What is Digg?111 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Damn that evil You Tube. They are getting people interested in OUR shows by playing OUR clips. If we want viewers, we will make them come to OUR site and use OUR bandwidth. Those bastards!
-President of NBC - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Absolutely. This is another case of the consumer base clearly showing what they want, and the industry not budging. I'm glad consumers are finally able to show what kind of power they have, by not having to follow the unbudging industry standards
- shadus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Everything that doesn't pad the music/movie industries pockets makes them nervous. F'them. The world is changing if they wanna remain a monolithic dinosaur that's their perogative, but eventually with or without them, the world is moving on.
- OneZeroZeroOne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16They just don't realize....
Charge the advertisers on a per-view basis. Just like click-through advertising.
You tell Coke: Hey, you want to buy a product placement on the pilot episode of our new show? 10,000,000 people are going to download it and watch it this week. Only $0.0001 per view and the main character orders a coke for lunch. What a deal! - Voldemint, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I agree with tugor's comment. The companies should make more content freely available. They've seen what happens when they don't- they end up losing out, not the user, them.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I think there already is an iTunes of video called iTunes.
- Jimzip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9But this whole issue is ridiculous.
Firstly, Average Joe Shmoe can't just download the videos on Youtube, in fact, it's damn hard for anyone to download the videos on Youtube. Secondly, the videos of concerts etc, are pointless to anyone because the quality is really terrible. Nobody would want to download these to watch with family/friends etc. If anything seeng a snippet of the concert will spur them to go out and buy the DVD..
If the companies are so up in arms about their content being spread, maybe they should look into the issue a little further, or sell DVD's that don't cost two limbs, CD's that match online download prices, and TV shows that are available the day after airing.
These guys have *got* to keep up with the times, or they'll just be bitching forever.
Jimzip :D - Godric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8They will eventually embrace the technology. They first have to find a way to make money off of it.
This is just Napster all over again. And I am sure there will eventually be an "iTunes" of video or one that is free but requires you to watch a commercial first. - Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The message is pretty clear, change, or become obsolete. As our ability to share information grows, change is demanded in everything from our way of saying things and quirky phrases (O RLY?) to the way we progress through our daily lives (self-checkout, online job resumes, text messaging).
You can either choose to grapple onto your dying flag of media waving it even as the last embers burn and it falls to pieces, or you can make a new flag out of something better. The media giants also have to learn if something doesn't work, they need to move on and try something new. The current "protection" schemes and proprietary file formats are quite obviously pathetic at slowing piracy, to keep putting money into them is lunacy at its best, THAT'S how their losing their money IMHO, not some magical formula they made up for "lost sales for an item that was never sold". - dognose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Uhm, no, here is a 22 minute south park episode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJ3OHDtBEg&search=south%20park
Some I've seen have 100,000 views. They know the stuff here, they just wait for a DMCA notice to take it down. - tylerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Ok, everyone back in the pile.
- Falcorian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What doesn't make them uneasy...
- scstraus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Actually I do want the record labels to die because they actually a force of repressing music. It's very hard for indie bands to compete with their huge marketing budgets for brittney spears, etc. They are essentially destroying competition in the market. I actually feel very good when I pirate music or buy it from russian sites like allofmp3.com or mp3search.ru. Doing my small part to get rid of the music cartels.
But movie and tv studios need quite a bit of money to produce a good show. I haven't seen a lot of good homebrew tv. I don't really want them to die.
However I think the cable companies are getting a bit out of hand charging upwards of $60 a month for tv that is still filled with ads. I could deal with their death.
Basically, Death To The Middleman! Creator to Consumer! You with me? Rabble Rabble! - alej744, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5wow, you are a dumbass... take a look around the site
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Maybe you missed the entire point of YOUtube. YOUtube does not rip off anything. They have users post video clips that they made them selves, and in some cases, clips that they like.
- Pogue_Mahone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I have never had that problem, and I've watched dozens of YouTube vids.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4IMHO:
In the history of mankind there was a magical half a century where a select few people could make billions of dollars from acting, singing, creating music and most of all producing. Before the magical time, the technology didn't exist to mass distribute and there were huge numbers of artists making a living and very few getting fantastically rich. During the magical time only large wealthy corporations could afford the technology to distribute and they joined together with a select few artist and they all became very, very wealthy. Those few artist did very well. The rest of the artists struggled to be heard. Now the magical time is over and the technology that enables us to share our experiences is available to nearly everyone. We are about to return to the natural state where huge numbers of artists making a living and very few get fantastically rich. This is a bitter pill for the select few to swallow. They do not want the magical time to end. - eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4because the right to distribute and control the method of distribution lies exclusively wth the copyright holder (e.g. the NFL).
Fair Use allows us to watch at home on tape (Time Shift) but not distribute it to whomever we like however we like - SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And until people stop whining and start actually participating in the electoral process, you're going to keep seeing this happen. In a democracy the only people to blame for the government are... the people.
- Pogue_Mahone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What ever did the world do before they invented copyright laws? It must have been awful, what with no one producing quality entertainment due to the lack of lawful protection their intellectual property...
- OneZeroZeroOne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Exactly.
They want to charge people for something they could watch or tape on television for free.
They need to realize that giving the consumer access to the show on demand isn't a SERVICE that should be charged for, it's an OPPORTUNITY to garner greater market penetration.
How many people want to watch a show over and over and over? Once or twice is usually it, unless you're a die-hard fan (ie: Family Guy or Seinfeld) Charging someone even $1 to watch the latest episode of Prison Break will never work. They need to look at this as an opportunity to catch the people that didn't tune in on the original air date for whatever reason. Those people that didn't watch or forgot to set their VCR never saw any of the ads...and they're sure as hell not going to wait around 3 months to see the repeat. If they're going to watch the episode ever, they're going to do it by the end of the week by getting it offline. Offering the episode in good quality online from a secure site = LAST CHANCE to drop a couple ads or product placements. - DEFSMAC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i read yesterday that wwe(formerly wwf) said they are trying to get all their copyright material removed from youtube. i just had to smirk and think to myself good luck with that one sarcastically.
- brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I believe the only company that *really* had endorsed "getting shows from friends" is FOX.
The problem with file sharing is that not everyone pays for cable in addition to the fact that the advertisments are ripped out. In the case of YouTube, I'm sure companies are worried about the eventual ads or "pay for high quality/downloadble videos" which would then place YouTube in a position of making money off of content that is not theirs.
I'm on the fence here. I think cable and satellite subscribers should have access to digital versions of the channels that they have access to in a style similar to Sony' LocationFree players. Or maybe networks can take a pre-emptive stike against cable providers and offer their libraries for streaming and/or downloading (in HD).
The bottom line is YouTube and Google Video act as viral marketing for shows. Without the Lohan Potter, Narnia Rap, or the Portman Rap would anyone care about SNL? *****, would anyone notice that it's still on? - definiteform, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The industry is so crazy. I think all it really needs is some deep dickin. (Chasing Amy, cited so I won't be sued)
- CoffeeCup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The companies just need to put the content on you tube themselves and find a way to make it better than what joe blow posted if they want people to only watch what they want them too. they could even include an add or a link for more info about the video. They just dont think. dummies... all of them.
- eclectro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Go to dlsreports and measure your actual speed. Troubleshoot from there. If you have a modem older than a couple of years old think of replacing it. I've never had a problem with youtube even when linked to digg.
- vvvv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's a Web 2.0 thing. The business model will be spontaneously generated out of a massively interactive tag cloud.
- alej744, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3BUT... you can't download the videos on YouTube, only watch them (and in Flash, too)
- dbre2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Virtual breeding grounds seem to be the popular thing these days...
- benb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5And youtube is pretty strict about what they allow (only short clips - 10mins max I think) and they have been pretty quick to respond to DMCA takedown notices. Of course, in that kind of system it is going to be hard to monitor everything.
If it hadn't been for the Natalie Portman rap clip making the rounds on youtube - and then taken down, I wouldn't have heard anyone talking about SNL in ages. - Bishoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't understand how short grainy video clips are all that threatening. In fact, if I were a producer of a TV show like Conan O'Brien or Jimmy Kimmel or even a scripted show, I'd be regularly releasing short clips of the best parts of the show to things like YouTube and iTunes. Look at the SNL "Lazy Sunday" rap video. I bet most people saw that clip on the internet. How many people had their interest in SNL raised by that clip? Hell, if Lorne Micheals were smart, he'd be producing internet only SNL clips and releasing them for free on iTunes as a podcast.
I bet a lot of it has to do with a comlete lack of understanding of the technology by the crusty old men running these companies. - andreo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You think they are nervous now? I can't wait until the first viewer funded series comes out. Skip the networks and pitch your idea straight to the viewers. Advertisers will deal directly with the series creator for ad time and independent production houses will offer subscriptions to viewers on a monthly basis where you can download your favorite shows in several different formats to your Media Center (like) PC and watch on your TV.
No more shows being canned because of the mystical Nelson ratings or horrid time slots. Or because the network can't / don't want to keep the show on a certain day. No more overtime, presidential speeches, or special reports cutting into shows.
As the networks are selling their up-link dishes to the scap metal guy they can wonder where they went wrong. - TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Youtube already has a lot of copyrighted material. You can find entire TV episodes. The best thing is, if Youtube doesn't change policies it will always be that way. People can upload faster than youtube can catch content. That is one reason why youtube is better than Google video. Google video checks most their videos and rarely does pirated shows end up on there and when they do, they don't stay on for long.
ERic Wilson - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've noticed watching DU Meter while playing YouTube videos their servers only seem to give me around 35k a sec, so I always tend to please a video the second I can then let it load up in the background.
- Metal_Guru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Are you kidding? How can anyone be afraid of YouTube? The quality is below par (it stinks). But it is the future and they are lucky that they have time to adjust to this new craze. At the moment, YouTube is not going to kill anything they are afraid for. As some comments pointed out, it is a great way for them to advertise, by posting their best stuff. Cause I don't watch their stuff no more (and probably wont even through YouTube).
At least they sure ain't going to throttle it so easy. The cat's outta the bag! - DanAtkinson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This is nothing new! Also, YouTube is one word by the way.
- dognose, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Uhm, guys, have you realized that there are now like full length TV shows on there now? YouTube has to clean up or they will be out of business.
- buttsakk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2adapt or die... or just bitch and throw lawsuits at people.
- SpacePirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3> When will they wake up and smell the technology? They could be making so much more if they would embrace it rather than try (and fail) to oppress it?
Not to mention making themselves look like complete ***** in the process. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can understand them being mad when someone rips every joke of an episode of "Little Britain" or whatever and puts it up, but they should be happy about commercials. I for one love that one Bouncy Ball Commercial, but never would have seen it otherwise! Computer says nooo! I hope stuff like that one remake of the "Shining" trailer, where it makes it look like a happy comedy, is allowed, that stuff is really creative!
- Nik420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Record companies own the copyright of any filming done at concerts, and it is illegal to post such footage on the Internet"
Funny I thought the band owned the rights to their live shows. Many bands don't have a problem with this despite what their record label might think - Zonkzor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I think it's ok to have a signature if your comment is interesting. In this case it's just something redundent that didn't take any thought. It's been repeated a million times since the Napster days.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's why we need multi-choice voting. You choose your first, second, etc. choice for president. If your first candidate choice doesn't win, then your vote goes to your second choice. This way, your vote doesn't get wasted.
Example:
First choice: Nader
Second choice: Gore
So if Nader loses, your vote still goes to Gore. And if they both lose, THEN your vote doesn't count (so to speak).
I hope I explained that right, I got a little confused myself trying to type that. - Metal_Guru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Uhm, no they don't. Ever actually read their terms?
http://www.youtube.com/t/terms
#5B states in bold letters: "For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions."
You just give them permission to use it as they will without paying you any royalty fees and such. Fair enough. - shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Pirated material? I always thought youtube was an excellent breeding ground for viral marketing.
- prismra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jesus ***** christ, here they go again. These god damn RIAA and MPAA vampires should just go outside and kill themselves. Who the F would want to watch a pirated DVD on YouTube or actually watch a video on there with it's crappy bitrate instead of actually buying the damn product. It's just like the whole thing with Natalie Portman rapping. They got so much FREE ADVERTISING for their horrible put-it-out-of-its-misery show.
Ok, im done ranting.. - rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2+digg for this comment. YouTube and others are only making people MORE interested in this content. I have people cc:ing me on Youtube stuff all the time, and I want to see more of it (the interesting stuff). Why would that be a bad thing for these media companies? Why, because they want 100% control over the market, even on the hobbyist, or casual user. This is ultimately a sign of demise for the industry, in its current form. When you remove the ability or interest of someones freedom, even in entertainment, you remove desire. Entertainment is purely an aspect of freedom, otherwise we would be computers, never interested in entertainment. On the current path, or society is going down the road into boredom, which breeds crime, which in turn breeds paranoia, which means the government takes more control, which means...(oh crap, hasn't this happened already?)
- evoleddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Unless otherwise expressly said (eg NFL) how is it illegal(considered piracy) to watch the same content on the website as opposed to off dvr/tivo or video tape. I know I didnt pay to watch that episode, nor do I retain/own that episode(or whatever the content) after finishing with it.
- scottybowl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i'm currently paying £10 a month to subscribe to a site which streams tv shows (im paying for their bandwidth costs, and the site operates under the clause of being able to rebroadcast as long as its a closed community, so its completely legitimate)
if the tv studios did a similar thing, i'd be more than happy to pay a subscription fee to watch what i want, when i want
"its your sky: what do you want to watch"
whatever the ***** i want (to quote bam) - Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@vinbot: I think we SHOULD be able to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre. Hehe, has anyone actually thought what would happen if someone did this? People would look at him and say wtf are you talking about, there's no fire! And then they'd, i dunno, kick his or her ass or something.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is