A schoolyard bully goes to a group of children, and tells one “I want all your lunches, or I’m going to break your legs.” The children refuse, and their legs are broken; but it’s the children’s fault for not allowing the bully to take some of their lunch, and break one of their legs each.
KODA and Gramex are monopolies. No one is forced to put their music on google, they do it voluntarily. Folks are FORCED to use KODA and Gramex.
Google is saying, if you want to put your music on our platform (which we then distribute for free globally for you at NO cost to you) then we can do it - but if you ask us to pay you more than X to distribute it for you that's not going to work.
Reality check for a minute - if koda did this type of global distribution for their artists they would CHARGE their artists a total fortune to do so, NOT pay them.
> A schoolyard bully goes to a group of children, and tells one “I want all your lunches, or I’m going to break your legs.” The children refuse, and their legs are broken; but it’s the children’s fault for not allowing the bully to take some of their lunch, and break one of their legs each.
Oh that's rich. Comparing a company that enabled a technology never seen before, which enters into voluntary agreements with other companies who create technology never seen before, to schoolyard bullies extorting kids and stealing their money.
I love how working in tech can warp your sense of reality.
And by the way, tell us, what analogy applies to the $ amounts that Koda takes off the top, before it pays its musicians royalties or gives them their share? I'm sure that wouldn't be breaking legs in their view, now would it?
Your account was created hours ago and solely replies to this article ... I just felt it important for this to be pointed out. You don't seem to be involved in reasonable discussion on this forum, just defending the monopolists in this one article.
You replied to a valid point about the underlying technology being possible to replicate with a comment 100% ignoring the content and instead attacked the character of the account. Maybe that user decided to join the discussion now; why discourage them?
Further, looking at the account in question I see comments from months (actually, years) ago, so you’re also factually incorrect as far as I see.
It's more a case of - you came into my yard and played music; I paid you a little bit; Now you're demanding that I pay more; So I asked you to leave my yard... then you called me a bully.
Google is doing a rational thing - remove all unlicensed Danish music. That's it! You still can have Danish music on YouTube, it just has to be properly licensed.
These "author associations" bully artists all the time - for the smallest crap.
A private largest yard owner goes to a group of children that have been playing there for years, and tells one “I want all your lunches, or leave my private yard.” The children refuse, and they leave; but it’s the children’s fault for not allowing the bully to take some of their lunch, and leave.
The schoolyard made it sound like youtube was a public park. I think this still gets the point across.
Video makers - kids playing in the park and playing music while playing
Music authors - are still music authors
Koda - the guy that comes to the park owner and demands that the park owner pays them for the fact that there's music playing in the park and may compensate the musicians (let's just call this guy a racketeer)
The scenario - park owner comes to the park, turns off the music and makes the park a quiet zone(no more music). The racketeer goes to people on HN and complains that park owner isn't paying him more and turned off the music.
>A private largest yard owner goes to a group of children that have been playing there for years
Google isn't an individual but a corporation, an entity that requires Gov permission to exist.
So lets change the landowner person to a developer (home builder). The neighborhood is built but the developer still owns the neighborhood's public space. The kids live in the neighborhood. I think that better frames the residents' expectations.
Not a perfect analogy yet but we're closing in on it.
Uh, you do realize the monopoly here is Koda right?
Google offers something many people would pay for, global distribution along with ways to monetize that content if desired (patreon links, ads etc).
Your analogy is so tortured I can't even follow it. Whatever yards the danes use is up to them. Google came after music and came after countries were formed. They built something and invited folks to use it (not paying users to use it).
Somehow now they can be forced to pay some random monopoly? Are the artists even allowed to license outside of Koda? I don't think so. Would artists pay to be listed on the home page of google - for sure!
I think google has confused folks a bit - business users should just pay a fee to them (could be modest) to avoid this type of confusion.
Considering they have been playing there for years (since time immemorial?) I guess they have a strong case to keep playing there despite it being a private yard.
> I want all your lunches, or I’m going to break your legs
In this case, the cost of duplication of the said "lunch" is free, so there is not really any problem. The question arise when the school bully sells your "lunch" 100x for $10, gives you back $10, would you have been able to make that $10 by yourself ?
