Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rancho_gordo

Spotify

Recommended Posts

There aren't ads on the kind of content I'm talking about.

 

But even if he was deriving royalties from YouTube, why is he withholding the same content from streaming services?

Everytime I search for Bob Seger on youtube an ad comes up. And every video I click and ad comes up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Night Moves, nearly 3 million views. Ads?

 

Where there are ads, the revenue will go to the account hosting the video. Maybe some of these accounts are Bob Seger in disguise. Maybe they have separate business arrangements with him. None of it really answers my original question.

 

Google isn't redirecting the ad revenue. 300 hours of video are uploaded every minute. Google isn't identifying the original owners of the content and re-apportioning ad revenues accordingly.

 

Unless someone is going to tell me they have an amazing bot which does that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YouTube actually does do that for every single video uploaded:



(I used to manage a large brand's YT channel and clearing audio was a constant -- and usually main -- issue)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a lot of stuff with a few minutes of silence at the end of the track that is probably intended to defeat that bot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a lot of stuff with a few minutes of silence at the end of the track that is probably intended to defeat that bot.

Silence at the end doesn't defeat it (anymore at least -- their "bot" [not sure what that means in this context] is pretty mature at this point). The current strategy is to speed up/slow down the media and tell users to do the opposite in the description.

 

ETA: and just because the audio plays doesn't mean that they haven't ID'd it and aren't paying someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was suggesting that uploaders think that everything goes through some kind of filter/bot/scan or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was suggesting that uploaders think that everything goes through some kind of filter/bot/scan or whatever.

Everything does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't believe the above is true for copyrighted material which I believe music is.

 

 

Check the licenses on some of those Bob Seger posts. The content is being uploaded under a "standard YouTube license," which is a default. The uploaders aren't respecting copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an amazing bot, and I didn't know about it. If I understand it correctly, it works only for content where the copyright holder has taken the initiative to supply YouTube with a reference file.

 

But the original question was why an artist would allow their content to be distributed by others on YouTube, but not license it to a streaming music service (whether they're proactively participating in the Content ID program or not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well Spotify and Pandora are likely gonna need a major revamp after today. the details for Apple Music were mostly as leaked: no ads, curated playlists (in addition to unlimited streaming of whatever playlists you make), a live radio station and a three month free trial, for $9.99 a month. the surprise was the family plan...up to 6 people: $14.99 a month...each with their own devices and accounts playing simultaneously. and it's on Android devices as well. (Apple wanted to make the individual plan $7.99 a month but the record labels balked...but they somehow got the family plan through which means they're undercutting everyone else on price...for most people).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The family plan sounds attractive, but the Rhapsody $9.99 plan allows simultaneous use of three devices. But not separate accounts, playlists etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah it's the multiple accounts, playlists and the massive music catalogue at that price point...I'm surprised that the record labels went for it (and the three month free trial...I'm sure Apple is counting on consumers taking a "why not" approach). what the response will be from the other streamers probably depends upon what they can contractually do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm the only person in the world who uses Rhapsody, but since I don't need a family account,* there's no big reason to switch. Same monthly price, and no limits on the music selection I've ever noticed.

 

*Daughter consumes music free on YouTube and via social shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...