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?
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.
They already have all the good ones ever created. All 5 of them.
"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?
Upon closer inspection, half of them are composed of the same three anime clips edited and re-edited together.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
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.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
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
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santanaya
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?
YouTube killed the video star.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
You probably wont be saying that when someone decides to ressurect the "Crazy frog" becuase they dont remember it being as bad as it actually was.
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.
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/
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.
Morning Musume for me please ...
Seriously, I'm an archiver of media - I am not part of the disposable generation. Music videos helped define my generation (back when videos were quality productions - like Thriller) and I'd like to have them on a disc somewhere that I can watch when and how I like. Sure, you can download YouTube videos - but they are horrible quality to start with.
What I want are music videos in an HQ format (I'll take Xvid) - and I'm willing to pay for them a la cart. If you're going to DRM them, don't bother.
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*
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.
Those who believe humanity can learn from its history forget that human DNA is a lot older.
So actually, we are doomed to repeat our history - until nature selects out our tendency to repeat it.
The worrying possibility is that 'repeating ones history' may be a good species survival trait...
Meanwhile, MTV still refuses to play videos.
Wow, and with YouTube's crappy resolution thrown in as an added bonus. Excellent!!!!
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.)
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
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
Poundcake, Van Halen
Tease Me, Please Me - Scorpions
Crazy Cool - Paula Abdul
Remind me what you need to wait for?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)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.
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.