Independent artists could disappear from YouTube "in a matter of days"

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/17/youtube-indie-labels-music-subscription

LOL

Awesome.

damn that sucks

google's all, we meant "don't be e-ville" (a ville made of 'e's)

apparently no one cares about this??

It's so awful and stupid that it doesn't seem like it could possibly really happen.

we need a "2k14 what's the worst enormous tech company?" thread, I bet Google would do much better this year.

haha (*sob*)

I have a hard time believing it to be legal, at least in EU. And the companies have already complained to the commission.

god now what are college students going to watch when they're supposed to be doing their fucken work?

I have a hard time believing it to be legal, at least in EU.

huh, interesting. can youtube be forced to host everyone's videos for free?

pretty sure that's a "no don't be stupid"

stupid re: legality of a hosting site being free to set its own terms and conditions i mean

Well, Microsoft got massive fines for including Internet Explorer with Windows, so I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be illegal to remove folks from one platform if they won't agree to go up on another.

If Youtube actually goes through with this, Vimeo and VHX are just waiting to welcome every displaced band/artist with open arms.

*phew*

ugh RIP

although as JF says hopefully current labels/bands will find a new way to put their videos out there but RIP finding new music from youtube's related videos sidebar, especially if every small label picks a different video site or just hosts them themselves.

what happens to all the old stuff up there from long-defunct bands and labels, fan-uploaded stuff, etc? I'd hate to see all the OOP early 80s stuff etc disappear.

Yeah, I wonder if they're willing to purge content from basic user accounts or if they're just targeting verified indie label/indie artist accounts.

it's probably just the official ones since that's how the labels could potentially be making money from youtube plays

Youtube/artists make money off civilian uploads too.

Happy new year 2003!

what if Youtube was all just a dream

I'd hate to see all the OOP early 80s stuff etc disappear.

Yeah this is the big thing for me.

The real tragedy here would be a total purging of all music that isn't on a paid client list. Youtube really is the best database of easily sampled music of all kinds in history, which is something I don't think anyone anticipated when it began.

new boss same as the old boss etc

not surprised at all fuck google

Would be funny if some other video site took advantage of this and marginalised YouTube.

this is about as likely as a meteor crashing to earth and directly taking out larry page

(the "marginalizes youtube" part, not the "startup cavalry arrives" part)

trolley dash time like when Napster went legal.

Well, Microsoft got massive fines for including Internet Explorer with Windows, so I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be illegal to remove folks from one platform if they won't agree to go up on another.

― Frederik B, Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:19 PM (5 hours ago)

this makes no sense. the products aren't comparable. no company has a legal obligation to provide free content hosting services to other companies.

I'd hate to see all the OOP early 80s stuff etc disappear.

Yeah this is the big thing for me.

― dem bow dem bow need calcium (seandalai), Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:32 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Same here, but at the same time it's kind of exciting to think about the creative/musical possibilities that would crop up if (a) period(s) of music was partially erased from history

who will distrupt the disruptor with disruption

this makes no sense. the products aren't comparable. no company has a legal obligation to provide free content hosting services to other companies.

Google has a commercial arrangement with independent labels for the use of music on YouTube. The question is whether they should be able to use the threat of withdrawing that commercial arrangement to strongarm them into signing up to a completely different service with different terms. The answer might be yes, but it's not clear cut.

Right. And the thing is, the law is probably quite different in EU and USA. I don't think you're allowed to use one company to threaten companies to join another one, that is disruptive of competetion - and textbook 'trust'-behaviour, I think, though 'trust' is one of those English words I'm not entirely sure of what means. And with that, it doesn't really matter what product it is, I think. The FCC should also be on it, but they're led by a human dingo, etc.

Yes, it looks like a textbook case of using a dominant market position (in the video streaming business) to create an unfair advantage over suppliers and competitors in another (the music streaming business). Amazon's war with Hachette (slowing down their orders, refusing to take pre-orders, etc) to get it to sign up at unfavourable rates to their e-book platform is similar in some ways and the EU has said they're monitoring that too even though (i think) it's primarily a US issue.

at a certain point when do things like YouTube have to be thought of like broadcast TV and radio from a regulatory standpoint?

(answer: like five years ago probably but will it happen?)

just after they finish consolidating the advantage over other multinational corporations they derived from the culture of rampant copyright violation they enabled

The former industry lobbyist head of the Federal Communications Comm.(FCC) in the US is just interested in creating "fast lanes" for certain companies on the internet, not in net neutrality or regulating tv and radio, or in working with the Justice Department on antitrust law issues involving monopolies like Comcast or Google.

Re creating a competitor to Youtube, whomever has the big bucks and tries needs to do a better job than Microsoft's Bing has done in competing with Google.

just after they finish consolidating the advantage over other multinational corporations they derived from the culture of rampant copyright violation they enabled

― j., Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:38 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

booming post

Google=dicks

Now I'm hearing rumors that music videos will stay, but that labels/artists/entities that do not sign up for the new service will not be able to make money off ads. That would make a lot more sense!

(answer: like five years ago probably but will it happen?)

^^^

Google should be regulated like a utility imo

this is about as likely as a meteor crashing to earth and directly taking out larry page

― katherine, Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:53 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

just after they finish consolidating the advantage over other multinational corporations they derived from the culture of rampant copyright violation they enabled
― j., Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:38 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

booming post

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:56 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yup, and I think this is the context things this particular move has to be understood in. They (along with other services) used free music to pretty much crush the old distribution channels for music, and now that they control the new ones they are using that market power against music businesses that are now dependent on them. I don't know a lot about antitrust law, although it seems to have been gutted somewhat by the courts in recent decades, but this seems like the sort of thing that antitrust law should protect against.

Now I'm hearing rumors that music videos will stay, but that labels/artists/entities that do not sign up for the new service will not be able to make money off ads. That would make a lot more sense!

― macklin' rosie (crüt), Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:00 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This would be much smarter. They want to remain the every-video source. If they block content, they open things up for competitors. If they keep all content but don't pay for some, labels have to make a hard choice whether to pull their own videos in retaliation for no longer receiving ad revenue, losing a marketing avenue.

Some articles and blogposts are still saying that Youtube will block official content that comes from the artist or the label

http://www.minyanville.com/sectors/technology/articles/Google-Continues-to-Botch-the-YouTube/6/18/2014/id/55333

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2014/06/18/youtube-is-about-to-delete-independent-artists-from-its-site/

Does anyone here run a label? I feel like some ilxor does.

Katherine care to elaborate?