7 ms·

WTF does this mean? > And any creator who doesn’t sign the deal for YouTube Red will have their videos on the ad-free old-school YouTube hidden from view. That

WTF does this mean? > And any creator who doesn’t sign the deal for YouTube Red will have their videos on the ad-free old-school YouTube hidden from view. That’s pretty harsh. So YouTube is saying if you don't join their new subscription plan they will just not display your videos on YouTube? Edit: Just heard back. Yes, this is exactly what happened, and it's now going into motion. If you are a YouTube creator and you don't agree to be a part of this new service, your channel will removed and your videos won't appear in search results. In other words, all of your videos are made "private" and you're pretty much dead.

coldpie 11y ago
Take it easy and wait for more info. All you've got to on is one line in a 3rd party news article.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- Blaaguuu 11y ago
  This isn't the first time Youtube has dramatically changed their terms, and forced creators to basically accept them or leave, though... so it is pretty easy to assume the worst when it comes to Youtube.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    The way I understand it, you can still host your videos. You just won't get any revenues. That is completely fine by me.
    - jahmed 11y ago
      Yeah it's Alphabet's site. You play by their rules. Don't like it? Well there's always other options.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  I'm surprised Allred is back to HN[1] but I guess it's mostly to serve the ends of Glasswire. [1]http://austenallred.com/im-done-with-hacker-news/ http://austenallred.com/im-done-with-hacker-news/
  - austenallred 11y ago
    Lol, HN literally came out with the "avoid excessive negativity" rule later that day, but I admit HN is an often-bad habit I keep getting sucked into. And as far as Grasswire goes, we're doing 500k uniques per month at this point, so even getting on the front page of HN wouldn't really move the needle for us. I mention it occasionally when I think it's relevant, but that's a tiny minority of my HN use.
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      Fair enough, but I'm pretty sure you missed the implication that I intended, as in you're perfectly fine with coming to HN as a source to assist with coming up with material for your readership. It sure felt like fishing for help the way you phrased the OP. While this response may be construed as negative, I'd prefer the categorization as "functionally cynical" because there is a difference.
      - austenallred 11y ago
        Oh, I see. No, generally I try to share what the people in our newsroom have learned instead of the other way around. My parent comment was genuine frustration. BTW, I don't see your comments as out of line or overly-negative at all.
        6stringmerc 11y ago
        All good, yeah I can see how something really hot like this story would be great fodder both for your outlet, and the desire to get it right / accurate would be well served by consulting the HN massive. Keep on keepin' on sir.
citricsquid 11y ago
This was big news when it was first announced in 2014. This launch has been long in the making, you can find lots of articles that cover the complaints independents had about having their videos removed: https://pando.com/2014/06/17/screwyoutube-people-are-finally-realizing-that-youtube-screws-musicians-worse-than-anybody/ https://pando.com/2014/06/17/screwyoutube-people-are-finally... http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/04/youtube-independent-record-label-deals http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/04/youtube-in... There's also many blog posts floating around, just search YouTube record label deals.
- austenallred 11y ago
  Right, but back then it was a vague threat kind of looming over peoples' heads. Now it's "Sign this deal or we remove you from YouTube."
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    There was discussion here based on the contract presented to Zoe Keating. If you search her name here, there are a few articles that come up. Or, conversely, you could reach out to her and she may be willing to speak to her experience and understanding. (Note: I do not have any personal or professional relationship, I just followed her story somewhat as it was relevant to my status as an independent as well)
    - scintill76 11y ago
      Zoe's seemed to be more about music specifically. As far as ads, she was going to be forced to have ads, not forced to remove them. http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i-do-about-youtube http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i... Maybe this isn't the only thing she's written about YouTube though.
shostack 11y ago
Just curious, but isn't this an understood risk as a publisher when your reach is almost entirely controlled by a single company? Do you guys have a Plan B if Youtube shuts you out?
- quadrangle 11y ago
  This isn't something individuals can do, network effects mean we need more coordinated social movement away from these controlled systems. Obviously the real solution is GNU MediaGoblin and federation.
  - swagswag 11y ago
    but... what ar ethose
  - riffraff 11y ago
    but surely creators can provide their media on different platforms, even without running their own? I mean one of the earliest complaints I remember about Music Key was that it forbids this, but not all other services do.
- avn2109 11y ago
  Vimeo?
bpodgursky 11y ago
My understanding is, if you don't sign the deal, your videos won't show for people on the ad-free site. How else could you implement this? If I buy a subscription for an ad-free site, it can't mean that it's ad-free except for videos posted by people who haven't signed the contract.
- Bedon292 11y ago
  Right, I read it as your videos cannot be shown on the ad free site, since they wont be ad free. They should still show on the regular YouTube page. Edit: Apparently I was wrong. There is another article on the front page stating they will be hidden on all forms of YouTube.
  - homulilly 11y ago
    So in practice this means that if you pay for the subscription you get access to less content.
    - austenallred 11y ago
      No, it means that to avoid the situation you just subscribed YouTube forced everyone to agree to be on the subscription plan or they'd effectively be kicked off of YouTube
      - homulilly 11y ago
        If that's what happened then good, but it sounds like people who don't agree aren't getting kicked off youtube, they're just not shown to subscribers.
      - Johnny555 11y ago
        If I were a content producer, I don't think I'd like that policy, but as a consumer, it makes the service more usable, since I know that anything I can see on the ad-supported Youtube site would be available on the paid site. Much better than the model that cable TV uses where when I look at the channel guide I can see all of the channels, including the ones that I haven't subscribed to, and it's not until I try to watch a show on one of them that I discover that I can't see it.
ewzimm 11y ago
From what I understand, this only applies to people who are making money by displaying ads on their videos. So if you want to continue to make money on YouTube videos, you have to sign the new terms.
mangeletti 11y ago
It means that videos by "partnered" creators who had their videos on the old ad-free site will no longer be shown, until they are migrated over to the new ad-free site by agreeing to the deal. The sentence in the article is just ambiguously worded.
swagswag 11y ago
what is wrong with this... youtube is proprietary brah

coldpie 11y ago

Take it easy and wait for more info. All you've got to on is one line in a 3rd party news article.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Blaaguuu 11y ago
This isn't the first time Youtube has dramatically changed their terms, and forced creators to basically accept them or leave, though... so it is pretty easy to assume the worst when it comes to Youtube.
- newjersey 11y ago
  The way I understand it, you can still host your videos. You just won't get any revenues. That is completely fine by me.
  - jahmed 11y ago
    Yeah it's Alphabet's site. You play by their rules. Don't like it? Well there's always other options.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
6stringmerc 11y ago
I'm surprised Allred is back to HN[1] but I guess it's mostly to serve the ends of Glasswire. [1]http://austenallred.com/im-done-with-hacker-news/ http://austenallred.com/im-done-with-hacker-news/
- austenallred 11y ago
  Lol, HN literally came out with the "avoid excessive negativity" rule later that day, but I admit HN is an often-bad habit I keep getting sucked into. And as far as Grasswire goes, we're doing 500k uniques per month at this point, so even getting on the front page of HN wouldn't really move the needle for us. I mention it occasionally when I think it's relevant, but that's a tiny minority of my HN use.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Fair enough, but I'm pretty sure you missed the implication that I intended, as in you're perfectly fine with coming to HN as a source to assist with coming up with material for your readership. It sure felt like fishing for help the way you phrased the OP. While this response may be construed as negative, I'd prefer the categorization as "functionally cynical" because there is a difference.
    - austenallred 11y ago
      Oh, I see. No, generally I try to share what the people in our newsroom have learned instead of the other way around. My parent comment was genuine frustration. BTW, I don't see your comments as out of line or overly-negative at all.
      - 6stringmerc 11y ago
        All good, yeah I can see how something really hot like this story would be great fodder both for your outlet, and the desire to get it right / accurate would be well served by consulting the HN massive. Keep on keepin' on sir.

citricsquid 11y ago

This was big news when it was first announced in 2014. This launch has been long in the making, you can find lots of articles that cover the complaints independents had about having their videos removed: https://pando.com/2014/06/17/screwyoutube-people-are-finally-realizing-that-youtube-screws-musicians-worse-than-anybody/ https://pando.com/2014/06/17/screwyoutube-people-are-finally... http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/04/youtube-independent-record-label-deals http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/04/youtube-in... There's also many blog posts floating around, just search YouTube record label deals.

austenallred 11y ago
Right, but back then it was a vague threat kind of looming over peoples' heads. Now it's "Sign this deal or we remove you from YouTube."
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  There was discussion here based on the contract presented to Zoe Keating. If you search her name here, there are a few articles that come up. Or, conversely, you could reach out to her and she may be willing to speak to her experience and understanding. (Note: I do not have any personal or professional relationship, I just followed her story somewhat as it was relevant to my status as an independent as well)
  - scintill76 11y ago
    Zoe's seemed to be more about music specifically. As far as ads, she was going to be forced to have ads, not forced to remove them. http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i-do-about-youtube http://zoekeating.tumblr.com/post/108898194009/what-should-i... Maybe this isn't the only thing she's written about YouTube though.

shostack 11y ago

Just curious, but isn't this an understood risk as a publisher when your reach is almost entirely controlled by a single company? Do you guys have a Plan B if Youtube shuts you out?

quadrangle 11y ago
This isn't something individuals can do, network effects mean we need more coordinated social movement away from these controlled systems. Obviously the real solution is GNU MediaGoblin and federation.
- swagswag 11y ago
  but... what ar ethose
- riffraff 11y ago
  but surely creators can provide their media on different platforms, even without running their own? I mean one of the earliest complaints I remember about Music Key was that it forbids this, but not all other services do.
avn2109 11y ago
Vimeo?

bpodgursky 11y ago

My understanding is, if you don't sign the deal, your videos won't show for people on the ad-free site. How else could you implement this? If I buy a subscription for an ad-free site, it can't mean that it's ad-free except for videos posted by people who haven't signed the contract.

Bedon292 11y ago
Right, I read it as your videos cannot be shown on the ad free site, since they wont be ad free. They should still show on the regular YouTube page. Edit: Apparently I was wrong. There is another article on the front page stating they will be hidden on all forms of YouTube.
- homulilly 11y ago
  So in practice this means that if you pay for the subscription you get access to less content.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    No, it means that to avoid the situation you just subscribed YouTube forced everyone to agree to be on the subscription plan or they'd effectively be kicked off of YouTube
    - homulilly 11y ago
      If that's what happened then good, but it sounds like people who don't agree aren't getting kicked off youtube, they're just not shown to subscribers.
    - Johnny555 11y ago
      If I were a content producer, I don't think I'd like that policy, but as a consumer, it makes the service more usable, since I know that anything I can see on the ad-supported Youtube site would be available on the paid site. Much better than the model that cable TV uses where when I look at the channel guide I can see all of the channels, including the ones that I haven't subscribed to, and it's not until I try to watch a show on one of them that I discover that I can't see it.

ewzimm 11y ago

From what I understand, this only applies to people who are making money by displaying ads on their videos. So if you want to continue to make money on YouTube videos, you have to sign the new terms.

mangeletti 11y ago

It means that videos by "partnered" creators who had their videos on the old ad-free site will no longer be shown, until they are migrated over to the new ad-free site by agreeing to the deal. The sentence in the article is just ambiguously worded.

swagswag 11y ago

what is wrong with this... youtube is proprietary brah