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.

Comments

What? Did you get that gem?

[Opportunist]

"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?

Re:What? Did you get that gem?

[sribe]

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:What? Did you get that gem?

[beckerist]

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

I don't see how this is shocking to anyone.

Re:What? Did you get that gem?

[Joce640k]

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

Re:What? Did you get that gem?

[Opportunist]

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?

[Opportunist]

What usual argument? I can't remember that being the argument widely used when criticizing the practices of the music industry.

Artists deserve the money for their work. I doubt there are many people who question that, even less so on grounds that it's easy to copy it. What most people don't accept is the greed of studios who try to rip off not only the customers but also the artists.

Re:What? Did you get that gem?

[node 3]

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.

fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters,

[similar_name]

We all know how much they care about fairly compensating the people who actually made the music.

Does Youtube get a cut of the sales?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've bought literally dozens of albums after my friends and/or girlfriend have shared youtube video links. Does Youtube get a cut of those sales?

TimeWarner is shooting themselves in the foot here. Youtube gives them free exposure. The labels don't mind paying MTV to play their videos, but they want Youtube to pay them?

Once again, the record industry just doesn't get it.

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales?

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales?

[Darundal]

Actually, I would consider MTV to be doing a public service there...

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales?

[Insightfill]

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?

Tempest in a teapot

[baomike]

This is going to so ruin my next nansecound.

Re:Tempest in a teapot

[ColdWetDog]

Glad your feeling better now.

Fair for artists?

[Chris_Jefferson]

'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.

Thank goodness...

[notdotcom.com]

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

Re:Thank goodness...

[Enderandrew]

Instead of a take-down notice, is there any chance that Google will Rick-roll all the Warner links? Please make this happen.

Remember the good ol' days?

[Mononoke]

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.

In the Geocities Days

[Enderandrew]

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:In the Geocities Days

[panoptical2]

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 model, and it may take some time, and some board replacements, to get the change to happen.

Re:In the Geocities Days

[Dionysus]

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, MTV made videos valuable. Instead of seeing it like a promotional vehicle, they are valuable by themselves, and anything of value will not be given away for free, even if it breaks the industry (but that's the next CEO's problem)

Warner music pulls videos on youtube...

[kramerd]

...and nothing of value was lost.

ban the internet

[jasonbrown]

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.

Saving face at T-W

[Anonymous Coward]

Time-Warner is just trying to save face with Wall Street analysts. This is actually funny because on Friday Google started pulling T-W video's way before the T-W announcement. Google's news release is basically "sometimes you can't reach an agreement with a vendor and you simply stop doing business with them (Time-Warner)".

Next Year's T-W News Release: Music sales are down due to the recession, not the fact that we no longer are hosted on YouTube.

Greed & Stupidity & Lies

[Nom du Keyboard]

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!)

Another failure to capitalize

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[wideBlueSkies]

>> '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...

Incoming tide...

[owlnation]

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.

YouTube thoughtfully provide...

[ciderVisor]

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.

Re: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite

[dontmakemethink]

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: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite

[Original Replica]

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

I record all my music off Youtube

[Joce640k]

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.

the real money

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:I think I see the problem

[cdrguru]

And how exactly does Google deserve millions of dollars revenue from showing these videos and the creators and owners deserve nothing? Talk about leeching!

Re:jump to conclusions mat in effect

[Ilgaz]

Look to this site/page:
http://www.vuze.com/ , WB is participating too. Also there is Miro ( http://www.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 :)

just use Tagoo.ru they added a search vid feature

[GlobalColding]

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.

Re:jump to conclusions mat in effect

[YesIAmAScript]

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 (or any given site), bitch at the company that owns the rights in your country as not getting it.

I am in the US and I use my PVR to get my content. But that's because it's higher quality (relatively high rate HD quality). It isn't simpler. Hulu is simpler than setting your PVR. For example, if you have a DirecTV PVR, and you set a season pass for Survivor, it didn't record the finale last week because it wasn't listed as part of the season. Yeah, you can go back and fix the recording ahead of time (I did), but if you didn't, you missed it. But with Hulu, regardless of whether you figured this out ahead of time, the program is there to watch when you're ready to watch it.

Re: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite

[jorghis]

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.

Re: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite

[lysergic.acid]

hey, i'm hoping this will get RIAA music off of YouTube completely and leave more room for indie artists/labels.

if they don't want the free promo, then we'll sure as hell take it.

Re:Rock stars obviously aren't accountants.

[WiiVault]

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.

Aren't videos just promotional tools?

[crustymonkey]

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.

Way to contribute to the problem.

[cyn1c77]

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.

Re:jump to conclusions mat in effect

[FSWKU]

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 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

[ZekoMal]

'We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,'

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:Rock stars obviously aren't accountants.

[MadUndergrad]

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.

Musical styles not for live performance?

[tepples]

The experience of the music fan at a live performance is not "easily copied", and live performances are where they make the real money. Digital copies should be treated for what they are, enjoyable advertising, and priced accordingly

Have you thought about the ramifications of this for musical styles not amenable to live performance, such as a lot of the Beatles' post-Revolver work?

Re:Musical styles not for live performance?

[carlzum]

You would be surprised how well heavily layered, complex music translates live. I saw Radiohead this summer and was amazed by their ability to perform songs that seemed impossible to replicate on stage. They didn't just lip-sync and strum along to pre-recorded tracks either, and overall, I enjoyed the live renditions more than the studio versions.

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.