Google removes all Danish music from YouTube | Hacker News Reader

Google removes all Danish music from YouTube

koda.dk

191 pointserk__181 comments

As in so many disputes, the parties (koda.dk here) will claim this is about principles and yada yada yada, "Google removes all Danish music from Youtube", etc.

You can be guaranteed though, it's always just about the price and how the one party doesn't want to pay it, and the other party doesn't want to change it.

ESPN doesn't want to pay MLB, Comcast doesn't want to pay local stations, app developers don't want to pay Apple. It goes on and on.

The article has the headline "On the evening of Thursday 30 July, Google announced that they will soon remove all Danish music content on YouTube".

Yet in the next paragraphs, it goes on to describe a change in terms promulgated by Google after a treaty expiration, and that "Of course, Koda cannot accept these terms".

Well then, this is a decision by Google, and then a decision by Koda isn't it?

Yet they make it sound like Google is the big bad entity. Isn't that convenient.

Google uses their dominant position to ask a reduction of 70%. How do you want Koda to accept those terms? Why would artists work with Koda if they don’t push back on such a ridiculous demand? It’s their job to say no here.

> Google uses their dominant position to ask a reduction of 70%. How do you want Koda to accept those terms? Why would artists work with Koda if they don’t push back on such a ridiculous demand? It’s their job to say no here.

That's fine. Just don't misrepresent that it's Google unilaterally removing people's content.

"How do you want Koda to accept those terms?" However they wish to -- that's not my place to tell them. It's totally up to them. They can change their business model. They can come up with whatever ideas they want. Just like Google had to, to undercut all those old traditional advertisers who were charging ridiculous rates for print advertising. Just like every startup is trying to do to incumbents. Just like tons of people do every day without any desire for any revenue, even.

Don't cherry pick the things you like about being able to create new things, and then suddenly demand barriers (on principle) to that same ability because you started making money on it. You just want your cut, just like Google.

A schoolyard bully goes to a group of children, and tells one “I want all your lunches, or I’m going to break your legs.” The children refuse, and their legs are broken; but it’s the children’s fault for not allowing the bully to take some of their lunch, and break one of their legs each.

> A schoolyard bully goes to a group of children, and tells one “I want all your lunches, or I’m going to break your legs.” The children refuse, and their legs are broken; but it’s the children’s fault for not allowing the bully to take some of their lunch, and break one of their legs each.

Oh that's rich. Comparing a company that enabled a technology never seen before, which enters into voluntary agreements with other companies who create technology never seen before, to schoolyard bullies extorting kids and stealing their money.

I love how working in tech can warp your sense of reality.

And by the way, tell us, what analogy applies to the $ amounts that Koda takes off the top, before it pays its musicians royalties or gives them their share? I'm sure that wouldn't be breaking legs in their view, now would it?

And which company is giving us "impossible without them" tech? Google and youtube maybe be accustomed to but not irreplacable by any measure.

Your account was created hours ago and solely replies to this article ... I just felt it important for this to be pointed out. You don't seem to be involved in reasonable discussion on this forum, just defending the monopolists in this one article.

You replied to a valid point about the underlying technology being possible to replicate with a comment 100% ignoring the content and instead attacked the character of the account. Maybe that user decided to join the discussion now; why discourage them?

Further, looking at the account in question I see comments from months (actually, years) ago, so you’re also factually incorrect as far as I see.

A private largest yard owner goes to a group of children that have been playing there for years, and tells one “I want all your lunches, or leave my private yard.” The children refuse, and they leave; but it’s the children’s fault for not allowing the bully to take some of their lunch, and leave.

The schoolyard made it sound like youtube was a public park. I think this still gets the point across.

Considering they have been playing there for years (since time immemorial?) I guess they have a strong case to keep playing there despite it being a private yard.

>A private largest yard owner goes to a group of children that have been playing there for years

Google isn't an individual but a corporation, an entity that requires Gov permission to exist.

So lets change the landowner person to a developer (home builder). The neighborhood is built but the developer still owns the neighborhood's public space. The kids live in the neighborhood. I think that better frames the residents' expectations.

Not a perfect analogy yet but we're closing in on it.

Uh, you do realize the monopoly here is Koda right?

Google offers something many people would pay for, global distribution along with ways to monetize that content if desired (patreon links, ads etc).

Your analogy is so tortured I can't even follow it. Whatever yards the danes use is up to them. Google came after music and came after countries were formed. They built something and invited folks to use it (not paying users to use it).

Somehow now they can be forced to pay some random monopoly? Are the artists even allowed to license outside of Koda? I don't think so. Would artists pay to be listed on the home page of google - for sure!

I think google has confused folks a bit - business users should just pay a fee to them (could be modest) to avoid this type of confusion.

Let's see some definitions:

Google - the owner of the park

Video makers - kids playing in the park and playing music while playing

Music authors - are still music authors

Koda - the guy that comes to the park owner and demands that the park owner pays them for the fact that there's music playing in the park and may compensate the musicians (let's just call this guy a racketeer)

The scenario - park owner comes to the park, turns off the music and makes the park a quiet zone(no more music). The racketeer goes to people on HN and complains that park owner isn't paying him more and turned off the music.

Is this a joke?

KODA and Gramex are monopolies. No one is forced to put their music on google, they do it voluntarily. Folks are FORCED to use KODA and Gramex.

Google is saying, if you want to put your music on our platform (which we then distribute for free globally for you at NO cost to you) then we can do it - but if you ask us to pay you more than X to distribute it for you that's not going to work.

Reality check for a minute - if koda did this type of global distribution for their artists they would CHARGE their artists a total fortune to do so, NOT pay them.

> I want all your lunches, or I’m going to break your legs

In this case, the cost of duplication of the said "lunch" is free, so there is not really any problem. The question arise when the school bully sells your "lunch" 100x for $10, gives you back $10, would you have been able to make that $10 by yourself ?

Except no one is threatened to be assaulted.

It's more a case of - you came into my yard and played music; I paid you a little bit; Now you're demanding that I pay more; So I asked you to leave my yard... then you called me a bully.

Google is doing a rational thing - remove all unlicensed Danish music. That's it! You still can have Danish music on YouTube, it just has to be properly licensed.

These "author associations" bully artists all the time - for the smallest crap.

It's also such an obvious lie - I can trivially find lots of danish music on youtube. The music that has been taken down is the music that has not been licensed through the copyright society at the price they want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7sK5OiJHHQ

Do you not see the difference between a headline that is a bit more honest - Google removes unlicensed music? Or google and danish copyright society cannot agree to terms?

I had originally used the title of the document which is "PRESS RELESE: ..." but it has since been altered. I had not removed it because I thought it made it clearer that this did not come from a neutral party. As it is a press release from one of the parties in this issue.

Also, I do not know where you are from, but I am currently residing in Denmark and that music video you have linked is only accessible with YouTube Premium. As far as know this is only an issue when accessing the music from Denmark.

Ask the author why... They'll tell you that these "music associations" are government enforced rackets that benefit the big artists alone. (No shocker here!)

It's not that bad. In the US there are 5 PROs which is better than a lot of places. And it does make licensing for users of music easier to have these societies.

That said, in Europe these are more like monopolies. Still not bad it will be interesting to see if Youtube at some point starts charging for distribution.

Spotify does this with sponsored songs - you can pay to get distribution.

Perhaps Koda is an organization with bylaws or even supported by a Danish act. Such organizations are founded to support local artists. So the bylaws or the act text prescribe some behavior as for collecting fees for playing music in Denmark.

In other words just by playing Youtube in a Danish home, Koda might be legally required to collect fees.

This means that perhaps Google is asking a Danish organization to break the law?

Allowed... not required.

They also are crap at supporting local artists.

Musicians need to wake up and realize that there is almost no money in recordings. Recordings are advertisements for performances. You make money from shows and concerts.

You can't charge tech companies more than they themselves are making from the music. Just because they're big companies doesn't mean they can squeeze water from a rock. Your music is worth much less to them than you assume.

Someone once asked Don McLean in an interview, "What does American Pie mean?" His response was, "it means I never have to work again."

But is that reasonable? Shouldn’t the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music?

What if you can’t put on concerts, like it’s the case right now, do your work then become worthless?

Honestly I think the issue is the record labels. The need to seriously reduce their cut and let the musicians keep the bulk of the royalties.

It’s a little concerning that a Youtube channel with maybe 500 - 1000 Patreon supports and few ads can be a living, but musicians need to tour, to make a profit. That seems to indicate, to me at least, that Youtube may not be the problem.

I don't think the OC implied that musicians (or their agents) shouldn't have pricing authority, just that the market won't bear the prices they seem to want.

The moment a digital file exists, your competing price point is free. People can still pirate, and don't because of youtube and streaming sites. You don't have to think that's right or fair (I don't), but it's absolutely the reality.

Piracy doesn’t that viable anymore, it’s a lot more in convinient, especially for spontanious listing on a mobile device. Sure the price still need to be low enough, but not zero anymore.

Interestingly enough Youtube Music is the most expensive streaming service, that least in Denmark.

It's inconvenient because no one has needed to make it convenient. Why would you, when YouTube is doing it for free?

If all music were wiped off of YouTube, you can bet it would become convenient. I believe there's already an app somewhere that lets you stream music using BitTorrent, throw in some onion networking for privacy, a better means of content discovery, and get more people uploading music, and you'll be off to the races.

We all remember the time before Youtube, and how 15 years before Youtube Napster was vastly more convenient than anything that was offered. Not very convenient compared to Youtube, but still.

Neither Napster nor their end resulted in decent streaming options. Why would Youtube changes be any different ?

I find it very inconvenient to purchase a song from Google on my Android device. Google prefers to push me towards buying their subscription service. I have to go through a few awkward menus to find and purchase a song.

| Shouldn’t the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music?

They can decide how much they want. Not how much they get. Isn't it the same as with any service or product?

The problem is too complex to be solved by just reducing the labels cut. The price of records is driven down by a combination of piracy, overwhelming offer and the existence of streaming platforms.

> Isn't it the same as with any service or product?

Except government :)

> Shouldn’t the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music?

You mean release on https://bandcamp.com ?

Exactly this. Bandcamp's straightforward, egalitarian deal is exactly what any artist below the superstar level needs.

Put your stuff out, set your price, handle your own publicity, Bandcamp takes their cut. That's it.

Except that generally labels fork out the cost (invest) in their artists releases, good labels do anyway. I'm not convinced a Silicon Valley company with a turnover of $$$Million should be the most recommended option for labels and artists who aren't at superstar status. BC's investment in any artist releasing there is negligible, yet they cream off 15% from everyone for basically that zero investment (servers aside), a killer business plan. If it wasn't for labels searching, investing, risking actually, a hell of a lot of musicians would not be exposed or have the chance to be heard thus far. This shift to a generic form, or marketplace, also helps removes any choice of personal curation, of which good labels and shops build their reputation on, and in my experience is invaluable. Though as a listener if you prefer being spoon fed by an algorithm, and as an artist being lost on a supermarket shelf, then go for it. Though BC very kindly offer the odd days off from their %, because most of us lowly non-superstar artists have just lost our main source of income with CVD-19 dismantling the infrastructure. The odd day off, yeah thanks. Egalitarian? maybe, zero investment and pure profit? Definitely. That smacks of other online monopolies to me.

> It’s a little concerning that a Youtube channel with maybe 500 - 1000 Patreon supports and few ads can be a living, but musicians need to tour, to make a profit.

I’m not sure what you mean. The musician can be a YouTuber making a living from Patreon and ads.

> Shouldn’t the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music?

Sounds good. What if Google looks at that cost, and the revenue they make, and realizes they would lose money?

Isn't Google's next logic move to decide to not lose money? To not host that content?

> Shouldn’t the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music?

Then break up Koda to start with, they're the state created monopoly.

Sure. But in this case musicians have 0 input on how much to charge or how much they get paid.

Politicians decide for them and pass laws to enforce this structure.

Live shows and concerts are likely to be very limited or nonexistent in many countries for the next year. Only the most dedicated fans are willing to pay for a live stream.

> You can't charge tech companies more than they themselves are making from the music.

Sure you can. Tech companies are constantly losing money at the margins, by paying out more than they take in for a wide variety of things.

It's sustainable as long as tech companies can find financing, or fund one part of their business from another part, which seems fairly long-term.

EDIT: I know I'm gonna lose karma on this, but I'm right. There's no shortage of tech companies with negative revenue, or negative revenue in certain business units, and that money isn't disappearing, it's being paid to counterparties in business deals.

Musicians are apparently an exception to the HN crowd creed that entrepreneurs should negotiate hard to get the best deal possible.

Of course they should negotiate hard.

But if their terms are unacceptable and immovable, the other party has every right to tell them No Deal.

> [T]he other party has every right to tell them No Deal.

Sure, but that's different than "You can't charge tech companies more than they themselves are making from the music." Of course you can, and you can do so long-term provided that new tech companies appear as existing ones fail.

You're welcome to try. You're welcome to think that's reasonable.

I enjoy watching news stories about new tech companies that die after making horrible deals and investors who lose their money after investing in them. People should know better than to accept loser deals like this.

If the alternative is artists not being paid enough to make a living, then one side has to push until the other side loses. The work is being given away so cheaply by tech companies trying to commoditize their complements that there isn't enough money to support both the creators and the distributors. Why should the creators lose by default?

> The work is being given away so cheaply by tech companies

I disagree with your characterization: The work is being given away by artists, who are welcome to accept the terms that tech companies offer them.

The artists are welcome to reconsider, renegotiate.

> Why should the creators lose by default?

The creators are offered terms by tech companies. They are welcome to turn down those terms, and seek better ones.

If they lack the power to negotiate a better deal, then I suggest forming a negotiating block of some kind.

The tech companies are welcome to think those negotiations are not favorable and not accept the terms.

Or possibly the artists should form their own new tech company (cf. Patreon, Band Camp)

It's not the job of tech companies to provide a living to artists. That's what your characterization implies, and it's just not the case.

Violate an Open Source license and all hell is brought down, but Pirating music is just fine. HN has some weird ethics.

I don't think "weird" is the right term for an ethical system that is more concerned with the rights of those who are perceived as underdogs or disadvantaged than with the rights of those who are perceived as excessively successful or fortunate. The "Robin Hood" folktale is a good 600 years old, and no remotely comparable tale in which the titular character is unsympathetic ever caught on. A tendency towards "restorative justice", bringing those up high down and raising up those below seems close to being a natural state for humanity; if anything, the belief that some abstract discourse about property and contract law means that we ought to cheer for a state in which person A has orders of magnitude more power and treasure than person B to continue is the weird one.

The idea software developers and the companies they work for are the underdogs compared to musicians and the music industry is just bizarre. The tech giants could buy the whole music industry and it would be a blip on a spreadsheet.

Absolutely. The music industry has a high profile but there's comparatively little money in it. And because music, like all entertaimnent markets, is winner-take-all, most people who work in the music biz scrape by on wages that are dwarfed by the average tech salary.

That's the context in which generally well-off tech folks champion piracy and ridicule musicians who have the audacity to question tech industry exploitation.

But are the well-off tech folks the same ones who would defend open source licenses?

Let's see. I'm comparatively well-off by the standards of most working musicians. I'm an aggressive Open Source advocate. So... yes?

And yet you will certainly not find me championing piracy. I don't see what you're trying to get at.

The post I originally responded to talked about the existence of a demographic that reacts with offense to open-source licenses being violated but is indifferent towards or even advocates for music piracy, and contended that their ethics is "weird". To me, weirdness implies being uncommon, but to the extent that this demographic exists, I do not think that the ethical principles they are applying are uncommon at all: as they see it, the typical GPL violation case is perceived to involve a faceless megacorp benefitting off of the work of one or multiple hobbyist programmers scraping by while making their labour available for free, while music royalties are perceived to primarily benefit very affluent label executives and industry association lawyers. Conditional on this belief, a very commonly held ethical system says it's bad to steal from the former but good to steal from the latter. If the objection is merely that the belief is wrong, though, you can't say that the problem is that some "weird" ethics is involved.

All over this thread, it is musicians themselves being castigated. Not "music industry executives need to wake up", but "musicians need to wake up". Don't try to make this all about executives and lawyers now.

Good grief, how I hate the disregard for musicians so commonly seen in the tech industry.

> The tech giants could buy the whole music industry and it would be a blip on a spreadsheet.

For scale, the global music industry has about $20 billion in annual revenue, Google alone has about 8× that.

I don't think GPL software developers usually work for US software megacorps, and I haven't see people get up in arms about violations of non-copyleft licenses (how would you even violate those? Not crediting the original developer?). In fact, I've GPLed some of my own projects and pushback from people who seem to be associated with the Silicon Valley subculture is a pretty common occurrence (they typically want it to be relicensed under BSD or MIT or the like).

> I haven't see people get up in arms about violations of non-copyleft licenses

Oh? Then you didn't see me going off about the "Commons Clause" bullcrap.

For what it's worth, I'm a former member of the Board of Directors and V.P. Legal Affairs of the Apache Software Foundation, and I'm a music industry person who worked in a recording studio for 6 years before transitioning to tech.

It is philosophically consistent to defend attribution-based Open Source licenses and musicians' right to negotiate hard. In both cases, the rights of the creator are prioritized.

Open source of the kind that gets violated (copyleft) is generally putting the user first, rather than the developer. So in tht sense, the main beneficiary of the license – the user – is indeed the underdog.

The musicians already know this. It's the vampiric middlemen who need to make money from the recordings. Outside of some foolish artists, the publishing houses don't get a cut of ticket and merch sales.

Yea access to millions of users (Spotify) takes a lot of effort to build.

I am against middlemen but people get so emotionally charged that they don't understand that middlemen exists for reasons: 1) They are grandfathered into the system with laws 2) They provide value. I am against the former.

Spotify got rid of all the record label nonsense and they directly allow you to publish your music and broadcast it to millions of people.

If anything else, we need to get rid of the TicketMaster mafia that's running the show - literally and metaphorically.

That’s not case anymore since streaming took over. Many artists are making bank on releasing every single track on its own and getting millions/billions of plays.

They should be happy. Google exited their market. Now they can capture all the customers with their own platform and keep all the money.

And you always have Spotify which is a brand from those parts anyway.

Sorry I forgot the part that they are complaining with Google for underpaying artists...

You do realize that high resolution video hosting and serving is about the most expensive thing you can do on the internet? Just see Vimeo's fee schedule.

One wonders if the folks in Denmark arguing about their economic rights realizes this.

Apparently, the Danish musicians don't realize this value, thinking the platform is free to maintain if they can host videos for free there.

> Danish musicians

I don't think Danish musicians had any choice in this decision.

Correctamundo! This is an argument between a government sanctioned "artist association"(it's really record label manager association) and Google. No artist is part of this at all.

But Danish musicians are still free to host their own music on YouTube, this argument affects only the unlicensed use of music in third party videos.

As so many things, it gets a lot cheaper once you are a monopoly. Can't very well not peer with YouTube.

It's still really expensive.

Didn't Google brag about investing 2 billion dollars/year in just their network a few years back ?

Only one side in this argument is a monopoly... and it's not YouTube.

What about a decentralized solution like PeerTube?

Decentralized alternatives such as PeerTube pay musicians less in ad revenue (about $0.00) than Youtube does.

In other words, PeerTube doesn't provide the same benefits to musicians (audience size, recommendations discovery, ad payouts) that Youtube has.

The trigger for the disagreement between Koda musicians and Google is about money payments and not about storage & bandwidth costs. PeerTube in its current incarnation is not relevant for Koda.

Another relatively decentralized alternative, LBRY, pays at least some YouTubers significantly more per view than YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWoZhKGQtzI (this one seems to get payed about ten times as much per view).

> less in ad revenue

Yes, let's make music rely on the glorious ad industry as well. /s

I'll never understand why music requires high res video, but is ok with a shitty mp3 stream.

Because the number of people who can tell the difference between 480p and 1080p is much greater than the number that can tell the difference between 128kbps mp3 and 24/96 FLAC.

128kbps sounds awful and artifacting is painfully obvious with adequate playback equipment.

Perhaps he should have rephrased it as number of people having 4K screens and full HD on all devices they use is far higher than number of people have good audio devices

EVERYONE can tell 128kbp vs FLAC if they listen even a bit. 128kbps was always bad, especially if it's an old upload.

320kbps (which is ~Spotify 'extreme') vs FLAC is a different story, you do need some reasonable (read at least a $30 soundmagic E10 in-ear, not some wunderbar looking designer latest fashion trend on-ear for $200+) equipment and some training to spot that.

EDIT Also doesn't tackle the problem that most people hear music, not see it, so 480p vs 1080p for MUSIC isn't a deal breaker now, is it?

I've always wondered if 320 is supposed to be distinguishable from lossless.

Like, wasn't MP3 encoded at 320kbps designed to sound like a CD, while still being compressed? If it's still possible to tell 320 from FLAC in enough circumstances, then is that a failing of 320? If so, why stop at 320? Why wouldn't there be a bitrate somewhere between 320 and uncompressed that makes it impossible for practical purposes to tell the difference between lossy and lossless?

Does a 1% compression jpeg _supposed_ to be distinguishable from the orginal? Probably not, until it goes into a 4m x 3m print.

MP3 does the same to sound that jpg does to colour: those similar enough become one. And it also cuts off the "inaudible" sounds. If you open a spectogram, 320 still cuts at 20khz, whereas most CDs have until 21-22khz - because there are people out there who hear those sounds. (There are some "ultrasonic" cat & mammal scare away devices, which I hear, and they are literally painful to me.)

But answering your question: no, the goal was to have a good enough, but massively smaller file. The goal was never not to be possible to tell them apart.

FLAC compresses a CD to roughly half of it's size - that's already a big win.

yes, that's the subtext to my comment

So expensive companies pay You for people viewing the content. https://clipwatching.com/

Would be funny if the combined resources of three countries end up creating a strong YouTube competitor.

The world needs a YouTube competitor sooner than later.

Creating a competitor is simple enough, making the video from that platform appear above a video from the YouTube on the Google search is what would determine its fate.

Then again, if anyone can make Google accountable it's EU.

If the video that is being searched for is removed from YouTube, then there is no YouTube page that could be above the competitor's page.

I would assume you'd need to rank well at more than just Danish music to compete with YouTube in general.

And this, in turn, forms ground for another lawsuit...

I think most of the time when I'm searching for a video, my starting point is on YouTube itself, not Google. So in the case of a competitor, the site itself would be my search engine. Your point is still valid though.

Fair point, but Google displays videos at the top of the search results even when you are not searching for videos explicitly and those videos are from YouTube.

There are enough stats to say, a layman would click a video over an article to read.

Through in my experience this videos are rarely what I'm looking for.

Tbh even when I search on Google I normally avoid non YouTube links. Other than Vimeo I find they either don't work or have 30s ads

Google will display videos from other sources both at the top of the web search and in the videos search.

What competitors are out there already? If the problem is popularity I'll contribute by searching there first, then YouTube.

PeerTube exists in the Fediverse sphere. There's Nebula from several content creators on YouTube. I don't know how well your random search would go on either though.

DailyMotion is the biggest one I can think of.

Not exactly competitors, but today I mostly use Nebula and CuriosityStream instead of Youtube when I want long-form bedtime videos. Both are paid, unfortunately, but for $20 a year I think it's more than worth it.

As far as I understand, Nebula is also co-owned by content creators themselves. Also, they see direct revenue from subscriptions.

I had no idea! That makes me happy, as I want to support them.

cinnamon.video Obviously not a competitor at it current non existing market share but they obviously are after youtube creators and have a different monetization concept that YT.

It's interesting to watch how the American big tech companies tread much more lightly with their deplatforming and results manipulation with respect to EU entities. They know the forum isn't a favorable one. This is easily seen by doing Google searches for prominent US/Canada based and EU based extremist organizations and reviewing the results.

Google search does have a Videos tab showing video search results.

I just did a search for "ASCII table" and there are 4 videos not on YouTube in the top 10 videos (2 of them on a website called "ASCII table", one on "science buddies", one on reddit).

(In fact this is why I don't like to use this tab: the video might be on a random website and the video might be somewhere down the page, while the website is not optimized on mobile.)

Disclaimer: I am a Google employee but not working on YouTube or search.

I feel the way you do, I never use that tab because often the videos shown there are hosted on shitty websites. I wish it was restricted to YouTube so I didn't have to go to YouTube to search YouTube.

On Chrome you can directly search YouTube from the searchbar by tabbing after typing "YouTube"

With DuckDuckGo or Searx you can search YT with !yt <search term>

You can limit a search to any domain or even subdomain

site:youtube.com thing you want to search for

If you use Google video search (from the search engine itself) often enough, you will many even majority of the times, the top N results are most likely not from Youtube, even though that is what I want.

No creating a competitor isn't easy. Profitable video hosting is trade secret still, and even with Google's technology and scale it becomes barely sustainable.

There are plenty of YouTube competetors. TikTok, Instagram, Dailymotion, Vimeo, Facebook Videos, etc.

Only Dailymotion and Vimeo can be considered competitors, for the rest you have to be logged in to browse anything. You can throw YouTube links at everyone and everything, almost no one blocks it (and those that do, backtrack quickly).

I can throw any of those three service’s videos at you?

https://www.tiktok.com/@oakleythegoldenpuppy/video/684743005...

https://www.instagram.com/p/CDMXsDQlINA/?hl=en

https://m.facebook.com/WoofWoofTV/videos/2348730758738033/

And while Instagram and Facebook definitely require you to sign in almost the second you leave a video link, it looks like you’re free to browse Tiktok to your heart’s content while signed out (excluding comments).

https://www.tiktok.com/trending?lang=en

YouTube will be difficult to replicate. The long tail channel are too many and useful.

Regarding online video entertainment, there are plenty of competitors like Twitch, Netflix and Pornhub. Each are a different concept and are optimised for the type of entertainment they bring.

I do not think there is room for a competitor that is exactly like Youtube, but not Youtube. You have to do something different.

Youtube is more than music. I use youtube all the time, but never to listen to music.

The problem is not really a technical issue. It might be expensive, but it's not rocket science to create a Youtube competitor.

The problem is that in order to build a 'viable' Youtube competitor, you need to get content creators to post on your site, instead of Youtube. To do that, you need to be able to guarantee them ad income, and to do that you need advertisers, and to get them you need a large number of viewers, to get whom you need content creators posting on your site.

Whoever manages to find a way to solve this chicken and egg problem will end up creating the first viable Youtube competitor.

That's not even the biggest problem.

The biggest problem is being able to handle the legal minefield that Copyright law (in all its international variations) is for a video plattform.

In general they need be able to flag all illegal content. Copyright violations are just one type of illegal content.

> The biggest problem is being able to handle the legal minefield that Copyright law (in all its international variations) is for a video plattform.

That's not that big a problem tbh. It's understood and there's a lot of solutions.

The bigger issue is that you'll have to get music licenses if you want to actually run a service in the long run, and people's faces tend to drop when they find out they simply can't license music internationally, and you have to approach multiple different bodies in literally every individual country you operate in.

Operating an international video service probably requires you to sign 750-ish collective rights agreements, and that is painfully expensive to even negotiate. Some of these bodies are also much more rational than others on pricing.

I dunno, it feels like an impossible task to create a youtube competitor. Even harder than creating Google's search engine competitor. The storage and bandwidth costs are so big that it can deter most rich companies except maybe a few like Apple or Amazon.

Maybe if nation states can work together, they can take on Google. But then, when have we ever heard of nation states working together on the internet taking on tech giants for the benefit of their citizens? Didn't Europe try it with the search engine and fail miserably?

Jamendo has been around for a lot of years

What's wrong with Vimeo ?

Uploader pays vs advertiser supported. Though, both have viewer-paid premium content too.

~$1K per terabyte

No sympathy for music licensing bodies. Lacks any details about previous deals or how those compare world wide.

The weird thing is that licensing bodies, like writers guilds et al, are supposed to represent the financial interests of artists and other folks involved in the process.

They've built a reputation for being stodgy and backwards because of their ham-fisted handling of DRM/piracy/mp3 sales, but insisting that YouTube funnels real money back to artists is exactly what they ought to be doing.

Koda wants to have their cake and eat it too. Seems like Google is right in this case.

Koda is wrong for not wanting to take a 70% cut in revenue? I wonder if you'd be open to the idea of a 70% pay cut? Probably not right? Now what if your employer was the only employer where you live?

Well the problem here is also what they want money for.

Youtube pays the same in these two cases

- Someone watches the newest taylor swift music video. - I upload a video of my kid doing something funny where taylor swift is accidentally played in the background.

Should the music industry be payed the same in both cases?

This is just while they're in the middle of contract negotiations. I think it was generous of Google to offer a cut at all while there was no contract in place, and cutting off the service is really what I think should have (and did) happen.

How much money does Google make off of ads on Danish music? Maybe it's just not worth the effort at the price Koda is asking for.

> Koda is wrong for not wanting to take a 70% cut in revenue? I wonder if you'd be open to the idea of a 70% pay cut? Probably not right? Now what if your employer was the only employer where you live?

I don't know. Google provides so much value in all our lives, it sounds like it's fair that it should get a 70% cut in our personal revenues, too. /s

This is difficult to interpret without the details of the original agreement, which are not mentioned in the post. If google was paying more than the ad revenue on the content, then not extending the agreement would be reasonable.

Sounds like a very aggressive negotiating tactic on Google's part.

They're scared that if the Nordic agreement succeeds, they'd gradually be bid up on content pricing everywhere.

Koda and the Nordic group are not necessarily in a weak position. But might be in an even stronger position if they had an alternative video/ streaming service to recommend, which paid them higher content partner rates.

It will only take one content provider to hold out for long enough, yet still be an attractive market at higher content rates, to break Google's embargo. Good luck.

The press release is also quit unilateral. If Google wants a 70% discount and the others are not agreeing then clearly no agreement can be reached and removing that music is just the logical next step.

Maybe the negotiating party assumed Google will not even be technically capable of such a thing. Google is showing they can and giving them an opportunity to measure loses too.

How is it aggressive? If an agreement to do Thing is necessary, and you don’t have an agreement, you just stop doing the Thing.

Koda is just starting from a weaker position than YouTube.

The article mentions that a temporary extension to the already existing agreement is normal and expected during negotiations. So Google not doing it, presumably to apply pressure on the negotiations is agressive.

>Koda is just starting from a weaker position than YouTube.

Ideally negotiations should be between equals. If this is just Google throwing its e dick around then they need to get a few more antitrust fines.

KODA is literally a government sanctioned monopoly.

KODA have not been that really the last 6ish years and by law they have not been it the last 4. There was a EU law in 2014 that made a law against it.

With all this anti-Google sentiments, I find Youtube absolutely priceless for all the things I've gained for free from it from so much education, DIY tips, MIT lectures on Thermodynamics, live streaming from ISS and thousands and thousands of amazing things that have enriched my life.

I would pay the shit out of Youtube if it ever made it mandatory to pay for it. I would pay $200 a month just to access the historical archive of all this knowledge even if they stopped uploading new content.

Youtube has enriched society on a monumental scale. I hate big companies and their monopoly position but the level of entitlement in this thread is absurdly unfair. The world would be significantly worse without YouTube.

Are you paying for their ad-free premium experience today? It's $10/month, much lesser than the $200 you are willing to pay.

Hard to judge without knowing how much more Koda wants compared to other content providers. Anyone know this?

Hardly heard any Danish music ever. Reading reviews, listening and downloading now :-)

Volbeat. :)

I've been listening to Volbeat almost non-stop since I first heard them a few weeks ago.

Aqua, Lukas Graham, MØ, Volbeat, AlphaBeat, Martin Jensen are probably among the most well known danish artists.

One of the classics. Gasoline - This is my life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqd-JcjQo8I

...not available. Isn’t that the point of this thread?

Only blocked in some countries, the video works fine in most of Europe, Canada, Australia, South America, and India.

Map: https://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi?ytid=Jqd-JcjQo8I

Some of my favorites: Lukas Graham, Tina Dico, Claus Hempler and D-A-D (Disneyland After Dark).

Somewhat off topic: I live in fear that one day, I'll wake to find that youtube pulled all the live shows and music that isn't on AM/Spotify due to neglect or licensing BS. Or even worse, that they decide to make their ads unblockable by stitching them in.

Solving this problem seems overwhelmingly complex: On one hand, it is against youtube's ToS to download (even for archival), but on the other, youtube (and the majority of the uploaders) don't have the rights for that content in the first place.

Two rentiers fighting it out for the biggest slice of the pie.

For reference, there is a lot of relevant financial background information in their (Koda’s) Annual Reports:

https://www.koda.dk/about-us/annual-reports-transparency-rep...

In the long term, I think platforms will find that consumers care more about content than the platforms. It’s just as easy to watch a video on Vimeo or a private site as YouTube, and the quality is usually equal, and sometimes better. Platforms have some lock-in due to networking effects and content storage, but for businesses built around getting eyeballs on unique content (like music), that means basically nothing.

I'm certainly one of the rare people who planned (for the next week!) to take youtube music and premium just to be sure to have access to all danish song but finally nope.

No I'm not danish but when you like different languages and commercial hip hop,danish hip hop is not that bad !

The music is still accessible outside of Denmark, at least for now, not sure if that will change.

I am residing in Denmark. Since today, I have not been able to listen many songs in my YT playlists as "this content is unavailable in your conrtry".

Might this not only be about Noridic artists, but rights of musicians in Nordic contries in general?

It is artists who have their rights administrated by KODA in Denmark. It may also include things like Danish songwriters as well.

It looks like this only applies to Koda members. From their website, it doesn't look like all Danish musicians are members of Koda, so the title is misleading.

These musicians can just build their own compeeting video platform. At least they are very keen to present such an argument when discussing social media censorship.

reduce the payment provided to composers and songwriters for YouTube’s use of music by almost 70%

Yes but pirating is bad.

this is a press release, perhaps the link should be replaced with a neutral party: http://cphpost.dk/?p=117112

Put shortly ... The C.V. of Google, is something Google's decision-makers would be wise to "include" ...

Right now, people (Musicians and music-lovers) in the Nordic Countries, have got an experience, that should have been avoided, and that can be "neutralized" by Google's change of course.

C.V ...what to be remembered by and being proud of : - like "we did build this country, this company"... - right now, it's the opposite: We Ruined Musicians Lifes, and We Ruined Music ... - If this is, what Google wants to be remembered by, then well ...

Rewriting history : - like Trump and especially eastern leaders/rulerships, one can of course always "make it all fit and shine" ... like Trump has been doing, again and again...

The Trump way of doing things : - This "Tank-like" way of acting and dealing with other living people, running over ... makes Google's policy look a lot like Trump's... - That is: Resistence (or not "100% obediance from Nordi Koda/Musicians) => a "Trumpish" reaction: YOU ARE DEAD, YOU ARE NOT-WORTHY - AND "YOU ARE FIRED" / OUT OF THE GAME !!! ... - that is: Being the chef/owner, running things in a "cartoon-like cathegorial way" ... in which empathy-etc is 100% "put-aside / cut-off".

My Hope ... is that Google will "look inside", re-evaluate, and rethink their "quick decision", and then take-in and include the different perspectives ... And, in this way, I urge Google to get inspired by people like John-Robert-Lewis, who changed the "standard way of doing things and acting" in the 50's and 60's ... changed this peacefully, and in a time-long proces made the Leaders and people RETHINK their decisions, policies, and behaviour .... The same I am hoping, that Google will do here (and other dominant companies (and governments) will do ...

In this, there is a "rethink money" factor. Instead of "making money", then spend them where they are needed .... If, for instance, Google wants to AID MUSIC, then Google could give (enough) money to the Musiciens, to make "vision" happen in real life.... (so Please! Google, rethink and get back on the right track - and do something (good) that I am sure you want to be remembered by - and that fits your Officiel Image !!!)

Wait, does that mean no King Diamond?

I'm sure there will be full album bootlegs still up, there always are from foreign uploaders.

King Diamond is on Roadrunner (1986 - 1990) and Metal Blade (1995 - now).[1] Actually looks like he's re-releasing his old stuff on Metal Blade as well.[2] (Tempting to pick it up on Vinyl when I already have the original CDs.)

Anyway, those are US labels and distributed by for instance WMG outside the US. I would assume those have nothing to do with that Koda group; Metal Blade even has uploaded entire albums of his on YouTube.[3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Diamond_discography

[2] https://www.kingdiamondcoven.com/news

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_6oMRtc118&feature=youtu.be...

I know zero about Danish music. Please, tell me the good music I'll be missing. BTW, I don't like electronic music.

They have a good heavy metal scene. Groups like Volbeat, Pretty Maids, etc

Time to switch to Spotify...

The site is apparently in the HoD phase - could I ask a polite TL;DR?

(HoD = "Hug of Death" - please don't use obscure TLAs* - it makes people feel excluded)

(* three letter acronyms)

EDIT - and it means something like "site down because it's been linked to from here and can't handle the traffic)

EDIT2 - "tl;dr" is at least easy to google...

I didn't think that one was obscure _here_. Point taken.

It's best to just assume that all acronyms are obscure and spell them out the first time you use them, especially ones related to a specific field of interest, hobby, profession, or culture.

fwiw I’ve seen the term “hug of death” term used for years but that did not cross my mind when I saw “HoD”.

My first thought was "Hood of Defiance".

same. Until today I had only heard it on Reddit.

Koda, who represents all danish music is negotiating a new contract with google. The old one expired this April, but is extended until a new contract is negotiated.

Google wants to pay only 30% of the old contract during negotiations and is now threatening to remove all danish music from YouTube.

Koda wants the new contract to have higher payments as Google is paying well below competitors.

I think it is a Javascript problem? I stopped the page from loading and pressed Firefox's reader mode button and the article text showed up.

Not sure why this isn’t topping HN

Reply on news.ycombinator.com