YouTube rival coming from Big 4 labels?

According to a Financial Times report, the Big 4 labels are strongly considering building a streaming video site that will directly compete with market share leader YouTube.

The site will be modeled after the very popular Hulu service, which shows full TV episodes and movies with minimal advertisements.

Warner Music recently pulled their music videos from YouTube after contract negotiations fell through. Currently, the Big 4 labels get a fee each time one of their videos is played, but Google (owner of YouTube) wants to reduce the fees and instead share more of the ad revenue.

EMI, Sony and Universal are still in contract negotiations with YouTube but may pull their videos as well if terms can't be agreed upon.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 30 Dec 2008 20:09

Advertisement - News comments available below the ad

12 comments

hikaricor

herecomesthefail

30.12.2008 22:46 #1

tgok

Originally posted by hikaricor: herecomesthefail2nd'd

30.12.2008 23:38 #2

c.trigger

and maybe be it we so awesome it won't be able to view it out side the usa just like hulu. grumble ....

31.12.2008 06:11 #3

nonoitall

Those guys in the music industry are brilliant! They always come up with these great new ideas that no one has ever tried before - and they always do everything they can to make those new ideas even better for the end user! There's no way this won't be a huge hit!

[/sarcasm]

31.12.2008 07:24 #4

atomicxl

Looking at the feedback, whats so bad about this? Does the fact that it's legal make it instantly unattractive to the average Afterdawner?

31.12.2008 09:44 #5

varnull

Not really.. It's more like we hate these bloodsuckers. I will not look at it.. because it is from them, and will probably need some horrible drm filled iplayer type crap software (spyware) installing on your machine and be M$ only..

We don't trust these bastards as far as your granny could kick them.

Free open source software = made by end users who want an application to work.
I would rather you hate me for who I am than love me for what I am not.
Welcome to the other side of the looking glass Alice

31.12.2008 10:08 #6

lawndog

@atomicxl
well ya see, what we afterdawners realize is that "the big 4" will find ways to charge the consumer to watch the videos. And it upsets us that these people are only pulling their videos so they can make a larger profit margin.
And also being the topic only had 4 posts prior to yours is it really appropriate to assume that "the average afterdawner" is only interestted in illegal stuff???
Also please explain to me how having the videos on youtube is illegal??? Especially being that their under contract????

31.12.2008 10:30 #7

atomicxl

You can get your videos straight from the source and its free. What is there to complain about? Why is that such a horrible and evil thing?

I've never understood that hate that Afterdawners have for content creators. Even when they do exactly what you guys want, give away the stuff that they work hard on and spend money to make for free, you say that they are evil and off the devil and in Satan's palm. I think you guys get off on avoiding big corporations... although you crave the content made from these large corporations so its all kinda funny to me.

31.12.2008 15:34 #8

lawndog

oh really, the "big 4" have already made the content available for free??? really where.
Maybe via youtube but you have no idea how many other websites have posted a video and been asked to remove it because of copyright infridgement.
Or is your idea of free via VH1 or MTV, really those are free??? Um no we pay a premium to view those channels which a cut goes back to the big four.
Straight from the source.....
um no, straight from the source would be like what NIN and others have done where they posted their songs online themselves, not through a record label or other sanctioning body.
Afterdawners do not hate the content creators. But Sony, BMG, Warner, EMI, and Universal are not the creators, mearly the suppliers. The creators are the ones that actually create the ideas.
And as for them doing exactly what we want??? Oh really. A CD gets realiesed with 14-20 songs the only ones that we really wanted was maybe 2 but were forced to buy the whole cd for $18.00. Thats what we wanted, no. And the "big 4" were not the ones that pushed for single available downloads. We the people wanted that, and finally somebody listened, created it, then went to the big 4 and pushed for it. And after it got popular the big 4 got greedy went back to the entities selling the downloadable singles and asked for a larger cut.
So as for them making avaiable things that we want, no they haven't. Not in anyway.
And since when have they given it away for free??? Free implies they get no money for it??? Did you not read the report.
Quote:Warner Music recently pulled their music videos from YouTube after contract negotiations fell through. Currently, the Big 4 labels get a fee each time one of their videos is played, but Google (owner of YouTube) wants to reduce the fees and instead share more of the ad revenue.

notice the word fee, well a fee implies that money does transfer hands. And where do you think that fee generates from???
Money spent by advertisers.....
Where do advertisers get that money......
Their marketing department.........
which comes from money generated from consumers....
and consumers are ????????
We the people
So free???????
um no it's a smoke and mirrors, nothing is truly free. That free candy bar you got with your coke today, was actually taken out of the marketting departments pocket with money generated by us the consumers.
And your complaing about afterdawners........really you really wanna complain about an entity that tries to fight for more rights as a consumer???
If it bothers you that much quit coming here. It is called freedom as speech, as you yourself are envoking. But it seems like you would rather us walk along our path, march in line with everybody else and nobody gets out of order, um seems like a sensorship if you ask me, which is a communistic thought??
A stretch.... yeah maybe, but if something isn't right and nobody says anything then it becomes socially correct. Well frankly I don't want that.
But hay.... I'd becareful about bashing afterdawners, because by posting, your becoming one, becoming what you seem to disagree with.
but then again if you don't like the music change the station, don't like the tv show change the channel, don't like the content visit anouther website.
Just my thoughts
LD

31.12.2008 15:59 #9

borhan9

This is not going to work. Instead of competing just go back and negotiate for some sorta deal that way you will be making profit like you once did. But i see that the green eyed monster has taken over at the big 4 labels. Shame really....

2.1.2009 17:38 #10

elliott

Well I for one Love Hulu.com and TV.com, I never really liked Youtube although I have posted some user reviews for handheld media players. The superior Video quality is one reason and I don't mind watching a short commercial for access. I would honestly pay a small fee annually to have these services like I do with Netflix lord knows I would love to have legal access on demand vs. my greedy timewarner cable company. Free Market Capitalism dream come true would be to surcomvent the middleman how wants his share and go directly to the source. I know there are arguements as to who is the source but if the quality is there with easy to use interface and preferably a Windows Media Center plug in I am all for it. I have never downloaded music illegally as I found ways to get my music free legally through subscriptions to RealPlayer and the MyCokeRewards program. In Fact the only thing I do pay for is Netflix and feel like I get my moneys worth between the movie rentals and the online Viewing its a steal.

3.1.2009 23:18 #11

avoidz

Corporate control is the problem.

5.1.2009 22:07 #12

AfterDawn: News