Well if google can work out some kind of deal with the movie/music industry (adbased revenue) this "lousy investment" might just be one hell of a cashcow for google AND the music/movie industry.
But wouldn't it then lose its "street cred" - and therefore become less popular, and lose the potential for generating income?
POersonally, I thin kif anyone can monetize YouTube quickley,
Goddamnit, I can overlook the atrocious spelling errors and typos, but using the word "monetize" in this way is just plain offensive. Why do people use words they don't understand the meaning of?
I hardly think that's a definitive reference. I'd take it with a grain of salt. Business language (i.e - that used by secretaries) does not have a reputation for being scholarly. Businesspeople mangle language all the time, and this sounds more like saomething that OKs the corruption of language so as not to offend the bosses.
As to your comments about audio quality, I think you are wrong. A 128kbps MP3 or AAC is a lot closer to the CD than a re-encoded DVD, and a DVD is miles away from a film print.
Just like people listen to their downloaded music on cheap earbuds in noisy environments, right? My point was exactly in this hypocrisy. If most people really cared about quality, they would watch their films on a cinema screen, and not a TV. They would listen to their music on a Hi-Fi in a soundproof room, not on a portable player. So compressed media does have a place, and the "I only listen to lossless" people are ignorant of reality.
As I understood from the article, Ballmer's two main concerns are that YouTube may not be worth $1.6B, and that Google's in for a copyright fight of epic proportions.
But why would Ballmer be concerned about that? If it's true, then that's good news for Microsoft. I think his concerns may be that it is actually a successful deal which may affect Microsoft's plans for video.
The "impact of the bug"? You mean, like people being able to record FM radio, and that pissing off the music industry? I guess that could be considered a bug if you were a record label executive.
I'd rather keep it. Being able to back it up means it will last longer. Assuming I didn't have the abiliuty to back up DVDs, albeit in an "illegal" way. Come to think of it, I don't back up DVDs, because the physical media gives a false sense of security. But I back up everything I download in duplicate.
One thing:
The point of the post is still valid, the point isn't about its back-up-ability, but about the re-sale-ability.
That may be one of the points, but why did he claim that you lose your media when the hard drive dies? That's why it's a false dichotomy - not everybody sells their old media, and not everybody neglects to make a backup of their downloaded media.
Yes. Have you ever heard of DRM? The backup simply won't work on your replacement hardware. That's the whole point of DRM.
That may be the way some people implement it, but it's not true for the most popular service - the iTunes store. You can easily back up, and transfer the files between computers. So no, the purpose of DRM is not to tie it to one specific computer - unless it is a terrible implementation. A sane implementation allows people to authorize and deauthorize computers, for things like hardware upgrades.
My point is not to defend DRM, but at least get your facts straight. It's pretty annoying hearing misinformation being used to attack DRM. I'd rather have no DRM, but nobody is going to take you seriously if you don't even know what's available.
My physical DVD will play in any DVD player from the same region.
But it won't play a DVD purchased in another region. Meanwhile, the iTunes DRM allows you to cross regions. I find the "region" thing much more annoying than having to authorize a machine, as I am a fan of international movies.
So that's where I left that rant about the inherent inferiority of asian people, and my treatise on how someday the aardvaarks will be the dominant form of life on earth (after they eat the asians).
Bullshit. Copyright law grants exclusive distribution rights to the creator in exchange for the work eventually becoming part of the public domain
How is this comment relevant to songs that are not yet in the public domain? You can't cry "bullshit" when the author you responded to was most likely talking about current tracks, not public domain ones.
The problem is that content creators are trying to change the rules of the game. They want the public to grant them copyright protection, but don't want to give the public anything in exchange.
That's a rather sweeping generalization. Many artists are happy to have their older work fall into the public domain. But in the same way, many consumers aren't holding up their end of the deal. They aren't honoring the exlusivity period and waiting for the songs to become public domain. They are using fresh, new releases that the artist still relies upon for income. It takes two to tango. Those videomakers can easily go and use out-of-copyright music, or royalty-free soundtracks provided for the purpose. But generally, they choose not to.
Sure, but you're changing the situation again. What was described was completely legal "Fair Use".
I don't think so. You usually have to gain permission, or pay royalties to use a song in a film or video production. Johnny may get a way with using a snippet of the song, but not the whole thing. That's why they have royalty-free soundtrack libraries.
All these other what-ifs are simply modifications that change the given fair scenario into an unfair one.
Not really. I'm just reflecting on the reality. Johnny has to host the video somewhere. Most likely this will be something like YouTube, which makes a profit via advertising associated with the video. So, somebody can certainly make money off it. What's Johnny supposed to do, make an exhaustive lawyerly list of what people are allowed to do with his video? And how does he get to do that in the first place, when he has already misused someone's copyrighted work against their agreement?
I don't know of any artist who doesn't want people to experience their work before they buy it
Are you kidding? Most artists would love that. They'd make sales, even if people did not like the work. Why do they have billboards and print ads advertising music? the print medium doesn't allow you to experience the song.
By the way - the artist gets paid royalties to have their song paid on the radio.
Johnny's little work of art with a copyrighted song in the background is not putting anyone out of work or devaluing the song. In this case it's probably increasing the value of the song if Johnny's art becomes popular, the song's artist by association becomes more popular
But what if the artist doesn't want to become popular? What if the artist does not want to be associated with Johnny's video? Not all artists have the same motivation. You seem to have a fairly idealistic picture of "all artists." Bottom line is - it's their work, do with as they please. Not Johnny's.
If they want their music to be used in amateur videos, then they can explicitly state that. See, for example, Trent Reznor's tracks that were released for end-user mixing.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm sure the terrorists wouldn't make any effort at all to avoid "suspicious" patterns. It's thinking like this that helps, not hinders them.
But wouldn't it then lose its "street cred" - and therefore become less popular, and lose the potential for generating income?
Goddamnit, I can overlook the atrocious spelling errors and typos, but using the word "monetize" in this way is just plain offensive. Why do people use words they don't understand the meaning of?
iTunes will re-encode lossless files to AAC on-the-fly.
Why can't it be both?
I hardly think that's a definitive reference. I'd take it with a grain of salt. Business language (i.e - that used by secretaries) does not have a reputation for being scholarly. Businesspeople mangle language all the time, and this sounds more like saomething that OKs the corruption of language so as not to offend the bosses.
You're a bit late. That already happened on August 29th, 1997.
Google reads everything. Mwaaahaaahaaah. I am Googlor, tremble before my might. Puny humans.
As to your comments about audio quality, I think you are wrong. A 128kbps MP3 or AAC is a lot closer to the CD than a re-encoded DVD, and a DVD is miles away from a film print.
Just like people listen to their downloaded music on cheap earbuds in noisy environments, right? My point was exactly in this hypocrisy. If most people really cared about quality, they would watch their films on a cinema screen, and not a TV. They would listen to their music on a Hi-Fi in a soundproof room, not on a portable player. So compressed media does have a place, and the "I only listen to lossless" people are ignorant of reality.
But why would Ballmer be concerned about that? If it's true, then that's good news for Microsoft. I think his concerns may be that it is actually a successful deal which may affect Microsoft's plans for video.
Will they be full of eels?
What the hell are you talking about?
You got the "Cooking with the Swedish Chef" box-set, too? I love that guy.
The "impact of the bug"? You mean, like people being able to record FM radio, and that pissing off the music industry? I guess that could be considered a bug if you were a record label executive.
1989 called. They want their bit about some year calling and asking for something back.
No, I mean recently as in 2004 or thereabouts. It may not have been Springsteen.
One thing:
The point of the post is still valid, the point isn't about its back-up-ability, but about the re-sale-ability.
That may be one of the points, but why did he claim that you lose your media when the hard drive dies? That's why it's a false dichotomy - not everybody sells their old media, and not everybody neglects to make a backup of their downloaded media.
Thanks for the sig compliment, BTW.
That may be the way some people implement it, but it's not true for the most popular service - the iTunes store. You can easily back up, and transfer the files between computers. So no, the purpose of DRM is not to tie it to one specific computer - unless it is a terrible implementation. A sane implementation allows people to authorize and deauthorize computers, for things like hardware upgrades.
My point is not to defend DRM, but at least get your facts straight. It's pretty annoying hearing misinformation being used to attack DRM. I'd rather have no DRM, but nobody is going to take you seriously if you don't even know what's available.
My physical DVD will play in any DVD player from the same region.
But it won't play a DVD purchased in another region. Meanwhile, the iTunes DRM allows you to cross regions. I find the "region" thing much more annoying than having to authorize a machine, as I am a fan of international movies.
Or was the Atari 2600 controlling him?
With tubes.
So that's where I left that rant about the inherent inferiority of asian people, and my treatise on how someday the aardvaarks will be the dominant form of life on earth (after they eat the asians).
How is this comment relevant to songs that are not yet in the public domain? You can't cry "bullshit" when the author you responded to was most likely talking about current tracks, not public domain ones.
The problem is that content creators are trying to change the rules of the game. They want the public to grant them copyright protection, but don't want to give the public anything in exchange.
That's a rather sweeping generalization. Many artists are happy to have their older work fall into the public domain. But in the same way, many consumers aren't holding up their end of the deal. They aren't honoring the exlusivity period and waiting for the songs to become public domain. They are using fresh, new releases that the artist still relies upon for income. It takes two to tango. Those videomakers can easily go and use out-of-copyright music, or royalty-free soundtracks provided for the purpose. But generally, they choose not to.
Didn't something very similar to that happen recently with the Republicans using Bruce Springsteen's (or someone's) songs without his permission?
I don't think so. You usually have to gain permission, or pay royalties to use a song in a film or video production. Johnny may get a way with using a snippet of the song, but not the whole thing. That's why they have royalty-free soundtrack libraries.
All these other what-ifs are simply modifications that change the given fair scenario into an unfair one.
Not really. I'm just reflecting on the reality. Johnny has to host the video somewhere. Most likely this will be something like YouTube, which makes a profit via advertising associated with the video. So, somebody can certainly make money off it. What's Johnny supposed to do, make an exhaustive lawyerly list of what people are allowed to do with his video? And how does he get to do that in the first place, when he has already misused someone's copyrighted work against their agreement?
I don't know of any artist who doesn't want people to experience their work before they buy it
Are you kidding? Most artists would love that. They'd make sales, even if people did not like the work. Why do they have billboards and print ads advertising music? the print medium doesn't allow you to experience the song.
By the way - the artist gets paid royalties to have their song paid on the radio.
Johnny's little work of art with a copyrighted song in the background is not putting anyone out of work or devaluing the song. In this case it's probably increasing the value of the song if Johnny's art becomes popular, the song's artist by association becomes more popular
But what if the artist doesn't want to become popular? What if the artist does not want to be associated with Johnny's video? Not all artists have the same motivation. You seem to have a fairly idealistic picture of "all artists." Bottom line is - it's their work, do with as they please. Not Johnny's.
If they want their music to be used in amateur videos, then they can explicitly state that. See, for example, Trent Reznor's tracks that were released for end-user mixing.