11 ms·

The YouTube Contract for Indies

236 points by AndrewDucker 12y ago

good-citizen 12y ago
can someone explain? is this secret?
- nobodyshere 12y ago
  It seems so judging by the scarce amount of leaks. At least I haven't seen it prior to this published one.
- MangoDiesel 12y ago
  This contract is probably behind an NDA and releasing it may also break other confidentiality agreements already in existence. The summary is that these terms are very unfavorable according to the indie artists and the companies they are affiliated with. They feel they are being strong-armed by Google and that Google is showing a strong preference toward large media companies and making it very difficult for future indie artists to become successful with this agreement.
  - good-citizen 12y ago
    if the author is reading this, please follow up here and let us know what happens to you from a legal perspective for having violated the NDA.
- RickS 12y ago
  Up until now, yes, in that it concerns something not yet released. YT is working on releasing a streaming media service, on terms that are still emerging/being defined. From the looks of this document, the terms will not be pretty for non-major labels. YT gets a lot of reproduction rights and the ability to manipulate prices, which has a very high potential for exploitation of artists.
meandave 12y ago
This is disgusting
- dudus 12y ago
  Can you enlighten us what is so disgusting about this in your opinion, this seems to be a straight forward agreement to use the content provided to Google. Not worse than any other EULA I've read.
  - bitlord_219 12y ago
    Not so, say those in the know: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/24/notice_and_shakedown_google_mafiastyle_contract_for_indie_music_revealed/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/24/notice_and_shakedown...
    - magicalist 12y ago
      That article seems entirely based on the comments on the OP. The only major quote in there is from a comment by the publisher of the post. And it's wrong about its two major points, as other commenters pointed out: the contract doesn't limit "windowing", and the "covenant not to sue" just covers suing over copyright infringement for exactly what's covered in the contract itself.
    - inventor 12y ago
      If you want people to take you seriously, never cite The Register.
      - wutbrodo 12y ago
        And in particular, citing them as "in the know" (as hilarious as it may be to do so).
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
- jamesbritt 12y ago
hayksaakian 12y ago
Has someone OCR'd this or made it searchable
- kmfrk 12y ago
  If you install Naptha (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/project-naptha/molncoemjfmpgdkbdlbjmhlcgniigdnf https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/project-naptha/mol...), there's an experimental search feature for images you can use.
aram 12y ago
For anyone wondering what's all this about - check out the comments at the bottom of that page.
- raldi 12y ago
  The comments explain nothing.
  - aram 12y ago
    They give an idea of what's all that about without reading dozens of pages.
    - magicalist 12y ago
      It appears to be a bunch of industry people who think that Google doesn't enforce the DMCA well enough...
      - aram 12y ago
        Which is enough to understand what's all the fuss about and why all those pages should make one "surprised". Blog post itself doesn't have any description. Doh.
      - didroe 12y ago
        There were only a couple of people discussing that, and only a handful of comments. Most of the discussion seemed to be about how terrible the terms were and whether there were any alternatives to YouTube.
rudimental 12y ago
Could someone with better legal knowledge and familiarity with licensing help me make sense of how I should react to this?
nijiko 12y ago
Transcription from comments on the site. Key Points 1. Removes windowing, unless you give youtube offers within reason (but what reason?). (Part 4/3b) 2. Google forces you to offer them comparable offers. 3. Parts of the contract are Illegal in many countries. 4. Prevents future sales through multiple means. Major Paragraph: “Catalogue Commitment and Monetization. It is understood that as of the Effective Date and throughout the Term, Provider’s entire catalogue of Provider Sound Recordings and Provider Music Videos (including Provider Music Videos delivered via a third party) will be available for the Premium and Free Services for use in connection with each type of Relevant Content, (excluding AudioSwap Recordings, which will be at Provider’s option) and set to a default policy of Monetize for both the Premium and Free Services, except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement. Further, Provider will provide Google with the same Provider Sound Recordings and Provider Music Videos on the same day as it provides such content to any other similarly situated partners. The foregoing will be subject to reasonable quantity of limited-time exclusive promotional offers (in each case, with a single third party partner) (“Limited Exclusives”), as long as a) Provider provides Google with comparable exclusive promotional offers and b) the quantity and duration of such Limited Exclusives do not frustrate the intent of this Agreement.” Meaning: YouTube not only forces artists to make their entire catalogs available on its free service however, it also demands that it happens on release day, online AND off-line. This prevents future sales — i.e. YouTube users can now download all songs for free, which means there’s no need for anybody to buy music from iTunes anymore. Side notes: 3. Rate Change. To the extent that any major label agrees to any rates for the Google Services that are lower than the rates set forth in Exhibits C or D, including with respect to bundling, Google will have the right to reduce Provider’s analogous rates accordingly, following thirty (30) days written notice (via email will be sufficient) to Provider. Also, check below for some more in-depth links that convert to laymans more.
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  Another key point is that large parts of this contract are simply illegal in many parts of Europe.
  - Spearchucker 12y ago
kmfrk 12y ago
I guess this is exactly the kind of case where you'd have a chance to see whether RapGenius is actually useful?
dbwat 12y ago
A sane take on things, discusses some of the sticking details: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140623/17084727661/more-indie-labels-youtube-confusion-reigns.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140623/17084727661/more-... It's worth noting that this is a negation process. This is Google's proposal and the labels aren't even willing to negotiate: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/24/youtube-music-contract-indie-labels http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/24/youtube-mu... Also the fact that someone leaked this is most likely part of the negotiations.
- IBM 12y ago
  Yes it would be like getting a sane take on copyright policy from TorrentFreak.com The labels and Google were negotiating, the whole reason it went public was their shitty terms compared to major labels. No one said there wasn't negotiations taking place.
nostromo 12y ago
The music industry is changing so fast. I feel sorry for the industry, despite their bad karma. Illegal digital downloads disrupted everything, and cut profits substantially. Luckily, Apple and Steve Jobs showed up and offered a brief reprieve. But now, just a 10 years into paid digital downloads, when the new revenue is still a tiny fraction of the old revenue, the field is disrupted again by streaming. And as with previous disruptions, it appears revenue will again be cut dramatically. I'm not sure what the takeaway is. Maybe the importance of owning your distribution channels?
- newaccountfool 12y ago
  Have you got concrete fact that illegal downloads cut profits?
  - nostromo 12y ago
    You know I don't. And I know you don't either. Unless we can run a study whereby some portion of the population is entered into a control group and doesn't have access to the internet, it'll remain a question about interpreting data and not of fact.
    - newaccountfool 12y ago
      So your statement was just a guess, just checking. I don't know the data from the record companies because I wouldn't bother reading it for fear of bias, I just know that a lot of the 'anti piracy' groups never actually put money back into the music industry, its just more money to fund more lawsuits.
      - GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
        > I wouldn't bother reading it for fear of bias That's a dangerous stance in general, probably better to listen to both sides whilst acknowledging that they are both likely to be biased in their own favour.
nickconfer 12y ago
I hope this doesn't happen. With Google weakly policing illegal content, labels really do have a bad situation here. They either take the deal Google has given them which is bad, or say no, and risk getting removed from YouTube and having their music uploaded by fans as lower quality streams. In other words, they take less money, or possibly lose everything while paying huge fees to send YouTube take down notices. This is bad for the consumer in my opinion. I want indie musicians and labels to be able to make more money, not less. This further incentives musicians to look for another path of work. Its disappointing that while technology is making it easier than ever to record and produce music, its becoming tougher and tougher to make a living off it.
- lukasm 12y ago
  > Its disappointing that while technology is making it easier than ever to record and produce music, its becoming tougher and tougher to make a living off it. That's normal. Market commoditization. The problem is musician and labels don't want to change and they are learning the hard way. I'd be interesting to see how many people live off music in the last century.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    I don't really know what "change" they are supposed to be dealing with. Sure digital makes it easy to copy and distribute, but musicians keep making less and less and it is harder for them to actually use music as a career. Is the change you are referring to, that they basically should just deal with being broke, because it is easy to pirate? That sounds like a bad thing to me, not good.
    - humanrebar 12y ago
      > they basically should just deal with being broke If they aren't willing to compete in new ways and change their business models, yes. Even television shows have this problem. Commercial revenues are down, so production costs go down (more reality TV) and the format of advertising has adapted (more GM cars featured prominently).
bryze 12y ago
Is it time to break up tech monopolies? I think the writing is on the wall.
cnst 12y ago
All the more reasons for Baboom?
waterlesscloud 12y ago
I'm actually happy about this. It will boost YouTube competition, which is sorely needed. Indie music may not show up on Google's metrics as being all that important, but it's a gateway drug of sorts. The internal data analysis is probably missing that. Some other video site will pick this up (Vimeo is so primed for it) and pick up a lot of viewers in the process.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  There's no guarantee of that. Several other sites may offer more favorable terms, but if they don't have a fraction of the viewers that YouTube has then those terms will still be worth less than a shitty deal with YouTube. The laws of supply and demand are obvious under perfect competition, but network effects massively change that calculus.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Of course there's no guarantee. But there's also no guarantee YouTube will retain its viewers. The viewers are only there for the content, not for YouTube. If YouTube doesn't have the content, it won't have the viewers. This is a market segment that can shift much more quickly than people (including Google, apparently) imagine. Content is still, and will always be, king.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      You underestimate the advantages of incumbency. YouTube is arguably the lowest common denominator in terms of quality (eg most Filmmakers prefer Vimeo because it gives more control over quality levels), but that hasn't stopped it being #1 by a mile. Getting a critical mass of people to shift to another platform is pretty hard.
    - GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
      I think I'm at least partially on YouTube because of YouTube rather than the content. I pretty much only watch videos on my phone, and it the only video app that I have, and it's good enough.
bsder 12y ago
The big problem that the artists are having is the fact that YouTube basically is aggregating illegal content. So, even if you want to start your own service, you are competing against the illegal copies on YouTube. What's worse is that, technically, I'm not even sure how you do anything about this. You could remove YouTube's safe harbor (which, to be fair, they really shouldn't have since they are monetizing the content), but I still don't see how YouTube would then police this.
brisance 12y ago
What's going to happen to all those existing videos which currently generate views? Discovery is important; personally I have stumbled into quite a few videos with a fair amount of "views" which led me to follow a band. If they take those those down according to this new contract, I can see why the smaller labels may be disadvantaged since they won't have the money to promote their videos.
- kiiski 12y ago
  Isn't this just about monetizing the videos? So they could still have videos there for promotion, but they won't get money (without directing the viewer to wherever they are selling their music at).
presty 12y ago
kinda reminds me of http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-...
ivv 12y ago
Can't Hulu or even Netflix offer labels a better deal?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
wavesounds 12y ago
Independent artists need to stop being independent and form up into groups that collectively have a large audience and then higher a lawyer to represent them, its the only smaller bands can have any leverage with streaming services. This is arguably the only reason for "record labels" to still exist.

236 points by AndrewDucker 12y ago

good-citizen 12y ago

can someone explain? is this secret?

nobodyshere 12y ago
It seems so judging by the scarce amount of leaks. At least I haven't seen it prior to this published one.
MangoDiesel 12y ago
This contract is probably behind an NDA and releasing it may also break other confidentiality agreements already in existence. The summary is that these terms are very unfavorable according to the indie artists and the companies they are affiliated with. They feel they are being strong-armed by Google and that Google is showing a strong preference toward large media companies and making it very difficult for future indie artists to become successful with this agreement.
- good-citizen 12y ago
  if the author is reading this, please follow up here and let us know what happens to you from a legal perspective for having violated the NDA.
RickS 12y ago
Up until now, yes, in that it concerns something not yet released. YT is working on releasing a streaming media service, on terms that are still emerging/being defined. From the looks of this document, the terms will not be pretty for non-major labels. YT gets a lot of reproduction rights and the ability to manipulate prices, which has a very high potential for exploitation of artists.

meandave 12y ago

This is disgusting

dudus 12y ago
Can you enlighten us what is so disgusting about this in your opinion, this seems to be a straight forward agreement to use the content provided to Google. Not worse than any other EULA I've read.
- bitlord_219 12y ago
  Not so, say those in the know: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/24/notice_and_shakedown_google_mafiastyle_contract_for_indie_music_revealed/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/24/notice_and_shakedown...
  - magicalist 12y ago
    That article seems entirely based on the comments on the OP. The only major quote in there is from a comment by the publisher of the post. And it's wrong about its two major points, as other commenters pointed out: the contract doesn't limit "windowing", and the "covenant not to sue" just covers suing over copyright infringement for exactly what's covered in the contract itself.
  - inventor 12y ago
    If you want people to take you seriously, never cite The Register.
    - wutbrodo 12y ago
      And in particular, citing them as "in the know" (as hilarious as it may be to do so).
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
jamesbritt 12y ago

hayksaakian 12y ago

Has someone OCR'd this or made it searchable

kmfrk 12y ago
If you install Naptha (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/project-naptha/molncoemjfmpgdkbdlbjmhlcgniigdnf https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/project-naptha/mol...), there's an experimental search feature for images you can use.

aram 12y ago

For anyone wondering what's all this about - check out the comments at the bottom of that page.

raldi 12y ago
The comments explain nothing.
- aram 12y ago
  They give an idea of what's all that about without reading dozens of pages.
  - magicalist 12y ago
    It appears to be a bunch of industry people who think that Google doesn't enforce the DMCA well enough...
    - aram 12y ago
      Which is enough to understand what's all the fuss about and why all those pages should make one "surprised". Blog post itself doesn't have any description. Doh.
    - didroe 12y ago
      There were only a couple of people discussing that, and only a handful of comments. Most of the discussion seemed to be about how terrible the terms were and whether there were any alternatives to YouTube.

rudimental 12y ago

Could someone with better legal knowledge and familiarity with licensing help me make sense of how I should react to this?

nijiko 12y ago

Transcription from comments on the site. Key Points 1. Removes windowing, unless you give youtube offers within reason (but what reason?). (Part 4/3b) 2. Google forces you to offer them comparable offers. 3. Parts of the contract are Illegal in many countries. 4. Prevents future sales through multiple means. Major Paragraph: “Catalogue Commitment and Monetization. It is understood that as of the Effective Date and throughout the Term, Provider’s entire catalogue of Provider Sound Recordings and Provider Music Videos (including Provider Music Videos delivered via a third party) will be available for the Premium and Free Services for use in connection with each type of Relevant Content, (excluding AudioSwap Recordings, which will be at Provider’s option) and set to a default policy of Monetize for both the Premium and Free Services, except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement. Further, Provider will provide Google with the same Provider Sound Recordings and Provider Music Videos on the same day as it provides such content to any other similarly situated partners. The foregoing will be subject to reasonable quantity of limited-time exclusive promotional offers (in each case, with a single third party partner) (“Limited Exclusives”), as long as a) Provider provides Google with comparable exclusive promotional offers and b) the quantity and duration of such Limited Exclusives do not frustrate the intent of this Agreement.” Meaning: YouTube not only forces artists to make their entire catalogs available on its free service however, it also demands that it happens on release day, online AND off-line. This prevents future sales — i.e. YouTube users can now download all songs for free, which means there’s no need for anybody to buy music from iTunes anymore. Side notes: 3. Rate Change. To the extent that any major label agrees to any rates for the Google Services that are lower than the rates set forth in Exhibits C or D, including with respect to bundling, Google will have the right to reduce Provider’s analogous rates accordingly, following thirty (30) days written notice (via email will be sufficient) to Provider. Also, check below for some more in-depth links that convert to laymans more.

Mithaldu 12y ago
Another key point is that large parts of this contract are simply illegal in many parts of Europe.
- Spearchucker 12y ago

kmfrk 12y ago

I guess this is exactly the kind of case where you'd have a chance to see whether RapGenius is actually useful?

dbwat 12y ago

A sane take on things, discusses some of the sticking details: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140623/17084727661/more-indie-labels-youtube-confusion-reigns.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140623/17084727661/more-... It's worth noting that this is a negation process. This is Google's proposal and the labels aren't even willing to negotiate: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/24/youtube-music-contract-indie-labels http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/24/youtube-mu... Also the fact that someone leaked this is most likely part of the negotiations.

IBM 12y ago
Yes it would be like getting a sane take on copyright policy from TorrentFreak.com The labels and Google were negotiating, the whole reason it went public was their shitty terms compared to major labels. No one said there wasn't negotiations taking place.

nostromo 12y ago

The music industry is changing so fast. I feel sorry for the industry, despite their bad karma. Illegal digital downloads disrupted everything, and cut profits substantially. Luckily, Apple and Steve Jobs showed up and offered a brief reprieve. But now, just a 10 years into paid digital downloads, when the new revenue is still a tiny fraction of the old revenue, the field is disrupted again by streaming. And as with previous disruptions, it appears revenue will again be cut dramatically. I'm not sure what the takeaway is. Maybe the importance of owning your distribution channels?

newaccountfool 12y ago
Have you got concrete fact that illegal downloads cut profits?
- nostromo 12y ago
  You know I don't. And I know you don't either. Unless we can run a study whereby some portion of the population is entered into a control group and doesn't have access to the internet, it'll remain a question about interpreting data and not of fact.
  - newaccountfool 12y ago
    So your statement was just a guess, just checking. I don't know the data from the record companies because I wouldn't bother reading it for fear of bias, I just know that a lot of the 'anti piracy' groups never actually put money back into the music industry, its just more money to fund more lawsuits.
    - GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
      > I wouldn't bother reading it for fear of bias That's a dangerous stance in general, probably better to listen to both sides whilst acknowledging that they are both likely to be biased in their own favour.

nickconfer 12y ago

I hope this doesn't happen. With Google weakly policing illegal content, labels really do have a bad situation here. They either take the deal Google has given them which is bad, or say no, and risk getting removed from YouTube and having their music uploaded by fans as lower quality streams. In other words, they take less money, or possibly lose everything while paying huge fees to send YouTube take down notices. This is bad for the consumer in my opinion. I want indie musicians and labels to be able to make more money, not less. This further incentives musicians to look for another path of work. Its disappointing that while technology is making it easier than ever to record and produce music, its becoming tougher and tougher to make a living off it.

lukasm 12y ago
> Its disappointing that while technology is making it easier than ever to record and produce music, its becoming tougher and tougher to make a living off it. That's normal. Market commoditization. The problem is musician and labels don't want to change and they are learning the hard way. I'd be interesting to see how many people live off music in the last century.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  I don't really know what "change" they are supposed to be dealing with. Sure digital makes it easy to copy and distribute, but musicians keep making less and less and it is harder for them to actually use music as a career. Is the change you are referring to, that they basically should just deal with being broke, because it is easy to pirate? That sounds like a bad thing to me, not good.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    > they basically should just deal with being broke If they aren't willing to compete in new ways and change their business models, yes. Even television shows have this problem. Commercial revenues are down, so production costs go down (more reality TV) and the format of advertising has adapted (more GM cars featured prominently).

bryze 12y ago

Is it time to break up tech monopolies? I think the writing is on the wall.

cnst 12y ago

All the more reasons for Baboom?

waterlesscloud 12y ago

I'm actually happy about this. It will boost YouTube competition, which is sorely needed. Indie music may not show up on Google's metrics as being all that important, but it's a gateway drug of sorts. The internal data analysis is probably missing that. Some other video site will pick this up (Vimeo is so primed for it) and pick up a lot of viewers in the process.

anigbrowl 12y ago
There's no guarantee of that. Several other sites may offer more favorable terms, but if they don't have a fraction of the viewers that YouTube has then those terms will still be worth less than a shitty deal with YouTube. The laws of supply and demand are obvious under perfect competition, but network effects massively change that calculus.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Of course there's no guarantee. But there's also no guarantee YouTube will retain its viewers. The viewers are only there for the content, not for YouTube. If YouTube doesn't have the content, it won't have the viewers. This is a market segment that can shift much more quickly than people (including Google, apparently) imagine. Content is still, and will always be, king.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    You underestimate the advantages of incumbency. YouTube is arguably the lowest common denominator in terms of quality (eg most Filmmakers prefer Vimeo because it gives more control over quality levels), but that hasn't stopped it being #1 by a mile. Getting a critical mass of people to shift to another platform is pretty hard.
  - GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
    I think I'm at least partially on YouTube because of YouTube rather than the content. I pretty much only watch videos on my phone, and it the only video app that I have, and it's good enough.

bsder 12y ago

The big problem that the artists are having is the fact that YouTube basically is aggregating illegal content. So, even if you want to start your own service, you are competing against the illegal copies on YouTube. What's worse is that, technically, I'm not even sure how you do anything about this. You could remove YouTube's safe harbor (which, to be fair, they really shouldn't have since they are monetizing the content), but I still don't see how YouTube would then police this.

brisance 12y ago

What's going to happen to all those existing videos which currently generate views? Discovery is important; personally I have stumbled into quite a few videos with a fair amount of "views" which led me to follow a band. If they take those those down according to this new contract, I can see why the smaller labels may be disadvantaged since they won't have the money to promote their videos.

kiiski 12y ago
Isn't this just about monetizing the videos? So they could still have videos there for promotion, but they won't get money (without directing the viewer to wherever they are selling their music at).

presty 12y ago

kinda reminds me of http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-...

ivv 12y ago

Can't Hulu or even Netflix offer labels a better deal?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

wavesounds 12y ago

Independent artists need to stop being independent and form up into groups that collectively have a large audience and then higher a lawyer to represent them, its the only smaller bands can have any leverage with streaming services. This is arguably the only reason for "record labels" to still exist.