PDA

View Full Version : YouTube or Offspring Tv Delete S.I.M.U Video ?



RedFox
07-14-2009, 07:01 PM
Hi all :D

A few minutes ago i want to show the video to my father, and i tipe "youtube.com" and search the video.

Youtube say's: "This video has been removed due to a breach of the terms of use. "


WTF ???!?!?

why deleted? i dont have idea -.-

but, another user has upload the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkaZhKIvPtQ

So, WTF Offspring Tv ?

Ryder1234
07-14-2009, 07:04 PM
Probably youtube removed it.

Or someone (maybe Michael Jackson fans/managemnet people etc. because of his pic in the video) asked for it to be removed.

so that other video will probably be removed

RedFox
07-14-2009, 07:05 PM
You know, i think that, and i say the same...

But the image of Michael is not a joke, It's like a kind of tribute

Probably...

Fuck youtube :@

KHWHD
07-14-2009, 07:08 PM
I'm glad I saved it then before it was deleted.

gabbag
07-14-2009, 07:16 PM
yea at least I have it saved, and also I have the window open from when I was watching it earlier today and it is still working :D yea but it is really stupid that the youtube people took it off because it 'violated terms of service' or whatever their problem is with it. Stupid censorship.

RedFox
07-14-2009, 07:21 PM
Dont have any sense...

RageAndLov
07-14-2009, 07:21 PM
I think the reason is because the video contained a tit. And sexual content are not accepted on YouTube.

come out swinging
07-14-2009, 07:23 PM
I think the reason is because the video contained a tit. And sexual content are not accepted on YouTube.

And shows a person sniffing a line.

Gustavo
07-14-2009, 07:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofllFrfLnDc

It's back to normal now, I guess.

Little_Miss_1565
07-14-2009, 07:50 PM
Aw man, for a second I was all YEEAAAAH TOO HOT FOR THE INTERNETS!! but now I guess it's back.

If it gets taken down again there are lots of other services to use, like Vimeo. Though the TOS on Vimeo might be similar. Idunno.

hshduppsnt
07-14-2009, 08:05 PM
Aw man, for a second I was all YEEAAAAH TOO HOT FOR THE INTERNETS!! but now I guess it's back.

If it gets taken down again there are lots of other services to use, like Vimeo. Though the TOS on Vimeo might be similar. Idunno.

haha yeah getting it banned would instantly make it more popular... oh well... time to keep linking people to it :D

RedFox
07-14-2009, 08:40 PM
in the afternoon was 303 view.
now have 20303 and 500 comments...

Rare, but happy, back to normal... i think... :confused:

TakesMeNowhere28
07-14-2009, 09:29 PM
YouTube having a problem with this video reminds me of when MTV refused to air Disturbed's video for "Prayer" because near the end they had the band playing in a pile of rubble from buildings that had collapsed. It was shortly after 9/11. That's why. I don't know if they ever wised up and aired it.

SMASHedTHEignition
07-14-2009, 09:37 PM
I'm glad I saved it then before it was deleted.

shank, can u upload it to a public share folder por sumthn cos i dont hav it and i want it

brothadave79
07-14-2009, 09:41 PM
shank, can u upload it to a public share folder por sumthn cos i dont hav it and i want it


I have it on my savefile: http://savefile.com/projects/808780692

Smash_Returns
07-14-2009, 09:54 PM
The vulgarity of the song almost guarantees it success. The youtube pull will only help, as long as its available elsewhere.

Oxygene
07-15-2009, 12:36 AM
Aw man, for a second I was all YEEAAAAH TOO HOT FOR THE INTERNETS!! but now I guess it's back.

If it gets taken down again there are lots of other services to use, like Vimeo. Though the TOS on Vimeo might be similar. Idunno.

the embedded vid on the opening page of offspring.com still doesn't work so I posted a download thread for those who get confused.. if you want to delete it or sticky it or whatever.

youtube makes me mad.

Dirigent
07-15-2009, 01:41 AM
But the image of Michael is not a joke, It's like a kind of tribute
HAHAHAH, yeah, The Offspring is very kind to MJ. Srsly, who doesn't want to euthanized? Euthanized in the hall of fame.

Anyway, wasn't it edited? I don't remember seeing Dexter's back almost at the beginning.

_Lost_
07-17-2009, 01:08 AM
Its no longer on youtube. There should be articles on yahoo and msn and such about it being removed for being too awesome.

SelfEsteem94
07-17-2009, 07:53 PM
why was it removed,
there are plenty of worse things on YouTube.

ZeQuebecois
07-17-2009, 09:29 PM
Woah... That ain't a good sign. I was gonna send it to my friend on yesterday, when I saw that ''This video is private. This video is unavailable.''. It has also been replaced by the Kristy Are You Doing Okay? video on the main page of Offspring.com
I don't think it's because of the Michael Jackson fans, 'cause they would've also banned videos like ''Michael Jackson is dead'' by Jon Lajoie, which are much more insulting for the fans than the word Euthanized on a picture of MJ.
Maybe the tit? But it's also removed from Offspring.com ... I hope they don't have problems with the video...:(

Phil594
07-18-2009, 10:46 AM
Well if they deleted it for the nudity then why didn't they delete this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VY0ycvZ2Pg (2:29)
Also considering it's been around since 2007. :confused::confused::confused:

Leandro
07-18-2009, 10:54 AM
In Pete Parada webpage there's a link for the video, but it doesn't work too:

http://web.mac.com/peteparada/Site/Videos/Videos.html

renato piquette
07-18-2009, 02:33 PM
don┤t know if this has been posted before,but here┤s the video at youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs-frT_T6iE

Smash_Returns
07-18-2009, 09:43 PM
It's even been removed from the news. Whats up?

Offspring-Junkie
07-19-2009, 03:53 AM
Maybe because the United States Army Reserves tortured Satar Jabar in Abu Graib. Our fellows from The Offspring draw some attention to that incident and some guys in the Oval Office don't want to see that in a music video.

Lord_Gabo
07-19-2009, 05:17 AM
shit... unbelieveble

Grimesy da Offspringfan
07-19-2009, 06:06 AM
I doubt THe Offspring would want to have the vid removed from youtube. They already uploaded some of the vids that can't be watched because of copyright restrictions or whatever, which is practically a "Fuck you" to the idea of deleting music videos from youtube

offspring_freak_3
07-19-2009, 06:51 AM
dudes, this shit is really fucked up!
they should re-edit the video and this time do something about the youtube censorship.
that would be quite cool.

GuilhermeOffspring
07-19-2009, 08:10 AM
waitting....

offsrx
07-19-2009, 06:19 PM
Fucking You-tube!
I wish if stage 6 is still online..:(
Besides banning SIFU video, why are there some kind of restrictions from what contry you are?
Good luck I've downloaded that HD version.. Did anyone uploaded video on offspringbootlegs.info?
F-ing you tube... >:-|

Beaker
07-20-2009, 12:18 AM
that makes me so angry. :mad:

hope it returns,

Harleyquiiinn
07-20-2009, 02:55 AM
Besides banning SIFU video, why are there some kind of restrictions from what contry you are?

F-ing you tube... >:-|

I don't understand either why they are deleting the SIFU video, I think it is exxagerated but whatever...

Country restrictions suck but let's be fair to Youtube, it's not their fault. Basically, people owning the Intellectual Property rights of the videos posted (record/production companies) got pretty angry a few years ago and that could have put Youtube down. So Youtube said "oh come on, let the user post the vids they want, if you don't like it, we can remove the vids. Besides, this is a very cool marketing tool for you".
So the record/production companies said "Ok, but the contracts we have with some people involved in the CD/Film posted on your site don't even mention the entire world... and sometimes, we just don't WANT to authorize the entire world to see it and that's the problem with the Internet".
That's when the restrictions by country come... It sucks, but with no restriction, the record/production companies could sue Youtube, and take them a lot of money... You can also add that since now, it's Google, they don't want to damage their reputation since they already have a lot of problems with their search engine...

You can also ask "yes, but why do the companies want to restrict anyway ?" well... it's a big mystery of marketing life... For the big companies, you usually have one company per country, like Sony US, Sony France, Sony Spain... so the restrictions by country allow all these different companies to market the product the way they want so that it could be as efficient as possible in that precise country...

Rutegard
07-20-2009, 04:10 AM
I don't understand either why they are deleting the SIFU video, I think it is exxagerated but whatever...

Country restrictions suck but let's be fair to Youtube, it's not their fault. Basically, people owning the Intellectual Property rights of the videos posted (record/production companies) got pretty angry a few years ago and that could have put Youtube down. So Youtube said "oh come on, let the user post the vids they want, if you don't like it, we can remove the vids. Besides, this is a very cool marketing tool for you".
So the record/production companies said "Ok, but the contracts we have with some people involved in the CD/Film posted on your site don't even mention the entire world... and sometimes, we just don't WANT to authorize the entire world to see it and that's the problem with the Internet".
That's when the restrictions by country come... It sucks, but with no restriction, the record/production companies could sue Youtube, and take them a lot of money... You can also add that since now, it's Google, they don't want to damage their reputation since they already have a lot of problems with their search engine...

You can also ask "yes, but why do the companies want to restrict anyway ?" well... it's a big mystery of marketing life... For the big companies, you usually have one company per country, like Sony US, Sony France, Sony Spain... so the restrictions by country allow all these different companies to market the product the way they want so that it could be as efficient as possible in that precise country...

/Rutegard grabs a chair....

:)

findout5
07-20-2009, 04:25 AM
68 MB AVI quality SIFU video here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/257726410/STISMEUPTHOFFMFV.rar

Rutegard
07-20-2009, 04:42 AM
68 MB AVI quality SIFU video here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/257726410/STISMEUPTHOFFMFV.rar

yay :D it keeps getting better and better lol

Free?
07-20-2009, 04:55 AM
/Rutegard grabs a chair....

:)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g205/mrmaskrado/WPW%20Lucha%20Libre/WPWMilWithChair.jpg?t=1248090542

Youtube is no longer something you can count on unlike it's been before.

Rutegard
07-20-2009, 05:12 AM
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g205/mrmaskrado/WPW%20Lucha%20Libre/WPWMilWithChair.jpg?t=1248090542

Youtube is no longer something you can count on unlike it's been before.

ahah i love the way u picture me :D

Twisted Mind
07-20-2009, 10:28 AM
Omg, Youtube is getting worst with every update. Lucky me, i saved the video and it's playing in my iPod right now. Mwahahahahaha.

dff_punk
07-20-2009, 06:16 PM
Just put the video on redtube and everything will be fine.

ThunderPX
07-21-2009, 02:24 AM
I don't understand either why they are deleting the SIFU video, I think it is exxagerated but whatever...

Country restrictions suck but let's be fair to Youtube, it's not their fault. Basically, people owning the Intellectual Property rights of the videos posted (record/production companies) got pretty angry a few years ago and that could have put Youtube down. So Youtube said "oh come on, let the user post the vids they want, if you don't like it, we can remove the vids. Besides, this is a very cool marketing tool for you".
So the record/production companies said "Ok, but the contracts we have with some people involved in the CD/Film posted on your site don't even mention the entire world... and sometimes, we just don't WANT to authorize the entire world to see it and that's the problem with the Internet".
That's when the restrictions by country come... It sucks, but with no restriction, the record/production companies could sue Youtube, and take them a lot of money... You can also add that since now, it's Google, they don't want to damage their reputation since they already have a lot of problems with their search engine...

You can also ask "yes, but why do the companies want to restrict anyway ?" well... it's a big mystery of marketing life... For the big companies, you usually have one company per country, like Sony US, Sony France, Sony Spain... so the restrictions by country allow all these different companies to market the product the way they want so that it could be as efficient as possible in that precise country...

This isn't entirely true; often, a company only has the rights to, say, a TV show, in a certain country.

For example, if FUNimation were to upload episodes of Dragon Ball Z (meh, first example that came to mind), they would have to be restricted because they only own the rights to the show in North America.

Harleyquiiinn
07-21-2009, 02:38 AM
Thunder PX>
This isn't entirely true; often, a company only has the rights to, say, a TV show, in a certain country.


Me yesterday about contracts signed by companies...

"Ok, but the contracts we have with some people involved in the CD/Film posted on your site don't even mention the entire world... and sometimes, we just don't WANT to authorize the entire world to see it and that's the problem with the Internet"

:confused: maybe I wasn't clear enough though... ;)


But to precise what I said yesterday, I realized that I didn't explain why the contracts don't always have the rights on all territories... if someone is interested... (I am a normal person, eventhough I love law, I realize that most people don't :D )
A usual agreement, no matter that it is IP rights or not, usually mention a territory in which the agreement works.
For Iintellectual Property rights, in some countries (like France), territory limitation is required or the contract is void. In other countries, it is just implied in a good contractual relationship. In practice, when it is between an artist and a big company, the territory mentionned is usually "the entire world" (you even find "universe" sometimes :D)? so when these companies exploit directly and restrict the countries, it is definitely for marketing reasons...
It gets more complicated when this first company grants a license to someone else.
Example of the TV show: Author of a TV shows grants the rights to a production company. The production company has the rights for the entire world.
The production company wants to sell the program so they go to TV companies. There, they grant a license to use the program but they will refuse the entire world in order to be able to sell it to another channel in another country. This is why when you go on the ABC website to watch the last Desperate Housewives and you live in France, they are going to tell you you can't watch it. Because here, another channel has the rights... Same thing for DragonBallZ, if I want to watch them here, I have to go through the company who owns the rights here...

SMASHedTHEignition
07-31-2009, 08:36 PM
harleyquiin loves law :D

Little_Miss_1565
08-06-2009, 02:38 PM
It's back now -- not sure when it came back. Has anything changed about it?

Little_Miss_1565
08-07-2009, 06:54 AM
Wow, I'm sincerely surprised that no one cares it's back after so much controversy when it went away.

KHWHD
08-07-2009, 07:01 AM
It could possibly be, that most people downloaded and saved it to their PC's.

MAXTER
08-07-2009, 07:02 AM
What is the problem??? I can wiev the SIMU video :)

KyleW
08-07-2009, 07:06 AM
What is the problem??? I can wiev the SIMU video :)

When it was first released it was removed after a very short while and edited. The new version is only slightly changed, I think they replaced a picture of a boob.

MAXTER
08-07-2009, 07:14 AM
When it was first released it was removed after a very short while and edited. The new version is only slightly changed, I think they replaced a picture of a boob.

ok now is brightness this situation for me! ;)

Free?
08-07-2009, 08:32 AM
They still playing with shopping-sprees image part, I'm actually very pleased with the fact that they really do care about that awesome part so much.
I have a request, could anyone please download and upload the current hd-version of SIMU video? Will be cool to check all of them later again.

TakesMeNowhere28
08-07-2009, 10:58 AM
Let's just be glad Offspring aren't on Warner Music Group's label. Otherwise we'd never see the video on YouTube. Why doesn't the person who runs this site just post the video on here without putting it on YouTube first?

Harleyquiiinn
08-07-2009, 11:13 AM
Let's just be glad Offspring aren't on Warner Music Group's label. Otherwise we'd never see the video on YouTube. Why doesn't the person who runs this site just post the video on here without putting it on YouTube first?

hmm... about warner, why not ?

randman21
08-07-2009, 11:17 AM
I think Google didn't want to pay them what they demanded, so all videos from artists under the Warner umbrella were prohibited from being uploaded. It made YouTube a much lamer place instantly, but I side with them.

Harleyquiiinn
08-07-2009, 11:23 AM
Me too ! Go Warner ! (only of a part of the money they are asking goes to the artist...)

:D

I mean, when Youtube was Youtube... ok.... but now, Google makes billions... I don't know exactly if they make money with Youtube though...

TakesMeNowhere28
08-08-2009, 04:56 PM
hmm... about warner, why not ?

Warner Music Group decided to get their panties in a bunch and demand they get paid to have their artists's videos on YouTube. So if you can't find a video of a group you like, chances are the group is on Warner's label. One person I knew actually said he was threatened with a lawsuit just because he made a fan vid that was to a Disturbed song. It's sad what the world has become these days. It's one of the reasons I've lost a lot of respect for Metallica. They're the ones who started all this copyright whining.

Little_Miss_1565
08-08-2009, 08:53 PM
LOL, Metallica invented copyright claims?

I for one am in favor of me having a job and for the bands I love to be able to be professional musicians and not have to work in bars or get office jobs, so I'm in favor of protecting copyrights. There's always the issue of fair use, which fan made videos tend to be, but suing Warner over it might be more LOLsome than useful.

Harley and others -- YouTube wanted "premium content", namely music videos and movie bits etc, so they agreed to pay for it. Warner wanted to renegotiate the rate per view, YouTube declined, and Warner pulled all content. It's business. Yes Google owns YouTube, but they're separate divisions. Google's not running a music streaming charity, and YouTube is losing money. Chris Anderson says information wants to be free, but server and bandwidth costs want to be expensive. I'd love to hear if YouTube is intended to make money and if so how much.

tl;dl version - People who get mad at copyright enforcement because it inconveniences them personally make me sad.

Harleyquiiinn
08-09-2009, 12:44 AM
Ah ok, I just got why I couldn't find a video of Californication...

Bah, you see, I'm all for Author rights... but Copyright tends to protect a monopoly these days... that sucks... you have to admit that record companies try to find money wherever they can. It's not like the rate per click on youtube is going to save their business... all it does is keeping us from content that most people will be more inclined to illegally download... They want to make a point but I don't think this is going to go anywhere.

web 2.0 doesn't make money, everybody knows that by now. Why do record companies always seem to be late to understand and think that everybody else should find new business models when they don't even try ?

Little_Miss_1565
08-09-2009, 04:06 AM
Ah ok, I just got why I couldn't find a video of Californication...

Bah, you see, I'm all for Author rights... but Copyright tends to protect a monopoly these days... that sucks... you have to admit that record companies try to find money wherever they can. It's not like the rate per click on youtube is going to save their business... all it does is keeping us from content that most people will be more inclined to illegally download... They want to make a point but I don't think this is going to go anywhere.

web 2.0 doesn't make money, everybody knows that by now. Why do record companies always seem to be late to understand and think that everybody else should find new business models when they don't even try ?

But...licensing content to places like YouTube is what they should have been doing for Napster et all from the beginning. It IS part of the new business model, and it's a win-win because the consumer still gets the music for free yet the artist and the label that paid for the album and the distributor that put the content up all still get paid. It's a river of nickels but they can really add up. No, it's not going to save the business but as more and more people expect to get the work of others for free, what other solution is there?

Not sure what you mean by the copyrights protecting a monopoly. There are so many competitors...And while it's fashionable to demonize labels, they're the ones advising bands on their songs and what to do when, as well as paying for the album to be made. I think it's just because people feel entitled to get what they want for free no matter what, and I think that is silly and na´ve. Getting some of it for free is good because you can try it out and see how you like it before you buy it. But it costs money to produce all these things, so the least you can do is spend a little in one of the various ways at your disposal, whether track by track, album, or deluxe box set.

Your explanation of why YouTube has to restrict viewing by country was really good, btw.

Harleyquiiinn
08-09-2009, 08:36 AM
But...licensing content to places like YouTube is what they should have been doing for Napster et all from the beginning. It IS part of the new business model, and it's a win-win because the consumer still gets the music for free yet the artist and the label that paid for the album and the distributor that put the content up all still get paid. It's a river of nickels but they can really add up. No, it's not going to save the business but as more and more people expect to get the work of others for free, what other solution is there?

Not sure what you mean by the copyrights protecting a monopoly. There are so many competitors...And while it's fashionable to demonize labels, they're the ones advising bands on their songs and what to do when, as well as paying for the album to be made. I think it's just because people feel entitled to get what they want for free no matter what, and I think that is silly and na´ve. Getting some of it for free is good because you can try it out and see how you like it before you buy it. But it costs money to produce all these things, so the least you can do is spend a little in one of the various ways at your disposal, whether track by track, album, or deluxe box set.

Your explanation of why YouTube has to restrict viewing by country was really good, btw.

Thanks :)

I agree with you for the most part (about free content and that production and advertising needs to be paid). I wasn't intending to demonize labels... On the contrary, I'd like to work for one :D

Monopoly is not the right word for what I want to say exactly... I'll try to explain. I feel like some majors are using copyright infringement to protect the last bit of economic value of the licensed work they have, expecting I don't know what.
See, I don't think that Warner will earn anything by taking away its licensed content from Youtube. On the contrary. Youtube is a great way to promote the work. Unfortunately, they feel like they are not making enough money with it and they seem to think that Youtube does. But as you said, Youtube doesn't make money, Dailymotion doesn't make money, Deezer doesn't make money and even Facebook doens't make money ! Web 2.0 doesn't make money. That's it. This is not the right business model... So there is no point asking them for more money. I think that Warner is just cutting one source of advertising on the principle of copyright and it doesn't make any sense to me.
Besides, using copyright infringement, they keep us from an important source of music that I will find easily on Bit Torrent which is counter-productive.

TakesMeNowhere28
08-09-2009, 09:33 AM
LOL, Metallica invented copyright claims?

I for one am in favor of me having a job and for the bands I love to be able to be professional musicians and not have to work in bars or get office jobs, so I'm in favor of protecting copyrights. There's always the issue of fair use, which fan made videos tend to be, but suing Warner over it might be more LOLsome than useful.

Harley and others -- YouTube wanted "premium content", namely music videos and movie bits etc, so they agreed to pay for it. Warner wanted to renegotiate the rate per view, YouTube declined, and Warner pulled all content. It's business. Yes Google owns YouTube, but they're separate divisions. Google's not running a music streaming charity, and YouTube is losing money. Chris Anderson says information wants to be free, but server and bandwidth costs want to be expensive. I'd love to hear if YouTube is intended to make money and if so how much.

tl;dl version - People who get mad at copyright enforcement because it inconveniences them personally make me sad.


He wasn't trying to sue Warner. It was Warner that was threatening to sue him. I don't get mad at copyright crybabies because it inconveniences me. I get mad at them because they act like they're on the verge of bankruptcy. They're not. They make a shitload of money but it's never enough for them. I hate to make a Good Charlotte reference, but it's like they say, "Lifestyles of the rich and famous. They're always complaining. Always complaining."

Harleyquiiinn
08-09-2009, 09:35 AM
He wasn't trying to sue Warner. It was Warner that was threatening to sue him. I don't get mad at copyright crybabies because it inconveniences me. I get mad at them because they act like they're on the verge of bankruptcy. They're not. They make a shitload of money but it's never enough for them. I hate to make a Good Charlotte reference, but it's like they say, "Lifestyles of the rich and famous. They're always complaining. Always complaining."

Yes man, the World is Black :D

Little_Miss_1565
08-09-2009, 10:43 AM
Warner just had their stockholder call. They just had a massive bond issue to pay old loans coming due, and now those bonds have a massive interest rate and mature in 7 years. They're not raking in the dough, and all the majors are in serious trouble with money. I lost my job once already only to be rehired after 4 months. Anyone who says the labels aren't seriously hurting hasn't been reading about the situation.

Harleyquiiinn
08-09-2009, 10:53 AM
Warner just had their stockholder call. They just had a massive bond issue to pay old loans coming due, and now those bonds have a massive interest rate and mature in 7 years. They're not raking in the dough, and all the majors are in serious trouble with money. I lost my job once already only to be rehired after 4 months. Anyone who says the labels aren't seriously hurting hasn't been reading about the situation.

This is unfortunately very true...

Jesus
08-09-2009, 11:30 AM
tl;dl version - People who get mad at copyright enforcement because it inconveniences them personally make me sad.

Yeah, but annoying or causing inconvenience for (potential) customers is a terrible business strategy. The biggest problem is that labels are still too powerfull based on their history compared to the significance in the income of current artists or their overall relevance in the economy. Labels are hurting, but the entertainment industry in itself isn't. Because people have switched over, they spend their money on concerts, merchandising, video games etc.

So while it may make "sense" for like Warner to pull their vids from youtube, it's a terrible decision for artists on the label (and also consumers in general), because they dont get the free publicity. Which could lead to more people going to their concerts and buying their merchandise etc. Since record companies don't get much money from people going to concerts (it goes to artists, promotors, venues etc) they aren't interested in it. People like Trent Reznor seem to understand this switch and a couple other big names have realized that too, so they strike deals with companies like livenation instead of the old dinosaurs or try to do it almost DIY. The gatekeeper function of record labels has been diminshed. And I'm happy about that, it has made music way more accessible. Culture over copyrights any day.

TakesMeNowhere28
08-11-2009, 08:01 AM
David Draiman, the lead singer of Disturbed, has always spoke out against people who complain about copyright. That makes me an even bigger fan of him and the band. Sadly, I guess they don't have any say when it comes to their own music. Otherwise they'd tell Warner where to stick it and demand that they not pull their videos from YouTube. I'd like to see a lot of their artists leave and go to a company that doesn't bitch about that kind of thing like Sony. As far as I'm concerned, Warner Music Group can go to hell.