Two things are clear in the YouTube/Warner Music scuffle. First, neither side is 100% right. And second, users are very, very angry that their videos are being pulled down or muted when they contain background music owned by Warner Music.
Those users aren’t being quiet about it, either. And scores of them are uploading protest videos to say exactly what they think. All are angry at Warner Music. And most express disappointment at Google, too, for reportedly walking away from the deal that allowed Warner’s music to be used legally on the site. I’ve embedded the “best of” below. More are being uploaded in real time, and this has the feel of a situation that is just now starting to boil over.
what losers!
welcome to the Internet.
I guess this was only the future half you covered back in Nov’s SF Summit with Edgar Bronfman: http://www.tech...usic-and-money/
But the other past half seems to still be stuck and has not yet evolved. I’d be pissed if I was a WB artist and they stopped some kids from expressing their joy to the world from my songs.
it’s not about joy–it’s about money…i think???? they aren’t getting any more money out of this! EF YOU WMG!
By removing their content, WMG is going against the times and not embracing new technologies. I predict that they will eventually either go out of business OR be acquired by an Intelligent Record label such as Universal.
GET WITH THE TIMES ! ! !
It’s funny they take a step forward to embracing technology, and then take 2 steps back in using draconian laws to go back against the very technology.
I think Warner, BMG, Universal and Viacom would be best suited to just take themselves off the internet – if you can’t understand the very nature of the technology, you may as well not use it at all.
It’s sad because at these companies there are some very progressive forward thinking individuals, but it’s the lawyers who really don’t understand how the internet works or how technology works and functions and see everything as a threat.
The use of a grainy and poor quality Miley Cyrus or god knows what song in the background of some kids video isn’t going to hinder their sales. It’s only going to make one of their customers who very likely will attend concerts, buy the merchandise, get the songs from ITunes angry.
Very stupid of them, instead they should just have google slap some ads next to the video – and maybe have an annotation or ad under the video telling them to buy the song with an affiliate link or something.
my 2 cents on this:
For google:
If companies like Warner, Sony etc want to encash their products, ask them to pay you a ‘marketplace-cost’ and then you provide the links to their “content with decided price on it”. people will download & buy the song if it is worth it.
For warner & the biggies: If the soundtrack is used for a presentation, or personal video, how does it f**kin affect your revenues??? It rather brings in more reachability/visibility of the sound track amongst people… While you can charge for the original soundtrack…
With the kind of sucking attitude u guys have I am sure the generation leadin your company is more than 40 years by age and 60 years by sensibility.
think about it, or you have the choice to learn the hard way too!
cheers,
neha
I too feel that this is a horrible thing. I utilize youtube to help teach college and elementary students american sign language and I incorporate music into this. By them refusing to allow the videos to remain on the site it goes against the fair use act (not for profit, educational) and it makes youtube not ADA compliant. If I was youtube I would be concerned about some of the deaf banding together and lashing out at both youtube and WMG the same way that they are at Netflix.
Adding “Buy on iTunes/Amazon” links and Video-side advertising are better ways for the industry to go about it that muting it.
Make money, get recognition for your song at the same time.
If I was a big record company, I would basically require YouTube to implement Derry’s solution. All videos that have my companies music need to have a link to my company store, where the they could buy the song, album, and/or actual music video.
Instead of sending DMCA notices, send “Dammit YouTube You Missed Linking This Video” notices.
But that would be sane and profitable.
Exactly, how can it be profitable to remove videos with your song in it?
People think “I want to hear that new Madonna song, I’ll look it up on YouTube and add it to my Library if I like it, most likely through those big obvious links to legal downloads” not “I want to hear that new Madonna song, I’ll buy it without hearing it properly!”
ok…
maybe… but just how many times have you clicked on something/an ad to buy something…
bottom line.. whoever “owns” the music/content, should get to set the rules. if you don’t want to play/buy the music, don’t access/use it.
in fact, if you don’t like the way warner operates, protest, buy music from someone else…
alot of these guys are complete parasites, wanting to use for free… guess what.. quality stuff has to be paid for in most cases…
Wonderful idea! Don’t these companies see that they would be getting free promotion?
Even better, they could release “promo” versions of the tracks (2 or 3 audio tags within the songs) that could be used instead of the actual tracks. I would be more than happy to post promo versions on my Playlist.com player.
And just give the user, the person who makes the vid a basic affiliate link. They would never have to spend a cent on marketing again….have tubers sell the songs…
Boom. You nailed it. The guys in the industry making these kind of decisions have to be around 30-40 years removed from their business degrees. Fascinating how difficult it is for them to get the point. They’re still going by the mass media manual for doing business instead of developing a new business model and adapting to the social nature of the Web.
It’s the Artists WMG and Google has screwed.
BIG TIME. According to Amazon.com, sales of Monty Python products have jumped since they, MPFC, started giving away their work on Youtube. There should be links to the artists website or amazon or whomever, so we can buy. Lawrence Lessig talks about this very thing in his new book, REMIX.
Basically, google should either shut down You Tube, or it should be shut down by the us government – A crime is committed every time copyrighted material is posted, and Google is an accomplice in this crime.
I still fail to understand why these people seem to think it’s ok to steal other people’s content. I’m sure if they were talented enough to actually be making money from their own creations they’d think quite differently about how artists are entitled to protect their work and their source of income.
It’s important for Google and Warner to take this action; we are rapidly becoming a society where this kind of theft is being thought of as being ok, simply because the property is not physical. It’s not unreasonably for content to be shared and for looser restrictions on copyright, but until there is a better framework for doing that, and unless the owners of the copyright actually agree, about 99% of you tube content is in violation of copyright and should all be removed.
75% of your statistics are incorrect 25% of the time.
How do you know 99% is in violation? Do you actively seek out this content and act as an accomplice in the illegal activity?
More seriously, YouTube has been actively courting and promoting production partners that create legit content. They’ve been doing this for quite some time.
@ds,
You are what I call a “Copyright Taliban”. Like Taliban in Afghanistan who advocates the harshest and most draconian interpretation of Koran, you believe that copyright laws should be used to quash free speech and shut down businesses.
In your logic, a person who drives 56 miles per hour in a 55-per-mile-restricted zone should have his license taken away, and anyone who owes IRS even one dollar should go to jail, and all blogs should be shut down because bloggers quote and link copyrighted materials freely.
You are, thank goodness, in a tiny minority. A reminder: Vatican and President Obama, and countless other governmental organizations, have official channels on YouTube, which you advocate should be shut down.
He is right, the law is wrong.
The law should be fully respected, if it can’t be fully respected, then the law MUST be changed.
The question is when and how.
Or move out of US and say to those WMG claims I am in another planet, your claims are not valid here.
Maybe this is the example I am talking about: http://thepiratebay.org/legal (sorry for the link if it’s not allowed to use the copyrighted space of TC) There are some emails from WMG there as well.
I am the owner of this comment and by just reading it, you are committing a crime, because the content belongs to me!
Copyright this copyright that copyright it all, but piracy will be the king after all! (TM)(R)
@ds: You so don’t get it – do you? This is not about pirated songs/videos but fair use and creations. Get educated:
http://www.ted....creativity.html
I wish the music industry would finally get it. There is a fine line between stealing music and promoting it. There are so many ways this could be turned into a win-win situation. I fear they are just too greedy and stubborn (or maybe just too old and non-IT?) to understand this.
The real question is how far does “protecting” go?
But that’s just the point, it’s NOT stealing. It’s just like television. People want to see a music video, they can turn on the tv or they can turn on youtube and be able to view it. They don’t OWN it. It’s just available for VIEW on the internet.
If artists were true artists, they wouldn’t care how fans of their music came upon the content. They’d just want them to have the music. And anyone who cared about the artists and music, would pay for the content if they could afford it. Some people can’t afford to spend their money on music, they have families to support or expenses or debt. If I were an artist, I’d still want them to have the joy of hearing my music.
Youtube is great promotion for any kind of media, and it makes people more likely to go out and buy stuff.
I told you in the last article about this issue that you cant rip off the music. makes absolutely no sense. worst deal ever for youtube and warner. instead of a win/win situation both lost.
Copyrighted videos on a public video posting site? You mean to tell me those millions of videos on Youtube are not all 100% original made-by-emo-kid-with-a-webcam variety? Impossible.
Youtube needs to stand up to copyright bullies, or it will go down a very long slippery slope.
er, we’re already on a slippery slope, but in the wrong direction! it used to be the case that talented people who worked hard to produce work, for which they earn money and own the copyright, were able to protect that work and that ability to be paid for their work. The copyright laws still support this, but unfortunately, and unbelievably, just because the technology doesn’t support this law but helps to break it, we are slipping down a slop to a point where people think the theft is ok. It’s not okay, and it should be stopped. You Tube should be shut down for free public posting, and replaced with something that allows copyright owners to post their own material, and the general public to post, for a fee, only stuff for which they own copyright. There needs to be a better way of users reporting copyright violation. And there needs to be more fines, arrests, and equipment confiscation, for people who do this kind of thing. Steeling is illegal.
YouTube is just the medium, why should it be shut down? If your girlfriend dumps you over the phone, you can’t sue Verizon.
Web 2.0 baby. Users showing how they feel for better or worse…
The last guy makes a good point. “Evolution of Dance” doesn’t seem to be going anywhere… Youtube is being selective about it, that’s not so good.
F%$k google and wmc it’s all just money money with them, they have more money than they will ever want $$$
Goes to show you that nothing in this world is free.
Nice to know their efforts are being heard!
Hello Mr. Arrington and TechCrunch. In response to YouTube’s muting of these videos AudioMicro http://www.AudioMicro.com will be giving away complimentary download credits to the first 100 readers of this post that email audiomicro@audiomicro.com – simply sign up for an account send us an email titled “TechCrunch” and state your AudioMicro in the body of the email. We’ll place 3 free download credits (worth $5 each) into your account. We’d like to raise awareness to the benefits of using royalty free music in video productions, eliminating the hassle of take downs. The AudioMicro archive contains Grammy nominated and Emmy winning composers and over 12,000 music tracks to choose from in all genres and styles. Cheers!
Just adding to the above post, please title your email “TechCrunch” and include your AudioMicro user name in the body of your message to receive complimentary download credits.
Not to mention that as an early employee of Def Jam, Lyor Cohen’s career was founded upon sampling and copyright infringement (as WMG would define it).
One of the worst labels ever. Seriously. So behind the times. So many times over the last 10+ years these problems could’ve been solved with smarter people are the helm. The solutions were there. But they are truly horrible business people.
As has been said, If I buy the music, and I don’t profit from it’s use – such as what happens when posting it on youtube – then I should be able to post it as much as I like.
When youtube has a rev share with their members through adsense or whatever, and there are those that opt into that rev share who then post material – that use should be ‘charged’ to the user – taken out of their rev share. Otherwise, WBR et. al. should simply be thankful for the publicity, and deal should be struck with YouTube that allows for a little rev.
The truth is, as I’ve said, all these deals with content companies – youtube, myspace, et. al, are only serving to prop up these companies who have no ideas and were well on their way to extinction.
That day can’t come soon enough for many of us.
Solution in the long run – FORCE yourself not to need music by artist on these labels. You CAN live without the latest Beyonce/Metallica/50cent etc. etc. It’s not imperative that you listen to or buy their merchandise. Forget them. Move on. Stop buying music from the labels. You’re being manipulated. You’re being USED. Stop buying music – period. Your life will not come to ruin without their product. You CAN live without it.
These companies need to die. Bankrupt. Get out of the business altogether. The only people that can force that to happen it you.
guys look…
if you create music or whatever, you as the owner should have the right to decide what you want to do with it. if you want to charge/license/or give it away.. go for it..
as a customer i can decide if i need/want to abide by what you impose on your content…
however… a number of people seem to feel that if the content is composed of “bits” then they get to have it for free…
it’s still called theft guys…
but the majority of these guys don’t actually make something comprised of bits that they actually try to sell to someone.. so.. this argument will fall on their deaf ears…
but yet they scream at bernie madoff for ripping off someone!! same diff…
That is plainly incorrect! Artists deserve the rights NOT THE LABELS. They are just glorifed PIMPS!
PLUS THE LABELS are the ones that are enforcing most of the draconian rules!
It is not theft; it’s transforming one creation into another, and there’s nothing morally wrong with that. Just because you created something, doesn’t mean your entitled to anything. I’m sick of the entitlement bullshit. Remixing and derivative work is not stealing and is not theft. I have not taken anything from you that you still don’t already have. If I use a song you created in a derivative work, you still has access to the song you created. How is that theft?
andrew…
it’s an easy test for you. if you create something you try to sell. let me have it. i’ll give you back a copy of it. let’s see how you feel. i’m not talking about some blog texdt you create…
but let me have a copy of the software you’ve created.. or the song you’re trying to sell. or the art that you’ve created…
i’m sick/tired of you guys trying to claim that since you can create a digitial copy of my work, then you should be able to do whatever you want… i didn’t grant you privs to do that, and i never will…
you then have the right to laugh at me and claim that i’ll never make $$$ because you won’t buy my work. no prob.. i’ll live/suffer, but it’s my choice…
your ability to make a derivative work of my product is carefully governed by various statutes. but none of them allow you to somply copy and run…
peace..
Is this at all related to the Viacom $1 billion dollar suit? I still want to see how many views out of total views contain copyright material.
bettr said.. scruuuu uuuuu
Agreed with some above…company bigwigs who took business courses 25 years ago need to realize: the web has changed things, and it will never be the same as it was.
Adapting makes more sense than threats, greedy draconian policies or suing all the web sites actually adapting to the new world order of commerce into oblivion.
Actually I am very in favor on the comment about linking the publisher with the content, and not muting the video, get ads, put links, whatever.. but dont put a red banner that doesnt even name your product which just limits its exposure in such a rich channel as YouTube.
Time to walk in the 21 century people, business is not what is was when your granpapi bough a movie ticket for a nickel.
Would YouTube exist if it weren’t for all the unlicensed and illegally broadcasted content?
I am a younger guy and I “get” the internet revolution thing but think about it, without playing content in which they had no right to play Youtube would have never existed. So, how would you feel if content in which you owned had a part in not only the money in which the site was sold for but also the continued revenue stream?
Ask yourself this… if you owned a huge chunk of content like some of these TV and Music companies do… wouldn’t it make sense for you to shut Youtube down and display your content on your own site?
I don’t know how anyone could look at it any other way. I mean, look at how pissed Michael gets when his articles get ripped off. Now imagine your whole body of work were ripped of and people were making millions off of it.
This seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Would be more appropriate to ask, if someone took an article of Arrington’s (just for example) and turned it into a rap song and the artist added some shout out’s in the song, “Michael Arrington, layin’ down the Crunch, yo! Not Capt’n crunch, but Tech Crunch! Girls, let me hear you sing!” (the musical version of citing sources?) How then would that play?
Also Siriusbuzz, you say “making millions off of it.” YouTube already allows publishers to claim videos that contain their creative works. I have put forth a couple myself, from people that uploaded my videos. I didn’t ask for takedowns, I simply entered my claim to the work. This allows me my rev-share from any of the, as you state, millions that are generated.
So, it should be up to the publisher to “claim” all of their work? Publishers should have to police the net to make sure their works aren’t being ripped off?
Just because you claimed your work instead of asking for a “takedown” doesn’t mean that others should do the same thing. When in doubt, people should obtain permission before ever uploading rather then uploading in hopes of not being caught.
I don’t know why this is even a conversation. Without abusing copyrighted work Youtube would have never existed.
A little bit of history:
Warner Music Group signed a deal with YouTube in Sept/2006 to put Warner’s music videos on YouTube and allow YouTube users to create videos with Warner’s music.
In fact, here is the link to TechCrunch’s report of this news in 2006:
http://www.tech...sic-to-youtube/
This is the reason why these thousands of videos with Warner’s music existed on YouTube, because they were created with specific permission from Warner.
Fast forward to late 2008, Warner wants $X from YouTube, but YouTube is only willing to pay $Y, the negotiation for a new deal broke off, resulting in this massive take-downs.
A very important fact: those videos that are being taken down now were done legally because a deal agreed upon by both parties in 2006 allowed the video makers to do so. Now that the new contract talk between YouTube and Warner has broken down, these videos became the “collateral damage” of the contractual war between two corporations.
The anger of those video makers is understandable, because they spent time making those videos, knowing they were allowed by the copyright owner, in this case, Warner Music, to do so.
seriously the useres are wasting their time and stressing about the wrong things. just use Creative commons music and cite the artists. you don’t get charged so long as you aren’t making the videos with their music for profit. and you won’t have to worry about getting censored.
one of many place i know of to get CC music is [jamendo.com].
suck a lemon and cheer up!
The Warner Music Group take down audio that is suspected or may have been under license to them. They also pull audio from a presentation you make using the full audio from this radio program.
Here is a glimpse at how their stock is performing.
52-Wk Low 1/20/09 1.89
52-Wk High 7/23/08 9.05
They finished Friday at 2:13.
They frankly suck.
have these crackheads learned nothing???
are they not fans of monty python? now those cats are smart. 23,000% increase in sales…by putting free content on youtube.
WMG needs to die. better yet, give all the money back to their stock holders.
“Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart.”
I wish people making youtube videos would realize how much better most of them would be without the sh*tty background music they pick anyway.
little girl’s video i.e. the fifth one was the best ..
hahah thanks. that’s mine
We can all thank that idiot Lars and Metallica for the music business’ cataclysmic idiocy and loss of total control of the industry. If those dumdums hadn’t cried like little babies when 3 college kids started Napster, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Let’s sue that German chump drummer.
It isn’t that surprising that Warner Music is abusing the DMCA and all the copyright laws in the U.S. The biggest issue with this is that corporations like Warner Music are abusing these laws which are completely psychotic and unconstitutional within itself. Here is why:
The way the laws are written is basically making people who are legitimate customers who bought the product legitimately into criminals by companies not allowing those customers to expand the idea that they originally made in the first place. Then those companies try to act like they are their own government by acting like police officers illegally to their customers. The best example of this is Electronic Arts. It’s understandable that they don’t want to lose money and have their products stolen, but they have no right to break the fourth amendment of the U.S Constitution and they have no right to tell anyone what they can/can’t do with something they bought.
I do have the solution to stop these corporations from abusing the current laws until they are revised: Don’t buy the product! If you don’t buy the product, then they don’t get the money and they will be forced to stopping their tactics.
If any of these corporations read these comments, I have one question in closing: What did your customers ever do wrong to you that gives you this hatred?
Lawrence Lessig’s new book REMIX is a gold mine of scenarios and policy suggestions to fix just this issue.
There needs to be an evolution of copyright law.
I’am agree with this users. YouTube actions to mute audio for music licensing is too bad for all. It isn’t a step in forward.
Yeah good shut it down, useless anyway
What I don’t like is someone posts a clip from a 1950s movie of a nice dance routine but clip is removed because it violates WMG’s policies.
With that clip removed, such knowledge will become lost because young people are not aware of the movie. People old enough to remember the movie will soon be dead of old age.
I see what is left of big labels is more mergers to what we now have for cable TV, and with bonehead programming.
MTV used to have lots of music videos. Now it seems it is all “reality TV” because creating new music cannot be done by the big music companies.
Also consider there has not been a “new sound” in past 25 years. Rap and hiphop was created more than 20 years ago.
Most labels have no vision whatsoever… And in a couple of years they are left to beg to YouTube to put their things there…
In the meanwhile most artists will just become freelancers on the web!
These copyright stuff needs to be more controlled otherwise we would still need to ask permission to the Arabs just to be writing this! After all they invented the Alphabet no?
As a YouTube user (my username is BluePounder) my original complaint was when YouTube removed all of WMG’s official music videos including those on Madonna’s official channel. I originally thought it was the work of Viacom. I found about the Google/YouTube vs WMG licensing dispute a short time later. Since I knew that my videos using Madonna’s music would soon be removed I made one of the videos you see on this page (the one showing Madonna’s middle finger).
I had since found out that it was Warner’s music publishing arm (not the WMG that deals with the actual recordings) that issued the takedown orders to YouTube. As a result they are claiming all their properties. Even cover songs are being removed.
It may be of interest that WMG still owns the copyright for “Happy Birthday To You” and guess what? YouTube is removing those videos too.
Pissed at WMG – show your respects by visiting piratebay.net and use bit-torrents.
WMG needs $$$ so they too can have million dollar offices for their beloved CEO as Bank of America’s.
Corporate America EAT ME!
HH
WB are removing content they don’t even own, in this case the songwriters contacted WB to tell them what *they* were doing was actually illegal
check this http://vonpipmu...ers-vs-youtube/
Couldn’t complain if they were just trying to enforce their legal copyrights. The problem is that they (intentionally or otherwise) go beyond that (e.g. disregarding fair use, or failing to state what material is infringing when sending a takedown notice) and if you’re not able to or willing to hire a lawyer there’s nothing much you can do about it.
Fill out this petition. It’s well needed and may help sort out the fiasco!
http://www.tiny...outube-petition
They should vote with their dollars/traffic and start using other websites.
This is a good thing in my opinion. WMG will die faster than it would have otherwise, and any labels which aren’t completely retarded will capitalise.
Survival of the fittest and WMG is the 25 stone guy in the corner eating a cheeseburger with a slice of pizza on top whilst smoking a cigarette.
Good times to come.
-tobeconfirmed-
It’s hard to not use any music. Your YouTube videos would be like a silent movie (video in this case)! Of course legitimate licensing from the record labels are way to expensive $ and messy. Royalty free music is a great way to go legit if you need music. They are pretty inexpensive and have become quite good in terms of quality. So far I’ve heard some good stuff from sites like http://www.opuzz.com/, http://www.soundideas.com/, http://www.sounddogs.com/. Personally I understand that it is leave your favorite Rihanna track out of your video but hey, using it without permission or payment to the composers is something I understand myself too as a musician. I guess we’ve been so used to using it for free and never really gave it much thought but if you look at it from those creating the music or record labels that spend $ promoting/creating the artist, you kinda pity them too. Sales have been so bad for them it is a wonder that there is still new music from them out there.
Why is Warner in the wrong here? Their content, which they paid serious cash for, are getting distributed on YouTube, which generates advertising revenue only for Google. Warner doesn’t get any compensation for this. I’d be pissed too.
I remember bitching about things that didn’t go my way too. I was 10.
Yea but the thing that is really pissing most people off is even videos of covers are being taken down because of WMG.
Yes, they are a bunch of old-media parasites that want to control content in every which way possible. That will NEVER happen people. Get used to new media, the new generation and the f-ing Web… The problem is these old fart executives that think they can control the web and their content 100%. That’s OVER and will never happen again.
Work with the internet, developers and people and you’ll make more money than before you greedy bastards!!!!
i hate youtube
isn’t one of the major issues is that youtube is a revenue generating site? the issue would be different if youtube wasn’t making money off of copyrighted material that users generate and upload for free
essentially, youtube is a video portal that makes money off of user generated content that it gets for free and whose content uses copyrighted material.
while there are creativity, fair use issues, i think that is the one issue that needs to be discusses
isn’t the problem that youtube is generating revenue off of copyrighted material? essentially youtube takes free user generated content, whose content uses copyrighted material.
while fair use and the other side arguments are interesting, isn’t the real discussion still copyright violation, especially when the biggest video portal in the world is generating money off of this?
Well, what would you expect when you steal music. You just cannot take something when you “need” it – when you sit on the other side of the tract as a struggling musician because everyone is stealing your music without paying the royalties…..
I know what, I need a car to run to the ski slopes tomorrow, maybe I will go and “borrow” your car for the trip! hmmm……….
To all the people “defending” Warner & saying that they have the right to do this:
Why can’t you understand that just because they have the right doesn’t mean they should?
So what if it’s within their rights – is it a good idea to piss off your potential customers?
And are you telling me that the people who are pissed don’t have a right to express their feelings?
Yes, Warner CAN do what they’re doing. And people CAN be pissed at Warner’s choices.
Doesn’t WMG realize we’re in a recession? Don’t they realize that this is just going to create bad publicity? Don’t they realize that YouTube cannot afford to pay them the money they want, and they should settle for a little less and focusing on cutting costs?
More thoughts at http://www.musimuse.com
I’d love to know how some 27 year old videos recorded on VHS with mediocre sound quality and uploaded to youtube are going to have any detrimental effect on WMG’s record sales.
Hell, if the viewer comments are anything to go by, WMG should be paying me for bringing these obscure tracks from 80s artists back to into the public domain.
As they’re going after people singing ‘Winter Wonderland’ see Juliet’s video .
I wonder how long it will be before they ‘ll ask for all the instances of ‘Happy Birthday’ to be removed.