Old Media Says Google Will Destroy Film & Music 336
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."
It's the Daily Mail (Score:2)
"pop sensation Adele" -- who the fuck is 'Adele'?
Re:It's the Daily Mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's the Daily Mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's the Daily Mail (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's the Daily Mail (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:It's the Daily Mail (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's the Daily Mail (Score:4, Funny)
that fucking song really is a mind-virus.
don't be fooled by the apparent ineptitude of the thing. it'll get in your head more than anything the RIAA can spew out.
i think it's an IQ draining virus. God knows how they found a common music-injection exploit in the general population.
Re:It's the Daily Mail (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
It's meant to imply that there was a straight forward exchange involved in the process. Normally the record industry doesn't engage in that sort of exchange, so it was worth pointing out.
Re:It's the Daily Mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Movies... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I don't think this will work quite as well for movies.
Don't be so sure. We're already seeing the rise of series such as Felicia Day's The Guild [watchtheguild.com] and Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog [drhorrible.com] , which has been free online in various official capacities. Also, Google has started producing full-length movies, such as Girl Walks Into a Bar [youtube.com] . (The latter of which even features some semi-big names, like Carla Gugino, Josh Hartnett, Danny DeVito, and a bunch of other names you'd probably recognize.) Also, Hulu is producing a show, The Confession [hulu.com] , starring Kiefer Sutherland and John Hurt, both big names in the business.
I honestly think--and hope!--that the times of big television networks being the gateway to what we can and can't see are soon to be over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, Google has started producing full-length movies, such as Girl Walks Into a Bar [youtube.com] . (The latter of which even features some semi-big names, like Carla Gugino, Josh Hartnett, Danny DeVito, and a bunch of other names you'd probably recognize.)
"The uploader has chosen not to make this video available in your country"
I honestly think--and hope!--that the times of big television networks being the gateway to what we can and can't see are soon to be over.
Only to be replaced by another 'gateway' that disallows me to participate in world culture based on who I am, where I'm from or their valuation of my demographic. Nothing's going to get better without major copyright reforms, Google, Fox, Apple, NBC, who gives a shit...
Re: (Score:2)
Who reads which papers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re:It's the Daily Mail (Score:4, Insightful)
"Given that she was "discovered" after posting songs on MySpace"
Genuinely, or "I've got relatives in the business" discovered like Lily Allen?
Or "let's pretend this is a grass roots movement but really it's just marketing" discovered?
Re: (Score:2)
Quick, get that man a cane! (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
However... (Score:3)
Film at elevenish on Hulu.
...and (Score:2)
Be sure to get off my lawn!
Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so you must be a member of a music union of some kind.
You're next.
Ban the Printing Press (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Ban the Printing Press (Score:5, Funny)
You son of a bitch. And here I was going to move to a monastery, make beer and wine, and write out books by hand for the rest of my life.
Seriously screw you and this new fangled shit!
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that actually sounds pretty good when you put it like that. Just make sure not to join one of those crazy sects that require celibacy. Otherwise all that beer and wine you make will never be put to its proper use.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?
What is the proper use of beer and wine, other than drinking it?
You must be some kind of pervert.
(Crosses himself)
:-]
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no! Whatever will horseshoe makers do!
Corner the luck industry.
Dear Editor (Score:2)
Woosh. You've missed the point and potential just like the RIAA and MPAA.
Newsworthy? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Yes, Google RUTHLESSLY gobbled up YouTube. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
We need to move beyond artificial scarcity... (Score:2)
...as a business model: http://artificialscarcity.com/ [artificialscarcity.com]
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation [peswiki.com]
(my writings)
Re: (Score:3)
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,
What do you expect, it's the Daily Mail (Score:3)
First rule of journalism: The Daily Mail is Utter Rubbish.
Luddite? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
cannot happen fast enough (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even very good scaremongering (Score:2)
Prize for no.1 *facepalm* in that article goes to: (Score:2)
"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.
A very enjoyable read (Score:2)
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!
Luddite... (Score:2)
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.
I fail to see the connection (Score:2)
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.
Grand old dames (Score:2)
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.
Slashdot Flamebait (Score:2)
What's the point? (Score:2)
Re:trololololo (Score:5, Funny)
Newspapers? I've tried accessing one of those. They've got this awful fixed-size layout; any decent web developer will find a way to make a mobile-friendly version these days. Other serious usability issues are the lack of effective hyperlinks ("see page 5" is about as useful as "it's somewhere on the sitemap"), no way to stream audio or video, no RSS feeds, no search function, and no way to instantly update with breaking news. That's not even getting into the startup costs for a newspaper versus installing drupal on a VPS.
I just don't see how these new newspaper things are going to get a foothold in the market, considering all their disadvantages compared to established technologies.
Re:trololololo (Score:5, Funny)
Newspapers are still useful and computers will never replace them entirely.
With newspapers you can:
And most important of all, you can wrap a cold beer so the cops can't tell what you're drinking!
I rest my case.
Re: (Score:3)
And most important of all, you can wrap a cold beer so the cops can't tell what you're drinking!
I did the opposite once; and not even intentionally: I had bought a bottle of iced tea and lost the cap down a sewer, so I decided to transfer it to a suitable, empty bottle I happened to have. When I had to stop a little later, just beside a police car, I gave the cops a friendly smile and took a sip of tea - and they pulled me over; I was almost ripped out of the front seat and made to blow an alcometer. I hadn't really thought about the fact that the bottle I was using was an old whisky bottle - Jolly Wa
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever wiped your ass with newsprint? I'd rather use sandpaper, and sticks. newsprint uses the cheapest ink on the planet and it barely sticks to the page. It will spread all over your ass.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:trololololo (Score:5, Insightful)
This has never been about piracy. The dream of a big label contract for artists is becoming less and less valuable because its the label's job to promote and make the artist popular. The internet has made is so any Tom, Dick or Harry can post their music on YouTube and get a million hits. We are starting to see more of these "Laddy Gagga vs Snoop Dog" video clips, by combining the talent they are trying to entice both fan bases to buy the same album - just a tactic of desperation IMHOP.
Internet is making it so if live in Afghanistan and provided I have an internet link I can watch the latest episode of "Two and Half Men" and even if I'm not in the "legitimate" broadcast zone there's always tvduck.com. This again isn't about piracy directly its about control of the media, its about who sees what and when and how to cash in on that control.
All the internet is doing is making these lazy ass fat cats in Hollywood have to go out an earn their cash, instead of applying the same crappy formula to everything they touch and just expecting it to work.
I for one am not feeling one bit sorry for them.
Re: (Score:3)
In My House Of Pancakes?
But seriously, the big media does, or at least should play an important filtering role—finding the diamonds among the coal. The problem is that about twenty years ago, they realized they could just sell the coal, and that by the time people realized it was coal, they could find a new way to polish the coal to fool people into buying more of it. It was at that point that the old guard stopped being useful.
And now they're complaining that their incompetence has resulted in thei
I wouldn't discount the European attitude (Score:4, Insightful)
Their regulators can do a lot of damage.
In Germany, if an artwork is sold through auction and the artist is still living, they get a cut of the sale regardless of past ownership or transactions of the piece. It's a distasteful fetishism to me, to elevate this type of worker above others as if their efforts are supreme compared to us simpletons.
Basically, an elitist's georgism.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me add, can't happen fast enough. And hopefully before they die they'll realize that substance is better than flash. And they'll still drive themselves into the grave with both feet, and their head up their ass over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is, fundamentally, an advertising company.
They get their revenue from advertising. And from 'advanced demographic analysis services' that they sell to advertisers.
It's weird, because we used to despise that crap in the nerd/geek scene. Seems like a new crowd has arrived.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not necessarily a new crowd, just a misunderstanding of what the crowd approves of. If the crowd loves a certain company, then they can do no wrong. If IBM or Microsoft pulled the same stunts they'd be widely criticized. But Google is the darling of the young hipster techie crowd. The "we're going to copy all books without permissions and put them online" stance of Google won a lot of fans in the "copyright is evil" crowd. A lot of people don't like shades of gray; to them a company is either evil
How the geeks took over marketing (Score:3)
What happened is that the geeks took over marketing. Honestly.
In the past marketing was run by a lot of "creative" types who used their social intuition and some conventional wisdom about what worked to appeal to the consumer. The marketing department preferred hired people who majored in marketing (obviously) but also psychology, comparative literature, communications, sociology, etc. The thought was that these were the sort of people who understood what makes people tick, and so were better qualified to
Re:Parasite, yes (Score:5, Insightful)
My personal experience of Google: I do photographs for newspapers. Google have used several of my photographs as part of Google News without permission or payment. I sent them an invoice, and a long time later they contacted me to say that they weren't going to pay AND would only take down the photos if I filed a DMCA complaint.
Does Google have any legal obligations outside of the DMCA?
In the past, you would have had a case, but now if you don't start with a DMCA notice, you won't get very far with a Judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Google have any legal obligations outside of the DMCA?
I realize we live in a dog-eat-dog world, but I personally don't think much of people that live by no rule other than that of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
people that live by no rule other than that of the law.
Agreed. Who do those law-abiding law-abiders think they are? I can't abide them.
If this keeps up, our entire nation will be ruled by law, and then we'll all rue the day, and rue it hard.
Re:Parasite, ... no (Score:5, Insightful)
Google news puts up tiny thumbnails of photos, and provides links to the newspaper that (presumably) paid you. What, precisely, is your issue? Google news has driven *more* traffic to the newspaper. It isn't like your photo has any value in a 1.5x1.5cm format, which is all the google news thumbnail shows, other the possibility that someone will click on it and go to the newspaper site in order to see the larger photo.
Why is this a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't like your photo has any value in a 1.5x1.5cm format
If the photo has no value, why is Google using it? If Google's ad-selling news area doesn't benefit from using the photo, why are they using it?
Google makes an unlicensed copy of the photographer's image, and makes money selling ads along side of their display of that pirated image. They use the fact that they've collected a lot of pirated images as a way to attract visitors to their news area. It's mysterious to you, somehow, why the people who create the content find that to be contrary to copyright l
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For me to take you seriously, I would need.
1. a link to even one photo of yours used in google news
2. a reason why your didn't just file the DCMA and stop whining how the big bad google "stole" your precious photos.
DCMA is the legal process for take downs in the US, so what's the problem? Everyone files them if they find their unauthorized content online File it and your content disappears.
I can't speak on google's respect for copyright, but I do know that Robot.txt noindex nofollow work pretty well.
Otherw
Re: (Score:2)
You have a legitimate beef, but shouldn't you be complaining to congress? (I just now clicked your link -- nice site! -- and I see that you live in Scotland. Not sure who you should complain to.) Instead of dealing with copyright in a serious and thoughtful way, in the US we get asinine and cynical legislation like the Sonny Bono copyright extension act and the DMCA. It's no wonder that average folks have no respect for copyright, and one certainly can't expect Google to show more respect than is required
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright holders (and more typically mere owners) are the parasites, expecting to paid indefinitely for the same work. Google does the minimum necessary to respect copyright, and expecting anything more is unreasonable. If you wanted money in exchange for your own photos, you should have sold them. Copyrights, like patents and other forms of intellectual monopoly, are detrimental to society, and we would all be better off if they ceased to exist.
If you are at least making an effort, I am sympathetic to
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, so the people who create things are the leeches, and the people who pirate the works are the creators?
No, people that hold copyrights over their work are the leeches, feeding off their government-enforced monopoly at the expense of society, and people that actually *work* for a living instead of expecting to be paid for work their grandfathers did half a century ago are the creators of wealth. That ought to be obvious enough.
Really? You're going to all of that toxic, intellectually dishonest trouble just to justify your habit of ripping off entertainment?
Considering there's plenty of scientific studies showing that current copyright laws are, in fact, detrimental to society I believe it's you who's being intellectually dishonest just to
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question: how come Google used your photos in news?
Don't think that I'm belittling your case or mocking you, the system is broken.
Were they part of a news article that got indexed by Google? If so, did you not get paid by the news source itself?
If you take a picture from the Calton Hill or of Edinburgh Castle, say, you can claim a copyright on it; but how is it different from any of the thousand pictures taken by amateurs every day?
I'm not saying it is your case, because you did not mention what sor
Aren't they just 80x80 images? (Score:2)
I don't go to Google News very often, but when I do the images I see are always 80 pixels by 80 pixels.
Now, I know that doesn't change the fact that the photographer had to be there and Did Work to take that photo and that it would be nice if there was some compensation if it's going to be used on a commercial site like Google.
But (anecdotal time) if I see that image and it looks vaguely interesting, I will click on it to see the full size image. I won't just look at that 80x80 image and go "strewth, great
MAKE IT GO AWAY (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want to deal with Google, there's a simple solution for you - and Rupert Murdoch. Make them go away!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard [wikipedia.org]
Of course - there are ramifications with doing this, but thats what you're chasing, isn't it ??
Re: (Score:3)
I predict that many people will falsely claim persecution rather than recognize and address the fundamental flaws in their own arguments.
Re: (Score:3)
I predict that there will be a lot of fair comments in this thread modded down as flamebait, and I guess this will be one of them.
My personal experience of Google: I do photographs for newspapers. Google have used several of my photographs as part of Google News without permission or payment. I sent them an invoice, and a long time later they contacted me to say that they weren't going to pay AND would only take down the photos if I filed a DMCA complaint.
Even if you disregard the (valid) parasite claims in the Daily Mail article, I would say that Google simply doesn't respect copyright. (Or, more accurately, doesn't respect other people's copyright. I'm quite sure they would jealously protect their own.)
I suspect the reason you haven't sent a DMCA takedown notice is that you know it's good for your business to leave those pictures on Google for promotional purposes. After all they just told you what you needed to do to get them taken down. You just want that benefit AND payment. I presume you were paid by the newspaper for taking the photos.
Now you want to be paid again because the newspaper and photos are searchable? I suspect you knew (or even hoped) they would be searchable. I suspect you use search eng
Re: (Score:3)
One of the nice things about Firefox 4 is that the icon of Goatse man on the tab is large enough to identify, but small enough not to actually have any detail at all. Plus you can open and close the tab without actually viewing it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not basic economics. There is a cost of production and as the supply grows it will eventually approach the marginal cost of production. However for goods that are infinitely reproducible, that doesn't really apply.
The problem is that while it works out for physical goods, with goods that aren't physical you get weird things happening, you can't count on being able to control the supply and as such you've got to price it in a way which actually pays for the production of the first one, otherwise you
Re: (Score:2)
As the supply approaches infinity, the price approaches 0.
So if supply is infinite, the price is 0 and thus music should be free.
Basic economics.
Also, since the music industry violates the law of supply and demand, it messes up the entire economic system. Blame them for the recession!
Didn't pass Economics 101, didja? 'Supply' isn't the download, it's actually the various songs that artists make. The big difference is that people only buy one copy of that song, so a new song has to be made to get them to spend money again.
So, no, music should not be free. What does violate supply and demand, though, is that prices haven't changed due to competition.