Slashdot Mirror
YouTube to Offer Every Music Video Ever Created?
Klaidas writes "BBC reports that YouTube is aiming to have every music video ever created within 18 months and offer them free of charge to its users
"Right now we're trying to very quickly determine how and what the model is to distribute this content and we're very aggressive in assisting the labels in trying to get the content on to YouTube," said Mr Chen."
"Right now we're trying to very quickly determine how and what the model is to distribute this content and we're very aggressive in assisting the labels in trying to get the content on to YouTube," said Mr Chen."
Not gonna happen.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Oh wait, nevermind, they don't play videos anymore. At least the younger generation will have some opportunity to imagine what MTV was like when it was good (MHO).
stuff |
No publicity is bad publicity. If RIAA shoots them down, they'll still have gotten all of the publicity from their bold claims.
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
Isn't it best to forget some things (like the Spice Girls)?
They should use the Tom Sawyer method. People value what they have to pay for far more than what they can get for free. As soon as you charge them for the generous service of hosting their music videos, it suddenly becomes something they'll want a lot more. Then they'll start fighting for the priviledge of paying you. Otherwise, they'll just want money.
Wow, they can license the content, give it away for free, and lose even MORE money! They must be going for a world record burn rate.
It seems like I can already find just about every music video I want on there. Certainly beats launch.com and their 1:1 video to ad ratio.
Sick of people knocking on Gentoo's greatness in completely unrelated
They already have all the good ones ever created. All 5 of them.
If those videos were better quality, maybe they could stack up with the mpgs I download off gnutella now, considering I use a leecher on most youtube stuff anyway. :/
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
"every music video ever created within 18 months"
Do you get to choose which 18 month period you will select from? I'm hoping for something like Jul 2003 - Dec 2004: no P(uff) D(a/i)iddy videos to worry about, and I might pick up a cool Peter Gabriel video or two.
Where were you when the voynix came?
What about my prized Front 242 videos?
1) After 20+ years of terror MTV will finally f***ing DIEEEEE!!!
2) People will realise that RIAA != "ALL MUSIC" and learn to ignore those attention whores.
3) JPOP will rule the world!!!! Aibon, anyone???
We can dance if we want to We can leave your friends behind 'Cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance Well they're no friends of mine Soon to be the number one requested video.
You do realize YouTube is going to take a huge chunk of that lovely venture capital cash some suckers, er investors, are pouring into that sinkhole and properly license the stuff for distribution just like MTV or VH1? In other words, YouTube is doing the 1990's dot-com thing in style.
Yes, they could make this be a paid service, but they would probably make a lot more money off of advertising. If they have every music video then it will be the default place for most people to go when they want to watch a music video. Then if they offer a play-list type feature to store all of your favorites that you can just play through, it would be great. This could draw in a lot of people which would make a perfect place to post advertisements.
It also shouldn't be too much of a problem to get past the RIAA. Look at Yahoos music videos. As long as there isn't a way for people to download them and keep them for personal use, I don't see that there would be a problem (but what do I know, if there is a way to make money the RIAA will be all over it). I think that they could have a really good thing starting here.
Obviously the RIAA will try to license the content to YouTube for a huge fee. But even the record labels know that music videos are like advertisements for songs. They make far more money selling records than videos. Free videos give their music more exposure, which means more sales.
Developers: We can use your help.
If they're working with the labels, what does it have to do with the RIAA? Their members *are* the labels, so if the labels are up for doing it then the RIAA can hardly claim its not in the interests of its members.
But for a long time I said that some website or group of websites that would be hosting every old television show and movie ever created. Some people said On Demand would do this, but I'm pretty sure the Internet is going to beat it out.
God spoke to me.
All of the content on M-TV was "pay for service" whereas YouTube is a free site paid for by online advertising revenue. I just don't see how the RIAA/MPAA will accept this. There is probably going to be some kind of snag, like they'll want users to pay $20 a month. Its always at least $20 for junk content...
It is interesting that there is no mention of the fact that a Youtube grey area exists already, where there are 1) a lot of copyright-violating videos on Youtube currently, and that 2) many of these videos--but oddly not all--were removed by Youtube in a mass cleansing a few months ago.
Why is it, Youtube has videos from many very popular and very lawsuit-happy bands (such as Kiss), but only *some* of their videos, and *not* always just the ones that are the arguably less copyright-infringing ones? In other words, often many of the videos that weren't intentionly taken down for legal reasons are the ones that are seemingly most illegal, ala the "legitimate MTV-style" videos.
It smells of payola and soforth. But who knows.
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
Except that selling music videos is not a main revenue stream for record labels. Their money is made selling CDs, and music videos are little more than advertisements for songs. Imagine the following scenario: Your buddy sends a YouTube link to a funny music vid. You play the video a few times, and the song gets stuck in your head. There is now a much greater chance that you'll go out and buy the album that the song is on. MTV used to be a great advertising venue for the music industry, but execs have probably come to realise that people in their teens and twenties, a prime music-buying demographic, are no longer watching television with any frequency. YouTube is a great venue for reaching this demographic. YouTube is an even better match because, unlike Apple's music video downloads, YouTube makes its videos difficult for the average user to download. Even when downloaded, the file is in the uncommon .FLV format, which will need to be re-encoded to be played on any portable media player. For those reasons, downloads from YouTube will not be a viable replacement for purchasing the album to the vast majority of consumers.
To summarize:
1. Good advertising venue for a key demographic.
2. Not threatening as a replacement to album purchases.
I would be more concerned with improving their compression method for better quality video. They already have a cap on length of video files, so if they can keep things within a similar file size with a better codec I would have more faith in their attempt to provide media. What's the use of a hundreds of videos if they look like ass?
... to all of our paid subscribers.
In Soviet Russia these Soviet Russia jokes aren't considered the least bit amusing...
I know You Tube have a ton of cash to burn through, but could they support lots of users streaming full music videos while at work just to have something to listen to?
Do people even care about music videos anymore? This would have been great 10 years ago, though...
Ah, I can't wait to download:
:-D
- Poundcake, Van Halen
- Tease Me, Please Me - Scorpions
- Crazy Cool - Paula Abdul
YouTube killed the video star.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
They should release them to the site in the order and timeframe in which they were originally released. That way, we'd get some really good old stuff pronto, but have to wait ages for all the dross we've seen in recent years.
Todays generation could relive our musical youth...
Since the Flash plug-in that is available for Linux fails to provide domain blocking (for blocking annoying advertisement Flash files), oh - and it doesn't have SOUND either, I find it hard to care what YouTube does - since I can't see or hear any of the videos: YouTube may as well not exist, at least as far as Linux users are concerned.
*gazes into crystal ball*
Prediction: Metallica will sue.
will the videos be censored? i never understood why videos on the various video channels are censored so heavily. even late night shows are censored despite being on cable televison. i want to see videos without t-shirts being blurred out and half the song missing lyrics
shes not a very good wrestler - but you should see her box!
Some time ago, Pitchfork did 100 Awesome Music Videos, with one of their criteria being that the videos be available on YouTube. Those videos occasionally get yanked, as I discovered when I started doing something similar every Friday. I wouldn't mind if YouTube could present those legally.
The RIAA don't seem to mind too much if things are no-cost. They are more concerned with things they have no control over, so they usually require DRM.
As far as I can tell, YouTube's flash videos are more or less DRM. While they're not conventional DRM, they do have the same effect as DRM.
Record companies pay MTV to play videos. Why would they charge youtube?
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
You must be new here
Blows my mind why labels don't give the videos out on all the band sites.
It's a loss leader. I can't remember how many albums I bought because the video introduced me to the music. The audio quality would be poor enough to encourage people to buy the real thing.
If those videos have 128kbit or better audio, why should one every buy the corresponding song on itunes?
Splitting streams is rather easy...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Check out http://www.mtv.com/overdrive
It's pretty good. Thousands of videos. Quality is as good as what you usually find on YouTube.
Not sure why nobody knows about this. I mean, at 37, I'm now outside MTV's target demographic (but I was 14 when I GOT MY MTV in 1983, the weekend that the Thriller video was released in it's 14-minute glory.)
But anyway, since MY generation was the one that actually watched videos on MTV for about 6 hours a day instead of listening to the radio, I'd think they'd find a way to market this to the 30-45 year age groups. *shrug*
Champagne bottles are being emptied.....
RIAA calculation:
(every music video ever made) x (USD 150.000) = Endless party
RIAA vs. YouTube settlement:
1) pay laywers, music industrie, 1.37 quadrizappeldubbel billion dollars.
2) shutdown website
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
How does it work with MTV (or should I say, "How did it work, back when they played music videos")? My assumption was always that MTV got the music video rights for a few pennies per song, like radio stations, clubs, etc. pay. Is this an invalid assumption? Does/did MTV pay big bucks for the right to play those videos?
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Warner and BMI confirmed for the BBC that they've been in discussions with YouTube. That's a far cry from saying they confirmed that they've agreed to distribute music videos through YouTube.
Record labels are among the greediest, most money-hungry companies on the planet. They aren't going to just hand over the content for YouTube to distribute for free. They also aren't likely to hand over the content for YouTube to distribute cheaply.
Sorry, but Steve Chen is either dreaming, smoking crack, or knowingly talking out of his butt.
With the money they save in not paying "moistened bints" to prance around half-naked in front of a camera (or around the singer/group) performing the actual song, they can discount the cost of the CD (which subsidises the making of the videos in the first place) and force the artiste to sell CDs based on quality of musical content, not on how well the video induces wet dreams in the male teenage audience...
Don't get me wrong - I find the female form as interesting as much as every other red-blooded heterosexual monogamous male but if I want visual stimulation, then I'll put on the TV or a DVD, thanks very much.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I never released mine, so they won't have every one.
> How does it work with MTV
Presumably the way it worked with radio - bribery via drugs, sex, money and threats of violence. Allegedly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
Meanwhile, MTV still refuses to play videos.
Wow, and with YouTube's crappy resolution thrown in as an added bonus. Excellent!!!!
Who needs DRM when the YouTube videos are streamed in crap quality to begin with
Wot? Flash works perfectly fine for me in Firefox 1.5 on Ubuntu 5.10 o.O; Sound and everything. So "whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis?"
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Won't people just rip the audio if the videos are on demand?
I assumed people paid MTV to show their crappy music videos. The music videos were more of an advertising ploy than anything, used to promote CD/record sales. The bands almost always lip-synced to their own songs in the videos, because it's hard to sing normally while jumping off buildings or chasing one another with chainsaws. It's hard to get decent quality audio outside of a sound studio. The music always comes first in a music video, and nearly without exception you could discard the video part and still have something good. Which is why we bought CDs instead of VHS/LaserDisc/DVDs of the bands we saw on MTV.
fyi - MTV2 still shows videos, but not all cable providers have MTV2. Most videos are pretty boring compared to the wild stuff of the 80s and 90s.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
How long do you think it will be before that changes? It wasn't too long ago that there was no such thing as a portable native .mp3 player. If the format becomes popular, the hardware will support it. (Of course I still doubt that would hurt album sales, since the audio quality on YouTube is horrible.)
I can see this happening, but i see clips rather then the whole vid.... kinda like MTV is now.
I'd be highly surprised if they had *my* favorite music videos. Is there enough of a market to justify tracking down stuff made in Ukraine and Russia?
Music videos do cost a lot to produce, and not all those costs can be charged to marketing. OTOH, perhaps music videos do not need unlimited budgets.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IV6rQxfk48
Oh wait..
NITRO!
Yes, this *is* progress. How much control did you ever have over which particular videos you wanted to see at a given time on MTV?
Did you want to view one over again a second time, perhaps? Nice to be able to do so without having to catch it on tape first.
Music videos back in the day were freebies to promote tapes and CDs.
Someone belatedly figured we'd pay for compilations and started going retail.
YouTube will argue for 80s pricing and RIAA will argue for 2000s pricing.
As great as videos were in their heyday (the 80s) today's kids will think they're about as exciting as watching bank surveillance videos compared to the bombast that's on now.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Yer but, no but, yer but the user could easily rip the track from the video, surely? Unless the sound quality was so poor you wouldn't want to watch it in the first place.
Copyright holders have to tell those that are infringing to remove specific items.
After they do music videos for awhile they will start with "Road Tube" and "The Real YouTube World" With "YouTube Unplugged" thrown in and there will be no more videos on YouTube.com
...................
Of course they will start YouTube2.com and
I want my YouTube.com
Snoogans
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire.
I can understand MTV going into other areas, they needed to generate revenue. But then the create MTV2, which aired videos. But then they started teh crap on there as well.
The same reason you can listen to songs on the radio for free but have to pay to get a copy at the record store. The radio/TV plays whatever the people at the station feel like playing right now. YouTube or iTunes (video or audio) plays whatever you want it to play this second. The RIAA feels you should pay for this freedom (making it, I suppose, a paydom).
#include <signature.h>
Are you sure of that? The way they've changed their programming seems to indicate they pay for the videos.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
There's some pretty nifty ones if you look outside of the AMVs and just around at various 'American' works.
The ones that spring to mind include a summation of the Ratchet and Clank series (on PS2, at least) set to "Have a Nice Day" by Bon Jovi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0qz10hN6B0
And this one of Jak II set to "Breaking the Habit" by Linkin Park:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeb3ZnXM-34
Both of them are well put-together and use a diverse series of clips, so hopefully this ought to shake out your preconcieved notions about AMVs.
People don't sit down and listen exclusivly to music. We play it while we do other things for the most part.
Adding a video to the mix changes that. I don't think many people will be in to changing they way we spend our free time so we can watch some video that roughly sync's to a song we like. Just wont happen.
RIAA, 2 hours later: "YouTube is letting people watch videos with OUR music? SUE THEIR PANTS OFF!" I can feel a wave of idiocy coming.....
MTV doesn't play videos...
Only parts of videos...
Sometimes...
During a blue moon...
At 3:55 in the morning.
I dunno about the "no portable player" bit; MPlayer seems to be the most portable media player on the planet. Transcoding FLV to anything else is trivial via ffmpeg or MEncoder.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
How do they make money? I'm being serious, are they just burning through VC at the same time waiting for Yahoo/Google/AOL/? to buy them?
fak3r.com
More importantly, we now have a slight glimpse as to how YouTube will make money. Follow my logic:
This means that there are now two revenue streams. The first one is potential: YouTube can sell higher-res clips to media outlets when a viral video becomes newsworthy. YouTube can also sell DVDs of content (a "best of" compilation, for example). The second one is realised: Content outlet in terms of infrastructure and a "difficult-for-lay-person-to-copy" format. YouTube can sell this broadcast outlet to host copyrighted material. That's what they are doing with the music vids and the model can easily spread to other media (like, say, re-runs and cult-hit shows that tend to moulder in neglect in studio vaults due to margins not quite being high enough for DVD sales or syndication).
What this means is we now know where the "free lunch" of YouTube leads: First-to-market Internet video-on-demand broadcasts. If, that is, YouTube can pull in enough revenue to keep buying bandwidth and storage space.
Actually, MTV solicits all videos, and they play what they want - which of course just happens to be all the hitmakers because that drives the advertising dollars / hype factory.
As a former employee of MTV, I can say unequivocably that nobody at MTV gets paid to show this video over that video. But there is a lot of pressure to, say, "show this new artist video or we won't give you an exclusive interview with Madonna/Ludacris/Green Day." There is a lot of bartering more than outright payola. Influence for influence.
And, yes, MTV will pay any artist $1 for the right to use their music in the background of their shows in perpetuity forever and ever et cetera et cetera. A lot of bands take that deal; bigger names than I would have thought, especially in the metal/indie world. It's not really selling out, but it's definitely a validation of the system.
A wild-ass guess gets marked informative?
Until very recently, a music video was a promotional item, part of the hype machine to sell singles, albums, and concert tickets. It was basically a commercial for the song, and there were no licensing costs. Anyone who wanted to play the video (thus providing free publicity) were welcome to do so.
Now the labels see the possibility of licensing the content online, and are starting to view vids as a potential revenue stream, one that will not require them to pay any royalties to artists or directors. The costs of making a video are extracted from the artist's earnings as a promotional expense, and most artists have nothing in their contract to allow them to video profits. The same goes for film directors, who sign away all creative ownership in order to make music videos, which are basically the only way to make a creative short film with any sort of budget these days.
I don't think they'll be licensing this :)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
So, what's their excuse for doing it live, onstage in front of a paying audience?
I'd rather hear a band actually playing their own instruments, and singing...even if it is off a bit. Hell, back in the day, Jimmy Page hit quite a few 'flub' notes on stage, but, the improvs. and the fact he was trying to squeeze 10K notes into a measure kinda made up for it.
Not to mention he had to do that all on drugs and booze....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Oh, they mean _legally_.
OK. That's nice.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
No, it will happen because they will pay the RIAA and to get the revenue for this payment, they will have a popup come up ever 3.27 seconds.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
One that makes me really sad, is due to the same reasons, WKRP in Cincinnati can't be released in its original format either...just because of the real songs they used back then.
Sad thing is...since that show was shot on video, and for other reasons I hear...some episodes in original format may indeed be lost already.
"As God as my witness...I thought turkeys could fly..."
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Sounds good to me if they can get away with not paying for them, or if they can foot an up front bill...it might pay off bigtime
In that they allow it to stay. I can only guess thier censoring system is not great or they are ignoring it.
To expand on this, while looking for a particular video I came across one where a Korean girl is asking people how many Quail Eggs could she fit into the birds nest as it where. o_O She was speaking Korean so its unlikely an english speaker would know what is being said (they could probably guess though).
Checking some other keywords in Korean/Chinese/Japanese I found numerous questionable videos that back linked to escort sites. The only thing that I can see would stop these from being deleted is they aren't in English.
The audio quality on YouTube is horrible due to lossy compression...
There are some videos I'd pay for. I wouldn't object to a download system like iTunes for music videos in a good format. I occasionally use Yahoo! music, but I can't stand the commericals interrupting my musical pleasure.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Well a live audience is ephemeral while a recording is enduring. Who wants their mistakes to to last forever and be continously repeated forever? I think that paying versus non-paying is irrellevant in terms of performance quality, I'm sure people like Jimmy Page would play for free if the world would work that way. Also when you are recording you can redo a song many times until you get it just the way you want. Some bands have been touring for so long that they just bang out an album in a single day on their first try. Some are less practiced or are more perfectionist. I'd like to think if someone was recording a song and they hit a flat instead of a sharp they'd try again.
As a listener of a live performance you don't really have any proof of the flubs. You can claim it was a mistake, but you can't show anyone else the mistake. a CD you can just pop it in and skip to the point and prove to people that some artist is imperfect.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Ironically, the site is currently down -- again.
MTV used to mean Music Television.
These days it means Moron Television.
But even the record labels know that music videos are like advertisements for songs. They make far more money selling records than videos. Free videos give their music more exposure, which means more sales.
These are the same people that objected to (can't remember the site's name).com putting a server on the web where you could download companies' COMMERCIALS. This was not 'something that's practically a commercial' these were genuine PRODUCT ADVERTISEMENTS that were being hosted on someone's server, at their expense, using their bandwidth, just so people could go and download the funniest, interesting, and creative content therein. They still contained the full advertisement, product and all, yet the the 'powers that be' tried to tell the hosts that they needed to pay some sort of licensing or royalty fee to give away these commercials or run the risk of lawsuit.
I believe that since then, a number of people in advertising have seen the absurdity of this position and one can once again pretty much find them on the web. But back around 1999-2000, it wasn't so clear, and I remember my disappointment at that site going down.
Do not expect the MPAA/RIAA to behave self-consistently or rationally at any time.
-Styopa
I thought it was "Empty Vision".
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
There is a lot of bartering more than outright payola. Influence for influence.
But do the laws against payola even apply to cable television?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
probably one of the very best videos ever made, in fact i think it received the nomination for #6 of all time. the video can be found here . Not only was it a breakout video but unknowingly outside the US A-ha in still increasingly popular in the UK and most of europe. you can read more about a-ha here and the technique they used(a HREF=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscope> Rotoscoping ) to make the video. wonder how long it would take to generate this on the computer?
It's amazing that back in the MTV days artists were ACTUALLY artists and the talent shows through and through. ever notice how many 80s stations there are on the radio today? IMHO the 80's was the last attempt at real music with real artists..ya know people that write and produce their own stuff? Sadly its all about the money now, just like everything else. Show some skin, sing someone elses lyrics and you are good to go..thats what we have today.
Maybe thats one reason you dont see music videos anymore and one reason music sales started slumpping way before Napster came along..b/c the music for the most part it utter crap. Napster just made folks at the RIAA realize just how bad the music industry had become and continues to be.
From TFTOS:
They require an non-exclusive license, but they need that, because of the way the whole service works. And yes, it's bold in the original, probably because of people like the parent poster.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
I saw Pink Floyd in Edmonton once. They were in the middle of an extended solo and the band got LOST! It was hilarious. Being a drummer, I've been there. You could tell that nobody knew where to come back in and were kinda playing chicken... should I go now... how bout now... Took em a few bars and it was a messy turnaround, but I don't think anybody else in the audience even heard it. I know my two buddies had no idea. Sure boosted my self-confidence.. shit if Pink Floyd can screw up on stage after playing for over 20 years, I don't feel so bad when I do :-)
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
I don't know if the RIAA will try to touch it, since these videos are out in public domain, and in most fashions not available for sale in any form. But you never know with the RIAA. I'm not sure how youtube makes money or stays open, but the RIAA may try to get a piece of that.
No one wants to see my dog dancing and singing to Madonna videos. At least I don't think so.
Some settling may occur during posting.
You assume that the RIAA believes in that. The RIAA probably believes that if you hum a song on the street you should pay for it. If you sing a line of a song on a commentary for a tv show you have to fully license the song, and if that commentary goes to another format, pay them again, if you have a tv show, you will need to relicense the music for DVD if you hadn't thought about those rights, and again for Blu-ray.
Basically just remember this. RIAA doesn't need to sell songs as long as it wins court battles. The RIAA would much rather litigate than gain "more exposure" for an artist that is not named the RIAA.
This may totally wrong, but I vaguely remember a rock band, when describing where the advance on their albumn went, claiming that they paid for their video out of the advance money; and that this was standard industry practice. In other words, the artist pays for the video out of the money that the label advances them for their albumn.
Can anyone confirm or deny?
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Perhaps this will change but I remember Al Dimeola giving up on music videos because he was asked to pay to have it played on MTV.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
It was on purpose. Being musically subtle, they were expanding upon the theme of DSotM by depicting the feeling of being lost - which can be easily associated with madness. :)
Already there, just like everything else somebody liked intensely enough...
IIRC, it requires OSS emulation in ALSA. Not every distro has that enabled by default, and Flash is one of the very, very few reasons to enable it.
Strange. I far prefer to listen to music that's been recorded professionally in a recording studio. Never can understand why people want to get recordings of concerts. Oh well, guess that's because I've never been a really zealous fan of any artist.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Your buddy sends a YouTube link to a funny music vid. You play the video a few times, and the song gets stuck in your head. There is now a much greater chance that you'll go out and buy the album that the song is on.
Either that or you:
1) Download the video permanently and never buy the album.
2) (if you're an 'average' user) Get confused as to why you're allowed to download the music video, for free, online, but not allowed to download the music sans video, for free, online.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
*Every* music video ever created or just the English language ones? Amongst fans of Chinese TV shows (mainland and HK) opening videos and themesongs are very popular and are commonly requested on internet forums. Chinese language shows, tend to pay a lot more attention to the opening videos and theme songs than English language shows. They really are music videos as they typically are montages of footage from the entire series (spoilers? Who cares?) set to music specially written for the show. I especially like the "epic" or "heroic" feel of the wuxia openings. The 80s TVB theme songs are especially famous. I can see a significant demand for say the opening videos for these TV series, esp. since the only ones you can get now are usually very poor quality small files. There's already a thriving (illicit) online distribution of them.
Sometimes the audience's reaction or singing along improves the song or contributes a certain aire that would be lost on a recording. Perhaps the canonical example is Arlo Guthrie's, "Alice's Restaurant." Can you imagine... I mean, can you imagine what it would sound like if it were recorded in a studio?
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Ultimately the band pays. If the label decides to promote the album, they usually provide a video budget that does not come out of the artists' advance. But occasionally, an artist will feel the need to produce a video the label doesn't want, or a more expensive video than the label will approve. That money has to come directly out of the artist's pocket, rather than out of their future earnings.
(I spent much of the last five years working on music videos.)Yeah, but if you download the video for free, the next obvious step is to rip the audio to MP3 for your music player. And it's legal, as opposed to otherwise downloading the song :-/
I remember that site. It was called adcritic.com. I was also annoyed when it shut down. The message here seems to indicate that they just ran out of money for bandwidth and weren't killed by the powers that be (not that this was necessarily implied). It's too bad the Wayback Machine doesn't save the videos too.
LK
Mystery solved.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I know that Tool is very protective of their content, and you can't find their music/videos on iTunes, Yahoo! Music, or anything else.
Looks like Fred Stuhr's two videos for Tool are still up: Sober, and Prison Sex.
God I miss him. Freaking genius.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Well, I was mainly referring to going to a live show, and seeing someone perform rather than lip sync, but, I can think of a few examples where the live is MUCH better than studio. One is from pretty much my favorite album...Get Yer Ya Ya's Out by the Stones.
The live version of Midnight Rambler from that album is vastly superior to the studio version.
I guess it depends...some groups, have that charisma and what-have-you to get an audience up and jamming and into the moment, and at times it carries to an album version of it. I guess not a lot of today's groups can get the 'house rocking'...perhaps that is the reason you don't understand.
I am a bit older, but, for the most part, I grew up listening to albums, and to me, they were what made me anxious to go SEE them live in concert...that was the real show. I rated bands on how good the show was...with exceptions of course...like Pink Floyd. But, then again..they were everything the studio album was...and more.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What about itunes? They've been wanting to sell music videos, no?
Record labels pay MTV to push their videos. They are paying for MTV making their song popular with the kids. Youtube probably wont have much going on other than featured videos.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Or Daria, for that matter. :P
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Not as much as you think. I work for MTVN. The video programmers use the application I develop. They choose the videos they want to air when they want to air for the most part. They may pay us so we have a copy of the video, but those people air what they want, when they want too. We do pay licensing fees for using the songs in our shows though. The companies know if their video is on MTV (when there is an actual video on) they will get tons of interest, there is no need for us to pay for them.
Somewhere along the line they started calling them Music Videos, and people forgot they were ever called Promotional Videos.
don't Launchcast do this anyway?
All you need to rip videos from YouTube is Firefox with Videodownloader 2.0 extension and VLC. Go the the page on YouTube with the desired video, click on the videodownloader button and click download. You can play the saved .FLV file in VLC, it can also convert it to eg. .MP4. If the destination is your iPod, convert in high quality, drag the .MP4 into iTunes, right-click on the .MP4 and choose convert to iPod. Voila, YouTube vids on your iPod.
The industry is starting to view music videos as a potential revenue stream? I'm pretty sure music videos distributed on VHS tapes and DVD discs have been a revenue stream for several decades.
http://www.999videos.com.nyud.net:8090/
http://www.thebestlegaladvice.com.nyud.net:8090/
Links to several hundred (thousand) music videos on Youtube!
Oh, and as for people saying "Videos are advertising! They should be free!"
What do you say about iTunes?
You used to be able to video music videos for free. I watched a few. They didn't really have that many, though. Then they started with selling TV shows, and they no longer offered free music videos. They sell those for 1.99 too. So they're making they're money off of the music videos now too!
Why is it still so damn hard to get every popular album that was ever released - either in the music store or on iTunes? There's quite a few albums I'd pay money to get, even in digital format. Apple doesn't seem to be able to get the songs (I'd probably blame the labels for it) and its impossible to find these albums in stores or on-line.
I'd like it if I could purchase the albums with the videos, both in high-quality, at the same time for slighltly more than a regular album with no copy protection. Or, am I dreaming? Videos definately give me a nostalgic feeling in watching them again.
I was totally bummed out when they got stuck in limbo with no label. Back in the day, I had all their albums on cassette.
They're an excellent, albeit obscure, example of how legal issues with virtually no merit can kill a band's career.
One of the things iTunes sells is music video ($1.99/video I believe), which was somewhat shocking as they used to show you music videos free of charge. Now they show you a 15 second clip and then to see the rest you have to buy it. And honestly, I purchased a couple songs after seeing their music video, but once they started charging money to watch the videos, I haven't been back there since.
It'll be nice to have music videos come back for free.
HD Trailers
...and charged $24 per disc, and I would have bought a lot of them from the dawn of the video age.
From The Buggles, to Thomas Dolby, to The Thompson Twins -- I would have snapped them up. Sorry about that MTV networks -- you were too slow to offer this, and now I can get them for free.
Chip H.
PS: You can keep the trashy "reality" shows. I've got -zero- interest in them.
I don't know if the RIAA will try to touch it, since these videos are out in public domain
Says who? Citation?
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Record companies pay MTV to play videos.
Well, they must not pay MTV very much, judging by the number of videos MTV plays.
Point. But for clarification, YouTube has universal re-distribution rights. This means that a revenue stream can be created from what is submitted via packaged product and higher-res re-distribution. It's like selling an article to a magazine. You retain the copyright, but a publisher can insert into the print release contract a stipulation that the publisher can re-print your submission at a set royalty in another forum. So while you keep your ownership rights, as in you can place your video anyplace you please including competing services or on your own server, YouTube reserves the right to sell your video in another form (as a compilation, for example) and not pay anything.
Already done.
I'm not not licking toads.
Hey!
Are you talking about the open air concert at Commonwealth stadium? Division Bell tour? I was THERE man.... Yeah...
I've no idea what you're talking about though. 'Course I was on a lot of drugs, I mean c'mon. Pink Floyd...Live!
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear.
studio records are compressed beyound all recognition. much more dynamics live.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
I'm not sure if the TOS grants them such broad rights, as it also contains this:
Now IANAL, but that seems to pose problems with physical distribution. As for them trying to find a revenue stream by selling hi-res access or similar--I see no problem with that, they foot the bandwith bill after all.What I'm wondering about is if Youtube is compatible with Creative Commons licenses because of the DRM provisions, the "non-commercial" one is right out of the window of course.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Last I remember...Videos were for promotional purposes, and Youtube looks like the perfect avenue to get them out there.
NOTE to anybody that pays for a music video -- I have some commercials for sale. They come in 30 second blocks, some of them mildy funny and can be had for $1.99 a piece ($3.50 for the Apple commercials). Act today and we will throw in a Steve Jobs bobble head doll with every purchase over 20 dollars.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
The Internet killed the Video Star..
No wait.. Reality TV did.
I am reminded of a dot-com era Sales/Marketing VP who told a conference of e-commerce wannabes, "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing wrong really fast."
After the song gets stuck in the head of someone who just watched the video on YouTube they will not then get up from their computer and go buy the CD... They will go to one of a brazilian other sites and download the song for free, it's the perpetual cycle of illegal downloaders. (Obviously nothing of which any one accessing slashdot would no anything about as we're all about legitacmy around here).. Since I got the Brazilian in there I can go off topic: Here's my stolen Joke:
Donald Rumsfeld briefed the President this morning. He told Bush that 3
Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq.
To everyone's amazement, all the color drained from Bush's face, he
collapsed onto his desk head in hands, visibly shaken, almost in tears.
Finally, he composed himself and asked Rumsfeld, "Just exactly how many
is a brazilian?"
...just don't tell the labels ;-)
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
The reason you get to listen for things on the radio for free is because the radio station got a license to play that music ( which they pay for with all those ads you hear ).
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
I can only think of one music video I'd like to see again, and that would be of "Bop 'Til You Drop" by Rick Springfield, from the album "Hard To Hold" (1984). Not for any love of the song but rather that I'm remembering the video correctly: the lyrics don't seem to call for a depiction of slave-drivers whipping chained aliens to do mining to be freed and rise up against their masters by a rock star.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Yep, That was the one! I figured that the only people that would have noticed would be musicians... that and there was a ton of dope on the floor!
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
lol.. move over John Henry, can t you see the steamroller?