No more Metallica, Chili Peppers, Madonna on YouTube?

A bevy of major label content looks to be pulled from YouTube, as The Times' Dawn C. Chmielewski writes that contract renewal talks between the Warner Music Group and the video-sharing site have broken down. Head to the official Warner Music Group channel on YouTube, and users are met with a giant empty video player, but click around and visit the site of Warner acts My Chemical Romance and Nickelback, for instance, and plenty of videos are still up and running.

YouTube, however, has let readers know that content from WMG would be gradually disappearing. Chmielewski writes that it remains unclear who pulled the plug -- WMG or YouTube -- and indeed, hunt down other news reports on the story, and one will find some crediting WMG, and others crediting Google, which owns YouTube.

Chmielewski writes:

Warner was the first of the major labels to strike a licensing deal with YouTube, in 2006. Its executives think its cooperation lent legitimacy to the video website, setting the stage for the $1.65-billion acquisition of YouTube Inc. by search giant Google Inc.

In the original discussions, Warner, Vivendi's Universal Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment all received small stakes in YouTube as part of music-video licensing deals.

Under terms of YouTube's contracts, the labels stand to collect either a minimum fee of less than a penny each time a music video is watched or a split of advertising revenue, whichever sum is greater.

How much WMG is potentially walking away from is unknown. A CNET story quotes a Universal Music Group exec as saying YouTube has generated "tens of millions" of dollars for the label. Harder to quantify, however, is YouTube's promotional impact. YouTube has helped make the music video relevant again, and nary an artist today can go without one.

Though this may be little more than a negotiating tactic, it isn't exactly easy to pinpoint who has the upper hand in this discussion. There are other video sites that WMG has interests in, such as MySpace Music -- of which WMG has an equity stake in -- but YouTube is the Web's No. 1 video site. The site's quality may not be on par of that of Hulu.com, but ease of use, availability and a lack of ads embedded in videos help YouTube win out.

All that being said, a number of YouTube's top music video channels are related to WMG. The official YouTube destination for Warner's Atlantic Records, for instance, is currently ranked No. 9, and there's plenty of content still working on the page. But when or if it disappears, it's safe to say that YouTube's users probably aren't going to side with the major label.

Fan's habits are hard to break. While Amazon.com routinely sells new MP3 albums for less than $5, Apple's iTunes store is still safely the Web's most popular paid download destination. But would a lack of WMG artists start a decline in YouTube's popularity? Maybe, but probably only if the other three major labels follow WMG's lead when their deals with YouTube expire.

Additionally, what happens when artist's start wondering why their videos aren't on one of the Web's most popular sites? For a budding act, not appearing on YouTube would be a major, perhaps detrimental gap, in any online promotion plan. The argument that YouTube is failing to "fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers," as Warner said in the statement, may not mean as much when you're struggling simply to find an audience.

This isn't the same as NBC walking away from iTunes. YouTube gives users what they want -- easy access to free content -- as opposed to what they may or may not want to purchase. Also, it's not just official WMG videos, because YouTube is loaded with fan-filmed live clips, it's content that helps build a community and isn't available anywhere else.

Pop & Hiss will keep you apprised of any major updates in the negations, and check in with the Times' Technology blog for the latest. In the meantime, we offer, while it's available, a song about the changing music biz from the always straight-shooting Warner artist Tom Petty.

--Todd Martens

Comments

[Mark]

who cares?

[Jack]

Warner Music Group are doing totally the opposite of what they were hired to do by their label artists, reach the broadest audience possible. Cutting off You Tube defeats that purpose. Those artists should hold Warner in breach of contract. Money kills the artist.

[Hmm no more Madonna on youtube]

That's a bad thing?

[comic books]

really, who cares is right.

[Gfellow]

They don't want to be on Youtube? Don't let the door slam your feet on the way out. It astounds me how so utterly behind the curve the music industry continues to be when it comes to the web. But that's OK - I like it when greedy folk suffer, don't you?

[poppy]

could care less,we need some new blood who aren't greedy and want some free pr.

[Nafiul]

Youtube clearly states "No copyright material" unless you are the owner.

[JPS]

Buh-bye, Warner Music Group. R.I.P.

[Glenn Reynolds]

No more Metallica, Chili Peppers, Madonna on YouTube?

Who freaking cares!

[Jonathan]

Hallelujah! Three of the worst bands ever.

[steve]

good. maybe now i wont even be able to accidentally hear their crap.

[me]

good. i wish they would leave the radio as well.

[D. Diddy]

Music videos are commercials.
Free promotion of your artists = bad?
Stupid...

[Angry]

Metallica is cool, they always have been. Leave them on.

[Jane]

see ya,WB.
don't come back.

[magicusergirl]

I hope MCR stays up and running on there...and Metallica too...

[lexcalibur]

adios warner ..you dont care about fans..well i hope you go out of business with your neverending greed...greed kills idiots..buh bye and good riddanse!

[Oceanus57]

Looks like WMG are going to lose a lot of customers, and I'll be one of them.

My vide played out a fairly obscure song 30,000 times.

How can that be bad for the artist?

[V]

could care less,we need some new blood who aren't greedy and want some free pr.

Posted by: poppy | December 21, 2008 at 11:38 PM

You Must mean couldn't care less, to imply that you could care less means that you could in fact actually care les. Whereas couldn't care less implies the oposite, that you are so uninterested in said topic that you couldn't care less. Silly American grammar.

Also who cares