Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Movies Music Technology

Old Media Says Google Will Destroy Film & Music 336

Posted by samzenpus
from the back-in-my-day dept.
SirWinston writes "A Daily Mail editor has written perhaps the most Luddite attack on Google ever, reading just like a 19th-century manifesto against looms and factories. 'Google has become a global predator ruthlessly gobbling up potential rivals such as YouTube and 'stealing' the creative work of writers, film makers and the music industry... Google has granted these piracy sites a licence to steal... It undermines investment in the very creative industries that have become such an important part of our national prosperity, and employ hundreds of thousands of people.' The article lionizes brick-and-mortar business and traditional media, and reads as a funny anachronism--except that these may be the attitudes of European regulators now shaking down Google and new media."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Old Media Says Google Will Destroy Film & Music

Comments Filter:
  • "pop sensation Adele" -- who the fuck is 'Adele'?

    • by Kell Bengal (711123) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:16PM (#35776872)
      I have the suspicion that troll articles like these really exist only to promote the token artist mentioned within. So yes, now you're asking questions like that, and maybe you'll even go visit youtube to listen to her sing to find out what all the complaining is about - which is exactly what they want you to do.
      • by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:25PM (#35776908) Journal
        And the demographic which reads the Daily Mail is neither technically literate nor particularly well-informed or erudite.
        • by Nerdfest (867930) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:44PM (#35777002)
          Curiosity got the better of me this week and I checked YouTube for "Friday" by Rebecca Black. I've apologized to my brain, and will never do that again. Please Google, please kill the current music cartels.
          • by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @09:32PM (#35777164) Journal

            Curiosity got the better of me this week and I checked YouTube for "Friday" by Rebecca Black. I've apologized to my brain, and will never do that again. Please Google, please kill the current music cartels.

            "Friday" came out of a small studio that mostly provides a vanity studio/lyrics/video package for teenagers.
            They have nothing to do with the "current music cartels" and would still be around even if the RIAA members fell off the face of the earth.

          • Ah, I see. You read cracked too. Same thing happened here. I'm still trying to clean my ears with an intense treatment of Iron Maiden and Judas Priest.

          • by Eskarel (565631) on Monday April 11, 2011 @12:01AM (#35778066)

            Whatever the sins of the music cartels, Rebecca Black is not among them. Her parents paid cash money to a record label who was offering a service to make a music video. This is a perfectly acceptable thing for a music label to do, it's diversifying their market, and vanity projects have always been profitable if the people with the vanity have enough cash.

            The problem has occured because society has a dirty little secret. Yes we like to see the underdog triumph, but we also really really like to watch people who care a lot fail. This girl has a dream to become a singer and the drive to try and the cash to fund her start, she also has absolutely no ability or talent whatsoever. There's something delicious about watching someone who cares that much fail so utterly and so we watch, and so she gets a record deal and money.

            Hopefully for her sake she understand that this is the case and has the mental strength to milk it for everything it's worth without ending up destroying herself, and hopefully for our sake that milking doesn't take very long./p.

        • Who reads which papers?

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by DittoBox (978894)

      I hate the vast majority of pop, on principal, and even I know who the fuck she is. Good voice, actually.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_(singer) [wikipedia.org]

      • by JWW (79176)

        Odd thing is, I know who she is only because Apple gave away one of her songs for free.

        Which is good because that let me know that I definitely wouldn't wan to pay for her music.

    • by Dogtanian (588974)

      "pop sensation Adele" -- who the fuck is 'Adele'?

      Er, she's a singer that's famous in Britain where the Daily Mail is published. I guess you could describe her as a "pop sensation" or something. :-)

    • "pop sensation Adele" -- who the fuck is 'Adele'?

      Given that she was "discovered" after posting songs on MySpace, I don't think she's a good choice as a strawman - neither for someone writing a Daily Mail article about Google killing the old school music industry, nor for a Slashdot poster trying to demonstrate how out-of-touch said Daily Mail writer is with the new music business model.

    • by cvtan (752695)
      Hey, I'm 62 and I know who she is. Mostly popular in England: http://www.adele.tv/videos/179/rolling-in-the-deep-official-video [adele.tv]
  • by chill (34294) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:13PM (#35776856) Journal

    After all the effort and money spent on perverting copyright law worldwide, how DARE someone come along and defy them! Have they no respect for TRADITION!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ColdWetDog (752185)
      It's nice to have a scapegoat. Concise summary of stupid article: We used to make a lot of money. Now we're not and don't know how to deal with things. It's Google's fault.
      • by Kjella (173770)

        Except that if it wasn't Google, it'd be someone else. It's like the horse and buggy industry singling out Ford. They won't be able to kill the Internet, and that's their real problem.

    • even worse, how dare they take those perverted copyright laws and lobbying and be better at it than the old media!
    • by MoonBuggy (611105)

      It'd be depressing if it weren't so funny. You can practically hear the author's monocle falling out in his apoplexy when he says "In its determination to boost the Google model and to encourage other internet search sites to follow it, the Government seems to believe the internet should be free and open to everyone.". It honestly sounds like he's about two steps away from adding "Don't they know that if it's open to everyone, the wrong sort of people will get access? Where would we be then?"

  • by scottrocket (1065416) <loudfellow@gmail.com> on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:18PM (#35776882) Journal
    They may be onto something.

    Film at elevenish on Hulu.

  • Be sure to get off my lawn!

  • by dbIII (701233) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:26PM (#35776910)
    Over the past few years Rupert Murdoch has been on an international roadshow telling everyone in politics that will listen that his major competitor for the advertising dollar - Google - will destroy jobs etc.
    All we are seeing here is influence being used to turn people against a business competitor.
    If you really want to see a "global predator" take a look at Newscorp. Most of the newspapers bleed money anyway but are kept because they are a good source of political influence and can be used as pawns in the paywall game of trying to make Google look like thieves.
    • Problem is the dumbasses we put in government are a lot more likely to listen to windbags like Murdock as opposed to someone that really has a level head in the situation.

      • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @09:08PM (#35777070) Journal

        We tend to get the governance we (as a whole) desire. If you want to change the system, stop voting for either of the two parties. Only when third parties can win elections will we see real change.

        • We tend to get the governance we (as a whole) desire. If you want to change the system, stop voting for either of the two parties. Only when third parties can win elections will we see real change.

          Speaking as an American - your comment reads as if you think the American two-party political model is the only one in use world-wide. It's not. Nor is America the only place where a guy like Rupert Murdoch (who is not an American, for whatever that's worth) can buy political influence, unfortunately.

          • by AK Marc (707885) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @10:07PM (#35777318)

            Rupert Murdoch (who is not an American, for whatever that's worth)

            My understanding is that he is a citizen of the USA and of no other country. As such, what would you report his nationality to be? Perhaps an Australian-born naturalized American? That still makes him "American" as far as I can tell.

          • by bane2571 (1024309)
            OP - American (at a guess) - 2 Party system. Rupert Murdoch - Australian - defacto 2 Party system Article - United Kingdom - defacto 2 party system Everyone involved is 2 party, I fail to see the problem.
        • We tend to get the governance we (as a whole) desire. If you want to change the system, stop voting for either of the two parties. Only when third parties can win elections will we see real change.

          Revolution does not come from getting people to vote for a less unsavory politician. There is too much money, too much power, at stake for the ones in control to just sit back and let real change happen. Either they use their finances to bury your independent message through lies and scandals, or else they just wait until they can get the new politicians under their control, one way or another. The problem is not the folks in office, it's the ones who control them. They are very good at what they do.

          • by lennier (44736)

            Revolution does not come from getting people to vote for a less unsavory politician.

            True. Incremental, peaceful, positive change comes from getting people to vote for a less unsavoury politician, and each election cycle the politicians get more and more savoury until you have a better world.

            But with revolution, you get to shout and scream a lot and break things and kill lots of people, and that's much more fun than making the world a better place slowly.

        • We tend to get the governance we (as a whole) desire. If you want to change the system, stop voting for either of the two parties. Only when third parties can win elections will we see real change.

          Idealistic nonsense. We vote for which crook to put into place, not for which action he'll take. It doesn't matter which party he's in, that won't fix it.

    • by Dogtanian (588974) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:45PM (#35777008) Homepage
      Absolutely true; however, the Daily Mail- right-wing POS though it is- isn't owned by Murdoch.
      • by dbIII (701233)
        I wonder if there is some more informal connection, if they just swallowed his lines from his roadshow or if they just see they can get some advantage themselves by pushing this view. They are losing advertising income to Google as well.
    • Can't say I ever met anyone too conservative to run to the government for protection as soon as his/her monopoly gets threatened with new competition. I knew government was good for something...

  • content creator (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theheadlessrabbit (1022587) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:28PM (#35776922) Homepage Journal

    That's funny.

    I'm a content creator, and Google and YouTube have done wonderful things for me. I've gotten a few shows and jobs from YouTube videos that have gone semi-viral.

    For the independent artist, the potential these services unlock is simply too important to lose.

    • Re:content creator (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:33PM (#35776946)

      For the independent artist, the potential these services unlock is simply too important to lose.

      Well, I do believe that you've summed up the entire issue that 'old media' has with 'new media' - their total lack of control over it. They are not determining who "makes it" or who gets work (and of course, who amongst them gets their %).

    • Re:content creator (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phantomfive (622387) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @09:15PM (#35777098) Journal
      Exactly. Do these people not remember how much youtube was celebrating when they were bought by Google? Getting bought by Google is the entire business plan of some companies. If that sort of cash-out didn't exist, then these companies would have trouble getting funding in the first place, and the services they create may have never gotten started.

      An abuse of a monopoly is when you start killing competitors who are better than you. So far Google has maintained their position by being the best in the field. Wake me up when they actually abuse their position.
    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      They have every right to be scared. I heard that Google is going to start producing content. What is so funny is the person talking about said that Google is going to spend 100,000,000 dollars to produce ten hours of weekly content. The talked about how it will be hard to create quality content for so little money! WHAT? Ten million of dollars an hour!. If they use a staff of say 50 people that comes to $200,000 a year per person. That seems like a good job to me. It will be interesting to see what will hap

    • That's funny.

      I'm a content creator, and Google and YouTube have done wonderful things for me. I've gotten a few shows and jobs from YouTube videos that have gone semi-viral.

      For the independent artist, the potential these services unlock is simply too important to lose.

      I work in movies. There was a big panic when Wolverine was leaked. That is the nightmare scenario for a movie in production. It *still* managed to do respectfully well at the box office. It turns out people are still happy to pay money to be entertained.

  • by Haedrian (1676506) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:34PM (#35776954)

    The book copying industry used to put a lot of people in jobs. The Printing press destroyed the book industry!

    Its stealing the work of creative people-who-copy-books-for-a-living.
    -
    Technology moves forward. Deal with it.

  • Technology wipes out whole industries?! Oh no! Whatever will horseshoe makers do!
  • Woosh. You've missed the point and potential just like the RIAA and MPAA.

  • Newsworthy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by woodhouse (625329) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:43PM (#35776988) Homepage

    The daily mail says all sorts of things. It's not news when they write it, and it's definitely not news that they wrote it.

  • by hey! (33014) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @08:43PM (#35776992) Homepage Journal

    With cold, heartless indifference, Google deprived the founders of a whole year's worth of labor; cynically stripped them of eleven and a half million dollars of hard-won venture capital and left them with nothing but 1.65 billion dollars of Google stock.

    • by DrJimbo (594231)

      Come on, the guy's got a point. Nobody "Youtubes" for anything nowadays. The whole secret Youtube plan to take over search never got off the ground.

    • by lennier (44736)

      You're questioning artificial scarcity? But scarcity, sir, is the foundation of our proud civilisation! We can only flourish as free and noble citizens if we have someone to turn to and say 'No, you can't have that!' Whatever products we create by the sweat of our brows are worth only as much as the tears of a dying orphan who can never afford to pay! And sweet indeed are those tears. They make a man's heart sigh for joy.

      If the air were free, who would produce oxygen? Would it grow on trees? You laugh, sir,

  • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @09:11PM (#35777076)

    First rule of journalism: The Daily Mail is Utter Rubbish.

  • This article is a lot of things, but Luddite is not one of them. Claiming google is too powerful, too intrusive, are not uncommon complaints. If I, as a Mac user announce my disgust of Microsoft, am I a luddite too?

    Luddite is generally synonymous with technology-phobia and hatred of labor-saving devices. Does the author claim we shouldn't use search engines or get rid of smartphones? No. He's just saying Google is malignant and malicious, not opining on tech in general.

    It's like when Bon Jovi said Steve Job

    • by lennier (44736)

      Steve Jobs killed the music experience

      Ah yes, I remember fondly those days when I wanted to hear me some Vera Lynn and had to strap on my steam-powered skis, trudge over the Rocky Mountains to Chicago, fighting mutant coyotes on the trail, only to find out that all the Edison cylinders were sold out due to a shortage of Bakelite, because of the war with the French.

      But fifteen years later, when the snows had been cleared by mule-plough, it was so much sweeter to finally own that music. The wait made it worth the while, you see.

      Nowadays I just ha

  • by Dan667 (564390) on Sunday April 10, 2011 @09:31PM (#35777160)
    the current music and film system stifles good music and films. The sooner this system dies the better.
  • Look, if you want me to be afraid of Google, you should point out that they know an incredible amount of information about most people using the internet. Google should be extremely easy to scaremonger about--they're always watching what I do! They've got pictures of my house! They're freaking spying on everyone, and you expect us to get worked up because of intellectual property? Because they're messing up your business model? I mean, if you want people to panic about Google, maybe you should use the
  • Quoting from article:

    "Nine out of the first ten websites which pop up on Googleâ(TM)s search engine are run by pirates who have downloaded Adeleâ(TM)s output and offer it online far more cheaply than official copyrighted sites and High Street retailers."

    This isn't the only piece of fiction in this article but this is so damingly wrong I'm in disbelief that an editor of a newspaper could make such a error. Anyone can easily type in Adele into Google to reveal this piece of fiction. As evidence I offer: http://www.google.com/search?&q=adele [google.com]

    Non of the first top ten results I get are "pirated" even by the Dailymail's most loose definition of the term, most are official or 100% legit.

    So I stopped reading and got on with my life.

  • Yes, I did find the article a very enjoyable read. Why? Because it's clearly written in panic mode. There's so much frothing at the mouth, so much pure emotional drivel. I'm quite happy to see this person, and those whom he represents, so distressed. Clearly, Google is doing something right if they're pushing so many buttons at the same time!

  • FYI for slashdot moderators and readers. Someone who does not like new technology or some facets of new technology is not a Luddite. Someone who does not go along with the current fashion that newer is better is not a Luddite. Just because someone doesn't want the kids on their lawn doesn't make them a Luddite. Please kids, look up what the word means.

  • Yeah, the UK's recording companies and newspapers are busy self-destructing, and Google is getting rich. The article fails to make a connection between the two.

  • From TFA:

    Take HMV for a moment. Clearly, in the internet age a retail group selling CDs through its HMV stores, and books through its Waterstone’s shops, might look to be on a losing wicket.

    Don't know about other countries, but over here the HMV stores charge about 20-30% more for the same CDs and DVDs compared with other retailers. If they go bankrupt and die it will be because of their uncompetitive pricing, not because Google stole their wares.

  • Dear Slashdot. Both the article you link to and the summary itself are clearly uninformed flamebait. You can do better. I would post a much longer comment disputing both the claim that Google will destroy Film and Music and the counter-claim that defending copyright makes you a "luddite". However, the summary text certainly doesn't invite reasoned discussion, and I'm not going to bother feeding the trolls.
  • This isn't news, this is just "Old Man Yells At Cloud."

God is real, unless declared integer.

Working...