But then, with a technically perfect system, isn't it better to simply change the input(equalize as needed) to suit your tastes instead the equipment for something that produces a sound you enjoy more yet isn't perfect?

I do agree with you: at the end of the day, what matters is whether we enjoy the sound of it or not. Regardless of price.

Can you explain to me why you claim that the worst components are my ears?

So what Google is doing here is saying: this license we had isn't good enough for us anymore, we now want an extended license that also allow us to use your content on an audio streaming service, except they want everything or nothing.

An aggressive move, yes. I can understand people disliking that they didn't try to renegotiate the deal as opposed to scrap the old one and get a new one (the only way they would end up in a situation that would require them to block content they don't have a license to). The problem isn't, as was the focus of TFA, that they are blocking the videos (if they no longer have a license and they know it, I assume it's safest to simply block such content until a new license is issued OR it is clear that they won't have a new license; thus avoiding legal issues) of independent labels. The problem is that Google decided to go for a "double or nothing", in which the labels are always the losers: either because the terms are bad, or because they just are not in Youtube.

At least, that's what I think. Did I miss anything or made any mistakes in my thought process? Is there any assumption that's impairing my analysis of the situation?

My guess is that when the videos were uploaded, they were uploaded under a different license than the ones common users use. That license had probably something along the lines of "if you don't agree with new terms, you need to stop using our service" (like TOS).

You know, exactly how Google changes it's term of service and if you don't agree with them you need to stop using their service (usage implies agreement, in this case, though).

If my understanding of the issue is right, then what happened here is: I, label, make a deal with Google saying that I authorize them to display and monetize some videos for x% (where x is agreed by both parties). If I, at some point, no longer want the deal, then Google has no authorization to display my videos. Blocking the videos is simply covering their backs on "You didn't have authorization anymore because we didn't sign the new deal and the old one ended, and you profited from our works by having them on your website".

If this wasn't the case, ie: what was in place was a monetization deal only, then Google could (and it would be the best thing in terms of PR) to simply revert to the monetization everyone else uses because if they uploaded the videos, they agreed to the terms.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong. And do share your opinion.

The thing is, the summary (and the article) are biased, in my opinion. There is a failure to mention that if Google doesn't have a license to display/monetize videos, it cannot. There is also the failure to mention that if the new deal isn't signed, then Google would no longer have said license. Therefore, Google is legally obliged to remove such content, since otherwise they wouldn't be violating copyright law.

The biggest issue here, which is not what people are complaining about (everybody seems to just overlook this), is that Google decided that it wanted to change it's deal and some labels (independent or otherwise) and artists didn't like the new terms. Google, however, doesn't want to negotiate the terms of the deal. To me, it seems like normal business. Perhaps the more controversial or potentially bad part of all this is that, indeed, Youtube does have the equivalent of a monopoly.

I do not know what the deal is. All I can say from the information I know is that Google seems to be acting correctly and within reason. The articles do seem to vilify Google, or at least that's how it felt to me.

And that's pretty much it. The articles sounds very... clickbaity and not really informative at all.

That's... that's pretty much what TFA said for sure. It never talked about videos made by artists. Just that, as you said, they wouldn't sign the license agreement, they would block the videos (which is the right things to do, since by not signing the agreement Google has no right to display/monetize the video).

The most suspicious thing is that there is no actual quote or link (that I could find) to a public statement made by Google. Maybe I missed it.

For now, I'll just think that Google are doing the legal thing by blocking videos whose license is terminated (by not signing the new one). I do not think that they will start removing videos that they do have a license to.

If he's asked about his opinion, he is in his right to answer. Now, of course, we the public should be smart enough to understand that this is outside his field of expertise.

On the other hand, you are right. And this is why I don't want to be famous. I like being able to talk about anything and everything if I so desire without anybody judging me for it.

It forgets so much yet remembers so much. Ah... the beauty of the Internet.

You can ensure that the encrypted data looks random because you are the one encrypting it. You can't, however, ensure that the random data in windows actually looks random. The next string: "monkeys can write" can result from a random source. I mean, monkeys could, theoretically, write all of Shakespeare's works given infinite time. Random doesn't mean it looks random. Random means there is no structure/logic behind it. It can *look* like something with meaning or not.

Yes. You are right. This doesn't seem "right" at all. The very definition of fishy.

And this seems to me the proper use of wikipedia.

If we can get confirmation from somebody else, can we get this modded up? And possibly moved up?

What if I write an article discussing X event about Y person and due to the nature of X event it is for the best interest of the reader to know Z personal information about Y? Can Y then ask to google to stop linking to my article? Can I fight it? Can I get payment for any lost revenue due to loss of traffic (if applicable)? Do I, as the author of the article, even get notified about this?

FWIW, I lived in Caracas, and it definitely felt overcrowded. Now I live in what I consider a town in Portugal (for some reason local population insists in calling it a city). I'm not sure which one I like more if I control for the lack of security in Caracas. I have no idea how USA/Japan cities compare besides what I've seen on TV (which we know isn't that reliable).

My biggest complain is the insistence on trying to live in a gigantic city (it tends to be hard to solve commuting issues) when the population could live in large cities instead (still a city, still with good public mass transport, still with great services and access and everything else, just with less population and perhaps more breathing room on the streets).