Warner trolls on YouTube

[SpyNote]

The evil empire shut down both of my accounts. Bastards. :distress:

I wonder if they're planning to start up their own Mac channel for the upcoming tour.

[DavidMn]

So all of your videos are gone?

[SpyNote]

So all of your videos are gone?

Yep. I guess they freaked out when they saw that the Gypsy vid had received 1.2 million views. Stupid record label, behind the times as usual, and taking it out on the consumer. :mad:

[DavidMn]

Yep. I guess they freaked out when they saw that the Gypsy vid had received 1.2 million views. Stupid record label, behind the times as usual, and taking it out on the consumer. :mad:Dumb question, but how is that costing WB money?

[SpyNote]

Dumb question, but how is that costing WB money?

It doesn't. The vast majority of people who don't already own the song will download the song from iTunes or Amazon or buy the CD.

[DavidMn]

It doesn't. The vast majority of people who don't already own the song will download the song from iTunes or Amazon or buy the CD.Then it seems like they have no reason to do that to you. From what I know, youre not that type of guy I.E doing illigeal **** like that so sounds like paranoia to me.

[SpyNote]

Then it seems like they have no reason to do that to you. From what I know, youre not that type of guy I.E doing illigeal **** like that so sounds like paranoia to me.

They're just approaching it all wrong. These are the same people who thought slapping grandma and 8-year-old girls with lawsuits for illegally downloading three songs would send a compelling message to the public... Well maybe one...the record industry is full of idiots!

[stevierocks87]

That is so stupid. Idiots. YouTube is both free promotion and a great service to fans. Do they have an "official" Gypsy video unloaded? I hope they totally self-destruct. The whole music industry needs to accept this new technology, that this is way music is heading (and where it IS), and to work in that context in a new and innovative way. Bastards.

[LukeA]

Warner's in negotiations with Youtube as well as Google (Video)- they're looking for the best (most profitable) company to partner with.

In the meantime, you can watch all of Fleetwood Mac's official music videos on vh1.com.

[SpyNote]

That is so stupid. Idiots. YouTube is both free promotion and a great service to fans. Do they have an "official" Gypsy video unloaded? I hope they totally self-destruct. The whole music industry needs to accept this new technology, that this is way music is heading (and where it IS), and to work in that context in a new and innovative way. Bastards.

No official Gypsy video posted. :rolleyes: Given that YouTube is largest social networking platform online today, you'd think this would be the first place they'd go to make deals.

[Moz]

That's crazy. :shocked: Seriously, how is this costing them money? It isn't. If there was an official DVD with music videos and live shows, and you posted them on YouTube, then maybe I can understand why they'd take your channels down. Insanity.

[Zombie]

Warner's in negotiations with Youtube as well as Google (Video)- they're looking for the best (most profitable) company to partner with.


Actually, that's not true anymore. Warner Music Group wanted more money, and they were all unable to reach an agreement on the cash - negotiations have now ended entirely. Warner Music Group was the first such organization to make a deal with YouTube, and now the first one to also walk out on it.

So what's happening now is that YouTube themselves are yanking ALL Warner Music Group content entirely - even from the "official" channels of the actual Warner artists. For example, I can go look at Mastodon's channel and view any of the videos made for albums on the Relapse label, but I cannot view any made for their Warner albums.

The antics of companies like this never fail to crack me up - they are dumb as a bag of hammers not to want to capitalize on the enormous amount of extremely low-overhead publicity and marketing potential the 'net offers.

Warner and Lars Ulrich should get together and go bowling.

Idjits.

[gldstwmn]

Yep. I guess they freaked out when they saw that the Gypsy vid had received 1.2 million views. Stupid record label, behind the times as usual, and taking it out on the consumer. :mad:

Yep. When it comes to marketing and Fleetwood Mac, Warner's has always been genius. Not.

[fleetwoodtrick]

They took my Needles and Pins video down too. That was my vid with the most views. D:

[Sahara]

Ggrrr. *sympathy hug*

[SandyMac]

Oh Daniel, I am sorry they are doing this to you. WB is just so far behind the times. If they do this, I only hope there is a valid reason, like beefing up the FM site or something.

Since Lindsey has embraced YouTube, I was wondering if FM will be releasing tour stuff or something official on YouTube or not. One can only hope and dream right? I mean it would be awesome if there was behind the scenes official FM stuff posted to YouTube. Can you imagine the number of hits a video would get if there was behind the scenes stuff with Stevie or whoever? To me, that would be the smart thing to do.

[OldTimer]

:distress:
They took down As Long as You Follow, the most beautiful wintertime video ever.

(I found it's still on AOL Video, though ;))

[mgikallaroundme]

The likely culprit removing our content is probably You Tube itself. We automatically assume Warner Music Group is the goat. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions based on the history of the label and how it's treated fans or artists in the past. Does anyone know Warner Music Group is no longer owned and operated by the same corporate entity that released Fleetwood Mac for the past thirty years? Remember when we heard all kinds of flack about the evils of WB corporate management during the change in artistic control which took place between the release of the Dance and SYW? Lindsey mentioned the new guard, of AOL/Time/Warner people at WB records, quite a lot during the SYW promo period. Much hay was made about their corporate control of artists during LB's first attempt at releasing GOS, up through the time period covering TISL and the release of SYW including the subsequent mega tour. Hardly a word's been uttered about the private equity firm that's owned and operated Warner's music division since 2005. It's a completely different label with a different focus. Strange how Lindsey in particular hasn't mentioned anything about this changing of the guard overseeing the release of his two back to back solo albums. :shrug:

One of the first things the new Warner Music Group did differently from the past was embrace the internet. Until a few weeks ago when the deal ended, YouTube and Warner Music had an interesting revenue based promotional agreement breaking new ground for the music industry. That deal just ended. It's probably the reason WB fans had their content raided at You Tube. YT is pissed that Warner's wanted and subsequently went shopping for a better deal. The revenue stream at You Tube isn't panning out as expected. WB is seeking a more promising online partner. Not sure they will find one, but either way, it could be at WB's order, or YT unilaterally pulling the plug on our content in retaliation against WB.

Warner Music Group is not the same entity as the corporate conglomerate that still operates other parts of AOL/Time/Warner. In fact, several of the people known to be at the helm of the new WB music label are players who broke a lot of ground at Interscope records in it's heyday as an indie, and when that label was first taken over by Universal Music Group. Some of the same investors, too. It will be interesting to see how everything plays out in the near future at the new Warner's Music, as it relates to internet marketing, artistic control of content, and how well it handles dinosaur bands like Fleetwood Mac. How innovative can they be with a band touring behind no new music, selling the nostalgia nobody can afford to enjoy these days? Time precious time will tell.

[sarahw]

They took my Needles and Pins video down too. That was my vid with the most views. D:

I never knew there was such a thing.....I listen to that all the time while working out. Any chance you could post it here?

Thanks in advance....

Sarah

[SpyNote]

Oh Daniel, I am sorry they are doing this to you. WB is just so far behind the times. If they do this, I only hope there is a valid reason, like beefing up the FM site or something.

Yeah, I suspect this might be the case, too. But who knows, it's taken them almost 5 years to update that website. I think they need a new project manager.

[Zombie]

YT unilaterally pulling the plug on our content in retaliation against WB.

This is correct. As I said before - it's YouTube now yanking all Warner Music Group content, because negotiations have ended without coming to an agreement.

[michelej1]

Since Lindsey has embraced YouTube, I was wondering if FM will be releasing tour stuff or something official on YouTube or not. One can only hope and dream right? I mean it would be awesome if there was behind the scenes official FM stuff posted to YouTube. Can you imagine the number of hits a video would get if there was behind the scenes stuff with Stevie or whoever? To me, that would be the smart thing to do.

Yes, instead of DR and Cory's diary, we could have some back stage footage from each of the tour stops. FM's marketing people are not savvy enough to do anything like that, but it certainly would be fun and would keep interest in the tour at a high level. Michele

[SpyNote]

This is correct. As I said before - it's YouTube now yanking all Warner Music Group content, because negotiations have ended without coming to an agreement.

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.

[Zombie]

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.

[Zombie]

Yes, instead of DR and Cory's diary, we could have some back stage footage from each of the tour stops. FM's marketing people are not savvy enough to do anything like that, but it certainly would be fun and would keep interest in the tour at a high level. Michele

You'd think that all of these people - not just FM's marketing folk specifically - would wise up and start taking advantage of the Internet properly to move product. Even if they are all too stodgy to figure it out on their own, they could hire someone that does get it.

It's not just Warner that's motarded, various book publishing houses and similar insist on shooting themselves in the foot like this, too. I could tell stories about Random House and even the Quaker oats folk that would have y'all rolling your eyes like crazy.

[SandyMac]

Just wanted to say that Veoh.com is a good alternative to YT.
I have an account there. Here is a link to SB that is from the Borgata show from 6/21 show this summer.
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v14258258wadJrWRD

They won't keep us Stevie/FM fans down. It is worth a try.

[MacMan]

Record labels plan video site
By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York
Published: December 29 2008 02:00

A generation after the launch of MTV, the four largest record labels are hoping to revive the music video business online by creating a website grouping together all their artists' videos.

Plans under discussion include a partnership with Hulu, the online television and film joint venture between News Corp and NBC Universal; the creation of a premium service on YouTube, Google's video-sharing site; or a standalone venture between some or all of the four largest recorded music groups.

Industry members had hailed deals struck with YouTube last year as a way of driving profits from the popularity of professional music videos and from offering them as soundtracks to amateur efforts on such usergenerated content sites.

However, some are questioning whether either side has made much money from arrangements that require YouTube to share advertising revenues and, in many cases, pay a few tenths of a cent to the music company each time a video is streamed.

Universal Music, the industry leader, has said it makes "tens of millions of dollars" from YouTube.

Warner Music failed last week to agree a new deal with the site, however, saying it was not being adequately compensated and demanding that the site take down its artists' videos and amateur content using songs from its publishing arm such as "Happy Birthday To You".

Representatives of two music companies, who would not be named, said they were in discussions with Hulu. They said no announcement was imminent but that the site appeared to be the favoured partner.

Both said, however, that any deal to create a standalone music video service would not replace existing deals with YouTube and that there was interest in supplying content for a potential premium service on YouTube, which has begun to offer high-definition videos. Warner may yet return to YouTube should it agree new terms.

The industry's search for digital income comes amid collapsing compact disc sales, which have not yet been offset by digital revenue growth. Warner, the only quoted music company, reported 39 per cent growth in digital revenues for 2008 to $639m, or 18 per cent of total sales.

Copyright The Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6013082-d549-11dd-b967-000077b07658.html) Limited 2008

[DeeGeMe]

I read the other day that the music companies have decided to stop suing downloaders-instead they will go to the suspected downloaders ISP's and work with them to "punish" the downloader. The article I read said that they still reserved the right to sue downloaders but the emphasis would be in "working with the ISP's" now instead. I guess this means that your ISP could drop you from their service and/or sue you instead. What a great bunch of humanitarians huh?

[MacMan]

I read the other day that the music companies have decided to stop suing downloaders-instead they will go to the suspected downloaders ISP's and work with them to "punish" the downloader. The article I read said that they still reserved the right to sue downloaders but the emphasis would be in "working with the ISP's" now instead. I guess this means that your ISP could drop you from their service and/or sue you instead. What a great bunch of humanitarians huh?

I seriously doubt the providers would start dropping people, they'd have no customers left and they don't want to risk it. Plus there's a privacy thing that gets involved. I don't think they will ever stop downloading... it's too common now. What I think will eventually happen is ISP's will end up going to a pay for use type of thing where limits will be put in place on the amount you can download per month and if you exceed that, you will be charged so much for it. And a portion of which will end up going to the entertainment industry to divide up... Kind of like the tax they put on blank media.

Here's a pissed off Warner Bros. artist: (http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/66586355/the-man-strikes-again-youtube-wars) over the removal of their vids from youtube.


the man strikes again, youtube wars
if you hadn’t noticed, all of the dresden dolls and amanda palmer official videos have been taken off youtube.

yes, folks…girl anachronism, coin-operated boy, shores of california, almost everything from who killed amanda palmer….pretty much the whole deal.
all gone. go look for yourself.
and you ask…wtf?

basically:
“Unable to reach new licensing terms, the Warner Music Group has demanded that thousands of its videos be removed from YouTube, which is owned by Google. Warner Music’s videos, the source of a billion views on YouTube, gradually began disappearing from the site on Saturday, although many remained online Sunday evening.”

in other words, roadrunner is a subsidiary of warner and i’m stuck in hell with madonna and the other poor bastards, because warner wants more money. even worse, warner has almost no bargaining power…they’re not even in the top ten of labels who have huge artists with material streaming on youtube. they’re just starving for cash right now and they’re doing anything they can think of to come up with cash. it’s abSURD. they are looking for money in a totally backwards way.

money that, i should point out, i would NEVER see as an artist. if they got their way and youtube decided to give them a larger revenue share of the videos, it;s very unlikely it would ever make it’s way into the artists’ bank accounts.

damn, man. this **** is fu**ed UP.

i’ll obviously let you know what happens, but i’m slowly planning some sort of tribute-a-thon of dolls and amanda videos in lieu of our actual clips.

maybe a “everybody re-enact your favorite dolls video in one take on a ****ty camera, with hand puppets, for under $5” contest. maybe it will yield a masterpiece.

i loved my videos.

now they are gone.

why is life so hard?

[cactusjack]

Dear ***,
Video Disabled
A copyright owner has claimed it owns some or all of the audio content in your video Stevie Nicks - I Can't Wait (original video). The audio content identified in your video is I Can't Wait by Stevie Nicks. We regret to inform you that your video has been blocked from playback due to a music rights issue.
Replace Your Audio with AudioSwap
Don't worry, we have plenty of music available for your use. Please visit our AudioSwap library to learn how you can easily replace the audio in your video with any track from our growing library of fully licensed songs.
Other Options
If you think there's been a mistake, or you have other questions, please visit the Copyright Notice page in your account.
Sincerely,
The YouTube Content Identification Team

[SortaSavageLike]

I noticed that they've taken down that awesome live version of Edge of Seventeen from Stevie's HBO special, but you can still watch Lindsay Lohan butchering the song on the AMAs back in 2005.

No justice in the world, I tell's ya!

[DavidMn]

I noticed that they've taken down that awesome live version of Edge of Seventeen from Stevie's HBO special, but you can still watch Lindsay Lohan butchering the song on the AMAs back in 2005.

No justice in the world, I tell's ya!I think I'd like to make an image of Ms Lohan during that version and imprint it on come toilet paper to use the next time I take a big dump.:laugh:

[Zombie]

I think I'd like to make an image of Ms Lohan during that version and imprint it on come toilet paper to use the next time I take a big dump.:laugh:

Oy, I hear you. I am horrified by that girl trying to do that song.

Totally no justice in the world.

[BTFLCHLD]

apparently they are trolling their own artists...

Lindsey's "commercial" has been removed from his channel.

[Musicman408]

I'm sorry to hear this happened. So does this mean a lot of the awesome videos we watch are going to be pulled?

[michelej1]

apparently they are trolling their own artists...

Lindsey's "commercial" has been removed from his channel.

So silly. It's free publicity. So, they get little support from the record company and the artists then try to find a way to market themselves, but that is taken away from them too.

Michele

[SandyMac]

So silly. It's free publicity. So, they get little support from the record company and the artists then try to find a way to market themselves, but that is taken away from them too.

Michele

yeah, this makes no sense. :shrug:

[BTFLCHLD]

youtube sux anyways :shrug:

what with the rip sites mostimes videos are captured w/ a re-up to other channels (nothing quite like 20 duplicates of the same video)...along with the f'd up tags/labeling produced by idiots.

[wondergirl9847]

Well, it was inevitable. They pulled my Beautiful Child/Moonlight fanvid today. Pfffttt. Warner Brothers...GET A CLUE.

[SortaSavageLike]

I've had two of my "videos" (more like slideshows!) pulled in the past week. I'm one of those crazy bastards who still buys CDs, so I'm not sure who the hell would go out of their way to pirate audio from YouTube, when the audio quality is something like 100 kbps. :shrug:

[iamnotafraid]

Darn, they even pulled down the video interview with Stevie and Miley Cyrus. The one about Miley remaking the "Bella Donna" album. Stevie had really asked Miley some tuff questions about the remake.

[BTFLCHLD]

:laugh: warning: adult language

<object width="325" height="244"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HdFe4JNsuIo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HdFe4JNsuIo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="325" height="244"></embed></object>

<object width="325" height="244"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hla7KMY8OFA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hla7KMY8OFA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="325" height="244"></embed></object>

[Skyveris]

I've been languishing in a fume ever since my Lindsey Buckingham guitar solo compilation videos were pulled a couple of weeks ago, ire that fired to a new intensity yesterday when as soon as I had re-posted my trinity of meticulously rearranged guitar solo videos, they were again rendered inaudible because of an immediate copyright issue. An abortive effort and a waste of time. I had thought that I could get away with it, but I suppose that my account is flagged. It's especially disheartening because they had been my most popular videos. The fun was true while it lasted. *descends into black depression*

A piquant thing about all of this is that most of the footage uploaded on the site are unavailable anywhere else anyway, which is to say that we're not taking money away. And if the record labels are pressuring YouTube into removing these videos, what incentivizes these efforts?... they should be glorying in the immense exposure and free publicity instead of trying to privatize all the media or stripping everything and myopically opting against taking advantage of the seeming trend that is file-sharing stimulating consumer interest with increased sales eventuating -- of mp3's, if nothing else in this seeming epoch in the music industry marked by diminished album sales, but that's still turning a profit. It's bad business sense, nonsensical. Again, stuff uploaded that's not even on sale anywhere (music videos, early concert performances!) should be given a pass, especially.

It's largely because of YouTube that I even discovered Fleetwood Mac's divine music. Granted, my parents were casual fans of the band, but I languished in ignorance of Fleetwood Mac's brilliance for years and never took an interest in the band until I had decided in my boredom to search for the video to the song Little Lies, which I had been absently humming at the time, and found it on YouTube. Then I happened to click the video for the live Rhiannon performance from Rosebud. I quickly fostered a love for this impressive band with the pretty, fierce debutante fronting it and the frenziedly dynamic guitarist on the other side of the stage, and then spent consecutive hours after that watching video after video of additional Fleetwood Mac performances, all courtesy of YouTube.

Soon thereafter, I purchased every single Buckingham-Nicks era Fleetwood Mac album, enskied the quintet as my absolute favorite band (I love virtually every song they've ever made), prayed over a lit candle that I might someday get to see them in concert, researched the notorious dramas that helped to define the legend of the band, and then succumbed to envy of even Stevie's tenderly comforted dogs, begrudging them her affections and... haha, I am, of course, kidding about the last part... ju -- I -- ahem. I think I'm getting afield of the topic at hand. Heh. The point is, I'd daresay that sharing this media is beneficial to all parties involved: a spike in revenue for labels and networks from exposure of creative works and increasingly bankable support of YouTube from the masses. It's maddening. All that said, it truly is a guessing game... you never know what is acceptable to post. I'm becoming weary of YouTube.

-Matt

[Skyveris]

Oy, I hear you. I am horrified by that girl trying to do that song.

Totally no justice in the world.

Yes, talk about hemorrhage-inducing dissonance, sheer pollution to the ears. Mercy.

-Matt

[BTFLCHLD]

TIP: It's really all about the labeling of the vids and tags. They seriously are NOT trolling through every single video uploaded to youtube to find those who may have used a song/live performance. Note, if you label something LINDSEY BUCKINGHAM, STEVIE NICKS, FLEETWOOD MAC or SAY YOU WILL, RHIANNON, GYPSY...you will undoubtedly be popped. Should you label something SN, LB, FM or SYW, RHIAN chances increase the invaluable collection will survive youtube's meltdown. If one is interested in a bazillion views, sure your count will decrease, but if you're interested in enjoying the music and sharing with those who happen upon your stuff...try this route.

shhhh...don't tell anyone ;)

[Skyveris]

TIP: It's really all about the labeling of the vids and tags. They seriously are NOT trolling through every single video uploaded to youtube to find those who may have used a song/live performance. Note, if you label something LINDSEY BUCKINGHAM, STEVIE NICKS, FLEETWOOD MAC or SAY YOU WILL, RHIANNON, GYPSY...you will undoubtedly be popped. Should you label something SN, LB, FM or SYW, RHIAN chances increase the invaluable collection will survive youtube's meltdown. If one is interested in a bazillion views, sure your count will decrease, but if your interested in enjoying the music and sharing with those who happen upon your stuff...try this route.

shhhh...don't tell anyone ;)

Great advice. It makes sense. I'll use more of a cryptic label or an acronym for my videos next time and see what happens. Thank you.

-Matt

[BTFLCHLD]

Great advice. It makes sense. I'll use more of a cryptic label or an acronym for my videos next time and see what happens. Thank you.

-Matt and, obviously, create another username/channel. I would also suggest to definitely relabel what you are uploading. If previous file name was lindseybuckinghamgoyourownway.avi then now label zkhdfasdkfhkjasdfh.avi ... youtube seeks out filenames as well.

peace

[GoS]

About the record company suing music downloaders, since when has it been a good business strategy to sue your (potential) customers?

[kennation]

These people need to understand how important YOUTUBE is to their success... This is not a napster situation, but rather advertising that you couldn't even dream of affording. I don't know how many people have come to the Mac via the YOUTUBE... That is why these labels and this industry needs to hire regular, untainted people!!!! We nee to be represented by the companies that we support. Hell, I would do it!

[BTFLCHLD]

one more tip. if you're not into view counts, an option is to mark the video as 'private; viewable by you and 25 others' rather than 'public'...seems that is also workable for youtube. This is a good option if your only wish to enjoy your videos for yourself along with friends. Just be sure the 25 others you invite to view aren't those that have potentially flagged you to youtube. And, yes, unfortunately, there are those that do do that.

[BTFLCHLD]

seems youtube and Lindsey.Warner aren't meshing well... all the videos on his channel (http://www.youtube.com/LindseyBuckingham) are gone.

[MacMan]

I think it went private... by invite only :shrug:

[StreetAngel86]

I think it went private... by invite only :shrug:

personally i think they ARE going thru all the videos
i had 2 Dance videos pulled a few weeks ago
earlier this week, i had another flagged note in my inbox
im like huh, i removed all my "released" mac related vids

my channel is primarily Days of our Lives related
i had a clip from 1986 up
no dialogue
no tags other than the actors and the show
they flagged it coz the SONG on the SHOW was a warner related one
im like, i didnt add the vision TO the song etc the song was on the fkn show.
nowhere did i mention the song or anything so how would they have found that and had it removed?


warner....YOU SUCK

[BTFLCHLD]

the music powers that be should take clue from hula.com with television.
if they don't want displayed youtube, get something up to promo vids. :shrug:

[BTFLCHLD]

http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=139279


Warner Inks Deal to Bring Green Day, Madonna Back to YouTube
Label Also in Talks to Join Vevo, the 'Hulu for Music' Initiative
by Michael Learmonth
Published: September 25, 2009


NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Warner Music Group has completed a deal with YouTube that will bring back music videos for Green Day, REM, Madonna and other artists to the video-sharing site from which they were removed in December, according to two executives familiar with the talks.

Warner has also commenced talks with Vevo, the "Hulu for music" joint venture between YouTube and Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainments.

The completion of Warner's YouTube deal, which has not been officially announced, opened the door to more serious Vevo discussions, the executives said. YouTube and Warner declined to comment, citing the confidentiality of ongoing negotiations.

Talks restarted this summer. Warner artists have been off YouTube since December, but the talks, led by Google's VP of content partnerships, David Eun, and Warner's digital chief, Michael Nash, restarted this summer. One exec said the delay in announcing the deal is clerical: Warner is delivering the files to YouTube, which is encoding them, a process that takes time.

As for Vevo, rather than take an equity stake in the joint venture, Warner is looking to do a non-exclusive deal and sees Vevo as part of a broader strategy for distributing ad-supported music videos on the web that may include other sites as well as its direct-to-consumer business, a network of artist sites powered by Cisco.

The Vevo talks are being held at the highest level at both Warner and Universal; if successful, Vevo would be the exclusive distributor of Universal Music and Sony videos, which is about 60% of the U.S. music market, and have non-exclusive access to Warner, which accounts for another 20%, including artists such as Green Day, Madonna and R.E.M. EMI and a coterie of indie labels account for the rest of the market.

Brand advertising is seen by the labels as a potential new vein of revenue to help offset declining CD sales and flattening out of digital music sales through stores such as Apple's iTunes. Once promotional loss leaders, the labels see music videos as potential venues for brand advertising -- and at higher ad rates: $20 to $40 to reach a thousand viewers, rather than the $5 to $10 they currently get for ads on YouTube.

Vevo has a partnership with YouTube and will be built atop YouTube's architecture, but Vevo's video player will have unique features such as the ability to download lyrics, make a playlist or sync the music to user-generated video. Videos distributed by Vevo would be available on YouTube, Yahoo, MTV, as well as other sites across the web.

The prospect of Warner joining Vevo -- even on a non-exclusive basis -- is a big boost for the joint venture, scheduled for launch sometime in December. The joint venture will share revenue with YouTube for views that occur there, but it will also take a bite out of the leading video site's traffic. Views of videos distributed by Vevo will accrue to Vevo, not YouTube.

Universal videos average 24 million views and Sony videos average 13 million views a day on YouTube, according to TubeMogul. YouTube averages 1.3 billion video views per day overall, so that's nearly 3% of its total view count. That's assuming no deal with Warner or any other label before launch in December, which seems unlikely.

Vevo is hoping to make music videos a compelling proposition for advertisers by replacing grainy uploads with a more advertiser-friendly experience. The company has hired former Nokia exec David Kohl to drive that effort as global head of sales, first reported earlier this week by Allthingsd.com.

[fleetwoodtrick]

My Needles and Pins vid is back. I didn't even have to dispute a claim. I'm very confused. :confused:

EDIT: I also just noticed that my Talk to Me demo vid has 35k views. 0_O I'm very surpised this hasn't also been taken down, because it has the entire video in it. Samething with my AHI Gypsy vid, which has 25k view. This is really shocking, as it's been a few months since I've been on Youtube. Wow.

[BTFLCHLD]

I'm very confused. :confused:

some stay and some go and some return... just be pleased ;)

[fleetwoodtrick]

some stay and some go and some return... just be pleased ;)

You are absolutely right! :laugh:

[WelshWitchPMD]

Hmm I see that my private Slow Dancing video clips have returned listed under my user name. It says that the format doesn't support iPod. I guess you can't have everything.

[holidayroad]

I'm not sure I see the problem with having a video on youtube or anywhere else, as long as you aren't making money off of it. If it's a video from vh1/mtv/etc.. you can record from tv and watch it at home, what's the difference between that and having it on a web page where you can share it with others? If Warner Brothers doesn't want people to do this, they need to release a dvd of all FMac, Lindsey,Stevie,and Christine videos.

[JeannieKartis]

Yeah, I suspect this might be the case, too. But who knows, it's taken them almost 5 years to update that website. I think they need a new project manager.

I don't think it has anything to do with updating any FMAC website...its all just about the power and money....sorry about this Daniel....

[TrueFaith77]

I'm not sure I see the problem with having a video on youtube or anywhere else, as long as you aren't making money off of it. If it's a video from vh1/mtv/etc.. you can record from tv and watch it at home, what's the difference between that and having it on a web page where you can share it with others? If Warner Brothers doesn't want people to do this, they need to release a dvd of all FMac, Lindsey,Stevie,and Christine videos.

I believe that the reason is because YouTube IS making money off of advertising on its site. Warner Bros. said it wanted a cut of that revenue for YouTube's exploitation of their material (whether fan-posted or not). YouTube refused to share a cut of revenue, so Warner Bros. is making sure its material is not on YouTube generating viewership and revenues for YouTube.

[holidayroad]

I believe that the reason is because YouTube IS making money off of advertising on its site. Warner Bros. said it wanted a cut of that revenue for YouTube's exploitation of their material (whether fan-posted or not). YouTube refused to share a cut of revenue, so Warner Bros. is making sure its material is not on YouTube generating viewership and revenues for YouTube.

I see your point. I didn't think about it like that. I'm pretty new to youtube or any sites like it.

[golddustdrummer]

I believe that the reason is because YouTube IS making money off of advertising on its site. Warner Bros. said it wanted a cut of that revenue for YouTube's exploitation of their material (whether fan-posted or not). YouTube refused to share a cut of revenue, so Warner Bros. is making sure its material is not on YouTube generating viewership and revenues for YouTube.


I thought I read somewhere that youtube was going to give WB a share of the profits, but WB wanted more than youtube was willing to give. idk, either way it seems greedy on both counts.