Rich’s Music Notes

After YouTube pulled UK music videos from their site, Warner Music Group has also taken down their music.  Financially, YouTube is not profitable.  But because Google is flush with money, rights owners seem to think that money should be shared with them.

The fallout has hit the artists.  Roadrunner Records is a good example.  Warner owns a majority stake in the company.

“It was a bit of a professional blow to me when videos began coming down,” Roadrunner director of New Media Jeremy Rosen told Digital Music News.  “I spent the better part of two years carefully building the Roadrunner Records YouTube channel into one of the top ten music channels by subscribers and views on the site; one of the top channels period.”

Rosen built a YouTube channel that brought in 3.5 million views for their bands and a subscriber base of 133,000.  How many of those subscribers can be diverted to Roadrunner’s website remains in question.

Perhaps record labels need to decide whether they are selling records or videos.  They built their business on free airplay on radio to promote their songs.  Now they want to charge for it on the internet?  I don’t see any different between radio and the internet.  They are both ad-based.  So how can they charge for one and not the other?

– Rich Pulham

After Google’s removal of British artists’ music videos, the UK-based Music Publishers’ Association (MPA) is throwing its weight behind PRS for Music.  Of couse, they helped broker the deal between PRS and YouTube back in 2007 so they are naturally disappointed.

Last.fm has taken sides with YouTube.  “It has been a bold decision for Google but we are all working in a very competitive environment and the fees need to reflect that,” Last.fm cofounder Martin Stiksel told the BBC.  “We have to find commercially workable rates otherwise illegal services will win and take over.”

Pandora.com also sits in the same boat.  Like Last.fm, they play a customized playlist to an internet audience.  They were forced to leave the British market after negotiations broke down with PRS.

Also facing a similar situation is MySpace UK which is a major broadcaster of videos.  They are struggling with their negotiations with PRS.

Maybe the result of all this will be no more music videos for the UK audience.  That should really help record sales.

– Rich Pulham

Apogee Electronics, makers of AD/DA hardware and recording systems, announced it will no longer be developing products for the Windows platform.  I think what they are really saying is that they are struggling in these tough economic times and are trying to conserve resources.  (Aren’t we all.)

Their tech support will continue support for products installed on Windows XP Service Pack 2.  However, they have already fallen behind.  The lastest Windows XP is Service Pack 3.  Sounds like they had already dropped Windows some time ago but are just now announcing the fact.

If it were me, I’d be nervous about dropping Windows.  Steve Jobs has been the leading force at Apple.  Now his health is in question.  If he does not return to the helm, what will happen to Apple?

Jobs was treated for pancreatic cancer in 2004.  His appearance stunned audiences when he was last seen.  He had lost a great deal of weight and looked downright frail.  Many observers believe his cancer has returned and that he may never return to work.

Although Apple had a good quarter at the end of 2008, January has not been so good for them.  Their market share has dropped from 16.4% to 13.7%.  The SEC is investigating Job’s health because it is such an important issue regarding the market value of the company.  Has Apple reached its apex and is now on decline?

Apogee’s decision may be a good one.  But I always get a bit nervous about putting all my eggs in one basket, especially when that basket has dark clouds on the horizon.

– Rich Pulham

YouTube is in the process of blocking views of music videos in the UK.  Negotiations have broken down with the licensing group PRS for Music.

“Our previous license from PRS for Music has expired, and we’ve been unable so far to come to an agreement to renew it on terms that are economically sustainable for us,” YouTube stated.  “We value the creativity of musicians and songwriters and have worked hard with rights-holders to generate significant online revenue for them and to respect copyright.  But PRS is now asking us to pay many, many times more for our license than before.”

Apparently, PRS feels that since views on YouTube have increased, so should their fees.

It seems strange that music videos were created to promote performers and increase record sales.  Now licensing groups want that to be a source of income?

I wonder how many groups have music videos on their site that can be viewed for free.  So why charge YouTube?

– Rich Pulham