From the BBC News:

Warner threatens YouTube on music

Warner said YouTube's terms did not 'fairly compensate' performers or labels

Warner Music Group has told YouTube, the video sharing site, to remove music videos by its artists from the site.

Contract negotiations have ended because Warner wanted more money for having its music on YouTube.

But the Warner channel was still available on YouTube on Monday and Warner is reportedly still keen to reach a settlement.

The original 2006 deal was hailed as a landmark agreement, paving the way for deals with other music publishers.

YouTube also has deals with Universal Music, Sony and EMI Music. Analysts say that Warner's action may prompt other music companies to demand more money.

Thousands of videos from artists such as Madonna, Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Kid Rock, could now be pulled from the site.

'Staggeringly' low

The original deal allowed Warner's material to be used legally on YouTube in return for advertising revenue.

Music companies typically get a share of advertising revenue associated with each video and a per-play payment - estimated to be a fraction of a penny - for every video viewed.

"We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide," Warner said in a statement.

Sources close to Warner said the amount it received from YouTube was "staggeringly low".

In a statement on the YouTube blog, the company - which is owned by Google - said: "Every day we work with the music community to license your favourite music for you to use on YouTube. But music licensing is very complicated.

"Sometimes, if we can't reach acceptable business terms, we must part ways with successful partners. For example, you may notice videos that contain music owned by Warner Music Group being blocked from the site."

The video sharing site added that its ultimate goal was "to treat everyone fairly".

...Which could put a huge damper on our "Music Video of the Week" fun. I'm not sure how many of the artists I would feature here are owned by Warners, but seeing as how they are such a large conglomerate, I would assume that more than a few are.

Here's what I want to know: Why does Warner expect even a small chunk of YouTube's profits? Only twenty years ago they were shelling out big bucks to MTV for the opportunity to have one of their artist's videos played on that channel. A clip on YouTube is going to get much more exposure than even the ones that they paid into heavy rotation on "Music Television". And it costs NOTHING to get it there.

In case you didn't know it (and Warners evidently does not or has forgotten), a music video is nothing more than a commercial. A commercial for a band. A commercial for a record. And, by proxy, a commercial for the record label that put it out. That's all they ever were. It doesn't matter if it was a cheezy Lita Ford/Ozzy Osbourne epic or a full blown artistic blowout from R.E.M., they were COMMERCIALS. Music video as art form? Okay, I won't argue with that. That's all subjective, anyway. It's the marketing aspect I'm talking about. Warner doesn't give two shits about whether ANY medium is an "art form". Their bottom line is sales and so they use music videos to further those ends, and so that makes them commercials.

I noticed some while back that CBS has disabled the embedding of some of their artists. That's why you haven't seen Springsteen or Dylan here. I think that's a stupid decision on their part because by not allowing bloggers and other Web 2.0 folks the ability to embed they have given up a chance to expose their artists to people who may never hear of them otherwise. Maybe not much, but doesn't every little bit count?

---