3 ms·

And yet rights holders have made no effort to adjust their content offerings to take into account the obvious deficiencies in their own offerings. To put it an

And yet rights holders have made no effort to adjust their content offerings to take into account the obvious deficiencies in their own offerings. To put it another way - why aren't the rights holders even attempting to provide their content in the way their audience wants it? Even if they were failing to compete it would go a long way to strengthening their claims that YouTube is abusing the system. If enforcement became perfect overnight I don't doubt there would be nothing learnt and nothing would change.

ggggtez 8y ago
They do, that's what VEVO is for the music industry. The problem is copyright law allows for copyright of every different aspect of a performance, recording, composition, rendition, video, audio, translation, etc, all to be owned by different people/groups/organizations (and it's different for TV/Radio, even for the same audio recording too). The glaring deficiency is the copyright system is held together by ducttape and gum, and was never built for a system that allowed perfect reproductions to be transmitted instantaneously. It was designed for selling sheet music to 18th century orchestras.
mrep 8y ago
> why aren't the rights holders even attempting to provide their content in the way their audience wants it? Define that because I feel like everyone who complains about this is just mad they cannot pay netflix prices and get ad-free content to everything everyone has ever produced. News flash: that content costs a lot of money to product and at least in the US, I don't know of any content I have ever been interested in consuming that wasn't available for rent/buying on places like itunes. Is it more expensive than netflix, yes, but that's because it costs a lot to make. I bet I could make and license a streaming service that had all content ever produced but you would then complain about how it would cost like $200 a month to afford all of those licenses.

ggggtez 8y ago

They do, that's what VEVO is for the music industry. The problem is copyright law allows for copyright of every different aspect of a performance, recording, composition, rendition, video, audio, translation, etc, all to be owned by different people/groups/organizations (and it's different for TV/Radio, even for the same audio recording too). The glaring deficiency is the copyright system is held together by ducttape and gum, and was never built for a system that allowed perfect reproductions to be transmitted instantaneously. It was designed for selling sheet music to 18th century orchestras.

mrep 8y ago

> why aren't the rights holders even attempting to provide their content in the way their audience wants it? Define that because I feel like everyone who complains about this is just mad they cannot pay netflix prices and get ad-free content to everything everyone has ever produced. News flash: that content costs a lot of money to product and at least in the US, I don't know of any content I have ever been interested in consuming that wasn't available for rent/buying on places like itunes. Is it more expensive than netflix, yes, but that's because it costs a lot to make. I bet I could make and license a streaming service that had all content ever produced but you would then complain about how it would cost like $200 a month to afford all of those licenses.