- Posted June 20, 2014 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
- Rick Rubin Encourages MCR Singer Gerard Way To Get In The Studio With Former Band Members Of Thursday
- From Birds Of Tokyo To Sleep Perade, Here's Why Indie Rock Continues To Shine In Australia
- Ian Kenny, Genius Behind Karnivool, Talks About New Album, Lou Reed & Touring With Deftones
- Why Another Change In Popular Music Is Right Around The Corner
- Oliver Sykes Of BMTH Strikes At The Millionaires, "It's Just Another Industry Gimmick"
Christopher Drew Blasts YouTube, "Banning Indie Goers...Not Good For Company"
Never Shout Never singer Christopher Drew took to Twitter last night at 9PM EST barraging YouTube's recent decision to stand against net neutrality by forcing all labels on the channel to comply with their future subscription service. Drew tweeted the headline "I've lost alot of respect for YouTube today. Banning Radiohead and Indie Goers = not good choice for a company" before eventually removing the post not 3 hours later that evening (likely due to the recommendations of a label representative).
YouTube is a force to be reckoned with in music. The video upload site owned by Google is the world’s biggest streaming music service (music videos on YouTube get many times more plays than the same tracks on Spotify). More teens get their music from it than any other source. Korean pop star Psy is among many performers whose careers have been transformed by viral hits on the site.
So it’s logical for YouTube to try to make money off this enormous music audience by introducing a subscription-based music streaming service. It will reportedly work similarly to Spotify and Beats Music (now part of Apple), with a free version that has ads and a paid version that’s ad-free and also allows listening and viewing offline.
Yet simmering tensions between YouTube and independent record labels threaten to undermine the new service.
YouTube pays royalties to record labels in the form of a cut of the revenue it makes from ads that play before a music video. It’s believed to have paid out more than $1 billion in royalties to all labels since 2006. But the indie labels say that acts signed to major labels (Sony, Universal and Warner) get a higher cut, in percentage terms, than they do. Not only that, but YouTube’s new service is offering lower rates than those paid by existing services like Spotify. As a result, the indies have been refusing to sign up for it. In response, YouTube is threatening not only not to feature their songs on the new service, but to pull them from YouTube itself.
As the Financial Times (paywall) reported earlier this week, “the cull”, which Billboard says amounts to as much as 10% of the music available on the site, is about to begin. The BBC says some of the music in question will still be available through Vevo channels on the site. The American Association of Independent Music, which represents indie labels, has gone as far as formally requesting that the US Federal Trade Commission “urgently intervene” against what it describes as YouTube’s “threatening and intimidating behavior.” London-based trade body WIN has filed a complaint with the European Commission.