I dont get it.. practically how does one differentiate between an "indie label" and just some random person uploading a video they made on their iphone? Practically I don't see that much disappearing... maybe I'm wrong here..
Usually when you hear about a negotiation that is part of the negotiation.
According to the FT article cited those "indie labels" are fine with the rates of the yet to be launched paid streaming service, they are just using the opportunity to hike their rates for the already available free streaming.
Also YouTube is not 'blocking' these videos, they aren't licensed to show them.
switching to Vimeo in 3 ... 2 ...1 ...
I do not understand what's supposedly happening. YT will not accept music videos unless the submitter signs a licensing agreement with them for their new music thing? Can somebody explain this?
I don't even understand what YT is doing with this "enhanced music experience". Is it something different than regular YT—music.youtube.com, for example—or is it just DRM shit smeared on top of select otherwise-normal videos?
It's pretty easy, actually. An indie label is a business that operates along similar lines to a major, just on a smaller scale. But they tend to be incorporated, have a contract with a distributor, produce physical albums, etc. The first labels to put out early rock were indies. Same with the early LA punk scene, which included Black Randy's label Dangerhouse or SST. In San Fran, you had Jello Biafra's label, Alternative Tentacles. The British scene had several labels, including 4AD and the fantastic Mute. ETC. Go read The Big Takeover, and it's full of ads for still functioning Indie labels.
The big changes lately seems to be a shift towards labels that are centered on a single artist, rather than as acting as a place for a variety of artists, they are basically incorporation for one artist to put his or her work out. Amanda Palmer is an example of this. Young God's Michael Gira's label is more like this (at least I don't think he puts out aritsts other than his own work any more).
But plenty of artists just put their stuff online without necessarily becoming a business.They likely aren't trying to make a living off making music, but are just interested in sharing what they do with others, and if they make some money off it, that's great, but it's not their primary goal. I do think that it's messier now than it was in the 80s say, because now it's cheaper to make your own recordings and share them. But there is a difference.
I think you misunderstood my question. I didn't mean how does "anyone" distiguish between an inie label and a random person. I mean how does Youtube distiguish. Are they only going to block people that are incorporated? And what about all the random people who upload other artists? I'm kinda asking what Jambeeno is asking..what precisely are they blocking? it can't be normal youtube videos because unless your youtube handle is "matadorrecords", how would they even know you are a label and not a normal person..
I'm not sticking up for YouTube, but I get the feeling this is slightly more nuanced than the "my garage band is gonna get blocked from youtube" scare the headlines imply. But yeah if it does go down that way, they are cutting their own legs. There's plenty of other better video streaming services.
What happened to 'Don't be Evil'?
YouTube has been *the place that everyone can freely put their (crappy) videos to show the world. How is it even considered that forcing someone to pay for a licence to show their video a good plan? And blocking the videos unless they pay is literally a strong arm tactic.
Why not have this 'premium' service available that you can get some added value for what you pay for, then it would be more acceptable. Blocking videos is just not cool.
And I'm totally confused as to how a subscription service would be more profitable than advertizing.
Oh, my bad! Sorry about that!
That's a good question then. What I think it means is that a whole lot of content is going to get taken down and it's going to be the worse for You Tube. But the point of this is not to have a way to freely share and promote music, it's to privilege the already powerful even more. That's why the majors pushed for it in the first place. The article states that indie music makes up about 32% of music sales. If the indies get yet another place where they are not getting cheap or free promotion, that means they have to increasingly turn to the majors for access. They did the same with distribution chains a while ago. While the punk and post-punks had set up an effective chain to promote and get their music out in the 90s, the majors eventually swooped in to pick it apart and benefit from the hard work that had already been done. Same logic here and You Tube doesn't want to get sued, so they go along with the majors.
The words "only block" make no sense here. Youtube blocks tons of stuff completely at random, and lets tons more slide by. I wouldn't even want to compute their accuracy rate, but it is low, low, low.
Several old music performances from the old Italian show Canzonissima have been taken down over the last couple of weeks; this includes a couple that appeared in this BB thread. I don't know if this is related, but I can't imagine that RAI all on their own decided that they were losing money because someone was posting 40-year-old snippets from their shows.
Apparently what is happening is Google is approaching individual independent labels with a "non-negotiable" contract for its proposed streaming service and allegedly threatening that if the indy labels don't sign on YouTube's terms they could find their music videos blocked.
I may be wrong, but it looks like corporate hubris and strong-arming to me.
Usually when you hear about a negotiation that is part of the negotiation.
What does that even mean?
I think I know what he's talking about. Whenever a union in the area is in negotiations for a new contract, there's usually a few stories put out in the media from one side or the other.
The firefighter contract in the nearest city to me was up for negotiation and suddenly the media was talking about how the firefighters in that city had the highest rate of absenteeism in the city. The city was trying to spin it as firefighters being lazy and entitled. The real reason turned out to be that if a firefighter took a day off, it counted as three days because they had 24-hour shifts plus the city was including people who were on short-term disability to drive up the numbers.
This could be that kind of story or Google could actually be trying to screw indie artists badly.
I don't think they're charging anyone a license fee. They're simply saying that they'll only show music videos uploaded by labels if those labels are enrolled in their subscription-based plan. The uploaders, far from being charged a fee, will actually get paid by YouTube. Independent labels are complaining that YouTube is offering them lower royalties than they are offering the big labels, and that unless they agree to these terms their videos will disappear from the free YouTube site.
An independent record label that is actually good at its job probably makes it pretty clear on their uploads and/or account that they are a label, and they probably upload high-quality videos and use either the artist name or their record label in their account name. I doubt it's that difficult to tell what accounts are label accounts, and I bet that a lack of DMCA takedowns being issued against a specific account that hosts a broad catalogue of an artist's videos is a fairly good (and automated) indicator that that account is official. For example, Jack White is one of the "independent" artists who the Guardian says could be affected, but he has his own Vevo acount, JackWhiteVEVO, which is pretty clearly authorised.
I'm pretty sure I won't see much change here. YouTube in Germany blocks a huge number of videos with the claim that:
Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights.
It's often not even true that the video contains music at all (let alone music licensed to GEMA), so it's similar to the 'may contain peanuts' notices on food items.
I'm so confused at this play at THIS point in the internet. A few years ago Youtube would have had tons of power. But now? First of all, this is a potentially huge boon to Vimeo. When I first started using Vimeo (around when they first came into existence) - no one knew about them. Now, I see links to Vimeo almost as often as links to Youtube when it comes to professional content. (Not cat videos, which Vimeo is explicitly against. )
Huge artists like Adele moving to Vimeo could give it the cred that lifts all boats if 30% of all music moves to them. Sounds like a really, really dumb move on Google's part.
That also ignores something interesting - right now on Dreamhost I have infinity bandwidth and infinity storage for $8/mo. Sure, a band of a certain size would need a VPS or dedicated server (depending on how big the band is), but still pretty darn cheap to just host all your own videos and f- google for trying to screw you over. I mean, how many people go to Google for Adele and then stay for the "related" videos. Google needs stickiness just as much as TV channels do. They need the big names to attract the eyeballs to the other videos that earn them ad money.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.