Shouldn't The Labels Be Paying YouTube For All The 'Free' Service They Provide?
from the because-free-is-bad,-right? dept
I recently wrote about Simon Cowell's conflicting statements expressing anger that YouTube didn't pay him for showing the Susan Boyle video millions of times, while then being happy that the same video will result in 10 million album sales. In my latest column for The Telegraph, I explore how the legacy music industry made a huge mistake in attacking YouTube and having videos pulled down off the site for not getting "paid" enough, when just a few years ago if they had wanted to put up music videos of their bands, they would have paid an arm and a leg for software, hosting and bandwidth -- and the consumer experience would have been a hell of a lot worse (RealNetworks media player, anyone?).In thinking more about this, I was realizing how hypocritical the recording industry is on this particular topic. After all, they go on and on about how bad "free" is, and how they must get paid for any use of their content or they can't survive. And, yet, when someone gives them something for free (and YouTube provides free software, free bandwidth, free community and a bunch of other benefits), they complain that they're not getting paid. It's an incredible double standard. If the recording industry were actually being intellectually honest (I know, I know...), wouldn't they be demanding to pay Google for providing such a service, since (as they claim) you "can't make money from free"?
Separately, I had wanted to mention this in the Telegraph column, but ran out of room. It is worth noting that at least some of the industry has, in some ways, "embraced" YouTube with the launch of Vevo a couple weeks ago (though, that launch was completely bungled by apparently not expecting anyone to actually visit the site). I still haven't quite figured out what Vevo is, however. It's a joint venture of Google and Universal Music, with EMI and Sony Music as partners (Warner remains the major label holdout). As far as I can tell, though, it just seeks to be a separate platform to give the labels some more "control" over videos on YouTube. I still can't figure out why this needs to be a separate company, other than to play financial games. Isn't this just a feature of YouTube?
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: business models, free, hosting, video, youtube
Companies: google, vevo, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they want to sell it as ad space
One day you guys will wake up and realize that the choices of advertising and promotion should be made by the content holders, not by the websites trying to profit from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
Keep living in your pipedream, because advertising and promotion has NEVER been completely in the hands of the content holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
Word of mouth will never die. Companies trying to profit off of other people's properties don't get the right to charge for it as well.
As for viral campaigns, viral is all about PEOPLE, not about being held hostage by a website that wants to charge you so they can use your product to make more money. Viral is person to person, not a demand by website part of the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
YouTube is all about people. After all, the name means "YOU on the Tube". It is record companies that try to hold YouTube hostage. YouTube doesn't charge it's users to view the videos, it charges it's advertisers to access its users. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
How do they get the eyeballs? With the recording companies' music. See? You made my point for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
Oh, wait, it's actually the opposite. Imagine that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
(ah-hem)
Bad Tojore, Bad! You don't spout ignorant half-thought out theories to an audience!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
Aaaah! Tojore your pet has killed my own two pets, who I've named Rationality and Discourse! He must be put down!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
There are plenty of content owners who want their content up on Youtube. Can any of the content providers show that they are harmed by Youtube? It seems more like they are mad that someone else is able to make money in way they cannont, and they are mad about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If they want to sell it as ad space
Now that I think about it, if lawyers were removed from the equation the entire industry might finally be able to see where their energies should be focused rather than listening to the legal departments who make more money by keeping an antagonistic relationship alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm more at home hunting the Woolly Mammoth than I am hunting for a file or video on Youtube. And when I see a solar eclipse like the one that happened on July 22 when I was in Japan, I was scared! Is the moon eating the sun? I don't know. I'm just a caveman.
But there's one thing I do know, and that is that the labels should be able to collect all the money from all content that uses it's music. When my clients put music into a tangible form (a recording), the music is copyrighted. However, most of them want to protect themselves, and register that copyright with the copyright office. This will protect you in the event that someone, somewhere, steals one of your songs and claims it as their own, or puts it on Youtube and collects advertising revenue.
I may be a caveman, but registering a copyright is not difficult, and whether you want to copyright just a single song (for possible digital distribution) or an entire CD. My clients just fill out Form SR, which you can get from the U.S. Copyright Office, and submit it with two copies of your CD (or a CD single) and $45 to the Library of Congress at the address on the form. Yes, it really is that easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?
Why do people in Canada need to buy from Japan american music?
By the way when youtube blocked all music from the U.K. what did the artists said then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happens when youtube gets mad.
Labels cry, artists cry, collections agencies cry, sniff! sniff!
The PRS has asked YouTube to reconsider its decision as a "matter of urgency".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heyheyhey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How youtube gets eyeballs.
there is the "mean little kitty" that is a music but not from any label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How youtube gets eyeballs.
Millions of eyeballs there and no music just people talking.
- DIY videos are a hit too and there is no music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How youtube gets eyeballs.
Of course, he doesn't have a television or cable and listens to old-timey bluegrass so I can see why the entertainment industries want to destroy YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How youtube gets eyeballs.
Thousands of small companies all putting videos of products.
News from local communities.
Snap! Music is not the only thing on earth :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
come on...
Also, her sales aren't all attributed to YouTube, so again... silly comment. Unless he's just trying to provoke them or something.
If you look at YouTube in the same light as a tv network (Mtv for example), YouTube broadcasts content, and then they attract viewers and advertising dollars based on the popularity of that content. So thats how YouTube gets paid - via advertisers. Now what about the providers of the content? Isn't it fair that they get something, either a percentage of the ad revenue or a small flat fee for every airing of their content?
If this were network or cable tv it would be the same thing. The content creators aren't paid by the advertisers. The company that broadcasts the show pays them.
If you're about to say "well the music artists get the benefit of promotion via YouTube and it helps drive the sales of their album", you would be right, but so does anything else being broadcast on tv, radio, or anything else you can think of - and they still get paid a set fee on top of that. It should be the same on YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: come on...
Yes, the content is important, but this is not content they have control over. This is user-generated content on a platform that they provide. Providing the communication platform is their business, not providing content. It is much more like the telephone. If someone calls you and plays a CD over the phone for you to listen to, should your phone company pay the record label? If so, how could they prevent this behavior?
YouTube complies with DMCA takedown notices. They do what they can to prevent copyright material from being misused on their system. They should not be forced to deal with a financial burden because their users put this material on their communication platform. They should also not be forced to endure an unreasonable burden to try to find infringing content.
Now, the fact that this communication platform is provided for free and lots of people use it makes it a great promotional tool that the record labels should be trying to leverage. Sure, it does not fit with their current business model, but the world changes and their business may need to change with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: come on...
It doesn't matter that YouTube doesn't provide or produce the content themselves, they exhibit or broadcast the content - which generates ad revenue, which is how they make money. Is that incorrect? If so please prove it wrong, but if you read my post above I clearly state that they make their money from ADVERTISEMENTS and not the content itself. Without the content, there would be no-one going to YouTube to advertise to, and without the demographic information that can be gleaned from the content there would be no targeted advertising.
I also think your analogy of playing a CD over the phone is very inaccurate. For one thing it is on-demand, so it wouldn't be someone calling you and playing you a CD, it would be more like you dialing-in to an 800 number and having the CD played to you. And in that case, no the phone company shouldn't pay (that would be akin to your ISP paying in your example, not YouTube) but the service that owns the 800 number that plays the CD should pay for that service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: come on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vevo is...
1) Lock up the old computer that I use a "jukebox"
2) A way to ruin my YouTube Playlists by removing videos from 'old' official artist page onto the artist's new Vevo page.
3) A way to promote some piano riff thing
4) all of the above
I'm voting for 4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vevo is...part deux
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-what-vevo-gets-right-and-what-it-gets-wrong/
the ceo of vevo, a certain mr rio caraeff, has posted a lengthy description in the comments to this article as to what his company is and does. feel free to read.
but my take is that the simple idea is to earn advertising dollars (income) from that old promotional tool (videos). he goes on and on using alot of jargon, but this is the base idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a nice move by google ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Whether" they should pay?
It's also odd to see how so many people are actually against the very idea of creators or labels making money off music, as if [insert favourite band/performer] was living off an inheritance and can afford to record, release and promote music just for the sake of it. We can grumble about labels. But the harsh reality is that without them, not much actually happens. The battle for the UK n° 1 was between two Sony acts, not two indies or two self-produced acts. Only large labels can create and sustain that level of awareness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Whether" they should pay?
Why not? YouTube is providing a free platform, free software and free bandwidth. Why should they pay ON TOP of that? Shouldn't musicians be paying them for all that?
It's also odd to see how so many people are actually against the very idea of creators or labels making money off music, as if [insert favourite band/performer] was living off an inheritance and can afford to record, release and promote music just for the sake of it.
Whoah. No one said that musicians shouldn't make money. Not at all. No one has come close to saying that. What we're saying is that they need to come up with smarter business models that don't rely on artificial gov't backed ways of making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]