Like they really need MORE money...
Sep. 14th, 2006 07:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jon_chaissonApparently Universal Music Group (the biggest record company in the world, mind you) is a bit peeved that MySpace and YouTube are infringing copyright on their artists "by allowing users to post music videos and other content involving Universal artists" (according to the Yahoo Music article linked). I have a few points I'd like to make, mainly concerning YouTube, since I don't normaly use MySpace.
Okay:
First of all, videos on YouTube are streamed, so they are not being downloaded. This is essentially like listening to the radio or to an online streaming station like Launchcast. If there are any songs, videos, or movies being posted in their entirety that are easily available elsewhere--say, on DVD--they definitely have to download it elsewhere. I fail to see where anyone is actually losing money. And if they are, it's a miniscule amount.
Second of all, Universal as a record distributor owns not only everything that was originally under the UNI name but also under the former PolyGram (PGD) distributing name. Their only major opponents distributor-wise here are EMI, Warner, and Sony/BMG. The UNI/PGD merger happened in 1998 when I was still working at HMV. This merger threw so many big-name bands into one distributor that they're making money hand over foot. Their roster includes (or included) U2, Eric Clapton, Sigur Ros, Rush, countless jazz and classical albums, and an extremely impressive back catalog. This merger also dropped a goodly number of great bands, some breaking up but some luckily getting a good deal elsewhere, but that's a different post. So yeah, I highly doubt that they're losing their apparent "tens of millions of dollars." With any record distributor, their cash cow is their back catalogue, and this particular one makes millions just off their midline titles alone. Again, I fail to see where the money is being lost.
Thirdly, and this ties in with the second point, and as you've probably noticed from various Friends' post links, a goodly amount of us use YouTube to post videos of old songs we like. I can vouch for myself that I search YouTube now and again to see videos of old songs I used to see on MTV, particularly on 120 Minutes, back in the day. I can't tell you how many times I've found videos I never thought I'd see again, because someone recorded them off of VH-1 Classics and posted them. With that I could say yeah, there's a bit of a gray area copyright-wise, but think about it--who's really losing money if we can't find the video elsewhere to start with, because it's only played on that channel? Or that we haven't heard that song in years because it's out of print and the distributor has no future plans to release it anytime soon? Or that we didn't know a video existed for a song, because it was only played in the UK? This should be a positive for the distributor and the artist, since someone is obviously going to either download the song elsewhere or find it new or used somewhere?
Fourthly, and this has always been a sore spot with many bands: who's getting most of the check, anyway? Certainly not the band. It is true that many bands see a small percentage of the overall gross of an album's sales, due to the fact that it gets divvied up all over the place. I can't say for certain that UMG bands are getting higher checks because of the sheer amount of money it makes--in fact, I seriously doubt it. So I would like to know for certain that this money UMG is demanding would specifically go to the artists and not the pockets of the lawyers and the corporate-level businessmen.
Oh, and added to the fact--if you read to the end of the article--that they're actually charging Yahoo and AOL to play their videos. Not making them downloadable. Not making them free to watch via streaming. FOR WATCHING. What is essentially a promotional video. Let's put that in bold, shall we? A PROMOTIONAL video. Meaning a video made for promotional purposes, used to push their artists and inspire customers to buy their albums and dvds. I hate to say it, but this also ties in with my long-standing annoyance with cds that have special cd-rom items on it that are only accessible either by "signing" a EULA (End User Licensing Agreement) or worse, can only be accessed by the one computer that happened to open it. Yeah, this is what bothered me about the Velvet Revolver cd so long ago. I understand them trying to stop illegal copying, but there's a point at which it just gets ludicrous.
So yeah. You could say I'm a bit miffed about all of this.
Okay:
First of all, videos on YouTube are streamed, so they are not being downloaded. This is essentially like listening to the radio or to an online streaming station like Launchcast. If there are any songs, videos, or movies being posted in their entirety that are easily available elsewhere--say, on DVD--they definitely have to download it elsewhere. I fail to see where anyone is actually losing money. And if they are, it's a miniscule amount.
Second of all, Universal as a record distributor owns not only everything that was originally under the UNI name but also under the former PolyGram (PGD) distributing name. Their only major opponents distributor-wise here are EMI, Warner, and Sony/BMG. The UNI/PGD merger happened in 1998 when I was still working at HMV. This merger threw so many big-name bands into one distributor that they're making money hand over foot. Their roster includes (or included) U2, Eric Clapton, Sigur Ros, Rush, countless jazz and classical albums, and an extremely impressive back catalog. This merger also dropped a goodly number of great bands, some breaking up but some luckily getting a good deal elsewhere, but that's a different post. So yeah, I highly doubt that they're losing their apparent "tens of millions of dollars." With any record distributor, their cash cow is their back catalogue, and this particular one makes millions just off their midline titles alone. Again, I fail to see where the money is being lost.
Thirdly, and this ties in with the second point, and as you've probably noticed from various Friends' post links, a goodly amount of us use YouTube to post videos of old songs we like. I can vouch for myself that I search YouTube now and again to see videos of old songs I used to see on MTV, particularly on 120 Minutes, back in the day. I can't tell you how many times I've found videos I never thought I'd see again, because someone recorded them off of VH-1 Classics and posted them. With that I could say yeah, there's a bit of a gray area copyright-wise, but think about it--who's really losing money if we can't find the video elsewhere to start with, because it's only played on that channel? Or that we haven't heard that song in years because it's out of print and the distributor has no future plans to release it anytime soon? Or that we didn't know a video existed for a song, because it was only played in the UK? This should be a positive for the distributor and the artist, since someone is obviously going to either download the song elsewhere or find it new or used somewhere?
Fourthly, and this has always been a sore spot with many bands: who's getting most of the check, anyway? Certainly not the band. It is true that many bands see a small percentage of the overall gross of an album's sales, due to the fact that it gets divvied up all over the place. I can't say for certain that UMG bands are getting higher checks because of the sheer amount of money it makes--in fact, I seriously doubt it. So I would like to know for certain that this money UMG is demanding would specifically go to the artists and not the pockets of the lawyers and the corporate-level businessmen.
Oh, and added to the fact--if you read to the end of the article--that they're actually charging Yahoo and AOL to play their videos. Not making them downloadable. Not making them free to watch via streaming. FOR WATCHING. What is essentially a promotional video. Let's put that in bold, shall we? A PROMOTIONAL video. Meaning a video made for promotional purposes, used to push their artists and inspire customers to buy their albums and dvds. I hate to say it, but this also ties in with my long-standing annoyance with cds that have special cd-rom items on it that are only accessible either by "signing" a EULA (End User Licensing Agreement) or worse, can only be accessed by the one computer that happened to open it. Yeah, this is what bothered me about the Velvet Revolver cd so long ago. I understand them trying to stop illegal copying, but there's a point at which it just gets ludicrous.
So yeah. You could say I'm a bit miffed about all of this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 06:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 01:45 pm (UTC)Oh what also I hate is how NBC every 5 seconds takes down even a short clip of anything, even if it's a 2 second clip.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 07:02 pm (UTC)