The end of YouTube as we know it??

YouTube to block indie labels who don't sign up to new music service


Starting internal tests of subscription service but faces accusation of 'catastrophic error of judgement'

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... bscription



YouTube's Robert Kyncl on licensing: 'While we wish that we had 100 per cent success rate, we understand that is not likely an achievable goal'. Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty Images


Independent artists could disappear from YouTube "in a matter of days" after the Google video service confirmed it was dropping content from independent labels that have not signed up for its upcoming subscription music service.


YouTube is about to begin testing the new service – which will charge people to watch and listen to music without ads, and download songs to their mobile devices – within the next few days, initially within Google.

The company's head of content and business operations, Robert Kyncl, told the Financial Times that the service – previously rumoured to be called YouTube Music Pass – will launch more widely later in the year.

His confirmation that YouTube will block videos from labels that do not sign licensing deals for the new premium tier will be hugely controversial among indie labels, with trade body WIN already filing a complaint to the European Commission about its negotiating strategy.

"While we wish that we had 100% success rate, we understand that is not likely an achievable goal and therefore it is our responsibility to our users and the industry to launch the enhanced music experience," said Kyncl, claiming that YouTube has signed up labels representing 90% of the music industry.


Independent labels are likely to disagree. Their licensing agency Merlin estimates that indies collectively account for a 32.6% market share of the recorded music industry's sales and streams.

Contacted by The Guardian following his comments, WIN's chief executive Alison Wenham was blunt in her response. "They have suffered a simple but catastrophic error of judgement in misreading the market," said Wenham, who had organised a press conference earlier in the month to protest at YouTube's plans.

Wenham said YouTube was "setting itself up for failure" and only a small number of independent labels would agree to its terms.

"We have tried and will continue to try to help YouTube understand just how important independent music is to any streaming service and why it should be valued accordingly. Music fans want a service that offers the complete range of music available. This is something that companies such as Spotify and Deezer do, both of whom have excellent relationships with the independent music sector," she said.


WIN claims that the company has signed lucrative licensing deals with major labels Universal, Warner and Sony, while demanding that independent labels sign up to inferior terms or face having their videos blocked from YouTube's free service.

“Our goal is to continue making YouTube an amazing music experience, both as a global platform for fans and artists to connect, and as a revenue source for the music industry,” a Google spokesman said. He said the subscription-based service would bring new revenue streams “in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars YouTube already generates for them each year. We are excited that hundreds of major and independent labels are already partnering with us.”


Wenham's criticism echoes a claim made at the event by musician Billy Bragg, who said "I don’t know why they’ve opened this hornet’s nest right now, apart from corporate hubris. I don’t think they realise what a stupid thing they’ve done."

Artists including Adele, Arctic Monkeys and Jack White could see their videos taken down. The site has become a key promotional outlet for independent labels of all sizes in recent years.

YouTube attracts more than 1bn monthly viewers, with music one of its biggest categories. Its upcoming premium music subscription tier will compete with Spotify, Deezer and Napster among other services, including Apple-owned Beats Music and Google's own Google Play Music All Access.

Independent labels have long complained that they deserve more respect from digital music services negotiating licensing deals, and set up Merlin to strike deals on their behalf.

The agency has remained silent throughout the recent arguments about YouTube's planned new service, although its chief executive Charles Caldas criticised the company at an industry conference in late April.

Referring to an earlier quote from Bragg suggesting that musicians unhappy about royalties paid by Spotify should be "marching to YouTube central with flaming pitchforks", Caldas said: "I can’t say Billy’s right, but I can say that he’s not wrong."

The move comes as Amazon too has begun to flex its muscles in ways that limit the content its customers can receive. Amazon is delaying shipments and refused pre-orders for some titles from Hachette, publisher of Harry Potter author JK Rowling, and home to David Baldacci, Stephen Colbert, David Foster Wallace and others.

It has also pulled pre-orders for forthcoming Warner Home Video features, including international blockbuster The Lego Movie, 300: Rise of an Empire, Winter’s Tale and Transcendence.

• YouTube accused of strong-arming indie labels into poor deals

I'd be lying if I said I was sad to think of Youtube biting the dust. Don't get me wrong, WHAT it is is neat. However, as a community and as a content provider, it's definitely been sliding downhill for a good few years now.

Seeing them suffer a mortal wound through their own doing would allow competition to spring up and I'm all about seeing if other people can do it better.

Eh, they said the same thing when Google bought YouTube and vowed to purge all the unlicensed clips off of there. So they did and YouTube still exists. So now they're stepping it up on the music end. And guess what, it won't matter. YouTube isn't going away and independent music labels and artists will find somewhere else to go. And YouTube will carry on.

I was talking to a friend about this whole business and realized that what I'd like is to see a Youtube that ONLY exists for music videos. Independent, major label, etc. All equal opportunity and all ad supported.

Maybe have a few staff performing the function of the v-jay so playlists can be created. Have a one-hour rock, metal, rap, jazz, mix segment every week. Be a pretty neat idea if people caught on to it.

YouTube has been dead to me for quite some time now.

Why would an independent label not agree to a licensing deal with Youtube? They are using Youtube anyway to promote their videos. Now they'll just get money out of it, too.

Lari wrote:

Why would an independent label not agree to a licensing deal with Youtube? They are using Youtube anyway to promote their videos. Now they'll just get money out of it, too.

Guess you missed the part where it stated "poor deals".   I'd speculate that 1/4 cent on the dollar (given by other business models) is gonna end up being a killer deal in the near future.

YouTube is a major problem with the deteriorating fabric of modern society. (IMHO) Take away the social media aspect of it and stuff like "Knockout Games" wouldn't even exist.  Yeah, it's nice to check out a new promo clip from a favorite band but I have issue with folks posting things that a band or company offers for sale in the retail outlets and take revenue away from them in a day and age where every dollar earned is getting tapped into by more and more vultures and bands get the least from it at all.

So let them shoot themselves in the foot

Even if YouTube dies, something identical to it will take its place.

Nobody should be surprised at this. You become the 800lb gorilla in this segment and squeeze people who become reliant on it for as much as they'll pay.

There are plenty of alternatives out there each with their own positives and negatives but none of them have the power and online reach that Google has. Who knows how long it would take to put up a decent challenge to it?

The frustrating part of all of this is David Byrne covers why MTV stopped showing videos in his book. Labels thought they could start charging MTV to show their videos and MTV went, "Well, we WERE giving you free avenues for advertising your artists. I guess we can make our own content instead."

In some ways, we now have the equal and opposite of having to curry favor with the broadcaster.

I ride the fence on this one. The internet has made things so f*cking complicated.

corplhicks wrote:

I ride the fence on this one. The internet has made things so f*cking complicated.

True that.

Poor deals. How much are these labels making now?

Eyesore wrote:

Poor deals. How much are these labels making now?

Considering that half of them are owned by the kind of ginormous conglomerates that make Umbrella from the Resident Evil games look modest and local, I don't think this matters much anymore.

The days of the "label" as an autonomous company that handles record distribution seem to be well and truly over save for the true independents and few of them bother with labels. Anymore, if you press CDs, vinyl, or whatever, it's paid by the same bank account that rolls out jet fighters, vaccines, diapers, laser printer paper, etc.

That alone is kind of creepy.

Svengo wrote:

Nobody should be surprised at this. You become the 800lb gorilla in this segment and squeeze people who become reliant on it for as much as they'll pay.

There are plenty of alternatives out there each with their own positives and negatives but none of them have the power and online reach that Google has. Who knows how long it would take to put up a decent challenge to it?

You are right.
For example, there are other social media sites similar to Facebook, but
because Facebook is fast and easy to find through Google search, not many will leave it for another site because so many use it.
I haven't switched. I just stopped using facebook completely.

Youtube might be a different case than say Facebook or twitter or instagram, because they tick people off so much.
and not just for viewing but sharing, so they WILL look for and use alternative video sites.

Recently, Youtube's programmers have messed around again and viewers are angry.
Can't copy text description in ''About'' tab in video
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/HU7yQD7Jbk4

Many people use Youtube because it is convenient and the web address is easy to remember.
In the past few days, I noticed more comments about people switching to Vimeo instead.

Vimeo is a much more stable site from my experience. They just have a lot less content by comparison. This move by Youtube may change that.

Anyone else here miss Myspace? That was a much better aggregator for news if your favorite bands were on there. The news feed made a lot more sense, the multimedia support was a lot more well integrated... I mean, it really was the bee's knees.

Runicen wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Poor deals. How much are these labels making now?

Considering that half of them are owned by the kind of ginormous conglomerates that make Umbrella from the Resident Evil games look modest and local, I don't think this matters much anymore.

The days of the "label" as an autonomous company that handles record distribution seem to be well and truly over save for the true independents and few of them bother with labels.  Anymore, if you press CDs, vinyl, or whatever, it's paid by the same bank account that rolls out jet fighters, vaccines, diapers, laser printer paper, etc.

That alone is kind of creepy.

as long as their press cds they can be as creepy as they wanna be   

Once all of us old fogies stop buying cds then we shall see how well the music industry holds up.

exact33 wrote:

as long as their press cds they can be as creepy as they wanna be   

Once all of us old fogies stop buying cds then we shall see how well the music industry holds up.

Hah. Point.   

I'm starting to wonder if the next big step now that everyone is wireless is cloud storage in lossless. I mean, the first company that puts out a portable player or even a phone that has a solid, fast connection to a cloud server where you can store all of your music, I think the physical collection might be counting its days save for a handful of diehards.

Sadly, that means that instead of having a savvy friend or a music store clerk turning you on to something new, you're going to be looking to Spotify or iTunes to recommend something based on a search algorythm.

Nowhere near as sexy as the old way to go about it.

Cloud storage..reminds me of more than 5 years ago, when a girl I know lost all her music.

Her computer died and she couldn't get everything again from Limewire,
so I sent her a few cd-r's packed with mp3'd CD-rips I made, with some of her favorite bands, off CD's I owned.

She goes to bars every week, so she supports local bands (and the bar) that way,
instead of spending $ on all the physical listening products like we do (tapes, vinyl, CD's)

hmmm,
...so if people CAN'T connect to Cloud storage, they can't listen to their music?
If some 4chan-type hacker wiped out those kinds of sites, then what will they do?

Runicen wrote:

David Byrne covers why MTV stopped showing videos in his book. Labels thought they could start charging MTV to show their videos and MTV went, "Well, we WERE giving you free avenues for advertising your artists.  I guess we can make our own content instead."

Yep, I read that same story in a book called "I Want My MTV" about the network's first ten years.

I use cloud storage - I have about 12,000 songs stored in the cloud - I also have all of those songs saved on two seperate hard drives. However, I have the physical media because I ripped all those songs from cds/vinyl. Cloud storage is very useful for me because I listen on my commute and at work. I can stream from the Cloud onto my iPhone and not use up my hard drive.

If you use Cloud storage, you'd better have multiple backups.

For all my fine talk about the Cloud, I have to admit, I'd rather have a physical product than a download any day. Full stop.

Granted, I could do without all of this "eco-wallet" or "digipack" bull, but some companies have even found ways to make those snazzy and not eat CDs, so it's all a question of execution, I guess.

There's no replacement, in my mind anyway, for pulling out a case and picking through the liner notes and lyrics while listening. Maybe I'm a relic for that, but I think it's a really cool experience, even if you only read it once or twice before ripping the disc and tossing it on the shelf. It creates a sense of connection with the artist that just downloading files with a .jpg cover image will never touch.

When I hear "the Cloud", I think of this Dilbert strip:

DallasBlack wrote:

When I hear "the Cloud", I think of this Dilbert strip:

Haha. I have to watch myself sometimes. I may not be that bad, but I get into Luddite territory pretty quickly. I don't trust MY hard drives not to fail. Putting my stuff off-site on someone else's hard drives doesn't make it any more trustworthy to me.

It starts feeling like a grandpa moment when I hear about cloud storage this and the other and just go, "Bah, I'll keep my data on CDs and DVDs! Nobody can take my shiny discs away!"   

I cannot argue about the convenience of digital music but the points made here are correct - if you cannot access the music its kinda like having a cd and no cd player.