I recently uploaded a video of my vacation to Hawaii to a popular video sharing website. It consisted of a bunch of short clips of me and Steve surfing and snorkeling. In order to make the video more entertaining, I added some audio clips from music that I had purchased. This spurred the video sharing site, which I’ll refer to as “MePipe,” to mute the audio on my clip, due to copyright restrictions placed by Warner Music Group (WMG).
Don’t get me wrong – if the law states that WMG can restrict the use of their music in home movies that I upload to share with my family and friends, then perhaps we need to change the law. But even if the law says that WMG can restrict the use of music in such cases, I started wondering if WMG should restrict the use of music on video sharing services like MePipe (ok, ok, it’s YouTube). Is this a smart business move?
I am reminded of when the whole DRM craze began. I look back at my own behavior, which probably isn’t representative of anyone else’s behavior because I am far from normal. I used to purchase 10-20 CD’s a year from BMG. It was a great deal – buy one over-priced album get 10 free. But then Ipod’s and CD burners came along, and DRM soon followed. Record labels said DRM was necessary because pirated material was causing sales to decline. I however, didn’t buy this. I knew of PLENTY of people who used to copy VHS movies and Cassette tapes back when those formats were popular. I never heard any record labels complain about this during those times.
When I found that restrictions were being placed on albums and MP3’s that I had purchased, I did the opposite of what the record labels hoped I’d do – I just quit buying music. I know. I’m not normal. But I figured that if there was any chance that I wouldn’t be able to make a mix CD with only my favorite songs, or if I could only transfer my Mp3s a limited number of times, it wasn’t worth owning. There was a period of two years where I remember buying only two or three albums.
Then Amazon started offering DRM free MP3s for less than a buck each, and I began buying 30+ songs a year. ITunes soon followed with DRM free music.
Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest – history is full of examples of companies that didn’t change with the times and went to corporate heaven. Blockbuster video is a recent example – Netflix changed the video rental landscape almost independently.
So what about WMG’s decision not to allow any of its music to be uploaded with YouTube home movies? What if, when commercial music started to really take off, record labels fought back against radio stations that broadcast music? That is what I would argue WMG has done by deciding not to allow its music to be added to the background of YouTube home videos and such.
Where would any band be if it weren’t for radio? I’m not a music industry expert, but as far as I know, quite the opposite has occurred recently – just do an internet search for payola. WMG is making the same decision as Blockbuster Video – it’s failing to realize that technology has changed along with people’s habits. YouTube offers greater exposure than radio, and doesn’t compete with anyone buying an album any more than FM radio does.
Will this be the death of WMG? Probably not, they’re a huge company. That recently reported a 17 million dollar quarterly loss.
Maybe it’s time for a change.
Slapbacks