

So Now Everything Is Google’s Fault - ericbieller
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/05/so-now-everything-is-googles-fault/

======
danhak
I usually disagree with Arrington but found myself nodding my head while
reading this. Traditional media's sense of entitlement with regard to the
internet is truly astounding.

~~~
seertaak
Of course... how dare they demand control over their content?

~~~
danhak
That's not what it's about. In the case of Billy Bragg, it is he who's trying
to control Google's content. In the case of that Guardian piece, there's a
fundamental lack of understanding about Google's role. Google is the lifeblood
of content providers. If you write an article and nobody can find it, does it
really exist?

~~~
seertaak
> In the case of Billy Bragg, it is he who's trying to control Google's
> content

Except that it's not google's content, is it? It's content that's owned by the
songwriters, as google themselves acknowledge. Why is this so difficult to
understand?

------
rs
This is really weird - how can anyone actually force a company to continue a
service ? That's as good as saying that Sony should start making old school
Walkmans again.

If a product or service is not profitable for a company, it is correct for the
company to discontinue that product/service. All other parties should just
live with it and work around it.

------
neilo
Royalty paychecks are required to "keep" the "vibrant" music industry alive?
No wonder everyone wants to be a musician

~~~
seertaak
Why was this voted up five times? This comment is breathtakingly idiotic.

I mean, what exactly are you saying here? That royalty paychecks are wrong or
immoral? If so, then, in your considered opinion, how exactly should musicians
be remunerated?

> No wonder everyone wants to be a musician

No, in fact, people want to be musicians because music is beautiful and people
like doing beautiful things. If they wanted money, they would go into banking
or IT -- you'll note that Pat Metheney doesn't have his own 747, but Larry and
Sergei do.

And, finally, for insinuating that music nowadays isn't vibrant, and heaping
scorn on the totally reasonable desire by musicians to earn a decent living:
fuck you, you pompous twit.

~~~
MrRage
It's not idiotic at all. Most musicians, even of the mega pop star variety,
make most of their money _performing music_ , not from royalties. I would go
so far as to say that musicians _should_ make most of their money by giving
concerts.

~~~
unalone
I upvoted you, because you make an interesting point, but I disagree. What if
I'm a conceptual musician? What if I'm a _terrific_ composer but a terrible
performer? Shouldn't there be a venue where I can make money through my
compositions even if I can't assemble a traveling band to tour and perform
them?

------
froo
quote from Arrington in the article

 _They either need to adapt or die. And they’re choosing a very noisy and
annoying death._

I think they're probably a bit like chickens. Heads already severed but still
running around.

------
lakeeffect
I didnt understand why Bragg was solo'd out it seemed he wasnt even the
primary undersigned.

With Googles additions into the free music market in china earlier last week,
one might be lead to believe that they would look have music videos in the UK.

The overall voice Michael seemed to write the article in was one depicting the
G20 Riots in the UK.

------
axod
22p per play is a ridiculous figure to try and get. There's just no way
YouTube could ever make that from advertising or subscription.

Much as it irritated me not being able to play music videos from youtube,
seems like they did exactly the right thing taking them down.

~~~
seertaak
It's .22p, not 22p, per play -- similar to the price charged to radio
stations. If radio stations can make it work, so should YouTube. And if it
can't, then I prefer for the content to be removed, because if advertising
can't adequately finance creation of music then some other approach will need
to be found. I would prefer the direct approach, i.e. iTunes, you pay for the
album or song, or Spotify, but it appears that around here this is seen as
hopelessly antiquated (apparently new and better ways exist, although oddly no
person or company has stepped forward to take advantage of these el dorado
revenue streams). Failing that we could go back to the 17th century and have
government sponsored patronage system. Brave new world!

And before people start posting replies along the lines of "it's not google's
business to subsidize music execs" -- it is if a significant driver for
google's traffic is interest in music content. And last I checked, it's not
the music execs flying around in their own 747s, it's Larry and Sergei.

Don't be evil? Please.

~~~
jibiki
> If radio stations can make it work, so should YouTube.

Nobody really knows, but the suspicion is that it's more expensive to do
online distribution. Here's Mark Cuban on a similar subject:

[http://blogmaverick.com/2009/01/27/the-great-internet-
video-...](http://blogmaverick.com/2009/01/27/the-great-internet-video-lie/)

"If you want an interesting excercise, call up a CDN and ask them how much it
would cost to support an audience that is never smaller than 10k simultaneous
viewers for a 1mbs stream, 24 hours a day, for 365 consecutive days. Then call
up one of the satellite providers and ask how much they would charge you to
deliver to 100pct of their customers, and then call up a cable company and ask
the same question. Total up the cable and satellite numbers and compare them
to the internet costs. You may be surprised to see which is cheaper."

He's talking about mass distribution, but distribution on a small scale is
going to be even more expensive per stream served. Of course, it's still
possible to generate cash from serving content online because Hulu does it.
Whether .22p/song is a possibility, I have no idea.

> And if it can't, then I prefer for the content to be removed

That's what they did, unless I totally misread the article.

~~~
seertaak
Those are fair points, and I agree that YouTube removed the music labels'
content. Personally, while I sympathize with the songwriters complaining about
YouTube's removal of their content -- after all, they have a gun to their
heads: if they force YouTube to remove the material, then that material just
gets fileshared, so they lose either way --, I think they're in the wrong on
that count. Either way, this really wouldn't be a problem if people didn't
download music illegally. That's the fundamental problem. It's what gives
YouTube the ability to say, "no, we won't pay that price." -- the implicit
corollary being, "and if we don't pay you, nobody will, because no sovereign,
ISP, or consumer is willing to respect your property rights". I think that's
what the songwriters find galling.

~~~
jibiki
Interesting. I occasionally watch music videos on YouTube, and I try to watch
the official one whenever possible, because all else being equal, I'd like to
see people get paid. I think there's a ton of money to be made off of the
monetization of the goodwill fans have towards a band. If a musician says,
"here, look at the Coke polar bears dance for a while while you download my
music, this helps me get paid," I think he'll make a lot of money. Not as much
as he's getting for CDs, but hey, something is better than nothing. And if the
labels keep things going as they are, nothing is what they're going to get.
The iTunes store isn't really the solution: much of the time, people want to
pay for music @ .22p a listen, not $1.00 a download.

~~~
seertaak
> The iTunes store isn't really the solution: much of the time, people want to
> pay for music @ .22p a listen, not $1.00 a download.

I totally agree, that's why I mentioned Spotify as well as iTunes. Although
Spotify works off a flat-rate model, it could equally work on a per-play
micropayment model.

