I take serious exception to this article describing, initially, the pains of MTV in the 90’s not paying for use of promotional music / videos from small artists (they only paid him a dollar for use), and comparing this activity with the YouTube model of today.

A direct quote:

“Usually TV shows pay good money for the use of a song, but not MTV — they required labels to allow them to use the music for free in their TV shows when you submitted a music video to be considered for programming on their network. I still don’t know why they even bothered saying they would pay a dollar. It really pissed me off. I had fronted money and worked my heart out along with the band to promote, market, manufacture and release their album and along comes a multi-national billion dollar media corporation and demands to be able to use the music for a stinking dollar.”

That is the close minded thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. There are dozens of ways to monetize that kind of exposure. The song, video, recording, etc can’t be the lone vehicle that you’re hanging your hat on. There must be a combination…. a blend if you will…. of revenue streams, and sometimes one stream is sacrificed for exposure, and in turn (with the right strategy) you can break through and be profitable.

To lament the fact that the big corporate giant is monetizing your band (and as a side note, this is more the record labels grabbing for any dollar they can get their hand on… not necessarily the “band” upset at the exposure) to generate huge revenues is true, it’s the way of the world… it was in 1996, and it is in 2009. That will never change.  Big corporations have the leverage. Instead of bemoaning the machine, learn to work the buttons and levers and find ways to make the machine work for you.

How could YouTube give in to Warner Music’s demands, without paying this guy a few million dollars? YouTube (today) and MTV (in the 90s) are vehicles for exposure, if you’re able to generate compensation for this exposure, great, but it’s not the only way to take advantage of the exposure. If YOU don’t, I assure you others will.

Although ultimately the conclusion reached in the article is one I don’t wholeheartedly disagree with, although the “sponsorship” philosophy is not one I see working out for extremely popular viral videos that are uploaded by the individual. TuneCore isn’t going to be looking out for Judson Laipply, and if they open the Pandora’s box to that one… best of luck to them.

Just like the Napster fight earlier this decade. If you slow YouTube’s use of music videos, other services will be happy to carry the torch and fight the legal battle. Loosen up folks… there are ways to take advantage of the fact that you aren’t having to pay for the bandwidth for all of this!

I seem to remember a close minded view to the music delivery vehicle biting the industry in the past, and I’d prefer not to see it again. Digital Video is the new Digital Audio… what if we’re never able to wrangle the fact that content is free? How will you monetize your music then? …. by touring relentlessly?… by creating yourself as a brand?… as a lifestyle?… your music is not JUST a tune!