Who is behind the YouTube movie musical industry exposed? The movie claims masonry is behind all evil on earth and use artists and occult strategies to control people
Executive summary
A recent YouTube-released movie musical that accuses “masonry” of running the music industry and using occult strategies to control artists and audiences makes sweeping conspiratorial claims that are not substantiated by mainstream reporting; available coverage instead points to clear, secular tensions among platforms, record labels, creators and algorithmic systems [1] [2] [3]. The story of who actually “runs” the YouTube–musical ecosystem is far less conspiratorial and far more prosaic: a mix of corporate platforms (Google/YouTube), legacy labels and publishers, independent creators and the recommendation and monetization systems that shape exposure [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Who the reporting actually names as the power centers
Contemporary reporting frames YouTube/Google, major record labels and rights-holders as the main institutional actors reshaping music and musical theatre access: YouTube draws a global audience of more than a billion users and monetizes through ad revenue-sharing deals with rights-holders, while labels and artists negotiate for better payment and control [1] [2] [3]. Coverage shows the industry debate centers on money, exposure and copyright—Paul McCartney’s open letter to European lawmakers and battles over legal clauses like Article 13 are emblematic of industry-versus-platform friction rather than secret societies pulling strings [1].
2. How YouTube actually affects musicals and creators
YouTube acts as a discovery engine and distribution platform that gives new musicals unprecedented exposure but also introduces problems—piracy of sheet music and unpaid uses, and the difficulty of turning views into reliable income for writers and composers—so the platform is simultaneously lauded for audience growth and criticized for weak creator compensation [4] [5] [6]. Academic and trade pieces describe this as “platformization,” where educational and creative work becomes an economic product shaped by platform governance rather than evidence of occult manipulation [7] [4].
3. Why the “masonry/occult control” claim doesn’t match the evidence in reporting
None of the industry reporting in these sources supports an explanatory model that attributes the music or YouTube ecosystem to a Masonic conspiracy; instead, the documented drivers are technological change, copyright disputes, advertising economics, label strategies and algorithmic recommendation systems [6] [3] [2]. When claims of manipulation surface in mainstream coverage, they tend to point to measurable practices—like artificially inflated views, negotiated payout deals, or recommendation tweaks—rather than secret rituals: for example, YouTube has purged fake views and faced accusations of view manipulation tied to label practices, which are tracked and discussed openly [8] [9].
4. The real levers of influence and their incentives
Influence over what becomes popular on YouTube stems from a few transparent levers: platform algorithms and recommendation systems that shape discovery, contractual deals between YouTube and music-rights holders, and marketing pushes by labels and playlists—each actor has a clear incentive structure (reach and ad revenue for YouTube; monetization and control for labels; exposure and gigs for artists) rather than hidden ideological aims [9] [3] [1]. Reporting on who benefits makes explicit that disputes are about revenue-sharing and control of content, not metaphysical control of minds [2] [1].
5. Alternate readings and implicit agendas in the movie and its reception
The movie’s conspiratorial framing serves identifiable rhetorical functions—simplifying complex economic frictions into a single villain and tapping cultural anxieties about elites and hidden power—an agenda different from the trade press focus on monetization and policy; mainstream sources instead recommend policy fixes, negotiation and transparency as remedies [1] [3] [2]. Viewers should note that critiques emanating from creators and labels are often about tangible policy (copyright, payouts, migration of catalogs) while conspiracy narratives redirect attention away from these solvable, documented disputes [4] [5] [6].
Bottom line
The claim that masonry is “behind all evil” in the YouTube musical world is not corroborated by the provided reporting, which attributes influence to platforms, labels, algorithms and market incentives; the real controversies are over money, copyright enforcement and platform governance—not occult hierarchies [1] [2] [7]. If evidence of covert organizational control exists beyond these documented institutional dynamics, it is not present in the sources examined here and would require different, verifiable documentation to substantiate.