Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Youtube Advertising Google Music

How YouTube Music Key Will Redefine What We Consider Music 105

Posted by samzenpus from the no-more-ads dept.
First time accepted submitter Biswa writes YouTube launched its ad-free subscription music service called MusicKey. today. From the TechCrunch article: "YouTube finally unveiled its subscription music service today, and in some ways it’s very much like existing streaming music services, especially since it comes bundled with Google Play Music All Access. But YouTube Music Key also very much not like other streaming music services, because of the ways in which music is (or rather isn’t) defined on YouTube. One of the first questions I had about Google Music Key was how the company would define what kind of content from YouTube gets included: Would a home-shot cover of a Black Keys song with 253 views be as ad-free as the official music video for the original? Or was this a private club, designed for the traditionally defined music industry? Turns out, the nature of what Music Key encompasses is somewhat of a moving target, and the limited beta access that will initially gate entry to the service is in part due to that variability."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How YouTube Music Key Will Redefine What We Consider Music More

How YouTube Music Key Will Redefine What We Consider Music

Comments Filter:

  • "Limited beta access" (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "Limited beta access" is a shitty marketing tactic that got old and stale several years ago.

    The last time it worked was when Google launched Gmail.

    Now, even Joe Sixpack knows that "beta" means inferior, so almost everyone will wait for the real launch, by which time their service is old news and not widely reported on.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I don't know if Google even have a Marketing Department. You know, the kind that is allowed to pay for TV adverts, billboards etc.

      How many great Google projects are dead because nobody knew they existed?

  • Sweet, wait, huh? (Score:4)

    by Nyder ( 754090 ) on Thursday November 13, 2014 @05:48AM (#48376647) Journal

    Not exactly sure what the summary was saying, other then another online music service. I still prefer my music on my computer, or media devices, then streaming.

    • Re:Sweet, wait, huh? (Score:4)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Thursday November 13, 2014 @06:06AM (#48376681) Homepage

      I too prefer to own what I buy.

      • Re:Sweet, wait, huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Thursday November 13, 2014 @07:25AM (#48376891)

        I, as well... and I don't pay for websites. But I do pay for Pandora. But I don't think of it like I'm paying for the music... I think of it as Paying for what Pandora does, which is sort and find music related to my tastes. I've been introduced to artists I'd have no other way of finding through Pandora. Sometimes it's very, very, wrong... but other times I'm really amazed that I missed an artist for years.

        What's Youtube going to offer? It sounds like just some more youtube... no thanks.

        • Honest question: Why choose Pandora over Spotify, when you can choose entire albums with Spotify? I really am curious, not criticizing your choice.
          • Probably because Pandora is less expensive. Spotify is much better, which is why I switched, but someone with a very limited income might prefer to spend $5 less on Pandora.
            • That makes sense. It's the exact reason why I use the unpaid versions of both :); why I have Netflix instead of cable; etc. etc. Thanks for the response.

              • Netflix instead of cable

                Without cable Internet, how are you connecting to Netflix? Or with cable Internet, how are you saving any money [slashdot.org]?

                • To be fair, I should have been clearer. I have Cox Cable in the southeastern US, and the cost for cable Internet access is about $62/month; add TV (with DVR rental) and you're looking at another $150~$200. No thanks. Between free content on Youtube, Hulu, and "broadcast" networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC), and only $8 for Netflix, I'm happy with what I get for the price point. If you like live sports that's really the only big down side.

                  Ultimately, it's a total of $70 for all the goodies I can consume on the

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tepples ( 727027 )
            Because Pandora reached the United States market before Spotify did.

    • Re:Sweet, wait, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by flyneye ( 84093 ) on Thursday November 13, 2014 @07:30AM (#48376905) Homepage

      It was a shill for a pay service. If you want to PAY for what is free elsewhere.
      Personally, I wouldn't pay for it. Chances are, the band who wrote it and plays it will never see the money, it goes directly to the owners of the song; the music industry. So, if you pay for music, you are actually encouraging an industry that steals intellectual property, rips off the artist and in most cases discards the artist after their peak of profit dwindles. Artists could do without the industry by simply giving away their music, as promotional, and charging to play live. No industry needed for this scenario. This is the age of the internet, the do-it-yourselfer, the tools are within everyones reach. A band doesn't need an industry, maybe a few friends to help is all, that is needed. Fuck the industry. Don't pay for music, it only encourages the middlemen to pump up the price and rip EVERYONE off, while contributing nothing of any real value. It is a parasite. Don't pay for music.

      • It was a shill for a pay service. If you want to PAY for what is free elsewhere. Personally, I wouldn't pay for it. Chances are, the band who wrote it and plays it will never see the money, it goes directly to the owners of the song; the music industry. So, if you pay for music, you are actually encouraging an industry that steals intellectual property, rips off the artist and in most cases discards the artist after their peak of profit dwindles. Artists could do without the industry by simply giving away their music, as promotional, and charging to play live. No industry needed for this scenario. This is the age of the internet, the do-it-yourselfer, the tools are within everyones reach. A band doesn't need an industry, maybe a few friends to help is all, that is needed. Fuck the industry. Don't pay for music, it only encourages the middlemen to pump up the price and rip EVERYONE off, while contributing nothing of any real value. It is a parasite. Don't pay for music.

        Because by not paying the artists will get more money?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      I still prefer my music on my computer, or media devices, then streaming.

      How much does it cost to fill a media device with purchased music? Major music publishers and record labels have tended to license streaming at a much lower royalty than ownership.

      • Thats why you pirate it instead. Musicians should be paid for performing, not licensing. Nothing beats having a local copy.

        • Musicians should be paid for performing, not licensing.

          Not all musical genres are well suited to live performance. How would, say, a producer of electronic dance music put on a live performance?

          • I would say, find a way to play live versus being propped up by artificial monopoly. This argument is not nearly strong enough to continue the abuse that is 21st Century copyright.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tepples ( 727027 )
              Without copyright, how should movie producers fund their businesses? Showings in a movie theater can be telesynced. Or ought they to go back to live plays?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AK Marc ( 707885 )
                There have been a number of "free" movies made, or movies pre-funded by crowdsourced funds. Copyright didn't change whether they would get made. Your argument differs from reality.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by tepples ( 727027 )

                  There have been a number of "free" movies made, or movies pre-funded by crowdsourced funds.

                  I'm aware of the Blender Foundation's short films. But when I put crowdfunded movies into Google, followed by crowdfunded free movies, I didn't see any feature-length films that were made free as in free culture [freedomdefined.org], such as CC BY or CC BY-SA, after the film was funded and produced. Am I missing something?

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by AK Marc ( 707885 )
                    Most are copyright encumbered. But are made with no money. Fan fiction and the like. Had there been no copyright, they'd be more free to make them. More "free" movies would be made without copyright than are made with it. It's copyright holding back uncopyrighted works.
          • In a dance club? They do it all the time.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AK Marc ( 707885 )
            They DJ in a club.

  • How indeed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Thanshin ( 1188877 ) on Thursday November 13, 2014 @06:00AM (#48376667)

    How YouTube Music Key Will Redefine What We Consider Music

    In no way, shape or form.

    However, the actual question is quite more interesting:

    How will YouTube redefine what THEY consider music, now that they get to ask for money for the items included in their new definition?

    Or, in other words, will people be forced to replace the music in their skateboard stunt video with humming and whistling to avoid their video from being paywalled?

  • Yay piracy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Thursday November 13, 2014 @06:07AM (#48376685)
    I suspect torrenting of music to increase because of this. Can't force the market to pay for what it doesn't think it has to pay for.
    • I still want to believe that there are honest people who think that the artists and producers should be paid properly for their cool music and hard work.

  • yet another duplication of what's out there (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    nothing new, no need for it, just so Google can claim their piece of pie in this industry over what they already had.

    Here's what the pie is. The pie is a market. The pie is cuttable into unlimited slices. Who gets the pie, depends on if they get into the market. Getting into the market guarantees them a slice of the pie. This is why Google entered the market. Because of capitalism, gobbling up as much pie as possible is always desired, even if it's unnecessary and duplicates what's already out there a milli

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RDW ( 41497 )

      Here's what the pie is. The pie is a market. The pie is cuttable into unlimited slices. Who gets the pie, depends on if they get into the market. Getting into the market guarantees them a slice of the pie. This is why Google entered the market. Because of capitalism, gobbling up as much pie as possible is always desired, even if it's unnecessary and duplicates what's already out there a million times over.

      I don't understand! Do you have a car analogy?

      Also, does this mean no more free pie? Will google crack down on Youtube downloaders and ad blockers that already give naughty, naughty people most of the advantages of this service for free..?

      • I don't understand! Do you have a car analogy?

        Of course. Here's what the car is. The car is a market. The car is cuttable into unlimited slices. Who gets the car, depends on if they get into the market. Getting into the market guarantees them a slice of the car. This is why Google entered the market. Because of capitalism, gobbling up as much car as possible is always desired, even if it's unnecessary and duplicates what's already out there a million times over.

    • What are you comparing the music industry to a pie? Are you Jim Gaffigan [youtube.com]?

  • Well, if Google includes Google Play Music, and you also watch a lot of youtube, you'll pay the same price as you're currently getting for all-you-can-eat streaming, plus get rid of the ads on Youtube. Otherwise it seems like a pretty stiff price for ad avoidance.

  • Hubris. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Thursday November 13, 2014 @07:07AM (#48376839) Journal

    It will redefine how what we consider music, eh?

    Seems unlikely. Music will continue to be a cllection of notes and/or beats for some time to come, I think.

    Having read TFA, I'm still not sure what it is except that is picks a playlist for you and google reserve the tight to decice what's on the playlist. I've no idea how it narrows it down to your taste.

    I guess Ad-free is nice. I've actually started listening to streaming music recently rather than local copies so I get ads. It's a bit odd since it's a local station fro a place I used ot live, so I get to hear all about "Bob's trucks off the access road" or "Trujillo's Plumbing Supplies" for stuff near a city several thousand miles from where I live. I don't find them nearly so bothersome as I thought.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gsslay ( 807818 )

      I don't think I will ever consider music as videos. That is what YouTube does; videos. Music is sound, it is not visuals. This is a fundamental difference that is not up for redefining.

  • Boo-tube.

  • redefined (Score:3)

    by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Thursday November 13, 2014 @07:27AM (#48376899)

    It's redefining music as in: Thank you for your subscription fee! Here's a cat video. No refunds!

  • I can say unequivocally that YouTube will not redefine what I consider music.

     

  • The answer (Score:3)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Thursday November 13, 2014 @08:02AM (#48377007) Homepage

    How YouTube Music Key Will Redefine What We Consider Music

    The answer, of course, is "not at all."

    What a bloody stupid headline.

  • Nope. I'll carry on with free Pandora and my own collection, thanks. I really don't see a $120 annual bill appealing to the same stressed economic group that is now 'cable-cutting'.

    Plus buying music from YouTube just sounds like the equivalent to shopping at Dollar General: embarrassing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tepples ( 727027 )
      How much do you spend per year to (lawfully) add to your "own collection"?
      • Lawfully could include the original length of copyright, being 14+14. It depends on what law you are referring to. The Constitution's definition of lawful copyright length is the only sane one we have. The rest are QUITE clearly bought and paid for law. Lawfully does not mean its right, only that those in power decided they have the ability to punish you.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          It depends on what law you are referring to.

          The United States Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1976 enacted pursuant thereto, as amended by the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and interpreted by the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft.

          The Constitution's definition of lawful copyright length is the only sane one we have.

          The copyright clause in article I section 8 of the Constitution states only "for limited Times", and the Supreme Court exercised its power under article III to rule that any copyright term that is finite at any point in time qualifies, so long as the Congress doesn't engage in an overt pattern of legislation t

          • as i said, that law was bought and paid for by special interests. It does not and should not represent lawful copyright. Your appeal to authority doesnt make it right, only legal.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tepples ( 727027 )
              Until such special interests lose their influence over the entity with a monopoly on violence, what should end users do to avoid or evade the consequences of what is not legal? And to return to my original question, how much do you spend on these measures to mitigate the consequences of illegally adding to your "own collection"?

  • Most of what gets posted to YouTube in the first place doesn't qualify as "music", especially what gets posted by the labels.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by msobkow ( 48369 )

      Funny thing is, I'm *not* one who just considers "my generation's" music to be music. I listen to stuff ranging from 1920's blues and jazz on up through big band, "classic" 50's rock, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and even some '00s. But I haven't heard a *new* band that I actually like in about 10 years.

      But more to the point is the fact that most of YouTube's content is cat videos, how-to guides, and people doing dumb shit on a dare. Very little of what I "watch" on YouTube is "music", and most of the musi

  • >> ad-free subscription music service

    Heh. For now. (See cable TV.)

  • The one thing I still use YouTube for is music. Sometimes you just get an album cover and the song. Sometimes lyrics. Sometimes you get the original video, if it hasn't been taken down. If they put all that behind a paywall, I'll do without for a while and then chose something else that's music-only. The video was just a nice add-on.

    I was never a heavy participant on YouTube, uploading just a couple rather lame videos before... wait for it... Google demanded my phone number. That's what made me stop l

  • Yoko Ono already did that.

  • I pay for records. The internet is free. I guess I'm old-fashioned.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close