The part you quoted is mindless speculation by anonymous persons on reddit.
The article you linked to also quotes more informed sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/18/youtube-indie-labels-music-service
<snip>
But it's the Financial Times interview that gives the clearest indication of what YouTube is actually planning to do, through a mixture of direct quotes and paraphrased information.
The piece begins "YouTube is about to begin a mass cull of music videos by artists including Adele and the Arctic Monkeys" before the key paragraph:
"The Google-owned company will start blocking videos “in a matter of days” to ensure that all content on the new platform is governed by its new contractual terms, said Robert Kyncl, YouTube’s head of content and business operations."
It's this wording that has provoked some of the arguments over the last 24 hours: you could certainly read that paragraph as saying videos will only be blocked from "the new platform", but indie labels are claiming the threat is to block them from YouTube as a whole – both the new and old (or paid and free) parts of it.
What are those anonymous sources and industry experts saying, then? Billboard is a good place to start: it's well-connected with US music labels and YouTube alike.
"Acts like Adele, Arctic Monkeys and Vampire Weekend, who account for up to 10% of all the music for which YouTube typically has rights to feature, are likely to be pulled down as the world’s largest video service has been unable to reach an agreement with the some of the leading independent labels, including the Beggars Group.
The crux of the dispute is that YouTube and the labels are unable to agree on royalty terms the subscription service in addition to existing terms with its free service.
YouTube executives argue that they cannot offer music on the free service without it also being available on the paid service as this would disappoint its subscribers. The solution? To take down songs that can’t be available on both services."
That last paragraph is an important one: it's an answer to the sensible question being asked by several commenters on the Reddit thread about this story: why would YouTube pull free videos just because their labels weren't signed up to its premium service?
The Verge has also followed up, claiming that YouTube is "explicitly threatening to block artists from using the entire YouTube platform — free or paid — if they do not agree to the terms of the new streaming service" before quoting its own source:
"A source familiar with the situation has confirmed to The Verge that most of the details in the FT story were accurate. YouTube does not want to launch a paid service and then be forced to show some videos in ad-supported mode, or offer users the ability to take videos offline, but not be able to offer that for big names like Adele or Jack White.
It is going to begin blocking artists whose labels have not signed on to its new licensing terms in the countries where those deals apply starting within just a few days, although the paid service is not expected to roll out that soon."
<snip>
= new reply since forum marked as read
