Hacker News Reader

Comment by hullo | Hacker News Reader

From a seemingly more evenly sourced article on gizmodo:

"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.

View on HN

"you can't host videos on YouTube at all" is the phrase that has big flashing neon lights around it for me.

Has YouTube somehow become pre-emptively aware of the copyright of every work uploaded to it?

They have a pretty good audio fingerprinting service and database that lets them identify the music and video from tons of copyrighted works that have agreed to be licenced with them (and/or have stronger indicated that they will sue youtube if they don't take down their works).

"crappy licensing deal" doesn't really indicate an even article.

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".

I don't really care about their wording. The proposition that Google has made the choice that labels can either (1) join the premium service or (2) not be on YouTube anymore does not really seem disputed by anyone other than you. Except you may not even dispute it now? If you don't, you may very well not agree with the opinions and commentary people are sharing about the situation, but that's a disagreement about interpretation not facts.

Is there any evidence labels don't have option (3) provide some videos for free (presumably for promotional purposes) and pull the others? On what planet would Google forbid that? Practically speaking, how would they (absent the label cooperating for the takedowns by providing audio/video fingerprints, etc.)?

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.

"The BBC understands that even if blocks do go ahead, content from artists signed to independent labels will remain available on YouTube via channels such as Vevo."

This completely changes the issue altogether.

How did the Guardian misreport this so badly?

I wonder how covers/unofficial recordings/karaoke will be dealt with. That ecosystem is a real differentiating factor for Youtube compared to a service like spotify. A lot of the top results for major songs are not the original recording.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com