Comments on: So Now Everything Is Google’s Fault

By: xpda

xpda — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:21:04 +0000

[...] http://www.tech...erything-…; [...]

By: links for 2009-04-11 en A grandes rasgos…

links for 2009-04-11 en A grandes rasgos… — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:04:47 +0000

[...] So Now Everything Is Google’s Fault Un cantautor, con el ánimo de darse a conocer, publica sus canciones en un portal gratuito de Internet; sus amigos, y la gente que le gusta su estilo, lo escuchan. Esto mismo lo hacen cientos de miles de pequeños compositores. Y así el portal gratuito obtiene unos grandes beneficios. ¿Debe este portal repartir esos beneficios con los que han hecho posible que lo obtenga? (tags: contenidos internet musica compositores bebo google copyright) [...]

By: Akmal Wardak

Akmal Wardak — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:25:51 +0000

REALLY!!! I guess thats what I read in the article

By: Ajit Jaokar

Ajit Jaokar — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:37:23 +0000

I have been thinking of this – and here are my thoughts

A rather long blog post ..

The blind rent collectors: The future of journalism should not be confused with the future of newspapers ..

The title of this blog ‘The blind rent collectors’ is a play on the title of a book called The blind watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

It comes from a discussion I had with a colleague when I said that: If you are in the business model of ‘rent collecting’ you are blind to the wider threats around you until it is too late. I argue that the future of journalism should not be confused with the future of the newspapers

Anyway – good on Mike for taking this up – the issue affects us all ..
http://opengard...blind_rent.html

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:05:19 +0000

Just to point out; your figures are off by a factor of ten. Apple charges 79p (or .79 of a pound). Prs wanted google to pay 0.22p, not 22p.

By: Tom Medhurst

Tom Medhurst — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 06:42:30 +0000

Google make their money from advertising. Billy Bragg makes his money from royalties.

Would you expect Google to start allow companies to advertise completely for free…?

By: Tom Medhurst

Tom Medhurst — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 06:41:02 +0000

There is a difference between “advertising” and having access to the song in it’s entirety, complete with the music video.

The value of anything is the cheapest you can buy it for. How can you expect fans to purchase an album for £6-£10 when you are allowing others access to it for free?

By: Tom Medhurst

Tom Medhurst — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 06:36:53 +0000

I agree!

By: Herb Gilliland

Herb Gilliland — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 06:08:19 +0000

Yep, I invented YouTube and I have a bone to pick with Google, too. Cingular is sending me archival records of cellular phone calls made by Chad Hurley in November, 2004, to me (and calls made by me to PayPal). I want my fair 1%. It’s a cheap shot! If Chad were reading this, I’d hope he’d wise up. I won’t let this go by the wayside.

By: Schmoo

Schmoo — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:22:04 +0000

It’s Billy Bragg FFS, people who purchased his music were always idiots. Or deaf.

By: death romeo

death romeo — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 06:06:15 +0000

yeas, youtube has good and bad implication. It almost stuck the hollywood industry.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:35:55 +0000

Are you serious?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:34:14 +0000

If that’s the case then obviously he’s not very good, for I’ve never heard of him until now. Brett is right.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:29:58 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:19:47 +0000

“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.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:11:23 +0000

this

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 02:49:43 +0000

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?

By: Fstop

Fstop — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:17:47 +0000

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.

By: SEO Expert

SEO Expert — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:51:55 +0000

The point is, Google decided they would lose money by having to pay royalties so they decided to stop playing music videos and now the bonehead Billy Bragg is telling them they have to play music videos so they can pay him!!!?? Get a life Billy!! As was said, adapt or die.

By: Find more ways to monetize, not more ways to whine. | The Indy Awesome Blog

Find more ways to monetize, not more ways to whine. | The Indy Awesome Blog — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:23:44 +0000

[...] are whining that Google owes them royalties for using their music videos on British Youtube. Here’s what they had to say. Sir, We have growing concern over the use of our music on the Internet and the unfair way we [...]

By: Gordan Grasarevic

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:21:50 +0000

You know if he wants to look at it like that, then he should be charged for every search he made on Google..

And who wants to bet that this Billy Bragg uses Google Maps to get directions..

By: MB

MB — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:20:01 +0000

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”.

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:15:34 +0000

so if you sort-of steal and make losses, then sort-of stealing is OK?

By: Ben Powell

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:48:10 +0000

So let me get this right. The music industry wants to be paid by Google because Google are advertising their music? I thought advertising worked the other way around? Google should be charging them.

By: umoja

umoja — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:41:52 +0000

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.