
YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service - uptown
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/17/youtube-indie-labels-music-subscription
======
fpgeek
Upon reflection , I think this article (and others like it) are starting from
the wrong place and end up confusing the issue more than illuminating it.

I think the right place to start is that Google wants to offer a premium, ad-
free YouTube service. Given that, what happens to videos that are ad-supported
today:

1\. They participate and are ad-supported for free users and subscription-
supported for premium users. Cool. Everyone's happy.

2\. They don't participate and...

(a) Premium users see ads anyway. They're pissed.

(b) Premium users don't see those videos at all, but free users see them with
ads. Might dodge the issue for a while, but when they find out they'd be even
more pissed.

(c) You can't offer ad-supported videos to free users unless you also offer
ad-free videos to subscription users. Labels that like the ad-supported terms
and don't like the subscription terms are pissed.

Alternative (c) seems to be what Google has picked. Which seems logical if
they're launching a new service they want new users to like.

Corollary: Indie labels should still be allowed to post whatever non-monetized
videos they want (subject to other YouTube policies like the terrible
ContentId, of course). If that isn't true, then we can talk about being
"kicked off YouTube". Otherwise, they're choosing to leave because they don't
like how the monetization option is changing. That's clearly their privilege,
but, in the exact same way, it's Google's privilege to change the monetization
they're willing to offer (whether that's as small as tweaking the payout
formula or something larger like adding a subscription tier).

P.S. I found some of the Ars Technica comments (not the article) particularly
helpful in terms of explaining how this must fit together:
[http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/artists-who-dont-
sig...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/artists-who-dont-sign-with-
youtubes-new-subscription-service-to-be-blocked/?comments=1)

~~~
magicalist
One interesting thing is that this is a service that Google is letting you pay
for instead of viewing ads. Have they done that before? I guess gmail/google
apps, but that's a little different, as you have to get a new account, you
can't add a subscription to your existing account. I wish they would do this
for all of youtube, not just music.

The phrasing (and its effect on how people react to the story) is very
interesting. If it had gone instead with "Google forcing labels to allow ad-
free youtube subscription service" or something, you'd probably see far more
positive reactions. I hate services like hulu plus (subscription _and_ ads!)
with a fiery passion, so it sounds good to me.

On the other hand, youtube is so ubiquitous, "block" might not be that poor of
a choice of words, as not being able to monetize on youtube is surely a hit.
Of course, if they're getting revenue from ads they already have some kind of
deal, this is just a different one, and it wasn't so long ago that some labels
were holding out ("blocking" youtube from playing their music) in a reverse of
the situation.

Really, though, without knowing the details of how google is trying to
strongarm them into this agreement (or even the terms of the agreement), it's
hard to make much of a judgement here. Definitely played up in the news for
drama, though.

~~~
fpgeek
> Have they done that before?

As you note, not really, but YouTube is an excellent place to start. YouTube
ads suck on pretty much every dimension compared to search/Gmail ads: They're
irrelevant, repetitive, interrupt what you're doing, burn bandwidth, etc. And,
so far as I can tell, there's no obvious way to make them less sucky for users
without destroying the value proposition for advertisers.

> I wish they would do this for all of youtube, not just music.

Given how often otherwise non-commercial videos end up monetized because of
the music they contain, getting rid of music ads may affect more of YouTube
than you might expect.

------
Shooti
Plausible breakdown of Google/YT's side of the story:

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.

~~~
dublinben
YouTube's new service will be an _audio_ streaming service, not a video
streaming service though. I'm not sure why they think they can just make a
slight modification to their licensing agreements and roll their video catalog
into a music catalog.

The record labels are completely right to be demanding better terms here, just
like they would get from Apple, Spotify, Pandora, etc.

~~~
Shooti
Not sure you can draw such a hard line between audio/video since all the
rumors point to this subscription service essentially being both:

[http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/11/27/apk-teardown-
youtube...](http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/11/27/apk-teardown-
youtube-5-3-reveals-upcoming-music-pass-with-uninterrupted-music-millions-of-
songs-with-no-ads-offline-playback-and-background-listening/)

i.e. By enabling the Android/iOS Youtube app to background (which they've gone
out of their way to disable up until this point), it essentially becomes an
audio streaming service with the same interface.

Plus according to the FT, the problem the indie labels have isn't with the
subscription rate per se, its how the new ad tier is set up:

"One label boss said the big problem with YouTube’s new licensing agreement
was not to do with the paid tier, but rather that it allowed YouTube to make
substantial enhancements to its free tier. His fear is that YouTube’s free
tier will become so attractive that it will reduce the number of people
willing to pay for subscription services such as Spotify or Deezer."

~~~
fpgeek
That sounds like a fundamental disagreement about how much video-wrapped audio
streaming is worth (with Google saying enough people will pay to avoid the
extra overhead/complexity and the labels thinking that people will walk many
miles to save a few bucks). That sounds like a plausible place for
negotiations to break down.

I suspect Google is right today (at least for the many people who care about
mobile music, since the data and/or storage costs would be prohibitive now),
but I can also see how a label might not want to set too generous a precedent
for tomorrow (on the assumption that bandwidth and storage might become
abundant enough sooner than they're comfortable with).

~~~
peroo
A lot of people are already using YouTube as a free streaming service, and
even though artist can monetize their music, the payout is significantly lower
than from pure music streaming services. This is seen as a fair tradeoff
seeing as YouTube is also a great promotional channel, but Google are now
trying to pivot it into a pure streaming service without significantly
changing payouts.

It sets a very dangerous precedent for the value of music, which can be
incredibly damaging for already struggling indie artists (not so much for the
three majors who have received _massive_ advances)

------
k-mcgrady
>> "WIN claims that the company has signed lucrative licensing deals with
major labels Universal, Warner and Sony, while demanding that independent
labels sign up to inferior terms or face having their videos blocked from
YouTube's free service."

I hope this isn't true but it wouldn't surprise me. Creators of services that
allow music to be accessed for free/very cheap always talk about how it's
great for independents while simultaneously offering the majors better deals
and screwing over the little guy.

~~~
davehur
It isn't. The videos aren't being "blocked", youtube simply won't have the
license to show them anymore. These "indie labels" are trying to extract
higher rates from free streaming by holding out on the paid service.

The real issue here is the guardian publishing the labels' PR as is.

~~~
hullo
From a seemingly more evenly sourced article on gizmodo:

"Some labels are refusing to sign up because they say they're getting a raw
deal from Google. They say that while the major labels have negotiated
lucrative contracts, Google is offering indies comparatively bad terms. It's
their right to say they don't want to sign up if they don't like the deal
Google is offering them. In response, Google is drawing a line in the sand: If
your label won't sign on to Google's crappy licensing deal for a new streaming
service, you can't host videos on YouTube at all."

[http://gizmodo.com/googles-about-to-ruin-youtube-by-
forcing-...](http://gizmodo.com/googles-about-to-ruin-youtube-by-forcing-
indie-labels-t-1591957089)

Google has a reply appended at the end that is absolutely the worst bit of
corporate puffery-non-response I've ever seen from them and IMO as bad a sign
as any of the actual things they're being accused of plotting.

~~~
davehur
"crappy licensing deal" doesn't really indicate an even article.

Basically same as everyone else they are siding with the labels and adapting
their narrative.

Yes, if Youtube can't licence the music the videos will get flagged by
ContentID, which means they gets "blocked" because they don't have the license
to show them, it's a semantics play and circular logic that the labels are
offering and as with most attacks on Google the media has lapped it up.

As to the actual term we only have the labels' word on it and they are an
interested party in the midst of negotiations.

Edit:

This spells out that it's a "renegotiation" process, the labels want more from
the free streaming to agree to the paid one:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27891883](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27891883)

And: "content from artists signed to independent labels will remain available
on YouTube via channels such as Vevo".

~~~
hullo
I don't really care about their wording. The proposition that Google has made
the choice that labels can either (1) join the premium service or (2) not be
on YouTube anymore does not really seem disputed by anyone other than you.
Except you may not even dispute it now? If you don't, you may very well not
agree with the opinions and commentary people are sharing about the situation,
but that's a disagreement about interpretation not facts.

~~~
fpgeek
Is there any evidence labels don't have option (3) provide some videos for
free (presumably for promotional purposes) and pull the others? On what planet
would Google forbid that? Practically speaking, how would they (absent the
label cooperating for the takedowns by providing audio/video fingerprints,
etc.)?

There might even be option (4) provide some videos for the paid service and
pull the others, but that's more ambiguous because it's possible that could be
forbidden contractually (e.g. if you participate in the paid services, you
have to give it all videos you make public!y available or somesuch) and there
are plausible reasons that Google might care.

------
k-mcgrady
Every time I read about this I still can't believe Google is creating this
service. Why do they need to create two of everything? They have Android and
Chrome OS. Their was Wave, Buzz, Google Plus. I have separate Google Plus tied
to my personal and business accounts and there is no way to resolve it. Now
they have Google Play Music, Google Play Music downloads, and they're creating
a new separate YouTube streaming service for music.

~~~
pjc50
It's not so much about having two of anything as eliminating non-Google space.

------
JonnieCache
So basically they're chopping off the long tail? Seems bizarre to me.

Google really is the new MS.

Twitter should buy soundcloud and add music video hosting to it. Premium users
only obviously.

~~~
danudey
The long tail might be lucrative but there's more overhead, and
mainstream(ish) music provides economies of scale.

Put another way: if they can make a penny per view on Psy's Gangnam Style
video that's $20m for hosting and distributing one video. Maybe they can get 2
billion combined downloads from indie videos, but that requires hosting and
distributing hundreds of thousands of videos. It makes sense, business-wise,
to want more favourable terms from indie labels just because their content
doesn't monetize as well, doesn't draw advertisers as well, and isn't viewed
as much.

~~~
Floegipoky
This is assuming that the long tail is independent (no pun intended), but it
isn't.

Musical taste is a very complex issue, and lots of people are going to be
annoyed that a handful of their favorite bands aren't on youtube anymore.
Others are going to be really angry that their entire favorite genre is
missing. Are enough people going to pissed off enough for it to hurt their
bottom line? My guess is yes, especially after the heavy-handed tactics
they've been using to try to force adoption of some of their other services
that nobody wants.

The bigger problem is that it damages YouTube's brand. It's not just a video
hosting site, it's THE video hosting site. It has everything- cute cats,
stupid people eating cinnamon, your favorite music, etc. They're going to have
real problems when the average user has to go elsewhere to see a video that
she cares about, especially if that elsewhere also has cat videos and doesn't
require a Google+ account to comment. Supporting the long tail is the cost of
maintaining their monopoly.

------
notatoad
Youtube blocks all videos they don't have the rights to. If an indie label
refuses to give google the rights to show their videos, then youtube can't
play those videos. That isn't youtube blocking indie labels, it's indie labels
refusing to licence their music to youtube.

~~~
bowlofpetunias
If read it four times, but the logic in this statement is bizarre.

Your first sentence clearly states _" Youtube blocks all videos they don't
have the rights to"_. That's YouTube doing the blocking. Period. Of course
they can play those videos, copyright hasn't gotten that far out of hand yet.

~~~
notatoad
Youtube is doing the actual act of implementing the block, but the only reason
youtube blocks anything is because the content owner requested it to be
blocked. They play/allow everything they have the rights to. Google is not
telling the indie labels "fuck you, you can't have your music on youtube", the
labels are revoking youtube's licence to broadcast their works because they
don't like the way youtube is planning to broadcast it.

------
spingsprong
Will somebody here please make a video hosting website to replace YouTube.

~~~
jsonson
What you are reading (and reacting to) here is part of the negotiation tactic
of one party trying to force a better deal out of the other.

Accounting to the cited FT article, the issue isn't about the yet to be
announced music service, rather that these "indie labels" are trying extract
higher rates for the free streaming that is already available.

~~~
falcolas
Regardless of why this is becoming public, we would still only benefit from a
YouTube competitor.

~~~
IanCal
Would we? Competition is good but fragmentation is bad. If I want to stick on
a playlist of 10 songs and half of them are on YouTube but the other half are
on DomainNameAbu.se that's not good for me as a user.

------
bakhy
lucky thing that most YouTube music videos are blocked in Germany. i won't
feel a thing.

otherwise, this looks an awful lot like another forced bundling by Google,
like the way they're showing Google+ down everyone's throats. (I recently
caved to that one, and reopened my Google+ simply to be able to login to sites
where I was using my google login for authentication. they chose to take away
that ability if you don't use G+, along with the ability to use the mobile
hangout app, just because they can. i should move elsewhere.) now they're
capitalizing on the market share of YouTube to coerce small labels, while
large labels were reportedly given preferential treatment. but the fact that
they will abuse YouTube instead of simply opening a new, independent service,
and trying to win over customers to it, instead of forcing them over, that
part stings me.

------
sheltgor
This could seriously open up the market for a new contender. Didn't Twitch
take off thanks to how onerous it has become to handle game-related videos on
Youtube? Perhaps something similar could happen for music, since as far as I
know youtube is a HUGE source of exposure for independent artists and labels.

------
newaccountfool
YouTube is about to begin testing the new service – which will charge people
to watch and listen to music without ads, and download songs to their mobile
devices – within the next few days, initially within Google.

So, Adblock Plus and Youtube to MP3?...

~~~
higherpurpose
Annnnd...now we know why Chrome 35 doesn't even allow you to install 3rd party
extensions in Developer Mode anymore, and they _all_ need to be installed from
the web store.

They might leave the blocker if it comes from the well known ones like Adblock
or Adblock Plus, but they will reject any other extension that is purposefully
built to block such ads in the new service.

~~~
briandh
No, the reason you can't install extensions from third-party _sources_ is to
stave off crapware and worse from being installed by other programs, which is
a real problem.

And it is only applicable on Windows, and not applicable to developer or
enterprise channels.

~~~
newaccountfool
I know other apps can install Plugins, but weren't they thinking of making the
user confirm about newly installed extensions?

------
tehwebguy
This is super weird, I'm under the impression that music generates much higher
ad rates than most content on YouTube. Wouldn't eliminating ads be sort of
shooting themselves in the foot, even against a subscription fee?

Maybe they see the other streaming services replacing them in the near future.

~~~
davehur
These videos aren't being blocked, it's just that youtube will no longer have
the license to show them, because those indie labels are holding for a better
deal.

~~~
codezero
If I visit the URL of one of these videos, will it play?

It sounds like you are just arguing semantics about what "block" means
internally at YouTube versus what a person using YouTube considers the word to
mean.

~~~
sejje
I think it's the difference in "we're mad/blackmailing/whatever, so your
videos won't play anymore" and "we legally can't play your videos."

GP is suggesting throughout this thread that the indie labels are using
deceptive language to say "YouTube is blocking us" when really they're saying
"we don't like the terms so we won't let YouTube play our content."

Whether that's true or not, I have no idea.

~~~
dublinben
Since when has YouTube ever cared about hosting unlicensed content? That was
their entire raison d'être for years, and they still haven't completely
abandoned their reliance on less-than-licensed content.

~~~
codezero
The DMCA makes different provisions for content that the hosting party knows
is unlicensed. Since they are working on some sort of contract with them, they
know what content is licensed and are therefore responsible for it.

------
askura
This is VERY bad news for Indies that are seeing a lot of success through
videos that go viral.

~~~
wutbrodo
Well, not really. It's depressing that HN is being so credulous about this,
but saying that Youtube is "blocking" or "removing" videos from indie labels
that don't agree to the licensing fees is as accurate (or more) as saying that
indie labels are blocking their videos from Youtube unless they give in to
their demands for higher license fees. There's an ongoing negotiation over the
license fees, and if indies decide that the value of having their videos up is
high enough that it's worth it under the current license fees, there's nothing
stopping them from accepting it.

To put it another way, if it's "VERY bad news" for them then they wouldn't let
the negotiations get to the point where they pull their videos from Youtube.

------
EGreg
Another symptom of centralization. Why don't people host their own videos?

~~~
smacktoward
Because doing so is complicated and expensive, would be my guess.

~~~
dave5104
I also don't think grandma (or heck, even teenagers) are going to set up and
configure their own servers to host videos.

------
NAFV_P
Second paragraph in the article > _YouTube is about to begin testing the new
service – which will charge people to watch and listen to music without ads,
and download songs to their mobile devices – within the next few days,
initially within Google._

Make a note of the wording: "watch and listen", as opposed to "listen and
watch".

------
chris_mahan
YouTube is becoming OurTV.

