YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce
from the good-for-them! dept
About two and a half years ago (soon after I did my first presentation about CwF+RtB), I was asked to stop by the YouTube offices, to talk about what things they might do to help artists earn more money. And the key suggestion I made was -- add more features that would allow artists to sell scarcities with their content: let them sell concert tickets, merchandise, access, whatever. I was thanked... and never heard from them again. So it's nice to see that, years later, it appears that YouTube is finally doing exactly that:We’re launching a feature called the Merch Store that will allow YouTube partners to offer fans merchandise directly on your channel. Fans will be able to buy artists’ merchandise, digital downloads, concert tickets and even unique experiences like meetups. These features are made possible through affiliates like Topspin for merchandise, concert tickets and experiences; Songkick for concerts; and iTunes and Amazon for music downloads. We’ll be rolling out the Merch Store to music partners globally over the coming weeksAs YouTube has become a bigger and bigger source of music listening and discovery, I think this is fantastic. It will be interesting to see how well integrated it really is. As musicians get to test this out, we'd love to hear about their experiences, which they can provide over at Step2.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: music, scarce, youtube
Companies: amazon, apple, google, songkick, topspin, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Loooots of posters!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay very close attention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay very close attention
Notice that, according to their arguments, when YouTube/Google makes a buck, it's an evil middleman, but when the labels make twenty bucks, they're selfless saints just trying to help out the struggling artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay very close attention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is about them making money. Nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's nothing wrong with making money if you're not trying to screw over both the artist and consumer while doing so. Unlike the RIAA, YouTube seem to have identified a way of making money while doing neither. Good on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You just hate record labels because they have the audacity to request the laws that you love to break be enforced.
Your shit is transparent, "Sherlock".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is, but you're far too stupid to know the difference. Hell, you can't even seem to comprehend the idea that these sales would not in any way replace sales through iTunes and Amazon since they're completely different targets and a different model.
Actually understanding the business tactics being discussed is beyond you, yet you keep attacking. You're yet to disprove anything here, and you're yet to even try beyond "I don't like it" and other such nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The TV producers do and they apparently have more money than you guys.
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/files/2010/03/cable-sub-fees.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? You're claiming that Youtube locks the artists into "exclusive" contracts that prevent them from selling their wares somewhere else, and that Youtube demands 98% of the revenue, with the remaining 2% going into escrow towards the amount that Youtube paid in setting this up?
You got a citation for that, or are you willing to admit that there *is* a difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is about them making money. Nothing more.
From what I've read, it's an affiliate deal, meaning a tiny kickback to Google via Songkick/Topspin/Amazon/iTunes. The artist still makes the same amount they would have before.
And, um, of course it's about making money. The artists making more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The reality is that you don't know youtube's cut, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I expect we'll see you idiots jump onto another distraction in the next few weeks, leaving the central points of every discussion conspicuously ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
None of your "rebuttals" make any sense whatsoever, and you're doing as poor a job of evading my questions as Pirate Mike is.
I have no "talking points"; not a "Mafiaa or label exec" and I'm not a "paid shill". The fact that you have to cling to that fantasy rather than the reality that I represent artists that would love all of you cretinous parasites to die in a fire shows how tenuous and pathetic your position is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC has a point: paid shills tend to steer clear of creative arsonists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love the way you "quote" things I haven't said, then proceed to call me and Mike names. To follow your previous comment where you deliberately misrepresented Mike's comment to attack him. Yep, intelligent debate at your usual kindergarten level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
who's rectum do you worm your tongue up as far as possible? i would really like to know so i can go over and slap them across the face
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Until you can understand that intelligent people don't agree with you (or Mike), you will forever be fighting against your own prejudice rather than actually considering the other side's point of view.
As for "we'll see you idiots jump onto another distraction in the next few weeks", all I can say is as soon as you label people as idiots, you probably stopped paying attention to what they are trying to say. You may think you are going some great service by standing next to Mike (virtually) and saying "oh yeah?" like some schoolyard tough guy, but really it just lowers the level of discussion here because you are so clearly unwilling to consider the other side.
It's too bad. You seem intelligent, but you seem also unable to get past your own bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Is it intelligent to ignore every bit of helpful advice being given by people who understand economics and technology? Is it intelligent to ignore all the evidence and studies that show that copyright infringement isn't a problem? Is it intelligent to continue digging your own grave deeper by intentional pissing off your best customers? Is it intelligent to force "your" artists into hugely one-sided deals that also piss them off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, perhaps you can point out where I said that about anyone? As far as I can see, you're the first to bring it up in this thread. If I've said similar things in other threads, I'm just calling as I see it - someone who consistently and unfailingly supports the corporate side against artists and consumers to the detrimatent of both must have an ulterior motive, no?
"It is equally insulting as calling everyone that you disagree with a troll."
Calling it as I see it. I see a bunch of anonymous cowards who can't formulate an argument, and post negative comments about everything posted here regardless of what the post says. Isn't that the very definition of a troll?
"rather than actually considering the other side's point of view"
I'm happy to consider any point of view presented as an honest view, backed up with evidence rather than baseless opinions and false claims. That such an opinion is rarely offered by the pro-corporate folk here is not my doing. I've lost count of the number of times I've been called a pirate or a thief here, but rarely do I see an honest opposing argument.
"You seem intelligent, but you seem also unable to get past your own bias."
So, go on then. Offer me an opinion of why Google's offering is wrong. A warning, however: you should be able to back your idea up with facts (e.g., if as per the AC above you insist that artists will get less than they would with iTunes, I need figures to show that). Either than, or an honest reason why the above is wrong. Intelligent debate is welcome, if you wish to offer it.
All I see so far is a deliberate misunderstanding of both this and other posts, and baseless opinions masquerading as facts. Sorry, that's not good enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yet you are willing to swallow Mike's stuff whole, without looking into it.
Why? Did you not notice that all of the people involved in this particular story also happen to be step two partners? Why do you think this story is running, and running in the manner it is?
"Offer me an opinion of why Google's offering is wrong"
It's actually pretty simple: Google is once again trying to get in the middle of things. Google does nothing out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it in order to filter more people towards their search and ad properties. They are perhaps the ultimate in middlemen, trying to make money on all sides. They don't want bands to have their own websites, they want them to send all their traffic to youtube (where they run ads), and use their merch processing to sell their stuff (getting in the middle of that) all the while allowing them to track users even more, and in the long run make more money by filtering surfers and sending them to the most profitable points in their vast network.
The new middlemen will end up being the same as the old middlemen, setting up systems and trying to protect them, making it harder to go outside of the system. You want to bet that band videos on Youtube getting better search rankings than those on independent websites?
As for your "deliberate misunderstanding", comment, I think you need to open your eyes and understand that not everyone sees things in the same way. The truth isn't as black and white as you seem to see it. Take the time and look from the other side, you will probably learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you going to say that of me, as well, if I call you a troll?
"Google does nothing out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it in order to filter more people towards their search and ad properties. They are perhaps the ultimate in middlemen, trying to make money on all sides."
But the way they do it is inoffensive. They don't make money by cheating their partners and telling them they haven't paid off their debts yet. They make money by making things more valuable to people, including the ads.
"You want to bet that band videos on Youtube getting better search rankings than those on independent websites? "
Yes, but not because google will force it towards youtube. Youtube already ranks better, because it has so many links pointing to the host domain, (youtube), and because youtube is fully indexable by google.
In other words, they don't need to force the algorithm if they make the service more valuable to people than other sites; and in the case where people find an independent site more valuable, we can already see by googling that that page pops up first.
"As for your "deliberate misunderstanding", comment, I think you need to open your eyes and understand that not everyone sees things in the same way."
Hmmm . . ..
"The easiest proof? You haven't spent very much time promoting your CwF offerings. You did it one shot, and then ignored it."
And yet here he is, talking to us and replying in the comments.
As it is, I see a lot of past RtB offerings when I look it up, so it doesn't seem to have been 'one-shot' at all. "Not constantly shilling" is a far bit different from that . . .
So yeah, I think Paul is calling it as he sees it, and there is deliberate misunderstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, Mike provides links to secondary and primary sources that provide the evidence being discussed. He also offers his own opinions, linking back to other stories where the reasoning was presented. I'll admit I don't always look into the full story before posting, but I'm not afraid to retract a statement if the facts prove it wrong.
I didn't always agree with Mike, but at least he presents an argument. Where's the reasoned arguments on the AC side? Where's the citations when figures are claimed, etc.?
"Did you not notice that all of the people involved in this particular story also happen to be step two partners? "
I don't see how that's relevant to the central points raised.
"Google is once again trying to get in the middle of things."
Google is a service provider. It's attempting to further monetise one of the existing services it provides in a way that's potentially beneficial to both independent artists and consumers. Maybe it's because I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I don't see the problem. Don't like it? Don't use Google's services. That doesn't undermine the central business concept, though.
"The new middlemen will end up being the same as the old middlemen, setting up systems and trying to protect them, making it harder to go outside of the system."
Here's a question: are Google making their services exclusive - e.g. if they sell through this service, they're not allowed to sell elsewhere as per the old middlemen? Or, are they simply offering a convenient service that bands want to use without restriction or exclusivity?
I fail to see the problem if the latter is true.
"As for your "deliberate misunderstanding", comment, I think you need to open your eyes and understand that not everyone sees things in the same way."
I'm not talking about a difference of opinion, I'm talking about comment like the one in an earlier thread I just responded to where an AC cannot accept that I'm a paying customer. Or the one above, where the AC mocks Mike about something he clearly didn't say. Every thread seems to be full of misrepresentations and lies, and they're so off the mark they have to be deliberate, surely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Did you not notice that all of the people involved in this particular story also happen to be step two partners? "
I don't see how that's relevant to the central points raised."
Paul, right there is your problem. Instead of considering the issue, you just brush it off. It's hard to bring relevant information to the table (and to question the "facts" presented) if you are unwilling to consider this sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you can actually bring relevant information, facts, and evidence to this discussion, I will certainly consider it.
If I sidestep or brush it off without adequate consideration, I'll donate $50 to the charity of your choice.
So, please point to your sources and evidence, or else stop complaining that everyone keeps calling you out when you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their business deals are a fact (see step two for details) and we know that Mike has a good relationship with Google (and has used their facilities in the past). So why do you think this story isn't even slightly leaning towards rah-rah support of the people that help to pay his bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Leave Mike and his business deals out of it. A difficult task for some of you ACs to do, I know. But just try.
Focus only on Google/Youtube and helping artists sell scarcity. Now present evidence/proof/facts that this is bad/won't work/a failure in the making/etc.
And... go!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their business deals are a fact (see step two for details) and we know that Mike has a good relationship with Google (and has used their facilities in the past).
There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, either for Mike, or the ones doing business with him.
It is not wrong to promote something which you have a profit motive for. It's called marketing. There's nothing wrong with marketing, unless you're lying or misrepresenting what you're promoting.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that Mike is misrepesenting anything?
So why do you think this story isn't even slightly leaning towards rah-rah support of the people that help to pay his bills?
I never said it wasn't leaning one direction. Mike has made it perfectly clear that Techdirt is an opinion blog (among other things). But just because a post leans one direction or advocates one side of an issue doesn't make it wrong. Just because there are two (or more) sides of an issue doesn't mean those sides have equal evidence in support of their positions. Sometimes the truth can be in the middle - other times one side is flat out wrong.
So again, I'll ask, do you have the slightest shred of evidence that Mike is lying about something? If so, please present it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rephrase it this way: Don't you think that Mike has a reason for this to be "right" and why would he think this is "fantastic"? Could it be because his business partners are involved?
Isn't it odd that after years of slagging off all sorts of middlemen as parasites, the very programs he seems to support are keyed towards putting Mike and the companies her work with exactly in the middle of all these transactions?
Nobody is saying "Mike is lying", I am suggesting that Mike is both shading the truth and biasing his opinion based on his business dealings, without clearly disclosing those business dealings in the post. If it was someone from the other side, you would all be here yelling "paid shill!".
Think about it, rather than just giving a knee jerk reply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are rambling about something no one cares about. Good on Google for trying to make artists more money. I hope Google and the artists do better because of this deal. This sounds like something the record labels should have thought up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I am saying that Mike isn't being very forthcoming or honest, and provides a pretty positive picture of this one in part because it's his business partners involved.
While I don't have any direct evidence to support it (I don't read Mike's mail or listen to his phone conversations), I wouldn't be shocked to find out that the piece runs here at the encouragement of the partners involved, and that Mike is aware of it because of their contribution to it.
I would go further to suggest that Techdirt / Floor64 / step two gains to benefit from this arrangement, yet Mike failed to disclose that the companies in questions are either his direct business partners, or companies he works with.
If you think the story is about Google, you need to read it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretty much the entire failing of you ACs in a nutshell. You don't have facts or evidence, but you just *feel* that something *might* be wrong, so you have to attack Mike and anyone who agrees with him?
It doesn't matter whether or not Mike in cahoots with the actors in this particular case, that doesn't change the facts of what's happening. Which happens to be similar to what many of us have been calling for over the last decade (while being branded thieves and pirates for demanding it).
Either you have a real objection to the plan that doesn't depend on smearing the person who's reporting it, or you don't. Neither changes the facts, nor do they change the viability of the ultimate product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you, that's what I was looking for.
Go find some evidence, then we'll listen.
Isn't it odd that after years of slagging off all sorts of middlemen as parasites, the very programs he seems to support are keyed towards putting Mike and the companies her work with exactly in the middle of all these transactions?
I may be wrong (if I am, please provide links, thanks), but I don't think Mike has ever slammed anyone only for being a middleman. Nor has he ever slammed anyone for taking a "fair" cut for the valuable services they added.
What he has slammed many middlemen with, repeatedly, are actions that show those that are parasites. The ones who do not add any value. The ones who take hugely disproportionate cuts for their services. The ones who in fact, end up costing artists, and their customers time, money, and goodwill.
So, until I see evidence to the contrary, you're full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Just wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
False. Had nothing to do with who was involved.
While I don't have any direct evidence to support it (I don't read Mike's mail or listen to his phone conversations), I wouldn't be shocked to find out that the piece runs here at the encouragement of the partners involved, and that Mike is aware of it because of their contribution to it.
Total bullshit. I found out about it via YouTube (and also an article on TechCrunch). I heard nothing about it from Topspin or SongKick. Honestly, if anything I was disappointed no one from either place tipped me off that this was happening and I found out about it after others in the press already had the story. I still haven't spoken to anyone at either place about it.
I would go further to suggest that Techdirt / Floor64 / step two gains to benefit from this arrangement, yet Mike failed to disclose that the companies in questions are either his direct business partners, or companies he works with.
So you have no evidence, but you have grand conspiracy theories that make me laugh they're so incredibly false.
Dude. Seriously. Try I know it's fun for you to hang out here and act like a dancing fool, but this one doesn't pass the laugh test.
Yes, my views tend to be aligned strongly with the views of some folks at TopSpin/SongKick/YouTube. But that just means I'm interested in what they do and what they do fits strongly with what we write about here. Nothing more, nothing less.
The deal for Step2 has nothing to do with anything on Techdirt, and we have no deal to write about anything for any of those companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*shakes head*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Co-winky-dink? I think not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Instead, you pretend I'm not interested and criticise me for it. See the problem? I honestly don't know why that one point is relevant (and can't help noticing that you've ignored every other point I've raised), so nobody's the wiser. Either I repeat my query in the form of a more direct question, or defend myself against your allegations. Neither of which promotes debate, and completely distracts from the points actually being discussed.
See the problem? While I thank you for being rather more civil than other ACs around here, we're still not making progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is this illegal? How does this harm the artist or the consumer? What benefits are lost vs. others performing said services?
"They are perhaps the ultimate in middlemen, trying to make money on all sides."
That is so ironic coming from the pro IP side who fail to actually pay the artists they claim to represent. Do your own search for the proof - it's here on the site.
"They don't want bands to have their own websites, they want them to send all their traffic to youtube (where they run ads), and use their merch processing to sell their stuff (getting in the middle of that) all the while allowing them to track users even more, and in the long run make more money by filtering surfers and sending them to the most profitable points in their vast network."
As soon as you claim to know what Google wants I know you are talking out of your ass. That is simply far too obvious to not recognize since I don't have any reason to believe you have any authority whatsoever to speak on Google's behalf. If you did, you'd probably be unemployed by the time I post this.
Please stick to things you actually know, if any actually apply,and quit with the conjecture about what others want according to you. Some middlemen are actually useful and do add value to the transactions(VAR value added resllers!) - what a concept! On the other hand, these licensing agencies who keep the money, lobby for draconian laws, STEAL from the public domain and bring legal action against knowingly innocent people to make their money deserve absolutely nothing in my eyes and many others. They are quasi-legal corporate mobsters, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ron, can you accept for a moment that not everyone who supports IP is somehow on the payroll? I don't pay artists because, shock, I AM NOT WORKING FOR THAT BUSINESS.
Can you please, please, please try to understand that some intelligent people support the IP laws because the alternatives seem to include a fair bit of smoke, mirrors, hoping, and praying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Too easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, let me explain something to you, because this seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of your "group". If someone says you're pro-IP or pro-corporate, they are not *necessarily* suggesting that you're working for one of those companies. They are simply stating that you favour the corporate side of things, and that a lot of people using AC posting methods seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet - to the point where paid shill might be a valid assumption.
No need to get defensive here. If you honestly believe what you are typing, then debate. Present an argument that presents facts and a determined argument and people will listen. Perhaps you find yourself getting confused with the other ACs here, in which case choose a name. I'd invite you to choose a login, but it's not necessary. You certainly seem relatively level-headed. Just accept that some of us have seen years of comments with no substance except to attack Mike and other regulars to promote a pro-corporate agenda, and may therefore be suspicious of pro-IP AC posts. Change our minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, you miss it.
I am not part of a group. I am not part of an organization. I am an individual with an opinion, nothing more.
It is incredibly insulting that you cannot accept that basic concept.
I don't have to change your mind, nor can I. You clearly have an "us versus them" mentality that doesn't allow for independent thought.
When you can manage to accept the weird idea that individuals have individual opinions, we can move forward. Until then, you are pretty much a null, because you can't accept anything except your own opinion, and I fear your opinion is in fact Mike's opinion, because of the "we versus them" mentality you have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, again you will ignore all of the points I'm making in order to cherry pick something you can take out of context and attack...
You will notice that the sentence you quoted has the word "group" in quotes. That's because I was not seriously suggesting that you are a cohesive or organised group of people. Simply a group of people who share an opinion - just as I share nothing with the "group" of regulars here who ACs attack, other than an interest in the subjects discussed and a generally similar opinion on some issues.
The fact is that, organised or not, deliberate or not, most of the pro-IP/anti-Mike commenters here tend to have the appearance of singing from the same hymn sheet. This may be purely coincidental, but running through all comments seems to be a thread of fundamental misunderstanding of the points raised, or at least a misunderstanding of the opinions of others.
Here, for example, you seem to be thinking that the fact that may be some connection between TD and the companies discussed means there's something wrong with the story. I simply disagree. My opinion is that the story consists of "Google partners with _____ to offer merchandising on YouTube", and it's irrelevant which names happen to fill in that blank. That's a positive story regardless of who it is, IMHO.
I've asked you politely, several times now, to explain why my opinion is wrong, and you have failed to do so. You only launch accusations and defensive rants, and not debate or honest counterpoints. That is why you fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not saying that's a fact, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Not trying to imply that he's lying, but he's stating that he isn't on the payroll so strongly that I wouldn't be surprised that it's nothing but a ruse and he's not being truthful about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, please specifically note where I speak to you, and about you personally in regards to your previous post:
"As soon as you claim to know what Google wants I know you are talking out of your ass. That is simply far too obvious to not recognize since I don't have any reason to believe you have any authority whatsoever to speak on Google's behalf."
Then notice the subtle difference, when I am not speaking about you personally, and hence there is no reference to an individual including yourself:
"On the other hand, these licensing agencies who keep the money, lobby for draconian laws, STEAL from the public domain and bring legal action against knowingly innocent people to make their money deserve absolutely nothing in my eyes and many others. They are quasi-legal corporate mobsters, nothing more."
Now, if you would be so kind as to actually speak for yourself, rather than on behalf of Google (w/o their permission should be a reasonable assumption) about their intentions, we might be able have a somewhat honest discussion about the somewhat dishonest content industries and their willingness to spend vast sums of money to deprive me of my rights as a citizen in the USA despite having no proof of any wrong doing on my behalf. The reason I know they have no proof is because, quite simply, I do not employ any of the methods used to pirate the content industries materials. However, I have been called a thief, a pirate, and far worse things on these boards by ACs who claim to have some intimate knowledge of my life that I am not even aware of myself! Very hard to take the other side seriously under such conditions wouldn't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe because they host the shop on their platform...just like they host the music...you know providing a useful service to the band.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is the merch shop that hard a concept to grasp?
(This comment isn't directed at you Chuck Norris' Enemy)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe because they (Google;YouTube) host the shop on their platform (YouTube's Merch Shop)...just like they (Amazon/iTunes) host the music (of bands)...you (AC/BKO) know (implying understanding) providing a useful service to the band. The Merch Shop is a one stop shop. The other services sell specific items (t-shirts, music, merch). I was not implying that Amazon or iTunes gets a cut of t-shirt sales. Google does...when Topspin sells a t-shirt through the Merch Shop, Google gets a kickback from Topspin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bleh
Really? Do you have some evidence on that? Nearly everything we've seen has shown that artists make the vast majority of their revenue from selling the scarce.
The only thing that WILL work is that they are adding links to buy mp3's from amazon & itunes
With nearly all of that money going to the record labels, not the artists.
which obviously you don't believe in, but that's where all the revenue is
Really? Again, last bit of data I saw showed music sales completely dwarfed by the other parts of the business.
Of course according to mikey, anything that can be stolen should be free.
Nope. Not "should be free." It is "free" (whether you like it or not). Your job is to deal with that fact. And one way to do that? Focus on selling the scarce.
And it seems to work, contrary to your claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bleh
Instead, you are working your way to being a middleman. I notice by the way that this story pretty much plays nice to your step two partners. Can you say "press release in disguise"? I can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bleh
They don't come any slimier than Pirate Mike Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
We really need to get some fresh trolls. Your average third grader does a better job of name-calling. This guy can't even get follow the troll's October style guidelines. In October it is supposed to be just "pirate mikey" with no capitalization.
Are these guys really the best industry shills they can come up with? The recording industry must be in even worse shape than I thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
They don't come any slimier than Pirate Mike Masnick.
You would have to question mondern reading comprehension to think this statement is making that point. And if you would have "learned to threaded mode" you would notice fogbugzd was not responding to you...ergo, not ignoring the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
so much win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Love, your concerned mother.
P.S. Father said to tell you return the razor you use to shave your privates to Miss Olga next door
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
I'm not sure why you feel it's not a "real" story other than you disagree with both "selling the scarce" and giving people ways to support artists that aren't solely in mp3 form.
If iTunes followed this blueprint, would it be more or less of a "real" story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
I think I smell a rat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
You see some sort of of overlap in businesses that help musicians sell stuff and somehow it's a dirty conspiracy. I don't think inhaling rat is doing any wonders for your logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Mike deals with two companies on a new project. Within days, they are featured in articles on his site. Consider:
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&co f=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=topspin
5 mentions of Topspin in the first 6 months of the year, 7 mentions in the last 45 days. 5 mentions in the last 30 days.
Or perhaps:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110920/10374616025/more-evidence-tha t-if-you-give-people-reason-to-buy-theyll-spend-more.shtml
Bandzoogle suddenly gets mentioned, just as Mike is making a deal with them.
So no, I don't have direct evidence (I won't hack Mike's email or cell phone to get it), but it is pretty clear that these companies are suddenly on his radar for a reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
That is completely irrelevant to the actual article.
Google is now helping artists sell scarcity. Is this good or bad? If good or bad, why?
Leave Mike and his gigantic conspiracy [rolls eyes] out of it. Focus on only the freaking article. Geez man, you're like a dog with a bone. A boner for Mike that is.
And that's a great train of thought you have. This + this + this = Mike has suspicious motive (BUT NO, I CAN'T PROVE WHAT I'M SAYING). Lol. So basically, the usual, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
...and the reason just HAS to be insider dealing, right? There's no other possible way related to new business deals that have been reported on that involve them directly? Or the fact that they have been mentioned in stories on other people (among others, most of those recent links contain references to at least 2 or 3 other companies apart from Topspin)?
Even if you're right and it's all a grand conspiracy: so what? Whether Mike is or isn't directly involved has no bearing on the business deal being reported on in the article, which has also been reported in hundreds of other places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bleh
You really don't get what Mike is getting at do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bleh
Making things up again I see.
Recorded music sales still "dwarf" things like concert revenues and t shirt sales. Because they are the most desired commodity.
Of course I fully expect this comment to be censored like you've taken to doing this morning, as I've yet again interrupted your pirate fantasy with facts in this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bleh
They do? Wait, why was it then that Lady Gaga's record company took a hit on sales of her songs to offer them at below what the affiliates and middlemen took? They claimed it was because it would boost concert sales, but geez, I guess that can't be correct if music sales dwarf concert sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bleh
Perhaps for the record label/RIAA. But for the Artists themselves the vast majority of their income comes from performances and merchandise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
That right there is such damning evidence I may just become a pro IP extremist myself. The reasoning is all very clear once someone posts something as deep and meaningful as "Ignorant liar." in response to the clear and obvious fact that artists themselves make the vast majority of their income from performances and merchandise.
Please cite a single recent (last 30 years?) artist who makes more money from actual recorded music sales than performances and and merchandise. Please select a living artist who does still actually perform if you want credit for your answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
But you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Still, most of the pure revenue we get is from the live gigs. Traveling in a shitty car and sleeping in motels may not be glamorous, but at least we get them monies.
And sometimes even free beer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not buy a t-shirt.
Your point of view is bankrupt due to the lack of any facts whatsoever and your inability to back up your statement with anything meaningful. Then, for you to be claiming to know what things I know about and don't know about, that is just preposterous!
You should be a little more careful when throwing around baseless assumptions about people you simply don't know or know of. You've now also tossed out any chance at credibility with me personally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bleh
Verified figures to support your claims, please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bleh
So "fact" about album sales dwarfing sales of scarcities is cemetery irrelevant in this discussion and again avoiding the question at hand.
Well done.
My 2 cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: bleh
To add to what I was saying, it's been shown time and again that the artists make their money on the scarcities. This poses a problem of course for the labels because the more the artists use services like this one the less the label makes as the "middleman".
Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With that said this is good for people wanting to have an online store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Google is offering customers a convenient way to get what they want at a reasonable price.
2) Google is allowing its business partners to make a fair profit.
3) Google doesn't make it a regular business practice to its best customers and business partners.
4) Google is not spending tremendous amounts of political capital trying to destroy the Bill of Rights in order to protect its own antiquated business model.
I wonder what position the record industry would be in today if they had partnered with the original Napster to provide this type of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY, I think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
6) Google will only support the program for a while, and then like most of their "beta" ideas it will slip and eventually be shut down or just ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have limited time in the morning and I'd actually like to see a meaningful discussion (as much fun as troll-smacking can be sometimes). This place used to be great, now about 50% of posts seem to be trolls or responding to them.
The idea would be to have some setting you can toggle on or off depending on your stomach for poorly reasoned arguments and ad hominem attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, the point of it is, in fact, to troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have observed that the more light a topic shines on their failing business models or on emerging and improved methods (particularly ones that render them irrelevant) the more of them come crawling out from under the bridge to scream and holler.
I also have observed (as mentioned elsewhere) that the
quality of trolls has decreased substantially lately.
On topic:
I know a couple people who are going to embrace this and will probably end up doing pretty well with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Meanwhile, I suspect someone will say that if you want to read insightful comments, there's already a way to see only insightful posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basing that on my experiences elsewhere on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Simple terms: If you cannot accept other people's points of views, and if you look at them all as trolls, you have already shut your mind and you are losing as a result. Look at every post as a challenge, no matter how stupid it appears. Try to think the other way, try to play the other side. Your own logic and your own judgements will come into clearer focus when you frame them in other people's eyes.
You might even learn something. A button to get rid of people you don't agree with is pretty much the death of discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You know something, this has been implied many times and I did notice his name being attacked by ACs in various irrelevant threads. But, despite numerous requests, none of you have ever explained to me what the problem was or when it happened (I must have missed the thread).
Perhaps someone could provide a link and some of us will finally understand what you're trying to go on about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
His writing (when he is trolling) tends to be like someone who feels very superior dropping stuff on you from their high, high perch.
You can go back and read through the fake AC attacks on Mike over the last few weeks to find his style. It's amusing as hell to read, that is for sure. He actually though he could stop AC posting by trying to "out troll" someone. Little did he realize that it isn't trolling, it's just having an opinion different from his.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Example, perhaps? I'm not going through weeks of AC trolling just to find the one supposedly made by one individual with no way to tell them apart except a prose style. Surely you can provide a link to where he "outed" himself?
"Little did he realize that it isn't trolling, it's just having an opinion different from his."
The issues people have with the "trolls" is generally not the opinion, but the way it's presented. Consider that next time someone gets piled on for being a troll, then consider what it was that led people to that conclusion. Most of the time, it's not merely having an opposing opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The issues people have with the "trolls" is generally not the opinion, but the way it's presented."
You have to understand that the way Mike presents things is pretty much a troll against anyone who supports copyright, patents, or any other IP rights at all. His all seeing, all knowing tone is grating to the nerves. The overall tone of the place leads to what you consider trolling, but really mostly a level headed response to outrageous claims or heavily slanted news.
Example: No mention today of the courts ordering Gay Porn Tube sites (which were using content illegally) to turn over domains or face $1000 a day fines. A ruling like that against these guys pretty much goes against the grain of Techdirt, and likely will never be covered - unless there is some magic way to attack or slag off the content companies.
It's just the way things go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Conspiracy theories run deep with you -- and you're always wrong. I can guarantee that the AC mocking you is not Marcus.
Seriously dude. Lose the tinfoil hat.
You have to understand that the way Mike presents things is pretty much a troll against anyone who supports copyright, patents, or any other IP rights at all. His all seeing, all knowing tone is grating to the nerves. The overall tone of the place leads to what you consider trolling, but really mostly a level headed response to outrageous claims or heavily slanted news.
Yeah, it's so grating that a ton of people read us. Seriously, man. Try harder.
Example: No mention today of the courts ordering Gay Porn Tube sites (which were using content illegally) to turn over domains or face $1000 a day fines. A ruling like that against these guys pretty much goes against the grain of Techdirt, and likely will never be covered - unless there is some magic way to attack or slag off the content companies.
Just got to my desk today. Hadn't seen that story yet. Will check it out. However, as we've told you in the past (multiple times) we can't cover every story out there, and just because we skip one here or there -- whether it agrees with us or not -- does not mean we're avoiding stuff.
In fact, we quite frequently write about rulings that go against our viewpoint. Amusingly, most of the time you insist we'd never write about a certain story, we've already got a post on it written up and ready to go.
You really ought to work on your debunking skills. You used to have some talent. But you're losing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I want to opt out of reading crap like:
"Techdirt definition of troll: Anyone that disagrees with Mike Masnick's pirate propaganda fantasies."
This really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Maybe on a lazy Sunday I won't mind wasting the time to read it, but most days I don't really care to, frankly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And it has nothing to do with not wanting to read things I don't agree with. I came to this site from a link on Ars Technica. Comparing these comments to the ones there, you find just as much dissension, but not as much evidence. I often learn things from people I disagree with there, not so much here.
But maybe I just haven't been around long enough. I'm certainly willing to stick around to be proven wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Posters and T-shirts are easily duplicated too.
And as I've said before, this won't work. People won't buy junk from dozens of musicians. Also, it assumes a cheap source of posters and T-shirts, but when the manufacturers of those catch on to the racket, they'll boost prices...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Posters and T-shirts are easily duplicated too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Posters and T-shirts are easily duplicated too.
How do you know this won't work? Do you have a crystal ball you can share with us? Or perhaps some actual facts/evidence to back up your claim?
Also, how do you know people "won't buy junk from dozens of musicians"?
I can't speak for everyone, but me and most of my friends own quite a few things from dozens of musicians. T-shirts for the most part. Several from each band we like. A poster here and there. Heck, I have concert tickets to shows I never even went to (I tend to end up majorly sick whenever there's a concert), but I bought 'em ahead of time just because I hoped to see the band. (And by tickets I mean multiple. Because I always buy for me and my lady friend, but if one of us can't go for whatever, the other won't go either on principle.)
And the "designs from being pirated" is irrelevant. They sell directly from Youtube. Assuming the prices are low, people will buy directly from them. I've seen "pirated" t-shirts from a few bands that were sold for more than what band sites were selling them. I'll give you a hint which ones I bought, THE CHEAPER ONES FROM THE BAND SITE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Connect With Fans + Reap the Benefits
Though I suppose that still works.:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Posters and T-shirts are easily duplicated too.
If you fail to understand the market then you will fail in that marketplace. The statement above is a clear cut explanation of what the customers want and if you took the time to fully understand that you would see how the infringement issues, piracy, unauthorized file sharing and all the other boogeymen could be taken care of in short order by the content creators themselves if they would just provide their content in such a way that "the public is able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price."
The solution is actually within their capabilities, yet they are unwilling to accept such an easy road to resolution because the concept of satisfying the customer is not something they understand.
You get the cut and paste answer for your cut and paste doomsday scenario about how you'll never stop the pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Posters and T-shirts are easily duplicated too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]