It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Code Found In YouTube's Most Recent App Update All But Confirms Pay-To-View Channels Are Coming
page: 1share:
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal suggested that Google is in talks with record labels to start its own Spotify-like music streaming service. In the same article, the newsgroup also reported that El Goog is looking to do something similar with YouTube, and launch pay-to-view channels, though no specific details past that were given. Now, some code found in the most recent YouTube app update basically confirms the service is on its way:
VERY short article, in fact I've probably posted too much of the content from the site here. Just sort of wanted thoughts about the possibility that YouTube is going to start charging for content, and what your personal reaction would be.
I guess for me be willing to pay for a channel would really depend on the channel. Frankly, there are none that I would be willing to fork over cash for at the moment. I wonder if this would be Netflixesque. You pay a certain amount, and can legally watch Discovery channel episodes or something like that. I would actually be OK with that. There are episodes I would love to watch but don't want to buy. I can see charging for content as a way to make a little money for the companies who's videos are usually stolen, while saving the consumer a bit of coin. If I just want to watch something once (which often happens) I don't want to pay for the pleasure of being able to watch it all the time when I know I won't.
If this goes the way of Hulu, where you're paying for the service and also forced to watch ads, I will take issue. That method wouldn't surprise me either. Give me good content ad free and I will happily pay for it. Make me pay and then subject me to stupid ads and I'm not going to. I'm still pissed that everything I download from Fox (Family Guy, Simpsons, etc.) has an ad at the beginning. I paid for it. You already made your money. It makes me want to pirate. Arrrrr.
View the code here
reply to post by Domo1
The way I read it is that you have to pay to watch some music videos.
Me to YouTube; I don't watch music, I listen to it.
I never watched MTV and any video that YouTube tries to charge for it won't get my business either.
I have a radio and Pandora and IHeartRadio and hell...the interwebs, which play music sans video.
For Free.
The way I read it is that you have to pay to watch some music videos.
Me to YouTube; I don't watch music, I listen to it.
I never watched MTV and any video that YouTube tries to charge for it won't get my business either.
I have a radio and Pandora and IHeartRadio and hell...the interwebs, which play music sans video.
For Free.
reply to post by Domo1
The type of youtube vids I watch won't fall into this category. This is just another way to both soak the public and to devalue money. The semi-recent "apps" craze is just taking content off of the internet and placing it in packets which will soon cost the consumer, piece by piece removing both the money from circulation and into fewer pockets and getting people used to segmenting the internet into off-line existence.
The type of youtube vids I watch won't fall into this category. This is just another way to both soak the public and to devalue money. The semi-recent "apps" craze is just taking content off of the internet and placing it in packets which will soon cost the consumer, piece by piece removing both the money from circulation and into fewer pockets and getting people used to segmenting the internet into off-line existence.
Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Domo1
The way I read it is that you have to pay to watch some music videos.
Me to YouTube; I don't watch music, I listen to it.
I never watched MTV and any video that YouTube tries to charge for it won't get my business either.
I have a radio and Pandora and IHeartRadio and hell...the interwebs, which play music sans video.
For Free.
Are these sites insane or what? Let's all pay $20 a month for youtube, $20 for hulu, $20 for Amazon instant video, $20 for iTunes, $20 for Dish... These sites are going to kill themselves and ruin it for all of us.
reply to post by Domo1
I always wondered why Music Labels were up in arms about people downloading music for free, yet they could go on you tube and listen/watch it at any time of the day anyway.
I don't know I don't think it'll work, many people still have HD TV running through PC's, they are able to record any music/clip of the TV they want.
Also, what will happen with Facebook/Myspace? will all existing posts with music video's be void? will facebook enter in a credit card facility to post a music video?
What about movies, history channel, nat geo, docco's on war and such?
will youtube ultimately become nothing but ''funniest home video's'' ?
I always wondered why Music Labels were up in arms about people downloading music for free, yet they could go on you tube and listen/watch it at any time of the day anyway.
I don't know I don't think it'll work, many people still have HD TV running through PC's, they are able to record any music/clip of the TV they want.
Also, what will happen with Facebook/Myspace? will all existing posts with music video's be void? will facebook enter in a credit card facility to post a music video?
What about movies, history channel, nat geo, docco's on war and such?
will youtube ultimately become nothing but ''funniest home video's'' ?
Brings to mind the buzzword of all the staff meetings when I worked for a dot-com in the late 90s:
Monetize, monetize, monetize. How can we monetize our subscribers? How can we extract MORE money from them? Then MORE after that? Makes me sick.
At some point, subscribers are going to say [snip]you, we're going somewhere else", and an opportunity for a new video sharing site will present itself.
I am pro-capitalism, but not as a tradeoff to morality.
Monetize, monetize, monetize. How can we monetize our subscribers? How can we extract MORE money from them? Then MORE after that? Makes me sick.
At some point, subscribers are going to say [snip]you, we're going somewhere else", and an opportunity for a new video sharing site will present itself.
I am pro-capitalism, but not as a tradeoff to morality.
edit on 24-2-2013 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)
Fine. Let them add code and charge all they want.
Another source will open up a free "utube", and it will be business as usual.
Until "they" get greedy, and then another one will open up. It will be similar to the numerous search engines that proliferate the net today.
SnF
Another source will open up a free "utube", and it will be business as usual.
Until "they" get greedy, and then another one will open up. It will be similar to the numerous search engines that proliferate the net today.
SnF
How about...since I bought Eminem's last Album "Recovery" I enter a little code from that purchase (unique to that purchase) and get access to the
content everywhere and anywhere...
Charging people over and over and over and over again for the same crap at a different angle is what gives incentive to pirating.
Its redundant nonsense perpetuated by GREEDY rec-execs trying to keep their heads above water in a world where they just aren't necessary anymore. Most musicians are doing everything solo in-house...and being independent artists because of the technical advancements that bring studio quality sound/rec home for a fairly reasonable price.
I bought Metallica's black box collection back in the day...everything that is in there I should have access to on the internet, ipod, i-tunes etc...trying to sell me the same crap from a different angle is just flat out greedy... I already bought yo S#$%$#$%!!!
Charging people over and over and over and over again for the same crap at a different angle is what gives incentive to pirating.
Its redundant nonsense perpetuated by GREEDY rec-execs trying to keep their heads above water in a world where they just aren't necessary anymore. Most musicians are doing everything solo in-house...and being independent artists because of the technical advancements that bring studio quality sound/rec home for a fairly reasonable price.
I bought Metallica's black box collection back in the day...everything that is in there I should have access to on the internet, ipod, i-tunes etc...trying to sell me the same crap from a different angle is just flat out greedy... I already bought yo S#$%$#$%!!!
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
I did a youtube search a few days ago on a fan made video (which I believe falls under “fair use”) that had some footage from an actual movie, and it offered me a “Pay per view” of the full movie instead. They also appeared to have limited the search engine to prevent other “fan made” videos based on full movies to not show up in the returned search list, so as to “push” their “pay per view” movie on you. If I had wanted to see the “full movie” I could have simply popped my purchased, fully licensed, Disk into my Blueray Player and watched it for free.
If youtube keeps going along these lines, they'll just end up out of business, and the “next” free video site will be waiting in the wings to take their place. People take great offense to being charged for what it was that they were previously getting for free, and the backlash will most likely put an end to their dominance. Now if they had been set up as a “netflix” type entity from day one, no one would have any issue with them acting this way.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Brings to mind the buzzword of all the staff meetings when I worked for a dot-com in the late 90s:
Monetize, monetize, monetize. How can we monetize our subscribers? How can we extract MORE money from them? Then MORE after that? Makes me sick.
At some point, subscribers are going to say [snip]you, we're going somewhere else", and an opportunity for a new video sharing site will present itself.
I am pro-capitalism, but not as a tradeoff to morality.edit on 24-2-2013 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)
haha your post reminded me of this beautiful piece of comedy and reality: Warning! Explicit
edit on 24-2-2013 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
At some point, subscribers are going to say [snip]you, we're going somewhere else", and an opportunity for a new video sharing site will present itself.
I've been saying this about youtube for a couple of months. For three years I've had no problem whatsoever loading youtube vids. Then it suddenly started doing the stop and start crap. Honestly, I already had the notion that youtube was doing it deliberately so they could advertise no slow downs for $20 per month. The day they do this is the day I look somewhere else.
Originally posted by Sly1one
I bought Metallica's black box collection back in the day...everything that is in there I should have access to on the internet, ipod, i-tunes etc...trying to sell me the same crap from a different angle is just flat out greedy... I already bought yo S#$%$#$%!!!
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
I don't know what the laws say now, but it used to be that if you owned a licensed copy of anything, in any format, you were entitled to covert that over, watch it, or download it, in any format you wished. The same way that you were allowed to make a “back-up” copy for personal use. I was pretty sure that was why the same items in “new format” used to be sold with “additional content” to try and sway you to purchase a licensed copy again.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by defcon5
If youtube keeps going along these lines, they'll just end up out of business, and the “next” free video site will be waiting in the wings to take their place.
Except the aggressive copyright prosecutions make it impossible to provide the service that youtube originally were. Its got to the point that youtube are now taking down parody songs such as 'gandalf style' at request of copyright holders.
I'm all for getting money to the artists but there comes a point where its just draconian. From what I understand though, youtube have to do this or face issues themselves.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Domo1
The way I read it is that you have to pay to watch some music videos.
Me to YouTube; I don't watch music, I listen to it.
I never watched MTV and any video that YouTube tries to charge for it won't get my business either.
I have a radio and Pandora and IHeartRadio and hell...the interwebs, which play music sans video.
For Free.
Are these sites insane or what? Let's all pay $20 a month for youtube, $20 for hulu, $20 for Amazon instant video, $20 for iTunes, $20 for Dish... These sites are going to kill themselves and ruin it for all of us.
I pay $9 for NetFlix, and zip for Hulu. I occasionally shop at Amazon, but it is pretty much nothing more than NetFlix. I can wait as I am pretty patient when it comes to entertainment. I use my county library and get most of my flicks free of charge. (Unless you count my taxes that I pay, but I'm ok with that)
Obviously, these sites are ruining themselves through the lack of advertising. (Which to be truthful, is also a selling point)
I like YouTube but don't use it that much as such but won't pay to watch any films or music on there. They get enough with adverts....
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by Sly1one
I bought Metallica's black box collection back in the day...everything that is in there I should have access to on the internet, ipod, i-tunes etc...trying to sell me the same crap from a different angle is just flat out greedy... I already bought yo S#$%$#$%!!!The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
I don't know what the laws say now, but it used to be that if you owned a licensed copy of anything, in any format, you were entitled to covert that over, watch it, or download it, in any format you wished. The same way that you were allowed to make a “back-up” copy for personal use. I was pretty sure that was why the same items in “new format” used to be sold with “additional content” to try and sway you to purchase a licensed copy again.As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
which leads me to my NEXT question in regards to this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
how are they going to KNOW whether or not you own and purchased a licensed copy to use again or watch again?
What sense is there in my buying the ancient aliens series on DVD for my home then having to pay AGAIN to watch it on you-tube from the public library or wherever the hell I may be with internet access?
There is clearly no coherent plan that makes any sense in the anti-piracy/copyright camp...they just want to charge as much money possible as many times as possible in as many different ways as possible...
I'm all for supporting artists and musicians I value their (some) contributions to the arts...but I'll be damned If I'm going to let them bully money out of me with laws, restricted internet access or other such nonsense...
This will just inspire me to say screw them all together...kind of counter-productive to their wishes isn't it?
They need to get their crap together with this and get back to reality...their approach is out-casting their fan base...
reply to post by defcon5
I'd be fine with paying $10 a month for YouTube without ads. I actually really like Netflix, though so many people bitch and moan about the content.
I'm not on Facebook (ATS members think this is great, everyone else thinks I'm a weirdo) but I heard they are now charging to send friend requests to 'legitimize' them.
I have no problem with a company making money, through ads or subscription fees, but the double hit is insulting (Hulu).
I like the ATS system. People get ads, but at a certain point contributors don't. I would think ATS is profitable otherwise it wouldn't be here after so long. If ATS started charging a fee for certain boards, I would be gone like the wind, shouting something much worse than I don't give a darn over my shoulder.
Now if they had been set up as a “netflix” type entity from day one, no one would have any issue with them acting this way.
I'd be fine with paying $10 a month for YouTube without ads. I actually really like Netflix, though so many people bitch and moan about the content.
I'm not on Facebook (ATS members think this is great, everyone else thinks I'm a weirdo) but I heard they are now charging to send friend requests to 'legitimize' them.
I have no problem with a company making money, through ads or subscription fees, but the double hit is insulting (Hulu).
I like the ATS system. People get ads, but at a certain point contributors don't. I would think ATS is profitable otherwise it wouldn't be here after so long. If ATS started charging a fee for certain boards, I would be gone like the wind, shouting something much worse than I don't give a darn over my shoulder.
Originally posted by Pinke
Except the aggressive copyright prosecutions make it impossible to provide the service that youtube originally were.
And why aren't these covered by “fair use”?
As a matter of fact, copyrights only hold up if the person who borrowed from it has not changed the content by a certain amount. That is why even the media companies themselves get away with “stealing” from others who came before them. For example, almost every single “Disney” animation is stolen from sources such as “Mother goose”, “Grimm”, or “Aesop”. They just change the story enough to get around any “claims”, and then have the guts to act like they are the ones who originally wrote it.
I don't know why everyone is already whining about Google and companies making money, it's probably going to be up to the channel owner as to
whether it's free or not. Everyone's happy to use free services like Google's search, translate, YouTube etc, but when a company tries to make
money everyone's outraged. Get over it.
Originally posted by defcon5
I don't know what the laws say now, but it used to be that if you owned a licensed copy of anything, in any format, you were entitled to covert that over, watch it, or download it, in any format you wished. The same way that you were allowed to make a “back-up” copy for personal use. I was pretty sure that was why the same items in “new format” used to be sold with “additional content” to try and sway you to purchase a licensed copy again.As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Not essentially.
Policy / license agreement does not always translate into law even if you do agree to it. For example, several of my DvDs contain text which says not for rent or resale ... however, even without an agreement with the publisher, I can rent or resale these items. This policy or agreement is not enforceable in my country.
The same applies to personal back ups etc ...
In America consumers have the fair use defense. Where I am from, we cannot use this defense the same way ... therefore copying a movie or piece of music here is technically illegal ... the main thing protecting Americans is the fair use laws not the record companies extending those rights from my understanding. It's another case of policy not translating into protected law.
The main reason companies don't prosecute in many countries is because the consumer back lash would be immense and many of these companies sell the media and hardware to copy in the first place.
Epp you posted again:
Originally posted by defcon5
And why aren't these covered by “fair use”?
As a matter of fact, copyrights only hold up if the person who borrowed from it has not changed the content by a certain amount. That is why even the media companies themselves get away with “stealing” from others who came before them. For example, almost every single “Disney” animation is stolen from sources such as “Mother goose”, “Grimm”, or “Aesop”. They just change the story enough to get around any “claims”, and then have the guts to act like they are the ones who originally wrote it.
In regards to your second post ... most of it is kind of covered above.
The copyright 'holding up' issue is a case by case one and different in various countries. For example, a parody song could be considered a 'cover' or a sample considered too similar.
The disney issue is a different example ... In most places the Grimm tales would be considered public domain. It is the same way a performance of shakespear requires no permission or royalties whilst a stage reproduction of Star Wars would.
edit on 24-2-2013 by Pinke because: Second
post
edit on 24-2-2013 by Pinke because: (no reason given)