Slashdot Mirror
Old Media Says Google Will Destroy Film & Music
SirWinston writes "A Daily Mail editor has written perhaps the most Luddite attack on Google ever, reading just like a 19th-century manifesto against looms and factories. 'Google has become a global predator ruthlessly gobbling up potential rivals such as YouTube and 'stealing' the creative work of writers, film makers and the music industry... Google has granted these piracy sites a licence to steal... It undermines investment in the very creative industries that have become such an important part of our national prosperity, and employ hundreds of thousands of people.' The article lionizes brick-and-mortar business and traditional media, and reads as a funny anachronism--except that these may be the attitudes of European regulators now shaking down Google and new media."
I have the suspicion that troll articles like these really exist only to promote the token artist mentioned within. So yes, now you're asking questions like that, and maybe you'll even go visit youtube to listen to her sing to find out what all the complaining is about - which is exactly what they want you to do.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
It's nice to have a scapegoat. Concise summary of stupid article: We used to make a lot of money. Now we're not and don't know how to deal with things. It's Google's fault.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
And the demographic which reads the Daily Mail is neither technically literate nor particularly well-informed or erudite.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Over the past few years Rupert Murdoch has been on an international roadshow telling everyone in politics that will listen that his major competitor for the advertising dollar - Google - will destroy jobs etc.
All we are seeing here is influence being used to turn people against a business competitor.
If you really want to see a "global predator" take a look at Newscorp. Most of the newspapers bleed money anyway but are kept because they are a good source of political influence and can be used as pawns in the paywall game of trying to make Google look like thieves.
That's funny.
I'm a content creator, and Google and YouTube have done wonderful things for me. I've gotten a few shows and jobs from YouTube videos that have gone semi-viral.
For the independent artist, the potential these services unlock is simply too important to lose.
-I only code in BASIC.-
The daily mail says all sorts of things. It's not news when they write it, and it's definitely not news that they wrote it.
With cold, heartless indifference, Google deprived the founders of a whole year's worth of labor; cynically stripped them of eleven and a half million dollars of hard-won venture capital and left them with nothing but 1.65 billion dollars of Google stock.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
My perspective is that Apple is trying to *replace* the music cartels. We need more competition. Google and Amazon are a start, but what I'd reallly like to see is a lot of independent artists who I can give money to directly if I enjoy their music enough. Unfortunately, I don't think this will work quite as well for movies.
My personal experience of Google: I do photographs for newspapers. Google have used several of my photographs as part of Google News without permission or payment. I sent them an invoice, and a long time later they contacted me to say that they weren't going to pay AND would only take down the photos if I filed a DMCA complaint.
Does Google have any legal obligations outside of the DMCA?
In the past, you would have had a case, but now if you don't start with a DMCA notice, you won't get very far with a Judge.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
the current music and film system stifles good music and films. The sooner this system dies the better.
This has never been about piracy. The dream of a big label contract for artists is becoming less and less valuable because its the label's job to promote and make the artist popular. The internet has made is so any Tom, Dick or Harry can post their music on YouTube and get a million hits. We are starting to see more of these "Laddy Gagga vs Snoop Dog" video clips, by combining the talent they are trying to entice both fan bases to buy the same album - just a tactic of desperation IMHOP.
Internet is making it so if live in Afghanistan and provided I have an internet link I can watch the latest episode of "Two and Half Men" and even if I'm not in the "legitimate" broadcast zone there's always tvduck.com. This again isn't about piracy directly its about control of the media, its about who sees what and when and how to cash in on that control.
All the internet is doing is making these lazy ass fat cats in Hollywood have to go out an earn their cash, instead of applying the same crappy formula to everything they touch and just expecting it to work.
I for one am not feeling one bit sorry for them.
"Given that she was "discovered" after posting songs on MySpace"
Genuinely, or "I've got relatives in the business" discovered like Lily Allen?
Or "let's pretend this is a grass roots movement but really it's just marketing" discovered?
Google news puts up tiny thumbnails of photos, and provides links to the newspaper that (presumably) paid you. What, precisely, is your issue? Google news has driven *more* traffic to the newspaper. It isn't like your photo has any value in a 1.5x1.5cm format, which is all the google news thumbnail shows, other the possibility that someone will click on it and go to the newspaper site in order to see the larger photo.
Why is this a bad thing?
If you don't want to deal with Google, there's a simple solution for you - and Rupert Murdoch. Make them go away!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard
Of course - there are ramifications with doing this, but thats what you're chasing, isn't it ??
Their regulators can do a lot of damage.
In Germany, if an artwork is sold through auction and the artist is still living, they get a cut of the sale regardless of past ownership or transactions of the piece. It's a distasteful fetishism to me, to elevate this type of worker above others as if their efforts are supreme compared to us simpletons.
Basically, an elitist's georgism.
Also, Google has started producing full-length movies, such as Girl Walks Into a Bar . (The latter of which even features some semi-big names, like Carla Gugino, Josh Hartnett, Danny DeVito, and a bunch of other names you'd probably recognize.)
"The uploader has chosen not to make this video available in your country"
I honestly think--and hope!--that the times of big television networks being the gateway to what we can and can't see are soon to be over.
Only to be replaced by another 'gateway' that disallows me to participate in world culture based on who I am, where I'm from or their valuation of my demographic. Nothing's going to get better without major copyright reforms, Google, Fox, Apple, NBC, who gives a shit...