Warner Music Pulls Videos Off YouTube 237
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.
What is the percentage of Zero? (Score:1, Interesting)
Warner Music's talks said the amounts it has been receiving from YouTube were "staggeringly low".
So Warner's solution is to make the amount received $0? Makes sense.
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.
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.
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?
Re:What? Did you get that gem? (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: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.
Re:jump to conclusions mat in effect (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 posted as soon as they got done airing in Hawaii. The delays came later). And I have no idea what they're smoking, but 480p is NOT "high-def".
Before the BS, I used to use Hulu to catch back episodes of my favorite shows. The ads were short, unubtrusive, and they SEEMED to be going about things the right way. Now, however, I hit my favorite torrent site and grab the new episodes in higher quality less than 4 hours after they air. Much easier, and no buffering if I want to watch again later.
Har (Score:2, Interesting)
So....you're angry that people are watching your stuff for free? Considering the, for the sake of argument, millions that these artists make as is from commercials, CDs, individual songs, music vids on MTV and VH1, concerts, and memorabilia sales, do they -seriously- need that extra revenue?
It ain't like they only make $30k a year, like the typical joe-schmoe. No, let's make joe-schmoe pay more so that these artists can make another million.
Re:Musical styles not for live performance? (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 GirlTalk, a one-man "mash-up" artist, is performing alone with a laptop and selling a lot tickets.
I think the Beatles didn't tour after Revolver because they didn't have to, they were able to make a fortune on record sales. That may have been a short-lived era in popular music, but it shouldn't mean the end of creative music.