I'm curious if they are really going to block her channel completely, or if block just means she can't be part of ContentID anymore. Blocking it sounds pretty unreasonable, but "we won't help you monetize your videos if you're going to favour some other music service" seems like fairly reasonable terms to me.
No, it isn't reasonable. Every time they display an uploaded video that contains content which is protected by copyright, they are attempting to make money from someone else's work product.
They've built their entire business on this practice, while leaving the burden of DMCA notices to the artist.
The contentID system was an olive branch, a win-win. Now they are using it as a cudgel to force artists to participate in their platform on their terms.
Clearly, the sane answer is to shut down YouTube until it can be remade in an artist-pleasing way. That this will mean creativity is stifled and everything has a "BUY" button on it is incidental and not at all important. Who wants user-uploaded content when you have artists?
/s
Realistically, the position of artists tends to be that any and all money involved should go to them. This tends not to sit well with tech companies that do things like handle the money and pay bandwidth bills.
How is a "BUY" button more offensive than the cascade of ads I am subjected to everywhere I go on the internet?
And "creativity is stifled"? "The position of artists"? Give me a break. You are trolling. Artists have always struggled to be paid anything even remotely reasonable, and it is disgusting when people try to shame them for doing so.
AFAIK no other profession has this problem to anywhere near this magnitude ... where nearly everyone makes use of the work, but the majority are not only unwilling to pay, but actually hostile to paying.
Creativity is stifled any time copyright interests get involved. The whole point of copyright is to leverage control into profit. Control over other people, generally. The derivative works doctrine in particular is exerting control over the creativity of others in an effort to turn a profit. That's the stifling of creativity right there. Sample-based creation in particular has suffered from this.
It's not the buy button that offends. It's taking a democritizing platfom and turning it into an elitist one where only the blessed can publish that offends. I have no wish to be reduced to a person whose only permitted role in my own culture is to open my wallet. And for my presumption to create without asking permission and paying lots of money first, I have years in jail hanging over my head.
That's here. That's now. That's reality. With that in mind, I cannot accept the idea that if it pays artists it must be good.
This may come as a shock to you, but I don't object to artists being paid. I do object to some of the things artists call for in the interests of being paid. DRM, for instance, is not acceptable to me. Nor are licenses for tiny, tiny samples where one person gets to control the creativity of another.
People aren't hostile to paying artists. People just aren't always willing to pay artists what artists think they deserve while engaging on terms the artist has selected. That's just like any other business where you have to go where the customers are and offer them what they want if you want to make sales. You can try and hawk expensive dehumidifiers in the Empty Quarter, but you don't get to blame the world for your inability to sell any.
I'm not trolling. I just have this little thing where I dislike the would-be tin-pot dictators of the copyright industry.
