
What should I do about YouTube? - radley
http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i-do-about-youtube
======
dhimes
My first thought: She should form a subsidiary company that releases her stuff
on YouTube. Then she can give the sub her music as she sees fit. That way she
can still control her YouTube presence, but Google has the right to do what it
needs to do with the stuff she releases to it.

Would this work?

~~~
choppaface
If this could work for an arbitrary number of artists sharing the same
subsidiary, sounds like a business opportunity.

~~~
zackmorris
I was just thinking that this is reason 10,000 that artists, designers,
developers etc need a guild. Getting them all together under a subsidiary
would serve the same purpose.

Perhaps a subsidiary of subsidiaries so that as each is fined/sued/shut down,
they can go bankrupt without harming the core.

There was a quote in a documentary called Four Horsemen I believe that said
"the rich discovered that the poor were honest" and used that against them to
contrive an infinitude of ways of ripping them off. For example bankruptcy is
just one of many legal tools to a corporation but is a last resort for
individuals, so corporate power grows over time disproportionately like a
latch that catches profits but lets losses slip through. It would be nice to
see some of the same legal avenues readily available to the little guy.

~~~
holri
Something like C3S?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Commons_Collecting_So...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Commons_Collecting_Society)

------
bsder
Um, it's pretty clear what she needs to do. Let Google block and take her fans
to a different service. And encourage other artists to do the same. And then
sue Google for infringement when Google doesn't actually manage to keep their
music off of YouTube. That's the only way that Google will ever pay attention.

If she doesn't help overturn this, Google will just keep doing it.

Yes, this is the standard problem. She, individually, has to take the hit so
that the musicians, collectively, benefit. It sucks.

The independent artists really need to get together and build their own
service with the terms they need so they don't have to keep fighting Google,
Spotify, etc.

~~~
jawns
It would be cool to see a worker-owned cooperative, 100% owned by its member
artists, become established in this space.

It's not as infeasible as you might think; artists' cooperatives, as a
business structure, have a long history, and creating a digital space is, in
many respects, more cost-effective than a brick-and-mortar location.

~~~
SwellJoe
It is challenging, if not impossible, for a cooperative to obtain funding for
that push into "really big" that nearly every major tech company has had to
raise. There is no exit strategy for a cooperative, no cash out option for
investors. Cooperatives historically raise money from their members, or use
traditional loans, neither of which is feasible for the kind of independent
artists that would benefit from this type of entity.

It would need a benevolent, and very wealthy, collection of artists or
sympathetic patrons to fund growth, or it would simply be out-gunned by the
rest of the industry that actively works against artist independence.

One of my businesses is a worker-owned cooperative. It has challenges that are
completely novel to me (having started two small traditional corporations
before that), and they're very difficult to overcome. Herding cats is hard,
operating under the cooperative principles is hard(er than doing it all for
profit), and raising money is effectively impossible for many types of
cooperative, as far as I can tell.

Building a competing music or video service to YouTube and Spotify would
require tremendous resources, and without the big cash-out promised by those
ventures, I don't know how one would make it work.

~~~
Rapzid
Easier than you'd think maybe? There are some VERY wealthy artists that might
take a personal interest in an effort like this. A few big players could start
the coop and bank roll it.

~~~
SwellJoe
There are very, _very_ few living billionaire musicians (I can think of only
three, maybe four), and most of those few have a vested interest in seeing the
industry remain the way it is (because they've built their fortune within it
and have become moguls within that industry in their own right; for example
Jay Z and Kanye West and Madonna who all have rosters of artists effectively
in their employ, using the traditional indentured servant music industry
model). And, the definition of "VERY wealthy" looks different in the tech
industry than it does in the music industry.

I'd love to be wrong. But, I've been an indie and DIY and punk music fan
almost my entire life, and I've worked in the music industry. It's better than
it's ever been for independent artists in many regards, but Google and Apple
aren't on the side of artists all that much more than the historic record
industry was/is, and it's very hard to have them as an adversary. Would you
want to try to compete directly with Google or Apple? And, if you were someone
with tens of millions of disposable income would you want to risk it on a
venture that is likely to fail and if it succeeds won't do much more than pay
back your investment capital and a small bit of interest?

~~~
6stringmerc
You are very on-point - what does a successful artist do as soon as they have
enough clout in the industry? Start their own label. Sign artists. Take a cut.
Negotiate deals with advertising, take a cut of that. Tell the artists on the
roster that they're better off with you than without you.

The parallels are stunning in this case. Thank you for mentioning your
perspective, as I think it bears repeating that the "music industry" has
always been like this - the names and methods may look different, but the
model is the same. Ain't nobody signed to iTunes or YouTube, near as I can
tell...

------
whiddershins
I am confused about the terms used in this post, some details need to be
explicated. If a user uses a song they don't have the rights to in a youtube
video, the content holder has the right to issue a DMCA takedown request.
Google also, alternately, offers the rights holder the option to monetize that
third-party use instead.

Is Google seriously removing that monetization option unless the rights holder
agrees to release ALL their music through Google, and on Google's terms?

Because that's what Zoe's post is implying, and that would be some serious
next level anti-trust bullying kind of nonsense.

~~~
bsder
> Is Google seriously removing that monetization option unless the rights
> holder agrees to release ALL their music through Google, and on Google's
> terms?

Yes, the independent artists have been screaming about YouTube licensing terms
for a while now.

> Because that's what Zoe's post is implying, and that would be some serious
> next level anti-trust bullying kind of nonsense.

But there's competition. You know ... Vimeo, NicoNico, etc.

That fact that they have less than .1% of the market in the US isn't relevant.
</sarcasm>

~~~
hsod
iTunes, Google Music, Soundcloud, Spotify, etc. are all competitors in this
situation. YouTube is a LOT less than 99.9% of the music distribution market.

~~~
bsder
And yet whenever any of the 15-30 year olds I know want a specific piece of
music, they go _straight_ to YouTube. I have yet to see anybody push "Buy" on
any of those services

"The average iTunes user spends ~$40 per year on the service"

That matches my experience, and that's average. Presumably the in-app purchase
whales are skewing that high; it's probably closer to $20.

Between apps and video, that doesn't leave much for music. Almost all the
money goes to Top 40 for that.

~~~
smeyer
You need to meet more 15-30 year olds. I'm part of that demographic, and many
of my friends view Spotify as the first stop and Youtube as a backup if
Spotify doesn't have the desired content

~~~
jeffbr13
And some have all 320s, and a surprising number are buying mostly vinyl. But
everyone uses YouTube to listen to tracks they don't own, aren't available to
stream (many, for Spotify), or are vinyl-only. It's always the go-to for house
parties.

There's a _lot_ of variety out there, but you're right, YouTube is the
backstop.

~~~
smeyer
Yes, lots of people use YouTube. But bsder claimed that everyone in that
demographic that they know goes "straight" to YouTube, and I was presenting
the countering anecdote that I know loads of people in that demographic who
use YouTube as the backstop, not the first stop.

On the house party subject, my roommates and I in college through roughly
weekly parties, ranging from a few people to several hundred people, and we
defaulted to Spotify (but used lots of other things as well). We could have
definitely been an outlier, though, as I agree lots of people default to
YouTube there.

------
ChuckMcM
Ok I think Zoe should create a t-shirt on tee spring with _" I don’t think
they are evil. I think they, like other tech companies, are just idealistic in
a way that works best for them."_ that is such a great quote.

And I agree it is bogus what Google is asking. Next step is the ContentID
equivalent robot that runs as a service and just sends DMCA takedown notices
to Google forcing them to remove the videos and get no ad revenue on them and
piss off their users. She really does have the power in this fight, applying
it will take some effort but I think it can be done.

~~~
icebraining
_Next step is the ContentID equivalent robot that runs as a service and just
sends DMCA takedown notices to Google forcing them to remove the videos and
get no ad revenue on them and piss off their users._

Yeah, but the problem is that those users are often her fans, and they'll be
pissed at her too. And the fact is that she has more to lose than Google, no
matter what she does.

~~~
twic
What if the robot sent the video's poster a message saying "Hey, you're using
my music without my permission. If you put on an annotation crediting it to me
and linking it to my Bandcamp page, i'll give you my permission. But if you
don't, i'll DMCA you."?

Essentially, you'd be implementing the earlier, non-evil, version of the
Content ID program yourself.

~~~
tempestn
Good idea, but it could be phrased a lot more amicably. Maybe, "Hi, I'm really
happy you like [song name]. Just writing to let you know that you're entirely
welcome to use the song in this video, free of charge, as long as you add an
annotation crediting me (Zoe Keating) and linking back to my Bandcamp page
(URL). Here's an article describing how to do that: [link]. Thanks!"

~~~
twic
Yes, that seems good. A modest revision:

"FOOL! You dare to use my music on your worthless trinket of a video?
Demonstrate your complete submission to my will by adding credits and a link,
as directed [link], and I may spare your pitiful life. KNEEL BEFORE ZOË!"

~~~
protomyth
Depending on the musician / band that actually might be the proper tone for
the message. Probably not for this artist, but I can think of a few that the
fan would get a kick out of that response.

------
replicatorblog
Zoe Keating is one of my favorite musicians. If you haven't listened, Imagine
if someone was playing the Game of Thrones theme on a Cello, solo. She
incorporates tech into her act in wildly impressive ways.

This is a refreshingly level-headed blog post. There are pros and cons, but
it's all presented as realistic tension between two creative organizations,
each of which provides value (One having more leverage, of course).

It's just such a nice break from the over-the-top demonization of the
tech/corporate partner and ignoring the value they provide.

~~~
qntmfred
I went to see her live last week. I had only been vaguely aware of her before
then, but I came away really really enjoying her work.

She also mentioned during the performance that before she started playing full
time she used to be a programmer, which was very cool. And totally not
surprising given her very creative use of technology in her music. Also
apparent in her writing as her understanding and insight of Youtube Music's
technology and business model is on point.

~~~
darkmethod
The creativity in her work is inspiring. Also, I really enjoyed her Wired
interview (she mentions her previous career as a programmer).

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TTX0ryyoac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TTX0ryyoac)

------
magicalist
Interesting look at clash of interests. One interesting point (out of several
in the post):

> _I will be required to release new music on Youtube at the same time I
> release it anywhere else. So no more releasing to my core fans first on
> Bandcamp and then on iTunes._

I wonder if she's already agreed to the iTunes agreement, because my
understanding was that iTunes required the same thing:
[http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/i...](http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/iTunes_Americas_-Music_v16.pdf) (see section 3a)

I wonder if the difference is in thinking of iTunes as a proper music
distribution service and youtube as a place that has incidentally distributed
a bunch of her music (as much of the blog post seems to put it) that is now
demanding to be something different.

~~~
eridius
From your link:

> [...] at least in time for ITUNES to begin selling eMasters the earlier of a
> general release date, provided by COMPANY, or when any other distributor is
> permitted to begin selling, or making commercially available, COMPANY
> Content in any format.

It appears that her Bandcamp is hosted at her own domain, at
[http://music.zoekeating.com](http://music.zoekeating.com). Does that count as
her distributing it herself, or as someone else distributing it? Except for
the tiny footer saying "Bandcamp", it looks like self-distribution. In my
relatively uninformed opinion, that seems like it means section 3a doesn't
apply.

~~~
magicalist
I guess it depends who she signed with iTunes through? If it was herself then
it seems like it would be covered by the "provided by COMPANY" clause, if not,
then it seems like it would be readily covered by the "any other distributor"
clause.

~~~
eridius
It says "a general release date, provided by COMPANY". I don't know what the
definition of "general release date" is, but I would assume that's when it's
released to the general public. I don't know if releasing to her Bandcamp fans
counts or not.

Edit: Another alternative is, does she offer it for sale when releasing just
on Bandcamp? If that's available for free only, and doesn't have a "Buy now"
option added until it's released on iTunes, then it seems like that would
satisfy the "any other distributor is permitted to begin selling, or making
commercially available, COMPANY Content in any format" bit (in this case
assuming that her site counts as "any other distributor").

Ultimately, speculation about legal contracts by laypeople like us (well, me,
but I assume you're not a lawyer either) is probably a pointless exercise.

------
metaphorm
I'm really glad Zoe decided to share this. It was interesting to read and I
hope it helps raise awareness about the total hostility of the terms of that
artist agreement. I'm having trouble imagining there are any independent
artists at all that would be comfortable agreeing to those terms.

------
kazinator
What you can do about YouTube is to use it like any ordinary person who
uploads videos of their dog doing something cute, or whatever.

They are not being threatened with having their channels blocked unless they
sign some agreement.

Release and market your music in any way you want, and use YouTube to host
some vids, so you can embed them into your web pages without having to use
your own bandwidth.

Here is a little quote:

> _" [...] no matter how I explained my hands-on fan-supported anti-corporate
> niche thing, I was an alien to them. I don’t think they understood me at
> all. "_

See, if you want to be in a fan-supported anti-corporate niche thing, then
don't feed your music to some Content ID "Borg" machine, intended to harass
people who share.

Of course those people didn't understand. They were probably thinking, "why do
you want our help in content-ID-ing your material and clamping down on
duplication, forcing copies to be removed or monetized by you, if you are
anti-corporate and fan-supported? We are, like, corporate and revenue-
supported."

------
6stringmerc
My perspective is as follows [1]:

 _First, write a song and shoot a quick video about the desire to treat your
fans with respect, and upload it ASAP to YouTube.

Once the "MUST DO" deadline comes up, kick that serfdom YouTube contract to
the curb and don't look back.

Set up shop on VIMEO or DailyMotion, monetize as able.

Lastly, talk to deadmau5 about the Pros/Cons of setting up a self-directed
distribtuion platform.

_ [1] Proud to be independent, distributed and listened to worldwide, and even
if that only means I've made $14 in income from my music in the past two
years, the music reaching people is my goal. DistroKid is my friend. YouTube
is just another RIAA platform these days to me, and while I'm on there, the
moment I apparently get big enough for them to care and try to shoot the
hostages, I'll pick up shop and leave. YMMV.

------
benwerd
This seems kind of predatory from YouTube's perspective. This is the web: why
can't Zoe publish her music on her own terms?

The real reason people use YouTube is discovery. I can easily find new stuff
to watch, and just hit play; artists can easily be discovered and grow an
audience (or at least, that's the idea). Seems like it's time for a more open
alternative.

~~~
Kalium
She can publish her own music on her own terms. She just can't do it with
YouTube's help on her own terms.

Why should YouTube be obliged to meet a person on their arbitrarily chosen
terms?

~~~
benwerd
They shouldn't. But right now, YouTube is a huge part of being discoverable as
an artist online. There should be more of an ecosystem; more competition would
result in more favorable terms. And seeing as this is the web, an ecosystem
should still be browseable as a coherent whole.

My wider point is: why isn't it as easy to discover an artist's work on the
wider web as it is on YouTube? Isn't this an opportunity for someone?

~~~
Kalium
You would think that! It turns out that when every artist, label, publisher,
and retailer under the sun has the same idea... discovery isn't actually any
easier. All you get is noise.

There was a huge and diverse ecosystem. It's mostly gone now. This for the
most part works better for users, which is why that old ecosystem is mostly
gone. As a rule, users don't want to bounce between five or ten or twenty
sites to find what they want - users prefer one or two.

More specifically, there's a huge number of startups hellbent on being that
someone. I've personally had contact with several. That you didn't know this
is an excellent comment on how big the perceived opportunity actually is.

------
johnlbevan2
Does anyone know why Google ("organise the world’s information and make it
universally accessible" ¹) don't allow people to disclose their YouTube
earnings ("It’s a violation of my agreement to say how much a comparable
number of Youtube plays pays" ²). Or have I misunderstood her quote; since
last year she did reveal such figures ("more than 1.9m views of videos on
YouTube – mostly those uploaded by other people featuring her music – earned
her $1,248" ³)

    
    
        - 1 http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i-do-about-youtube
    
        - 2 https://www.google.co.uk/about/company/
    
        - 3 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/24/zoe-keating-itunes-spotify-youtube-payouts

------
Falkon1313
If a company wants first pick of everything that someone produces and wants
the right to monetize it and modify it regardless of the creator's wishes (for
example, by inserting ads), then they should at least pay a salary in addition
to a cut of the ad revenue. If they're not paying for those rights with a
salary or recurring retainer, then the terms as described are plain
exploitation designed to intentionally screw the artist.

Also, 5 years is far too long for a contract like that. That gives someone
else control of half a decade of your career. If you're just starting out and
have a 40 year career ahead, that's 1/8th. If you're older, that could be 1/4
or more.

------
pavel_lishin
So, if she does not accept their 'generous offer', she won't be able to
publish her music on YouTube, right? But if other people happen to publish it,
and Content ID doesn't snag it down, she'll have to go through their long and
painful DMCA takedown process to get her music off of it?

~~~
asuffield
No, that's not right. She can still publish her music on youtube either way.
This is about signing up to the "monetisation" option where she can take some
of the money from any third party video that ContentID says includes her
content. She's currently using that service, and continuing to use it
apparently requires signing up to the new agreement.

I'm not completely clear on this part, but I think she can still get ad
revenue from videos that she uploads herself. The article is definitely
talking about third party video uploads.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Ah, okay; but any of her music that she did not upload - would it be taken
down automatically via ContentId, or would she have to petition them?

~~~
JohnTHaller
No. Google will only use ContentId to handle monetization. And only on their
lopsided terms, which the artist isn't very keen on. She'd have to file DMCA
requests for every single video it showed up in herself.

------
ajani
I don't have any legal knowledge. Hope someone who does can shed some light on
these questions:

Aren't antitrust laws designed to protect the customers from the power that a
company can wield due to it's monopoly?

Isn't this what Youtube is doing? - Exercising it's power to 'force' her to
move from ContentID to a new product.

And wouldn't this then also qualify as bait and switch? And isn't this
according to some law illegal?

~~~
raldi
Antitrust law kicks in when consumers have no choice, usually due to large
barriers to switching. For example, in 1998, if you wanted to run WIN32 apps,
you had no choice but to buy from Microsoft.

Note that the definition above does not mention market share. For example,
Google dominates websearch market share, but competition is just a click away;
if Bing or Yahoo or DDG built a better mousetrap, you could switch in an
instant.

Since you, as a consumer, can easily switch to a different music provider,
it's hard for me to see how you can argue that YouTube is wielding monopoly
power over you. And similarly, Zoe can (and does) easily distribute her music
on non-YouTube platforms.

Also, antitrust law is primarily about protecting consumers from harm
(usually, higher prices). It's not about protecting other companies. So the
core of Microsoft's antitrust defense was, "Yes, driving the price of the
browser to $0 was terribly harmful to Netscape, but it was actually beneficial
to consumers."

~~~
pgeorgi
Zoe can't decide that other people don't put her works on YT. And ContentID,
which is a way to deal with that situations, seems to come with some
interesting additional terms now.

~~~
raldi
Sure she can. She can still set ContentID to automatically take down her work
when it's uploaded to YouTube.

~~~
jmilloy
Isn't the point that she can't if she doesn't sign the new agreement?

~~~
raldi
She can still do takedowns. What she can't do is put ads on the videos and
leave them up.

------
mark_l_watson
I am sorry that she is having these problems. I had never heard of Zoe Keeting
before, but after listening to some tracks on her web site, I just bought her
Into The Trees album - nice stuff. Instrumental music to code to :-)

------
notatoad
I'm curious if they are really going to block her channel completely, or if
block just means she can't be part of ContentID anymore. Blocking it sounds
pretty unreasonable, but "we won't help you monetize your videos if you're
going to favour some other music service" seems like fairly reasonable terms
to me.

~~~
whiddershins
No, it isn't reasonable. Every time they display an uploaded video that
contains content which is protected by copyright, they are attempting to make
money from someone else's work product.

They've built their entire business on this practice, while leaving the burden
of DMCA notices to the artist.

The contentID system was an olive branch, a win-win. Now they are using it as
a cudgel to force artists to participate in their platform on their terms.

That's insanely messed up.

~~~
Kalium
Clearly, the sane answer is to shut down YouTube until it can be remade in an
artist-pleasing way. That this will mean creativity is stifled and everything
has a "BUY" button on it is incidental and not at all important. Who wants
user-uploaded content when you have _artists_?

/s

Realistically, the position of artists tends to be that any and all money
involved should go to them. This tends not to sit well with tech companies
that do things like handle the money and pay bandwidth bills.

~~~
whiddershins
How is a "BUY" button more offensive than the cascade of ads I am subjected to
everywhere I go on the internet?

And "creativity is stifled"? "The position of artists"? Give me a break. You
are trolling. Artists have always struggled to be paid anything even remotely
reasonable, and it is disgusting when people try to shame them for doing so.

AFAIK no other profession has this problem to anywhere near this magnitude ...
where nearly everyone makes use of the work, but the majority are not only
unwilling to pay, but actually hostile to paying.

~~~
Kalium
Creativity is stifled any time copyright interests get involved. The whole
point of copyright is to leverage control into profit. Control over other
people, generally. The derivative works doctrine in particular is exerting
control over the creativity of others in an effort to turn a profit. That's
the stifling of creativity right there. Sample-based creation in particular
has suffered from this.

It's not the buy button that offends. It's taking a democritizing platfom and
turning it into an elitist one where only the blessed can publish that
offends. I have no wish to be reduced to a person whose only permitted role in
my own culture is to open my wallet. And for my presumption to create without
asking permission and paying lots of money first, I have years in jail hanging
over my head.

That's here. That's now. That's reality. With that in mind, I cannot accept
the idea that if it pays artists it must be good.

This may come as a shock to you, but I don't object to artists being paid. I
do object to some of the things artists call for in the interests of being
paid. DRM, for instance, is not acceptable to me. Nor are licenses for tiny,
tiny samples where one person gets to control the creativity of another.

People aren't hostile to paying artists. People just aren't always willing to
pay artists what artists think they deserve while engaging on terms the artist
has selected. That's just like any other business where you have to go where
the customers are and offer them what they want if you want to make sales. You
can try and hawk expensive dehumidifiers in the Empty Quarter, but you don't
get to blame the world for your inability to sell any.

I'm not trolling. I just have this little thing where I dislike the would-be
tin-pot dictators of the copyright industry.

------
datashovel
I would love to see the actual language used in the contract. The terms as
described in the post sound quite harsh, but unless it's a lawyer who has
transcribed these terms, or she was discussing this with a lawyer at Google,
my hunch is some of the interpretation may be off.

------
pherocity_
"Do no evil" hasn't been followed for quite a while, but this is downright
vile.

~~~
lrem
One thing that I think nobody thinks about: there are two sides to this thing,
other than Google. One is the artists, who have already spoken. The other one
is the users, who probably want to be promised "all the music from X
participating artists", rather than "some of the music from 10X participating
artists"... I'm not 100% sure that Google standing by the second side is
right, but surely it needs _some_ consideration.

~~~
shkkmo
So... you think there are users who would rather have access to 0 Zoe songs on
Youtube, rather than have access to 50% of Zoe's songs on Youtube?

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this benefits the user.

~~~
koepked
The calculus behind this benefiting the user likely involves the belief that
most artists are going to cave on the issue.

------
marcusgarvey
> I don’t think they are evil. I think they, like other tech companies, are
> just idealistic in a way that works best for them. I think this because I
> used to be one of them (*4). The people who work at Google, Facebook, etc
> can’t imagine how everything they make is not, like, totally awesome. If
> it’s not awesome for you it’s because you just don’t understand it yet and
> you’ll come around. They can’t imagine scenarios outside their reality and
> that is how they inadvertently unleash things like the algorithmic cruelty
> of Facebook’s yearly review (which showed me a picture I had posted after a
> doctor told me my husband had 6-8 weeks to live).

This.

~~~
pgodzin
At the same time, the yearly review is meant to highlight the important
moments of your year, not necessarily the positive ones. Obviously that post
had a lot of engagement, and it was properly flagged as important. The user
then has the option of whether or not they want to publish that or not.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yearly Review was also totally broken if the language of your Facebook
activities wasn't en_US. I don't know how well it worked for Americans, but
across the pond it tended to pick up nonsense. Hell, the only photos that were
in any way relevant or interesting on my Yearly Review were screenshots from
Kerbal Space Program...

I say it needs much, much more work.

------
apricot
Thought-provoking article, and it contains this gem:

"I don’t think they are evil. I think they, like other tech companies, are
just idealistic in a way that works best for them."

This is such a wonderful turn of phrase, and has caused me to spend a major
part of last evening in self-contemplation. I think it applies not only to
tech companies but to many bright young people who adapt their mental model of
the world to their own strengths and passions.

------
swang
Trading one master for another.

~~~
smacktoward
At least with labels, if you were sufficiently successful and your current
label started tightening the screws on you, you could go to the others and try
to negotiate a new deal with them.

If Google decides to tighten the screws on YouTube performers, where else do
they go? Where else _can_ they go?

~~~
Hasu
>If Google decides to tighten the screws on YouTube performers, where else do
they go? Where else can they go?

To whatever startup(or other business) that successfully takes advantage of
the market opening that Google has created by tightening the screws?

~~~
bsder
You can't beat YouTube in the US. Google effectively subsidizes YouTube's
bandwidth usage and that chokes off any alternatives.

Even NicoNico in the US just wrapped the YouTube video with a comment system
to save bandwidth:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_Nico_Douga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_Nico_Douga)

~~~
icebraining
I think that's looking too narrowly at the problem. For example, for years
Spotify used P2P tech to reduce demand on their servers - nothing stops a
Youtube alternative from doing the same.

------
pistle
Put it there. Monetize it. Then, build the core fan community, yourself
elsewhere to the extent that the core community continues to support you
knowing why they support you there and don't primarily support you via your
"brand-building" channels.

Cheap/free distribution for indies via various corporate entities is something
that didn't exist as it does 10 or 20 years ago. This is the unstoppable
future. Get ahead of it vs twisting, with angst, in its wake.

Previously, artists bowed down to record labels. The new "labels" were bound
to fill the digital void. She, and other artists, can carve a better direct-
to-fan relationship in other mediums by using broad spectrum as a funnel into
the core fan community.

Then there will be niche services that grow to help cultivate that fan+ model
and someone in there will dominate or be swallowed by the behemoths. Rinse and
repeat.

Art that can be digitized will become freely pervasive and licensing models
barely keep up. We are all running our own personal kickstarters if we aren't
willing take a W2 from a corporate entity. Viva la 1099!

------
graycat
My guess: Google/YouTube just had a really bad day and tried to shoot
themselves in the foot.

As they continue with such nonsense, they will get a lot of _push back_. Then,
or eventually, they will see their mistakes, wise up, and quit being nasty.

In the meanwhile, Zoe has little option but to f'get about YouTube and let
them hurt themselves and, then, consider YouTube again after YouTube wises up.

But it should be not too difficult for Zoe to bring up her own Web site that
permits downloading and/or streaming her music/videos. E.g., consider

[http://www.carolinegoulding.com/](http://www.carolinegoulding.com/)

the Web site of violinist Caroline Goulding which at times has had some
streaming of some of her music and links to some relevant video of hers. And
then there is also for her

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNiUK9sNBA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNiUK9sNBA)

If such a site for Zoe becomes popular, then Zoe could run some ads to get
revenue to pay for the site.

A site that is small or even larger than small should be fairly inexpensive,
especially if just hosted at Amazon or some such. Or, a computer plugged
together from parts for less than $2000 and with, say, 35 Mbps upload speed to
the Internet for, say, $90 a month, should be able to be a significant start.
Get usage enough to max out the capacity of that site, and should be able to
get some revenue way beyond what is needed to run the site.

There is something fundamental here: The basic technology in infrastructure
software, Moore's law, whatever the similar law is for disk space, optical
fiber data rates, and the prices of these that permit YouTube to send so much
_content_ free to users and for many months with few or no ads permits many
others, including even a single artist, to put their content on the Internet
also.

Good luck to Zoe.

------
pasbesoin
YouTube becomes TheirTube.

~~~
pluma
*TheyTube

Grammar.

------
stinos
_The people who work at Google, Facebook, etc can’t imagine how everything
they make is not, like, totally awesome. If it’s not awesome for you it’s
because you just don’t understand it yet and you’ll come around. They can’t
imagine scenarios outside their reality and that is how they inadvertently
unleash things like the algorithmic cruelty of Facebook’s yearly review (which
showed me a picture I had posted after a doctor told me my husband had 6-8
weeks to live)._

Dave Eggers' _The Circle_ , all over again (or should it be 'avant la
lettre'?)

------
reitanqild
As an aside, seems she creates high quality music - without vocals - which is
something I listen a lot to.

So I bought a one download and might easily come back for more.

------
drapper
Well, the problem is that YouTube, similarly to Google and Facebook, is
becoming a monopoly (a natural monopoly I'd say), which seems to be a general
way of how Internet works, and we should, rather sooner or later, start to
think about some regulations (YT is also the future TV and TV is regulated) to
deal with cases like this one.

------
ableal
There's an update from Jan 24 (today), at the bottom. Very relevant items.

Only got around to reading this over a day late, but I'm glad I did. Very
clear and well written, the insider's low-down on the new-media realities that
are replacing the old ones.

------
elidourado
There's a new Twitter video service on the way. I'm sure they'll capture a lot
of the disgruntled YouTube creators.

[https://video.twitter.com](https://video.twitter.com)

------
goeric
Use [http://vid.me](http://vid.me)

~~~
Joona
Do they re-encode videos?

~~~
lelandbatey
I'll bet they do, since I don't actually know anyone who _doesn 't_ re-encode
their videos. Youtube certainly does, Vimeo does (at least some versions,
since they offer different qualities) though uploaders have the option of
offering the original for download.

Re-encoding is generally always done, since users upload so many different
formats, and few of them are suitable for streaming.

~~~
wshaef
Vidme co-founder here. We re-encode all videos to make sure they'll play well
across devices.

~~~
Joona
That's a shame. Would it be possible to encode with specific settings (ffmpeg)
and not have it re-encoded? Re-encoding butchers my videos terribly.

------
splatsearch
My first though is she should just sign up. This is how the industry is. Do it
and be part of it or delete your stuff off the internet and start distributing
on vinyl

------
teddyh
> _It’s a violation of my agreement to say how much_ […] _Youtube plays pays._

To me, that would have been a tip-off.

------
enterx
...fuck YouTube? :D

EDIT: no. install an email server. start opening accounts. collect the
captchas. outsource. :)

------
comrh
"The people who work at Google, Facebook, etc can’t imagine how everything
they make is not, like, totally awesome."

This is basically the premise of Dave Eggers' The Circle which takes it to a
very scary conclusion.

------
joelthelion
This is what happens with monopolies.

~~~
raldi
Wikipedia defines a monopoly as "when a specific person or enterprise is the
only supplier of a particular commodity"

If YouTube is a monopoly, what is the commodity in question?

~~~
joelthelion
YouTube users? As a content provider, on which site do you expect to get the
most viewers?

~~~
raldi
Would you say reddit is also a monopoly, since it's the only supplier of
reddit users?

------
drawkbox
Time for a new youtube...

------
avodonosov
reject!

------
cmurf
Old woman=this artist and all artists. Proselytizers=Google rep. The
Book=Google's service contract.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFUW6htvUss](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFUW6htvUss)

------
Kalium
> Is such control too much for an artist to ask for in 2015?

Yes. The world isn't designed around you playing mix-and-match with a bunch of
different services.

What Zoe has missed is not that the tech world doesn't understand things
"outside their reality". It's that we in tech know we have to choose between
what's best for the vast, vast majority of people and what's convenient for a
tiny handful.

Technology still changes the world for the better, Zoe. The only difference is
now you're on the side of the old guard.

~~~
freehunter
>The only difference is now you're on the side of the old guard.

The old guard of self-published independent music creators who distribute
their work on multiple digital platforms in order to fully engage with their
audience? The likes of which were only made possible by YouTube in the first
place?

So that means Google is part of the new guard of controlling and demanding
music distributors who lock the artist into a long term contract on their own
terms, or the artist can't use their distribution channels in an effort to
lock out the distributor's competitors at the expense of the artist.

Yeah, you certainly got that one right...

~~~
Kalium
And just like the really old RIAA system, you can take it or leave it unless
you're big enough to bother negotiating with.

In practical terms, YouTube is going to have a hard time launching a music
service if everything's already there for free. That would make them little
different from Spotify, but with even less profit. We all know how much the
music industry hates Spotify.

------
wahsd
It really seems like it is time to scuttle youtube. I'm serious, they keep
trying the whole "it's not us, it's your isp" bs to explain why their service
is all janky and glitchy even though other services work perfectly fine, and
they keep pulling all kinds of bullshit moves, while also not really being all
that great of a service and UI if we are honest with ourselves. Google has
been mucking around with YouTube and its UI for basically a decade now without
any real significant improvements. Things are even more fractured and
disparate than before, the suggestions are just plain shit, and the content is
akin to finding a needle in a pile of expended hypodermic needles.

I am really kind of bored with youtube for many reasons. I think it's time for
the artist community, and others, for that matter, to find new outlets.

~~~
wshaef
We're working on building a creator-friendly video community at vid.me...
would love any suggestions / ideas / feedback.

~~~
photorized
You aren't serving ads, and provide free accounts. What's your model?

~~~
beyti
nice question. grow first, monetize later I fear

------
drivingmenuts
My first response is to (politely stated) tell Google to go fly a kite.

It's such an easy and important medium to use, though, that it may be
impossible. It resonates with consumers brilliantly.

It's sad that they have to resort to such strong-arm tactics instead of coming
out with a better system that stands out from the crowd on it's own merits. It
sounds like they are completely blind to the idea that someone might not be
totally comfortable with their solution.

While "Don't be evil" may still be in play, apparently "Don't be a
@$#%@#^@&%#$%$ jackass" hasn't even crossed their minds. At this point, I hope
their new system goes the way of Google Wave.

------
fivre
I think it's this: you should tell Youtube/Google to give you the amount of
money they think is right given how many times your music has been plaid on
their service (they know), given the actual dues according to copyright law
thrown to the wind.

How much is deserved, from how much was earned, according to the law? Nobody
knows; it would take an army of lawyers and musicians to figure that out. How
do you price art? How do you price the emotions felt when someone heard a
song? You can't. No one can. I felt an emotion once, listening to a song, and
the person that made that song is dead. What was the dollar amount
attributable to that emotion, and what does that dead person need with that
money? There's no answer; you can't put a price on emotion. And when you get
down to it, that's what music is--emotion. Emotions don't have a price, music
doesn't have a price--there are some people that would like to tell you
otherwise, and they're wrong.

Someone should get paid, yes. The persons who profited from that performance
should ask the person that heard that song: how much should we charge you for
feeling love? If those parties can come an agreement regarding what that cost,
then yes, that's what it cost. Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay
for it.

