If Best Buy were to replace their markup with that agreement and offer labels the option of working with that or not, I wouldn't see a problem. It offers the supplier the option to walk away and do business with someone else.

Unlike Best Buy, YouTube can only guess at who the creator is. Best Buy has the luxury of a known supply chain.

So, sort of like Apple did with the Publishers in order to move in on Amazon's turf? I believe what you're describing is against anti-trust laws, if not in exact legal terms, then certainly in the spirit of the law. Best Buy still has exclusive releases (as does Wal-Mart, Target, Amazon, iTunes), but they are part of a larger dynamic market.

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.

YouTube is a monopoly in the same way that iTMS is a monopoly. Many of the terms (like the release-here-first) ones are reminiscent of how Amazon and iTMS do their pricing.

Release-here-first is not mandatory for all artists on iTunes, I know this first-hand. Maybe it is for certain artists with record label contracts, but they signed those contracts through other parties. I signed no such contract, and if I want to release something first on Soundcloud, Facebook, VIMEO, YouTube, or by burning CDs and leaving them tacked to boards in coffee shops, it is not in my distribution contract with iTunes or Amazon beyond the negotiated pricing platform.

Might I ask you to re-read my comment? I never claimed that iTMS used that particular stipulation. I compared it to a common pricing-relate stipulation.

You're conflating pricing with monopoly status, willfully, to suit your own ends. I'm done here.

I made a comparison. Please help me understand how this is conflating two things?

YouTube chooses to only guess who the creator is, because that's convenient for their business model.

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.

There is no reliable way to know who a creator is while still allowing general user uploads.

Of course there is. It's just slower and more cumbersome than YouTube would like to deal with, for the sake of their business model.

Really? What is it? Are you thinking of using humans?

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's exactly what I have in mind. And it's entirely possible to do.

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.

It's a problem that derives from the complexity of copyright law. The result is that the only way to be certain renders user-generated content sites completely unworkable.

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.

"In technology-land, it's unethical to not give companies the content they want on the terms they want. Because their service is the most important thing in the world.

I know that sounds sarcastic, but it's actually how a lot of technology firms behave and speak."

- Kalium's Argument, Paraphrased

I don't know any tech people or companies who believe that about their services. I know a lot of artists who do.

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.

I already have one that I pay for out of my own pocket, it's called DistroKid, and it's wonderful.

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.

My heart also aches at the state of affairs in intellectual property law. It's a terrible system from top to bottom that serves mostly to suppress creativity. It badly needs to be re-engineered, but there are far too many vested interests to make that practical.

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.

I have a hard time understanding how the copyright system suppresses creativity considering we have available now more creative output, in a wider variety, conveniently available at reasonable prices including free, than has ever been the case before

Part of that is the result of easier distribution, cheaper production, and more available leasure for classes able to do creation.

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.