Slashdot Log In
Warner Music Pulls Videos Off YouTube
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sun Dec 21, 2008 01:13 PM
from the taking-their-toys-and-going-home dept.
from the taking-their-toys-and-going-home dept.
iammani writes with this excerpt from Reuters:
"Warner Music Group ordered YouTube on Saturday to remove all music videos by its artists from the popular online video-sharing site after contract negotiations broke down. ... The talks fell apart early on Saturday because Warner wants a bigger share of the huge revenue potential of YouTube's massive visitor traffic. There were no reports on what Warner was seeking. 'We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,' Warner said in a statement."
Warner's deal with YouTube to make those videos available came just prior to YouTube's acquisition by Google.
Related Stories
[+]
Entertainment: Warner Opens Video Library To YouTube 84 comments
Oxen writes, "From the article, 'Warner Music has agreed to make its library of music videos available to YouTube, marking the first time that an established record company has agreed to make its content library available to the user-generated media company. Under the agreement, YouTube users will have full access to videos from Warner artists. They will also be permitted to incorporate material from those videos into their own clips, which are then uploaded to YouTube. Warner and YouTube will share advertising revenue sold in connection with the video content.' This is in contrast to how Universal is handling the situation."
[+]
Technology: Google Buys YouTube for $1.65 Billion 424 comments
Over 30 readers wrote about Google's purchase of YouTube today for $1.65 Billion, as rumored last week. The all-stock transaction is the single largest purchase in the company's 8-year history. The move follows on the heels of Google's convincing Sony and Warner Music to put music videos online for free. Reportedly, YouTube will retain its brand and all its 67 employees, including co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen.
[+]
YouTube Muting, Removing Videos Involving Warner Music 202 comments
notseamus writes "In the past few days, YouTube has started muting videos uploaded by users that use 'unauthorized copyrighted music' in response to Warner Music's threat over royalties, and so far appears to target only Warner Music related videos. Ars Technica also reports that after three DCMA notices YouTube will remove a user account, even when it appears to be fair use. Kevin Lee has had video essays — which he believes are fair use — removed from YouTube, and his account disabled before he could file a counter notice."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What? Did you get that gem? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists"
So Warner thinks all the contracts they have with the signed artists are unfair and should be void?
It's so unfair.... (Score:2)
It's about time these leeches were kicked into touch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So Warner thinks all the contracts they have with the signed artists are unfair and should be void?
Of course not. "We simply cannot accept..." in no way whatsoever implies "we will never provide..." The two are not even remotely related.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Warner decides it doesn't like the deal anymore so they pull their videos, against the terms of the deal.
3. God kills a baby [thebricktestament.com]
I don't see how this is shocking to anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Shocking? No, I just found the wording amusing. Do as I say, don't do as I do, it's almost like a religion.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The only one that needs removing is Rick Astley's "Never gonna give you up".
the real money (Score:4, Insightful)
The experience of the music fan at a live performance is not "easily copied", and live performances are where they make the real money. Digital copies should be treated for what they are, enjoyable advertising, and priced accordingly, from free to maybe a dime a song, tops. Charging a dollar for three megs of digital bits is serious price gouging, the fans know it, anyone who can use a computer knows it, that's why the public is not adopting their prices at the levels they expect. The music majors want to insure the same unit pricing they had back when it really cost a lot of money to deliver a copy, that doesn't exist now with downloads, it cost maybe a penny or something to actually do that. They can make and deliver the same "unit" now for a teeny fraction of what is used to cost 10-20 years ago, but they want the same gross purchase price? Hell no! They need to backoff the drugs a little once in awhile and sober up and enter the 21st century.
As to movies, again, it's not the same going to a theater with a 20 foot screen and a hundred grand sound system as it is sitting around your TV, even if it is a good one. If they offered a cheap DVD on exit from the theater, say for around 3 bucks or so, they'd get immediate feedback on the movie, plus instant impulse buy revenue. 15-20 bucks for a plastic disk though..price gouging, they can stamp them things out and put them in a paper sleeve for like a buck easy at big scales, which means they could sell them for three and make profit.
Basically, since the late 90s or so I just stopped buying full price entertainment media, it's a price ripoff. I'll buy it used for cheap, that's it, picked up a few used DVDs the other day for a few bucks apiece..because that is all they are worth. They annoyed someone who was a faithful purchaser since the late 1950s with their blatant ripoff price gouging. In the same period that computers went from 3,000 bucks to 300 bucks, and got loads better in quality and performance, the music and movie guys have the SAME PRICES for stuff that is not much better at all, it's the same notes, the same scenes. Screw that, screw them. Price gouging loons.
CDs with music I'll pay a buck, tops. I'm not going to keep purchasing the same damn song or album just because a new format comes out, already did that, not going to keep doing that though. I went vinyl to 8 track to cassette then CD, then..no way, I don't care about blue hi-def lazer ray disks, they can stuff it, I don't need to see the nose hairs and zits in detail of some scrawny metrosexual "artist". I think they should get paid for their work and creations, I certainly do not "pirate", but trying to make a killing off of people when we all know what digital copies REALLY cost is just stupid, they are out to lunch on their business model and prices.
Technology moves forward, some things got a lot cheaper to make, so they should drop prices accordingly and make profit on larger volume sales, and with music, the traditional way, touring or local live "work".
Parent
Musical styles not for live performance? (Score:3, Insightful)
The experience of the music fan at a live performance is not "easily copied", and live performances are where they make the real money. Digital copies should be treated for what they are, enjoyable advertising, and priced accordingly
Have you thought about the ramifications of this for musical styles not amenable to live performance, such as a lot of the Beatles' post-Revolver work?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Other bands that produce heavily edited music, like Gnarls Barkley, the Roots, Beck, and Nine Inch Nails, have had success as live performers. I read how GirlTa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What usual argument? I can't remember that being the argument widely used when criticizing the practices of the music industry.
Artists deserve the money for their work. I doubt there are many people who question that, even less so on grounds that it's easy to copy it. What most people don't accept is the greed of studios who try to rip off not only the customers but also the artists.
Re:What? Did you get that gem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Where's the usual /. argument that artists don't deserve compensation because they're producing something that's easily copied?
I've never seen it stated on slashdot (or anywhere, really), that artists don't deserve compensation.
Displeasure with a specific economic model does not mean displeasure with economics itself. I buy all my music off of iTunes. I don't *want* more physical crap, I don't *want* the disc, I want the music.
For those artists and labels that don't want to sell via iTunes (or Amazon, in a pinch), there are other ways to acquire their music without buying a disc. I *want* to buy their music. I *do* believe they deserve to be paid. If they don't want to show up to the party, it's their own damned fault.
As for the labels themselves. They are outmoded business models, and must either evolve or die. Artists really don't need them like they used to. Their remaining relevance going forward is their catalog of copyrighted material which, unfortunately, looks like it will never go out of copyright.
Parent
fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know how much they care about fairly compensating the people who actually made the music.
What's worse is that videos were never intended to generate revenue on their own, they are advertising for the artist. No record label ever had a problem with MTV making money from commercials in between videos. No doubt there are absolutely no provisions in the artists' contracts for revenues generated by videos either, and no doubt we'll start to see YouTube clips of signed artists protesting this, which the RIAA can't yank.
Massive fail.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I keep seeing people point this out, but I believe they are missing the point to a large degree. Youtube for a large segment of listeners isn't advertising for buying a song, its a replacement for it. Why would I spend money and go through the hassle of actually buying a CD when I can have any song/video I want from almost any popular band playing within a matter of seconds on youtube? Its easier and cheaper. (and perfectly legal) Personally, I haven't actually bought music in years for this exact reas
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hey, i'm hoping this will get RIAA music off of YouTube completely and leave more room for indie artists/labels.
if they don't want the free promo, then we'll sure as hell take it.
Re: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite (Score:5, Informative)
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html [salon.com]
Parent
Re:Rock stars obviously aren't accountants. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since when on Slashdot is $45k a pretty damn good wage? That's poverty wages in a lot of cities. They could make more money as janitors. Then again, you're just a damn troll.
Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've bought literally dozens of albums after my friends and/or girlfriend have shared youtube video links. Does Youtube get a cut of those sales?
TimeWarner is shooting themselves in the foot here. Youtube gives them free exposure. The labels don't mind paying MTV to play their videos, but they want Youtube to pay them?
Once again, the record industry just doesn't get it.
Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (Score:5, Funny)
The labels don't mind paying MTV to play their videos
It looks like the labels are doubly incompetent: MTV takes their money, but then it doesn't bother to play any music videos at all.
Parent
Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Now if only they could have banished Carson Daily to Mtv1592, we'd be set.
Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent got modded funny, but many of us remember the 80s when MTV started, and they truly ran the same model as the radio - 10-12 random songs per hour, interspersed with "VJ" dialog and commercials.
Slowly, slowly, they began to add "shows", usually 30 minutes in length. Some were heavily music-oriented such as the 'unplugged' series, while others were lighter such as "Remote Control". However, they all gave the ADVERTISERS what they were seeking: an easily labeled audience.
You see: since MTV was the first and largest of its kind, its audience was also pretty vague. "College student" was about all you could say and be close. But advertisers like narrower demographics: rich/poor, black/white, male/female. In its early days, when ad dollars were cheaper, they were willing to take a chance. As MTV got bigger and more expensive, they couldn't take such chances.
MTV splintered. "Yo, MTV Raps!" and other shows were aimed at smaller and clearer groups. Advertisers were largely happy, and viewers who didn't know better were also happy. We lost that random hour of music, though. I miss that opportunity that came when I could flip on a channel and discover a new rap song I would never have seen, or country, or any one of dozens of genres that I would have never 'picked' but was suddenly exposed to.
So: I put it to the /. masses. What is the current, best channel of media for opening one's horizons? Is it Pandora? Is it still Youtube? Or is there some other place that one can be 'fed' a steady flow of music from a wide net of types? Is there a venue where the music is more international? Where can I find Bollywood followed by rap?
Parent
I record all my music off Youtube (Score:5, Funny)
I just hold a microphone up to the speakers and record the song using Windows Sound Recorder.
It's very easy to do and the sound quality is perfectly acceptable because I only listen on the bus.
Parent
Tempest in a teapot (Score:2)
This is going to so ruin my next nansecound.
Re:Tempest in a teapot (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Fair for artists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank goodness... (Score:2, Informative)
Rick Astley is under Sony/BMG. Let the Rick-rolling continue!
Re:Thank goodness... (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of a take-down notice, is there any chance that Google will Rick-roll all the Warner links? Please make this happen.
Parent
Remember the good ol' days? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now get off my lawn.
In the Geocities Days (Score:5, Interesting)
In the early dark days of the internet, big companies sued small fan sites because they infringed on logos and copyrights. How dare you run a Star Wars fan site, or an X-Files fan site with racy pictures of Scully?
Then SLOWLY over the years, companies seemed to realize that fans on the internet increased buzz, visibility and mindshare for their products. Now they cater directly to the fan base by pandering at Comic-Con and such.
Warner wants a bigger piece of revenue for the videos being shown, but they're not thinking long term. It isn't just direct revenue of showing the videos, but the hype that comes along with it. If someone forwards a video to another person (or rather a link to the video) they are advertising that artist to their friends.
Monty Python has it right. They are posting clips on YouTube for people to watch for free (fans would post them anyways, only to have them taken offline) but Monty Python now has direct control over the portal, and can include links to purchase Monty Python material on Amazon.
Warner needs to wake up and pay attention.
Warner music pulls videos on youtube... (Score:4, Insightful)
...and nothing of value was lost.
ban the internet (Score:4, Funny)
also ban printers (Score:2)
Saving face at T-W (Score:3, Interesting)
Time-Warner is just trying to save face with Wall Street analysts. This is actually funny because on Friday Google started pulling T-W video's way before the T-W announcement. Google's news release is basically "sometimes you can't reach an agreement with a vendor and you simply stop doing business with them (Time-Warner)".
Next Year's T-W News Release: Music sales are down due to the recession, not the fact that we no longer are hosted on YouTube.
Greed & Stupidity & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Greed that Warners thinks they deserve more and more and more.
Stupidity that Warners thinks that YouTube and everyone else will have to cave into them and their terms (like any alleged filesharer sued by the RIAA) in the mistaken belief that: 1) Everyone needs their product; and 2) That they still have a monopoly on that product.
Lies that any of this additional money would actually go to the artists. (Think of the children<<<<<<<< artists!)
Another failure to capitalize (Score:4, Interesting)
And now Warner will receive exactly $0, while the users will simply p2p the videos that they -really- want to watch.
Warner took the potential offerings and threw them away, and now they will complain that their IP is being pirated.
So before the RIAA even asks: there should be no gov't bailout for mismanaged companies that piss on legitimate opportunities to -earn- revenue.
Hell, they don't even have to do anything other than put a stamp of approval on the deal. The music and videos are already made, the site and bandwidth is hosted by a third party. All they have to do is sit back and count money. This move is just plain irresponsible. They think they are holding out for more value -- from where? Who is going to pay more?
business model (Score:5, Insightful)
>> 'We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,' Warner said in a statement."
Hey warner, so your videos get pulled. Good for you, and all the best.
To borrow from the Soup Nazi, if I may: "NO EXPOSURE FOR YOU".
I was just watching a couple of concert videos the other day from an old prog band called Wishbone Ash (they sound like old 70's Rush). I'd never heard of these guys before, but I really liked the sound, and I went right over to Amazon and I bought 2 CD's.
If I hadn't seen the vids on You Tube, I don't think I'd have ever known about this band. So they now have a new fan, and on Christmas eve, I'm going to introduce them to some other guys who like the same type of music.
It's like the modern equivalent of trading records... But hey, if Warner wants to pull the vids, then let them. There's lots of other music out there...
Hmmm. I wonder who will take it in the shorts? (Score:2)
TWI's bad management and greed may actually kill them dead within 5 years
control (Score:2)
Seems to be wanting to control what gets promoted and what doesn't.
They're just hurting themselves. (Score:2)
I found out about quite a few artists that I would've NEVER otherwise known about because of Youtube.
I found Kanye West's "Stronger" there, and that introduced me to Daft Punk, of which I'm a huge fan now. I have since purchased 2 Daft Punk CDs and a DVD.
If Daft Punk's videos had been removed before I saw them, I would've never put any money in their pockets.
I also found a lot of old and obscure Rush videos I'd never seen or heard of before. Now all of those videos are gone. I may not have bought them, but
Incoming tide... (Score:4, Insightful)
Admittedly, there is an upside to this, if it removes the many thousands of "video" slideshows from Youtube. You know the ones: lots of pics of a celebrity, unrelated music track, and tagged spammed into oblivion. You click on it thinking it's what you are looking for and... no...
Video is video. Slideshows aren't. Someone should set up Powerpointtube. Ken Burns has a lot to answer for.
YouTube thoughtfully provide... (Score:5, Funny)
just use Tagoo.ru they added a search vid feature (Score:3, Insightful)
Aren't videos just promotional tools? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't music videos basically just promotional tools used to sell albums? Maybe things have changed since the early MTV days, which also probably the last time I watched a music video, but I've always been under the impression that the reason these were made in the first place was simply a way to sell an album (or song, nowadays). I mean, really, do people actually *buy* music videos (and I'm not talking about extended length live performance videos, just the old school MTV stuff).
Maybe things have changed in this arena in recent years, but I can't really see this as anything except another stark example of a music industry dinosaur that just wants to stay locked in it's old anti-digital model. That and, of course, the fact that they want to squeeze anyone they can to try and extort as much money as they can before they finally die off because they refuse to accept change.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed they are, which is why I've always wondered why the labels don't provide them for free. You can't watch them in many places and as such that doesn't really remove the incentive to purchase the CD, but even a decent web only place to watch would have been a great marketing approach. Or just bundle them with the disc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how exactly does Google deserve millions of dollars revenue from showing these videos and the creators and owners deserve nothing? Talk about leeching!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite. Hulu still has yet to grasp the concept to its full extent. Certain shows (notably House and Battlestar Galactica) are not posted on Hulu until AFTER the following episode airs. If I miss an episode and want to catch up, I'm still one behind. Of course, people complain about this, and they either delete the comments, or trot out the apologists to try and make the complainers feel guilty about wanting what was originally provided (new episodes for all shows used to be
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look to this site/page:
http://www.vuze.com/ [vuze.com] , WB is participating too. Also there is Miro ( http://www.getmiro.com/ [getmiro.com] ) which will do lot better than Hulu.
If Hulu shows me "Sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed from within the United States", I can't really care about them. They didn't understand the Internet's 101. If their market is USA, there is something called Tivo and TV on/off button :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, there we go again. Just because hulu isn't available in your area, that means that the people putting their content on it (NBC Universal) don't "understand the internet".
The fact is that NBC is out to make money. They can put stuff on Hulu in the US and make money. But overseas, they already sold the rights to someone else (for money), and thus they don't have the option of offering the content on the internet in those countries.
So, if the content you want isn't available in your country on the internet