Hacker News Reader

Comment by supernova87a | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com