Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Businesses The Almighty Buck News

Warner Music Pulls Videos Off YouTube 237

Posted by Soulskill
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Warner Music Pulls Videos Off YouTube

Comments Filter:
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:16PM (#26192439)

    "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?

    • To have to pay artists, it severely reduces their coke & whores budget.

      It's about time these leeches were kicked into touch.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sribe (304414)

      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)

        by beckerist (985855)
        1. Warner made a deal with YouTube to allow YT to show Warners videos.
        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)

          by Opportunist (166417)

          Shocking? No, I just found the wording amusing. Do as I say, don't do as I do, it's almost like a religion.

        • lol, thanks for bringing that site to my attention. the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is a pretty good biblical reference, but the Brick Testament brings so much more to the scriptures than just skeptical analysis.

          it truly breathes life into the stories of the bible [thebricktestament.com] (go to the next page).

        • That Brick Testament is one of the best (and funniest) things I've seen this year, at least. Great Link:D
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Joce640k (829181)

      The only one that needs removing is Rick Astley's "Never gonna give you up".

  • by similar_name (1164087) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:17PM (#26192445)
    We all know how much they care about fairly compensating the people who actually made the music.
    • by dontmakemethink (1186169) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @02:25PM (#26192901)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jorghis (1000092)

        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

        • Youtube does not work on my iPod. And I don't stay in front of my computer all day so, mp3s are way better.
        • by Anpheus (908711)

          Let me know when Youtube makes it easy to make and maintain a playlist of songs, artists, albums, etc, that I like to listen to, and will automatically shuffle them in playback and do, in general, everything Winamp does.

        • 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 reason and I know that there are a lot of other people out there like me.

          Buying a CD literally takes LESS than a minute on Amazon and you get free shipping.

          So do you rip the music off Youtube? Or do you just interrupt what you are doing every 4 minutes to restart the song or change tracks? Either way, it sounds less than optimal. How do you get any work done while listening to music?

          I use Youtube to listen to a song I am interested in a few times and maybe scope out the rest of the tracks on the album. If I like it I buy it DRM free as an MP3 or CD. Then (1) I enjoy listeni

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lysergic.acid (845423)

        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.

    • by Original Replica (908688) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @02:51PM (#26193125) Journal
      It's been said here before, but Courtney Love explains "artist compensation" best:

      This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my "funny" math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I'm positive it's better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide. What happens to that million dollars? They spend half a million to record their album. That leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for 20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business manager. That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person. That's $45,000 to live on for a year until the record gets released. The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it's based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.) So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties. The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable. The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records. All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band. Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company. If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record. Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals ... zero! How much does the record company make? They grossed $11 million.

      http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html [salon.com]

    • So the corporation that doesn't want to compensate the artist at all is even fairer? How does that work?
      • fairer than the radio stations and MTV who charge artists/labels for the promotion they provide.

        and (if you bother to RTFA), Google was offering to compensate the artist (even though if they had to do this with every single video YouTube would go out of business) but Warner Music wanted a bigger cut.

        if Warner Music were smart, they'd leave their videos up and enjoy the free promotion they're getting out of it rather than having to spend millions of dollars on marketing, advertising, payola, etc. that's what

        • I did RTFA. I'm sure you did too, but your comprehension appears lacking. No figures are provided, therefore you're simply making assumptions to suit your point of view.

          I don't find arguments based the simplistic assertion of pre-internet technology and business models from the 80s particularly convincing. I believe technology is capable of changing the way the world works. I reckon the idea of an artist getting YouTube revenue is a great one, far more important than what I might think of the existence and

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:17PM (#26192453)

    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.

    • by Waffle Iron (339739) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:37PM (#26192579)

      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.

      • by Darundal (891860) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:39PM (#26192591) Journal
        Actually, I would consider MTV to be doing a public service there...
      • by Insightfill (554828) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @03:36PM (#26193515) Homepage

        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 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?

    • I know they used to play music videos, but I also know that my 486 66Mhz computer used to play cutting edge video games. At around the same period in history if I'm not mistaken.

      I would venture to guess that YouTube is by far the most prominent way of distributing the multi-million dollar music videos that record companies make to promote the sale of albums. I'd also venture to guess that Warner never bothered to find out one way or the other. More likely, they just got the idea in their heads that "TV = Sp

      • Let's just all agree now not to give them a government bailout when thinking like this drives them to the brink of bankruptcy, OK?

        They are too big to be allowed to fail. They employ too many people, and drive the economy. They provide a vital cultural contribution.

        They are getting a bailout. Them, the software industry, insurance companies... Anyone big and clueless can count on government money now. Still think those libertarians are a bunch of nuts?

        • Still think those libertarians are a bunch of nuts?

          A little bit, yes.
          Completely unregulated markets *would* be all bailout, all the time... for the rich and powerful. A likely outcome of Libertarian market policies would be a world of overpriced goods where the state of the art hasn't advanced in decades. :( People suck.

    • by Aranykai (1053846)

      http://www.google.com/trends?q=youtube,+radio,+mtv&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 [google.com]

      Its quite obvious they are failing to see where the interest is. Their options are to provide free access to music video's and put them in front of literally millions of people, or they can stick to radio and mtv...

    • by symbolic (11752)

      I totally agree - I've gotten exposure to artists I may never have known about if it weren't for hearing them in a YouTube video. I've purchased the music I've liked. That's what they want, isn't it? Warner Music ought to be paying YouTube, not the other way around. It's free advertising.

    • by Joce640k (829181) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @02:52PM (#26193133) Homepage

      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.

      • There's this new thing that you might wanna try out... it's called FM radio. You can get music and news for free, wirelessly!

    • And you consider yourself representative even thought you've bought literally dozens of albums? Does it really make sense to use your comparatively unusual example as an argument?

      It's strange to me that we're talking about a YouTube as if it were just a TV channel. Surely we can handle the concept of new business models as well as new technologies here. I sometimes "tune in" to YouTube to listen to my choice of music, not what the major labels are pushing that week. Clearly this is a change; an artist can't

    • by cdrguru (88047)

      Let's see here, you click on a link and are shown a page full of ads with a video on it. You ignore the ads, but the people that think you might click on an ad pay to have it there. YouTube rakes in the money each time you click one of those links.

      Free exposure? I don't think so. Those ads are paid for and are bid up to the maximum the market will bear. So where is the money in this game? It all belongs to Google and they don't feel like sharing.

  • This is going to so ruin my next nansecound.

  • Fair for artists? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris_Jefferson (581445) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:20PM (#26192485) Homepage
    'We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters.... Having seen the most recent agreements, appropriate compensation for artists from these kind of things seems to be zero, so I think they are already getting a fair deal.
    • Really? I thought the business was heading towards these 360 deals where everything counts.

      So what kind of terms and conditions have been agreed to recently?

  • Thank goodness... (Score:2, Informative)

    Rick Astley is under Sony/BMG. Let the Rick-rolling continue!

  • by Mononoke (88668) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:28PM (#26192525) Homepage Journal
    I remember when music videos were essential promotional tools. That's one of the reasons artists spend their own money making them.

    Now get off my lawn.

    • What are music videos today if they aren't promotional tools to sell albums?

      Please, God, let no one say 'art'.
      • Some were... A person named Skidvid put together a list of the "Top 30 Most Famous Music Videos Ever" and it is quite a lot of real art, not just the music. You can find almost all of them on Youtube, but perhaps some Warner property will start dropping off. Anyone know of a different place to watch them? I wonder what Google says...

        Nope. They still don't get it.
  • by Enderandrew (866215) <.enderandrew. .at. .gmail.com.> on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:28PM (#26192529) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by panoptical2 (1344319)
      You are absolutely right. Here's the problem:

      Getting execs of any sort to change their business model is one of the hardest things to do in any business. For the most part, you have to replace the execs to get the business to change. For example, Microsoft is finally beginning to change their business model, right after Gates left. Apple changed their business model when they brought Jobs back in. Warner Music (as well as the rest of the labels that the RIAA represents) has yet to change its business mod
    • by Dutch Gun (899105)

      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.

      Yep, you've got it exactly right.

      I work for a video game company, and our fan community is something that's actively promoted. We provide kits with official artwork, music tracks & sound effects, links to popular community sites from ours, etc. We employ a full-time community manager to provide a communication link between our fans and our development team. This is all outside the scope of our more traditional marketing department or customer support systems. I don't feel this effort is wasted. It'

    • by Dionysus (12737)

      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.

      The "problem" is, the labels saw how much money companies like MTV made. They see places like Youtube as the next MTV and they absolutely wants a piece (or the whole pie) of it. Basically,

    • I don't see how your argument makes sense.

      YouTube, part of a huge multinational corporation, is comparable to a fan club?

      Wanting to supply content is the same as wanting to shut down sites to prevent content being supplied?

      People watching videos for free is different from people watching videos for free?

      I mean, where's the logic?

      • Pulling videos from YouTube isn't helping or protecting Warner, especially when I can find videos from other artists and other companies on YouTube.

        Warner wants a cut of revenue, and Google is offering a cut. By fighting over percentages, Warner is losing out on free advertising.

        • If advertising has value, then there's nothing wrong in principle for one corporation to negotiate with another over the appropriate split. This is even more relevant given that online revenues from advertising are expected to be part of the entertainment business model in future.

          What actual numbers do you have to know that it is Warner making the bigger mistake?

          • I said asking for a revenue split is fair. However, enough businesses are deciding they make enough from YouTube exposure to allow their content on YouTube for free, yet Warner wants to pull all their content unless they get a HIGHER cut?

            Not having your content out there is stupid.

            • Actually, according to the article other companies are *not* allowing their content for free.

              You didn't say asking for a split is fair, you said Warner was losing out on free advertising by not simply accepting whatever Google chooses to give them, which is an interesting approach to negotiation. The notion of "free advertising" makes no sense under one particular assumption, namely that online distribution via YouTube is in fact one of the products they see a market for. Whether it will prove true I don't

  • by kramerd (1227006) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:37PM (#26192581)

    ...and nothing of value was lost.

  • by jasonbrown (142035) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:38PM (#26192587) Homepage
    I think Warner should make a bill for congress to pass banning the internet as it has been terribly harmful to the recording industries CD/retail store distribution model. Look at all the harm the internet has done to the recording industry executives . And while we are discussing these serious problems - non-label music is really infringing on their profitability as well - also the internet's fault. So I say we all write our representatives and ask them to support banning the internet so we can go back to a more fair and industry friendly music distribution model. Thank you for your time. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled program.
  • because we probably shouldn't allow just ANYONE to be able to publish a book or write a paper. Perhaps we could allow Warner to control the printers too so that they could supervise and approve only those who should be allowed to write books or publish papers. just food for thought. i'm full of good ideas like this just ask me.
  • Saving face at T-W (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:47PM (#26192641)

    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.

  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:47PM (#26192643)
    It's all greed and stupidity and lies.

    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!)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:49PM (#26192649)

    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)

    by wideBlueSkies (618979) * on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:51PM (#26192659) Journal

    >> '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...

  • Somehow, I have a feeling that Youtube/Google may turn around and help make smaller groups produce their own music sans labels. At this time, Google has NOT thrown anything into hurting the labels and actually was helping them. But I could see Google creating software and website that is designed to help them record and market their own stuff. If that happens, who has a better understanding of the net; Time Warner/Sony/EMI or Google?
    TWI's bad management and greed may actually kill them dead within 5 years
    • But I could see Google creating software and website that is designed to help them record and market their own stuff.

      That would be preferable to a new label: Google Music (gMusic?). But how many artists are also tech-savvy to use those tools? Many may prefer to sign up and let Google do everything from production up to the marketing. But then, wouldn't a Google Label be evil too and contrary to company policy?

  • I though videos were a promotional tool to promote record sales.
    Seems to be wanting to control what gets promoted and what doesn't.
  • 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

    • CDs sales are declining, yet your argument is that because you as an individual still buy CDs at a rate much greater than the average person, it is only YouTube that should financially benefit from Warner's content attracting visitors to the site. I don't follow the logic.

      The idea that the punter has free access to the catalogue, for which the label is compensated for by the site - that is a new business model that makes sense to me if the business parties can work out a deal. Once the quality is high enoug

  • And except for the press release, no one even noticed.

  • I hope not, or it would be end of Rick-Rolling ;-;

  • Not to beat a dead horse, but way back at the start of the year, Warner Brothers chose Blu-ray over HD-DVD [nytimes.com]. I thought that totally blew chunks. Thankfully, I still have the Looney Tunes Golden Collections to temper my hatred for this company.

  • Incoming tide... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by owlnation (858981) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @02:18PM (#26192859)
    I wonder if someone called King Canute works for Warner Brothers.

    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.
  • I rather expected to see this host of posts on here.

    Same as when NBC pulls their shows from YouTube. The internets immediately surmised that NBC didn't know what they were doing, didn't understand the importance of internet viewing and only YouTube can deliver video over the internets.

    The pundits (including slashdot pundits) did a great job of making a straw man, but were very wrong on what NBC understood and where they were headed. Hulu has been a huge success and most importantly to NBC Universal, it deli

    • by Aranykai (1053846)

      wtf is hulu? I just started using bittorrent with a rss feed, so much easier...

      • That's easy, but not easier.

        For hulu you just go there, click about 3 times and you're watching in your browser.

        With bittorrent, you have to install a couple programs, a couple codecs and then still once in a while it turns out the program you downloaded was a crappy encode and you have to go get another one.

        I do agree the bittorrent route is pretty easy and it has the advantage that you have the file forever instead of having to stream it again, but it's not the easiest method, which is why hulu has taken

        • by Aranykai (1053846)

          Thats funny, cause I just put utorrent in my startup, then whenever I want to watch a show I just double click the one I want. The whole initial setup took literally minutes thanks to utorrent, k-lite codec pack and tvrss.net

          Sounds like your doing it the hard way.

          • Oh, so you say you can watch them at any time after they come out?

            Wow, you can do so on Hulu too. Because unlike Bittorrent, it downloads it in order and you can watch it within a few seconds of the stream starting.

            And all this without installing codec packs or putting utorrent in your startup folder! And the encodes are always good because the network makes them themselves.

            You have a method you like. Great. There's no need to spread bullshit about other methods like Hulu.

            They're both good methods. Hulu is

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Ilgaz (86384)

          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)

            by YesIAmAScript (886271)

            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

    • by Vexorian (959249)
      Hmnn, you know what I did the other day? I watched a video from an NBC video in youtube... wtf is hulu?

      Same as when NBC pulls their shows from YouTube. The internets immediately surmised that NBC didn't know what they were doing, didn't understand the importance of internet viewing and only YouTube can deliver video over the internets.

      Yeah, and the internet was sooo wrong...

    • by WiiVault (1039946)
      I think the verdict is still out on Hulu, though I agree it seems that they have done well, its just too early. Still a great counter example is iTunes. NBC figured out that mistake pretty quick and came running back after losing millions of dollars and the goodwill of the rabid Mac fanboy. I would argue that Hulu is an anomaly because it is one of the few things they have done right. I hardly blame the average /.er for calling them dopes on this one.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FSWKU (551325)

      Hulu has been a huge success

      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

  • by ciderVisor (1318765) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @02:20PM (#26192875)
    YouTube thoughtfully provide a facility to replace the audio track on your uploaded video with another public domain/Creative Commons track. I was asked to either remove my home-made video to Rainbow's 'Eyes Of The World' completely, or to replace the copyrighted audio with something else from their library. I chose Tiny Tim singing 'Tiptoe Through The Tulips'. Somewhat surreal. I don't think it will reflect well on Rainbow's hired bull terriers, and ultimately it will not reflect well on Rainbow, either.
  • You tube should respond that Warner music's content is taking up a significant slice f their bandwidth bill, pay up. YouTube is a carrier service like public TV and Warner is a content provider getting millions of dollars of free airtime, they should pay for their airtime.

    How exactly are music videos piracy anyway, they are a promotional tool for the labels - always have been. They are all over broadcast TV, music channels, it's the labels own fault for doing this as consumers have become used to not pay
  • I have always wondered why as a successful artist, I must go through companies like Warner Music and the like? Do I need a "middle man?" Can't I just go it alone? What would happen?
  • Whether it's morally right or not is completely irrelevant because there's no way to stop it. People will continue to place content for which Warner holds the copyright on YouTube, and Warner will have to spend money to have people check for that content and have it removed. Even if they do have marginal success with removing the content from YouTube it will only pop up on other video websites.

    Some of these websites will not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States and can politely tell Warner to pi

    • by cdrguru (88047)

      It has nothing to do with "business model", it has to do with the entire business.

      If it is permitted for Google/YouTube to post content without compensating the content owner and make millions of dollars off of it through advertising revenue, what possible hope does the content owner have anyway?

      Someone is going to make money off the content, but it sure isn't going to be the producers/owners of that content. It is going to be Google.

      The only reasonable thing to do is to immediately stop providing free con

  • by GlobalColding (1239712) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @03:35PM (#26193503) Journal
    and you do not have to know Russian. This is why competition is good, if they succeed on youtube, there are plenty of alternatives out there, especially if you speak a foreign language. Globalization is backfiring at the megacorporations.
  • by crustymonkey (731497) on Sunday December 21, 2008 @05:27PM (#26194571) Homepage

    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.

  • That's the sound of Warner shooting themselves in the foot!
  • This is how mp3.com began its demise.

Sentient plasmoids are a gas.

Working...