4 ms·

These videos aren't being blocked, it's just that youtube will no longer have the license to show them, because those indie labels are holding for a better deal

by davehur 12y ago

These videos aren't being blocked, it's just that youtube will no longer have the license to show them, because those indie labels are holding for a better deal.

codezero 12y ago
If I visit the URL of one of these videos, will it play? It sounds like you are just arguing semantics about what "block" means internally at YouTube versus what a person using YouTube considers the word to mean.
- gtremper 12y ago
  The difference is Youtube is being forced to not show it by the people claiming they are blocking it. It would be illegal if they did show it.
- sejje 12y ago
  I think it's the difference in "we're mad/blackmailing/whatever, so your videos won't play anymore" and "we legally can't play your videos." GP is suggesting throughout this thread that the indie labels are using deceptive language to say "YouTube is blocking us" when really they're saying "we don't like the terms so we won't let YouTube play our content." Whether that's true or not, I have no idea.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Since when has YouTube ever cared about hosting unlicensed content? That was their entire raison d'être for years, and they still haven't completely abandoned their reliance on less-than-licensed content.
    - codezero 12y ago
      The DMCA makes different provisions for content that the hosting party knows is unlicensed. Since they are working on some sort of contract with them, they know what content is licensed and are therefore responsible for it.
  - codezero 12y ago
    Thanks, that makes some sense. Would be interesting to get the full story.
  - tragic 12y ago
    As I understand it, if copyrighted material goes up on Youtube as things stand, the copyright holder has the option of either requesting a block/takedown or entering into the ad revenue scheme for a cut of the ad clicks. That choice is being revised to: either requesting a block/takedown or entering into the ad revenue scheme for a cut of the ad clicks for free views, and a cut of subscriptions for premium views. Premium views will be worth less to the label than free views, so this will mean a cut in revenue (of course, if 'Youtube+' tanks, then it will be a trivial cut in revenue). So the first option looks better for the indies than it did before. It seems some of them have decided that it looks much better. I don't think it fits nicely into the Google is great/Google is evil dichotomy, simply because it's an understandable business decision from Google's point of view, but it genuinely is the case that it shafts the indies. (Revenues from streaming services are pitiful for anyone outside the sacred circle of mega-labels.) Everybody loses. sigh

by davehur 12y ago

These videos aren't being blocked, it's just that youtube will no longer have the license to show them, because those indie labels are holding for a better deal.

codezero 12y ago

If I visit the URL of one of these videos, will it play? It sounds like you are just arguing semantics about what "block" means internally at YouTube versus what a person using YouTube considers the word to mean.

gtremper 12y ago
The difference is Youtube is being forced to not show it by the people claiming they are blocking it. It would be illegal if they did show it.
sejje 12y ago
I think it's the difference in "we're mad/blackmailing/whatever, so your videos won't play anymore" and "we legally can't play your videos." GP is suggesting throughout this thread that the indie labels are using deceptive language to say "YouTube is blocking us" when really they're saying "we don't like the terms so we won't let YouTube play our content." Whether that's true or not, I have no idea.
- dublinben 12y ago
  Since when has YouTube ever cared about hosting unlicensed content? That was their entire raison d'être for years, and they still haven't completely abandoned their reliance on less-than-licensed content.
  - codezero 12y ago
    The DMCA makes different provisions for content that the hosting party knows is unlicensed. Since they are working on some sort of contract with them, they know what content is licensed and are therefore responsible for it.
- codezero 12y ago
  Thanks, that makes some sense. Would be interesting to get the full story.
- tragic 12y ago
  As I understand it, if copyrighted material goes up on Youtube as things stand, the copyright holder has the option of either requesting a block/takedown or entering into the ad revenue scheme for a cut of the ad clicks. That choice is being revised to: either requesting a block/takedown or entering into the ad revenue scheme for a cut of the ad clicks for free views, and a cut of subscriptions for premium views. Premium views will be worth less to the label than free views, so this will mean a cut in revenue (of course, if 'Youtube+' tanks, then it will be a trivial cut in revenue). So the first option looks better for the indies than it did before. It seems some of them have decided that it looks much better. I don't think it fits nicely into the Google is great/Google is evil dichotomy, simply because it's an understandable business decision from Google's point of view, but it genuinely is the case that it shafts the indies. (Revenues from streaming services are pitiful for anyone outside the sacred circle of mega-labels.) Everybody loses. sigh