This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Artist News Business News Digital Labels & Publishers Legal Top Stories
Neil Young supports Warner in YouTube dispute
By CMU Editorial | Published on Wednesday 4 March 2009
Neil Young has come out in support of Warner Music in their licensing squabble with YouTube.
As much previously reported, just before Christmas Warner pulled all its content from the video sharing website after the two companies failed to agree on new licensing terms. Insiders say that the record company, the first major to licence its music to YouTube back in the day, wanted to use contract renewal negotiations to increase the income it receives from the video service, but YouTube owners Google, who are struggling to make the market-leader video site actually pay for itself, refused.
Young, who is signed to Warner’s Reprise label, has posted a letter on his website saying that the major was forced to step back from YouTube because they were offered less good terms than their rivals. He admits that he recognises the value of YouTube for artists like him, but adds that he thinks it is unfair one label might be offered less favourable terms than another.
He writes: “Warner Reprise records was one of the very first to embrace YouTube. YouTube was in its fledgling stages when Warner made an early deal to work with them. Today, other labels have made more lucrative deals for their artists at YouTube”.
Giving his support to the concept of YouTube, and expressing a little disappointment that he can no longer utilise the service, he continues: “Today’s web world has created a new way. Artists today can go directly to the people. There is nothing standing between the artists and their audience. Freedom of expression reigns. [But] when that conduit is broken, the connection is weakened”.
But he clearly blames YouTube for the breakdown of their talks with Warner, adding: “If all artists were compensated equally, and the people decided who had the hits and misses by virtue of number of downloads and plays, there could be no grounds for disagreement that would cause the facilitator of the art to break the conduit between an artist and an audience. That is what has happened to Warner artists caught in YouTube’s web. YouTube has a responsibility to respect the artists it facilitates and resist punishing them to make a business point”.
He concludes: “It is time for industry wide standards of artist’s compensation on the web. Reprise and Warner Bros artists deserve what artists from other labels are getting. Let the people decide what constitutes success. Warner Bros and Reprise are looking for a level playing field. Until they get one, these problems may not go away. That is the essence of the issue between Warner Bros Reprise and YouTube”.
A YouTube spokesman, sort of missing the point of Young’s argument, told reporters: “YouTube connects music, musicians, and fans. We have deals with all of the other major record labels and with musicians, songwriters, and other independent creative producers. It is the record labels’ responsibility to represent and pay their artists”.
Perhaps Neil could have a word with Warner – who are, remember, shareholders in MySpace Music, like all the majors – about them adopting “industry wide standards of artist’s compensation on the web” too, by giving the indies, via digital rights group Merlin, the equal equity stake in MySpace’s music company they’ve asked for.
