8 years later, back to square one

Does Warner music understand how the intertubes work?

Everybody boycott!

Hey Warner, here's a clue: if I see a Youtube clip of one of your artists who I've never listened to before, I might decide I really like them then go BUY THEIR MUSIC. Think for a damn second, morans.

Weaver95: Does Warner music understand how the intertubes work?


sure they do. They know Google owns YouTube, and they know Google has money. They also know Google is a US company, and that they can sue Google for lots of the money that Google has.

They also know the RIAA has stopped suing individual downloaders, so their revenue stream is drying up.

Just follow the dollars is all.

cannotsuggestaname: Weaver95: Does Warner music understand how the intertubes work?


sure they do. They know Google owns YouTube, and they know Google has money. They also know Google is a US company, and that they can sue Google for lots of the money that Google has.

They also know the RIAA has stopped suing individual downloaders, so their revenue stream is drying up.

Just follow the dollars is all.

yeah, but do any of these people realize how utterly pointless all thier actions are?

Weaver95: cannotsuggestaname: They also know the RIAA has stopped suing individual downloaders, so their revenue stream is drying up.

Just follow the dollars is all.

yeah, but do any of these people realize how utterly pointless all thier actions are?

They'd rather wring every last dime out that they can than look for a way to have a diminished revenue stream with a new model.

Does this mean that I won't be able to see crappy jerky videos with abysmal sound quality of washed up has beens? Oh no, the huge manatee.!

Weaver95: yeah, but do any of these people realize how utterly pointless all thier actions are?

The other day I went looking for a video of Vanilla Ice performing on SNL way back in 1991 to link to in a thread. It was removed because of a DMCA complaint by NBC. Was that poorly encoded 3 minute clip of Vanilla Ice costing them money in DVD sales or something?

/They're doing it wrong.

SpeshilEdjukashin: The other day I went looking for a video of Vanilla Ice performing on SNL way back in 1991... It was removed...

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Ace Frehley's Ghost: Weaver95: cannotsuggestaname: They also know the RIAA has stopped suing individual downloaders, so their revenue stream is drying up.

Just follow the dollars is all.

yeah, but do any of these people realize how utterly pointless all thier actions are?

They'd rather wring every last dime out that they can than look for a way to have a diminished revenue stream with a new model.

Yeah, but if they keep acting like a bunch of anal retentive corporate jackholes then the revenue stream dries up anyway.

Slidin' towards obscurity and irrelevance.

Keep up the good work.

Weaver95: Does Warner music understand how the intertubes work?

No, and they don't understand that public libraries carry CDs either, apparently.

Fire bad!

co-conspirator: Slidin' towards obscurity and irrelevance.

Keep up the good work.

I can't see how warner media (or anyone in the biz) intends to make any money in the next 10 years or so. Look, money is gonna be tight for a lot of people. nobody is gonna want to spend cash on overpriced overhyped crap. we've seen that selling single tunes via online distribution can work. And we've seen it work VERY well. Dr. Horrible's sing along blog proved that it's possible to make a quality product and distribute it via the web and make a profit. So it's not like the big companies lack examples and test cases. And they're not stupid people either. They KNOW this stuff works. they know it cuts distribution overhead and increases profits.

But for some reason they all want to cling to the old business model. Are they all really that greedy? Or it is just inertia?

They took down the literal video guy's a-ha video!

That is a crime against humanity.

El Freak: Hey Warner, here's a clue: if I see a Youtube clip of one of your artists who I've never listened to before, I might decide I really like them then go BUY THEIR MUSIC. Think for a damn second, morans.

Definitely this. Do these jackasses think that we're swiping stuff from YouTube, given the stellar audio quality of the content there?

Weaver95: Yeah, but if they keep acting like a bunch of anal retentive corporate jackholes then the revenue stream dries up anyway.

You make it sound like anyone in corporate America cares what happens beyond the next quarter.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Weaver95: Yeah, but if they keep acting like a bunch of anal retentive corporate jackholes then the revenue stream dries up anyway.

You make it sound like anyone in corporate America cares what happens beyond the next quarter.

I'd like to think that maybe a couple of people might start looking further ahead then one business quarter. Sooner or later the industry is going to be forced to change. it can come easy or it'll go down hard but they can't stop it from happening.

I guess what amazes me is how resistant some folks are.

When Lars did his whole photo-op stunt with the Napster user lists, he later clarified it by saying that people were still free to tape concerts and trade those live "bootleg" versions of songs. He just didn't want anyone trading the album versions. That seemed reasonable at the time (or would have if he wasn't such a douchebag about it).

Of course, I don't listen to Metallica. And if I did, I wouldn't listen to crappy overmodulated amateur-mic Metallica. Still, if he's going back on his word about live recordings, then I've lost that last tiny fraction of a shred of respect I had for him.

However, I think this decision might have come from "on high," and not from the bands themselves. James and Lars stood up legally for Beatallica, so I hope they might also stand up for live recordings.

Solution: Listen to something else

When mind-reading technology becomes a reality, the RIAA will sue people for the songs stuck in their heads.

Mark my words.

FlyingPig: When mind-reading technology becomes a reality, the RIAA will sue people for the songs stuck in their heads.

Mark my words.

when mind reading technology becomes available, I feel very sorry for the poor dumb bastard who looks inside my head.

Weaver95: I feel very sorry for the poor dumb bastard who looks inside my head.

We've seen it, dude, and yeah, it's pretty scary.

We're all sorry for the poor dumb bastard that is inside your head.

=/0!OO

Passed out flat on his back winking apologetic "I'm just kidding/nothing but love" snowman icon.

Weaver95: when mind reading technology becomes available, I feel very sorry for the poor dumb bastard who looks inside my head.

believe me when i say if i have a mind reading chip in my head, i will turn it OFF when I'm around you.

A statement from Warner Music reads, "We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide."

So, they're going to shut down their corporation?

/farkTARDS

GIVE US A LIST OF ARTISTS THAT ARE BACKING THIS!

I've farked Metallica because of this shiat 10 years ago, I have no problem farking any other acts.

YouTube is telling a different story. (new window)

lgt CNET (SFW)

El Freak: Hey Warner, here's a clue: if I see a Youtube clip of one of your artists who I've never listened to before, I might decide I really like them then go BUY THEIR MUSIC. Think for a damn second, morans.

For sure. fark them, a friend of mine sent me a link to a cool song on youtube, and when I say cool I'm understating myself. I liked it so much did I not only buy the CD but the Vinyl record as well.

Free exchange of music is the most powerful marketing tool ever. Before we could swap songs freely we had to rely on the radio and things that our friends told us about. There were no global album releases. Records and bands and songs took time to spread. Now, Kanye West has the best selling album on the planet overnight. You farkers better thank your lucky stars we still have our internet and the ability to publicize your work at light speed for no extra advertising cost to you. Ass holes.

I'd like to imagine a world where people who are in charge of the things I liked would pay attention to me and what I like (I'm looking at you Fark.com, the people who want to censor the internet and most of all record companies). But I being poor have only my dreams.

FTA: Music executives will also remove all amateur clips that feature artists on their roster and any copyrighted songs.

Sooooo if someone posts a video of themselves (new window) or one of their friends (new window) butchering a song by one of these said artists, does this get taken down too? What the hell is this world coming to?

This is all Metallica's fault!!!!!!

Oh wait, it's not? Boy, do I look stupid.

Metallica set up a taper's pit on shows as far back as the late '80s.

LiveMetallica.com has more than two dozen shows, dating back to 1983, that you can download for free.

Buy a concert ticket for this tour, and you get a download code for the show you saw. And they are usually up with 48 hours.

You can buy any show from the last 3 years for $10 as mp3, and for $13 for FLAC. No encryption, totally DRM-free. They ask you not to share, but the disclaimer reads like they know you will anyway.

They have their own YouTube channel with just about every video they've ever made.

And Lars says the next Metallica album may be internet only, a la Radiohead, since their contract with Warner just ended with Death Magnetic.

Yes, times have changed.

So people can't listen to Metallica and Madonna on YouTube? That sounds like a net plus for society.

/Haven't bought any Metallica since they canned my Napster account
//Would never have bought any if it weren't for Napster

This is just like Napster!!!!!!

Oh wait, it's not? Damn I'm 0 for 2.

Well at least this gives us a chance to bring up an 8 year old debate that no sane person cares about anymore.

Yup, the vids are coming down.

From Metallica's official channel page:

jsindal: FTA: Music executives will also remove all amateur clips that feature artists on their roster and any copyrighted songs.

Sooooo if someone posts a video of themselves (new window) or one of their friends (new window) butchering a song by one of these said artists, does this get taken down too? What the hell is this world coming to?

I posted a video of a friend of mine singing the Leann Rimes version of Purple Rain at karaoke and within 24 hours, the sound was muted on it and I had a message from youtube telling me I had to remove the video or have my account canceled for copyright infringement.

IANAL, so I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that a) the video is mine as in I shot it myself and b) the voice was hers as she was the one singing and c) the bar had an agreement that these songs would be performed publicly when they bought the karaoke cds. Why the heck is it not my video to do with as I please especially since I was not making money off it?

Also, there was a fascinating interview on NPR today with a copyright attorney who used to sue people on behalf of the RIAA until he finally came to his senses and realized that the idea of copyright was designed to encourage invention and development of new material. He said the artists are making a mockery of the whole idea by using it to strongarm people for money. He said the moment he came to this realization was when the Disney people tried to extend copyright on certain Disney material, which he said was in his mind unconstitutional and he wanted nothing to do with it.

I still listen to vinyl so I am really getting a kick out of these replies.

Bands that have "made it" rarely tour anymore. Videos on MTV are nonexistent. Waiting 3-4 years for an album seems to be the norm. When I was growing up in the 70s bands were all about building a fan base, getting new music out there. Exposure. With the exception of a Led Zeppelin or a Stones you could see the big names every 18 months or so and count on new music in the same time frame. Even Pink Floyd was putting out new material and touring every two years. The entire industry is self destructing, and I truly hope the majors end up out of business and real bands, real fans, can build it back up.

There's a reason none of the guitar students at my store learn new songs, they all want to learn the classic rock.
Well, until it comes down, please watch and have your friends watch too.
THIS (new window and SFW)

Hmmm...
So the only place I got to see Metallica's first video from their new album was YouTube. Cool video, great song, kinda thought they had their cred back. I almost had enough respect for them to buy (as in actually, physically purchase) a copy on CD. Almost. I'm glad I didn't give in during my moment of weakness.

The last 15 CDs I've bought, I bought because I got a chance to listen to the bands on YouTube.

Warner Media: Please stop being retarded. The world doesn't work the way you think it does.

KhanFusion: The last 15 CDs I've bought, I bought because I got a chance to listen to the bands on YouTube.


Maybe they're worried people will find out an album sucks by doing that and they won't get to sucker in as many people into buying it.

That's my best guess. I always thought free advertising was a good thing.

Jewtube gave me a strike for using part of a Sum 41 song in a video I made. It took them 2 years to notice it and remove my video.

They may have pulled Metallica videos from youtube, but they're still available on both yahoo video & google video.

I think the Warner Brothers (and Sister) have escaped from the water tower again.

HappyHarryHardOn: 8 years later, back to square one

MONEY GOOD!
YOUTUBE BAD!

As long as Warner doesn't remove the DEVO videos, I'm good.

Don't they realize that You Tube can help the sales of artists and revive their popularity?

Just look at Rick Astley man!

/I'm never gonna give up my Rick Astley mp3
//yes that one song
///I loves it