Youtube to pull independent music from site

Mist_sl said:

It's not ironic. It's exactly why I said it.

But the argument that people should just take whatever crappy deal Google offers because it's better than nothing is a stupid argument. Smart people find ways to negotiate from positions of weakness all the time.

Click to expand...

Ahh, I read your first post wrong, I only glanced up at it. I was saying it's ironic because the current system isn't negotiated, you either take what's offered or the video gets nuked--and it's so good, people want to keep it. But you specified the deal has to be shitty (Which the current revenue split is not.)

Tuco_sl said:

What I don't get is why can't google just say, "Hey, sign this contract allowing us to stream your video without giving you ad revenue but giving you a cut of the sub-money instead. If you don't sign we won't give you revenue for anything but still won't take your video down." ?

Are record labels getting together to ensure google can't do this somehow?

Click to expand...

As Mist said, from what I read, it's only for content that's not monetized. So yes, essentially, if you don't sign; you'll probably be able to keep it up there, but you can't make money from it. The problem is, that's ahugechunk of money, especially if the music gets used in other content (Which viral songs tend to do.) When I mentioned "free content" up there, I meant "free--ad revenue based."

This is bad from the artists stand point because if he doesn't sign with Google (Or more likely a record label)--he's going to lose his Ad revenue money. So, in order to maintain that income stream, he now has to sign his licensing rights over. And while even independent artists usually contract for distribution from most of these services anyway (Google or one of the other online distributors)--their position to bargain is much stronger if they aren't being threatened with a block on their content and an end to the day-by-day money they might be drawing from it (Or the money that supplements their day job).

So from the explanations I don't understand all the rage. If you make no (direct) money from the video nothing changes. If you do make significant ad money, you have to sign a contract deal which changes the parameters to something which may or may not be quite as lucrative? Sounds like a lot of chicken little going on here if that is indeed the case. Unless you want to be hispter and not conform or whatever that means in youtube terms.

Well, that's a burn isn't it.

It is one step down the path which inevitably leads to putting the internet not just behind a paywall (it's already behind an ISP/Device paywall/service paywall), but hundreds of paywalls. Microtransactions all up in your intertubes.

Way to fuck it up, Google. Turning the internet back into America Online.

Things go full circle. Before long we'll be paying by the hour ala CompuServe. Without any of the reasons that made compuserve legitimate.

Edit: And what lithose says, it's just a way to fuck over the little guy. The distributor dictating terms to the producer... which is how things USUALLY work. But it is not how Youtube has worked, and what made youtube such an incredible service to begin with.

Seems like a dick move to me. Google is going to develop that M$ cred with shit like this.

Thiswas up on Slashdotand apparently people are reading it wrong. It looks like it only applies to record labels that use YouTube as a major distribution and revenue source. All the labels have to do is make an agreement with Google about streaming service. As for independent artists there is no change whatsoever. So there is no reason to fear a million shitty acoustic covers of "Hey There Delilah" being deleted.