KVR Audio

tapper mike · Post by **tapper mike** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:06 am

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27891883

t3toooo · Post by **t3toooo** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:42 am

Good idea,bravo youtube.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:10 am

Summary : Google is negotiating royalty deals with major labels etc. for their upcoming Spotify-like streaming service.
However, its currently threatening independent labels with removal of their content from Youtube, unless they accept the much lower royalty deals Google are offering them. Google are also deliberately avoiding the trade body specifically in place to negotiate these kinds of things for the independent labels as a body; they're trying to strong-arm these companies directly, by bypassing their accepted collective represntation.

Seemngly there are pending complaints to the EU about these tactics, but right now, YouTube’s chief of content and business operations is boasting about their intent to block artists to the newspapers.

So basically, Google are telling anyone not on a major label "accept low royalty rates for our streaming service or get kicked off Youtube"

More information at CDM:

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2014/06/g ... g-tactics/
and The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/17 ... videos_ft/

(Oh, and they're about to make Youtube subscription-pass-only, very soon indeed.)

spaceman · Post by **spaceman** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:13 am

I will have no problem dropping YouTube like a stone.

It's a serious error of judgement and it will greatly affect Google+ as well.

tehlord · Post by **tehlord** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:19 am

An unstoppable force I fear.

do_androids_dream · Post by **do_androids_dream** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:20 am

I was fully expecting this at some point. To be honest, I'm surprised the free-for-all nature of youtube lasted this long.

spaceman · Post by **spaceman** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:24 am

Luckily there are plenty of alternatives for the sort of content that I'm actually interested in, like tutorial videos, etc.

D.H. Miltz · Post by **D.H. Miltz** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:31 am

whyterabbyt's thread merged into tapper mike's existing one.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:48 am

Sorry, I did do a search for 'Google' up front and didnt find anything relevant.

tehlord · Post by **tehlord** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:52 am

spaceman wrote:Luckily there are plenty of alternatives for the sort of content that I'm actually interested in, like tutorial videos, etc.

The issue is that 99.9% of the 'consumers' only know Youtube.

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:16 am

tehlord wrote:
spaceman wrote:Luckily there are plenty of alternatives for the sort of content that I'm actually interested in, like tutorial videos, etc.
The issue is that 99.9% of the 'consumers' only know Youtube.

Precisely. The captive market as it were.

Subscription-pass, or , pay-per-view.

One scenario. Two-tier YouTube with subscription pass getting the better vids(ie:tuts,major label stuff, sports and such)
The second tier(ie:free) getting all the ads and bs vids...

spaceman · Post by **spaceman** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:22 am

If people feel they can't reach the same audiences because of the subscription model, trust me, they will move on and so will the viewers.

Although people should expect to find every song on there any more. Which I think will work against acts and labels, more than for it.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:27 am

trimph1 wrote:Precisely. The captive market as it were.

Subscription-pass, or , pay-per-view.

One scenario. Two-tier YouTube with subscription pass getting the better vids(ie:tuts,major label stuff, sports and such)
The second tier(ie:free) getting all the ads and bs vids...

To be honest, I've got no specific issue with that, as long as the people creating the videos get to decide which level of distribution their content gets.
However, the fact that they're using Youtube availability as a weapon for leveraging paying lower royalties on something completely unrelated (ie a spotify-like music streaming service) makes me wonder if that'd be the case; sounds like Google are going to decide for content creators who gets what access.

Gamma-UT · Post by **Gamma-UT** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:29 am

The FT story on this indicates Google has no intention of stopping free access for consumers, and that this is the biggest stumbling block: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea6728e2-f568 ... z34yvQzrwi

FT story wrote: One label boss said the big problem with YouTube’s new licensing agreement was not to do with the paid tier, but rather that it allowed YouTube to make substantial enhancements to its free tier.
His fear is that the free tier will become so attractive that it will reduce the number of people willing to pay for subscription services such as Deezer or Spotify, which charges users $9.99 a month.
Mr Kyncl said such concerns were unfounded. YouTube’s “ultimate goal” was to make “features that fans love” and drive as many people as possible to pay for them, he said.

I'm sure Google wants more people to cough up but, fundamentally, Google is an advertising-driven company so it isn't about to stop people from seeing ads if it can help it. I suspect that the deal for content viewed 'free' is sub-Spotify royalties and that Google has held out the carrot of more money from subscribers to the labels, who are probably extremely sceptical that Google has any real interest in selling the subscription service but simply wants to knock out Spotify.

spaceman · Post by **spaceman** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:42 am

The Guardian overview

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... ic-service

Youtube may shut out indie labels.