Get Opinion in your inbox -- sign up for our weekly newsletter
Opinion Editorial

A message to YouTube: Don't be evil

YouTube is no longer an upstart but a dominant player whose decisions have enormous consequences
The threat YouTube has leveled against indie labels is alarming

Google's YouTube is such a rich repository of material from so many sources — global news broadcasts and TV shows, short films, live performances and amateur recordings — that it has become the Internet's unofficial video archive. That's why the company's threat to remove videos uploaded by independent record companies because of a dispute over a forthcoming YouTube service is so alarming. YouTube is no longer an upstart in a crowded market; it's a dominant player whose decisions have enormous consequences for its users. And the threat it has leveled against indie labels suggests that the company has lost touch with that reality.

YouTube ranks as one of the world's most popular online destinations for music. The site has countless official and unofficial music videos, covers, clips from concerts and karaoke performances of the work of practically every artist to use a microphone. Over time, the vast majority of the industry has teamed up with YouTube to try to turn fans' interest into cash by adding advertisements to their uploads. The main shortcoming is that the ads yield a microscopic amount of revenue per video played.

To generate higher per-song royalties, the music industry has long urged YouTube to launch a service such as the ones Spotify, Rhapsody and Rdio offer, charging users a monthly fee to play an unlimited amount of music. The company is now preparing to do just that, and says that 95% of its label partners have signed on to the new service, including all three major record companies. Among the holdouts, though, are some smaller labels and notable artists. And in order not to have the current free service compete with the new subscription-based one, YouTube has told these labels and artists that it will take down their music videos and no longer provide a home for advertiser-supported uploads. That means if fans upload videos using these labels' recordings, the labels will be able to ask YouTube only to remove them, not monetize them.

The holdouts have complained to regulators on both sides of the Atlantic that the terms YouTube is offering are skewed in favor of the big labels. That's an issue they'll have to resolve in private negotiations. But YouTube shouldn't be able to use its dominant position in advertiser-supported video to coerce labels into supporting a new product, even if it would understandably prefer not have that new product compete with its current offering. Similarly, Amazon's apparent bullying of Hachette Book Group raises hackles because the e-commerce king seems to be using its huge share of the printed book market to force the publisher to accept its terms for e-books. The lesson the tech world should have learned from the Justice Department's pursuit of Microsoft in the 1990s and 2000s is that a different set of rules applies to companies once they start wielding enormous power in a market. Those rules now apply to YouTube, whether the company likes it or not.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • The next lesson for Facebook: Let users control the news feed

    The next lesson for Facebook: Let users control the news feed

    It was about time Mark Zuckerberg realized that Facebook could afford only so much arrogance toward its users before they would seek out other online social media venues. On Thursday, Facebook announced that it would set the default for new users to friends only, rather than public, as a nod toward...

  • Even tough Net neutrality rules wouldn't 'regulate the Internet'

    Even tough Net neutrality rules wouldn't 'regulate the Internet'

    The most vocal opponents of the Net neutrality rules the Federal Communications Commission put out for public comment on May 15 have been the critics who say the rules won't actually assure the Net's neutrality. But the draft has also drawn a searing response from conservatives and libertarians,...

  • Why AT&T wants DirecTV

    Why AT&T wants DirecTV

    Less than three years after the Justice Department put the kibosh on AT&T's proposed $39-billion purchase of T-Mobile, the erstwhile Ma Bell is teeing up a larger deal: a $49-billion acquisition of satellite broadcaster DirecTV. The new merger raises some of the same concerns about reduced competition,...

  • At the 1964 World's Fair, a phone call to the future

    At the 1964 World's Fair, a phone call to the future

    Back in 1964, 50 years ago this summer, my mother, father, sister and I drove from our home in suburban New Jersey to New York City, where we caught a glimpse of the future.

  • Staying true to net neutrality

    Staying true to net neutrality

    Chairman Tom Wheeler of the Federal Communications Commission said all the right things about net neutrality Thursday as the agency voted to release draft rules for preserving the open Internet. Nevertheless, real questions remain about whether the proposal he's championed is the right way to protect...

  • Europe's highest court strikes a blow not for privacy but for censoring history

    Europe's highest court strikes a blow not for privacy but for censoring history

    Judges on Europe's highest court may have thought they were striking a blow for individual privacy when they ruled Tuesday that search engines could be ordered to stop linking to sensitive or older information about people online, even if it had been lawfully published. Instead, they were creating...