YouTube's Support for Musicians Comes With a Catch (bloomberg.com) 41
YouTube has asked musicians to agree not to disparage the streaming-video service in exchange for promotional support, Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter. From the report: In recent months, YouTube has given a handful of musicians a couple hundred thousand dollars to produce videos and promoted their work on billboards, part of a larger campaign to improve the site's relationship with the music industry. Yet such support comes with a catch, with some musicians required to promise the won't say negative things about YouTube, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private business transactions. Non-disparagement agreements are common in business, but YouTube's biggest direct competitors in music don't require them, the people said.
Re: (Score:2)
Beat me to it....
Obligatory (Score:1)
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2018/01/22/tubethumping
Seems like a no-brainer.... (Score:3)
If they are offering promotional support, why shouldn't you be obliged to not say bad things about them for the duration of that arrangement.... as long as saying bad things about them does not do anything more than terminate such support, I fail to see the problem.
After all, if you say something about your boss that he finds (or would find) offensive, then why shouldn't he be able to fire you if he hears about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, artistic patronage doesn't come with too many strings attached. I would see the line being drawn if You Tube not funding songs that are insulting to You-Tube. However other things not based on the music should be OK. Is what Google doing illegal? No, but it isn't the right thing to do either.
Normally site that can take the insults and make their problems public, in general get more trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose a couple hires a wedding photographer. Then during the event the photographer either verbally, or otherwise shows nothing but contempt for the couple. Perhaps the bride is fussy. Perhaps the flower girl won't stand still. Who cares. Would you not think that is in poor taste on the part of the photographer to mouth off in any way?
Re: (Score:3)
I'd love to know what historical form of patronage allowed the artist to bad-mouth the patron. We even have a pithy phrase for it: "Biting the hand that feeds you."
I agree that it would be ideal if this wasn't required of artists, but we hardly live in an ideal world. It's the megacorps that make the rules if you want to play in their park.
Re: (Score:3)
Short sighted (Score:4)
Over the decades, record companies have made a lot of money on hit songs in which bands complain about their record companies.
Well they won't disparage You-Tube... (Score:2)
Most of the complains from content makers on You Tube, is how they deal with Copyright infringement. Because most videos will get the bulk of their ad revenue from the first 24 hours after being released. However it is easy for a Copyright holder to demonetize it, while it is being debated... This means during this time of peak revenue the content creator isn't making any money.
I find this complaint the biggest with people who are doing Movie Reviews. Because if it is a Bad Review the Copyright holder will
Don't bite the hand that feeds you (Score:3)
Should be a no-brainer.
Re: (Score:1)
Should be a no-brainer.
Treating artists fairly should be a no-brainer too, and we often see how well that shit works out in the music industry.
When you find out the hand that feeds you is tossing you the fucking crumbs from the profit table, you tend to get a bit pissed about it, especially considering one-hit wonders get financially fucked and can't often repeat a massive revenue stream.
Re: (Score:2)
However where is the link from insulting a company, vs bringing up constructive criticism? They are often things that need to be fixed, however if they will not listen to complainers, who really want them to succeed, however they need to fix something. Will for the most part drag them to their own doom.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry? But the musicians are feeding youtube material that makes them money also. This isn't a one way street. Regardless, there is competition available without these conditions. The artists should abandon youtube until they come around. Signing away their rights just makes negotiations more difficult for others.
Each? (Score:2)
Is that "$100Ks to each musician" or "minimum wage salaries to a couple dozen people"?
Don't Give Up, Mozart (Score:2)
Social media wants to censor music (Score:3)
Your music has to fit their limiting US party politics.
The wrong lyrics, cover art, politics, photo, video and your creativity is deranked, not able to be discovered, not able to be linked, commented on.
Ensure your fans know of your own trusted fan site, email list, mailing list. Anything thats under the direct control of the artist and social media.
What social media is ready to support might become reported and blocked on the whim of a social media SJW.
Dont put all your talent and creativity onto big brand social media. Have your own sites, communications to connect to your fans.
Use social media to spread your art and creativity. Find new fans. Never be dependant on social media and its SJW politics.
Make your site the destination for fans with social media another option. When social media starts to block, ban, censor, derank, report, find another social media site to use.
Just update your fan site with a new link and upload your work to social media that actually supports freedom of speech.
dont sign if you dont like the terms (Score:2)
if you don't like the terms of a contract ask for them to be changed and if the other party disagrees either accept the terms and sign or refuse and walk. Anti Disparagement clauses are in all sorts of contracts like this are pretty common for consulting work, which is basically the same thing - you are doing a specific bit of work for an agreed upon sum with some contractual oblations on behavior.
If you signed it, you agreed to it. Live up to your word as youtube did when they cut you the check.
Re: (Score:2)
Incredible
adulthood considered optional (Score:2)
Laszlo Bock's book about Google's HR practices said that Google permits a fair amount of shit-talk on public forums, but not so much on internal forums, if the subject matter becomes heated or divisive.
There are professional ways to shit talk your employer. Calm language with "I" at the front of the sentence is a good start.
If my employer were to publish op-eds in major news outlets about how net neutrali
"Don't require them..." (Score:3)
Because they don't need them.
It's ok (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of other dissonant voices that ... oh, sorry, misread that.
YouTube management clueless (Score:2)
While this kind of policy doesn't seem like a stretch for most companies, YouTube management doesn't seem to understand how their own platform works. Making videos bitching about YouTube is a pastime that all YT content creators do, and generates a lot of views and ad-revenue to boot.
I've seen hundreds of YouTubers posting videos in my recommended feed just this past week complaining about the new changes to the YouTube monetization program. To YouTube's credit, they let people criticize them to no end, unl
kerala tour and travel package (Score:1)