Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google: Indie Musicians Must Join Streaming Service Or Be Removed

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the our-way-or-the-highway dept.

Youtube 364

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.

cancel ×

364 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

People pay for music? (2)

glrotate (300695) | about 3 months ago | (#47255747)

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

Re:People pay for music? (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 3 months ago | (#47256025)

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? (3, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 3 months ago | (#47256211)

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? (3, Insightful)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 3 months ago | (#47256339)

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.

Google learned from Microsoft: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256295)

Do evil to make money.

FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google' (4, Informative)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 3 months ago | (#47255751)

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' (4, Insightful)

Florian Weimer (88405) | about 3 months ago | (#47255909)

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' (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47256119)

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

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256231)

I think that's an excellent move, to give strong incentive to use a different service. So much for their monopoly.... until the government steps in with Obama's "googlecare".

Re:FYI: remove from Youtube not from 'Google' (3, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#47256267)

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' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256173)

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?

What's a music video? (2)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47256277)

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.

Ummm (3, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | about 3 months ago | (#47255755)

Google, how the fuck is this not evil?

Re:Ummm (0)

Creepy (93888) | about 3 months ago | (#47255795)

yeah - my thoughts exactly [wikipedia.org] , as well.

Re:Ummm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255839)

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

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

Re:Ummm (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255875)

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 (2)

almitydave (2452422) | about 3 months ago | (#47255979)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256341)

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

Re:Ummm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255881)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256195)

Little Gamers [little-gamers.com] illustrates the evolution of Google pretty well.

Re:Ummm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255893)

run your own server.

Discovery of self-hosted videos (0)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47256185)

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 (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | about 3 months ago | (#47256287)

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:Ummm (4, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 3 months ago | (#47255907)

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 (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47256161)

One thing you can do:

duckduckgo.com

Another
mozilla.org or opera I guess

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

Re:Ummm (1)

ADRA (37398) | about 3 months ago | (#47255917)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255987)

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

Re:Ummm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256019)

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 (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 3 months ago | (#47256075)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256135)

RTFS, it is an "upcoming" streaming service.

Re:Ummm (2)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 3 months ago | (#47256157)

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

Re:Ummm (1)

drakaan (688386) | about 3 months ago | (#47256133)

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 (1)

butchersong (1222796) | about 3 months ago | (#47256141)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256147)

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 (1)

mbone (558574) | about 3 months ago | (#47256217)

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

Re:Ummm (3, Informative)

matbury (3458347) | about 3 months ago | (#47256151)

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... [sourcewatch.org]

Re:Ummm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256187)

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

These labels are just as evil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256269)

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.

learn to write, dammit! (4, Informative)

sribe (304414) | about 3 months ago | (#47255757)

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

Re:learn to write, dammit! (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#47256297)

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.

Flaimbate (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255761)

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 (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47255791)

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 (3, Insightful)

zieroh (307208) | about 3 months ago | (#47255869)

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 (4, Interesting)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47256057)

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 (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 3 months ago | (#47256109)

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?

But what's a label? (2)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47256239)

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:Flaimbate (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47255897)

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 (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 3 months ago | (#47256039)

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 (4, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47256081)

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 (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 3 months ago | (#47256227)

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 (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47256299)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255919)

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 (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47256045)

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 (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47256249)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255951)

apologetic overdose

Re:Flaimbate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256027)

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 (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 months ago | (#47256175)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256317)

"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.

We Were Not Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255765)

Note the use of the past tense.

New middlemen flex their muscles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255771)

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

Re:New middlemen flex their muscles (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 3 months ago | (#47255945)

So ditch'em.

Move to soundcloud. [soundcloud.com]

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 (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47256083)

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 (2)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47255803)

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

Re:Definition (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255889)

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

cruft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255811)

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 (4, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | about 3 months ago | (#47255813)

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! [washingtonpost.com]

Re:Don't be Google (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 3 months ago | (#47256183)

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

Don't be evil... (0)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 3 months ago | (#47255823)

... well that didn't last too long. Don't be evil [wikipedia.org]

Risking irrelevance (3, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 3 months ago | (#47255825)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255977)

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 (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 3 months ago | (#47256001)

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 (4, Interesting)

PrimaryConsult (1546585) | about 3 months ago | (#47256107)

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 (2)

machineghost (622031) | about 3 months ago | (#47256259)

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" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255835)

n/t

Not evil.... (1, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 3 months ago | (#47255843)

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.... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47255947)

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.... (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 3 months ago | (#47256065)

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.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255967)

> 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.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256007)

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.... (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about 3 months ago | (#47256009)

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.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256015)

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.... (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 3 months ago | (#47256113)

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.

Unfair competition clause is going to bite Google (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 3 months ago | (#47255911)

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.

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 3 months ago | (#47256005)

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.

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 3 months ago | (#47256067)

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.

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 3 months ago | (#47256189)

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.

Re:Unfair competition clause is going to bite Goog (1)

DamonHD (794830) | about 3 months ago | (#47256251)

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

A great opportunity for Vimeo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255941)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255959)

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.

Do nothing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255997)

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! (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47256111)

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

youtube.com...because upyours.com was taken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47255999)

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

B.b.but... Oracle (4, Funny)

sproketboy (608031) | about 3 months ago | (#47256003)

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

MySpace to the rescue? (5, Interesting)

PseudoCoder (1642383) | about 3 months ago | (#47256023)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256283)

What's a MySpace?

something is better then nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256047)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256049)

... For the independent musicians...

Google shooting itself in the foot YET AGAIN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47256071)

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

How do they decide? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 months ago | (#47256241)

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.

Summary is Awful (4, Insightful)

SJ2000 (1128057) | about 3 months ago | (#47256255)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?