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


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Lobo Santo's Ugly Goldfish, 17 Dec 2009 @ 11:05am

    If they want to sell it as ad space

    They should market it as ad space, and let the people who OWN the content decide if they want to be on it or not. YouTube doesn't work this way, it allows the public to upload stuff regardless of copyright, and waits for the DMCA. YouTube by it's nature is entirely dependant on the content, without it, it is another blank website.

    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.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.