Azoff Sparks YouTube Discussion

Azoff accuses YouTube of “hiding behind” the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and its “safe harbor” provision, and “pays artists a pittance.”

He also takes aim at YouTube’s “Red” subscription service. He argues that Taylor Swift, for instance, should be able to determine how her music is used and be able to opt out of the service if she so chooses.

“If music matters to YouTube, then why not give musicians the same choice you give yourselves?” Azoff wrote. “Taylor Swift should be able to decide which of her songs are available for free and which are part of a paid subscription service. Or she should be able to opt out of YouTube if you won’t give her this choice. “But artists can’t opt out of YouTube. Because of the outdated Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the only way for an artist to keep a song off YouTube is for that artist to send YouTube a notice every time that song is uploaded by a different user. It is impossible.

“The Content ID system that you flaunt is meaningless when YouTube continues to hide behind the ‘safe harbor’ provisions of the DMCA. If YouTube cares about copyright management then join the music business in its efforts to reform the DMCA. Or, better yet, you could really prove your love for music by not allowing music on to YouTube unless you ask the creators of that song for permission.”

He points out that YouTube is able to control its own platform and programming, as well as prevent obscene and otherwise objectionable material from appearing.

“But when it comes to music, YouTube claims it has no control and can’t keep a song off its platform,” Azoff continued. “You exercise control over content when it is good for your business. But the truth is that, from the beginning, free music consumption drove YouTube’s business, and so YouTube chose not to give artists control over how their music reaches their fans.” Azoff also takes YouTube to task for its comparison to terrestrial radio, which Azoff calls “a good partner” that “doesn’t leak music” or poor quality videos that use it.

“YouTube, ask yourself this question: If you are paying so well and providing such a great service to artists, then why is there discord between you and the creative community? … I know how easy it is to take shots at record companies and publishers – I have been doing it for years. “But the root of the problem here is you: You have built a business that works really well for you and for Google, but it doesn’t work well for artists. If you think it is just the labels and publishers who are complaining, you are wrong. The music community is traditionally a very fractured one, but on this we are united.”

The message drew a quick response from Green, who posted his own open letter on Recode.com. Green says he and his brother have posted “thousands” of videos to YouTube that have amassed 1.5 billion views. He is also CEO of VidCon, a convention for the online video community. He tells of his first video upload, one that included a Willie Nelson song. After ContedID was introduced, he was notified that while the video was his own, the song was not – but would be licensed in order that Nelson’s label got paid for the use.

“This, for me, was better than the video getting taken down, and certainly better than getting sued. And for RCA Records, it was revenue that they wouldn’t have made before, so pretty much a win-win,” Green wrote. “ContentID is amazing. It checks every second of every video uploaded to YouTube against a massive database of owned content to ensure that the video doesn’t have someone else’s property in it. If it does, it then allows the creator of the content to automatically do whatever they’d like. They can take the video down, or they can claim the revenue for themselves, or they can do nothing. This is not an expensive game of whack-a-mole, it’s 100 percent automated.”

Green said of Azoff’s letter: “I’m really not sure what he’s talking about. If you don’t want your song on YouTube, upload it into the ContentID database and issue a blanket takedown for all videos using that song. “Boom. Done.

“And yet, this is done only very rarely. Every record label has their own policy for what they will do, and many individual artists have their policies as well, but very few do blanket takedowns of their property.”

Green explains that few creators do this, because “YouTube is good for artists and record labels, and everybody knows it…. YouTube has sent $3 billion in royalties to record labels. Fan-made videos that cost labels nothing to produce provide not just marketing but more than 50 percent of that $3 billion.”

Green professes respect and admiration for Azoff, but “when Mr. Azoff bemoans that it is possible for YouTube creators to question a record label’s takedown of their video, that freaks me out. What if the use of that song is legitimately fair use? What if it was falsely claimed because they chose the wrong title for their video? Should there be no repercussion for independent creators? Should we only protect the rights of content owners who happen to be represented by major media companies?

“…And anyway, YouTube isn’t ‘hiding behind’ DMCA safe harbor. It isn’t a loophole, it’s a law. It was designed to protect companies from overzealous litigation, and it’s doing exactly that. … Labels have been given all of the control the law requires, and more. They’ve been given the lion’s share of revenue generated by YouTube Red. They’ve been given higher-than-ever cuts from their artists on this new revenue. And they’ve been given a new 10-figure revenue stream of claimed fan creations that they never would have had without YouTube.

“These companies appear to be complaining about how bad their dinner is, mid-swallow. I have to ask, if they hate it so much, why do they keep eating?”

Green’s open letter didn’t change Azoff’s mind, but it did merit a response. The next day, Azoff tweeted an invitation to Green to contact him to talk about “why @YouTube doesn’t work.”