Warner Music Taking Its Music Off YouTube And Going Home

from the still-not-getting-it dept

Warner Music desperately wants people to believe that it’s not the evil record label that people make it out to be, but it’s going to have a very difficult time proving that’s true when it keeps doing strategically braindead things like pulling all its music off of YouTube because it’s upset Google won’t pay more money. This is classic Warner Music. The company almost always overvalues its music, compared to the services that help promote that music, and is always demanding a larger cut. Last summer, it did a similar thing and pulled its music off of Last.fm. With plenty of other startups, the company has a history of suing until they agree to cough up a huge chunk of equity. This, of course, is the same company whose boss, Edgar Bronfman Jr. just a year ago declared that the industry had made a mistake in going to war against consumers, ignoring the fact that it was his own speech back in 2000 that basically kicked off that war.

To be honest, Warner Music should be hugely thankful that Google is paying the company anything for music on YouTube. Legally, Google has no reason to pay a dime. Thanks to the DMCA safe harbor provisions, if Warner wants to go after anyone, it should be going after those who upload the videos, but Google worked out a totally unnecessary (and somewhat questionable) deal to pay the labels for a promise not to sue users. However, it looks like Warner Music is getting excessively greedy again. Perhaps it’s the recent reports that Warner’s larger competitor, Universal Music is bringing in significant cash from YouTube that got Bronfman and crew angry, but it’s doing exactly the wrong thing in pulling its videos.

Pulling the videos off of YouTube doesn’t punish Google. It punishes fans: the folks who Warner desperately needs on its side, though it’s been failing at that for a long, long time. Google’s response should be “good riddance.” Let’s see how Warner Music copes with angry musicians who want fans to promote their music on YouTube, while seeing plenty of other bands build up larger audiences that way.

Filed Under: copyright, music, videos
Companies: google, warner music group, youtube

Online Video Sites Harming Themselves With Geographic Restrictions

from the the-internet,-it's-global dept

Techdirt reader Santiago Crespo recently wrote in making a really valid point about all the various authorized online video sites that seem to employ geographic restriction, much to their own detriment:

I live in Argentina, in South America and am an avid Heroes and House follower, but there’s a problem watching those shows in our side of the world. Big network subsidiaries offer cable access to American TV shows, but for some unknown reason they can take up to six months to subtitle them in Spanish, and therefore we’re stuck watching last season episodes all the time. I don’t need subtitles to watch the series, since my grasp of the English language is decent enough to understand what the show is about.

But every time you want to use any legal video site such as Hulu, the NBC website, Sling.com or even some bits of YouTube (Geo-restricted music videos), it will show an error message saying you’re “geographically challenged.” So instead of geolocalizing ads (as Google does, since I get ads for Deremate.com, a Latin American eBay clone here on Techdirt) they leave me no choice but to head over to the pirate bay to get my fix ad-free.

And even if your comprehension of English isn’t good enough to watch the shows downloaded from Bittorrent, every single TV episode gets fansubbed within 24 hours of airing. I think the big networks are wasting a revenue opportunity by limiting who can watch their shows (6 months from now if you have cable) instead of letting you watch them on-line (unlimited audience potential) with some geo-located ads.

It’s a really good point. Some of it may be due to rather old school and silly geographic “rights” issues, where certain contracts allow companies to only have the right to broadcast content in certain geographies so that the content owner can try to resell the same content in other areas as well. Yet, by now it should be clear that geographic specific content makes less and less sense, and really is detrimental to the content owners. Rather than making it easier to score big deals, all they’re doing is encouraging piracy.

Filed Under: geographic restrictions, online video
Companies: hulu, sling, youtube

NBC's Rick Cotton Apparently Unable To Properly Monetize Value

from the why-does-he-keep-his-job? dept

I’m beginning to wonder if NBC Universal simply sends General Counsel Rick Cotton out to the press to make the most ridiculous, unsupportable statements for their PR value. Otherwise, you have to wonder how the man keeps his job, as pretty much any of his well-publicized statements should make shareholders question his business acumen. This is the guy who claimed that the government should force ISPs to filter unauthorized content because piracy was causing poor corn farmers to lose money (despite the fact that corn farmers are doing better than ever, and there’s no evidence that they’re impacted by piracy either way — people can eat popcorn during pirated movies, too). He also suggested that police would be better off spending less on stopping bank robberies and more on piracy. Seriously. Then he was happy that NBC made it difficult for people to watch the Olympics online.

His latest claim doesn’t quite reach the level of some of his earlier statements, but again it has you scratching your head over how he can have the confidence of his bosses. Over the weekend, he was apparently complaining that the only reason YouTube was worth $1.5 billion to Google was because the video of SNL’s Andy Samberg “Lazy Sunday.” He claims that YouTube received all of the benefit of this piracy, which catapulted it to stardom.

First of all, this simply isn’t true. As a YouTube representative who follows Cotton noted, the Lazy Sunday video is pretty much impossible to pick out of YouTube’s log files, since it had such little impact on traffic. But, more importantly, this is yet another case of a content provider overvaluing the content and undervaluing the delivery platform. Cotton seems to ignore the fact that the Lazy Sunday video on YouTube almost single-handedly brought a ton of people back to SNL after having given the show up. It made people pay more attention to SNL, in particular other Samberg videos.

Furthermore, if it’s actually true that NBC got no value out of Lazy Sunday being on YouTube, then the entire NBC management team deserves to be fired. It was such a fantastic opportunity to rebuild SNL’s brand, and here’s one of the company’s top executives flat-out admitting that he blew it. He really wants people to believe that he’s so inept that a tiny startup with barely any revenue could capitalize on something that he could not? It’s either amazing what poor vision NBC’s management has, or it’s just stunning that Cotton keeps his job.

Filed Under: content, lazy sunday, monetizing, rick cotton
Companies: nbc universal, youtube

Online Movie Distribution Should Be Widespread, Not Focused On Specific Sites

from the spread-the-wealth dept

There’s a lot of buzz over the fact that MGM has apparently worked out an agreement to put some complete movies and TV shows on YouTube, in an attempt for both YouTube and MGM to build alternatives to things like Hulu. The content selections look pretty weak so far, as if MGM decided to test this program out with its least desirable content (which hardly seems like a fair test). Either way, the point seems a bit silly. Working out specific deals with specific sites misses the point.

You don’t see movie studios today looking to do exclusive deals with one chain of movie theater to distribute their movies. No, the idea is to get the movie seen in as many places as possible to make it as convenient as possible for whoever to watch it. The same should be true of studios who realize that they want their movies available for free online. They shouldn’t just focus on doing a deal with one site, like YouTube, but in setting up the parameters where any site can distribute the movie for them. Otherwise, you end up with a patchwork of different deals, and different sites, and no one really knows where to go to get anything. Why not just set up the parameters, and let any qualifying site serve up the content instead?

Filed Under: movies, online
Companies: mgm, youtube

YouTube Tells McCain He Doesn't Get Special DMCA Treatment

from the change-the-law-and-we'll-talk dept

Earlier this week, we pointed out the letter the McCain campaign had sent YouTube concerning observing fair use before complying with takedown notices on political videos. As we noted at the time, the problem with the situation wasn’t with YouTube, but with the DMCA (which McCain voted for, by the way). Now, YouTube’s Zahavah Levine has responded to the letter, and made the same point. YouTube won’t change its practices because that would be granting special privileges to the campaign rather than everyone else. Instead, YouTube hopes that McCain will help fix the law so that this isn’t a problem going forward:

While we agree with you that the U.S. presidential election-related content is invaluable and worthy of the highest level of protection, there is a lot of other content on our global site that our users around the world find to be equally important, including, by way of example only, political campaigns from around the globe at all levels of government, human rights movements, and other important voices. We try to be careful not to favor one category of content on our site over others, and to treat all of our users fairly, regardless of whether they are an individual, a large corporation or a candidate for public office.

The real problem here is individuals and entities that abuse the DMCA takedown process….

We look forward to working with Senator (or President) McCain on ways to combat abuse of the DMCA takedown process on YouTube, including by way of example, strengthening the fair use doctrine….

This is the right response. As problematic as the takedown process is, the answer should be to fix the law — not make special exceptions for politicians.

Filed Under: campaign, copyright, dmca, fair use, john mccain, takedowns, videos, william patry, zahavah levine
Companies: google, youtube

McCain Campaign Sends Letter To YouTube Defending Fair Use

from the what-the...? dept

This is impressive, and somewhat unexpected. It’s rather rare to see politicians (other than maginal ones, at least) showing any sort of recognition of fair use. It’s certainly not an issue you’d expect to see raised by a presidential candidate (of either party). However, John McCain’s campaign has sent a letter to YouTube complaining about the site’s unwillingness to consider fair use in videos before taking them down. You can read the whole letter at that link or below (if you’re not reading via a feed):

The letter basically notes that YouTube seems a bit too fast on the trigger in pulling down content based on DMCA takedown notices, in part parroting the some of the recent ruling where a judge said that those sending DMCA notices need to at least take fair use into consideration. Of course, that was directed at the sender of the DMCA takedown notice, not the recipient, as in this case. I’m sure the McCain campaign recognizes that YouTube is completely within its legal rights to automatically pull down the content, but in sending this letter the campaign is suggesting that, specific to videos put up by either political campaign (the letter cc’s the Obama campaign), that YouTube take into account fair use.

The letter is addressed to YouTube’s founder, Chad Hurley, as well as Google’s Senior Copyright Counsel, William Patry (who we’ve talked about and quoted here many times) and Zahavah Levine, who is General Counsel for YouTube, who I’ve met and spoken with in the past. Both Patry and Levine are well aware of the legal issues here (probably better than just about anyone else), so it will be quite interesting to see how they respond. The real issue here has almost nothing to do with Google/YouTube — but with the way the DMCA itself is structured. Since it provides clear safe harbor for a recipient of a takedown notice if they take down the content, it’s a reasonable business decision to simply take down the content and then follow the proper procedures for letting the uploader file a response notice.

While it certainly would be nice for YouTube to take into account fair use before deciding whether or not to pull down the content, the real problem is with the law itself, and the incentives it puts in place for any recipient of such a letter. If the McCain (or Obama) campaign were really concerned with that, they should not just ask for this special exception to YouTube’s official policies, but should promise to push for a change to the DMCA that makes an explicit point that recipients of such takedown notices shall retain their safe harbor protections even if they refuse to take down content, if they have a reasonable belief that the content in question is being used in accordance with fair use rules.

Filed Under: campaign, copyright, dmca, fair use, john mccain, takedowns, videos, william patry, zahavah levine
Companies: google, youtube

YouTube Taking Feature Advice From XKCD

from the ok,-that's-just-awesome dept

While any open online forum has its share of trolls and poorly written comments, YouTube is infamous for having a quality level below pretty much everywhere else. The (absolutely worth reading) online comic strip, xkcd ran a strip recently joking about one possible “cure” for this: having a virus written that would read a YouTuber’s comment outloud before requesting final approval to post it. The idea was that any sane person would recognize how idiotic their comments sounded:

Apparently, the folks at YouTube/Google thought it was such a good idea that they’ve actually created just such a button. Of course, those who need to use it most probably won’t do so. At least with the xkcd version, the virus forced people to listen to their comments.

Filed Under: audio, comments, features, xkcd
Companies: google, youtube

Another YouTube Speeder Found Not Guilty Due To Lack Of Evidence

from the be-careful-when-you-speed-and-youtube dept

It seems that it’s becoming somewhat common for police to scour YouTube for videos of people filming themselves speeding. However, at the same time, we’re seeing at least a few of the tickets handed out for such YouTube speeding thrown out. The latest is over in the UK, where a guy charged with speeding due to a YouTube video has been found not guilty because there’s not enough evidence that he was the one actually driving the car — or that the car was really traveling at the speed shown on the speedometer. This doesn’t mean that folks posting their speeding videos on YouTube won’t still be fined, but it appears that (at least in the UK) courts are making sure that there’s enough actual evidence there to make the fines stick.

Filed Under: fines, speeding, tickets, uk, video
Companies: youtube

EMI Sets Up Its Own Online Store As YouTube Tries Selling Music

from the try,-try-again dept

Lots of folks are trying to figure out new business models in the music space, and here we have two separate big companies testing out ideas that seem unlikely to work all that well. First up is EMI, the big record label that keeps insisting that its going a different route but can’t seem to reign in its lawyers from taking the same old route. This time around, it’s launching its own music download site, where it’s promising lots of extras and goodies — including some stuff for free. It will be interesting to see how the actual site is set up, but the idea of setting up just a label specific site seems destined to fail. People want a one-stop shop. They don’t want to have to know that the music they like is on EMI. Imagine, back when people bought CDs, if they had to go to a different store for each record label. Maybe there’s more to it than what’s being described, but at first pass, this sounds like more of the same: a big record label sticking a square peg into a round hole, covering it with shiny paint, and talking about how awesome it is.

Then there’s Google, which has been struggling mightily to come up with ways to make money off of YouTube. At the same time, record labels have been complaining about how much “music” (accompanied by videos, of course) is available on YouTube, and the folks at Google put two and two together and will start offering options to buy the songs you hear on YouTube at partner sites such as Amazon or iTunes. While it’s not a bad idea (why not offer people a chance to buy if they want it), it’s hard to see this really getting that much traction. Some people may go ahead and buy out of convenience, but it’s hard to see people actually doing that much music “shopping” this way.

Filed Under: advertising, clickthroughs, music, portals, selling
Companies: emi, google, youtube

How To Do Advertising On YouTube: Make It Awesome

from the content-equals-advertising dept

In the past, as we’ve talked about how advertising is content and content is advertising, we’ve pointed out that many folks who worry about “advertising” on YouTube are missing out on the fact that the YouTube videos are advertising themselves. But, of course, with millions and millions of videos on YouTube, it helps to do something special. Our own Tim Lee sent over this example of a YouTube video about a Nintendo Wii game that’s worth watching in its entirety, just to see what happens. Can’t say much more about it, other than that you should watch the whole thing. It acts as fantastic content and fantastic advertising in a single shot — without “overlays” or “prerolls” or anything like that. It’s yet another example of how a YouTube video fits in when people recognizes that content is advertising… and advertising is content.

Filed Under: advertising, content, video, wii
Companies: google, nintendo, youtube