That seems to be the business model of many newspaper and periodical web
sites: current items for free, but pay (or at least register) for the
archive. If this spreads to media-posting web sites, as Tom suggests, it
means that it will be the archive (back catalogue, legacy) materials
that will be generating the revenue: exactly the opposite of what the
current model is for the entertainment industry. I daresay that
librarians, archivists, and even collectors, with their experience in
dealing with large quantities of old materials, could then be very
valuable people for such companies. Not to mention the libraries,
archives, and private collections themselves.
Tom Fine wrote:
> Also note that GE/NBC has cracked down on YouTube. Pretty soon, it
> will be back to being what it started out as -- a bunch of boring junk
> from kids with video cameras. The copyright owners will want to
> distribute video for pay or for free on their own websites. And
> YouTube's inventors will turn out to be the cleverist of the dot-bomb
> zillionaires for selling at just the right time for maximum
> hype-dollars (although that title may forever belong to Mark Cuban,
> who invented a now-dead audio site and sold it for megabux to Yahoo
> when they panic'd about Real Networks stealing the whole streaming
> audio show; now Cuban is a loud and obnoxious basketball team owner).
> By the way, I have been impressed and pleased by the growth of video
> podcasts available free via iTunes. Most of the Sunday political talk
> shows are now available either as audio or either video or audio
> podcasts. I believe that eventually network TV shows will go this way
> -- have a podcast available with commercials for free during perhaps a
> 2-week period surrounding the original broadcast and then have the
> episode available without commercials for a couple of bucks forever
> afterward. When that happens, it'll sure put the last nail in the
> coffin of most VHS decks and probably kill off TiVo too.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcos Sueiro" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 9:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Some YouTube stuff that may be of interst
>> I don't think it makes a difference. If the audio is under copyright,
>> it is illegal to post it. I believe you are also required to state
>> the copyright owners.
>> This is a related article from this week:
>> Viacom wants its clips removed from YouTube
>> Associated Press
>> Published February 3, 2007
>> NEW YORK -- Media company Viacom Inc., which owns the cable networks
>> MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and the Paramount Pictures movie studio, asked
>> YouTube on Friday to remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips from
>> its hugely popular video-sharing site.
>> Viacom said in a statement that after several months of talks with
>> YouTube and its corporate parent, the online search leader Google
>> Inc., "it has become clear that YouTube is unwilling to come to a
>> fair market agreement that would make Viacom content available to
>> YouTube users."
>> Viacom said that YouTube and Google had failed to deliver on several
>> "filtering tools" to control unauthorized video from appearing on the
>> immensely popular site.
>> The company was now asking YouTube to take the clips down, but
>> stopped short of filing a lawsuit.
>> Under federal copyright law, online services such as YouTube are
>> generally immune from liability as long as it responds to takedown
>> requests such as these, which YouTube often does. Less clear legally
>> is what happens when another user posts the same video, something
>> commonly done on the free video-sharing site.
>> YouTube said in a statement that it would comply with the request
>> from Viacom and said it cooperates "with all copyright holders to
>> identify and promptly remove infringing content as soon as we are
>> officially notified."
>> The company also said it was "unfortunate that Viacom will no longer
>> be able to benefit from YouTube's passionate audience which has
>> helped to promote many of Viacom's shows."
>> In November, YouTube agreed to delete nearly 30,000 files after the
>> Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers
>> complained of copyright infringement.
>> Some media companies such as CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC
>> Universal have made deals to allow YouTube to use video clips from
>> their programming, but others have yet to agree with the site over
>> ways of being compensated for the use of their copyrighted material.
>> Universal Music Group, a division of French telecommunications giant
>> Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube for copyright infringement,
>> saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a
>> licensing deal with them last year.
>> Despite Viacom's problems with YouTube, the company's MTV Networks
>> division reached a licensing deal last year with Google that allows
>> the search company's video service to use clips from MTV and its
>> sibling networks under a revenue-sharing agreement.
>> Bertram Lyons wrote:
>>> Does the fact that this is a home video alter the issues of
>>> copyright? If he were to do the same thing (i.e. digitize his 78
>>> collection) and publish it online as an audio database with full
>>> sound files (instead of home video), would he be under any sort of
>>> copyright violation with the particular labels and songwriters
>>> associated with said recordings?
>>> Just curious -
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Some YouTube stuff that may be of interst
>>>> From: Roger and Allison Kulp <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Date: Fri, February 02, 2007 10:06 pm
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> I will admit the guy has a lousy player,and some of his records
>>>> aren't the best shape.
>>>> I have a better condition "Move It !" 78 myself,but it is interesting,
>>>> "If you're not on somebody's watchlist,you're not doing your job"
>>>> Dave Von Kleist
>>>> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with theYahoo!
>>>> Search weather shortcut.