You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: YouTube Signs Deal With Warner Music For Music Videos, More

News

YouTube Signs Deal With Warner Music For Music Videos, More

YouTube and Warner Music on Sunday signed a deal that allows music videos from Madonna, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and other artists to become available at the popular Web site through an advertising-based system. According to Reuters, the contract will also allow Warner to use YouTube to distribute behind-the-scenes footage, interviews with artists, and original programming.

In addition, YouTube users will be able to use Warner Music songs and videos in the content they create, solving a sticky legal situation that recently led Universal Music Group to call YouTube and MySpace "copyright infringers" that should be paying "tens of millions of dollars" to the record industry.

The strong language led to speculation that Universal will sue the Web sites, but Warner Music executive Alex Zubillaga told Reuters that his company is "trying to lead through innovation as opposed to litigation." YouTube CEO Chad Hurley said that his company is creating technology that will better enable the identification of content and allow for royalty payments, so that Warner and other entertainment firms can remotely manage the licensing of their copyrighted material.

Mr. Hurley commented to Reuters: "We've been in discussions with many of the labels, television networks and movies studios."

Last month, rumors of the impending deal between YouTube and Warner led Jupiter Research vice-president Mark Mulligan to comment: "Any service that YouTube puts in place is, almost beyond reasonable doubt, not going to be iPod compatible. If YouTube can convert its massive online popularity then it could provide a significant reason for people to buy non-iPod devices. At the moment Apple is still the best bet for portable music watching. Either way, it is a nail in the coffin of paid-for services as the dominant online model versus ad-funded alternatives."

2 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 1018 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Nail in the coffin?

The nail will be when the copyright violation lawsuits start piling up and YouTube finds themselves on the wrong end of an A$$ whipping in court. They are definitely commercial and profiting off of other peoples content, even if they're not the original source. It wouln't be hard for a judge, any judge, to realize that they are profiting from non-licensed content and therefore it should stop.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tiger wrote:
Nail in the coffin?

The nail will be when the copyright violation lawsuits start piling up and YouTube finds themselves on the wrong end of an A$$ whipping in court. They are definitely commercial and profiting off of other peoples content, even if they're not the original source. It wouln't be hard for a judge, any judge, to realize that they are profiting from non-licensed content and therefore it should stop.

Uh, they were talking about authorized videos in the article. Before you engage the rant mode, read the article carefully.

In any case, if the ad-sponsored videos on YouTube are anything like their current .flv (Flash video) offerings, "free" is the only way they could induce anyone to watch them. The quality is, frankly, terrible. It's like looking at videos made on computers in 1990. The sound is horrible, as well. I put a video of one on my horses on YouTube. I had spent a long time and a lot of effort making it look good, but YouTube mangled it so badly that I took it off.

Google video is not much better, unfortunately. There seems to be this attitude that, if it's free (or ad-sponsored), it's OK to provide crappy-looking video with garbled sound. The iTunes Store has taken an opposite approach, especially with their recent upgrade to 640x480 video. (It does make for longer downloads, though.) Compare any of the iTunes Store products with anything from YouTube. It's like the difference between a Shakespeare drama and a 4th-grade skit.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.