Business Youtube Music Survey - How bad could it be OWO-wow its bad,knee on youtube kneck by music companies.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1625704276911.png

1625704316224.png

1625704348994.png

1625704675240.png
1625704697349.png

Note: this seems like NDA/ survey to spit ball which of two issues they will take first is bad because semantics of genre division & second one seems to be what they are leaning on & maybe include donations on the 15 % to 30% cut.
Click to expand...
 
Click to expand...
I care more about gender politics in Kyrgyzstan than I do about the plight of content creators.
 
You mean to tell me you don't have to rely on fair use laws to use music on the internet anymore? One would have full legal right to use a song in a video?

And this is a problem now because why?
 
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
You mean to tell me you don't have to rely on fair use laws to use music on the internet anymore? One would have full legal right to use a song in a video?

And this is a problem now because why?
Click to expand...
$500 also seems insanely cheap for what is being described as "hits." I assume that the classic rock canon is right out as are some of the bigger bands today but still. Sounds like a heck of a deal.
 
Kinda looks like they're ripping off EmpLemon's suggestions but as it's youtube they made them waay worse
 
Didn't Youtube already have an option to use a limited library of approved songs a decade ago? Remember having the option to change a claimed song to something from a limited selection of other songs. It was mostly buttrock, I think.
 
Lol you are an absolute retard if you're suprised by this. The music industry is notorious for using their clout to act like greedy blood sucking degenerates since before youtube even existed.
 
Last edited:
I agree that artists should receive compensation for their work (even though they usually don’t). At the same time, who is ripping 30sec song clips of songs from a stream or channel openings? Seems like promition to me. Oh right, someone is missing an opportunity to make more.

I’d like to know if retroactively applying a method like this would require amending older, preexisting contracts with artists/labels or if YouTube had something in the original contracts that says they can mess around with the system as they see fit. That would be some wording worth a read.
 
Agent Abe Caprine said:
Didn't Youtube already have an option to use a limited library of approved songs a decade ago?
Click to expand...
Yes, but they gutted it like a fish.
Oon magic said:
I agree that artists should receive compensation for their work (even though they usually don’t). At the same time, who is ripping 30sec song clips of songs from a stream or channel openings?
Click to expand...
It's not about a lost sale, it's about usage rights.
 
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
Yes, but they gutted it like a fish.

It's not about a lost sale, it's about usage rights.
Click to expand...
Which how far you think the usage rights is for & how retro active can it be.
Most likely
1. You most likely have to pay per song
2.yes all question they could make it subscription service. Have all the user information they would ever need.
3. Yes rule would most likely be retro actively & fuck people over.
4. Yes it will have delete old video with same tos rules google doc. Flip switch turn off song not part of service & delete 30 days.
5. No , you need a company to have music not dmca to death on youtube before youtube creates youtube garage band or band camp .
 
Music industry executive: "We've tried it many times in the past but I have found a new way to kill ourselves!"

I swear to god I wouldn't be surprised if in five years Spotify has a youtube alternative with much better licensing options for music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom