Slashdot Mirror

I imagine it'll be a while before it lets you remix multiple Youtube videos into something like what Kutiman did. Nevertheless, at the very least it's a very nice tech demo.

What's the difference between using middle C on the piano as a note and using a brief sample as a "note"? What is the difference between using c, d and g to make a chord or using three samples to make a "chord"? Are you suggesting that a melody and a loop are all that different? No doubt, some people who sample are complete hacks, but some create something new. Note that I said "new", not "something you like" or "on the same par of creative genius as what you would approve as being good". Then again, the classical composers were profane and they were still popular.

Have you heard ThruYOU? That might change your mind.

Apparently you don't know shit about anything. You use **AA propaganda terms, and prejudices, that it's impossible not to call you a complete troll.

First of all, the MPAA and RIAA are media reproduction and artist extortion industries. They have nothing to do with art at all. They try to get art as cheap as possible, billing the artist for for the right of being billed, etc. And then, because art is not a product, never was, never can be, and never will be, but a service, they put it on media, which is a product. And re-sell that to everyone at virtually zero cost.
Then if someone sees no point in paying a 2750% premium for that "service"/"product", in a world where their services are not needed anymore anyway, they try to get the money out anyway, by means of a out-of-court settlement, and/or by asking a 2750% premium times that 2750% premium per object that they have no proof that you "pirated" because 1. pirating is stealing shit on the high seas, and murdering, and because 2. making a copy is not stealing and does not hurt anybody. But hey, one can always buy some judges, like proven to have happened in the Pirate Bay spectrial.
Of course not everybody can be extorted that way. So they create their own p2p servers and trackers, just to sue everybody that downloaded from them (despite it being perfectly legal, to download from an owner that is openly offering them and sending the packets to them [no, you don't pull ip packets! they give them to you!])

And even that is not enough. Because hey, why pay once, when you can ask money for every time someone views it. And of course once for every person watching it at that moment. And the full price, even if you watch it partially. Hell, why don't you just pay, and we kick you in the balls? And we forget about all that art or artists. Because it really has nothing at all to do with this whole thing.

What you actually do with file sharing instead of buying shit, is you boost real (small) labels and real artists, and kill off the plastic fanstastic manufactured product shit of the big companies. Ask any small music label, film studio etc. Their sales went way up since they began marketing trough p2p.
We see a diversion of art. With things like this: http://thru-you.com/ and other great art.

But you would not even look into it. Like a well trained monkey, just blocking off every thought about it. Because you exactly know, that that would shatter your whole twisted view. But you like to stay in that world, even though you know it's all fake. Because that's better than facing reality and losing all self-respect so you would have to hate yourself.

So in a way, your laughter is the same kind of delusional laughter of self-blinding, that you see evil maniacs do in movies,when they use their "unstoppable" superweapon. Just before being killed by something tiny that could only get trough because of your extreme ignorance and false confidence.

<rant>You just don't get it, and still cling on to the primitive "everything must be black and white, or I can not comprehend it, and therefore it is unpossible!!!1!one" mindset, do ya?</rant>

<no-rant>
It was only an example. To show that the price has to be a function parallel to the actual worth (according to the market) of the product, for there to be a working business.
So no matter how low you rate YouTube in your worth (Hey, as long as you are going there, it obviously is worth something to you.), there is always a price for it. Even if it's $1 a year.
If not, then you would just stay away from YouTube, and go somewhere better, wouldn't you? ^^

So as long as Google can keep their cost of operation below the money that the users would pay for it, and make a profit with the difference, of course it would work.

I, for one, would like to see what it's worth to to users. After all, I see no reason why anyone would set up a giant cluster and serve tons of data, just to lose money with it.

And I think, things like the YouTube album of Kutiman are definitely worth money.
</no-rant>

Why can't artists behave like normal people?
I.e.: work, earn and pay/save for pensions?
Why does the copyright thing have to pay for their retirement and beyond?
Why does this whole greed thing have to stifle our creative possibilities? See http://thru-you.com/ and imagine that with some golden oldies works off of TV?

The average visitor to YouTube is costing Google between one and two dollars [...]

Over what time? In total?
Because I'd have no problem, paying $2 a year for YouTube. Even more, if most of it goes straight to the creators of the videos I'm watching, and the videos are in the uploaded quality (up to full-HD). Kutiman alone would be worth that.

I'm all for micro-payment. Sounds fair to me. And they would make good money off of it, while supporting artist directly. (As long as they do not do it like the old media industry, and take 96.5% for themselves, and then still expect the artists to pay for the studio and everything... off of that money.)

But it is creative. Or I should say, it can be creative. That song did not exist until Kutiman made it. Not one of the videos he used were that song, they were their own songs (and in some cases just sounds), but not the one he created.

It's been done for years - some of the most well-known pop albums of the eighties and nineties were composed and arranged entirely by the producer with no personal involvement by the musicians. But the thing is, the musicians KNEW they were being sampled and turned into an album. The source videos for http://www.thru-you.com/ were plucked out of thin air, so to speak.

Have you listened to these ones? They are good. REALLY good. Not just "clever" but really frickin' good COMPOSITIONS, and I'm not even taking into account the jaw-dropping editing skills this guy must have. If you haven't watched yet: http://www.thru-you.com/