Doesn't this go against the initial purpose of YouTube: to easily post and share video content? If I'm a band with an independent label and I want to post a music video, I no longer will be allowed to? Seems like a bad move. I also don't know why anyone would pay to subscribe to a music service centered on YouTube when there are 3-4 other options already entrenched in the market. That just doesn't make sense to me. If you're the kind of person willing to pay for a music subscription service, you have likely already subscribed to one. Why on earth would I switch to YouTube to listen to music - and pay a premium to do so? I'm sure someone smarter than me thought this up, but on its face it doesn't seem like a wise move.
If your label doesn't pay for the service then I think that's the case. I'm not sure, if you look at the magnitude of views that a single major label music video or song gets and compare to a lot (not all, but a good chunk) of indie artists it dwarfs them by orders of magnitudes. I don't think YouTube will lose much traffic due to this, but I do think it will push Indie labels further towards Vimeo and just continuing to use sites like bandcamp and soundcloud. Which, obviously, is not inclusive to Google. Basically YouTube/Google is trying to fleece the majors for the web traffic YouTube generates, while leaving everyone else out in the cold. I doubt Indies amount to much total market revenue for YouTube. It'll be interesting to see if Google attempts to consolidate Google Play and YouTube into what will basically amount to Spotify.If I'm a band with an independent label and I want to post a music video, I no longer will be allowed to?