Fight Over YouTube Videos Heats Up In The UK; Musician Propaganda Begins

from the you're-about-to-learn-what-leverage-is dept

The decision earlier this week by Google to block music videos in the UK has certainly kicked off quite the firestorm of discussions within the music industry -- and an awful lot of whining about how it's "just not fair." Not surprisingly, the PRS folks have dragged out some musicians to kick and scream about how Google makes sooooooo much money, so why aren't they sharing? It's the same economically clueless argument that the newspapers have been using against Google. However, as Google pointed out, they are looking to share. The offer they made to PRS was to give them a significant portion of whatever ad revenue can be generated on those videos. PRS wants more than that, such that every music play would cost Google significantly more than it made.

It is, perhaps, no surprise at all, that one of the major complainers on the musician side is Billy Bragg -- who's been quick to make these sorts of ridiculous arguments in the past as well, and whose manager, Peter Jenner, is equally unable to understand basic economics. The problem is that they think that the world owes them money after the fact. They both refuse to come up with decent business models, and then complain when others do -- and demand that those other innovators simply have to pay up.

It's the same story we hear over and over again. Folks in the entertainment industry insist that 100% (or perhaps 99%) of the value comes from the content itself -- and refuse to recognize that any of the value comes from the technology, the service or the community of folks using those services. However, their own actions show how wrong that is. If it's true that Google is "underpaying" the artists, shouldn't the artists be HAPPY that Google took down their content? After all, according to what some of these artists and record labels insist, wasn't Google "stealing" from them? So, now that Google has stopped, doesn't that mean they're better off?

No?

The very fact that the musicians are so up in arms shows how much more leverage Google has. It shows that a significant part of the value is in YouTube. YouTube can survive just fine without the music videos. The musicians, on the other hand, are suffering. That's why it's the musicians complaining. But that shows the very point Google is trying to make: Google has the leverage here, not the musicians. And, yet, the musicians still want to pretend it's the other way around.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Universal, YouTube Collaboration All Depends On Execution... And Community

from the give-them-the-benefit-of-the-doubt? dept

A bunch of different sources are reporting on a "near deal" between Universal Music and YouTube to create a special stand-alone music video site, sort of like a "Hulu for music." As has been widely reported, all of the major record labels have been in talks to try to come up with new deals with YouTube -- with most of the earlier focus concerning how to deal with user-uploaded clips that contained music. Famously, Warner Music pulled out of discussions, when it was angry about the terms of the deal. Sony Music, however, recently renewed their deal. The Universal Music deal would be something much larger -- focusing more on content put on an entirely new site by the label itself. The other major labels have been offered the option of joining in as well.

Of course, no deal is definite, and with all of these things, the devil is in the details. The News.com report notes that the "benefits" that each party brings to the table is that Universal would bring the music, while YouTube/Google would bring the technology. If that's really all there is to it, then it's missing the point of YouTube. The value has never been in the technology itself -- which isn't even as good as some others', and not all that hard to replicate. The value in YouTube has always been the community. Many people now go to YouTube first to find any kind of video they're looking for -- and there's a large and growing community of folks who use YouTube to communicate with others. Creating an entire site to get rid of the riffraff just for the sake of selling higher CPM ads may sound good at first, but if it does so in a way that diminishes the value of the community, it may limit the usefulness or success of the site. In fact, at just about the same time that news of this possible deal was leaking, news was breaking that PluggedIn, a site that tried to be a "Hulu for music" and apparently had wonderful technology, was shutting down.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MTV Bleeps File Sharing Software Out Of Music Videos

from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept

Reader Matthew Muro writes in to let us know of a rather insane bit of news. MTV's new video hosting site is apparently bleeping out the names of file sharing sites in Weird Al Yankovic's famous 2006 song "Don't Download This Song." The opening verse to the song goes as follows:

Once in a while maybe you will feel the urge
To break international copyright law
By downloading MP3s from file-sharing sites
Like Morpheus or Grokster or Limewire or KaZaA

Yet, in that new MTV version, the last line is "Like *BLEEP* or *BLEEP* or *BLEEP* or *BLEEP*" rather than naming the four file sharing programs. Watch it here:

You can see the original (unbleeped) video on Weird Al's own YouTube site, which (again, inexplicably) has embedding disabled, or we'd put it here for comparison purposes.

MTV's actions really have me scratching my head. Do they think that the names of file sharing programs are the equivalent of curse words? Or do they really think that, by bleeping them out, people won't be able to figure out what's in the song? Seems like yet another sign of how out of touch MTV has become from today's musically-inclined youth.

57 Comments | Leave a Comment..