Warner Music Pulls Videos Off YouTube 237
iammani writes with this excerpt from Reuters:
"Warner Music Group ordered YouTube on Saturday to remove all music videos by its artists from the popular online video-sharing site after contract negotiations broke down. ... The talks fell apart early on Saturday because Warner wants a bigger share of the huge revenue potential of YouTube's massive visitor traffic. There were no reports on what Warner was seeking. 'We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,' Warner said in a statement."
Warner's deal with YouTube to make those videos available came just prior to YouTube's acquisition by Google.
What? Did you get that gem? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists"
So Warner thinks all the contracts they have with the signed artists are unfair and should be void?
It's so unfair.... (Score:2)
It's about time these leeches were kicked into touch.
Re: (Score:2)
Gimme gimme gimme! [youtube.com]
I need some more!
Gimme gimme gimme!
Don't ask what for!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So Warner thinks all the contracts they have with the signed artists are unfair and should be void?
Of course not. "We simply cannot accept..." in no way whatsoever implies "we will never provide..." The two are not even remotely related.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Shocking? No, I just found the wording amusing. Do as I say, don't do as I do, it's almost like a religion.
Re: (Score:2)
lol, thanks for bringing that site to my attention. the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is a pretty good biblical reference, but the Brick Testament brings so much more to the scriptures than just skeptical analysis.
it truly breathes life into the stories of the bible [thebricktestament.com] (go to the next page).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The only one that needs removing is Rick Astley's "Never gonna give you up".
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a link to the video [youtube.com].
Hahaha! Oh, wait...
the real money (Score:4, Insightful)
The experience of the music fan at a live performance is not "easily copied", and live performances are where they make the real money. Digital copies should be treated for what they are, enjoyable advertising, and priced accordingly, from free to maybe a dime a song, tops. Charging a dollar for three megs of digital bits is serious price gouging, the fans know it, anyone who can use a computer knows it, that's why the public is not adopting their prices at the levels they expect. The music majors want to insure the same unit pricing they had back when it really cost a lot of money to deliver a copy, that doesn't exist now with downloads, it cost maybe a penny or something to actually do that. They can make and deliver the same "unit" now for a teeny fraction of what is used to cost 10-20 years ago, but they want the same gross purchase price? Hell no! They need to backoff the drugs a little once in awhile and sober up and enter the 21st century.
As to movies, again, it's not the same going to a theater with a 20 foot screen and a hundred grand sound system as it is sitting around your TV, even if it is a good one. If they offered a cheap DVD on exit from the theater, say for around 3 bucks or so, they'd get immediate feedback on the movie, plus instant impulse buy revenue. 15-20 bucks for a plastic disk though..price gouging, they can stamp them things out and put them in a paper sleeve for like a buck easy at big scales, which means they could sell them for three and make profit.
Basically, since the late 90s or so I just stopped buying full price entertainment media, it's a price ripoff. I'll buy it used for cheap, that's it, picked up a few used DVDs the other day for a few bucks apiece..because that is all they are worth. They annoyed someone who was a faithful purchaser since the late 1950s with their blatant ripoff price gouging. In the same period that computers went from 3,000 bucks to 300 bucks, and got loads better in quality and performance, the music and movie guys have the SAME PRICES for stuff that is not much better at all, it's the same notes, the same scenes. Screw that, screw them. Price gouging loons.
CDs with music I'll pay a buck, tops. I'm not going to keep purchasing the same damn song or album just because a new format comes out, already did that, not going to keep doing that though. I went vinyl to 8 track to cassette then CD, then..no way, I don't care about blue hi-def lazer ray disks, they can stuff it, I don't need to see the nose hairs and zits in detail of some scrawny metrosexual "artist". I think they should get paid for their work and creations, I certainly do not "pirate", but trying to make a killing off of people when we all know what digital copies REALLY cost is just stupid, they are out to lunch on their business model and prices.
Technology moves forward, some things got a lot cheaper to make, so they should drop prices accordingly and make profit on larger volume sales, and with music, the traditional way, touring or local live "work".
Musical styles not for live performance? (Score:3, Insightful)
The experience of the music fan at a live performance is not "easily copied", and live performances are where they make the real money. Digital copies should be treated for what they are, enjoyable advertising, and priced accordingly
Have you thought about the ramifications of this for musical styles not amenable to live performance, such as a lot of the Beatles' post-Revolver work?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Other bands that produce heavily edited music, like Gnarls Barkley, the Roots, Beck, and Nine Inch Nails, have had success as live performers. I read how GirlTa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What usual argument? I can't remember that being the argument widely used when criticizing the practices of the music industry.
Artists deserve the money for their work. I doubt there are many people who question that, even less so on grounds that it's easy to copy it. What most people don't accept is the greed of studios who try to rip off not only the customers but also the artists.
Re:What? Did you get that gem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Where's the usual /. argument that artists don't deserve compensation because they're producing something that's easily copied?
I've never seen it stated on slashdot (or anywhere, really), that artists don't deserve compensation.
Displeasure with a specific economic model does not mean displeasure with economics itself. I buy all my music off of iTunes. I don't *want* more physical crap, I don't *want* the disc, I want the music.
For those artists and labels that don't want to sell via iTunes (or Amazon, in a pinch), there are other ways to acquire their music without buying a disc. I *want* to buy their music. I *do* believe they deserve to be paid. If they don't want to show up to the party, it's their own damned fault.
As for the labels themselves. They are outmoded business models, and must either evolve or die. Artists really don't need them like they used to. Their remaining relevance going forward is their catalog of copyrighted material which, unfortunately, looks like it will never go out of copyright.
fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know how much they care about fairly compensating the people who actually made the music.
What's worse is that videos were never intended to generate revenue on their own, they are advertising for the artist. No record label ever had a problem with MTV making money from commercials in between videos. No doubt there are absolutely no provisions in the artists' contracts for revenues generated by videos either, and no doubt we'll start to see YouTube clips of signed artists protesting this, which the RIAA can't yank.
Massive fail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I keep seeing people point this out, but I believe they are missing the point to a large degree. Youtube for a large segment of listeners isn't advertising for buying a song, its a replacement for it. Why would I spend money and go through the hassle of actually buying a CD when I can have any song/video I want from almost any popular band playing within a matter of seconds on youtube? Its easier and cheaper. (and perfectly legal) Personally, I haven't actually bought music in years for this exact reas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when Youtube makes it easy to make and maintain a playlist of songs, artists, albums, etc, that I like to listen to, and will automatically shuffle them in playback and do, in general, everything Winamp does.
Way to contribute to the problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would I spend money and go through the hassle of actually buying a CD when I can have any song/video I want from almost any popular band playing within a matter of seconds on youtube? Its easier and cheaper. (and perfectly legal) Personally, I haven't actually bought music in years for this exact reason and I know that there are a lot of other people out there like me.
Buying a CD literally takes LESS than a minute on Amazon and you get free shipping.
So do you rip the music off Youtube? Or do you just interrupt what you are doing every 4 minutes to restart the song or change tracks? Either way, it sounds less than optimal. How do you get any work done while listening to music?
I use Youtube to listen to a song I am interested in a few times and maybe scope out the rest of the tracks on the album. If I like it I buy it DRM free as an MP3 or CD. Then (1) I enjoy listeni
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hey, i'm hoping this will get RIAA music off of YouTube completely and leave more room for indie artists/labels.
if they don't want the free promo, then we'll sure as hell take it.
Re: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite (Score:5, Informative)
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html [salon.com]
Re:Rock stars obviously aren't accountants. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since when on Slashdot is $45k a pretty damn good wage? That's poverty wages in a lot of cities. They could make more money as janitors. Then again, you're just a damn troll.
Re: fairly compensate recording artists, songwrite (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fairer than the radio stations and MTV who charge artists/labels for the promotion they provide.
and (if you bother to RTFA), Google was offering to compensate the artist (even though if they had to do this with every single video YouTube would go out of business) but Warner Music wanted a bigger cut.
if Warner Music were smart, they'd leave their videos up and enjoy the free promotion they're getting out of it rather than having to spend millions of dollars on marketing, advertising, payola, etc. that's what
Re: (Score:2)
I did RTFA. I'm sure you did too, but your comprehension appears lacking. No figures are provided, therefore you're simply making assumptions to suit your point of view.
I don't find arguments based the simplistic assertion of pre-internet technology and business models from the 80s particularly convincing. I believe technology is capable of changing the way the world works. I reckon the idea of an artist getting YouTube revenue is a great one, far more important than what I might think of the existence and
Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've bought literally dozens of albums after my friends and/or girlfriend have shared youtube video links. Does Youtube get a cut of those sales?
TimeWarner is shooting themselves in the foot here. Youtube gives them free exposure. The labels don't mind paying MTV to play their videos, but they want Youtube to pay them?
Once again, the record industry just doesn't get it.
Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (Score:5, Funny)
The labels don't mind paying MTV to play their videos
It looks like the labels are doubly incompetent: MTV takes their money, but then it doesn't bother to play any music videos at all.
Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Now if only they could have banished Carson Daily to Mtv1592, we'd be set.
Re:Does Youtube get a cut of the sales? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent got modded funny, but many of us remember the 80s when MTV started, and they truly ran the same model as the radio - 10-12 random songs per hour, interspersed with "VJ" dialog and commercials.
Slowly, slowly, they began to add "shows", usually 30 minutes in length. Some were heavily music-oriented such as the 'unplugged' series, while others were lighter such as "Remote Control". However, they all gave the ADVERTISERS what they were seeking: an easily labeled audience.
You see: since MTV was the first and largest of its kind, its audience was also pretty vague. "College student" was about all you could say and be close. But advertisers like narrower demographics: rich/poor, black/white, male/female. In its early days, when ad dollars were cheaper, they were willing to take a chance. As MTV got bigger and more expensive, they couldn't take such chances.
MTV splintered. "Yo, MTV Raps!" and other shows were aimed at smaller and clearer groups. Advertisers were largely happy, and viewers who didn't know better were also happy. We lost that random hour of music, though. I miss that opportunity that came when I could flip on a channel and discover a new rap song I would never have seen, or country, or any one of dozens of genres that I would have never 'picked' but was suddenly exposed to.
So: I put it to the /. masses. What is the current, best channel of media for opening one's horizons? Is it Pandora? Is it still Youtube? Or is there some other place that one can be 'fed' a steady flow of music from a wide net of types? Is there a venue where the music is more international? Where can I find Bollywood followed by rap?
Wait... MTV plays music videos? (Score:2, Funny)
I know they used to play music videos, but I also know that my 486 66Mhz computer used to play cutting edge video games. At around the same period in history if I'm not mistaken.
I would venture to guess that YouTube is by far the most prominent way of distributing the multi-million dollar music videos that record companies make to promote the sale of albums. I'd also venture to guess that Warner never bothered to find out one way or the other. More likely, they just got the idea in their heads that "TV = Sp
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just all agree now not to give them a government bailout when thinking like this drives them to the brink of bankruptcy, OK?
They are too big to be allowed to fail. They employ too many people, and drive the economy. They provide a vital cultural contribution.
They are getting a bailout. Them, the software industry, insurance companies... Anyone big and clueless can count on government money now. Still think those libertarians are a bunch of nuts?
Re: (Score:2)
Still think those libertarians are a bunch of nuts?
A little bit, yes. :( People suck.
Completely unregulated markets *would* be all bailout, all the time... for the rich and powerful. A likely outcome of Libertarian market policies would be a world of overpriced goods where the state of the art hasn't advanced in decades.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/trends?q=youtube,+radio,+mtv&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 [google.com]
Its quite obvious they are failing to see where the interest is. Their options are to provide free access to music video's and put them in front of literally millions of people, or they can stick to radio and mtv...
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree - I've gotten exposure to artists I may never have known about if it weren't for hearing them in a YouTube video. I've purchased the music I've liked. That's what they want, isn't it? Warner Music ought to be paying YouTube, not the other way around. It's free advertising.
I record all my music off Youtube (Score:5, Funny)
I just hold a microphone up to the speakers and record the song using Windows Sound Recorder.
It's very easy to do and the sound quality is perfectly acceptable because I only listen on the bus.
Re: (Score:2)
There's this new thing that you might wanna try out... it's called FM radio. You can get music and news for free, wirelessly!
Re: (Score:2)
FM is old "casette tape" technology. I'm using 21st century mp3s!
Re: (Score:2)
And you consider yourself representative even thought you've bought literally dozens of albums? Does it really make sense to use your comparatively unusual example as an argument?
It's strange to me that we're talking about a YouTube as if it were just a TV channel. Surely we can handle the concept of new business models as well as new technologies here. I sometimes "tune in" to YouTube to listen to my choice of music, not what the major labels are pushing that week. Clearly this is a change; an artist can't
Re: (Score:2)
Why is your behaviour as a consumer relevant if most other consumers behaviour is different? (I should say *particularly* relevant, I don't mean to say people like us who buy a lot music shouldn't be taken in account)
Why should YouTube be considered exactly the same as a TV channel in face of overwhelming evidence that the internet is a different beast altogether?
How on earth is the interests of the people in their late 30's a good indication of the college age group?
How does it follow that because YouTube
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see here, you click on a link and are shown a page full of ads with a video on it. You ignore the ads, but the people that think you might click on an ad pay to have it there. YouTube rakes in the money each time you click one of those links.
Free exposure? I don't think so. Those ads are paid for and are bid up to the maximum the market will bear. So where is the money in this game? It all belongs to Google and they don't feel like sharing.
Tempest in a teapot (Score:2)
This is going to so ruin my next nansecound.
Re:Tempest in a teapot (Score:4, Funny)
Fair for artists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I thought the business was heading towards these 360 deals where everything counts.
So what kind of terms and conditions have been agreed to recently?
Thank goodness... (Score:2, Informative)
Rick Astley is under Sony/BMG. Let the Rick-rolling continue!
Re:Thank goodness... (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of a take-down notice, is there any chance that Google will Rick-roll all the Warner links? Please make this happen.
Remember the good ol' days? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, God, let no one say 'art'.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. They still don't get it.
In the Geocities Days (Score:5, Interesting)
In the early dark days of the internet, big companies sued small fan sites because they infringed on logos and copyrights. How dare you run a Star Wars fan site, or an X-Files fan site with racy pictures of Scully?
Then SLOWLY over the years, companies seemed to realize that fans on the internet increased buzz, visibility and mindshare for their products. Now they cater directly to the fan base by pandering at Comic-Con and such.
Warner wants a bigger piece of revenue for the videos being shown, but they're not thinking long term. It isn't just direct revenue of showing the videos, but the hype that comes along with it. If someone forwards a video to another person (or rather a link to the video) they are advertising that artist to their friends.
Monty Python has it right. They are posting clips on YouTube for people to watch for free (fans would post them anyways, only to have them taken offline) but Monty Python now has direct control over the portal, and can include links to purchase Monty Python material on Amazon.
Warner needs to wake up and pay attention.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting execs of any sort to change their business model is one of the hardest things to do in any business. For the most part, you have to replace the execs to get the business to change. For example, Microsoft is finally beginning to change their business model, right after Gates left. Apple changed their business model when they brought Jobs back in. Warner Music (as well as the rest of the labels that the RIAA represents) has yet to change its business mod
Re: (Score:2)
Then SLOWLY over the years, companies seemed to realize that fans on the internet increased buzz, visibility and mindshare for their products. Now they cater directly to the fan base by pandering at Comic-Con and such.
Yep, you've got it exactly right.
I work for a video game company, and our fan community is something that's actively promoted. We provide kits with official artwork, music tracks & sound effects, links to popular community sites from ours, etc. We employ a full-time community manager to provide a communication link between our fans and our development team. This is all outside the scope of our more traditional marketing department or customer support systems. I don't feel this effort is wasted. It'
Re: (Score:2)
The "problem" is, the labels saw how much money companies like MTV made. They see places like Youtube as the next MTV and they absolutely wants a piece (or the whole pie) of it. Basically,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how your argument makes sense.
YouTube, part of a huge multinational corporation, is comparable to a fan club?
Wanting to supply content is the same as wanting to shut down sites to prevent content being supplied?
People watching videos for free is different from people watching videos for free?
I mean, where's the logic?
Re: (Score:2)
Pulling videos from YouTube isn't helping or protecting Warner, especially when I can find videos from other artists and other companies on YouTube.
Warner wants a cut of revenue, and Google is offering a cut. By fighting over percentages, Warner is losing out on free advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
If advertising has value, then there's nothing wrong in principle for one corporation to negotiate with another over the appropriate split. This is even more relevant given that online revenues from advertising are expected to be part of the entertainment business model in future.
What actual numbers do you have to know that it is Warner making the bigger mistake?
Re: (Score:2)
I said asking for a revenue split is fair. However, enough businesses are deciding they make enough from YouTube exposure to allow their content on YouTube for free, yet Warner wants to pull all their content unless they get a HIGHER cut?
Not having your content out there is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, according to the article other companies are *not* allowing their content for free.
You didn't say asking for a split is fair, you said Warner was losing out on free advertising by not simply accepting whatever Google chooses to give them, which is an interesting approach to negotiation. The notion of "free advertising" makes no sense under one particular assumption, namely that online distribution via YouTube is in fact one of the products they see a market for. Whether it will prove true I don't
Warner music pulls videos on youtube... (Score:4, Insightful)
...and nothing of value was lost.
ban the internet (Score:4, Funny)
also ban printers (Score:2)
Saving face at T-W (Score:3, Interesting)
Time-Warner is just trying to save face with Wall Street analysts. This is actually funny because on Friday Google started pulling T-W video's way before the T-W announcement. Google's news release is basically "sometimes you can't reach an agreement with a vendor and you simply stop doing business with them (Time-Warner)".
Next Year's T-W News Release: Music sales are down due to the recession, not the fact that we no longer are hosted on YouTube.
Greed & Stupidity & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Greed that Warners thinks they deserve more and more and more.
Stupidity that Warners thinks that YouTube and everyone else will have to cave into them and their terms (like any alleged filesharer sued by the RIAA) in the mistaken belief that: 1) Everyone needs their product; and 2) That they still have a monopoly on that product.
Lies that any of this additional money would actually go to the artists. (Think of the children<<<<<<<< artists!)
Another failure to capitalize (Score:4, Interesting)
And now Warner will receive exactly $0, while the users will simply p2p the videos that they -really- want to watch.
Warner took the potential offerings and threw them away, and now they will complain that their IP is being pirated.
So before the RIAA even asks: there should be no gov't bailout for mismanaged companies that piss on legitimate opportunities to -earn- revenue.
Hell, they don't even have to do anything other than put a stamp of approval on the deal. The music and videos are already made, the site and bandwidth is hosted by a third party. All they have to do is sit back and count money. This move is just plain irresponsible. They think they are holding out for more value -- from where? Who is going to pay more?
business model (Score:5, Insightful)
>> 'We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,' Warner said in a statement."
Hey warner, so your videos get pulled. Good for you, and all the best.
To borrow from the Soup Nazi, if I may: "NO EXPOSURE FOR YOU".
I was just watching a couple of concert videos the other day from an old prog band called Wishbone Ash (they sound like old 70's Rush). I'd never heard of these guys before, but I really liked the sound, and I went right over to Amazon and I bought 2 CD's.
If I hadn't seen the vids on You Tube, I don't think I'd have ever known about this band. So they now have a new fan, and on Christmas eve, I'm going to introduce them to some other guys who like the same type of music.
It's like the modern equivalent of trading records... But hey, if Warner wants to pull the vids, then let them. There's lots of other music out there...
Hmmm. I wonder who will take it in the shorts? (Score:2)
TWI's bad management and greed may actually kill them dead within 5 years
Google Music Label (gMusic)? (Score:2)
But I could see Google creating software and website that is designed to help them record and market their own stuff.
That would be preferable to a new label: Google Music (gMusic?). But how many artists are also tech-savvy to use those tools? Many may prefer to sign up and let Google do everything from production up to the marketing. But then, wouldn't a Google Label be evil too and contrary to company policy?
control (Score:2)
Seems to be wanting to control what gets promoted and what doesn't.
They're just hurting themselves. (Score:2)
I found out about quite a few artists that I would've NEVER otherwise known about because of Youtube.
I found Kanye West's "Stronger" there, and that introduced me to Daft Punk, of which I'm a huge fan now. I have since purchased 2 Daft Punk CDs and a DVD.
If Daft Punk's videos had been removed before I saw them, I would've never put any money in their pockets.
I also found a lot of old and obscure Rush videos I'd never seen or heard of before. Now all of those videos are gone. I may not have bought them, but
Re: (Score:2)
CDs sales are declining, yet your argument is that because you as an individual still buy CDs at a rate much greater than the average person, it is only YouTube that should financially benefit from Warner's content attracting visitors to the site. I don't follow the logic.
The idea that the punter has free access to the catalogue, for which the label is compensated for by the site - that is a new business model that makes sense to me if the business parties can work out a deal. Once the quality is high enoug
Warner Music Group pulls their product.. (Score:2)
And except for the press release, no one even noticed.
Is Rick Astin with Warner? (Score:2)
I hope not, or it would be end of Rick-Rolling ;-;
Slid in another bonehead move before year end! (Score:2)
Not to beat a dead horse, but way back at the start of the year, Warner Brothers chose Blu-ray over HD-DVD [nytimes.com]. I thought that totally blew chunks. Thankfully, I still have the Looney Tunes Golden Collections to temper my hatred for this company.
Incoming tide... (Score:4, Insightful)
Admittedly, there is an upside to this, if it removes the many thousands of "video" slideshows from Youtube. You know the ones: lots of pics of a celebrity, unrelated music track, and tagged spammed into oblivion. You click on it thinking it's what you are looking for and... no...
Video is video. Slideshows aren't. Someone should set up Powerpointtube. Ken Burns has a lot to answer for.
jump to conclusions mat in effect (Score:2)
I rather expected to see this host of posts on here.
Same as when NBC pulls their shows from YouTube. The internets immediately surmised that NBC didn't know what they were doing, didn't understand the importance of internet viewing and only YouTube can deliver video over the internets.
The pundits (including slashdot pundits) did a great job of making a straw man, but were very wrong on what NBC understood and where they were headed. Hulu has been a huge success and most importantly to NBC Universal, it deli
Re: (Score:2)
wtf is hulu? I just started using bittorrent with a rss feed, so much easier...
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy, but not easier.
For hulu you just go there, click about 3 times and you're watching in your browser.
With bittorrent, you have to install a couple programs, a couple codecs and then still once in a while it turns out the program you downloaded was a crappy encode and you have to go get another one.
I do agree the bittorrent route is pretty easy and it has the advantage that you have the file forever instead of having to stream it again, but it's not the easiest method, which is why hulu has taken
Re: (Score:2)
Thats funny, cause I just put utorrent in my startup, then whenever I want to watch a show I just double click the one I want. The whole initial setup took literally minutes thanks to utorrent, k-lite codec pack and tvrss.net
Sounds like your doing it the hard way.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you say you can watch them at any time after they come out?
Wow, you can do so on Hulu too. Because unlike Bittorrent, it downloads it in order and you can watch it within a few seconds of the stream starting.
And all this without installing codec packs or putting utorrent in your startup folder! And the encodes are always good because the network makes them themselves.
You have a method you like. Great. There's no need to spread bullshit about other methods like Hulu.
They're both good methods. Hulu is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look to this site/page:
http://www.vuze.com/ [vuze.com] , WB is participating too. Also there is Miro ( http://www.getmiro.com/ [getmiro.com] ) which will do lot better than Hulu.
If Hulu shows me "Sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed from within the United States", I can't really care about them. They didn't understand the Internet's 101. If their market is USA, there is something called Tivo and TV on/off button :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, there we go again. Just because hulu isn't available in your area, that means that the people putting their content on it (NBC Universal) don't "understand the internet".
The fact is that NBC is out to make money. They can put stuff on Hulu in the US and make money. But overseas, they already sold the rights to someone else (for money), and thus they don't have the option of offering the content on the internet in those countries.
So, if the content you want isn't available in your country on the internet
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and the internet was sooo wrong...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite. Hulu still has yet to grasp the concept to its full extent. Certain shows (notably House and Battlestar Galactica) are not posted on Hulu until AFTER the following episode airs. If I miss an episode and want to catch up, I'm still one behind. Of course, people complain about this, and they either delete the comments, or trot out the apologists to try and make the complainers feel guilty about wanting what was originally provided (new episodes for all shows used to be
YouTube thoughtfully provide... (Score:5, Funny)
Warner should pay up for bandwidth... (Score:2)
How exactly are music videos piracy anyway, they are a promotional tool for the labels - always have been. They are all over broadcast TV, music channels, it's the labels own fault for doing this as consumers have become used to not pay
Why Warner et al? (Score:2)
Good luck with that (Score:2)
Whether it's morally right or not is completely irrelevant because there's no way to stop it. People will continue to place content for which Warner holds the copyright on YouTube, and Warner will have to spend money to have people check for that content and have it removed. Even if they do have marginal success with removing the content from YouTube it will only pop up on other video websites.
Some of these websites will not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States and can politely tell Warner to pi
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with "business model", it has to do with the entire business.
If it is permitted for Google/YouTube to post content without compensating the content owner and make millions of dollars off of it through advertising revenue, what possible hope does the content owner have anyway?
Someone is going to make money off the content, but it sure isn't going to be the producers/owners of that content. It is going to be Google.
The only reasonable thing to do is to immediately stop providing free con
just use Tagoo.ru they added a search vid feature (Score:3, Insightful)
Aren't videos just promotional tools? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't music videos basically just promotional tools used to sell albums? Maybe things have changed since the early MTV days, which also probably the last time I watched a music video, but I've always been under the impression that the reason these were made in the first place was simply a way to sell an album (or song, nowadays). I mean, really, do people actually *buy* music videos (and I'm not talking about extended length live performance videos, just the old school MTV stuff).
Maybe things have changed in this arena in recent years, but I can't really see this as anything except another stark example of a music industry dinosaur that just wants to stay locked in it's old anti-digital model. That and, of course, the fact that they want to squeeze anyone they can to try and extort as much money as they can before they finally die off because they refuse to accept change.
BANG!!!! (Score:2)
mp3.com 2.0 (Score:2)
This is how mp3.com began its demise.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed they are, which is why I've always wondered why the labels don't provide them for free. You can't watch them in many places and as such that doesn't really remove the incentive to purchase the CD, but even a decent web only place to watch would have been a great marketing approach. Or just bundle them with the disc.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only advertising if you can't decide when they play, or if they have some annoying feature that reminds you their ads.
Otherwise, they're entertainment.
That's why you see advertisements inside video retrospectives. They're not "That" redundant, mostly because you know you're going to like the videos.
You can also embed links from youtube, bypassing some of the ads, and basically repurposing them under some circumstances.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I do think Warner should pay to show most of them. Bu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how exactly does Google deserve millions of dollars revenue from showing these videos and the creators and owners deserve nothing? Talk about leeching!