Google: Indie Musicians Must Join Streaming Service Or Be Removed

Sockatume writes: In a statement to the Financial Times and reported by the BBC, Google has confirmed that it will remove the music videos of independent artists unless they sign up to its upcoming subscription music service. Many independent musicians and labels have refused to do so, claiming that the contracts offer significantly worse deals than the likes of Spotify and Pandora, and that Google is unwilling to negotiate on the rates it offers artists. A Google spokesperson indicated that the company could start removing videos within days.

Comments

People pay for music?

[glrotate]

Didn't Shawn Fanning get the Nobel PRize like 15 years ago for setting music free?

Re:People pay for music?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

DON'T BE EVIL.

Kill Google Now - before you are forced into their self-driving cars, and legally required to use their thermostat.

SHARE AND ENJOY!

Re:People pay for music?

[Dishevel]

So now evil is "If you do not like our terms then we will stop doing business with you."?

Killer. So I can go to Target and I should be able to set the price I want to pay for an item and if they do not sell it to me for that price then they are evil bastards? So fucking awesome!

Re:People pay for music?

[Algae_94]

So now evil is "If you do not like our terms then we will stop doing business with you."?

It depends on who's saying this. If you have a lot of other options you can go somewhere else. If the company saying this controls the vast majority of the market and is effectively blacklisting you, that certainly isn't good.

There are still alternatives to Google's service so it's not evil for them to say this, but I think the feeling behind the GP's post is concern that Google is rapidly getting to the point where they will have too much information and control over markets.

Re:People pay for music?

[faffod]

It's more like:
Please put your content on our service so that that we both benefit (you get some ad revenue and exposure, we get ad revenue and become the 800 pound gorilla of online video)... [some time passes] ... ok now that we are the 800 pound gorilla we want to change the service and if you don't like it we will kick you to the street. Oh incidentally, the other 800 pound gorilla (RIAA) like the terms we gave them but that's a coincidence and you shouldn't see too much into that.

Re:People pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're coming across as more than a little nutty. No one will be forced into their self-driving cars, but many of us are looking forward to the option, because we're not paranoid nitwits. I realize that sanity isn't prized at /. these days, but can't you at least try to come across as a reasonable person?

Re:People pay for music?

[Shadow99_1]

I have to say the whole point of the 'VEVO' part of youtube was started because of a push by the big labels to 'have our own section of youtube for music video' and not so much because Youtube/Google wanted to segregate music videos from other content on the site. Or at least what information I've heard about suggests this is the case. Google made it subscription based for a variety of reasons, some of which included the big labels wanting to reduce ads on their music pages (or at least control what ads appear). To do this Youtube/Google needs some way to make money off of hosting the Content for the companies in question.

Now the only change here is that Youtube/Google is saying they don't want advertising supported music videos in the other section while all the other 90% of music videos are within VEVO. Which I think makes a lot of sense to them since 'we have this cool place that hosts 90% of our music video content, these other videos seems vastly out of place outside of it'. It may even also include the emphasis that this could reduce music video takedowns against 'normal' users by the large labels.

Is it kind of shitty to the lesser 10% that didn't want to switch? Sure. However this is hardly the 'crime against humanity' some people are making it out to be.

Re:People pay for music?

[Rakarra]

So now evil is "If you do not like our terms then we will stop doing business with you."?

Killer. So I can go to Target and I should be able to set the price I want to pay for an item and if they do not sell it to me for that price then they are evil bastards? So fucking awesome!

The company's "Don't Be Evil" motto used to be about their own actions -- that you would want to frequent the business because they WERE a moral positive. They've pretty much abandoned that stance, which is why they get so much flak with mocking "evil" comments.

Re:People pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google does plenty of evil, but there is none being done in this case. First, I guarantee that this is happening due to the number of music videos already up on YouTube and this is Google's way of covering their asses for copyright claims without having to constantly police the system. Secondly, I listen to music and couldn't care less if music videos are being taken down. If a musician can't impress me with their sounds alone, then they suck, plain and simple.

Re:People pay for music?

[Tough Love]

So now evil is "If you do not like our terms then we will stop doing business with you."?

It depends on who's saying this. If you have a lot of other options you can go somewhere else. If the company saying this controls the vast majority of the market and is effectively blacklisting you, that certainly isn't good.

Correct so far.

There are still alternatives to Google's service so it's not evil for them to say this

Incorrect. In antitrust law the question is whether a company is able to exercise "market power", which does not depend on the mere existence of alternatives, but the relative market power with respect to the alternatives.

but I think the feeling behind the GP's post is concern that Google is rapidly getting to the point where they will have too much information and control over markets.

Which is governed mainly by the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts. But the GP's actual point was about evil, which is a moral and ethical issue. The legal questions are related to morality and ethics, but they are not the same. GP's point is about whether Google has unambigously crossed the line where evil begins. It seems apparent to me that, in this case, Google has done exactly that.

Re:People pay for music?

[Dishevel]

Umm. No. Music was segregated due to the demands of the Music industry. Not Google.

Re:People pay for music?

[Dishevel]

So. The fact that what they are doing is not evil does not matter to you because Google!

Re:People pay for music?

[Opportunist]

Ads? What ads? There are ads in YouTube?

Re:People pay for music?

[rogoshen1]

Of course we'll be forced in to driving cars (eventually. Though they might not be made by Google)

First the early adopters tout their safety, and how much money they save on insurance or whatever
Self driving cars become cool and fashionable, and it starts to become socially unacceptable to not have a self driving car. (due to the children, dontchaknow)
Then the insurance companies jack up the rates for non-self driving cars to the point where very few people can afford to not have a self driving car.
Finally some do-gooder congressman decides to make a name for himself by pushing a bill mandating that all new cars sold after 20XX be self driving. (again, because of safety and thinking about the children)

End game: Human controlled cars are relegated to Jay Leno's garage, like some external combustion powered steam car.

Re:People pay for music?

[Shadow99_1]

For anyone not smart enough to run things like adblock, yes.

Re:People pay for music?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Would a Google car sacrifice you for the sake of the many?

Google self-driving cars are presumably programmed to protect their passengers. So, when a traffic situation gets nasty, the car you're in will take all the defensive actions it can to keep you safe.

But what will robot cars be programmed to do when there’s lots of them on the roads, and they're networked with one another?

We know what we as individuals would like. My car should take as its Prime Directive: “Prevent my passengers from coming to harm.” But when the cars are networked, their Prime Directive well might be: “Minimize the amount of harm to humans overall.” And such a directive can lead a particular car to sacrifice its humans in order to keep the total carnage down. Asimov’s Three Rules of Robotics don't provide enough guidance when the robots are in constant and instantaneous contact and have fragile human beings inside of them.

It’s easy to imagine cases. For example, a human unexpectedly darts into a busy street. The self-driving cars around it rapidly communicate and algorithmically devise a plan that saves the pedestrian at the price of causing two cars to engage in a Force 1 fender-bender and three cars to endure Force 2 minor collisionsbut only if the car I happen to be in intentionally drives itself into a concrete piling, with a 95% chance of killing me. All other plans result in worse outcomes, where “worse” refers to some scale that weighs monetary damages, human injuries, and human deaths.

Or, a broken run-off pipe creates a dangerous pool of water on the highway during a flash storm. The self-driving cars agree that unless my car accelerates and rams into a concrete piling, all other configurations of joint actions result in a tractor trailing jack-knifing, causing lots of death and destruction. Not to mention The Angelic Children’s Choir school bus that would be in harm’s way. So, the swarm of robotic cars makes the right decision and intentionally kills me.

In short, the networking of robotic cars will change the basic moral principles that guide their behavior. Non-networked cars are presumably programmed to be morally-blind individualists trying to save their passengers without thinking about others, but networked cars will probably be programmed to support some form of utilitarianism that tries to minimize the collective damage. And that’s probably what we'd want. Isn’t it?

But one of the problems with utilitarianism is that there turns out to be little agreement about what counts as a value and how much it counts. Is saving a pedestrian more important than saving a passenger? Is it always right try to preserve human life, no matter how unlikely it is that the action will succeed and no matter how many other injuries it is likely to result in? Should the car act as if its passenger has seat-belted him/herself in because passengers should do so? Should the cars be more willing to sacrifice the geriatric than the young, on the grounds that the young have more of a lifespan to lose? And won't someone please think about the kids—those adorable choir kids?

https://medium.com/@dweinberger/would-a-google-car-sacrifice-you-for-the-sake-of-the-many-e9d6abcf6fed

Re:People pay for music?

[Rob Y.]

As I read it, this has nothing directly to do with music videos hosted on YouTube - except that they won't let you host them there unless you also sign up to host your music streams on Google Play music - or whatever their Spotify competitor is. That's kind of veering toward evil-ish. Nobody has to host videos on YouTube, but it became ubiquitous by allowing anybody to host stuff there. Now it's requiring you to support another Google site as a condition. Not cool. If the other Google site is good enough, it'll get content on its own...

Re:People pay for music?

[Khashishi]

Why limit yourself to the auditory domain? Art has no limitation to just audio.

Re:People pay for music?

[the.o.ster.66]

There are still alternatives to Google's service so it's not evil for them to say this Incorrect. In antitrust law the question is whether a company is able to exercise "market power", which does not depend on the mere existence of alternatives, but the relative market power with respect to the alternatives.

so really google should start making shittier products so there is a more equal playing field to choose from, is that what you're suggesting?

Re:People pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about weighting the decision about which passengers get to live and die by the income of the persons in the vehicle? Say there is a potential crash between a car ridden by single rich person and a car carrying a poor family. The rich person pays more money into google than the poor family. Thus the proper capitalist/libertarian free market outcome is let Google's AI decide that the rich person is more important to society than the poor family because he is one of the job creators and sacrifice the poor family who are simply nothing more than some mouths to feed.

Just think, who lives and who dies could be based on something similar to a credit score... A life worthiness index.

Re:People pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

So now evil is "If you do not like our terms then we will stop doing business with you."?

Killer. So I can go to Target and I should be able to set the price I want to pay for an item and if they do not sell it to me for that price then they are evil bastards? So fucking awesome!

Oh the hilarity since that is exactly why Apple is called "evil". Good to see the Google fangirl army is still out in full force.

Re:People pay for music?

[Tough Love]

There are still alternatives to Google's service so it's not evil for them to say this

Incorrect. In antitrust law the question is whether a company is able to exercise "market power", which does not depend on the mere existence of alternatives, but the relative market power with respect to the alternatives.

so really google should start making shittier products so there is a more equal playing field to choose from, is that what you're suggesting?

Please do not put words in my mouth. I suggested that Google has crossed the line to the evil side by its action in this matter, which has moral and ethical implications. I noted that the GP meant to draw attention to those. I further noted that there are also legal implications. The sticky legal issue is abuse of market power, not market power per se, provided of course that said market power is amassed through legal means.

Re:People pay for music?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Ayn Rand was a prophet!

Re:People pay for music?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPSCmDc0uYY

Re:People pay for music?

[Dishevel]

I do not think Apple is evil. I think Apple users are stupid. :)

Re:People pay for music?

[amRadioHed]

And... so? None of this will happen until self-driving cars are in fact the safer alternative. At which point, great. Since when do you get to endanger others because you think it's fun?

Re:People pay for music?

[Attila Dimedici]

Good grief, I have already seen posters on slashdot saying that people should be forced into self-driving cars as soon as they are available. Are you trying to say that politicians and bureaucrats will not encourage such sentiments so that they can control where we go?

Re:People pay for music?

[Attila Dimedici]

At which point, great, you will only be able to travel to those places which your betters determine that it will be good for you to travel (primarily so that you do not pollute the places they want to be by your presence).

Re:People pay for music?

[rogoshen1]

Freedom and volition entail some risk.

If we let it get out of hand, this bubble-wrap mentality will be the worst thing that's ever happened to mankind.

Re: People pay for music?

[blippo]

Well...what would actually happen years and years before the level of AI that is required for prime directives, is that a slight error in the *very detailed* map used for navigation - in combination with an unexpected external factor, will cause a car to happily run over half a school class without even noticing.

And it will be so far from human reasoning and performance that self driving cars will be banned.

Re:People pay for music?

[Aighearach]

At which point, great, you will only be able to travel to those places which your betters determine that it will be good for you to travel (primarily so that you do not pollute the places they want to be by your presence).

What a load of crap. They could decide where you can and can't go right now, that has absolutely nothing at all to do with which technology is steering the car. Get off the lawn, your stupid is killing the grass.

Re:People pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah nothing says someone is stupid than having more money than you. Maybe you should ask mommy and daddy for a raise in your allowance so you can stop being so jealous?

Re:People pay for music?

[Aighearach]

These arguments are so stupid, and made by the people ready to kill me in traffic because they think their slit-second decisions are going to be better than those of traffic engineers.

You NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER are supposed to swerve. You're supposed to keep enough distance in front of you that you can stop safely, and if there is a problem or accident, maintain your lane while stopping!

There is NEVER a situation in traffic where you choose between different people's lives. Figure out which lane you're in, maintain your lane, follow the traffic rules. That is what you're supposed to do already now! That is exactly what a self-driving car will do a much better job than you at.

Not only do people come up with absurd answers to this supposed moral dillema, they fail to see that simply presenting it as a choice is already proving failure to understand the moral issues. Endangering people's lives by violating accepted rules isn't just an ethical failing, it is morally clear; evil.

Re: People pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

10 years ago I was paranoid because I said the Government agencies were recording everything you do. Now it is common knowledge. So am I paranoid or are you nieve?

Re:People pay for music?

[Dishevel]

Yes because if your phone does not have a little i before it there is no way it could cost $750.00.

I can, have and will again spend large amounts of money for pieces of tech that I think are worth it. The hardware on an iPhone is not worth the price. The added "benefit" of the walled garden to protect me from settings and the scary abilities of customization are of no worth to me.

On the other hand the technologically lazy and those who happen to like the "Dumping shortcuts on screens" usability of iOS might find some use in it.

One would have to be pretty walled in to think that iPhone users are the only ones dropping prodigious amounts of money on high end phones. HTC One M8 $750, Samsung S5 $599.00, Note 3 $749.00, The top of the line iPhone 5s is only $100 more than the Note 3 or the M8. If I am going to spend $750 do you think I would get a phone I do not want to save $100? Really? This is not about money. It is about what you get for it. For $100 more you get a smaller screen with the Apple (You dont have to think to be safe) protection plan that you pay extra for in cash and also have to pay for in a lack of customization. Not worth it to me.

Of course now that you realize that the "iPhones are the successful peoples phone" and all who do not like it can not afford one statement holds no water, What will you do to continue to feel special?

Re:People pay for music?

[Pseudonym]

Yeah nothing says someone is stupid than having more money than sense.

FTFY

(For the record, I don't think all classes of Apple users are stupid. The MacBook Air has the highest power-to-weight ratio of any machine that runs Unix, so it's a rational choice for many people. No, I don't own one.)

Re: People pay for music?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

10 years ago I was paranoid because I said the Government agencies were recording everything you do. Now it is common knowledge. So am I paranoid or are you nieve?

Yes. Nieve Campbell.

Re:People pay for music?

[Attila Dimedici]

If the map in your self-driving car says that there is no such address as 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC, your self-driving car will not be able to go there. It is a lot easier to limit people in that fashion than any method they can use today.

Re:People pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google set themselves up for liberal uses of the word "evil" when they used it as their mantra and made the argument that their corporation was different because it embraced the common sense "don't be evil" approach to business. They held themselves up as the anti-Microsoft and talked about serving their customers. Now they're just another company that's violating their own ethic of "don't be evil". So is it literally evil to do what they're doing? No. Is it a violation of everything they promoted with their "don't be evil" credo and does it make them hypocrites? Yes.

Re:People pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because *music* is the art of sound. If I wanted to see a movie, I would have gone to the cinema.

Nobody who requires a crutch like special effects or videos is a musician and those are the only "artists" who are whining about this.

Re:People pay for music?

[Dishevel]

No.

What part of "Pay for the service your ilk required us to set up or get out is evil?

I wish it were evil. Because until the independents stand up against the RIAA and the Labels I want evil done to them.

Re:People pay for music?

[drinkypoo]

Ads? What ads? There are ads in YouTube?

Yes, I see them periodically on Android when I haven't got the Xposed Framework loaded (for the youtube ad blocker) and I actually happen to view a "premium" video.

Re:People pay for music?

[inasity_rules]

That is how I read it too. Basically google is trying to use Youtube to leverage it's way into the audio streaming market. This in itself isn't evil, but the means they're using (brute force) is a bit shitty and the contracts they offer are also (allegedly - I haven't read one) shitty. That would be evil, or at least not good.

Re:People pay for music?

[Raumkraut]

What part of "Pay for the service your ilk required us to set up or get out is evil?

I think it's more along the lines of: "Pay for a membership to our Legitimate Businessman's Social Club, or we'll run you out of town."

Re:People pay for music?

[Dishevel]

Pay for the gentelmans club that your people wanted us to build in our building or get out of our building.

Is it just a complete refusal or inability to see the facts.

Re:People pay for music?

[bhiestand]

And... so? None of this will happen until self-driving cars are in fact the safer alternative. At which point, great. Since when do you get to endanger others because you think it's fun?

Afraid I'll get a woosh for this, but I'll respond...

As I understand it, they already are safer. Thus far, no moving violations and no accidents (to my knowledge). Google's car was in an accident while it was being manually driven. Google is touting 700,000+ accident-free miles now.

Re:People pay for music?

[doccus]

Alternatives? Not really.. And the whole idea that if you post some music you've made, and it gets piulled down because you haven't "signed up".. I have some friends that just do it for fun.. And post it upo on YT with essentially no accompanying video.. And what about people that post album cuts with a picture of the LP? I think that THIS is the real target...

Re:People pay for music?

[doccus]

Alternatives? Not really.. And the whole idea that if you post some music you've made, and it gets piulled down because you haven't "signed up".. I have some friends that just do it for fun.. And post it upo on YT with essentially no accompanying video.. And what about people that post album cuts with a picture of the LP? I think that THIS is the real target...

An additional thought.. how do they decide what's a "music video"? I think this is wasy more serious than people are realizing... What about an expose of corruption with a "music score"? Is THIS classed as a "Music Video"? BAsically, they can apply this rule to wipe out every single bit of free speech... Somebody better inform the EFF.. please!

Re:People pay for music?

[david_thornley]

It's fine that you're not interested in the iPhone. Leave it at that. Don't badmouth people who have their own reasons for liking them. It's as stupid as thinking that only unsuccessful people use Android.

Re:People pay for music?

[Dishevel]

I only stated that the "added benefit" of the walled garden approach had no value to me. I did not state that it had no value to others.

Before I download stuff to my phone I check the number of downloads, publisher and permissions requested. Then I make my decision. I am safe on Android. Now if I did not want to go through all that and still be relatively safe I could pay extra for the Apple experience and be mostly safe downloading what ever was available.

Now if you want to talk about the parent to the post I was replying to then yes. I in the post you are not replying to (maybe Apple has decided this was the post you wanted) I did make the statement that I think Apple users are stupid. Let me amend that ... Apple users come in three flavors. the Stupid, the Vain, the Lazy and those 8 people that actually think that dumping every app installed onto a screen is the awesome UI.

The phone is more expensive, smaller screen, less power, offers almost no customization and has just lately come around to the thinking that maybe that screen real estate can be used for something other than an icon dumping ground.

What you get for making those trade offs is that "It just works" except for when it does not and an App store you do not have to think in. For some it may be a trade off that is worth it. For most it is just laziness or an inability to see the limits put on you.

Re:People pay for music?

[amRadioHed]

We don't know how many times the driver in the cars have had to intervene to prevent an accident, do we?

Re:People pay for music?

[amRadioHed]

You can't drive on the road now without having a drivers license and insurance. You may call that a bubblewrap mentality that curtains your freedom and volition. You're free to have that opinion, I just want to be able to get from point a to point b without some idiot slamming into me. Reasonable restrictions to that end are fine by me.

Re:People pay for music?

[bhiestand]

We don't know how many times the driver in the cars have had to intervene to prevent an accident, do we?

No, but do you know how many (minor, major, and fatal) collisions there are per mile driven?

I know there are around 2 fatalities per 100m miles driven, but I can't find rates for minor and major accidents. I suspect the vast majority of collisions are non-fatal, so a human driver probably has good odds of being in a collision by 700k.

Do you have any evidence that self-driving cars are unsafe, or that human intervention has been necessary?

Re:People pay for music?

[amRadioHed]

Do you have any evidence that self-driving cars are unsafe, or that human intervention has been necessary?

None at all, that's my only point. I'm extremely optimistic that automated cars will be safer than human drivers within the decade if they aren't already. It's not a very high bar to attain, really.

Their record so far is excellent, but the tests are still being done with professional drivers behind the wheel. We don't know what sort of weather conditions the cars have had to deal with, or how much the drivers have needed to intervene. Have they gone out in thunderstorms and blizzards and still have never needed driver intervention? It's possible, I don't know.

Re:People pay for music?

[david_thornley]

Um, I'm not stupid, I'm not vain, and I'm not all that lazy. Nor do I think that dumping every app onto the screen is awesome (it is usable, though).

Re: People pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Europeans have come to this conclusion and are planning the control of Google as a monopoly.

FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[zAPPzAPP]

Read the arcticle so you don't have to:
This is about removing artists from Youtube, not from the Google search engine.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Florian Weimer]

If the video is only hosted on Youtube (and I suspect many such videos are, otherwise the uploaders wouldn't make such a fuss), it will be gone from the Google search engine as well, so the net effect is the same.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[i kan reed]

That distinction helps no one. They're leveraging an effective monopoly on streaming video.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

I glad Gaagle stuck to its 'free and open' fundamentals!!! A win for democracy!

If I had the money or at least the connections I would bury YouTube and Google, enough is enough!

You feeling the angered sarcasm in that?

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[BitZtream]

Vimeo? Your mp4 or mpeg2 on any website?

Google has no monopoly on streaming video.

It has a large FREE service, full stop.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[i kan reed]

Yeah, so when Microsoft was forcing people into other products because of the de-facto standard of windows, you didn't care, right?

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[richlv]

btw, vimeo seems to suck a lot. it mostly does not work on opera

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Charliemopps]

Read the arcticle so you don't have to:
This is about removing artists from Youtube, not from the Google search engine.

It's not even about that. It's about removing artists that refuse to sign the License agreement from YouTube, which makes perfect sense. The agreement protects google against legal action arising from hosting copywriter content. If the Labels don't like the terms, there are plenty of other free video websites out there. When you download music or buy a CD you're agreeing to a licensing agreement you have no choice over, how is it less evil for Google to apply the same to them?

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[tepples]

Vimeo?

Confusing guidelines, as I mentioned before.

Your mp4 or mpeg2 on any website?

How much would it cost to obtain a patent license to use x264 in the United States? Or which other H.264 encoder should U.S. residents be using instead? Besides, unless your video is on YouTube, it doesn't get the benefit of appearing in "recommended videos", which means now you have to buy ads if you want anybody to ever see it.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet this is the first time I've ever heard of Vimeo. That's why youtube is an "effective monopoly". Competition is irrelevant when the vast majority doesn't even know it exists.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[cdrudge]

The agreement protects google against legal action arising from hosting copywriter content

They already have that protection in the form of the DMCA and this form. They don't need to force content owners to license the video for their streaming service in order to have protection for YouTube videos, and even if they had a streaming license it likely wouldn't cover a YouTube video anyways.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly doesn't work on a web browser used by roughly 1.5% of users.

Oh noes!!!

When you use an obscure web browser (1.5% certainly qualifies as obscure in my book), accept the fact that website may not be optimized to work well for your browser.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Phreakiture]

HTML5 comes immediately to mind, since it has a <video> tag.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

You're sure it isn't Opera that sucks? ;)

(I'm not trying to be snarky, but a site not working on one particular web browser is usually a sign that the browser is at fault if it works fine everywhere else. I actually dislike Vimeo for other reasons, but their player has always been clean and solid for me.)

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[richlv]

youtube works. also, learn the difference between "optimised" and "does not work"

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[TheSpinningBrain]

Well, well. Back to MySpace Music it is. Google+ wasn't really working out anyways.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[grahammm]

The agreement protects google against legal action arising from hosting copywriter content.

Do not forget that someone owns the copyright on every video posted on YouTube, whether it is a private individual posting a video of their cat playing with a ball of string or a TV company posting a complete TV show.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[richlv]

opera definitely has sucky areas, but...
a) most other pages/players work
b) vimeo did work some time ago, i even posted a couple videos there myself

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[mwvdlee]

Baby YouTube; "Our users can put whatever video they want on our site, we're not responsible if it's copyrighted music".
Pubescent YouTube; "We'll remove copyrighted music videos, but only if the copyright owner complains".
Mature YouTube; "We'll remove any video containing your music if you don't let us sell your music".

Let's hope it dies before it gets any worse.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Luthair]

There are other video sites that are indexed.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[CastrTroy]

I think the only reasoning I can see for this is because many people I know just stream YouTube videos and use it as a music player. That's a lot of bandwidth for people who really just wan to listen to the music. By forcing bands to also include the music in their music service, it gives the listeners another avenue for listening to the music without wasting so many resources. Youtube is fine for posting videos of your cat. But I always caution people against using it in commercial ventures, because of the problems like this which can arise.Same goes for things like using an email address from a domain you don't own. Things may be fine now, but there will come a time when the terms of service change for the worse, and you will be stuck with it because you are too entrenched in the service being provided.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

And what are the odds that Vimeo and other similar sites will be given prime placement in google search results? About the same odds that I'll be sleeping with Angelina Jolie tonight.

Note: I'm an ugly, ugly man.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[jellomizer]

But if you want to get good press, for your video YouTube is the wisest choice.

1. A lot of people use it, and do random searches against it.
2. Recommended similar videos help people discover new stuff.
3. A lot of software and tools to help you post there even your basic Smart Phone.

If you put in on your website, you are going to need to try to get people going to your website, if you have it on YouTube, people may be able to find you.
   

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

Those guidelines seem pretty fucking clear. That you or other Youtube users don't necessarily LIKE them is a secondary matter.

http://vimeo.com/help/guidelin...

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

[BTW], [V]imeo seems to suck a lot. [I]t mostly does not work on [O]pera[.]

What a coincidence; Opera seems to suck a lot, too.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

I say fuck all PRISM participants. I'm astounded that people still use that NSA garbage, particularly one that's a fucking scumbag multinational advertizing corporation. I've lost track of the number of times Go-Ogle has violated various nations' privacy laws. Nasty, ugly business. For every data-rape "service" Go--Ogle offers, there's a competitor with friendlier privacy policies.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the arcticle so you don't have to:
This is about removing artists from Youtube

All I read was TFS, and I can honestly say I never thought otherwise.

TFS talks about Google removing music videos.
Google owns a single video streaming service, called Youtube.
Ergo, TFS must be referring to Google removing music videos from Youtube.

I'm not saying that what Google is doing isn't bad (it's downright despicable if you ask me). But I'm not quite sure why you would have assumed TFS meant removal from the global search index.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Haven't used windows since 1993 - when was this?

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[NIK282000]

If the video is on another service and not on YouTube it will appear as the top search result.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[MatthiasF]

Google does not have a monopoly on streaming video, but it has a massive marketshare for viewership that could be considered a monopoly in some regions.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Aighearach]

I hate to break it to you, but people who can tell the difference between youtube and google number more than zero.

You actually are claiming that if they removed search results from other video services that that would be the indistinguishable from removing a video from the video service they own? Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on the internet?

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Aighearach]

MS got in trouble for using their monopoly on operating systems to manipulate other companies into keeping competitors out of the market.

In this case, google (youtube) is NOT accused of anything of the sort. Nor has google been accused of any behavior in that category in any of their services, anywhere in the world.

Google is setting requirements directly with the companies that use their service. They are NOT using their service to leverage behavior by their partners towards other parties. Notice the complete difference?

You obviously don't even know what MS did wrong, how do you even know it was wrong? Because somebody told you on the internet?!?! lololololol

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Aighearach]

uhhhhh.... it isn't new. Or new-ish. Or close to new. Or even some niche site that nobody uses. It is a popular site with a lot of traffic. If you don't know about it, it means you don't know much about what video sites there are. That's fine. But it is like not knowing about a band that has had a bunch of top 40 hits for 10 years, but no top 10. People who listen to new music would all know about such a band. People who listen to old music, maybe not. And yet, it would be a popular band.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Aighearach]

I don't like their policy change, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if your main consideration is just to get the best press, you're going to have to spend money, comply with various policies from various companies, and probably even hire people that specialize in knowing how to work the different policies and options at a bunch of different companies.

If your main concern is money and getting attention, it seems like you're not really the right group of people to be complaining about this sort of policy change. It seems actually the people who would complain are bands that don't want to maximize their profits and exposure, but want to post videos online based on some sort of moral or ethical stance towards sharing information. For those groups, they shouldn't then also whine that the money-focused groups are bigger. Which is it they prioritize, money, or other things? They should figure it out, host their videos on the one that is closest to their goals, and quit whining that they didn't choose the other way, or that they "can't have it all at the same time."

They should just do like you say, put it on their own site, and either pay to generate traffic, or worry less about getting more traffic. If people don't care about their site... that says it all right there.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Aighearach]

Google also has video search as part of the "google" service, that includes videos from numerous other (competing) video services. So yeah. If you don't think things mean what they literally say, and are just happy assuming they mean (whatever), then fine. But if you actually comprehend the literal statements made, and the statement made would be evil, but the truth turns out to be not evil at all, but a neutral business decision that they're free to make, then how can you even make use of language? Anything could just mean something else, if you're ready to assume it means something different than what is said.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Blaskowicz]

Vimeo is (IMO) never a site you choose to go to, rather you stumble upon embedded videos or links in other websites. So it's more used as a CDN like e.g. Akamai than some place where the video can live on its own.

To make a stupid analogy, imagine Coca Cola Coke has a 90% monopoly, and people say "but when you go into certain fast food restaurant you get Pepsi".
Youtube has 100+ million people casually going to it to find something to look at, and a staggering amount of the content just exists there, not backed by a traditional website or a SEO campaign.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera is useless now. It's just a private label version of Chrome.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Altrag]

People go to Youtube because everything's on Youtube.

People are pretty fickle these days. Ask MySpace how much brand loyalty did for them when they decided to screw over their users in favor of commercializing everything. Facebook was able to succeed because it was fresh and clean right around the same time MySpace decided to seriously overestimate how much crap your average internet user is willing to put up with when alternatives exist.

If Youtube fucks over enough video posters, they will stop getting videos posted and the eyeballs will follow the videos, not the site name.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that situation was hugely different.
Microsoft had (and to some extent has) an effective monopoly with lock-in.

Google owns the most popular professional web based video slip hosting service, but there are other realistic alternatives, and there is basically no lock-in at all. You can use Vimeo or whatever with no real loss, and anyway the category itself it mainly a time waster to begin with.

That said, this does seem to be a semi-shitty thing for Google to do.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera use to be good. Now it's complete and utter shit. It is now the worst browser out there.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Blaskowicz]

But if videos end up posted straight on Facebook, served by Facebook itself then we're fucked.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[NoKaOi]

Vimeo? Your mp4 or mpeg2 on any website?

That's why he used the term effective monopoly. A vast majority of people wanting to watch music videos will only look on Youtube. If they don't find it there in a few seconds, they'll move on to the next one they think of, or just casually follow links from one to the next.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Nyder]

And what are the odds that Vimeo and other similar sites will be given prime placement in google search results? About the same odds that I'll be sleeping with Angelina Jolie tonight.

Note: I'm an ugly, ugly man.

tbh, Angelina Jolie is a very ugly lady. Not only in looks, but in character.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[rtb61]

Additional correction, this is not about removing independent musicians from Youtube this story is about negotiations with "Independent Music Labels". Seriously just what the fuck is an independent music label, I have heard of independent musicians who deal direct with the public but seriously independent label. Sounds like some lame PR scam.

Perhaps musicians dealing with Google should become independent cut out the "independent label" (the only reason independent is in there is because it sounds cool) middle man and deal direct with Google.

I have discovered one of the worst things you can do with current music, is to learn about auto-tune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and to learn to hear the difference, once done there is no going back. I am really enjoying scifi radio dramas https://archive.org/details/OT... now.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[Bender Unit 22]

Well, they also have their Content ID system so I would think it could remove a lot of videos since there are uploded a lot of videos with music owned by others than the uploader.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[mcvos]

But should it be a required to join a streaming service in order to have your videos on YouTube? What about all the truly independent non-musicians that have videos on YouTube? It sounds like YouTube is making a difference between musicians and non-musicians for YouTube access.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[david_thornley]

It's monopoly power if the alleged monopolist can act economically as if it's a monopolist. For example, if numerous people feel like they have to accept bad terms on a related contract in order to use the allegedly monpolistic service.

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[doccus]

Absolute RUBBISH. If you want to actually get any exposure, it's You Tube or nothing. Saying you can aleways go elsewhere, like Vimeo, is like saying , "who needs ebay, you can always sell on ebid". Like, sure, if you don't need money that bad... Items can languish on ebid for a whole year instead of a month on ebay.. and I have NEVER found what I was looking for there. And I'm a lifetime member! Fiurthermore, Vimeo has a bad repiutation with being attached to popup pages, and people just click them away as fast as possible. Even if you might have listened to a track otherwise, being connected to a popup page smply means your exposure counts are fraudulent, becaus people are more interested in the page they're attempting to open instead, and if they recall your video at all, it will be in the context of "that annoying popup page".

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google'

[doccus]

Their policy change is far more serious than people think. Even if the "hundreds of other sites" didn't eventually adopt them also, as tends to be the case. There are not "hundreds" of other sites, at any rate. More like a half dozen. Enough though, that people aren't going to sub to all of them And if they are smaller, they can be driven out of business, or taken over like Google always does, until there is only one left. More importantly, what defines an "independant" video? AFAIK, it seems to be a video with an audio track. Does that mean if you upload an album track, with homemade art, it's a "video", and will be taken down? I think that is likely. Or , say, an expose on corruption with ANY music included. Music video? Probably... I see a ginormous potential for abuse here.. Yet all I hear is "if you don't like it, switch". Yeah, OK Same with newspapers.. where they said "The majors won't cover corruption anymore, - too bad, if you don't like it start your own paper".. "City hall will give you a licence to start a paper covering corruption in City hall without a second thought, after all".

Ummm

[JWW]

Google, how the fuck is this not evil?

Re:Ummm

[Creepy]

yeah - my thoughts exactly, as well.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's motto is "Don't be evil".

If taken in a literal context, it applies to others; not them.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Google, how the fuck is this not evil?

You people who believed Google would not do bad things display
a naiveté which is usually found in a child who is of brow average intelligence.

Google is a business. Businesses are not in existence to make you
feel secure or happy. Businesses are in existence to make money.

Google, GM, Microsoft, and all the rest of the mega-corporations
are not now and never will be "your friend".

If you don't like what they do, quit giving them business.

.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's motto was "Don't be evil".

So they took away one measly word. For streamlining purposes, I'm sure. What's the big deal?

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

run your own server.

Re:Ummm

[NatasRevol]

I think this is called capitulation.

Google is now like "Fuck it, we're evil. What are you going to do about it? That's right, not a damn thing."

Re:Ummm

[ADRA]

This is all business man, these artists get free bandwidth from Youtube and possibly the option to make a profit of ad revenues, all for nothing. If these guys set up their own servers and host it themselves, the costs become cost prohibitive. If they've signed agreements with Google (however retarded these contacts may be) then who's to call either side evil? At least when I blindly agree to a EULA, I know I'm sticking my butt into the air and waiting for a company to do rude things to it.

Re:Ummm

[almitydave]

Google, how the fuck is this not evil?

You people who believed Google would not do bad things display
a naiveté which is usually found in a child who is of brow average intelligence.

I never assumed any such thing, which clearly shows I have brove average intelligence.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, people go to youtube because it has content. That is a net benefit to Google.....

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not different from the music industry back in the 1990's. Back then, public bars and restaurants would pay amateur bands to play music as it boosted customer revenue. Then after a while they noticed that all these small bands were picked up by talent scouts and went professional. Then they bar owners decided they wanted a slice of the action and started charging those bands to play, not the other way round. So those bands went elsewhere or online. Now history repeats itself.

Re:Ummm

[amicusNYCL]

This is all business man, these artists get free bandwidth from Youtube and possibly the option to make a profit of ad revenues, all for nothing.

You make it sound like Google gets nothing. Google gets the rest of the ad revenue from people going to Youtube and watching those videos. Now Google wants a bigger piece of the pie, they want to move people to their music streaming service (which I never even knew existed).

Re:Ummm

[drakaan]

This isn't evil, it's stupid. Indie artists are only using YouTube so that they can share videos and make some minor revenue if they're lucky. If YouTube makes the terms of that arrangement unattractive, then they will see indie artists leave for video hosting services that are more indie-friendly.

The folks at Vimeo are probably ecstatic.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFS, it is an "upcoming" streaming service.

Re:Ummm

[butchersong]

I'm not sure I get your point. Users uploading content is the entire business model of youtube. If the artist is making money off of youtube ad revenue it stands to reason that google is as well.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all business man, these artists get free bandwidth from Youtube and possibly the option to make a profit of ad revenues, all for nothing.

No, wrong.
They provide the content that Google adds advertisements onto, and they have a small chance of getting some of the leftover ad revenue after Google has recovered all hosting costs for their content.

Google may be trying to appease the RIAA after accidentally showing that musicians can get some fame out of the quality of their music without "help" from big name producers. There may be another motive. Regardless, Google is already getting paid for this content the same way they get paid for all other content: advertisements by completely unrelated 3rd party companies stapled to the front of the videos.

Re:Ummm

[matbury]

Yep, they're evil. No doubt in my mind. If anyone still has any doubts, I recommend looking at where Google spends its money, rather than listening to their PR and marketing departments, PR agencies (They hire A LOT of those), and generally spineless, fawning, sycophantic, advertising dependent mass media. The following list of recipients of substantial amounts of Google's money reads like a who's who of evil in the USA. Quoting from sourcewatch.org:

"Support for Conservative Groups

Google funds "politically-engaged trade associations and other tax-exempt groups" and "a number of independent third-party organizations whose federally-focused work intersects in some way with technology and Internet policy" that include:

        American Action Forum

        American Conservative Union

        American Enterprise Institute

        American Legislative Exchange Council

        Federalist Society

        Mercatus Center

        Heritage Foundation

        National Taxpayers Union

        Texas Public Policy Foundation

        U.S. Chamber of Commerce

        U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

        Washington Legal Foundation

Support for Conservative Politicians

In 2012 and 2013, Google Washington hosted fundraisers exclusively for conservative Republican U.S. Senators: John Barrasso, John Thune, Rand Paul, and James Inhofe."

Source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

Re:Ummm

[Blaskowicz]

In fairness, when you rely as a listener on youtube so much to play music you eventually end up installing Adblock.

Re:Ummm

[i kan reed]

One thing you can do:

duckduckgo.com

Another
mozilla.org or opera I guess

Don't use google anything. They're done.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's new motto: Fuck it, evil pays more.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Little Gamers illustrates the evolution of Google pretty well.

Re:Ummm

[mbone]

It may not cost anything, but it is most definitely not free.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the person who writes in non-rhyming couplets and has "brow average intelligence".

Re:Ummm

[ganjadude]

im conflicted here. Obviously im of the type that wants everything to be free. But on the other hand whats the issue? i didnt RTFA, but IF they already have their videos on youtube, wouldnt it be like getting a new source of money that you didnt have before by going into the streaming? its not as if they cant also be in the other services as well no??

Re:Ummm

[NatasRevol]

Great. Now just have to convince millions, perhaps billions, more to move activity & content elsewhere.

Even natural monopolies aren't all that good.

Re:Ummm

[i kan reed]

That's what I'm doing now. Incentivizing a change in another person because my own personal leverage against a monopoly is too small.

I convinced you, right?

Re:Ummm

[NatasRevol]

Not really.

Got a good set of sources that I, and my (non-tech) family, can use for email, calendar, doc sharing, searching and works across all major platforms?

Unfortunately, Google does all of those pretty well.

Re:Ummm

[Zordak]

"Don't be evil" is the Nobel Peace Prize of corporate slogans: It started out as a sincere, non-ironic effort, and then gradually morphed into the world's best parody of itself.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is that if they sign up for Google's streaming service, people will be less inclined to buy music from other sources. Since the terms of the agreement of Google's streaming service is really bad for independent labels, these labels believe that they will either lose money or make much less money and experience less overall growth.

The terms Google presents are bad, very bad. It's better for more popular labels because the music brings in much, much more money, but indie musicians and labels don't have the luxury. They rely on word of mouth more than the major labels and have little brand recognition. Google is unwilling to negotiate the terms of the contract except by saying "Well if you won't accept this offer, we'll pull your music from Youtube, our free platform, and yank the ad revenue because it's our service and that is our right."

Re:Ummm

[ultranova]

This is all business man, these artists get free bandwidth from Youtube and possibly the option to make a profit of ad revenues, all for nothing.

And the rest of us get a free lesson in corporate ethics in general and Google in particular. Hopefully that lesson means there's less people hurt with the next wave of monetization.

Also, since this once again proves that corporations can't be trusted, it might hopefully motivate research into converting everything to the P2P model.

Re:Ummm

[LookIntoTheFuture]

It may not cost anything, but it is most definitely not free.

This could replace their old motto of "Don't be evil".

Re:Ummm

[i.r.id10t]

Or using vid2mp3 or downloadhelper to just download the audio and then load it on your preferred playing device

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

also: https://www.ixquick.com/

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

The full slogan was not released... It was originally "Don't be evil, that's our job"

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention poor spelling and a vanity issue.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember it morphing quite suddenly

Re:Ummm

[HangingChad]

Google, how the fuck is this not evil?

They're using very small values of evil.

Re:Ummm

[psyclone]

Exactly this:

Google is unwilling to negotiate the terms of the [streaming service] contract except by saying "Well if you won't accept this offer, we'll pull your music from Youtube, our free platform, and yank the ad revenue because it's our service and that is our right."

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a lot of suggestions of duckduckgo, but I have tried it and frankly it's awful.

(Captcha "captive")

Re:Ummm

[rk]

I believed it until the IPO. Once a company goes public, all bets are off.

Re:Ummm

[Overzeetop]

If the music is not licensed, it is ILLEGAL for Google to store and transmit it. The indie's could sue for copyright infringement, and may or may not win depending on the judge and the conditions.

The musicians seem to want this exposure, but get paid for it at the same time. And get paid far more than if they were getting OTA radio play (radio play makes Pandora and Spotify royalties look like a king's ransom).

Would it be less evil if Google said, "Look, our lawyers told us that if we didn't have a licencing agreement, we couldn't host your music. All you need to do is sign this waiver of rights so we can legally transmit and we'll host your videos for free," or is it better to offer a one-size-fits-all value-per-play deal?

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

At least when I blindly agree to a EULA, I know I'm sticking my butt into the air and waiting for a company to do rude things to it.

Clearly you have a very, very high tolerance for abuse. I don't know whether to applaud your stamina or wince at how easily you capitulate to capricious authority.

Re:Ummm

[lgw]

Ah, there's an important typo there. Google's motto is actuall "Don't, be evil". It's a common misunderstanding.

Re:Ummm

[hey!]

I don't see what's evil about it.

THIS is what net neutrality is *for*. People who own the services can include and exclude whatever content they want, and if the users don't like it they really can choose a different service.

What Google is doing may be misguided, but it's not evil because it doesn't stop people from getting whatever they want.

Re:Ummm

[barc0001]

Seriously? They're offering a free service, with certain rules and requirements for certain types of videos to be hosted there. Don't want to agree to those terms, fine. Go put your video somewhere else. There's Vimeo, Vevo (who actually focuses on music content...) Veoh, Metacafe, etc. etc.

How is that evil? That's like having a farm where there's a gun range and letting everyone in town can use it for free, but if you want to use certain rifles, you have to use the ammo they freely provide. "OMG, I have to use your free ammo at your free gun range instead of my own? STOP OPPRESSING ME!"

"Google has confirmed that it will remove the music videos of independent artists unless they sign up to its upcoming subscription music service. Many independent musicians and labels have refused to do so, claiming that the contracts offer significantly worse deals than the likes of Spotify and Pandora."

Here's a thought... why not both? Sign up for Youtube as well as Spotify and Pandora.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Complete list -they give to everyone:

http://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

DuckDuckGo has streaming music videos now? Last I checked (a minute ago), it's a search engine.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

That's sarcasm, stupid. The OP said "of brow average intelligence"

Re:Ummm

[Altrag]

This has got a whole lot of fuck all to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality guarantees that the people who can no longer (or are unwilling to) post their videos on Youtube can go ahead and post them on Vimeo or Dailymotion and Verizon (a third party) isn't allow to degrade the quality.

Of course that doesn't mean that Vimeo or DM necessarily have the bandwidth to keep up with Youtube. Nor does it prevent Google from mangling their service if their feel like it. But if Google does decide to mangle their service, net neutrality means that another service is able to step up to the plate and (attempt to) take all of Google's users without being unfairly discriminated by the third party ISPs and other middleman carriers.

Re:Ummm

[drinkypoo]

That's sarcasm, stupid. The OP said "of brow average intelligence"

This is how the joke dies. Not with a groan, but with an explanation.

Re:Ummm

[mrbax]

The following list of recipients of substantial amounts of Google's money reads like a who's who of evil in the USA.... Conservative Groups

Bigoted much?

Re:Ummm

[hey!]

But if Google does decide to mangle their service, net neutrality means that another service is able to step up to the plate and (attempt to) take all of Google's users without being unfairly discriminated by the third party ISPs and other middleman carriers.

That was my point. What I said is that this kind of situation is what net neutrality is *for*. I didn't say Google was violating net neutrality. Nitwit.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I'm sticking my butt into the air and waiting for a company to do rude things to it.

That's the "mini skirt means she wanted to be raped"-Argument. You're disgusting.

Re:Ummm

[david_thornley]

In the USA, you are wrong about the legalities. The indies can submit a DMCA takedown form, and if Google goes through the specified process they're immune from liability in any copyright suit. They can't successfully sue Google unless they do submit the takedown request and Google doesn't take down the video within a certain time from receipt.

So, would it be less evil for Google to lie about what their lawyers said?

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm..is that P2P as in Peer To Peer, or P2P as in Pay To Play?

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a suggestion, but using a partisan source that only gives one side of the issue is probably not a wise choice.

According to opensecrets donations have been pretty much evenly split between R and D, with 50/50 from the PAC and roughly that from the Corp itself.

See here (https://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=google&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11). here (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000022008), and here (https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00428623&cycle=2014) for the PAC.

learn to write, dammit!

[sribe]

I suppose you mean "or be removed FROM YOUTUBE"???

Re:learn to write, dammit!

[Sockatume]

I couldn't find a phrasing that fit and carried the intended meaning, and I assumed that people who read the summary would grasp that it referred to the thing Google have that music videos might actually be on.

Re:learn to write, dammit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they did write that, but Slashdot's article.title field is a VARCHAR(80) and it ate it.

Re:learn to write, dammit!

[Richy_T]

I removed myself from Youtube to the extent that it's now read-only (watch-only?) since the Google-plus nonsense. A shame as often there's someone with a technical question to which I could supply the answer. Screw em.

Re:learn to write, dammit!

[sribe]

I couldn't find a phrasing that fit and carried the intended meaning, and I assumed that people who read the summary would grasp that it referred to the thing Google have that music videos might actually be on.

I wasn't talking about the headline. There was plenty of room in the summary to be clear about what video-sharing service was the subject.

Re:learn to write, dammit!

[psyclone]

Agreed. And the quality of comments has not improved at all with the requirement of G+.

Re:learn to write, dammit!

[Sockatume]

Yeah, that was a bad oversight.

Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

TFS does not match TFA. Google is going to remove a number of videos of artists whose "independent labels" have refused permission for them to be on YouTube.
Trying to make this about Google's upcoming subscription service is a complete misrepresentation of TFA.

Re:Flaimbate

[mythosaz]

Similarly, Google - though YouTube - is under no obligation to show anything for anyone.

It's hardly "evil" for them to provide a free platform for independent artists, just because they're independent artists. Artists whom they're willing to compensate, by the way... Feel free to upload to Vimeo.

Re:Flaimbate

[zieroh]

It's hardly "evil" for them to provide a free platform for independent artists, just because they're independent artists.

You mean the free platform that they provide to everyone else without discrimination or contractual obligations?

Re:Flaimbate

[gstoddart]

YouTube is a free to anybody video site.

Google is now saying that anybody who has a song up on YouTube that Google would like to include in their (for pay) streaming services (at a crappy rate of compensation) will have it removed from YouTube unless the artist signs up for these terms.

So all of a sudden Google is strong-arming people and saying "we will remove you from YouTube unless you sign this one sided deal".

Do we conclude that the TOS for YouTube now means unless you sign the rights for Google to use your video for commercial gain, you can't have a video up? Or can we conclude that they're only applying this to musicians in order to force them to sign up?

If they're going to apply this uniformly, the video of your child dancing is now something they can use for their own profit. If we say "of course not, those are home videos" how can you claim it's any different? This is Google deciding that their other commercial interests are going to change how YouTube works.

What they're providing is a "free to anybody unless we get a DMCA takedown" video service which is being turned into "unless we want to make money from it, and then it isn't free unless it's on our terms".

I'd say this is well into the "Google have become assholes" end of things. In fact, I'd say Google is fast becoming evil assholes.

Unless they've been strong-arming everybody who puts up a video in the same way, they can't suddenly pretend like one class of videos is different from another.

Re:Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is "does YouTube treat music videos differently than cat videos?" If "yes", then it sounds evil. If "no", then why did you feel it relevant to mention that Google "is under no obligation to show anything for anyone"?

Re:Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

apologetic overdose

Re:Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

TFS does not match TFA. Google is going to remove a number of videos of artists whose "independent labels" have refused permission for them to be on YouTube. Trying to make this about Google's upcoming subscription service is a complete misrepresentation of TFA.

You are misrepresenting too, the very first line in TFA:

"Google, which owns YouTube, has been renegotiating contracts as it prepares to launch a music subscription service."

Re:Flaimbate

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Ex-system. You watch a video with add artist get compensated.

New system: Non-subscriber watches video, artist gets compenstated from ad. Same price.
                                        Subscriber watches video, artist gets compensated from subscription.
Unless the second is less then the first, I do not see what the compaint is.
                                     

Re:Flaimbate

[mythosaz]

You're free to upload your videos, cat, music, or other.

Your music label is not free to do so unless it signs a deal for licensing and distribution.

Re:Flaimbate

[mythosaz]

Yes, everyone else except music labels. You, an artist, are allowed, without any special deal, to upload videos of your music to YouTube, without need for a special deal.

Your music label isn't going to be allowed to use YouTube as it's distribution (and revenue) channel without a deal.

How evil.

Re:Flaimbate

[mythosaz]

Google is now saying that anybody who has a song up on YouTube that Google would like to include in their (for pay) streaming services (at a crappy rate of compensation) will have it removed from YouTube unless the artist signs up for these terms.

That's not what they're saying, despite people trying to interpret it that way.

They're saying that record labels who use YouTube as the distribution (and revenue) channel for their artists need to deal with them.

You, an independent artist, can upload whatever you want, just like you always could.

Re:Flaimbate

[amicusNYCL]

This is the same distribution and revenue channel which pours advertising money into Google's account, right? And which only works when people go there to watch videos, correct?

Re:Flaimbate

[X0563511]

So, if I were to upload one of my own creations (note that I do not have any label at all, just a hobbyist) this has zero impact on me?

Re:Flaimbate

[jader3rd]

If they're going to apply this uniformly, the video of your child dancing is now something they can use for their own profit.

Wasn't that always the motivation behind YouTube? Why else would somebody start a company that allows users to upload their own content, than for the purpose of using that content for your own profit?

Re:Flaimbate

[gstoddart]

You're free to upload your videos, cat, music, or other.

Until they change their mind again.

At this point, why would you put any trust in Google that they won't create a subscription only CatTube exclusively for cat videos and demand the same thing? BabyTube? HowTube?

If Google are going to constantly change the ToS to prop up their revenue model, and force these changes on you ... you might as well assume now that Google will screw you in the end and stop providing them with content.

Because this amounts to "when we decide we're making money off it beyond ads, we're simply going to take it from you".

This amounts to "once we figure out how to monetize this, we'll own your stuff and you can't do anything about it unless you agree to the pittance we'll offer".

Re:Flaimbate

[gstoddart]

For ads, that was expected.

For inclusion in their own for-pay music streaming service unless you agree to their one-sided terms? Not so much.

There are now two classes of videos on YouTube -- things Google has figured out how to directly monetize (beyond ads), and things that Google hasn't yet figured out how to directly monetize.

But basically, anything in the latter category is just waiting until it joins the former, and you should have zero expectation they won't eventually do it to the rest of it.

Re:Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google is going to remove a number of videos of artists whose "independent labels" have refused permission for them to be on YouTube."

No, YOU are wrong. It's not about those labels refusing permission for being on YouTube - they don't mind their videos being on YouTube; it is about new, highly unfavourable terms that Google came up with.
This is about Google's upcoming subscription service.
Nice try though.

Re:Flaimbate

[Sockatume]

Did reading comprehension drop when I was away? The headline is "YouTube to block indie labels as subscription service launches" and all of the comments regarding terms are about Google's upcoming streaming service. The videos in question are already on YouTube so there's no "independent labels" refusing permission for them to be up there.

The Guardian article is pretty unambiguous about it too.

Re: Flaimbate

[AvitarX]

All this talk of preparing to launch a service makes me nervous.

Are they going to drop google play music all access? Because I'm starting to really like it.

The I feel lucky will shuffle through the music I like in various genres whenever I click it. It keeps the sound of a consistent station with music I like, and I reload until it's the type of music I'm in the mood for. I hope the new service is as good.

Re:Flaimbate

[mythosaz]

Objection. Leading.

Re:Flaimbate

[mythosaz]

This amounts to "once we figure out how to monetize this, we'll own your stuff and you can't do anything about it unless you agree to the pittance we'll offer".

OF COUSE it does. That was the goal on day one of YouTube; and Google bought them because they understood that vision.

Do you think YouTube bought all those hard disks and and bandwidth to not monetize it efficiently?

Re:Flaimbate

[AthanasiusKircher]

YouTube is a free to anybody video site.

Yep. And if you -- as an independent artist -- still want to post up a video and let them play it to whomever for free, you're welcome to do so.

Google is now saying that anybody who has a song up on YouTube that Google would like to include in their (for pay) streaming services (at a crappy rate of compensation) will have it removed from YouTube unless the artist signs up for these terms.

NO, it's NOT. Read TFA:

The BBC understands that even if blocks do go ahead, content from artists signed to independent labels will remain available on YouTube via channels such as Vevo.

Videos which are exclusively licensed by independent record labels, such as acoustic sets or live performances, may be taken down.

Read that again -- videos that are EXCLUSIVELY *LICENSED* by independent LABELS will be taken down.

In other words, the LABELS that these "independent" artists have signed with have refused to agree to Google's new terms. Therefore, the LICENSES that the LABELS agreed to are no longer valid.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, there's nothing here that implies that a TRULY "independent" artist couldn't post whatever he/she wants. But if that artist has signed with a label (even an "independent label" rather than one of the big ones), and that company manages the rights to the videos, then Youtube won't allow those videos to be shown in violation of licensing agreements made by those labels.

Google may be strong-arming labels to accept deals, but they aren't actually removing "independent" artists' videos -- only those videos which had been previously licensed by a label which refuses to agree to Google's terms.

The labels may in fact be in the right here, and maybe they should be holding out for a better deal. But let's not pretend that Google is arbitrarily taking down videos of random musicians -- it's removing commercial content that had been previously licensed, but now won't be because of a failure between the parties to agree.

If they're going to apply this uniformly, the video of your child dancing is now something they can use for their own profit.

I don't know about you, but if I were to post a video or other media on a website that serves up ads, I'm going to assume that that site is making money off of the ads. If you consider that using your materials for "commercial gain," then maybe you shouldn't post to a free hosting site that serves up ads.

On the other hand, if you want to get a share in that ad revenue, you're going to have to negotiate with the site owner. And if you don't think you're going to get a good enough deal, then you can pull your videos or media -- just as these labels are doing. Both sides here are making choices.

Re:Flaimbate

[bluefoxlucid]

The best part is Google isn't paying them shit, and so Google comes along and says, "We'll give you money," and they're like, "It's not enough money!"

Re:Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how walled gardens are built. Imagine the outcry if the discrimination was based on religion. OTOH I'm surprised nobody saw this coming, you first embrace, then extend, killing all the viable competition, finally extort.

Re:Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

Overruled. Answer the question.

Re:Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

Overruled

Re:Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

YouTube will remove music videos by artists such as Adele, Arctic Monkeys and Radiohead, because the independent labels to which they belong have refused to agree terms with the site.

These independent labels are saying no to the YouTube license agreement. That is, they do not accept what Google is offering in consideration for copyright licenses to continue to host these videos on YouTube. Lacking permission, YouTube will remove the videos.

Re:Flaimbate

[houghi]

First they came for the musicians ...

Re:Flaimbate

[MobyDisk]

Where did you see the part about "refused permission?"

According to The Guardian:

Google video service confirmed it was dropping content from independent labels that have not signed up for its upcoming subscription music service...YouTube will block videos from labels that do not sign licensing deals for the new premium tier...

According to the BBC:

YouTube will remove music videos by artists such as Adele, Arctic Monkeys and Radiohead, because the independent labels to which they belong have refused to agree terms with the site.

What I am confused on is this: Are they removing videos that are on some special YouTube music site? Or from the general YouTube site? Ex: If I upload a video of me singing, would they remove it? (Well, the probably would, but for quality reasons, not licensing reasons.) I'm totally unclear on what they are calling a "music video."

Re:Flaimbate

[CanHasDIY]

In summation, the video I posted of myself playing a little diddy I came up with in my home office would not be affected, but the music video that I shot with Small N-D Label, who has posted the video to their Youtube channel specifically for promotion would be.

Re:Flaimbate

[gnupun]

The artists should call Google's bluff and refuse to sign. Once the music videos are removed, the signal-to-noise ratio of youtube videos will become lower as visitors will be forced to watch stupid videos, like selfie monologues. It's a lose-lose situation.

Re:Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

So google gets to judge what my business model is, if I have one or not, and who I deal with or not? Fuck 'em. Youtube only exists because of content provided by others. Boycott youtube and watch google change its mind.

Re:Flaimbate

[Ardyvee]

And that's pretty much it. The articles sounds very... clickbaity and not really informative at all.

Re:Flaimbate

[Bite The Pillow]

On the other hand, if you want to get a share in that ad revenue, you're going to have to negotiate with the site owner.

From the various bits of news on this, Google is not allowing much negotiation. And that seems to be the problem.

I'm not sure what the financial difference is between what they are taking down vs. allowing, but it sounds like enough to make someone genuinely concerned. It doesn't seem to be just a matter of re-posting the videos and getting your revenue stream back. The licenses that are being rejected were likely better than the normal producer revenue sharing, again based on numerous discussions.

The choice of the independent labels seems to be accept our low payments or get kicked off the gravy train. That's not "both sides are making choices".

Re:Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

Ex-system. You watch a video with add artist get compensated.

New system: Non-subscriber watches video, artist gets compenstated from ad. Same price.

                                        Subscriber watches video, artist gets compensated from subscription.
Unless the second is less then the first, I do not see what the compaint is.

                                   

The "compaint" is that the artist gets less money. If they wanted to give them more money, they wouldn't have needed to change the contract. Same as every other huge business with "standard boilerplate" contracts.

Re:Flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

No I prefer independent artists who upload their own videos so I don't want it to change its mind.

Re:Flaimbate

[Windwraith]

Apparently not, from what I gathered so far it only is a concern if you are publishing under a label.

Re:Flaimbate

[drinkypoo]

At this point, why would you put any trust in Google

Because it's free. You just upload the video and then they handle the rest. If it cost me anything, I might well worry about trust issues. If I am depending on a video being available for my business, I'm not going to host it on youtube. I'm going to get hosting and put the video there. I might also put it on youtube, to reduce my bandwidth consumption, but I'm not going to depend on that.

We Were Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Note the use of the past tense.

New middlemen flex their muscles

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the new retail boss, worse than the old publisher boss.

Re:New middlemen flex their muscles

[HeckRuler]

So ditch'em.

Move to soundcloud.

I'm a fan of a lot of artists that put their stuff up on either youtube or soundcloud. Might be time to switch off of youtube.

Hate to say it. I saw the rise of Google and a lot of money and effort went to really good things.
They offered their services for free using the knowledge gained to make a buck off better advertising. Things were good. They certainly had/have a shit-ton of power and people rallied against that. Claiming that they could abuse it and be a terrible blight upon the land. But they didn't. Until now. And I've seen similar sort of moves by Google of late. The sun sets eventually. Kinda sad, but perhaps it's time to move on.

Now, of course I'm still going to have a gmail account for a long time, and using google-docs is still crazy useful. Hell I still have the yahoo account where I throw spam. But rather than simply being happy with the bright future of the new young blood in the market, I'll be looking for some place to jump ship to. And I'll tell others as much.

Re:New middlemen flex their muscles

[gstoddart]

And what happens when soundcloud does the same thing?

There's a long history of companies getting their users to create their content, and then deciding they own the content.

The problem is that now Google has suddenly decided that a platform to post free videos, available to pretty much anybody, isn't the same when you are someone who has commercial interests.

And I wonder how, exactly, this is different from when companies put up their own videos. Is Google going to say "we want a cut of your product or we'll take down your video".

I see this as extortion, plain and simple. "Nice video, shame if something happened to it".

This just seems like they're selectively treating one class of videos as different from another, specifically in the case where they want to make money from it.

So what happens when I post a how-to video, and in a year or so Google decides they're going to charge for access to that really helpful video? If I don't agree to get paid 1 cent for every million views, they'll take down the video? Maybe they'll decide that by posting it they already own the video?

This is straight up appropriating the work of others for their own gain, and treating anything they stand to make money from as somehow different from all the rest of the videos.

Definition

[PPH]

What's an "Indie Musician"? My kids singing Happy Birthday©?

Re:Definition

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are illegal public performances of copyrighted materials and we'll be seeing you in court re:our unpaid royalties plus emotional damages.

Re:Definition

[Shatrat]

Only if the video of them singing it is "exclusively licensed by independent record labels". This article is hugely overblown. This is targeting some specific labels, not everybody with a guitar and a phone.

Re:Definition

[Bite The Pillow]

Either you want me to read the article to you, or you are intentionally being dense. And someone wasted mod points because you're at 3 inexplicably.

You're not helping. I just wanted you to know that.

Re:Definition

[PPH]

targeting some specific labels

But that's even worse. Targeting 'some labels' implies that they are going after only the people they think they can squeeze something out of.

I have no problem with Google/YouTube declaring their site "not for commercial use". Or requiring proof of rights before uploading content. So long as they do it consistently. But TFA makes it sound like they are demanding a piece of your action to support their planned streaming service.

These artists aren't using the YouTube service to distribute content for a fee. They are simply distributing free samples to their audience. And as far as I can see, all they want is to continue to do so in the future. Their business model may not include streaming. Or they may want to negotiate that seperately.

Re:Definition

[Anonymous Coward]

an indie is a local band with NO record contract period. they are the bands that post (mostly amateur) videos of their latest small club appearance so that they can get another 6 or 7 people to the NEXT gig. i get the feeling that you people think that all bands have managers, roadies, publicity agents, and sit around doing drugs all day between gigs. that great band you are seeing being cheered by the local crowd at SUBHUMANS is being grudgingly reimbursed for playing and hauling all their shit to the club with a pbr per band member. and i ain't talking about open mics. that is for appearances at most any average small club in any large city. chicago or new york. of course in L.A. YOU PAY THE FUCKING CLUB TO LET YOU PLAY.

cruft

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, don't really need youtube. The only thing that made youtube anything at all was peoples ability to post what they want. Without that there really isn't a youtube anymore. Good Riddance.

Don't be Google

[OzPeter]

A few weeks ago a couple of characters in Doonesbury were looking for a new slogan for their company. Their choice was: "Don't be Google". This stuff just adds more weight to their decision.

So don't be Google!

Re:Don't be Google

[Russ1642]

"Don't be so successful that you make billions of dollars!" - sounds like a great business slogan

Re:Don't be Google

[Anubis IV]

If I have to choose between money and being good, I'll take being good, and I'd prefer that the companies I work with do likewise by making an effort to find ways to make money by being good. Google used to do that. Nowadays? Not so much.

Re:Don't be Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for proving that people can misinterpret anything if they try hard enough!

Don't be evil...

[QuietLagoon]

... well that didn't last too long. Don't be evil

Risking irrelevance

[DoofusOfDeath]

I wonder if this will turn out to be Youtube's first step towards irrelevance to the youth market.

This seems like a familiar story from Microsoft and IBM: think your company is so indispensable that you start demanding more of your users and/or partners. And in doing so, make people start looking for alternatives.

Re:Risking irrelevance

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this will turn out to be Youtube's first step towards irrelevance to the youth market.

Unlikely; this is just google telling you what you should like... Stop enjoying this indie music that we don't make money off of, here, listen to some noise vomit that has been run through AutoTune(tm).

Re:Risking irrelevance

[cdrudge]

This seems like a familiar story from Microsoft and IBM: think your company is so indispensable that you start demanding more of your users and/or partners. And in doing so, make people start looking for alternatives.

Yet despite that, both companies stock continue to do well. I can't really even tell you what IBM does anymore since they've shed their PC, laptop, and server business to Lenovo. Yet their stock continues to be higher now then what it was during any of the previous bubbles in the 90s and 2000s. Microsoft, despite the disasters of the Windows 8 interface, Windows 8 Mobile, and Surface has a higher stock now then any previous time except the bubble leading up to the 2000 pop.

Re:Risking irrelevance

[PrimaryConsult]

What does IBM do? AIX, Mainframes, PowerPC architecture, and z. They are shedding all the divisions where they actually have to compete, and are focusing only on things that people are either already locked in to, or that they are the only vendor of. The stock is going up because when the dust has settled, they still have a huge number of high profile customers who are paying through the nose for their products, but are not wasting resources on things with thin margins.

Re:Risking irrelevance

[machineghost]

The short answer is that they've moved in to consulting. There's a whole (mildly interesting) book "Who says elephants can't jump" about their transition.

So much for "Don't be evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Not evil....

[wbr1]

First, as pointed out, it is removed from YouTube, not google search results. This is annoying to the artists, but Youtube belongs to google. They set the terms for you hosting videos there at no cost to you. If the terms are unfair, simply go elsewhere. Perhaps Vimeo. Google is not killing babies or clubbing seals or blackmailing your momma to get you to publish on their streaming service. In fact, I do not know that their streaming service has much share against the likes of iTunes, Amazon, Pandora, Spotify, etc. Many of these companies do not offer good rates either. However, the market will see who wins here, and forcing people over seems like a mistake that will not aid Google's streaming servies in the long run.

Re:Not evil....

[PPH]

They set the terms for you hosting videos there at no cost to you.

Not any more. If you are making money off your work, Google/YouTube wants a piece of it. And they are doing nothing more for you than the people who recorded and uploaded their baby singing.

Is this right or wrong? Good question. But be prepared to have search results for your web site pulled if Google finds out you are making money off it and not buying ads through them. Google is no longer in the search business.

Re:Not evil....

[Anonymous Coward]

> Google is not killing babies or clubbing seals or blackmailing your momma to get you to publish on their streaming service.

Ah, the tragedy of diminished expectations.

Re:Not evil....

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is being somewhat hypocritical to its prior creedo.

I'm not offended they are amoral, evil, and treat people like a product. I'm offended that they have the temerity to claim not to be evil.

Re:Not evil....

[maccodemonkey]

First, as pointed out, it is removed from YouTube, not google search results. This is annoying to the artists, but Youtube belongs to google. They set the terms for you hosting videos there at no cost to you.

And here I thought Google was making their money back on the advertising. That said, them owning the service still doesn't make it not evil. I remember a software company was brought up on antitrust charges for similar things back in the 90s. What were they named? Tinysoft? Macrosoft? Oh well.

Re:Not evil....

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your assertion is that Youtube has a de-facto monopoly position. The most recent figs I could find (http://bothsides.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/6.-YouTube-Marketshare.jpg) put Youtube so far ahead of the next competitor that it's basically "Youtube's way or make essentially no money."

I honestly don't see how this doesn't run afoul of antitrust provisions. They're leveraging their position in the video market in order to push their streaming service and give themselves an unfair market advantage.

Re:Not evil....

[Alain Williams]

But be prepared to have search results for your web site pulled if Google finds out you are making money off it and not buying ads through them. Google is no longer in the search business.

Do you have any evidence of google pulling sites that do not buy ads through Google ? If Google were to do something like that its quality as a search engine would drop and people would go elsewhere - it would be search engine suicide.

Re:Not evil....

[Alain Williams]

I honestly don't see how this doesn't run afoul of antitrust provisions. They're leveraging their position in the video market in order to push their streaming service and give themselves an unfair market advantage.

How come ? You can host your music/... elsewhere, somewhere where google (the search engine) will find it. So, if you don't like their terms, just move.

Re:Not evil....

[Anonymous Coward]

By removing the videos on their video service, they are forcing you to agree to their terms (giving them marketshare in the music service that they would not have had otherwise) or give up making money with Youtube altogether. It isn't exactly doomsday, but it is absolutely leveraging their position.

If there were 5 video services and all had similar levels of marketshare, it wouldn't be a problem. However, there's effectively only one video service that matters. Think of it this way: In order to have 21x the marketshare of a competitor with two competitors, the marketshares would have to be ~4.55% vs. ~95.55% (obviously not exact, but that's about as close as I can get with two significant figures). Is there any doubt that this is a monopoly position? The fact that there are more players doesn't really matter when there are so many that it makes the marketshare of them all basically none. It means there's no market there.

So it presents artists with a choice: You can stop making money on our glorious market, or you can give us marketshare we wouldn't have had otherwise. To me, this seems like a serious abuse of their position.

Re:Not evil....

[Alain Williams]

If there were 5 video services and all had similar levels of marketshare, it wouldn't be a problem.

It is not the market share of the video service that matters, it is the visibility of the artist's works that really counts. If another service will carry the songs and that other service is indexed by google then there is little loss. OK: punters won't be able to search in the Youtube search bar, but they will soon learn to do searches in google/bing/...

If another video service cannot carry the bandwidth then maybe they ought to pay more. This is where net neutrality, peering, etc comes into play -- I have to admit that size of video service does matter as the really small guys cannot afford content delivery services ... but plenty other than youtube can.

Re:Not evil....

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the market share of the video service that matters, it is the visibility of the artist's works that really counts.

How are these distinct?

Re:Not evil....

[PPH]

Do you have any evidence of google pulling sites that do not buy ads through Google ?

No. But then yesterday I didn't have any evidence that Google was going to strong arm artists using YouTube either.

Re:Not evil....

[Ash-Fox]

You don't need one to get the other.

Unfair competition clause is going to bite Google

[dutchwhizzman]

Hello Google. How the fsck do you think this won't get you large fines for unfair competition practices in the European Union? By forcing people to have you represent them, you are being unfair competition to other streaming web sites and small record labels. You may have oodles of lawyers up your sleeve, but even they won't be able to get away with this in the EU.

A great opportunity for Vimeo

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at first I was really upset to hear this because I spend a lot of time on youtube watching indie music videos. I was additionally upset because indie musicians are probably a small percentage of youtube costs.

But then I realized that Vimeo is happy to take all the indie traffic that youtube will drive away.

Go www.vimeo.com !

Just say no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just say no.
Removed ALL of your videos.
Replace it with one video saying only the following.

Google are ruining Youtube, they are forcing Independent artists in to a contract that is worse for them.
Do not stand for it. Do not let Google ruin free, independent content creation!
We are moving our services to [insert site]

They cannot remove a channel that has no music on it. They cannot remove videos that don't exist. But what they can do is lose a huge chunk of users.

What video or music sites aren't absolute trash?
Go.

Re:Just say no.

[Blaskowicz]

I'm waiting for the video of Hitler bitching about it

Do nothing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Youtube was dying already. Let's not point out the problem with this and just watch, it'll be better for everyone.

Re:Do nothing!

[mythosaz]

Tell it to the kids, who stopped watching television, and only watch streaming media.

youtube.com...because upyours.com was taken

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey artists! Bend over and be youtubed...sad sad day for arts and for us all.

B.b.but... Oracle

[sproketboy]

ASK TOOLBAR!!!!!!!!!!! RAGE!

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog

[NotInHere]

Google is not such a huge market leader for video than Microsoft is for Desktop OS. In the video platform market there is still something like real competition.

MySpace to the rescue?

[PseudoCoder]

Sounds like an opportunity for MySpace to try to reclaim some of that territory. Anybody know if MySpace has the chops to turn this into a good thing for them?

Re:MySpace to the rescue?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a MySpace?

Re:MySpace to the rescue?

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Sounds like an opportunity for MySpace to try to reclaim some of that territory. Anybody know if MySpace has the chops to turn this into a good thing for them?

[crickets]

Re:MySpace to the rescue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine how many people visit YouTube on a daily basis, see the trending music videos on the front page?

How many even know what myspace is, or was?

Re:MySpace to the rescue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google simply believes in the power of the free market.

There are and will be other streaming sites.

So the youtube age will end and the next big thing is waiting in the wings...

something is better then nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

On YouTube they earn a little if they are in Google AdSense, at least they will earn something else from streaming revenue. And they can still stay in YouTube.

What's the fuss about? The rate only, well set up your own service / site and see what you earn at the end of the day.

First they came

[Anonymous Coward]

... For the independent musicians...

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog

[Rob the Bold]

Hello Google. How the fsck do you think this won't get you large fines for unfair competition practices in the European Union?

Maybe they're not worried. (Unlike MicroSoft) they've been fined before in Europe and the US and found a way to get out of it by promising relatively minor changes to how they do business for a limited time.

Google shooting itself in the foot YET AGAIN

[Anonymous Coward]

I know Google has a big fan base but they have made many, many serious errors in judgment over the past few years.

Discovery of self-hosted videos

[tepples]

How would people find videos hosted on one's own server? I was under the impression that people found new videos and new channels through the related videos column on the right rail of YouTube, and that has only YouTube videos?

And how would a small entity go about licensing an H.264 encoder in order to reach users on iOS, which supports no free video codec?

Re:Discovery of self-hosted videos

[Andrewkov]

If I'm really interested in a band, I'll go to their website first. Usually they have links to their music and videos, it doesn't matter where they are actually hosted (Youtube, Vimeo, their own servers, etc).

Maybe it's just me, but I think of Youtube as having "unofficial" content, it wouldn't be the first place I look for a bands official content.

Re:Discovery of self-hosted videos

[Zordak]

1. How do you find out about the band in the first place? Fact is, YouTube is the place for a lot of indies to make it big.

2. You haven't visited YouTube in a while, have you? Everybody has their official content there. You can even rent movies there.

Re:Discovery of self-hosted videos

[tepples]

Which raises the question of how people discover the band in the first place. On YouTube, you can end up in the right rail recommendation list of another band's video. Elsewhere you have to buy an ad.

Re:Discovery of self-hosted videos

[Rakarra]

Sure.

But as we've seen many times over, exposure and promotion are important parts to a band's success.
You need a label, or someone who does what a label usually does. That's why the Indie world is a tough one.

Re:Discovery of self-hosted videos

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you feel entitled to have a service like this provided for you? You do realize there was a time before Youtube no?

Re:Discovery of self-hosted videos

[tepples]

I don't understand how asking what alternatives people use automatically equals "feeling entitled".

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Well, google can offer two options.
Join and get paid.
After we take you down, post it again but this time no ads and therefore no money.
You can still show your videos all you want.
Google does not have to pay their price for showing their videos.

But what's a label?

[tepples]

What makes an organization a "music label"? I was under the impression that the closest concept in law to a "music label" was the owner of copyright in a sound recording. For example, an artist who owns his own recordings, either by having bought the masters from his previous label or by not having signed a "work made for hire" agreement in the first place, is his own label.

Re:But what's a label?

[mythosaz]

Google's drawn the line somewhere. I confess to not knowing where.

Re:But what's a label?

[kristianbrigman]

A 'music label' is someone who wants to get paid for their music being in a video on YouTube, and doesn't want it there otherwise.

A lot of this discussion is confusing... but maybe it is for Google as well. After all, this all started because lots of people put up music and videos on YouTube that they didn't own. Music labels didn't like this and had them pulled (or tried to). Eventually, rather than deal with all this, Google started paying for music in videos to copyright owners (i don't know the details, and still don't).

Now, Google wants to add licensing for streaming into the existing contracts it has for payments on music videos (or music behind videos). Some people don't like the terms, and Google wants to remove those videos. After all, before Google was paying them, that's what they wanted anyways, right? And since they couldn't agree on a rate, Google will pull them.

As far as I can tell, they can still put their video on YouTube just like anyone else - it just won't get any special revenue from it. And all the indies (ok, a few vocal ones) have been complaining about the low rates for YouTube, Pandora, Spotify, etc. for a while, and one of their issues is that they can't opt out (because their label owns their recordings, and makes that decision). They wanted better payments, or their music removed. Now YouTube is saying it can't (or won't) pay more, and is backing it up by removing those videos. A lot of those same indies are now complaining that YouTube is pulling the videos. Seems like they should be happy. So what gives?

Admittedly, I don't know any details, but from the outside this doesn't like 'Google won't let me post a video like everyone else', but 'Google won't pay me what I want to host my video'. I'd be curious if anyone has any actual details; there wasn't much in the article.

I still wonder how Google will handle the other case e.g. when someone posts a Radiohead song behind their home video of amateur free running. This was covered automatically by the licensing before. If it isn't, they're back to the DMCA whack-a-mole takedown game, or statutory licensing, or what?

Re:But what's a label?

[tepples]

A 'music label' is someone who wants to get paid for their music being in a video on YouTube, and doesn't want it there otherwise.

That makes it sound like it refers to users of YouTube Content ID that have selected Monetize rather than Block. But I'm curious as to whether this applies to only Content ID users or to all partners.

Re:But what's a label?

[Ardyvee]

That's... that's pretty much what TFA said for sure. It never talked about videos made by artists. Just that, as you said, they wouldn't sign the license agreement, they would block the videos (which is the right things to do, since by not signing the agreement Google has no right to display/monetize the video).

The most suspicious thing is that there is no actual quote or link (that I could find) to a public statement made by Google. Maybe I missed it.

For now, I'll just think that Google are doing the legal thing by blocking videos whose license is terminated (by not signing the new one). I do not think that they will start removing videos that they do have a license to.

How do they decide?

[Em Adespoton]

OK; I have a few Youtube accounts. I'm a musician, but I don't depend on that for income (which would make me an independent musician by some definitions). Sometimes I put videos with music I composed myself up on Youtube. I generally write my own music for home videos etc.

So: is Google threatening me that I have to sign up for their commercial service? Or is this purely for independent artists who are attempting to promote their commercial music via music videos on Youtube? How does Google tell the difference -- by checking to see if there's an audio match with something for sale on Amazon or iTunes? By targeting independent publishing labels?

I don't see how this can work out correctly, as it's basically saying that Google doesn't allow independent publication of music videos on YouTube (once you sign with Google, you're not really independent anymore).

Anyway, my first thought was that Vimeo must be enjoying the flood of new content. Depending on how things fall out, I might join them.

Re:How do they decide?

[Windwraith]

If you didn't get an email or message about it, you probably are unaffected. Those mails were already sent to affected parties.

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog

[DamonHD]

Because YouTube is not a monopoly and it's not unreasonable or unfair of it to try to recover costs (or, gasp, make a profit) somehow.

Nothing stops you nor anyone else hosting elsewhere or on your own physical server etc etc. I have several (media) servers around the world but for the latest media I put up YouTube was convenient and fast and free. Bandwidth is not free, even for Google.

Rgds

Damon

Summary is Awful

[SJ2000]

This summary is complete misrepresentation, from the very start of the article.

YouTube will remove music videos by artists such as Adele, Arctic Monkeys and Radiohead, because the independent labels to which they belong have refused to agree terms with the site.

Whoever wrote that summary clearly has an agenda.

Re:Summary is Awful

[Sockatume]

...or I've read the stories about this from the past few weeks indicating how this affects a number of coalitions of independent musicians with or without label representation, and therefore know fine well that it's not just affecting three artists.

But, y'know, assume I'm a jerk. That's a great policy. It's not like you can literally see everything I've ever posted on Slashdot and figure it out.

Re:Summary is Awful

[Ardyvee]

The thing is, the summary (and the article) are biased, in my opinion. There is a failure to mention that if Google doesn't have a license to display/monetize videos, it cannot. There is also the failure to mention that if the new deal isn't signed, then Google would no longer have said license. Therefore, Google is legally obliged to remove such content, since otherwise they wouldn't be violating copyright law.

The biggest issue here, which is not what people are complaining about (everybody seems to just overlook this), is that Google decided that it wanted to change it's deal and some labels (independent or otherwise) and artists didn't like the new terms. Google, however, doesn't want to negotiate the terms of the deal. To me, it seems like normal business. Perhaps the more controversial or potentially bad part of all this is that, indeed, Youtube does have the equivalent of a monopoly.

I do not know what the deal is. All I can say from the information I know is that Google seems to be acting correctly and within reason. The articles do seem to vilify Google, or at least that's how it felt to me.

Re:Summary is Awful

[Anonymous Coward]

Which articles? My understanding is there isn't anyone without label representation that this effects.

I am interested.

Re:Summary is Awful

[Sockatume]

It's not either-or. Google already restricts videos to particular delivery or monetisation methods according to its licencing agreements; there is no reason why it cannot do exactly the same thing with its new subscription service.

On the gripping hand, Google's new streaming service isn't a video delivery system, it's for audio content, so the new licencing rules needn't apply to people's existing videos at all.

Re:Summary is Awful

[david_thornley]

So, how did Google display and monetize videos before? Illegally?

Nor is Google required to remove videos that may violate copyright law. Not until they get a DMCA takedown notice.

Re:Summary is Awful

[Ardyvee]

My guess is that when the videos were uploaded, they were uploaded under a different license than the ones common users use. That license had probably something along the lines of "if you don't agree with new terms, you need to stop using our service" (like TOS).

You know, exactly how Google changes it's term of service and if you don't agree with them you need to stop using their service (usage implies agreement, in this case, though).

If my understanding of the issue is right, then what happened here is: I, label, make a deal with Google saying that I authorize them to display and monetize some videos for x% (where x is agreed by both parties). If I, at some point, no longer want the deal, then Google has no authorization to display my videos. Blocking the videos is simply covering their backs on "You didn't have authorization anymore because we didn't sign the new deal and the old one ended, and you profited from our works by having them on your website".

If this wasn't the case, ie: what was in place was a monetization deal only, then Google could (and it would be the best thing in terms of PR) to simply revert to the monetization everyone else uses because if they uploaded the videos, they agreed to the terms.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong. And do share your opinion.

Re:Summary is Awful

[Ardyvee]

So what Google is doing here is saying: this license we had isn't good enough for us anymore, we now want an extended license that also allow us to use your content on an audio streaming service, except they want everything or nothing.

An aggressive move, yes. I can understand people disliking that they didn't try to renegotiate the deal as opposed to scrap the old one and get a new one (the only way they would end up in a situation that would require them to block content they don't have a license to). The problem isn't, as was the focus of TFA, that they are blocking the videos (if they no longer have a license and they know it, I assume it's safest to simply block such content until a new license is issued OR it is clear that they won't have a new license; thus avoiding legal issues) of independent labels. The problem is that Google decided to go for a "double or nothing", in which the labels are always the losers: either because the terms are bad, or because they just are not in Youtube.

At least, that's what I think. Did I miss anything or made any mistakes in my thought process? Is there any assumption that's impairing my analysis of the situation?

These labels are just as evil...

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFA:
"The independent labels to which they belong have refused to agree terms with the site. ... Videos which are exclusively licensed by independent record labels, such as acoustic sets or live performances, may be taken down."

This isn't google v.s. independent artists; this is google v.s. smaller parasites.

What's a music video?

[tepples]

How would YouTube go about determining whether a particular video is a "music video" by a "music label"? If I compose and record original music to accompany a video that I have produced, and I upload the video to YouTube, does that make me a "label" and make the video a "music video", thus requiring me to formally release its soundtrack? I found nothing in the BBC article or the Guardian article about this.

Re:What's a music video?

[timeOday]

My guess is there is a bit of spin going on here. If an indie wants to post their video for free, I doubt google will take it down. The question is probably all about the checks these indies have been getting from google, and google's refusal to keep sending them unless a new bargain (which includes google streaming for cheap) is struck.

If my guess is correct, the answer to your question is that the process is actually self-selecting.

Re:What's a music video?

[AthanasiusKircher]

How would YouTube go about determining whether a particular video is a "music video" by a "music label"? If I compose and record original music to accompany a video that I have produced, and I upload the video to YouTube, does that make me a "label" and make the video a "music video", thus requiring me to formally release its soundtrack?

You're making this too complicated. This has nothing to do with definitions of "music videos" or "labels."

IF you want to upload a video of whatever to YouTube and show it for free, you are still free to do so. Nothing about that has changed.

IF, on the other hand, you want YouTube to pay you money from ad revenue it makes, you need to negotiate a license with Google/YouTube. Some labels and Google can't agree on terms, so Google has simply decided to walk away from the old licenses.

The old license terms gave the labels some ad revenue in exchange for YouTube having permission to show the (commercial) videos. If Google no longer agrees to the payment scheme, if can no longer show the videos, according to the old licenses. Therefore, it must take them down.

Nothing is preventing the independent labels (or artists themselves) from posting anything they want to for free. It's only if they are restricting the playing of videos so that they must receive shares in YouTube's profits in exchange that this matters.

Re:What's a music video?

[tepples]

That clears things up for non-Partners. So let's narrow it down:

IF, on the other hand, you want YouTube to pay you money from ad revenue it makes, you need to negotiate a license with Google/YouTube.

How does YouTube go about determining whether a particular Partner video that happens to include music is a "music video"?

Re:What's a music video?

[Aighearach]

How does YouTube go about determining whether a particular Partner video that happens to include music is a "music video"?

The way this works in any sort of service is, if you're not sure, then the restrictions apply. The only way you can't tell is if it at least partially a music video, but you don't want it to be.

Same as anything, straddle the lines, follow the rules on both sides. Easy to do, or easy to fail at and whine about.

Re:What's a music video?

[m00sh]

How would YouTube go about determining whether a particular video is a "music video" by a "music label"? If I compose and record original music to accompany a video that I have produced, and I upload the video to YouTube, does that make me a "label" and make the video a "music video", thus requiring me to formally release its soundtrack?

You're making this too complicated. This has nothing to do with definitions of "music videos" or "labels."

IF you want to upload a video of whatever to YouTube and show it for free, you are still free to do so. Nothing about that has changed.

IF, on the other hand, you want YouTube to pay you money from ad revenue it makes, you need to negotiate a license with Google/YouTube. Some labels and Google can't agree on terms, so Google has simply decided to walk away from the old licenses.

The old license terms gave the labels some ad revenue in exchange for YouTube having permission to show the (commercial) videos. If Google no longer agrees to the payment scheme, if can no longer show the videos, according to the old licenses. Therefore, it must take them down.

Nothing is preventing the independent labels (or artists themselves) from posting anything they want to for free. It's only if they are restricting the playing of videos so that they must receive shares in YouTube's profits in exchange that this matters.

I think this is the narrowest definition of what Google is saying.

Google uses content ID to figure out who owns copyright to music. So, if a video is uploaded that they know is owned by a copyright owner that has not negotiated with them, they can block the video saying that they have no license with the copyright holder and thus, nobody can upload that content.

This effectively allows Google to block all content from the indie labels, uploaded by anyone and monetized or not.

Google is not being clear about what they will do but the worst case is that they can block every indie music from youtube that has not licensed with them. Of course, they want to negotiate and want to scare the indies into signing for their service.

From what I have read, most musicians consider YouTube as a promotional platform and not a revenue stream from videos. Google's threat is that they will eliminate Youtube as a promotional platform. You can choose to believe that they meant only as a revenue stream and not as a promotional platform but there certainly isn't any guarantee from Google about that.

Re:What's a music video?

[LihTox]

OK, I think I get it: what Google wants to do is to give viewers the option of paying a flat rate, which will remove ads from all of the music videos on the site as part of their streaming service. And they need the labels to agree to these terms. And if they DON'T agree to the terms, then Google would have one of three options: either maintain the status quo (which they don't want to do), show those videos sans ads (which would be a copyright infringement since the artists wouldn't be paid as per the original license agreement), or remove the videos altogether.

Does that sound right?

If so, that doesn't sound nearly as evil as it first sounded, if Google is only taking down videos that it was basically paying to host.

Re:What's a music video?

[AthanasiusKircher]

First, let me be clear that I'm NOT on Google's side here -- whatever it's doing, it doesn't sound like it's being fair to the labels. However...

Google uses content ID to figure out who owns copyright to music. So, if a video is uploaded that they know is owned by a copyright owner that has not negotiated with them, they can block the video saying that they have no license with the copyright holder and thus, nobody can upload that content.

Wait -- hold up. How does Google know that a video "is owned by a copyright owner"? Oh, that's right: The copyright owner had to tell Google that it owned the video and verify ownership.

And the link I just provided mentions that copyright owners have a variety of choices about what they want to do with videos that are under their ownership: they could block them, or monetize them, or simply track their views. According to Google's terms of use for Content ID, the copyright OWNER gets to decide what happens to content they OWN once they have verified ownership.

What you're telling me is the Google is now going to make a MASSIVE change to its terms of use and decide AGAINST THE WISHES OF CONTENT OWNERS to censor copyrighted material.

This effectively allows Google to block all content from the indie labels, uploaded by anyone and monetized or not.

Only if the labels have established ownership already by verifying it through the Content ID system -- Google isn't just going out there and figuring out who owns copyright by itself.

Google is not being clear about what they will do but the worst case is that they can block every indie music from youtube that has not licensed with them.

While what you're saying is theoretically possible, I imagine it would open up Google to all sorts of lawsuits. Basically, you're saying Google will now actively discriminate against the only people who have established their copyright ownership of material on YouTube. That sounds like an explicit violation of the copyright principle where owners are supposed to get MORE control over their content.

Moreover, it would be a significant alteration to Google's previous terms of use for Content ID. And, if independent artists really wanted to give the stuff away for free, why couldn't content owners simply retract their ownership claims -- which Google has an explicit procedure for?

From what I have read, most musicians consider YouTube as a promotional platform and not a revenue stream from videos. Google's threat is that they will eliminate Youtube as a promotional platform.

From what I've read it doesn't sound like this at all. What it sounds like is that YouTube is not a huge revenue stream, but artists get something from it. Google is offering to give labels money for their new subscription service, but the terms are not great. It sounds like they are also requiring labels to sign onto the subscription service terms to still retain ad money for the free service.

So, assuming I'm understanding this right, the choices for the labels are: (1) set a bad precedent by accepting unfair terms for the new service while retaining perhaps even further reduced revenues from the free service, or (2) refuse the terms and lose the small amount of revenue from free stuff.

Meanwhile, they can let Google do the enforcing by taking down their licensed videos, and play the media war. Worst case scenario is that they lose the small amount of ad revenue, but come back and re-post their videos for free (disclaiming blocking rights, as is their prerogative under content ID terms) and still get the promotional value with their videos on YouTube. Best case scenario is Google caves and gives them better terms.

You can choose to believe

Re:What's a music video?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Sorry to reply again, but one other thing I forgot -- multiple media sources have already made clear that otherwise licensed content from these indy labels (e.g., stuff on the Vevo channels) will still be available on YouTube.

That would make your scenario even weirder. Third-parties get to allow stuff to get played on YouTube, but the actual copyright holders of the content wouldn't get to make that decision for themselves. Theoretically possible, I suppose, but I really can't imagine how all this would stand up as a fair business practice in court.

Google learned from Microsoft:

[Anonymous Coward]

Do evil to make money.

Monopoly

[jwdb]

How is this not an abuse of monopoly regulations? They're using their influence in one sector - online videos - to strong-arm customers in another sector. That's what Microsoft got in trouble for with Windows and IE, right?

Re:Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this not an abuse of monopoly regulations? They're using their influence in one sector - online videos - to strong-arm customers in another sector. That's what Microsoft got in trouble for with Windows and IE, right?

I'll bite. Keep in mind that IANAL so you can take this analysis for whatever you think it might be worth. Google is changing the terms of service for indie labels to use youtube: they will have to either join the streaming service or have their content removed from youtube. While I do question the wisdom of this decision (I can almost hear the sounds of web developers furiously cranking out a bunch of other video sharing websites as I type this), I don't think this is at all illegal or even "evil". If, on the other hand, google were to try to keep other websites from picking up content from these indie labels...that I could see as trying to leverage thier market share. That hypothetical situation I could see as being rightly called illegal, even "evil".

But, hey, don't let my analysis get in the way of a good rant.

Re:Monopoly

[jwdb]

Would you believe that I honestly wasn't trying to rant or troll? I don't understand what the streaming service has to do with Youtube, and was under the impression that they were two separate business segments. Please correct me if this impression is mistaken.

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog

[Anonymous Coward]

> Google is not such a huge market leader for video than Microsoft is for Desktop OS.

I am curious, what would you say microsoft's marketshare was? 80% 90% 95%?

Google has 96%
1B visitors/month versus vimeo's 60M visitors/month

And 3rd place is so small that nobody even cares how many visitors per month they have.

Still confused, even after reading TFA

[sstamps]

It says that musicians, who are signed with an indie label that has not agreed to the "terms", will have their videos removed/blocked.

What "terms"? How does this affect indie musicians who are not signed to an affected indie label (or an indie label at all)? Do they also have to agree to these so-called "terms"?

Maybe if Google had someone who wasn't a low-grade moron marketroid answering such questions with real answers, they could avoid egg on their face, as well as rotten tomatoes, then torches and pitchforks.

Some of Vimeo's guidelines confuse me.

[tepples]

One thing keeping me from recommending Vimeo as a general-purpose substitute for YouTube is that I'm having trouble understanding some of Vimeo's guidelines.

• The uploader must not only have permission from the video's copyright owner but also be an author of the video. I can see how a bunch of edge cases would arise from this, such as minor authors, authors living in an area with a slow or capped Internet connection, etc.
• Vimeo doesn't appear to allow the use of footage from a video game in a review of that video game.
• I'm not sure how Vimeo determines whether an uploader qualifies as "an independent production company, artist, or non-profit".
• "No videos that depict or promote unlawful acts" would rule out using Vimeo to rule out whistleblowing and other forms of documentary that depict unlawful acts without glorifying them.

Has anyone read the contract?

[imatter]

Do we just believe the PR from the indie labels on this, where's the contract? Someone have a link?

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog

[Anonymous Coward]

> Because YouTube is not a monopoly

In your mind, how much of the market does it take for youtube to qualify as a monopoly? Are you one of those sophists who says it isn't a monopoly as long as there is somebody else, anybody else, no matter how small their marketshare?

Because youtube has 94% of the market. And by the definition of most reasonable people that easily qualifies as a monopoly.

> it's not unreasonable or unfair of it to try to recover costs (or, gasp, make a profit) somehow.

They are making a profit, they are showing ads on the videos on youtube. This is above and beyond that and it is only for certain videos. They are doing price discrimination based on the content rather than their own costs. They make just as much money per play from a 30 second video of an elephant taking a dump as they do from a 30 second music video. But they are adding extra requirements to the music video.

In your geekheart you know that's unfair. The question isn't whether they can do it, clearly they can do it, the question is if we as their paying customers think it is fair (yes we pay with our personal information, if it weren't valuable google wouldn't have a market cap in the billions).

Missing information

[ArhcAngel]

I am confused. Does Google/YouTube already ad share with these Indie labels or are the labels just posting up their artists content on YouTube on a channel they created? If it's the latter how is the video any different than a cat video sissy456 posted with a background of Journey's Don't Stop Believing? If it's the former then I support Google's right to set the terms of how they pay content providers on their web property. I couldn't find that anywhere in the article.

Monopolistic much

[Anonymous Coward]

This smacks of something illegal ... if it is not then it should be.

Emigration + $25

[tepples]

but IF they already have their videos on youtube, wouldnt it be like getting a new source of money that you didnt have before by going into the streaming?

That depends on whether the revenue exceeds how much it costs to register for the streaming service. For example, Chrome Web Store for Chrome apps costs $5 and Google Play Store for Android apps costs $25, plus the cost of the time spent on the process of registering. Apparently, registering for Google Play Music requires first moving to one of these 28 countries and then paying a $25 sign-up fee.

Give Microsoft a try

[tepples]

Bing (formerly Live Search), Outlook.com (formerly Hotmail), and OneDrive (formerly SkyDrive) do those in a web browser. Which "major platforms" are you referring to?

Re:Give Microsoft a try

[NatasRevol]

There's 4 major platforms: Windows, MacOSX, Android, iOS.

Re:Give Microsoft a try

[Skylinux]

Ahh yes Microsoft. A company with a history of repeatedly doing the right thing.
What was the latest? Oh yeah, accessing someone's e-mail account for an investigation without a warrant.

Re:Give Microsoft a try

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is so bad they need to keep changing the names of their products so that it's harder to figure out it is the same old crap with a different name. Seriously. I'd rather poke my eyes out with needles than deal with MS.

Re:Give Microsoft a try

[lgw]

They also have Android clients now for everything (plus Windows of course). Outlook.com's web interface is nice IMO - I like it better that gmail today (gmail 10 yrs ago was great and simple, now not so much). MS has also recently make a public promise not to read your email or docs, even to serve you ads (believe that if you will).

Re:Give Microsoft a try

[shutdown -p now]

Then GP's answer is spot on. Of those, the only service that needs a special client is OneDrive, and it has clients for all the platforms that you've listed. Outlook.com is just an IMAP provider, so any email client will work (it's also surprisingly decent as a web mail - I've tried it recently and found it to actually be better at Google at getting out of my way).

Re:Give Microsoft a try

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh yes Microsoft. A company with a history of repeatedly doing the right thing. What was the latest? Oh yeah, accessing someone's e-mail account for an investigation without a warrant.

Information wants to be free, sharing is good and if you dont want your private information to be shared then keep it private and dont give it to anybody.

Re:Give Microsoft a try

[exomondo]

And do you actually believe you can trust any service to not do that?

Re:Give Microsoft a try

[NatasRevol]

So, we're going from Evil Google to Microsoft?

Re:Give Microsoft a try

[shutdown -p now]

I suppose you could keep switching back and forth depending on who's more evil at any given moment. ~

Re:Give Microsoft a try

[Altrag]

If they said it publicly, they probably mean it. They don't really need more lawsuits I'm sure.

The tricky part is that all ToS these days are subject to arbitrary, unilateral and for online services, almost always retroactive changes. So even if they say that today and mean it, they might change what they say next year and if you're really lucky they might give you a grace period to "delete" (ie: hide from yourself but possibly not them) your data and close your account.

...Or Leave YouTube

[tepples]

Would "Google: Indie Musicians Must Join Play Music Or Leave YouTube" have worked?

Define "independent artist"

[mark-t]

If a person records themselves singing or playing a song that they made, are they disallowed from putting that video on youtube now?

I just can't understand the logic of this.

[SocialEngineer]

As an indie musician (not tied to a label at all), this blows my mind.

I myself, as well as numerous other friends, love to look up indie artists on YT before we hit a show, or when we're deciding who we're going to go see. I myself frequently research other bands I'm performing with (especially if they cover a tune that I also cover).

Musicians sign to labels so the label can handle a lot of the administrative work, as well as provide financing for production. If a label is unable to handle the time-sink of YT uploads (which is extremely important for the SEO of a band when done properly), that's one more thing the musician has to take care of by hand.

Increasing the overhead, or reducing the income to indie labels hurts the indie artists. That's what Google does when they force already well-squeezed labels (most indie labels don't pull down the huge chunks major labels, or even the major vanity labels do) to cut their limited profits more.

Re:I just can't understand the logic of this.

[Ash-Fox]

love to look up indie artists on YT before we hit a show

I guess you'll have to use a video search engine instead like... http://video.google.com/

Increasing the overhead, or reducing the income to indie labels hurts the indie artists.

Increasing the overhead of YouTube, or reducing the income to YouTube hurts YouTube...

That's what Google does when they force already well-squeezed labels (most indie labels don't pull down the huge chunks major labels, or even the major vanity labels do) to cut their limited profits more.

They're not forcing anything. It's their service, not yours. I would consider it forcing if it was your service (in the context of hosting videos) and they were dictating the terms of contract.

Re: I just can't understand the logic of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube already has a financial back end. Why penalize one group of people for video content, but not everybody?

Re: I just can't understand the logic of this.

[Ash-Fox]

Everyone else accepted the terms actually.

Where do I get my lyrics?

[Anonymous Coward]

People realize that most artists who distribute digitally don't commonly provide other materials such as lyrics, album art, etc. in the purchase. Half the time I have to goto youtube and get the lyrics vid. Google wants to take that way?

Re:learn to think, dammit!

[Anonymous Coward]

When Soulskill made this article, the creator was targeting a different audience. Sorry that you got caught up as collateral damage. The intended audience was for those who had at least six brain cells.

Nothing indicated that Google's search engine was making any changes. Google owns YouTube. Google was making the statements. Nothing implied otherwise. In fact, the glaring "YouTube" icon did indicate that this was related to YouTube, and left no need for confusion.

There is more to Google than just search. The most prominent examples are likely G-Mail and the Android operating system. (I would like to even add the Chrome web browser to that list, though I fear trying to make the distinction.) Others do exist. Even though Postini and DoubleClick may be less widely known, there's actually a fair number of technologies and even entire organizations that have been acquired by Google.

Here, let me give you a hint that will help you years from now: When someday Google announces that improved technology will allow newer self-driving cars to perform a specific task (like parallel parking) at an even higher speed than some limit that existed with earlier implementations of Google's self-driving car technology, Google's announcement of that speed increase does not mean that the search engine's website will deliver content faster.

YouTube Finis

[PopeRatzo]

Google thinks YouTube is too big to fail. That it's become so entrenched in culture that people will never leave and find another source of online videos or music or whatever.

They apparently have not learned the lesson of MySpace.

YouTube could easily become obsolete. Google is not the only online outfit. Maybe it would do them some good to really take it in the teeth once or twice.

I have no intention of ever using Google's music streaming service. I'm perfectly happy with Spotify. And I could be perfectly happy using a different video streaming website. YouTube's community is so broken anyway.

Re:YouTube Finis

[Anonymous Coward]

http://linux.slashdot.org/comm...

Surprise... the other shoe drops

[WaffleMonster]

This is what happens wherever we have allowed too much to be aggregated into the hands of the few.

TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA sounds more like that indie LABELS are demanding more money to allow Youtube to legally keep the videos up. Title is HUGELY misleading.

Fuck Google anyways

[nowsharing]

Do Indie bands and labels even need Youtube? It seems like the big loser would be Youtube itself, both through a loss of freely submitted content, and through the terrible backlash that this is going to cause.

Little by little, Youtube posters have been jumping ship as the deal has gotten progressively worse. In the end, what good is a media service with no content? Or even worse, with only low-quality and corporate content?

But will they deindex them entirely?

[mark-t]

What if an independent musician has their own website with their music videos? Will google deindex them from search results?

Google pays $4.5B/yr to keep YouTube running

[Overzeetop]

Yes, this is the same distribution channel which Google develops and maintains - at significant expense I should point out, including the monitoring and servicing of DMCA take down notices. They use advertising to make money, which covers the cost of operations plus a profit. Youtube was purchased for $1.6 Billion 8 years ago and took more than 4 years to make a profit, pouring - conservatively - $8 Billion into the operation to get it profitable, and costing Google $4.5 Billion per year to run and maintain.

Remind me again how Google is providing no value in this equation?

Re:Google pays $4.5B/yr to keep YouTube running

[amicusNYCL]

I haven't seen anyone assert that Google is providing nothing of value. The argument that I see brewing is that Google is questioning the value provided by independent music.

Re:Monopoly vs Monopoly

[Overzeetop]

Did you know that each one of those artists has a monopoly on their music? If they say you can't play it, you're fucked. There is no appeal, no court, no power that allows you to play their music unless they agree to it. It's all in the copyright law.

So much for that slogan of theirs

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't be evil" my arse.

Re:So much for that slogan of theirs

[Anonymous Coward]

i say the same thing every morning after curry night..

Abuse of Market Dominance

[g8oz]

Youtube has the most eyeballs by far, and many "influencers" use it to discover new acts. This makes Google's policy an "Abuse of Dominance".
http://www.competitionbureau.g...

You forgot the important part

[HalAtWork]

They refused to agree to the revised terms which are unnegotiable, which indies are claiming to be unfavorable.

Re:You forgot the important part

[Slashdot Parent]

They refused to agree to the revised terms which are unnegotiable, which indies are claiming to be unfavorable.

I don't really know anything about this particular dustup between the music labels and Google, but I do know one thing: the music labels have a long and storied history of abusing their stranglehold over distribution channels for their own financial benefit. With that shoe currently on the other foot, I wonder if this isn't a bit of butthurtedness on the part of the labels that Google isn't willing to kowtow to them?

Then please help clarify

[tepples]

Those guidelines seem pretty [expletive] clear.

If you feel so strongly about it, then perhaps you could help explain these. First, on what basis does Vimeo determine whether a particular uploader is an "independent production company, artist, or non-profit"? Second, because Vimeo allows "No screen-captures of video games or gameplay videos, even if edited", on what service that isn't Vimeo or YouTube should one post a review of a video game?

Re:Then please help clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, because Vimeo allows "No screen-captures of video games or gameplay videos, even if edited", on what service that isn't Vimeo or YouTube should one post a review of a video game?

Amongst 56.com, Archive.org, AfreecaTV, Blip.tv, BlogTV, Break.com, Buzznet, Comedy.com, DaCast, Dailymotion, EngageMedia, ExpoTV, Facebook, Flickr, Fotki, Funnyordie, Funshion, GodTube, Lafango, LeTV, Liveleak, Mefeedia, Metacafe, Mevio, Myspace, MyVideo, MUZU.TV, Nico Nico Douga, Openfilm, Panopto, Photobucket, Pixorial, ReelTime, RuTube, Sapo, Sevenload, SmugMug, Tape.tv, Trilulilu, TroopTube, Tudou, Tune, Vbox7, Veoh, Videojug, Videolog, Vidoosh, Vidyard, Vpublic.net, Vuze, Vzaar, Wildscreen.tv, Wistia, Yahoo! Video, Youku, etc...I'm sure you can find services to meet all your needs. Failing that you can host it yourself, yes it will cost you money (it should be trivial for you to calculate that) but not everything is free and if you have specific needs that aren't served by existing services then that's your problem to solve.

Re:Then please help clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

First, on what basis does Vimeo determine whether a particular uploader is an "independent production company, artist, or non-profit"

On the basis of asking them to provide documentation of their status as a production company, artist, or non-profit? If you're a production company, you should have incorporation documents that you could use; if you're an artist, you are the one who owns and produces the video you're uploading; if you're a non-profit, you surely have documentation of that status from the IRS, or else you aren't a non-profit.

What's confusing about these things? Do you have any of the documents above? No? Then it's exceedingly unlikely that you qualify for their exemption, and thus need to purchase a Pro account to showcase your work there.

on what service that isn't Vimeo or YouTube should one post a review of a video game?

How is that a confusing part of their guidelines? They're very clear - you MAY NOT post a review of a video game to Vimeo. How you post a review of a video game is therefore not their problem. Vimeo doesn't weigh in on which car you should buy, either - are their guidelines needlessly confusing your decision-making when it comes to purchasing a vehicle? Do you consult their guidelines when deciding what to eat at night?

Re:Then please help clarify

[Blaskowicz]

Wow they are mostly all unknown to me, beside Dailymotion.
I thought Liveleak was a place to post torture videos, dismemberments, executions etc.
"Youku" phonetically reads as "you arse" in my language lol.

Re:Then please help clarify

[exomondo]

Second, because Vimeo allows "No screen-captures of video games or gameplay videos, even if edited", on what service that isn't Vimeo or YouTube should one post a review of a video game?

Why not just use Youtube? Or one of the hundreds of other video sharing sites.

Re:Then please help clarify

[tepples]

Why not just use Youtube?

Because the context was which of the "hundreds of other video sharing sites" are among the most viable alternatives to YouTube, as a counterargument to i kan reed's claim that YouTube holds market power.

Re:Then please help clarify

[exomondo]

Because the context was which of the "hundreds of other video sharing sites" are among the most viable alternatives to YouTube, as a counterargument to i kan reed's claim that YouTube holds market power.

"Most viable" is subjective and depends on your specific needs and if youtube introduces certain restrictions that you are opposed to and don't want to agree to then clearly it doesn't hold market power because the service is not suitable for you. I'm not sure what you think their "market power" is, what market are you referring to that they have power over? Anybody can launch a music site.

However given that searching for video sharing sites provides a link to a Wikipedia entry that lists dozens of them you should be able to identify ones that suit your specific needs.

Re:Then please help clarify

[exomondo]

Anybody can launch a video site.

Re:Then please help clarify

[tepples]

if youtube introduces certain restrictions that you are opposed to and don't want to agree to then clearly it doesn't hold market power because the service is not suitable for you.

By market power I was referring to the sort of market power with which antitrust law deals. If YouTube is unsuitable for me yet so suitable for the majority of people-other-than-me that other video sharing sites end up driven out of business, then YouTube has market power.

Re:Then please help clarify

[exomondo]

By market power I was referring to the sort of market power with which antitrust law deals

Then all sites have "market power", some more than others. There's nothing wrong with that.

If YouTube is unsuitable for me yet so suitable for the majority of people-other-than-me that other video sharing sites end up driven out of business, then YouTube has market power.

Then they don't, because there are many other video sharing sites that are not out of business, moreover you can host your own videos yourself irrespective of youtube.

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog

[NotInHere]

I admit I have underestimated google's market share. Of course antitrust applies here.

No one needs youtube

[Karmashock]

there are a zillion other video services begging to be considered that really are just as good technically... they obviously lack the huge library of cat videos that youtube has amassed. However, a specialty music site might be a better fit for the independent artists.

Tech Companies as Bad as the Record Companies

[Anonymous Coward]

There are about 250,000 people who file with the IRS and list musician as their job. How many can you name?

A few dozen? A few hundred? The rest are struggling, or have actual jobs like music teacher or organ player at the ball park. They're not getting rich and never will. That band behind the big singing star? They're most likely making less than you.

The stock option millionaires and billionaires in tech, with 401k's and health insurance and so many perks (my day job is IT, don't deny this), have turned out to be no better than the record companies.

Maybe worse.

Non-paywalled link to original FT story

[tlambert]

Non-paywalled link to original FT story
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0...

TL;DR version:

Google is removing them *from the premium streaming platform*, not from YouTube entirely, unless they agree to a specific streaming royalty structure AND agree to some changes to how their free content is handled as well. The objection is primarily to the free content rules, which artists, who are mostly represented by the rights agency Merlin, believe will undercut sales of their music. The refusal to sign away the rights on their free content mean they are being delisted from Google's premium streaming service, which is only a loss for them if that service takes off, and their content isn't their to receive stream royalties.

Do no evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. This is just evil. I will start looking for non-Google options for email and such, and will encourage the IEEE to stop using Google for ieee.org email - the current President of the IEEE-USA is a close personal friend... First I will cancel my Google Apps business account.

Re:Do no evil?

[Ash-Fox]

Ok. This is just evil. I will start looking for non-Google options for email and such, and will encourage the IEEE to stop using Google for ieee.org email - the current President of the IEEE-USA is a close personal friend... First I will cancel my Google Apps business account.

Cool story, bro.

I agree the latter is not Vimeo's problem

[tepples]

If you're a production company, you should have incorporation documents that you could use [etc]

Thank you. With that having been clarified, now my concern shifts to where "showcas[ing] your creative work" ends and "upload[ing] videos with a commercial intent" begins.

How you post a review of a video game is therefore not their problem.

I fully agree with you that it is not Vimeo's problem. But it is the problem of anyone who suggests Vimeo as an example of a full replacement for YouTube.

Right thing but for the wrong reasons?

[monstza]

Its well known that services like Spotify don't make much money. They charge the cost of a CD a month, which is way more than I used to spend on CDs. Yet, everyone in the chain is struggling.

http://www.businessweek.com/ar...:

" Roger Entner of Recon Analytics says streaming music services should be sustainable when they reach 10 million paying users. "

I am not sure how big the streaming market will become, but 10 million users just to break even sounds like a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now only two or three streaming services are actually profitable.

Those 2 or 3 companies will wield all the power and eventually re-negotiate deals that are horrid for the music industry.

I worry that the (indie) labels are just being short sited. They should welcome several players in the streaming market and charge them a reasonable rate. That's the best way they can ensure the streaming music industry is alive and healthy.

Time for a new youtube...

[stealth_finger]

...with black jack...and hookers. Etc.

Oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they also remove the illegal uploads of my tracks then? That's fine with me... :)

do no evil

[Anonymous Coward]

yep. sure. we believe.

Re:Monopoly vs Monopoly

[jwdb]

Monopoly is not a problem per se, and there's plenty of entities that have a monopoly. The issue is when they use the power of monopoly in one area to gain an unfair advantage in another area where they have no monopoly.

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog

[Ash-Fox]

How the fsck do you think this won't get you large fines for unfair competition practices in the European Union?

By providing terms of service that you agree to use their service or you don't get the service.

By forcing people to have you represent them

You're not forced, go with another provider or make your own.

you are being unfair competition to other streaming web sites and small record labels

YouTube isn't a public market, it's a service.

You may have oodles of lawyers up your sleeve, but even they won't be able to get away with this in the EU.

Cool story, bro.

Do no evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. With a stovepipe.