'YOUTUBE is EVIL': Somebody had a tape running, Google
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
I.e., abuse a dominant position in one area to force users onto its other services whilst completely ignoring both the collateral damage caused and the actual stated preferences of their users. This is exactly the kind of thing that people used to (rightfully) castigate Microsoft for & it's predictable but depressing to see Google treading the same path. (I know "don't be evil" was just a slogan, but there was a time when Google stood for the principle of winning simply by being better than everyone else & it's saddening to see them resort to these kind of underhanded tactics to force their products into the marketplace.)
These kind of tactics do work in the short term of course, but ultimately they have a corrosive effect on your long term success because users cease to trust that you'll treat them fairly. Meanwhile the execs involved run off into the sunset with their bonuses extracted by burning the company's goodwill in order to drive short term metrics the way they need them to hit whatever internal targets they've set themselves.
The biggest an organization can get and hope to have a reasonable chance of not going evil is probably some multiple of Dunbar's number. I think realistically the uppermost limit on it is going to be Dunbar's squared and assuming everyone has really high social skills and no life outside work then it's 250*250 = 62k people. But that only counts if everyone's job is doing nothing more than keeping up with the company's culture; no actual work gets done.
If you assume that you want your people to work while they're at the office then Dunbar's probably goes down quite a bit. Let's use the more reasonable 150 number that's closer to average and let's assume that you only want people to spend about 20% of their time on keeping in tune with everyone around them. That puts your group size at 30 instead of 150 or 250.
Now let's suppose that we organize hierarchically and that the senior execs really do live/eat/sleep/breathe the company. They're professional, high functioning managers, so let's give them the full 250. And then let's suppose that there are group managers who split their time between talking with their group and with senior management.
That gives you 250 groups of 30 people each or 7500 total employees. And in order to keep up with all these groups you've got to have 3-15 execs who are all on the same page and running themselves ragged trying to keep up. If you start adding more levels of management hierarchy you run the risk that as information gets passed down the chain it gets modified slightly or tremendously to serve the interests of any one individual in said chain. And there are too many bosses you have to "go over" to get a reasonable chance of talking to a real decision maker if you think something isn't right, but your direct boss is telling you to do anyhow.
This chart shows that Google cracked 7500 employees before 2007. http://www.statista.com/statistics/273744/number-of-full-tim...
I'd guess that they did between 2002 and 2004. The Google+/youtube integration debacle started in what, 2013? That means it took them a good decade before they really started to do outwardly very unattractive things. That's pretty impressive (or my theory is totally wrong).
Either way, past a certain point more employees are more of a liability than a badge of honor. It just increases the risk you do something stupid because everyone believes they're doing the right thing and there are no lines of communication to correct the misunderstanding, intentional or not.
Executive culture tends to laud the "visionary leader" who pushes their vision on everyone else. When that vision is wrong-headed you end up with situations like the G+ débâcle: it was a failure of the Google executive, not the employees.
My guess is that we have the same effect in play with the YouTube Music debacle: an "up and coming" exec who wants to make their mark by creating a new business line for Google that brings in big profits. They don't care if they sully the Google brand in the process because their incentives aren't aligned with Google's, any negative effects on Google's userbase (be they musicians, music consumers or just ordinary users of Google services) are just collateral damage in their internal political game.
This is warring business units in action.
That kind of nuanced understanding is the difference usually between successfully companies and their unsuccessful companies.
One person doesn't have to work very hard to communicate all his/her ideas and priorities to him/her self so there's zero communication overhead there. A few executives are going to have to communicate a lot in order to all stay on the "same page" regarding the multitude of issues that a company might face trying to execute the overarching vision irrespective of it that's from one or a couple of people.
The more time these people spend communicating with one another to ensure that they all understand one another, the less time they have to spend with their group managers, thus lowing the number of groups they can oversee. As the number of groups an exec can oversee drops, you need more execs.
But as you get more execs, now you have a coordination problem at the executive level. The problem is recursive. The CEO can only oversee so many executives, so you get a CEO/COO/CFO triple team. But those people have to spend time ensuring that they all understand one another. Rinse and repeat.
Obviously there's a "management ratio" that a person could glean out of all of this and just employ that to structure an organization indefinitely, at least in theory. The problem is that all communication is lossy. If you can communicate with 85% effectiveness (which is PHENOMENAL!) then that kind of limits how many layers you can use.
0.85 ^ 2 = 72%
0.85 ^ 3 = 64%
0.85 ^ 4 = 52%
0.85 ^ 5 = 44%
0.85 ^ 6 = 37%
This sort-of tracks with real world businesses too, it's not often that you see an org chart which has 10 layers on it because the company would be totally dysfunctional and go bust very rapidly.
The "Peter Principle" applies to businesses too, the continue to grow and gobble up more market share until eventually they stop being as effective and growth slows or stops.
It applies to society as well as Joseph Tainter points out in "The Collapse of Complex Societies" each additional unit of complexity has a fixed cost and diminishing returns for the society (or the company, or whatever) until eventually you're adding complexity which is a net negative. Things then start to go downhill.
Obviously there are exceptions to this (think "natural monopolies" and the like) and there may be years or decades of lag between the start of net negative complexity growth and collapse. Unless there's "refactoring" of the system where complexity is removed somehow, everything will eventually trend towards collapse. And achieving refactoring in real life is generally impossible since there tend to be entrenched interests in favor of some complexity since it directly benefits them.
A great example of this is the healthcare debate. Doesn't matter which side you're on. Complexity nearly always wins.
I feel some of these issues can be managed by having specialized teams - but those teams would have to managing a context, not merely certain functions or tasks of a business, otherwise they won't have their hands and attention on everything that will matter.
85% communication effectiveness seems very possible - at least with enough time and enough opportunities.
(a) Go all in on monetization (ads, Content Id, Music Key, etc.)
(b) Go all out on monetization (upload videos for free, no other commercial relationship).
They aren't offering this choice because it helps them kill puppies or whatever, but for what should be a blindlingly obvious reason: People who pay money for a service that gets rid of ads on music videos are going to be pretty ticked off if they still see ads on music videos.
You can call this evil, but you should be crystal-clear on what you're saying: Google trying to offer a service that lets people pay to get rid of YouTube ads (something lots of people say they want) is evil.
Personally, I think this isn't good or evil, but an example of the inevitable problems and complications that arise when you try to add subscriptions to a hugely popular ad-supported service with many different stakeholders. I suspect that this sort of thing is an underappreciated reason why Google is hesitant to offer paid subscriptions as an alternative to ads in other contexts.
The artist is indeed loosing the choice to just monetize the content he wants, and he indeed loses the ability to monetize content on youtube without being bound to release on Youtube first/at the same time. nosequels gist is correct: the artist has now less choice than before.
Personally I don't really like these changes, but let's not be disingenuous.
I don't think that's a fair summary of the original comment, which also asserted that the artist is losing the choice to enforce their copyright unless they join the new program.
That does, however, suggest to me an option (c) that Google isn't offering: Musicians pay Google to run Content Id on their behalf to simplify the takedown process. While I'm sure there are some win-wins they're missing by not offering that (possibly including Zoë Keating), I really can't fault them for that. I expect the PR and legal complications would dwarf the storm that's already here.
Publicly available yes, open source no. You're free to choose whatever license you want:
You're under no obligation to choose a license. It's your right not to include one with your code or project, but please be aware of the implications. Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.
It is now only publicly available
If Github did this, they would lose everyone overnight.
(c) monetize some, but not all, content.
Not everyone wants to be all-in or all-out. Maybe she wants her best work monetized, but has additional content she wants available for free. Ad-stamped content can be really annoying and turn people off from watching/listening when there isn't sufficient desire for the content to put up with it. Free content, unladen of ads, can help draw in followers who become willing to pay. Kinda like throwing a low-cost concert for free in hopes people who otherwise wouldn't come will, facing low/no friction, come and enjoy the free content enough to buy CDs and pay for a more sophisticated concert.
Plenty of times I've stumbled across an unknown musician playing for free, I've stopped & listened for a while when I'd have not paid to, and then bought the CD. Google wants to slather ads on the "free" performance just so the performer can offer a paid CD.
Google is demanding all-in or all-out on mixed-demand content...and is demanding adherence to those terms & decisions for 5 years, which can be a very long time for a performer.
you can't release any music without also putting it on YouTube at the same time
Which is a pretty draconian clause.
In other words, from Google's point of view, Zoe Keating provides content for Google, for Google's benefit, not her benefit, or the benefit of her fans. In exchange, she doesn't have to run her own multimillion dollar content server. Recognizing the business they're in (advertising driven by user-provided content) doesn't seem 'draconian,' and there are other options available. If she can't accept alternatives then perhaps it proves that she needs Google a lot more than they need her.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/01/23/breakin...
This is getting interesting.
They could have turned things around by engaging in dialog and still got their point across.
Someone at YouTube needs to go back to PR school after this.
I'd say that someone just needs to be repeatedly hit in the head with a copy of Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People".
Seriously, every single PR flop I've seen discussed here (or anywhere else) was a result of failing to adhere to a single basic rule: don't be a douchebag. It's really that simple. Do we really need PR schools to teach people how to be decent human beings?
It looks like after coming back from law school or business school, this basic education has been lost indeed.
Probably not, but it's bad for business to be decent human beings. PR/x-relations/etc is about faking decency while unapologetically pushing a business agenda, that does take training.
It's called The Golden Rule, and I've maintained for a long time it pretty much the only law/rule you need in life.
Google and Microsoft wanted nothing to do with this culture, until they grew too big and those threatened started drafting legislation to curtail them. Once faced with a government action, both companies started having presences in the Capitol. It needs to buy influence to protect itself from its competitors, who already have entrenched lobbying efforts. The author's attempt to paint Google as evil from lobbying efforts fails to note the reason for this, government ability to critically damage a company.
1. Microsoft lawsuit over bundling Internet Explorer
2. Google had an FTC investigation regarding its search engine share
[1] http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/google-forfeits-500-million-ge...
Who does two-party consent benefit more, the large corporations or the individual's right to privacy? Or is it not black and white?
On the other hand, in a conversation with like this with a corporation she could simply announce that she is recording it. Corporations do it all the time, in part at least to help train their customer service. And if the corp decides they don't want to have the conversation on the record, then they don't get to have the conversation at all. In other words, you say, "I am recording this conversation" rather than asking, "Is it ok if I record this conversation?"
I'm not sure that is legal. I've had a few job interviews that were recorded, and in all of them I was told I needed to consent to being recorded on tape. So basically the interviewer would say, "are you okay with me recording this conversation?" and then I would say, "yes, that's fine."
I'm pretty sure it is, considering the number of companies who have a "This call may be recorded" warning as part of the phone tree.
I think a problem with this approach is that in most cases, the individual loses more by not having the conversation than the corporation does.
Is the act of recording illegal, or just sharing the recording?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United...
I don't see anything too evil here, just reasonable business decision forced to them by the ridiculous copyright framework.
Google came with a simple solution: their way or the highway. Sounds harsh but anything else would require massive man-hours of development and lawyer-vetting. They rather pull your stuff rather than risking the money with very little chance of recouping the investment.
Zoe Keating, on the other side, disagrees and wants google to actually expend tons of money developing her "special case" into the system...
Edit: removed redundant sentence
I don't even bother reading them anymore.
Why would keeping the current system - which is essentially just allowing people to use ContentID without being forced into accepting new legal terms - require massive man-hours of development and laywer-vetting? What's so difficult about it?
By the way, I fully agree vis-a-vis the SOPA comments. But it just goes to show the adversary of my adversary is not always my ally.
Doing YouTube Music Key and writing in special cases for independent artists while simultaneously making sure not to open any loopholes that would let, for example, Sony hold the service hostage later... that strikes me as very difficult, at best.
It's from Andrew Orlowski, a professional media troll. He usually takes a contrarian position on any controversial tech issue.
It's clear in the conversation that she could always just quit this deal and move to the normal Youtube Partner program to make cash out of ads like any other partner.
What she would lose is automatic content identification that would also give her ads revenues from OTHER video that has her content. There's no alternative to that, she would have to send a ton of DMCA herself to remove that other content and that doesn't even allow her to get that revenue.
I don't see this as a solution to the ridiculous copyright framework, it's a way to abuse the ridiculous copyright framework. They have a great tool that can help her fight against copyright infringement but the only way she can still use it is to either abandon her YouTube revenue or to give YouTube all her music right.
1. Users currently can monetize using contentID - any videos uploaded anywhere using their shit and they get a cut of the ads (if there are any).
2. Google is making paid streaming version, artists now have two options:
2a) Agree to have everything on paid and free side and get money. Also, everything you release everything must also release to Youtube (I assume this is the main sticking point??).
2b) Don't agree and only have shit be on free side and not get money. You can upload whatever you want when you want.
There are some additions:
2a) … The release on Youtube must happen at the same time and in a specified quality.
2b) … Everything that has been uploaded by her before will be deleted.
The obligation to release on Youtube is of course completely unacceptable. I like to think it would be quite illegal in many countries outside the US as well.
Ever since Youtube Music was launched, youtube has had all its music removed in the parts of the world where Youtube Music isn't yet "launched".
So by that standard, none at all, because you'll have no visitors & no viewers.
I'm thoroughly impressed about the size of the clusterfuck Youtube has managed to make this whole thing.
Essentially, they pay you for the "service" of uploading the videos and drawing users.
With all due respect this article does not go into any specific detail of what real evidence exists to back up this story.
[0] http://blog.launch.co/blog/i-aint-gonna-work-on-youtubes-far...
[0] the alternative being torrents, and they're very much non-instant.
Doesn't that make it easier to disrupt? Younger people are less habit forming and more likely to try new services. I would think the licencing with record labels & infrastructure requirements would be the tough part for a new entrant.
It is if you manage to topple the absolutely gigantic mindshare and you manage to build a similarly complete catalog of official and user-supplied content.
> I would think the licencing with record labels & infrastructure requirements would be the tough part for a new entrant.
And how. Check youtube's all-time top viewed videos, and the vast majority are vevo channels MVs. If you remove vevo and psy, you're left with a pair of videos of the top 30 or 50.
vevo is a joint venture between UMG, Sony, Abu Dhabi Media… and Google.
Younger people are not less prone to forming habits. There are, of course, always new young people who may not have the same habits as the last round of young people, though.
I am not going to waste my time with a low quality video (often with only a static image) when I can have the high quality of Soundcloud. Soundcloud also has an interesting comment system and a better community.
"As Silicon Valley has been very successful in persuading the public to throw away their strong legal protections, Google may well get away with it."
What "strong legal protections" have been removed?
Just look at the titles of articles published by this author: http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2578
What the hell does this means?
"MI5 boss: We NEED to break securo-tech, get 'assistance' from data-slurp firms"And the irony has slipped into being just a house style now - one which is rather uneven in quality and appropriateness.
Still, I have to wonder if this is just the Youtube division of Google acting this way, and perhaps once the big heads at Google HQ get wind of what's going on (or more accurately, the PR department), they will intervene on Ms. Keating's behalf.
Then again, that would open the door for who knows how many other independent artists under Youtube's Draconian contract to go after them for the same deal.
And of course, I'm happy to see that Ms. Keating is getting some free publicity out of all of it. Even if she ultimately can't pursue Youtube for lost ad revenue, she still has the power to publish her works in other media.
Unfortunately other similar media aren't as lucrative. Even if they pay as well, not being on YouTube creates an exposure problem. I hope there's some way to work this out, but to be honest, Google still seems to me like the least sleazy company to help you monetize your music, and that's not a compliment to Google.
I don't know...even if you sign with the worst of the traditional record labels, once your contract is up the rights to monetize your own works revert back to you. With Youtube (so far) it seems that if you refuse to sign with them, they still claim the right to monetize your works even if you don't upload them yourself. They take away the artist's control over their own works without even a contract in place. That's extremely sleazy if you ask me.