mitchells Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 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. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilfrid Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cstuart Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 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) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AaronS Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mitchells Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Night Moves, nearly 3 million views. Ads? Where there are ads, the revenue will go to the account hosting the video. . I don't believe the above is true for copyrighted material which I believe music is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cstuart Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AaronS Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I was suggesting that uploaders think that everything goes through some kind of filter/bot/scan or whatever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cstuart Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I was suggesting that uploaders think that everything goes through some kind of filter/bot/scan or whatever. Everything does. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilfrid Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Night Moves, nearly 3 million views. Ads? Where there are ads, the revenue will go to the account hosting the video. . 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilfrid Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 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). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nathan Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 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). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilfrid Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 The family plan sounds attractive, but the Rhapsody $9.99 plan allows simultaneous use of three devices. But not separate accounts, playlists etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nathan Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 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... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilfrid Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.