29
YouTube vs Warner Music: Artists And Other Creative People - Does Giving Away Your Work Spur Sales?
Astrology in real life
As Rights Clash on YouTube, Some Music Vanishes
“…A spokesman for Warner Music said that YouTube’s system for identifying copyrighted material does not distinguish between professionally made music videos and amateur material that may include copyrighted works.
“We and our artists share the user community’s frustration when content is unavailable. YouTube generates revenues from content posted by fans, which typically requires licenses from rights holders. Under the current process, we make YouTube aware of WMG content. Their content ID tool then takes down all unlicensed tracks, regardless of how they are used,” said Will Tanous, a spokesman for Warner Music…”
Many are aware of this… and affected. Personally I was raised to pay the artist though I know there is an argument to be made about “getting your work out there”. The argument says that this will lead to wider exposure and ultimately to sales but personally I have my doubts and I vigorously protect my work.
This issue smacks of Saturn in Virgo (boundaries around your work) and also Pluto in Capricorn (dirty business selling the work of artists without compensating them).
My personal experience runs counter to the argument for making your creative work available for free. For example, if I get a song in my head in the past I would have to buy it if I wanted to hear it but now I can just go to youtube where most things and can be found. I listen to the song and I DO NOT buy it as I am satiated. Youtube gets paid - the artist gets squat.
Does making your creative work available for free spur sales?
47 Responses to “YouTube vs Warner Music: Artists And Other Creative People - Does Giving Away Your Work Spur Sales?”
Jilly - that is very interesting. I publish for free too, obviously but only a portion goes out on the RSS feed. if you want to read the content in it’s entirety you have to come to this site to do which theoretically benefits me.
I think this is a win/win situation for me and the reader but I support Warner music in this other debate.
This is the whole, “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free” thing, ya know.
That saying may be dated - doesn’t mean it’s not correct.
Yeah.
Personally I have issues with my poetry being a commodified, which is why I did the free thing with it & reject the status quo method of publishing with it.
I’m reading Lewis Hyde’s book, The Gift, which has an interesting take on creativity and the marketplace.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/jan/20/featuresreviews.guardianreview32
I just think it’s a symptom of our out dated method of exchanging value. Many people want to support the things they get value from, but they want to feel like they’re taking part in a fair exchange and not beaing cheated. Art is suffering because it is a medium where a lot of leeches have attatched themselves over time sucking value out of the system without putting anything back. I’m not talking about pirates, but certain recording companies like the one that set fire to Frank Zappa’s recording studio. There are ways to get more value to the artists, but the leeches are fighting it. The leeches want their blood and they aren’t going to give up easily.
I’m on the fence about this. Part of me thinks… if your work isn’t of a high enough quality that people would be willing to pay for it even though they can get it for free… then maybe you don’t deserve to be paid.
This assumes that the people you’re dealing with are looking for an exchange, and not a steal. I’m one of the former… but am aware that a lot of people out there, aren’t.
It’s interesting that you mentioned people meeting up with you and not paying for the meal, Elsa. A general theme lately seems to be that people are - Inconsiderate.
But maybe it speaks more to the relationship dynamic on the blog than the personality of the people. You can’t always be considerate and reply to and attend to everyone on the blog… they may just be reflecting this dynamic back at you, without considering the differences in situation.
ps I do realize poetry doesn’t have any value in today’s society but my blog readers are other poets. Pretty much only people who buy contemporary poetry nowadays.
I just think if you invite someone to lunch, you’re paying - not them. I may be a dinosaur but this used to be called “manners”.
I would also say that as a dinosaur, if these are the new manners - I’d just as soon not socialize. This is a true fact and my prerogative, I figure.
The day I invite someone to lunch and have them by mine is the day I hope someone shoots me in the head and puts me out of my misery and hell yes, I feel this strong about this.
I have Mercury in Libra and I think decorum (grace) is underrated. I have Mars in Libra too, so I think this with vigor and I am er… willing to take a stand.
It’s this simple: I don’t want to be at your ill-mannered party!
Bad manners makes Libra sick. May as well invite Taurus to dinner and feed them plastic food or garbage. Er… no thanks!
Most of my friends would look at me askance if I tried to pay for them, even if I had invited them… But if I ever did invite someone I met over the internet for coffee/lunch I imagine I would at least offer to pay… and could never leave them with the entire bill.
But like I said… a large number may just be extending the internet dynamics into real life. This isn’t excusing it, you understand - just explaining it. I’m not trying to defend these people 
It baffles that they wouldn’t at least consider it.
lol @ the metaphor..
yeah, well I am an old Italian lady and there are ways things are done! It’s fine with me if you young non-Italians want to do things differently, I’m just have no desire to make myself relevant when it comes to this. I am going to die soon anyway and will be glad to go, I’ll tell you that.
“But Elsa! You too, can have no manners! It’s okay now to lie, steal, cheat and rob people!”
“Er… no thank you. Is there a door around here somewhere??”
And then there was the gal who stood up my daughter and I in the rain. “We’re on our way,” I said as we left for the 40 min, very inconvenient trek to meet her. “Ok!” she said cheerily.
Unfortunately by the time we got there, she’d have a better offer, LOL.
We were all over that hotel for a half hour trying to track her down. Finally went home.
Got home and she had called. She’d lost track of time or something - wanted us to drive back. Umm…
Ugh.
yeah, fact is I don’t have any ill mannered friends, nor do I want any.
My man kills people but no one would ever tell you he lacks manners. he would not be caught dead sitting while a woman stood without a seat. He is going to hold the door, even if 100 people go in the place in front of him, even if this means they are going to sell out of the coveted tickets being sold inside and if he acted in any way but this, I would be ashamed.
If we’re old fashioned - so what? Saturn is exalted in LIBRA. There are rules of civility and when people follow them, folks don’t get trampled to death at walmart, how about that?
Yes.
I wish Youtube could give it directly to the artist-like if musicians could create accounts and get paid like advertisers, like pages per song viewed or something. Warner Bros. probably keeps most of the money and gives them like 5%. It’s so sad.
On a related note:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mellencamp/on-my-mind-the-state-of-t_b_177836.html
I see warner bros. as doing something similar to what Elsa does with the dispatch. Elsa provides the means for the public to see small websites they otherwise wouldn’t find on their own. she puts time and energy (and other resources) into promoting them.
I think warner bros. is entitled to compensation for their investment (time, resources) and risk.
pandora.com and internet radio have to pay royalties, don’t see why music videos should be any different…
I’ve never brought CD’s but I do like to go see live shows. The artist profits more on tour than they do from selling CDs. I’ll hear something online, love it, then go see a show next time it’s in town with a couple of friends. The artist makes money off the exposure. Actually I think this allows the artist to circumvent the mega media conglomerates like Warner. It’s about being business minded and making the system work for the artist not the artist work for the system.
I download free articles, thesis, papers…off the web all the time. I’m part of a group that books speakers for events. We keep our eyes and ears out for what’s fresh. We’ll call or e-mail one of these writers whom make their work available for free online and inform them that we would like to PAY them to speak at an event. Sometimes they are surprised, sometimes they are expecting such a call and give us their rates.
There is a way to make online work for the artist. More so than any Mega Corp ever has. Elsa, I think your method of making your work available but still controlling it is very intelligent. Keep up the great work!
Well what gets worked out going forward gets worked out but fact is Warner Music owns that music. It is THEIR asset and they’ve every right to restrict others from selling it.
Let’s see. I own a house. It is MY asset but you come in and sell it, pocket the money. Er… no, I don’t see how that benefits me but you’re lookin’ pretty good.
This situation is more complicated than it seems… I think that many people would agree that it’s fair that the artist gets paid, except this is not necessarily how things work in real life. Paying the record company is not the same as paying the artist. Also, with ubiquitous internet access, the old distribution model of music has become obsolete (we no longer need physical media like vinyl and CDs), but the record industry has been mostly fighting this development rather than trying to come up with new business models.
There are huge opportunities here for “content creators” to distribute their works and control them, without the need for large umbrella organizations (like record industries and publishers)… but it has not been fleshed out properly yet.
I don’t know on this YouTube thing, but authors who offer their books for free (specifically, the first book in a series) have had their sales go UP, especially for the later books. Which usually doesn’t happen. Tor did this over the summer, offering free books, and I gather it did very well for them. I certainly have bought books after reading some of the ones I read for free.
There’s also a certain mindset with some people who will be so grateful for what they get for free that they will donate money or purchase later.
If I have no intention of paying, it’s probably because I wouldn’t really use the thing, or just wanted to see it once.
The amazing thing about all this is that I recently (out of desperation more than anything else) began working with what I call “The Radiohead Model” of doing business, and it is working like gangbusters for me.
To explain: two months before Radiohead’s last album was released in stores, they made it available on their web site for download. For free. The band basically said: “Here’s the product. If you think it’s worth paying for, pay us what you think it’s worth.”
Everyone (myself included) thought this was insane. People STILL think it’s insane, even when you point out to them that an album with middling reviews has made Radiohead far more money than any of their other albums.
It’s so insane, in fact, that most recording artists simply WON’T do business that way. But in a free market, if the consumer determines the value of a product… why not LET THE CONSUMER DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT?
Like I said, no one believes it, but it works.
Matthew I hear you…but they cynic in me can’t help but point out that Radiohead were already massive sellers at that point…they had a dedicated fan base and money to boot. Do you think this could work for the lesser known artists?
No aspect between the two…. but Venus in Aquarius and Jupiter in Gemini, retrograde. So maybe “crazy” just naturally works for me. 
Is that business model paying your mortgage Matthew? (if that isn’t too personal a question.)
“I am confused, satori. Do you mean Youtube?”
I guess I’m thinking about the producers (warner bros., sony) who find talent and bring them to a larger audience, then someone takes their content without paying (youtube) and gives it away– but makes money from ads cos they don’t have to pay what it costs to produce the content. I’m seeing that as similar to what might happen if someone were to pick up the astrodispatch (and a bunch of similar sites) and put it on a one-stop site where they garnered ad revenue.
I guess the analogy is complicated since you both produce and create content.
Matthew, most bands CAN’T do business that way because they have contracts with recording companies. the recording companies pay big money to produce and promote their product. most artists don’t have the money or ability to produce themselves as well as the big companies with systems already in place. even if they can afford to bankroll recording and putting out a product, the distribution and creation of interest is problematic. a person can put up an mp3 on itunes but without the support lines of the big music co’s pushing and promoting, not many people buy.
Radiohead already had commercial success. if their contract was up, great, they can captitalize on self-promotion. however, it’s unlikely they’d have gotten to that place without an entire business, full of people working who need to be paid, promoting them.
Personally, I don’t want to sit at youtube “watching” videos that have to pre-load when I could have the real thing at great, intended quality at my own demand. YT, to me, is a method of promotion for artists and that’s it.
Also, their content blockers piss me off.
but youtube is making money off of something they don’t own and didn’t pay for. I don’t get it.
Well I listen to all these old people and when I do, I would like them to get a royalty check. This is the work they did when they were young… it should be helping them in their retirement year but instead, there is the work they did in their peak and someone else absconds with the money.
OK I am (pleasantly) surprised to see people coming down on the WB side of this one. I don’t like the way it’s being executed but I have no problem paying for what I like.
In fact …… friends share CD’s with me. If I like the CD I go buy it. Tout de suite.
If it’s unavailable or out of print I usually go buy something else by the same artist, or look for another way to donate to them. I am singular in my pursuit of this, and most of my friends don’t understand why. I will share my music with them, too, because that’s important to me, but I share a few songs here and there and say “go buy the CD if you like these guys.” The people that I know won’t do that? I point them somewhere else and keep my files locked up.
It’s actually one of the few things that I feel strongly enough about, to push my morals onto someone else. (i.e. the not sharing with people I know will pirate - let them pirate somewhere else with out my help!)
@Jilly: as it stands, I don’t have a mortgage. It’s sure helping with my rent and groceries habit, though…
@ Satori: You have a point about Radiohead’s fame making it work as well as it did for them, and about contractual obligations. But then again… I’m no Radiohead, and it’s working for me.
That’s one of the beauties of doing business that way: even when it works it SOUNDS so crazy that you’ll never have to worry about the competition catching on and beating you at the same game.
Shannon… the reason I’m against WB on this one is because I can’t support what music companies have become in the past couple of decades.
An analogy would be if, say, Nike gave its shoes to an advertising company. The company thinks “Hey, let’s let people wear these shoes for free in the building… And you! Get those walls covered in ads!” People not rich enough (or who just don’t want) to buy Nike go to the building, put on the shoes, and get to enjoy the shoes with the proviso that they stay inside and walk around looking at ads.
Now, notice Nike gave the advertising company its shoes. Notice also that Nike uses slave labour and then bemoans its loss of profit via the ad agency.
WB:Nike
as
Musician:Slave
Btw, which is not to say I don’t pay for what I like…
::puts up hand::
how does youtube make money? i am seriously clueless.
K. - Google bought them and they didn’t really need to make $$ for a while but now Google has started overlaying ads on top of videos at the bottom and also putting an ad on the page.
I don’t know if the ad revenue is turning a profit.
YouTube is going to start distributing some TV from ESPN and Disney also like on hulu.com.
absolutely the ads turn an profit. you can bet your ass they wouldn’t be there if they didn’t. most free services like that are ad supported in one way or another.
website publishers have been able to have their ads in some youtubes in the past, but that’s being phased out.
@Matthew Currie - fascinating revenue model. also says something about your work that it works for you.
I think that there are two important points being missed in this discussion.
1) WM is the middle man. The middle man usually inflates price and the middle man used to offer a service - call it indexing, finding, location, distribution or connection in one manner or another. The net has, for a large part, made the middle man obsolete. This in turn provides artists direct access to audiences. Yes, maybe it’s a slower growth model but it means more .. say more music and more variety and so a larger number of true musicians make money from their work - it might mean less money overall. No more rockstars, superstars rolling in money that they don’t know what to do with.
So the middle man model of business is struggling against and extreme cost reduction of finding/distribution. I’d say ask the young start-up artists on myspace. They’ve got audiences that they would never have had in the old business model and more money and work and exposure for their music than they could dream of in the old days as very few musicians could be promoted at the level that WMB could promote.
2. The blanket requirement of taking down material on YouTube negates the rights of the newer artist who is remixing the music, art, etc.
A very long time ago stories and songs were the “same” within a culture. The value of the storyteller or musician was in execution. The twist or turn or ending they could put on an “old favorite”
That blanket requirement that WMB wants from YouTube contravenes the law as currently written which includes “fair use” ie an artist remixing to the point of a new work. We’ve all seen it done horribly and we’ve all seen it done amazingly so it becomes a tribute or something that is at the next level.
What I think is the more relevant question is should YouTube be required to share revenue that they are receiving from advertising if it is your video’s that are pulling a significant amount of traffic and revenue? How about the gardening show that the woman puts together with her home video camera and uploads to youtube? Should that revenue be discounted for the cost of the bandwidth and the data centers (those are NOT cheap to run much less expand and more data and more visits means more of both)
What kind of society do we want? A few rockstars or three good bands in your neighborhood and a bunch more that tour through?
And no, I don’t watch songs or bands on youtube myself. I listen to my very old CD collection or the radio - otherwise life is a bit on the busy side…
Get A Consultation
I'm available for consultations! You can schedule a consultation by phone or a consultation by email. You can also read what clients have to say about my consultations. Thanks, I look forward to working with you. :) - Elsa P
More
Recent Blog Comments
- InteriorCastle: That is an adorable goat....
- InteriorCastle: I have family members who aren't interested in taking my adv...
- Neith: Gotta get Elsa back in here, pull these weeds! Yup...
- Elsa: Thanks everyone. I thought it was noticeable. The place gets...
- Neith: Yes, there is a clear difference when you show up and when y...
- Tree Frog: Yes. I am very aware of this....
- omie: oh yes! I notice.I would miss you very much!...
Recent Board Posts
I have my poetry book for sale or as a free download and there has been roughly 16 times more downloads than sales. (Less than 30 sold, actually.) Maybe people just don’t like it. It’s obvious they don’t think it has value enough to pay for it.
Like you I blog every day (only between 200-300 readers a day though) you’d think people would want to support me/that.
My husband’s songwriting royalty checks have been getting smaller since the advent of the web. (Seems like ever since Neptune went into Aquarius.) I think it is unfair that radio stations, TV/film have to report airplay to BMI and ASCAP to get tallied on those quarterly reports but YouTube etc don’t have to.
We’ve pretty much resigned ourselves that the only way to get $$ for music anymore is direct sales (he sells his CD on Cdbaby) and playing live.
Sorry this is long but I don’t understand what people value anymore.