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."

Comments

Free? RIAA will never allow it

[davidwr]

Not gonna happen.

But what will MTV do?

[192939495969798999]

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).

Re:But what will MTV do?

[bhsurfer]

That's exactly what I was thinking: is this "progress" that we're using the internet to get back to where cable television was 25 years ago?

Oh well, at least we'll get to see some of that cool old David Bowie video again... :)

Re:But what will MTV do?

[mikael]

MTV used to be awesome 20 years ago - Dire Straits/Money for Nothing, USURA/Open Your Mind, Def Leppard, Eurythmics, Tina Turner. Same with Top of The Pops.

Although there are now something like 15 video music channels here in the UK. And just about each will have a retro/classic/80's/90's dance/heavy metal/punk/club/garage/underground evening/weekend.

Now, MTV always just seemed to be guys clowning around, let alone actually being any music.

Re:But what will MTV do?

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Empty-V was never good. NEVER. It was the very worst thing to happen to rock and roll; that is, except the record companies themselves. "Video killed the radio star" indeed. And the record companies and Clear Channel killed rock and roll.

Empty-V was in the early '80s what Clear Channel was in the late '90s. Until empty-v came along, every station played something a little different. The record companies followed what the listeners wanted, rather than the other way around. Someone driving through St. Louis would hear something on a St. Louis station, and when they got to Indianapolis would tell his friends, who would request it from the Indianaplis station. And disk jockeys and program managers, usually on the move from station to station, would bring new music with them.

Then empty-V came along, and all the rock stations played the same thing. Before empty-v, nobody would confuse rap (which was around since the seventies, albeit not getting much request or airplay) and rock. By the mid nineties, rap was all you heard on empty-v and teh "rock" stations followed suit.

Then Clear Channel further McDonaldized it. Now if you turn on a "country" station, what you hear is more like rock from the Stone Age ('70s) than country. As Mojo Nixon put it in Lets Go Burn Old Nashville Down, "Country ain't got flutes!" The new "country" music has violins. What kind of crap is that? There is an old musician's joke "what's the difference between a violin and a fiddle? People like fiddles!" Meanwhile, the "rock" stations are playing whiney minor key wimpery like "Staynd."

If you go into any live music bar, the cover bands, in their twenties, are playing Lynard Skynard, Zepplin, and Nugent for their twentysomething audience. The only 21st century truly rock band you'll hear on the radio is Buck Cherry ("Crazy Bitch").

Bah. Empty-v always sucked, and it (and Clear Channel) killed rock and roll. I'll never forgive either of them.

Re:Free? RIAA will never allow it

[Enoxice]

No publicity is bad publicity. If RIAA shoots them down, they'll still have gotten all of the publicity from their bold claims.

Bad bargaining position

[91degrees]

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.

Re:Free? RIAA will never allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I can't find my old posts

[CrazyJim1]

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.

I predict $20 a month charge

[MadRat]

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...

Priorities

[computertheque]

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?

Re:Free? RIAA will never allow it

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Record companies pay MTV to play videos. Why would they charge youtube?

How's this for an idea?

[pandrijeczko]

Music labels stop making videos and focus on the *quality* content of the audio material.

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.

Re:Free?

[alcmaeon]

Wow, and with YouTube's crappy resolution thrown in as an added bonus. Excellent!!!!

Re:Free? RIAA will never allow it

[tobiasly]

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.

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.)

Re:Free? RIAA will never allow it

[Mercano]

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).

Re:Free? RIAA will never allow it

[nightsweat]

Are you sure of that? The way they've changed their programming seems to indicate they pay for the videos.