Copyright Axe To Fall On YouTube? 295
theoddball writes "In what should come as no great surprise, Universal Music Group is preparing to file suit against YouTube for copyright infringement, the AP
reports. Discussions with the site's owners have broken down (although talks are apparently still progressing with Myspace / News Corp over similar issues). From the article: 'We believe these new businesses are copyright infringers and owe us tens of millions of dollars,' Universal Music CEO Doug Morris told investors Wednesday at a conference in Pasadena. This development follows last month's announcement that YouTube is negotiating with labels to legally host videos. While the primary complaint is against music videos, one cannot help but wonder if this will also impact the many, many homemade videos using copyrighted UMG songs as a soundtrack (or — *shudder* — a lipsync.)"
Tens of millions (Score:5, Insightful)
Truely a sad business model... especially when they're going after companies that are actually trying to negotiate legitimate mutually-beneficial deals.
Re:Tens of millions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a lot of hope for YouTube's future.
We (us below 30 people, and yes, some of you above 30) are a generation built on mashups, personalized media, and borrowing from the acheivments of the past to further our own pursuits.
Those sitting on the bench won't get that a suit against YouTube (especially if it's on the grounds of lipsync videos or peronal video soundtracks) is really stifiling millions of young filmma
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I chose those as examples because they're relevant to TFA.
As "actually someone ostensibly in the film industry", you should appreciate the absurdity of having to pay tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to use a music clip here or there in your movie, and that movies shot on a shoestring budget of mere hundreds or a few thousand
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the biggest issues for the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is another example of one of the biggest legal issues on the Internet today.
Whether it's YouTube, or P2P software, or posting reg-required articles verbatim on Slashdot for that matter, it comes down to the same thing: we now have services that can host/transport copyright-protected content on the Internet, which mean that content can reach huge numbers of people very quickly.
Now, as the saying goes, technology is neutral and it's what you do with it that counts. Clearly there are valuable uses for rapid, widespread distribution: look at the use of BitTorrent to distribution large OSS installers, or the small bands taking advantage of the opportunity to increase their profile. On the other hand, let's not kid ourselves: the vast majority of the content on some of these services is infringing someone's copyright. Those people aren't always the big players, either: YouTube is full of rips of specialist videos/DVDs about hobbies, made by teachers who aren't going to get much compensation in return for their efforts even if everyone in their small target audience buys a genuine copy.
The problem is that this is a legal rock meeting an ethical hard place. The legal concept of a common carrier, and more generally the idea of unmoderated forums, have served us well historically. No-one's going to run a large-scale communications service if they're legally responsible for every transmission they carry. They don't have the resources to check everything. Even if they did, I don't think we should appoint commercial entities to the role of courts. And they can't possibly know about every copyright in the world, so they couldn't guarantee the right decision even if they were checking.
On the other hand, copyright holders have a legitimate grievance here. I know people who teach various hobbies I have, and I've seen copies of their videos on YouTube, and (this is the bit that annoys me) I've heard people talking about ripping those videos rather than buying them. I may not have much sympathy with the RIAA and their ilk -- they're big enough to look after themselves, and hardly paragons of ethical virtue -- but I have a lot of sympathy for the little guys, and there must be a lot more of them. I think it's really sad that the number of specialist DVDs being produced for my hobbies by world-class teachers is dropping fast, and I have a pretty good idea from all sides about why that is.
That all said, I think there are some inescapable conclusions if we're going to keep any hint of sanity in the legal position:
As long as our copyright system remains in something like its current form (for example, with copyright being assigned, without explicit registration, to any artist who publishes their material) I think the most realistic approach is to have a system where copyright holders can show infringements to some binding authority, which can then instruct infrastructure providers to block that particular infringement quickly to limit any damage they're helping to cause. (An infrastructure provider that fails to honour suc
Looks like the rider beat the horse (Score:5, Insightful)
If they don't get acquired right quick, it will be a sad day for all of us YouTube lovers.
Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse (Score:5, Insightful)
This is more or less the same way Napster was destroyed and why is never reclaimed the crown as a music distributing software. By the time Napster was re-released it was too little, too late. And then of course there would be the copycat sites, the backlash against the industry and the grassroots attempt to stop this. (Remember the publicity Napster got before they brought it down?)
Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse (Score:5, Insightful)
(Remember the publicity Napster got before they brought it down?)
Part of the reason for the publicity of the Napster case is that it happened in the days of Web 1.0 and many people, heck the entire world, were watching to see what would happen. It wasn't exactly clear that Napster would lose. In fact, early public opinion of Judge Patel's ruling was that she didn't know enough about technology to generate a sensible ruling.
When (not if) YouTube goes down, it's gonna do so lickety split because it has the pathway (I'm not sure it's precedent) of Napster to take. This is gonna be fast, folks. Allowing users to violate copyright on a mass scale using centralized servers is entrepreneurial suicide.
Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There are more potential buyers for youtube than just the RIAA/MPAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse (Score:5, Insightful)
Those that want DRM and community support will hit grouper [grouper.com]. Those that want porn will hit pornotube [pornotube.com]. The people who just want to use their webcams and view amateur clips will use vobbo [vobbo.com]. The ones that want to open license their content will use ourmedia [ourmedia.com], and the ones that want revenue sharing will use revver [revver.com].
Dozens of alternatives, just look at The list [fileratings.com].
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion YouTube is almost certainly in land grab mode. That's not to say that YouTube will be massively profitable, it may get sued out of existence first.
Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse (Score:5, Insightful)
What VALUE? WHERE ARE MUSIC VIDEOS BOUGHT AND SOLD?
Without YouTube NOBODY would watch music videos because otherwise THEY DON'T EXIST.
The only reason this argument continues is because copyright holders, for whatever reason, totally deprive their audience of what they want. People used to download billions of songs from filesharing networks. Then they turned around and bought 1.5 billion songs from iTunes. Why did they pay for what they could get for free? Because Apple gave them a high-quality easily found song for a reasonable price. If every music video were available for download off some record company site, this would be a non-issue.
Wait, it already is a non-issue.
I think food also wants to be free.
Food is free. Farmers provide the same service Apple does: a high-quality easily found vegetable/fruit/chicken dinner/bottle of orange juice at a reasonable price. And people pay for it despite the fact that anyone armed with a single orange can produce them in unlimited quantities.
Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, for one, they're bought and sold on DVD all the time. Most people I know have at least a few of these. I myself have video compilations from Depeche Mode, the Police, and Puffy (as in AmiYumi, but it's a Japanese DVD so it's just Puffy).
So while I don't dismiss the RIAA's argument out of hand, I don't think they quite get the reasons why people use YouTube. YouTube's quality is really bad and you can't (easily) download clips from it, meaning it's no substitute for buying anything. I sample videos there all the time, and yes, I've downloaded some, but only videos that I literally can't get any other way. It's a last resort for videos I want to keep, while at the same time serving the same purpose that MTV did in the beginning - it's promoting all these bands I otherwise wouldn't be thinking about. Seriously, if I see a video on YouTube that I like, the first thing I do is see if I can buy it anywhere. This is not like the original Napster, where there's really no difference between the song you could download and the song you could buy. On YouTube, in most cases you can't buy what's on there, and if you can, there's a vast difference in quality and features.
The record labels should be using YouTube as a promotional vehicle. They've got everything all backwards these days. They're even saying MTV was evil in the beginning for, god forbid, promoting their music. They don't seem to realize that the lack of music on MTV at present is a big reason why their sales are down. I used to watch MTV, find new bands I liked, buy that music and buy those videos. I have no way to do that anymore. Except YouTube.
Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse (Score:4, Informative)
Pop quiz: When you're looking to buy a startup, do you go for one that's just had a massive lawsuit filed against it by the entertainment industry?
how insane (Score:5, Interesting)
am i alone when i say i am blown away that record labels ask stations for a penny to show their videos? i don't know how they did things in the stone age, but MY generation will NOT pay major labels to promote THEIR albums.
Re:how insane (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, okay. Then what's the problem — They'll pull their "promotions" and you'll have no problem with it, right?
Way back in the stone age when one business existed to profit largely via the work of another (see Napster, YouTube, etc. Though YouTube has far more legitimacy given the vast number of user contributed, non-pirated content), the copyright system is geared to demand compensation. Sort of like how the GPL, via the same copyright, is geared to demand its own sort of payment.
Re:how insane (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the surprise? Music videos are certainly connected to albums sales, but they're also productive as entertainment in their own right. They're shown on TV, which generates viewership and sells ads, which means that someone is paying for it. Indirectly, sure, but they're paying for it.
That's all that UMG is trying to negotiate with Fuse. Both sides believe that UMG can charge Fuse, and Fuse can show the videos, generate viewership, and sell ads. If they didn't agree on that, they'd never have sat down to negotiate in the first place.
I suspect that, since the phenom is relatively new as a business idea, Fuse and UMG have somewhat different assumptions about what the value of the videos actually is. If Fuse pays too much, they can't turn enough of a profit on the content to bother, but UMG wants to charge as close to that point as they can get away with. This is a classic negotiation, and it's been done for years in TV. Give it time, and they'll work out how to do business in the new medium. Maybe another year or two, maybe different companies (YouTube, perhaps?), but it'll happen.
"...MY generation will NOT pay major labels to promote THEIR albums."
Which generation do you mean? If you're old, sure--geriatrics don't watch music videos so much. But if you're young, your generation most certainly DOES pay. You (collectively) buy product X, which was promoted by advertising runs on a channel showing music videos, which pays for the ads.
Simple, simple stuff, here, people.
or so you say (Score:3, Informative)
That's quite the news to me, as I haven't witnessed this being the case for at least 10 or 15 years. There is not a single time on any channel during any day that I can reliably watch music videos. As far as I can tell, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:how insane (Score:4, Insightful)
Your 'generation' might not, but TV companies will, as people who are watching music videos can also be shown adverts which bring in revenue above the costs of the videos, thereby producing this thing called 'profit'.
This is a very simple concept, maybe your generation is too obsolete to understand how modern business works.
Re:how insane (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty much, unless you can somehow cross the time-barrier about 15 years.
The labels have all made it pretty clear (and the analysts have agreed) that they made a big-time mistake providing free content to MTV for as long as they did. Sure, Huey Lewis and The News and a-Ha never would have had the careers they did were it not for the freebies, but at the end of the cycle MTV (and it's johnny-come-lately r
When will these people get it?? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they want to make money then this sort of stuff is gold for them, it doesn't cost them anything at all and its not hard to start something.
Its all stupid. You see them release "controlled" video's onto youtube and other blogsites when they are promoting a movie/song but if its something that wasn't thought of by them they suddenly want to sue the pants off everyone.
You can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who exactly are you addressing that comment to? I don't see anyone suggesting otherwise.
But: just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
What it doesn't take into account, is that Music Videos themselves have become a valuable property. The advertising has become the message. So now not only do they want the advertising for the album to get out, but they want
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I would. Be nice to see MS improving their products.
Re: (Score:2)
The violation would be in distribution of binaries without making the source available, financial gain has nothing to do with it.
The analogy isn't great, but the basic thrust of the argument does hold - someone is doing something with a copyrighted work that the copyright holder does not approve of (and that is covered by copyright law). It may make sense to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry to be pedantic but, as I understand it, you can charge for GPL code if you want, as long as the source isn't witheld for an additional fee. It's just not an amazing business model because someone can buy your GPL product and then start re-distibuting it for free.
I've even seen shareware, complete with nag screen and feature limitation, released under the GPL since it probably won't occur to anyone to recompile i
Re: (Score:2)
It does bring up a an interesting question in regards to "financial gain."
Okay, so I sing a copyrighted song in the shower. Nobody cares. I'm recorded in the shower singing this song. This recording is played for my housemates who all have a good laugh. Again, nobody cares.
Said recording is placed up on YouTube. YouTube is now, in theory, making money off of my singing this copyrighted song by placing an advert
Re:When will these people get it?? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what's that, you say? "MTV was a boon to the music industry, wasn't it?"
And yes, indeed it was. MTV not only promoted popular hits, but it allowed lots of artists that couldn't get airtime on the radio to find an audience via MTV. But, as we all know by now, the industry can't see the forest for the trees.
Here's a quote from this article [yahoo.com]:
Record companies are keen to avoid repeating the mistake they believe they made when Viacom Inc.'s MTV was set up 25 years ago -- allowing their artists' music to be aired for free.
Morris in his remarks to investors on Tuesday said MTV "built a multibillion-dollar company on our (music)
Yes folks, this is Hollywood's way of saying thank you to MTV. That channel grew a new outlet for music, brought even MORE interest to said music, and helped the music industry make billions, and in spite of all this, the industry is pissed that they gave MTV the tools to do it for free.
And with that in mind, they fear YouTube will be the next MTV, and they want a piece of it. Like usual, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Again. It boggles my mind how utterly near sighted the industry is. It can't see the forest for the trees.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:When will these people get it?? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are encouraging it. But why shouldn't youtube pay for it like everyone else? Music videos bring in viewers which can be translated into revenue. Why should the music industry provide free revenue for youtube, MTV etc?
Actually they can, as it's their videos and they are free to release them for free or to charge for them as they wish. When you make a video you are free to do whatever the hell you want with it. But wait, that would mean work, it's much easier to sit on your arse whining at people who actually have initiative.
Nah, they just want the cake AND eat it too (Score:2)
So let the market do it's thing.... (Score:2)
Actually that sounds good to me.
Always remember if this is sych a good idea it will happen or you have to ask yourself why it doesn't/didn't (maybe reality just works slightly differently...)
They will get it once the market shows them, or tehre was noting to "get" in the first place...
Viral Ownership by the Anti-Publishers. (Score:3, Interesting)
At the end of the day, these movie/song clips are just basically adverts. Its the ultimate form of Viral Advertising and the studios should be encouraging it, not trying to control it. If they want to make money then this sort of stuff is gold for them, it doesn't cost them anything at all and its not hard to start something.
For a normal publisher, that would be true. A normal publisher finds and promotes excellent works in a free market. Big media is the exact opposite of all that. They are based on
Had to be a *music* company (Score:3, Interesting)
Youtube is going to become Napster 2.0: once wildly popular, then sued into oblivion.
Revenue (Score:2)
YouTube is not the new Napster (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And the strange thing about that is that, for example, ISPs are okay as long as they _don't_ try to filter unlawful content (and spam, malware, etc.), because if they did filter, they'd be responsible for anything that got through.
FWIW, IIRC, N
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not true, and in fact, plenty of ISPs do filter. There was no consensus as to whether ISPs are common carriers before a few laws came in to shield them regardless, such as 17 USC 512 or 47 USC 230.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's not what it said. Of course, all copyright cases can be read as requiring that. The trick is what constitutes compliance. Grokster simply said that a party is liable if they induce others to engage in copyright infringement. Failure to thoroughly police wouldn't show inducement. That goes more toward vicarious liability, if it matters at all.
Re: (Score:2)
a host or a distributor? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just more evidence that the big corporations don't care
Prompt removal of copyrighted material not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
So as soon as someone posts copyrighted material on a website, the owner of the website owes money to the copyright owner. I guess it's under the impression that for a brief period of time the website owner made money off ads and the copyright owner should get that ad money. It seems a little like the patent trolls waiting until a company has a successful product. If people want to use a song they will have to wait until the copyright expires .. oh, wait...
I don't get the tens of millions of dollars part though. I've heard of $150 million to $400 million a year in potential revenue for YouTube. I understand it from the greedy record company standpoint, but I can't see it from the actual damages perspective. I guess every single person who saw a video that had a copyrighted song copied the song and E-mailed it to their friends in the Hong Kong Triads who later distributed pirate versions of it throughout Asia.
There is incentive for major content providers to completely destroy user content websites. After all, the content oligarchy would not want competition, even poorly made funny cat video competition.
Re:Prompt removal of copyrighted material not enou (Score:3, Insightful)
UMG aren't suing YouTube just for the money they made by distributing these videos, they're suing to punish them for violating their rights.
There is incentive for major content providers to completely destroy user content websites. After all, the content oligarchy would not want competition, even poorly made funny cat video competition.
As much as I don't like a lot of what certa
Overestimate? (Score:2)
The music companies want to sound reasonable so they quote a figure th
Dirty Play (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is that more people use YouTube to view content that shouldn't be on there than to view the content that should. I'm no exception. The only thing I really use YouTube for is watching South Park and other shows off Cartoon Network. I'll also use it to watch music videos, but not even watch the video. I just want to hear the song, and I know YouTube has it.
Sure, there are people who actually don't use YouTube for this purpose, but I'll tell you right now that they are in the minority.
The only way YouTube can save itself is by moderating ALL videos. That is, videos will only appear on the site once they are flagged, much like Google does. If and when that day comes, all the content I want will be gone and there's really no reason for me to ever go to YouTube again.
Did anyone really think YouTube was going to stay around? I'm amazed that investors kept pumping money into it.
I have no interest at all in commercial vids. (Score:3, Funny)
Fuck that cop
Negotiating tactic (Score:2)
Looks like Universal gave up waiting for YouTube to make some coin before they filled suit.
More like they want to put pressure on YouTube to sweeten the eventual settlement. TFA said it best:
Re:It begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trailer for Transformers [youtube.com] - Legalish
Transforming Robot Beetle [youtube.com] - Legal
Playing With Electricity Video [youtube.com] - Legal
Metalocalypse [youtube.com] - Not Legal
Ask a Ninja [askaninja.com] - Legal
Street Running [youtube.com] - Legal
ZeFrank talking at a convention - Legal
Some guy blowing the whistle on faulty helicopter design - Legal
Quake 3 Rocket Jump super skillz video - Legal
I know there are a lot of illegal uses for YouTube. But it seems like unlike a lot of P2P apps, the non-infringing uses are substantial. If YouTube could successfully filter out all of the illegal content, it would still have a lot of uses
Re: (Score:2)
If I recall reading my stats correctly, the illegal content on P2P networks was found to be close to 90%, which would make slightly over 10% legal. I don't know the legal definition of substantial, but it's certainly not negliable. Plus, if you take the broader view of "P2P" to including anything up to and including the Internet itself, the picture changes dramatically. It'
Okay (Score:4, Insightful)
Fair enough. Please direct us to the site where we can see Universal Music Group artists' music videos.
Okay. Please direct us to the television--
Okay. Please direct us to the DVD--
Oh, you mean nobody would ever see these videos otherwise? So if there's no market for these videos, how can it be established there were tens of millions in damages?
BZZZT. Thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Step Two: Bend over and pay $2 for a 3 minute 320x240 video with DRM
Step Three: Profit! (Well, not for you. But someone.)
So yeah, basically they are available. It's just simply rediculous for what they're charging. While some videos are really good and might be worth buying to own (Hurt by Johnny Cash is an example, though iTunes doesn't even sell that one), the vast majority of them I'd like to see once and then really never watch again. The industry doesn't really get
well (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see their point (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but you missed the word "yet" from the end of your sentence. What happens a few years down the line when the technology has the capacity for the small blurry video and radio quality sound to turn into a full screen, high bitrate, perfect copy of what was uploaded. At that point, Youtube becomes nothing more than a centralized file sharing network for getting any media you want. Companies like UMG aren't so stupid that they can't see this coming,
It's a control issue (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about control over entertainment. You Tube is a form of entertainment that they simply don't control. They don't produce it. They don't write it. And they don't make money off it. Theoretically, a band could make a hit song that never passed through any of their doors. A person could make a You Tube video so famous that he could achieve status as a director without ever setting foot in one of their offices.
You Tube has the ability to deliver content to every person with an internet connection. Statistically, it is inevitable that eventually a breakout new band or director will arrive through You Tube without any member of the big corporations having their claws in them. For the RIAA this is about the fact that they want to retain control over every note of music you hear. It assures them they will never be caught by surprise. It allows them to stay in the forfront of new trends. It lets them juggle bands, hits, and artists with impunity. It lets them create restrictive contracts that give the vast majority of money from CD sales to them, instead of the artist. It lets them artificially inflate prices and manipulate the market.
That's worth infinitely more than $1 million in proprietary content that they might be losing, if we take the highest number imaginable. That's why they care.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No it's not inevitable. Not even likely.
"For the RIAA this is about the fact that they want to retain control over every note of music you hear."
That has never been the case.
Re: (Score:2)
They DO produce it. They made the product, and somebody else is selling, illegally, it for profit. That is why they are suing.
Don't complain that the RIAA/MPAA are taking legal action to protect their legal rights. If you don't think there should be laws against what YouTube is doing, complain about the laws and the lawmakers.
Don't complain that I'm impeding the advance of traffic flow because I'm doing 60 in a 65; complain that the speed limit is only 65.
note: Don't start ranting ab
think profits (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that no one will create anything if youtube users are allowed to use it in their homemade videos is absurd. But don't blame Universal. Blame congress for favoring promotion over profits and allowing the recording industry to make massive campaign contributions in what would *appear* to be an exchange for legislation.
The entertainment gives our elected officials about $30 million/year [opensecrets.org] to make sure they can bring lawsuits like this one.
This is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't even listen to music properly using the videos on that site, the quality is too low.
As for the lip-syncing and dancing videos, it's free advertising. I bet "numa numa" sold a lot more records since that fat dude posted a video dancing to it, in fact they are using that to market a new version of that song now...
Re: (Score:2)
Sue'm All (Score:2, Interesting)
YouTube Legal Strategy:
We seem to be liable for 'contribuatory infringement'; aka we make it possible (knowingly?) for others to violate copyright (even though we respond to requests to remove copyrighted material).
The RIAA, etc, want their 'pound of flesh', and we don't think they deserve it.
If we are liable, for contributing to the violations, then necessarily, others must be as well. While we provide the service to share, the individual users must knowingly violate, as well as everyone between t
Re: (Score:2)
No one said a website couldn't, but ISP's can as long as they are a common carrier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier [wikipedia.org]
I'd love to see YouTube argue that it's a common carrier.
Any artist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be interesting to see your change in perspective if you ever produced anything worthy of being lipsynced on youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not, but some of them are awesome: Xiquets De Banyoles [google.co.uk].
Fine... (Score:2)
I mean, the originals [youtube.com] were pretty funny, at least Da Da Da, Peking Opera and Don't Lie made me laugh, but aside from that, Go Get'em Universal!
What everyone seems to be missing (Score:2, Funny)
Finally (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing our business is what DMCA notices are for (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should YouTube be any different? Send them a DMCA takedown notice, and surprise surprise, they'll happily remove the offending content. Problem solved.
There's only one reason why YouTube is getting treated differently. UMG sees a cash cow that they don't own, and they want desperately to milk it.
I hope they dont (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that what YouTube basically does? User posted content? A person plays their favorite song, a person dances to their favorite song, a person posts a music video thats already available on MTV/VH1 (when those stations actually play music 1 hour a week).
Mark this, the end of cover bands, the end of whistling while you work, and the end of free speech.
Evanescence AMVs (Score:2, Interesting)
My time is valuable too (Score:2)
How do they lose money? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can download the video from YouTube, think 'I like that' and go out and buy the CD. Money made there.
I can't think of any downside to free pop videos online unless someone wants to rip the mega low quality sound off the video stream but frankly you'd be pretty desperate to do that.
Sounds like record company is shooting itself in the foot to me.
When will they learn? (Score:2, Insightful)
What are they trying to do? Will they wind up becoming a government subsidized industry because they have alienated all but the true Hollywood-loving sheep and can't afford to pay their employees? Now I hate corporate welfare, but I'd be REALLY pissed off if I had to subsidize the Music Mafia.
All I know is I have not bought a CD (except
took this long? (Score:3, Interesting)
YouTube is Ruining the Internet (Score:2)
I don't mean to sound like an old coot, but I liked the web better when people couldn't put little YouTube players on their websites and blogs. Previously, they actually had to write something. Now its just, watch the video.
That said, YouTube, like most p2p sharing sites is a great place to learn about bands (and other entertainment) you've never heard of before. Example: The Wildhearts [youtube.com].
Though, as its been said better above, maybe that kind of decentralized information sharing is what large cartels
This is probably just the beginning of the end... (Score:2, Insightful)
Face it guys, when something becomes habitual, natural, for millions of people, rights and wrongs get swapped.
People are finally starting to realize that information wants to be free, they are literally enjoying the pleasure of creating their own content, even if based upon the creation of others, and someone can't just come along and tell them they're not allowed to do it.
I forecast a revolution of some sort.
Takedown notices (Score:2)
So when YouTube has received one of these notices, they can replace the video with one that's basically just a banner:
Re:DMCA Safe Harbour (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First P2P, then Video Sites, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile the Curia argues over whether the church should ban printing presses since they will put all the clerics in abbeys out of work...
Why, that's a scurrilous accusation! There's nothing for it: I'm simply forced to clamber into my hansom cab [wikipedia.org], drive over there at a furious gallop, and deliver a right, good thrashing unto your person with my buggy whip!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)