Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Warner Music Pulls Videos Off YouTube

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the taking-their-toys-and-going-home dept.

Media 237

iammani writes with this excerpt from Reuters: "Warner Music Group ordered YouTube on Saturday to remove all music videos by its artists from the popular online video-sharing site after contract negotiations broke down. ... The talks fell apart early on Saturday because Warner wants a bigger share of the huge revenue potential of YouTube's massive visitor traffic. There were no reports on what Warner was seeking. 'We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,' Warner said in a statement." Warner's deal with YouTube to make those videos available came just prior to YouTube's acquisition by Google.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

meanwhile, I pulled my pud (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26192431)

A couple weeks ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the secret service wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal democrat and had been on the Obama train since last year. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting him, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Barack Obama, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Barack Obama wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than listening to an Obama speech!

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of Barack Obama dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful democrat.

What? Did you get that gem? (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#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?

It's so unfair.... (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192519)

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

It's about time these leeches were kicked into touch.

Re:It's so unfair.... (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192835)

Gimme gimme gimme! [youtube.com]
I need some more!
Gimme gimme gimme!
Don't ask what for!

Re:What? Did you get that gem? (2, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192551)

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? (2, Insightful)

beckerist (985855) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192823)

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:What? Did you get that gem? (2, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193341)

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? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26192735)

Where's the usual /. argument that artists don't deserve compensation because they're producing something that's easily copied?

the real money (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26193235)

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:What? Did you get that gem? (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193387)

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? (1)

Kleen13 (1006327) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193129)

"We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers" I thought it was funny that they listed themselves last on that list..... because everyone knows that it's the artists and songwriters that they are REALLY concerned about.

Re:What? Did you get that gem? (2, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193147)

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

Re:What? Did you get that gem? (0, Troll)

mfnickster (182520) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193245)

"We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists"

So instead, for all practical purposes, they're accepting terms in which both the company AND the artists get: nothing... zero... nada... zilch.

But the videos will still be on YouTube!

fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, (5, Insightful)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192445)

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

Re: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite (5, Insightful)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 5 years ago | (#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: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite (4, Informative)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193125)

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]

Re: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193171)

So the corporation that doesn't want to compensate the artist at all is even fairer? How does that work?

Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (5, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (3, Funny)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192591)

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

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192637)

Now if only they could have banished Carson Daily to Mtv1592, we'd be set.

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26192721)

just doesn't get it.

ESR, is that you?!

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26192739)

You're obviously lying. There's no way you can post on Slashdot and have a girlfriend.

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26193039)

There's no way you can post on Slashdot and have a girlfriend.

Yeah. The "a" word is wrong.

Wait... MTV plays music videos? (1, Funny)

RexDevious (321791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192825)

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?

Re:Wait... MTV plays music videos? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193121)

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?

Re:Wait... MTV plays music videos? (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193373)

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.

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192831)

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...

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193065)

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.

I record all my music off Youtube (5, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193133)

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.

Re:I record all my music off Youtube (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193391)

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!

Re:I record all my music off Youtube (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193431)

FM is old "casette tape" technology. I'm using 21st century mp3s!

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193329)

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 post material to YouTube and expect a return in the way that heavy exposure on MTV will (or used to).

If the ad revenue from having a catalog on demand is worth more to YouTube than it is to Warner, then what should happen is that YouTube starts paying the artists via whatever commercial entity they've signed up with. As CD sales decline and things move to online models, and MTV moves to reality shows rather than music, it becomes even more likely that the old model of paying for time on MTV to generate CD sales is less viable.

I don't have any numbers, but that's precisely why I prefer to think about it rather than summarily dismissing a different perspective because of my own personal buying habits. Doesn't it make sense to move to generating revenue through online ads? It has worked for other companies, I believe.

They get it just fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26193331)

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").

Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193365)

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.

Tempest in a teapot (2)

baomike (143457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192473)

This is going to so ruin my next nansecound.

Re:Tempest in a teapot (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192481)

Glad your feeling better now.

Re:Tempest in a teapot (1)

cheftw (996831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192625)

Glad your feeling better now.

Glad his.

(Even Grammar Nazis have a sense of humour.)

Re:Tempest in a teapot (1)

baomike (143457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193229)

want to take a shot at "he's" .
I feel feel rather possessive of "his".

Fair for artists? (4, Insightful)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192485)

'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.

Re:Fair for artists? (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193375)

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?

What is the percentage of Zero? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26192493)

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.

Thank goodness... (2, Informative)

notdotcom.com (1021409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192501)

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

Re:Thank goodness... (4, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192533)

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

Re:Thank goodness... (1)

RazZziel (1144159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192623)

1. Ask XKCD to make a strip about it
2. Wait a week
3. ???
4. Profit!

Warner wants free advertising (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26192513)

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?)

Re:Warner wants free advertising (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192647)

Indeed they are, which is why I've always wondered why the labels don't provide them for free. You can't watch them in many places and as such that doesn't really remove the incentive to purchase the CD, but even a decent web only place to watch would have been a great marketing approach. Or just bundle them with the disc.

Re:Warner wants free advertising (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193205)

It's only advertising if you can't decide when they play, or if they have some annoying feature that reminds you their ads.

Otherwise, they're entertainment.

That's why you see advertisements inside video retrospectives. They're not "That" redundant, mostly because you know you're going to like the videos.

You can also embed links from youtube, bypassing some of the ads, and basically repurposing them under some circumstances.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I do think Warner should pay to show most of them. But I think your post failed the "ad test".

Re:Warner wants free advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26193339)

Actually, unless there is some mega star like Madonna involved, they have to pay to the music TV to get their artists aired.

They cancel free bandwidth, advertising and most important of all, Google in one step.

Remember the good ol' days? (5, Insightful)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192525)

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.

Re:Remember the good ol' days? (1)

El Yanqui (1111145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193001)

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

Please, God, let no one say 'art'.

Re:Remember the good ol' days? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193193)

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.

In the Geocities Days (5, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192529)

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 (2, Insightful)

panoptical2 (1344319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192917)

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 (1)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193007)

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's important to make a connection to your customers - that will help ensure your long-term success, along with the obvious: producing fun, high-quality games.

The music biz is part of the old, pre-net generation that's big on control. They fear the Internet because it's something they can't explicitly control (or at least manage) like traditional media. If someone else is using their property, then they should be paying for rights, correct? Then at the same time, they actively pay for promotion of that same property elsewhere. It's this same schizophrenic logic that prompted Toyota to demand fansites cease using company-produced images of their vehicles in wallpapers. [torrentfreak.com] At least they eventually figured out it was idiotic to pass up free advertising [torrentfreak.com] , especially when they need all the help they can get right now too. [wired.com]

Re:In the Geocities Days (2)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193117)

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)

Re:In the Geocities Days (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193425)

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?

spite everyone at own expense (2)

Sjobeck (518934) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192573)

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.

Warner music pulls videos on youtube... (4, Insightful)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192581)

...and nothing of value was lost.

ban the internet (3, Funny)

jasonbrown (142035) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192587)

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.

Misunderstood (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192601)

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.

also ban printers (1)

jasonbrown (142035) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192611)

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 (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Greed & Stupidity & Lies (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#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!)

Artist compensation? (1)

DodgeRules (854165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192645)

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?

Another failure to capitalize (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192659)

>> '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...

But... who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26192679)

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?

Hmmm. I wonder who will take it in the shorts? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192681)

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.

Google Music Label (gMusic)? (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193385)

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?

More shortsighted greed. (1)

contra_mundi (1362297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192689)

Good going, Warner. Free advertisement is always a bad thing. Certainly not a god-send.

Re:More shortsighted greed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26193013)

everything free is crap ~

Re:More shortsighted greed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26193379)

Sex is crap.

Re:More shortsighted greed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26193397)

Your sense of humor too, it seems

control (1)

Beer_Smurf (700116) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192693)

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

They're just hurting themselves. (1)

bjdevil66 (583941) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192719)

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.

I think I see the problem (1)

Alterion (925335) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192753)

'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.

Re:I think I see the problem (2, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193315)

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

I'm not sure they have the power to do this (1)

smwoflson (905752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192763)

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.

Warner Music Group pulls their product.. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192801)

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

Is Rick Astin with Warner? (1)

cylcyl (144755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192803)

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

Incoming tide... (3, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

3 words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26192865)

Greed, Greed, Greed!

Think of the artists! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26192867)

'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

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.

jump to conclusions mat in effect (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192871)

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.

Re:jump to conclusions mat in effect (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192935)

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

Re:jump to conclusions mat in effect (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193201)

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 off.

Re:jump to conclusions mat in effect (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193307)

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.

Re:jump to conclusions mat in effect (2, Informative)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193389)

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 :)

YouTube thoughtfully provide... (4, Funny)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Warner should pay up for bandwidth... (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192897)

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.

c08 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26192899)

toO much formality

Why Warner et al? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192909)

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?

Good luck with that (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192941)

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.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193287)

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 content to Google for Google to make money from. Find something that people will pay for, because it certainly isn't going to be any sort of digital content, or anything that can be distributed in digital form.

Meanwhile... (1)

miruku (642921) | more than 5 years ago | (#26192943)

"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 [cnet.com]
December 18, 2008

fairly?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26192951)

Substitute "greedily" for "fairly"

  Solution = DONT buy Time Warner... Pass it on.

Jews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26193085)

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.

Good (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26193101)

We don't need warner. Let them be the dinosaurs they are, and let them die in old mediums.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?