[dublinben]

YouTube's new service will be an audio streaming service, not a video streaming service though. I'm not sure why they think they can just make a slight modification to their licensing agreements and roll their video catalog into a music catalog.

The record labels are completely right to be demanding better terms here, just like they would get from Apple, Spotify, Pandora, etc.

[Shooti]

Not sure you can draw such a hard line between audio/video since all the rumors point to this subscription service essentially being both:

http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/11/27/apk-teardown-youtube...

i.e. By enabling the Android/iOS Youtube app to background (which they've gone out of their way to disable up until this point), it essentially becomes an audio streaming service with the same interface.

Plus according to the FT, the problem the indie labels have isn't with the subscription rate per se, its how the new ad tier is set up:

"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 YouTube’s free tier will become so attractive that it will reduce the number of people willing to pay for subscription services such as Spotify or Deezer."

[fpgeek]

That sounds like a fundamental disagreement about how much video-wrapped audio streaming is worth (with Google saying enough people will pay to avoid the extra overhead/complexity and the labels thinking that people will walk many miles to save a few bucks). That sounds like a plausible place for negotiations to break down.

I suspect Google is right today (at least for the many people who care about mobile music, since the data and/or storage costs would be prohibitive now), but I can also see how a label might not want to set too generous a precedent for tomorrow (on the assumption that bandwidth and storage might become abundant enough sooner than they're comfortable with).

[peroo]

A lot of people are already using YouTube as a free streaming service, and even though artist can monetize their music, the payout is significantly lower than from pure music streaming services. This is seen as a fair tradeoff seeing as YouTube is also a great promotional channel, but Google are now trying to pivot it into a pure streaming service without significantly changing payouts.

It sets a very dangerous precedent for the value of music, which can be incredibly damaging for already struggling indie artists (not so much for the three majors who have received _massive_ advances)

[fpgeek]

How does that make any sense? The only YouTube subscription worth paying for is one that gets you out of YouTube ads (and, ideally, unlocks videos that are currently desktop-only on mobile devices, TVs, etc.). Perhaps they'd throw in audio streaming as a sweetener, but if videos aren't deeply involved they might as well just give Google Play Music All Access the needed rebranding, not re-negotiate anything and call it a day.

[IanCal]

I wonder if they'd combine play music and subscription youtube, music videos are one of the few real advantages they have over something like spotify.