New Beavis & Butt-head To Contain Less Music... Because MTV (MTV?!?) Says It's Too Expensive To License Music
from the check-that-out dept
We've talked a few times in the past about how ridiculous music licensing restrictions on TV shows have made formerly fantastic TV shows that included period music, such as WKRP In Cincinnati, The Wonder Years and The State, come out on DVD with generic crappy music replacing the original pieces that often made the shows what they were. In part, that's because there was no "DVD market" for TV shows when the originals were made, and it's now effectively impossible and/or ridiculously expensive, to go back and get the necessary licenses. In some cases, that's because it's impossible to find the license holders, but mostly it's because all it takes is a single license holder to demand crazy amounts of money, and the whole project becomes impossible.Another show that faced the same problem was apparently the original Beavis and Butt-head, when it tried to come out on DVD. And now that the show is returning to MTV years later, apparently the folks behind it are dealing with it by... including significantly fewer music videos, because it's a total licensing nightmare. And, yes, this is on MTV, the channel that used to be (way back in the day) dedicated to showing music videos and promoting musicians via those videos. But, of course, a few years back, the record labels, in their desperate grab for cash, suddenly started bitching about "how dare MTV promote our music without paying us," and suddenly promotional videos became expensive... which is part of the reason why it's difficult to find them on MTV at all any more.
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: beavis & butt-head, licensing, music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyright Killed The Video Star
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Killed The Video Star
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Killed The Video Star
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they were looking for music in the wrong places? I believe that some up-and-coming/unknown artists wouldn't mind to license it for more reasonable amounts (or even for free?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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:
Usually a sensible point - but not if you are talking about a show that contained specific music first time around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there such a thing as unspecific music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What the...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What the...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What the...?
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly. The show turned me on to Army of Lovers and Alien Sex Fiend, two music groups which are pretty far away from the mainstream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the end MAFIAA may be doing us good in charging stupidly high prices and driving fans away from them. The otherwise non-mainstream indies are probably thanking them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Note: From the preview that I saw of the new B&B they will now be making fun of MTV's other shows (Jersey Shore) instead of music videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Licensing killed the video star
I wondered why MTV didn't show many videos anymore. It was great when they did, but they basically suck now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Decreased record label sales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Decreased record label sales
PIRACY! PIRACY! PIRACY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"original pieces that often made the shows what they were..."
Yes, I got the part about the licensing nightmare. Even if true, so what? Just part of the biz, some flunky handles it. -- WHAT REALLY PREVENTS SUCH USE IS THE SHOW PRODUCERS ARE UNWILLING TO PAY OTHERS FOR VALUE.
(Oh, and "fantastic TV shows ... such as ... The Wonder Years"? BARF, BARF.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "original pieces that often made the shows what they were..."
Is that what they call lawyers these days?
WHAT REALLY PREVENTS SUCH USE IS THE SHOW PRODUCERS ARE UNWILLING TO PAY OTHERS FOR VALUE.
I think the real problem is most content creators feel their stuff is so valuable that nothing else would ever be worth anything without their content. Therefore each and every song used in one episode would have to be licensed for probably an exorbitant rate so that the sum of all licensing would out weigh the entire revenue of the show.
So while your statement probably holds some merit, much more of the blame probably lies with the content producers over valuing their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BARF BARF
I will sell it to you for $1000. It will enrich your living room wall for sure.
You can order your flunky to handle the payment and other details.
If you don't think my product is worth $1000 then you are UNWILLING TO PAY OTHERS FOR VALUE.
Because the price does not matter, right? Just that you are WILLING TO PAY OTHERS FOR VALUE. Thats the important part.
So children, remember to be WILLING TO PAY OTHERS FOR VALUE, regardless of how low you think the value is, and regardless of high the asked price is, because otherwise wonder bears will BARF BARF on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "original pieces that often made the shows what they were..."
While I do agree with reward, specially for the fact that MTV makes money on their activity, if you read carefully it's the prohibitive pricing MAFIAA is putting on their content that led to the decrease of music on the show.
What MAFIAA doesn't seem to realize is that MTV is (or rather was due to the MAFIAA behavior and insane prices) a great tool for promotion. And what MTV doesn't seem to realize is that there's a lot of life beyond MAFIAA and that they can probably give some free promotion for indie groups (not necessarily indie labels mind you) paying absolutely nothing in some cases.
So with MAFIAA the channel is in a lose/lose position (although MAFIAA's myopia says the contrary) and with indies MTV is in a win/win position.
The question is: wtf the guys at MTV are waiting for or are they in some sort of myopia too?
And Troll, shut up ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "original pieces that often made the shows what they were..."
Well, yeah, but it works both ways, doesn't it? Why isn't the music label grateful for the promotional value they're getting by being on what is almost certain to be a wildly popular reboot of a decidedly popular show? And are those two values to one another so far away from a wash that we even need to mess around with prohibitive licensing requests? Both sides of the coin should be considered.
"Yes, I got the part about the licensing nightmare. Even if true, so what? Just part of the biz, some flunky handles it."
Yes, it may be part of today's music business, but the point is that maybe it shouldn't be. People discuss these things, especially people who might be wondering why a show that used to show vids now isn't.
"(Oh, and "fantastic TV shows ... such as ... The Wonder Years"? BARF, BARF.)"
How old are you? And I mean that for real, not as an insult. Because for a certain generation, that show was one of the hallmarks of television as a young person. It certainly was for me. And, I mean, the damn show won both an Emmy AND a Golden Globe. If you want to argue based on opinion, you should probably pick a weaker target....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MTV still has anything to do with music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who watches music videos on TV anymore?
TV = fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should keep this up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, I am sure you will remember some of the figures from the UK, which showed that recorded music sales went down, live went up to fill the gap, and the biggest increases in income were in licensing. Basically, it's one of the rare areas where there is income increases that apply to the recording, and not to live performance.
Further, the value of licensed music has gone way up in the last 20 years. Brands are paying big money to use popular songs in their promotions and advertisements, and many more shows such as CSI and the like are licensing music for their shows. The licensing field is a strong one, and with demand being strong, prices are strong as well.
What MTV doesn't want to talk about is that they are generating higher ratings than ever before, and as a result the costs for licensing to a larger audience (as well as to be able to syndicate, resell, and market the shows later) costs them more than it did back in the day. It's the nature of the beast, you want something popular, you pay for it.
On the other side, animation itself got much cheaper to do. In simple terms, the cost of a licensed music went up, the cost of animation went way down, and net it is cheaper to add more original animation than it is to replace it with video (which is what they did original, when animation was more expensive to do).
Of course, you can ignore reality and just slam the companies that license music, sort of Techdirt SOP. Too bad that reality says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Greed made them lose money, that's what happens with MAFIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok, so, music sales went WAY down and live concerts covered the gap (your words). So, live concerts had to go WAY up then. Isn't that a good thing? The stuff that can't be mercilessly copied and placed in the 'net is currently more profitable. Win-win situation here (because artists win win!).
Licensing fees may have gone up too, but I believe that it is a desperation move: faced with lower demand for their stuff, the "gatekeepers" jack up licensing prices to try to dry out those that are still willing to pay. Basic rules of supply and demand say that that's a bad idea, and is bound to fail.
"On the other side, animation itself got much cheaper to do. In simple terms, the cost of a licensed music went up, the cost of animation went way down, and net it is cheaper to add more original animation than it is to replace it with video (which is what they did original, when animation was more expensive to do)."
What about the cost of making/distributing music? I'd assume it also went way down, thanks to advancements in music related hardware and software, and sites like Jamendo and Youtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Me: It isn't really a win - it's a flat (and now declining, based on reports of declining concert sales), not improving. While the artists take in more gross money, they end up paying much of it out and end up with a net number that nobody wants to talk about.
There is no desperation in raising licensing fees, it is really a demand side thing. There more demand there is for top name artists music for TV, movies, and promotional uses, the more the fees go up.
Most people here seem to fail to appreciate that while it might be good promotion for a band to be on B&B on MTV, it is also clear that MTV will profit from it. If MTV was giving the shows away for free (no advertising, no income) they might have a leg to stand on. But they are charging very high ad rates for this stuff, and should share the wealth with the people who make the content people want to see.
Costs aren't really key here. Demand side economics rule the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NO DAMMIT IT'S PIRACY THAT'S CAUSING THE INCREASE IN LICENSE FEES!!!
PIRACY! PIRACY! PIRACY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are two issues raised by the story that you have failed to address.
The first is that it is not always an issue of price - often it is an issue of not being able to find the rights holder or one rights holder asking for a ridiculous sum. This could be fixed by a compulsory licensing scheme, as applies for cover versions and live performances.
The second is that even when prices are strong it makes no sense to charge everyone the same rate - the low cost airlines know this and maximise their profits by more imaginative pricing schemes. put Michael O'Leary in charge of the content industry and they would certainly make a lot more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no charging of the same price for everyone, it is a seller's market and they charge what they think the market will bear. You know, free enterprise. There are some general guidelines and such, there are different models that have been created over time to handle almost anything.
If the structures were changed, there may be more deals made, but it isn't clear at all that there would be more money. Remember, when you cut the price in half, you have to make much more than twice the number of deals just to break even (overhead becomes a larger part of smaller price... so you have need more than double to cover it). A piece of music, example, may not be able to be licensed for two different commercial products, or might be licensed at a signficantly lower price (less than half each) if done so in that manner.
The B&B people learned that animation is cheaper now than music, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Richard, when it comes to popular music (aka, current commercial music), finding the rights holder isn't any more difficult than a couple of phone calls.
Coward. Clearly that is the case for most of it - but remember it only takes one and when you have a programme that used many pieces of music the probability is not negligible.
Compulsory licensing would run headlong into issues of free speech, where the artist may not want to be affiliated with a product, service, or political stance.
Coward, I don't see how that applies to what I was proposing - which is compulsory licensing for something which has already been made and widely distributed to allow it to be re-released.
it is a seller's market and they charge what they think the market will bear.
Coward, Obviously they think badly because the market clearly isn't bearing it.
Plus it is only a sellers market because of an immoral artificial monopoly.
Remember, when you cut the price in half, you have to make much more than twice the number of deals just to break even
Coward, You do realise you just contradicted yourself here, don't you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The US is about freedom, and freedom also includes the freedom to say no. Compulsory anything goes against the very nature of the US system, freedom, free enterprise, and the right to charge whatever the market will bear within reasonable limits.
You said: "but remember it only takes one and when you have a programme that used many pieces of music the probability is not negligible."
Me: Rather than letting one piece of music hold you up, perhaps you should clear them up front, rather than at the end. Then if you find one that is harder to reach than the others, you can just replace it. If you can't find the rights holder fast enough to suit your needs, you can make a change before you commit to using a piece, rather than after. Learn from the massive mistake made by Nina Paley, and you won't be forced to repeat her struggles.
Remember, most right holders are NOT hiding, pretty much anything from the modern era is easy enough to track down.
You said: "Remember, when you cut the price in half, you have to make much more than twice the number of deals just to break even
Coward, You do realise you just contradicted yourself here, don't you.
"
Me: Sorry, don't get it. If you cut the price in half, you have to make more than twice the number of deals to break even, because admin costs which might have been 10% of the higher price end up as 20% of the lower price. So you have to sell that much more to cover the admit costs of making two seperate deals.
If you take $1000 for a deal with $100 admin costs, you net $900. If you take $500 a deal with $100 admin costs on two deals, you net $800. So you have to make 3 deals to come out ahead ($1500, $300, net $1200), otherwise the single $1000 deal was best.
You said: "Coward, Obviously they think badly because the market clearly isn't bearing it"
Me: In my opinion, it gets back to the basic Techdirt tenant of scarcity. It's just like concert tickets. They are "scarce", so you can keep raising the price as long as you are selling out (or selling enough to make the money you want to make). B&B may take less music, but these days there are many more productions taking music.
In this example, B&B is just like the fan that only has $20, and has no hope of buying a $200 concert ticket. But it's okay, because the concert tickets are "scarce", and he will still be a fan even though he had no way to get a ticket.
If you want to debate their ideas, you sort of have to debate the entire universe of scarcity, and disprove some of the basic theories of Techdirt. Are you up for the challenge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I haven't heard anyone (now or ever) slam companies for licensing music. Mike's point was that the licensing costs are so high that it makes no economic sense for shows like B&B to license the music.
This does not mean licensing is bad, it means the licensing is overpriced for that use. In other words, Mike is pointing out that the license fees are so high as to be counterproductive if the labels are interested in getting their music used for this purpose.
Perhaps that's too fine of a distinction to fit into your erroneous "Techdirt hates it when people make money" belief system.
Honestly, it amazes me -- all of the posts I see here are clearly and unambiguously aimed at helping IP creators maximize their revenue in the world as it actually exists, but I still consistently see comments asserting the exact opposite.
Astounding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right, just like the industry said CD prices would go down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No - firstly the artist actually very rarely holds the rights - and secondly this idea that you somehow have a moral right to control how your work is used is just phoney. Most creators never have that right and don't mind (cf compulsory licensing for cover versions). It is only raised by control freaks and those who have run out of practical arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Country Music?
I take it they are not part of the RIAA? What is country music's equiv of RIAA? Why is that organization not up in arms about 'think of the artists'?
How are the country stars actually making money if they are so loose about their copyrights? How can this old school business model still make money!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Country Music?
Yes, there is a reason you don't hear those kinds of stories: Nobody wants to license county music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Country Music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let the record companies die there much needed death.
I am glad more artists are starting to go independent id rather my hard earned money go right to the artists then some middle man record exec. maybe Mike Judge should reach out to independent artists.
and THE RIAA and MPAA are nothing but a entertainment mafia scheme designed to extort money from people stupid enough and willing to pay it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finding license holders is so mainstream
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
Along with the music videos part of what got attention for the original show was that they were so "edgy" for their time with their language and the stupid stuff they did. Teens have been getting bombarded with that kind of stuff (and worse) for so long that they won't have the same appeal anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are smarter now about licensing music. If the rights holders don't agree, they just don't use the music. And there is so much music available, an uncooperative rights holder is no longer an obstacle. They just find someone else. It's buyers' market now for music licensing. People will give it away for the exposure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a standard music license with MTV Networks
https://www.indie-music.com/downloads/MTV_MasterSyncBlanketUsageAgreement.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a standard music license with MTV Networks
http://www.3858backup.com/.../MTV%20LICENSING.doc
http://www.entertainmentlawchicago.com/m usic/BUNIM-MURRAY%20Synchronization%20License.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freaks & Geeks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
folk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]