On a day when CBS-bought Last.fm announced a new initiative for free streamed music (and raised our hopes that labels aren’t idiots) today we get one sign that shows that indeed, record labels will kill any shot they have of online success.
I just got a first for WatchMojo.com (we’re not contesting, but not because we did anything wrong), but rather, because Van Morrison, Exile Productions and everyone else involved can go kiss my ass.
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Van Morrison / Exile Productions claiming that this material is infringing:
Review of the Van Morrison record “Pay the Devil”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=uZrby5UU6d4 Please Note: Repeated incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube’s copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Centre to access the instructions.
Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.
Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.
This is ridiculous.
First off. I didn’t even recall the video. So I looked into it. We’re celebrating our 2 year anniversary today (WatchMojo.com launched on January 23 2006). Some of our earlier videos were, well, pretty much a video of someone sitting on the couch and talking. Suffice to say we’ve upped the ante a bit since then. We did not even migrate those old “talking head” videos to our new CMS when we relaunched on August 19 2007. So that video in question is not even on our site at WatchMojo.com, but it was on YouTube, one of many many syndication partners.
Initially I thought that we had maybe used a 5, 10 or 15 second snippet of a Van Morrison track.
So I saw the video. We didn’t even do that! I pressed play, sat and waited. I saw a host sitting on a couch with background music that was stock music… nothing.
No music from Van Morrison. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
Tell me what gives Van Morrison and Exile Productions any right to accuse us of anything?
Oh, at one time, for about 1 second, we flashed an image of the cover album. Was that a copyright violation?
Nope. Surely that is fair use. We were promoting this douchebag that no fan would recognize from a lineup of other douchebags and this is what we get?
Musicians are clueless, labels are helpless, the music industry deserves what it is getting. This accusation is a pretty good example.
Last.fm means well, but within… oh I’d say 6 months, record labels will kill this because, well, they’re idiots.
Don’t take that from me, I refer your attention to Exhibit 2 (Exhibit 1 was the bonehead email above) to Universal Music head honcho’s moment of stupidity to judge for yourself what we’re dealing with:
There’s no one in the record company that’s a technologist. That’s a misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry missed this. They didn’t. They just didn’t know what to do. It’s like if you were suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his kidney. What would you do?
Hmm… off the top of my head? Call a freaking veterinarian you genius!
Apparently, despite a battalion of lawyers, I see there are no lawyers either, cause I know what copyright violation is and this ain’t it.
From Day 1, we’ve prided ourselves from being ethical, not ripping off music labels, film studios and being proper with regards to credit in trying some kind of best practices for new media producers and publishers… this, my friends, is the treatment we get back in return.
Worst of all, I presume that this Takedown Notice puts a black mark on our YouTube file.
Some people are too stupid to deserve any shot of victory or survival. These douchebags are it.
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo Newsletter2007 darling Apple got hammered yesterday despite strong financial results. The problem was it failed to beat expectations (at least what analysts were expecting) and more importantly, its guidance was paltry.
The stock - which crossed $200 per share just recently - is now off 16% or $25 and sitting at $130. Is it a buy? I don’t know. But Apple’s softness today (understatement of the day) is prompting some to ask if more tech companies will get hurt.
Yahoo! (whose stock I own) is being decimated. Yahoo! - despite all that it has going for itself - is worth $25B, and this includes investments in the fast-growing Asian market by way of Alibaba and Yahoo! Japan. I’ve long argued that Yahoo! can’t go much lower, but it can head higher (mind you, I also never expected Yahoo! to be this low).
But Google has always faced considerable downside risk. How low could Google go. Bear in mind I’m the same guy who’s penned “Will Google Surpass MSF’s Market Cap by 2010?” so I think the market is overly pessimistic now, which is normal.
But is Google at risk for more downside? Long term, no. Online advertising maintains momentum and Google continues to dominate in search… though investors should take this opportunity to realize that so long as Google remains a one-trick pony and it edges closer to 100% market share, its upside will become capped - even if search advertising continues to grow. The reason is not that Google will fail to do well, rather, like Apple, it won’t be able to surpass expectations nor will it be able to push up expectations for forward earnings.
But short term, is there more negative news? It’s hard to tell. Just a couple of months ago investors were bidding $750 per share for Google. Yet today, they’re only paying $550 per share? Frankly, digital media is better positioned than ever, and Google has not changed, has it?
The main risks I suspect are two-fold:
- Google has over the years began to generate more revenue from larger Fortune 500 advertisers, but Google’s bread and butter are individuals, small and medium sized business and mid-sized online advertisers. These will probably continue to spend their budgets online but since they are ROI-oriented, a downturn in consumer spending will cripple some of their desire to advertise. Over time they will need to advertise more, but over night, if conversions fall, they will scale back advertising. I do not think this will actually be material though.
- Financial advertisers have certainly scaled back advertising, but financial advertisers fall into two camps: big advertisers that are more mainstream (Amex, for example) that sell everything and have probably continued to advertise aggressively. Even advertisers like eTrade and Waterhouse would maintain budgets because “there’s always a bull market somewhere” so people will continue to trade. However, advertisers that were focused on mortages will surely scale back.
If you look at online advertising, you will see that financial marketers generate 5% of online spending.
While Google is a pretty good barometer of the Web, it is not representative of online advertising. For example, I suspect Google’s intake from financial advertisers is much more than 5%, say twice that, or 10%.
Suppose a portion of this comes from the more mainstream advertisers such as AMEX and eTrade and what not, and another portion comes from mortage-focused advertisers.
However, I suspect that in recent years the mortgage advertisers tipped the scales and were overweight in their contribution to Google’s top and bottom line.
If that is the case, and those two variables rule one another out, then it is very possible that Google “value-at-risk” over mortgage-oriented marketers was 5% at the lowest, probably 10% and at most 15%. That is a big number, admittedly, but Google has fallen $200 in a relatively short time span (or 26%). That more than compensates for the 5-15% exposure… but investors are not rational, especially when panic sets in.
Note: I have no position in Google but you should talk to an investment professional before making any move, or any stock. This is only for entertainment purposes.
From September 2006 to June 2007, Google ranged between $400 and $500 per share. Then, it took command of the psychological $500 threshold and then catapulted past $600 in September 2007 and $700 in October 2007!
That was crazy. It was driven by heightened analyst targets (and non-analyst targets alike).
Yesterday morning, after the Dow fell 400 points in the first minute I commented to colleagues that Google had fallen almost 200 points since its peak at $750. John Battelle made the observation last night. Apple - another high-flying stock - has fallen too. But you know what? This is healthy. In both cases, the companies’ respective values had shot up way too quickly to resemble anything logical.
In fact, all markets worldwide have taken a tumbling.
From a macro-perspective, I think you will see some bargain hunters come out soon (if they have not already). These markets are driven by high-flying stocks… so I think what you are seeing is a long-overdue correction.
Whether or not Google or Apple will return to their lofty heights, however, I am not sure. All throughout 2007, I said Google was getting ahead of itself… depending on how financial advertisers affect Google’s earnings report, Google remains vulnerable, but the broader market I think should stabilize overall in the upcoming weeks and months.
PLAY
