davehur

"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".

Youtube doesn't have a "EULA" they have a "TOS", and if the uploaded content is legal and doesn't infringe on copyright it stays up.

Any allegations to the contrary would require proof on your part.

They are quoting one side of the negotiation that is trying to pressure youtube for better terms, "blocking" is their spin for youtube not agreeing to licence their videos for a higher rate thus resulting in them being taken down.

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.

These videos aren't being blocked, it's just that youtube will no longer have the license to show them, because those indie labels are holding for a better deal.

It isn't. The videos aren't being "blocked", youtube simply won't have the license to show them anymore. These "indie labels" are trying to extract higher rates from free streaming by holding out on the paid service.

The real issue here is the guardian publishing the labels' PR as is.