Slashdot Mirror
Warner Music Pulls Videos Off YouTube
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.
"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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We all know how much they care about fairly compensating the people who actually made the music.
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.
This is going to so ruin my next nansecound.
'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.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
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.
Rick Astley is under Sony/BMG. Let the Rick-rolling continue!
Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
Aren't music videos essentially advertisements for record albums anyways? So Warner wants free advertising on Youtube? (or rather they want to be paid when Youtube runs their ads?)
To have to pay artists, it severely reduces their coke & whores budget.
It's about time these leeches were kicked into touch.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Now get off my lawn.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Hey, I got a great idea, let's spite ourselves, the artists, their fans, and ultimately sell less albums in the end because of it, because the business that we are in depends upon the free broadcast of the audio to the planet, but then turn-around & say hey, wait, you cant keep that free audio broadcast to the world. This is a non-starter. They can not logically, nor metaphysically, nor audiologically, nor experiencially, nor economically, nor any other way, broadcast audio in to the atmosphere then take it back later. I got an idea, stop broadcasting it. There you go, now you guys dont have to worry about having it both ways, which you are trying to do, just stop broadcasting music. Good luck with that.
...and nothing of value was lost.
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.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
When I read the beginning of the quote: "We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists", I was expecting to see the quote attributed to Youtube reps, not Warner.
My webcomic
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.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
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.
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!)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It would be interesting to hear from the songwriters and artists how much they actually get from these deals. I suspect that the percentage of each dollar that the artist receives by the Warner Music Group for their songs in a deal like this is very low. Why not cut out the fat and give the artists a larger chunk of the proceeds?
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?
>> '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...
Huh?
Who cares, really?
Music videos are just meta-advertisement to sell itself.
Often, if you can spend time and effort to make a music video in the first place, it's a good sign that the "music" is nothing more than a carefully researched product, a mere commodity to sell.
Do you really like that kind of music? Maybe you do.
But did you know that you can come up with your own music videos, simply by closing your eyes while listening and letting your mind wander?
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Good going, Warner. Free advertisement is always a bad thing. Certainly not a god-send.
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 it kept Rush in my mind, and motivates me to buy more Rush albums, etc.
The record companies are shooting themselves in the foot, and they are too closed-minded and/or greedy to see it.
'We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,' there is the problem. You see only one of those groups deserves compensation for their work from youtube, the rest should at best, be paid for their "work" by the artists at an agreed fee. A business model built around leeching money you don't deserve dose not travel well.
Now, I don't know much about how Warner "ordered" youtube to pull the videos, but whatever the case, I'm not sure they have the authority to do so. One of youtube's legal defenses to having copyrighted materials on youtube is that they don't know who posts videos. Indeed, it could be the copyright holder. If any of Warner's artists have a contract where they have any distribution rights over their videos, they have a right to post their own videos, and warner cannot pull them off. Indeed, depending on what authority Warner is using, this could potentially be a DMCA violation and against the law for Warner to make such a demand. Now, that's speculation on my part, but it is almost certainly true that Warner cannot make a blanket order to remove all videos of their artists.
And except for the press release, no one even noticed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I hope not, or it would be end of Rick-Rolling ;-;
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 = Spend Money to Make Money" and "Internet = Loose Money Unless Google is Involved" and left it at that.
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?
Not to beat a dead horse, but way back at the start of the year, Warner Brothers chose Blu-ray over HD-DVD. I thought that totally blew chunks. Thankfully, I still have the Looney Tunes Golden Collections to temper my hatred for this company.
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.
Greed, Greed, Greed!
I wish someone of high standing would call the labels on the bullshit of listing the artists first, when they're the last in the chain to get paid: songwriters and publishers have guaranteed royalties, and the labels control the rest of the money. The artists only get paid what's left after the label cooks the books as best they can, unless a court orders them to pay more.
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 delivers them revenue.
It's very possible that people on slashdot are jumping to the wrong conclusions again.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
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.
Squirrel!
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 paying for the privileged of accessing content.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
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.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
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 piss off. At that point they're completely screwed and at best they can whine to the government in which the website's servers are located and hope that the that country's government actually gives a damn. They probably won't.
If I really want to find some content it's not difficult at all. For example, pick an arbitrary popular television show and I can find three websites that will have the most recent episode of that show within a hour or so of its broadcast.
There's no way to stop this at all. For middle men, they should be damned glad to take whatever they can get and start investing it in alternative methods of generating a profit because their current business model is screwed. It's only a matter of time before it completely fails and something else takes its place. If they're interested in existing in the next twenty years, they should definitely look towards shifting their business strategy towards something useful instead of pissing money away trying to fight something that's impossible to stop.
"In an interview with CNET News this week, Rio Caraeff, executive vice president of Universal Music Group's eLabs, said the largest of the top recording companies is bringing in "tens of millions of dollars" from YouTube."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10126439-93.html
December 18, 2008
MilkMiruku
Substitute "greedily" for "fairly"
Solution = DONT buy Time Warner... Pass it on.
The Jews who control the music and entertainment industry simply cannot allow their products to be obtained and manipulated by the general public without their direct oversight and control - their products are created with a specific purpose in mind (the complete destruction of Western civilization) and it would be unacceptable for this purpose to be subverted.
We don't need warner. Let them be the dinosaurs they are, and let them die in old mediums.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
We are all just people.
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.
No sig today...
So the corporation that doesn't want to compensate the artist at all is even fairer? How does that work?
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".
They know that this sort of advertisement generates sales. They get it.
They *also* know that there is a huge pot of money to be dipped in to from the revenue generated directly from YouTube. And they want to claim a big fat lot of it. Google told them "no", so they got all pissy.
This "fairly compensate recording artists" nonsense is just PR BS they they churn out to maintain general public approval. They have never been, and will never be, interested in fair compensation for anyone but themselves (and in this context "fair" means "as much as we decide we want").
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?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
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.
Well heres a number of examples from me. Ive had 3 of my youtube videos removed for having music from warner on them. Even though the music was background. Heres another example. I spent a good half an hour editing together a nice little spoof between south park (the scene with the "internet" being a linksys router) and a section from IT Crowd. I sent it to a couple of friends on MSN who thought it was pretty funny. So I then posted it on youtube. It was removed within 36 hours. :\
What then makes even LESS sense is the fact that there is entire episodes of both of those programs on youtube. I mean come on, somethings a bit off there?
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 reason and I know that there are a lot of other people out there like me. Statistics for album sales certainly seem to back up my view that this is common. (yeah I know, someone is going to chime in about how sales are abysmal because music isn't as good as it was back in their day. The ratio of good music to bad hasn't changed much in the last few decades, can we please not pretend that the dramatic decrease in music sales is not related to the internet?)
Giving away something for free (or dirt cheap) isn't much of a business model. I do not blame them for taking their ball and going home.
Youtube does not work on my iPod. And I don't stay in front of my computer all day so, mp3s are way better.
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.
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.
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 music videos are created for after all...
The point being made tho is not whether or not 45k is a decent wage, but instead how the producers of the art get 45k while the suits get 11 million.
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 attitudes of the majors.
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.
\033:wq!
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 listening to my legal music, (2) have supported an artist who doesn't suck (and the record company, I know), (3) and have not directly supported DRM.
Think about what the repercussions would be if lots of people just listened to songs on Youtube and didn't buy them... Oh wait, you don't need to, you can just read TFA.
Sometimes being a responsible member of society actually costs money. If you act like a 3 year old and just take what you want without paying for it, the record companies will treat you like a bad 3 year old and take away your toys.
That's the sound of Warner shooting themselves in the foot!
This is how mp3.com began its demise.
They're called Billy Talent, and personally they're the best new rock band of the past decade (Although they started making music in the early 90's as a band called pezz.), they've stated before that it's not a huge market like it was during the 90's and that they're doing it for the fans, and they put a LOT of work into their songwriting (Don't look up the second album, the first (Billy Talent 1) has much better lyrics, although Devil in a midnight mass is my favorite song of theirs, and is from the second album.), and yeah, this is basically stealing money from them because I'm sure youtube is big exposure for them in the US, where they are touring right now.
But anyway, who cares really, the music industry has gone to crap anyway (Metallica's fault, really, for the whole P2P scandle.), and the economy otherwise is going to completely collapse soon, so yeah, pissing in the wind.
One day, Abdullah Jaffarov, the secretary of the Copyright Holders' Association reprimanded Nasreddin Hodja for downloading music recordings off file-sharing networks:
"This is unfair, Nasreddin. These musicians, they are working hard, and you're listening to them playing without paying. You know, they also need to pay their bills."
Nasreddin contemplated Jaffarov's argument for a while, then told him: "You are quite right, what I have been doing was unfair to all those musicians. How can I right my wrong?"
"Oh, that is no problem," responded Jaffarov. "you just pay the Copyright Holders' Association, and we shall distribute your payment to all the recording studios and they will pay the musicians."
Nasreddin Hodja immediately agreed to this proposal.
The next day, when Nasreddin Hodja went to the bazaar to buy some groceries, he asked his friend to record a video of him paying the vendor. "Why do you want me to record how you pay?" asked Nasreddin's friend.
"Oh, I must correct a horrible injustice," replied Nasreddin. "I shall send the recording to Mr. Abdullah Jaffarov, so that he can distribute it to all the studios he represents. See, it is only fair that if I can listen to the recordings of their musicians playing music, they can also watch the recording of me paying money."
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.
This:
'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.
... means this:
'We simply cannot accept terms that fail to compensate us excessively,' Warner said in a statement.
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.
I see what you are saying here - I think that I can bring out something here.
You are contrasting the money/no money aspect that was there around the time of Cobain and Nirvana. I see that happening here as well. I contend that Warner put them on YouTUBE.
This is a free money conflict of interest that they think that this site will fix. Not hardly.
The thing today is that the bands already have it. These didn't make MTV2 or EDGE. This is a load.
These took around 50 people to do, and this is a lot of vendetta that shouldn't be there in the first place.
'Just' $45K after taxes to live on for a year? That's actually pretty damm good money - unless you have a drug habit like hers.
When you're a musician, you need to buy instruments and equipment, you need a space to practice, and most likely you need studio time.
That's not free, and it's certainly not cheap.
After all that, you're looking at maybe $20k a year for basic living costs like rent, food, car, etc.
Or, you can just not spend that much money on your work, fall behind in your practice and your writing work, and end up owing the label MORE money when your project tanks and no one goes to see you live.
It's a trap - do not go to work for the RIAA.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
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?
Let me see if I understand the situation:
They (Warner) are angry because they are getting FREE hosting of their music advertisements (promotional music videos) and their own customers taking the initiative to provide them with free advertising campaigns?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I would kill for 45K. And I'm going to. Around here 20K is average and I made less than 10 working my ass off an entire year. This country is in for hard times and you just need to watch the rats run for higher ground. (big corps, bailouts, old artist comesbacks; they know they need to scrounge money) So I will enlist as a mercenary for my pay.
"fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers" Give me a break. Why can't they just say Warner want's more money? I would be quite surprised if the artists got anything.
..if it's good music then it goes in the EAR, not the EYE.
Youtube Schmootube...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
It puts me in mind of the tragedy of Afropop Worldwide, the public radio program that features artists from Africa and the African diaspora. I never had any interest in afropop, but somehow I got on their email list and they started sending me links to mp3 podcasts of their radio programs.
One day I thought what the heck and started listening to their archives. It was wonderful, beautiful stuff and completely unlike anything most of us are exposed to in America. And I thought it was terrific that they were smart enough to use the internet to reach new audiences like me and my friends, whom I forwarded the links to.
Then they changed their delivery structure to an on-demand streaming structure that simply will not play, because of "concern about copyright issues." And my and my friends' nascent interest in any of the artists featured on the program has died on the vine, because the artists are so afraid of people hearing their music that they prevent us from hearing their music.
It's a loss, because Western artists can still be discovered through other channels, but for the African artists, Afropop Worldwide is about it as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Sad.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
They GROSS $11M, just like the band GROSS'd $1M, so it's not as much of an raping as she portrayed. It's a raping, but they did get kissed first.
A lot of what she claims is not true. For example: "paying radio to play records". Not only is that illegal, but the opposite is true - radio pays about 1/2 penny per song.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
It's funny that they get paid in exactly the opposite order.
Sorry, but you're an idiot.
The more risk you take, the more the reward needs to be in order to be good money. So, in a 9-5 stable job, $45k might be good money. But not in an industry where a very small amount of people make it.
If the "winning" salary is $45k, then the expected value of being a musician would be like $100 a year.
Maybe you should move to a better location?
It's like complaining about not having any drinking water, but refusing to leave the desert.
Work your ass off doing the wrong thing, and i bet you can get down to $5k a year. Now if you said you worked your ass off creating huge amounts of value, i would feel for you.
Everyone else has to pay for advertising for their product. Why should the music industry be any different? YouTube should be asking them for money.
Good thing they made a deal with Sony/BMG though. That's Rick Astely's publisher. They'd hardly have any content left if they had to remove every Rickroll.
They aren't always paid with money. Sometimes the stations are given vacation packages and other high-value gifts that they can give away in contests.
The producers "gross" 11 million. She compares that to the artists net income. To which I say, "boo-fucking-hoo".
If the artists don't like the deal, don't hire a manager or a lawyer. Why are they hiring managers or lawyers if the managers and lawyers don't do anything? And if the managers and lawyers have a value, why are they bitching about having to pay them. I mean, I'd have a lot more money if that dickhead mechanic down the street didn't keep charging me for fixing my car.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Since when on Slashdot is $45k a pretty damn good wage? That's poverty wages in a lot of cities.
$45k *AFTER TAXES* or roughly $67k pre-tax is poverty wages?
The point being made tho is not whether or not 45k is a decent wage, but instead how the producers of the art get 45k while the suits get 11 million.
Your math is wrong. The band gets $180,000 after-tax money. The record company gets $11,000,000 pre-tax money. The band has 4 members. The record company assigns 50 employees to the marketing and release of the band's work. The band gets $45,000 per capita. That is equivalent to a $64,000 salary at a 29.7% tax rate. The record company gets $220,000 per capita.
The band created the product and bore all of the financial burden. The record company provided labor and took all of the financial risk.
You must have a tin ear, cuz the sound quality on youtube is generally crap!
I'd look into Gentle Giant (from the same era) and Hawkwind if you're into Wishbone Ash. (also if you like HEAVY prog stuff, Baroness's first album was released this year and it's freakin' awesome. Helmet meets Rush? Yes, please.)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
"...we'll start to see YouTube clips of signed artists protesting this, which the RIAA can't yank."
Actually, they COULD make YouTube yank such clips, IF the artist's contract gives all use of his "likeness" to his publisher.
Movie studios used to have contracts like that for all their big-name actors. It's very likely that some music contracts include the same provision.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
See also http://www.negativland.com/albini.html for some real numbers by someone on the inside.
About the author: Steve Albini is an independent and corporate rock record producer most widely known for having produced Nirvana's "In Utero".
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
... a live DJ (Bill) plays an eclectic (and mind-expanding) mix of music. Back when I was a kid, we had Progressive Rock on FM radio; powered by steam, IIRC.
...Lorenzo / I'm into kinky crustaceans. I just discovered internet praWn.
... yesterthink will prevail. Until they fail.
...Lorenzo / I'm into kinky crustaceans. I just discovered internet praWn.
the original article she ripped off of is on negativland. the information/numbers were compiled by steve albini [shellac, nirvana, the jesus lizard, and many more great artists he's produced/engineered].
she gave albini no credit. not a surprise.