Without my knowledge I found that a number of videos had gone missing from a music article I’d written. Who had removed them and why? The prime suspects turned out to be the Warner Music Group, YouTube and Google.
A couple of days ago I received a comment on an article I’d written: “The Beatles, Eric Clapton, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, U2, Muse: my Generation”. The article was relating how lucky I felt to be born in a time when I was able to go and see some of these legends. I’d embedded “free to use” videos from YouTube, to illustrate the article and for readers to enjoy. The comment read:
“I loved this article. All the song choices were perfect! I only wish that Warner hadn’t pulled their copyright shenanigans on half of your links so that I could actually watch the performances. Chris W.”
I glowed at the praise but hadn’t a clue what he was talking about with reference to “Warner” and “copyright shenanigans”. I pulled up the article on my laptop to have a look. It looked fine. All the YouTube videos were still there; from early Cream right through to Muse and Radiohead’s Thom Yorke.
Still puzzled, I started to click on each of the videos. They played okay until I came to Led Zeppelin. When I clicked on the video, this came up:
Screenshot by author.
Ditto with “Black Sabbath” and same again with “Simon and Garfunkel”. What was going on?
First things first. I went back to YouTube and looked for replacements which I found without a problem, embedded them and put the article for re-editing. But what about that message?
I typed “Warner” and “YouTube” into Google.
Apparently it appears that, looking at the dates on the articles; things were coming to a head between the concerned parties on the run up to, and during, the Christmas and New Year period. A time when I took a break from anything to do with the computer, and with family commitments wasn’t regularly watching the news. This answered the question as to why I didn’t know anything about it.
The “concerned parties” were apparently YouTube, who Google bought in October 2006 for 1.65 billion dollars, and the Warner Music Group. The issue was about Warner wanting a bigger payout from the shared advertising revenue generated from the site.
On December 22 the BBC wrote:
“The original deal allowed Warner’s material to be used legally on YouTube in return for advertising revenue.
Music companies typically get a share of advertising revenue associated with each video and a per-play payment – estimated to be a fraction of a penny – for every video viewed.
“We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,” Warner said in a statement.
Sources close to Warner said the amount it received from YouTube was “staggeringly low”.”
A day earlier the NY times said:
“Warner reported $639 million in digital revenue for the fiscal year that ended in September. Less than 1 percent of that was generated by YouTube’s ads and fees, said an executive close to Warner Music who requested anonymity because the company doesn’t disclose details about individual agreements.
“If we don’t get this business model right, it’s going to be a lot harder to fix down the road,” the executive said.”
So if I’ve got the story right so far, the execs at Warner aren’t happy with the money that they are making out of YouTube; so they are removing their videos from the YouTube site. Well that seems straightforward enough. Warner is the culprit?
Apparently not.
In cnet news on January 27, Greg Sandoval wrote:
“Warner Music Group has been saying since Saturday that it was the one who asked that the label’s videos be removed from YouTube after talks to renegotiate its licensing deal with Google’s video site stalled.
That’s not what happened, say two high-level sources with knowledge of the negotiations.
YouTube began removing videos from its site after Warner came to YouTube with an “11th-hour demand” for better financial terms, according to the sources. All four of the top recording companies are renegotiating their contracts with YouTube for music and music videos.
Managers at the Web’s largest video site considered Warner’s demand. The label received its answer when YouTube began pulling videos. YouTube also beat Warner to the punch by firing the first public relations volley when it notified the public of the split by posting a note to the company’s blog. Ever since, Warner’s PR people have been busy trying to get their side of the story out.”
YouTube, announcing the breakup in a statement, said “music licensing is very complicated.”
“We work with the music industry worldwide—with major and independent labels and publishers, rights collecting societies, and with artists and songwriters directly—to build user-friendly licensing arrangements,” …
“That said, despite our constant efforts, it isn’t always possible to maintain these innovative agreements,” … “Sometimes, if we can’t reach acceptable business terms, we must part ways with successful partners.”
Warner for its part stated that it is “working actively to find a resolution with YouTube that would enable the return of our artists’ content to the site.
“Until then, we simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,”
So it wasn’t Mr Warner “whodunit” it was Mr Google and Mr YouTube. Case solved, but I’m sure not closed….
….particularly with these YouTube users who say exactly what they think!
Warning! I have not embedded these because viewers’ discretion is required. due to the adult content in the written words and gestures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hla7KMY8OFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyGxRucPbtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hklsnCunHis
Other music related articles by this author:
10 Amazing Music Trivia Facts You Never Knew
February 9th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Wow C this is really amazing that your video’s can be removed anytime, leave it to the big wigs and money to rule the roost.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Interesting information. I always took the view that clips on You Tube promoted musicians/artists/videos etc but apparently not.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:15 am
You Tube and google look after themselves and expect viewers to goto their websites and links not others.
It’s all about business and revenue generating.
Good to know though.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Interesting! Personally I think these big boys should start acting like grown up, sit around a table and decide what to do before people just get fed up. No wonder people steal music!
February 9th, 2009 at 8:55 am
That was interesting, I have seen this more and more lately. Shame.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I have had that happen too! Once because the video was removed from youtube.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Very interesting article, C.
I was always under the impression that what was found on YouTube was free. I share the same view as Louie…I thought the artists would benefit from the exposure.
Thanks for setting us straight.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
It is sad that all the great content is being removed from Youtube. It was a great entertaining site, but know I’ll probably be visiting them less.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
you know the buck rules.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Interesting. I didn’t know they could remove videos.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Excellent title!
February 9th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Crazy…is what I call it.Great article though.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Such a very nice article! Cheers!
February 9th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
agree with Lee, it`s all about the money…
February 9th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I am really starting to dislike Youtube. I had a playlist and almost every song was removed. Total crap!
February 9th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I think that when you embed a video that doesn’t belong to you, you take the risk. I often see webpages that present video “no longer available”.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Hey, my response got removed! Seriously!
I understand where your coming from, but every industry protects it’s copyrighted material. Over 30 years ago I was working in a small bike repair shop and a music industry rep. came in and told us if we were going to play the radio loud, we would have to pay a monthly fee. No different that pictures or any copyright material. At one point I had a small first aid company and the reviewer stated I used Velcro when in reality I used a generic. In less than a month I had a letter from the legal team at Velcro telling me to cease and desist, even though I never made the claim!
Chin up,
Good piece.
Clay
February 9th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
It’s a bunch of hogglewash, I tell you.
Ever since Google bought over YouTube, the video site has been becoming worse and worse. Personally, the only reason I go to YouTube is to watch Cartoon Network. People upload videos of the cartoons I like to view, I download them and save them to my hard disk, and YouTube deletes them from their site 2 days later.
Google can’t do anything about it, and I get to keep every episode of my favorite series on my computer for future viewing and burning to DVDs, which I give to friends for free.
Greedy companies like Google need to be put in their place, darn it! As long as hackers exist on the internet, Google will most likely be sued for copyright-infringement left, right and center. As far as I’m concerned, the more times Google loses lawsuits and ends up shelling out cash, the better.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
That’s why you’ve to check the video regularly to avoid “video not available”…or what I mean you’ve to update…
February 9th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Interesting.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
i knew someone who experienced the same,well,it’s business
February 11th, 2009 at 12:31 am
that sucks!
February 12th, 2009 at 2:27 am
This is really interesting – you will have to keep us up to date x
February 12th, 2009 at 11:15 am
I experienced the same thing with a Springsteen article on the HubPages… But they have a great tool there: “the Broken Link Finder”… and that one says when a YouTube video is not performing anymore (the problem, like you pointed out, is that you can’t see it until you play them!).