Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Youtube muting protest.

furie

furie

SBOPD
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
(To Jokerman) Not true... There is a "blanket payment" which goes to a group who deal with these things. At the end of the year, they just divide up the pie and pay out. Number of plays isn't paid out on a "one play - one pay" kind of deal. It's pretty rough and ready.

Remember, YouTube pay these licenses anyway, or have a separate deal with most music companies to cover it. It's just Warner and Universal are suddenly making a fuss and trying to get more.

I do actually buy music. I don't use Youtube to play songs because it's dog awful. I buy the CD, or pay for a download. I believe 100% in rewarding an artist you enjoy. I also like to find new artists I like, through watching things on YouTube, movies, TV programs, etc. I never listen to radio.

Sometimes a friend will lend me an album. I could rip it, and keep it forever. I don't though, I use it to a tester. If I like it, I buy the CD.

I support the music industry, and the artists. I WANT more people to hear music I like and also buy it.

If nobody has heard of Shriekback, nobody will buy their music. IF I put it on YouTube and now 100 people have heard it, 99 listen to it for free, and 1 buys an album - it's 1 album sale they didn't have before. Yes, 99 people have stolen it (effectively), but the net result is still 1 sale more than they had before.
 
P

peep

CF Legend
Something not everyone will be aware of is youtubes addition of a click to buy button for songs used in the video. If a music company finds a video which uses their song illegally then they can add this function to the video along with advertisements (some of us have seen this happen to our own videos). So then viewer of the video can purchase the song off iTunes within minutes.

I think this solves the problem in the best way and there shouldn't be any other action by the music companies apart from this. Not only does the uploader of the video get to keep the video on youtube without any muting etc but the music company will probably see a rise in sales via this new link.

Youtube posted a great example of the marketing potential of youtube. Monty Python created their own channel end of last year, within a month all their DVDs were in top 10 charts. A coincidence? Youtube thinks otherwise. They reckon that Furie is right, peeps watch a video on youtube, if they like the music or film or whatever then the peeps watching will probably spread news of the artist or buy their music/film etc themselves.


As far as I'm aware I only have one of videos with ads and link and none which have been messed with.
 
furie

furie

SBOPD
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Peep, you don't get notified by the way, so you may want to check all your videos.

I have another two muted - which is annoying as they only contain tiny bits of copyright material, most of it is all my own work :lol:

I also looked into this further (for those people on the "it's illegal, serves you right stop whining" front).

Until December 2008, Warner got just under 1p off YouTube every time a video with their copyright was played... Or, a percentage of the ad revenue from that video - whichever was the highest.

So Warner were getting paid for my videos with their music in.

Now, either the contract ran out, or Warner backed out of the contract (nobody knows), but the upshot was that YouTube and Warner fell out. Warner wanted more money, YouTube are not prepared to pay it.

As YouTube no longer have the license, they can't allow people to broadcast Warner stuff - so YouTube implemented the muting policy to stop Warner suing them.

This IS about copyright, but it's not about us end users 'stealing' - it's about two big companies arguing over money earned/paid for our content.

We're just victims essentially in a power struggle.

So Crow, you're right - musicians ARE currently losing money do to this, but it's not through lack or record sales, it's through them no longer getting their near penny per play off YouTube's license!
 
Slash

Slash

Giga Poster
But it all started with the Viacom thing.

For those who do know, don't bother reading this.

What happened was Viacom noticed that their TV shows were all over YouTube, people putting them up literally minutes after finishing on air. Viacom didn't like this and decided to make YouTube pay, they filed a law suit saying that YouTube were using their content without permission and without paying them (which is untrue, YouTube cannot be held responsible for what people on YouTube post, just like the mods on this forum can't be responsible for what people post). Anyway they went through the proceedings and the Judge (who has obviously never been on the internet) found Viacom in the right. Viacom had won, and their demands were that YouTube take down their videos/mute them/put adverts on them whenever they were uploaded.

Well then UMG and Warner got in on the situation thinking "I can make money", stuff happened YouTube wouldn't pay up and UMG and Warner demanded that they would file a law suit if their videos weren't taken down or content muted so YouTube agreed and did the right thing.

So in essence, its not YouTube's fault and **** Viacom.
 
Crow

Crow

Mega Poster
Hmmm.

I can't say that I would be happy if a TV programme that I had made, appeared frequently on Youtube. Surely you must agree that this would be a problem for Viacom because who's going to watch it on TV when they can get it easily at any time (at their convenience). So it is my opinion that Youtube should get involved as they run the website and should therefore take some responsability.

just like the mods on this forum can't be responsible for what people post
Click to expand...

I know I haven't been on these forums for long but if a member breaks a rule then I assume that a mod will get involved by locking the topic, or issuing some sort of warning, ect...

So if somone breaks a rule/law on Youtube and they mute that video, is that not the same sort of thing? :?
 
Slash

Slash

Giga Poster
Crow said:
Hmmm.

I can't say that I would be happy if a TV programme that I had made, appeared frequently Youtube. Surely you must agree that this would be a problem for Viacom because who's going to watch it on TV when they can get it easily at any time (at their convenience). So it is my opinion that Youtube should get involved as they run the website and should therefore take some responsability.
Click to expand...

You aren't getting it. Viacom THOUGHT that their views would go down due to YouTube, in fact, they didn't change. It seems their views were still constistently rising. But its not about Viacom, the only thing wrong about Viacom is the know what you, I and everyone else in the world is doing on youtube. What you are searching, what you are watching, how much you are rating, what your commenting

just like the mods on this forum can't be responsible for what people post
Click to expand...

I know I haven't been on these forums for long but if a member breaks a rule then I assume that a mod will get involved by locking the topic, or issuing some sort of warning, ect...

So if somone breaks a rule/law on Youtube and they mute that video, is that not the same sort of thing? :?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the music business isn't going down because of this, its not like people are going "You know what, I'm not gonna buy that CD because there is always YouTube". Statistically it increases their sales. The only reason UMG and Warner are doing this is because they want to line their pockets even more.
 
furie

furie

SBOPD
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
You're not right Slash.

Warner were the first company to jump "into bed" with YouTube and offer a licensing deal. TV/film and music are both completely different by the way - you can't compare the two.

Basically, anyone wanted to broadcast music over ANY medium has to pay for the right. The amount you pay is generally based on the size of your audience and the profits you will make on it. Warner and YouTube agreed on a licensing deal a few years ago. So Warner have been paid ever since, same with UMG.

The issue has come about because neither WMG or UMG feel they are getting as much out of YouTube as they deserve. They think that people ARE using YouTube as an alternative to buying music - so they want more from Youtube. They have also seen that later deals done with other music companies have been more lucrative for those companies. It's all about grabbing larger slices of pie in reality.

TV and film are very different as they have a different way of licensing their copyright material. Also, people will tend to watch TV or cinema just once or twice. So they can get their fix on YouTube. Music will be played over and over, so it's in the interest of the listener to get it in a decent format.

If Watchmen was released on YouTube right now for instance - attendance figures over opening weekend would be affected - particularly if the film is a little disappointing. The same could be said for a new music album, but music sales don't wane in the same way that film sales do - it's that repeat issue - people will always play music over and over.

The new laws in the US (DMCA) say that if you have copyright material on your servers, you're breaking the law and need to deal with it. As YouTube store the data on their networks, they are breaking the law (well, they are now that they don't have a license agreement with WMG). If somebody put a copy of Sony Vegas on CF (actually on the CF server), then Dan/Ian would actually be legally responsible for pirating - even if it was uploaded by me. The DMCA also has a degree of control over people posting links to illegal material, but that's a REAL job for the lawyers.

UMG are an odd one. They will remove videos if they're not seeing profits from it. Under their license agreement with YouTube, they can allow the content to be displayed. If it's making them money from views, then they will allow it to stay. If it's not viewed and not making them money, they just disallow it - they're more draconian than Warner by a long shot.

Erm, I think that just about covers everything. The Viacom case is still going through - no outcome from it yet almost two years later. YouTube are claiming protection under the DMCA Safe Harbour clause - Viacom are putting that to the test. So, it's a case of wait and see, but it's currently on hold - the Viacom thing isn't really related.
 
P

peep

CF Legend
Haha, I nearly fell off my seat from laughing at the Mushy plug. :D I think that made my day.

That video is actually a good idea, more peeps need to join in that me thinks. The more peeps that make it popular the more WMG will take notice.
 
ciallkennett

ciallkennett

Strata Poster
That is just taking it too far. What about all the music companies that already have their music videos on youtube? Will that have to be removed?
 
MouseAT

MouseAT

Hyper Poster
ciallkennett said:
That is just taking it too far. What about all the music companies that already have their music videos on youtube? Will that have to be removed?
Click to expand...
If the writers are represented by PRS, then yes, for UK viewers at least.

PRS are even worse than the labels. They are money grabbing leeches with a false sense of entitlement, and unlike the labels, they're not yet being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Unlike the labels, they don't actually produce a product - they just licence the public performance of music and make money from it - money that supposedly goes to the songwriters.

This one is going to get ugly.
 
P

Pierre

Strata Poster
What I don't get it is the muting option when they already have another option in place. Unless its because its a different record label or something?

What I mean is this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B5gqltp ... annel_page

It has a little advert on it with a direct link to the song to buy, which you can, or just close the advert if you wish.

If they did that with a load of videos they'd muted I'd bet the labels would get more revenue!
 
furie

furie

SBOPD
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
We're having an argument with the PRS at work too at the moment. They're essentially using strong arm tactics demanding money off us - without any proof we are using licensed music. It's just a letter of "Pay us £200 now, or we'll see you in court with the police at your premises one morning" It's pretty disgusting the way they behave.

Again, who really benefits from their tactics, not the artists, that's for sure.

I think Youtube are actually doing the best thing. They're bringing this very public, and making the public aware of what is going on in the background. It will also show the artists (hopefully) that the people working for them are actually alienating the people who make them stars, and put them in their positions in the industry.

Pierre, the ad thing is part of the deal YouTube had. All license owners have the ads and they get either so much per play, or a percentage of the ad revenue, whichever is greatest.

The problem is that they have become greedy, and seem to think YouTube is some kind of bottomless money making machine. They don't actually understand that YouTube isn't founded on a sound business model, and just isn't making anyone money in the long run,
 
Mit deLuxe

Mit deLuxe

Hyper Poster
It's any music video added either by the record company or by any fan, official or not! Please wait 2 days Youtube! Britney's new video is out!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top