The real issue here is the guardian publishing the labels' PR as is.
"Some labels are refusing to sign up because they say they're getting a raw deal from Google. They say that while the major labels have negotiated lucrative contracts, Google is offering indies comparatively bad terms. It's their right to say they don't want to sign up if they don't like the deal Google is offering them. In response, Google is drawing a line in the sand: If your label won't sign on to Google's crappy licensing deal for a new streaming service, you can't host videos on YouTube at all."
http://gizmodo.com/googles-about-to-ruin-youtube-by-forcing-...
Google has a reply appended at the end that is absolutely the worst bit of corporate puffery-non-response I've ever seen from them and IMO as bad a sign as any of the actual things they're being accused of plotting.
Basically same as everyone else they are siding with the labels and adapting their narrative.
Yes, if Youtube can't licence the music the videos will get flagged by ContentID, which means they gets "blocked" because they don't have the license to show them, it's a semantics play and circular logic that the labels are offering and as with most attacks on Google the media has lapped it up.
As to the actual term we only have the labels' word on it and they are an interested party in the midst of negotiations.
Edit:
This spells out that it's a "renegotiation" process, the labels want more from the free streaming to agree to the paid one: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27891883
And: "content from artists signed to independent labels will remain available on YouTube via channels such as Vevo".
There might even be option (4) provide some videos for the paid service and pull the others, but that's more ambiguous because it's possible that could be forbidden contractually (e.g. if you participate in the paid services, you have to give it all videos you make public!y available or somesuch) and there are plausible reasons that Google might care.
This completely changes the issue altogether.
How did the Guardian misreport this so badly?
Has YouTube somehow become pre-emptively aware of the copyright of every work uploaded to it?
What is your source for the first - i.e. where are artists revoking YouTube's license to display their videos?
Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader.
What is happening here isn't youtube taking down the music of 'individuals' that have uploaded them to their channels, youtube licences these videos from these labels, once the licensing isn't applicable they no longer have the legal right to publish them, thus "blocking" them.
End difference for consumer? None. Plus, you still haven't cited any sources, just speculation based off an admittedly single-sourced article.
> Youtube can't simply just take down videos that are legal and fully owned by their willing uploader.
Sure they can. And they do, all the time. Content Protection has nothing to do with the legality of the video. Part of the uploading EULA is that it's up to Google to decide when something goes up or comes down.
Any allegations to the contrary would require proof on your part.
oh, and given their well documented behavior with regards to handing large rights holders the ability to take down videos because of music without issuing DMCAs and with no review from youtube, not hard to believe [1] [2]. (See how I made a claim and I substantiated it?)
[1] https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo...
[2] http://gizmodo.com/5932089/nasas-official-rover-landing-vide...
Even if they haven't removed uncontested legally uploaded content before, the Terms seem to say that they can, and this might constitute the first time they'd want to. (See x0x0's sibling comment for cases where they've removed contested legally uploaded content, but I think you're probably talking about uncontested videos, right?)
(Incidentally, the EULA/TOS distinction feels really pedantic to me. The name isn't the issue here; we're concerned about the content of the agreement.)
Sibling comments have pointed out the problem with this statement, but I'm bored, so here's my proof:
There's no legal porn on YouTube. What porn makes it past the automated filters in place to prevent its upload is summarily removed.
Why do you think YouTube isn't allowed to arbitrarily take down videos?
Well, of course they can. Read the terms of service.
Of course they can, it's their service.
rm "$VIDEO"