Adisa said:

Yeah, for a minute I thought I was in Music and More

Interesting bit just released from Viacom Inc. in part to bolster its case in a $1 billion copyright lawsuit against Google and YouTube.
Basically Google knew what it was getting into when it bought Youtube as internal documents show.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/a...om_youtube



Youtube is a great service, but all mainstream public streaming content sites need to play by the rules and almost guarantee that the content is not illicit.
If they cannot do that then they need to be shut down.
Its BS to say otherwise. Heck pawn shops get busted for selling stolen goods, its not good enough to plead ignorance.
Youtube is great as a social and educational site, not so much value for the promotion of anybody other than Youtube itself.
[Edited 4/16/10 10:14am]

violetblues said:

really? as far as music promotion, it's taken the place of MTV, VH1 and every other video channel. since you can't even find a music video on television these days, this is what has filled that void. and if it isn't going to go on youtube, what is the point of even MAKING a video? so you can pay $77 to log in to view a commercial? that's what a music video is. and surely no one is suggesting that music videos don't sell music.

errant said:

The popularity of Youtube is BECAUSE illicit content made it the de facto go-to site. Not for any other reason. The net, videos, radio, television and print and every other form of advertising existed before Youtube. You would buy to play on a device and play at your own convenience. Those advertising platforms are proven financial models. They fed the ecosystem. Now Youtube is the advertising, the content and the device all at no charge. How the hell is that supposed to work?

Content providers were caught with their pants down and let Youtube proliferate where is should have been clamped down the Napster way.

Proven online stores like Amazon's or itunes or homegrown methods should be the only allowable method unless otherwise authorized by the content creators.
Its about the economy of book and music publishers, artist and consumers. All benefiting and perpetuating the economy. Any other way and the economy is dead.
[Edited 4/16/10 14:26pm]

violetblues said:

right. but then you have a situation wherein an actual television commercial shot by Target featuring Prince playing a song that was shot to promote the album is flagged on youtube and ordered to be taken down. surely there is some kind of middle ground.

errant said:

Exactly!
And that middle ground means clamping down.

Mindflux said:

what do you care that he cares? it is his preference to consider the logic of Prince's business decisions considering Prince has been very vocal about how important money is to him and his decisions seem contradictory to that.

do you even see how asinine and hypocritical your post is, you criticize him but your criticism is the exact behavior you are criticizing.

I'm assuming you don't considering how illogical and ridiculous your final conclusion is, that the only possibility is that if you go for money you are a plastic act, as if there is no other option. just plain stupid. I'm embarrassed for you that you don't realize how embarrassingly stupid your entire post is.
[Edited 4/16/10 11:27am]

violetblues said:

the middle ground means letting your commercial do its job and stop getting it pulled down on a technicality like a fascist.

dumbass said:

I don't care that he cares - how did you infer that? I simply asked him a question - why does he care about whether Prince earns money out of any given project or missed opportunity. But, you seem most eager to put words in another's mouth, as is evidenced by the rest of your discourse. Furthermore, I can only ignore your statement as to why you think Bart is like this. How do you know? Are you his spokesman? Or lover? I asked Bart the question and he's the only one qualified to answer.

No, I don't see how my post is either asinine or hyprocritical, but the way you're getting your knickers in a twist might suggest you should hold a mirror to yourself. I highlighted that it is a curious position that someone would be constantly so negative towards someone whilst seemingly wanting them to be successful. That's not a criticism, its an observation about an apparent contradiction. Explain how my behaviour is the same. Am I constantly posting negative threads about Bart whilst trying to manage his financial affairs?! lol

What's more embarrassing, dumbass (what a handy moniker!), is that you completely misinterpret my last paragraph, ostensibly due to the upset you seem to feel about poor Bart's motives being brought to question. My point wasn't "the only possibility is that if you go for money you are a plastic act" - far from it. I said that there are manufactured pop bands that are just a vehicle for making money. That is to say, they exist to cream a profit out of generic product, not make money out of an artform - I put Prince in the latter category. There is nothing wrong with making money out of your art (its what I do for a living), we all have to earn to provide. But there is a difference between those jumping on a trendy bandwagon to milk a cash cow and those who do it because they are compelled to make their music.

Perhaps you could afford a subject some due consideration before jumping in with a wild and senseless rant?


[Edited 4/17/10 3:53am]

squirrelgrease said:

He screwed the pooch on youtube.
And fucked it without KY jelly on the Internet in general. Ironic, considering he was viewed original as one of the pioneering artists, and still enjoys a quazi-indie status.


I remember all the debates about lotusflow3 vs. NIN's website, and how New Power Butt puppets all insisted lotusflailure was just plain better than NIN's site. Bitch, please.

errant said:

Oh, you mean the minor technicality of NOT BEING PAID?!

I'm sure you would love to continue going to your job and then finding that there's no pay in your bank account at the end of the month!

"Where's my money?"
"Oh, don't worry about that - its just a technicality"

violetblues said:

Excellent points made in this thread violet - amazing, somebody who actutally seems to get what is going on!

squirrelgrease said:

Ok, so if someone breaks in to a distributors warehouse and steals a few boxes of cds and starts giving them out to people, then that is "free advertising for your product"?!!

Quick, sign me up for that new business model!

These type of heated debates have always been held whenever any new form of mass media entered the music and movie scene.

It is clear that many infringements take place on Youtube on a daily basis, by its users.

It is also clear that many legitimate, mostly self produced videos are posted, by its users.

Youtube doesn't post the videos, but it does offer the platform to do it.

So you could close Youtube down for the many infringements it enables, but that would also disable the many legitimate uses Youtube also offers a platform for.

So that's where the DMCA system of take down notices comes in. As soon as Youtube is made aware of a (potential) infringement, it must take the video down.

That system, however, doesn't prevent that countless of infringements still take place on Youtube. Youtube says it can't prevent that from happening with any sort of filter system, but movie studios and record companies say they can, so they still sue them.

However, they are reluctant in letting it go through the court, because taking Youtube down may just bring a major PR disaster that could be desastrous for their already struggling business AND because they could throw away "the golden goose" in their eagerness to control the internet.

Going further, prohibiting the sort of website technology Youtube uses, would seriously stiffle technological innovation. Courts are usually reluctant to go that far, so even if Youtube shuts down, others will take over, perhabs even sites where only the user can take down infringing videos.

Then you are back at the negotiation table, which they are at already, but not making any progress because the content owners want the biggest piece of the pie AND be royally compensated for billions of infringements. Google ain't having that, so it may just happen that a court is going to rule on this.

But I still think they will work something out in the end.


-
[Edited 4/17/10 5:57am]

As for Prince, if I were him, I would have worked out a deal with Youtube many years ago already.

Maybe Google should create two Youtubes, one for copyright protected industry content and one for private user content.

Then it would be easier to separate the two classes and work out a deal on the industry side.

Tremolina said:

Except that YouTube weren't interested in making any deals with anyone. Why would they pay anyone when they were being allowed to get away with not paying people for so long?

It is only now that their hand has been forced, that money is being collected on behalf of artist's who's work is being broadcast on their site.
[Edited 4/17/10 7:23am]

Tremolina said:

I think there can just be just one Youtube. Maybe the submital of commercial product could just go through a proper channel to be labeled and tagged accordingly.

I dont think its a matter of not being able to be done, i think maybe Youtube does not want to invest any resources into to that. Lets remember that even though Youtube is owned by deep pockets, to date it has never officially made any money. But im sure that Google is benefiting some where in the analytics data, advertising platform or something.

Hey supposedly Google doesn't make any money from it, if Google could suck it up and take a loss on providing us free content, why cant the content creators just stop whining and just suck it up and take a loss on it too..... I mean the artists and content producers could just do the same and use the data to expand their advertising platforms and search engine technology and live off that.
It needs to change, its cannibalistic and artists and producers can't live very long by eating their own body parts.
[Edited 4/17/10 8:59am]

What is youtube?

Mindflux said:

at my job, we film commercials to be seen and heard by people to sell the product. the more exposure the better.

errant said:

Do you or the company you work for expect to be payed for your work.

violetblues said:

yes. of course. and we are. but we create commercial promos in order to ADVERTISE. in order to get paid for it. and in fact, have to PAY to get those commercials aired. if someone wants to broadcast it for us on youtube for free, thank you very much.

errant said:

So its ok for YOU to be paid.
What if your clients uploaded your work and never paid you or your company. But hey, it's FREE ADVERTISING for you and your company, so its ok then huh?.
Now do you get it?
Its an economy, in an economy someone pays you for your work and services and it all comes full circle. Content feeds advertising, feeds you and your family feeds the artist and content producers who create more content. It only works if it comes full circle.
Thats why I say that from an advertising perspective at the moment, when it comes to digital content, Youtube feeds on cannibalism. People go to Youtube not for the supposed "advertising" which conveniently also just happens to be the "content" we are really there for in the first place. Youtube becomes the advertising, the content, the delivery method the storefront all rolled up in one, all for free. Again from an economic point of view, how the hell is that supposed to work? Sure there is legitimate advertising on Youtube but people do not go to Youtube for your "ADVERTISING", They go there for the wink-wink "advertising"
Why do you think itunes is credited for saving the music industry? For the pleasure to pay 99 cents to download your "ADVERTISEMENTS"? No, but the advertisements are still there and record companies and book sellers are more than happy to pay you them.
[Edited 4/17/10 12:21pm]

Dont get me wrong, I am in no way defending Prince's business savvy, but an indictment of a platform that at the moment hinders the viability of entertainment digital content producers like Prince.
I wont front or preach that I am not guilty of exploiting this platform and enjoying all the free music available without ever spending a dime on new music for over 5 years other than the occasional download i couldn't immediately find on Youtube or any of my other go-to sites.
Its only obvious the negative economic effects that mainstream sites like Youtube have on content producers. lol
It just makes no sense as a advertising platform for content producers at the moment. Is the consumer supposed to enjoy the music anytime for free at their convenience, then log into another site or store to then purchase, when it still perfectly free on Youtube? its absolutely crazy to even conceive that as the most likely probability.
As a consumer I only paid when i couldn't get it for free. Its a new mindset, and it really is not good for artists....or consumers or advertisers.
People may bitch about the quality of new music but hey, its free what do we expect? Do you really think anyone is going to bother to put much effort into a loosing proposition?
So in a way we may all be guilty and responsible for the state of the music indusrty.
But at least some artists and producers still have touring, prominent back-catalogs, 3-D movies, i-tunes, and amazon as their silver lining at the moment.
[Edited 4/17/10 12:22pm]

head wound

I think some people are forgetting that YouTube is a business model founded on the illegal distribution of copyright content...an ILLEGAL business model. They only started paying royalties when they were forced to. And have you seen the royalties? Pitiful. Nobody can make a living from streaming services. All of these services do not account for the rightful allocation of decent funds to those whose creative material they are using.

Mindflux said:

Whatever dude. Youtube has been offering 'partnerships' for years, since it is the only way to convince a court that they are willing to work with copyright owners. If the content industry would have a strong case without taking significant risks of a major PR disaster and throwing a perfect opportunity to make money, it would have taken Youtube down already. Ignoring the obvious that Youtube is still alive for that reason, doesn't make your case any stronger.

violetblues said:

Except that BEFORE Youtube the market for music videos was mainly MTV and such. It's not like record companies were making shitloads of money selling all those videos on DVD or something. For the worldwide broadcasts of their videos on MTV they are being paid (and in turn they pay MTV to plug their shit) but for Youtube they are not. THAT is their MAIN problem. They simply want to be paid and they want to be paid IN FULL, since Google has got the pockets to take care of that. They say: if Google wants to ride on our stuff, Google needs to play by our rules and give us the lion share of the profits.

Google/Youtube says: fuck that. WE created this platform. Therefore without us, you lot wouldn't even be able to make any money from it. So we are the top dog here and not you motherfuckers and we sure as hell are not going to pay you the lion share of any revenue. Certainly not while the company is still making losses. And as for the lawsuits and a possible prohibition they cry foul that the music and movie industry are hell bend on stiffling new, popular forms of internet technology.

So there you have it. A stalemate. The big players are locked. No room to move, unless either one of them bends.

I should add that the MOVIE studios play a different role here than the record companies. For example, it's harder to make a case that they are not making any losses than it is for the record companies. Also, movie studios are usually the only owners of copyright in movies, but record companies are not the only parties in the music industry with interests in Youtube. They make the most noise, but their recording artists (often) have different interests and songwriters and music publishers are also there to take a piece of the pie for their publishing rights.