
Ok Go on Why Labels Won't Let You Embed YouTube Videos - ironkeith
http://okgo.forumsunlimited.com/index.php?showtopic=4169
======
alex_c
Summary: because YouTube pays the labels part of the ad revenue for videos
played on youtube.com, but not for embedded videos.

~~~
Locke1689
That is a summary of why you can't embed the video but I'd still encourage
people to read the full post if they want a more thorough analysis of the
state of the music industry today.

~~~
alex_c
Absolutely - it's a great post overall.

------
ique
I've always been deeply interested in the inner workings of record labels.

As I understand it, it seems that a label is somewhat like a VC for artists.
But no VC takes 80-90% of the company they invested in. Why do they need to
take such a big part? Is pressing CDs such a huge risk and expense? If such;
why continue doing it? Barely anyone buys CDs for obvious reasons, shouldn't
there at least be an option for artists that don't want to press CDs? Maybe
there is but artists just want CDs for some reason?

Why can't artists get regular bank-loans to fund their business? Is it just
too high risk? It seems that someone as famous as Ok Go should be able to take
a bank-loan to fund some studio time, but I suppose they're already under
contract.

Anyway, if anyone has answers to these questions or links to where I can read
more about stuff like this, please do share.

~~~
nerme
"Why can't artists get regular bank-loans to fund their business?"

This is one of the fundamental questions that is most often overlooked!

Ok, so three long haired dudes working part-time jobs at coffee shops wander
in to a bank and strike up a conversation with a loan manager...

...I think we can all fill in the blanks here. :)

The indicators that banks look to for giving out loans are quite different
than the indicators an A&R man is looking at.

Would a bank care about how many people you typically draw to a concert? Would
they care about a good review on Brooklyn Vegan? Or how many shows you've
played outside of your home town?

Music is a specialized industry requiring specialized methods of investment,
much like Internet or biotechnology companies.

~~~
jey
Agreed, but shouldn't three long haired stoners with a couple of successful
albums already under their belt be able to demand better terms? If labels
aren't willing to do it because they've "always done it this way", maybe
there's room for some new investors to offer less onerous terms to proven
musicians?

This happens in industries as they undergo commidification, and it's pretty
clear that the barrier to entry to making music has dropped a ton and the
music industry is undergoing the same thing... so why aren't the funding
institutions keeping up?

~~~
nerme
Well, people ARE trying. :)

Here's an article from Billboard: <http://bit.ly/7qevgk>

The concept was very interesting but unfortunately it had a lot going against
it, which is why Jake got out of the music industry.

Jake didn't really know all that much about the music industry... he didn't
know promoters, or booking agencies... having these connections are still very
important, just like in any industry.

Also, Francis and the Lights are incredibly idiosyncratic and would rather not
deal with the industry on any terms other than their own... which doesn't make
for the best business partnership.

Independent labels still fulfill this role.. to an extent. What they are
mainly lacking in is capital and a way to recoup, as bands do not sign
contract for anything other recording.

It would seem that a company with the right contacts in the music industry, a
good amount of capital to invest, and an all encompassing approach to the
artists income would have a shot at becoming profitable.

There is most definitely money to be made from music, but understanding the
intricacies of the this new marketplace are more complicated than most people
are willing to admit to themselves.

Disclaimer: Jake and I have been good friends since college.

------
nerme
Here's the very best point that is brought up: "And musicians need them to
survive so we can use them as banks. Even bands like us who do most of our own
promotion still need them to write checks every once in a while."

While the major labels had their faults, the DID act as investors for
musicians.

This was probably their most important function, and it seems as if though the
majority of Music 2.0 proponents do not know this.

This isn't the only thing they don't know about a functioning music industry.

The next time you're listening to a Music 2.0 presentation, stand up and ask
the dude if he knows where the closest band rehearsal spaces are, where the
closest guitar repair services are, who manages local acts, who does booking,
who is currently promoting what genres and at what venues... really, I could
go on and on about a lot of details that some messiah of the digital arts is
most definitely unaware of.

~~~
ABrandt
I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to as "Music 2.0" (possibly the
likes of pandora and last.fm?) but I do agree that the investment function of
record labels is often over looked. As someone heavily involved with
researching the industry, as well as helping local bands, I am constantly
amazed with the parallels between entrepreneurism and being a musician.

There needs to be the musical equivalent of the lean startup theory. Just as
swarms of young entrepreneurs are embracing the bootstrap, so should bands.
Yes the labels could probably tell you where to get your Fender repaired, but
so can Google. All functions of the traditional record company are becoming
obsolete in comparison to digital methods. I envision an industry where
musicians retain artistic freedom and everyone actually gets paid (check out
Steve Albini's classic rant on how most artists don't make much of anything
www.negativland.com/albini.html)

~~~
nerme
Yet another parallel between programming and musicianship... :)

I think any musician knows where to go to get their guitar fixed or where to
find a rehearsal space. Those sorts of things are pre-requisites to having any
sort of future in the industry.

By "Music 2.0" I'm referring to any number of articles related to music having
to be free, being a loss-leader for t-shirt sales, etc... in these people's
minds, bands form out of the ether and well-recorded albums rain from the
heavens above!

Businesses involved in the digital commodification of music need to have a
firm understanding of how music is made and performed in order to have any
measure of success.

------
physcab
Yeah, the music industry is experiencing some brain trauma right now. It'll
happen to the film and TV industries too in a few more years once bandwidth
and memory prices decrease.

Because music is so readily available, almost no one expects to pay for it.
Itunes is cleaning house right now, but that's because people still want
ultimate control over their libraries. I'll bet once people can be guaranteed
the same level of access that they enjoy on their Ipods as they do on their
phones, then Itunes will meet the same fate. Apple probably knows this which
is why they are making plays in the streaming business.

What the content providers need to do is accept this fate and start building a
new model around distribution and the incredible amount of information (data!)
they have available to them. Package the product up in something consumers
will always pay for--new devices or other peoples products (advertising).

The beauty about this business is that it hits a chord in consumer's lives.
They will always want it because this content defines them in some abstract
way. If content companies can learn more about their consumer's identities,
they can sell that information to product makers. If you doubt all you have to
do is look at the new artist product lines-- Sean Jean and Dr. Dre Beats to
name two.

------
josefresco
Question: Does MTV pay the record labels for showing their videos? I'm not
being a smart-ass, I'm really asking and didn't want to rip into this without
having some background.\

The article says that they _used_ to consider MTV a promotional partner, do
they still?

~~~
marilyn
MTV has changed dramatically from 10-20 years ago. They have moved away from
playing music videos around the clock. Now the majority of their content is
teen reality shows and the like. Televised music videos is limited to very
few, already very popular artists.

~~~
danhak
This doesn't really answer the original question, in which I am also
interested. What about MTV2, Fuse, BET, VH1, etc? Do TV networks have to pay
royalties on music videos?

~~~
krakensden
MTV2 doesn't play much music videos either- for that matter, neither does BET
or VH1.

~~~
jsm386
Still, I also would like to know the answer to the original question. Surely
videos are still played somewhere. Do labels get paid when that happens?

------
steveklabnik
This is also extremely interesting because OK Go was one of the bands that was
able to tap into viral video as a way of getting the word out there. Remember
the video for Here It Goes Again? 50 million views.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv5zWaTEVkI>

------
cousin_it
Hang on, why does the label allow them to upload videos to Vimeo?

~~~
physcab
While I can't find a link, my guess is that Vimeo has exclusive distribution
rights with the labels.

------
discolemonade
It's extremely difficult to feel sorry for the record labels. They all deserve
their fate. They saw everything coming as far back as the mid 90s, but decided
they were more powerful than the market. With all their CD boom money, they
could have bought Napster and Big Champagne, which tracks P2P file sharing.
They could have bought MySpace and Pandora and just about any major music
portal that any person of average intelligence would have thought was a good
idea.

~~~
ramidarigaz
I agree with you. I don't feel sorry for the record labels. I do however feel
sorry for the artists. They're the ones getting screwed while the labels hold
on to their dying industry for dear life.

~~~
discolemonade
The artists are actually doing just fine. They've always wanted to free
themselves from the labels. If you're an artist and you can figure out
distribution and marketing on your own, all you need is about 1000 loyal fans
to make a decent living because you keep most of your profits. It's not as
easy as it sounds, but at least it's freedom and what's more important than
that?

------
rms
I just want to see what happens when the music hydra hits a million users.

------
jroes
is it possible to do some kind of javascript/iframe hackery to make embedding
work?

~~~
travisp
You maybe can come up with a _technical_ solution, but the point is that it's
not permitted. The article itself offers a solution to the problem of
embedding (offering the video through a different website).

The article raises more interesting issues than this, however, such as why
it's not allowed in the first place, and what needs to change to make it
allowed.

------
wendroid
FTFA "So the money that used to flow through the music business has slowed to
a trickle"

I'd like to call that a "mis-speak"

"The digital music business internationally saw a sixth year of expansion in
2008, growing by an estimated 25 per cent to US$3.7 billion in trade value.
Digital platforms now account for around 20 per cent of recorded music sales."
[1]

Which makes music sales of US$18 billion for 2008 by contrast the revenue for
the top 20 countries in 2005 was $12b [2]

"PRS for Music, the organisation representing songwriters, composers and music
publishers, today published new research showing that UK music industry
revenues totalled £3.63bn in 2008, up 4.7% from 2007’s £3.46bn." [3]

Some fucking trickle

[1] <http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_resources/dmr2009.html>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry#Statistics>

[3]
[http://www.prsformusic.com/aboutus/press/latestpressreleases...](http://www.prsformusic.com/aboutus/press/latestpressreleases/Pages/UKMusicIndustryrevenues.aspx)

~~~
josefresco
Not saying this is authoritative but your numbers don't jive too well with
this Wikipedia quote:

"In the 21st century, consumers spent far less money on recorded music than
they had in 1990s, in all formats. Total revenues for CDs, vinyl, cassettes
and digital downloads in the U.S. dropped from a high of $14.6 billion in 1999
to $10.4 billion in 2008. The downward trend is expected to continue for the
foreseeable future—Forrester Research predicts that by 2013, revenues will
reach as low as $9.2 billion.[5] This dramatic decline in revenue has caused
large scale layoffs inside the industry, driven music retailers out of
business (such as Tower Records) and forced record companies, record
producers, studios, recording engineers and musicians to seek new business
models.[6]"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry#2000s>

~~~
viraptor
Both posts can be true. "music business" is not only about record sales. It's
also about ads, gigs, licensing, etc. Even if direct sales are lower, the
business itself can be alive and well. It's only the amount of money spent by
customers that went down.

