YouTube didn't receive billions of dollars from Google for the cute homemade videos of cats or the like. It received that money for the illegal content it hosted.
I doubt Google was buying content. It bought the ability to communicate to an established audience.
That is a true injustice when you look at the plight of EMI, which has brought us Coldplay, Pink Floyd, the Beatles (to name only a few), and which is close to going into administration.
EMI is not about what is justice. Music or any content is not dying because EMI are in trouble, EMI may well be in trouble because content is easier than ever to produce. EMI is not in trouble because of YouTube. It is so cheap now to produce a record that artists can do it in their bedroom. Even creating a record label is inexpensive. Numerous artists have made it big precisely because they put music together in their bedroom. There are independent and indie labels that done some really good business in the last 10 years. From where I sit the better distribution of music, however imperfect, has created more diversification in music.
Really I cannot understand why the record industry isn't making record profits with the ability to create, produce and distribute an album for next to nothing: compared to a time where studio time was scarce and manufacturing was pricey.
I know of artists that have used YouTube and other online media to get noticed, one may be signed to EMI recently.
One thing is for sure, there will be more choice for the music buyer of the future. Something that I think is wonderful.
There's money to be made in Music like there is in Photography. Reduced barriers of entry still cannot account for talent. So make Autotune available to all and let music get better.
> I doubt Google was buying content. It bought the ability to communicate to an established audience.
An audience that was established, by YouTube founders own admission (did you read the article?), via the illegal content hosted there! And Google, by the way, was fully aware of this -- if you look at the depositions in the case you'll note reams of Google emails discussing this aspect of the purchase.
> EMI is not in trouble because of YouTube.
Well, not only because of YouTube (Kazaa, Napster, filesharers, etc. are also co-responsible), but YouTube is certainly a factor in the decline of recorded music sales, a decline which has had an undeniably pejorative impact on labels like EMI.
> It is so cheap now to produce a record that artists can do it in their bedroom. Even creating a record label is inexpensive.
Irrelevant -- it makes no difference if your album costs 50% or even 99% less to make if you can't monetize it by selling copies.
> Really I cannot understand why the record industry isn't making record profits with the ability to create
Allow me to enlighten you: because no one's buying records.
> I know of artists that have used YouTube and other online media to get noticed, one may be signed to EMI recently.
Of course, and to the extent that they submit their videos and content out of their own free volition, more power to them. My beef is with the a*sh&les that put music and other content on YouTube without permission. As for being signed to EMI -- as mentioned above, that may well very soon be counter-productive, notably if they enter administration.
> One thing is for sure, there will be more choice for the music buyer of the future. Something that I think is wonderful.
I totally agree. I'm a musician, and I really, genuinely, love music! Why else would I quit a rather lucrative career as a quant at a hedge fund in order to go into a business which is literally haemorrhaging (shameless plug: http://www.myspace.com/martindifeo). You can accuse me of many things, but you can't accuse me of being in music for the money :) That said, I'd like to earn a respectable income from my music-making activities, and I think I could do it if intellectual property rights were enforced. No, I'm not asking for government assistance other than upholding and enforcing already-existing law.
I doubt Google was buying content. It bought the ability to communicate to an established audience.
That is a true injustice when you look at the plight of EMI, which has brought us Coldplay, Pink Floyd, the Beatles (to name only a few), and which is close to going into administration.
EMI is not about what is justice. Music or any content is not dying because EMI are in trouble, EMI may well be in trouble because content is easier than ever to produce. EMI is not in trouble because of YouTube. It is so cheap now to produce a record that artists can do it in their bedroom. Even creating a record label is inexpensive. Numerous artists have made it big precisely because they put music together in their bedroom. There are independent and indie labels that done some really good business in the last 10 years. From where I sit the better distribution of music, however imperfect, has created more diversification in music.
Really I cannot understand why the record industry isn't making record profits with the ability to create, produce and distribute an album for next to nothing: compared to a time where studio time was scarce and manufacturing was pricey.
I know of artists that have used YouTube and other online media to get noticed, one may be signed to EMI recently.
One thing is for sure, there will be more choice for the music buyer of the future. Something that I think is wonderful.
There's money to be made in Music like there is in Photography. Reduced barriers of entry still cannot account for talent. So make Autotune available to all and let music get better.