Don't Blame YouTube: Sound of Silence will Change Music Biz Sooner than You Think

Did you know that every minute another YouTube video is silently muted? I just experienced this trying to promote Easy Rider and Steppenwolf’s “Born to be Wild. When I looked for a video on YouTube, I was happy with the one I selected because it promoted buying the download of the song. Great, I thought! Within a couple of minutes of posting the video, YouTube muted the audio part of the video. YouTube states, “This video contains an audio track that has not been authorised by all copyright holders. The audio has been disabled.” Who do you think will buy the song now?

How long before YouTube has no voice? Although the problem had gotten some exposure, no one has fully offered a viable solution.

If you have the power to make a video go viral with 100 million views, you have the power to force a paradigm shift. As the battle ensues, no one makes any money, witness Susan Boyle.

I see many uninformed users blaming YouTube for their compliance with copyright licensing organizations. However, these are powerful, litigious and very wealthy organizations.

The power must be put back into the hands of the artists who have created the music. Let the artist give you permission to use the music, express your creativity and promote the music.

The master of music promotion, Trent Reznor and his company NIN.com, prove you sell more music by giving it away (new iPhone app.) “It’s free anyway, for anyone who wants to admit it,” says Reznor. Is it?

As I was thinking about this conundrum, I thought why can’t there be something like a “YouLicense,” someplace artists could register and automatically respond to requests for use of their material. Fans could get a YouLicense to use the music and attach it to their video agreeing to set terms and conditions. There could be a YouLicense widget that would allow someone to buy the music from your site and you and the artist could make a portion of the sales.

I did a search and found there was something called YouLicense, but not exactly the model I was thinking about. Check it out and let me know what you think. Could someone like a YouLicense partner with YouTube and make this seamless and simple?

As record labels are dying, are licensing organizations, like ASCAP and BMI, next?

Any passionate young entrepreneurs have some new ideas about this? Maybe some of you involved in the gogivertour.com and extremebusinessmakeovers.com this weekend with @BobBurg? Certainly, the music biz needs an extreme makeover.

For some reason, embed code for video of Trent Reznor Interview with Kevin Rose did not work, please click here.

Loading mentions Retweet

Apr 25, 2009

Jason Falls said...

One of the problems with social media is that the open source movement has lured users into a false sense of entitlement to things. Most softwares are free so now they see music and movies, TV shows, etc., the same way. But if no one is paying for them, the artists, networks, labels, etc., can't make money from their primary craft.

I hate the hassle of dealing with copyrights, permissions, etc., - even used to make funny videos with music I didn't have permission to use (I've since removed those from the web and only have them for personal use now). But it's a necessary evil.

Yeah, Trent et. al. have embraced it and found ways to monetize open platforms, but for most artists without NIN's already vast fortune, it's not a practical way of earning a living. Keep in mind most musicians seldom make much money.

But believe me, I'd love to find a way for common use to be wide open. And yes, artists should have the choice to let their audiences use the music if they want. But not all will give that choice and that's just how the world works. (Not holding out for change, though it would be nice.)

Good thoughts.

Tom Vanlerberghe said...

I think we're long past the point that we have to keep telling people it's wrong to copy, download, distribute files. Those who advocate it know but well that they're in the wrong.
What's wrong is a sense of apathy, laziness,... who cares if we're doing something illegal, chances of getting caught are one in a million. The gains just don't add up to the possible repercussions.

I take the public transportation a lot, and a lot of times, I don't pay. I know it's wrong, I know I can get caught, but the chances of getting caught are so small that with what I've saved by tnot paying I can pay of 3-4 fines.

I'm not promoting illegal downloading here, just wondering if we aren't fighting the wrong fight.

Bill Genereux said...

I really like the Magnatune model. (http://magnatune.com) Creative Commons licensing. Play before you pay, and the end user decides what amount to pay for the music. The artist winds up benefiting directly from each sale, earning more for each download than they can through traditional music labels.

Yes, I agree it is time for some new paradigms to take root.

Angela Dunn said...

Thank you, Tom and Jason, It's interesting to me that Trent in his video feels the music is essentially free to everybody. I think he meant that is the case as a result of social media. If it is indeed inevitable, I would like to see it possible for people to promote the music via a widget with both parties getting a fee from the download. The community is defining brands right now, and I think the community will define the music biz now as well. Thanks again. I look forward to more interesting feedback!

Thanks, Bill for sharing the magnatune model for independent artists. However, the debate will rage over major label music. The iPod changed the millenial generation to one that has an appreciation of ALL music, especially old school. To them, it is all new music. I would like to see a solution that incorporates all music. Thank you for sharing.

sexythinker said...

great debate. what's fascinating to me is how "scared" the big guys are getting because SM is leveling the playing field for the little guy. it will be interesting to see the control stuff play out.. maybe this time the winners won't write history...

gvegas864 said...

An .mp3 file in and of its self no longer has any value (to the consumer). It’s a commodity, for as soon a there is a single copy posted to the web, it’s free for the taking. Simply selling a song by itself is like selling bags of sand at the beach. Sure you may have that sand in attractive packaging, but if I just walk a few feet there is more sand that I can carry. Now if you throw in something scarce, something extraordinary, say a polished seashell, then I may be more persuaded to purchase the pair. In this case the seashell might represent a live show, or a special vinyl edition.

I am no industry expert, nor an economist. I don’t purport to offer some alternative business model for the music industry. I am a consumer, or better stated a music lover. The RIAA is a dinosaur going through extinction and fighting to stay alive. If they think uTorrent and The Pirate Bay are bad, wait till OneSwarm “The original source and destination of material is obscured - you only know the first hop - and that's a chosen circle of friends.” from The Register 22nd April 2009. http://bit.ly/t25YN

Mike Masnick at TechDirt has written numerous articles on copyright and entertainment issues. He notes “The Pirate Bay itself has seen its own traffic and popularity grow noticeably thanks to the trial. Once again, the entertainment industry's strategy has only driven more people to find out about the site and what it does.” http://bit.ly/12zUyu

In other words “All your music are belong to us”.

Angela Dunn said...
Thank you @gvegas864, great response. I am going to try to embed Trent's interview in another post since it failed for some reason. But, what you have described is very much like NIN's business model. I thought the article about 86% of Swedes willing to pay for P2P model was interesting as well http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/sweden_p2p/. Thanks again, look forward to new following.

Thank you, @sexythinker! The community is leveling the field across many industries. Customers are now driving innovation and brands. Fascinating indeed!

Apr 26, 2009

Ozgur Yuksel said...

I have been noticing that at a subconscious level but I realize it now consciously. Apart from that in various countries (like Turkey) partly due to the so-called licensing problems the site gets banned and blocked in various levels (legally - believe me!)

Still, the openness in the area will find its way through..

Justin Bailey said...

Speaking as somebody who grew up with file downloading and music sharing, there's a stigma that "these darn kids" are stupid, lazy, maligned, etc. The trouble is that the people who avidly download ate underestimated. It's less an issue of "I don't want to pay record labels" and more "why should I pay record labels". Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that downloading is still wrong, wrong, wrong, but on the other hand so is ignoring the question of why people do it; Why should I pay the record label? Thankfully services are popping up that allow people to pay the artist directly for their music effectively cutting out the middle man. That's where the focus should be.

Stashicus said...

As a musician, I believe that a musician should get his/her profits from merchandise, and not the actual music itself. But, I'm not saying that a musician should not get credit, and I am not condoning the theft of other's creations.

May 24, 2009

BreakingGravity said...

I really like your YouLicense idea. That could solve a lot of problems. Also, if labels want to survive, they need to stop engaging in petty battles with their consumers and start getting creative - think about ways to provide more value, instead of how to be more restrictive. Since they have exclusivity over the artists, why not conduct online artist forums regularly, with downloadable (for a fee) interviews, acoustic in-studio sets, live material, videos, etc. - as long as you give people something to thank them for buying - like a chance to win VIP concert seats, or collectors edition box sets, signed merchandise, etc. Fans will pay for what they can't get elsewhere. So give them some things to crave, add value, and be nice to your artists' fan bases.

May 25, 2009

Thank you for your awesome ideas, BreakingGravity! Providing these little tokens of accessibility and special features help build relationships and community. Unfortunately, the labels are the last to realize you need to "give" in order to "get."

Thanks Angela! I think, as a society, we find ourselves in the midst of a mortal face-off between two opposing views manifesting in the business world: The old-school idea that you create something people don't need, manipulate them into wanting it, and then charge them through the nose for it, while compensating those who helped you along the way by giving them as little as possible -- versus the idea of providing something of inherent value, assessing that value correctly, and treating customers and partners with respect, while having a genuine desire to be of service. I think the latter will prevail, but it will be a real skirmish. Thanks for your thought-provoking blog entries!

blogbrevity’s posterous

Fans of this post

Don't Blame YouTube: Sound of Silence will Change Music Biz Sooner than You Think

Comments (16)

Leave a comment...