Why do record companies pull artist videos from YouTube?

musicismylife78

Even for tv segments and stuff, like alot of time Unsolved Mysteries the old tv show, people will put segments up on YouTube and it will be pulled by the tv corporation.

Or Warner Music Group will ull videos from their artists, from You Tube

I dont get the rationale behind this. As far as I know you cant download from YouTube, its just content you watch. Why pull stuff that will only potentially make you money?

This is one more example of how out of touch the music industry is, and how they go about things all wrong. Do they seriously think fining, jailing, or pulling content from YouTube, will stop filesharing and illegal downloading? Are they really that far from reality?

jlew24asu

because people dont work for free

Back_Pedal

jlew24asu wrote:

because people dont work for free

But it definitely saves the people behind marketing a lot of time. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a band's videos on YouTube and then went out and bought their music because of it.

jlew24asu

Back_Pedal wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

because people dont work for free

But it definitely saves the people behind marketing a lot of time. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a band's videos on YouTube and then went out and bought their music because of it.

thats true. but the band or artist should still have a say whether or not their material is available for free.

Get_Right

because they want you to watch those episodes on the network website, buy the DVD, or wait for the rerun on their network

they pay cash for that content and do not get any money from youtube for airing it-its unlicensed broadcasting

musicismylife78

jlew24asu wrote:

because people dont work for free

how does music videos shown on vh1 and mtv figure into this? Although MTV and Vh1 dont play many, there still are a few music videos show. And those are available free to anyone with a cable subscription.

Additionally, tv shows can be seen obviously on tv, and you can even tape them.

So I dont really understand your "people dont work for free" comment.

You honestly think the tv companies and record companies give a damn about either the customer, or the artist and actors or screenwriters or whatever we are talking about?

The record companies messed up, royally. They had a chance in 1999 to do something about Napster, possibly start a Comcast type company but for monthly downloads and music content. They didnt do it, and instead, pull videos from YouTube, fine and jail people who illegally download.

You would be hard pressed to find another group of people totally lost and utterly clueless as to how the world is run, when discussing and talking about the music industry.

How does being able to watch Death Cab's Cath video or another such video, harm the artist or the record label in the slightest?

musicismylife78

jlew24asu wrote:

Back_Pedal wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

because people dont work for free

But it definitely saves the people behind marketing a lot of time. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a band's videos on YouTube and then went out and bought their music because of it.

thats true. but the band or artist should still have a say whether or not their material is available for free.

in the case of Death Cab, their label pulled their videos, not the band. And the band said it was done without their permission.

What band, or artist, wouldnt want exposure of their work on one of if not the most visited video site in the world?

Thats like a band pulling their MySpace page, because people could listen to their songs on their profile on myspace. A band may have ethical problems with MySpace as a whole, but as far as exposure and getting word out about your band, I dont think a band would willingly pull a MySpace profile. The label would though

jlew24asu

musicismylife78 wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

because people dont work for free

how does music videos shown on vh1 and mtv figure into this? Although MTV and Vh1 dont play many, there still are a few music videos show. And those are available free to anyone with a cable subscription.

Additionally, tv shows can be seen obviously on tv, and you can even tape them.

So I dont really understand your "people dont work for free" comment.

ok no problem, I'll explain it to you. MTV and VH1 get permission from the bands to play their music on the shows, they work out some type of financial agreement and or marketing fees etc.. youtube does not.

musicismylife78 wrote:

You honestly think the tv companies and record companies give a damn about either the customer, or the artist and actors or screenwriters or whatever we are talking about?

yes. thats how they make money.

musicismylife78 wrote:

The record companies messed up, royally. They had a chance in 1999 to do something about Napster, possibly start a Comcast type company but for monthly downloads and music content. They didnt do it, and instead, pull videos from YouTube, fine and jail people who illegally download.

You would be hard pressed to find another group of people totally lost and utterly clueless as to how the world is run, when discussing and talking about the music industry.

you are advocating that the music company should have set up a pay per play type thing and bitching that they wont allow free stuff to be distributed. so what is you want?

musicismylife78 wrote:

How does being able to watch Death Cab's Cath video or another such video, harm the artist or the record label in the slightest?

because Death Cab worked to create that video. its their choice whether or not that want it on youtube, not yours.

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

because people dont work for free

how does music videos shown on vh1 and mtv figure into this? Although MTV and Vh1 dont play many, there still are a few music videos show. And those are available free to anyone with a cable subscription.

Additionally, tv shows can be seen obviously on tv, and you can even tape them.

So I dont really understand your "people dont work for free" comment.

ok no problem, I'll explain it to you. MTV and VH1 get permission from the bands to play their music on the shows, they work out some type of financial agreement and or marketing fees etc.. youtube does not.

musicismylife78 wrote:

You honestly think the tv companies and record companies give a damn about either the customer, or the artist and actors or screenwriters or whatever we are talking about?

yes. thats how they make money.

musicismylife78 wrote:

The record companies messed up, royally. They had a chance in 1999 to do something about Napster, possibly start a Comcast type company but for monthly downloads and music content. They didnt do it, and instead, pull videos from YouTube, fine and jail people who illegally download.

You would be hard pressed to find another group of people totally lost and utterly clueless as to how the world is run, when discussing and talking about the music industry.

you are advocating that the music company should have set up a pay per play type thing and bitching that they wont allow free stuff to be distributed. so what is you want?

musicismylife78 wrote:

How does being able to watch Death Cab's Cath video or another such video, harm the artist or the record label in the slightest?

because Death Cab worked to create that video. its their choice whether or not that want it on youtube, not yours.

it's so nice on that rare occasion when you and i can agree.
well said, especially the part i bolded. THAt really is it, isn't it? this music on youtube....BELONGs to the ARTIST. therefore he/she/them have the RIGHT to CONTROL it's access, everywhere. that's it.

just aways back, around the ten re-release, i remember dave a put up a shit ton of his OWN videos on youtube from that era. his own videos. thus, he decided to share em, he did share em, and it was his right to do so, and no one else's.

musicismylife78

So who are these bands that dont want music videos shown on youtube? I cant think of a band that wouldnt want exposure like that. I would love to hear some examples.

You and I have a fundamental disagreement about how the music industry is run. Time and Time again, its been proven that the record companies are only worried about the bottom line, and that is profit. You should know that being as we are on the official forum of one of the most outspoken bands in history about this issue. About the issue of record companies and the shady and criminal ways of the record industry.

I find it almost outrageous and incredible to think of any artist saying "hey those kids are watching our video on YouTube, and it needs to be pulled". You would have to be crazy to do that. Indeed there are bands, like PJ that dont want overt attention, but by and large most bands just want to get their music out there.

I think you are highly mistaken if you think these decisions to pull videos from youtube are done after having a meeting with the band.

As I said before. The music industry screwed up. They believed that music lovers would continually fund them. They believed that going after people who download, and fining them would scare people from downloading.

Fact is, the record industry is dying. Few people buy cd's anymore, a majority of people download. And cd sales are decreasing every month.

The people in suits and ties and who are CEO's of these companies will never care about the artist. Or the music. They care about money. Bands who dont sell, are dropped. CEO's dont spend time on music that doesnt sell millions of copies. And there is a reason for that. It is their belief that commerce and money equals success and importance. Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin and The Beatles are great. Some of my favorite groups. But do we honestly believe that the only good music is music that is on the top of the billboard charts?

The record industry got what was coming to them. They are losing jobs and losing money. And I for one could care less. The sooner it dies, the better. Maybe then a new system that focuses on the importance of, oh my god! music and art and the artist, as opposed to money and fame, can be installed and created!

decides2dream

i believe ed has had videos of his solo shows pulled, and pearl jam has had recordings on someone's blog pulled, etc.....and i am sure they are not alone. it is up to the ARTIST, and sure, their respective record company, to decide where/when/how their music is distributed, audio and/or video. it's a simple concept. EVERY artist has the RIGHT to CONTROL their own art. it's not simply just about the record companies. besides which, artists deserve to be paid for their work. record companies help to distribute said work. nowadays bands have to tour like mad to truly turn a good profit due to all the illegal DLs and the like...so idk if this developing 'system' is actually better for the artists, at all....and ultimately may not be better for the fans if fewer artists manage to survive due to less and less profits. everyone needs/deserves to make a living, even a very good one. disagree, fine...but this is not a foreign or novel concept...

musicismylife78

decides2dream wrote:

i believe ed has had videos of his solo shows pulled, and pearl jam has had recordings on someone's blog pulled, etc.....and i am sure they are not alone. it is up to the ARTIST, and sure, their respective record company, to decide where/when/how their music is distributed, audio and/or video. it's a simple concept. EVERY artist has the RIGHT to CONTROL their own art. it's not simply just about the record companies. besides which, artists deserve to be paid for their work. record companies help to distribute said work. nowadays bands have to tour like mad to truly turn a good profit due to all the illegal DLs and the like...so idk if this developing 'system' is actually better for the artists, at all....and ultimately may not be better for the fans if fewer artists manage to survive due to less and less profits. everyone needs/deserves to make a living, even a very good one. disagree, fine...but this is not a foreign or novel concept...

If an artist wants to pull a clip. Fine. Thats their perogative, but as I said, that isnt whats going on. You know it and I know it. I know this, because its often hundreds of videos that are pulled. Not from one artist, but say all of Warner Music Groups videos are pulled, or hundreds are pulled.

And lets be honest people. In these days of illegally downloading, there are two sides to be on. And most people, most fans and most artists, are NOT on the side of the record companies. Just look at how Lars Ulrich was ripped to shreds when he sided with the record labels. He will never ever live that comment down...ever. He may be in one of the most important rock bands of all time, but he will forever be known as the guy who made millions off of his fans, and then ridiculed them, for downloading music.

Artists who are against downloading are by and large outcasted and not respected. There are exceptions. But look at Trent Reznor. He has got to be one of the most respected people in music today, and that is due in no small part to his forward thinking on adapting a new model for distributing music, one that respects fans.

I agree its not a foreign or novel concept. I just am disagreeing that artists pull youtube clips. You say you dont know if this "developing system" is better for the artists. What artists can you name who say "gosh by golly I love the record industry and I love my label". And to specify, what major label artists say such a thing? Indeed all artists have right to control their own art. I agree. I have continually on this board talked about such things, and everything on my thread, this thread has been about artists and their rights and how they deserve to be treated better. So I dont think thats really an issue.

Artists deserve to be paid for their work, but if you are a musician and you expect to make a living off cd sales, you might want to find another career path. No one makes money off cd's anymore. We can debate all day long if this is a good or bad thing. But the fact remains, the record company makes the most money off cds. Something like 1 dollar out of every cd purchase goes to the artist, the person who created the art. The rest goes to the record label. I have heard that if you buy merch at the show or a concert ticket, the artist recieves 7 times more money from that, that if you bought a cd of theirs.

If it was the other way around and the touring industry, or live ticket sales were down the label wouldnt give a damn. They make little profit off it. But its cd sales that are drastically dropping, they make their bread and butter off that, so they are panicked.

You might want to read up on the music industry and music history in general, if you think the record industry cares even a smigden about artists and artists rights. In fact its ludicrous to me to even suggest otherwise. Fact is, you dont know what you are talking about if you think EMI, or Warner, or Sony, care about bands who create important, lasting, and life changing art. They dont care that music enriches our lives. They care if it makes money.

There are many artists who are 10 to 20 years ahead of their time, and are using this interesting time in music history to create important works of art, and to challenge the record industry. Radiohead, NIN, Bloc Party, Raconteurs. And by and large those bands are extremely well respected by fans. You think its a coincidence?

There is a difference between wanting to be paid for creating something, and wanting to wring every last cent from insatiable consumers. People can whine all day long about how people shouldnt illegally download, and that its stealing, but the fact remains as I said, most people download, and the cd store, going to buy cd's at a store is on its way out. And I also think the record label only brought this on themselves.

Its sad to think, that we, the public, are only potential dollar signs to record labels.

musicismylife78

there may indeed be bands who pull their videos, and are in cahoots with record labels to pull their videos. But those people arent speaking out. And there is a reason for that. Those people would be excommunicated from the music world immediately and fans would lose respect for that artist.

People illegally download. We can say all day that this is wrong, but the fact remains, this is going on. Either we dig our holes in the sand and bury our heads and deny something that is fact, or we learn to deal with the new world.

Sure indie labels are respected, Sub Pop, Dischord, and the like, but by and large, decides2dream, I dont think many major label artists think of record labels as being helpful or useful, in any way really. How can a system that seeks to exploit you and your fans, be considered a friend?

musicismylife78

there IS a reason why Pearl Jam, and their heroes, Bruce, Neil, REM and others have been so anti record company despite all being on majors. I dont think they all feel this way for the hell of it. It is a principled stand against a record industry that is clueless as to how to deal with millions of people eating into their profit margin.

There is no denying an artist deserves to be paid for work. But I dont agree that a record label deserves to make a profit or to the extent that they do, or did. Record contracts between artist and label arent equal. it isnt 50 50.

Again, this isnt new. This is basic music history and rock history.

decides2dream

bottomline...it is not something i care that deeeply about.
i DO care about the music, i couldn't give a shit about youtube.
i have zero desire to 'read up' on the music industry, but i do have a basic understanding of it. never suggested it was 'ideal'......and of course it is about $$$, all business is! i DO hope the artists continue to create, to make music, and ALSO make a good living....b/c they deserve it. however, they go about it, record companies or not.....whatever they can do to work it our for themselves is good with me. however, artists sign contracts with reord labels, they make agreements for distribution of content, intellectual property rights, etc.....so it STILL comes down the ARTIST, what he/she/they agreed to....and/or what they desire as to access to their music and videos. as to the public...of course we the public are only $$$ signs.....hopefully to the artists we are fans, and respected. for this issue tho, i leave it to the artists, the creators of this music, these ideos, etc....and let THEM decide who and how their work is distributed, just like what pearl jam is choosing to do now, on their own, others who stick with record labels, others who choose alternative means, etc. it's THEIR call.


musicismylife...it's great you're so passionate about so many issues, and it's great you share your opinions. i may disagree with you on a great many things, but on others not so much....but yea, i am just not a fan of your lecture series. :P believe me, i think most of us here are fairly intelligent, pretty well-informed, and yea...we get it and are aware. we just don't all share your same outrage over the same things, or to the same degree. keep up the good fight if it is of concern for you....but sure, posting about it on a message board isn't actually going to 'accomplish' anything, so i hope you direct your energies to areas where it may have some true impact.

FinsburyParkCarrots

I think I could change my name to Musicismylivingbutitdoesn'tpaybecauseteenagersthinkallmusicshouldbefree
andgreedygigpromoterstendtoagreeatleastasfaraswhereartistsareconcerned72.

mookeywrench

musicismylife78 wrote:

The people in suits and ties and who are CEO's of these companies will never care about the artist. Or the music. They care about money. Bands who dont sell, are dropped. CEO's dont spend time on music that doesnt sell millions of copies. And there is a reason for that. It is their belief that commerce and money equals success and importance. Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin and The Beatles are great. Some of my favorite groups. But do we honestly believe that the only good music is music that is on the top of the billboard charts?

The record industry got what was coming to them. They are losing jobs and losing money. And I for one could care less. The sooner it dies, the better. Maybe then a new system that focuses on the importance of, oh my god! music and art and the artist, as opposed to money and fame, can be installed and created!

It's not their belief that commerce and money equals success and importance. It's a pretty simple why businesses focus on sales and money.....if a business doesn't earn a profit, they die.

So yes, getting that jackpot artist who sells a billion jillion copies of their album and brings in shitloads of sustained profit for a record company is their goal. Because when they start bringing in those huge profits, they can begin taking chances on unknown artists and developing current artists. And start giving more exposure to to "good" music.

In order to support "good" music you do need a cash cow. And the cash cows are going to be either mainstream artists, or legendary artists.

Of coarse bands who don't sell are going to be dropped:

Lets see we just spent all this money on recording an album for you, mixing an album for you, mastering an album for you, marketing an album for you, distributing and album for you, clearing all the the legal work on an album for you, spent money on setting up interviews and TV spots for you, we set up concert promotions and set up a concert tour for you, we channelled some merchandise agreement for you, and gave you that demanded $500,000 advance you asked for, but you've thus far recouped us with only a few thousand albums......but some fanboy thinks your music is "good" so we're just going to invest millions in you all over again and hope for the best on your next album release.....

yeah, that's logical. :roll:

All in all, if you like an artist...support them with money not watching youtube vids.

Bathgate66

btw i believe there are programs out there that allow you to take stuff off of youtube and put it onto , lets say , a dvd.

musicismylife78

the music i like, mookey, isnt in accordance with the top selling albums of all time. Just because something is popular doesnt mean its good. And just because something sells a few thousand copies, doesnt make it bad.

By choosing to ignore those albums that sell only a few hundred thousand, the record company ignores good music as well

Music should never be reduced to money and cash and sales. When conversations, revolve around, money and status as opposed to art, in the music world, I would say we are pretty much doomed.

gabers

I understand the reason for them being pulled, I just think it's a stupid reason. And not because I'm cheap. I've downloaded a few songs for free here and there, but 90% of the music I download is from iTunes and I still mostly buy my music on cd or occasionally vinyl. The deal is, people want to watch the videos will do nothing but help with album sales. And chances are if the videos aren't posted on Youtube, they'll just be posted somewhere else. But most people use Youtube. So artists and labels, stop being dipshits and leave your material on Youtube, or if you must, work a deal with them like a few of the labels did already.

JOEJOEJOE

When a band signs to a label, they are granting certains rights to the label. Thus, since the label usually retains the exclusive rights to the songs/videos, they are entitled to flex their muscle when they see fit.

Radio stations (terrestrial, digital, internet, etc) are supposed to pay royalties when they play songs, as are video channels.

So, even though bands receive free publicity when their songs/videos are aired, they are still entitled to receive royalties for the performance rights.

In some cases, there may be an outside songwriter involved, and he/she/it gets a piece of the pie as well, so, it is not just the band who has a say when it comes to distribution of their work.