King of Hits.co.uk - Tipsheet Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

Tipsheet

Tipsheet Messageboard

Post a new message in "Tipsheet Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Mart wrote:[/b]
[quote]I think the main reason I have a bugbare about is probably from a personal reason.
I am actually getting fed up being filmed and not knowing what footage has been taken of my act.
You are dead right on Compulsary Liscences, but I do think it`s rather hard to catch up on the problem now.
It`s very hard to regulate as well.
If, for example Bono is ill and feints on stage, the film could be out there under any title that the filmer chooses and the tags changed hourly.
Thereby,I believe, the way forward has to be to stop the video sites being free viewing.
You pay to upload and you get paid per play/download.
Therefore, the only people allowed to use &quot;Bono&quot; as a tag are the U2 corp as they have the rights to the name, any videos attempting to go up with the tag are blocked.
Of course this will shrink the system a lot for the free-viewing public, but it`s the industry that is suffering and the public are as a result and they matter in the long run obviously.
We are heading into a time when generations  will not value music and never even think about buying it.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Mobile phones with video cameras at gigs.
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
DJKZ	Well Mart, Good points and i reckon that by having a compulsory licence situation it will at least stop the big sites from being blaze about it. Think about it for a second, upload jenna jameson in all her glory and the video will be pulled before you can say "mon..." but put up some music clip and no problem. I'm not complaining because Youtube is helping me be nostalgic. But the main point is, people like me will get used to a streaming, Rhapsody/Napster type service that has all the videos online. For a cultural point of view it is necessary. LICENCE everything now. Create a big site that has it all on one page embed it into myspace/gootube and you will kill the fakers and oh by the way, mandatory sentences for those who break copyright after all of this effort will make it pointless to steal for public interest.
Mart	I think the main reason I have a bugbare about is probably from a personal reason. I am actually getting fed up being filmed and not knowing what footage has been taken of my act. You are dead right on Compulsary Liscences, but I do think it`s rather hard to catch up on the problem now. It`s very hard to regulate as well. If, for example Bono is ill and feints on stage, the film could be out there under any title that the filmer chooses and the tags changed hourly. Thereby,I believe, the way forward has to be to stop the video sites being free viewing. You pay to upload and you get paid per play/download. Therefore, the only people allowed to use "Bono" as a tag are the U2 corp as they have the rights to the name, any videos attempting to go up with the tag are blocked. Of course this will shrink the system a lot for the free-viewing public, but it`s the industry that is suffering and the public are as a result and they matter in the long run obviously. We are heading into a time when generations will not value music and never even think about buying it.
DJKZ	Hi Mart, Please hear me out because i believe you mean well and in theory are right. I spent the best part of yesterday searching for Sugababes live performances on Youtube and found plenty of mobile phone camera footage which wasn't any good for me but when i found the Tv produced ones it was ten times better in quality. The point is simple. LICENSE THE CONTENT and NO ONE will look for inferior quality when they can find higher quality licensed by the entertainment provider. It is not rocket science this is 6th form stuff. Do it now and have a future leave it and die a death of a thousand cuts. As far as lost revenue is concerned i think you are wrong on this point. The band got paid or should have for the live concert. The ticket should reflect todays reality i.e fans are going to post clips on their site or Gootube. If the band did not film the gig what revenue are they losing ? This is a new world a new situation and we all have to monetise it anyway we can. The big problem is this. I would happily pay 50p to download any footage, TV show etc from the artists website if there is an easy payment system and if it is available. By not making it available you create the problem. IT IS TIME FOR COMPULSORY LICENCES. I will continue this mantra because we will all end up losers if this madness and greed continues. With a compulsory licence you always get paid, everyone can stream content without stealing it and overall you gain.
Mart	Indeed. It is impossible to check how many radio plays an artist has really, due to eroneous declaring of playlists, which I am pretty sure must go on at a regional level. A "local" featured band on a regional station, get a break, but it is free music for the radio station 99% of the time.
Michael	As EffGee points out regularly on another board, one of the problems is that revenue is being eroded both on the "physical" side and now also at the broadcasting side via YouTube and MySpace. As neither of the latter pay performance fees, it could be argued that radios shouldn't have to either. And then we'd be seriously banjaxed. The only remaining source of songwriting revenue would be the pittance from concert plays and the occasional licence deal or advertising. The filming of concerts in lo-def is a detail, irritating but a detail.