 | |  YouTube technically doesn't have to pay them a dime - NOT
YouTube technically doesn't have to pay them a dime When YouTube sells ads attached to the music videos, they gave up their safe harbor provisions. So Warner is due compensation for YouTube hosting their music. | |
|
 |  cbrigante2Cubs 20??Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL | Re: YouTube technically doesn't have to pay them a dime - NOT said by fAcEtIOUs:YouTube technically doesn't have to pay them a dime When YouTube sells ads attached to the music videos, they gave up their safe harbor provisions. So Warner is due compensation for YouTube hosting their music. So when is WBTube coming out? | |
|
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by fAcEtIOUs:When YouTube sells ads attached to the music videos, they gave up their safe harbor provisions. So Warner is due compensation for YouTube hosting their music. Provided that they reach a deal that grants them such.
Copyright owners can freely distribute their own content without having to collect any money for it should that be what they want to do. We see examples of this with GPL licensed software. If Warner were to choose on its own to upload its own content to YouTube, it would be no different than anyone else uploading their own content to YouTube. In either situation, YouTube would not owe them anything.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
|  cho0b
join:2006-09-26
united state | Not true. It depends on what the money made from advertising goes to. If it pays for KEEPING THE SITE RUNNING it's not taking away from safe harbor provisions.
The more you know. | |
|
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by fAcEtIOUs:YouTube technically doesn't have to pay them a dime When YouTube sells ads attached to the music videos, they gave up their safe harbor provisions. So Warner is due compensation for YouTube hosting their music. True? I don't know if selling ads has anything to do with it, but it seems that they had a deal for <1¢ a song. So Safe-Harbor would be gone anyway.
I agree that Warner Bros. ought to control their own content and ultimately, if they can't strike a deal, they should be able to pull it. That's their rights under the current law.
But they ought not be quick in doing so -- the flip side (excuse the pun) is that people looking for a particular song are now more likely to turn to other methods, such as P2P file-sharing.
P2P file-sharing traffic is in a two-year low because
1. these songs are available free or inexpensively
2. users have the perception that these songs will remain available for free or inexpensively
Both of these are still true, but with YouTube no longer a channel, its not as true as it was last week.
I can't overestimate the value of #2 above -- we all know that these kids download more content than they consume, so it's not reason #1 but reason #2. Keeping content available is critical to the recipe in changing consumer behaviors toward a model that works for users and creators.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
|
| | | |  Warner & other labels look to create a Hulu for music videos
Warner Music Group -- now banned from YouTube following failed licensing negotiations -- isn't the only major record label tired of doing business with Google's video-sharing site.
A source familiar with the negotiations tells us that Warner and the three other majors -- Sony BMG, EMI, and Universal Music Group -- all think they could do better creating their own music video Web destinations and are in early talks about forming a joint venture similar in concept to Hulu, the increasingly popular TV-on-the-Web joint venture from News Corp and NBC Unviersal.
Suddenly in penny-pinching mode -- due to a new CFO, a rough economy and low Wall Street expectations -- Google is tired of paying for content that doesn't make it money. Google wants the labels to sign new deals heavy with revenue-sharing and light on licensing fees.
The current deals begin to expire early next year.
The labels agree that their content's future on the Web is ad-supported, but the $25,000 checks have them convinced they could do a better job selling sponsorships, pushing concert tickets, and music sales on their own site. Music companies may spurn YouTube altogether and go out and build their own web site.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Warner & other labels look to create a Hulu for music videos They make it sound like Google banned them, but last I looked, anyone can post on YouTube for free. | |
|
|  helioxNot at the table Carlos.Premium
join:2000-11-28
Irvine, CA | No it doesn't. | |
|
| | | They are getting free promotion. I don't see how are they worst off. Only people getting hurt is the artist.
said by fAcEtIOUs:YouTube technically doesn't have to pay them a dime When YouTube sells ads attached to the music videos, they gave up their safe harbor provisions. So Warner is due compensation for YouTube hosting their music. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by fAcEtIOUs:YouTube technically doesn't have to pay them a dime When YouTube sells ads attached to the music videos, they gave up their safe harbor provisions. So Warner is due compensation for YouTube hosting their music. no YouTube is due money from Warner for hosting their ads for the artists they sign.(err i mean Music Videos)
i think the whole royalties thing with Youtube is TOTALLY being done wrong because Google is basicly providing mass video ads and is expected to pay the record company when the record company should be paying Google for hosting their advertisement(and dont try and tell me a music video isnt just a fancy ad for the album).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |  ParogadiWhat? Stop Looking At Me Like ThatPremium
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI | Re: YouTube technically doesn't have to pay them a dime - NOT Ditto, Google is the one that should be laughing all the way to the bank. | |
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Follow the money Ok, after read the article, I can understand a business wanting to get paid. What I fail to agree with is, would the money really go to "artist, songwriters, labels, etc." ?
I have a feeling it wouldn't since that is kind of the history on these companies and such. 
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
|
2 edits | Fixed it for ya! "We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly over compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers the CEO for the value they provide musicians he extorts."
--
OASAASLLS | |
|
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | Let the Rectum Ring brassssssssss fup=fup=fup=pooooooop!!!!!!! for ten more minutes, with the appropriate olfactory enhancements.
That is what I think of this issue. These assholes sure have an inflated idea of the value of their products.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| |  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | Re: Let the Rectum Ring said by Transmaster:These assholes sure have an inflated idea of the value of their products. Not surprising, since this is the MAFIAA we're talking about here. And their grasp on reality is tenuous at best.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
|
| | | helioxNot at the table Carlos.Premium
join:2000-11-28
Irvine, CA | Re: Let the Rectum Ring Actually, it's between WB Music and You Tube.
The MPAA doesn't deal with music, that would be the RIAA, and even they aren't involved.
Perhaps if you read the article...
--
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | Re: Fixed it for ya! LOL, yep, that's about right.
That should be the RIAA's slogan | |
|
| | How many nails are we up to? Yet another nail in the entertainment industry's coffin. I estimate another year before they are screaming for a bailout.
I don't think Warner realizes that ordinary people can upload media to youtube illegally, including *their* movies/shows. Sure, they can serve a take down notice, but that costs them money and time. My question to you young DSLR folks is why Warner wouldn't want to just upload it legally and make some money on it? After all, isn't America just how to line your pockets with other people's money?
By killing this deal they are taking 2 steps backward in the world. Everything is going digital, no one wants the physical media anymore (well many people anyways). I hope they still aren't relying on CD sales for profit.... | |
|
| | | Re: How many nails are we up to? They may hope Google gives in and pays more money rather than have the hassle of the take down notices. Playing hardball, so to speak. | |
|
|
| |  I don't get it
| |
|
| | | Re: I don't get it And when people stop buying albums because everything can be downloaded, transferred, and played from electronic format?  | |
|
|
|  mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Re: One could have hoped that they would have pulled... And the dozens of spinoff of it too. | |
|
|  DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:70 | I agree, pull that one down!! | |
|
| |  roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | Re: One could have hoped that they would have pulled... said by David:I agree, pull that one down!! Yeah, but then we wouldn't have fun Rickrolling people!
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Oh no, we've been rickrolled! | |
|
| | |
| | BANG!! BANG!!
That's the sound of Warner shooting themselves in the foot! Right now, YouTube is the #1 way the labels are promoting music and now Warner has ZERO promotion on YouTube. | |
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Fair compensation to me... "We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,"
OK, fine. Come up with a way to pay the recording artists and songwriters directly. The others-- labels and publishers-- are fairly compensated for the "value" they provide at a price of free.
--
Save us, oh Great Obamasiah. Peggy Joseph and I both pray that You come to pay our mortgage and fill our cars with gas. (Premium please!) | |
|
|
|  GodTHE Dslr TrollPremium
join:2002-07-01
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: YouTube, PayUp F WARNER !!!! | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
Warner Copyright Pigs back at the trough!
I read this article at the wrong time, right after I found myself in a bad mood. I got that way after looking at the specifications for a DVR that can copy recorded material on DVD's. It is so hobbled with DRM demanded by the copyright pigs that it is only good use is a door stop. Unfortunately the operating instructions reminded me that one reason for the transition to DTV was to give television stations the ability to sell subscription service. As time passes consumers will be subject to copyright pigs asking for payment for use of programming that consumers never had to pay for. Like the pigs at the trough the copyright holders will never have their hunger for compensation satisfied.
·
·
·