| 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 | 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 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
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 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
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 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
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. |
|
 helioxNot at the table Carlos.Premium
join:2000-11-28
Irvine, CA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
No it doesn't. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
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 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
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 |
|
| reply to funchords
Warner & other labels look to create a Hulu for music videos »www.alleyinsider.com/2008/12/lab···sic-goog
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 | They make it sound like Google banned them, but last I looked, anyone can post on YouTube for free. |
|
 ParogadiWhat? Stop Looking At Me Like ThatPremium
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI | reply to Kearnstd
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. |
|
