YouTube confirms it will remove indie labels' videos for not signing up to new music service

A couple of weeks ago, we published news that YouTube was reportedly threatening to remove the videos of independent music labels, if they failed to agree to the company's terms for its new music subscription service. Impala, a European body representing indie labels, said that YouTube had served up "non-negotiable contracts", telling artists and labels that if they did not accept the terms, their videos would be removed or blocked from the site entirely. 

Today, the Financial Times (FT) reports that YouTube has now confirmed that it will indeed begin blocking videos "in a matter of days", in a move that the company's head of content and business operations, Robert Kyncl, says is intended to unify all content on its platform under its new terms. 

Kyncl said that 90% of the music industry has agreed to the new licensing terms laid down by the Google-owned company, but the remaining 10% will be removed from YouTube unless those labels and artists have a change of heart.

"While we wish that we had [a] 100% success rate," Kyncl told the FT, "we understand that is not likely an achievable goal and therefore it is our responsibility to our users and the industry to launch the enhanced music experience." He added that YouTube had offered everyone a fair deal: "We're paying them fairly and consistently with the industry." 

That assessment is at odds with what some others in the music industry have said. According to Chris Cooke, from 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."

Numerous labels face banishment from the site in the next few days, including those representing many well-known artists, such as Adele, Arctic Monkeys, The xx, Jack White, Royksopp and many more. Impala has called on the European Commission (EC) to mount a "prompt intervention" to help ensure a fairer deal for its members. Impala contends that YouTube has abused its dominant market position to bully artists and labels into accepting these unfavorable terms. 

A second music industry organization, WIN, has also complained to the EC about YouTube's tactics. Speaking with The Guardian today, WIN chief executive Alison Wenham said: "They have suffered a simple but catastrophic error of judgement in misreading the market." Earlier this month, famous English singer-songwriter Billy Bragg also condemned YouTube's approach: "I don't know why they've opened this hornet's nest right now, apart from corporate hubris. I don't think they realise what a stupid thing they've done." 

Kyncl told the FT that Google will begin internally testing its new subscription service later this week, and plans to launch it publicly this summer. 

Source: Financial Times

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft redesigns Facebook beta app for Windows Phone, adds video upload

Next Story

Nokia paid millions of euros to software blackmailers

87 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Are you all sure this has nothing to do with the RIAA putting pressure on Google due to copyright issue?
RIAA would really want Google to remove all music from Youtube......

That pretty much wipes out any interest i had in YouTube. Pretty much all the music i listen too is independent atrist that believe in freedom of music so i highly doubt they'll be agreeing to Google's new terms.

Not really a problem though because there are plenty of services willing to fill the void, better ones too.

I get what they're doing.

They're launching a music service that allows you to save YouTube music videos for offline, ad-free watching. Because of current agreements they wouldn't be able to do that with videos from artists whose labels they don't have a new agreement with.

They also don't want users to end up in the confusing mess that means some videos are available offline and ad-free, while some aren't (even in a paying service). Removing the videos completely makes more sense because it's an extra incentive for the labels to sign up for the new service, in addition to making the system more uniform since there won't be any exceptions.

It's a somewhat ###### move, but probably necessary to push their new business model. Which is absolutely their right, I mean, it's their own service.

This also won't remove videos from artists that don't monetize their content. Only monetized music videos from labels not in the new agreements will be made unviewable.

New flash people, companies do shady things all the time and everything is all fine and dandy until they get caught looking at a user's email. No company is exempt here and this is how you get ahead of business and how business works.. Don't have to like it or agree with it. Doesn't really matter. And if I stopped using a company because of their stupid antics, I may as well build a shack in the middle of nowhere and live off the land.

I'm so glad I gave google the middle finger long ago. There is so much incentive to developing alternatives to the services google has purchased over the past few years apple and MSFT are really dropping the ball.

basically once google buys something, it ruins it.

Sorry, thats how things go. There is NO real competition for YouTube so therefor they can do whatever the hell they want and get away with it.

Competition is needed, period, and makes companies do things differently, and better. Look at Apple and now they are coming out with different sized phones. Something that NEVER would have happened if Android didn't do it first.

techbeck said,
Sorry, that's how things go. There is NO real competition for YouTube so therefore they can do whatever the hell they want and get away with it.

I agree that competition is good for a market. That being said, Youtube itself is a very expensive service to run and it's hard to break even let alone make money out of it. I think the only way for Google to recoup some of that bandwidth cost is to sell music, movies, and tv shows through it. Without that, what would the point of running it?

Questioning that sentiment. No competition so they can do whatever the hell they want? Change the product name though... "There is NO real competition for Windows so therefor they can do whatever the hell they want and get away with it." You know, say Microsoft decides to go back to their 1990's tactics, kind of like what Google's been doing lately. It's ok for Google but not anybody else?

Didnt say it was ok for Google and no one else. I said that competition is what gets companies to change things. Otherwise, they have no reason to do and can keep doing what they want and users have to accept it. No real viable place to go. Just how it is.

I want Google to remove links to information about me = censorship.
Google wants to remove my videos because they're not making money off them = ?

Hypocrites.

Can someone translate to dumb man's language?

Are they saying that ANYONE who composes music (for fun, promotion, free/money) and puts it on youtube, it will get removed unless they subscribe to some foreign agency?

Izlude said,
Can someone translate to dumb man's language?

Are they saying that ANYONE who composes music (for fun, promotion, free/money) and puts it on youtube, it will get removed unless they subscribe to some foreign agency?


No, it's to do with bands that want money per view (i.e. are part of the VEVO program)

n_K said,

No, it's to do with bands that want money per view (i.e. are part of the VEVO program)

Actually, no.

It's Google strong-arming independent artists by removing them from YouTube if they don't sign the license terms for the unrealeased spotify/itunes/xbox music competitor.

deadonthefloor said,

Actually, no.

It's Google strong-arming independent artists by removing them from YouTube if they don't sign the license terms for the unrealeased spotify/itunes/xbox music competitor.


Yes, independent artists that want money.
If you make and upload songs as a normal user, this will have zero effect (it doesn't make it right)

deadonthefloor said,

It's Google strong-arming independent artists by removing them from YouTube if they don't sign the license terms for the unrealeased spotify/itunes/xbox music competitor.

If you read the actual story, it's not the artists, it's the labels. And it's quite ironic really because labels are the ones who have historically exploited the artists. Musicians make money from concerts and touring, not from digital sales or youtube videos where the labels get most of it.

simplezz said,

If you read the actual story, it's not the artists, it's the labels. And it's quite ironic really because labels are the ones who have historically exploited the artists. Musicians make money from concerts and touring, not from digital sales or youtube videos where the labels get most of it.

shhhh, no one wants to hear logical thinking.

MS should buy Vimeo, pay artists twice of what they get from YouTube and one of it's TOS clause should be that if you want to host your content on our service, you have to take all your stuff off of YouTube. YouTube will be history by the end of the year.

Impala has called on the European Commission (EC) to mount a "prompt intervention" to help ensure a fairer deal for its members. Impala contends that YouTube has abused its dominant market position to bully artists and labels into accepting these unfavorable terms.

Youtube doesn't have any legal obligation to host every single artist in the world.

If you don't like their terms of service, take your business elsewhere. Is it a ###### ass move? Sure it is, but Google isn't the candyman. They don't exist to make music artists happy, they exist to make money for themselves.

deadonthefloor said,

/Google reality distortion field.

Yeah because if you look up my post history you'll see I defend Google so much :rolleyes:

Google isn't a charity, they're a company. They can set their own terms and ask for whatever money they see fit. If you don't like the terms offered, then Google is under no obligation to do business with you.

Like I already said, it is a ###### thing to do. But if those artists took their business elsewhere, and more followed we could have a competitor to YouTube that doesn't suck so much. And maybe it might also bring Google to their senses.

At the end of the day Google, like every other company, wants to make money. They're not going to change unless something causes them to lose money. If they lost a large amount of artists, or people stopped using their products because of this...10mins later you'll have a complete reversal from them.

---

Seperate rant and Indie or self-publishers aside, I really couldn't care less about any of the major publishing houses. They've spent decades getting extremely rich of archaic business models that don't have a place in the modern world, refusing to adapt to modern technologies, finding ridiculous ways to punish people who actually buy their music under the guise of "anti-privacy" and so on.

-Razorfold said,

Youtube doesn't have any legal obligation to host every single artist in the world.

Exactly. The way people are commenting on here it's like Youtube is some public service. If record companies don't like it, they're welcome to go elsewhere. There are numerous other video hosting services out there.

-Razorfold said,

If you don't like their terms of service, take your business elsewhere. Is it a ###### ass move? Sure it is, but Google isn't the candyman. They don't exist to make music artists happy, they exist to make money for themselves.

What's funny is that the labels are often the ones shoehorning musicians into unfavourable contracts. Don't forget folks, these are middlemen record labels that exploit musicians here. I wouldn't feel sorry for them just yet.

-Razorfold said,

Google isn't a charity, they're a company. They can set their own terms and ask for whatever money they see fit. If you don't like the terms offered, then Google is under no obligation to do business with you.

Much easier to rag on something than to understand it.

Problem with YouTube is there is no competition. I mean real viable competition that can compete with YouTube or offer similar services or something that will attract bigger groups of users away from YouTube. I wouldnt call any other site out there now as good competition for YouTube. So basically, I am not surprised by actions like this and users/artists really dont have many options.

Carlos Johnson said,
Thats terrible, having videos on youtube and music on a google service should not cross over. They are essentially bribing them
Blackmail is more like it.

Unbelievable, even with all of the blowback Google gets after each time they wreck Youtube they continue to keep wrecking it anyway....STOP trying to mess with something that isn't broken!!!

Jeez, youtube has become a friggin mess thats way more complicated than it needs to be. The Youtube of a couple years ago was far better than it has become. I wish Google would just leave it alone, like unless they are going to do something that actually improves it.

I hope a competitor comes along with a similar video service that people will get on board with, because Youtube has a choke hold on the market and I think Google assumes they can just do anything they want with it and there will be no repercussions.

I continue to use Youtube but thats because there is no worthy alternative out there with nearly as much content and activity. It will take a massive organized boycott to get their attention me thinks and its time to do just that.

It's not just Google having too big of a share of the online video market, the big record labels also have a huge say in what happens when it comes to music on youtube. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the Google T&S/agreements etc have been underwritten by these labels to force the smaller artists out and recording labels out.

sagum said,
the big record labels also have a huge say in what happens when it comes to music on youtube.

You make a good point, I bet Google is pressured by a lot of outside sources to both crackdown on hosting copyrighted product and also to try and prevent artists from circumventing the middle man

sagum said,
It's not just Google having too big of a share of the online video market, the big record labels also have a huge say in what happens when it comes to music on youtube. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the Google T&S/agreements etc have been underwritten by these labels to force the smaller artists out and recording labels out.

You know, this is a very interesting theory. A bit conspiratorial, but very plausible...

I thought they would have made this move already. First they built a user base by playing nice with the people but Google is just another mega corporation (no matter how much they try to tell us otherwise). They've been waiting to do this since day one.

simplezz said,
Old Microsoft? Since when has Microsoft changed?

If you occasionally crawled out from that rock you live under then you would know just how bad Google has become and how different Microsoft are now!!!!

neo158 said,

If you occasionally crawled out from that rock you live under then you would know just how bad Google has become and how different Microsoft are now!!!!

Different in that they run a protection racket (Mobile Patents: Pay up or else!) on an entire market, while at the same time participating in patent trolling (Rockstar) in order to raise the price of competitors' products. Or perhaps using proxies to make antitrust accusations and lobby politicians (Fairsearch, ICOMP). Or perhaps funding SCO (still ongoing to this day) to attack Linux. Or perhaps railroading a proposal (OOXML) through ISO, destroying the integrity of it in the process. I could go on all day.

Microsoft are different, you're right when you say that. They're better at concealing their activities behind NDA's and such and using third parties to do their dirty work. In the end they're still up to the same tricks - stifling, taxing, and bad mouthing the competition.

I would say take a longer look, but I know I'd be wasting my time. The Koolaid rose tinted glasses are in full effect around here :laugh:

simplezz said,

Different in that they run a protection racket (Mobile Patents: Pay up or else!) on an entire market, while at the same time participating in patent trolling (Rockstar) in order to raise the price of competitors' products. Or perhaps using proxies to make antitrust accusations and lobby politicians (Fairsearch, ICOMP). Or perhaps funding SCO (still ongoing to this day) to attack Linux. Or perhaps railroading a proposal (OOXML) through ISO, destroying the integrity of it in the process. I could go on all day.

Microsoft are different, you're right when you say that. They're better at concealing their activities behind NDA's and such and using third parties to do their dirty work. In the end they're still up to the same tricks - stifling, taxing, and bad mouthing the competition.

I would say take a longer look, but I know I'd be wasting my time. The Koolaid rose tinted glasses are in full effect around here :laugh:

So you would prefer Microsoft went the route of Apple then, got it ;)

I didn't say they were perfect but they certainly ARE different than they were back in the 90s, but then I would expect you to give a ###### about that though!!!

neo158 said,

So you would prefer Microsoft went the route of Apple then, got it ;)

Different route, same objective (stifle the competition). One could argue that Microsoft's approach has been more successful. After all, it has managed to raise the cost of developing Android devices almost across the board, while at the same time giving away WP for free. Apple's banning campaign has been mostly directed at Samsung, and hasn't really achieved much.

neo158 said,

I didn't say they were perfect but they certainly ARE different than they were back in the 90s, but then I would expect you to give a ###### about that though!!!

I agree they are different in some ways. They are much more sneaky these days. I guess they learnt their lessons well and I give them credit for that. But to suggest that they are nicer now and that Google is anything like them is laughable. Microsoft has always hurt the consumer because they raise prices, either PC's through monopoly and agreements with OEM's so they won't allow No-OS or Alternative-OS options, or by flat out market-wide extortion campaigns as is going on in mobile right now.

Just because some believe that "open source" is the greatest thing since sliced bread doesn't mean that other people's work can be copied and sold without paying for it. It's no different than piracy.

When Apple finds out that their intellectual property has been "appropriated" without their consent, they sue for bans and huge sums of money. And they largely get a pass from some.

When Microsoft notices the same thing, they approach the infringers and give them the opportunity to do the right thing -- that is, to pay for what they are selling. That this has "raised the cost of developing Android devices" is correct and expected. You shouldn't be able to implement features that someone else designed and patented for free.

And the assertion about Microsoft hurting consumers falls flat in an environment with consistently lower PC and device prices; while at the same time Apple continues to sell obsolete hardware at a premium. And "extortion campaigns"? Really? You do realize that extortion is illegal and if it were actually happening there'd be more evidence than a news article comment...

HawkMan said,
Rockstar is patent sharing and protection. Google was invited to join and said no.

Rockstar is a non-practicing entity, aka a patent troll. I'm glad Google refused to be a part of it.

No it's an alliance of practicing patent owning entities.

All the rockstar patents are used by the alliance members, of which google could have been a practing member.

Don't forget they wanted to buy the patents themselves to troll the rockstar members.

HawkMan said,
No it's an alliance of practicing patent owning entities.

So they're using it to double dip, as in the case of Microsoft, who already licenses its patents to Android makers in existing agreements. Either way, it's a shady business practise, and one which needs reform badly.

HawkMan said,

All the rockstar patents are used by the alliance members, of which google could have been a practing member.

I doubt Google wanted to be involved in such a questionable entity, especially as its primary goal seems to be to setup sham offices in the east texas district and suing Android makers.

HawkMan said,

Don't forget they wanted to buy the patents themselves to troll the rockstar members.

I'm sorry but you have no evidence to suggest that would be the case. In actual fact, Google has never used its patents for offensive purposes, despite claims from people on this site.

simplezz said,
I doubt Google wanted to be involved in such a questionable entity, especially as its primary goal seems to be to setup sham offices in the east texas district and suing Android makers.

Google was invited to join (several times) and they declined. They wanted to buy the patents in question themselves, rolled the dice and lost. Bought Motorola instead, who's also got a decent track record of lawsuits over patent disputes. Sounds like they got out-played at the exact same game doesn't it? They're all doing the same thing.. wanting money for what they own. Yea, the system sucks, but that's the law (otherwise it would really be extortion) but Microsoft is no more guilty at the rest.

(And I love how this is an article about Google, and the usual suspects spin it around into an anti-Microsoft rant. Again.)

all they are doing is getting paid for what they did, don't be an ass, if you worked for years on something then some company came along and just started using it without giving you any compensation, would you be happy?. If all these stupid android companies don't want to pay then make something for them selves and quit bitching.

Different day, same Simplezz. Damn the z's on the end.

SCO group, you mean the same group who fought lawsuits against Microsoft?
The same group who has started lawsuits against almost any technological company worth something in the 90s? And has not seen any legal action besides its own bankruptcy for a decade?

Yeah, once again, best argumentation ever.

If anything, Microsoft is the easiest going company when it comes to their patents, stop spreading the same typical FUD.

Watch all their competitors do powerhouse type wooing of these artists and labels and watch Youtube's viewership drop like a stone.

All their own fault for being greedy.

PsYcHoKiLLa said,
Watch all their competitors do powerhouse type wooing of these artists and labels and watch Youtube's viewership drop like a stone.

All their own fault for being greedy.

competitors, what competitors?

Really hope this happens. It is clear that there is no ceiling to Google's exploitation and stubbornness. It really worries me since they're about to launch their world-wide ISP service and will probably again look for way in which to dominate society.

Absolutely disgusting business practice.

PsYcHoKiLLa said,
Watch all their competitors do powerhouse type wooing of these artists and labels and watch Youtube's viewership drop like a stone.
All their own fault for being greedy.

Doubt that will happen. 90 percent of the artists agreed to the terms so lots dont think it is that big a deal apparently.

Grizzl said,
vimeo?

vimeo is hardly a competitor. People use vimeo for single high quality videos, people subscribe to lots of users on youtube. They just aren't a proper competitor.

techbeck said,

Saying those are competition for YouTube is like saying Linux is competition for Windows.

I wasn't saying they were competitors, I was simply responding that they are also alternatives to YouTube. Vevo actually have their videos on YouTube as well.

Exactly. This is the epitome of an anticompetitive business practice. I can't believe for a second that the EC would tolerate this. It's astonishing as Google is already under investigation.

Enron said,
I have faith in the Euros, but in the US they will probably get a slap on the wrist again.

EU hasnt really finned Google much in the past either.

techbeck said,
EU hasnt really finned Google much in the past either.

That's because Google made major concessions in order to avoid a fine, just as Apple did. The EC made similar concessions with Microsoft, only the company went on to violate the agreement and receive a hefty fine.

The EU only fines companies as a last resort.

Actually a case is currently running at the EU about this, or being set up as we speak at least.
Whole hordes of people have already filed complaints and the EU is already looking into the matter.

Will, as usual, be a while before the results.

Then maybe MS can come up with a service, or buy one, that can directly compete with YouTube. Until then, YouTube will do even more things to annoy people and get away with it.

It sucks but they are just playing the system like any other company out there.

Shadowzz said,
They had one :p
And Microsoft turned it into a porno indexer.
Lol, what arevyou talking about.

On topic, MS should buy Vimeo.

AsherGZ said,
Lol, what arevyou talking about.

On topic, MS should buy Vimeo.


MSN Video used to be Microsoft's Youtube.
Now it only indexes other video websites.