I’ve had a major beef with this for a long time. Why are major labels such pricks when it comes to Youtube embedding? Not just one of them but all labels including Warner, SonyBMG, Universal and EMI. I need help on the logic behind this. As a label, wouldn’t you want your bands, albums and songs spread throughout the blogosphere and internet like wildfire? Sure, there are the odd people out there than can figure out how to rip a Youtube stream into an MP3. But guess what, the quality sucks! And that’s 1/100 people.So what could be the reasoning that you can’t embed a classic Poison track or a Weezer video in a webpage? Instead, drive the traffic to Youtube’s website? What purpose does that serve? You are only going to lose potential viewers due to an additional click. You also run the risk where people upload a recorded copy of a video and you have to have people checking this stuff out and deleting the music or video. UPLOAD THE ORIGINAL AND LET PEOPLE WATCH IT! It will work people. Youtube is meant to be the ultimate viral platform. Let your music get out and filter through to the people who want to watch and listen
Maybe this makes the labels feel like they have control over their music, even though they don’t. You can still download ANY release off of P2P sites.
Another side note, why don’t major labels allow an MP3 or two off of an album to be posted on a few MP3 blogs? I was just emailed about a new Pete Yorn track that is off of his new album. I’m not going to blog about it unless I’ve got something solid to give to people. Either an MP3 or a Youtube video.
So, if you can shed some light on this behavior I would be forever grateful. And if you can change this stupid, blind and idiotic behaviour then I would be appreciative as well, as would a world wanting new music. Until then, thank the good lord for indie labels that are gaining steam in this time of musical upheaval.