More On Indie Labels And YouTube: Some Legitimate Concerns, But Still A Lot Of Misplaced Anger

from the monetization-fight dept

Tue, Jun 24th 2014 7:58am — Mike Masnick

Last week, we wrote about how some of the stories making the rounds concerning YouTube "blocking" musicians from using YouTube and taking down videos if they didn't agree to non-negotiable contract terms for YouTube's new music service were... exaggerated. We pretty clearly noted within that post that there could be legitimate arguments about the terms of the contract, but the claims about being "blocked" from YouTube were not really accurate. That story got a bit of attention, as people dug in to try to understand what was going on. Various versions of the contract that YouTube has been offering to indie artists have been floating around and Digital Music News has posted a copy of the whole thing, as it's done in the past with other music services.

I've also heard from a number of folks in the indie music community who have raised some good points about their concerns, going beyond the whole misleading "but they'll block my videos." One of the best summaries of the concerns was actually placed on a comment to our original story, which highlighted a bunch of other points that people were concerned with, some more reasonable than others. Having looked at the contract on DMN and talked this over with some folks, a few things become clear, which we'll discuss with a few screenshots from the copy DMN uploaded (though it's worth reading the whole thing). First, YouTube is in fact raising the rates it pays people:

As we noted, there is a little something strange about complaining about YouTube offering all its artists a deal better than the existing deal, and claiming it's somehow unfair. And, perhaps that's why most (between 90 and 95%) artists seem to have agreed to sign up for this deal with no problem.

The second issue is the "major label" issue. That is, it's been reported, but not confirmed, that the major labels got nice advances from YouTube to join this program, and the indies feel that's unfair and that they're being cut out. As some have pointed out, some of this anger is really indies angry at the major labels plus YouTube as opposed to them just being angry at YouTube. But, on that front, it's somewhat difficult to figure out how YouTube can really do anything here. Of course it's going to provide greater guarantees and advances to the major labels, because they can be reasonably sure that those will make economic sense. It's much tougher to do that with a diverse group of independent artists. There is this tidbit in the contract, though, that has raised some eyebrows:

There seems to be some fear here that the major labels will cave and agree to lower rates, and thus the indies will be locked into that. Again, this is where the "indies vs. majors" issue really comes into play. Though, again, I'm a bit hard pressed to figure out what else is makes sense for YouTube to do in this situation. The basic point here is that if the overall economics change so much that the majors are willing to accept lower streaming rates, then the indies will likely have to get pulled along as well. I can see why they're uncomfortable with that... but at the same time it also seems like a perfectly reasonable contract term for a variety of reasons. And, at the same time, does anyone really expect that the major labels are going to agree to cut rates? That seems doubtful. They're going to seek to increase them, rather than the other way around.

The final point that has raised some serious concerns is the apparent provision that artists need to hand over their full catalog and that it has to give their works to YouTube at the same time as any other "similarly situated" service. Here's the clause in the contract DMN posted:

On this one, I can definitely see both sides of the argument. Some artists are willing to give some music to some services, and other music to other services, as they think will best serve their audience. At the same time, YouTube obviously has its reasons for wanting to make its service as comprehensive as possible. There is what appears to be that vague exception for "limited exclusives" to other sites, but some might not find that to be enough. As for the "entire catalog" issue, it's important to note that the definition of "Provider Sound Recordings" and "Provider Music Videos" seems to only include those given to YouTube, so it's not clear that it really requires artists to hand over every song they've ever created. It's basically just saying that if the artist does post a song to YouTube's monetization system, it has to be included in the program:

That said, we've also heard that this covers ContentID. So... an artist that doesn't want to post a video of their own song, but does want to reserve the right to monetize others' use of his or her songs, is put in an uncomfortable position. Because by using ContentID, they've basically agreed to license their music to the program. That's a point that I can see might reasonably make many artists uncomfortable. If I were in YouTube's shoes, I'd think it might be better (at least for public perception) to offer two options here: one that is a direct monetization option, wherein the artists upload their own songs for monetization across the board, and a second one that is solely for monetizing user videos through ContentID, unrelated to the subscription music service.

Still, that's a contractual choice that Google/YouTube is making about how it wants to run its service, and it really doesn't seem that crazy for the company to try to put together a deal that will likely lead to the best overall experience for end users. Separately, as we pointed out last time (and at least one independent artist noted to me via email), it does seem to be looking a gift horse in the mouth a bit to basically argue that they all want to use YouTube's platform for free -- getting all the advantages of hosting, bandwidth, community, streaming software and more -- and then whine about how YouTube looks to make that more sustainable while at the same time providing ways for the artists to make some revenue as well.

So, in the end, there do seem to be some reasonable concerns by artists about the specific terms in the contract -- but that's going to be true in almost any contract negotiation. YouTube's never going to please everyone all the time. I do think YouTube could have done a few things to better anticipate some of these concerns and to provide artists with greater flexibility in some of the decisions they need to make, but looking over the key concerns, you can also make the argument that YouTube is structuring this offering to be better for users -- and doing so in a way that will help artists make money. And thus... the specific complaints do feel a bit more like nitpicking. The concerns about the deals with the majors are... just kind of a fact of life. It's hard to see how YouTube could realistically do much different in that situation. Negotiating individual deals with every single indie provider is a logistical impossibility (and, if anything, would likely require lower royalty rates, as the management of so many different deals would require significant overhead).

Once again, after looking at the details, it does seem like artists have some legitimate complaints, and YouTube could have been more open and transparent about some of the details of all of this. I definitely see the point from my artist friends who don't want to put everything on YouTube. But, having also dealt with music services where it's frustrating to see them missing songs that really ought to be available, you can see why the company is trying to drag some artists into accepting the fact that making more of their work available is probably best overall as well.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: content id, contract terms, indie artists, indie labels, music, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

81 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael, 24 Jun 2014 @ 8:23am

there is a little something strange about complaining about YouTube offering all its artists a better than existing deal, and then claiming it's somehow unfair

You just cannot get the true "artist experience" if you aren't being screwed over by distributors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ds, 24 Jun 2014 @ 8:31am

You would think that TechDirt would be in support of someone wanting to be able to have some sort of control or at least say in how they connect with their fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 8:38am
  
  Re:
  You would think that TechDirt would be in support of someone wanting to be able to have some sort of control or at least say in how they connect with their fans.
  
  I think that part of what we've preached is the simple fact that once you release content you *no longer have control* over how fans will experience it or how they want to connect with you.
  
  I understand the emotional appeal, but I recognize that fans make the work their own, and want to experience it in their own ways. And based on that, I can absolutely see why YouTube is doing what it does. I still think they could have and probably should have offered more options to musicians, but it's hard to deny that the end result here is likely to be a better overall experience for end users...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:02am
  
  Re:
  Oh, that's simple:
  
  1. Don't sign with a label and you control all your music.
  
  2. Don't post your works to YouTube and you don't have to worry about how YouTube controls your work.
  
  3. Don't profit?!?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    My music is all locked inside my head. No one can do anything with it but me. I have complete control.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ysth (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:10am

Re your contention that it would have been more expensive for Google to individually negotiate with each indie label, The Register has a anti-Google article on this, which contends Google refused to bargain with with indie collective licensing agency Merlin, and that that is the substance of a complaint to the European Commission.

Do you have any information on this point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard Altman (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 12:00am
  
  Re:
  It's a lot more believable that YouTube simply won't negotiate with indies, that's what spotify didn't do, it's basically take it or leave, exactly like spotify, which is what damon krukowski (spelling) from Galaxie 500 (song Tugboat, the 21 cent royalty) said in an interview, referenced in this video at exactly this point in this link, http://youtu.be/Q1rpMbBGor0?t=3m26s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 12:33am
  
  Re:
  "The Register has a anti-Google article on this"
  
  The Register has a lot of inaccurate, semi-trolling articles on this kind of subject so take anything there with a pinch of salt (especially if Andrew Orlowski is the author, as his articles are deliberately contrarian and usually have commenting disabled to avoid people correcting them).
  
  If that's the only source you can find, I'd assume it's not true, or at best a gross distortion of reality. If there are other sources, I'm sure Google have their reasons, and the truth will come out in an EC investigation if there's enough merit to warrant one. Given the level of emotion and misinformation on this story already, it's best to wait for the smoke to clear, I think.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quiet Lurcker, 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:13am

ContentID ... foul-ups
IF I were an indie musician (I'm not) and IF I were to be considering going with Google to market my stuff (I'm not), the minute I saw that Google was trying to treat ContentID information as a license to all of my materials that appeared on Google, I would run for the nearest exit, and stay well away until Google and everyone else involved actually abides by the DMCA regarding notice-and-takedown. See, for (notorious) example Lenz v. Universal Music Co., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 10:48am
  
  Re: ContentID ... foul-ups
  tay well away until Google and everyone else involved actually abides by the DMCA regarding notice-and-takedown.
  
  FYI, ContentID has nothing to do with the DMCA notice-and-takedown process. You don't have to participate in ContentID to send notices.
  
  The difference is that the DMCA requires those notices to be takedown notices. Your choices are to take the content down entirely, or to leave it up as-is.
  
  ContentID is a way to avoid this Sophie's choice, imposed by the government upon rights holders and service providers, and offer a "middle way" where everyone gains. But it has nothing to do with the DMCA, it is a service created by YouTube, and (like all service providers) they have a right to control it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Quiet Lurcker, 24 Jun 2014 @ 4:49pm
    
    Re: Re: ContentID ... foul-ups
    They still have to abide by the terms, whether it's a private agreement, or whether it's forced on them from above.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BSD32x (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 4:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: ContentID ... foul-ups
      I don't think I explained myself well enough when I linked the Forbes post earlier (I'll link it again for reference) http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/12/19/the-injustice-of-the-youtube-content-id-crackdown- reveals-googles-dark-side/
      
      ContentID, from what I've seen from these gaming videos, ends up benefitting Google AND the publisher (or in this case label) with innocent content creators caught in too wide a net. But, as that article highlights, Google avoids lawsuits and tons of DMCA takedown requests with an imperfect algorithim, publishers/artists get EXTRA revenue they shouldn't be entitled to, and individual content creators have little to no redress, in terms of challenging false positives. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is bad for indie labels (or good for the public at large), maybe I'm missing something here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:15am

Some Legitimate Concerns, But Still A Lot Of Misplaced Anger

That summarizes pretty much all of your posts, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2014 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  second half sums up yours too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Oizo, 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:18am

Never sue Google ?
Taken from the register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/24/notice_and_shakedown_google_mafiastyle_contract_for_indie_mu sic_revealed/

Under the terms of the published version of the contract, indies must promise not only to never sue Google - under a �Covenant Not To Sue� - but give immunity to punters who continue to upload the label's own material to YouTube's massively popular video service.

Why does this matter? Getting your stuff taken down from YouTube is hugely costly and in practice, almost impossible, thanks to "safe harbor" provisions designed to protect ISPs and other service providers in the mid-1990s, when the public internet was in its infancy. It requires an individual URL-by-URL take-down notice to be filed for each infringement. Google can continue to monetize the label's music via YouTube, even without the label's permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BSD32x (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:23am
  
  Re: Never sue Google ?
  I would be VERY skeptical of anything The Register writes in regard to Google, Apple, or even FOSS for that matter. http://techrights.org/2014/06/14/the-register-lies/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mr. Oizo, 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:31am
    
    Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
    Maybe, but this is not about microsoft, nor apache. This is about the youtube force-fed license. Page 14 of the contract has the section 'Covenant not to sue' as the register reports.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BSD32x (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
      My first thought, when I read this, was that it comes on the heals of Microsoft re-vamping (and putting a lot of effort into drawing artists to) XBox Music and their Windows Phone Video Apps. http://www.techtree.com/content/news/6569/microsoft-updates-xbox-music-video-apps-windows-phone.html and on the content side, look at the interest they showed in Bonnaroo. http://bgr.com/2014/06/12/bonnaroo-xbox-live-streaming/
      
      Definent MS interest in spreading FUD about Google in terms of streaming content, especially music, right now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BSD32x (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        Sorry for misspellings, I'm posting from my phone, autocomplete is not serving me well right now. :p
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mr. Oizo, 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        Howso Fud ? It _is_ in the contract that has been leaked. So how can you claim it is just fearmongering ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BSD32x (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        I'm speaking in regard to the language, and the way The Register has interpreted the contract. Like this statement: "In short, the move will preserve Google's illegal supply chain by cracking down on its legal supply chain." Wow, that's a really nuanced take on it. And "mafia style"? Come on.
        
        Also, "One legal source familiar with digital music contracts claimed the terms amount to a restraint of trade.
        
        "It's a contract so bad that you would never sign it in normal circumstances. But Google has a gun to your head," our source said.
        
        Any indie music labels who take this fight all the way will want speedy justice from the EU."
        
        Really, if the deal is that bad (tantamount to mafia extortion), you couldn't find one credible source in the music industry (especially from an indie label) to go on record? The whole thing smacks of shoddy reporting at best, and considering it's coming from a known shill for MS, I have a hard time giving them the benefit of the doubt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. Oizo, 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        I don't care for the tone (as you might have noticed). What interests me is content. If you have a particular point that you can point out is wrong, please do so, otherwise, let other people comment on how this is beneficial for the artists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BSD32x (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        I'm not saying you are inherently wrong, but are framing this issue in a one sided way that The Register also did. Google are in a bind with the DMCA takedowns as is (and a Tech Dirt reader I'm sure you're aware). When you say "Why does this matter? Getting your stuff taken down from YouTube is hugely costly and in practice, almost impossible, thanks to "safe harbor" provisions designed to protect ISPs and other service providers in the mid-1990s, when the public internet was in its infancy. It requires an individual URL-by-URL take-down notice to be filed for each infringement. Google can continue to monetize the label's music via YouTube, even without the label's permission."
        
        I am of the opinion that URL by URL take downs are absolutely necessary as a measure of preserving free speech. A lot of channels I view have erroneously had content taken down (Mike has written about this before - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131211/17365325537/youtube-fails-explaining-flood-takedowns-lets -play-videos.shtml ), and you're suggesting we make the situation even worse for the sake of Indie artists? I'm sorry, but implementing an overly broad takedown system so that Indie artists can get every possible penny of royalties is something I'm imposed to, just in the same way that I'm opposed to DRM in Firefox for the sake of Hollywood/Netflix. So in regard to that, I think that Google is doing something that benefits the general public, if not a certain sub-sect of it that are opposed to the current DMCA takedown system (which I already feel is too draconian).
        
        My opinion in regard to The Register is that they're taking a potshot at Google here. But, by writing a sky is falling type of article like that, they provide great ammunition to copyright maximalists and artists who need every last revenue stream (i.e. ones not signed to a major label), who are willing to sacrifice the greater public interest (and overlook free speech concerns) to advance their own individual ones. Is it a "bad" deal? Sure, but no worse than ones artists sign with Spotify, iTunes, etc. in the eyes of many observers - http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/06/18/inside-youtubes-fight-with-indie-labels-over-new-music-servic e/ and I would argue that some aspects of the deal (in regard to takedowns) advance the public interest as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:32am
  
  Re: Never sue Google ?
  "Getting your stuff taken down from YouTube is hugely costly and in practice, almost impossible, thanks to "safe harbor" provisions"
  
  Getting your stuff taken down from YouTube seems absurdly easy to me. What's the difficulty?
  
  Regardless of that, the safe harbor provisions are what encourages sites to take down content, since sites have to do that if they wish to retain their safe harbor status.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mr. Oizo, 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
    With content-id it might be easy, but without content-id you can spend the rest of your life hunting down reuploads of the tracks you don't want on youtube. That all while google profits from the ads, and you spend time typing out DMCA forms. And as Masnick points out, if you want content-id you have to eat the contract.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ysth (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 10:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
      Err, that's not what he says. He says, if you have agreed to the contract and you want to use ContentID to monetize user-uploaded content, you have to include that content under the contract.
      
      That's a very very different thing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mr. Oizo, 24 Jun 2014 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        With content-id it is apparently easier to keep down copies of your work. You register your work, the content id is registered, new uploads are immediately flagged and requests send. If you don't agree to the new youtube deal, you can forget content-id and go back to the DMCA forms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BSD32x (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        Yes, because ContentID has worked out so well... http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/12/19/the-injustice-of-the-youtube-content-id-crackdown- reveals-googles-dark-side/ I have a hard time believing it will be a different story with indie labels than with game-related content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ysth (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 4:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        If you don't agree to the new youtube deal, you can forget content-id and go back to the DMCA forms.
        Source? That's what you were claiming Mike Masnick was saying that he wasn't actually saying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        If you don't agree to the new youtube deal, you can forget content-id and go back to the DMCA forms.
        
        This is actually unclear. It certainly seems to be the case that you can forget monetizing using ContentID. Whether you can still use it to take down videos is an unanswered question.
        
        Nonetheless, even if what you say is true, it's not like rights holders are entitled to use ContentID. That's a service that YouTube offers (and which they spent over $60 million creating). Like any other service provider, they are free to determine the terms of use.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ysth (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 3:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        I have no idea what's true, just objecting to people putting words in other people's mouths.
        It certainly seems to be the case that you can forget monetizing using ContentID
        Where do you get that from?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 6:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        Where do you get that from?
        
        From a Forbes article, to which Techdirt linked in their previous story:
        Any user-uploaded video of copyrighted content will likely stay up too, a YouTube spokesman said, though it's yet to be finalized. But the videos will not be monetized � which means that videos that stay up will not have ads running on them (so neither YouTube nor the rights holders earn money), or videos might be taken down. Currently, rights holders can monetize user-uploaded videos of their copyrighted content through YouTube�s ContentID system, which alerts rights owners of copyrighted content on the site and lets them choose to take it down or get revenue from ads that run in front of it.
        - http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/06/18/youtube-indie-music-streaming/2/
        
        I haven't compared that to the leaked contract, though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ysth (profile), 26 Jun 2014 @ 6:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        I don't see anything there at all about any change for people who don't sign the new contract, so this doesn't seem accurate:
        If you don't agree to the new youtube deal, you can forget content-id and go back to the DMCA forms.
        This is actually unclear. It certainly seems to be the case that you can forget monetizing using ContentID.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 10:47am
  
  Re: Never sue Google ?
  You should read the full clause in the contract. It's a rather limited covenant not to sue *over the music you've licensed* for copyright infringement:
  
  Covenant Not to Sue. In consideration of Google�s entering into this Agreement, effective upon the Effective Date and through the end of the Term, Provider covenants and agrees, for itself and its respective agents and representatives not to bring, assert, pursue, maintain, join in or directly or indirectly support, assist, fund, lend resources to, or otherwise participate in any litigation, throughout the Territory, involving or asserting any claim based upon or alleging any form of copyright infringement arising from Google�s exploitation of the rights licensed by Provider to Google herein through the operation of the Google Services, and in accordance with this Agreement, that Provider has, had or may have against Google prior to the Effective Date or during the Term; provided, however, that such covenant not to sue will apply to and be binding on a third party solely to the extent Provider has the legal authority to grant the covenant not to sue herein on behalf of such third party without violation of any legal or contractual obligation to such party (such as, without limitation, an agreement with an artist, performer, songwriter, composer, rights collecting society, co-publisher or sub-publisher). Subject to the following sentence, the foregoing covenant not to sue does not include any legal claim to be asserted against any party other than Google, including, (i) any legal claim against any third party arising from the incorporation or use of a musical work in a video or failure to pay royalties or other consideration due to any copyright owner for use of a musical work in a video; or (ii) any legal claim against any third party (including a User) arising from the incorporation or use of a musical work in a video (regardless of whether such video is a User Video). Nonetheless, Provider covenants not to sue any User who synchronizes any Provider Content in a User Video uploaded to the YouTube Website, to the extent Provider�s claim is based on the alleged infringement of rights granted by Provider to Google herein.
  
  That's not crazy. It actually makes sense. Basically it's saying "if you license us this music to use on YouTube, you can't then sue us saying that us using it is infringing." What's the nefarious part in there? The claim that it gives immunity to third parties is clearly not the case given the language. This is just Andrew Orlowski doing a usual misleading hit piece on Google based on Chris Castle feeding him bullshit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mr. Oizo, 24 Jun 2014 @ 3:56pm
    
    Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
    The last sentence is the most interesting to me: "Nonetheless, Provider covenants not to sue any User who synchronizes any Provider Content in a User Video uploaded to the YouTube Website, to the extent Provider�s claim is based on the alleged infringement of rights granted by Provider to Google herein."
    
    I tried my hand at legalese. The 'Provider' is here probably the one providing the tracks. Let's call him the artist. 'any provider content' basically translates to content of others and the artist himself. 'User video uploaded to the YouTube website' can be shortened to 'video'. To the 'extent Provider's claim is based on the alleged infringement of rights granted by Provider to Google' basically states that the artist will not sue regarding alleged infringements of user videos if YouTube got the right to these videos.
    
    So, that last sentence from the contract could also mean:
    
    Nonetheless, the artist agrees not to sue users who infringe the artists copyright if Google is granted the use of the tracks.
    
    I realize I'm not a legal scholar, and I did my best to try to read that shit. For instance, in the original is written 'synchronizes'. WTF does that mean anyway. On the other hand, I can certainly understand why people go bananas about this. If I can read it like that, others certainly can do so to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 8:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
      So, that last sentence from the contract could also mean:
      
      Nonetheless, the artist agrees not to sue users who infringe the artists copyright if Google is granted the use of the tracks.
      
      No, you're right, that's exactly what it means - assuming you limit it to users uploading the specific tracks licensed to YouTube.
      
      That's because it is exactly these types of videos that are monetized using ContentID. Without it, neither YouTube nor the artists would be able to do that.
      
      If you monetize the videos using ContentID, those users wouldn't be infringing on the artists' copyrights at all. That's nothing new; it's pretty much the way it's always worked.
      
      So, no, it's not remotely nefarious, even by your reading.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mr. Oizo, 25 Jun 2014 @ 1:39am
        
        Re: Never sue Google ?
        Not sure about the old deal but the new deal certainly sounds disastrous. In no time will the major labels start remixing the indies tracks and monetize them, without the indies having any real money from it. Once that is done the rates can be lowered in favor of the old ones.
        
        And on the side: if I were to give Google a license to distribute my shit, why should I give any potential user on Google that same right ? I really don't get that.
        
        For instance, in Germany a lot of tracks are not visible due to a failure to reach an agreement with GEMA. Does this clause override the problems with GEMA ? If after all every artist has agreed every user the same rights as google has, then GEMA will have no leg to stand on any more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BSD32x (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 2:22am
        
        Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        Where, exactly, does this deal allow for that (or has any credible analayst claimed that it does)...? It doesn't seem like you have any understanding of how ContentID works, and are just making things up. Your entire first paragraph is just nonsensical.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. Oizo, 25 Jun 2014 @ 4:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        First paragraph is indeed contentious. Nevertheless, the question still remains if I were to give Google a license to distribute my shit, why should I give any potential user on Google that same right ? I really don't get that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2014 @ 12:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        Because the users don't get the money from the monetization, the copyright owner does. That's the entire point of listing them up on contentID.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 6:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Never sue Google ?
        In no time will the major labels start remixing the indies tracks and monetize them, without the indies having any real money from it.
        
        There's nothing in the contract that even remotely hints that they would be allowed to do that.
        
        Yes, the majors would be allowed to remix the indie tracks (assuming they signed the agreement), but the indies would be monetizing those remixes.
        
        if I were to give Google a license to distribute my shit, why should I give any potential user on Google that same right ?
        
        Mainly because you want to monetize those tracks. Without giving the users the right to upload your music, there would be no way to monetize those users' uploads.
        
        Again, this is how ContentID has always worked. It's hardly nefarious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:35am

> Of course it's going to provide greater guarantees and advances to the major labels, because they can be reasonably sure that those will make economic sense.

I was under the impression that major labels had the cash (say, from not paying artists) that they could afford to wait for the continuing payments from You-tube, rather than get cash beforehand.

If, as you imply, money going to the major labels can be a certainty, what economic sense does providing them an advance make?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2014 @ 11:50am
  
  Re:
  I've thought about this too. An advance is better because you can invest the money for and earn interest on it for a longer period of time. Another scenario in which an advance would make sense is if you never thought you were going to recoup the amount of advance, which means you just got free money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freely_ip (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 9:35am

I think the provision to provide the entire catalog may stem from recent events with Pandora and the labels selectively removing songs from the approved list. Maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zip, 24 Jun 2014 @ 10:06am

a well written, well balanced article
What a difference a few days makes! This piece is a welcome change from the last one, which quite frankly came across as a bit of a stinker from someone who didn't quite "get it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devonavar (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 10:26am

Not a negotiation
"So, in the end, there do seem to be some reasonable concerns by artists about the specific terms in the contract -- but that's going to be true in almost any contract negotiation."

I think this is the crux of it. The problem is, the indies aren't able to negotiate. They're basically being given the entire contract as a EULA, and being told take it or leave it. That's not a negotiation.

I'd be upset too if I wasn't able to negotiate around the problematic terms of the license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ysth (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 11:38am

Well, The Register deleted my comment
So I'll have to put it here:
The entire tone of this article [The Register's] struck me as one-sided and biased. I don't have a dog in this fight in any way, but I was really struck by stuff like raising a problem, saying Google has Content ID to address that exact problem, and then saying how that isn't a solution because it's voluntary on Google's part, sans any evidence that Google has been abusive here.

I went to techdirt hoping to see a more balanced article on this issue, and there it was right at the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kristoffer Rom (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 12:09pm

indie disadvantages
To mr. Masnick.

Excuse me if I've overlooked something in your posts on this matter, but I'd love to hear your stand on the following:

- the lack of negotiations with Merlin, while having negotiated with majors
- the possible effects of the world's biggest streaming service lowering royalty rates. My thinking is that other services might follow and as a consequence music streaming will devalue overall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 1:08pm
  
  Re: indie disadvantages
  - the lack of negotiations with Merlin, while having negotiated with majors
  
  I'm not Mike, but I can give you a plausible reason as to why YouTube would choose not to negotiate with Merlin:
  
  The negotiations are between the rightholders and YouTube.
  
  I am not a music biz insider, so I really have no clue, but I highly doubt that the Indie Labels have signed over the copyrights on their catalogs to Merlin. That would be a huge difference between Merlin and the major labels and one that wouldn't require YouTube to negotiate with Merlin at all, if they choose not to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kristoffer Rom (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 10:02am
    
    Re: Re: indie disadvantages
    True, Merlin aren't rightsholders - but they are still the indies' Rights Agency despite not owning the rights themselves.
    
    While there are only three majors there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of indies (which is why Merlin exists) and all other major services make their deals in collaboration with both majors & Merlin. I simply can't see the reason for YouTube not to talk to Merlin except if they don't want to or can't do so while honouring their deals with the majors.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 2:45pm
  
  Re: indie disadvantages
  - the lack of negotiations with Merlin, while having negotiated with majors
  
  Not sure I have any opinion on it one way or the other. I don't know the details there. If that's a big problem, why would the various indies just say "don't talk to me, talk to Merlin" and then the issue would be solved?
  
  the possible effects of the world's biggest streaming service lowering royalty rates. My thinking is that other services might follow and as a consequence music streaming will devalue overall.
  
  Can you explain this one further? From what I've heard, the rates aren't that far off from other services.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 3:27pm
    
    Re: Re: indie disadvantages
    If that's a big problem, why would the various indies just say "don't talk to me, talk to Merlin" and then the issue would be solved?
    
    Because YouTube would stop listening after "Don't talk to me..." The indie labels weren't given that choice; any attempt to have YouTube negotiate with Merlin would mean they weren't taking any deal.
    
    At least, that's the accusation. Personally, I just don't see this happening, or at least it's not the full story. It's always easier to negotiate with one entity than it is to chase around hundreds of individual rights holders. It's why anyone ever dealt with ASCAP or BMI in the first place.
    
    I find it much more likely that YouTube did attempt to negotiate a deal with Merlin, and the negotiations completely fell apart. Either that, or Merlin couldn't legally offer the licenses that YouTube needed (e.g. global rights).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2014 @ 6:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: indie disadvantages
      "I find it much more likely that YouTube did attempt to negotiate a deal with Merlin"
      
      That's because it's a well known fact that you're the village idiot that never has a clue about what you bloviate about.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 7:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: indie disadvantages
        That's because it's a well known fact that you're the village idiot that never has a clue about what you bloviate about.
        
        Well, it's not like YouTube hasn't reached deals with them in the recent past:
        Merlin Reaches Global Licensing Deal With YouTube
        
        And it's not like YouTube hasn't been negotiating with independent music groups for months:
        YouTube: why one significant indie music group HAS signed licensing deal
        
        I notice, too, that you have not provided one shred of evidence that anything I said was wrong. Or even a bad guess.
        
        But, that's only natural, coming as it is from someone whose only recourse is to fling out ad hominem attacks when someone catches them in a lie.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kristoffer Rom (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 10:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re: indie disadvantages
      Regarding ww rights. In the contract published on Digital Music News it actually says that they can handle non-global uploads via metadata...
      
      All quotes from WIN, Merlin & Impala I've seen state that Merlin hasn't been contacted.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 3:34pm
    
    Re: Re: indie disadvantages
    Oh, yeah:
    
    My thinking is that other services might follow and as a consequence music streaming will devalue overall.
    
    Can you explain this one further?
    
    I think what he means is that companies like Pandora will do individual deals with publishers like Sony or Universal, and cut ASCAP and BMI out of the loop altogether.
    
    It's basically what I was talking about in my comment on the previous story.
    
    Of course, the major publishers are actively pushing for this situation. It's why they're trying to get the DOJ to modify or eliminate the consent decrees governing ASCAP and BMI.
    
    It's also why modifying the consent decrees is a terrible, terrible idea for songwriters and smaller publishers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2014 @ 6:27pm
    
    Re: Re: indie disadvantages
    "The rates aren't that far off from other services."
    
    Translation: Google continues to pay lower royalty rates than the other streaming services despite YouTube being the biggest and most profitable.
    
    Google screws over artists every day. No reason to think that would ever change.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2014 @ 7:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: indie disadvantages
      [citation required]
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 12:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: indie disadvantages
      ...and I suppose you have citations for all your claims? No, your usual citation of "I pulled it from my ass and will throw a toddler tantrum if anyone calls me out on it" doesn't count.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kristoffer Rom (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 10:20am
    
    Re: Re: indie disadvantages
    Not sure I have any opinion on it one way or the other. I don't know the details there. If that's a big problem, why would the various indies just say "don't talk to me, talk to Merlin" and then the issue would be solved?
    
    See my above answer to Gwiz. In short the importance of having Merlin is to ensure that the diverse indie community can get the same deals as majors so they can continue their contribution to both artistic and commercial growth in the music sector.
    
    Can you explain this one further? From what I've heard, the rates aren't that far off from other services.
    
    The rates are as in your table above. What worries me is that the existing platforms' royalties are at a level where even artists that are great at RTB, getting themselves onto playlists etc. need to have streams in the millions per year to see digital music sales as a substantial add-on to other revenues from their careers such as live fees, sync etc.
    
    I come from Scandinavia where streaming is the far biggest music format of all, also over downloads & CDs. Which I love though my own royalties as an artist are significantly lower than a few years back, and despite the investments I make as a label manager takes way longer to make back in sales. What the Scandinavian market has proved is that the consumers are willing to pay for streaming - and services like spotify etc. have found a subscription fee-level satisfactory to the majority of both rights holders and consumers (hardly anyone streams via stuff like last.fm, grooveshark etc. and even youtube streams have staggered and declined for many of us). But with YouTube pushing rates 10-20% in the 'wrong' direction I really fear the other services will be forced to follow and set us all years back financially in the streaming market.
    
    Makes sense?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
creatif (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 12:37pm

The majors point
"Does anyone really expect that the major labels are going to agree to cut rates?"

I think the argument here is that the majors *might* accept lower rates in return for big advance payments (which - this being the music industry's can of worms ��they might also not be obliged to pass on to their artists).

And that may or may not be likely, but this is why indies are angry about that clause. They already suspect YouTube has agreed to pay big upfronts to the majors ($1bn is the figure that's been suggested a couple of times, although it is suspiciously round as figures go).

So say next time the contract is up for renewal, if YouTube were to say to (for example) Universal 'hey, how about we pay you $X upfront and lower the per-stream rates' the latter could then be enforced on indies, without anything upfront.

This is why the indies set up Merlin in the first place: to negotiate collectively and (possibly) get a slice of those advance payments ��which Merlin would then distribute to the indie labels. This is why Merlin has equity in Spotify (an alternative to advances) on behalf of its members.

So that's another reason, I think, why some independents are cross about YouTube sending them contracts directly rather than sorting out a deal through Merlin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2014 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re: The majors point
  Regarding that can of worms: I thought I'd read here that there'd been a court ruling which held that advances to the record companies did not have to be shared with artists (they're "unallocated receipts"). But is that ever, or only until the relevant play-count reports come in from the service to indicate how the advances should be apportioned?
  
  I'm sort of afraid to know the answer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2014 @ 6:40pm
    
    Re: Re: The majors point
    You're talking about two completely different things. The money a record company takes in from non-sales doesn't have anything to do with their royalty obligations. It's money to keep the doors open, keep staff, and used to provide venture capital in the signing of new/more artists.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 5:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The majors point
      Nope, they're exactly the same thing. What is the one thing services such as YouTube need from the labels? The music. How is it normally paid for? Royalties. The advances are simply payment for rights to the music by other means. Therefore it's crucial to know whether those payments are ever applied proportionally (via play-counts) to the artists.
      
      Labels sign artists up for "360 deals" all the time, giving the label access to all the artist's income streams. But do artists have symmetrical access to all the label's streams?
      
      Why should labels be able to unilaterally reallocate payment for use of artists' music to "keep the doors open" or especially "to provide venture capital in the signing of new/more artists?" It makes a complete mockery of Doug Morris's famous comment, "...we will continue to be vigilant in protecting our rights and those of our artists and songwriters from services that unreasonably expect to build businesses on the backs of our content and hard work without permission and fair compensation."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        Royalty obligations are royalty obligations no matter what. A label must pay them if songs are streamed no matter where the money comes from.
        
        Quit deflecting away from the real issue. Google is trying to force ALL indie artists to give up their rights or else they will no longer be able to monetize their work on YT. This move is a massive pr disaster by Google but no surprise to all the people that have known they were evil all along.
        
        If you're interested in actually getting facts, don't read this ridiculous blog, go to digitalmusicnews.com.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 8:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        Google is trying to force ALL indie artists to give up their rights...
        
        Quite a spin there. What rights are the artists giving up?
        
        ...or else they will no longer be able to monetize their work on YT.
        
        Or to it put correctly: "will no longer be able to monetize their work on a platform provided to them without for free."
        
        This move is a massive pr disaster by Google but no surprise to all the people that have known they were evil all along.
        
        How so? If they have successfully negotiated with 90% of the rightsholders, that only leave 10% who are disgruntled. How is that a bad PR move? Seriously, no one can please everyone all the time.
        
        Can I ask you a question? I get the feeling you feel sense of entitlement about the services YouTube and Google provide you for free. Where does that come from? I'm serious, I really want to know. I use Gmail and Google search, but that doesn't make feel that Google owes me damn thing, why do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        Oof.
        
        Should be:
        
        Or to it put correctly: "will no longer be able to monetize their work on a platform provided to them for free."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard Altman (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        A platform that has freely infringed copyright for its entire existence, sells advertising while doing so in order to pay for the ability to continue to infringe and profit from copyright at 1.6hrs/sec
        This is what YouTube started out and continues to do, entitlement, if you want to call it that is built into the internet.
        Therefore they should negotiate with the owners of popular videos, for example Tugboat by Galaxie 500 or day the group Cracker or any number of artists who aren't on majors.
        REFUTE IF YOU DARE.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        Refutation is easy: YouTube does not "freely infringe on copyright." In fact, YouTube voluntarily goes above and beyond -- way more than what is required of them -- to minimize infringement, even when doing so harms the customer experience. ContentID is a great example of this: Google isn't required to do this, and the process has a rather high false-positive rate that makes it a harmful practice.
        
        That's not entitlement at all. That's bending over backwards for the mainstream music industry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard Altman (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        They enable copyright infringement, they are protected for some reason by safe harbor, if your saying there isn't copyright infringement on YouTube, you are mistaken, it's a profit circuit that feeds on itself die to safe harbor. Therefore YouTube is obligated to negotiate with all popular indie artists in the same way they negotiate with major label artists. You're refuting this?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard Altman (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        Due to safe harbor not die
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        They enable copyright infringement, they are protected for some reason by safe harbor, if your saying there isn't copyright infringement on YouTube, you are mistaken, it's a profit circuit that feeds on itself die to safe harbor.
        
        You realize that a video service like YouTube couldn't exist without the Safe Harbor protection the Copyright Act provides, right? (heck, even this site you are currently commenting on wouldn't exist without protection against liability by it's users).
        
        Copyright Safe Harbors exist because Congress realized that placing liability on the actual infringers instead of the platform is the correct way to do things.
        
        Therefore YouTube is obligated to negotiate with all popular indie artists in the same way they negotiate with major label artists. You're refuting this?
        
        Wait. What? Are you saying because YouTube abides by the current laws and relies on copyright Safe Harbors against liability caused by it's users it is somehow obligated to negotiate with the Indie Labels? What kind of convoluted logic is that? Makes no sense to me, so YES I'm refuting that for lacking any actual intelligence or reason.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        What I'm attempting to articulate is that YouTube has rampant infringement, while they've made progress at maintaining broadcast TV's interruptive ad model via five second skippable ads, the notion that they want to attempt a streaming music service that people pay for is dubious. The Google music locker is great and free and I'm in charge of populating it. A Google YouTube music streaming service like YouTube movie rentals probably won't be that successful unless it's involved with connected car dashboards. All this aside, YouTube is an infringement cess pool where it's simplistic to download any stream, since YouTube is trying this redundant endeavor (we really need another music streaming service that's really what everybody needs) just for fun they could be Google-y and properly monetize indie artist streams with progressive royalty rates, they could be evil, just Don't Be Greedy. your all right they are within the law and they're doing everything by the book and no one can fault them for making free broadband video streaming available anyway it's still doesn't matter because it's all funded more less on the fact that there's this cycle of copyright infringement everybody knows I you can get alot of music there, that music gets advertising monetized regardless of who owns it especially indie artists. this is the result of clamping down on what happens now for music like they did with content ID for television and movies, doesnt stop piracy and won't stop piracy so why not just try to actually provide a progressive business model that all content owners can agree on. I don't believe the 90% thing, there are only 3 major labels, so what doors that specifically consist of, are All the majors even on board or is one not completely out of the three and does that constitute the missing 10 cause my getting is Indies aren't even represented
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        " if your saying there isn't copyright infringement on YouTube, you are mistaken"
        
        I'm not saying that. I'm saying that asserting that YouTube "freely infringes on copyright" is incorrect. There are two main reasons this is incorrect: first, YouTube isn't infringing on anything, some uploaders are. Second, Google goes out of its way to find and remove infringing content.
        
        As to "enabling copyright infringement", I'm not sure what point you're making by saying this. If technologies are bad just because they "enable infringement" then we'll all have to go back to using only the tech that existed before the advent of recording.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        I missed this comment. It's so chock-full of wrong, that I can't help but reply.
        
        They enable copyright infringement
        
        No, they enable user-generated content. Some of that content is infringing, but it's not specifically set up to infringe on copyright.
        
        If they "enable" copyright infringement, then so does every other website that contains user-generated content in any form.
        
        they are protected for some reason by safe harbor
        
        That reason is because Congress set up safe harbor provisions specifically to protect sites like YouTube. They realized (thankfully) that without it, any site that allowed users to post content on it could face secondary liability.
        
        The fact that the DMCA established bright-line liability exceptions is one of the reasons we are legally capable of having an open Internet.
        
        if your saying there isn't copyright infringement on YouTube, you are mistaken
        
        Having infringing content on your website does not mean that the website was set up to "enable copyright infringement."
        
        it's a profit circuit that feeds on itself die to safe harbor.
        
        Every for-profit website with user-generated content partakes in the same "profit circuit." It is far, far better for everyone (artists included) that they do.
        
        Therefore YouTube is obligated to negotiate with all popular indie artists in the same way they negotiate with major label artists.
        
        That doesn't even make sense. They are following the law as it was intended to be followed. They have absolutely no obligation to do any more than that.
        
        It would be nice if they negotiated with indies and major labels the same way, but that's never going to happen as long as major labels hold the significant market share. And not just with YouTube, either.
        
        It should be noted that the monopoly granted by copyright causes this imbalance in market share. An individual copyright is a bona fide monopoly, and because they're transferable as if they were property, it means that the larger market players (major labels in this case) can hoard those individual monopolies.
        
        So, yeah, of course players like YouTube (or Apple, Spotify, eMusic, Clear Channel, Live Nation, Tower Records...) are going to give preferential treatment to the major labels. Because of copyright, they control the majority market share.
        
        The only hope that the indies have is to get onto platforms where their music is equally as available to users as the major label music is. Platforms like YouTube.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Warr, 21 Jul 2014 @ 1:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        Of course YT is infringing it was bought from a group that had outmanoeuvred Google Video by allowing and encouraging copyright violations (see Viacom evidence). The majority of music videos on YT are infringing, more importantly the bulk of the YT views are to infringing content. Remove the infringing content and YT isn't a viable web property. A major use of YT is for people to link to infringing content in posts on other forums. If YT didn't exist it would be no great shakes. Actually we might have a better internet as people would have to actually post something creative themselves rather than just link to some pop song.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 22 Jul 2014 @ 12:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        "A major use of YT is for people to link to infringing content in posts on other forums. If YT didn't exist it would be no great shakes."
        
        What's impressive here is that there's a massive dichotomy between these two sentences, especially when you consider that most of the content will be tracked and monetised for the copyright holders by Google themselves. But, I presume that someone randomly commenting on dead forum comments isn't interested in the discussion that could come of an attempt to engage people for their opinions.
        
        "Actually we might have a better internet as people would have to actually post something creative themselves rather than just link to some pop song."
        
        You do realise that a large amount of the content on YouTube is exactly that, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        A platform that has freely infringed copyright for its entire existence, sells advertising while doing so in order to pay for the ability to continue to infringe and profit from copyright at 1.6hrs/sec
        
        I do refute that. Like John said, YouTube has gone way beyond what is required of them by law since Google obtained them.
        
        You act like copyright is the only reason YouTube makes any money. That's silly. They make money because they built the most popular video sharing service ever. You also act like every cent they make in advertising is pure profit and that is also silly. How about you pay one days worth of YouTube's bandwidth, electricity costs, hardware costs, personnel costs and other overhead for a day. I'll bet my bottom dollar you couldn't afford an hour's worth with your entire life's savings.
        
        This is what YouTube started out and continues to do, entitlement, if you want to call it that is built into the internet.
        
        I wouldn't call that entitlement. I would call it what it is - staying within the boundaries of laws designed by Congress.
        
        Therefore they should negotiate with the owners of popular videos, for example Tugboat by Galaxie 500 or day the group Cracker or any number of artists who aren't on majors.
        
        Umm, isn't that what they did? From what I have gleamed, they have successfully negotiated with 90% of the rightsholders. And now they are negotiating with the remaining 10%. Unfortunately, since that 10% is in a very weak bargaining position, the negotiating is basically "this is what everyone else agreed to, take it or leave it". This is standard practice in every other business sector. Not sure why anyone deserves special treatment here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        I'm curious about this as well. When I am faced with contractual terms that I find unacceptable and I can't negotiate the contract to something better, then I don't sign the contract. That's the way such things are supposed to work.
        
        The only time things like this make me angry is when I don't have an alternatives -- for instance, I find my broadband provider's terms unacceptable, but I have nowhere else to get broadband from, so I'm "forced" to accept them.
        
        YouTube doesn't have this level of monopoly, though. There are many alternatives. In fact, although I spend a fair bit of money of music, I rarely ever go to YouTube for music at all. There are many better places available.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 8:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
        And let me guess, you get your news from the Trichordist, which has to purchase typos of websites to redirect people to get traffic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
creatif (profile), 24 Jun 2014 @ 1:10pm

Another small point
I'm hearing lots of surprise from lawyers too about the five year licensing term: it's rare to get anything beyond 18 months / 2 years at the moment, if you're a digital service.

Not an example of YouTube being 'evil' ��understandable they'd want to chance it on this kind of point ��but would be surprised if that really is a non-negotiable length.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]