The Internet Teams Against Youtube

[master_nero 0]

Advertising and full-length content should figure prominently as News Corp and NBC go forward with their plans to offer online video that, unlike the enthusiastic fan uploading taking place on YouTube, will arrive on the Internet with corporate blessings and ads attached.
Cisco, General Motors, and Intel are among the early advertisers announced by News Corp in its statement about the service. Their distribution channel spans what they tout as 96 percent of the monthly unique US users on the Internet: AOL, MSN, MySpace, and Yahoo will carry the content.

Yahoo CEO Terry Semel made a comment that also took a swipe at YouTube and its owner, Google, in the announcement. "We believe that this relationship underscores Yahoo!'s respect for content owners and copyrights," he said, relating the popular view among Big Media that YouTube does not.

An AOL spokesperson commented about the relationship, considering that Google owns five percent of AOL thanks to the billion-dollar investment Google made to fend off Microsoft from reaching an agreement with them.

"Our goal is to provide the largest number of video assets to our audience of more than 100 million unique visitors a month," the spokesperson said. "Just as we continue to work closely with Google in search and other areas, we also work closely with other partners."

Video continues to increase in importance for Internet users. ComScore's Video Metrix said that in January in the US, there were nearly 123 million unique video streamers and downloaders who viewed 7.2 billion videos online.

That typical video streamer averaged almost two videos per day, and viewed 151 minutes of online video each month, according to comScore's report.

Edited March 23, 2007 by master_nero (see edit history)

[Killer008r 0]

"Google, in the announcement. "We believe that this relationship underscores Yahoo!'s respect for content owners and copyrights," he said, relating the popular view among Big Media that YouTube does not."Google said this and yet they bought Youtube?Not to mention the whole internet as a collective isn't uhh isn't fighting against You tube. (i think isn't is wrong)

[smyke89 0]

Well... youtube is just an example for how a good marketing team can compensate for quality. I am not saying youtube is bad, but it is not the best, not by far.

 

Google video (available at video.google.com) is better than youtube because the videos have a nicer quality (not by much), it has a desktop application that allows you to upload files of unlimited size and length, while using the web interface you are limited to 100 MB per file.

 

YouAreTV (available at http://www.youaretv.com/ ) is the best service of this kind available without excelling in either domain. But you have unlimited upload option, you can organize your files into episodes, it has a simple but nice interface, and a good quality for the video files.

[ginginca 0]

Google video (available at video.google.com) is better than youtube because the videos have a nicer quality (not by much), it has a desktop application that allows you to upload files of unlimited size and length, while using the web interface you are limited to 100 MB per file.

I'm not sure why you say it's better quality.

 

A lot of the content is identical. When a video goes up on youtube it also gets indexed quickly by google video. I haven't posted anything to google video, but yet I have videos there.

[ginginca 0]

"Google, in the announcement. "We believe that this relationship underscores Yahoo!'s respect for content owners and copyrights," he said, relating the popular view among Big Media that YouTube does not."
Google said this and yet they bought Youtube?

Not to mention the whole internet as a collective isn't uhh isn't fighting against You tube. (i think isn't is wrong)

In youtube's terms, you can't use illegal music. Problem is that most people don't understand exactly what that means, and neither do a lot of podcasters.

When you purchase a CD, you don't have the right to copy it to your computer, make a video with it, give away copies to friends, put it on a bit torrent site etc etc.

Do you really think you could create a commercial video game and use a Beatles song for the background music? Of course not.

But so many people just don't care. It's not the youtubes of the world that is the problem ... it's the users of the music. Sometimes it's ignorance, and sometimes they don't care at all that creators of music make their living from the sale of music.

Big Media on the other hand understands this. When ad agencies and radio stations create commercials (video, radio or otherwise) they understand copyrights, and will purchase music production libraries to solve the need for music.

Broadcast video has a whole additional set of mechanical rights called synchronization rights. When your song is played on television, the copyright owner will get a check in the mail.

When posting a youtube video with someone else's music you are breaking multiple copyright laws which affect the writer of the music as well as the performer (the band.)

The solution if you're doing this ... you need to buy Royalty-free music.

[richierich1m 0]

Because of youtube there is free music and video for everyone to share and enjoy which woulcnt be there if there wouldnt have been sites like you tube,buying a cd obviously makes profit to user ,but i feel they should change strategy of earning as time goes thwey should ask for part of ads revenue on pages whereb there music is used ,though this is very difficult to implement ,but if possible this will be a very good thin g for the users as well as the music creators but the site owner should be ready to do it.

[ginginca 0]

Because of youtube there is free music and video for everyone to share and enjoy which woulcnt be there if there wouldnt have been sites like you tube,buying a cd obviously makes profit to user ,but i feel they should change strategy of earning as time goes thwey should ask for part of ads revenue on pages whereb there music is used ,though this is very difficult to implement ,but if possible this will be a very good thin g for the users as well as the music creators but the site owner should be ready to do it.

Radio stations, juke box operators, night clubs and other venues pay royalties to "performing rights organizations". It's an annual fee for most. This allows them to legally play copywritten, commercially recorded music. But if they don't pay their fees (to BMI, ASCAP, SOCAN etc), they have no legal right to play copywritten music.

The money is collected in each country by an agency, and then they split the funds between the registered members. The writers getting the most airplay get the most funds.

About 20 or more years ago a famous musician/recording artist (Bruce Springsteen I believe) was in a club and as it happens the band on stage was playing one of HIS songs. So he thought he'd have his lawyers check to make sure the club was paying their dues. They weren't up to date, so the recording artist sued the night club.

The recording artist won.

Most professionals that use music understand this principle. But home videos and most youtube videos aren't created by professionals.

On the internet, there's no such agency. And efforts to create one so far haven't worked. But there are hopes that some day someone will sort it out. But honestly ... do you think most web site owners are going to pay out music royalties? No. It would likely come down to the hosting companies. And if so ... you might have two kinds of web site hosts ... those that allow music ... and those who don't.

In the mean time, professional music creators lose billions from illegal use and illegal copying. And then there's piracy which is even worse!