I had posted a guitar cover of Paramore's That's What You Get and those douchebags took it down.
Although my account is still intact, I have every right to hate those greedy fuckers. They've taken down a lot of good videos and I will not stand for it. They think that if a video is posted containing their music, EVEN if it's a small snippet of it and EVEN if it's accidental, that the person who uploaded said video is hell-bent on making money off it, even if that isn't his/her intentions, and therefore, it gets deleted/muted.
The question remains though, how much longer do you think this is going to last?
Warner Music Group pulls videos off of Youtube, Is Warner being too greedy?
jean
2009/02/21 21:43:22
|
|
|||||
|
5 votes
|
|
63% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
13% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
13% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
13% | |||
Warner Music pulls videos from YouTube
By Yinka Adegoke, AFPDecember 22, 2008
NEW YORK - 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 order could affect hundreds of thousands of videos clips, as it covers Warner Music's recorded artists as well as the rights for songs published by its Warner/Chappell unit, which includes many artists not signed to Warner Music record labels.
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.
YouTube is hugely popular, with more than 100 million viewers in the United States alone in October, according to comScore, a Web audience measurement firm.
Warner Music, home to artists including Red Hot Chili Peppers and rapper T.I., was the first major media company to negotiate a deal with YouTube in 2006. Its executives believe that deal gave the site legitimacy in the eyes of search giant Google Inc which bought it soon after for $1.65 billion.
As part of the original 2006 negotiation, Warner, Universal Music and Sony Music all took small stakes in YouTube pre-acquisition and profited when the Google acquisition closed.
The music companies typically get paid a share of any advertising revenue associated with the video and a per-play payment for every video viewed. The per-play fee is usually a fraction of a penny and with millions visiting YouTube everyday it was all expected to add up to a substantial amount.
But a source familiar with Warner Music's talks said the amounts it has been receiving from YouTube were "staggeringly low".
YouTube representatives did not immediately return calls for comment.
YouTube executives have spent most of 2008 stepping up efforts to develop revenue streams on the site partly in a bid to keep content partners happy. It has been in long negotiations with Warner on how best to split revenues until things came to a head in talks on Friday.
"Despite our constant efforts, it isn't always possible to maintain their innovative agreements," YouTube said in a statement on its blog about difficulties of music licensing. "Sometimes, if we can't reach acceptable business terms, we must part ways with successful partners."
YouTube also has agreements with Vivendi's (VIV.PA) Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI Music. Warner's move could see them also making tough demands for higher fees.
The demands could leave YouTube in a difficult position as it tries to balance the need to pay a reasonable fee to content partners, including TV and movie companies, and also generate enough return on the substantial investment needed to keep streaming millions of videos around the world.
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
EDIT****
Warner Bros Demands are as follows:
In order to keep WMG's music on the site WMG wants
1. Huge Royalty payment whenever a video of theirs has been viewed
- This royalty payout was said to be more than royalties for CD sales.
2. Wanting to place ads to buy the song/album inside the video not just on top of the video description box.
3. Youtube had to enact a monthly or yearly fee on Youtube members who want to upload videos which contain any WMG's copyrighted Content.
-- This conflicts with Youtubes policy of free membership.
By Yinka Adegoke, AFPDecember 22, 2008
NEW YORK - 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 order could affect hundreds of thousands of videos clips, as it covers Warner Music's recorded artists as well as the rights for songs published by its Warner/Chappell unit, which includes many artists not signed to Warner Music record labels.
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.
YouTube is hugely popular, with more than 100 million viewers in the United States alone in October, according to comScore, a Web audience measurement firm.
Warner Music, home to artists including Red Hot Chili Peppers and rapper T.I., was the first major media company to negotiate a deal with YouTube in 2006. Its executives believe that deal gave the site legitimacy in the eyes of search giant Google Inc which bought it soon after for $1.65 billion.
As part of the original 2006 negotiation, Warner, Universal Music and Sony Music all took small stakes in YouTube pre-acquisition and profited when the Google acquisition closed.
The music companies typically get paid a share of any advertising revenue associated with the video and a per-play payment for every video viewed. The per-play fee is usually a fraction of a penny and with millions visiting YouTube everyday it was all expected to add up to a substantial amount.
But a source familiar with Warner Music's talks said the amounts it has been receiving from YouTube were "staggeringly low".
YouTube representatives did not immediately return calls for comment.
YouTube executives have spent most of 2008 stepping up efforts to develop revenue streams on the site partly in a bid to keep content partners happy. It has been in long negotiations with Warner on how best to split revenues until things came to a head in talks on Friday.
"Despite our constant efforts, it isn't always possible to maintain their innovative agreements," YouTube said in a statement on its blog about difficulties of music licensing. "Sometimes, if we can't reach acceptable business terms, we must part ways with successful partners."
YouTube also has agreements with Vivendi's (VIV.PA) Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI Music. Warner's move could see them also making tough demands for higher fees.
The demands could leave YouTube in a difficult position as it tries to balance the need to pay a reasonable fee to content partners, including TV and movie companies, and also generate enough return on the substantial investment needed to keep streaming millions of videos around the world.
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
EDIT****
Warner Bros Demands are as follows:
In order to keep WMG's music on the site WMG wants
1. Huge Royalty payment whenever a video of theirs has been viewed
- This royalty payout was said to be more than royalties for CD sales.
2. Wanting to place ads to buy the song/album inside the video not just on top of the video description box.
3. Youtube had to enact a monthly or yearly fee on Youtube members who want to upload videos which contain any WMG's copyrighted Content.
-- This conflicts with Youtubes policy of free membership.
Top Opinion
-
dannythemanny41 2009/09/05 00:34:03
Although my account is still intact, I have every right to hate those greedy fuckers. They've taken down a lot of good videos and I will not stand for it. They think that if a video is posted containing their music, EVEN if it's a small snippet of it and EVEN if it's accidental, that the person who uploaded said video is hell-bent on making money off it, even if that isn't his/her intentions, and therefore, it gets deleted/muted.
The question remains though, how much longer do you think this is going to last?
Willy Wonka: "IT'S ALL THERE, BLACK AND WHITE CLEAR AS CRYSTAL! YOU STOLE FIZZY LIFTING DRINKS! SO, YOU GET NOTHING! YOU LOSE! GOOD-BYE! SIR!"
Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr.: "You are a crook. THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE! HOW DARE YOU DO A THING LIKE THIS?!? YOU KNOW, THE ONLY SOURCE MY WIFE CAN PROVIDE IS TINY BIT OF WMG STOCK..."
Willy Wonka: "I SAID GOOD-BYE!"
Willy Wonka: "Oh, And Disney Music Group, YOU WON! YOU DID IT!"
Disney Music Group CEO Bob Cavallo: "I did?"
Willy Wonka: "YES! YOU DID! Congratulations"
Disney Music Group CEO Bob Cavallo: "Yahoo!"
(Willy Wonka teases at Edgar Bronfman Jr.)
(Edgar Bronfman Jr. runs out of the room, crying for his mother)
Got the mix up between Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secret. (Where Ronald Weasely receives a howler letter from her mother.)
George Gray: "All of you will continue, But one of you will not! It's time to vote-off!
Let's start with Edgar Bronfman Jr. Hey, Edgar, Who are you voting for?"
Edgar Bronfman Jr.: "Bob Cavallo"
George Gray: "Okay. And Bob, Who are you voting for?"
Bob Cavallo: "I must say, It's got to be Edgar Bronfman Jr."
George Gray: "Alright. And George Martin, What is your vote?"
George Martin: "Edgar Bronfman Jr.":
George Gray: "Sure thing. And what is your vote, Doug Morris?
Doug Morris: "I must say, Edgar Bronfman Jr."
George Martin: "Okay, Last but not least. What is your vote, Rolf Schmidt-Holtz?"
Rolf Schmidt-Holtz: I go for Edgar Bronfman Jr."
George Gray: "Sorry, Edgar Bronfman Jr. With most vote, You are the Weakest Link. Good-Bye!"