Follow Us

DMN on Feedburner
Connect with:
divider image

YouTube Will be Ripping Down Indie Music Videos ‘In a Matter of Days’

madtv

Don’t like YouTube’s terms and payouts?  Well, you can always go f*&k yourself.  According to details just disclosed by a YouTube executive, videos from independent labels that dislike YouTube’s payout terms will be summarily ripped down, starting ‘in a matter of days.’

“We will begin blocking videos within a matter of days to ensure that all content on the platform is governed by our new contractual terms.”

Robert Kyncl, YouTube head of content and business operations, in comments to the Financial Times.

In the discussion with the Financial Times, Kyncl claimed that the YouTube already had buy-in from 90% of rights owners for its upcoming music-focused launch.   “While we wish that we had a 100% success rate, we understand that is not likely an achievable goal and therefore it is our responsibility to our users and the industry to launch the enhanced music experience.”

The rest will be removed, though at this point, it’s unclear exactly which indie label artists will suffer, though huge names like Adele, Arctic Monkeys, and Jack White have been tossed around as possibilities.

hand April 14, 2014: Exclusive: ‘YouTube Music’ Is Launching This Summer…

According to sources, all of that comes ahead of a major YouTube Music meeting with rights owners and partners, slated for next week in Los Angeles.  The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the details of YouTube with a range of participants, including labels, publishers, MCNs, and digital distributors.  The upcoming service, tentatively called  ‘YouTube Music,’ will be a subscription-based play that eliminates ads, organizes the current morass of videos, and finally delivers content portability.

And, competes aggressively with the likes of Spotify and Beats Music.

hand May 22, 2014: 19 Indie Label Organizations Speak Out Against YouTube…

The fallout follows a fierce fight from the independent label community, with indie label organizations filing a complaint with the European Commission to prevent lopsided and unfair negotiation tactics.  The frustration has been brewing for some time: just last month, Merlin chief Charles Caldas publicly outed YouTube as easily the worst-paying streaming provider, with rates that make Spotify seem generous.

 

blue bar background graphic
Comments (98)
  1. Anonymous

    Oops — bye, bye YouTube.


    Reply
    1. visitor

      where’s casey when his paymasters are screwing artists? so much for google as the defenders of free speech and an open internet – we all knew the sopa disinformation campaign was by a bunch a hypocrites, now we have proof. The EFF is surprising silent about this corporate abuse and suppression of free speech.

      if creators are protecting their work it’s censorship, but if google is screwing artists it’s business… oh, right, business as usual for silicon valley.


      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        “business as usual for silicon valley”

        Well, you don’t see a company this size commit suicide every day.

        Why did they do it? Was it our fault? Didn’t we tell them how much we loved them?

        Nah, we probably didn’t. And now they’re gone, rip.


        Reply
    2. Willis

      RIP Napster. Long live Napster.


      Reply
  2. Anonymous

    GGG, if you’re out there… :) remember what I said last week?

    “[YouTube is] a fantastic site right now. You can use it for non-cannibalizing previews only, it’s growing like crazy, and everybody’s there. It’s the Haight Ashbury of the 2010s, so expect it to self-destruct any day.

    The day has come, and the party’s over.

    OK, where to go now?


    Reply
    1. GGG

      I’m always out there. Always watching. Ever vigilant.


      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        “I’m always out there”

        :)


        Reply
  3. Anonymous

    The average Spotify stream pays out 8-10x as much as a Youtube stream. Even Pandora pays more.

    Meanwhile, the majors get their hundreds of millions in advance and the indies and artists are left fighting over a few hundredths of a penny. Meet the new boss, same as the old. The rich suits get richer, and artists get nothing but “promotion”.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      I understand your frustration, but I must give my rebuttal.

      You are right that Youtube doesn’t pay a lot for music. But that is because Youtube is not the place for music. Youtube is designed for people who collect subscribers, and do well because their own specifc audience keeps comming back to watch more and more of the videos they produce. The platform is designed to benefit those with thousands of videos and lots of watches per video.

      Just because a band spend thousands of hours mastering and lovingly caring about an album, does not make the ten videos any different than the two-hour-to-make display of talent produced by some teenage kid from Australia.

      I hate these complaints against Youtube as it’s not Youtube’s fault, it just simply isn’t designed for music.

      Youtube is a great way to get your ideas, and even music out to the public, but it should never be lucrative to music makers. Youtube pays (very little) all of these people for their work only because it attracts people to view the advertisements on the page when they watch it. A bands song with 100,000 views on Youtube literally doesn’t deserve to make more money, as it literally doesn’t cause any more views of ads than a cat video with 100,000 views.


      Reply
  4. smg77

    Good. Artists and labels standing in the way of progress should be left out.

    Streaming is the future and we’re never going back to overpriced CDs.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      omg, wanting more than a couple hundredths of a penny per play is now akin to “standing in the way”?


      Reply
    2. Anonymous

      YouTube is going to delete 10% of all its music now. Music fans are obviously the losers.


      Reply
    3. TuneHunter

      Streaming YES!
      We can go sub and ad free too, I would allow for unlimited skips – JUST STOP PROSTITUTION & MONETIZE AT THE DISCOVERY MOMENT!
      Tune not part of the playlist? Enjoy! You want to live it again? Then PAY, just 39¢, for addition to your playlist with “title” to the tune as a part of the deal.


      Reply
      1. Me

        Dude. Stop. Nobody’s going to pay to find out who sings a song.


        Reply
        1. Nina Ulloa

          Pretty much


          Reply
          1. TuneHunter

            I totally agree, as long as the IDIOTS will own or manage the goods!
            Farmer can not give away the goods or he would be bankrupt! … and you probably dead!

            Old goodwill is almost consumed so there is hope for change and progress.


            Reply
    4. The Dude

      Overpriced CD’s? Are you fucking serious? Yes, that $5 CD in the bin at BestBuy is so overpriced.

      God help us all. This world is full of idiots.


      Reply
      1. GGG

        Probably lots of quality music in the $5 bin at Best Buy.


        Reply
        1. TuneHunter

          39 if not 25¢ for hot or crap tune could deliver $100 billion dollar music industry by 2020.

          Spotify or streaming is good!

          No subs is good too!

          No ads is perfect with me!

          Unlimited skips are even better!

          Dear Mr. Ek an Pandora, PERFECT MACHINE TO MONETIZE MUSIC AT YOUR DISPOSAL!

          Enjoy for FREE the best of the best, skip anything, but when they serve you a NUGGET that is not part of you playlist and you want to LIVE it again you GOT TO PAY!


          Reply
    5. Versus

      CDs were never “overpriced” (unless you bought bad music).


      Reply
  5. Seth Keller

    Apparently all videos will still be available on VEVO, so they can be watched on YouTube. The indies that are holding out should continue to do so if they think the terms aren’t fair since it doesn’t seem like accessibility to their artists videos on YouTube will be an actual issue.

    A couple of questions/comments: Is this new service only going to be available outside the US initially? All the coverage seems to be from the UK and the bigger indie artists that keep being mentioned (with the exception of J White) are English and signed to UK indies.

    Related to that, if US independent labels had almost a 35% market share in 2013 according to Billboard, then it would seem that the majority of independent labels in the US have signed this deal if YouTube is stating they have a “buy-in from 90% of rights holders.”

    Paul, it would be great for you to do some investigative reporting and talk to US and UK indies as well as indie label organizations about this situation to get a true picture of what’s going on.


    Reply
      1. Me

        Is this meeting open to all labels and rights holders?


        Reply
      2. Seth Keller

        Hi Paul:

        I read that piece but it didn’t answer my question nor delve into the real issue that indies are dealing with or how many indie labels out of the total number of indies labels in the world haven’t signed this deal or think it’s unfair.

        It would be great if you or Ari could get some interviews with the players involved or at least get some knowledgeable anonymous sources to give you the true picture of what’s happening here.


        Reply
    1. An Indie

      @Seth – the difference is due to the large number of indie labels that have exclusive digital distribution agreements with distributors (many of whom are owned by the major labels) who have all signed the YouTube subscription license. That begs the question, are distributors actually looking out for the best interests of the rights they’re representing if they’ve all signed this lousy deal or are they just fronts for their major label owners delivering indie content into deals that are structured to enrich the majors disproportionately?


      Reply
      1. Seth Keller

        That makes sense, An Indie. If independent labels distributed by majors don’t have the option not to take this deal, that certainly weakens the bargaining position of the indie sector as a whole. While it seems the videos by indies who are holding out won’t actually be completely wiped off YouTube, the only indie labels that will be able to affect any real change are those with global stars who control their own distribution…that would seem to be very few indeed.


        Reply
  6. Anonymous

    Millions of music fans now need a new go-to video site after YouTube’s suicide.

    So who are the candidates?

    Vimeo: 1m views per day.
    Daily Motion: 60m views per day.
    Metacafe: 17m views per day.
    Tudou: 55m views per day. Currently Chinese only, but that could change.
    Youku: 150m views per day. Currently Chinese only, but that could change.

    Interesting times!


    Reply
    1. Me

      How many of these sites have any sort of deals with rights holders?


      Reply
    2. Elizabeth from kpopmeetsusa.com

      If all the indies getting booted from YouTube go to another platform as a group instead of splitting up into separate ways, it might change these rankings. Ideally this new platform would be amenable to putting together something to help monetize the music better, such as showing buttons that add concert tickets to cart on the same page as the music and other design changes.


      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        You make some good points on your site — here’s a few of them:

        “If a third of music content disappears from YouTube and reappears on a competing site, such as dailymotion.com or vimeo.com, people will go to other sites and indies can get exposure again. But, they must act as a group”

        “there needs to be strong, union-like organization among indies”

        “it’s time we build something [a replacement for YouTube] that that actually helps the music industry”


        Reply
      2. Anonymous

        “If all the indies getting booted from YouTube go to another platform as a group instead of splitting up into separate ways, it might change these rankings”

        So how about Vimeo? Or do you think Dailymotion is more likely to develop a usable monetization system in a not so distant future?

        A decent influx of well known artists could boost either of these services significantly in a matter of months. And both can easily be embedded on Facebook, stream in HD etc.

        Also, you seem to be quite motivated and involved in this — why don’t you start a group of YouTube defectors?

        The time is definitely right. I would personally be prepared to do without royalties for a while in return for an artist friendly platform.


        Reply
        1. GGG

          We should build a new platform. That way nobody has any leverage whatsoever.


          Reply
          1. Anonymous

            I suppose that brings us back to the need of some kind of group, or union. Not the most entertaining thing to create.

            It could be pretty basic, though. One purpose: Launch a monetizable audio- and video streaming site…


            Reply
            1. Anonymous

              I actually like that idea. No more 30% cuts to Apple — no more 45% cuts to YouTube.

              No more Schmidt’s, Ek’s and Westergreen’s.

              All artists/owners treated alike…


              Reply
            2. GGG

              Right, obviously easier said than done, but pooled money going to a team of people to build a site shouldn’t be THAT difficult. I also think from a marketing standpoint launching a new service by indies for indies, as long as it’s done well and works immediately, would be easier to push as the new hip thing than trying to convert people to another brand/existing site.


              Reply
              1. Anonymous

                “launching a new service by indies for indies, as long as it’s done well and works immediately, would be easier to push as the new hip thing than trying to convert people to another brand/existing site”

                Completely agree. And it’s safe to say that people are motivated…

                So what are the challenges?

                1) Creating a group/union.

                2) Avoiding the potential Schmidt’s, Ek’s and Westergreen’s. I suppose total and constant transparency and democracy all the way would be the answer.

                3) Finding the right streaming model: Should this be a Spotify With Video or a new YouTube? E.g. should it be “music videos” only, or should everybody be allowed to upload all kinds of legitimate content? I would personally go for the latter. But a lot of people would probably go for music only — which opens a few cans of worms: Who’s to decide what’s music, etc.

                4) Finding the right advertising model(s). Should Pirate Bay ads be accepted? Kidding. :)


                Reply
                1. Anonymous

                  Guys, this could be the most beautiful thing on the internet…


                  Reply
                2. GGG

                  Creating a group/union would get messy down the road probably, but initially, I think some enterprising group of powerful people could put something together fairly easily.

                  Finding the money will be the hardest part, especially if the goal is to pump out a workable site in short time. A VC or two may be necessary, but I’m sure there’s some fairly artist friendly rich dudes out there. Just give them tons of perks, like lifetime supply of free tickets.

                  At this point, I think it just needs to be a visual model. You can always put audio tracks up with the album cover or whatever. Worry about audio-only later.

                  Just split ad revenue 50/50, or whatever split yields enough money to run the site.


                  Reply
                  1. Anonymous

                    “Just split ad revenue 50/50, or whatever split yields enough money to run the site.”

                    I would prefer a crowdsourced non-profit cooperative.

                    Anything else would be an open invitation to all the Kim Dotcom’s out there.


                    Reply
                    1. GGG

                      Not necessarily. Obviously it wouldn’t get to the billion/month uniques like YT but the revenue model obviously works for them. The issue is they just take way more in profit than they need. So for this utopian website idea, it wouldn’t be far fetched to do something like those rev-share sites like Swagbucks or FeedtheArts, where they essentially split the ad revenue users generate and “pay” them back. The difference here would be the split is going to indie labels/artists, instead of the site hoarding 99% of the rev.


                    2. Elizabeth from kpopmeetsusa.com

                      This discussion is beautiful. I wonder if we are the only ones talking about it here? I am actually quite technical and I know creating something like YouTube is a huge endeavor vs just putting up a website which anyone can do. For instance, I ondemandKorea.com which is a video streaming site for Korean public television geared to English speakers took a year of research in an MIT lab. I know this is talk but if you wanted to do something real, you’d have to partner with existing entities who already have this technology. There are a lot of other that have this technology to stream video, not just vimeo and dailymotion. We’d have to find someone who’d want to partner with a music industry union-like group to create a portal for musicians with the goal of actively monetizing the music. Something very similar to Bandcamp but there can be improvements to it. I think something like Twitter, where you give parts of the musician real time has to be absolutely part of the features so that people come to this portal for exclusive content, vs. anywhere else where they can also buy concert tickets, listen to music, etc.


          2. hippydog

            Quote “We should build a new platform. That way nobody has any leverage whatsoever”

            OMG! I so wish this could happen!

            At one time I actually started looking into trying to start something like that.. A much smaller version of course, and more specific
            mainly aimed at connecting the Video Artists (bands who had videos or who wanted to make a video) With video DJ’s and Video services (podcasts etc etc)

            Basically I found out there was no interest, and the convoluted copyright laws, and old school thought (radio is the only way to break out), etc etc
            made me drop the idea after just a few months.. :-(


            Reply
  7. Elizabeth from kpopmeetsusa.com

    I see the indie community really needing to organize themselves in a union-like structure to deal with YouTube and the like. How is YouTube able to negotiate something to get 90% of the indies on the same deal but the indies can’t organize themselves get something more favorable to themselves? Sure, one indie label against YouTube is hard to negotiate. What if all the music from all indies disappeared from YouTube? What if a third of their music was gone?


    Reply
    1. Paul Resnikoff

      I think that’s exactly the effort that is underway; indies are working together to form a bloc and take action (including with the European Union). Time will tell how effective this effort will be.


      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        “Time will tell how effective this effort will be”

        Well, Eric Schmidt recently tried to screw the EU and that didn’t go so well — for him.

        This could be worse.


        Reply
        1. nice life

          My relative in the German counter-money-laundering department of police told me they love following this guy around because he always goes shopping to all the nice places in Berlin and the department pays for them to stay behind him no matter what.


          Reply
      2. bp

        it’s kind of hard for indies to organize together because of anti-trust laws.


        Reply
        1. FvF

          Thank you – finally someone stated what should otherwise be obvious. There’s a serious collusion (illegal) element everyone here seems to be forgetting if there was an indie “bloc”. You’ll expedite Congress enabling a tech-friendly music licensing act if only a few players hold the indie chips.


          Reply
    2. Anonymous

      “What if a third of their music was gone?”

      Indeed — but don’t underestimate the impact of deleting 10% of YouTube’s current songs!

      It’s nothing short of a PR-disaster. YouTube is simply no longer the platform where you could find everything.


      Reply
    3. Jabsco

      Because 90% of the indies are serviced through major distribution and/or labels on YouTube and the majors have already signed the deal.


      Reply
  8. Anonymous

    Bad news for YouTube fans, but great news for Apple!

    Less YouTube content = fewer YouTube users = more iTunes visitiors.


    Reply
    1. Jaron Ray Hinds

      actually it means more money for soundcloud..


      Reply
  9. musicfornobodies

    YouTube Music sure sounds like hmmm… let’s see… the old system! It’s basically becoming a new version of the old ‘major label’ system. What I hope happens is that indies rise up from this, create their own (cooler) version of a YouTube-like service and then things might begin to become even more interesting and fair for all artists (and fans).


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “What I hope happens is that indies rise up from this, create their own (cooler) version of a YouTube-like service”

      We have discussed this for years, but the crucial difference is that fans need it now, too.

      Their favorite music is disappearing from YouTube now. So they need a new place to go..


      Reply
  10. Shane NRG

    Does this include ALL indie artists or.. just those who do not accept and agree with the new terms?

    Im a bit confused. I’d like to know as I manage a few indie artist with music videos on youtube.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Those who do not accept the new terms.

      But those terms seem to include that you have to release your entire catalogue on YouTube — i.e. no more windowing.

      And that’s obviously not acceptable to a lot of rightholders.


      Reply
  11. Anonymous

    According to the Guardian today, indies account for a 32.6% market share of the recorded music industry’s sales and streams.

    So 1/3 of all YouTube songs may disappear now — instead of the announced 10%.

    Imagine what this will mean in terms of visitors…


    Reply
    1. Paul Resnikoff

      I am not sure how accurate that number is. But irregardless, I am not sure if all of that will be excluded from YouTube, for the reason that the indie community may not act unilaterally.


      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        Irregardless?


        Reply
      2. Anonymous

        “I am not sure if all of that will be excluded from YouTube”

        True.

        But it’s still a major public relations disaster for YouTube if it ‘only’ deletes 10%.


        Reply
  12. Anonymous

    Take down, stay down!


    Reply
  13. Anonymous

    take down, stay down?


    Reply
  14. the million $ question

    Will YouTube also take down the illegal versions of those videos?


    Reply
    1. bp

      no, they’re just threatening to take down official versions and kick indie labels that don’t sign the agreement out of their content id program.


      Reply
    2. Anonymous

      “Will YouTube also take down the illegal versions of those videos?”

      This is actually an excellent question.

      How is ContentID going to work for artists that no longer have YouTube accounts?

      Exactly how are we going to prevent illegal uploads?


      Reply
      1. that would be trouble

        If Google actually shuts down musicians’ accounts, then it will lose DMCA harbor protection for every single video that remains without a proper license.


        Reply
  15. go INDIES!

    If Google pulls the indie videos from YouTube, then it also has to pull all the illegal copies as well, otherwise it loses its DMCA harbor cover.

    Hold on I need to go buy some more pop corn, it looks like the UK music lawyers are going to save the world once again.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “it looks like the UK music lawyers are going to save the world”

      Don’t forget the rest of the EU — it kicked Google’s ass last month, and it could do it again.

      Fingers crossed.


      Reply
  16. swifferpickerupper

    Well if this is “true” Then its time for a boycott, and the next big video sharing site will come! i think its fake because no one would ever PAY for you tube, there on crack lol


    Reply
  17. Anonymous

    Indies account for a 32.6% market share of the recorded music industry’s sales and streams. Now, that’s still a nice chunk of cash.

    So how much does it cost to launch a new video hosting site?

    I’m sure most of us would invest a few $$ — wouldn’t you?


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      The next big Kickstarter project?


      Reply
    2. hippydog

      Quote “So how much does it cost to launch a new video hosting site?”

      there are already a few indie sites that host videos..
      thats not the issue..
      for it to gain any traction it has to be fully cross-platform workable.. IE: consumers can access it on any platform (windows, android, IOS, TV’s, etc etc)

      Sadly, the “hosting” turns out to be one of the cheaper parts..


      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        You think it’s cheap to store 100 hours of videos every minute? :)

        Then again — a modern alternative to YouTube would at least have 1/3 of the industry behind it, so we could probably find the money.


        Reply
        1. hippydog

          What I was talking about was a curated site, not a replacement for youtube.. something more like Vevo, so random people would not be uploading videos of their cats and stuff..

          so ya, storage would be the cheapest part.. and bandwidth is scalable, so as long as there is a way to generate revenue (advertising of some sort) it can pay for itself..


          Reply
  18. I will save you

    Simple solution:

    Take down all your videos and replace them with versions without audio. Include a link to your website.

    Redirect the traffic from YouTube to wherever you want it to go.

    Let Google/YouTube deal with the traffic loss.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Haha, wicked idea!

      But would it work? Don’t you think YouTube would kick us out?


      Reply
  19. Matt Brown

    What it looks like is that they will be left out of the subscription based service. I wonder if they will delete all music videos from the standard YouTube site. That is the real question. If they are two separate entities, one the free service, and one the subscription based, than they most likely would get paid out the same as the old way, just not be featured in the new subscription..targeted service. However if they are cut out of everything, just because Youtube doesn’t want to deal with them, that is something else all together. It clearly has not been made clear as to what direction YouTube is going with that. I do agree that YouTube is cheap. I am a YouTube partner, and paid for ads being placed on my channel, however YouTube clearly is calculating the hits differently, and my viewers have gone down considerably..and my payout. I am making less now, than I did a year or two ago.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “What it looks like is that they will be left out of the subscription based service. I wonder if they will delete all music videos from the standard YouTube site.”

      Everything will be deleted:

      “YouTube is about to begin a mass cull of music videos by artists including Adele and the Arctic Monkeys, after a number of independent record labels refused to sign up to the licensing terms for its new subscription service.

      The Google-owned company will start blocking videos “in a matter of days” to ensure that all content on the new platform is governed by its new contractual terms, said Robert Kyncl, YouTube’s head of content and business operations.”

      (Source: Financial Times today)

      YouTube obviously can’t start blocking videos from its subscription based service “in a matter of days” since such a service doesn’t exist yet.

      So they are indeed removing existing songs from the standard YouTube site.

      And nobody seems to like it — here’s what gizmodo had to say today:

      It’s official: Google is about to ruin YouTube


      Reply
  20. Sebastian Wolff

    No, YouTube is *not* blocking or taking down any videos, artist, etc. That would make absolutely no sense at all.

    As far as I know, YouTube is starting a new monthly music streaming subscription service akin to Rdio, Spotify, Deezer. Labels, artists, distributors, aggregators, etc. who do not agree to the terms of the contract will not have their music catalogs included in the subscription service.

    I’d love to see the source that states that YouTube will actively be removing videos and content.


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “I’d love to see the source that states that YouTube will actively be removing videos and content”

      Here you go:

      “YouTube is about to begin a mass cull of music videos by artists including Adele and the Arctic Monkeys, after a number of independent record labels refused to sign up to the licensing terms for its new subscription service.

      The Google-owned company will start blocking videos “in a matter of days” to ensure that all content on the new platform is governed by its new contractual terms, said Robert Kyncl, YouTube’s head of content and business operations.”

      Source: Financial Times today


      Reply
    2. An Indie

      a great “source” is the termination notices that indie labels with direct YouTube relationships have been receiving which is precisely what urged the global indie trade bodies to speak out publicly a couple of weeks ago. those termination notices were quite specific – sign the subscription license as is or see your official videos get blocked and the monetization on your UGC to be shut off (no ads running).


      Reply
      1. Paul Resnikoff

        Somebody please share one of these notices?


        Reply
  21. Anonymous

    For those of you who say this is too stupid to be true:

    According to Gizmodo, Google did confirm today that YouTube is going to block videos from indie labels like XL Recordings and Domino Records (Adele, Animal Collective, Arctic Monkeys).

    So yes, it is true. Google is in fact going to kill YouTube.


    Reply
  22. Faza (TCM)

    I’m actually kinda looking forward to this. I just hope that there someone notable gets blocked so we can see how hard it is to find their music on YT (my guess: no harder than usual).


    Reply
  23. Anonymous

    Here’s what Forbes has to say today:

    “Moving into paid services was always going to be a bit of a hurdle for YouTube, which has up to now been almost synonymous with ‘free’. Losing artists of the caliber of the Arctic Monkeys really won’t help.”

    Keep in mind that YouTube users won’t be able to see any videos by huge acts like Adele and Arctic Monkeys in the future.

    Makes you wonder if Apple is considering a video service…


    Reply
  24. Anonymous

    Google doesn’t seem to know the power of the internet.

    They are preparing what should’ve been their biggest product launch in a decade — the legendary Spotify/iTunes/Pandora Killer — and all people are talking about is that YouTube is blacklisting thousands of popular songs.

    Baffling…


    Reply
  25. Anonymous

    “The rest will be removed, though at this point, it’s unclear exactly which indie label artists will suffer, though huge names like Adele, Arctic Monkeys, and Jack White have been tossed around”

    Add Vampire Weekend.


    Reply
  26. Anonymous

    Is it true that the next step is to take down movie trailers, too? The alleged purpose would be to force studios to upload entire movies instead of using Youtube as a free marketing platform.


    Reply
  27. Magik Squirrel

    We need soundcloud to add videos.Artists have more control on it.


    Reply
    1. Versus

      We need SoundCloud to allow monetization.


      Reply
  28. ken

    Darwinism, within 6 months a new site will welcome these outcasts and slowly create a landscape again.


    Reply
    1. Paul Resnikoff

      I think it depends on how much is missing, and how much people notice or care. It’s all about PAIN. Sure, there are multi-billion dollar companies that arise because of a shortfall of a giant behemoth (Snapchat, Whatsapp, Facebook, even Google back in the day), but there has to be real and serious consumer pain addressed.


      Reply
  29. There is something...

    Japan has Niko Niko Douga already, very successful among artists and young people. It would be foolish for Youtube to think that nobody will try to catch on their own service all the videos that will be blocked. This story doesn’t makes sense at all for the moment…


    Reply
  30. Joey the Bull

    There’s a company out there that has built a dist channel that gives artists 75%. The company is http://www.listenchannel.com … check it out…


    Reply
  31. Something Productive

    Instead of arguing with one another does anybody know a customer service number or email where we could argue with THEM regarding our agreements or disagreements with this?


    Reply
  32. Yannick Michel

    I’ve created a petition on Avaaz. We need to take action to help independent culture and send a strong message to the majors. I don’t want majors to dictate everything we can listen to or watch.
    Click to sign the petition


    Reply
  33. Alan

    Any reason we indies can’t just migrate to Vimeo?


    Reply

Leave a Reply

Connect with:


2 + two =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  1. OUR SPONSORS

  2.  
  3. Most Heated!