Another symptom of centralization. Why don't people host their own videos?
Because they're greedy and care more about having access to the enormous YouTube audience than being in control of their fan relationship.
YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service
61–70 of 118 posts
Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service
#62Plausible 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.
How does that make any sense? The only YouTube subscription worth paying for is one that gets you out of YouTube ads (and, ideally, unlocks videos that are currently desktop-only on mobile devices, TVs, etc.). Perhaps they'd throw in audio streaming as a sweetener, but if videos aren't deeply involved they might as well just give Google Play Music All Access the needed rebranding, not re-negotiate anything and call it a day.
Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service
#63Youtube 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.
Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service
#64Plausible 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.
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...
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."
Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
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 int…
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.
Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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... 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 accordin…
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).
Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service
#67Earlier 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.
Thanks, that makes some sense. Would be interesting to get the full story.
Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service
#69Another symptom of centralization. Why don't people host their own videos?
Because they're greedy and care more about having access to the enormous YouTube audience than being in control of their fan relationship.
But what if there was a decentralized social network that allowed people to visit their site and immediately get a personalized experience as if they were logged in across this decentralized network? Why would people need to HOST their stuff on the centralized servers?
Re: YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they're greedy and care more about having access to the enormous YouTube audience than being in control of their fan relationship.
But what if there was a decentralized social network that allowed people to visit their site and immediately get a personalized experience as if they were logged in across this decentralized network? Why would people need to HOST their stuff on the centralized servers?
That sounds a lot like Pump.io or Diaspora. MediaGoblin is going to support federation soon as well.