Everyone Calm Down. YouTube Is NOT Going To Remove Music Videos

Everyone got it wrong. The Financial Times, The Guardian, MusicWeek, The Verge, Bob Lefsetz , The Daily Digest, and, yes, Digital Music News (sorry Paul).

It just goes to show, that a sensationalist headline is too good to pass up. And yes, if YouTube was going to rip down every video containing music that was not signed up to their new Spotify-esque music streaming service, then that WOULD be HUGE news. As it was today.

Sure, Robert Crookson of the Financial Times got the interview with Robert Kyncl, YouTube’s head of content and business operations, but even he got the story wrong. YouTube has been so secretive up to this point about it’s alleged streaming service (they hadn’t gone on record that it even exists until today) that Crookson interpreted what Kyncl said wrong.

Note that in Crookson’s article, Kyncl is not quoted anywhere saying “YouTube will be blocking music videos.” Crookson said it. And everyone else repeated it.

You really think that every video that contains music is going to be ripped down if that song has not been submitted to YouTube’s new music streaming service? That would be a nightmare for YouTube. With lots of room for error.

In addition to the indie labels holding out, some artists have direct deals with iTunes and distribute their music there and to NO OTHER retailer. Not Spotify. Not Amazon. Not Beats. Just iTunes. But they have tons of music videos on YouTube. There is no way YouTube will remove these artists’ videos for lack of a distribution deal.

**Update 6/18/14 9:52am – There are millions and millions of videos uploaded by 14 year olds in their bedrooms around the world singing songs they just wrote. Or cover songs they did not obtain the license for. They have not distributed these songs to YouTube Music, iTunes, Spotify or anywhere else. You think YouTube is just going to start banning these users? Ripping down millions of videos from kids? From artists who don’t know better?

What about the web series built on YouTube with original scores? These scores are also not distributed to YouTube Music (or anywhere else). Gone too?

A source very familiar with YouTube Music’s streaming partner agreement, who would like to remain anonymous, told us today:

“With the surrounding text (and other things I’ve read including the partner agreement) I take it to say “We’re blocking videos [from monetization].” When they say “platform” they mean content ID. Saying they’re blocking videos from YouTube doesn’t make any logical sense to YouTube as a platform. One thing I’ve noticed from working with them is they tend to use a lot of insider language when trying to communicate with the masses. It’s very confusing.”

This source explained that the “account” they refer to is the CMS account you get from YouTube when you become an approved partner of their video monetization program and the account partners use to manage content ID claims. Since the streaming service and content ID will be managed under the same partner agreement, you must agree to both.

So, monetization will be shut down from videos that contain music that has not been submitted to YouTube’s music streaming service.

It’s well documented that YouTube’s proposed royalty rate for independent labels and musicians on its pending music streaming service is horribly unbalanced. Independent music licensing company Merlin’s CEO, Charles Caldas, mentioned at the AIM Music Connected conference in London on April 30th:

“The ironic thing is that the service that pays the least is the service that’s the most well funded and run by the biggest company in the world: their figures are by far the worst, whether you measure them on a per-stream basis or a per-user basis.”

 19 Label Organizations Speak Out Against YouTube

YouTube has refused to negotiate with independent labels and is going to pay them a horrible rate. What happened to “don’t be evil?”

  Indie Label Organizations Seek Government Intervention Against YouTube

So, the fact of the matter is, YouTube is NOT going to be removing videos, just shutting down the monetization.

Photo is by Bridget Coila from Flickr and used with the Creative Commons License.

133 Responses

    • Anonymous

      Ari is wrong — Gizmodo confirmed FT’s story.

      The old YouTube is indeed dead.

      • Anonymous

        Billboard added another detail today:

        “YouTube executives argue that they cannot offer music on the free service without it also being available on the paid service as this would disappoint its subscribers. The solution? To take down songs that can’t be available on both services.”

        Let’s face it — what they’re taking down is YouTube.

        • Fact v. Fiction

          Wrong – blocking less than 5% (even that number is going down – which would still be more than Spotify and even iTunes offer) is not the end of YouTube. Some will leave, but many users won’t notice it.

          Funny question: why would the big indie distributors sign without the kerfuffle? I don’t see The Orchard, INgrooves, and Believe involved in this hubbub and they’re the biggest distributors outside the majors.

          • Anonymous

            “blocking less than 5%”

            We don’t know yet how many songs YouTube will censor. It could 5% — it could be 25%. Here’s what CBS News said a moment ago:

            “Rich Bengloff, president of the American Association of Independent Music, an industry group representing independent labels, said he disagrees with the characterization that only a few labels haven’t signed.”

          • vistor

            so here we are – 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.

          • Anonymous

            somehow i just dont see this lasting. there is a large group of people that have a long history of fighting against censorship. we are legion, united as one, divided by zero, we do not forgive censorship, we do not forget, those that restrict internet, EXPECT US!

        • Istompconservativeass

          hate to break it to ya, but youtube is the most hit website in the world by over a billion hits… youtube isn’t going anywhere…. remove the stick from your ass

      • tommyguns45

        I think YouTube and DVDVideoSoft,com had a falling out since music can not be downloaded on there. The DVD music site will change your Search Engine and install a bunch of other Spam on your computer but no Free Youtube to MP3>>>its gone.

  1. The Financial Times

    Guess the Financial Times was completely wrong then?

    “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

    • Anonymous

      Again, Ari is wrong — Gizmodo confirmed FT’s story.

      • FarePlay

        After caving so many times to power, let’s hope the Indies stand firm and reject this shitty deal. YouTube has been a major source for unauthorized downloads for years, hiding behind the DMCA and sheer power and influence of Google.

        • Anonymous


          I really didn’t think it would come to this.

          I’m actually one of those who saw YouTube as a saviour, not unlike iTunes back in the day.

          And YouTube was a saviour for a brief period of time. It was the most open, popular and fastest growing music platform on the planet. And I just couldn’t believe anybody would be silly enough to destroy all that.

          What can I say — I was wrong.

          But there’s no need to feel sorry for the Indies.

          On the contrary, they have a choice now. And I’m sure they’ll say yes to freedom. They’ll come out as winners if they do. New, free alternatives to YouTube will appear, old alternatives such as Vimeo and Daily Motion will get a boost.

          Signed artists, on the other hand, now lose everything:

          They are forced to give their work away on release day. Windowing — the only release strategy that worked — is no longer possible for them. Their new owners force them to upload their entire catalogues for free. Exclusive iTunes launches are over for them. Nobody needs to buy their songs ever again.

          So the mystery of the legendary YouTube-Google creature has finally been solved.

          Who hasn’t wondered how Google could be all evil, while YouTube made all the right choices since ContentID?

          But the two has become one.

          Jekyll is gone. It’s all Hyde now.

          • Anonymous

            Also remember that all YouTube artists now can be streamed off-line. So there is no reason to buy songs from signed artists anymore.

          • Brett

            “Their new owners force them to upload their entire catalogues for free.”

            Dude, you have it the wrong way around, they aren’t saying content has to be free on youtube, they are saying it can’t be available for free on youtube if it isn’t also available at cost… Get something like that so obviously wrong, and your entire argument goes straight out the window…

      • Angryman

        ….*facepalm* Ari explained that ALL OF THOSE SOURCES GOT IT WRONG! Which means your “confirmation” doesn’t mean jack shit, and you’re an idiot.

  2. Anonymous

    “Robert Crookson of the Financial Times got the interview with Robert Kyncl, YouTube’s head of content and business operations, but even he got the story wrong.”

    No Ari, he did not get it wrong!

    Google confirmed FT’s story to Gizmodo today!

    (I won’t paste the link as it takes forever to go through DMN’s spam filter, but paste this in Google’s search field: “Google confirmed the FT story as well as its intentions to launch a subscription-based service”)

    • Jens

      I did the search and read the Gizmodo article, but I don’t see where they confirm the FT article. They just report/repeat the FT-article (and reference it) but don’t add any of their own research. The update with the foggy Google Statement does not validate or invalidate the above post…

      Please enlighten me and quote where and how they confirmed that videos are blocked, not monetization

      • Anonymous

        “I did the search and read the Gizmodo article, but I don’t see where they confirm the FT article”

        The sentence “In a statement to Gizmodo, Google confirmed the FT story” didn’t work for you?

    • Anonymous

      No, a sentence saying something does not work. Where is the proof of confirmation? People can say “President Obama confirmed today the dissolution of the United States of America” and you want us to believe that it is now true, just because a website says so?

      • Anonymous

        Oh please, there are tons of confirmation now:

        FT’s story is definitely correct (please the comments below).

      • Anonymous

        As opposed to Ari’s “anonymous source”?

  3. Anonymous

    Ari, what’s going on? Why haven’t you taken this story down?

  4. GermanSeabass

    Thank you Ari. Sense, finally.

    How I’m seeing it: YouTube is starting a new premium music streaming subscription service for a monthly fee, 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 honestly do not know the details; I haven’t yet found a single authoritative source that provides neutral and factual information. Let’s consider. Artists don’t use YouTube as a platform; YouTube/Google account holders use YouTube. How would it make any sense for Google to block said from accessing/interacting with YouTube?

    Artists provide their content via labels, MCNs, Tunecore, The Orchard, and thousands of other distributors/aggregators. The vendors outside the licensing agreement for the subscription service will simply not have their content made available for non-synchronized streaming.

    I see this agreement being outside the scope of user-uploaded content. I see it as a separate thing than ContentID, which allows labels artists, publishers, sub-publishers, societies, collection agencies (PRS, HFA), etc. to claim mechanical/synch/whatever royalties.

    I could be entirely wrong. I just want to know facts, and what changes are coming to the digital music landscape.

    • Anonymous

      “I just want to know facts”

      And the facts are that Ari is wrong. You simply need to wrap your head around this fact:

      Google confirmed FT’s story today!

      Don’t get me wrong, I understand why you guys refuse to believe the article. I found it almost impossible to believe as well. Google owned the world’s most popular music platform ever, and now they’re killing it. Not by accident. Deliberately…

      • TuneHunter

        Streaming, unless you can sale subscriptions for $25 a month, equates to uncalled for PROSTITUTION of music.

        There are better ways to monetize music, all inclusive streaming and YT actually prevents implementation of simple business propositions making music merchandise again.

      • Paul Resnikoff

        I think that’s part of it. Ari is an optimist, and that helps him achieve great things. But part of that is dangerous, because I don’t think he can believe YouTube would do something like this. It disagrees violently with the narrative that Spotify, YouTube, and the other tech power-players should be treated as friends; that they are benefitting artists.

        The reality is far more complex, it’s not black-and-white. And as much as YouTube is helping artists, they’re also screwing them in the same stream.

        • Anonymous

          ” Ari is an optimist […] I don’t think he can believe YouTube would do something like this”

          And that’s what makes his story so powerful in its own twisted way:

          It reflects how shocked we all are to discover what YouTube really is.

    • Anonymous

      I’m with you on this. Until we have a clear-cut statement from YouTube, these replies are simply hyperbole and fear-based responses attacking Ari for pointing out the simple point that, WE DON’T YET HAVE THE FACTS

  5. David

    Let’s assume that the FT report is right. It follows that:

    a) videos uploaded by ‘rebel’ artists (or their representatives) to their own ‘official’ YT channels will be disabled;

    b) videos using the artists’ music but uploaded by third parties will not be disabled;

    c) Content ID for the ‘rebel’ artists will be disabled.

    But it follows from point (b) that artists will be able to use friendly third parties (their mother, their girlfriends, their fan club or whatever) to upload their promotional videos, and it follows from point (c) that YT will not be able to block them, at least without revealing themselves as liars and hypocrites.

    • Anonymous

      “Let’s assume that the FT report is right”

      David, the FT report is indeed correct — Google confirmed the story in a statement to Gizmodo yesterday.

      But consider this:

      We have been fighting YouTube for almost a decade now. And we’re still getting nowhere.

      Wouldn’t it be easier to create our own service? Indies account for 1/3 of the entire music industry. We could do it. Did you see the comment section of the other DMN-story?

      A new service would have 1/3 — maybe more — of the industry behind it.

      I saw some guys suggest a ‘YourIndieTube’ today — i.e. a service for music only — but why not go all the way and create a true YouTube competitor?

      Main difference: No more Schmidt’s, Ek’s and Westergreen’s. No more 45% cuts to YouTube. No more evil. All artists/owners treated alike. Every single $ right back to the artist/owner.

      • FvF

        Great idea, now who’s gonna fund it? The indies? Don’t have $$$. The majors? can’t agree on anything.

        • Anonymous

          “The indies? Don’t have $$$”

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

          And don’t tell me the majors wouldn’t be interested. Everybody would prefer 100% revenue back to right holders instead of the current 55%.

    • James

      David, what troubles me far more than not being able to upload videos is not being able to take illegal uploads down. If your points b) and c) are correct, artists will be unable to use the existing content ID tools to remove illegal uses of their videos from YouTube unless they sign up for the streaming service. That is nothing other than blackmail.

      • Anonymous

        “what troubles me far more than not being able to upload videos is not being able to take illegal uploads down”

        That scenario would actually solve all our problems: YouTube would be shut down in less than a week because it violated the DMCA…

        • James

          Unfortunately it wouldn’t violate the DMCA, since Youtube would still offer the hopeless whack-a-mole approach to anyone not willing to be blackmailed.

          • Anonymous

            No, that won’t fly.

            ContentID was a direct response to the Viacom case. Take ContentID away, and YouTube is back at square one (i.e. it will be sued to kingdom come).

            It’s true that Google Search has been extremely successful in monetizing illegal content — but I’m sure you know the excuse: Google doesn’t store any illegal content (though even that can be discussed since it owns the entire indexable part of the internet in several copies).

            But YouTube can definitely not use that excuse.

          • hippydog

            Quote “But YouTube can definitely not use that excuse.”
            I don’t see how they can completely remove monetization and still use the safe-harbor of the DMCA..

  6. Anonymous

    Here’s another, slightly off-topic detail from the Guardian today:

    “At WIN’s press conference, songwriter (and Guardian journalist) Helienne Lindvall said that “We’re hearing that a billion dollars has been paid by YouTube to the major labels” in advances for its new service.”

    • Lee T

      The reason for this is to make sure the label will agree to very low streaming rates, meaning that the money that should have hit the artist, heads straight to the labels shareholders bank accounts.

      • Anonymous

        “The reason for this is to make sure the label will agree to very low streaming rates”

        Indeed — so why would any indie labels/artists accept these rates…

  7. Chazguitar

    Try “Spotify-esque” for better understanding.

  8. Anonymous

    Considering Youtube has directly told me they will be taking down our videos, I am pretty sure this story is 100% wrong.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, it’s embarrassing that this story’s still up.

      • Deep Owl

        There’s a site called Vimeo…if no one here has heard about it. Pretty sure they’ve been YT’s biggest competitor for a really long time. Infrastructure is already there. Everything has been usable for a long time. It’s just that no one uses it because everyone in the world goes to YT.

  9. Tom Oswald

    I am the CEO of a mid sized record label (Red Dragon Records), and with this news we plan to build a youtube competitor. We would be more than happy to talk to anyone interested in helping us with this project and becoming partners as it is a huge undertaking



    • Anonymous

      Hi Tom,
      Please see the comment section of DMN’s other YouTube story…

      Also, a lot of people are discussing similar initiatives right now. What’s needed to begin with is some kind of organization.

    • Spookshow

      Hi Tom,

      I am on board with this but was wondering if there will be a spot for other indie projects like film as well? I am a huge supporter of the indie scene and would really like to help out. How can I contact you?

      • Anonymous

        Please see the comment section of the other YouTube story, too. Lots of people are interested in this and the first step would be to make an organization and take it from there.

        And yes, the only way for a new service to survive would be to include not only indie movies but all kinds of legitimate content.

        Nobody would visit a video service that were limited to indie songs…

        • hippydog

          Quote “And yes, the only way for a new service to survive would be to include not only indie movies but all kinds of legitimate content.”

          in my opinion thats completely the wrong direction..
          A niche service will always have a greater chance of survival VS a service that tries to do everything for everyone.. The marketing & infrastructure needed favors a niche service..

          Do indie movies (and indie shorts) make a great complement with indie music videos?
          of course!
          cat videos?
          not so much..

    • agraham999

      Besides the technical challenges involved here, let’s take a deeper look at the particular solution of building a competitor to YouTube.

      1. Capitalization issues…YouTube has billions. Any startup would have many issues of scale to be able to compete on any level, but that’s nothing compared to…

      2. Rights. Unless you have a system in place that can do something like ContentID (or something else out of the box), how will you deal with sync and other rights required to stream anything unless this is only open to the music industry and can ensure everything is cleared, but…

      3. then you have to get publishers and labels to agree on terms and rates and revenue splits to make that work…

      4. but, to capitalize this and fund it so it can be built, how do you structure it? Is it a for-profit? Who owns it? Not-for-profit? Who controls it? If it is a not-for-profit, how do you fund it?

      5. Search! Google controls search…so good luck getting search results and good analytics/seo.

      Back to the technical challenges…who will build this?

      I don’t disagree that these companies have far too much power, but balancing it out requires, I believe, a different approach. I’m working on a solution in the UK that has a lot of support from the music industry including artists, labels, publishers, collection societies, managers, government agencies, etc. It flips the whole issue around and would give indies like you a lot more control over your destiny…built for the music industry and by the industry.

      You’ll hear about this very soon…three letters…OCL.

      • Anonymous


        Please see the comment section of other YouTube story — a lot of people are interested in this, and the challenges are obvious to most of us.

        But you forget one thing:

        Indies account for a 32.6% market share of the recorded music industry’s sales and streams.

        That’s a lot of power. It’s a lot of people, too. And most of them are very motivated (to say the least)…

      • Nikita

        My video is under issue of capitalisation, and i dont know where can I edit these keywords. pls help ergently.

    • Joel Everett

      I’m just a composer / performer myself Tom, but as soon as I saw this I was thinking the same thing myself – some sort of alternative to YouTube; my Twitter is @FarNorthMusic and I’d be interested in helping in anyway I can. Agree with another poster about the need to organize the variety of people who are interested in doing this. Kickstarter maybe?

    • Deep Owl

      There’s a site called Vimeo…if no one here has heard about it. Pretty sure they’ve been YT’s biggest competitor for a really long time. Infrastructure is already there. Everything has been usable for a long time. It’s just that no one uses it because everyone in the world goes to YT.

      • Anonymous

        “Pretty sure they’ve been YT’s biggest competitor for a really long time”

        No, Daily Motion is 60 times bigger.

        At any rate, you can easily embed most video services — including Vimeo and Daily Motion — on Facebook and Twitter, and both services are able of streaming in full HD. My guess is that a lot of people will move their YouTube traffic to those two sites now.

        Here’s a few YouTube alternatives:

        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.

    • Rasheid

      Tom – do you have some contact info? The YouTube competitor is already built & done. *evil laugh

  10. Anonymous

    Ari, could you please remove your misinformation?

    Two new sources “familiar with the matter” now confirm FT’s story to CBS News:

    “a small number of independent artists who had not agreed to new deal terms will have their videos blocked in some countries starting in a few days, even on the free version of YouTube.”

    Source: CBSnews

    • Anonymous

      More from CBS:

      “Allowing free streams of music by certain artists while not offering them on the paid service would erode the value of the paid plan, one person said.”

      The CBS story also implies that YouTube lies when it claims 90% support for the new unfavorable terms:

      “Rich Bengloff, president of the American Association of Independent Music, an industry group representing independent labels, said he disagrees with the characterization that only a few labels haven’t signed.”

  11. Ari Herstand

    Ok guys, let’s just step back for a moment and think hard about this.

    There are millions and millions of videos uploaded by 14 year olds in their bedrooms around the world singing songs they just wrote. Or cover songs they did not obtain the license for. They have not distributed these songs to YouTube Music, iTunes, Spotify or anywhere else. You think YouTube is just going to start banning these users? Ripping down millions of videos from kids? From artists who don’t know better?

    What about the web series built on YouTube with original scores? These scores are also not distributed to YouTube Music (or anywhere else). Gone too?

    Do you really think that YouTube is going to gut its entire service?

    The more reasonable answer is, they will:
    a) shut down monetization for videos containing songs not on their streaming service
    b) they will ‘make an example’ of a few artists with stubborn labels, like Adele and the Arctic Monkeys

    but even that seems unlikely.

    • Anonymous

      More guesswork, Ari.

      Let’s stick to the facts instead: FT was right, and you were wrong.

    • Anonymous

      You really have no idea what you’re talking about here, Ari.

    • TheAntiTroll

      I like your theories here and tend to side with you on this. What’s important to remember is that everyone, including the erroneous sources cited by trolls on this post, are really just playing a guessing game. Taking random facts and drawing various conclusions. YouTube needs to just put out an announcement to clear the air (and it seems your name, Ari, haha).

  12. inernetguy

    Don’t quit your day job, Ari… Oh wait, your day job is starving artist. Which pays more? Being a pretend journalist writing uninformed articles on a music blog *or* pretending to be a musician with more than a thimble’s full chance of actually succeeding?

    Was your editor asleep at the wheel when he/she let the phrase “spotify-esk” (lol) to be published on the web? tsk, tsk.

  13. Anonymous

    You guys who are saying that “Google confirmed with Gizmodo” are stupid. Re-read the “full statement” that Gizmodo posted. The only official statement I can see is the quoted official Youtube statement that EVERYone already saw. I don’t think that first sentence is part of the “full statement” is from Google. Why would a Google rep say “Beyond what’s in the FT story” and then quote an official statement from Youtube, a subsidiary/brand owned by Google, that is already included in the FT article?

    What do you think is more likely? Gizmodo writer is retarded but really good at making click-bait articles (already a long history of that) or Google rep is retarded (this is a company that is so packed full of smart people, they are basically on their way to running the world via Google Search, Gmail, Google Fiber, Google Finance, Google Bus, Google Cars, Google Maps, Google Analytics, data-based Human Resources Management, etc.).

    • Anonymous

      Dude, FTs story has been confirmed over and over today. Look around…

    • Ray

      Wow. So many people commenting on this thread have thrown logic completely out the window based on some quotes from journalists that aren’t from YouTube.

      Someone please show me a direct (complete) statement from YouTube saying that if you do not opt in for the subscription service your videos will be removed, deleted, not shown to anybody. YouTube uses the term “blocked” all the time to refer to being blocked from monetization.

      Vevo has already made a statement saying that videos through their service won’t be removed from YouTube.

      It would be logistically impossible to block videos from YouTube without basically shuttering the service. It would mean any single video that is not in the subscription service (but contains music) would be deleted. That would be music on any kind whether or not it even on a label, because the only way they would be able to tell is if it’s in the content ID system or not. Anything not in the system would be gone. That’s million and millions of videos. YouTube doesn’t want that. What they want it to run ads on all of them.

      What Ari states above is the most logical thing I’ve read on the issue.

      • Leave Comments

        Because Google was caught off guard. They did not expect this to come out today. Give it a few weeks and they will have their statements you want ready. They will screw all user as they always do and already have. Youtube is a mess now after they forced everyone to use google plus. It is so ugly and hard to manage now. I hate them and I hate google plus so much.

  14. Little Jimmy Piccolo

    My goodness, this just has folks whipped into a frenzy….frothing at the mouth!

  15. Anonymous

    …and it gets worse by the hour:

    “YouTube’s music content spans music videos from Grammy winners like Adele as well as fan remixes, covers by YouTube stars and original songs from relative unknowns. All of those acts post music content to YouTube and could be eligible to sign deals for the subscription music service, YouTube said.”

    SOURCE: Ad Age.

    In other words: This is going to be very real for everybody — from top to bottom; from stars to newbs. Looks like the end of the open YouTube that one billion users loved.

    • Leave Comments

      You got it. They already ruined youtube by forcing everyone to join thier crap google plus failed social media network.

  16. ds

    2 key parts of the contract that are more important than the money for some small labels:

    – can’t do an exclusive launch anywhere (i.e. iTunes) without simultaneously putting the music on Youtube.

    – have to include artists entire music catalog, not just some of it.

    • Anonymous

      “- can’t do an exclusive launch anywhere (i.e. iTunes) without simultaneously putting the music on Youtube.- have to include artists entire music catalog, not just some of it.”

      I feel so, so sorry for all the artists who are forced to accept this!

      Forget about iTunes and record sales if you’re on a label. Signed artists will never again be able to do a ‘Beyoncé’ (windowing). You are now forced to give everything you own away for free.

      This will hurt music more than Napster and the Pirate Bay.

      • Anonymous

        Why is it nobody talks about this? It’s so much more damaging to music than anything that has happened since 1999.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, that’s what I’m going to (I’m independent).

      But what are signed artists supposed to do? All the songs they have worked on for years are free on release day. Why would anybody want to buy them?

  17. Meech Lynn

    The music industry is so vile. It figures you couldn’t communicate this without being passive aggressive. That photo? Insulting. Go to hell.

  18. Laura

    youtube…you need to learn to communicate more effectively.

    I can help. Contact me – I can craft verbage that actually says what you mean.

    • Anonymous

      If you want to tell Google something, sue them.

      That’s the only way they communicate.

  19. RJ

    Huh. Self-affirming, circular reasoning, all sorts of font craziness, and a whole lot of point that pretty much amount to ‘well, I don’t believe it could happen’.

    Well, I’m convinced.

  20. Deep Owl

    Trying to dig around and find out what the deal is on all of this. Best I can tell YT/Google may be following a hulu/huluPLUS kind of model. Subscribers get to watch videos without ads, Non-subscribers are hit with ads.
    The thing is…music videos haven’t been big money makers for bands almost ever. With YT and revenue sharing that changed a bit but for the most part music videos have been an advertisement for the artist/song/album. As far as I can tell these independent record companies and YT/Google are battling over the split on the revenue share as well as the split on any subscription service money. If real numbers were revealed to the public…most of us would only be appalled at the ridiculous amounts of money the labels and Google have and the issue of how either of them are trying to extort the other would be a background issue.

  21. Anonymous

    There is, of course, one hope left: That YouTube Pay — or whatever the name is — will be as ‘successful’ as Google+.

    And who knows?

    The paid channels YouTube launched a year ago failed miserably. So nothing indicates that people would want to pay for YouTube.

  22. tek_wiz

    Riiight, so FT completely lied and some anonymous source is better suited to tell us how they THINK youtube is going to do it and this is what you report as fact? So the fact the EU is looking into whether they are abusing their market share means nothing?

    Your notion that youtube does not take down user videos where the user is singing over a song they don’t have rights to is also completely factually wrong. Youtube and every single other provider most certainly does take videos down for copyright infringement, yes even bedroom ones. A simple google search would have shown you that and I find your confusing copyright with anti-competitive behavior to be completely laughable. In short, I don’t think you’re qualified to even report on this.

  23. EveningStarNM

    Interesting. The author, Ari Herstand, says that Google/Youtube won’t be blocking music videos and then quotes Google/YouTube as saying that they will.

    I now know everything I need to know about Ari Herstand’s credibility.

  24. Eibo Thieme

    Could someone please explain the reason for someone repeatedly posting “Ari is wrong” anonymously? Even if he or she were wrong this person will never be able to boast with his or her better judgement.

    • Chadwill Ferrellsmith

      Simple. Unlike Ari Herstand, we’re not on this site to shamelessly promote ourselves. We don’t care if we’re right – we hope we’re not, but we’re pretty sure Ari Herstand is dead wrong here.

    • Anonymous

      “Could someone please explain the reason for someone repeatedly posting “Ari is wrong” anonymously?”

      Sorry, I’m aware that I overdid it. I was just shocked to see Ari post something I knew was wrong.

      As for being anonymous — yes, it can be confusing to watch four of us having a discussion on these pages (are we really four, etc.?). And we may certainly come across as cowards.

      But I think quite a few anonymous commenters enjoy the momentary freedom from what John Cale labelled ‘faces and names’. When you take all that away, there isn’t anything left but the topic of the discussion. I like that.

      Plus, it’s easier… :)

  25. AnonYmouse

    As someone who has seen first had what tools Youtube have at their disposal for major labels to both monetize and remove videos, I can safely say this author is dead wrong about it being a nightmare or even difficult. They have tools which can analyze, find and pick out elements of or entire songs at any given point in a Youtube video across the entire spectrum and flag them to the labels for review. Very sophisticated stuff. This guy ought to do his research before commenting on what is possible or probable.

  26. MetalMaxx

    WHO CARES? One way or the other GOOGLE wins! DEAL WITH IT!
    Gawd you people are probably the same ones who flame over a couple of changes in policy at your jobs as well. Just get over yourselves. YOU will not make a difference ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. MORONS!

  27. guest

    one way or another musicians and labels are gonna lose…because you allow youtube to be your boss…you are the creators and content owners and you should be in charge of how much you get paid and what youtube does with your content… you all are simply de-valuing your work by allowing youtube to do what ever they want with your content…
    you dont resist instead you cry like little babies… instead of uniting here on digital music news or another portal and start reaching out to the youtube executives ..Iam sure youtube can afford to pay lots more for a stream or ad monetization. but no one is aproaching the people at the top… anyway … this is all a bunch of bull shit and you are all fools for allowing corporations to literally scam you for your money… as if there is no other video platforms and music services in the world.. a simple change of work ethics can have a dramatic impact on this issue. Until that moment comes … keep on sharing your youtube videos and channels while the corporate giant continues to collect money for your hard work which you should be receiving ….

    • Anonymous

      “as if there is no other video platforms”

      We know there are — and we’re gonna use them big time… :)

  28. JTVDigital

    Ari thanks for correcting this wrong information.
    The problem now is that it is being repeated everywhere in different countries, and looks like nobody can stop the flow of misinformation!

  29. iLeond

    Of course they’re not going to do that. How else and they generate money? It’s not off the back of the wacky cat that can jump from the floor to the ceiling with no problems.

  30. Paul Resnikoff

    I think this is happening. Here’s from the Wall Street Journal:

    “Labels that are refusing to sign licensing arrangements have been told their videos would become unavailable on all of YouTube, not just the new subscription service, according to a music industry trade group.”

    • Paul Resnikoff

      BUT, user-gen videos would remain and NOT be monetized, according to Business Week.

      “User-generated videos featuring those songs will still be available to YouTube users, but artists would stop making money from them. Google currently identifies those videos and gives a portion of the ad revenue to the labels that hold rights to those songs. If the impasse remains, artists say they won’t be able to earn ad revenue from user-generated videos that use their songs. In essence, the video service would revert back to the days when musicians complained that the video-sharing website was freeloading on their copyrighted content.”


      • Anonymous

        “BUT, user-gen videos would remain and NOT be monetized”

        That’s piracy.

        Can’t wait to see the Swat Team raid Eric Schmidt’s mansion…

        • Anonymous

          Whoa, this summer has been a disaster for Google so far:

          First, EU ruled that European citizens have a ‘right to be forgotten’, meaning Google has to remove a rapidly growing number of links upon request.

          Then a Canadian court ordered Google to delete all links — all over the world — to a company that violated Intellectual Property laws. A shocking decision for Google with a wide range of consequences.

          And now, YouTube returns to its old pirate habits — while it tries to make people pay for basic internet services everybody can get for free elsewhere.

          Add the current International PR catastrophy where media across the globe accuse the company of using mob methods, and it begins to look like the beginning of the end for Google.

  31. wallace

    “Many artists, songwriters and other content creators would most likely agree that the monetary rewards for use and exploitation of their music have greatly diminished over the past decade while the actual access and use of music by the public has become more expansive and pervasive. Certainly, the compensation to creators has not kept pace with the extent of digital exploitation by services like YouTube, Spotify and others. This is particularly true in the streaming arena where these companies depend entirely on the music content (not unlike music and terrestrial radio from decades past, and still now into the present).

    YouTube executives say that nearly 90% of the music industry, including large record labels such as Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music, have signed the new service terms. YouTube has not revealed the specifics of the new licensing agreements. However, as part of their business model the major labels tend to endeavor to make the per-stream rate as low as possible so they can give the artist as little money as possible. It has also been alleged that there is something called a “listener hour guarantee” provision in these deals which the major labels know is going to up their compensation by about 40% because it is calculated per listener hour, not per track. Since it is not attributable to a specific track the artist will not be accounted to for any royalty for those uses. Finally, these major label deals often have a minimum annual guarantee or “advance” built in to them. This way, if the majors expect that a particular service might not reach a level of business sufficient to recoup, the labels will still benefit financially. This is known as “digital breakage” and the majors also do not share any of that money with their artists.

    The most serious problem facing the artist community is that, at some point, it becomes economically unfeasible to pursue a career as an artist, songwriter or musician. Of course, as has been the case for many decades, most musicians barely survived without the dreaded day job. However, this extreme downward pressure on the creators of original audio and audio/visual content may force matters to a breaking point the likes of which the creative community has never seen.

    One of the most valuable assets in the US economy is the intellectual property rights created by its citizens whether they work alone or as part of big companies. It is only fair that the laws respect the creative works of singers, songwriters and musicians as much as the laws protect the intellectual property rights of the computer giants, communications conglomerates and other tech companies. The bottom line is that artists, songwriters and other music content creators are getting a smaller and smaller slice of the monetary pie even as it appears that music is becoming more and more accessible and available and going into more and more devices for public consumption. The artist community needs to stand together and make sure that whatever deal is ultimately struck between the relevant parties it is sufficient to sustain artists and other content creators alongside the communications and tech giants that have built their business models on the backs of the artists.

  32. James Uscroft

    So, apparently we all overreacted and are acting like cry babies. Because a website which is infamous for blocking videos and taking down entire channels for simply showing ten seconds of copyrighted footage and doing everything it can to crush small, independent artists has created a new system which ‘EVERYONE’ interpreted as another way to block and crush anything which doesn’t turn a profit for Google.

    Seriously my friends, I’d trust a scorpion not to sting me before I trusted Google to make a change which ‘DOESN’T’ fuck up Youtube even more than it is already. And I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one who has so little faith in this incompetent corporate dictator. So my point is that although I will be overjoyed if Google ‘DOESN’T’ use this new system to drive my friends off of Youtube, in light of Google’s history and reputation, our initial reaction was entirely justified!

    To use a ‘Cry Baby’ photo in this article, pretending that Google are the victims when even their own spokesman was too incompetent to know what was actually happening is an insult to us, to our intelligence and a pathetic joke! And whoever decided to use the photo at the top of this article should be ashamed.d

  33. justin james

    yep: Time magazine, BBC, CNN, Guardian, Gizmodo, NME… they all blew it :P ‘digitalmusicnews’ has the ‘real’ story guys.

  34. GetRid OfAri

    I have yet to see a single helpful, accurate or well written article by Ari on DMN. Get rid of this hack before DMN loses all it’s cred… oh right this is DMN. Well then carry on I guess.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, he is an embarrassment. Music Producers Guild even had to call him out him on its site yesterday:

      “In the Digital Music News article, entitled “Everyone Calm Down. YouTube Is NOT Going To Remove Music Videos”, the “source very familiar with YouTube Music’s streaming partner agreement” is expressing an opinion, not fact, when it says that “Saying they’re blocking videos from YouTube doesn’t make any logical sense to YouTube as a platform”.”

  35. Adam C Smith

    Regardless of whether Ari’s article is accurate or not, something much grander has resulted through the comments section. Let YT live with their Beiber, J-Lo, and Jay-Z streams (i can’t even listen to what passes as ‘popular music’ these days). We really are on the brink of going our own way, collectively. Whatever that may be, it looks to be a much brighter outcome than what Screwgle and Screwtube had planned for us. Hope to continue being part of these conversations, even if this time i got here a little late. Adam C Smith@Adams0Myth …if you follow me i’ll follow you back. Let’s connect. One thing we can be as Indies is a Voice of our own. Even if we may disagree on a lot of other crap, one thing we agree on is…Freedom. Freedom from the creepy guy behind the big walnut desk, handing us a pen dipped in our own blood, telling us to sign something we can barely read because you need a microscope for the fine print.

    • Anonymous

      Let me clarify: I am not intending anyone to ‘follow me’, all i’ll do is lead you to some bar where everyone can all drink and cry together. I mean ‘mutual follow’ as a networking tool on twitter, twitter being an obvious place to spread info quickly. I have some of the handles some of you have left in your posts, and i’ll connect. Thanks…nice day, must wander now.

  36. Christine Infanger

    Like I said on Twitter the other day- it took MTV 20 years to forget that music and musicians made them who they were; it only took YouTube 9. Well done!
    Meanwhile, the comments here contain far more accurate information than this article does.

    • Anonymous

      “it took MTV 20 years to forget that music and musicians made them who they were; it only took YouTube 9”

      But will they succeed?

      How will the average user react when he meets the following YouTube message instead of his favorite band?

      PREMIUM CONTENT – PLEASE SIGN IN! New YouTube customer? Start here! Only $4.99/month

      One of the keys to YouTube’s overwhelming success was the fact that music videos could go viral.

      But that’s impossible with the censored YouTube: You just can’t post or mail a link to a music video that is hidden behind a paywall.

      And no amount of dancing cats can make up for that.

  37. Anonymous

    Wow, everything’s completely crazy right now — everybody talks about YouTube alternatives!

    And that’s just the beginning… most consumers haven’t even realized that Google is about to declare total war against the entire Internet.

    Wait till they learn how much Google is going to remove from its free YouTube version in order to make the pay-version look attractive.

    Millions of users will demand a YouTube replacement.

    And they’re going to get it.

  38. Brian Dale

    Sorry, but they did not get it wrong. A friend’s video of an original song which they own all rights to was removed today.

  39. Sharpie

    why isn’t anyone talking about musicians that are not signed that create their own music? what’s gonna happen to us? I write and own my own music and music videos but I’m not signed to anyone…

    • Anonymous

      You can still upload videos, but you probably won’t be able to monetizing them and you certainly won’t be able to monetize or takedown ugc.

      And that’s a big deal. Ugc accounts for more than half of all traffic.

  40. Roy Muniz

    I was thinking of creating a Google+ account and started the process and had second thought. I did not know Google owns YouTube. So my actions to not go through in activating, all my videos were gone just like that off of YouTube. Hard lesson on who’s who.

  41. TheIndieverse

    IPORadio.com Has just launched an new Youtube Alterative site called Theindieverse.com This site gives you 100% control 100% fan reach and best of all its 100% free and will always be. Check it out and Signup. The site is like youtube meets the old myspace meets facebook meets tumbler Theindieverse.com

  42. Music Managemement USA

    I believe the reports that Google is directing YouTube to be more controlling and a bigger profit maker, and that it is the indie artists and labels who will be crushed in the machinations. I can’t tell you how many times we have represented indie bands who own all the rights to their intellectual property (the songs and the videos), and still our authorized use of them to promote these artists managed to get pulled, and our YouTube channel shut down.
    They are viciously effective at this, and once they do it, there is no appeal, despite the fact that you can explain til you are blue in the face to their bot, the ‘hanging judge’.
    It’s going to take a monumental effort to build alternatives to this monster, but sadly, it looks inexorable. The writing is on the wall, and it’s isn’t the ‘vox populi’ speaking.

  43. Wayne Cravat

    I am so outa youtube! Going to a commercial streaming hoster that will leave me in peace to post videos to my customers and friends. I’ve lost patience with being part of a megacorporation’s experiments in social meda and monetizing streaming arts. Google pledged not to “be evil”, but they are worse than that: they are a pain in the butt.

    • Juan

      Amen to that. They’re most greedy, evil entity on planet earth.

  44. Phil

    Well Youtube removed my original music and video as it started to get popular they claimed it broke their rules, so they removed it and then put it back again, unfortunately the momentum has been lost

  45. Tom Oswald

    Videscape.com is now live and stage 1 is complete and in beta

  46. Anonymous

    Sure about that? They’re pulling Queen + Adam videos all over, just pulled my audio streams with no pictures which does not support Believe saying they were only pulling videos because they shot the footage that appeared in concert.

  47. Anonymous

    YouTube has already gone around blocking videos that aren’t by the original artist that use the original track. For example, you cant find any lyric videos or other from of music video (credit to author present or not) and if you do its either not the right song, an instrumental or a cover. Fall Out Boy’s Thanks for the Memories and Hollywood Undead’s Been to Hell are two examples of this. YouTube is indeed blocking videos and this can be noticed if you look up any lyric videos on YouTube. It’s a big smack in the face to the community and is certainly killing the reputation.

  48. Tiffany

    It’s kind of troubling to read an article with no evidence or details beyond “it would hardly make sense for YouTube to…” and “some guy who read the agreement says he interpreted it this way” and then end with “The fact is…” The fact is that this article doesn’t contain anything except conjecture and one man’s interpretation of one piece of a legal agreement we haven’t seen.

  49. Mose Stephenson

    Lies all lies! You’ve already started; and you didn’t even have the common decency to warn us about what could be coming down the goddamned pipe at us in the name of porno fascism; and this stinking surveillance state! Scum bags all!!!

  50. Carlotta

    YouTube pulls EVERYTHING down. I find it hard to believe that that many people are violating copyright. Funny thing is those same “copyright” infringed videos that were pulled down usually wind up re-posted with a rental price tag attached.

    Hmmm…If YouTube RED is a pay by the month site, why is YouTube still CHARGING to watch certain videos on it’s regular channel? Greedy much?

    YouTube is days away from losing me completely as a subscriber. I’m very tempted to delete my account and never look back. At least Hulu gives you a choice. They don’t CHARGE you on the FREE site when they have Hulu Plus!!! YouTube is looking really shady right now.

  51. John Michaels

    The bill HR 1733 is not level at all ! I agree with part of it and there is part I don’t agree with.

    Small internet radio broadcasters for years and years have been doing the right thing. We pay our licensing fee’s !! We have been paying our licensing fee’s ! FM radio and all the other terrestrial industries have been finding every loophole possible to NOT pay their fee’s.

    So along comes Rep. Nadler and HR 1733 with this bill that finally corners the terrestrial stations, GOOD ! I’m glad that FINALLY they have no way out. BUT !

    It also punishes the small internet radio broadcaster by RAISING our fee’s for doing the right thing for many years !! Do you call this fair ?? As a small internet radio broadcaster, I don’t find it fair at all ! In fact, it’s downright offensive !

    Because now terrestrial radio HAS to FINALLY pay their bills like they should have been doing for years , like small internet radio broadcasters HAD already been doing, Now they want all of the pie and want ONLY the RICH to be able to utilize the internet to broadcast. Raising the rates so high, that small broadcasters cannot afford to do what they have been doing for years.

    It’s wrong. It’s unfair. It’s a shyster way of doing things , but then again , we have come to expect only the worst from terrestrial radio haven’t we ?

    I am disgusted with the part of this bill that punishes the small internet radio broadcaster for doing the right thing for many years.

    Why isn’t terrestrial radio being sued for past royalties that they SHOULD have been paying for the last 15 years ? Why aren’t they being fined for avoiding paying their bills with any possible loophole they could find ! Why are we being punished for actions of shysters ?

    People in congress need to look at the whole story and hear from small broadcasters as well, not just the big players with the big mouths and loud whining !

    John Michaels
    Small Internet Broadcaster
    Proud to have been paying
    my royalties for the last
    8 years without fail !