Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Old Media Says Google Will Destroy Film & Music

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the back-in-my-day dept.

Google 336

SirWinston writes "A Daily Mail editor has written perhaps the most Luddite attack on Google ever, reading just like a 19th-century manifesto against looms and factories. 'Google has become a global predator ruthlessly gobbling up potential rivals such as YouTube and 'stealing' the creative work of writers, film makers and the music industry... Google has granted these piracy sites a licence to steal... It undermines investment in the very creative industries that have become such an important part of our national prosperity, and employ hundreds of thousands of people.' The article lionizes brick-and-mortar business and traditional media, and reads as a funny anachronism--except that these may be the attitudes of European regulators now shaking down Google and new media."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


trololololo (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35776840)

Yeah, troll article referring to "old media".

Anyway no tears shed for dying newspapers and broadcast stations.

Re:trololololo (5, Funny)

mattcsn (1592281) | about 3 years ago | (#35776932)

Newspapers? I've tried accessing one of those. They've got this awful fixed-size layout; any decent web developer will find a way to make a mobile-friendly version these days. Other serious usability issues are the lack of effective hyperlinks ("see page 5" is about as useful as "it's somewhere on the sitemap"), no way to stream audio or video, no RSS feeds, no search function, and no way to instantly update with breaking news. That's not even getting into the startup costs for a newspaper versus installing drupal on a VPS.

I just don't see how these new newspaper things are going to get a foothold in the market, considering all their disadvantages compared to established technologies.

Re:trololololo (5, Funny)

jelizondo (183861) | about 3 years ago | (#35777236)

Newspapers are still useful and computers will never replace them entirely.

With newspapers you can:

  1. make paper-boats
  2. wrap fish
  3. spread them under you car to find an oil leak
  4. make papier-machè figures
  5. use the photos to illustrate schoolwork
  6. cut-out ransom messages
  7. light the carbon for a bbq
  8. wipe your ass in an emergency

And most important of all, you can wrap a cold beer so the cops can't tell what you're drinking!

I rest my case.

Re:trololololo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777084)

So somebody has an opinion you don't agree with and they're a troll. Grow up.

Re:trololololo (5, Insightful)

oztiks (921504) | about 3 years ago | (#35777250)

This has never been about piracy. The dream of a big label contract for artists is becoming less and less valuable because its the label's job to promote and make the artist popular. The internet has made is so any Tom, Dick or Harry can post their music on YouTube and get a million hits. We are starting to see more of these "Laddy Gagga vs Snoop Dog" video clips, by combining the talent they are trying to entice both fan bases to buy the same album - just a tactic of desperation IMHOP.

Internet is making it so if live in Afghanistan and provided I have an internet link I can watch the latest episode of "Two and Half Men" and even if I'm not in the "legitimate" broadcast zone there's always tvduck.com. This again isn't about piracy directly its about control of the media, its about who sees what and when and how to cash in on that control.

All the internet is doing is making these lazy ass fat cats in Hollywood have to go out an earn their cash, instead of applying the same crappy formula to everything they touch and just expecting it to work.

I for one am not feeling one bit sorry for them.

It's the Daily Mail (1)

kylegordon (159137) | about 3 years ago | (#35776850)

"pop sensation Adele" -- who the fuck is 'Adele'?

Re:It's the Daily Mail (5, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about 3 years ago | (#35776872)

I have the suspicion that troll articles like these really exist only to promote the token artist mentioned within. So yes, now you're asking questions like that, and maybe you'll even go visit youtube to listen to her sing to find out what all the complaining is about - which is exactly what they want you to do.

Re:It's the Daily Mail (4, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 3 years ago | (#35776908)

And the demographic which reads the Daily Mail is neither technically literate nor particularly well-informed or erudite.

Re:It's the Daily Mail (5, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 3 years ago | (#35777002)

Curiosity got the better of me this week and I checked YouTube for "Friday" by Rebecca Black. I've apologized to my brain, and will never do that again. Please Google, please kill the current music cartels.

Re:It's the Daily Mail (1)

xploraiswakco (703340) | about 3 years ago | (#35777064)

Apple is already trying to kill the music cartels, but it's slow going because they are just so darn big...

Re:It's the Daily Mail (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 3 years ago | (#35777080)

My perspective is that Apple is trying to *replace* the music cartels. We need more competition. Google and Amazon are a start, but what I'd reallly like to see is a lot of independent artists who I can give money to directly if I enjoy their music enough. Unfortunately, I don't think this will work quite as well for movies.

Re:It's the Daily Mail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777216)

Apple is very much trying to replace the old school music cartels. It wants to become THE music cartel of the future that everyone is forced to use. Amazon is trying to compete, and have a good store, but good luck to them, apple is already trying to stomp on Amazon.

Re:It's the Daily Mail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777218)

Apple is trying to replace the music cartels with their own tightly sealed and walled version of distribution that Apple would like all Apple hardware users to use (and they go out of their way to make it make things hard if that Apple user chooses not use it).

Sure, its better than the existing RIAA/MPAA cartel but it is still an attempt to lock you in to their way.

Movies... (4, Interesting)

KingSkippus (799657) | about 3 years ago | (#35777284)

Unfortunately, I don't think this will work quite as well for movies.

Don't be so sure. We're already seeing the rise of series such as Felicia Day's The Guild [watchtheguild.com] and Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog [drhorrible.com] , which has been free online in various official capacities. Also, Google has started producing full-length movies, such as Girl Walks Into a Bar [youtube.com] . (The latter of which even features some semi-big names, like Carla Gugino, Josh Hartnett, Danny DeVito, and a bunch of other names you'd probably recognize.) Also, Hulu is producing a show, The Confession [hulu.com] , starring Kiefer Sutherland and John Hurt, both big names in the business.

I honestly think--and hope!--that the times of big television networks being the gateway to what we can and can't see are soon to be over.

Re:Movies... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 3 years ago | (#35777322)

... and also things like Pioneer One. It can work, but I think the really big budget movies (which I do like on occasion) would be much more rare. I'm not sure we would have seen LOTR with this model. As special effects technology gets less expensive though, perhaps in the future it's possible.

Re:It's the Daily Mail (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 3 years ago | (#35777164)

Curiosity got the better of me this week and I checked YouTube for "Friday" by Rebecca Black. I've apologized to my brain, and will never do that again. Please Google, please kill the current music cartels.

"Friday" came out of a small studio that mostly provides a vanity studio/lyrics/video package for teenagers.
They have nothing to do with the "current music cartels" and would still be around even if the RIAA members fell off the face of the earth.

Re:It's the Daily Mail (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | about 3 years ago | (#35777212)

Ah, I see. You read cracked too. Same thing happened here. I'm still trying to clean my ears with an intense treatment of Iron Maiden and Judas Priest.

Re:It's the Daily Mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777340)

Curiosity got the better of me this week and I checked YouTube for "Friday" by Rebecca Black. I've apologized to my brain, and will never do that again. Please Google, please kill the current music cartels.

The fist time I heard the song was Colbert had a hilarious performance on Jimmy Fallon on last Friday night. It's on Hulu. Then I read about what all the commotions was. Done in this order, I don't feel one way or the other about the song. Anyway, be careful what you wish for. An article on Slate claims that it is precisely the proliferation of free music on the internet is what makes the Cartels taking smaller and smaller risk, resulting in more self-finance (or parent-financed) turd like this.

Re:It's the Daily Mail (2, Funny)

DittoBox (978894) | about 3 years ago | (#35776880)

I hate the vast majority of pop, on principal, and even I know who the fuck she is. Good voice, actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_(singer) [wikipedia.org]

Re:It's the Daily Mail (1)

JWW (79176) | about 3 years ago | (#35777272)

Odd thing is, I know who she is only because Apple gave away one of her songs for free.

Which is good because that let me know that I definitely wouldn't wan to pay for her music.

The person who's just beaten chart records... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35776898)

She's now holding the record of longest stay at number 1 in the album charts by a female artist in the UK, having spent 11 consecutive weeks (so far) at number 1. This beats Madonna's record from 1990.

The Daily Mail is worse than trash, but people could be forgiven for having heard of Adele.

Re:It's the Daily Mail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35776936)

Do you own a radio, son? Your comment reminds me of Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

Holden: If the buzz is any indicator, that movie's gonna make some huge bank.
Jay: What buzz?
Holden: The Internet buzz.
Jay: What the fuck is the Internet?

Re:It's the Daily Mail (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 3 years ago | (#35776970)

"pop sensation Adele" -- who the fuck is 'Adele'?

Er, she's a singer that's famous in Britain where the Daily Mail is published. I guess you could describe her as a "pop sensation" or something. :-)

Re:It's the Daily Mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35776994)

Agreed. And who the fuck is Nelly Furtado?

*resumes living under a rock*

Re:It's the Daily Mail (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#35777210)

"pop sensation Adele" -- who the fuck is 'Adele'?

Given that she was "discovered" after posting songs on MySpace, I don't think she's a good choice as a strawman - neither for someone writing a Daily Mail article about Google killing the old school music industry, nor for a Slashdot poster trying to demonstrate how out-of-touch said Daily Mail writer is with the new music business model.

Quick, get that man a cane! (4, Funny)

chill (34294) | about 3 years ago | (#35776856)

After all the effort and money spent on perverting copyright law worldwide, how DARE someone come along and defy them! Have they no respect for TRADITION!

Re:Quick, get that man a cane! (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#35776884)

It's nice to have a scapegoat. Concise summary of stupid article: We used to make a lot of money. Now we're not and don't know how to deal with things. It's Google's fault.

Re:Quick, get that man a cane! (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 years ago | (#35777158)

Except that if it wasn't Google, it'd be someone else. It's like the horse and buggy industry singling out Ford. They won't be able to kill the Internet, and that's their real problem.

Re:Quick, get that man a cane! (2)

SpiralSpirit (874918) | about 3 years ago | (#35776924)

even worse, how dare they take those perverted copyright laws and lobbying and be better at it than the old media!

Re:Quick, get that man a cane! (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 3 years ago | (#35777134)

It'd be depressing if it weren't so funny. You can practically hear the author's monocle falling out in his apoplexy when he says "In its determination to boost the Google model and to encourage other internet search sites to follow it, the Government seems to believe the internet should be free and open to everyone.". It honestly sounds like he's about two steps away from adding "Don't they know that if it's open to everyone, the wrong sort of people will get access? Where would we be then?"

Re:Quick, get that man a cane! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777254)


Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (5, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about 3 years ago | (#35776910)

Over the past few years Rupert Murdoch has been on an international roadshow telling everyone in politics that will listen that his major competitor for the advertising dollar - Google - will destroy jobs etc.
All we are seeing here is influence being used to turn people against a business competitor.
If you really want to see a "global predator" take a look at Newscorp. Most of the newspapers bleed money anyway but are kept because they are a good source of political influence and can be used as pawns in the paywall game of trying to make Google look like thieves.

Re:Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 3 years ago | (#35776926)

Problem is the dumbasses we put in government are a lot more likely to listen to windbags like Murdock as opposed to someone that really has a level head in the situation.

Re:Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (5, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 3 years ago | (#35777070)

We tend to get the governance we (as a whole) desire. If you want to change the system, stop voting for either of the two parties. Only when third parties can win elections will we see real change.

Re:Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#35777238)

We tend to get the governance we (as a whole) desire. If you want to change the system, stop voting for either of the two parties. Only when third parties can win elections will we see real change.

Speaking as an American - your comment reads as if you think the American two-party political model is the only one in use world-wide. It's not. Nor is America the only place where a guy like Rupert Murdoch (who is not an American, for whatever that's worth) can buy political influence, unfortunately.

Re:Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (3, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | about 3 years ago | (#35777318)

Rupert Murdoch (who is not an American, for whatever that's worth)

My understanding is that he is a citizen of the USA and of no other country. As such, what would you report his nationality to be? Perhaps an Australian-born naturalized American? That still makes him "American" as far as I can tell.

Re:Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777332)

You obviously dont know Mexico

Re:Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 3 years ago | (#35777344)

We tend to get the governance we (as a whole) desire. If you want to change the system, stop voting for either of the two parties. Only when third parties can win elections will we see real change.

Revolution does not come from getting people to vote for a less unsavory politician. There is too much money, too much power, at stake for the ones in control to just sit back and let real change happen. Either they use their finances to bury your independent message through lies and scandals, or else they just wait until they can get the new politicians under their control, one way or another. The problem is not the folks in office, it's the ones who control them. They are very good at what they do.

Re:Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (3, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 3 years ago | (#35777008)

Absolutely true; however, the Daily Mail- right-wing POS though it is- isn't owned by Murdoch.

Re:Is this part of Murdoch's rage against Google? (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | about 3 years ago | (#35777260)

Can't say I ever met anyone too conservative to run to the government for protection as soon as his/her monopoly gets threatened with new competition. I knew government was good for something...

allow me to be the first to say (1)

ThatFunkyMunki (908716) | about 3 years ago | (#35776916)

Good riddance.

Re:allow me to be the first to say (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 years ago | (#35776950)

Let me add, can't happen fast enough. And hopefully before they die they'll realize that substance is better than flash. And they'll still drive themselves into the grave with both feet, and their head up their ass over it.

content creator (5, Insightful)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | about 3 years ago | (#35776922)

That's funny.

I'm a content creator, and Google and YouTube have done wonderful things for me. I've gotten a few shows and jobs from YouTube videos that have gone semi-viral.

For the independent artist, the potential these services unlock is simply too important to lose.

Re:content creator (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 3 years ago | (#35776946)

For the independent artist, the potential these services unlock is simply too important to lose.

Well, I do believe that you've summed up the entire issue that 'old media' has with 'new media' - their total lack of control over it. They are not determining who "makes it" or who gets work (and of course, who amongst them gets their %).

Re:content creator (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 years ago | (#35777098)

Exactly. Do these people not remember how much youtube was celebrating when they were bought by Google? Getting bought by Google is the entire business plan of some companies. If that sort of cash-out didn't exist, then these companies would have trouble getting funding in the first place, and the services they create may have never gotten started.

An abuse of a monopoly is when you start killing competitors who are better than you. So far Google has maintained their position by being the best in the field. Wake me up when they actually abuse their position.

Re:content creator (0)

PPH (736903) | about 3 years ago | (#35777126)

The 'old media' that TFA refers to is the distribution channel through which creating talent such as yourself (used to) have to use to gain access to the market. Now Google is giving you folks an alternate distribution channel. Granted, the money will flow in a different manner than 'old media' was used to. But smart creators will adapt.

'Old media' just doesn't like losing its near monopoly grip on distribution channels and the resulting loss of its cut of the action.

Re:content creator (-1, Flamebait)

j33px0r (722130) | about 3 years ago | (#35777184)

You are a content creator? Is that a career? You have had a few jobs and semi-viral videos? Are you arguing for an imagined potential or an actual career? Is this different from the argument of no taxes for the rich because I might be rich someday?

I'm not going to sit back and support some dinosaur media giant such as HMI but I can hardly support a sell-out who thinks that they are a real artist describing themselves as a "content creator."

In reality, the majority of the information on the internet, youtube in particular, is subject to copyright infringement.

Two choices can be made here: a.) Change current copyright laws b.) eliminate sites such as youtube.

Saving the income of scab artists a.k.a. content creators is not on the list.

Re:content creator (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777308)

People do not have to watch a famous fabricated Hollywood star or listen to a music by a musician (and I use that term loosely) that also does Doritos commercials and a three minute lip sync gigs on Good Morning America or SNL to be entertained. I am very satisfied also watching random self produced videos on Youtube and listening to one of many thousands of web radio broadcasts of music that my local radio stations that are 95% wholly owned by ClearChannel won't play.

Old media
A carefully selected artist releases a new CD. The artist does some promo spots on "popular" television shows that bog old media has an interest in, gets in a couple of big media chosen partners magazines for a one page article and possibly on the cover. Clear Channel adds it to the rotation on whatever station plays that genre of music across the nation. Artist makes a guest appearance on some prime time show or maybe some awards show.

None of that above has anything to do with the quality of the musician work, it is carefully force fed down our throats by big old media and their partners. Minimal cost to promote a single artist and attempt to reap the biggest reward. What the people want to hear or really like is not relavent.

New media eliminates almost all of that. It is not about copyright or loss of jobs and income like you, the RIAA, MPAA, Murdoch, and half of the paid for law makers claim. It is about CHOICE. If the RIAA gave up and closed up shop tomorrow, not a single fucking dime would be lost by anyone. Sure, some specific industry jobs would be lost but the money people spent on music would be spent somewhere else and just as many new jobs would be created. Music would still exist and people would still have plenty of new stuff to listen to. What they listened to would not be forced on them.

Re:content creator (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 years ago | (#35777276)

They have every right to be scared. I heard that Google is going to start producing content. What is so funny is the person talking about said that Google is going to spend 100,000,000 dollars to produce ten hours of weekly content. The talked about how it will be hard to create quality content for so little money! WHAT? Ten million of dollars an hour!. If they use a staff of say 50 people that comes to $200,000 a year per person. That seems like a good job to me. It will be interesting to see what will happen when Apple, Google, Netflix, and Microsoft start to produce content. Frankly there is already some good content on YouTube that my wife and watch on our TV using or Roku box.

Having seen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35776952)

Having seen a lot of the creativity out of Hollywood and what people consider to be modern, popular music, nowadays, I would argue that Google may assist in the downfall of Film and Music, but I think honestly they are doing plenty on their own to destroy themselves. The stuff they put out nowadays and to call a lot of it entertainment is a stretch.

They might point to Google as the cause of ruin, but they are doing plenty themselves. They ought to look in the mirror.

Its probably the reason I don't pirate much at all-its not worth pirating. And I surely wouldn't pay for that kinda junk.

Ban the Printing Press (4, Funny)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 3 years ago | (#35776954)

The book copying industry used to put a lot of people in jobs. The Printing press destroyed the book industry!

Its stealing the work of creative people-who-copy-books-for-a-living.
Technology moves forward. Deal with it.

Re:Ban the Printing Press (5, Funny)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 years ago | (#35776978)

You son of a bitch. And here I was going to move to a monastery, make beer and wine, and write out books by hand for the rest of my life.

Seriously screw you and this new fangled shit!

Re:Ban the Printing Press (1)

chill (34294) | about 3 years ago | (#35777004)

You know, that actually sounds pretty good when you put it like that. Just make sure not to join one of those crazy sects that require celibacy. Otherwise all that beer and wine you make will never be put to its proper use.

Re:Ban the Printing Press (1)

jelizondo (183861) | about 3 years ago | (#35777274)


What is the proper use of beer and wine, other than drinking it?

You must be some kind of pervert.

(Crosses himself)


Re:Ban the Printing Press (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 3 years ago | (#35777038)


Not to sound snarky or anything, but those people were called scribes.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Scribe [wikimedia.org]

And this is a great proof that playing WoW teaches you things!

Re:Ban the Printing Press (1)

shermo (1284310) | about 3 years ago | (#35777190)

If you really played WoW you would know the correct term for one such is "Inscriptioner".

Its about time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35776964)

Its about time sites like Google 'took out' old timer media. Old timer media was real nice for a long time, and maybe at some point it might become viable again, but right now, its dying. Its not Google's fault its dying either! Old timer media has an old timer business model. Google is a million times faster, and a billion times cheaper, and in many cases Google isn't even responsible, its just the index. There are a million sites on the net that are killing old-timer media. Its not Google, its a million times bigger than Google.

So? (1)

Fractal Dice (696349) | about 3 years ago | (#35776972)

Technology wipes out whole industries?! Oh no! Whatever will horseshoe makers do!

Re:So? (1)

mariasama16 (1895136) | about 3 years ago | (#35777140)

Actually, considering horses still wear horseshoes, a farrier is still needed. They're just not in demand by Joe Q. Public is all. Kinda like blacksmiths are still around, just not as many.

I used to like Google (-1, Troll)

Haedrian1 (2038226) | about 3 years ago | (#35776984)

But with the fact that they withdaw the source of Android 3.0, I lost any respect for them.
I actually have a tablet, and I would put Honeycomb into it.
So google is evil, how much don't know.
If fact this guy writes on his blog [freeblogspot.org] about his ugly experience working for google.
So it is evil.

Re:I used to like Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777034)

I'm guessing that link is to Goatse. Not clicking.

Re:I used to like Google (2)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35777102)

One of the nice things about Firefox 4 is that the icon of Goatse man on the tab is large enough to identify, but small enough not to actually have any detail at all. Plus you can open and close the tab without actually viewing it.

Newsworthy? (3, Insightful)

woodhouse (625329) | about 3 years ago | (#35776988)

The daily mail says all sorts of things. It's not news when they write it, and it's definitely not news that they wrote it.

Probably paid by RIAA and MPAA (0)

skyraker (1977528) | about 3 years ago | (#35776990)

That is what it reads like. They forget to mention the numerous videos on YouTube that have helped give greater exposure to talented individuals who were never seeing the light of day. The forget the indie musicians whom never got to see the inside of recording studio. But, apparently, this is 'stealing' and stifling creative expression.

Yes, Google RUTHLESSLY gobbled up YouTube. (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about 3 years ago | (#35776992)

With cold, heartless indifference, Google deprived the founders of a whole year's worth of labor; cynically stripped them of eleven and a half million dollars of hard-won venture capital and left them with nothing but 1.65 billion dollars of Google stock.

Parasite, yes (1, Informative)

Andy Smith (55346) | about 3 years ago | (#35777006)

I predict that there will be a lot of fair comments in this thread modded down as flamebait, and I guess this will be one of them.

My personal experience of Google: I do photographs for newspapers. Google have used several of my photographs as part of Google News without permission or payment. I sent them an invoice, and a long time later they contacted me to say that they weren't going to pay AND would only take down the photos if I filed a DMCA complaint.

Even if you disregard the (valid) parasite claims in the Daily Mail article, I would say that Google simply doesn't respect copyright. (Or, more accurately, doesn't respect other people's copyright. I'm quite sure they would jealously protect their own.)

Re:Parasite, yes (2)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 3 years ago | (#35777060)

Google is, fundamentally, an advertising company.

They get their revenue from advertising. And from 'advanced demographic analysis services' that they sell to advertisers.

It's weird, because we used to despise that crap in the nerd/geek scene. Seems like a new crowd has arrived.

Re:Parasite, yes (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 years ago | (#35777362)

It's not necessarily a new crowd, just a misunderstanding of what the crowd approves of. If the crowd loves a certain company, then they can do no wrong. If IBM or Microsoft pulled the same stunts they'd be widely criticized. But Google is the darling of the young hipster techie crowd. The "we're going to copy all books without permissions and put them online" stance of Google won a lot of fans in the "copyright is evil" crowd. A lot of people don't like shades of gray; to them a company is either evil or saintly.

Re:Parasite, yes (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 3 years ago | (#35777088)

My personal experience of Google: I do photographs for newspapers. Google have used several of my photographs as part of Google News without permission or payment. I sent them an invoice, and a long time later they contacted me to say that they weren't going to pay AND would only take down the photos if I filed a DMCA complaint.

Does Google have any legal obligations outside of the DMCA?

In the past, you would have had a case, but now if you don't start with a DMCA notice, you won't get very far with a Judge.

Re:Parasite, yes (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | about 3 years ago | (#35777302)

Does Google have any legal obligations outside of the DMCA?

I realize we live in a dog-eat-dog world, but I personally don't think much of people that live by no rule other than that of the law.

Re:Parasite, yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777114)

uhm...as the direct infringing party, you don;t have to send a DMCA request to them. you sent them an invoice for using your pics, they refused to pay. Small claims court time. They have assets to seize so you can get paid pretty easy once the judge finds in your favor. The DMCA though...that would only protect them if they only hosted the infringing works. Since they are their own ISP, they are the directly infringing party and responsible for the infringement.

At least that is what i understand. If someone else understands better, please post it.

Re:Parasite, yes (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777116)

For me to take you seriously, I would need.

1. a link to even one photo of yours used in google news

2. a reason why your didn't just file the DCMA and stop whining how the big bad google "stole" your precious photos.
DCMA is the legal process for take downs in the US, so what's the problem? Everyone files them if they find their unauthorized content online File it and your content disappears.

I can't speak on google's respect for copyright, but I do know that Robot.txt noindex nofollow work pretty well.

Otherwise I suspect you are associated with the daily mail or some other news corp enterprise

Re:Parasite, yes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777118)

Tiny thumbnail images, extracted from the index news articles = fair use.

Frankly it's you that needs to get a sense of perspective as to the value and usage of photographs. Continuing the scrabble after every little penny and value your work many times higher than customers will accept is your problem. People take one look at the hassle and extreme costs you attempt to demand for using your pictures and decide not to include you in the transaction.

Re:Parasite, yes (1)

rmcd (53236) | about 3 years ago | (#35777174)

You have a legitimate beef, but shouldn't you be complaining to congress? (I just now clicked your link -- nice site! -- and I see that you live in Scotland. Not sure who you should complain to.) Instead of dealing with copyright in a serious and thoughtful way, in the US we get asinine and cynical legislation like the Sonny Bono copyright extension act and the DMCA. It's no wonder that average folks have no respect for copyright, and one certainly can't expect Google to show more respect than is required by the law.

I feel at least some of your pain -- I've written a textbook and pdfs of my book are widely available. I'm not sure what the new world will look like (and not sure that my current work on a new edition will ever be repaid). But I also recognize --- speaking here about my case, not yours --- that a large percentage of the effort devoted to a new textbook edition is all about marketing and killing the used book market, which for most books is a social waste. These incentives *should* go away. The current model is broken. (My editor argued with me about this until she read Chris Anderson's "Free".) I don't know enough about photography to have an opinion in your case. But we need a less corrupt legal framework for sure.

Anyway, best of luck with your work.

Re:Parasite, yes (2)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | about 3 years ago | (#35777268)

Copyright holders (and more typically mere owners) are the parasites, expecting to paid indefinitely for the same work. Google does the minimum necessary to respect copyright, and expecting anything more is unreasonable. If you wanted money in exchange for your own photos, you should have sold them. Copyrights, like patents and other forms of intellectual monopoly, are detrimental to society, and we would all be better off if they ceased to exist.

If you are at least making an effort, I am sympathetic to the difficulty of adjusting to a new business model. Clearly, some organizations are not though, and I, along with many others, will cheer on their demise.

Supply and Demand (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777014)

As the supply approaches infinity, the price approaches 0.
So if supply is infinite, the price is 0 and thus music should be free.

Basic economics.

Also, since the music industry violates the law of supply and demand, it messes up the entire economic system. Blame them for the recession!

When will you all listen to me? (1)

pro151 (2021702) | about 3 years ago | (#35777040)

I keep telling you all that Google is Skynet. I know. I am a Google Borg. ;o) One thing everyone seems to forget is that change is inevitable. It is human nature to change or we would all still be riding donkeys and wearing tow-sacks. Damn near everything that has been done in the name of progress has also been bemoaned as the death of mankind and humanity. The audio cassette killed the record. The CD killed the audio cassette. The video cassette was the end of the movie industry. The DVD killed the video cassette. Streaming and downloads are killing the DVD industry. The sky is falling once again and it is now Google's fault.

It's simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777124)

At least for music, it's simple, it has become an over abundant commodity. As such, ergo, yadda yadda, the supply and demand curvy thingy says cheap prices!!! Get over over it, move on, yadda yadda. The only thing creative in that industry these days is the accounting.

Luddite? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | about 3 years ago | (#35777146)

This article is a lot of things, but Luddite is not one of them. Claiming google is too powerful, too intrusive, are not uncommon complaints. If I, as a Mac user announce my disgust of Microsoft, am I a luddite too?

Luddite is generally synonymous with technology-phobia and hatred of labor-saving devices. Does the author claim we shouldn't use search engines or get rid of smartphones? No. He's just saying Google is malignant and malicious, not opining on tech in general.

It's like when Bon Jovi said Steve Jobs killed the music experience. No, and that also wasn't luddite.

cannot happen fast enough (3, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | about 3 years ago | (#35777160)

the current music and film system stifles good music and films. The sooner this system dies the better.

It's not even very good scaremongering (1)

TRACK-YOUR-POSITION (553878) | about 3 years ago | (#35777168)

Look, if you want me to be afraid of Google, you should point out that they know an incredible amount of information about most people using the internet. Google should be extremely easy to scaremonger about--they're always watching what I do! They've got pictures of my house! They're freaking spying on everyone, and you expect us to get worked up because of intellectual property? Because they're messing up your business model? I mean, if you want people to panic about Google, maybe you should use the word "privacy" at least once?

Rails aren't just for trains. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777242)

Choice one: Join discussion which is just more of the same?

Choice two: Stay out of discussion which will just ride on the same rails as previous discussions?

*flip coin*

Ok, I'm out of here.

Prize for no.1 *facepalm* in that article goes to: (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | about 3 years ago | (#35777244)

Quoting from article:

"Nine out of the first ten websites which pop up on Googleâ(TM)s search engine are run by pirates who have downloaded Adeleâ(TM)s output and offer it online far more cheaply than official copyrighted sites and High Street retailers."

This isn't the only piece of fiction in this article but this is so damingly wrong I'm in disbelief that an editor of a newspaper could make such a error. Anyone can easily type in Adele into Google to reveal this piece of fiction. As evidence I offer: http://www.google.com/search?&q=adele [google.com]

Non of the first top ten results I get are "pirated" even by the Dailymail's most loose definition of the term, most are official or 100% legit.

So I stopped reading and got on with my life.

A very enjoyable read (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#35777258)

Yes, I did find the article a very enjoyable read. Why? Because it's clearly written in panic mode. There's so much frothing at the mouth, so much pure emotional drivel. I'm quite happy to see this person, and those whom he represents, so distressed. Clearly, Google is doing something right if they're pushing so many buttons at the same time!

Here's to hoping (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 3 years ago | (#35777306)

"Old Media Says Google Will Destroy Film & Music" [industries] Can't believe I agree with them, but here's to hoping they're right. The music industry is the worst thing to happen to music since... well.. ever.

Luddite... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 years ago | (#35777312)

FYI for slashdot moderators and readers. Someone who does not like new technology or some facets of new technology is not a Luddite. Someone who does not go along with the current fashion that newer is better is not a Luddite. Just because someone doesn't want the kids on their lawn doesn't make them a Luddite. Please kids, look up what the word means.

Ahahahaha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35777346)

It undermines investment in the very creative industries that have become such an important part of our national prosperity, and employ hundreds of thousands of people.

That alone makes the whole article not worth reading. Yes, they employ hundreds of thousands of people, no, they are not only not important to our national prosperity - they are an utter hindrance thereto. Look at every issue we face with fine grain detail and you will see it's roots in the social dysfunction from ego through sexual tension that has been inspired by these very people complaining about "new media". Yes, its only proper people be compensated for their work, but within the exact same thought process it is only proper for a provider of a service, entertainment or otherwise, not to screw their customers for their own benefit and amusement. I'll be glad when "old media" dies and everyone without a talent otherwise currently employed by them starves to death - it's evolution, and it's good for the species - the saddest thing about this is that in all likeliness they won't actually starve, or perhaps that even if they do, we won't all get to watch (though I'll be checking YouTube for it).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account