Flyin Ryan wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:54 pm
freddie111 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:16 am
Flyin Ryan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:34 pm
Ellafan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:06 pm
Flyin Ryan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:55 pm
Can someone with more knowledge on this describe to me what's going on with this below that I'm starting to experience more.
I google search something and am directed to a news story link. When I click on the link to read it, the url is a google url usually with "amp" in it. For me to say copy the link to post the story on a forum if I don't want a gargantuan google link, I have to do a bit of work to get the url down to just the content provider's link. Is it a way for Google to shadow the page of the content provider without actually directing you there?
Flynn, youtube have 8,070,145 hits on joy divisions love will us apart.
I'm guessing the plum have never paid a cent of royalties for that.
Am I wrong?
I'm not sure. I imagine Joy Division and the song's owner have received a little money, however from listening to for example Nightcore which is a sped up feminized version of songs, that I doubt Joy Division and the song's owner receive any money from remixes of their songs.
Probably the closest parallel I can think of to Facebook/Google and news companies is the radio (or Alexa to modernize it) playing songs. "The radio is playing the music for free, they're doing a favor publicizing it." Eh, that's not really how it works.
If you click into the details of the Joy Division song you'll see that the license holder and all song writers are credited. Payment is relative to the advertising sold around the song.
If a song has no ads and is not part of a paid subscription then there is no payment but the songholder can claim the song which will put ads on it and let revenue happen.
This can apply to variations of the song as well i.e. a cover, sample etc, but that credit is just to the song writers vs the owners of the original recording.
What about the other 19 people that have uploaded the same song, be it with the CD cover or one where they have playing in the background the lyrics, as well as the few dozen or so nightcore/techno/trance, etc. remixes of the Joy Division song? And from experience I can tell you those have ads.
For it to get ads it has to be claimed by the content owner. If you click into the details it will tell you who claimed it. It will also have a link for the add free YouTube Music subscription. That's also an indicator that YouTube is aware that this is a song with royalties and not some random video upload. Looking around at third party sites explaining to musicians how to ensure they get their royalties I've not seen any claims that this process doesn't work.
Artists do need to claim their own work but unless they claim it there are no ads and therefore no revenue for anyone.
Wrt radio: radio stations pay royalties for songs they play (whether that all gets to the artists is a whole other story!) Not sure where the idea that songs on the radio are free comes from (though YouTube and others were pretty cavalier in the early days)
It's an argument I'd expect to hear that sounds on par with Facebook/Google are providing this service for free of sending these companies these links.
Not sure I follow your answer. It's not an argument. It's a fact.
I think it points more to a societal problem of everyone reads headlines, no one reads stories. So if you have a link to a story on Facebook, what percentage of people are actually going to go and read the story?
I don’t think headlines are copyrightable. But on Google they are not monetized in search.
However, I think from reading that the recent deals are about paying for using content in Google News areas rather than for general search results.
Google has so much stuff mixed together now that its tricky to tell exactly what those deals are covering and I've not seen a good breakdown.
Wrt Amp it allows you to get the cached version super fast while Google checks if there is a newer version in the background, and uploads it into the cache if there is a newer version. It also restricts the amount of bloat that "web designers " put into the page reducing page load times and it also reduces the attack surface for malware and other exploits.
The "amp" version of the story stays up and stays in the url. It makes it appear to be a Google-owned article versus the content provider if you try and copy the link. I've never seen a story update while I go there.
"It also restricts the amount of bloat that web designers put into the page reducing page load times" - like ads for example?
You can switch to desktop mode to see the original most of the time and do a comparison and see how fresh it is. Not sure why there would be much delay though as it kind of defeats the purpose. Google wants people to click on the links and go to the ads. And fresher content has better clicks.
Is the domain being Google such a problem? If you look at the rest of the url you can see the original url. And as I said if you switch to desktop mode it will take you right there.
I guess one problem is that it makes people suspicious that something is being "filtered" by Google. But if you are using any search engine the results are already filtered since decades.
Yeah, ads can be bloated but are the current way the internet is kept from going only behind paywalls. But its worth comparing sites that use amp and those that don't and see how much quicker the site loads.
I've regularly seen blank boxes where ads would normally be with a notice like "this ad was removed because it was too slow for your device". I think that's due to Amp though might be Chrome.
Planet Rugby on mobile is a dog's dinner of ads and i think could be improved with amp (though the site owners ultimately decide).