Record Labels In Germany Learning That YouTube Has The Leverage

from the no-more-videos dept

Thu, Apr 2nd 2009 5:22am — Mike Masnick

Just as in the UK, where Google decided to block all music videos from the major record labels, after those labels demanded payments that Google felt was way out of line with what could be made from advertising, it looks like Google has now pulled music videos in Germany as well. Once again, the record labels will likely complain and demand investigations -- even as other artists have learned that they don't need to profit directly from their videos on YouTube, but that they can profit indirectly and that pulling their videos down actually does a lot more harm than good.

Of course, the record labels recognize this implicitly -- otherwise they would be happy that their music videos were pulled down. If they didn't recognize the benefit from YouTube, why would they complain at all? The problem, it seems, is more psychological. The record labels know they benefit from the music being on YouTube -- but they also know that Google benefits. Rather than realizing there can be relationships where both sides benefit and everyone is better off, the labels seem to feel that only they should really benefit, and thus, Google should have to pay out all (or most) of its benefit.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: germany, music, videos
Companies: gema, google, youtube

72 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

SteveD, 2 Apr 2009 @ 5:34am

50 times? for real?
That x50 of the PRS demands can't be legitimate. Talk about over-valuing content. :/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 6:13am

Zero Sum
Modern businesses view everything as a zero sum game. They assume that if someone else is making money then they must be loosing money that is rightfully theirs. Ideas like "synergy" and "mutual benefit" are foreign concepts to most executives.

In the case of the recording industry and YouTube, the industry wants YouTube to market their product AND pay them any profits Google make. The execs see any profit Google gets to keep as being stolen from them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 6:16am

fixed
"The problem, it seems, is more psychological. "

- The problem, it seems, is more pathological
[ link to this | view in thread ]
uhmno, 2 Apr 2009 @ 6:31am

Re: fixed
The problem, it seems, is the recording industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sarssipius, 2 Apr 2009 @ 6:36am

It's spreading like a disease...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 2 Apr 2009 @ 6:40am

Re: Zero Sum
In the end, the problem is really YouTube's: They can't come up with enough revenue to cover the serving of the videos.

All the talk about the music industry this and that, it comes down to that basic problem. Even with the incredible scale that Google brings to the game and their incredibly low bandwidth costs, they are still not able to create enough value to stream the video and pay the fees that the artists / artist companies demand.

What isn't expressed here is the actual amounts of money involved on a per view basis. It would be interesting to see if there is a better business model to be had.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 6:59am

Re: Re: Zero Sum
Just because the artists/artist companies are demanding a certain amount of money doesn't mean that Google should pay that amount.

It's like a commercial that says the product is valued at $500 but for the next 30 minutes we'll sell it to you for the low price of $19.99. Well who valued the product at $500?

And I agree that it will be interesting to see if a better business model can be created.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 2 Apr 2009 @ 7:01am

Re: Re: Zero Sum
"In the end, the problem is really YouTube's: They can't come up with enough revenue to cover the serving of the videos."

So you're saying that the demand that the labels are making to have Google pay more money to just them then they take in is YouTube's fault? Yes, it's always been hard for YouTube to monitise it's traffic but that isn't an excuse for the recording labels to demand YouTube go into the red just to pay them.

The entire point of YouTube is an open platform for anyone to put up videos they created. Without the material in question, YouTube will still be known for that (it's why they got big in the first place). Google is in a position to negotiate, not the labels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish, 2 Apr 2009 @ 7:02am

Youtube has leverage? Why is this not shocking. Radio had to much leverage that the labels paid them. MTV had so much leverage that the labels would spend a fortune on videos. Youtube is basically the new means of promoting music. So why should the balance of power be any different?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Booger, 2 Apr 2009 @ 7:02am

Re: Re: Zero Sum
There is, or could be, Google Band. All Google needs is to design and develop an interface simple and clean enough that bands and artists can set up their own fan sites, offer their songs and wares and videos, and collect their subscription or pay-per-view fees. Google becomes the new middle-man, all for 10% off the top, which is far better than the rediculous fee the labels would charge the band for doing such a thing themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 7:04am

Re: Re: Zero Sum
In the end, the problem is really YouTube's: They can't come up with enough revenue to cover the serving of the videos.

All the talk about the music industry this and that, it comes down to that basic problem. Even with the incredible scale that Google brings to the game and their incredibly low bandwidth costs, they are still not able to create enough value to stream the video and pay the fees that the artists / artist companies demand. If you are at a point at which market value of your product is much less than the production cost of the product and the difference can't be gained from fringe services or bundling, then your product is no longer valuable enough to produce and you need to either change you production model or your operating model.

What isn't expressed here is the actual amounts of money involved on a per view basis. It would be interesting to see if there is a better business model to be had.

That doesn't even make sense. Just because I as a producer say my product is worth x in my mind, doesn't mean that the consumers or my distributors think it is. If the music is not worth x to youtube or the consumer, then regardless of the value placed on it by the industry, it's simply incorrect. Unless the consumer/distributor valuation of your good is less than production cost of said product, at which point the product is not worth producing, the producer has to lower the price to meet market demands. If you reach the point at which the market value of your good is less than the production cost, then you need to either adjust business models, production models, or stop producing the product. Selling a product for less than you want, but more than the cost of production and marketing, is still a profit, but not selling the product at all because you are simply demanding more than it's worth is idiotic.

At the end of the day I can say my widget is worth 1 trillion dollars, but if no one else agrees with me, it's my problem that I over valued my product, not everyone else's for disagreeing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
robin, 2 Apr 2009 @ 7:04am

Dinosaurs Will Die
http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/nofx/dinosaurswilldie.html

"pay the fees that the artists / artist companies demand"

in this case it's neither wh, it's just another parasitic middleman/collection society. and furthermore what they "demand" has no connection to reality, as you implicitly realize.

the days of pursuing a sinecure are over. bang. period. a sinecure creatively destroyed by each and every computer that rolls off the assembly line.

as in any field, some folks cling to the past, some folks race ahead. cya :).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish, 2 Apr 2009 @ 7:05am

Re: Re: Re: Zero Sum
"Without the material in question, YouTube will still be known for that... Google is in a position to negotiate, not the labels."

Agreed.

And as I've said before, if the labels want the videos on Youtube, then the labels should be paying Google. That's just the way the world works. If you want someone to perform a service, you should pay for that service.

And clearly the labels want the value the service offers, because Google did pull the videos, and yet the labels are still upset.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 2 Apr 2009 @ 7:16am

Seems Fair
Everything seems ok here to me. The labels want more money, Google doesn't want to pony up. Google removes their video's from the tube, and stops paying altogether. Labels find some other means of promoting their product.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
R. Miles, 2 Apr 2009 @ 7:17am

Re: Re: Zero Sum
they are still not able to create enough value to stream the video and pay the fees that the artists / artist companies demand.
But don't you see, Harold? This is the problem.

It's founded on the concept revenues should always attain "$X" amount, especially to support another dying market (plastic disks).

It's bad enough $1 wasn't enough for songs.

And using a platform that costs these labels nothing to use? Google is definitely in the right here.

In fact, Google should be charging them money for hosting the video of licensed materials.

Give Google a piece of those licensing fees the industry is so reliant on to survive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 7:20am

Re: Re: Zero Sum
And to combat the problem of not being able to come up with enough revenue, they pulled the videos (as they should). No skin of Google's nose. I haven't seen any press releases or lawsuits filed by anyone at the Googleplex demanding lower prices for bandwidth or lower fees from the companies involved. They just pulled the videos. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is coming from the other end.

Do they know YouTube is helpful? Yes. However, they're in business. When you start looking at big business, you find out they will do anything to squeeze a little more money out wherever they can. I don't agree with the practice, but let's face it, they have to answer to their shareholders who are screaming about not making as much as they should from this particular avenue. Once they try to make more and get shut down, the shareholders scream about not having a YouTube presence.

If someone is to blame here, it isn't Google. They did what they thought was best. They took down the videos because they aren't licensed. The labels are to blame for not educating their top shareholders/board of directors, and for giving in to retarded demands. Don't think for one second that they would be doing this if the majority stockholder or holders were to say something against the practice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 7:22am

Re:
@imafish:

The labels want the power this time. They are trying their best to have the upper hand because that's how business works. They're failing, but they are trying. Remember, many people don't believe in everyone winning. In business (or in the minds of many business people), if you didn't outright win, you have lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 2 Apr 2009 @ 7:31am

Re: Re: Zero Sum
"they are still not able to create enough value to stream the video and pay the fees that the artists / artist companies demand."
As ever, Harold, you inadvertently prove the point you're attempting to refute.
The problem isn't that Google can't make money or make a profit from the videos. It's that the demands coming from the labels are unreasonable (as, it seems, are all demands from them relating to new ways of distributing and marketing their content). Google doesn't have to serve the videos, so they remove the videos rather than give in to inflated demands.
That's what the title of this post is referring to, and why people are viewing the record industry as being in the wrong. Google don't need to make money from these particular videos. It would be nice for them if they were to be available, but it's not absolutely necessary. The music industry, on the other hand, need to be able to use channels such as YouTube to advertise their content to potential customers. That's why their panicking when the videos are removed - they can't force Google to accept their terms, and pride/ignorance is stopping from renegotiating more reasonable terms.
There is a reasonable compromise, which is for the music industry to agree to lower fees than they're trying to demand. If they choose not to accept those fees, they're free to use other channels to advertise their content instead. They just can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick (profile), 2 Apr 2009 @ 8:25am

Ah, it's the Ultimatum Game! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 2 Apr 2009 @ 8:32am

Re: Re: Re: Zero Sum
Miles, you have just proven that you haven't got a clue, and the only business you have ever run is a lemonade stand (and your mommy paid for the lemons).

What is Youtube without videos? It's nothing. It's like a donut shop without donuts or Starbucks without coffee - it's just an empty room. Youtube doesn't get videos because it has eyeballs, it gets eyeballs because it has videos. Their entire business is based on having videos to attract eyeballs.

Once you understand that basic situation, you start to understand that they are not any different from radio - radio has the listeners because they have the product - remove the product, and it's just more talk radio.

videos (or music) is the inventory of product they are using to attract the eyeballs or ears, and their return is selling advertising to go with the videos / music.

The thought of the record labels paying youtube to play their videos is sort of stupid. At that point, it would be better for them to give them away for free, or run their own sites and only show the videos there, or only allow YouTube to run very short 20 second clips with the band's website on the clips.

You are off blaming the record companies, but who the heck paid to make the videos? Who paid to make the records? Why the heck should they also be paying Youtube for space?

You really, really need to step away from the koolaid and go back to selling lemonade. This stuff is too complex for you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 2 Apr 2009 @ 8:33am

Re: Seems Fair
Ding! Winner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 2 Apr 2009 @ 8:46am

You have GOT to be kidding me
Holy jesus GOD! WH, are you REALLY that ignorant? Or are you just once again taking a contrary stance just to rile people up? Because that is, without a doubt, the most retarded, moronic, industry-shilling post I have ever seen from you. You think YouTube depends on MUSIC VIDEOS alone as its sole source of interest to EVERYONE?

Really? REALLY? Its JUST MUSIC VIDEOS that is the appeal of youtube, and without them, NO ONE would go to youtube?

"videos (or music) is the inventory of product they are using to attract the eyeballs or ears, and their return is selling advertising to go with the videos / music.

What is Youtube without videos? It's nothing. It's like a donut shop without donuts or Starbucks without coffee - it's just an empty room. Youtube doesn't get videos because it has eyeballs, it gets eyeballs because it has videos. Their entire business is based on having videos to attract eyeballs."

You either are so far up the ass of your industry pals you cant see reality, or you are getting paid to write these ridiculous posts. YouTube has a lot, let me repeat, LOT more than music videos on its site. A LOT. As in, most of what is there isnt music videos. According to you, this means the site cant be successful, it should fail. Yet it has been popular since day 1, and only continues to be more so.

You are so far out of reality you dont even see it. You have lost all credibility with that post, whatever valid points you might have had in the past now mean nothing, no one will listen to your shilling any more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 2 Apr 2009 @ 8:50am

Fat Trolls
We really need to stop feeding the trolls, there starting to get fat.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Apr 2009 @ 8:51am

Youtube is a FREE video service.
Simple fact - Youtube allows you to host your videos (commercial or personal) for free. They are providing you something at no cost to you. And the total cost for doing this is being paid for by Google. How can anyone think that they have the right to ask Google for money? If you want to charge for viewing your videos then set up a site and charge.

My thinking is that Google should say to the record companies you have three choices.

1. You can host your videos on OUR site and reap any benefits doing that brings to you and we will treat you like we treat all the other people who upload videos, we won't charge you... Or

2. You can pay us and we will promote your videos on OUR site and even help by providing ways for people watching your videos to then buy the product you are promoting.

Or you can take the third option

3. We will ban everything from you. Forever.

But in my mind there is absolutely no way Google should ever pay anybody because you choose to use their service.

Comment to Weird Harold - By your logic Techdirt should pay you for allowing you to promote your website. They provide this to you for free and make money off ads on their site. So they should give you money for adding comments with a URL to your site, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Apr 2009 @ 8:54am

Re: Fat Trolls
Too true. Good comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:03am

Re: Youtube is a FREE video service.
By your logic Techdirt should pay you for allowing you to promote your website. They provide this to you for free and make money off ads on their site. So they should give you money for adding comments with a URL to your site, right?

Nope, sorry - they would likely have to pay me if my posts were the feature material of their site, unless I willingly gave it away (as some site owners do).

Adding a book review on Amazon doesn't get you the book for free either. Amazing, isn't it?

You are trying hard to twist away from the simple fact: Without videos, youtube dies 2 seconds later, and the public will get their music videos somewhere else. Youtube isn't really in the position to demand much of anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Zero Sum
He's closer to right than you are. YouTube was built on the premise of individuals creating their one videos and uploading them (there will always be plenty of people who do this). The labels are businesses who want to use YouTube to basically advertise their product to make money.

While Google will probably never charge to post videos, it's still more likely than paying out a fortune and a half to host videos that they don't need.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Noam Chompsky, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:09am

This can't be about the money.The amounts the British or German Labels would receive from YouTube cannot possibly be worth more than the world-wide exposure of the music on YouTube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:13am

Re: Re: Youtube is a FREE video service.
YouTube is in a position to demand anything it wants. Without the videos in question there are still several million other videos freely uploaded to YouTube legitimately.

If we take down all the infringing content than YouTube goes back to what it was when it became popular, a site to put up home made videos, but now it has the artists who know the value of YouTube and will upload their copyrighted material freely. That's that many more music videos, movies, and web TV shows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: Youtube is a FREE video service.
Actually I am not twisting anything. This is about music videos not all videos. Which are not the featured material on Youtube, just like your comments are not featured material on Techdirt. They are just part of the content.

Sure the public will get their music videos elsewhere, but Youtube will still have plenty of content. The reason Youtube is so successful is because it is an aggregater and people love aggregaters. They don't want to have to go to ten different sites to find what they want. So if music videos were pulled then people would have to hunt to find the videos wherever they are now. This makes it less likely for someone new to find your music video and then get interested in your music and maybe buy it.

Amazon works not because it sells anything you can't get anywhere else it just makes it more convenient to find everything. Samething with Youtube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:17am

You have GOT to be kidding me Part 2
"You are trying hard to twist away from the simple fact: Without videos, youtube dies 2 seconds later, and the public will get their music videos somewhere else. Youtube isn't really in the position to demand much of anything."

YOUTUBE HAS MORE THAN JUST MUSIC VIDEOS YOU MORON!

Are you GETTING it yet? THEY DONT NEED MUSIC VIDEOS! People come to the site ANYWAY. They could remove ALL music videos and people would STILL use the site. Youtube can demand whatever they want, ITS THEIR SITE AND TECH!! If your label buddies want music videos on the net so badly, let them set up THEIR OWN SITE.

And just to drive the point home: you are always blathering on about how no one will build a new business model unless its already some big successful thing. Well, youtube IS A BIG SUCCESSFUL THING. They already have the tech, the name, the brand and the audience. They dont NEED music videos to be successful. But the labels sure could use (ie leverage) the scale of youtube to promote their music, if they werent so greedy and myopic to think that they can DICTATE terms to youtube. Oh and in case you missed it also, YOUTUBE ALREADY REMOVED THE LABEL'S MUSIC VIDEOS. Seems they are still around too.

You are so dead-wrong about this, I am actually having a hard time believing you are serious. I'd rather think you were just shit-stirring, rather than being the clueless, pathetic, pendantic, industry-mouthpiece idiot you appear to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold's former #5 fan, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:18am

Without videos, youtube dies 2 seconds later,

You really are that dense, aren't you? YOUTUBE HAS ALREADY PULLED THE VIDEOS (yes, I'm yelling because nothing else gets through that thick skull of yours) and guess what - they didn't die 2 seconds later - I just checked. :)

and the public will get their music videos somewhere else.

Where?

If the labels are so sure that the public will pay money to see music videos, they should be thrilled that Google has pulled all of them. They are now free to start their own video site - one that allows them to charge however much they think people are willing to pay
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Harold Basher, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:18am

Re: Re: Zero Sum
Harold... you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Actually... having read many of your other responses... I take that back... you could be more wrong. But you're definately wrong in this case.

The fact is, YouTube is providing a SERVICE to the recording industry. The recording industry thus far have not been forced to pay for this SERVICE that YouTube provides in allowing users to use YouTube's bandwidth and huge reputation as a video repository to market their bands.

In fact, the recording industry have been using and abusing YouTube's generosity this entire time by actually CHARGING YouTube for using YouTube resources.

That's like you charging your phone company for the privledge of transferring your voice. It's an absurd business model.

Sadly, the recording industry's collective head is so far up its collective arse, that it is throwing away free advertising, because let's face it... they're bread and butter is the SONGS and NOT the VIDEOS. The videos only real purpose is to promote the song.

If they don't want to promote the song, so be it. Let them burn in their endless torrent of greed. I say Good Riddance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:18am

Skeptical gets it
READ what SkepticalCynic wrote, he is right-on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:20am

Good post, but...
"If the labels are so sure that the public will pay money to see music videos, they should be thrilled that Google has pulled all of them. They are now free to start their own video site - one that allows them to charge however much they think people are willing to pay."

Good post, and a perfect point, but let me just fix the end of that statement for you:

"They are now free to start their own video site - one that allows them to charge however much the greedy, short-sighted industry thinks their over-valued content is worth to themselves."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:29am

Re:
Idiot.

I didn't say "without these videos, youtube dies 2 seconds later" I said "without videos, you tube dies 2 seconds later".

Remove all the video content from youtube, what are they?

NOTHING.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ the Troll Dietician, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:32am

I've got a Fat Troll here, little help please.....
WH is on a diet at the moment people, please refrain from feeding him, thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:34am

One last comment....
I want everybody to think back...

(play creepy remember music here)

Before Youtube people use to pay (oh my god tell me it ain't so) companies to host their videos online!!!

And they use to charge a lot to do this.

Also I want people to remember that Youtube was only possible because of Macromedia (before Adobe bought them) when they decided to create Flash video. Before that you had options but they were always a lot larger files and took longer to view because you had to wait a lot longer. Flash video uses much better compression and superior buffering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:41am

Re: Re:
You are stupid. You really are. Sorry to say that as I don't flame, but that statement is just plain stupid. Stupid because you are intelligent enough to know better but choose not to.

In what world would ALL the videos be removed?

So that is a stupid statement to make. That is like saying if you remove all websites what is the internet? Nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:44am

Dear Lying Sh*thead
"I didn't say "without these videos, youtube dies 2 seconds later" I said "without videos, you tube dies 2 seconds later"."

Um, yes you did:

"You are trying hard to twist away from the simple fact: Without videos, youtube dies 2 seconds later, and the public will get their music videos somewhere else."

"What is Youtube without videos? It's nothing. It's like a donut shop without donuts or Starbucks without coffee - it's just an empty room. Youtube doesn't get videos because it has eyeballs, it gets eyeballs because it has videos. Their entire business is based on having videos to attract eyeballs.

Once you understand that basic situation, you start to understand that they are not any different from radio - radio has the listeners because they have the product - remove the product, and it's just more talk radio.

videos (or music) is the inventory of product they are using to attract the eyeballs or ears, and their return is selling advertising to go with the videos / music."

This ENTIRE DISCUSSION has been about MUSIC VIDEOS on youtube and you damn well know it. The entire CONTEXT is MUSIC videos. You drop incendiary comments then take offense when people throw them back in your face. Either learn to discuss topics like and adult or go off and play with someone more your speed - puppies, perhaps, or maybe a brick wall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold's former #5 fan, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:46am

Re: Re:
I didn't say "without these videos, youtube dies 2 seconds later" I said "without videos, you tube dies 2 seconds later".
You're right, you said -
Without videos, youtube dies 2 seconds later, and the public will get their music videos somewhere else
My bad for thinking you were talking about music videos when the subject of the article is music videos and you specifically mentioned music videos. I'll try to get it straight next time, ok?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ the Troll Dietician, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:46am

Please leave out the donut references.......
Diet people! Diet! Stay focused!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:47am

Re: fixed
-The problem, it seems, is Assclowns like Weird Harold who run the music industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Your Mother, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:49am

Let the market find it's way
Whether or not YouTube will live without music videos, tv, or whatever is what Google is gambling. If they think they'll be fine with regular people uploading and viewing regular amatuer "home" videos, let them. As far as I see, they don't have to pay for any content and if the content police don't like it, they should make their own website with their own creativity, technology, and code. I don't understand the hubub!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:51am

Re: Please leave out the donut references.......
LOL. Too freaking funny!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 9:52am

Re: Re: Seems Fair
LOL

WH=Epic Fail

Absolutely no clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 2 Apr 2009 @ 10:19am

Re: Re: Youtube is a FREE video service.
You're still mixing up "videos" with "music videos".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 2 Apr 2009 @ 10:23am

Re: Re: Re: Youtube is a FREE video service.
... or, you're knowingly using a fallacy to prop up your argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 2 Apr 2009 @ 11:43am

Re: Dear Lying Sh*thead
My answer was about all videos. by saying "and they will get their music videos somewhere else" didn't say that youtube would still have other videos.

They will get the movie videos somewhere else too.

They will get their stupid home made videos will stolen music on it somewhere else.

They will get stolen clips from TV shows somewhere else.

I could go on, but I think you understand. My feeling is you guys are just being purposely picky because you know I am right. So instead of debating ideas, you are picking on grammar and implying meaning into things that I just did not say.

Smooth move children, now you don't have to answer the real point made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Carrie Armitage, 2 Apr 2009 @ 11:51am

Pay what you can
Until we actually put art back into artist's hands across the board, and allow a natural fan base to develop, we will never really know the value of it.

I know personally I've headed out to purchase CDs from being reminded of an act on YouTube, but I always look to the artists site first to see if they've transitioned to indie. The industry held up my career (correction, I ALLOWED them to) for ten years until I smartened up and went indie.

Today in the world of business, if you are not playing fair & giving back or if you're being overly greedy, you will die a fairly quick death. Look to the North American auto industry for proof of that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 2 Apr 2009 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Dear Lying Sh*thead
So...if YouTube had no videos, nobody would go there. Yeah, I'd agree with that. What other inane and completely obvious revelations can we come up with?

If movie theaters showed no movies, nobody would go to them.

If restaurants had no food, nobody would go to them.

If a beach had no sand or water, nobody would go to it.

If a strip club had no strippers, nobody would go to it.

If movie studios had no distribution, nobody would see their movies.

If movie studios had no fans, they wouldn't sell anything.

If WH had no internet access, he would be unable to write comments.

I fail to see your point in making statements like this...sure, youtube is beholden to movies, just like restaurants are beholden to food producers. If one producer starts charging more than their food is worth, the restaurant will get food from another one. This is what youtube has done with studios that evidently overvalue the contribution they are providing; as such, it was quite easy for youtube to merely pull their content from the site.

So why don't studios just run their own site? If youtube has nothing but the content provided by studios, and studios have the rights to all this content, then they've got it made. Except youtube has distribution. And a large community of viewers to distribute to. Which creates fans for the studios' content. Like I said, take away the distribution and fans, and the content is worthless. So it looks like studios' are as beholden to youtube as the other way around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 12:02pm

Re:
DING! WINNAR!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
R. Miles, 2 Apr 2009 @ 12:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Zero Sum
What is Youtube without videos? It's nothing.
Really? Then I guess it was nothing long before the entertainment industry started getting its fingers into it.

That's bullshit. USER CREATED CONTENT is what put YouTube on the map. Not the TV, movie, or music industry.

I don't visit the site and even I know what made it popular. That's why Google bought it. They saw potential in advertising revenue.

Now distributors want Google to share that? You're too damn ignorant to believe that.

Once you understand that basic situation, you start to understand that they are not any different from radio - radio has the listeners because they have the product - remove the product, and it's just more talk radio.
You ignorant idiot! These are not the same.

Never once have I ever heard radio stations playing songs from everyday, normal people. Have you?

YouTube is not the entertainment industry platform like radio is. Maybe if radio stations started going in this direction and ditching the recording industry, they'd make more money as well!
But this would mean "no names" would get famous, wouldn't it?

Your ignorance is appalling.

videos (or music) is the inventory of product they are using to attract the eyeballs or ears, and their return is selling advertising to go with the videos / music.
And who put that content there, genius? Certainly not Google.

Maybe that's why they prevented the industry for using their platform for distribution?

Damn, even the Tin Man had more brains than you seem to have.

The thought of the record labels paying youtube to play their videos is sort of stupid.
No, WH, stupidity is the entertainment industry using Google's free platform for distribution and then turning around demanding money from them to do so.

You are off blaming the record companies, but who the heck paid to make the videos?
Who cares who made it?
The question is: Who uploaded it?

Who paid to make the records?
Again, who cares? YouTube doesn't sell mp3s or CDs. However, they may display advertisements to those who do.

Why the heck should they also be paying Youtube for space?
Why not? If the industry is going to take advantage of YouTube's free platform service, then they shouldn't be demanding a damn dime from them to do so, now should they?

This stuff is too complex for you!
No, WH, it's obviously too complex for you.

Education lesson, genius, since you own a website.
Imagine you allow people to host videos. You charge nothing for it (assuming ad based model here).

Now a television distributor takes advantage of this and bills you for licensing fees.

Would you pay to have someone use your website in this manner?

If you do, especially if your ad revenue can't pay the fees, you'd be a complete idiot.

If you've got cash to throw away like that, I'm still waiting for my $5 per view of my copyright content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 1:26pm

Re: Please leave out the donut references.......
Can I get an AMEN to banning the troll's IP address?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 2:22pm

Re: Re: Youtube is a FREE video service.
I believe you to be horribly wrong. I bring up YouTube on a daily basis. Number of music videos I watch? ZERO. Why bother when I can just DOWNLOAD THEM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MattP, 2 Apr 2009 @ 2:24pm

Re: Re: Youtube is a FREE video service.
I go to YouTube several times a week and I haven't watched a music video there in years.

If there's a problem with the music played in the background of a video then content creators will start adding indie music from artists that want to be heard. The results are that I'll be exposed to this new music and be more inclined to buy goods from them.

Google has made a business decision that the slice of visitors to their site strictly for music videos is small enough that they can afford to lose it. If the labels' arguments were sincere they'd be VERY HAPPY with this solution as the evil Google wasn't giving away their content and they could devise other means of distribution (As you agreed to earlier in this thread). The backpedaling that they doing shows that this isn't the case and that it's just a money grab.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 2:26pm

Re: Re:
Resorting to word games to try to make yourself look more intelligent just shows you to be scrabbling for a foothold that you've long since lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 2 Apr 2009 @ 2:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Dear Lying Sh*thead
Thus the question:

If you tube had no videos, would the music business still exist?

Yup.

See who has the leverage?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold, 2 Apr 2009 @ 2:57pm

Re: Please leave out the donut references.......
get a life child.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The infamous Joe, 2 Apr 2009 @ 3:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Zero Sum
And as I've said before, if the labels want the videos on Youtube, then the labels should be paying Google.

I don't think I agree with you here. I think that the labels/artists should be able to put them up for free, just like the rest of us. Or allow fans to put them up if they're too busy watching someone polish their gold-plated shark tank to click "Upload". :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold's former #5 fan, 2 Apr 2009 @ 3:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear Lying Sh*thead
If YouTube had no videos, would the airline industry still exist?

Yup.

See who has the leverage?

I mean seriously, what is this fixation with YouTube having "no videos" at all? You're the only one who keeps bringing it up. Everyone else is clearly discussing music videos from the major labels on YouTube.

YouTube can survive without music videos from the major labels.

The major labels can survive without their music videos available on YouTube.

Both would be better off if they could reach some kind of agreement.

What's your point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 2 Apr 2009 @ 3:40pm

Re: Re: Youtube is a FREE video service.
But heres where your really wrong, Harold. Not a single user on techdirt is the main material for the entire site. Thats like saying without this particular grain of sand, the beach would be nothing. No, it'll still be a beach, minus one grain.

On a whole, all together, the videos are the main feature. You forget that so many more people simply upload videos of themselves with no music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The infamous Joe, 2 Apr 2009 @ 3:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear Lying Sh*thead
I'm sorry howard, but you've convinced me you're just a troll. I thought you were just some lost soul looking for answers, but this statement (and several others in this post) has shown otherwise.

If labels had no more music, would youtube still exist?

Yup.

You see, youtube hosts videos-- any video-- be it me snorting wasabi or some guys dog singing the blues. Even music videos. The music video part is important because it's the topic on hand.

Now, you will probably argue with this, but the point of a music video is to get as many people to listen/watch it as possible. I can't recall anyone every paying for a music video-- can you? So, if youtube offers to host as many music videos as the labels want, for free, and the point of a music video is exposure, then why would they complain? Furthermore, how in God's green Earth can they honestly believe that they deserv)e to get paid for letting youtube promote their (often shitty) bands?

As has been pointed out, over and over and over again, is that if the labels really felt that cheated, they should be *overjoyed* at the easy compliance from google. However, they aren't, are they? They're up in arms because google did what they asked? (Pay us more or take down our music videos) They got called on their bluff, and lost. They should suck it up and admit it instead of crying like babies.

Last, and unlike other posters here, I *have* watched music videos on youtube. It usually is when I'm looking for a band-- to recommend them to someone else. Now, if I can't find the video to recommend, then the labels have lost a sale (by their logic) haven't they?

Post last, I am eerily entranced by McDonald's Fliet o' Fish commercial, and routinely play it for my friends/coworkers to hear. Who do you think gets more benefit out of that scenario? McDonalds? Youtube?

Please, go away. We're on to your trollish ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 2 Apr 2009 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear Lying Sh*thead
If youtube only hosted music videos, then they would be in deep trouble.

If every youtube video was owned by the same entity and that single entity wanted compensation, then they would be in trouble.

However, those arent the facts. The fact is that "licensed" and "copywritted" content only makes up a fraction of youtube.

No body is going to sue over unlicensed uncopywritted content, that doesnt make much sense.

Youtube minues licensed content equals user created videos.
Nothing changes, record labels miss out on a free deal.

hypothetical:

Hey Ryan, your my bud, lemme airbrush my companies ad on your car

Sure Harold, no prob.

2 months later

Hey Ryan, I know you let me put those ads on your car for free, but since my airbrushing is the only reason people look at your car, I want you to pay me 19.99 a month

Harold, kiss my butt (paints over ads)

Harold loses out on free advertising, ryan doesnt care

end of hypothetical

is that a simple enough story for you to understand, or should i write a storybook with pictures. maybe one with push button sound effects.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold's former #5 fan, 2 Apr 2009 @ 4:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear Lying Sh*thead
maybe one with push button sound effects.
Nope. Gibson has the patent on those... :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2009 @ 6:59pm

Re: Re: Youtube is a FREE video service.
"You are trying hard to twist away from the simple fact: Without videos, youtube dies 2 seconds later, and the public will get their music videos somewhere else. Youtube isn't really in the position to demand much of anything"

That's clearly not the case. Youtube is very much in the position to make demands. If they weren't, they'd be paying the labels what they're asking because of the value music videos bring. Instead, we're seeing YouTube just playing by the labels' rules because the music videos aren't THAT valuable, and now the labels are in a panic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cram, 2 Apr 2009 @ 10:09pm

Interesting. Does anyone know whether Youtube is actually profitable for Google? Sure it serves up millions of adds, but then it also serves up millions of videos, so I am not sure the cost of bandwidth is offset.

Hi Miles

"That's bullshit. USER CREATED CONTENT is what put YouTube on the map. Not the TV, movie, or music industry."

Are you sure about that? I always thought Youtube's biggest draw was the enormous amount of industry content which one could watch for free, and with ease.

"Never once have I ever heard radio stations playing songs from everyday, normal people. Have you?"

And why not? Because everyday, normal people don't want to listen to everyday, normal people singing. They'd rather listen to a pro. Doesn't that apply to Youtube? You can see the millions of views that industry content (most likely unauthorized) gets on the site. Of course, a whole lot of user generated is popular too - David and the Dentist, for instance. I wish stats were available on the ratio of industry videos and views to other stuff.

"And who put that content there, genius? Certainly not Google."

Almost all the industry content was put up by people who want to share what they like, regardless of whether they are authorized to do so.

"No, WH, stupidity is the entertainment industry using Google's free platform for distribution and then turning around demanding money from them to do so."

Google's free platform? Free for the user, sure, but they are making money off the ads and gaining a whole lot of goodwill. What is the industry getting in return? Nothing. And that's why they think Google must pay or take down the videos.

"You are off blaming the record companies, but who the heck paid to make the videos?
Who cares who made it? The question is: Who uploaded it?"

Of course you don't care. The industry does, because it owns the right to distribute the content. People who weren't authorized to upload content did so, and continue to do so.

"Again, who cares? YouTube doesn't sell mp3s or CDs. However, they may display advertisements to those who do."

Yeah, the industry spends money creating content, some user puts it up and Google makes money off it. And the industry is evil for demanding a share of that money!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wheatus, 3 Apr 2009 @ 12:25am

HA!
Our homemade rehearsal video views have shot up since this started....so keep up with the draconian baby boom bullshit assholes....it's such a bummer!

bbb
wheatus.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
R. Miles, 3 Apr 2009 @ 4:24am

Re:
Are you sure about that? I always thought Youtube's biggest draw was the enormous amount of industry content which one could watch for free, and with ease.
Very sure. I visited YouTube long before Google bought it. Was it as famous? No. Did it have entertainment content? Yes, but *ahem* not legally.

When Google bought YouTube, and marketed it successfully, it became a place where people could upload anything they wanted.

In looking at the number of videos hosted on the site, it's quite clear user content outweighs the licensed crap.

And yes, YouTube is quite profitable for Google. Maybe if you paid attention to the story at hand, you'll see why Google said "bite me" to the increase in fees.

And why not? Because everyday, normal people don't want to listen to everyday, normal people singing.
Excuse me, but you can not say this for sure, now can you. Radio listeners don't have the choice to even decide if your remark is true or not.

Focus.

Almost all the industry content was put up by people who want to share what they like, regardless of whether they are authorized to do so.
Except, genius, there's a difference.
If YOU uploaded the latest episode of Lost, your video gets removed and your account possibly closed. In addition, you may face legal recourse for your action.

If ABC uploaded the latest episode of Lost, their video remains PLUS Google has to pay them and, since they own the license to do so, are not subject to legal recourse.

See the difference now?

Google's free platform? Free for the user, sure, but they are making money off the ads and gaining a whole lot of goodwill. What is the industry getting in return? Nothing. And that's why they think Google must pay or take down the videos.
Do you even read what you type?

This is bullshit, and you know it. It definitely shows you're not clear of the issue at hand, so please re-read the last comment above.

Google owes the entertainment industry NOTHING for allowing the use of YouTube's services.

I will guarantee you it's a negotiation, and this shows because the negotiations failed for WMG, forcing Google's hand.

Google isn't the stupid player here. They know having entertainment content will help YouTube. They just want to keep more of the profits generated by the site and they have every legal right to do so.

Of course you don't care. The industry does, because it owns the right to distribute the content. People who weren't authorized to upload content did so, and continue to do so.
And Google continues to find those unauthorized videos and removes them.
And, they even remove videos of dancing babies because licensed content is playing in the background. Despite fair use, those disappear because of the very same entertainment industry wanting more money.

See the problem here yet?

Yeah, the industry spends money creating content, some user puts it up and Google makes money off it. And the industry is evil for demanding a share of that money!
Okay, now you're just a complete ignorant ass.

First, you need to know the difference between an artist and a distributor. Because I can attest to you it's not the artist having beef with YouTube, it's the distributor. Please review yet another YouTube dispute last week here on Techdirt. Go on, search "YouTube". You'll see it.

Second, the industry already makes enough money on its $1.30 per song model, overpriced CDs/DVDs, licensing fee extortion from streaming websites, gouging each other if music is used in a TV show, and hosting their own damn websites, such as Hulu. Of course, this is only the small list.

To even demand fees from a site that's offering uploads for no cost is appalling. It's extortion and Google should just get away from the entertainment industry altogether.

However, doing this will alienate some users, which Google doesn't want to do. So, what's left? Google pays.

It should be a "win-win" situation for both parties, so why is it both Google and users are the ones losing out?

Oh, right. Because the distributor, not the artist (the ones who actually made the content), wants more money.

You're ignorance matches that of Weird Harold and you need to educate yourself immediately to understand the scope of this topic.

Because to post like this means you have no idea what it's really costing you, even if you don't visit YouTube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cram, 3 Apr 2009 @ 6:14am

Hi Miles

"Very sure. I visited YouTube long before Google bought it. Was it as famous? No. Did it have entertainment content? Yes, but *ahem* not legally."

"Not legally" is precisely the problem for the industry. There's still a great deal of content on Youtube that's not authorized.

"When Google bought YouTube, and marketed it successfully, it became a place where people could upload anything they wanted."

People always think they can upload anything they want. Why do you expect the industry to agree?

"In looking at the number of videos hosted on the site, it's quite clear user content outweighs the licensed crap."

Wow, quite clear? How the hell is it quite clear? Do you even have any evidence to back up that claim?

"Excuse me, but you can not say this for sure, now can you. Radio listeners don't have the choice to even decide if your remark is true or not."

I guess I wasn't being clear. Normal people want to consume stuff created by the industry, not by their neighbors. That's what I was trying to say. That's why you find tons of copyrighted videos, each with hundreds and thousands of views.

"Almost all the industry content was put up by people who want to share what they like, regardless of whether they are authorized to do so.
Except, genius, there's a difference.
If YOU uploaded the latest episode of Lost, your video gets removed and your account possibly closed. In addition, you may face legal recourse for your action."

Much before the negotiations people have been uploading industry content to Youtube. The industry doesn't want to do that if they aren't gonna get paid. How difficult is that understand?

"If ABC uploaded the latest episode of Lost, their video remains PLUS Google has to pay them and, since they own the license to do so, are not subject to legal recourse."

Exactly. So the element of Google paying the industry has to come into the equation. As long as you and I are not allowed to upload what we like, the industry's happy.

"Google's free platform? Free for the user, sure, but they are making money off the ads and gaining a whole lot of goodwill. What is the industry getting in return? Nothing. And that's why they think Google must pay or take down the videos.

This is bullshit, and you know it. It definitely shows you're not clear of the issue at hand, so please re-read the last comment above."

BS? How? Please enlighten me. The industry creates content, someone uploads it, people all over the world watch it - for free - Google runs ads - makes money. People are getting entertained for free, Google is making a lot of money and the industry - nothing. Where is the bullshit?

"Google owes the entertainment industry NOTHING for allowing the use of YouTube's services."

And you think the industry's gonna buy that? How do you justify that statement when Google's clearly making money off industry content? If they don't wanna pay, fine pull down the videos. The industry will be making money elsewhere.

"Google isn't the stupid player here. They know having entertainment content will help YouTube. They just want to keep more of the profits generated by the site and they have every legal right to do so."

They have no legal right to host infringing content.

"Okay, now you're just a complete ignorant ass."

Thanks for your civility.

"First, you need to know the difference between an artist and a distributor. Because I can attest to you it's not the artist having beef with YouTube, it's the distributor."

Perhaps you should realize that the artist does not own the content. Who gives a f*** if he has beef with Youtube or not? He's sold his content to the industry. They own the right to distribute it or lock it away.

"Second, the industry already makes enough money on its $1.30 per song model, overpriced CDs/DVDs, licensing fee extortion from streaming websites, gouging each other if music is used in a TV show, and hosting their own damn websites, such as Hulu. Of course, this is only the small list."

Industry already makes enough money? Who are you to decide that? What if I say "Google makes way too much money, they should share it with the industry"? Would you agree? What makes Google so special? It's just a company, like the entertainment companies. No one has any right to say "Oh guys you are making way too much money, it's time to give all of it away for free."

"To even demand fees from a site that's offering uploads for no cost is appalling. It's extortion and Google should just get away from the entertainment industry altogether."

Hahaha. This is priceless. The site's not a charity - it's making tons of money, using content someone else paid for and owns.

"However, doing this will alienate some users, which Google doesn't want to do. So, what's left? Google pays."

Some users? They run into millions. Google knows that, and it also knows how important industry content is. That's why the negotiations are even taking place.

"It should be a "win-win" situation for both parties, so why is it both Google and users are the ones losing out?"

What? It will be a win-win for everyone only when the creator of the content, the platform hosting it and the user all benefit. Until now, Google and users were handsomely benefiting while the industry was losing out.

"Oh, right. Because the distributor, not the artist (the ones who actually made the content), wants more money."

The artist has already been paid, remember and not by Google, but by the industry. Do you even read what you type?

"You're ignorance matches that of Weird Harold and you need to educate yourself immediately to understand the scope of this topic. Because to post like this means you have no idea what it's really costing you, even if you don't visit YouTube."

Thanks for the education.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xiaopinggai (profile), 16 Jul 2009 @ 6:21am

A cool video download software YouTube Robot
Here I introduce a cool video download software YouTube Robot which is very convenient and fast.With this you can forget about recharging your player with fresh movies and just take care of your business, while the software automatically checks your favorite video sites for new movies, downloads and transfers them to your MP4 or mobile phones. Anyway,it is a powerful tool that enables you to batch download, convert and transfer to mobile devices videos from YouTube and other similar websites.
I wish it is usefull for you.Its information is as follows:
Product page: http://www.youtuberobot.com
Direct download link: http://www.youtuberobot.com/download/utuberobot.exe
Company web-site: http://www.youtuberobot.com
E-mail: support@youtuberobot.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim117, 17 Aug 2009 @ 8:05pm

The Youtube Robot software is quiet easy to use, the styles are interesting!
[ link to this | view in thread ]