A year ago British musician Billy Bragg was whining that Bebo should be paying musicians a portion of their $850 million liquidity event, arguing that “the musicians who posted their work on Bebo.com are no different from investors in a start-up enterprise…Now that the business has reaped huge benefits, surely they deserve a dividend.” We dismantled his emotional rant and suggested that, actually, Bebo should be paid for all the free marketing they gave those musicians. 367 comments later, our readers were still divided between the realists and the “it’s not fair” crowd.
Now he’s back again, this time targeting Google. Thank God the bloggers are here to call bullshit because the journalists, fearing their own looming unemployment, are jumping on board the idiot bandwagon.
Last week Bragg pointed his anger at Google, demanding that the company play music videos on YouTube’s UK site and pay the demanded royalty (Google just took the videos down instead of paying). His argument is ridiculous – that Google should literally be forced to play music videos that it no longer wants to play, and then pay a per play fee.
Really, this begging for handouts is unbecoming:
Sir, We have growing concern over the use of our music on the internet and the unfair way we believe music is treated by Google and YouTube, which it owns. At the heart of the issue is Google’s disagreement over the prices it should pay to PRS for Music, the not-for-profit licensing organisation. Music fans in the UK are confused and angry at Google’s stance. We, as songwriters and composers of music, share those concerns. It is not in anyone’s best interests to block access to music. Fans are denied enjoyment, creators aren’t paid and illegal music sites benefit from the resulting displacement of web traffic.
Google says it cannot operate YouTube if it has to pay a royalty — however small — every time a video containing music is played. In 2007 the UK’s independent Copyright Tribunal established that a minimum royalty per play was an essential requirement in the licensing of online services. Google fails to recognize this and ascribes little value to music — in spite of a huge increase in music usage on YouTube’s UK service. Royalties are a vital income source for all professional creators and must be preserved to ensure a continued vibrant music industry. We trust that Google will reinstate music on YouTube and pay a fair price for it.
David Arnold, Jazzie B, Billy Bragg, Guy Chambers, Robin Gibb, Pete Waterman, Mike Chapman, Wayne Hector, Pam Sheyne, Debbie Wiseman
The audacity of the letter is staggering. But The Guardian’s Henry Porter uses it as a launchpad to attack Google more generally as an “amoral menace”, adding that “Google is in the final analysis a parasite that creates nothing…”
Either he refuses to understand, or just ignores, the fact that Google is the one being bullied here. The company is making a simple profit/loss decision and apparently concluded that it can’t make money on the deal being offered. To suggest that Google must accept the deal is to suggest that Google needs to subsidize the music industry simply because it is a profitable company.
It’s ridiculous and only makes sense when Porter moves on his his argument to talk about newspapers, which provide his livelihood (with no discussion of the direct conflict of interest). He then spends paragraphs trying to tie Google’s success with the failure of newspapers. He never really gets there, but does say that Google is “delinquent and sociopathic” near the end, which at least keeps things interesting.
Let’s all be clear here. What Porter and Bragg want is a subsidy from Google. A sort of welfare tax on a profitable company so that they can continue to draw the paychecks they’ve become accustomed to. That isn’t going to happen, and all this hand wringing isn’t helping to move their respective industries toward a successful business model. They either need to adapt or die. And they’re choosing a very noisy and annoying death.
Nice to see a musician out there that really gets it. Keep playing that guitar.
Surely a glutton for punishment. No one could have put it better than good ol’ Weird Al:
I’ll Sue Ya
http://www.yout...h?v=zIllRdSzSug
Youtube is simply killing smaller entertainment industries if not Hollywood. Indian Bollywood and regional industry music videos and even full films are up and running in Youtube.
More blogging, Less pirating.
blogging? you can sell it on umakeitcool.com and people who buy it can give part of the profit to friends, or make money by reselling it.
yeas, youtube has good and bad implication. It almost stuck the hollywood industry.
The only thing that would have made this article better is if Mike went the extra step and actually told Bragg and Porter HOW to adapt before they die.
I know, I know. It’s not his job.
You mean besides this belonging to rolling stones blog? I’m actually cool with getting a glimpse of what’s up with the music industry via TC.
Sorry, but I disagree.
Why is it so out of line for Bragg to ask Google for a blanket licensing policy just like they’ve made with CBS, Hulu, et al.?
Google IS making money from the ads they serve on these videos — or, if not THESE videos, the “related” videos that do have ads, to which people are drawn by this content. It doesn’t seem so crazy to ask for .01 of 1% of ad revenues related to music videos in some way (or something similar). Seems kinda fair, actually.
Well how about, YOU advertize YOUR related products and then you can sell them and make real money.
youtube loses money every quarter and has yet to actually become profitable.
In which case, Google should shut it until they work out how to make a real business of it. If Google itself can’t work out how to monetize one of the highest-traffic sites on the web, I doubt very much that any business model exists which can support it.
becuase youtube loses $470million a year.
full stop end of argument.
I thought it was $470m per quarter?
so if you sort-of steal and make losses, then sort-of stealing is OK?
What’s out of line about it is that Google owns YouTube. No one has the right to tell Google what they HAVE to put on their site, and what they NEED to do. That’s like someone coming into your house and telling you that you NEED to drive less so you can help gas prices go down, or you HAVE to install solar panels to help save the world.
this
The kicker is that they’re asking for .22p for each play, not as a percentage of revenue. That comes to about 2.2 pounds CPM, which just shows they have approximately zero comprehension of business fundamentals on the Internet.
Its unfortunate that Billy Bragg turns out to be such a straw man, since there’s actually relevant things to be said about Google’s abuse of its monopoly. But in this context it just looks stupid.
Communists. They’re always trying to rob somebody. I wish they spend more time whining and less time committing crimes.
Well at least he got the free publicity he probably wanted (even from techcrunch!)
Yeah, screw them. YouTube provides an excellent free content distribution service and that wouldn’t be possible if Google didn’t exist since no other company could afford to keep it running when it’s losing money.
I’m sick of handouts. Old business models that are out of date and the companies that utilize them need work harder to find adapt or be allowed to fail. This goes hand in hand with the failing newspaper industry in that sense. If the government would just allow poorly ran companies to fail, the good ones will rise to the top and we wouldn’t be facing this cancerous like economy that rewards bad business decisions with handouts.
LOL… where’s your enforcement of IP rights in your paragraphs? This guy is taking the same route as techcrunch and others — starting a half-baked unnuanced argument designed to appeal to a certain side.
Then he rolls in the publicity and prospers.
True. People do not realize that the internet and the web is *nothing* without search. And Google is best at search. It has not used legislation to prevent new entrants, it has only used better math and computer science to beat even deep pockets like Microsoft. The desperation that Microsoft shows in trying to get a larger share of the search market is an indicator of how far ahead Google’s technology platform is. These guys have no idea what the web would be like without an impartial, un-gameable search engine for everything.
Google is not charging for giving you a search result for nearest doctor, nearest food joint, nearest lawyer and nearest book store. Without Google these things would not have happened. Does Microsoft have five years of this behind it, right as we read this article today? No. Ask? No. Yahoo? A bit. So you see the information, knowledge, economics and healthcare value that Google produces is enormous and not reflected in their filings. To run the world’s most sophisticated distributed supercomputer in this real world, you have to have big cash to sustain the <1 sec near-perfect search results. Google keeps mutliple copies of the Web in RAM, at multiple locations across the globe. You paid for that? They have to make money to run the show. And in Venture Capital and business circles, if you don’t make a big buck or a big name, you aren’t allowed into the offices at all. So you need a $xxxbn beside your name to just talk to these some f**kers sleeping in moneybeds.
Altruism? Maybe not. Utility, immense.
Of course you have a mouth and the constitution gives you a right to speak freely, and nobody objects to your right.
But if you complain about Google’s ethics, it does not damage Google’s reputation, it f**ks yours forever. Constructive or technical criticism is most welcome and necessary to keep Google in check, but not this.
Oops! Kevin, I’m adding to your comment, not replying to it. Apologies.
O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
You’re sick of handouts – but Google is giving you a handout whenever you use YouTube, if its claim that YouTube makes a loss is correct.
That’s a pretty stupid argument on his part. Google’s making the right business decision and complaining about it publicly with a lousy argument isn’t going to help his case any. You said it right – “they either need to adapt or die”.
Peter Epstein
http://www.thew...bwar.com/google
Yes, the constant badgering of Google for “ruining other’s business models” is sort of sad. Meanwhile groups of independent musicians are finding new audiences for themselves, new media companies are leveraging Google for traffic streams that make them profitable and consumers benefit from a system that works extremely well to find what they need.
A few people who built their livelihoods on a dated information architecture are displaced. It’s not really a surprise and has been happening for ages. Let’s hope none of these things go beyond complaints and rants.
“Yes, the constant badgering of Google for “ruining other’s business models” is sort of sad.”
I think the world needs “Competitive Capitalism For Dummies” to be written. It’s not just Google that gets complaints, it seems that every successful organization gets a “but it’s not fair” chorus.
It’s fine as long as google is not doing one of the followoing:
1.) Violating IP law
2.) Using monopoly power
However, you look at youtube, booksearch, and some of the other google products and they basically gain market strength by running over rights holders.
When you consider napster, kazaa and other similar models — they don’t end up as sustainable. The lack of sustainability is Due to pressure from right’s holders and the lack of monetiztion options.
So, sorry but youtube is not “capitialism” per se, it is right’s holders subsidizing google, and google subsidizing the public consumption of goods.
“So, sorry but youtube is not “capitialism” per se, it is right’s holders subsidizing google, and google subsidizing the public consumption of goods.”
FAIL.
If YouTube loses $470m per year, please explain to me how exactly it is that the rights’ holder’s are subsidizing Google?
YouTube loses money every year and has yet to make a profit. Therefore, it would be Google that is subsidizing anyone who uploads a video to YouTube.
My God get some logic.
Death by a thousand cuts. poor buggers.
Sad yes, I suggest that Billy needs to send me some of his money, as a tax against musicians who make crappy music. Just wash the tears off first.
Whadaya mean "now"? It’s all been Google’s fault for a long time.
We have indie artists know, fragmentation means more music less closed wall stars hyped up by MTV,
If your not in it for the love of the craft then your up a creek without a paddle.
Plus we are becoming experts at bittorent thanks to the centralised industry.
Talking about torrents I think i’ll go get me an albulm; ta……..dah!
Anyone who purchases any of his music is an idiot and simply contributing to his idiocy.
It’s Billy Bragg FFS, people who purchased his music were always idiots. Or deaf.
Ridiculous.
its a generational mindset,nobody deserves anything for free, someone should tell Rupert Murdock and the rest that the stuff that they have been peddling is pretty valueless when all of us are creating information products. They have less time than they realize, no matter how noisy they are as they are dying.
“its a generational mindset,nobody deserves anything for free”
I trust you won’t be using Google Docs, Search, YouTube, or any of Google’s other free services, then?
Who’s Billy Bragg?
Darn, you beat me to it. Seriously, I’ve never heard of this guy.
Are you for serious fascist? Let me lay down some Billy Bragg beats for y’all. http://folk.ntn..._bragg_1990.mp3
The best way to deal with this is to simply ignore it. I mean he’s getting free publicity, though his music is horrid. But then again, that’s just my taste.
He needs to buy a noose
Yes, and it was totally unfair that the wandering minstrels of the Middle Ages had to perform for their pay instead of being able to sell prerecorded music on plastic discs.
I’m with Bragg here. Google bought YouTube because they believed they can make money from it, directly or indirectly.
YouTube is the defacto destination for finding music videos. Google knows this – thats why YouTube is valuable.
If you broadcast music then you pay a royalty. How is this hard for you to understand Michael Arrington?
Perhaps the real issue you have is with Billy Bragg and his socialist viewpoints?
The thing is, when Google couldn’t get a figure they could agree on, they removed the ability to view these videos in the UK.
They were given two choices, pay the royalty fee they couldn’t afford or stop showing music videos in the UK. Google took option two and now the UK music industry is trying to force them to pay anyway. How is that a legitimate request?
Hi, great site.. I definitely agree with you on your stance here. I think greed and stupidity, no matter how it is worded is the same. People need to grow up, take responsibility and stop finger pointing. Additionally, I found this story through a link that was posted on twitter to a site that is framing your content (very bad SEO wise) if you want a simple fix to stop sites like that from being able to basically steal your content shoot me a email
Think of all the free advertising you’re getting Billy Bragg…
“that Google should literally be forced to play music videos that *it no longer wants to play*”
Am I the only person who is going to point out that YouTube is not like MTV ????
It’s user generated. Hence the “You” in youtube.
“It” meaning youtube, never wanted to play anything.
“But The Guardian’s Henry Porter uses it as a launchpad to attack Google more generally as an “amoral menace”,”
I love it when British people shine their morality upon us after oppressing the world for 300+ years and counting with their “empire”, in the name of “the queen”, yippee. Go british people. to hell that is.
Do you see the irony in your comment? Henry Porter is basing his argument on a completely ridiculous argument and so are you, in saying that all the british people should go to hell for something their forefathers did 300 yrs ago.
Hope you run your company with better insight than this.
Well, you can shift the blame to forefathers, however the UK still profits from that stuff. We need to be aware of that. If we say we owe our way of life to our forefathers and the sacrifices they made so we could live in this way, then we’re inevitably profiting from both their great deeds as well as misdeeds which brought us our riches.
It’s completely besides the point though and extremely off-topic ^_^
Thanks you for speaking on behalf of all the people in England, i don’t know how we got on before we slaughtered all the Native Indians and built a Nation on an fundamentally irrational belief in a non existent deity. Oh wait, that’s ALL Americans. 300 years later you are personally responsible for that and should give it all back and come back to England.
Woohoo! Thoughtless rash, offensive generalisations FTW! I don’t know who you are Chris, but with logic like that it doesn’t matter and i don’t care.
If i make something to sell, and you haven’t bought the right to view, listen to or re-transmit and you do any of the above… it’s theft.
Sure their are new business models emerging, but BREAKING COPYRIGHT is ILLEGAL without permission from the copyright owner.
I swear, some people don’t own a dictionary. Look up “Theft.”
Old media is going to die… but why steal from old media before it is gone? Do you steal petrol from the gas station because in a few years we will be fueling our cars with electricity?
Find out more about Google
old media is going to die completely because it does not provide any value today, and quite frankly its not even credible any more because of all the failures they have had in preventing the establishment from hurting everyone. Nobody trusts them any more … royalties are not required for a vibrant music industry, fans are required .. how many newspapers do you read or trust?
This sounds like a bit of link bait here Michael, not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that of course.
I don’t agree with Billy Bragg that Youtube *should* show any music videos it doesn’t want to. But at the same time they are happy to play the videos which they know they do not have the rights to, and are not compensating the artists for. I’m a big fan of Youtube, but a lot of the stories that it grew out of copyright infringement (of music and videos) do hold true. They now have the bargaining position with the musicians/labels/PRS because of that viewership.
Whilst I agree that £0.22 per play is excessive, if that is “many times more” than what they were previously paying (as stated by Patrick Walker), then previously they probably weren’t paying enough either. One of the main problems here, in reality, is that Google may be rich, but Youtube is losing cash fast, and ads it is trialling are not popular. They haven’t found any good ways to monetise the video available properly, and so they will fight any cost increases. In reality, professional music videos (unlike user submitted clips) should be easy to monetise and promote to big name advertisers (in a similar fashion to what happens over at Hulu for TV shows).
It is pretty easy to point the blame at the music industry (which hasn’t helped itself in oh so many ways over recent years – making this pretty easy). Google/Youtube are equally to blame in the issues present about not being able to hear songs from certain labels.
Neither side will back down as both believe one needs the other. Whilst I’m sure many would argue that Youtube doesn’t need the music of major labels, it would be interesting to see what happened if the labels all pulled their catalogues en masse. On the other hand, the labels would lose new listeners/consumers so nobody would win from that situation.
I don’t find Google, the search engine, to be parasitic at all. It makes the internet better by allowing users to better find what they’re after. The way they have managed to monetise that searching process is inventive and rightly successful. Additionally, the way they have managed to monetise the “long tail” of content sites (and make content sites with Blogger) as well as vastly improve online email has only improved the user’s internet experience.
However, the way it leverages this power is less beneficial. As it serves as the gateway for most people onto the internet at large, it can force content creators to accept their terms, even if they are on very bad terms, because if your film/music/book/whatever cannot be found on Google or Youtube or another Gproperty then it basically is not on the internet for that platform. They don’t force hands like this at every turn by any means, but they are proponents of free content as their business model does not rely on transactions for that content.
The more free everything is, the more people can find online, and the more they will use Google to find it. Huge win for Google. The digital world means that piracy of all media is rife, and whilst Google certainly does not support piracy, it certainly won’t be complaining as it forces more content to be offered for free by content creators who then have to hope to make money elsewhere. The content exploitation business models are failing because they are forced to confront their content being made available for free.
I think comment shows a more balanced view of what’s really going on here.
Google knows that youtube visitors want to be able to find music. I presume (perhaps incorrectly) that deep down Google accepts that some sort of royalty payment is appropriate, regardless of what they are saying outwardly. They’ve already made such agreements in the US.
But they also know that public perception of the music industry is so negative that they can take a very aggressive stance in the negotiations and not look like the bad guys. Google drops the content and who gets the blame – the PRS. As this battle is going to be fought in every market, I can understand why Google feel the need to play hardball, even without getting into the lack of profitability of youtube.
The PRS needs to demonstrate that they are not the evil music biz in this dispute, but I fear that the way the musicians mentioned are in fact achieving the opposite of that. I have huge respect for Billy Bragg as a musician, and even as a political spokesman, but note that his style has always been of speaking out from an idealogical (rather than pragmatic) position — a useful tool in promoting debate, and not dissimilar in tactics from this very blog post.
I think Mike should pay us for our comments…
thats right.
and when Mike chooses *not* to pay for them and closes the comments?
Will you have a right to insist that he pays anyway?
The PRS had a deal with Google and (as I understand it) they demanded a dramatic increase in royalties which Google have chosen to decline.
It’s up to the PRS to offer them a better deal rather than whine that they’re now starved of Google’s oxygen!
REALLY!!! I guess thats what I read in the article
Be careful – Billy Bragg and co might sue TC for publishing a story about music.
They’re starting to get as litigious as those kids from that science-y religion that sues lots of people.
Ah, the Church of RIAA?
Artists really need a way to utilize the Internet as a platform to be heard – yes, for free. Get your music out there and allow fans to become fans and followers to become followers. Then get your ass out on tour and pack the venues small and large – that’s where they can make their most money anyway if done right. Put your CDs out for sale – that’s where I’ve bought most of my CDs actually!
Allen, founder
http://madtownlounge.com
same retarded business model…
sell it on umakeitcool.com and let your fans who buy make money too, or give it to a friend.
It’s Billy Grab
They need to understand that it’s not Google that needs to adapt to the changing times; it’s THEM.
I think Google has done enough with upgrading YouTube to allow anyone to monetize themselves.
If these artist keep it up, Google may shelf YouTube all together in 5 years if it cant find a profit and write down the costs as a 5 year stretching tax benefiting loss against capital gains.
Artists need to show some respect to Google for saving YouTube which would have been forced to close by now if not for the acquisition.
Post something interesting and get people to pay to see you live, thats it.
It’s actually pretty simple. Google is hiding behind that ‘provider exemption’ of DCMA as a defense for courts. But this exemption was introduced for the ISP that are PUBLIC UTILITIES.
Bottom line either they ARE a public utility, then whatever customers post – it’s not their business to police it BUT they have to be REGULATED as a public utility then. Either they are NOT – then they are liable.
That’s it. Nothing to discuss. A couple of years of litigation and there will be a court decision.
Ask Mark Cuban about the details, he shares this opinion. 
I liked your article so much I took all your articles and put them on my websites. I put my name on the byline too, what the hell. Hope your lecture tour goes well.
This is a rubbish argument. If I take a Billy Bragg song and put my name on it on Youtube, it’s still Billy Bragg.
It isn’t very much different from the detractors of a certain OS manufacturer insisting that their browser be installed on that OS and made the default.
BTW dude, I thought u were on hiatus after someone spat on ur face.
If you bought any Sun JAVA stock you’ll want to see this.
Buy, buy….
http://www.busi...+temp_top+story
No, SELL, SELL. SEELLLLL…..
Just a heads up to some of you before the bell rings in the AM on the east coast.
Bragg just wants to change the world.
MA – I am not saying you’re wrong… But let’s give good old Billy Bragg a break. To say, “..to draw the paychecks they’ve become accustomed to” in reference to a guy like BB is over doing it. The dude is not Jay Z. The thing to consider here is that while Bragg might be off point, his feelings may be valid. He makes great music and feels he’s getting screwed. The blame game is unbecoming but the problem of compensation still remains.
I make beautiful, artistic snowmen in the winter, but nobody compensates me for this art form. Furthermore, I noticed that my neighbor gets paid to clear the sidewalks in the winter so that people can pass by and view my snowmen. Clearly, a part of my neighbors salary should be given to me so that I can continue with my tradition of making snowmen.
Do you work all year round on your arts? Somehow I think your minimal example has nothing with the likes of professional artists.
Oh, but I am a professional and my career is a noble one. Unfortunately, society does not see the value of my work. In fact, some of my compatriots have been forced into doing more commercial work:
http://www.fitz...n.com/snow.html
I refuse to debase myself in this manner and await to receive my proper wages from the amoral plowers and shovelers of snow!
For the record, I am a full time sucessful artist. I have chosen to develop a sucessful business plan instead of whining abut other peoples sucess. If you want to create art that’s fine. If you want to make a living at it then get off your lazy but and do something about it. Starving artists deserve everything they get.
Will Ayn Rand save us from these fools?
Excellent article, Mike.
The Guardian has a history of attack articles against both Apple and Google. I once came across evidence that both The Guardian and the San Jose Mercury News had been rescued from financial trouble with an investment by Microsoft and/or Bill Gates. Anyone know anything about this?
The Guardian is funded through a Trust, so I’m doubting they had Microsoft investment. Maybe an ad deal or similar though?
It’s not likely that the Guardian’s received any ‘rescue’ money from Microsoft or anyone else. It’s not a normal commercial organisation. It’s owned by a trust for the purpose of printing the paper (the Scott Trust, named after a great owner/editor fro the paper’s past). They may well have entered into contracts with both these companies though…
There is a fine line for all artists between ‘publicity’ and ‘livelihood’. Sure, they want people to hear their music… once or twice per listener for free… but after that, they need to eat, so if you want to hear it over and over, you should pay for it and support the artist.
Just like the old “if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” all artists and musicians livelihood DEPENDS on people hearing about it their art and liking it, so they will decide to purchase a “license” to hear it whenever they want.
That’s the best business model we have right now in terms of musicians being compensated for their work.
Unfortunately, there are sites on the ‘net that want to make intellectual property available to people for free in perpetuity: they don’t collect revenue on behalf of the artists: they do little or nothing to ensure that the line between ‘publicity’ (letting individuals hear a song a couple of times, or access content they ‘own’ a license for) vs. outright infringement (letting people have indiscriminate access to the content as much as they want, with no effort to ensure those that access it have the ‘right’ to do so).
Failure to make this distinction is a journalistic failure, if you ask me. I know, you didn’t, but you put the comment box there, so…
It’s only a matter of time before the arts are a lost part of our history. Nobody will devote their lives to what makes them no income and is only distributed freely anyway.
Enjoy the days where we still have music and movies to enjoy. Soon they will cease to exist – or at least become very poor in quality, few and far between.
Clearly, every history book I have ever read is a lie, A FILTHY COMMIE LIE.
Relevant in what way?
Before copyright law existed, composers made more music as they knew they couldn’t trade on it being popular and only played by them for very long.
http://www.tech...022324034.shtml
I want artists to be paid for their music, but whatever happens music, it is part of being human to like music and enjoy making it. There are millions of people in the world that make nothing from music but still play.
Films will be continue to be made as well even with no financial incentive. We won’t get the special effects blazoned blockbusters, but films will still be made.
Right… because I’m sure Mozart, Bheethoven, Bach, Handel, Tchaikovsky, etc., were all concerned with royalties when they composed some of the finest music the world has ever known.
Get real Anthony.
I think he was doing so to gain more publicity.
So let me get this straight, he expects to get paid for posting his own videos for free on YouTube? If that is the case, how stupid.
It is like choosing between “Music for Money” and “Music for Fun”.
tolo da makhe ghul khorale di da kharkhush bachyano khalak waye music pregda ao taso ye hemat nor ham zyatawe.
sa che kawale she oke bye.
Let’s all be clear here. What Porter and Bragg want is a subsidy from Google. A sort of welfare tax on a profitable company so that they can continue to draw the paychecks they’ve become accustomed to.
They’re both, I believe, British left wingers (Bragg definitely is, and Porter’s writing for a left wing rag), so of course they’re pro everyone else handing money over to them for sod all.
The more I look at Billy Bragg’s career, the more I think he’s the musical equivalent of people selling Che Guevara paraphernalia – it certainly looks left wing but the real point is to make a few quid.
“Google is in the final analysis a parasite that creates nothing…”
really? nothing except perhaps my email, calendar, newsreader, directions and a maps, answers to countless questions I ask it each day…all while organizing the worlds information. Or, in short: nothing. lol
Yes, Google creates an indexing of everything. This is 1.) not nothing, and 2.) far more valuable than a Billy Bragg song.
And you think it’s perfectly fine that this is controlled by a single company?
How the hell is it controlled by one company? There’s nothing stopping anyone from doing anything Google does. You may or may not be successful – but you will only have yourself to blame/give credit.
Name one service that only Google does.
“An index of everything” is fine, but it is still nothing without everything it indexes. It needs the content to index, and if the content creators blocked access, then it would be worth very little indeed.
Of course, if the content providers blocked access then fewer people would find the content and the content would then be worth very little as well.
@Tim While it’s true that “the index” is nothing without the content it indexes, organizing and presenting the information in a way that is accessible to anyone is of tremendous value.
@Facebook User: whether or not it is perfectly fine for a single company to control so much information is separate (yet valid) issue.
And by “@Facebook User” I mean “@Ian Betteridge”
@ mr. bragg; dinosaurs will die:
http://www.plyr...urswilldie.html
see you on the other side
funny….
funny x 2
What an idiot. Bunch of crybabies. I have written hundreds of songs, and now offer them all for free…because I couldn’t cut it. It reminds me that a lot of musicians don’t like the concept of hard work, but if you want to make it, that’s what it takes, a tremendous amount of work.
Here is a great example: I first saw Death Cab for Cutie in 1999 in Phoenix, AZ. They were opening for Ida in a small art gallery. At that time few people knew who they were (outside of Seattle). But I saw them 4 more times within a period of year! They were the hardest working band in indie rock. They toured like no ones business. Barsuck records, their own indie label, actually starting selling records. After a while, any DCFC show was packed, and they had a lot of loyal fans all over the country. And look at them now. As far as money and a big label is concerned they are very successful. When the play shows now they have to book giant venues. Few people are willing to put in what it takes to be successful. They’d rather just complain that someone like google isn’t handing them success.
Certainly the internet can provide you with some music success. But unfortunately, and fortunately for audiophiles, the secret to success is touring, and touring a lot. That’s where you turn casual fans into paying customers. If you’re good, you’ll get a following, if you’re not, then pick up something else, get on with life, shut the hell up, and get over it.
If you don’t think Billy Bragg has worked hard in his career, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not a fan of his music, but he’s been around for 30 years and still plays live constantly. This is obviously not about Billy Bragg “complaining that Google isn’t handing him success”.
If that’s the case then obviously he’s not very good, for I’ve never heard of him until now. Brett is right.
maybe we should let this Billy Bragg and the guardian take a sabbatical for a month? Not link to them at all and they should hide their content from the web for a month. lets see who survives then? Like many I wondered who this Billy Bragg is ..
Maybe all the content creators should take a sabbatical from Google and stop Google indexing or linking to any of their content. If all the newspapers, film studios and tv channels, musicians and labels blocked their content from Google you would be left with a series of blogs (some good, most not) and smaller niche sites.
But that’s exactly what Google have done, in reverse.
The PRS demanded an increased royalty, Google declined and now won’t allow UK music videos.
And now the musicians are moaning that they’re not getting the exposure and fans will pirate instead.
The solution lies with the artists and the PRS.
“Like many I wondered who this Billy Bragg is ..”
A moderately successful professional British musician, currently trying hard to promote himself by being part of the “capitalism has failed” bandwagon.
The Gates Foundation controls many media companies and is, in my opinion, in league with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News to attempt to control the internet. In order for that to happen, Google must be eliminated or assimilated. I believe Murdoch and Gates are now engaged in an all out propaganda effort to discredit Google.
From The Inquirer:
SOFTWARE OLIGARCH Bill Gates was behind a recent MediaNews scheme to buy four newspapers from publisher McClatchy.
The billion dollar deal, which was completed recently, saw Gates among a few other investors in lending MediaNews $350 million to buy the McClatchy titles.
These included the San Jose Mercury News, Contra Costa Times, Monterey County Herald and St. Paul Pioneer Press.
Gates involvement has been very behind the scenes. In fact many of those involved in the deal didn’t even know he was one of the investors. It was carried out through the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropy outfit.
These newspapers were purchased by Gates in order to control tech news in Silicon Valley and to discredit Microsoft competitors.
More at Siliconvalley.com
relevance?
Are you serious?