Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 118 posts

Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service

#31

Post by randall »

davehur wrote: post #25
falcolas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Blocking" is their spin for youtube not agreeing to licence their videos for a higher rate thus resulting in them being taken down. End difference for consumer? None. Plus, you still haven't cited any sources, just speculation based off an admittedly single-sourced article. > Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. Sure they can. And they do, all the tim…

Youtube doesn't have a "EULA" they have a "TOS", and if the uploaded content is legal and doesn't infringe on copyright it stays up. Any allegations to the contrary would require proof on your part.

FWIW, there's also some weird liability issues with regards to DMCA safe harbor. If you start monitoring some videos, you're then liable for them.

Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service

#33

Post by 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.

Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service

#34

Post by hullo »

davehur wrote: post #16
k-mcgrady wrote: post #13

>> "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 independent…

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.

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-...

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.

Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service

#35

Post by x0x0 »

davehur wrote: post #25
falcolas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Blocking" is their spin for youtube not agreeing to licence their videos for a higher rate thus resulting in them being taken down. End difference for consumer? None. Plus, you still haven't cited any sources, just speculation based off an admittedly single-sourced article. > Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. Sure they can. And they do, all the tim…

Youtube doesn't have a "EULA" they have a "TOS", and if the uploaded content is legal and doesn't infringe on copyright it stays up. Any allegations to the contrary would require proof on your part.

it's your claim -- that youtube won't take down videos within their TOS in order to blackmail rights owners -- so don't roll in here, make the claim, then demand people provide evidence to the contrary

oh, and given their well documented behavior with regards to handing large rights holders the ability to take down videos because of music without issuing DMCAs and with no review from youtube, not hard to believe [1] [2]. (See how I made a claim and I substantiated it?)

[1] https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo...

[2] http://gizmodo.com/5932089/nasas-official-rover-landing-vide...

Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service

#36

Post by matchu »

davehur wrote: post #25
falcolas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Blocking" is their spin for youtube not agreeing to licence their videos for a higher rate thus resulting in them being taken down. End difference for consumer? None. Plus, you still haven't cited any sources, just speculation based off an admittedly single-sourced article. > Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. Sure they can. And they do, all the tim…

Youtube doesn't have a "EULA" they have a "TOS", and if the uploaded content is legal and doesn't infringe on copyright it stays up. Any allegations to the contrary would require proof on your part.

Regardless of whether Youtube has a history of removing content, my (non-lawyer) reading of the Terms indicate that they definitely reserve the right to remove videos at their leisure. The agreement grants Youtube a license to all submitted content, but, as far as I can tell, makes no guarantee about how Youtube will display that content, if at all.

Even if they haven't removed uncontested legally uploaded content before, the Terms seem to say that they can, and this might constitute the first time they'd want to. (See x0x0's sibling comment for cases where they've removed contested legally uploaded content, but I think you're probably talking about uncontested videos, right?)

(Incidentally, the EULA/TOS distinction feels really pedantic to me. The name isn't the issue here; we're concerned about the content of the agreement.)

Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service

#37

Post by wutbrodo »

askura wrote: post #32

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

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.

Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service

#38

Post by dublinben »

spingsprong wrote: post #2

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

Host your own videos with MediaGoblin[0], and this will never be an issue again. Don't rely on for-profit companies to provide you with a free service.

http://mediagoblin.org/

Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service

#40

Post by davehur »

hullo wrote: post #34
davehur wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

"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

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

Post reply on HN