Source 1: GroupM Press ReleaseSource 2: techdirt Article
|QUOTE (GroupM Press Release)|
|NEW YORK—GroupM has developed and adopted a pioneering new digital media buying policy designed to prevent its clients’ ads from appearing on websites that distribute illegally obtained content.|
The policy is designed to actively oppose online piracy in all its forms and to protect the copyright-protected, intellectual property of all content-producing companies.
The new, industry-leading policy includes anti-piracy language for insertion orders that prohibits vendors from placing GroupM clients’ advertising on sites that support piracy or contain any illegally distributed content. Effective immediately, the language will be built into all future contract terms and conditions with publishers and ad networks.
In conjunction with the new policy, GroupM has created a list of more than 2000 sites throughout the U.S. that have been identified as containing or supporting pirated content. The list will be updated on a continuing basis and a link to the list will be included in all contracts and insertion orders.
This new policy is a part of a new "regime" incorporated by Universal that prohibits advertisements of their content on blacklisted websites. In addition to this the policy also apparently includes the prohibition of posting/mentioning/covering material from their subsidiaries as that is classed as advertising. In short Universal Music Group are halting any form of advertising of their product on the blacklisted websites (seen in Source 2). As mentioned in the techdirt article, in today's business model the music industry owes a lot to the world wide web. With blogs and social networking allowing a lot of publicity alongside cheaper and easier advertising. It must also be mentioned that advertising includes the posting of materials (as mentioned earlier). This new anti-piracy policy is a pretty vague law of thumb at that.
Hopefully Universal see the errors of their ways, because technically even the mere mention of one of their artists' albums, even in reference, is classed as advertising. In reality they are just bitter that their material has become so freely available, and instead of working with it and using the vast positive resources and marketing opportunities, they try to put shackles on the consumer and content. Due to the vagueness of the policy and what advertising can entail, it is obvious Universal are only spinning the broad policy for their own favour and gain. As I mentioned, a mere mentioning of an album can be classed as advertising. But do you think Universal care about that? No, they'd love it. But streaming a song from said album? That is a no go mister!
The blacklist is meant to include websites that break these terms, that are deemed as a threat. Even if you merely skim the list, you can see something is terribly wrong. Many of those sites don't go against this new stance Universal have taken. Many websites are user driven (and don't promote the illegal distribution of copyrighted content), but yet they make the website as a company accountable. Purely promotional websites are even blacklisted (Soundcloud anyone?). Many of these websites are used by independent and established artists to earn money and be successful. Limiting them to websites outside of the list (which is few and far between) is a huge mistake. I don't see this lasting very long. Either way blogs and other sites will continue to post content regardless, and Universal will only be wasting their time and resources trying to pull said content (if they choose to), which is what they tend to do do when it suits them (their bigger artists' content primarily).
The only thing their doing is stopping adverts popping up on these websites that could create possible financial gain, as well as hindering both label and artist by not allowing them to provide these websites with promotional material. Despite this, the content will reach these websites and continue regardless of advertising revenue from Universal. Once again this is a prime of example of how out of touch and how outdated many corporates in the music industry are. Limiting their labels and artists' resources will only hinder them in their finance and reputation. I can understand not advertising on site that purely posts download links to albums for example, but established websites like RapRadar? That is just a ludicrous decision. Every website in the New Music Cartel
is on the list. One website had its domain seized prior to this (the admin had to set up shop again). The New Music Cartel
consists of Hip-Hop blogs, and any Hip-Hop head will be able to tell you these music blogs are big business and a huge reason for the culture's consistence success.
So yeah, what do you guys think? Do you find this a stupid and as pointless as I do? This post has been edited by gamesguru on Friday, Jun 24 2011, 06:57