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

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

[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 Therefore, the LICENSES that the LABELS agreed to are no longer valid.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.

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: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: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: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.