3 ms·
I agree in the sense that they weren't rushing to the internet in terms of early adoption. The rush was reactionary, by embracing YouTube (eventually), but I do
by decasteve 9y ago
I agree in the sense that they weren't rushing to the internet in terms of early adoption. The rush was reactionary, by embracing YouTube (eventually), but I do think the nuance of the web still escaped their grasp. Maybe they finally realized it was easier/unavoidable to broadcast and litigate than it was to control distribution in fine-grained fashion.
In any case, (incoming analogy) the church is better off with the printing press and allowing the bible to be translated from Latin. Its distribution and reach has expanded greatly. And it can still burn heretics.
- hnlmorg 9y agoI don't think "rush" is the right term - reactionary or not. Lots of artists still don't have an official YouTube presence and those that do often find their content blocked in some countries due to regional distribution licences. Plus they only started adopting YouTube several years after people had already been uploading videos independently. Their adoption couldn't have been slower if they tried - which I honestly believe they did try because YouTube doesn't fit their traditional licensing models. What possibly helped their their adoption of YouTube - and I'm just speculating on this last point so please take this with a pinch of salt - was how software has become good enough to run automated scans across YouTube and raise DMCA reports on any infringing content. This means record labels / distributors can not only block unwanted content but also ensure their own YouTube content gets all the ad revenue. I'm not saying this was a major contributing factor but it probably doesn't hurt their opinions of the platform.