I have just read that Youtube want to introduce DRM measures that will cause videos of TV shows, music clips and the like to disappear of Youtube and go back into the hands of Torrent sites, p2p etc.

We've been down this road and the terminal decline of the music industry is the result. I think the people in charge have no idea of what they are doing and it is time for the Govt to step in. Yes i know most of you libertarians won't like it but look what compulsory licensing has done for the publishing industry. It cannot be one rule for them and another for record companies, movies etc.

Once the show or video clip has been aired for free to the public then there must be provisions for the public to continue to enjoy it for free especially for the artistic and cultural value. I mean the greed of the companies wanting to profit online for product they have already given for free.

Ok fair enough i can see their point and as a compromise there must be a fair and compulsory licence that kicks in after the product has been released to air. Small sites can pay a collective license to show the content and big companies pay more. It makes better sense to licence your video to 100 small sites at $100.00 a year than to try and restrict what is a clear demand for free content and push it underground never to be seen nor even smell a return.

I despair ! Especially as i can see that DRM is an expensive waste of time. Youtube should be preserved as a free to the public service supported by advertising, sponsorship etc. Why arent TV stations licensing their content especially as they are not doing it themselves. People will pay for premium quality.

Discussion please.

Look at my thread about DRM and you'll get an idea of what I am about to say.

First, free is a word I do not recognise in any shape or form. I pay a TV licence and I pay cable fees. So I pay to watch TV. I also pay to hire DVDs. So the idea that films or shows are shown for free is just not true.

The investments that go into TV and film are of a different magnitude than the music business, on both the production and marketing front. Are you seriously suggesting that once it has been shown, the public has a "right" to a film? You probably haven't coughed up the $9.5 million dollars an average European film costs (I think the figure is $60 million for the US). I think it might influence your opinion slightly.

And who's getting this advertising revenue we keep hearing about? How much is it exactly? And if people think YouTube is so brilliant why aren't they willing to pay for it?

As I said in the other thread, YouTube is handy if you choose to play the exposure game. But as creators, we have no choice in the matter. Your stuff is going up there for the moment, even if it's the worst video done by a drunk student ten years ago. Even if it has an accidental upskirt of your now wife that was supposed to have been removed during editing.

And why do we grumble about the PRS' accounting when YouTube is getting off paying authors' rights scot-free?

One thing that I have noticed over the years: any time someone comes up with a new business model, it usually involves musicians giving stuff away for free. Is the YouTube scenario any different?

Agree with all of the above.

The best new model so far (in my opinion) is a "digital transmission license" for all kinds of digital transmissions (webcasts, Filesharing, etc.) including even what are now paid downloads (iTunes).

This model was developed by Bennett Lincoff, an intellectual property law attorney.

"Recently, I published a Musical Licensing White Paper through my web site. In it, I propose an alternative to the music industry

So when you watched lethal weapon on TV how much did you pay to watch it ? Let me guess nothing.

You may be paying a TV licence in the UK but not in many countries including Australia. ALL TV is commercial TV.

You also miss my point. When i say that Films/music/TV should be available free to air to the public. I'm not saying that producers should not be paid, i think you should read my post a little more carefully. I'm saying that if like we have in Music a system where a compulsory licence can be obtained by paying a fee which is reasonable and scaleable then you will generate more money for producers because all manner of people will be licensing it instead of stealing it.

The demand is there. Supply the product.

KZ: Just a note to say that I'll get back to you over the weekend. I'm not off in a huff!

DjKZ (on another computer) wrote:
So when you watched lethal weapon on TV how much did you pay to watch it ? Let me guess nothing.

You may be paying a TV licence in the UK but not in many countries including Australia. ALL TV is commercial TV.
No, I'm on cable. So I'm paying for the commercial channels, the arts channels and even the Greek and Moroocan channels that have appeared out of the blue.
You also miss my point. When i say that Films/music/TV should be available free to air to the public. I'm not saying that producers should not be paid, i think you should read my post a little more carefully. I'm saying that if like we have in Music a system where a compulsory licence can be obtained by paying a fee which is reasonable and scaleable then you will generate more money for producers because all manner of people will be licensing it instead of stealing it.

The demand is there. Supply the product.
Point taken. But if I go back to the movie business, there are going to be problems. Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" was a monumental flop. But I read just this morning that the (British) producer Graham King had recouped 90% of his investment before release, selling the film to distributors worldwide on the basis of the script. So the financing of major products relies heavily on pre-sales. I'd be curious to see what a financer has to say about compulsory licences (maybe they'd love the idea, I just don't know).

I think you'd still have to have large measures of control, to ensure that the NZ distributor that coughs up his money beforehand has an honest chance of recouping commercially before the compulsory licence kicks in. Similarly, European films are always released up to a year late in the US - and the US distributors are largely a very brave bunch. Yet like distributors everywhere, they rely on the theatrical release to generate interest in the DVD, which is where the serious money is being made. A compulsory licence would mean that the film would be available online before the US theatrical release. At the current time, this would mean that the distributors would no longer be interested, relegating European (and Australian) cinema even further into a sub-niche. The more I think about it, the harder a headache I get!

The movie industry is appalled by what the music industry did to itself. So they are moving forward with different initiatives that include pay-per-view and the digital distribution to cinema houses. The goal is to increase consumer choice and availability - which is mostly what we want as punters. Using p2p networks and YouTube is not on the list of priorities for them, as they don't yet have to fight a rearguard action. The audience has shown it is willing to pay good money for movie tickets and DVDs. Why introduce the idea that they could get it all for free?

This is becoming a long message but bear with me for just a few more lines. I was also reading over the weekend about free online gaming in Asia. Instead of forking out for the latest Warcraft super-production, people can now play stunning games that are free - for a while. How very web 2.0! The money comes when you want to progress in the game. So you have to buy extra powers, a wedding ring or a bigger car to do what you want to do. I just can't see that level of canniness in the music biz, as we have let music become a 0.99cent commodity.

Rather than opening up the shackles of micro-payments, I'd like to meet the guy that increases the value of music.

Whew, over and out.

One last thing: I just came across this item a few minutes ago:

BitTorrent is starting to "rent" movies digitally.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070226/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_movies

Hi Michael,

The Film industry can actually stand up and be applauded because they have something that ensures that they have a future. Rentals. Now with the compulsory licence it can kick in at the same time the film is released on rentals. The idea is that a website can pay for X amount of streams at around a dollar per simultaneous stream. So that each licensing website can have registered users pay a 1.50 to watch the film for 24 hours. Much cheaper than rental but of course the quality isnt near DVD quality. It would have a no hassle licensing system similar to how it is to license a song.
The infrastructure is there, all one needs to do is set a reasonable price. We can even have a whatever you can eat approach paying a fixed amount to subscribe.
It can be done.

FREE to consumer does not mean FREE from payment. I can set up a site for 100 users, license the latest blockbuster release and stream it on my site and sponsor it with advertising. Film studio gets paid, artists get paid, i get paid. It will be a win win situation. How many billions of websites are there now ? Create a simple, hassle free, scaleable solution and make money multiple times.