Ok Go Explains Video Embedding Issue, Blames YouTube (Partly) And EMI (Only A Bit); Sells Uniforms
from the but-that-doesn't-make-much-sense dept
So last week we discussed how EMI was seriously harming the ability of the latest Ok Go video to go viral, by putting on geoblocks and forbidding embedding. The band had said it was upset about this and pointed people to a Vimeo version — despite the fact that EMI is suing Vimeo for posting music videos (um, oops) and Vimeo supposedly hates commercial content.
The band has now come out with a more detailed explanation that puts more of the blame on YouTube, while also explaining how the band gets to “snort drugs off the Queen of England” (so it’s got more important things to deal with). Well, specifically, the band points out that way back when, Google agreed to give record labels a bit of money every time someone watched one of their videos on YouTube. That much is well-known, of course. However, the band claims that this little bit of money is only paid on videos that are seen directly via YouTube, rather than on embedded videos. Why? Well, because advertisers on YouTube only let ads be shown on YouTube itself, so they’re not suddenly showing up on some random website (though, of course, those same advertisers probably have no problem using Google AdSense, which does the same thing, but….). So the band suggests the issue is more with YouTube and its refusal to count embedded videos in the views… though it claims it’s been arguing with EMI to allow the video anyway.
This still seems backwards and shortsighted by EMI. Even if it’s not getting paid for the embedded videos, it seems quite likely that the embeds actually lead to more views on YouTube itself, as people click through. Instead, now, all of the views are going to go to Vimeo. The company EMI is suing. Sensible.
In the meantime, though, Ian from Topspin alerts us to the news that Ok Go is using the Topspin platform to offer up, as a part of its “reason to buy,” the uniforms and props from the video shoot. Of course, I would imagine those things would be in higher demand if EMI let people embed the video in the first place…
Filed Under: embedding, ok go, regional blocks, viral videos
Companies: capitol records, emi, google, vimeo, youtube
Comments on “Ok Go Explains Video Embedding Issue, Blames YouTube (Partly) And EMI (Only A Bit); Sells Uniforms”
How exactly does EMI bar Ok Go from reposting the video themselves on another youtube account? Ostensibly, they just say “no you can’t do that” and Ok Go abides. If so, why does EMI “allow” Ok Go to post the same video on Vimeo?
Re: In a Related Story...
In a related story, General Mills is suing YouTube for posting copies of their commercials for various cereals, claiming that the entertainment value of the commercials must be worth something to YouTube, in spite of the fact that they otherwise PAY media outlets to run the very same commercials.
You sold your soul.
When you enter a contract with EMI or any other of the big labels you just sold your soul to the devil literally.
More people should see how easy is to sign in with labels like Jamendo or Magnatune that don’t do exclusive contracts and let you do what you want with your “art” but you have to give up certain rights like not letting others copy, share, distribute or modify your “art” for personal use.
OK Go has a new video?
I had no idea.
Yeah, this isn’t working guys.
Fear of lost views?
Keep in mind that in EMI’s world view 1 pirate download is equal to 1 lost sale.
Applying that theory to embedded videos is only a small step. One free view on an embedded site is equal to one lost paying view on youtube.
With a viral video people see it anywhere and tell their friends who go looking for it. What’s the logical place to go to look for it? YouTube. So in reality, a view on a free embedded site has a possibility of it being viewed on the paying YouTube site. EMI basically can’t get over the “But they are watching MY video for free” mentality and see the embedded video as a potential revenue source. Prohibiting embedding only makes sense if you think that people will avoid watching it on youtube because it is embedded. The only thing that prohibiting embedding does is guarantee the video will not go viral.
Re: Fear of lost views?
Nonono, you got it wrong. Surely one free view must equal one lost sale of a CD? Or maybe 4-5 lost sales of CDs if you also count all the people who didn’t see the video but was told about its content and how the song sounded by someone who did, and thus the surprise value of buying a CD with totally unknown music was lost.
Its like sweepstakes, if you already know you are buying a win, why bother buying when you don’t get the thrill of feeling the risk anymore. It takes the fun out of it… Oh wait…
Sampling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZZyP0i5B5w&feature=related
I think things are getting tough because if the video is true rappers are sampling African music for free content to make rap today LoL
So embed the ad
Aren’t there already ads embedded in YouTube videos? You know, the annoying kind that pop up at the bottom?
Hang on a second.
Isn’t the point of a music video to promote single and album sales?
How much more short sighted can you get? EMI are effectively banning the free advertisement of their products. Copyright and intellectual property disputes are becoming ever more ridiculous by the day.
Why doesn't YouTube
… find a way to track views of embedded videos?
… OR provide at least an embeddable screencap from the video that links back to EMI’s YT page?
… OR kick it over to Vevo, which I thought was created specifically to address things like this?
Yeah, and like Andrew F says, I thought ads were embedded in videos already.
Anyway, as a longtime blogger, I hate Hate HATE the phrase “embedding disabled by request.” It just makes me NOT want to write about the band. Good on OK Go for taking it to Vimeo.