Will they sue me for using this pic?
So this is basically yesterday’s news, but it bears repeating. As of December 20, 2008, you’ll no longer be able to find Warner Music content on YouTube. Although not watching sanctioned videos from Nickleback, Linkin Park and Simple Plan is hardly the worst thing in the world, the fallout extends far beyond butt-rock.
Warner Music Group also includes Warner/Chappell Music Publishing, which means no more cover tunes, either. (Technically these were always illegal, unless you secured permission.) Judging from the statements issued by the company, the takedown notices are likely to be fast and furious. “We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,” says an official WB statement.
When is the content industry gonna realize that their brands are enhanced by the free marketing from community-driven services? Surely there’s some middle ground to be established between giving your shit away and protecting trademarked property. And it’s the labels‘ copyright we’re talking about, anyway — most artists sign away the rights to their sound recordings when they sign with a major.
So is this the beginning of a YouTube backlash by the big copyright aggregators? Not necessarily: Universal Music Group (who have their heads up their asses on other matters) has actually produced value from the social video phenomenon. A UMG rep recently highlighted the “tens of millions” in new revenues his company has pulled in from a source that is “growing tremendously.”
So enjoy view those Metallica videos while you can, before the WB lawyers are unleashed.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
It’s this kind of failure to understand the times we are living in that steers the industry giants towards obsolescence, and gives the smarter, smaller, more agile players a fighting chance.
Unless Uncle Sam digs deep to bail out obsolete giants, that is.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I’m convinced that the only option the major labels have left is switching production over 100% to vinyl. Records are a pain in the ass to rip to mp3 (certainly a lot more time consuming than ripping a CD in iTunes) and they sound better. Win-win situation.
The biggest problem is that record companies are pining for the glory days of the mid-90s, when they could produce CDs for pennies apiece feature music by talentless hacks that they invested little to no time/money in. They just can’t accept the fact that those days are long gone & that the technologies they developed out of greed have turned against them and resulted in their own undoing.
Hubris at its finest….
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I don’t get it — I thought the whole point of a music video was to, y’know, promote a band and their music, and that you want to put the videos in places where they get played a lot, right? Right? Did I miss something? What’s next — are they going to pull videos from MTV, too? Oh, wait, I forgot… MTV hasn’t played music videos for at least ten years. Silly me, living in the past again…
It’s always amusing with the labels beat their chests and say, “We’re doing this all for the artists, ’cause we’re all about the artists, God knows we love ‘em to death and want to make sure the artists get their fair share…” Give me a break. Can’t wait for the whole busload of fucktards to go barreling over the cliff. Now, there’s a video I want to see on YouTube…
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Ken: correct.
Jay: I think there will be increased value in difficult-to-duplicate tokens and artifacts, but it will never be enough to even come close to replacing the revenue lost from unauthorized digital duplication. One particularly bright idea, which is nonetheless controversial, is the adoption of a voluntary blanket license with the ISPs, which would, in effect, insulate users from legal damages for file-trading. Copyright holders would be compensated through a “music access charge,” which would likely take the shape of a small line-item surcharge on your ISP bill, say $5. The concept is currently being rolled out at universities — those hotbeds of piracy. The proposal has some detractors, because:
1. It sets a permanent market price for digital music (whatever the surcharge is)
2. It requires a neutral agency to collect and distribute royalties
3. It throws out of whack international copyright agreements
4. Labels lose branding opportunities
5. Others in the content industry may come calling: MPAA, photographers, publishers, etc. Soon that $5 surcharge could be $50.
I think it’s a good temporary solution. There can also simultaneously be “premium” services that add value to P2P, while creating additional revenue. Meanwhile, technology will move apace, and white space devices and other spectrum reform opportunities will lead to ubiquitous broadband and wi-fi. At this point, device interoperability and easy, stable connections will make subscription services appealing to the masses. If you can get ALL music beamed to you at home, in the car, on your handset and everywhere else, why do you need clutter your hard drive with files? Economics of scale would make subscription very cheap — and we can add value with artist pages, holograms, whatever. With the arrival of the celestial jukebox, piracy becomes irrelevant.
Dan: Yeah, who are those jokers kidding. They could give a fuck about artists.
All of this comes down to giving the consumer what they want and predicting what they don’t yet know they want. Use technology to liberate content — more wine, less bottles. When do I get to be in charge?
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Casey, I agree that a blanket license with the ISPs is definitely the most effective route, seeing as your hitting the problem at its source. The only problem is this idea was introduced several years ago & the major labels have shown little interest.
Hopefully this will change now that they’re dropping the lawsuits. To my mind, that’s a huge admission of failure on the part of the RIAA and an admittance of the futility of trying to treat customers like criminals.
The biggest roadblock I see in the ISP surchase scenario is big business. Nearly all companies have policies about their employees downloading copyrighted materials, so I’m sure they wouldn’t want to have to pay an extra premium in their already high networking costs so that teenage kids can download the latest Jonas Brothers album.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Actually, the majors are VERY interested in the music access charge (don’t call it an ISP levy!), particularly the aforementioned WB, who have hired FMC advisory board member (and digital music pioneer) Jim Griffin to work with them on implementation.
To reiterate, I see this as a temporary solution, a stopgap on the way to ubiquitous Wi-Fi/broadband/subscription access. Celestial Jukebox, dude. I’m telling you.