Google has DMCA takedown capabilities. I'd suggest simply hiring a third party to monitor Google and send appropriate take-down notices. Then, on an annual basis, submit the invoice to Google. It's dirty pool, but then again, when has the music industry ever been a transparent and constructive and profitable enterprise for anybody outside of the top 1% of performers/acts/songwriters?
I doubt Google would be liable for such expenses.
I know that sounds sarcastic, but it's actually how a lot of artists behave and speak.
To add a firsthand story, I am a part of an online music community, OverClocked Remix (http://ocremix.org ), that had to craft a formal content policy agreement for legal reasons to protect itself in the event a game publisher/rights owner decided to sue the site for hosting rearranged music from one of their games (the site only sells officially licensed music - the rest is free), or if an artist imposed many fickle demands such as 5+ artist handle change requests or a sudden takedown request of a track, which would affect distribution methods such as torrents. The site solicited feedback from the community, and we came to the decision to require a non-exclusive right to distribute with an identifier of our copyright (meta information in ID3v2 tags and the file name), no DRM), while the artists would maintain full rights of their track. Termination of distribution is left at the site's hands.
A few artists balked at this, and expressed strong disagreements based on the view that artists should retain full rights over distribution. They ultimately signed and most, even those who complained, ended up content with it.
It's extortion. So your characterization is flawed. When videos are not popular, unsurprisingly, you aren't selected to be extorted.
In the business world, this is known as negotiation. It's normal and ethical. Here, it's like being in a big store. You can buy the thing on the shelf or not, but you don't get to haggle over the price.
Zoe wants to haggle over the price until it's something convenient for her.
> I'd suggest simply hiring a third party to monitor Google and send appropriate take-down notices.
This is abuse. This will have a chilling effect on free expression.
Shame on YouTube, quite seriously - I didn't cost Daft Punk anything!
But I would certainly object to calling a Starbucks purchase a "negotiation". It is not.
I do see your point, though. It's not really a negotiation. There's not enough money involved to be worth negotiating over. It's a service being sold.
Isn't this the exact opposite of a negotiation? By definition, doesn't "negotiation" imply that both parties enter into a discussion in an attempt to reach an agreement.
When you buy a cup of coffee, Starbucks doesn't force you to sign a legal document saying that you will only drink Starbucks coffee for the next five years, or that whenever you buy a cup of coffee from somewhere else you must simultaneously buy a cup from Starbucks. Also, if you refuse to buy the cup of coffee, Starbucks will not post your picture in every branch in the country to prevent you from ever buying a cup of coffee from them again.
That happens in every line of business and we accept this. Why is this one different.
If any other online hosting service (with substantial network or lock-in effects) changed their terms to give themselves rights to host and slap ads on any of your other public output there would be an outcry. Why is this one different?
cough cough Facebook cough cough
Right now, YouTube is already in music business. They are just shifting model.
Google is, however, making money off of content to which they do not hold the copyright or permission. That's unethical.
Bear in mind that there is not and is unlikely to ever be any kind of system that can determine what color your bits are with any kind of reliability.
For comparison, Best Buy purchases the CDs outright from the Publisher/Label/Artist collective, and often sells below cost (first week release) to incentivize customers to patronize their store. In your mind, should Best Buy be taking a cut of the Publisher/Label/Artist agreement like YouTube is proposing in this case?
Unlike Best Buy, YouTube can only guess at who the creator is. Best Buy has the luxury of a known supply chain.
YouTube effectively has monopoly status as a "Videos-with-music" service. iTunes/Spotify/Pandora/Beats/Deezr/Rdio are a different service class, so don't even try and throw those into the pot, because that won't fly.
There are other choices available to them, they weren't forced into this one. They chose it because it's easy for them, and most importantly, it allows them in rapidly increase the amount of user-generated content they offer.
Bear in mind that determining the legal status of a given bit of IP is generally the slow and expensive work of a squadron of attorneys.
That fact that it's slow and expensive is only an issue because it conflicts with YouTube's business model. Frankly, that's YouTube's problem.
If your intent is to have a chilling effect on free speech on the internet, requiring a huge and messy legal process to publish something is a good way to do it.
I know that sounds sarcastic, but it's actually how a lot of technology firms behave and speak."
- Kalium's Argument, Paraphrased
Unscientific sample, obviously. I'm also not arguing that Zoe should accept what YouTube is offering. Just that YouTube isn't obligated to offer her want she wants.
Tell you what. Want to start a company offering distribution services to artists on the terms they want? Sounds like your kind of thing. I'm sure artists, publishers, labels, and customers will all love it and shower it with money.
So, no, I'll stick to the business of creating things, sharpening my National Forensics League trained debate skills in forums such as this, and reminding myself that I do these from my soul. I gain absolutely nothing by engaging with you, other than heartache at the state of affairs in this world, but it comes from within and I choose to embrace who I am. I hope Zoe succeeds in whatever she does, and applaud her for trying, especially in the face of hostility such as yours.
I haven't thought back to Forensics in a very, very long time. Geez.
If you think my attitude is hostility, then I submit that you could stand to benefit by reading my comments more carefully.
EDIT: Also, DistroKid doesn't allow me to set my own terms. It doesn't look like what I proposed at all.
How the copyright system influence this is (to my mind) uncertain. The system may be positive, or it may be negative. There isn't sufficient research nor natural experiments to know. I strongly suspect some level of copyright protection is positive, but there are too many variables to be able to be certain.
Vimeo from conception made an ethical stand to get rid of all content that wasn't directly uploaded by the creator.
YouTube from conception decided to not only allow but to itself seed the network with content that its submitters didn't create.
YouTube ended up having more content than Vimeo and thus more users even though Vimeo was first to market and had a much better product and user experience.
YouTube won because it decided to ignore the ethics of distributing content that it had no rights to.
They were from the very beginning and still remain an unethical company when it comes to profiting from other people's copyrights.
Bear in mind that there is not and is unlikely to ever be any kind of system that can determine what color your bits are with any kind of reliability.
There are many forms of smart contracts and decentralized digital asset management systems that could be utilized to create an open platform for publishing and claiming ownership over digital goods. All it takes is software willing to opt-in to these contracts and people who would rather use an honest system over a dishonest system.
Systems that subsidize the storing and distribution of digital media with advertisements never allow for the creators to have any power in the conversation about their digital rights. They just get blanket contracts written by the largest rights-holders.
YouTube is designed for consumers and not producers. It is in the DNA of the product. It can't be removed. It will be its undoing.
This is an egregious abuse of copyright. It is not ethical to encourage this.