Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
Did A Google Earth Mistake Cause A Couple's Brutal Murder?
Google plays the heavy for record labels, targets bloggers
The problem is, some of the people sharing songs are doing so at the request of artists and their promoters. That's the case with Ryan's Smashing Life, whose story has been picked up by LA Weekly and Rolling Stone.
In November, some of Ryan's posts began disappearing. There were no takedown notices. The posts were not unpublished. They were unceremoniously deleted without warning.
What's going on behind the scenes are the same idiotic practices that have plagued the music industry for ages. The promoters push material to people like Ryan for publicity without talking to corporate muckety-mucks. The suits get mad, and blame the little guy. Google hosts the content, so the labels order them to grab the intellectual ballbat and make with the kneecapping.
In Google's defense, surely there's something in the Blogger.com TOS that permits this sort of thing, but these actions don't do anything to further Google's friend-of-the-people image.
Ultimately, though, it's the bass-ackwards business model of the music industry that continues to frustrate and inconvenience the rest of us who just want to listen to our music.
[ via Inquistr ]
Comments
10
Subscribe to commentsdouglasFeb 7th 2009 3:44PM
"are the same idiotic practices"
not to be nit picky, but isn't that an opinion? doesn't that make for sloppy journalism? I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but this blog is losing its appeal because of these mini opinions being places here and there.
PeterFeb 7th 2009 6:16PM
"The problem is, some of the people sharing songs are doing so at the request of artists and their promoters." - I'm sure this happens _some_ of the time, but we all know that 99% of the "sharing" is copyright violation.
I'm not sure what the real solution is, but how do you expect artists and performers to make a living if so-called fans are giving away their work for free? Suppose your boss decided he didn't want to pay you and more because someone else is "sharing" their work (the same thing you do) for free. Now this "information wants to be free" idea doesn't seem like such a good idea any more does it?
How is anyone supposed to make a living if information is free and material goods are at commodity prices?
alex1jamFeb 7th 2009 6:11PM
Stupid record labels leave Google alone he is inocent an one day will bring good to the world.
RocketboyFeb 7th 2009 6:14PM
Please, never use that picture again....
@ Douglas: This is a blog. If you want journalism, go to a news site.
RidgecityFeb 8th 2009 4:49AM
The record labels wanna make money, so they send out free music to insiders. Those insiders want to look good so they send out the music to djs and radio celebrities, those celebrities and djs want the audience to think they are famous because they can get music before anyone else...
then the record labels blames google because they are losing money from these guys sharing music. No wonder Apple can torture them any given Sunday, they are mostly random idiots that can't cut it anymore in this age...
minibarFeb 8th 2009 7:41AM
Douglas was onto something because there's something about this story I don't buy. Maybe it's the dripping sanctimony--"intellectual ballbat and make with the kneecapping" is overkill. Maybe it's that nobody shows what's been deleted so readers can personally judge the merits or find alternative explanations. Maybe it's that I'm expected to believe Google is the "new Evil" on the basis of something less than third hand consensus. Sure, reporting standards are relaxed at a blog, but the next time you expect readers to buy in to a serious charge against a company with a pretty good reputation--China notwithstanding, I expect more research than a flickr photo search. I followed the little girls post takedown last week, but as a reporter you know Google is hounded by RIAA, and that's more glib than precedent. At a respectable blog I expect better.
jeffehobbsFeb 8th 2009 10:21AM
Minibar: You're right, this is a pretty sanctimonious article.
Lee: People who are breaking the law using Google's toolset deserve what they get, and honestly, having a post deleted is pretty light. Get over yourself, mp3 bloggers. You're only popular because you're offering up free mp3s; it's the same sort of "popularity" that comes from buying beer for high school kids.
Lee MathewsFeb 8th 2009 12:15PM
Interesting that you chose to call my post sanctimonious, yet you comment something like "You're only popular because you're offering up free mp3s."
Right. None of those people are excellent writers.
Still, thanks for participating - that's why we write!
-=Ben=-Feb 8th 2009 10:10PM
Man, I despise google.
Bill MintonFeb 9th 2009 10:17AM
This is more than just a music issue, it's an issue with "the cloud" in general. What happens when your business begins relying on Google for everything and they deem something inappropriate? I ran Google ads on one of my websites and just as I approached the minimum required for them to write a check, they said I was breaking their TOS and stopped me from ever getting paid. After multiple emails, I still have no idea what I did, and I'll never get my money. Welcome to Google (and the other cloud providers).
Keep your data people. Google has someone's best interests in mind, but it isn't yours.