Beginning of the end?
By slovenc1
@slovenc1 (2089)
Slovenia
January 24, 2010 4:07pm CST
Today I read that at the end of this week we will have to pay to watch some youtube videos. The price will be around 5$. Youtube already changed it's design so that "little people" get less attention, they future stupid movies that are paid campaigns by people that have some money to spend and so on. Not to mention that some giant firms take the wright to delete your sound. For example: you have a video of you dancing and you reach like 30k views and than you log in just to see that you have no more sound and people never watch it again. What do you think about all this? A lot of people aren't aware about all this but that doesn't mean it's right! I every movie or music should be free on internet because that's a great promotion for artists...if you listen to a good song you will probably want to buy an album. Or at least the youtube should remain free. Where is the justice if you can find the same song at one site for 0.5$, another for 2$ or you can download it for free? What are your thoughts? Feel free to complain, to argue with me if you don't agree...
12 responses
@livewyre (2450)
•
25 Jan 10
I think if you use copyrighted music on your youtube videos then you probably have to expect to have the music removed - after all the video content is yours, the audio is not. Admittedly, at the higher end of the spectrum, performers get a lot of money for their music, but that's because of the (dwindling nowadays) demand - all these artists were probably struggling to make a living at some time, so they deserve what they have - it is not up to you to decide that they must give their music away. At least it is only removal of the music, you have not been prosecuted for breach of copyright, so what's the big deal?
Music should not be downloaded for free if it is under copyright, if it is too cheap then it is possible that the artist is being ripped off (and you too if you download it when the provider never paid for it!). I guess you can have different prices, because each provider can work out their own level of profit just like on the high street, but either way why would you expect to have someone's work for free? I guess prices may also vary according to the 'quality' of the file 128kbps is average, but you may find that cheaper downloads have a lower bitrate. You miss one vital point in your argument...if people find the audio on the internet, and listen to it...why would they then buy it??? If you can listen to it on your PC, you can easily record it and have it for free THAT is probably why they are taking them off YouTube.
@slovenc1 (2089)
• Slovenia
25 Jan 10
Because quality on youtube isn't that good. And once again...you find one song that is good and than you look for an album because you want more. That's the point where you consider buying it. And if you listen to it on youtube doesn't mean you know or have the software to record it. Those who do know a little more about file formats and converting and downloading won't buy it anyway. QUALITY is a big factor for me, that's why I don't use youtube for listening to music. Thanks for your opinion.
@allyoftherain (7208)
• United States
25 Jan 10
If they're professionally done movies (which I do believe all the pay-to-watch videos are)... I don't see what the problem is. It gives independent and professional filmmakers a chance to really make money off of YouTube outside of the partnership program. Your average joe videos and even most of the YouTube partners you watch will still be free.
If a company owns the copyright to something and they don't want it floating around the internet or on your YouTube video, then they have every right to yank it off. It's against YouTube's terms of service to have content that you don't have permission to use on your videos. It doesn't matter if everybody does it, it's still against the rules. And secondly, it's not YouTube's fault the music gets muted or the movies get taken down, it's the companies who want to keep their copyrights safe. Yes, sometimes it gets ridicules, and yes it would be great if we could all listen to a song on YouTube before we bought it, but those excuses don't justify copyright infringement. If people can get something for free then they will and it doesn't matter if the means are legal or not.
@slovenc1 (2089)
• Slovenia
25 Jan 10
Well I admit it would be fair to pay for a 3 hours long movie but if the price would be reasonable. But we must remember most of users don't have paypal. And there is another problem. You probably need fast connection and the quality wouldn't be good. And if you'd buy the movie you should have it forever and even if you wouldn't anyone can use a program like screenrecorder. I think best solution is for users and youtube to make a deal and that's it. Even now time is limited to 10minutse and if you want longer movies you have to pay or something.
@greatsasuke (472)
• United States
25 Jan 10
This is sad news. What's worse is I think this is how it will start out and then end up that we will have to get a membership to watch videos on you tube. Monthly, Yearly, or even lifetime memberships. Times are tough and I think this is showing it. It is mostly due to greed though and not because these companies, especially internet companies are not making any money. The owners and decision makers are just not making enough to support their extravagant lifestyle. Guess what they should live a less luxurious lifestyle and pass this savings on to the customer. What I mean is give the customer the best product you can and forget about buying 100 Rolls Royces, one is sufficient.
@slovenc1 (2089)
• Slovenia
25 Jan 10
You're wright if i'd own a company i'd keep the quality at first place all time. Instead we get poisoned and ill because someone saved a little on food production or didn't dispose ob side product as he should and stuff like that. Is it really worth to f*** up everything for a little extra money so you don't know how to use it anymore? I know it isn't easy but it isn't fair how people in the same country have literally golden toilets and other steal food to survive. There will never be equality but at least one should try to do his best and think about others. In our country there is a company that started firing workers but the boss paid him self a reward of 2 million euros for one years work. I won't tell what i'd do to him if i saw him on the street.
@faimei (127)
• Philippines
25 Jan 10
Is this for real? If it is, then I would not want to watch videos or listen to music in youtube. This site really offers a good promotion. It gives you as sense of idea of what you really want to buy if you really, really like it.
If the videos are patented then their would be no problem but if the videos are home made then it should be free...
@allyoftherain (7208)
• United States
26 Jan 10
According to the news, the videos that would be pay-to-watch would be full-length feature films by major studios. Basically all the major movie releases out in theaters and on DVD. The home made videos would still be free.
@cookiebaker (330)
• India
25 Jan 10
dude thats crap. from where did u hear all those stuff?
if youtube does what youre saying then they're gonna be doomed
maybe there will be a price bar for ppl who get thousands and thousands of viewers per month but not for brokes like you and me lool
@yukti_kamra (5)
• India
25 Jan 10
as you said my dear friend, its agreeable but not 100%. what i believe is that some videos on you tube not all should be paid. they even must contain eligibility factor.As today's generation is far more curious or you can say addicted to watch videos. and video uploading must also be constrained.not every one should be able to upload any videos.wrong or blue movies must be reported abuse and the culprits must be punished.i want you to again contribute and discuss that what measure could be taken to improve the status of you tube viewing as everything has a pros as well as cons of it.
@slovenc1 (2089)
• Slovenia
25 Jan 10
Thanks for pointing out another argument. You can watch a stripper on a dance pole and she gets so popular that youtube doesn't delete her profile. Is that fair? They should at least mark it for adoult but no...because they get more views if they just let it be. In the end most sites earn and become famous just because they break the law that they want users to obey. No adoult material!
@cutepenguin (6431)
• Canada
25 Jan 10
I understand that it's not as nice to have to pay for things, but money to run things has to come from somewhere.
I haven't noticed a design change that seriously impacts the average poster - yes, there are featured videos at the top but there's plenty of space for the regular people's videos too.
@primeaque86 (8108)
• Philippines
25 Jan 10
That is a bad news for me. I love watching creed music videos specially overcome... how could I watch next time if youtube will require payment for such?
@snowy22315 (181974)
• United States
25 Jan 10
I'm surprised about that but I guess whoever runs youtube wants to cash in like everybody else does. It seems like it is something that is there but may not be there in the future unless you pay up. Youtube is one of those sites that I think people take for granted that really shouldn't.
@kaylachan (71545)
• Daytona Beach, Florida
25 Jan 10
I haven't been on youtube in a while. I've got some requests I need to check and some messages as well. I'm always looking at the "what's new" which includes their blog. But, since I haven't been online there or quite some time I wouldn't know. But, if the claims are true (and I'll find out when I log on) it doesn't suprise me. Certin companies are allowing their music videos to be viewed on youtube, so why shouldn't they be compensated or it? Its not like until now they had a roality contractioal agreement like they do when you buy or rent a cd, dvd, or move in the store.
@pradeep12 (93)
• India
25 Jan 10
beginning of the end with internet and some works as i make breakfast and i go for exercise
