They say YouTube; we say WhoseTube?

It was a textbook case of a video gone viral.

In 2006, the American band OK Go made their now unmistakable “Here It Goes Again” music video and posted it on YouTube. The video, filmed in a single continuous take, featured the band performing an elaborately choreographed dance on treadmills.

At the time, the band knew their actions were in clear violation of their contract with EMI – one of the four “major labels” that dominate the recorded music industry. Regardless of the obvious breach of contract, the band was not willing to let EMI dictate their doings and chose to go ahead with the project. Amazingly, the video went viral.

Just six days in, the video had 1 million views. Not soon after, the infectious work inspired others in the global cyberspace community to get in on the action.



As of today, the original video posted stands at nearly 50,000,000 views.

Damian Kulash Jr., OK Go’s lead singer and guitarist explained that “To the band, Here It Goes Again” was a successful creative project.” However, “To the record company, it was a successful, completely free advertisement.”

Greed is an attribute the world’s media conglomerates are typically aligned with. In light of the economic hardship plaguing the industry today, EMI grew to envision the music video – once only valued for its advertising potential, as a prospective source of revenue.

Immediately, the major labels began demanding cash from YouTube for the use of ‘their’ contractually-endowed material. In the end, YouTube agreed to pay EMI a stipend for each video stream; however, there is a catch. Once these videos are embedded elsewhere, EMI receives no such revenue.

For this reason alone, the feat of the viral video may become a rarity in the near future. At least if EMI gets its way.

As of late, the global media conglomerate has adopted a pragmatic approach to the situation at hand. Quite simply, according to Kulash, “YouTube and EMI have actually made it harder to share videos.”

How? A little something they like to call non-embeddable videos.

This means that while one can still watch OK Go’s music videos on YouTube, one can no longer embed these videos onto their own sites, blogs, etc. (Note: Due to the “embedding disabled by request” function on YouTube, I was unable to embed OK Go’s video into this blog).

In his Friday Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Kulash expressed concern in regards to his label’s hardliner stance.

He feels that by outlawing the spread of this content, EMI is singlehandedly violating the founding principles of Web 2.0.

“This isn’t how the Internet works. Viral content doesn’t spread just from primary sources like YouTube or Flickr. Blogs, Web sites and video aggregators serve as cultural curators, daily collecting the items that will interest their audiences the most. By ignoring the power of these tastemakers, our record company is cutting off its nose to spite its face.”

By discounting the power of a Web 2.0-empowered audience, is EMI making a huge mistake? Kulash seems to think so.

“[EMI] needs to recognize the basic mechanics of the Internet. Curbing the viral spread of videos isn’t benefiting the company’s bottom line, or the music it’s there to support. The sooner record companies realize this, the better — though I fear it may already be too late.”

Is a backlash already brewing? Will the people rise up to reclaim YouTube? Only time will tell.