91热爆

Instinctively I feel the content creators are "pushing excrement uphill" and that they have the wrong end of the stick. The myriad failings of the content creation industries are plain to see and have been well documented.

However, I am really pleased to see them start to push back and to show some evidence of having fight left in them. I am also pleased that charging for content is being discussed as it may start to remind people that what a lot of folk - like me - spend time creating has some value. I think micro-payments are the most likely way forward.

Until Google starts selling music, there will be no sustainable business model for YouTube. Let's take a look at how I purchase music...

1. I hear a song on the radio, on the bus, at a club, somewhere and not down the lyrics/song title.

2. I search the lyrics online and locate the song title by searching song lyric websites which use content from songwriters which no doubt the song writers would like to profit from that stolen content.

3. With the song title, I use YouTube to confirm that I've found the song I'm looking for or to determine the cover version I'm looking for.

4. I open up iTunes and download the tune. This is the point where everyone involved in that chain should get their money, not a moment before.

Sadly the recording industry want to take a few pence at every stage of the chain.

It would be like Tesco trying to charge you to walk around the store, and to charge you for a tiny sample of cheese to decide if you want the "really really mature cheddar" or the "only sort of mature cheddar" and then, once you get to the checkout, charging you for the cheddar.

Instead, the recording industry should do what Tesco actually do, invite you into the store, give you lots and lots of little bits of cheese (a loss leader, if you will) and only take any money when you reach the checkout with cheese in hand.

YouTube etc should be considered by the recording industry as a loss leader of sorts leading to the eventual sale later on!

(And yes, I appreciate that buying cheese is not the best analogy but you get my point and I bet you really want some Cheddar now!)

I think streamed music now needs to be seen by artists as a promotional tool with the aim of encouraging purchases (be it CDs, Downloads, Gig Tickets, T-Shirts etc.)

Music videos were always called promos anyway.

The intriguing thing is that YouTube is only replicating the model that MTV has run for years.

MTV gets free content from the record labels (music videos with high production values that minute-for-minute are some of the most expensive televison on air).

Then it charges the record labels if they want to advertise around the content that they have already paid for and created.

It's a brilliant business model that emerged because the record companies weren't paying attention while MTV created an audience and said to them: "hey, you can put your music videos on our channel without having to pay a dime".

Now, amazingly, they let Google do exactly the same thing.

In the end, the labels realised that they needed the promotional oxygen of MTV more than anything else.

Odds on, they'll conclude the same with YouTube.

The PRS is a dinosaur and is struggling to face the changes that are occurring within music and the music industry. As a member, I've always thought that their system was old-fashioned, inefficient and geared towards big-earning bands and artists - I once rang them to ask why I hadn't received royalties for radio play which I had in fact heard first hand - I was told: "it'll only come to about two pounds" and that I would have to provide evidence for the play. I thought that finding evidence for radio play was their job, and I was somewhat perturbed by their attitude towards my paltry royalties, as if they weren't worth claiming for.

Their out-of-touch ideas are not surprising however - in order to join in the first place I had to send a cheque, which cleared about two months after they got it. If they can't receive card payments, I'm not surprised that they don't understand YouTube. It's all a ploy to generate more cash because the major labels and the PRS lacked the foresight to see things changing the way they have - no one buys records from HMV anymore, so they'll just charge more in other areas to make up the shortfall, instead of actually coming up with realistic solutions. I do think that Google should pay more than they do, but the amounts that the various European performing rights societies are demanding are just unfeasible.

It's the same reason that the PRS are now sending their people round to visit garages and other such places of work (that listen to the radio) to make them obtain a licence - it never bothered them in the past and they tended to turn a blind eye, but drowning as they are, they are grabbing out at any kind of cash flow that they can.

About YouTube, Google already said that it's not making much money. About the newspapers, they should think of some business models that work for them. I have read recently about a newspaper in Texas that gives it away for free, but they are monetizing by doing something else: "Music, film, and interactive conference and festival" - SxSW (South by SouthWest)

The Recording Industry and the Newspapers need Google more than Google needs them! But they don't see that...

"Why should our members subsidise YouTube's failed business model?

These people really have no sense of irony.

I don't know whats more suprising.
That people have viewed Rick Astley 100 million times or that the music industry thinks that anyone would have paid to watch it even once.

I think the music industry is a joke anyway. There are too many people in the chain all trying to take a slice out the pie for a product that is not very expensive to produce. They spend a load of money on videos and advertising and other junk that sends the cost through roof and expect consumers to pay for there excesses.
Songs should be 20 pence a track not 99pence. Amazon has the right idea 29pence each, itunes is a joke and always has been.
As far as you tube goes I actually agree for once with the content industry (music or newspapers or anyone else for that matter), google effectievly produce nothing, they have just about zero intellectual property rights (only there engine, google maps etc) the rest is other peoples content that google use to get hits from and sell adverts, hence google always has been a leech on the internet and just like you tube is a poor business model and massively a over valued company who's assets are basically just lots of computers that are rapidly losing value. How can it possibly be valued more than walmart, who turnover more in a week than google does in a year?

Also how the hell was you tube ever valued at the $4bn or what ever it was. You tube is a lose making company and always has been. Until server and bandwidth costs come down dramtically it can never make a profit. Its hughly floored, but in a world were hits seem have something to with value i.e. facebook then we will nevere really find out whats what.
Facebook is the same they reckon people spend hours on facebook each day, answer is no they don't, they are login but not actually looking at anything on the site they are idle. Facebook is another compnay massively over valued and which generates next to zero profit if any.

Google needs to wake up becuase the only way google makes money is by using other peoples content and not actually making any content of its own. Google is primarily a driver of traffic and as such should be able to make money from providing that service however it should also realise that the only reason it makes money is becuase others make content and pay those that provide content as it has to be a symbiotic relationship. Google can not survive without conent providers and vice versa. google uses the hits it generates to sell adverts but can only generate hits dure to other people content, note its teh same with facebook.
Google has got to realise it must take a smaller piece of the pie.

I also feeel as though google is so big that at some point it will need regulation by goverments, it already is in China to some degree, becuase google now has power over driving the vast majority of traffic around the internet and it is google whom decides which sites are listed at the top not neccesarily based on the accuracy of the information or the relvance to the search.

I hope and pray that one day a search engine will manage to challenge google or that a serach engine is developed that is non-profit based so that internet traffic is not driven buy a profit making model but a model that just sneds you to the most relavent information. It will never happen but I can but hope.

Lets get real shall we, nothing is free and google is one of many internet companies that needs to realise this and so do content providers. Get hits from google should not be free, they provide a service also.

By the way I do use google all the time but I'm not a fan of the way it operates.

The products of the media industries simply aren't worth what they used to be. They have produced, distributed and recycled content in such volume that its perceived value has plummeted, yet every element of the chain still expects the same juicy returns of their hay day.

Whether they come to terms with large volumes, low margins, or restrict supply to drive margins up, some seats will have to be removed from the dining table.

The comment on the media industry not wanting to support Google's failed business model made me laugh as well :)

I don't know why PRS are complaining.

It seems that they think Google are making money out of PRS' hard work, so they want to charge more than Google is willing to pay. Google is perfectly able to turn down any offered price, they don't have to show PRS' videos for a price set by PRS.

If PRS really believes that Google was making lots of money out of nothing, they should be glad that Google has pulled the vidoes, so now they're not loosing anything. If they want control over the income generated by having their videos online, nobody is stopping them from creating their own video site.

However, their continued complaints makes it look like they realise that they need Google more than Google needs them. They could create their own site but in fact there's value in the name and community built up at youtube.

Basically content creators need to acknowledge that there is value in content delivery systems, and not all the value is down to the content itself.

My band has a video up on youtube, because we want people to be able to see it, enjoy it, fall in love with it, and then become a fan of the band. Hopefully enough people would do this so that we can make a proper living out of music, and thus dedicate all our energies to our art form. We couldn't do this without Google, so as far as I'm concerned, they're providing a service for us, the artists. After all, you can't get on the radio or TV without paying a radio/TV plugger to get you playlisted, so Google could actually turn the whole argument on its head by saying "tell you what, if you want your music videos on our site, you have to pay us to host them."

Youtube isn't, after all, primarily a music video site; it arose from people posting videos of themselves doing stupid stuff and doing bad cover versions of songs, and it just so happened that people realised it was a good way of sharing their favourite music videos (which you couldn't see any other way since they are generally not hosted on the websites of the artists, at least not permanently).

Surely the answer is to have a music video mini-site on youtube as a subscription service? Or perhaps the PRS and Google could get together to create a specialised music video site that satisfies both parties?

Either way, the fact remains that the joining process for PRS is so convoluted that people like myself would probably far rather just deal directly with Google anyway.

One point also being missed here is that small businesses have to pay a yearly PRS fee also if they use a radio or play CDs on their premises.

Take the hair salon that has Radio One playing the background they are by law supposed to have a licence which is paid to the PRS.

My point is that if you tube aren't going to pay then hair salons or corner shops shouldn't have to either. It's not a fair system.

If you have a hair salon or corner shop and play CDs or use a radio in it watch out if you don't have a licence PRS is out to get you!

I'm not supporting the PRS side of things here I just want to see a fairer option for all. I personally think comment number 2 is spot on.

I suggest a business model based on the quality of the music reproduction you receive.

All streaming sites, and low cost download sites should be limited to a few kilobits/second and/or limited audio bandwidth music (say 100-8kHz).

Then for anything better you start charging more. CD quality at CD prices, HD quality a few % more. This is what variable pricing on iTunes and Amazone should be about. But the same quality for from a few cents to over a dollar, no thanks.

Manage the quality tree and you manage your income.

Many bands today are starting to realise this, and are introducing high quality downloads on their sites. Now is time for the majors to get in on the act.

I think that everyone who reads this comment should realize that this comment is "online content" which _I_ created, and I expect each of you to pay me for it. After all, if a songwriter wants his 15 minute creation to earn the same fee as a book writer's 6 month creation, then my 60 second comment should be equally rewarded.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.