The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I thought things were going in the right direction, in terms of legal availability of media from Internet sources. You can buy songs online via iTunes or Amazon, or watch them via YouTube, for free, and it was all legal.
Though it seems that has taken a step back today, with YouTube announcing that it's to remove premium music videos from it's service from today ( YouTube, the UK and the Performing Rights Society for Music), which has been reported over on the BBC News web site, YouTube to block UK music videos.
Music videos are being removed as you read this, legal ones at least, that appear as branded "channels", though no doubt people who object to this will upload their own copies, multiple times, and it'll go back to being a "load it up, take it down" cat and mouse game between YouTube and YouTube users.
Having read through the article and blog announcement, it seems to be the music industry, or at least it's representatives, that are throwing a spanner in the works. There is nothing wrong, in my view, in asking for more money for your product, but it seems they've asked for an amount that Google doesn't consider value for money, or even affordable, and a deal has hit the wall, because they couldn't agree a lower price.
It seems like such a shame as well, because one of the reasons people use file sharing networks in the first place was because it was easily available, more so than any legal service of it's time, but streaming from YouTube, in my view, changed that, enabling money to be made from users who no longer needed to download and install file sharing software, or worry about what else they may download.
What are your thoughts on this? Are YouTube offering too little? After all, they aren't exactly strapped for cash, and they have been providing a system to distribute media for free for a long time already, or is it again the music industry over valuing itself and / or it's members?
My take, it's the music industry, again, shooting themselves in the foot, but then I'm no expert. They do seem to have issues with other organisations too, as quoted from the BBC Technology blog:
"Real Networks, MySpace UK and Imeem have all had problems
getting a music video or music streaming business of the ground
because of this issue".
... that issue apparently being, money.
And what will become of YouTube audiences? Will they move to MetaCafe, back to Kazza, or other web sites / services for the music fix? Or will YouTube users uploaded their own copies be sufficient for everyday use to continue for most people?
Though it seems that has taken a step back today, with YouTube announcing that it's to remove premium music videos from it's service from today ( YouTube, the UK and the Performing Rights Society for Music), which has been reported over on the BBC News web site, YouTube to block UK music videos.
Music videos are being removed as you read this, legal ones at least, that appear as branded "channels", though no doubt people who object to this will upload their own copies, multiple times, and it'll go back to being a "load it up, take it down" cat and mouse game between YouTube and YouTube users.
Having read through the article and blog announcement, it seems to be the music industry, or at least it's representatives, that are throwing a spanner in the works. There is nothing wrong, in my view, in asking for more money for your product, but it seems they've asked for an amount that Google doesn't consider value for money, or even affordable, and a deal has hit the wall, because they couldn't agree a lower price.
It seems like such a shame as well, because one of the reasons people use file sharing networks in the first place was because it was easily available, more so than any legal service of it's time, but streaming from YouTube, in my view, changed that, enabling money to be made from users who no longer needed to download and install file sharing software, or worry about what else they may download.
What are your thoughts on this? Are YouTube offering too little? After all, they aren't exactly strapped for cash, and they have been providing a system to distribute media for free for a long time already, or is it again the music industry over valuing itself and / or it's members?
My take, it's the music industry, again, shooting themselves in the foot, but then I'm no expert. They do seem to have issues with other organisations too, as quoted from the BBC Technology blog:
"Real Networks, MySpace UK and Imeem have all had problems
getting a music video or music streaming business of the ground
because of this issue".
... that issue apparently being, money.
And what will become of YouTube audiences? Will they move to MetaCafe, back to Kazza, or other web sites / services for the music fix? Or will YouTube users uploaded their own copies be sufficient for everyday use to continue for most people?
Shadowdream wrote:
> I'm with Nin 100%, but it just seems odd that such large
> companies would have such little understanding of how the
> internet works.
Music is a youth industry. Business rarely is, especially when it comes to long established companies like EMI where the majority of board members will be 50+. These people simply don't understand that you cant stop people copying music. Instead of encouraging sites like Youtube that discourage downloading, they think they can go back to a zero tolerance attitude and eventually all these copyright issues will be resolved in their favour. They're delusional.
Way back in the 80's this issue came up when electronic companies started making tape recorders and people started recording songs off the radio. The music industry tried to shut that down with lawsuits against the electronic giants and even tried suing individuals. Of course, in the end they lost, just like they're going to lose this time as well.
> I'm with Nin 100%, but it just seems odd that such large
> companies would have such little understanding of how the
> internet works.
Music is a youth industry. Business rarely is, especially when it comes to long established companies like EMI where the majority of board members will be 50+. These people simply don't understand that you cant stop people copying music. Instead of encouraging sites like Youtube that discourage downloading, they think they can go back to a zero tolerance attitude and eventually all these copyright issues will be resolved in their favour. They're delusional.
Way back in the 80's this issue came up when electronic companies started making tape recorders and people started recording songs off the radio. The music industry tried to shut that down with lawsuits against the electronic giants and even tried suing individuals. Of course, in the end they lost, just like they're going to lose this time as well.
I'm with Nin 100%, but it just seems odd that such large companies would have such little understanding of how the internet works.
Pff!! What's next, MTV?
It's the music industry once again shooting itself in the foot. They've essentially shut down the biggest asset they had against the uploaders who will now go back to Limewire, Torrents and any other site that provides music. Morons
I thought things were going in the right direction, in terms of legal availability of media from Internet sources. You can buy songs online via iTunes or Amazon, or watch them via YouTube, for free, and it was all legal.
Though it seems that has taken a step back today, with YouTube announcing that it's to remove premium music videos from it's service from today ( YouTube, the UK and the Performing Rights Society for Music), which has been reported over on the BBC News web site, YouTube to block UK music videos.
Music videos are being removed as you read this, legal ones at least, that appear as branded "channels", though no doubt people who object to this will upload their own copies, multiple times, and it'll go back to being a "load it up, take it down" cat and mouse game between YouTube and YouTube users.
Having read through the article and blog announcement, it seems to be the music industry, or at least it's representatives, that are throwing a spanner in the works. There is nothing wrong, in my view, in asking for more money for your product, but it seems they've asked for an amount that Google doesn't consider value for money, or even affordable, and a deal has hit the wall, because they couldn't agree a lower price.
It seems like such a shame as well, because one of the reasons people use file sharing networks in the first place was because it was easily available, more so than any legal service of it's time, but streaming from YouTube, in my view, changed that, enabling money to be made from users who no longer needed to download and install file sharing software, or worry about what else they may download.
What are your thoughts on this? Are YouTube offering too little? After all, they aren't exactly strapped for cash, and they have been providing a system to distribute media for free for a long time already, or is it again the music industry over valuing itself and / or it's members?
My take, it's the music industry, again, shooting themselves in the foot, but then I'm no expert. They do seem to have issues with other organisations too, as quoted from the BBC Technology blog:
"Real Networks, MySpace UK and Imeem have all had problems
getting a music video or music streaming business of the ground
because of this issue".
... that issue apparently being, money.
And what will become of YouTube audiences? Will they move to MetaCafe, back to Kazza, or other web sites / services for the music fix? Or will YouTube users uploaded their own copies be sufficient for everyday use to continue for most people?
Though it seems that has taken a step back today, with YouTube announcing that it's to remove premium music videos from it's service from today ( YouTube, the UK and the Performing Rights Society for Music), which has been reported over on the BBC News web site, YouTube to block UK music videos.
Music videos are being removed as you read this, legal ones at least, that appear as branded "channels", though no doubt people who object to this will upload their own copies, multiple times, and it'll go back to being a "load it up, take it down" cat and mouse game between YouTube and YouTube users.
Having read through the article and blog announcement, it seems to be the music industry, or at least it's representatives, that are throwing a spanner in the works. There is nothing wrong, in my view, in asking for more money for your product, but it seems they've asked for an amount that Google doesn't consider value for money, or even affordable, and a deal has hit the wall, because they couldn't agree a lower price.
It seems like such a shame as well, because one of the reasons people use file sharing networks in the first place was because it was easily available, more so than any legal service of it's time, but streaming from YouTube, in my view, changed that, enabling money to be made from users who no longer needed to download and install file sharing software, or worry about what else they may download.
What are your thoughts on this? Are YouTube offering too little? After all, they aren't exactly strapped for cash, and they have been providing a system to distribute media for free for a long time already, or is it again the music industry over valuing itself and / or it's members?
My take, it's the music industry, again, shooting themselves in the foot, but then I'm no expert. They do seem to have issues with other organisations too, as quoted from the BBC Technology blog:
"Real Networks, MySpace UK and Imeem have all had problems
getting a music video or music streaming business of the ground
because of this issue".
... that issue apparently being, money.
And what will become of YouTube audiences? Will they move to MetaCafe, back to Kazza, or other web sites / services for the music fix? Or will YouTube users uploaded their own copies be sufficient for everyday use to continue for most people?