Actually it sounds like a very high percentage of individuals flagging content don't know the difference between actual propaganda and something they just don't like or agree with.
You claim that Google pays royalties on all the music uploaded. The article you linked stated that over 300 hours of video are uploaded every minute. So they have people going through all those videos to find copyrighted material so they can pay the rightful owner. But they don't have the resources to view and remove any videos related to terrorist propaganda? Just type in isis and a whole shitload pops up. Surely with their technical abilities, Google wouldn't even have to do that. Perhaps all the ad clicks are more important to them than eliminating the videos. They absolutely are 100% complicant in sharing these propaganda videos. Like the other poster said, they just can't be bothered.
You claim that Google pays royalties on all the music uploaded. The article you linked stated that over 300 hours of video are uploaded every minute. So they have people going through all those videos to find copyrighted material so they can pay the rightful owner. But they don't have the resources to view and remove any videos related to terrorist propaganda? Just type in isis and a whole shitload pops up. Surely with their technical abilities, Google wouldn't even have to do that. Perhaps all the ad clicks are more important to them than eliminating the videos. They absolutely are 100% complicant in sharing these propaganda videos. Like the other poster said, they just can't be bothered.
And facebook is just as complicant.
Depends on what you mean by terrorist propaganda. In the US, free speech laws will protect most speech that doesn't directly incite violence (this is a stricter standard than it sounds). That a video is itself evidence of a crime (e.g. a beheading) doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be taken down, legally speaking; a news broadcast could quite legally show the same video (albeit likely censored). Whereas copyright violations are typically less legally ambiguous. Even there, though, it depends. Mildly "transformative" (another legal term) works such as lyrics videos usually stay up, while straight rips of a song usually go down pretty quickly.
Google doesn't even pretend to do this on its own, though. It reacts to user reports. Record labels pay people to watch YouTube for infringing videos. Some labels are much faster than others. The government and police agencies are not motivated to do the same for terrorist videos.
As noted above, YouTube is the largest real competitor to people purchasing music or the rights to stream it. Several kids I know use RealPlayer to download tracks or even whole albums from YouTube and automatically put them into their music collection all without paying a cent. Of course the quality can and often sucks, but these kids don't really care about quality, having grown up with over compressed mp3 files as being the expected norm in their worlds.
As a subscriber to Beats, I'm growing impatient with Apple to do something with them. The user interface sucks as far as finding new music compared to Spotify's interface. The idea of "curated playlists" is passe now. Yes, some people want to listen to a radio like service, but most people I would think want to listen to a particular artist or album, with occasional recommendations for similar artists.
If they don't do something to make it better soon, I'll be dropping my subscription and picking up Spotify or Google Play instead.
Hopefully whatever they do, they'll keep the audio quality at least at 320 Kbps mp3, or maybe even deliver higher quality mp4 (AAC) files.
And software like RealPlayer can automatically add all the mp3 tags necessary making it easy for them to add the files to their iTunes library. The quality might be crappy, but these kids don't seemingly care much about music quality as long as they get the songs for free.
Promotion can be costly in terms of money and time. Not too many people are going to go to see a band play live somewhere if they've never heard of them. The labels (as least the good ones) provide that service to the artists, getting them in print, on radio stations for interviews and a chance to perform live to create a buzz about them. While already established artists might be able to go it alone (such as David Bowie), most up and coming artists simply neither have the time, money, or the know-how, and the contacts to promote themselves very well.
But if they were interested in music streaming, MOG was for sale and could have been bought for peanuts compared to the $3 billion they coughed up for Beats. Beats has done a lot of marketing for their so-so headphones, pushing them into the public consciousness sort of like Bose has done for their so-so speakers. But the public can be very fickle. What is hot today due to marketing might come crashing down tomorrow.
They could have purchased MOG for a few million dollars. Beats bought them out first because they were already set up, running, and had a good user base. I subscribed to MOG, and now Beats, but I sure do hate the user interface of Beats which makes it far harder than Spotify to find new music within a genre. Unless Apple soon revamps Beats, I'm probably going to drop them in favor of Spotify or Google Play.
Comments
You claim that Google pays royalties on all the music uploaded. The article you linked stated that over 300 hours of video are uploaded every minute. So they have people going through all those videos to find copyrighted material so they can pay the rightful owner. But they don't have the resources to view and remove any videos related to terrorist propaganda? Just type in isis and a whole shitload pops up. Surely with their technical abilities, Google wouldn't even have to do that. Perhaps all the ad clicks are more important to them than eliminating the videos. They absolutely are 100% complicant in sharing these propaganda videos. Like the other poster said, they just can't be bothered.
And facebook is just as complicant.
You claim that Google pays royalties on all the music uploaded. The article you linked stated that over 300 hours of video are uploaded every minute. So they have people going through all those videos to find copyrighted material so they can pay the rightful owner. But they don't have the resources to view and remove any videos related to terrorist propaganda? Just type in isis and a whole shitload pops up. Surely with their technical abilities, Google wouldn't even have to do that. Perhaps all the ad clicks are more important to them than eliminating the videos. They absolutely are 100% complicant in sharing these propaganda videos. Like the other poster said, they just can't be bothered.
And facebook is just as complicant.
Depends on what you mean by terrorist propaganda. In the US, free speech laws will protect most speech that doesn't directly incite violence (this is a stricter standard than it sounds). That a video is itself evidence of a crime (e.g. a beheading) doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be taken down, legally speaking; a news broadcast could quite legally show the same video (albeit likely censored). Whereas copyright violations are typically less legally ambiguous. Even there, though, it depends. Mildly "transformative" (another legal term) works such as lyrics videos usually stay up, while straight rips of a song usually go down pretty quickly.
Google doesn't even pretend to do this on its own, though. It reacts to user reports. Record labels pay people to watch YouTube for infringing videos. Some labels are much faster than others. The government and police agencies are not motivated to do the same for terrorist videos.
As a subscriber to Beats, I'm growing impatient with Apple to do something with them. The user interface sucks as far as finding new music compared to Spotify's interface. The idea of "curated playlists" is passe now. Yes, some people want to listen to a radio like service, but most people I would think want to listen to a particular artist or album, with occasional recommendations for similar artists.
If they don't do something to make it better soon, I'll be dropping my subscription and picking up Spotify or Google Play instead.
Hopefully whatever they do, they'll keep the audio quality at least at 320 Kbps mp3, or maybe even deliver higher quality mp4 (AAC) files.
And software like RealPlayer can automatically add all the mp3 tags necessary making it easy for them to add the files to their iTunes library. The quality might be crappy, but these kids don't seemingly care much about music quality as long as they get the songs for free.
Promotion can be costly in terms of money and time. Not too many people are going to go to see a band play live somewhere if they've never heard of them. The labels (as least the good ones) provide that service to the artists, getting them in print, on radio stations for interviews and a chance to perform live to create a buzz about them. While already established artists might be able to go it alone (such as David Bowie), most up and coming artists simply neither have the time, money, or the know-how, and the contacts to promote themselves very well.
But if they were interested in music streaming, MOG was for sale and could have been bought for peanuts compared to the $3 billion they coughed up for Beats. Beats has done a lot of marketing for their so-so headphones, pushing them into the public consciousness sort of like Bose has done for their so-so speakers. But the public can be very fickle. What is hot today due to marketing might come crashing down tomorrow.
They could have purchased MOG for a few million dollars. Beats bought them out first because they were already set up, running, and had a good user base. I subscribed to MOG, and now Beats, but I sure do hate the user interface of Beats which makes it far harder than Spotify to find new music within a genre. Unless Apple soon revamps Beats, I'm probably going to drop them in favor of Spotify or Google Play.