Google is preparing a paid music service where you can listen video clips ad-free and download them to your mobile. All commercial labels have signed an agreement but the Indie labels refuse.
They say the offered conditions are not fair and that Google refuses to negotiate with their representing agency Merlin At heart seems to be the difference in treatment. While the big three, Universal, Warner Music and Sony have been invited to talk precise terms of an agreement, the Indie representative Merlin was ignored.
Instead Google tries to force non negotiable agreements onto the small individual artist labels, effectively bypassing their agency and weakening their position. A complaint about abuse of monopoly has been filed with the European Commission.
Speaking to the Financial Times, Robert Kyncl, YouTube's head of content and business operations, said videos from independents could be blocked "in a matter of days".
The main threat Google is using is a complete boycott from Youtube for every label that doesn't sign a agreement for the future commercial service. So Adele, Radiohead, Arctic Monkeys, Arcade Fire, etc will all disappear, even from the ad-sponsored free Youtube.
Whatsup Google? Youtube made it possible to have a music career without a contract with the big three. Now you want to kill the Indie movement?
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/04/youtube-independent-record-label-deals
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ea6728e2-f568-11e3-afd3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz34sAT6BWG
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/17/youtube-indie-labels-music-subscription
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27891883 #Tech
nah, I want to hear Google side of the story first.
Google acknowledges it +Zorlac Realm
"While we wish that we had 100% success rate, we understand that is not likely an achievable goal and therefore it is our responsibility to our users and the industry to launch the enhanced music experience," said Kyncl, claiming that YouTube has signed up labels representing 90% of the music industry.
I'm with +Max Huijgen on this one, aspects of it make sense but I don't like it.
I didn't read the article yet, but then it is not Youtube who blocks indie.. It's indie who doesn't want to be in it because they don't want to sign the agreement. Just sign it and done.
+Scott Wilson than all the news papers are reporting?
Wow I am one of the most pro Google person there is but can't you people see that this is because of pressure from the big music labels and could have an effect on the small indie band that benefits from just getting their stuff out on youtube.
Sorry for going on this rant +Max Huijgen but something else came to mind, this also takes away music from me , because guess what this new ad free music service will not be available to me in my country because of course it will originally be US only and because of the way the music industry works will not come to me for a few years. Whereas with the ad supported Youtube I could still view and listen to it.
Added a quote of the VP in charge at Google
Speaking to the Financial Times, Robert Kyncl, YouTube's head of content and business operations, said videos from independents could be blocked "in a matter of days".
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27891883
+Scott Wilson I saw this in my feed earlier and actually checked multiple sources before commenting. I think this is a case of what you see is what you get. I have been hearing rumors about this deal for months and as +Max Huijgen has said Google has already confirmed part of the story. I would love to be wrong but I don't think that is the case this time
+Max Huijgen there's more on the story I guess. I don't buy an article about Google on the Guardian they are becoming mouth piece propaganda of Google's competitor in EU.
+Scott Wilson here is additional info from Gizmodo who also spoke to Google and confirmed the deal. A major issue is that the IIndies are saying that terms they got are bad in comparison to the major music labels http://gizmodo.com/googles-about-to-ruin-youtube-by-forcing-indie-labels-t-1591957089
The author of what story+ +Scott Wilson I am quoting the Guardian (two stories with different authors), the BBC and the Financial Times. Not the least…
+Carlos Nepomuceno
this will diminish YouTube, drastically to some viewers. For such a smart company Google sure knows how to step on their own dick now and then, but this time they are doing it with cleats on.
This is terrible!! It violates what YouTube was created for in the first place: Independent individuals broadcasting themselves.
n a statement to Gizmodo, Google confirmed the FT story as well as its intentions to launch a subscription-based service. (this for +Scott Wilson who is whistling in the dark)
+Scott Wilson
1) we have heard Google's side, they have said they will be bringing out a music service , they have said why they will be blocking the videos, they have said what the indies can do to not be blocked, those on Vevo will not be taken down however.
2) true, but Youtube has been making deals with music labels prior to this and their were complaints even then.
3) True and false, the indies do have the means to find out what the deals are and reportedly have but we will have to take their word for it.
4) True and if I was Google I would also put out a statement to make me seem innocent like "While we wish that we had 100% success rate, we understand that is not likely an achievable goal and therefore it is our responsibility to our users and the industry to launch the enhanced music experience," oh wait they did
5 True and that reason is to have another streaming service to compete with Spotify and others. Having 90% means that they have determined that the finacial loss is minimal.
Scott I am not saying that every article against Google is without bias but I can express when a move by Google makes me uncomfortable, as I said before their is also the fact that this service will not be available worldwide and for me Youtube was about having access to as much content from varied sources than I could want. Here in the Caribbean we often have to deal with country restrictions for a ton of things I don't want to get into the hoops I had to jump through to get my Nexus 5. So understand that any move to restrict content that was once freely available is not seen as a good move by me.
If the user feels very passionate about this move, they can just as easily stop using the YouTube service. BUT ~~ I find most people will complain about this, but won't be passionate enough about it to "boycott" YouTube.
I will miss the videos, I love watching people as they sing. Expression says so much.
I'm sure more will come out on this, and it will be parried around, but bottom line for me, is if you won't be able to a) give the Indie's a free pass, they ONLY make up 10%, if that. b) make sure EVERYONE is represented at the table when deals are being talked about and signed. I'm tired of the small guy taking the hits. YouTube will become a thing of the past for me.
Actually +Scott Wilson Gizmodo is the only one that did that all the rest simply reported that the Inidie labels would be taken down and then they quoted the Win head saying "They have suffered a simple but catastrophic error of judgement in misreading the market,", all have also quoted Google and given their side of the story. I have pointed out the fact that any new music service will not be available worldwide at launch and if that means that some music is banned and taken down from YouTube that will be a bad thing for fans of those artist and change what Youtube means for many people. At the end of the day will YouTube suffer, nope, the popular artists have already signed. I have chosen for this particular issue to be on the side that opposes it
/sub
+Jason Calacanis has had a lot to say on YouTube's treatment of content creators. Here is a speech he made you should check out: Jason Calacanis keynote at Vidcon 2013: Making YouTube Sustainable
+Steve Faktor do you have a TLDR of the speech, slow connection here.
Not cool, Google. Not cool!
Strange story…
This looks so unGoogle to behave like a monopolist… Google knows very well how much they will lose, in cash, and in love and respect from their users, if they come to remove all indie music from YouTube in a matter of days…
On the other hand, Merlin and Allison Wenham do not have enough power to force Google to get paid more than the 3 majors, and they also know it. So if the Indies are indeed refusing to sign the deal, it is almost certain that they are proposed less than the majors. Which is wrong from Google if it's true…
I don't think the bad conditions proposed by Google to the Indies are an initiative of Google. I think the 3 majors have formed an illegal cartel and that they have forced Google to accept this. Google may have accepted this bad deal to finally settle the Viacom lawsuit against YouTube, that YouTube won, but that Viacom has appealed, and the case is still pending… Remember Viacom was asking $1 billion to Google as damage and interests…
This is so much more like the majors have repeatedly behaved inside the music business in the past than it is the kind of behavior that can be expected from a Google initiative…
Anyway, as YouTube is a 'de facto' monopoly, I hope the European Commission will force Google to offer Indies the same conditions than to the 3 majors.
It seems pretty hard for people on G+ to swallow that Google could just be wrong here.
If they kill the indies, they kill the very factor that grew YT to where it is now. A new network (or Vimeo, DailyMotion) could grow by offering that same podium.
Pause for thought I would say.
It's not hard to swallow that Google could be wrong and drastically change its philosophy +Max Huijgen .
But if you had spend more than 20 years in the music business like i did, you would recognize the smell of the "hit men" in this story !
Now you may be right, maybe Google has become a much bigger evil than the music majors !
At least would we want to hear +Larry Page +Sergey Brin or +Eric Schmidt on this story, because who is this +Robert Kyncl to speak in the name of Google on such an issue !
Can someone just tell me, are we gonna be able to listen to ANY fuckin.music ???
+Robert Kyncl is the ultimate head of content within Google +Renaud Janson I don't expect comments by the CEO or the Chairman. Sergey will anyway stay silent.
I can understand your suspicion +Renaud Janson but the power of the big three is already diminished. With so many digital distributors like Spotify and the large market share of Indies, they no longer control access to music.
Is this the thread where we claim by google not allowing us to upload our media for free to their servers and share worldwide, again for free, is creating a monopoly?
It's so bad with the blind google adoration that two comments were flagged as spam because they were slightly critical. I have restored them (one by +Marlon Thompson, the other one by +Renaud Janson)
+Zorlac Realm who is Google's competitor in the EU?
And you don't trust the BBC, the Financial Times, The Verge, Gizmodo, TechCrunch and dozens of other news sites either?
Attention Googlista's! Read the article! Unless books, words, affect you like Kryptonite. Sigh!!!
Thom Yorke also had a hiss fit with Spotify. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/07/spotify-thom-yorke-dying-corpse
What's the alternative? What him and the industry don't want… illegal downloads and copying. The public don't like the old fashioned model however of buying music from bricks & mortar places at inflated prices, and that does no good for the artists who get a tiny fraction of the profits. The new systems may still be controlled by the industry, but less so, and do you want to be cut off entirely from the main audience soure? A hippie style promotion of giving away your music via your web site is nothing more than a promotional gimmick, and no way to earn a living.
Thanks +Max Huijgen
I can't remember such abuse on earlier posts of mine +Marlon Thompson Unbelievable!
+Max Huijgen Hum… It is true that the majors do not distribute digital music anymore themselves, but whoever does, be they Spotify, Pandora, YouTube, Apple, Amazon or else, can only do it after clearing the rights to do so with those who own the recording rights, and that's the 3 majors for 90% of the music worldwide (and about 10% for those of the Indies that are represented in the US by Merlin).
So when you say the power of the majors is not what it used to be, i don't follow you: their stranglehold on digital distribution is exactly what it was on physical distribution in the past…
I'd even say their power is stronger than before, because you need only 3 of them to have a cartel, in the past you needed 5.
+Max Huijgen I know +Robert Kyncl is the ultimate head of content within Google, but still, that doesn't make him a valid representative of the overall philosophy of Google !
If you work for Google, you represent Google. Nuff said!
+Michael Jefferson Mmmh, that's not true at all levels, but at the level of +Robert Kyncl it certainly is.
But given the implications of his acts on the way people will perceive Google when they'll remove all indie music from Youtube, I doubt it is clever from the top management to let him speak in their name…
OH MY GOD! GOOGLE IS SINGLEHANDEDLY DESTROYING INDIE MUSIC! ALL THESE INDIE ARTISTS WERE ALL DOING GREAT UNTIL GOOGLE EXISTED!
(Well, except for Spotify, Pandora, iTunes Radio, and oh yeah, PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE ELSE who screwed them.)
A lof of people who now complain that Google "destroys Indie Music" are the same people who use and recommend Adblockers at the same time and constantly give a * about the revenue of any artist, writer or musican on the net.
As a German i can only laugh about this topic. We have the so called https://www.gema.de/en/home.html which blocks and bans all these Music Videos from big and small labels on Youtube since years because the labels, small and big, and the Gema as their representative are not satisfied with the revenue Google offers them – again, since years. (IP based blocking, even for personal videos where you can only hear the music in the background).
Ladies and Gentlemen, +YouTube is a service. If you want to be part of it, accept the deal. If you think you could do it better and earn more money elsewhere – well, Good Luck. And Good Bye.
Well that explains the hissy fit over microsoft's awesome YouTube winphone app.
Most of the small timers have already started moving on, YT has been driving off anyone not really huge for years now and the Plus integration was an inflection point. Still, didn't quite expect the chasing Amazon angle.
With some commiseration for +Scott Wilson – every article I'm seeing largely quotes a single source (FT). Gizmodo at least provided a rather… non-enlightening "update" from Google. There's justification for being sceptical.
Having said that – Google did very non-Google things with G+ so it (sadly) wouldn't be shocking if something was amiss with YouTube.
Having said THAT – the press has been all but brain-dead with Google topics like the wifi non-issue as well. So they don't get a free pass either.
Will keep an eye on this as it develops. And it does need development.
+Max Huijgen Just the Guardian. I'll wait for more information.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/17/youtube-confirms-music-service/
YouTube's Robert Kyncl doesn't believe that getting licensing deals with everyone is an "achievable goal," and warns that the video host will start blocking clips from holdouts within a "matter of days" so that all content on the new service falls under the same terms. He also rejects arguments that YouTube is strong-arming labels into deals they can't afford. The provider is paying artists "fairly and consistently," he says. In a statement to Reuters, YouTube even portrays itself as magnanimous it contends that the paid service gives music partners "new revenue streams" on top of whatever they're making.
I'm willing to bet that this is not being driven by Google, but by the Major Labels in order to squeeze out the competition.
YouTube was the great equalizer that they've always hated. It gave the Indies an equal footing on an equal platform, and now that Google negotiating, they saw a chance to exploit the situation.
Consider the RIAA's totalitarian practices (a la Idi Amin), how they invented payola, how they viciously attacked people in court after scavenging their personal computers in ways that law enforcement could only dream about? How they bullied legislators into knuckling under with respect to people's rights? Does pushing Google into this kind of a deal all that inconsistent with their M.O.? If you think the Labels don't have enough power to push Google around, you probably haven't met any of the many, many full time lawyers that have already forced Google into filtering search results that might be copyrighted Intellectual Property.
So, again I ask: who really stands to gain the most, and who has a history of muscling under Indies and other threats to their profits?
Google is a company, which means there's no such thing as a non-Google thing. 😀 Keep it in mind and we'll be a lot happier. I have no problem believing that they could do such a thing, whether they do or not. "To an imperial state, nothing is inconsistent which is expedient." 😉
+Iblis Bane yeah, yeah – be jaded. 😛 For a long time there was very distinct behaviors from Google. Over time, there's been some distinctly different behaviors. Sure, sure… things change. People change. Corps take on different leaderships, etc.
The center can not hold. Up is down. Day is night.
Cat and dogs living together.
Hahaha +Paul Hosking. 😀 At least all my surprises are pleasant ones. 😉 I used to feel the same, but these days I view Google about the same as I did MS 10 years ago.
I don't hold it against them or anything, but my default position is no longer to expect them to be "better" than any other corporation.
They're great and all, but they're a business. 😀
+Iblis Bane but surely this one won't break our hearts! 😉
I'm inclined to jump on things as they happen. Google does tend to run in generally friendly directions. Often enough that when they don't, I still find it jarring. Which leaves the fact that sometimes they don't.
I think it is perfectly fine to expect a company that has a good track record to be "better" than those who don't. And to point out when they're not. I shan’t lose sleep over it though.
YMMV. 🙂
No problem at all with pointing is out +Paul Hosking. As you suggest, the trick is not to let it get to you. 😉
Got this from Ars:
1. Youtube wants to offer users a subscription service with no ads.
2. Youtube needs to update its licensing/terms with artists.
-If a video plays for a subscriber they see no ads, artist gets money from subscription pool
-If a video plays for a non-subscriber they see ads, artist gets money from ads pool
3. Artists need to explicitly agree to these terms because it changes how and how much they'll get paid.
4. It doesn't seem fair for a user to pay a subscription, expect to see no ads, and then see ads for some video's because that artist/distributor did not agree to new terms. This is why Google wants all or nothing.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/artists-who-dont-sign-with-youtubes-new-subscription-service-to-be-blocked/?comments=1&post=27051419
+Richard Teston , +Max Huijgen this doesn't seem evil, seems legally necessary and fair to users. Some artists might not like the difference in money they get from viewers on subscription vs. ads – this is likely why some aren't signing, so viewers who pay don't get screwed over by seeing ads.
Which in Turn indicates we'll see more ads in the near future
Do no evil? Really, Google?
+Richard Teston that summary is not correct. Point 4 suggest the old youtube will disappear, but it will not.
As long as those videos remain (exclusively is fine) on the section with the ads, I don't see a problem with 4.
+Phil Firsenbaum, idealism is seldom the victor when it comes to shareholder meetings. * shrug * It is what it is. And as +Paul Hosking suggested, it could be worse. (That may not be a great saving grace, but I guess we still have to consider it a valid one. They do a lot of good and enable a lot of good to be done.)
But they won't +Iblis Bane as Google threatens to remove them from the existing YT if they don't sign up on conditions set by Google for an entirely different service.
That's the crux and the reason for a complain lodged at the European Commission for abuse of market power.
And in that case, fully justified if so +Max Huijgen. (Although a ruling in favour would probably only be effective in Europe unfortunately.)
+Max Huijgen I was just about to post this myself! Really wondering what it means for truly indie artists like myself. Re-share on the way.
+Daria Musk I said this on another post, but you've got so many notifications, I figured it would be safe to double up.
If you're truly indie, i.e. didn't sign with any indie label or any label in general which previously signed a deal with YouTube, this should literally have no effect on you.
+Eli Fennell Doesn't it also mean that indie artists will get left out of this new revenue stream too? Does it mean we'll get left out of the subscription service and all the new perks that are attached to it? Indie artists need more new ways to be seen and heard, more discovery and more ways to make better money from their art, not less! I'm worried that true indie artists will be left out of this new thing, and it seems inexplicable that YouTube would make a choice like that.
+Daria Musk I wouldn't be surprised if there will be something in this deal for true indie artists. Google Play Music already has something for indie artists, I'm sure they could do something similar or just integrate them. All we know is the indie labels got screwed (according to them, at least), none of this seems to have any immediate impact on true indies (yet).
Hi +Daria Musk you either sign up to the new service or you let yourself be represented by Merlin OR no perks, no money from it AND you will disappear from the ad-supported Youtube as well.
What Google is doing is approaching every single label / artist (often a synomym) individually, bypassing the non profit Merlin organisation with uni-lateral, non negotiable contracts.
Merlin fights this and tries to negotiate. So far without success so true indie labels will disappear from youtube.
(http://www.merlinnetwork.org)
+Max Huijgen Every source I've read says it's only the labels. Do you have some source to show that ALL musicians will be effected? I somehow doubt that could be the case, as they'd constantly have to be removing every video uploaded by any musician anywhere, which is even harder than it sounds when you consider they'd have to make a lot of judgment calls about who is or isn't a musician (was Justin Bieber a musician before he went viral and got signed, or just a kid singing songs and uploading them? how would you even know?).
+Daria Musk sells her music through several channels as well as direct so she is a label, not an amateur.
Very easy to check for Google as they happen to have a contract with Daria.
+Max Huijgen But that's my point. If she had signed this deal, she'd know it. This deal only applies to labels who signed the old deal. Maybe she's out of the loop on it, but I suspect she'd have learned it somehow by now if she was.
+Daria Musk has a deal with Google Play Music +Eli Fennell so Google knows she is not an amateur.
They can't include Daria in the new subscription service without a contract.
And they can't keep 'selling' / 'promoting' her on the existing ad-supported youtube channel as they (Google that is) have changed that contract demanding a new signature.
Google does make money (lots of it) on ad-supported music videos so they need licensing agreements.
+Max Huijgen But as yet she hasn't confirmed that she ever signed with YouTube before now. So it doesn't matter if they know she isn't amateur. Unless you have some information I've seen in no report anywhere, she would have to have done that. If she did, then this may concern her, but she said she was a "true indie", which I took I think reasonably to mean she didn't sign such a deal. Therefore, her videos are like anyone else's videos. They won't be part of the new streaming deal, which is separate contractually from Play Music, negotiated entirely separately by the different divisions. She can still make ad revenue, but only at the normal rate, not at the rates the labels negotiated (they get a higher share relative to just any old bloke who just qualifies as a YouTube partner because they got enough views).
Honestly, Google does not have Magic Lawyer Powers. This appears to be a very simple either/or: Either you signed with YouTube as part of a label that negotiated higher ad rates, or this doesn't apply to you unless and until you want to sign up.
I don't get it, why would Daria be able to keep showing her YouTube videos and get ad revenue when not signing a contract for it when artists associated with indie labels can't do that? That seems to contradict everything else I saw so far? Perhaps the contract / new ToS hasn't made it down to her account yet?
+Angyl Bender The labels negotiated a special ad sharing rate higher than normal users who monetize their videos.
The indies could still personally upload videos and make money, but terms of label contracts would likely prevent that. They'd be DMCA flagged by their own videos, basically. Unless they're not signed to a label that negotiates on their behalf for a better YouTube deal, and then they're just normal users who can monetize videos.
Hence the difference. Basically, YouTube is ending the old deal they made and mandating a new one to be included both in the new streaming service and in the old higher-rate-ad-revenue deal.
+Angyl Bender I may actually be wrong about the DMCA takedown thing. Indie labels give an artist more autonomy so they probably wouldn't DMCA flag their videos.
But unless the labels/Merlin negotiated the deal, those videos are just any old YouTube video, with the same ad sharing rate as any old account which can be monetized.
+Max Huijgen What i really don't understand is that nobody knows about which revenue we are talking. I can only find quotes where especially Merlin states that the major labels get "better" contracts than
the indiesMerlin. So what?Who knows if this is more money than they earn now with the old advertising system – but yet not enough, from their point of view? Or perhaps the contracts with the majors include special agreements about promoting Youtube's streaming service, perhaps exclusive agreements, detrimental for Youtubes competitors?
And who knows, how the contracts between Merlin and the indie labels are modelled? It's possible, that it just contains loose arrangements which don't give YT enough planning certainty, while the majors (and a direct contract with an indie label) would guarantee this?
Nowadays, if you have a successfull Youtube channel you are often represented by a big advertisement agency that … let's say it precautiously, knows how to make his revenue, too. Perhaps Google/Youtube doesn't want to make a deal with an "agency" like Merlin anymore, but directly with the labels, whether they are big or small. What's wrong with that? Is YT obliged to accept Merlin as a representative, if they instead offer the indie labels direct contracts? If yes, why?
Is Merlin "certified", like an "Certified Adsense Agency"?
There are faar to many open questions. Everytime i stumble about a topic like this one there's always this David vs. Goliath Game, and i don't buy it anymore.
Artist which didn't sign up for the new – still nameless – subscription service will not be shown there.. Youtube says if they don't want to sign, they are also out of the old ad-supported service- to force the super small labels and individual artist to sign.
I'm not privy to individual contracts. I''m currently listening to +Daria Musk concert Daria's Lonely Hearts Club ❤ Hangout Concert! while writing this and I would enjoy it even better without the hangout parts.
However the moment she would offer that on YT it would be a work of art in itself and even without doing so it could be already be protected work of art.
From what I see her hangout concerts and a few old performances are on YT, but not the music she is selling through iTunes, Google Music, Amazon and directly.
Again, I'm not privy to contracts and not interested in a unique case, but in general selling your music means you have some sort of label (only meaning you claim copyrights to your music) and hence you're entitled to compensation.
So when you're on Youtube AND claim copyrights OR sell your music you're entitled to compensation. Legally it's nice to have a contract with YT, but not necessary as it's assumed.
What was all that in the thread above about it not being fair to paid subscribers to see ads tho?
Things I've seen suggested:
A) Daria can still monetize her videos with ads and not sign a contract, and subscribers will not see her videos because ads.
B) The above except subscribers can see them
C) Daria can no longer monetize her videos unless she signs the contract, but must post them for free for everyone
D) Daria's videos will be taken down if she tries to post them at all
E) Daria's contract will come in a ToS update and she wont be able to negotiate at all, simply take it or leave it. She will get different amounts of revenue from her ad viewers and her subscriber viewers, but the amounts are unknown to us all. If she opts out, she can no longer monetize at all and ads may vanish off her existing posts.
I read that D is almost definitely false, but C is more likely than B or A, but it sounds like E is probably the case for the Daria indie range? I also don't understand if paid subscribers will or will not be able to download for offline if C.
+Angyl Bender Totally wrong.
A) Daria can monetize her videos with ads if she/official representative don't have a contract. Subscribers will still see ads, but also won't see her videos if they're using the streaming service, because it won't be in the catalog. It will still be on YouTube, but not in the ad-free Spotify-competitor streaming service. Anyone who does see her videos will see ads if she monetizes with ads, subscribers to the streaming service included, just like they would see ads if they watched +Marble Hornets, which isn't the work of a musician,
B) See above. Subscribers can see them if they find the videos on YouTube, but they aren't in the catalog for the streaming service. Think of the streaming service as a paid service within a free one, e.g. Hulu vs. Hulu Plus.
C) Daria can monetize her videos if she isn't represented by a label with negotiating power over those videos. Even if she is part of a label, any videos they don't own/have negotiating power over can be monetized, but at the same rate as anyone else who doesn't have a label that negotiated for a higher ad revenue sharing rate.
D) Nope. Only if they're covered by a label contract, where the label that has negotiated for better ad revenue sharing rates has rights/representation over the video. If the label allows the video to be posted separately, as an indie label well might, it simply doesn't qualify for the higher revenue rate.
E) Wow. That is total tinfoil hat territory. I either missed who suggested that or glossed over it.
This shows how people are entirely misunderstanding this.
+Bernd Rubel Merlin is a non-profit organization unlike the Big Three record companies. And of course they can try to undercut the deal by going direct.
That's how capitalism works: approach the small farmer and skip their organization which actually employs a lawyer and a license expert.
What will be frowned upon even in capitalist strongholds is the market abuse of using the Youtube market presence (which in theory has nothing to do with the new paid service)
Intel had to pay a billion or so for striking deals with a few computer companies, Microsoft lost half a billion by being preferential to browsers.
Google is in now in the same position, hence the complaint at the EC for market abuse.
monetization will be shut down from videos that contain music that has not been submitted to YouTube’s music streaming service. +Angyl Bender +Eli Fennell
Basically E with the threat by Google's head of content that it will be a certainty that she can no longer monetize the old (YT) channel is she doesn't agree to the new paid channel conditions. +Angyl Bender
+Max Huijgen You say that but not one report including the one you linked to confirms that.
Hopefully one of you guys can revive this thread when its done happening and we can see who was right, I guess? I haven't seen anything Official from Goog to confirm any of them, personally. (Was using the ars article comments to help flesh the list, btw.)
+Max Huijgen Sorry Max, but there seems to be a big misunderstanding between the definition of market power and market abuse. If you have a look at this long article/interview http://goo.gl/TO6UXK in the german Newspaper FAZ, where the European Commissioner for Competition Joaquín Almunia explains the difference.
Intel and Microsoft were sued because they harmed the european users, not because they harmed their competitors like AMD or Google. That's market abuse, it's all about the user.
Market power and even market dominance are not forbidden or unwanted. It's not the European Commission purpose to regulate business between "big" and "small" companies, as long as there is no absolute monopoly.
When we talk about music streaming services there is no monopoly at all. We have Spotify, Rdio and many others, same for video. Next is Apple and Beats Music. Every company is free to establish their own streaming service, alone or as a network with other companies. Only because Google is the biggest player does not mean that you have a right to be part of this platform, without accepting their contracts.
So, Google wants to (partly or completely) change their monetization model from advertising to a paid subscription fee/amount? Well, it's up to you as a label or single artist if you can accept the deal, if you can negotiate a better one or if you exit.
Will respond later +Bernd Rubel Important point, will cover it.
+Anthony Fawcett which people did you speak with?
What's wrong with Guardian was that they only took the WIN part of the story, other indie label is happy with the terms. So yea right Google is evil.
Despite controversy, some indie record labels like YouTube's new terms
A leaked memo describes higher royalty rates across the video site
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/20/5827554/indie-labels-youtube-paid-streaming-service
That Story You've Read About YouTube 'Blocking' Indie Artists… Yeah, That's Not Accurate
from the a-bit-of-spin-and-you-can-make-anything-look-evil dept
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140619/17465027631/that-story-youve-read-about-youtube-blocking-indie-artists-yeah-thats-not-accurate.shtml
+Yonatan Zunger check the first comment by +Marlon Thompson and SIX others in this thread for examples of falsely flagged spam comment.
I restored them all.
We have some problems on this thread: comments are disappearing as they are flagged as spam by either other users or Google. +Yonatan Zunger says it's google.
To be clear:
I have so far restored ALL comments and if I missed one, just let me know and I will try to find it and restore it. I'm not the one deleting comments based on opinions.
involved so far were comments by +Zorlac Realm +Anthony Fawcett +Otto Normalverbraucher +Marlon Thompson
Meanwhile i don't understand why the verge story changes anything? Even the small label which signed the deal agrees with WIN
The memo from Believe was careful to voice support for WIN, the industry trade group that has been openly criticizing YouTube's new terms and its plans to block access to videos from artists on labels that don't sign. "Aside from the anti-competition issues raised by WIN (blocking of the content by YouTube, which we can not comment on other than to say that we have not experienced them ourselves), my personal opinion is that the views recently expressed by WIN and IMPALA address true, important, and very legitimate concerns."
The Techdirt article is so badly written that's hard to comment on it. However their reasoning is amusing so thanks for the link +Zorlac Realm
Ok so according to Anthony it is A)
Now does anyone claim to definitively know if the subscriber rates for 1) big labels 2) offered to Indies are ABOVE or BELOW the ad rate, and if they differ how far they differ from each other?