The statement "youtube simply won't have the license to show them anymore" reads drastically different from "His confirmation that YouTube will block videos from labels that do not sign licensing deals for the new premium tier"
What is your source for the first - i.e. where are artists revoking YouTube's license to display their videos?
They are quoting one side of the negotiation that is trying to pressure youtube for better terms, "blocking" is their spin for youtube not agreeing to licence their videos for a higher rate thus resulting in them being taken down.
Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader.
What is happening here isn't youtube taking down the music of 'individuals' that have uploaded them to their channels, youtube licences these videos from these labels, once the licensing isn't applicable they no longer have the legal right to publish them, thus "blocking" them.
> "Blocking" is their spin for youtube not agreeing to licence their videos for a higher rate thus resulting in them being taken down.
End difference for consumer? None. Plus, you still haven't cited any sources, just speculation based off an admittedly single-sourced article.
> Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader.
Sure they can. And they do, all the time. Content Protection has nothing to do with the legality of the video. Part of the uploading EULA is that it's up to Google to decide when something goes up or comes down.
Regardless of whether Youtube has a history of removing content, my (non-lawyer) reading of the Terms indicate that they definitely reserve the right to remove videos at their leisure. The agreement grants Youtube a license to all submitted content, but, as far as I can tell, makes no guarantee about how Youtube will display that content, if at all.
Even if they haven't removed uncontested legally uploaded content before, the Terms seem to say that they can, and this might constitute the first time they'd want to. (See x0x0's sibling comment for cases where they've removed contested legally uploaded content, but I think you're probably talking about uncontested videos, right?)
(Incidentally, the EULA/TOS distinction feels really pedantic to me. The name isn't the issue here; we're concerned about the content of the agreement.)
it's your claim -- that youtube won't take down videos within their TOS in order to blackmail rights owners -- so don't roll in here, make the claim, then demand people provide evidence to the contrary
oh, and given their well documented behavior with regards to handing large rights holders the ability to take down videos because of music without issuing DMCAs and with no review from youtube, not hard to believe [1] [2]. (See how I made a claim and I substantiated it?)
What is your source for the first - i.e. where are artists revoking YouTube's license to display their videos?