Warner Music Group and YouTube finally come to an agreement

Late last year, Warner Music Group and YouTube failed to come to an agreement regarding the compensation of Warner and its employees. Because of this, Warner decided to pull of its music from YouTube immediately. Basically, it was a classic case of the major label wanting more money for its employees' product.

Up until today, with an agreement finally being made, there was no way for fans to legally see brand new videos from their favorite artists such as Jay-Z, Green Day, Cassie, Eric Clapton, Diddy, Fall Out Boy, Guns n' Roses, etc. According to the article, Warner accounts for one-fifth of the total revenue for the recording industry (Atlantic Records, one of Warner's subsidiaries, is the number one record label in the U.S. according to SoundScan)

The main issue in the dispute was the value of the music videos, which are produced by the label and/or its employees. Warner saw huge value in the videos on YouTube because not only did they attract fans to the website, but they also attracted advertisers who saw potential customers in the viewers and invested money into YouTube. Warner saw it as unfair because they were not being paid any of the money that advertisers paid YouTube to advertise to Warner's customers drawn to YouTube because of the product that Warner provided for free, until today.

With CD sales declining, Warner and YouTube see this as a win-win situation. Warner plans on allowing the music to be put back on YouTube before the year is over. They also plan to attract even more viewers with brand new high definition videos, links to artist websites and new merchandise available to consumers. So, in a sense Warner has become its own YouTube advertiser.

Lawsuit Over Water-Drinking Death, Right or Wrong?

Just over 2 1/2 years ago, Jennifer Strange willingly entered a contest that was to be broadcast live on the radio. The contest simply involved Jennifer consuming large amounts of water, which ultimately would be the cause of her death. She left behind a family of three children and a husband who is suing the radio station for a seven figure amount. The question is, who is at fault?

Looking at the facts, the woman died from overconsumption of water. But, even though she didn't know it would kill her, she overconsumed willingly. From the radio station's perspective, the contest rules were created "on the spot" and the woman participated at her own risk. From the family's perspective, the radio station should've known this was harmful and potentially fatal. Does this isolated incident mean that radio shows like these are unethical? One could definitely make that argument. It's just a shame that it took for someone to lose their life to see that.


-J. Everett Scott

Radio Canada

website

Post of the Century

Hello, world