Comments on: Radiohead, Billy Bragg join fray against YouTube

The Times Online reports a group of artists will gather in the U.K. on Wednesday to protest the "bad treatment" they've received from record labels and YouTube.

[Crow120]

Well I suppose it's comforting to know that the artists are all about their mone... I mean music.

[mmntech]

We want... more monah. You know, some of that Internet monah.

I wish I was getting financially "abused" by record labels and YouTube in the same way Radio Head is.

[aMUSICsite]

I used to like Billy Bragg, then again I wish I could write a song and record it in a few days/weeks then live off the profit for the rest of my life. Unfortuantely I have to work 8 hours a day so I can buy things like muisc.

[coryschulz]

I can understand complaining about the record companies, but YouTube? Really? People just go on there and watch a music video every once in a while. There isn't much money being made on YouTube yet, so there isn't much to go around. And if you're not a widely known band then having videos on YouTube is more like free advertisement for you. The only people who make money on YouTube are the people who post videos (vlog) regularly (sxephil, hotforwords, shaycarl, pogobat, edbassmaster, smosh). They bring a lot of people back to YouTube and deserve to be compensated for their efforts. But a song or a music video playing on YouTube doesn't really bring large amounts of people back a few times a week to listen to/watch it. Are they just trying to stand up for the "little guys" who are little bands trying to make a few bucks here and there to tour and put petrol in their cars? Just because you can make music, that doesn't mean it's good and you should get paid. Most stuff I hear on the radio is just terrible ( I stopped listening to the radio when I was 17. Occasionally I still listen to NPR, but that's it ). I do not believe these "artists" deserve any money for the crap they produce (However there are many musicians who do produce great music and deserve to be compensated). Maybe they should focus their time more on something they're better at.

Also, music on cell phones is going to be big, but not on phones from Nokia or RIM or anyone else. It's mostly going to be the iPhone that is going to have the biggest mobile sales, and I'm sure they already have a contract worked out with Apple.

Also, you can't just put out one or two or even 3 albums and then expect to have enough money to retire on. Most people have to keep working until they're pretty old, and there is no exception for musicians, even if you've lost the ability to make good music. So find a job.

I am a musician myself (guitar, bass, piano, and some percussion) and record my own music and am also working to put myself through college (computer science major). I would never want to make a living off of making music. I would always have other sources of income I'd rely on. The fact of the matter is that there isn't much money to be made selling music, and so these bands are running around trying to squeeze every penny out of every corporation that is involved with anything music related. But these companies aren't making any money off of the music anyways. So what do they do? They already tried suing your average Joe Shmoe for downloading music, and that didn't work out anywhere near as planned, and the PR was terrible. They're going to try forcing ISPs to regulate everything that is sent over the internet, but I have a feeling that won't work. So what's next?

In the mean time, I refuse to pay for music, and I would never charge for music that I create either.

[Dylan_Wisor]

You obviously know nothing about YouTube.

[drbyte]

I agree. Music has no value on the shelves of stores anymore. Music biz

It's a personal mp3 player thing now. You can get 20gigs of albums in a heartbeat from someone you just met with a mp3 player, folks share music like sticks of wrigley's gum. Income streams are drying up for musicians to the point the music is just for promotion now, especially if you are a band and can actually play instruments and hold the public interest, you might be able to play some cities based on a great cd being passed around like dunkin doughnuts. Nothing beats a good live band.

I can understand the smaller bands getting behind this. Youtube does make money off of copywritten material, its not like Youtube creates anything. Since most folks aren't going to go out and buy a song they discovered on youtube, gotta get the loot where you can. Especially these days, have you listened to the radio lately? Before you know it it will take just 1 finger and a mouse to make a complete album that will be considered a classic by today's listeners.

[coryschulz]

@Dylan Wisor: Yes, my knowledge of YouTube is pretty low except that I know how to use it. Sorry. Wish I knew more. But it's all advertisement. And that's pretty straight forward. By getting people to return to the web site regularly, you're able to maintain a consistent advertising base and make money off of these people. They've experimented with different advertising models which range from ads on the side, to ads in the beginning of the videos, to ads on the bottom of the videos. Also, when a song plays a little bar will sometimes come up giving you a link to Amazon or iTunes to purchase the track. That's also a way to get money from the users.

I was hoping you could explain more to me other than just telling me that there's something I don't know.

[coryschulz]

Also: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/549822/?sc=dwhn

[gerrrg]

Okay, so Radiohead's In Rainbows was sold online for whatever price people wanted to pay for it, but when it comes to Youtube, Pandora and others, they're getting fussy about how much money they're getting paid?

What gives with the flip flop?

[darthstupid]

Meh. How about Google just drop them off Youtube instead.

[mattaw]

Reading alot of naive comments here realting to business and protest. These major artists are not looking to make a quick buck. Billy Bragg and Radiohead are artists with integrity and are representing their colleagues and future artists. They ar 100% correct to demand royalties from Google (owners of YouTube) for every play of official material.
Important to remember that if major artists didnt voice their opinion through the media and left it to developing acts, do you really think it would hit the headlines and get us arguing about it?

[unknown unknown]

I am calling BS on that. Google offered to pay buy sharing a good chunk of any ad revenue generated by their videos, but PRS demanded a lot more and Google was unwilling so they yanked the videos. That's how the free market is suppose to work. Now the labels have dragged out these clueless poster boys to whine how unfair it is, as they have in the past. Clearly they see some value in being on Google our they wouldn't be whining about it. For several years labels did everything in their power to keep their videos off YouTube. So yes, it is all about making a quick buck.


"These major artists are not looking to make a quick buck."

Yeah they are. They clearly see value in being on YouTube and since YouTube won't pay them what they demand and has pulled their videos, they're now trying to put pressure on by whining to the press.


"Billy Bragg and Radiohead are artists with integrity and are representing their colleagues and future artists."

Billy Bragg is shameless. He wrote an op-ed in the NY-Times about how artists that put their music on Bebo were entitled to some of the 850 million AOL payed to acquire Bebo because they voluntarily put their music up on Bebo.
If I give away a CD, I have no right demand a cut when the person I gave it to sells it.
There is no integrity there, it's all about making buck, deserved or not.

"They ar 100% correct to demand royalties from Google (owners of YouTube) for every play of official material."

Google offered them a share of ad revenue, they demanded more, and Google declined and pulled their videos. A free market deal if there ever was one. Now the artists are whining how unfair it was.

[FunkyShrek]

Billy Braggs now involved OOOOh!! Scarey!
I work 3 jobs! Start at 3.30 in the morning finish at 7.30 at night just to make ends meet!
GET A BLOODY GRIP ON REALITY YOU BUNCH OF WHINING OVERPAID MUPPETS!
If all I had to do all bloody day, was sing a song, and then moan, I didn't get paid more & more, I would gladly swap!
As for the PRS! They are the ********* who wanted to charge £249! to have a radio playing when 5 of us are sorting newspapers at 4 in the morning! Hence we aren't aloud to have a radio on anymore!!

[NPGMBR]

Hmmmmm.....this is interesting because sometime last year Radiohead had a run-in with Prince after Prince issued a take down notice to some site of a performance of himself performing one of Radiohead's songs.

Radiohead could have a problem because they set a precedent by going against the Prince takedown request but I'm not lawyer so who knows.

[Len Bullard]

There are two nuggets in the article:

1. Featured Artists Coalition: various groups of artists are forming their own consortia to negotiate for the artists. This means the hold of the RIAA, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC is weakening because they over represent the interests of the labels and not the artists.

2. Transparency in accounting. The elephant in the room of the music business has been opaque accounting making it nearly impossible for the artists and others to know precisely what the are owed. THERE IS NO LONGER ANY EXCUSE FOR THIS GIVEN MODERN WEB-BASED TECHNOLOGY. Yes, I am shouting that.

For new artists, this all looks good except they have to lower their expectations for earnings given reductions in mechanical royalties. For established artists used to those big checks, it is like dancing on a flag pole during an earthquake. For the labels and producers, it is mass panic.

There are artists who have mastered the web instead of the web mastering them. Check out Arlo Guthrie's web sites and the Guthrie Center. Note the smoothness of that operation, the fact that he leased his early recordings back and distributes them himself. Note that his wife Jackie handles YouTube. He understood early what the web meant and what he had to do. There is a noticeable pattern of inverse scale. The artists that are scaling down the size of the operations and scaling up the use of web distribution are doing well. Those trying to maintain the caste system of the old labels are not.

Expect more artist consortia. That is a smart move and precisely the way the software industry handles it's own internal market squabble over IP and legislation.

[sevort]

It's time to boycott unappreciative idiots like Radiohead and Smashing Pumpkins...

[c5ny]

This is about principle not about money for these musicians! what is wrong with you people?! you are obviously clueless AND you must not be an artist of any sort trying to make a living! These well established musicians are trying to pave the way so perhaps your sorry kid who wishes to be a musician doesn't get shafted by the industry. They don't need to do this, they could simply not care what happens to everyone else and live happily ever after.

[unknown unknown]

I really hope that is sarcasm and you don't actually believe that idiocy.

[dadsgravy]

"I really hope that is sarcasm and you don't actually believe that idiocy."

That's a lot of cynicism and lack of faith in humanity. You want to get a piece of pie and talk about it?