Quote:
Originally Posted by SpyNote
If this were the case, wouldn't they state it was YouTube removing the video and not a third party? In the notice I received, the copyright owner is complaining about the audio track, which belongs to Warner...no? :
Dear SpyNote,
A copyright owner has claimed it owns some or all of the audio content in your video Fleetwood Mac Stevie Nicks Gypsy. The audio content identified in your video is Gypsy by Fleetwood Mac. We regret to inform you that your video has been blocked from playback due to a music rights issue.
|
That doesn't have to mean some minion over at WMG saw it today was like, "Oi, yank that video!" and YouTube scurried to comply with the demand - due to the prior deal with WMG, they will know what belongs to whom without the "Oi!" being involved. Unless Google was berzerk enough to give WMG access to the servers, then WMG couldn't yank the junk themselves, anyway. The notice you got looks to me like an extension of the semantics game both sides are playing over the issue.
In the post on the YouTube blog about the happenings, they say we "may notice content being blocked" but pointedly does NOT say it's WMG actively insisting on it. WMG's statement talks about how unhappy they are about the whole thing and says the music is coming down, but doesn't say they are the ones insisting on it, either.
I've read several articles where the writer's sources claim this is the case - YouTube/Google doing the yanking of their own accord, like, "Fine, you can't be reasonable - now you get NO money and NO exposure via our site." Even if I hadn't read that, I would think this was the case, because it's the smart move to make and YouTube/Google are pretty damn smart.
They were the ones being taken advantage of, and in doing the yanking, would be calling WMG's bluff. The original deal that was made with WMG and basically meant that YouTube/Google had to pay the label a certain amount each time someone viewed a video, whether or not that viewer generated any ad revenue - meaning YouTube/Google had to pay even when it didn't make any money itself. This was fine up until WMG decided it wanted MORE money, and threw a tantrum when Google wasn't willing to give them more (because it wouldn't make financial sense for them to do so), so that's how we got to where we are.
The label is too greedy and incomprehensibly stupid when it comes to understanding just what they are throwing away here in terms of inexpensive marketing and exposure. And you'll notice that regardless of what anyone says to the contrary, people are angry at WMG for the debacle and not YouTube/Google - so it's WMG losing out here on ALL fronts.
For now, we'll still find a lot of WMG content online over there, because it will take a long time to get rid of everything. Then I imagine that there will be the constant patrolling thereafter to keep it away, unless someone at WMG smartens up and stops jackassing around like this.