#TheWeeklyRoundUp - 11.10.24

YouTube Shorts Aren’t So Short Anymore — Length Increased to 3 Minutes (Digital Music News)

YouTube has announced an update for YouTube Shorts that increases the length to up to three minutes long. Suddenly, YouTube Shorts aren’t so short anymore.

Starting on October 15, creators can upload Shorts that are up to three minutes long. YouTube says this was a top requested feature from creators, making it a focus for release. The change applies to videos that are square or taller in aspect ratio, and won’t affect any videos uploaded before the October 15 date.

The move follows a similar one from TikTok, which made three-minute (now even longer) videos possible on the platform in 2023. YouTube Shorts is hoping to rival TikTok in the short-form arena as the future of TikTok in the United States remains uncertain due to a law that would ban the platform if ByteDance does not divest.

Other features that are coming to Shorts include the ability to tap into YouTube content from the Shorts camera, making it easier to remix clips from videos, music videos, and more. YouTube is also bringing its DeepMind model for generating video, Veo, to the platform later this year.

A new Shorts trending page is coming for mobile for users to discover what’s hot in their country, potentially inspiring them to jump on the trend. YouTube is also updating the comments on mobile so that users can get a preview of what people are saying in the comments right from the Shorts feed before heading to the comments section.

YouTube is also making it easier to hide Shorts, if you’re annoyed that they’re appearing too often in your feed. (Let’s face it; the format isn’t great to watch on a wide screen device like a laptop or TV.) A new option to “Show Fewer Shorts” will appear in the settings menu. YouTube says this feature will ‘temporarily’ show fewer Shorts in your Home feed.

---

Judge refuses to move Live Nation’s antitrust litigation to a Washington DC court (Complete Music Update)

An American judge has refused Live Nation’s request that the US Department Of Justice antitrust lawsuit against it should be heard in Washington DC, rather than in New York, rejecting Live Nation’s claim that a previous agreement with the DoJ from 2010 means the dispute has to be fought out in DC. A second claim that pursuing this litigation in DC would just be more convenient was also rejected, with the judge concluding that Live Nation “doesn't come close” to proving that argument. 

Live Nation, having seemingly decided it was in its best interests for the legal battle to happen in DC, cited a ‘retention of jurisdiction provision’ in the 2010 agreement as the reason why the DoJ’s lawsuit accusing the live giant of anti-competitive conduct should be moved to Washington.

However, in his judgement denying Live Nation’s request, New York judge Arun Subramanian writes,“this case doesn’t fall within the scope of that provision”. Meanwhile, Live Nation also failed to demonstrate that the transfer to DC “would foster convenience or the interests of justice”. 

The 2010 agreement, known as the ‘consent decree’, allowed the merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster to go ahead, addressing some of the DoJ’s legal objections to the deal. 

Subramanian explains in his ruling how the ‘retention of jurisdiction provision’ in the consent decree works. It basically says that the DC courts should handle any legal proceedings that seek to “carry out or construe” the consent decree, or “enforce compliance” or “punish violations of its provisions”, or “modify any of its provisions”.

Live Nation “doesn’t really argue that this case is an effort to ‘carry out’ the decree, ‘construe’ it, ‘enforce’ it, or ‘punish’ for violating its requirements”, the judge notes...