if you don't sign this contract for our upcoming streaming service, at a rate which is entirely unfair to you, we will block your videos on YouTube".

From TFS:

Google is threatening to de-list musicians' videos from YouTube if they do not agree to the terms for its unannounced streaming music service. The template contracts issued to musicians are described as 'undervalued' relative to other streaming services, and are not open for negotiation.

In other words, Google is more or less strong-arming the artists into getting paid less than market rates so that Google can build a business model around it their content.

In other words, it sounds like Google are being assholes, and have long since left their "do no evil" stance behind them.

Wouldn't that make them not independent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065443)

Here's what I don't get. Independent musicians operate under one creed: Never sign to a major label. That is, after all, what makes them independent. Yet, if Google decides to make a streaming music service, that would essentially make them a major label. Wouldn't that destroy the entire point of being independent?

The spectrum of the monopoly (1)

RavenousRhesus (2683045) | about 4 months ago | (#47065449)

Google grows. Google more and more often takes business steps that are increasingly monopolistic, duh.

I, for one, would be interested to see some sort of psychological study to see at what point on the spectrum from start up to monopoly the general population considers a company to be more a monopoly than just your standard, run of the mill company.

Personally I think Google has crossed that mark. They are certainly not a textbook monopoly, but they behave far too close to one for me to have a positive view of them despite all their positive innovation.

Got only one thing to say (1)

pimpmeister (778342) | about 4 months ago | (#47065463)

Do no evil

Re:Got only one thing to say (2)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#47065595)

Yes, it is a popular lullaby.

Re:Got only one thing to say (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 4 months ago | (#47065635)

Do no evil

Without an agreed upon definition of "evil", their slogan was basically meaningless.

And actually, it should have been annoying to everyone who holds a worldview whose definition of evil was met by Google's actions. Because then Google was basically saying, "Evil is not what your {religion | moral philosophy | etc. } defines it as." Basically, it's either (a) Google giving a big middle finger everyone holding contrary definitions of evil, or (b) to everyone who assumed Google was sincere in its "Do no evil" slogan.

So at the very best, whoever came up with that slogan was naive and unthoughtful.

Re:Got only one thing to say (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 4 months ago | (#47066061)

So at the very best, whoever came up with that slogan was naive and unthoughtful.

People who think that are narrow-minded. The moment you start trying to define 'evil' you invariably miss out things that you would want to discourage. A company that says "do no evil", and accounts for that when hiring, should be able to answer the question "Is threatening to de-list musicians from YouTube if they don't accept our streaming terms a little evil" without needing a 20 point list of 'what evil means'. Like any big organisation though you need the senior management to hire, train and live those values because no matter how well defined a value is it means nothing if the organisation doesn't believe it in.

Re:Got only one thing to say (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 4 months ago | (#47066119)

I think you're missing the point. They can probably give an answer, but regardless of whether it's yes or no, that will be contrary to someone groups' definition of evil.

Which means Google is in denial that they must either (a) admit that some world views are wrong, or (b) limit their actions to those which are considered non-evil by every worldview, an intersection which is probably the empty set.

The fact that they're not willing to admit that, in my view, makes their "Do no evil" claim at the very least disingenuous or naive.

lol (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#47065469)

...claims the terms of the contract are non-negotiable, and undervalue the music of these labels in comparison to Spotify, Rdio, Deezer and other subscription streaming services.

other subscription streaming services aren't profitable precisely because of those fees.

Re:lol (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 4 months ago | (#47066099)

other subscription streaming services aren't profitable precisely because of those fees.

So it's ok for Google to force people into signing worse terms by threatening to de-list them from YouTube? If Microsoft started charging ad providers for showing ads in IE there would be uproar on here, and I doubt MS saying that browsers aren't profitable enough would persuade many people it's ok ;)

there's dailymotion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065491)

There is dailymotion.com, a youtube competitor. Those bands should try giving it some free pr.

Bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065525)

You can always rely on Google to destroy anything it acquires.

Our internet, our rules (2)

peppepz (1311345) | about 4 months ago | (#47065571)

So THAT's what DRM in HTML5 was for...

YouTube is not all there is (1)

arisvega (1414195) | about 4 months ago | (#47065593)

This will certainly backfire not very long from now: basic reasons why youtube is big is because a) was early, and b) is a high-bandwidth streaming service that you can dump (and find) more-or-less what you want. Take this away, or make it complicated, and soon the tech-savvies or the home/small business people will pull out; and the middle class iPad living room seniors surfers will --sooner or later-- follow.

Anti-monopoly laws... (2)

mi (197448) | about 4 months ago | (#47065609)

Contrary to some misconceptions, being a monopoly is not illegal.

What is illegal is using one's monopoly position in one market, to expand into another.

Congratulations, Google. You are following Microsoft's steps.

All by a company many of us helped build. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065681)

I remember long ago how I began suggesting to others to use Google instead of Yahoo or other offerings as it was cool. Loved the clean opening page and it catered to Linux searches. Google became what it is today from word of mouth. Perhaps this beast can be slain in much the same way.

Any Personal Solutions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065695)

Is there any easy FOSS web implementation for a personal web server, for music/photos/videos/articles that has all the equivalent bells and features, and more, that the big league (Youtube, Flickr, Pandora, etc... ) sites out there do

I'm talking minimal server side setup, minimal theme effort configuration, and easy entry update? I'm talking drop in replacement here, not Wordpress with 20 'add-ons'.

I haven't researched, so that is why I ask, given the direction most of the big league sites are going.

You spin me right round baby right round (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065751)

To spin this the other way:

"The record labels are refusing to sign an agreement allowing YouTube to host their content. Because of this we will have to remove their content or face copyright claims."

Meanwhile in realityland... (0)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 4 months ago | (#47065783)

YouTube continues the massive copyright theft on a daily basis. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but every other day John Q Fanboy uploads his entire collection to YT. Then all of us "fans" get to stream our favorite albums for free, yay. :-| Are the artists getting paid? (crickets) But.. they're famous musicians therefore they must be rich already, right?

So I get to stream XTC just like it was 1983...

Somewhere "don't be evil" went out the window. This is different from Spotify how?

Re:Meanwhile in realityland... (2)

oracleofbargth (16602) | about 4 months ago | (#47065903)

"Don't be evil" =/= "Don't be an asshole"

Re:Meanwhile in realityland... (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 4 months ago | (#47066397)

I've played in garage and bar bands and my brother plays in a bar band that's making progress they have a sponsor but they are wanting to get signed to one these indie labels because some of the problems they are facing is how to distribute/promote their music, manage their online presence, and contract gigs

{they have actually played gigs that they didn't know how much they were getting paid, what time sound check was, or if they were going to be able to sell their merchandise, because some of the members have no idea how to do the business side}

These are indie bands and oddly if you ask the artists many of them would probably love for a few John Q Fanboys to make a tribute video that's posted and reposted all over youtube. They probably also have their own youtube channel and make advertising dollars on the channel.

Free Video Download (1)

Glazan (3663281) | about 4 months ago | (#47065825)

Why cant they just let us download the videos legally.That would be very cool.

Pish posh (4, Insightful)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about 4 months ago | (#47065917)

Nonsense.

Google spends time, effort and resource to create the infrastructure for a music streaming service that requires daily, constant effort to maintain, and so gets to define the terms.

Musicians spend a few hours/days/weeks/months/years creating songs, then look for ways to milk that brief period of productivity for a lifetime (and for their descendants or estates as well, because copyright).

What musicians don't do: create their own music streaming service built on their own terms and funded by them, asking for the fees they sincerly believe they deserve. And then test it in the free marketplace and discover what the true value of their work actually is. And adjust their model until they have come up with a viable and sustainable business. That's what musicians don't do.

Yet when someone else does all the work for them but actually wants to get something for THEIR effort that actually reflects the cost and effort involved, it's evil and exploitative.

Strong arming? Threat? De-listing? Bullshit. Use the music service someone else created for you, find another that suits you better, or create your own. That should be how things work in a free market.

I can't blame those who are actually doing the hard work for refusing to cater to the exaggerated sense of entitlement that pervades the culture of 'creatives'. For every artist that is sitting on their duff crying out about the unfairness of these services, there are probably a hundred hard working people that get up every single day to collect their tiny paycheck in order to make that service viable so the artists can reap the rich benefits they think they are due.

Re:Pish posh (2, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 4 months ago | (#47066267)

Strong arming? Threat? De-listing? Bullshit. Use the music service someone else created for you, find another that suits you better, or create your own. That should be how things work in a free market.

Yes, it should be, but surely you have noticed that YouTube doesn't compete like a stand-alone video distribution service in a free market. YouTube has a bunch of features that couple users to it. That coupling gives YouTube a partially closed market.

You are right that in a free market there would be no problem here. But we don't have one. As you seem to be a fan of the free market, perhaps the next question on your mind should be what we can do to address the flaw in the market to create a closer practical approximation of the theoretical ideal.

That is, of course, assuming you truly care about the free market, and are not just wielding the term to distract readers from a dogmatic and irrational belief in laissez faire.

Nothing Wrong with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47065937)

Record companies will use threats all the time that they wont give access to certain groups unless you take their entire catalog. This is just the other side of the coin. Good job Google. Screw em good.

YouTube is not a Social Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47066005)

Google OWN YouTube. They can do what ever the hell they want with it.

"Don't be evil" (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 4 months ago | (#47066089)

I think this is the most blatantly evil thing Google has ever done, am I wrong?

Re:"Don't be evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47066193)

Suggesting they'd like to advertise on car dashboards seems pretty evil to me, considering that will net you a distracted driving charge. I guess you can have the car for free so long as the cops don't see you driving it.

How do you know it's evil? When people start saying they'll glue cardboard over the ads.

Re:"Don't be evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47066219)

I think this is the most blatantly evil thing Google has ever done, am I wrong?

There was that time they cancelled some RSS reader app.

riaa wants to battle Google? Good (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 4 months ago | (#47066291)

Ever notice that it is Musicians when it comes to some deal the riaa wants? The vast majority of the money would be coming out of the riaa's pocket and that is good news to weaken them.

Stand up against it (1)

TMYates (1946034) | about 4 months ago | (#47066467)

If I were a musician with a large following such as say Metallica (just an example). I would just look to google and say goodbye. Why should I be forced to something in another service just because I use YouTube for the music videos? Especially when anyone can currently upload to YouTube for free. I would then pull all my videos and music from the play store, YouTube, etc... and then start a campaign against this sort of thing with my cult fan-base. Considering some of the stores then revoke the music from those with subscriptions to Google Play and/or do not allow re-download if you forget to back up your local DRM (Had this happen with a couple of services) even though you paid for the service, who would be the one to suffer long term? I bet at that point, you would see a bunch of people leaving or using a service less and less.

Just my opinion anyway. Take it for what it is worth.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?