5 ms·

It isn't. The videos aren't being "blocked", youtube simply won't have the license to show them anymore. These "indie labels" are trying to extract higher rates

by davehur 12y ago

It isn't. The videos aren't being "blocked", youtube simply won't have the license to show them anymore. These "indie labels" are trying to extract higher rates from free streaming by holding out on the paid service. The real issue here is the guardian publishing the labels' PR as is.

falcolas 12y ago
The statement "youtube simply won't have the license to show them anymore" reads drastically different from "His confirmation that YouTube will block videos from labels that do not sign licensing deals for the new premium tier" What is your source for the first - i.e. where are artists revoking YouTube's license to display their videos?
- davehur 12y ago
  They are quoting one side of the negotiation that is trying to pressure youtube for better terms, "blocking" is their spin for youtube not agreeing to licence their videos for a higher rate thus resulting in them being taken down. Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. What is happening here isn't youtube taking down the music of 'individuals' that have uploaded them to their channels, youtube licences these videos from these labels, once the licensing isn't applicable they no longer have the legal right to publish them, thus "blocking" them.
  - falcolas 12y ago
    > "Blocking" is their spin for youtube not agreeing to licence their videos for a higher rate thus resulting in them being taken down. End difference for consumer? None. Plus, you still haven't cited any sources, just speculation based off an admittedly single-sourced article. > Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. Sure they can. And they do, all the time. Content Protection has nothing to do with the legality of the video. Part of the uploading EULA is that it's up to Google to decide when something goes up or comes down.
    - davehur 12y ago
      Youtube doesn't have a "EULA" they have a "TOS", and if the uploaded content is legal and doesn't infringe on copyright it stays up. Any allegations to the contrary would require proof on your part.
      - randall 12y ago
        FWIW, there's also some weird liability issues with regards to DMCA safe harbor. If you start monitoring some videos, you're then liable for them.
      - x0x0 12y ago
        it's your claim -- that youtube won't take down videos within their TOS in order to blackmail rights owners -- so don't roll in here, make the claim, then demand people provide evidence to the contrary oh, and given their well documented behavior with regards to handing large rights holders the ability to take down videos because of music without issuing DMCAs and with no review from youtube, not hard to believe [1] [2]. (See how I made a claim and I substantiated it?) [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals#content-id https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo... [2] http://gizmodo.com/5932089/nasas-official-rover-landing-video-got-taken-off-youtube-over-bogus-copyright-claims http://gizmodo.com/5932089/nasas-official-rover-landing-vide...
      - matchu 12y ago
        Regardless of whether Youtube has a history of removing content, my (non-lawyer) reading of the Terms indicate that they definitely reserve the right to remove videos at their leisure. The agreement grants Youtube a license to all submitted content, but, as far as I can tell, makes no guarantee about how Youtube will display that content, if at all. Even if they haven't removed uncontested legally uploaded content before, the Terms seem to say that they can, and this might constitute the first time they'd want to. (See x0x0's sibling comment for cases where they've removed contested legally uploaded content, but I think you're probably talking about uncontested videos, right?) (Incidentally, the EULA/TOS distinction feels really pedantic to me. The name isn't the issue here; we're concerned about the content of the agreement.)
  - NotAtWork 12y ago
    > Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. Why do you think YouTube isn't allowed to arbitrarily take down videos?
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. Well, of course they can. Read the terms of service.
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    > Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. Of course they can, it's their service. rm "$VIDEO"
hullo 12y ago
From a seemingly more evenly sourced article on gizmodo: "Some labels are refusing to sign up because they say they're getting a raw deal from Google. They say that while the major labels have negotiated lucrative contracts, Google is offering indies comparatively bad terms. It's their right to say they don't want to sign up if they don't like the deal Google is offering them. In response, Google is drawing a line in the sand: If your label won't sign on to Google's crappy licensing deal for a new streaming service, you can't host videos on YouTube at all." http://gizmodo.com/googles-about-to-ruin-youtube-by-forcing-indie-labels-t-1591957089 http://gizmodo.com/googles-about-to-ruin-youtube-by-forcing-... Google has a reply appended at the end that is absolutely the worst bit of corporate puffery-non-response I've ever seen from them and IMO as bad a sign as any of the actual things they're being accused of plotting.
- davehur 12y ago
  "crappy licensing deal" doesn't really indicate an even article. Basically same as everyone else they are siding with the labels and adapting their narrative. Yes, if Youtube can't licence the music the videos will get flagged by ContentID, which means they gets "blocked" because they don't have the license to show them, it's a semantics play and circular logic that the labels are offering and as with most attacks on Google the media has lapped it up. As to the actual term we only have the labels' word on it and they are an interested party in the midst of negotiations. Edit: This spells out that it's a "renegotiation" process, the labels want more from the free streaming to agree to the paid one: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27891883 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27891883 And: "content from artists signed to independent labels will remain available on YouTube via channels such as Vevo".
  - hullo 12y ago
    I don't really care about their wording. The proposition that Google has made the choice that labels can either (1) join the premium service or (2) not be on YouTube anymore does not really seem disputed by anyone other than you. Except you may not even dispute it now? If you don't, you may very well not agree with the opinions and commentary people are sharing about the situation, but that's a disagreement about interpretation not facts.
geden 12y ago
The indies just want the same deal as the majors get. Fair and simple.

by davehur 12y ago

falcolas 12y ago

The statement "youtube simply won't have the license to show them anymore" reads drastically different from "His confirmation that YouTube will block videos from labels that do not sign licensing deals for the new premium tier" What is your source for the first - i.e. where are artists revoking YouTube's license to display their videos?

davehur 12y ago
They are quoting one side of the negotiation that is trying to pressure youtube for better terms, "blocking" is their spin for youtube not agreeing to licence their videos for a higher rate thus resulting in them being taken down. Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. What is happening here isn't youtube taking down the music of 'individuals' that have uploaded them to their channels, youtube licences these videos from these labels, once the licensing isn't applicable they no longer have the legal right to publish them, thus "blocking" them.
- falcolas 12y ago
  > "Blocking" is their spin for youtube not agreeing to licence their videos for a higher rate thus resulting in them being taken down. End difference for consumer? None. Plus, you still haven't cited any sources, just speculation based off an admittedly single-sourced article. > Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. Sure they can. And they do, all the time. Content Protection has nothing to do with the legality of the video. Part of the uploading EULA is that it's up to Google to decide when something goes up or comes down.
  - davehur 12y ago
    Youtube doesn't have a "EULA" they have a "TOS", and if the uploaded content is legal and doesn't infringe on copyright it stays up. Any allegations to the contrary would require proof on your part.
    - randall 12y ago
      FWIW, there's also some weird liability issues with regards to DMCA safe harbor. If you start monitoring some videos, you're then liable for them.
    - x0x0 12y ago
      it's your claim -- that youtube won't take down videos within their TOS in order to blackmail rights owners -- so don't roll in here, make the claim, then demand people provide evidence to the contrary oh, and given their well documented behavior with regards to handing large rights holders the ability to take down videos because of music without issuing DMCAs and with no review from youtube, not hard to believe [1] [2]. (See how I made a claim and I substantiated it?) [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals#content-id https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo... [2] http://gizmodo.com/5932089/nasas-official-rover-landing-video-got-taken-off-youtube-over-bogus-copyright-claims http://gizmodo.com/5932089/nasas-official-rover-landing-vide...
    - matchu 12y ago
      Regardless of whether Youtube has a history of removing content, my (non-lawyer) reading of the Terms indicate that they definitely reserve the right to remove videos at their leisure. The agreement grants Youtube a license to all submitted content, but, as far as I can tell, makes no guarantee about how Youtube will display that content, if at all. Even if they haven't removed uncontested legally uploaded content before, the Terms seem to say that they can, and this might constitute the first time they'd want to. (See x0x0's sibling comment for cases where they've removed contested legally uploaded content, but I think you're probably talking about uncontested videos, right?) (Incidentally, the EULA/TOS distinction feels really pedantic to me. The name isn't the issue here; we're concerned about the content of the agreement.)
- NotAtWork 12y ago
  > Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. Why do you think YouTube isn't allowed to arbitrarily take down videos?
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. Well, of course they can. Read the terms of service.
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  > Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader. Of course they can, it's their service. rm "$VIDEO"

hullo 12y ago

From a seemingly more evenly sourced article on gizmodo: "Some labels are refusing to sign up because they say they're getting a raw deal from Google. They say that while the major labels have negotiated lucrative contracts, Google is offering indies comparatively bad terms. It's their right to say they don't want to sign up if they don't like the deal Google is offering them. In response, Google is drawing a line in the sand: If your label won't sign on to Google's crappy licensing deal for a new streaming service, you can't host videos on YouTube at all." http://gizmodo.com/googles-about-to-ruin-youtube-by-forcing-indie-labels-t-1591957089 http://gizmodo.com/googles-about-to-ruin-youtube-by-forcing-... Google has a reply appended at the end that is absolutely the worst bit of corporate puffery-non-response I've ever seen from them and IMO as bad a sign as any of the actual things they're being accused of plotting.

davehur 12y ago
"crappy licensing deal" doesn't really indicate an even article. Basically same as everyone else they are siding with the labels and adapting their narrative. Yes, if Youtube can't licence the music the videos will get flagged by ContentID, which means they gets "blocked" because they don't have the license to show them, it's a semantics play and circular logic that the labels are offering and as with most attacks on Google the media has lapped it up. As to the actual term we only have the labels' word on it and they are an interested party in the midst of negotiations. Edit: This spells out that it's a "renegotiation" process, the labels want more from the free streaming to agree to the paid one: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27891883 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27891883 And: "content from artists signed to independent labels will remain available on YouTube via channels such as Vevo".
- hullo 12y ago
  I don't really care about their wording. The proposition that Google has made the choice that labels can either (1) join the premium service or (2) not be on YouTube anymore does not really seem disputed by anyone other than you. Except you may not even dispute it now? If you don't, you may very well not agree with the opinions and commentary people are sharing about the situation, but that's a disagreement about interpretation not facts.

geden 12y ago

The indies just want the same deal as the majors get. Fair and simple.