Several journalists have contacted me to say that a Google PR rep told them my claims were “patently false”. “Patently” means clear and without doubt. Either someone is not telling the truth or the very nice rep I have been negotiating with, for a year, is patently unclear. There seems to be very little clarity and a lot of doubt on this topic.
I still haven’t decided what to do (YouTube is not at the top of my priority list right now) but I don’t want to spread false information and I hope my transcript below will provide some clarity. Please, tell me what you think it means.
We can’t have music available in the free but not in the paid version. So we need to have catalog parity between the services because essentially it’s just one service, it’s just that there are features that are added on for our music key subscribers. So I think where we got stuck was that there’s a catalog commitment language in the agreement that I think your legal team wasn’t comfortable signing with that language in there
So unfortunately we’re kind of at a period where because we have to launch the product fully at this point any music content has to be licensed under this new agreement otherwise we basically don’t have the proper licenses to keep that content up on youtube
Right. So can you tell me how the music service is related to content ID?
So the content ID part is not really affected so all of that part will remain exactly the same the difference that is added to the contract is that the music rate went up so the party who has rights to the music gets 40% so there’s a benefit there. And then the other part is that to the extent that you make the content available on any other streaming services we ask that you make that available on youtube as well.
So do I opt into the music service agreement in addition to the content ID?
No, so all of that is opted in. So what happens basically is that on this service, the assets that you provide to us, that are licensed on Youtube through you are all available for the music features because you’re a music partner. So even if you don’t explicitly deliver us every single song in your catalog if we have assets and they are fingerprinted by content ID to contain that music then it will be included to the subscription service and you’ll be earning subscription revenue in addition to the existing ad revenue
It helps to think about it on our service because it is in a way already, like a streaming service right? like if i wanted to listen to your music but you didn’t upload an official music video but someone else uploaded a version of it or like a performance of it that you are claiming, that content is licensed under the same music agreement.
The really unique thing about our platform and kind of the benefits of it is that we get users of all sorts of demographics that come to youtube to consume this content in various ways. some people are looking for a video clip to watch the visuals that it contains but there are also heavy music users that come to youtube to specifically listen to music and they don’t really care about the visuals.
If i wanted to just let content ID keep doing it’s thing, and it does a great job at and i’m totally happy with it and i don’t want to participate in the music service, is that an option?
That’s unfortunately not an option.
Assuming i don’t want to, then what would occur?
So what would happen is, um, so in the worst case scenario, because we do understand there are cases where our partners don’t want to participate for various reasons, what we basically have to do is because the music terms are essentially like outdated, the content that you directly upload from accounts that you own under the content owner attached to the agreement, we’ll have to block that content. but anything that comes up tha
Vi ricordate la notizia di quella musicista che scrive di Youtube che la obbliga ad accettare condizioni che lei ritiene capestro ?
Beh, Youtube ha detto che ciò che diceva Zoe Keating è evidentemente falso.
E allora lei ha pubblicato la "trascrizione" sopra..