They enable copyright infringement, they are protected for some reason by safe harbor, if your saying there isn't copyright infringement on YouTube, you are mistaken, it's a profit circuit that feeds on itself die to safe harbor. Therefore YouTube is obligated to negotiate with all popular indie artists in the same way they negotiate with major label artists. You're refuting this?
A platform that has freely infringed copyright for its entire existence, sells advertising while doing so in order to pay for the ability to continue to infringe and profit from copyright at 1.6hrs/sec This is what YouTube started out and continues to do, entitlement, if you want to call it that is built into the internet. Therefore they should negotiate with the owners of popular videos, for example Tugboat by Galaxie 500 or day the group Cracker or any number of artists who aren't on majors. REFUTE IF YOU DARE.
It's a lot more believable that YouTube simply won't negotiate with indies, that's what spotify didn't do, it's basically take it or leave, exactly like spotify, which is what damon krukowski (spelling) from Galaxie 500 (song Tugboat, the 21 cent royalty) said in an interview, referenced in this video at exactly this point in this link, http://youtu.be/Q1rpMbBGor0?t=3m26s
Why 'these' people don't simply thank their lucky stars anyone cares about their shit is beyond me. Look at the views and determine how to incentivize via deep analytics "OF" the viewz, call Ian at beats and figure some shit out, fractionalize the pie payoff and everyone in congress can do themselves and others a favour by saving more time for "noT" thinking about "what" should be done, even though congress is just doing what the owners who could make more money this way don't "yet" understand...YET.
Ultimately if the artist wanted to set up a pay what you feel situation they could, yea they'd have to part with some money if they didn't want to invest in the web design themselves.
Commissions based on influence that is clearly able to be analyzed is the future, we simply need to do away with concerning the existing infrastructure of copyright and create an additional infrastructure that can gauge who created the content, who took that content, who wants that content and who's selling that content and thankfully we all have information forensics so we can see the file date and it is THE FILE DATE that will save the day, to build the case that proves the origin regardless of legal resources. And thus, the result of the irresistible force and the immovable object give birth to the precendentless version of intermediary commodification resulting in the distribution of some type of incentive...IN some type of Form.
I love the direction you all are going in, i've been alone in the future painting the invisible since 1996 and 2004 respectively. I make video collage, mis(appropriate)ly called mash up, since dj's began mixing videos, the press horseless carriagedly labeled it mash ups, eventhough it was hardly That non linear, it was/is essentially mixing. I like to make video collage, to try and create some kind of sloppy essay of visual linguistics that i like to cool, and here's the texty shot "Recontextualized Content Promotions" someone call the Word Spy, cause we are set for citing.
I've been making collage since ten years before youtube came around, in fact, my local paper has a quote from me regarding what i thought of them then. It is the same as it ever was, ever since disney mashed up the grimmz, however i always knew that all the edits that made up the college, heretofore referred to as RCP (recontextualized content promotion) were/are in and of themselves a link potentially to the souce component. If content owners incentivized usage of otherwise dormant (more obscure, ie not current, ie six months old, stuff they are no longer actively promoting) we'd make a bundle off RCPs. Don't reproduce this, no one will agree for at least another ten years, patheticaly.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Richard Altman.