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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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".
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 ??
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.