New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
YouTube Is About To Delete Independent Artists From Its Site Well, here's your fucked up news for the day....
YouTube Is About To Delet...m Its Site.
In only “a matter of days,” some of your favorite videos on YouTube could be gone, possibly for good. . YouTube is preparing to radically change the site, adding a subscription service that is intended to help them compete in the streaming music industry. The Google -owned video site has already signed new licensing deals with all of the major labels, but many independents are refusing to take part. Apparently, not only are smaller, indie labels not being offered the same deals as the majors, but the contracts that Google is putting in front of them are less than fair. In order to show their muscle, Google has stated that any label—meaning smaller, independent ones—that does not sign a deal with them will not only be left off the new service, but will have their content taken down from the original, free YouTube. Vice President and Global Head of Business at YouTube Robert Kyncl recently claimed that they already had deals with 90% of the industry, and that they had no choice but to move forward. . “While we wish that we had 100% success rate, 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 stated. . Rumored to be called YouTube Music Pass, the new service is intended to change the way people use YouTube and stream music, paying a premium to skip ads. In addition, people will be able to download music directly from Music Pass, not just listen. While the field is already crowded with popular programs like Spotify, Beats Music, iTunes Radio, Samsung’s Milk and recently-added Amazon Prime Music, YouTube is easily one of the most used platforms by people to consume music, and can expect initial adoption to be much higher than a new product from a firm just joining the game. . While initial reports state that the music from artists like Adele, Jack White, and Vampire Weekend would all vanish, that isn’t the whole story. Videos presented on the Vevo platform should remain playable, as the licensing agreements are separate. So, while the Grammy-winning “Rolling In The Deep” music video and its 500 million views should be safe, the ramifications of other clips getting shut down are important. . As noted in an article about the K-Pop artist Psy making money from YouTube ads earlier this week, if a song becomes popular enough, any clip that uses the original music and earns ad revenue is either taken down immediately or split with the track’s owner. Artists make money whenever a cover version, fan-style lyric video, or live version is uploaded on the site and accrue views. As noted in the case of Psy, all of those thousands of additional videos helped him earn over $2 million from ads alone. Soon, all of those would be taken down, and artist revenue could drop. . Perhaps more important is the fact that many up-and-coming artists may have a harder time sharing their music and videos. As sales decline, more and more people look to sites like Youtube, Soundcloud, Bandcamp to let people stream their music, with YouTube being far and away the most popular. Barring lesser-known names from the most popular streaming site in the world could seriously damage the growth of independent artists, and hurt the careers of future stars. . The Worldwide Independent Network (or WIN), an organization created to help push business, creative, and market access interests for the independent music community, is still working to get a fair deal for the indie labels of the world, which hopefully comes before tracks begin getting erased. . “We have tried and will continue to try to help YouTube understand just how important independent music is to any streaming service and why it should be valued accordingly.” said WIN’s chief executive Alison Wenham.
And I see all of your creations as one perfect complex
No one less beautiful Or more special than the next | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
I say do it. This YouTube/free for all stuff is getting out of hand. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No, f*** that! I can not and will not co-sign on any idea that hurts independent artists. F*** the RIAA for pushing this latest conspiracy and f*** Google/YouTube for allowing themselves to be bullied. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
The messed up thing about it is all the content that is missing from "official" channels, especially VEVO. The rare videos, whether they are blurry or TV performances, are uploaded by the YouTube community. That even goes for MAJOR artists. I can't see the overall "official" experience as worth paying for. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yeah, I don't even understand why anybody would watch VEVO exclusively. (OK, I doubt anyone does.) It's good for high quality official videos, but those get old pretty quickly. I'm personally still waiting for somebody in the YouTube community to upload the 1992 or 93 MTV spring break clip where Jade interviewed SWV and SWV were suuuuper salty to them. And I see all of your creations as one perfect complex
No one less beautiful Or more special than the next | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It's interesting that once there are millions of videos on Youtube, they decide to take this route. I think they are sick of people using it as a tool to promote their own music, etc. that they want to take control of it all. It seems that the fun days of seeing random videos posted that go viral are over. Corporate folks pulled a fast one here. Trolls be gone! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Oh well, Youtube is not the only video site online, and they're about to realize it. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
. With any luck, sites like Vimeo and Daily Motion will pick up the slack and see how lucrative it could be for them as a (relatively) smaller website. I'm also guessing there must already be sites out there that aggregate the search results from video websites who could benefit from this. It would be such poetic justice if this makes YouTube irrelevant and helps out a smaller outfit. (And yeah, I know we shouldn't hold our collective breath, but people ARE very attached to the current YouTube model.) And I see all of your creations as one perfect complex
No one less beautiful Or more special than the next | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Isn't this how AOL died? Once they were at the top, they put their "rip off the customers" game plan into full speed. I guess it's time to switch to Vimeo Trolls be gone! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AOL is an interesting one as Huffington Post is basically AOL and is huge. Facebook profiles are bascially AOL profiles. Text messaging is basically IM. . Though I love all the freebies on YouTube, the copyright infringments are both pervasive and evident! People you can watch a "video" of an entire album whenever at no cost. No wonder Prince wants basically nothing to do with YouTube. And the hope of YouTube being kind to independents had to be dashed as soon as they were bought by Google. Gotta pay to play.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What i am hearing is that alot of artists dont wanna have to pay for these ADFREE that Youtube is posting on their videos, which is how Youtube gets paid. At the end of the day, its just another hand in the artists pocket. Indie artists (real ones) should NOT have to pay for these ads or to NOT have ads "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Many of these are out of print and/or obscure albums that have never been on CD. If it is available, some cost hundreds of dollars on the used market, and the artist/label don't make anything from used records. Since you can't buy it, no one is losing any money. You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
We were living in the "frontier" days of the internet. Now big businesses like youtube (bought by google of course) and the bean counters and accountants are, or already have started taking over, and it may literally cost us.
How long it takes is another mattter, but my internet provider has already put a blanket ban on alot of torrent sites... I pay for my internet and despite speeds getting faster and faster, I see the "frontiers of the internet " getting smaller and smaller.
Things always getting worse when big businesses arrive and start buying shit up (music industry for example). Don't be surprised if porn search engines may be next to be either taken down or "subscribed" for.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Well said, thesexofit. . And Micky I completely understand and sympathize. Vimeo and other alternatives to YouTube have popped up to grab that market it seems. Personally I feel your statement cites the real problem which is the money doesnt go in the right hands. There are so many rare offerings that might be disappearing again. I also wonder about the outtakes, bsides, and unreleased material. I've heard you cant erase the internet. Is it legal for them to "sell" this shard/posted content to another entity in its entirety? Will legal teams investigate all the removed content? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Apologies - double post showhow [Edited 6/19/14 18:11pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
So does that mean as an independent artist with no label i won't be able to upload my own songs if i don't wanna submit to their subscription "service" ?
Might be the beginning of YT downfall.
Who needs another spotify anyway ? We already have one.
[Edited 6/19/14 19:04pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Whickedy-wack in every way. This is disappointing. Remember when the Internet was supposed to be the great equalizer? "Love & honesty, peace & harmony" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
There's also the case of performances from old TV shows or music videos that are never going to be commercially released or even rebroadcast. In a lot of cases the TV networks taped over shows (especially music programs) to save money, so they don't exist anymore except maybe from people home taping them on VHS/beta tapes or someone who worked at the studio happened to get a copy. Lots of old TV programs got lost in this way. You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
That sucks-but someone will fill in this void. This is a mistake-you are in effect creating competition youtube. 99.9% of everything I say is strictly for my own entertainment | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The bloodsuckers tricked everyone into posting everything about their lives on social media and others sites. Once the sheeple drank the Kool-Aid, suddenly you hear reports about corporate takeovers and government using social media to spy on people. Now, I have the last laugh with the people who laughed at me for not having a "Facecrook" page. Trolls be gone! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You know Dailymotion has been
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
to YouTube's 
for quite a while now. Vimeo and Ustream are also available.The music industry is still screwed: Why Spotify, Amazon and iTunes can’t save musical artistsPandora, Spotify and Beats aren't making a profit. If they never do, your favorite band will need a day job
 (Credit: SimmiSimons via iStock/Salon)What if the future of streaming music is a bust?On June 9, a musician named Michael St. James tapped into a deep vein of insecurity shared by all artists challenged by the ongoing digital transformation of society. He wrote an article posing the question: What if it just doesn’t work out? What if, ultimately, there isn’t enough money for artists to make a living? As it is, the streaming companies who’ve risen to prominence in recent years — Pandora, Spotify, Beats — aren’t making a profit. And what happens if they never make a profit?The question’s timing was, in one sense, odd. There’s never been more hype about streaming than right now. More hours of music are being streamed than ever before, and more people are paying monthly subscriptions to streaming services than ever before. (Spotify alone claims 10 million paid subscribers.) New entrants to the business are rushing in. Three days after St James’ lament, Amazon added a streaming music component to its Amazon Prime package of goodies. On June 18, Google confirmed it is launching a new paid streaming service, and T-Mobile announced that it would allow unlimited music streaming in all of its data plans. And way back on May 28, Apple announced it was buying Beats by Dre, a deal that many observers assume was all about getting control of Beats Music, yet another streaming service.For some industry veterans, streaming is the long-awaited solution to the woes of an industry that Napster and the Internet broke. For one thing, it’s so consumer friendly that music piracy has become a non-issue. Marc Geiger, a prominent agent and veteran of several music-related start-ups, told a digital music biz conference in February that in less than a decade there could be 500 million — or even a billion! — people signed up for streaming services worldwide, paying fees that averaged 12 bucks a month and steadily go up over time. (“The history of subscriptions says that they start cheap and they go up — always,” said Geiger, somewhat ominously. “Once they have the subscription needle in the arm, it’s very hard for it to come out.” Total global revenue in such a scenario, said Geiger, would be $72 billion at the low end, downright dwarfing the high of $38 billion a year that the music industry made at its peak in 1999. That’s right — better times than ever are supposedly around the corner. If Geiger’s correct, there would certainly be a lot more money to spread around the music industry, perhaps even enough to keep everyone — songwriters, artists, tech start-ups and labels — fat and happy. But there are some significant problems with Geiger’s thesis, not the least of which is it assumes that the average music consumer will be happy to pay double or triple what he or she was paying at the peak of the physical album era. That seems questionable. Evangelism for the future also doesn’t speak very coherently to the current moment, a free-for-all of arm-twisting, litigation and desperation. Even more to the point, when the music industry was doing great, artists were still routinely getting screwed by the labels. More money doesn’t necessarily change that dynamic, if the distribution remains skewed. In one of the great ironies of the digital revolution, the closer you look at the music business after all these years of disruption and contraction, the more obvious it appears that the companies currently in the best position are the record labels — the very same companies that first ignored and then furiously resisted the digital earthquake. Songwriters are making a fraction of what they used to make, artists have to land massive hits to see significant income, and the streaming companies themselves aren’t making a profit — but the labels earn serious cash from licensing their catalogs to Pandora and Spotify and Amazon and Beats. In fact, in many cases, the labels are part owners of the very companies they are licensing those catalogs to. Nice work if you can get it! But that’s not necessarily good news for the little guy, the artist who is struggling to make ends meet. Even for those canny enough to have embraced YouTube and figure out how to sell their songs on iTunes while touring 365 days a year, some artists report that it’s gotten harder to make a living as streaming has started to boom. As revenue from paid downloads falls, streaming is not picking up the slack. So Michael St. James asks a good question. And no one really knows the answer. A hundred or so years ago, technological advances made it possible to make a living from recording one’s creative output. Today, technology seems to be taking it away. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t any hope at all. For some battle-scarred veterans of the last decade of upheaval, the answer turns out to be more technology, not less. Jack Conte, one-half of the band Pomplamoose, is the founder and CEO of the artist-focused crowd-funding start-up Patreon. He is convinced that given the right tools, people will directly support the artists they love. Music won’t go away, because we need it. We want it. We have to have it. So if streaming doesn’t solve the financial quandary so many artists find themselves in, we, the people, are going to have to do it ourselves, as patrons and communities. * * * “It’s a big conundrum,” says Brian Zisk, the founder of SF MusicTech Summit, an annual conference held in San Francisco that tracks the evolution of digital music. “We are never going back to the days when people can sell tens or millions of CDs. So then the question is: How does the compensation happen.” The answer is a huge, insanely confusing mess. Even Kafka would throw up his hands at the labyrinth of rules governing how performers and writers get paid. Zisk ran though a few examples: When old-fashioned radio plays a song, the songwriters get a cut, but the performers get nothing. When Internet radio streams a song, the songwriters get a pittance, while performers get much more. Pandora, which doesn’t allow on-demand listening, pays royalties according to a different regime than Spotify, which does allow on-demand selection. Just to be able to play any songs at all, the streaming services must make huge upfront payments to license the rights to the catalogs of music owned by the three major record labels — and there’s absolutely no requirement that any of that cash go back to songwriters and artists. It heads straight to the bottom line. It’s an environment ripe for litigation and arm-twisting and paradox. Conglomerates like Sony have sub-labels and publishing company subsidiaries. So Sony, as a record label, on the one hand charges Pandora a huge amount for rights to its catalog; and then, as publisher, threatens to withdraw all its music from Pandora because it believes the royalty rates are too low. Meanwhile, just following the convolutions of the years...g showdown between Pandora and the two organizations that represent the vast majority of songwriters and publishers, ASCAP and BMI, is worth a book of its own. Both sides have sued each other over the question of what should be a “fair market rate” for songwriter compensation for streamed songs. Pandora has won the majority of legal battles so far, but on June 6, the Justice Department announced that it was opening a review of the 75-year-old “consent decrees” that govern how songwriters get paid for the performance of their works. I talked to several industry insiders and none of them had a clue as to what the Justice Department would decide. The songwriters have a fair reason to be angry at Pandora. Executives like founder Tim Westergren and former CEO Joe Kennedy have already cashed in on their IPO to the tunes of millions of dollars. In fact, Westergren may have made more money in 2013 by cashing in his stock options than Pandora paid to ASCAP in total for steaming royalties! But at the same time, Pandora, as a business, isn’t making enough of a profit to pay songwriters much more than they are already getting. You can’t squeeze blood from a stone. There is much less money being made in the music business now than in 1999. Changing the laws to give higher royalty rates to songwriters will either drive the streaming companies into bankruptcy or force the record labels and performers to reduce their own cut. Cue: More litigation! The real winners, right now, are the labels. They are generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue just from licensing, with no need to pay for distribution or manufacturing. Spotify alone is reported to have paid $100 million to the three major labels to license their catalogs. And guess what: 25 percent of Spotify is owned by the three major labels. That’s a great business — licensing your catalog to a company you own a big piece of. If Spotify goes public or gets sold off to some big cable company or Internet giant, the labels get another huge payday. And in many cases these upfront payments are tied to overall revenue — so as the streaming piece grows, the licensing revenue surges. So much for disruption! The dinosaurs — Sony, Universal and Warner — are doing quite nicely, thank you. Zisk told me that the best way to survive in such a climate is to work entirely outside of the label ecosystem. Artists need to control their own rights to their work, which enables them to take advantage of whatever new opportunities emerge. Everyone agrees that artists need to think of revenue from their recorded work as just one income stream out of many — including live performances, merchandising, commercial endorsements. But Zisk’s advice doesn’t apply all that well to the retired songwriter watching the royalties form his 1970s-era classic rock chestnut evaporating. Perhaps even more disturbing: When I asked him to point me to an artist who, by controlling his own rights, exemplified his thesis, he told me to contact Jack Conte, of Pomplamoose. But when I talked to Conte, the answers got muddier. On the surface, Pomplamoose look like a great example of a band that figured out how to thrive in the digital era. Conte and his partner Nataly Dawn embraced YouTube early. They figured out how to make viral, entertaining cover...ular hits, siphon off a hardcore of fans who would buy both their covers and original songs on YouTube, and even scored commercial gigs with bit outfits like Hyundai. So they were doing all right. Conte bought a house, and built two studios. But Conte laughed outright in disbelief when I asked if Pomplamoose was able to get any money out of streaming. “Less than tens of dollars,” he said. “Our Spotify stream is irrelevant.” Meanwhile iTunes sales are declining. “We all see the writing on the wall,” he said. “The idea of someone buying an à la carte song in 2020 — that is a totally unrealistic prospect.” With the rise of streaming, he says, “the monetary value of a song has dropped to nothing.” “The big problem,” says Conte, “is the tech industry is creating consumer-first companies. They’re not creating creator-first companies. The purpose of these companies is to make the product as cheap as possible. And that’s why creators are struggling so much to make a living.” So what happens when you see the writing on the wall, and you are an artist within shouting distance of Silicon Valley? In Conte’s case, he decided to embrace the beast rather than litigate it. Twelve months ago, he founded a company dedicated to nurturing creators, called Patreon. “Here’s the way I see it,” said Conte. “A hundred years ago, people figure out how to take art and put it on a physical thing. They figured out how to record light or music on a wax cylinder, and then we built huge industries on top of getting that physical media to consumers. With the Web, to get your art from creator to fan is an entirely free process, and essentially what’s going to happen is that we are going back to a time when the physical thing didn’t exist. In the past Michelangelo and Beethoven depended on patronage to make money. What’s weird is actually selling your art for money. Except for that hundred-year blip, patronage is how it’s always been and that it is how you are going to be. I honestly feel the crowd-funding revolution is the future of how artists are going to make money. People are going to step up to the plate.” Conte eats his own dog food, as Silicon Valley entrepreneurs love to say. He isn’t taking a salary, but if you want, you can become a patron of Pomplamoose on Patreon. For example, you can agree to pledge a dollar to be paid to Pomplamoose every time they release a new video. Right now, Pomplamoose videos are making around $5,000 per release, and the band releases two or three a month. In total, Conte says Patreon has distributed $2 million to 25,000 artists in one year. There’s no going back, only going forward. * * * In 1906, the bandleader John Philips Sousa produced a remarkable document decrying “The Menace of Mechanical Music.” Recorded music, he warned, would destroy the essential culture of music.
It is tempting to file Sousa’s lament away with every other naysayer who has ever sounded the warning trumpet against the advancement of technology, right next to Plato’s warning that the invention of writing was a cultural disaster. Recorded music, after all, made it possible for generations of artists to cash in on their intellectual property without playing for pennies every night on the road or hawking T-shirts. But Sousa was also not all that wrong in some important aspects. It’s no accident that the peak of piano manufacturing was a hundred years ago. Back in the day, we may well have been more active creators of music than passive consumers. And now we live through another enormous transition. It’s all happening again — it’s been happening for decades. And no matter what the Department of Justice decides on how songwriters get compensated, or how loudly we may scream at how artists are getting screwed, we are going to be just as successful in resisting the current era of upheaval as Sousa was in trying to stop the evil of machine-made music. But $2 million in 12 months for Patreon artists is nothing to sneeze at. Clearly, as a society, we do want to support the creation of art and music. So are faced with a terrific, inspiring challenge: finding ways to use technology to build connection and community even as the old world disintegrates around us. Michael St. James is right to worry about what will happen around the corner, but probably wrong to fret about music itself. doomed. Because we’ll still need it to free our souls. And if people stop making it because they can’t make a living from their streaming royalties, then we’ll be forced to flock to places like Patreon, to keep music alive. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You know what, fuck Google. There are so many other sites to hear Independent Artists. Carry on because the SKY IS NOT falling. So many folks can take or leave music these days... more people are interested in the gadget they buy than music. I remember with Google Music store was suppose to be the nail in the heart of iTunes. What? Who? Exactly.
So, Mr. Leonard is correct streaming music isn't going to be the pot of gold at the end of the fucking rainbow either.
I'm not paying a red cent for streaming music.... they're so many other options to listen to music and support musicians for free. No paid streaming, or sub's; I've done that, been there and no more. So Google, YouTube, the music industry can do whatever. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yes! For every action, there's an equal an opposite reaction Trolls be gone! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I once thought the net would be the true equalizer for many musicians/songwriters...in some respects it has and in many respects it hasn't. The question is, why?
In my personal opinion artist seem to be waiting for someone build something for them, save them form themselves, as others chip away until all they get are crumbs... then cry foul! They are in part as much to blame for not joining forces to pay some geeks to setup their on shit on the net. I always thought CD Baby (for example) was a good model to follow. Create their own site (shit they could have purchased CD Baby) build a streaming service to showcase the works of those who sale through CD / music through their store, including independent artist and lables. Artist, musicinas, singers, and songwriters had damn near over a decade to shape the conversation and get off the damn plantation. But no...
====================================================== [Edited 6/22/14 15:43pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Wow, what's happened to Youtube? Not fun anymore. But I guess that's how it goes when the creators sold it to a big business. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
One thing that youtube is starting to do is have ads every few minutes if you're watching a longer clip. I couldn't believe it. The other day I was watching a clip that was only about 30 seconds and I had to suffer through a 30 second ad that I couldn't skip! What in the world is going on with them? Too many ads.... Trolls be gone! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
You know, unskippable video ads was when YouTube really jumped the shark for me anyway. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tell me about it! Somtimes I turn on mute or take my headphones off but it still sucks Trolls be gone! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I know, I hate those ads. Irritating. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |