how-to block ads
|
-
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | reply to TKJunkMail
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. | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  reply to funchords
»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? | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: YouTube technically doesn't have to pay them a dime - NOT
said by TKJunkMail  :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. | |
|
