Slashdot Mirror
EMI, YouTube Strike Music Video Deal
eldavojohn writes "Despite initial complaints of copyright infringement, EMI is now striking a deal with YouTube. Perhaps they've noticed that Warner's deal has boded well or they've finally come around to free marketing? From the article, "EMI and YouTube have agreed to work together to develop ways in which EMI-owned recordings can be incorporated into user generated content by YouTube users. News of the deal comes just 10 days after EMI agreed to be taken over by private equity group Terra Firma for £2.4bn." YouTube is slowly building a cadre of friends on the playground while Viacom continues to bully the new kid."
EMI's approach to copyright will be based more on Terra Firma than from planet Obsolete?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Even I noticed that one.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Apple is also starting to integrate it into AppleTV. (?TV)
ref
I wonder if it has anything to do with their recent commitment to strip DRM off iTunes. Maybe they're realizing that open-ness is good for business?
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Sorry, but when you're owned by Google you don't get to try to pass yourself off as the "small kid that bullies pick on." Youtube, now with Google's backing, is old hat, with many more newer kids coming onto the block.
It seems like EMI is, or is atleast trying to be, one of the least anti-technology major record labels. Hopefully these sort of things will start a trend, or at least encourage people to demand that the others in the entertainment industry get with it already and stop fighting every new technology that comes around.
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
But how does this affect EMI's relationship with Sony and the RIAA, and how would this affect (possible) actions from the RIAA?
Not trying to troll or start a war, just curious as I cant find anything that discusses this aspect anywhere online.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
Considering they paid up nearly as much for Youtube, Google might consider buying a record label to have a seat at the RIAA table. Think of the do no evil they could do... "I propose our business model should follow a stick-it-on-youtube drm free approach, all in favour say I" Google EMI "I" Google BMG "I" Google Virgin "I" Google...
Google has too much invested in Youtube to allow any corporate action to kill it. Until Viacom realise this they are on the losing side.
EMI appear to be begrudgingly accepting that their antiquated business models need some reform. It is only a matter of time before the other labels follow suit.
YouTube didn't set up mass extractors and power generators before building its cadre of friends, so of course building is slowing.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Macbidouille (French) is mentioning that Youtube is encoding new content to H264 and will re-encode all the old content as well later. Therefore Youtube is doing the work for Apple.
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
if you can't beat em, join em ;)
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
Irrespective of the arguments around property and payment for music, 90% of music videos are promotional items for the songs that they are selling and such the record labels should be promoting exposure wherever they can. Now that MTV has almost stopped showing videos altogether they should be looking for other routes of exposure. I'm certainly not going to pay £2 to see an advert on my phone.
I've personally found quite a few songs on Youtube that I really liked and went and bought them on iTunes for $0.99 .
What a lot of people don't realize is that the quality on these videos suck, and there is currently no "easy" way to rip the audio off of these things. YouTube is in Mono for christ's sake! Even the "Higher Quality" video sites like Revver don't have all that great audio. So I don't see this cutting into the music industry's bottom line. Hell, if the users started saying what music they used in their videos it could sell a ton of music, especially from smaller bands.
My point is this. You could upload the entire Kelly Clarkson CD into individual Youtube videos with just a blank picture of Kelly Clarkson and I seriously doubt it would hurt sales (those videos don't get a ton of views anyways unless it is an unreleased/leaked copy... which if that happened would also probably sell a ton of records)
-nick
All of the major labels have signed deals with YouTube allowing music videos to be shown - EMI was the last. They all understand that music videos are free advertising.
which includes YouTube vids you can put on your Profile (and queue up to 5 videos or songs you or your friends can play).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I'd heard reports a while back that the record companies are still kinda of irritated over the whole MTV thing.
...
Why? VH1 plays music, MTV just has reality TV shows and other drek. I can't see why record companies would object to a non-music channel showing music.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I forget how the song goes, but EMI,
Sex Pistols tune,
Listen to the song if you want a point to this post.