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.

:laugh: warning: adult language

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

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

-Matt

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 ;)

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

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

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!

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.

seems youtube and Lindsey.Warner aren't meshing well... all the videos on his channel are gone.

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

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:

fyi
 

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.

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.

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

You are absolutely right! :laugh:

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.

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 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....

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.

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.