YouTube Is About To Delete Independent Artists From Its Site

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.

YouTube Is About To Delete Independent Artists From Its Site

Well isn't this the cute blow to the independent artist? I said some time ago awhile back that when Universal acquired essentially the world's commercial music publishing catalog as a sole owner, it was only a matter of time before the industry began shutting artists out on the internet. As a former DJ I remember when Bad Boy Bill was telling everybody that there would soon be a licensing fee the DJs would have to pay to the tune of 35K a year, and a tax. He wasn't too far off the mark. The 35K fee didn't hit, but the DJ being billed and taxed for every little infraction even noise violations that the club is no longer responsible for in certain markets like Chicago and Milwaukee.

So what does this do to the independent artist. Kills it. Amazon and Itunes are nowhere near fair; reverbnation has too many hangups, people generally don't like Soundcloud because of its interface. Will an independent non-commercial site pop up, perhaps. Will sheeple and idiots who compose roughly 75% of the music collective support it, nope.

The thing that disturbs me about the article is that is starts off talking about indie labels and then goes into the artist. People other than musicians post videos (like those great hiphop youtube parodies of muppets).

Google to me has always been a big brother in the wings, waiting and lurking for the chance to strike, and it has in a big big way. Great going for a company that promised to be for the little people in its inception.

in communism, no one is rich except the proletariat. everybody else shares a common misery.
in fascism, no one is rich except the elitists. everybody else shares a common misery.

same banana. one worships god(s), the other wants you to worship it.

Solution?

Someone will create another youtube for just this purpose.

They can't stop creativity, artists, musicians from sharing and trying to earn a living just because they say so.

And the new site will rock!

My opinion.

Peace

a reply to: jude11

I believe it is the beginning of tiering the internet. I said some time ago awhile back that when Universal acquired essentially the world's commercial music publishing catalog as a sole owner, it was only a matter of time before the industry began shutting artists out on the internet. And now it sadly has come to pass. Sure, reverbnation and soundcloud are out there but its too many hangups (like the user AI, the more popular commercial artists getting carte blanche in the paid subscription service, lack of support from SEO types that are use to a myspace format). Youtube is huge and supported across the board. They are not caring about the traffic or the money....its more control over what they want people to see and hear and what they want to dissappear. Somebody may not be able to create another network with the type of bandwidth youtube has acquired - its a BIG LOAD that no regular hosting site could deal with.

Things go round in cycles. It's like gentrification - that edgy place with all the underground nightclubs and empty warehouses suddenly becomes that yuppy suburb with the studio and penthouse apartments and neighbors that complain constantly about the noise. Then somewhere else becomes the cool hip place. Somewhere someone will create a new "Indy Zone" or maybe animators will team up with musicians to make fun videos.

originally posted by: ArchPlayer
a reply to: jude11

I believe it is the beginning of tiering the internet. I said some time ago awhile back that when Universal acquired essentially the world's commercial music publishing catalog as a sole owner, it was only a matter of time before the industry began shutting artists out on the internet. And now it sadly has come to pass. Sure, reverbnation and soundcloud are out there but its too many hangups (like the user AI, the more popular commercial artists getting carte blanche in the paid subscription service, lack of support from SEO types that are use to a myspace format). Youtube is huge and supported across the board. They are not caring about the traffic or the money....its more control over what they want people to see and hear and what they want to dissappear. Somebody may not be able to create another network with the type of bandwidth youtube has acquired - its a BIG LOAD that no regular hosting site could deal with.

I agree. Youtube has been working on it's censorship for some time now. I think it's easy to see how the layout of youtube changing over the years has been to censor smaller channels and channel users into bigger channels. It's not so obvious to others though. Sure some people have made a stink about youtube's layout changing but it's more about interface changes instead of content availability.

a reply to: stormcell

Well we've never had internet in recorded history so that's a first.
I think this defies net neutrality without a ruling and that is where the problems lie.
Next stop will be independent websites getting crapped all over by bigger sites in the hosting.

I don't know why anyone is surprised. YouTube wants to make money and the more the better.

Anyway, YouTube is too pervasive for my liking, and full of dross to boot.

Artists should use something like Vimeo which at least has standards.

Regards

the love of money is the root of all evil

These NSA guys don't like to see a buck on the side slip by them, do they?

So they want to charge the independents to upload their original music if I have it right? Is it a separate contract for each entity? Some guys work from home with the simplest of tools, others might have sophisticated resources of their own, or use someone else's. It's fecking stupid, aimed at people with popular tastes and besides, take me for instance, I am a musician, but watching music video, is about 5% of youtube video's watched...you can see the next step then!

For some time now the music industry has been dominated by big industry. They only push certain types of music, and in that way control what the masses listen to. Indie labels have always been fighting an uphill battle, and the internet initially was a place to if not level the playing field, at least give the little guy a fighting chance. If traditional indie mediums are taken away then music as an art form will suffer.

Anyone could theoretically go and open up their own site, but funding it is the problem. We are not talking about small change here because if it becomes popular then more money must be invested to keep up with demand. So it is almost like a cycle, because the site will likely end up the same way in the end, like Youtube I mean. The music industry, the big shots I mean, will somehow find a way to get in on the action, or will do something to hurt the little guy. That is competition in their minds. If someone is listening to stuff that the big guys don't control, that is lost revenue in one way or another. That is just my opinion anyway.

Monopolization is bad when it comes to most industries. This is a problem all across the US and probably the world. Eliminating the competition allows them to make more money, and they are all about money.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I think it is truly more than about money. When you get to the point of literally having billions of dollars at your disposal as chump change it stops being about money.

This is about controlling what people see and hear. This is also about vaulting and stopping the spread of existing visual materials that previously hold history. Do you know how much old Soul Train I watch a day on YouTube? Every morning is almost like a Saturday morning at 11am. Seeing classic concerts, interviews, obscure stuff is what the nerds like.

And all of that history of collected knowledge is about to collapse. This is almost as sad as what happened to Demonoid.

Sensationalist inaccurate propaganda masquerading as reporting.

Many independent labels have agreed to YT/google's new conditions. Those that don't 'are making a choice not to do so.

And it's a free market - so there's little to stop someone starting up a video service with whatever conditions they like and using various means such as twitter and FB & redditt, etc to market it.

originally posted by: ArchPlayer
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I think it is truly more than about money. When you get to the point of literally having billions of dollars at your disposal as chump change it stops being about money.

This is about controlling what people see and hear. This is also about vaulting and stopping the spread of existing visual materials that previously hold history. Do you know how much old Soul Train I watch a day on YouTube? Every morning is almost like a Saturday morning at 11am. Seeing classic concerts, interviews, obscure stuff is what the nerds like.

And all of that history of collected knowledge is about to collapse. This is almost as sad as what happened to Demonoid.

Agreed, and my remarks about NSA/NCTC only a half-joke.
But I think this is one gem from the mid 60's...(forget the flashy 1955 claim) a live version, from the artist, a million times better than his own studio recording, and a better live tele recording than most stuff that was available at the time. And hey! nearly 3 million views.



That's what you are talking about.

YouTube has had its day let's move on to something else that is "free" to use

I know why dont ATS get into the same stuff youtube has been doing for so long? the owners at the above network would make a killing if they did so and it took off.

originally posted by: yuppa
I know why dont ATS get into the same stuff youtube has been doing for so long? the owners at the above network would make a killing if they did so and it took off.

A bit confusing post, but don't encourage them, enough ads already....if I got the gist right.

I've heard that yahoo is opening up its own version of youtube soon. Like in a week or a month. Will it be different?

a reply to: ArchPlayer

From the way it sounds, the only videos being taken down are cover songs and the like. I get sick of those anyway. I don't want to hear a cover, I want the original.
I don't think this will hurt real independent artists. I don't know how it could. Once you start making money and people are doing covers of your songs, you're no longer very independent.
People like Psy shouldn't be getting rich anyway, making retard music.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
For some time now the music industry has been dominated by big industry. They only push certain types of music, and in that way control what the masses listen to. Indie labels have always been fighting an uphill battle, and the internet initially was a place to if not level the playing field, at least give the little guy a fighting chance. If traditional indie mediums are taken away then music as an art form will suffer.
.

I think music as an art form is already dead. This is the post-music era.
Everything has already been done, and done better when it was culturally relevant. Now music is sheer product. Generic sounds not meant to ruffle any feathers or cause too much excitement. Use once then throw away. Buy another!


Sorry for the depressing sentiments. It just seems like that to me sometimes. There will always be good music out there. It's just not mainstream or awful well known.