Hacker News Reader

Comment by onli | Hacker News Reader

That is not the only option lost (though you are right, you can chose a and remove everything).

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.

View on HN

> nosequels gist is correct: the artist has now less choice than before

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.

Ah, now I get how you meant that. Still, that is less choice than before in general. One could before let his music be tagged and was not obliged to do anything with Youtube. Now, to have the same as before, they are trying to bind artists with a 5 year contract and release obligations. That is pretty evidently less choice, and (probably) still having the option to not get paid but remove music from fans does not make up for that.

Indeed, artists lose a choice (and get a new choice in its place). But that's a big backpedal from "YOUTUBE is EVIL".

No, this is also incorrect. Artists can still upload and monetize to their own channel just like every other YouTube creator.

That is not the same monetization as using ContentID to add ads to all other videos with the music. That ability would be lost when an artist is not accepting the new terms.

Right, but they aren't losing the ability to monetize the content they want, as the parent comment suggests. They are restricted from ContrntID, but they can still upload and monetize video.

Personally I don't really like these changes, but let's not be disingenuous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com