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.
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:
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.
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)
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.
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#$%$#$%!!!
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.
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, $20 for Dish... These sites are going to kill themselves and ruin it for all of us.
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by Sly1one
I bought Metallica's black box collection back in the day...everything that is in there I should have access to on the internet, ipod, i-tunes etc...trying to sell me the same crap from a different angle is just flat out greedy... I already bought yo S#$%$#$%!!!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.
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.
Originally posted by Pinke
Except the aggressive copyright prosecutions make it impossible to provide the service that youtube originally were.
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.
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.