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

51–60 of 118 posts

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

#51

Post by sejje »

codezero wrote: post #42
davehur wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

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

#53

Post by nandhp »

jrockway wrote: post #21
[deleted] wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Is Chromecast anything like Google TV? Google TV is more like a Smart TV in an external box (or indeed integrated with Smart TVs); it takes your cable/satellite as input and provides features to go with that. Chromecast is more like Miracast; you tell it where some content is and it displays that on your TV. They seem like they are the same thing, but are actually different.

There's also a third Google product for your TV, the Google Fiber TV Box. As I understand it, its compatibility with and similarity to either Chromecast and Google TV is low.

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

#54

Post by 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.

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

#56

Post by dublinben »

sejje wrote: post #51
codezero wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

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

#57

Post by 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...

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

#58

Post by dublinben »

Shooti wrote: post #54

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…

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.

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

#59

Post by falcolas »

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.

> Any allegations to the contrary would require proof on your part.

Sibling comments have pointed out the problem with this statement, but I'm bored, so here's my proof:

There's no legal porn on YouTube. What porn makes it past the automated filters in place to prevent its upload is summarily removed.

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

#60

Post by hullo »

Shooti wrote: post #54

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…

Taking all that at face value it certainly disregards the actual user, who in the vast majority of cases will not be subscribing to this new service. It sounds like Google+ all over again; where Google is spiting the vast majority of its users (removing content that they wish to see) in order to launch a (likely to fail) service that directly replicates one or more services already widely available.
Post reply on HN