Vevo Flop Shows, Once Again, How Badly The Record Labels Underestimate Technology

from the not-how-it-works dept

Just last week we wrote about how the big record labels have a hilariously long history of failing to grasp the importance of providing a good underlying technology service for music online and how they always overvalue the content, and assume that the technology and services are a commodity that is effectively worthless. And, yet again, that approach has failed them. The latest is the collapse and capitulation of Vevo, the service put together by a few of the major record labels to try to "take on" YouTube (even while using some of YouTube's underlying technology). Earlier this week, Vevo announced that it was shutting down its own site and app, which basically no one used anyway. Instead, it'll just focus on using YouTube, which was where everyone watched Vevo videos in the first place.

Still, as with that article last week, this is yet another demonstration of how the labels overvalue the content and assume that the only thing that matters is the content, and that the technology is interchangeable. It's not. History has shown time and time again that without good technology and services for the public, content delivery platforms will fail. And, that's not to say the content isn't important -- it is. But it's the combination of both together than make a compelling service. Netflix figured this out. Spotify figured this out. Apple figured this out. YouTube figured this out. But the major labels still can't seem to let go of the idea that it's the copyright holders who have the leverage and should be able to (1) control everything and (2) take nearly all of the profits.

Either way, we can add Vevo to the list, with MusicNet and Pressplay, of examples where the record labels thought that they could mostly ignore building a good and compelling service, because just having the content would make it work.

Filed Under: music, overvaluing content, record labels, undervaluing technology, videos
Companies: vevo, youtube

Musician Demands Google, Major Labels Pay Him $325 Million For Removing Videos He Paid $30 To Upload To Vevo

from the it's-all-about-the-theoretical-Benjamins dept

Ronald Satish Emrit -- like my two preteen sons -- is convinced YouTube is going to make him rich. However, Emrit's sole contribution to this effort so far has been eight music videos… and a $325,000,000 lawsuit.

COMES NOW, the plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit, who is bringing forth this cause of action against all seven defendants looking to assess joint and several liability. Presumably, the defendants would seek contribution and indemnity from each other through the filing of cross-claims. Accordingly, the plaintiff is suing all seven of the defendants for a remedy at law amounting to $325,000,000 (three hundred and twenty-five million dollars).

Backstory:

Emrit signed up with Blue2Digital, paying it to upload his videos to the major label-backed Vevo channel. At some point recently, Emrit's videos were removed from Vevo. In response to the variety of injuries supposedly suffered by Emrit, a lawsuit has been filed against Google, Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, Blue2Digital, Vevo and (mysteriously) Warner Music Group. (Warner Music Group has no partnership agreement with Vevo.)

That $30 [$30 in today's dollars] is the root of Emrit's multiple complaints.

The plaintiff used a company called Blue2Digital (i.e. the fourth defendant) to have his music videos distributed onto the Vevo platform used by major record labels and their artists; the plaintiff paid approximately $30.00 to have his music videos distributed.

Emrit (a.k.a., "Satish Dat Beast") is, among other things, an aspiring recording artist, a "frivolous and vexatious" litigant, a 2016 presidential hopeful and, for the purposes of this in forma pauperis lawsuit, an "indigent, disabled, and unemployed citizen."

Emrit is certain these defendants owe him a shit-ton of money. He definitely has lots and lots of "damages" for which he'd like to be recompensed. He calls the removal of the videos from Vevo's channel "negligence" because the defendants "had a duty of care and duty of loyalty to safeguard the plaintiffs intellectual property in the form of the eight music videos."

In addition, the removal of the videos pained Emrit greatly (and actionably):

The plaintiff claims that all seven of the defendants have committed the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) because it is and was extreme, outrageous, and egregious for them to remove eight commercially-released music videos copyrighted by the plaintiff.

He also maintains that his eight videos -- swimming in a sea of millions -- were all he needed to become a highly-successful recording artist. Emrit was destined for greatness, but for the tortious interference performed by a mega-conspiracy of industry titans.

The plaintiff argues that all seven of the defendants committed the tortious interference with business relations/contracts by removing all eight of the plaintiffs commercially-released music videos which would thereby prevent the plaintiff from being able to secure a commercial recording contract from any of the major record labels in the form of a "360 deal" with a cross-collateralization clause, controlled composition clause, and Minimum Delivery and Release Commitment (MDRC).

Emrit seems unaware that labels sign agreements with artists, not with content hosted on a third-party platform, uploaded by a third-party distribution company and monetized by a third-party YouTube channel.

His strongest cause of action is breach of contract:

The plaintiff asserts that all seven of the defendants committed a material breach of contract by accepting a payment from the plaintiff and subsequently removing his eight commercially-released music videos from the Vevo platform.

The problem with this is actually several problems.

First, any breach of contract would be solely Blue2Digital's, which accepted his money in exchange for placement with Vevo. But the terms and conditions he agreed to plainly point out -- like so many do -- that these can and will change without notice.

You acknowledge that Blue2Digital may change the scope of its services from time to time and without notice to You. Blue2Digital shall be under no obligation to stream or otherwise use Your Content.

Presumably Vevo's agreements with Blue2Digital contain similar wording.

On top of that, it appears the terms of service weren't breached by Blue2Digital. Instead, it looks as though something automated went haywire, resulting in Vevo booting all of Blue2Digital's uploads to that channel.

Thank You for being patient, as we know your videos have been down for the past few weeks. This was due to a glitch found in VEVO's system, which they believe was a botted program used by one of our clients. This lead to a long and tedious investigation, which policy was enforced and your videos being suspended until further notice.

This was posted in August. This has replaced the original Blue2Digital Vevo FAQ, which can now only be accessed via archived pages. The new page notes that Blue2Digital will be working with UMG going forward. Paying customers can still get their videos uploaded to the Vevo channel, but they'll have to perform additional steps.

UMG will need from us clearance from all artist regarding their works and master sound recordings, including copyrights and licensing agreements (If Applicable) for any samples found in your works before any videos or albums can be restored.

Failure to provide this information will automatically disqualify you from receiving our services. Please note that UMG has the right to refuse distribution for any song, video or any other content owned by you at it's own discretion.

Emrit may not like the fact that his videos were removed from Vevo, but it doesn't appear to be the result of "contract-breaking" conduct by Blue2Digital. Instead, it appears to be the result of bad behavior of another Blue2Digital customer... or the sort of "content management" infighting that will only become more common as IP enforcement is handed over to automated taskmasters.

From that point, Emrit's lawsuit gets even more ridiculous. He further claims the removal of videos by Vevo violated the DMCA, the Sonny Bono Act, the Audio Home Recording Act (which allowed the release of blank digital media) and the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (the birthplace of the DMCA Safe Harbors). He doesn't say how these actions violated these acts. He simply says that they do.

In addition[!] to the $325,000,000 in damages, Emrit also demands the following:

The plaintiff is also requesting the equitable remedy of an injunction or specific performance mandating that the plaintiff Ronald Emrit be offered a commercial recording contract by either UMG, Sony BMG, or WMG in the form of a "360 deal"...

If he does nail down this last demand, let's hope no one feels obligated to hand him an advance. With $325 million in hand, Emrit should be able to pay for his own recording costs.

Emrit, serial litigant, seems to feel the federal judicial system is his own small claims court. He's out $30 here, but wants $325 million. In a 2014 case in which he sued Reverbnation over fees paid for banner ad placement, the judge pointed out that:

Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear civil actions where complete diversity exists between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

[...]

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he lost somewhere between $100 to $200 dollars in his dealings with Defendant. Despite the low amount of compensatory damages, Plaintiff requests $250,000 in punitive damages in order to meet the amount in controversy.

[...]

In this case, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages totaling 1250 times more than his claimed compensatory damages. Indeed, even if Plaintiff only claimed punitive damages of $75,000, the resulting ratio of 375 to one would still run afoul of the Due Process Clause.

It therefore appears, to a legal certainty, that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the amount in controversy threshold, and thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Because the Plaintiff’s claim of subject matter jurisdiction “lacks an arguable basis [] in law,” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, the Court should dismiss this case as frivolous…

And earlier this year, another judge in another court had this to say about Emrit's losses vs. damages.

Emrit alleges that he paid $160.00 to have seven music videos entered in the Independent Music Awards contest and that he “never heard back from” the defendants or their representatives after he submitted his videos. Emrit claims that the defendants never watched or judged his videos and he seeks monetary damages of $250,000 and an injunction mandating that the defendants accept an unlimited number of contest submissions from him free of charge.

[...]

His claim that his damages exceed the amount in controversy requirement are not supported by any legally cognizable calculation of damages.

If Emrit's inability to show cause doesn't get this case tossed, his damage multiplier of 10,833,333 certainly will.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, ronald satish emrit, videos
Companies: blue2digital, google, sony bmg, umg, universal music, vevo, warner music

YouTube Won't Put Your Video Back Up, Even If It's Fair Use, If It Contains Content From Universal Music

from the that's-a-shame dept

Patrick McKay, who has been a harsh critic of some of YouTube's failings when it comes to the DMCA process and various takedowns, has highlighted a very serious issue with YouTube that has received little attention. YouTube now admits that, when it comes to some videos that contain content from certain "partner" companies, it won't repost those videos, even if the video uploaders file a counternotice and show that they're relying on fair use. YouTube claims that it will still keep some of those videos blocked due to "contractual" obligations:

YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners to allow use of their sound recordings and musical compositions.

In exchange for this, some of these music copyright owners require us to handle videos containing their sound recordings and/or musical works in ways that differ from the usual processes on YouTube. Under these contracts, we may be required to remove specific videos from the site, block specific videos in certain territories, or prevent specific videos from being reinstated after a counter notification. In some instances, this may mean the Content ID appeals and/or counter notification processes will not be available. Your account will not be penalized at this time.

If this sounds vaguely familiar to something in the past, you may recall that a few years ago, Universal Music and Megaupload got into a bit of a spat when UMG issued a questionable takedown of a song promoting Megaupload, which featured a ton of big stars singing the praises (literally) of Megaupload. Megaupload eventually sued UMG, but ended up dropping that lawsuit as a month or so later it had bigger legal issues on its hands, following the US's decision to shut down Megaupload. But, at the time, Universal Music made a strange claim that it had some sort of contractual agreement that allowed it take down videos like Megaupload's. YouTube quickly came out with a statement denying this, but the situations described in McKay's post certainly raise serious questions about this, and clearly suggest that YouTube has made at least some deals that effectively wipe out fair use for some users. I assume it will surprise next to no one that the key example that led McKay to discover this situation... also involved Universal Music.

As I noted at the time of that UMG/Megaupload spat that I believed the real issue might be YouTube's contract with Universal Music for Vevo -- and I suspect that's still the case now. As I said then, part of the "announced" deal was that as part of providing the backend for Vevo, YouTube would transfer over the videos of various UMG artists, such that they appeared exclusively on Vevo. I suspect that's the same thing happening here. Because part of the Vevo deal is a promise that Vevo gets exclusive rights to videos involving certain artists' works, it allows YouTube to simply ignore fair use claims from users on such content, and refuse to ever post them again.

Now, as McKay notes, this is (mostly) well within YouTube's rights. I remember, a few years back, seeing a discussion on some legal blogs about this question. The DMCA implies that if you file a legitimate counternotice following a DMCA takedown and if the copyright holder does not take further legal action, the service provider is obligated to put the work back up in no less than 10, but no more than 14 business days. But, to some extent, that seems questionable. After all, as a service provider, any site has the right to not allow certain content to be published if it doesn't want to. And yet, if read literally, some could make the argument that the DMCA obligates a service provider to put up content even if it doesn't want to. As McKay notes, in this manner, the only liability is to the person who filed the counternotice, and any such liability would likely be pretty limited.

Either way, there's no way to look at this that makes YouTube look good. Following so soon on our other story about YouTube taking down a video on a questionable "terms of service" violation and then refusing to repost the video, it's once again a situation where it seems like YouTube needs to do a much better job handling these situations. While we obviously don't know the details of the UMG contract, fair use rights cannot be signed away, especially by two third parties. It would be a shame if YouTube decided that it would arbitrarily give UMG the ability to deny someone's fair use rights in posting a video.

Filed Under: contracts, copyright, fair use, videos
Companies: google, universal music, vevo, youtube

No, The Major Labels Didn't Fake 2 Billion YouTube Views

from the manipulations... dept

The record labels have a long history of knowing how to manipulate key numbers to their advantage. Look how labels have manipulated the various charts over the years and you'll find that it's a big part of how they do business. So it probably struck little by surprise to hear that the labels were now being accused of massively manipulating YouTube view counts to make certain songs look a hell of a lot more popular than they really are. The only problem? It's not actually true.

The DailyDot -- who normally does a fantastic job -- broke the story that got most of the attention, reporting:

Google slashed the cumulative view counts on YouTube channels belonging to Universal Music Group, Sony/BMG, and RCA Records by more than 2 billion views Tuesday, a drastic winter cleanup that may be aimed at shutting down black hat view count-building techniques employed by a community of rogue view count manipulators on the video-sharing site.

Universal's channel is the one that took the biggest hit. According to figures compiled by the YouTube statistics analysts at SocialBlade, the record company's YouTube channel lost more than 1 billion views from its preexisting tally of 7 billion views Tuesday.

Lots of other publications then picked up on the Daily Dot version and suddenly the story was everywhere -- in particular claiming that the labels were being punished for faked video views. Only problem? That's not really true. The report suggests that YouTube has begun a big campaign against view inflation by YouTube users across the board. That part is true. But the untrue part is that the major labels were faking so many views. Instead, it turns out that most of the issue was just that the labels had moved their videos from YouTube to Vevo -- the online video site that the labels had started a few years ago (built on top of YouTube technology). As Billboard notes, the "de-spamming" effort did delete about 1.5 million views from Sony and Universal Music videos -- so there may be some funny business, but that's tiny compared to the 2 billion views that disappeared. But the reason those went away was much more mundane:

The answer comes in the second way that YouTube changed its view count. The company recently decided to remove view counts for videos that are no longer live on the channel, or so-called "dead videos." For Universal and Sony, that meant thousands of music videos that over the past three years slowly have migrated to the VEVO channel, which is jointly owned by the two companies. A senior label executive confirmed the migration....

That meant high-profile videos that once lived separately on the Universal and Sony YouTube channels have been relocated to Vevo. As a result, the views that those videos received during their time on the dedicated label channels were taken away in YouTube's latest "clean up" effort.

In other words, those views happened; they weren't "faked" or even double counted when they went on to Vevo. But because the videos are no longer on the channel, YouTube considers them "dead videos." They still live on in YouTube, just under a different channel.

Considering how many people have been sending this story over, I know lots of people would like to believe Sony Music and Universal Music faked 2 billion views and were now being punished for it, but it's just not the case.

Filed Under: fake, major labels, videos, view counts, youtube
Companies: google, sony music, universal music, vevo

Major Label-Owned Vevo Caught Publicly Streaming NFL Game Off Of 'Rogue Site'

from the where's-ice-when-you-need-them? dept

Where's ICE when you need them? For a while now, ICE has been making the case that sites that merely link to streaming content -- especially sports content -- are the most evil kinds of criminals around. It's why they're trying to extradite Richard O'Dwyer from the UK to have him face criminal charges. It's why they recently arrested Yonjo Quiroa, who will soon be tried on criminal charges as well. Both ran sites that linked to streams of TV content, including sports content. So clearly, this is serious, criminal business. In fact, if you believe the propaganda from the RIAA, these sites contribute to gangland violence and terrorism.

But, of course, when those major label guys want to set up an illegal public performance of an NFL game, where do they turn? You guessed it! One of those rogue sites.

Jason Kincaid over at TechCrunch has the rather insane story of how Vevo, the music video streaming company created by Universal Music and owned by Universal Music and Sony Music, had a booth set up at Sundance a few weeks back, where they, quite clearly, live-streamed an NFL playoff game. Yeah. In their "lounge," they had computers showing the game, apparently sourced from ESPN America -- which isn't available in the US. And the stream came from TuTele.tv, which appears to be quite similar to many of the sites that have been seized and shut down. In fact, it sounds pretty similar to Rojadirecta, which is currently fighting the US Justice Department in court.

And the folks from these major record labels used this source to live stream the football game throughout their lounge area at Sundance. It gets even more ridiculous when you remember that Congress has been trying to pass bills that would make such streaming a felony in and of itself. Senator Amy Klobuchar's streaming felony bill, S.978 -- the one that would potentially put Justin Bieber at risk -- as well as SOPA, both had provisions that made public performance of infringing content a potential felony. Those were mainly supposed to be directed at sites that allow streaming, but I think people would find it hard to argue that what happened in that bar was not a "public performance."

Of course, what this shows is that these issues are never as black and white as the RIAA would have you believe. And, just like many others, when the industry doesn't give them a convenient way to do what they want, even the RIAA's strongest supporters stoop to making use of rogue sites to potentially do "criminal acts."

I eagerly await ICE moving in to arrest Vevo execs for this blatant criminal activity.

Filed Under: copyright, hypocrisy, rogue sites, seized sites, sopa, streaming
Companies: emi, riaa, sony music, universal music, vevo

An Explanation For Why UMG May Be Right That It Can Pull Down MegaUpload's Video [Updated]

from the but-it's-still-sleazy dept

See the update at the end

The legal fight between Megaupload and Universal Music Group keeps getting more and more... odd. After the court gave UMG basically a day to respond, the company filed its response and made a rather surprising point: that a deal with YouTube/Google lets it take down videos it has no copyright over. This seems odd, and lots of people are screaming about some crazy clause that lets UMG censor anyone's videos. But I think I understand what's going on here -- and it's a very specific situation, where UMG sorta used a loophole -- so read on for the details. UMG is still being questionable, sleazy and short-sighted... but probably legal.

The key part of the company's legal response likely is accurate and probably kills MegaUpload's case. There are a few different ways that content can be taken down off of YouTube concerning copyright claims. One is via ContentID, the automated system that matches fingerprints. One is via a DMCA takedown notice. And one is via YouTube's Content Management System. This last one doesn't get much attention and isn't that well known, but it's basically halfway in between the other two (loosely speaking), granting partners the ability to spot and block videos that aren't matched by ContentID, but without sending a DMCA takedown. If you're familiar with the details of the system (which it appears MegaUpload and its lawyers were not), it was actually easy to tell this was a CMS block by the message that appeared on the blocked video. It said "This video contains content from UMG, who has blocked it on copyright grounds." That's the message that shows up on CMS blocks. DMCA takedowns say that the video is "no longer available."

So, on that point, UMG may very well be correct in its filing, that it's not subject to DMCA sanctions because it didn't actually file a DMCA notice. This is kind of a weak excuse, frankly, and really calls into question how YouTube's CMS system works, more than anything else. In theory, this also means that the only retribution that can happen for UMG wrongly taking down the videos of others is that Google cuts them off. But seeing as Google has a big partnership with UMG to build and run Vevo, that's unlikely to happen. That's a bit scary, but it suggests UMG more or less has a free pass to shut down certain videos it doesn't like without much recourse (well, beyond public ridicule).

That said, a part of UMG's explanation isn't entirely clear, but I have some guesses as to what happened. UMG claims that its agreement with YouTube goes beyond just copyright, and that it's allowed to pull videos for other (unnamed) reasons. This is new, in a sense, because YouTube has always suggested that CMS is for copyright issues -- and, in fact, the original message on the video, did, in fact, say that it was a copyright issue. YouTube later changed that message to say it was a terms of service issue. And that provides a clue.

I believe that part of the Vevo agreement is that UMG gets to "pull" videos of its own artists from YouTube for the purpose of putting them on Vevo. That's the intention anyway. I know when Vevo launched, that was part of the deal. All the YouTube videos of UMG artists magically jumped over to Vevo. So, I'm guessing that UMG basically used this loophole, which was supposed to be about taking videos off YouTube for the purpose of putting them on Vevo, and realized it could just "take the videos off YouTube" as long as they had UMG artists in them, without ever putting them up on Vevo.

In other words, due to the specific nature of the Vevo agreement -- which was intended to move videos from YouTube to Vevo -- UMG can pull videos that show its artists off of YouTube. Of course, in this case, it used it for an entirely different purpose, which was to try to censor this ad. That backfired in all sorts of ways, and it sounds like YouTube told UMG to knock it off, knowing that this was not the intention of the agreement at all. And, for what it's worth, UMG has stopped getting the video blocked, and says it will allow it to stay up for now.

This situation is messy and silly, but it seems like an unintended result of contract language over Vevo that UMG exploited. It may be legal, but in the end, it was pretty dumb by UMG. This whole thing, in true Streisand Effect fashion, actually drove a lot more attention to the ad. And even if it was legal, it sure makes UMG look petty and vindictive.

Update: Received a response from a YouTube spokesperson which makes this a little more interesting.

Our partners do not have broad take-down rights to remove anything they don’t like from our service. In limited cases, if they so choose, and based on exclusive agreements with their artists, partners can take down live performances.

That confirms some of what I thought: that UMG does not have the right to take down any videos (as people keep implying), but that it may be able to take down some videos. The new bit of info is that it's just live performances. So, that would suggest UMG is even slimier. They tried to claim that those video clips of artists in the MegaUpload song were "live performances." That's clearly bogus.

Update 2: And... MegaUpload has conceded that its restraining order request is moot, and so the judge has denied it (pdf), while giving the company the right to file for a preliminary injunction and for discovery. So, not much of anything, but the case will likely continue.

Filed Under: contentid, dmca, takedown, videos, will.i.am
Companies: google, megaupload, umg, universal music group, vevo, youtube

Record Labels, Once Again, Freak Out About Anyone Making Their Content Useful

from the moving-on... dept

Another day, another story of the major labels freaking out that someone (for free!) has helped make their content more useful and valuable. About a week ago, I was one of the folks who passed along the news (via Twitter) of a new service called Youtify, which took the YouTube API and built a neat media player on top of YouTube that looked quite a bit like Spotify, the popular music service that's not yet available in the US. The concept really isn't all that new. Muziic has been around for years, and has a YouTube-based media player, and TubeRadio has a YouTube-based music player that looks just like iTunes. Honestly, TubeRadio and Youtify are really quite similar, except one uses the iTunes look and feel, and the other uses the Spotify look and feel.

Either way, it's a pretty useful and neat setup for listening to and discovering new music on YouTube.

So, of course, the labels have to kill it. Adam Singer points us to the news that just days after Youtify's launch started spreading... the major record labels have somehow blocked their music from appearing. Note that most of this is via Vevo -- the major label-owned service for posting videos to YouTube. In other words, these are authorized videos that have been uploaded and made available on purpose by the record labels. And... then the Youtify guys went and made an interface to make it easier to access and consume that music... and the labels/Vevo freak out and block them.

Because, apparently, that's how the major labels roll. If something makes the music more enjoyable and more valuable for free, but doesn't "pay" the labels, then too freaking bad. Is it really any wonder why the major labels are struggling?

Filed Under: music, player, useful, youtify, youtube
Companies: spotify, vevo, youtify, youtube

YouTube Sensation Justin Bieber Blocked From Uploading His Own Music To YouTube By Copyright

from the bieber-fever dept

Justin Bieber became "Justin Bieber" thanks to YouTube. His early YouTube videos of him covering various songs are what turned him into a huge sensation, leading to a recording deal and the somewhat scary unstoppable force that is the fanbase of Justin Bieber. So, it should seem perfectly natural that Bieber would head over to YouTube to upload a video of his latest song. What doesn't seem perfectly natural is that he was blocked from doing so thanks to Universal Music and YouTube's ContentID system. Google (correctly) pointed out that this is an issue between Bieber and his label, but like most normal folks, Bieber wasn't interested in understanding the intricacies of copyright law when all he wanted to do was upload his own damn video to YouTube. So, instead, he went and uploaded it to Facebook.

Now, to be clear, Universal is Bieber's label, and assuming he signed a recording deal like any standard recording deal, it does hold his copyrights. But this is the kind of screwed up situation you get when the entertainment industry works so hard to block various new and useful tools from sharing content. The people who want to use it for perfectly reasonable and legitimate uses get blocked (and pissed off).

Filed Under: content id, copyright, justin bieber, uploads, youtube
Companies: google, universal music, vevo, youtube

Vevo Doesn't Put Ads In YouTube API, Gets Upset When Music Streaming Startup Uses That Fact

from the umm... dept

I actually had decently high hopes for Vevo, the partnership between Universal Music and YouTube to create a website for official music videos (currently from three of the four major record labels). I mean, I always figured that eventually the labels would screw stuff up, but I thought it actually had a shot at maybe being useful. The fact that Universal put Rio Caraeff in charge seemed like a good sign as well, since Caraeff seemed like the sort of music industry exec who understood the new marketplace for music, and wasn't encumbered with the "old ways" of doing things. But rather than a useful site, Vevo has basically been a cookie cutter version of what you would do if the record labels created their own YouTube. That is, it took none of the good parts of YouTube. Hell, it didn't even take the ability to handle a lot of traffic. For the first few days after it launched, Vevo just didn't work at all.

Its latest screwup was that it didn't include its preroll ads in the YouTube API, meaning that others who used the API could access and repurpose Vevo content without the ads, and even show the content outside the US (which Vevo currently does not allow). It didn't take long for one enterprising startup, Muziic, to do exactly that. Muziic has received some attention for basically using the YouTube API to create an iTunes-like experience out of YouTube videos (it also gets attention for being founded by a 16-year old). Muziic sent out an announcement this week about how it was using the YouTube API to add Vevo content, meaning you could access Vevo videos without the preroll ads and outside the US.

Vevo's first response? To send a cease and desist. At the very least, it wasn't a legal nastygram, but a more friendly cease & desist sent by Caraeff himself. But "cease" what? Muziic was using the API as designed, and even though Caraeff admits that Vevo is quickly scrambling to change the API, he still says Muziic needs to cease from using the Vevo logo or referencing the company's name. But Muziic used the name in an accurate and descriptive manner. It accurately noted that it was now offering Vevo content -- without ads and outside the US -- all legally via the use of the API provided by YouTube/Vevo itself.

Muziic's co-founder responded to Caraeff's email over at Hypebot, saying that he "was as shocked as anyone when I realized there were not yet any "pre-roll" advertisements for Vevo content in the API," but since it was how the company set up the API, it seems perfectly reasonable to use it that way. He also notes that he had reached out to Vevo prior to this to try to work out an arrangement with the company and got no response.

Filed Under: api, cease and desist, copyright, music
Companies: muziic, vevo

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?

Filed Under: business models, free, hosting, video, youtube
Companies: google, vevo, youtube