TuneCore, a widely-known distribution company, has launched a new project for artists to make money using YouTube. Musicians that have unlicensed music on YouTube can now sign up to YouTube Money and gain ad revenue from these songs.
Here's how it works. Users can pick what songs need to be searched on YouTube. TuneCore's system then jumps deep into YouTube, searching for uses of the track that aren't licensed. Upon identification of the videos, the clips are then monetized and the money made from the video is placed into the artist's account with TuneCore.
TuneCore's CEO Scott Ackerman spoke on the need for YouTube Money.
As YouTube's importance as a point of distribution increases, we want to ensure Artists are receiving the full benefits. With YouTube Money, we're confident TuneCore can help artists by collecting the YouTube revenue artists have earned while artists can focus on what's most important-making music and getting their music out to the world.
Unlicensed music on YouTube is certainly a point of contention for many artists out there, and this service certainly seems to help with that. I do like that instead of videos being muted for an infringing track, the video can simply be monetized for the artist This helps when tracks are playing in the background while a certain show is out on location and they cannot control what happens around them. On the other side, YouTube already does this natively, but I suppose it's better if the major labels aren't getting 90 percent of the revenue from those videos.
To date, TuneCore, prior to naming this program, paid out over $32 million over the past quarter, up 13.2 percent from the last year. TuneCore only charges users $25 per song you want to hunt down on YouTube via YouTube Money.
After the Microsoft-Nokia deal closed earlier this year, we knew it was only a matter of time until we'd see our first rebranded smart device. After announcing it earlier this year, a small Nokia blog post hinted at the debut of such hardware.
Consumers will also have noticed many of the Nokia apps on their Windows Phone slowly being renamed with the Lumia prefix. Over the next quarter, we'll be seeing a bunch of new Lumia devices hit shelves worldwide. The new Microsoft Lumia name will be taking over and it will start with a device launching "soon," according to a Nokia blog on the subject.
However, that doesn't mean Nokia is going away. The company still owns the rights to the name, and will be using it for all Here map-related things, among other projects like the NSN network equipment services and all patent licensing. Speaking of patents and licensing, the Nokia name won't be leaving the mobile market entirely either. Microsoft will still be launching Nokia-branded, entry-level phones, like the Nokia 130. Nokia will also be able to launch Nokia-branded smartphones, but not until 2016 according to the acquisition deal.
SVP of Marketing, Tuula Rytila, also wanted to mention in the blog that support of current Nokia Lumia phones won't be going away. As expected, Nokia falling into the Microsoft umbrella just means a more symbiotic relationship for the two companies, and updates and warranties will continue to be supported for all current devices, including the recently-launched Lumia 830 and 730.
We've talked at length about the Xbox One and Microsoft's decision to be indecisive on the path of the console. The good news is that it's finally all coming together, albeit in a slightly altered path than the original. And even though its competition is copying ideas that gamers said they didn't want but somehow are now miraculously loving (and are paying for), there hasn't been a major vision shift for over six months, so I think we've hit our stride. Microsoft's Head of Xbox, Phil Spencer, has guided the ship for a while now but sat down with IGN's Podcast Unlocked to talk about some of the confusion and frustration consumers felt after the initial launch of the Xbox One.
Right off the bat, Spencer acknowledged where Microsoft missed its mark in delivering the proper message to its customers. Not properly explaining the Kinect requirement, or that the console would be forced to check-in online upset a lot of people and with social media allowing the ill-informed or unaware to voice an opinion on a subject, the backlash hit them hard.
"The year of the announce of Xbox, E3 2013, the toll it took on some of the internal team members was probably higher than I anticipated or many of us did," Spencer said. He compared it to E3 2014, where his team was "visibly emotional" in trying to bring back pride and a positive reputation to something they'd worked hard on. On his part in the decision-making and message delivery process, Spencer owned up to his role.
I see it sometimes on Twitter and other places, where people want to call me out as somebody who was at the leadership table when decisions were made for Xbox One, and that's absolutely true. I've never tried to wash my hands or distance myself from my role on the Xbox One leadership team through the announcement of the console, E3 2013 - I was there, and I'm not trying to create some kind of false history that makes me look better, to say I wasn't there, I wasn't involved. I'm going to take responsibility for those decisions, absolutely, good ones and bad ones. I have to, otherwise I don't have any credibility in what I do going forward. I wouldn't trust me if all of a sudden I tried to say 'well, I was asleep during those meetings'. It would be silly. I was there.
Spencer even went on to say that there should've been more time at E3 2013 spent with talking about the amount of games coming to the console, but insisted that the entertainment features are what makes the console a complete option for the living room. He boldly says they have the right to do that because they make an outstanding product.
I think we get permission as a platform to focus on entertainment when we're a great gaming platform. And before we've earned that permission, and we go out and try to explain to people that we're an entertainment platform, without checking for all the Xbox fans out there that this is going to be the place they want to play games - I think that's where we confused people.
Still, Spencer confidently stood behind the decisions the team has made from that point moving forward, and believes that the best companies can learn from mistakes, no matter the type. Are you sold on the Xbox One yet? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments below.
We were all curious what was going to happen when Ello ran out of money. An ad-free social networking platform is a noble idea, but pay-for-feature websites have sprung up in the past and have failed, so many were worried about Ello's sustainability. Well, the good news is that Ello has answered both the money question and its promise to remain ad-free.
Ello's creators, in their effort to stay true to their promise, has taken $5.5 million in venture capital funding, but not without signing legally binding papers that say Ello can never sell advertising space or sell its user data. How can a for-profit company do this without upsetting stakeholders? By registering under a special company type, a public benefit corporation, or PBC. As one of only about 1,100 PBCs in the US, a company can use its money in different ways as it sees fit, instead of simply spending money to build profit at any cost. In the charter, Ello writes,
Ello's explosive growth over the last few months proves that there is a hunger to connect with friends and see beautiful things - without being manipulated by ad salesmen, boosted posts, and computer algorithms that don't always have our best interests at heart. On an ad-driven social network, the advertiser is the customer and you're the product that's bought and sold.
All of this to simply avoid selling out like other companies sure does seem like a solid commitment to the initial idea of what Ello is supposed to be. Analysts everywhere have essentially made Ello's founders to look like they don't know what they're doing by thinking they can take money without a stream of ad revenue. However this charter, followed by the $5.5 million, effectively puts a sock in all of those mouths rather quickly.
Ello's co-founder, Paul Budnitz, also made sure to add in that if Ello were to ever be acquired, it cannot be by a company who would make Ello sell ads or user data. He said in a statement that,
A PBC is obligated to consider the mission based. We really cannot be forced by our investors to break the basic principles. Ello is a business, and we're here to prove that the internet doesn't have to be one big billboard. There's a better business model, and by becoming a PBC, we're hoping that other people are inspired to follow our example.
Ello has already gone to work with the added funding, too. The 10-week schedule of updates and features has been crunched into three weeks worth of work and Ello hopes to launch worldwide before the end of the year. Some of those updates include the already-implemented privacy options and new servers to hold the heavy influx of traffic to the site. What's at the end of the road for Ello? The founders have said there is no exit strategy and that never in any financial conversation has the talk of launching an IPO or selling the business come up.
For a full breakdown of what Ello's charter actually is and how it affects the company, be sure to check out the source link below, as it goes into insane detail on the nuances of the documents.
Over the last few months, we have worked to get our shows into Stitcher. If you don't know what Stitcher is, it is essentially a centralized podcast marketplace. One of the things that makes the platform unique is its growing range of devices on which you can access its content.
Over the past few years at CES, we have seen Chevy and Ford add Stitcher support to their vehicles, among others. With this kind of support, you would expect a successful company. Unfortunately for Stitcher, a lack of support on some big names has been surprising. For example, not supporting the Microsoft platforms has been disappointing, especially considering the stats many of us get from Zune, even today, years after the software has been abandoned by Microsoft.
If you are in the podcasting community and you're intelligent, you have been keeping track of Stitcher's business. They have not been financially viable for a while, and some sort of big change was inevitable. Even their internal stats stopped updating for publishers, which pointed to a transition of some sort.
This week we learned exactly what that transition would be: a purchase by music streaming service Deezer. If you are a North American reader, you have probably never heard of Deezer, but if you are in Europe you might as well subscribe to their service. Adding podcasting and radio to their existing platform makes them a real competitor to iTunes.
The thing that separates them from iTunes is their HUGE range of devices. From Windows Phone to LG televisions, almost any device you might own has access to Deezer. If they apply their philosophy of wide range access to Stitcher, there is the possibility of gaining a huge following.
The question becomes, how does Deezer monetize their acquisition. Stitcher was not able to pull it off themselves, so can their new parent company? There is the possibility that the playlist/station concept might end up hidden behind a paywall; its a pretty natural way for a paid streaming service to go. There is another option, however. It is possible that, like iTunes, Deezer would use the podcast offering as their loss leader - offering it for free to tempt people into the Deezer family and converting them to paid subscribers of their music service.
Only time will tell how it plays out, but for now, it looks like it will be business as usual.
Security is a topic we have had to cover a lot over the last few years; certainly a lot more than we would have wanted to have to. Malware has become a big part of the security issues, whether it be Chrome or Android being easy targets, or child porn ransomware, malware is almost everywhere. One thing we have been able to count on is being secure on top-tier websites.
Ad platforms can be a source of revenue for these sites, but it turns out, if you're not careful, they can be a source of disaster, as well. Major sites recently had malicious ads served by their ad services, damaging customers' computers and their brand's reputation. Included in the sites that got hit were AOL, Match.com and Yahoo.
The ads were incredibly deceiving, because they stole creative from actual advertisers, including Bing and Case Logic, two well known and respected brands on the web. To see an ad from either of these companies would not be a surprise. Unfortunately, when the person who clicked ended up on the other end, what they received was not a normal website, but instead ransomware.
Ransomware locks your computer, or just a collection of files, and asks for money to unlock said files. The money is transferred in Bitcoin, making it difficult or impossible to trace. Because of this, it is a very effective way of extorting money out of unsuspecting people. Adding in the ability to trick people into downloading the ransomware from top tier websites adds a lot to the scam.
A couple of things need to come from this. First, as a web user, be very careful what you click on. Just because it is an ad for Bing on Match.com does not mean that Bing is on the other side of the ad. Also, when you get there, don't download anything that it encourages you to download. Bing is never going to download something for you, period.
Second, publishers need to be careful what ads they allow on their sites, and even more careful what ad platforms they allow ads to come from. Google AdSense, LinkShare and Commission Junction are safe ad platforms, but not so much anyone else. Even then, these platforms can be tricked into serving ads from scam groups.
This leads into the third point, aimed at the ad platforms themselves: they must be more vigilant in protecting the end customers. Ads like these never should have been allowed in the first place. If the check doesn't come from Microsoft, the ad should not say Bing. If these platforms know the ad is fake, they should not accept the payment and should not serve the ad.
Hopefully this issue will make a positive change: add a lot of thought to the Internet's advertising world, for the users, publishers and ad platforms.