You’re the man! 
WTF so majors who get hundreds of millions in advance can lower indies rates just on whim?
Page 25 of 32
3. Rate Change. To the extent that any major label agrees to any rates for the Google Services that are lower than the rates set forth in Exhibits C or D, including with respect to bundling, Google will have the right to reduce Provider’s analogous rates accordingly, following thirty (30) days written notice (via email will be sufficient) to Provider.
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
This is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen. Majors don’t give a shit about minimum rates.
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
“This is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen”
Then read the part that says that Google owns everything you’ve ever created if you sign — and that Google has the right to stream it for free on the day it is released everywhere else (i.e. iTunes), as well. (Please see details in the comment below this.)
WARNING!!!
You will never sell a song again if you sign this contract! Your entire catalogue will be available for free on YouTube on release day — online AND off-line!
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
Whoa, I hadn’t seen that comment yet. I can’t wait to see what kind of evil genius Google lawyering someone else finds an hour from now.
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
For those of you who are not familiar with the concept of Windowing, it is an increasingly popular way to hold new music releases back from streaming sites for a limited period of time — often the first week, but sometimes up to a few months (you probably heard of Beyoncé’s revolutionizing success with the strategy).
Windowing ensures that:
1) the artist does not cannibalize her sales during the period in which she’s likely to sell most of her songs, while it
2) gives less enthusiastic fans the opportunity of streaming her music for free on YouTube, Spotify, etc. later.It has often been argued that Windowing is what keeps the music industry — and iTunes — alive.
That’s why Google’s new contract is so important:
It is the most brutal attack on music and musicians since Napster because it kills Windowing — and thus, it kills music sales.
If you sign it…
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
And you’re trapped for 5 years if you sign…
The only way out is to file for bankruptcy (good news is that you’re likely to do that if you sign).
Guys, this is all you need to read:
Music sales is official over if you sign this contract with Google/YouTube. YouTube owns everything you’ve ever created and has the right to stream it on its free service– online AND off-line.
You will never sell anything again. YouTube users can stream your entire catalogue for free the day it is released in iTunes.
“Catalogue Commitment and Monetization. It is understood that as of the Effective Date and throughout the Term, Provider’s entire catalogue of Provider Sound Recordings and Provider Music Videos (including Provider Music Videos delivered via a third party) will be available for the Premium and Free Services for use in connection with each type of Relevant Content, (excluding AudioSwap Recordings, which will be at Provider’s option) and set to a default policy of Monetize for both the Premium and Free Services, except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement. Further, Provider will provide Google with the same Provider Sound Recordings and Provider Music Videos on the same day as it provides such content to any other similarly situated partners. The foregoing will be subject to reasonable quantity of limited-time exclusive promotional offers (in each case, with a single third party partner) (“Limited Exclusives”), as long as a) Provider provides Google with comparable exclusive promotional offers and b) the quantity and duration of such Limited Exclusives do not frustrate the intent of this Agreement.”
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
Good heavens…
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
Yes!
This is serious now:
We need an alternative to YouTube— and soon!
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
Well you had Mega….
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
Another thing to consider:
Google is going to cut your royalties significantly if their new project goes sideways.
And that happen may very well happen:
According to Forbes, only 7% are willing to pay for the new YouTube. And that number was before consumers knew that thousands of songs will be removed now, either by Google or content owners. It could be 3% or worse today.
So you have to ask yourself:
Am I willing to stream my entire catalog — in return for little or no compensation — for at least 5 years, instead of selling my music from iTunes and everywhere else?
Bear in mind, that a new fantastic alternative to YouTube may appear in a year from now, but you and all your work will be Google’s property for four more years.
That’s a long time.
And don’t forget that you already have alternatives today: You can remove everything you have from YouTube and upload it to Vimeo or Daily Motion instead.
Both services can stream full HD, and you can embed videos from both services on FaceBook and Twitter.
A FaceBook-Vimeo combo could soon become a very powerful YouTube alternative!
Thank you for this!!!!!!
I’m usually pretty quick to criticize this site’s click baiting and hack listicles, but this move is pretty gangster. nicely done DMN.
- Paul Resnikoff Monday, June 23, 2014
Uh, thanks?
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
Well, I’m another ‘Anonymous’ but I’ll bet everybody loves DMN because of this. It’s the music industry parallel to the Watergate coverage.
But be prepared for a constant stream of cease & desists…
My god, people will remove their songs from Youtube like there’s no tomorrow!
- Paul Resnikoff Monday, June 23, 2014
The only problem is that it’s virtually impossible to actually remove your content from YouTube, especially if you have a smaller (ie, indie) budget (though ‘major’ budgets only help so much). The reason is that YouTube plays by the DMCA, which of course forces the content owner to claim and demand a removal.
Beyond that, I’m hearing that a refusal to sign this agreement eliminates all label-upload videos, ie, the good versions with good quality. But, it may also eliminate the possibility of monetizing anything else (according to the latest I’m hearing, please update if that’s changed).
But, this is already crippling: once you cannot upload your official versions, then you are dealing with endless crappy, low quality lyrics videos that are often monetized by someone else if not policed properly. And, usage patterns show that everyone goes to those videos if the official video isn’t uploaded fast and first.
Which is one major reason behind the entire model of VEVO. After VEVO, hacked-up and uploaded lyrics videos did a whole lot worse; it cleaned up the dirty streets a bit.
- Ant Monday, June 23, 2014
Talking of Vevo, and their claim that Vevo videos will stay on YouTube and not be blocked. Does Vevo have licensing deals for subscription (as opposed to ad-supported)?
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
I’d stay far away from VEVO… VEVO is Google, and If YouTube goes south now, VEVO goes down too.
Besides, you don’t have any control over your content anymore if you go with VEVO.
I think the best advice right now is to sit on your hands…
There’s a power vacuum right now; an urgent need for a YouTube replacement/fix, and vacuums like that rarely exist for long.
another problem is that google sure likes to take their sweet time with processing dmca requests. it took them 12 days to process the last one that i sent them.
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
Yes, Google needs to be sued again. It deliberately violates the DMCA 24/7, and the new YouTube openly encourages piracy.
Which is odd. YouTube would’ve been dead for years without ContentID. Take ContentID away, and Eric Schmidt will be back in court. (Not that he ever left.)
Good bye, Youtube! Hello… the next big thing, whatever that’d be!
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
“Hello… the next big thing, whatever that’d be!”
Indeed! And let’s not forget that YouTube only was an asset to musicians for the past 2 or 3 years. Prior to that, it didn’t pay well and unauthorized unmonetized user generated content was still an issue.
So let’s look ahead now. I’ll bet we have a nice alternative 2 years from now.
I personally hope Apple will step in and save the industry (again) — they could launch a YouTube killer tomorrow.
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
And it’s safe to say that Apple is motivated…
If it doesn’t act, it can kiss iTunes goodbye.
Apple would never launch a YouTube competitor. That’s just ridiculous.
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
Jobs would’ve loved the idea. Cook? Well…
How could anybody agree to this? It’s suicide!
@GearAndGuitars, if you see this — please post it on Gearslutz.
It’s the biggest (and worst) music news in a decade.
What was it again? Don’t be evil?
- Heh. Monday, June 23, 2014
Yeah, like anyone believed that twee little platitude for a second.
This contract is illegal in my country. I just confirmed with my lawyer. He actually didn’t believe me when I called him and read some of the terms over the phone. I sent him the link for this post and after half an hour he called me back and said “this contract is so wrong I could write a book about it”.
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
“This contract is illegal in my country”
Significant parts seem to be illegal in the EU, as well — and that’s terrible news to Google.
Last week, the European Commission’s incumbent Competition Commissioner and antitrust enforcer, Joaquín Almunia, accused Google of abusing its place as an online search giant and figurehead in the adverting business.
According to New York Times, the complaints include “one relating to Google’s use of images from third-party websites and, more recently, a potential complaint about the pressure Google is putting on independent music labels to extract better terms in its negotiations for a new streaming product on YouTube”
If EU’s antitrust investigation with Google isn’t settled, Google could be fined 10% of its annual global sales. In an article yesterday, New York Times estimated the fine at $6 billion.
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
Such a nice way to start Google I/O.
Why is everyone posting as Anonymous??? Stand by your convictions, and sign your name FFS
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
And be screwed more than usual by Google & the usual suspects? Great advice…
Attention Musicians: The sky is not falling. It fell years ago with Napster, Limewire, etc. First, YOU have no idea who this contract was offered to. If it was offered to WIN, and you are not a part of that organization, it does not effect you. In fact, if you use YouTube at all, you have already opt-in to these terms. Have you even read their TOS (Terms of Service) or the TOS of any of the website you use to distribute your music?
I understand WIN wanting to negotiate the best deal for the group of indie labels that they represent, but you must understand that YouTube has MILLIONS of partners and to negotiate every deal would result in this service never launching and therefore forfeiting potential revenue to you.
With regards to losing iTunes sales – you know that Apple just bought Beats, who has a similar service with similar streaming rates in place. Spotify, Pandora, Deezr, et al. pay nearly 70% of their revenue to artists/labels/publishers. It’s never enough, right? Unless you want these streaming services to go out of business and watch the money they bring in dry up, then that’s what will happen if they continue to operate at a loss. Without these services, everyone will just go back to Torrent-ing albums.
I know it’s hard to be patient, but we are in a new era of the music business and we need to give these services the time to work out their business so that it can benefit you in the long run.
- Anonymous Monday, June 23, 2014
“In fact, if you use YouTube at all, you have already opt-in to these terms”
That’s obviously not true:
YouTube’s current TOS does not force me to provide Google with my entire catalog.
“Apple just bought Beats, who has a similar services”
Sorry, that’s also completely false:
No other streaming service than YouTube forces the artist to make her entire catalog available!
Add that YouTube even requires her to make her entire catalog available on release day— online AND off-line— and you have a situation that is absolutely unheard of. There is no longer any reason for a YouTube user to visit iTunes. He can stream everything he wants for free, online and off-line.
“Without these services, everyone will just go back to Torrent-ing albums.”
You couldn’t be more wrong: A long line of successful Spotify holdouts like Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Coldplay, deadmau5 and Adele prove that consumers buy their favorite songs from iTunes when they can’t stream them for free.
Google is not in the music business; Google is the world’s leading advertising agency, and it is extremely important to warn all artists against their latest scam.
- Biz Guy Monday, June 23, 2014
1. Sure, you don’t have to upload your entire catalog, but you are still relinquishing other rights that are just as important. So you can’t be upset on the one hand, and then be ok with other exploitation on the other hand. Are you also on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter? Do you have a smart phone? Do you have a problem with these companies selling your private data? Press vinyls and stay off the Internet if you don’t want to opt-in to certain services.
2. Great that you named artists in the top 1%. We are talking about indies, aren’t we? And you CAN find Beyoncé, Taylor and Coldplay on Spotify. Go look. Yes, they staggered their releases – that’s what they should do.
3. The music business? Haven’t you seen Jay-Z’s multi-million dollar deal with Samsung? The music business is very much in the business of advertising. If you could get paid upfront from a brand, you would also give your music away for free.
4. Lastly, this agreement isn’t even addressed to you or do you know what version of the agreement it is – it could be the first draft or second or third or fifteenth.
- FarePlay Monday, June 23, 2014
First, your responses are totally pragmatic. You are coming from the place of justifying a bad situation, as if there was a work around that even marginally work for artists, which brings us to an impasse.
1. I agree, scarcity is the new marketing for those who have a following that can make that happen. I think we can all agree that building a local following has far more certainty than hoping that somehow your little song and video will explode into an overnight sensation. Sometimes turning your back and walking away is the best you can do.
2. The 1% at the top yield the power, if they have the contractual ability to control their fate and not their masters.
3. Of course, if you’re an artist who can make a deal using your work to make serious money from a sponsorship deal, why not. We’re talking about smaller artists, who can’t chose their advertising partners and get pennies in return for their work. Plus, the intrusive advertising slathered over these videos makes them nearly unwatchable. Most listeners don’t have the time to explore; much less when the choices are endless.
4. Does it really matter? However you slice it, what they are offering is not worth sacrifice.
Artists have been left no choice, other than to own or be equity partners in their distribution channel. For all the credit people give the innovative brilliance of technology, why have THEY allowed monopolies like Google and Amazon dominate THEIR business. Surely, they’re hungry for new opportunities. Aren’t they?
Sadly, the emperor has no clothes.
What they are offering, didn’t exist a few years ago, so it’s found money. I know lots of people want to turn back the time to downloads, but streaming is how content is consumed today – users don’t want to host files on their computer any more. Just like how you threw away all your DVDs when you got Netflix. If you are not a top selling artist, you need to have several streams of revenue going for you if you want to play music for a living (same goes for actors). You need as many services to cut you a check as possible. Also, you need to make money on merch and touring. It’s a singles business nowadays, so you will need a pretty strong single to sell as well.
Or simply just choose the platform/strategy that works for you. Spotify has lost $200 million since it launched but has also grossed nearly $1 billion with 70% of that being paid out to rights holders. They have 10 million paid subscribers and as they continue to scale and innovate, the pie will only grow larger. Give them time. Perhaps YouTube will succeed where Spotify has struggled or perhaps YouTube doesn’t want to lose a boatload of money trying to make YOU money. We haven’t even seen YouTube’s service, so who really knows.
