Report: YouTube threatens artists for refusing 'industry-lowest' rates for new music service

YouTube has been widely expected to launch its own ad-free music subscription service for some time, but not everyone is excited at the prospect. Google, which owns YouTube, has come under fire from artists and independent music labels, accused of attempting to bully them into accepting non-negotiable terms in order to be included in its new service, and then threatening them if they don't agree. 

The complaints are being led by Impala, a European body representing independent labels. Impala told BBC News that it intends to request "prompt intervention" from the European Commission to ensure a fairer deal for its members. 

Impala contends that YouTube is offering artists and labels "non-negotiable contracts," and that if they fail to agree to the terms presented, their existing videos - already posted on the site - will be blocked or removed from YouTube entirely. Impala, and the Featured Artists Coalition FAC) - a campaign group for musicians' rights - are standing united against YouTube, in the face of what they perceive to be an unfair situation. 

Numerous independent labels are being represented in the stand against the company, with these labels themselves representing many well-known artists including Arctic Monkeys, Royksopp, Adele, The xx, Jack White and many more. 

According to Chris Cooke, from music industry news site Complete Music Update, "YouTube already pays what are probably the lowest rates in the business for music labels' videos. The majors and independents agreed to that because YouTube isn't just a revenue stream; it's one of the most important promotional platforms in music today."

Cooke added that "what the indies are getting really angry about is that YouTube seems to be threatening to withdraw this powerful promotional platform if they don't sign up to the new audio service." 

Given that Spotify says that it pays an average of $0.007 per play to artists, this should give you some idea of little Google is willing to pay. Earning this kind of money per play isn't so bad when you're a widely known artist with a large fan base, but it makes it impossible to earn a decent payout for less established performers. Ed O'Brien - Radiohead guitarist and co-chair of the FAC - said that YouTube is "in danger of launching a streaming service that lacks the innovative and cutting-edge sounds that independent artists bring."

A YouTube spokesperson issued a statement staying that it has "successful deals in place with hundreds of independent and major labels around the world - however, we don't comment on ongoing negotiations."

Source: BBC News 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Text messaging banned in Central African Republic

Next Story

Google unveils new Project Tango tablet powered by NVIDIA K1

61 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Interesting numbers if one does some basic math. Let's use the $.007 per play number. For a small Indie band let's say they get 1000 listens a day for a song. That gets them $7 per day ($210 a month). However a larger "hit song" might get 100,000 listens a day or $700 a day ($21,000 a month). Now multiply that by the number of major music streaming services (let's say 3). For the Indie song that is $630, while a "hit" song is $63,000 a month.

A major hit song probably gets a lot more traffic than 100,000 a day, just tune into any radio station or stream for more than an hour. However for a solo artist, you would probably shoot for 10,000 listens per day to make a decent ($6300 gross) wage off just streaming, as you will have fluctuations in listens.

Add to this, I would estimate most songs have a peak popular listening period of about 3 months you would need to release 4 songs per year. Again guessing, but for arguments sake only 1 out of 10 songs is popular enough to pull in 10,000 listens, you would need to produce 40 songs per year. Consider this is 10,000 globally, if you managed to get yourself associated with a popular playlist or set you could easily do a lot more than that. This is a lot better money than you will do on iTunes, where the average artist nets 10% off each sale.

I am kind of tempted to try this as an experiment and put out 40 EDM or similar songs, that wouldn't require me to sing. If my guess is is right, it might be a fair amount of side income. That said these numbers suck for someone trying to make a living doing this. On the flip side, I have no idea what the ad revenue or subscription revenue a streaming service makes, so $.007 may be a fair rate.

Don't like it use something else. Thats how these movements happen, Youtube could be shooting themselfs in the foot if everyone ups and leaves to another streaming site. That other site could be the new big thing.

Remember myspace, bebo, friends reunited etc etc... Facebook come along and users ended up liking it more.

Same can happen with youtube if people just get up and leave.

So yeah don't like it don't use it find something better.

yekGLzhQ4Qju1FtAVcC4 said,
Similar stance Amazon gives to book publishers. It's hard to argue when that company basically owns you.

So, similar to Amazon, everyone is rushing to judgment with only bits and pieces of information carefully spun to make the case for one side?

A couple days ago I accidentally deleted my YouTube account when I was trying to uncouple I from google+. Years worth of comments and favorites videos and playlists; gone. I've already been hating google for this google+ crap and they way they are treating windows phone.. With this last insult; I'm done. I'll never use another google product. They are evil. They've joined the dark side. Blocking their ads, moving to Vimeo, using bing

I downloaded any Youtube videos I needed and moved on as well. In the event that I need to watch an embedded Youtube video from another site, the ads are blocked.

seta-san said,
A couple days ago I accidentally deleted my YouTube account when I was trying to uncouple I from google+. Years worth of comments and favorites videos and playlists; gone. I've already been hating google for this google+ crap and they way they are treating windows phone.. With this last insult; I'm done. I'll never use another google product. They are evil. They've joined the dark side. Blocking their ads, moving to Vimeo, using bing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...0px-Facebook_like_thumb.png

Wise thing my friend ... I wish there would be more people like you

seta-san said,
A couple days ago I accidentally deleted my YouTube account when I was trying to uncouple I from google+. Years worth of comments and favorites videos and playlists; gone.

So you deleted your account and you're ###### at Google for complying? LOL. Try doing that with Facebook et al.

seta-san said,

I've already been hating google for this google+ crap and they way they are treating windows phone..

How are they treating Windows Phone? It's a 3% marketshare OS. Aren't you also mad that Microsoft doesn't create apps for GNU/Linux distros like Ubuntu? Thought not.

seta-san said,

With this last insult; I'm done. I'll never use another google product. They are evil. They've joined the dark side. Blocking their ads, moving to Vimeo, using bing

I thought you weren't using their services any more? Why would you need to block their ads? Good luck with that lol. I'm sure Microsoft will welcome your data and targeted advertising with open arms.

simplezz said,

So you deleted your account and you're ###### at Google for complying? LOL. Try doing that with Facebook et al.


How are they treating Windows Phone? It's a 3% marketshare OS. Aren't you also mad that Microsoft doesn't create apps for GNU/Linux distros like Ubuntu? Thought not.


I thought you weren't using their services any more? Why would you need to block their ads? Good luck with that lol. I'm sure Microsoft will welcome your data and targeted advertising with open arms.

facebook never put me in a position where they were intentionally trying to sabotage my mobile experience. they never tried to combine their service with another one they were providing in a way that makes the more popular one a misery to use. Sure windows phone is a 3% marketshare... but the fact is that Microsoft made a youtube app FOR THEM. It cost google nothing. But google hated it because it provided a superior experience to what google was providing on their own platforms and they were actively trying to sabotage windows phone anyway. I block their ads because they follow me across the internet.

seta-san said,

facebook never put me in a position where they were intentionally trying to sabotage my mobile experience. they never tried to combine their service with another one they were providing in a way that makes the more popular one a misery to use.

Well you're free to use other video hosts. The fact that Google are decoupling G+ from Youtube answers your question really.

seta-san said,

but the fact is that Microsoft made a youtube app FOR THEM.

Microsoft made a youtube app for Microsoft, not Google. Let's clear that up straight away. Google weren't even consulted.

seta-san said,

It cost google nothing. But google hated it because it provided a superior experience to what google was providing on their own platforms

You clearly don't understand what Microsoft did. I'll inform you. They (Microsoft) reverse engineered non-public API's for the Youtube internet service and constructed a UI around them. This is both illegal and infringing on YT's terms of service. There's a reason Microsoft didn't try and fight it - because their lawyers knew they'd lose.

YT provides a public API for third party applications, something Microsoft had previously used. They knew full well that circumventing that was illegal and did it anyway. So if you want to blame someone, blame Microsoft.

seta-san said,

and they were actively trying to sabotage windows phone anyway.

If Microsoft won't abide by the terms and conditions of using another service's public API, then it's their problem not anybody else's.

seta-san said,

I block their ads because they follow me across the internet.

So do all advertising networks, including ones owned by Microsoft. That's what they're designed to do.

Edited by simplezz, Jun 6 2014, 11:29am :

simplezz said,
You clearly don't understand what Microsoft did. I'll inform you. They (Microsoft) reverse engineered non-public API's for the Youtube internet service and constructed a UI around them. This is both illegal and infringing on YT's terms of service. There's a reason Microsoft didn't try and fight it - because there lawyers knew they'd lose.

Youtube should be open source so there are no restrictions.

- Sent from my Linux machine

Enron said,

Youtube should be open source so there are no restrictions.
- Sent from my Linux machine

Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows should be open source and free without restrictions..

simplezz said,

Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows should be open source and free without restrictions..

Yes I agree, and Microsoft should open up the APIs to Windows so people can make unrestricted open source software on it, like Chrome.

Enron said,

Yes I agree, and Microsoft should open up the APIs to Windows so people can make unrestricted open source software on it, like Chrome.

Too bad Exchange and ActiveSync API's require paid licences to access isn't it?

simplezz said,
You clearly don't understand what Microsoft did. I'll inform you. They (Microsoft) reverse engineered non-public API's for the Youtube internet service and constructed a UI around them. This is both illegal and infringing on YT's terms of service. There's a reason Microsoft didn't try and fight it - because their lawyers knew they'd lose.

YT provides a public API for third party applications, something Microsoft had previously used. They knew full well that circumventing that was illegal and did it anyway. So if you want to blame someone, blame Microsoft.


Nice story. But you've left a lot out. Firstly Microsoft did such because Google would not make a Youtube app for Windows Phone, so Microsoft did it themselves. Google has done the same thing in similar situations.

What happened after that, is Microsoft came up with a Youtube app that complied with Google's terms and conditions. But Google turned around and demanded that Microsoft's implementation use HTML5.

Nobody else uses HTML5. Google's own implemtation for Android at the time did not use HTML5. Apple's Youtube app did not use HTML5.

Google is clearly in the wrong here, but keep hating on Microsoft if it makes you feel better.

james.faction said,

Nice story. But you've left a lot out. Firstly Microsoft did such because Google would not make a Youtube app for Windows Phone, so Microsoft did it themselves. Google has done the same thing in similar situations.

There was already a YT app on Windows Phone. Microsoft was unsatisfied with that. That's what led them to circumvent the terms and conditions of the service. Google is under no obligation to write apps for every mobile OS with a low single digit marketshare, of which there are many. That's what the third party API is for.

You could very well throw the same accusation at Microsoft for not producing Office and other software products for Debian, Arch, Fedora, and so forth. That's the argument you're making here.

james.faction said,

What happened after that, is Microsoft came up with a Youtube app that complied with Google's terms and conditions.

No they didn't. Microsoft didn't comply with the terms and conditions, hence why it was taken down. It used non-public YT API's that are restricted for Google's use. It's their service, not Microsoft's.

james.faction said,

But Google turned around and demanded that Microsoft's implementation use HTML5. Nobody else uses HTML5.

The third party API's are HTML5 based. There's no other way to use them. If an app isn't using them, it's not complying with the terms and conditions. Apps such as Metrotube are also illicitly using non-public API's. That's why they often become non-functional when Google updates their private services. For those apps to function, they have to impersonate Google's own apps.

james.faction said,

[] Google's own implemtation for Android at the time did not use HTML5. Apple's Youtube app did not use HTML5.

That's because Google's apps on Android and iOS use a private API that's entirely separate from the third party API.

james.faction said,

Google is clearly in the wrong here, but keep hating on Microsoft if it makes you feel better.

It's Google's service and it can do whatever it wants with it. Just as Microsoft does with Exchange and ActiveSync. Unless you think Microsoft should be forced to open that up for free to all third party applications, including associated patents? Let's include Skydrive and Azure while we're at it.

Microsoft was clearly in the wrong because it reverse engineered private API's employed in the Youtube service, despite the fact that a third party API was available and one Microsoft had previously used.

simplezz said,

There was already a YT app on Windows Phone. Microsoft was unsatisfied with that. That's what led them to circumvent the terms and conditions of the service. Google is under no obligation to write apps for every mobile OS with a low single digit marketshare, of which there are many. That's what the third party API is for.

Microsoft reversed engineered the api because google wouldn't make any it available. Second of all the youtube app on windows phone isn't an app. It's a link, a shortcut to google's mobile site. Third of all keeping proprietary APIs to maintain a dominant position in a market like google is clearly doing here is an anti-trust violation. Microsoft was sued and fined billions by the EU for it.

simplezz said,

No they didn't. Microsoft didn't comply with the terms and conditions, hence why it was taken down. It used non-public YT API's that are restricted for Google's use. It's their service, not Microsoft's.

the terms and conditions are both arbitrary and arbitrarily enforced. The only conclusion that you make about their terms and conditions is that they are explicitly keeping competition out.

simplezz said,

The third party API's are HTML5 based. There's no other way to use them. If an app isn't using them, it's not complying with the terms and conditions. Apps such as Metrotube are also illicitly using non-public API's. That's why they often become non-functional when Google updates their private services. For those apps to function, they have to impersonate Google's own apps.

again, arbitrarily enforced standards.

simplezz said,

That's because Google's apps on Android and iOS use a private API that's entirely separate from the third party API.

Microsoft sued big time for this behavior

simplezz said,

It's Google's service and it can do whatever it wants with it. Just as Microsoft does with Exchange and ActiveSync. Unless you think Microsoft should be forced to open that up for free to all third party applications, including associated patents? Let's include Skydrive and Azure while we're at it.

microsoft's not being a cockblock about this. Microsoft isn't barring android users from their services. in fact Microsoft has bent over backwards to provide services to android users.
simplezz said,

Microsoft was clearly in the wrong because it reverse engineered private API's employed in the Youtube service, despite the fact that a third party API was available and one Microsoft had previously used.

Microsoft really just sue to open up these API. Android has a dominant position in both the streaming video market and the mobile market. I'd love to see that one go through the EU courts.

seta-san said,

Microsoft reversed engineered the api because google wouldn't make any it available.

So Google should make its private API's available just to satisfy Microsoft? Good luck with that. The Way Microsoft behaves with Scroogled and Android patent extortion, and now they expect Google to give them special treatment? ROFL.

seta-san said,

Second of all the youtube app on windows phone isn't an app. It's a link, a shortcut to google's mobile site.

So? Does it work? Can users still access youtube through IE? So the only complaint is that Google won't spend resources developing a custom app for a 3% marketshare OS, and it won't give Microsoft preferential access to its private API's. Well, too freaking bad. Microsoft will have to use the third party API's just like everyone else.

seta-san said,

Third of all keeping proprietary APIs to maintain a dominant position in a market like google is clearly doing here is an anti-trust violation. Microsoft was sued and fined billions by the EU for it.

Microsoft didn't provide any API's at all. That's why it was prosecuted. YT already provides third party API's. If Google has private ones, it's most likely to maintain a certain level of service, and it has every right to do so. There is no antitrust issue to speak of.

seta-san said,

the terms and conditions are both arbitrary and arbitrarily enforced. The only conclusion that you make about their terms and conditions is that they are explicitly keeping competition out.

The terms and conditions are laid out clearly. Third party applications must use the public API. I believe there was also an issue with Microsoft's misuse of the YT logos.

seta-san said,

Microsoft sued big time for this behavior

That's because Microsoft completely locked out competitors. Other OS's can access YT through a standard browser or the third party API's. It can't be compared to Microsoft's extremely anticompetitive behaviour. In fact it's a little ironic that Microsoft is even complaining at all given its history.

seta-san said,

microsoft's not being a cockblock about this. Microsoft isn't barring android users from their services. in fact Microsoft has bent over backwards to provide services to android users.

######. The whole reason Microsoft was sued in the first place in the EU was because they wouldn't open up the Exchange / ActiveSync API's to the competition. And now Microsoft extorts companies over that functionality with patent lawsuits.

Of course Microsoft is going to make apps for Android. It's 80% of the market. It would be like Apple not making an iTunes app for Windows - commercial suicide. Microsoft needs Android, Android doesn't need Microsoft.

seta-san said,

Microsoft really just sue to open up these API. Android has a dominant position in both the streaming video market and the mobile market. I'd love to see that one go through the EU courts.

Good luck with that when a third party API already exists. It would be like suing Facebook and twitter over their third party API's.

Edited by simplezz, Jun 9 2014, 2:56am :

Far too much google love from simplezz.

Google is clearly being anticompetitive when it comes to Microsoft and Windows Phone, however much you like to deny it.

It provides support to Android (of course) and iOS. But not only does it provide NO support for WP, it demands higher standards (HTML5) from Microsoft than it does from Apple or Android.

Raise the double standards.

james.faction said,
Far too much google love from simplezz.

I don't even use Google search. I use ixquick. What I do detest though is falsehoods and exaggerations. of which many can be found in the comments to this article.

james.faction said,

Google is clearly being anticompetitive when it comes to Microsoft and Windows Phone, however much you like to deny it.

And Microsoft is being anticompetitive when it comes to GNU/Linux, Android, and FOSS patent extortions and general F.U.D. It's all relative.

james.faction said,

It provides support to Android (of course) and iOS.

Google provides direct support for the two biggest mobile platforms. Shocker.

james.faction said,

But not only does it provide NO support for WP

And Firefox OS, Jolla, Ubuntu, Bada, Tizen, Blackberry, and the hundred other OS' that have low single digit marketshares. That's what the third party API is for. Failing that, all a platform needs is a standards compliant webbrowser to view Youtube. Hardly anticompetitive.

Microsoft doesn't support GNU/Linux with its Office, Visual Studio, and various other software. Why that must be anticompetitive too then.

james.faction said,

it demands higher standards (HTML5) from Microsoft than it does from Apple or Android.

You don't understand how the third party API works do you? It's based around HTML5. It has nothing to do with Microsoft, it's the official third party developer resource.

Google can write its apps anyway it wants to. Including using private API's from its own services. If Microsoft can't abide by the terms and conditions and use the third party API's just like everyone else, then they are welcome to create their own video service and pay for all the bandwidth themselves.

simplezz said,

So Google should make its private API's available just to satisfy Microsoft? Good luck with that. The Way Microsoft behaves with Scroogled and Android patent extortion, and now they expect Google to give them special treatment? ROFL.


So? Does it work? Can users still access youtube through IE? So the only complaint is that Google won't spend resources developing a custom app for a 3% marketshare OS, and it won't give Microsoft preferential access to its private API's. Well, too freaking bad. Microsoft will have to use the third party API's just like everyone else.


Microsoft didn't provide any API's at all. That's why it was prosecuted. YT already provides third party API's. If Google has private ones, it's most likely to maintain a certain level of service, and it has every right to do so. There is no antitrust issue to speak of.


The terms and conditions are laid out clearly. Third party applications must use the public API. I believe there was also an issue with Microsoft's misuse of the YT logos.


That's because Microsoft completely locked out competitors. Other OS's can access YT through a standard browser or the third party API's. It can't be compared to Microsoft's extremely anticompetitive behaviour. In fact it's a little ironic that Microsoft is even complaining at all given its history.


######. The whole reason Microsoft was sued in the first place in the EU was because they wouldn't open up the Exchange / ActiveSync API's to the competition. And now Microsoft extorts companies over that functionality with patent lawsuits.

Of course Microsoft is going to make apps for Android. It's 80% of the market. It would be like Apple not making an iTunes app for Windows - commercial suicide. Microsoft needs Android, Android doesn't need Microsoft.


Good luck with that when a third party API already exists. It would be like suing Facebook and twitter over their third party API's.

yeah. as I said, there were 'public' APIs for Microsoft office alternatives that ran like ######. then there were microsoft's private APIs that only they knew about that brought enhanced performance.

Microsoft took advantage of their dominant position in one market(windows) to leverage another(office). That is exactly what google is doing here. Using their dominant position in the streaming video market to try to choke off competition in another via crappy public APIs and by providing a degraded performance on windows phone. I'm sure all those problems just up and fricking disappear if I switch to android... or i'll keep my windows phone and leave my google account canceled and continue using vimeo.

Sometimes I worry about YouTube, I think there's only 2 people that work there and one is the Manager(lets call him Mr YouTube) and he's a bully with stupid ideas and the other is Dave (he started as an intern and can't escape) and he's IT/Programmer/Cleaner, One day Dave is going to leave and create a fair media site and be awesome and Mr YouTube is going to be spinning in his chair wondering what he did wrong.

...Sorry I was bored :D One day YouTube will have some real competition and I don't think they will be able to recover from that.

The lowest rates are payed by Radio which pay pennies per PLAY as opposed to the pennies per LISTENER that Spotify/YouTube/Pandora/Everyone else is paying. So yeah, streaming music is ALL good for the labels and they need to take their free money and stfu.

It is not pennies per listen. It is a fraction of a cent per listen. That is nothing.

Around 70% of that goes to the label, not the artists who produce the music. Streaming services ###### artists.

Its not about greed. Its about being ripped off.

crumbleshake said,
Its not about greed. Its about being ripped off.

none forces anyone to sign for it. they have the option to turn done any offer given to them. If they choose to say yes, it's their choice and their decision to accept.

rippleman said,

none forces anyone to sign for it. they have the option to turn done any offer given to them. If they choose to say yes, it's their choice and their decision to accept.

And lose years of work on a platform that without notice to this day was "free" to use? While here in Europe there are no real alternatives, several EU countries Youtube has well over 90% marketshare.

It's like a shotgun wedding.

Shadowzz said,

And lose years of work on a platform that without notice to this day was "free" to use? While here in Europe there are no real alternatives, several EU countries Youtube has well over 90% marketshare.

It's like a shotgun wedding.

i would imagine the story is written to get the most clicks and get people like you and others to think the worst. Youtube wouldn't do cut it all off (educated assumption, not actually known) at once. Probably more of a "from this moment forward" kind of thing with software to block/allow new content.

their platform, their rules, their prices... don't like it? then don't participate... simple.

I do not participate in things I don't pay for everyday. :)

rippleman said,
their platform, their rules, their prices... don't like it? then don't participate... simple.

I do not participate in things I don't pay for everyday. :)

If it was Microsoft, the first comment would be the opposite reaction.

What's up with this creepy Google love?

It's a company whose primary source of revenue is advertising for god's sake. It's not a good thing. This move screws everyone except Google.

rippleman said,
their platform, their rules, their prices... don't like it? then don't participate... simple.

I do not participate in things I don't pay for everyday. :)

Sure, but you can't threaten to remove their already uploaded videos from YouTube. That's clear anticompetitive behavior. They can't leverage their online video monopoly to build a streaming music service. That's illegal.

Things get a bit more complicated when you've established yourself as the de facto standard in a particular field and then you use the influence that you have as the market leader (and therefore the most popular service) to effectively 'force' people to accept your terms.

If you've positioned yourself in such a way that a majority of people come to rely on you, it makes it very difficult for them to be able to say no. It's the same principle that ensures that monopolistic organisations do not abuse their power, and while YouTube is not a monopoly, it has enough clout in the industry to be able to potentially abuse its influence, as it stands accused of doing here.

And don't forget that we're not just talking about billionaire musicians that bathe in champagne and use $100 bills to blow their noses - artists that are trying to increase their profiles and make a bigger name for themselves also rely on the meagre incomes they get from streaming services. Their interests deserve to be protected too.

Seketh said,

If it was Microsoft, the first comment would be the opposite reaction.

What's up with this creepy Google love?

Today's internet kids learned that hating M-Dollar is the cool thing to do.

rfirth said,

Sure, but you can't threaten to remove their already uploaded videos from YouTube. That's clear anticompetitive behavior. They can't leverage their online video monopoly to build a streaming music service. That's illegal.

What? How could you say that?? Google is not anticompetitive ... They even build an windows phone app for YouTube and they didn't stop Microsoft building an YouTube app by themselves.
It's not like they ever used YouTube to be anticompetitive.

cristian.dan said,

What? How could you say that?? Google is not anticompetitive ... They even build an windows phone app for YouTube and they didn't stop Microsoft building an YouTube app by themselves.
It's not like they ever used YouTube to be anticompetitive.

Compile error

Expected: expression "/s"

Seketh said,

If it was Microsoft, the first comment would be the opposite reaction.

What's up with this creepy Google love?

It's a company whose primary source of revenue is advertising for god's sake. It's not a good thing. This move screws everyone except Google.


I am sure that if it were MS the first comment would be about a greedy EU ready to grasp any opportunity to extort money from an US company...

rippleman said,
their platform, their rules, their prices... don't like it? then don't participate... simple.

I do not participate in things I don't pay for everyday. :)

I agree if the rules would be clear.
However Google is not clear and it changes the rules at whim.

cristian.dan said,

What? How could you say that?? Google is not anticompetitive ... They even build an windows phone app for YouTube and they didn't stop Microsoft building an YouTube app by themselves.
It's not like they ever used YouTube to be anticompetitive.

Google didn't build the YouTube app for WP, Microsoft did. Then because Google have such blind hatred for WP they had it removed from the Store.

They only app Google provided for WP was a ###### poor search app that hasn't seen an update since it was released.

neo158 said,

Google didn't build the YouTube app for WP, Microsoft did. Then because Google have such blind hatred for WP they had it removed from the Store.

They only app Google provided for WP was a ###### poor search app that hasn't seen an update since it was released.


Read the 2 replies below that one :p

Seketh said,

If it was Microsoft, the first comment would be the opposite reaction.

I think you've forgotten what site you're on lol.

Seketh said,

It's a company whose primary source of revenue is advertising for god's sake. It's not a good thing. This move screws everyone except Google.

The copyright MAAFIA complaining that they can't dictate terms of another companies' service. Why am I not surprised. It's nice to someone put them in their place for a change.

There's not even any such thing as musicians who have made billions from music.

Musicians and composers make billions from spinoff investments, such as Dre's Beats.

Music itself has never hit that kind of big time.

simplezz said,

The copyright MAAFIA complaining that they can't dictate terms of another companies' service. Why am I not surprised. It's nice to someone put them in their place for a change.

Google are the only ones trying to dictate here. Impala and FAC just wants Google to pay the market value of their product.

Cosmocronos said,

I am sure that if it were MS the first comment would be about a greedy EU ready to grasp any opportunity to extort money from an US company...

First comment? It would probably be part of the article. ;)

If it was microsoft i would not be crying on the net about it. Again same thing applies here , there product there rules if not happy go linux or even apple.

The thing is that those artist are complaining that they won't earn enough. Well it is free services given to you and on top they pay you to play your tune on it, they should not be greedy imo. Else get a real job while you wait for your big break.

Until then they will now have to live with the new rules that applies and that is it, it is not there business it is Google business.

To quote some superhero movie or other, with great power comes great responsibility.

Google doesn't seem to have a problem with being responsible for pushing down the value of music and musicians even further than the very low levels they are at now.

Whatever happened to Googles line "Don't be evil"??

james.faction said,
To quote some superhero movie or other, with great power comes great responsibility.
Google doesn't seem to have a problem with being responsible for pushing down the value of music and musicians even further than the very low levels they are at now.
Whatever happened to Googles line "Don't be evil"??

It's hilarious how everyone here is defending the labels, yes the labels, we're not talking about musicians who get a pittance from digital sales. The labels, or more specifically, a trade organisation (like the RIAA) who represents them collectively, are the ones bemoaning the deal. And you do realise that labels or record companies as they are known are the biggest exploiters of musicians to have ever existed? The irony is astounding.

simplezz said,

It's hilarious how everyone here is defending the labels, yes the labels, we're not talking about musicians who get a pittance from digital sales. The labels, or more specifically, a trade organisation (like the RIAA) who represents them collectively, are the ones bemoaning the deal. And you do realise that labels or record companies as they are known are the biggest exploiters of musicians to have ever existed? The irony is astounding.

FALSE.

Google is reserving the right to remove ANY video put up on Youtube if the person who upload it doesn't accept their TOS.

That means Artists AND Labels.

I suspect these days there are more independent artists putting their stuff on youtube than labels.