I can't help feeling this is really, really clever of Warners -- to get rid of, at a stroke, one of the major publicity tools for most of their artists.

The bad publicity for Warner's alone is a really bad idea. They must think there's so much money at stake that it's less harmful to lose the promo.

"They must think there's so much money at stake that it's less harmful to lose the promo."

I think it's more that they must be really very stupid. They're trying to apply 1980s or 1990s business models to the 2000s.

I don't know, I think they're more savvy than that. Obviously they haven't got the deal from Google that they wanted, so they're taking their toys away and hoping viewing figures dip enough to bring Google back to the table. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but I think they believe the possible rewards make it worth a try.

"I think they're more savvy than that"

To be honest, anyone less savvy than the big record labels it'd be hard to find.

It doesn't really matter that much to Google if Warners buggers off, because there are plenty of indie bands ready and willing to take the pace of the Warners artists. People don't go to YouTube much to see the established stars in action; the real magnet the site has is that you can explore acts you've never heard of . . . like, until now, all the Warners acts who're not established stars.

My guess is that the only reason Google paid Warners was to avoid the logistical nightmare of policing seventy billion videos to remove those which people had uploaded that violated Warners copyright.

Jeez.

Mm.

Huh?

Yeah.

Oh.