If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pando Daily)   YouTube will start blocking videos "in a matter of days" from artists whose labels refused to agree to the terms of the platform's new subscription service - terms that are non-negotiable and worse than the deals offered by Spotify, Deezer, and Rdio   (pando.com) divider line 43
    More: Asinine, Spotify, independent record label, YouTube, Billy Bragg, Rdio, Marc Andreessen, online music databases, Internet radio  
•       •       •

903 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Jun 2014 at 1:20 PM (4 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-18 12:39:59 PM
... of course, most of those videos will still be available on YouTube via Vivo, since the labels have separate agreements. This only blocks the few artists whose labels have exclusive rights to the content and have refused to grant a license to YouTube.

So, a better headline might be "YouTube to remove unlicensed content".
 
2014-06-18 01:22:57 PM
Why are people trying to promote music on a video site?
I'm tired of my musicians having to be actors and film makers also.
 
2014-06-18 01:30:09 PM

stonicus: Why are people trying to promote music on a video site?
I'm tired of my musicians having to be actors and film makers also.


Frankly, it scares the shiat out of me...

cdn.business2community.com

/I do realize you used the word "musician"
 
2014-06-18 01:33:23 PM
Here's MySpace's chance for a comeback!
 
2014-06-18 01:33:54 PM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: stonicus: Why are people trying to promote music on a video site?
I'm tired of my musicians having to be actors and film makers also.

Frankly, it scares the shiat out of me...

[cdn.business2community.com image 508x502]

/I do realize you used the word "musician"


IIRC, wasn't he the original drummer?

Oh, right, musician. Your point stands.
never-mind.
 
2014-06-18 01:58:29 PM

Theaetetus: ... of course, most of those videos will still be available on YouTube via Vivo, since the labels have separate agreements. This only blocks the few artists whose labels have exclusive rights to the content and have refused to grant a license to YouTube.

So, a better headline might be "YouTube to remove unlicensed content".


stonicus: Why are people trying to promote music on a video site?
I'm tired of my musicians having to be actors and film makers also.


 A lot that is likely to be taken down are live and concert clips from smaller artists, or radio show / acoustic / stripped down performances.
 
2014-06-18 02:03:11 PM
Is this another instance of people complaining about free content? I keep forgetting...
 
2014-06-18 02:07:59 PM

Mikey1969: Is this another instance of people complaining about free content? I keep forgetting...


Yeah, bands & companies don't understand that Google/Facebook/etc are not really free.

People don't realize that either.
 
2014-06-18 02:13:25 PM

Mikey1969: Is this another instance of people complaining about free content? I keep forgetting...


This time it's the content creators doing the complaining, not the consumers.

Basically, YouTube's royalty payments are far lower than other, similar services like Pandora or Spotify. Internet radio (i.e. Pandora) paid out about $590 million in royalty payments last year, from an estimated user base of about 70 million people; by comparison, YouTube paid out only $220 million from an estimated user base of 400 million people. I can understand why the content creators might be upset about that.
 
2014-06-18 02:14:40 PM
If Youtube pulls the videos the terrorists have won.

/not really
//yarr
 
2014-06-18 02:32:51 PM
Just another reminder that ideals are worthless when there is money to be made. The sum of human endeavors is to make a few rich people richer
 
2014-06-18 02:36:02 PM
Mock it all you want, but when your favorite content is no longer available because they don't want to pay the monopoly, you'll change your mind.

We be losing the fight here.
 
2014-06-18 02:36:12 PM

HempHead: Mikey1969: Is this another instance of people complaining about free content? I keep forgetting...

Yeah, bands & companies don't understand that Google/Facebook/etc are not really free.

People don't realize that either.


You do know the article is about musicians complaining about being paid poorly by Google/YouTube, and not consumers complaining because content isn't free, right?
 
2014-06-18 02:36:42 PM

qorkfiend: Mikey1969: Is this another instance of people complaining about free content? I keep forgetting...

This time it's the content creators doing the complaining, not the consumers.

Basically, YouTube's royalty payments are far lower than other, similar services like Pandora or Spotify. Internet radio (i.e. Pandora) paid out about $590 million in royalty payments last year, from an estimated user base of about 70 million people; by comparison, YouTube paid out only $220 million from an estimated user base of 400 million people. I can understand why the content creators might be upset about that.


User base is a rather meaningless stat in that context. Many of YouTube's users never watch licensed music videos, but Pandora and Spotify users pretty much only listen to licensed music.
 
2014-06-18 02:45:41 PM

qorkfiend: HempHead: Mikey1969: Is this another instance of people complaining about free content? I keep forgetting...

Yeah, bands & companies don't understand that Google/Facebook/etc are not really free.

People don't realize that either.

You do know the article is about musicians complaining about being paid poorly by Google/YouTube, and not consumers complaining because content isn't free, right?


My point exactly. Consumers do not understand Google/YouTube are not free.
 
2014-06-18 02:48:32 PM

qorkfiend: HempHead: Mikey1969: Is this another instance of people complaining about free content? I keep forgetting...

Yeah, bands & companies don't understand that Google/Facebook/etc are not really free.

People don't realize that either.

You do know the article is about musicians complaining about being paid poorly by Google/YouTube, and not consumers complaining because content isn't free, right?


They aren't being charged to provide that content, are they? It's free for them.
 
2014-06-18 02:51:26 PM
I'm either having a really hard time following this particular dust-up between the indie labels and Google or we really have gone through the looking glass and everything is turned upside down.

So let me see if I can get this straight:

Youtube will start removing videos that were posted, that they do not pay out royalties on, that they previously served for free.

They are doing this because the artists that previously got nothing for these videos refuse to sign an agreement and accept money.  From Google.  That won't collect a cent from the viewer.

I understand Google's overall business model.  I understand the free advertising aspect from the indie labels point of view.  I don't understand why the Indie artists won't shut up and take the money, nor Google just going "Ok, we'll keep hosting that content and keep all the ad revenue for ourselves... fine by us".

I'm not really kicking either side in this particular bickering.  The so-called 'journalists' that have been writing articles about this have been worse than usual.
 
2014-06-18 02:52:30 PM

fastfxr: Mock it all you want, but when your favorite content is no longer available because they don't want to pay the monopoly, you'll change your mind.

We be losing the fight here.


What? That tactic is already employed in other types of content. There's other sites that do what Youtube does.
 
2014-06-18 03:01:32 PM

HempHead: qorkfiend: HempHead: Mikey1969: Is this another instance of people complaining about free content? I keep forgetting...

Yeah, bands & companies don't understand that Google/Facebook/etc are not really free.

People don't realize that either.

You do know the article is about musicians complaining about being paid poorly by Google/YouTube, and not consumers complaining because content isn't free, right?

My point exactly. Consumers do not understand Google/YouTube are not free.


Except the article isn't from the consumer's standpoint.
 
2014-06-18 03:02:47 PM

MadHatter500: I'm either having a really hard time following this particular dust-up between the indie labels and Google or we really have gone through the looking glass and everything is turned upside down.

So let me see if I can get this straight:

Youtube will start removing videos that were posted, that they do not pay out royalties on, that they previously served for free.

They are doing this because the artists that previously got nothing for these videos refuse to sign an agreement and accept money.  From Google.  That won't collect a cent from the viewer.

I understand Google's overall business model.  I understand the free advertising aspect from the indie labels point of view.  I don't understand why the Indie artists won't shut up and take the money, nor Google just going "Ok, we'll keep hosting that content and keep all the ad revenue for ourselves... fine by us".

I'm not really kicking either side in this particular bickering.  The so-called 'journalists' that have been writing articles about this have been worse than usual.


Short answer:
Google wants to be able to charge access to free content.
 
2014-06-18 03:03:49 PM

Krieghund: qorkfiend: Mikey1969: Is this another instance of people complaining about free content? I keep forgetting...

This time it's the content creators doing the complaining, not the consumers.

Basically, YouTube's royalty payments are far lower than other, similar services like Pandora or Spotify. Internet radio (i.e. Pandora) paid out about $590 million in royalty payments last year, from an estimated user base of about 70 million people; by comparison, YouTube paid out only $220 million from an estimated user base of 400 million people. I can understand why the content creators might be upset about that.

User base is a rather meaningless stat in that context. Many of YouTube's users never watch licensed music videos, but Pandora and Spotify users pretty much only listen to licensed music.


About 40% of YouTube's 1 billion monthly visitors are viewing music videos, which is how we arrive at the 400 million users number.
 
2014-06-18 03:20:25 PM

qorkfiend: About 40% of YouTube's 1 billion monthly visitors are viewing music videos, which is how we arrive at the 400 million users number.


I watch a lot of live clips from bands I like.
 
2014-06-18 03:57:50 PM

Satanic_Hamster: MadHatter500: I'm either having a really hard time following this particular dust-up between the indie labels and Google or we really have gone through the looking glass and everything is turned upside down.

So let me see if I can get this straight:

Youtube will start removing videos that were posted, that they do not pay out royalties on, that they previously served for free.

They are doing this because the artists that previously got nothing for these videos refuse to sign an agreement and accept money.  From Google.  That won't collect a cent from the viewer.

I understand Google's overall business model.  I understand the free advertising aspect from the indie labels point of view.  I don't understand why the Indie artists won't shut up and take the money, nor Google just going "Ok, we'll keep hosting that content and keep all the ad revenue for ourselves... fine by us".

I'm not really kicking either side in this particular bickering.  The so-called 'journalists' that have been writing articles about this have been worse than usual.

Short answer:
Google wants to be able to charge access to free content.


Ah, I think you provided me with the piece I was missing - this is all in the context of launching their subscription service and Google is trying to make a business distinction between "artists" and casual posters.  They want to force this kind of content into the paid service.  I'm not sure Google has thought this one all the way through - we'll have to see.
 
GBB
2014-06-18 04:08:29 PM
Google: Do no.... something.
 
2014-06-18 04:09:43 PM
Whatever happened to Google's Do No Evil shiat?   I guess they've forgotten about all of that now.
 
2014-06-18 04:23:21 PM

MadHatter500: Ah, I think you provided me with the piece I was missing - this is all in the context of launching their subscription service and Google is trying to make a business distinction between "artists" and casual posters. They want to force this kind of content into the paid service. I'm not sure Google has thought this one all the way through - we'll have to see.


Yep.  Right now you have a lot of bands uploading live concert clips or shows they put on in radio stations to Youtube, or allowing users/radio stations to do the same.  They want to stop copyright holders from giving free shiat to their fans, instead forcing them to put ALL their music that's not already under a separate agreement onto their subscription model.
 
2014-06-18 05:00:30 PM

MadHatter500: I'm either having a really hard time following this particular dust-up between the indie labels and Google or we really have gone through the looking glass and everything is turned upside down.

So let me see if I can get this straight:

Youtube will start removing videos that were posted, that they do not pay out royalties on, that they previously served for free.

They are doing this because the artists that previously got nothing for these videos refuse to sign an agreement and accept money.  From Google.  That won't collect a cent from the viewer.

I understand Google's overall business model.  I understand the free advertising aspect from the indie labels point of view.  I don't understand why the Indie artists won't shut up and take the money, nor Google just going "Ok, we'll keep hosting that content and keep all the ad revenue for ourselves... fine by us".

I'm not really kicking either side in this particular bickering.  The so-called 'journalists' that have been writing articles about this have been worse than usual.


My understanding was that Google is starting a streaming music service. They are saying essentially that if you don't agree to license your music to their streaming service at a very low price (lower than other streaming services), then they'll act like they don't have any type of license and pull your videos off YouTube as well. In essence, they're using the threat of taking away your publicity via YouTube to try and force musicians into licensing their music for the streaming service at a much lower rate.
 
2014-06-18 05:14:58 PM
There was a story a few months ago about a "band" that put out a few albums of nothing but silence, and had like a thousand people play it on Spotify while they slept. Over time, the volume added up and this "band" raked it in until Spotify wised up. Funny stuff.

/don't think I'd leave Spotify.
 
2014-06-18 05:37:00 PM

bangmaid: There was a story a few months ago about a "band" that put out a few albums of nothing but silence, and had like a thousand people play it on Spotify while they slept. Over time, the volume added up and this "band" raked it in until Spotify wised up. Funny stuff.

/don't think I'd leave Spotify.


You could do that just as easy with your device on mute.
 
2014-06-18 05:38:02 PM
Whatever. Between Vevo spamming it up with ad-laden, censored videos and the DMCA notices, Youtube is pretty much back to where it started anyway: only good for funny cat videos.
 
2014-06-18 05:42:01 PM

stonicus: Why are people trying to promote music on a video site?
I'm tired of my musicians having to be actors and film makers also.


There are tons of "videos" on Youtube that have just the album cover on it, and maybe perhaps some lyrics or incredibly simplistic animation or some photos of the band.  Nothing remotely resembling what you USED to see on MTV.

Here's an example.  A full album on a record company's account.  It's gotten over 500k views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmR0gkojHDs
 
2014-06-18 06:36:09 PM
YouTube's always been the "major label" of video sharing sites, anyway.  All the hipsters use Vimeo.
 
2014-06-18 06:59:49 PM
Musicians need to wake up and understand the new reality.

The songs and video are now advertising for your music group. You should not expect to make money from them.

Your money will be made with concerts tours and merchandising.
 
kab
2014-06-18 08:31:24 PM

gblive: Musicians need to wake up and understand the new reality.

The songs and video are now advertising for your music group. You should not expect to make money from them.

Your money will be made with concerts tours and merchandising.



"Gee guys, our album isn't even coming close to breaking even.   Lets go further into the red and make some t-shirts, and then spend thousands more touring the country."  said no one with a clue, ever.

As far as TFA, most signed artists will simply agree to the terms.   Those who don't weren't making money from them in any way to begin with.
 
2014-06-18 08:45:37 PM

kab: "Gee guys, our album isn't even coming close to breaking even. Lets go further into the red and make some t-shirts, and then spend thousands more touring the country." said no one with a clue, ever.

As far as TFA, most signed artists will simply agree to the terms. Those who don't weren't making money from them in any way to begin with.


You realize that on the whole very few artists actually make a ton of money selling albums, right? That the Metallicas and Lady Gagas of the world are the exception in music, not the rule, right?

No, you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted something as silly as that comment.

There's a whole world of competent, entertaining bands out there that don't get huge contracts on major labels but still make a living by touring and selling directly to fans. "International mega-stardom" and "mom's garage" aren't the only two options when it comes to music.
Do yourself a favor and look up the regional acts in your area. They're more fun to see live, the concerts are more personal and you'll save a ton of money not buying overpriced tickets in the nosebleed section.
 
2014-06-18 08:47:36 PM

kab: gblive: Musicians need to wake up and understand the new reality.

The songs and video are now advertising for your music group. You should not expect to make money from them.

Your money will be made with concerts tours and merchandising.


"Gee guys, our album isn't even coming close to breaking even.   Lets go further into the red and make some t-shirts, and then spend thousands more touring the country."  said no one with a clue, ever.

As far as TFA, most signed artists will simply agree to the terms.   Those who don't weren't making money from them in any way to begin with.


Talk about not having a clue. You do realize that touring is a musicians bread and butter right? That's where the real money is made. Album sales and royalties are a pittance compared to what's made on tour.

As for lessor known artists, it's the same thing. You go on tour opening up for a bigger group/musician and people get to hear your music. If you can't get a gig touring with a larger group, you tour smaller venues on your own. That's how how it's done, people hear you and if they like you, they go buy your album.
 
kab
2014-06-18 10:42:29 PM

skozlaw: You realize that on the whole very few artists actually make a ton of money selling albums, right? That the Metallicas and Lady Gagas of the world are the exception in music, not the rule, right?


I absolutely do realize it, which is why I say the "just go tour" angle is pretty much bullshiat for a significant chunk of acts (nevermind the artists out there who aren't even in a band situation to begin with).   More than a few on this site believe that tours on any level have absolutely no up front costs.   Or that, in the worst case scenarios, bands don't actually have to pay to play at venues, or wind up owing venues if not enough tickets are sold.

ReapTheChaos: You do realize that touring is a musicians bread and butter right?


Really?  I'd say a day job is most musicians bread and butter.
 
2014-06-18 11:20:00 PM

qorkfiend: Mikey1969: Is this another instance of people complaining about free content? I keep forgetting...

This time it's the content creators doing the complaining, not the consumers.

Basically, YouTube's royalty payments are far lower than other, similar services like Pandora or Spotify. Internet radio (i.e. Pandora) paid out about $590 million in royalty payments last year, from an estimated user base of about 70 million people; by comparison, YouTube paid out only $220 million from an estimated user base of 400 million people. I can understand why the content creators might be upset about that.


What is the breakout of royalties per internet radio service?

$590 million for all internet radio isn't a fair comparison to only one video service. You'd also need to break out per listener vs viewer.

Also keep in mind that internet radio got screwed and has to pay WAY more than they wanted to due to lawsuits from terrestrial radio. It's similar to what happened to satellite radio.

I'm not saying it's incorrect, it's just that more information is needed in that comparison.
 
2014-06-18 11:51:54 PM
YouTube has long screwed over musicians, and this is just the latest piece of evidence suggesting that it cares far more about striking lucrative business deals than it does about building a sustainable platform for the artists that provide all that content.

You mean to tell me a business is more interested in earning money than acting as some kind of charity for musicians? I never would have guessed.
 
2014-06-19 10:30:20 AM

MadHatter500: So let me see if I can get this straight:

Youtube will start removing videos that were posted, that they do not pay out royalties on, that they previously served for free


No. Youtube is starting a separate paid music subscription service and offered bad terms to smaller labels. Smaller labels said "no" and now their videos are coming down regardless of whether they previously received an incredibly thin slice of the ad revenue.
 
2014-06-19 10:36:44 AM

ignacio: YouTube has long screwed over musicians, and this is just the latest piece of evidence suggesting that it cares far more about striking lucrative business deals than it does about building a sustainable platform for the artists that provide all that content.

You mean to tell me a business is more interested in earning money than acting as some kind of charity for musicians? I never would have guessed.

Charity

? How do you think musicians make money? Do you consider your paycheck charity?
 
2014-06-19 10:43:04 AM

gblive: Musicians need to wake up and understand the new reality.

The songs and video are now advertising for your music group. You should not expect to make money from them.

Your money will be made with concerts tours and merchandising.


Like I haven't heard this shiat before. Most bands will be lucky to break even on a tour. You think musicians don't get exploited by the live music and t-shirt industry too? Or records are made for free? Musicians are good at making music, not running a business, and anyone who's half-bad at running a business is farking them sideways.
 
2014-06-19 02:47:27 PM
moothemagiccow:
Charity? How do you think musicians make money? Do you consider your paycheck charity?

A lot of the musicians I've personally known earned money in one of the following ways:
-manual jobs + gigs
-teaching music + studio sessions + gigs
-playing classical music in an orchestra
-steady office job + gigs on the side
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report