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."
After all the effort and money spent on perverting copyright law worldwide, how DARE someone come along and defy them! Have they no respect for TRADITION!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
I hate the vast majority of pop, on principal, and even I know who the fuck she is. Good voice, actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_(singer)
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
Film at elevenish on Hulu.
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.-
Newspapers? I've tried accessing one of those. They've got this awful fixed-size layout; any decent web developer will find a way to make a mobile-friendly version these days. Other serious usability issues are the lack of effective hyperlinks ("see page 5" is about as useful as "it's somewhere on the sitemap"), no way to stream audio or video, no RSS feeds, no search function, and no way to instantly update with breaking news. That's not even getting into the startup costs for a newspaper versus installing drupal on a VPS.
I just don't see how these new newspaper things are going to get a foothold in the market, considering all their disadvantages compared to established technologies.
The book copying industry used to put a lot of people in jobs. The Printing press destroyed the book industry!
Its stealing the work of creative people-who-copy-books-for-a-living.
-
Technology moves forward. Deal with it.
"pop sensation Adele" -- who the fuck is 'Adele'?
Er, she's a singer that's famous in Britain where the Daily Mail is published. I guess you could describe her as a "pop sensation" or something. :-)
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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.
Curiosity got the better of me this week and I checked YouTube for "Friday" by Rebecca Black. I've apologized to my brain, and will never do that again. Please Google, please kill the current music cartels.
Google is, fundamentally, an advertising company.
They get their revenue from advertising. And from 'advanced demographic analysis services' that they sell to advertisers.
It's weird, because we used to despise that crap in the nerd/geek scene. Seems like a new crowd has arrived.
First rule of journalism: The Daily Mail is Utter Rubbish.
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!
One of the nice things about Firefox 4 is that the icon of Goatse man on the tab is large enough to identify, but small enough not to actually have any detail at all. Plus you can open and close the tab without actually viewing it.
For me to take you seriously, I would need.
1. a link to even one photo of yours used in google news
2. a reason why your didn't just file the DCMA and stop whining how the big bad google "stole" your precious photos.
DCMA is the legal process for take downs in the US, so what's the problem? Everyone files them if they find their unauthorized content online File it and your content disappears.
I can't speak on google's respect for copyright, but I do know that Robot.txt noindex nofollow work pretty well.
Otherwise I suspect you are associated with the daily mail or some other news corp enterprise
the current music and film system stifles good music and films. The sooner this system dies the better.
Curiosity got the better of me this week and I checked YouTube for "Friday" by Rebecca Black. I've apologized to my brain, and will never do that again. Please Google, please kill the current music cartels.
"Friday" came out of a small studio that mostly provides a vanity studio/lyrics/video package for teenagers.
They have nothing to do with the "current music cartels" and would still be around even if the RIAA members fell off the face of the earth.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
"pop sensation Adele" -- who the fuck is 'Adele'?
Given that she was "discovered" after posting songs on MySpace, I don't think she's a good choice as a strawman - neither for someone writing a Daily Mail article about Google killing the old school music industry, nor for a Slashdot poster trying to demonstrate how out-of-touch said Daily Mail writer is with the new music business model.
#DeleteChrome
Newspapers are still useful and computers will never replace them entirely.
With newspapers you can:
And most important of all, you can wrap a cold beer so the cops can't tell what you're drinking!
I rest my case.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
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.
Copyright holders (and more typically mere owners) are the parasites, expecting to paid indefinitely for the same work. Google does the minimum necessary to respect copyright, and expecting anything more is unreasonable. If you wanted money in exchange for your own photos, you should have sold them. Copyrights, like patents and other forms of intellectual monopoly, are detrimental to society, and we would all be better off if they ceased to exist.
If you are at least making an effort, I am sympathetic to the difficulty of adjusting to a new business model. Clearly, some organizations are not though, and I, along with many others, will cheer on their demise.
Unfortunately, I don't think this will work quite as well for movies.
Don't be so sure. We're already seeing the rise of series such as Felicia Day's The Guild and Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog , which has been free online in various official capacities. 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.) Also, Hulu is producing a show, The Confession , starring Kiefer Sutherland and John Hurt, both big names in the business.
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.
I wish there was a "-1 informative".
In My House Of Pancakes?
But seriously, the big media does, or at least should play an important filtering role—finding the diamonds among the coal. The problem is that about twenty years ago, they realized they could just sell the coal, and that by the time people realized it was coal, they could find a new way to polish the coal to fool people into buying more of it. It was at that point that the old guard stopped being useful.
And now they're complaining that their incompetence has resulted in their obsolescence. This is the world's smallest violin playing the world's shortest copyrighted tune at a low enough volume that they can't sue over it.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
"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 ??
You're questioning artificial scarcity? But scarcity, sir, is the foundation of our proud civilisation! We can only flourish as free and noble citizens if we have someone to turn to and say 'No, you can't have that!' Whatever products we create by the sweat of our brows are worth only as much as the tears of a dying orphan who can never afford to pay! And sweet indeed are those tears. They make a man's heart sigh for joy.
If the air were free, who would produce oxygen? Would it grow on trees? You laugh, sir, but that is what you propose!
If sunlight were free, what profit would there be in running the sun? Would it just shine there on its own? Pssht! Dangerous nonsense!
If space and time were free, could Einstein have ever founded the Relativity Institute? Without gold coin in exchange, why would Newton have created Gravity? Without Kepler Inc's Atlas Foundation charging a computational royalty on the idea of the ellipse, the earth would have fallen into the sun - as indeed it did during the Paris Commune!
This foolish course of action will improverish us all!
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
This isn't news, this is just "Old Man Yells At Cloud."
What happened is that the geeks took over marketing. Honestly.
In the past marketing was run by a lot of "creative" types who used their social intuition and some conventional wisdom about what worked to appeal to the consumer. The marketing department preferred hired people who majored in marketing (obviously) but also psychology, comparative literature, communications, sociology, etc. The thought was that these were the sort of people who understood what makes people tick, and so were better qualified to persuade (or manipulate, if one is feeling uncharitable) people.
In just the past 5 years thats changed completely, though, and Google played a big part in that change - though the Internet played a large part too. The hottest major in big marketing organizations is a hard science: Stats. The analytics revolution means that marketing is now about precisely targeting your demographic and producing quantifiable results on a lots of fine-grained metrics. (The only metric we had 20 years ago - did sales go up? - was helpful, but obviously the tools we have today are far more precise). As the ubergeek Google is obviously the top dog here, and smaller companies basically outsource all of their stats requirements to Google, but larger companies also like to have in-house talent with stats and algorithms to help them break down their analytics.
Right now marketing is a collaboration between "creative" types who come up with campaigns, and then geeks who run the numbers and tell us if those campaigns worked or not. Marketing needs to meet quarterly benchmarks on hard, quantifiable numbers of customer engagement such as click-throughs, impressions, leads generated, CPM, etc. If we have a question about whether strategy A or B will better resonate with the consumer, we don't try and come up with some BS psych theory. Instead, we tell IT to load up some A/B tests, and empirically we can PROVE which one is better. For now, the people in charge of marketing still tend to be creative types (or, higher up, your typical MBA types), but that's only because the creative types have been around longer. But everyone can see where the future is headed. Right now "creatives" generate content and then geeks crunch the numbers and tell us whether that content is any good or not. It's pretty clear where the division of authority will lie 20 years from now.
Whatever the sins of the music cartels, Rebecca Black is not among them. Her parents paid cash money to a record label who was offering a service to make a music video. This is a perfectly acceptable thing for a music label to do, it's diversifying their market, and vanity projects have always been profitable if the people with the vanity have enough cash.
The problem has occured because society has a dirty little secret. Yes we like to see the underdog triumph, but we also really really like to watch people who care a lot fail. This girl has a dream to become a singer and the drive to try and the cash to fund her start, she also has absolutely no ability or talent whatsoever. There's something delicious about watching someone who cares that much fail so utterly and so we watch, and so she gets a record deal and money.
Hopefully for her sake she understand that this is the case and has the mental strength to milk it for everything it's worth without ending up destroying herself, and hopefully for our sake that milking doesn't take very long./p.
that fucking song really is a mind-virus.
don't be fooled by the apparent ineptitude of the thing. it'll get in your head more than anything the RIAA can spew out.
i think it's an IQ draining virus. God knows how they found a common music-injection exploit in the general population.
I predict that many people will falsely claim persecution rather than recognize and address the fundamental flaws in their own arguments.
Do you obtain the permission of the people who you photograph? Do you pay them for using their image or likeness in a commercial product? Have you immediately destoryed every photograph that you've taken where the subject has objected?
You don't -- do you. You'd ague that you don't need to because publicity rights, etc. have broad exceptions for news gathering and reporting.
Ditto 35 USC 107.
Document an instance where your work was infringed and clearly not covered by a 107 exception. Discuss the ruling in the Perfect 10 case and how it does not apply to your photographs as they allegedly appear in Google News. The fact that Google doesn't respect your interpretation of your rights does not mean that Google doesn't respect copyright.
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.
Ah, so the people who create things are the leeches, and the people who pirate the works are the creators?
No, people that hold copyrights over their work are the leeches, feeding off their government-enforced monopoly at the expense of society, and people that actually *work* for a living instead of expecting to be paid for work their grandfathers did half a century ago are the creators of wealth. That ought to be obvious enough.
Really? You're going to all of that toxic, intellectually dishonest trouble just to justify your habit of ripping off entertainment?
Considering there's plenty of scientific studies showing that current copyright laws are, in fact, detrimental to society I believe it's you who's being intellectually dishonest just to justify his dream of someday "making it big" with an idea and never having to work on his life. And the saddest part is, I do think you're serious rather than a mere troll.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
In the future, all cultural production will be the work of googlezens who voluntarily enrich the collective (“the Goog”) with videos of their pets, cover versions of favorite songs and similar forms of personal expression. There will be no need for for-profit enterprises in the Goog, as all industries will be more efficiently managed by Google Industries. Google Food and Google Housing will provide for googlezens in exchange for their creative work and good behavior, and the Goog will be kept secure by the vigilance of the robot soldiers of Google Defense and the algorithms of Google Security. Outside the Goog perimeter various luddite terrorists may threaten the peace and stability of the collective, but in with solidarity and faith in the Founders the Goog will prevail!
Google has granted these piracy sites a licence to share... It undermines investment in the very controlling monopolistic industries that have become such an important part of our MAFIAA's prosperity, and enslave hundreds of thousands of people.
I predict that there will be a lot of fair comments in this thread modded down as flamebait, and I guess this will be one of them.
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.
Even if you disregard the (valid) parasite claims in the Daily Mail article, I would say that Google simply doesn't respect copyright. (Or, more accurately, doesn't respect other people's copyright. I'm quite sure they would jealously protect their own.)
I suspect the reason you haven't sent a DMCA takedown notice is that you know it's good for your business to leave those pictures on Google for promotional purposes. After all they just told you what you needed to do to get them taken down. You just want that benefit AND payment. I presume you were paid by the newspaper for taking the photos.
Now you want to be paid again because the newspaper and photos are searchable? I suspect you knew (or even hoped) they would be searchable. I suspect you use search engines every day. I suspect you realize that if they paid everyone just to link to a page or image, no company could provide web search.
Typical "pro" photographer arrogance. Most people only get paid once for their work. If they want to earn more they have to do more work. The standard model isn't to do work once, hold back the original work and keep reselling single copies of downsized versions for a fortune. Deal with it.
How's that for a fair comment?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Here's the thing though, the papers that have gone web only (Mobile friendly if you will) found that without out a print version their web traffic dropped 80% or so (sorry I don't have the article in front of me). Print does drive web readership.
brickspeed.net for your old Volvo performance addiction
This is all very interesting, but what effect will it have on the price of my house! I'm also sure that illegal immigrants are to blame - somehow.
It's meant to imply that there was a straight forward exchange involved in the process. Normally the record industry doesn't engage in that sort of exchange, so it was worth pointing out.
And most important of all, you can wrap a cold beer so the cops can't tell what you're drinking!
I did the opposite once; and not even intentionally: I had bought a bottle of iced tea and lost the cap down a sewer, so I decided to transfer it to a suitable, empty bottle I happened to have. When I had to stop a little later, just beside a police car, I gave the cops a friendly smile and took a sip of tea - and they pulled me over; I was almost ripped out of the front seat and made to blow an alcometer. I hadn't really thought about the fact that the bottle I was using was an old whisky bottle - Jolly Wanker, as I recall.
Have you ever wiped your ass with newsprint? I'd rather use sandpaper, and sticks. newsprint uses the cheapest ink on the planet and it barely sticks to the page. It will spread all over your ass.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.