Slashdot Mirror
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.
Read the arcticle so you don't have to:
This is about removing artists from Youtube, not from the Google search engine.
Google, how the fuck is this not evil?
I suppose you mean "or be removed FROM YOUTUBE"???
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.
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!
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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.
ASK TOOLBAR!!!!!!!!!!! RAGE!
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?
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
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!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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!
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
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.
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.
If my guess is correct, the answer to your question is that the process is actually self-selecting.
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.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Ads? What ads? There are ads in YouTube?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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.