These videos aren't being blocked, it's just that youtube will no longer have the license to show them, because those indie labels are holding for a better deal.
If I visit the URL of one of these videos, will it play?
It sounds like you are just arguing semantics about what "block" means internally at YouTube versus what a person using YouTube considers the word to mean.
I think it's the difference in "we're mad/blackmailing/whatever, so your videos won't play anymore" and "we legally can't play your videos."
GP is suggesting throughout this thread that the indie labels are using deceptive language to say "YouTube is blocking us" when really they're saying "we don't like the terms so we won't let YouTube play our content."
As I understand it, if copyrighted material goes up on Youtube as things stand, the copyright holder has the option of either requesting a block/takedown or entering into the ad revenue scheme for a cut of the ad clicks.
That choice is being revised to: either requesting a block/takedown or entering into the ad revenue scheme for a cut of the ad clicks for free views, and a cut of subscriptions for premium views. Premium views will be worth less to the label than free views, so this will mean a cut in revenue (of course, if 'Youtube+' tanks, then it will be a trivial cut in revenue). So the first option looks better for the indies than it did before. It seems some of them have decided that it looks much better.
I don't think it fits nicely into the Google is great/Google is evil dichotomy, simply because it's an understandable business decision from Google's point of view, but it genuinely is the case that it shafts the indies. (Revenues from streaming services are pitiful for anyone outside the sacred circle of mega-labels.)
Since when has YouTube ever cared about hosting unlicensed content? That was their entire raison d'être for years, and they still haven't completely abandoned their reliance on less-than-licensed content.
The DMCA makes different provisions for content that the hosting party knows is unlicensed. Since they are working on some sort of contract with them, they know what content is licensed and are therefore responsible for it.
It isn't. The videos aren't being "blocked", youtube simply won't have the license to show them anymore. These "indie labels" are trying to extract higher rates from free streaming by holding out on the paid service.
The real issue here is the guardian publishing the labels' PR as is.
From a seemingly more evenly sourced article on gizmodo:
"Some labels are refusing to sign up because they say they're getting a raw deal from Google. They say that while the major labels have negotiated lucrative contracts, Google is offering indies comparatively bad terms. It's their right to say they don't want to sign up if they don't like the deal Google is offering them. In response, Google is drawing a line in the sand: If your label won't sign on to Google's crappy licensing deal for a new streaming service, you can't host videos on YouTube at all."
Google has a reply appended at the end that is absolutely the worst bit of corporate puffery-non-response I've ever seen from them and IMO as bad a sign as any of the actual things they're being accused of plotting.
They have a pretty good audio fingerprinting service and database that lets them identify the music and video from tons of copyrighted works that have agreed to be licenced with them (and/or have stronger indicated that they will sue youtube if they don't take down their works).
"crappy licensing deal" doesn't really indicate an even article.
Basically same as everyone else they are siding with the labels and adapting their narrative.
Yes, if Youtube can't licence the music the videos will get flagged by ContentID, which means they gets "blocked" because they don't have the license to show them, it's a semantics play and circular logic that the labels are offering and as with most attacks on Google the media has lapped it up.
As to the actual term we only have the labels' word on it and they are an interested party in the midst of negotiations.
"The BBC understands that even if blocks do go ahead, content from artists signed to independent labels will remain available on YouTube via channels such as Vevo."
I don't really care about their wording. The proposition that Google has made the choice that labels can either (1) join the premium service or (2) not be on YouTube anymore does not really seem disputed by anyone other than you. Except you may not even dispute it now? If you don't, you may very well not agree with the opinions and commentary people are sharing about the situation, but that's a disagreement about interpretation not facts.
Is there any evidence labels don't have option (3) provide some videos for free (presumably for promotional purposes) and pull the others? On what planet would Google forbid that? Practically speaking, how would they (absent the label cooperating for the takedowns by providing audio/video fingerprints, etc.)?
There might even be option (4) provide some videos for the paid service and pull the others, but that's more ambiguous because it's possible that could be forbidden contractually (e.g. if you participate in the paid services, you have to give it all videos you make public!y available or somesuch) and there are plausible reasons that Google might care.
I wonder how covers/unofficial recordings/karaoke will be dealt with. That ecosystem is a real differentiating factor for Youtube compared to a service like spotify. A lot of the top results for major songs are not the original recording.
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?)
