A video I uploaded to YouTube was flagged for content - said content was a short bit of "Ace of Spades" played over a tannoy speaker sytem between commentary of armoured vehicles roaring around the track just meters from me, all being picked up by the rather tinny microphone in my camera.
In this case I flagged an appeal and the flag was lifted (incidental background music from public transmission, not the intended video content and so not a problem)
If they are capable of that, the law should be that content ID filtering should be enabled.
It's not that Google can't do it, nor that it would be expensive to do it. They just don't want to as the illegal sharing allows them to increase their views, thus their ad revenue, and it's a loophole.
Re: The Ace
Unless of course you're trying to time the release of your video at the peak of traffic and advertising revenue. Get flagged and taken down? Sure you can counter-claim and get back up quickly, but you've missed that massive peak and revenue that was rightfully yours.
YouTube for Music
For some reason I'm always staggered by the volume (no pun) of folk that could find YouTube an acceptable jukebox. But then how long did I live with SW/LW/MW/AM radio?
Re: YouTube for Music
I found it funny that, while at University, despite video->audio only conversion exists, one of my fellow students was recording it by linking the headphone socket to the microphone input of his laptop, and recording that (At high volume too, so the input was truncated).
It sounded awful.
If you are going to pirate content, at least do a proper job of it.
Alternatively, at the time, Spotify free accounts were actually free (+ ads), and didn't lack the features that they do now (i.e. the inability to navigate to your song of choice) and he could have just used that instead...
Is it just me being old, that I feel that streaming video just for the audio is a waste of perfectly good bandwidth?
Re: YouTube for Music
"Is it just me being old, that I feel that streaming video just for the audio is a waste of perfectly good bandwidth?"
YouTube is a god-send for classical music lovers and well worth the waste of a little bandwidth. From live performance to recorded music from both the labels themselves and user-uploaded, we're given the opportunity to hear things we'd likely never otherwise have. Our favorite chestnuts by household names to the once-famous who've fallen out of favor to composers I've never heard of, it's truly an embarrassment of riches, like dying and going to heaven.
Re: YouTube for Music
I doubt most people can tell the difference between the audio of a Youtube video, and a CD. I'm sure the streamed version is compressed in all sorts of ways, but unless your computer is plugged into a reall y expensive stereo you're unlikely to notice.
If you can hear the difference, well, sucks to be you, because you're going to have to find a source of quality music, spend loads on separates etc. The rest of us are happy with whatever cheap speakers we have lying around.
Perhaps Andrew could look into this too (search for that word and you'll find enough info about it).
Really sketchy stuff uploaded under the guise of children's videos that even finds its way into the YouTube Kids app. They appear in the suggestion list and get autoplayed.
How difficult is it to for Google to clobber an entire channel dedicated to Spiderman Getting Elsa Pregnant or Bad Baby Gets His Fingers Cut Off or Ritual Sacrifice in Minecraft or worse?
I guess Google have worked out anything is acceptable for monetisation.
That's the problem. These exemptions were put in to help protect the internet when it was a lot smaller. And also you need protections to protect small companies who don't have the resources to survive and police user-uploaded content.
But Google make tens of billions in profit a year. They're not some poor start-up anymore. They just want to make some extra profits, by avoiding their responsibilities. Facebook are the same.
They're moving a bit now, because public pressure is starting to tell. It would almost certainly be better if regulation was light, and then well funded organisations behaved responsibly. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
I'm not sure the Googles and Facebooks are those that have most to fear from such new regulations. They have the size and the cash to adapt and create the systems that will keep them out of trouble.
On the other hand, small players that are trying to enter the market won't be able to do the same; and they could be sunk by a single legal complaint...
Like net neutrality, it's the small players that have the most to lose.
"compensating artists is another issue"
And I was hoping that AO was going to report on the real crime - How the music industry companies keep the lions share of the money and gives the artists peanuts.
'Home taping', Napster, Bit Torrent, now Youtube...
It seems music just won't die.
What has UGC got to do with streaming?
46 per cent of on-demand music streaming is from Google's video website
OK. But how much of that is from UGC vs. uploaded deliberately by the musician/copyright holder/agent?
This is a genuine question. I imagine that it is a tiny proportion. Is it actually a significant proportion? How much? Pointers to published data, please.
I realise I am not in the target demographic (I don't stream or pirate music -- I buy it), but the (very small amount of) music I stream from YouTube is to check out something a friend has recommended to see if I am interested in buying more of it. And I don't think it has ever been UGC -- it has always been a clearly authorised upload, exactly for that purpose. Why would YT pay anyone for that advertising?
Of course, I know that people post video captured from concerts but, again, surely that is a tiny part of the "on-demand music streaming".
Re: What has UGC got to do with streaming?
"...but the (very small amount of) music I stream from YouTube is to check out something..."
I have huge problems with DRM, however I do think it would be interesting to have perfect DRM. I suspect the effect on sales will be to clobber them, not enhance them. If you must pay to check something out, a fraction are going to bother. Also, if you can easily get pirated content, it doesn't concern you that much the quality. But if DRM ever got potent enough, those making the content would soon realize what they make isn't worth paying for because, ofc, very few will do so.
I think the long term effects of perfect DRM will be disastrous to content creators. If people aren't checking out your stuff, you have already lost.
This all seems rather like a paywall, and we all know how well that works.
YouTube better for some artists
This is something that I have discussed with a number of regional and niche bands. They never see any revenue from sales or streaming on Google, Amazon, Apple, Spotify, Pandora, or any of the other music sales/streaming sources, only the big names see any revenue at all. But they get enough traffic to get ad revenue on their channels from YouTube.