xmurderxlovex Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Jesus Christ. Way to kill the whole fun of Youtube. What're we gonna do now? Watch smosh until our eyes burn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 That's kind of the point. Warner and YouTube can't come to a licensing agreement, and until they do, they'll pull their videos from YouTube. This will either make YouTube lose tons of traffic or make WMG's sales decrease. Usually stuff like this comes about because someone's greedy. I feel like it's definitely Warner. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470925,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xmurderxlovex Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Because they know their artists right now are so publicized by MTV and Vh1 and such, they'd rather grab money from Youtube anyway and see if they can settle something crazy. They wouldn't lose anything, imo. Youtube's gonna have to give up and pay if they don't wanna die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Well, if you read the article, it's because YouTube pays them the least amount in ad revenue. Other video sites give them more. YouTube better work something out soon though. Its contracts with the other major labels are up for negotiations soon too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 ಠ_ಠ Not right. That's all I have to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Am I the only one that thinks Warner are doing the right thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 ^ No. At first I thought Warner was just trying to get money out of YouTube, but now that I've read up on the whole situation, it's definitely YouTube trying to screw Warner out of revenues. If the record industry was doing anywhere near as well as it was 10 or 15 years ago, I'd say they should let it go, but that's not the case anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if the other major labels did the same. They have plenty of other websites willing to give them a bigger share, why deal with YouTube? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadouken Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Can someone explain the link of Warner and Paramore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Warner own Atlantic who own Fueled By Ramen who have Paramore on their books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadouken Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Warner own Atlantic who own Fueled By Ramen who have Paramore on their books. Thanks for that. Now I have another reason to get incredibly annoyed with warner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 My beef is with Interscope... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadouken Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 My beef is with Interscope... Ok. I like warner. I just don't like the fact they are removing videos which are PROMOTING their bands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Ok. I like warner. I just don't like the fact they are removing videos which are PROMOTING their bands It's cause they aren't getting as much cash from Youtube as they are from other sites who, more than likely, have a smaller revenue than Youtube. Chriss could tell you better but I think that's the jist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Ross is right. If you'd like a more detailed explanation, read below. This is gonna be long, but stay with me... All the major labels (Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony BMG, and Universal) make licensing deals with the major video sites like YouTube and MySpace Video. Basically what happens is that they give these sites the rights to play their videos in exchange for a percentage of the ad revenue made from their video's pages... If you click an ad on a webpage, the company that placed the ad pays the site. If you watch a Paramore video on YouTube and then click an ad, part of that money goes to YouTube and part of it goes to Warner/Atlantic. The problem is that the percentage from each ad-click that YouTube gives to Warner--and probably all the other labels--is a very small amount, and when it came time to renegotiate the contract, YouTube wouldn't give them a higher percentage of revenues, even though other sites like MySpace Video and AOL give them way higher amounts. What Warner is trying to do is get YouTube to realise that if they want to make money, they can't screw over the companies they partner with, and they want to hit them where it hurts by taking all of their videos/music off the site. If you know you can't watch Paramore videos on YouTube, are you going to waste your time trying? No, you'll go over to MySpace, AOL, or FBR's site and watch them there. Then YouTube will lose money and realise the mistake they're making not renegotiating with Warner. Put yourself in their situation: If you were in a band and YouTube said, "Hey, we want to play your video, and if you give us permission to put it on our site, we'll give you a percentage of the money we make from ads on your video's page. We're only going to give you 10% of it though, and we're gonna keep the other 90% (even though we're a billion dollar company already)." At first you'd think that was awesome because you're getting paid for it!... UNTIL, MySpace comes along and says, "Hey, if you let us play your video, we'll split the ad revenue with you 50/50!" Then, you realise you're getting screwed by YouTube, and when you ask them for a better deal, they say, "Nope, sorry. Kthnxbai!" (Yes, of course YouTube uses internet slang. What are you talking about?) Would you really let them keep playing your video? I hope not, unless you're really desperate for money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchthesky Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 well that makes a lot of sense when you really look at it stupid google had to go and ruin everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.