
YouTube Star Responds to Irving Azoff's “Value Gap” Criticism - 6stringmerc
http://www.recode.net/2016/5/10/11645760/youtube-hank-green-response-irving-azoff-artist-rights
======
6stringmerc
In the article, Green states:

> _If you don’t want your song on YouTube, upload it into the ContentID
> database and issue a blanket takedown for all videos using that song.

Boom. Done._

Yet Azoff states:

> _So, if you are going to continue to force artists to notify you when an
> infringing song is on YouTube, once an artist tells you that she wants her
> song taken off YouTube, you should keep it off. When the artist sends a
> "take down," it should be a "stay down."_

I want to know which one of them isn't being truthful. I get the feeling it's
both of them. Can't really pinpoint why, other than both have vested interests
in claiming their perspective is right.

However, with this kind of wiggle-room, factually speaking, somebody should
clear this garbage up. I won't hold my breath. But it's needed.

~~~
nemothekid
For those of us familiar with the YouTube Content ID system, Green is correct,
and I had the same reaction. Upload your music to the system, set the policy
to take down.

To give you an idea on how well this works, this is what the movie studios do
- upload the entire move to YouTube and set it to takedown (usually if the
matched portion matches more than 1 minute or something). The movie studios
have a comparatively less stink about YouTube.

Secondly, its unclear if Azoff has a direct relationship with YouTube and has
his own CMS or if he's using a third party service to manage YouTube. In that
case the third party could be misrepresenting the options YouTube has (and it
could be the case that the 3rd party makes a revenue cut of the UGC set to
monetize rather than takedown, giving them an incentive not take down
[/speculation]). However a percentage of the major labels music content is
licensed via the partially-Google owned VEVO.

Third, with the release of RED and Google Play Music, and some of the rumored
contracts that Google has with music producers, it could just be we aren't
privvy to the special contracts Google has with music rights holders. Maybe,
due to the way their contracts are setup, that can't issue takedowns. I
remember Indies got particularly pissed[1] when RED was released.

My own personal opinion is that despite whatever content protection tools
YouTube provides, the music industry won't be happy until all their music is
behind a paywall like Spotify Premium or Apple Music. I suspect their beef
will always have to do with the "for free" aspect, regardless if the content
is legitimate or pirated. If the issue were really about illegitimately
consumed content, and if YouTube ContentID system was that bad for rights
holders, I'd assume more than just the music industry would be annoyed. (It
seems to be the other way round, ContentID is railed against for being much
more generous to rights holders).

[1] [http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2014/06/23/fk-heres-
entire-y...](http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2014/06/23/fk-heres-entire-
youtube-contract-indies/)

~~~
6stringmerc
Thanks for taking the time to explain your view - I can totally understand the
points you're making and pretty much agree on all counts.

I'm with you thinking Azoff might be using a third-party system, and that
could be the friction.

That third point though - it's something that Green's point kind of glosses
over - YouTube's Indie contract (according to Zoe Keating, who posted here)
essentially said the artist(s) MUST join YouTube Red, or otherwise none of
their material would be included in the ContentID system. That essentially
meant a free-for-all on piracy because YouTube - apparently - was playing fast
and loose with Safe Harbors.

I don't think there was much clarity in the aftermath of the agreements, and
Azoff doesn't help his case when he can't directly refute what Green states
(he needs to if he can) - and I can't say I'm all gung-ho about either side in
this situation either. I am but the chaff in the money making wheat crop of
those two.

