Google, the proud new owner of YouTube, reportedly has employed Los Gatos-based company Audible Magic to filter their video content for copyrighted material as complaints about piracy on the video-sharing site have grown exponentially simultaneous to its popularity.
Audible Magic technology was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court's Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster ruling as a service to keep pirates off their networks. Neither Google nor Audible Magic have officially announced the filtering of YouTube content but the joint venture is inevitable. Audible Magic creates an audio "fingerprint" on videos. Since 1999, their database has primarily consisted of radio broadcasts but they are working to expand it with television shows and movies.
Last month, Viacom demanded that Google remove over 100,000 videos from the website, including the rampantly popular Comedy Central clips from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, as well as children's show Spongebob Squarepants. NBC Universal and NewsCorp have also recently requested the removal of their copyrighted video clips from YouTube. While there is no hard data on the effect of the removal of Viacom video clips from YouTube, it is almost certain that the video-sharing site will lose a significant amount of its audience. Sites like Dailymotion.com in France and Peekvids.com in Denmark are just two examples of video-sharing sites that screen full-length films and television episodes that the fed-up Googled YouTube audience will flock to if all this great content is filtered out.
MySpace, what I considered to be the only true democratic networking and content site on the internet and the site with the greatest life-expectancy, has also announced a plan to use Audible Magic to prevent copyrighted videos from being uploaded onto the site.
Have we learned nothing from the effects of peer-to-peer music file sharing? Have we learned nothing from the demise of the record industry? This is what will happen to YouTube and ultimately to Viacom, NewsCorp and NBC Universal if this filtering occurs:
-YouTube will lose its audience to unfiltered sites like Dailymotion.com and Peekvids.com
-Google will never earn back the $1.6 billion it paid for YouTube.
-Television will continue to lose its viewers as they are not able to view clips without being subjected to obtrusive commercials.
File sharing is not the perpetrator in this scenario; it is an innocent bystander. The broadcasting corporations need to learn what the record companies never learned. They must adapt to and embrace technology and their new audience (the new generation), not circumvent and treat them like criminals.
Ackerman, Elise. "Google to start filtering YouTube videos." MercuryNews.com. 22 Feb 2007.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Merger, Siriusly!
Yesterday XM and Sirius, the only satellite radio providers in the market, announced their "merger of equals." Under the leadership of Sirius CEO Mel Karmazian, the $4.9 billion merger should close by the end of the year if approved by the Department of Justice and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.
Satellite radio was supposed provide us with a better alternative to terrestrial radio, which has suffered from decreased listener ship since the 1996 Telecommunications Act allowed for the consolidation of radio stations. The result is less diversity and less quality content. Satellite radio promised quality content, no commercials and the ability to TiVo our favorite radio programs. But just as Internet radio, file-sharing and even the archaic practice of cassette recording music off terrestrial radio supposedly ruined the music business, these satellite recording devices are the catalyst for yet another infringement suit filed by the record companies and, our favorite, the RIAA.
It is very difficult to believe that two merging satellite radio providers will be able to "defeat" terrestrial radio with more ease than if they stayed separate. XM and Sirius together do not make a stronger unit, they just make more of the same thing. Yes, they are bringing Oprah and Howard Stern together under one roof but really, who listens to both of them? I have never subscribed to satellite radio but according to blogger Frank Ahrens, he is not very willing to pay for programs to which he does not intend to listen.
I am always very wary of mergers and potential monopolies. I believe, as most people in the music industry do, that media consolidation has led to the downfall of radio, television and the record companies. Competition is the key to progress; this includes competition in content, format, advertising and monetary value. Competition equals innovation. Consolidation equals the same old thing, just with a shiny new exterior.
If Sirius and XM remain the only satellite radio companies, or the singular satellite company, I doubt they will become what we all hope they will be; the radio we are all waiting for to save us from our iPod playlists. Sirius and XM have been in the market too long. A new satellite radio company will have to come along to change the market and meet the demands of this generation. But who will it be if everyone else is working for the single super-sized Sirius, seriously?
Thomasch, Paul and Kenneth Li. "Sirius, XM see deal closing in 2007." ABCNews.com. 20 Feb 2007.
Satellite radio was supposed provide us with a better alternative to terrestrial radio, which has suffered from decreased listener ship since the 1996 Telecommunications Act allowed for the consolidation of radio stations. The result is less diversity and less quality content. Satellite radio promised quality content, no commercials and the ability to TiVo our favorite radio programs. But just as Internet radio, file-sharing and even the archaic practice of cassette recording music off terrestrial radio supposedly ruined the music business, these satellite recording devices are the catalyst for yet another infringement suit filed by the record companies and, our favorite, the RIAA.
It is very difficult to believe that two merging satellite radio providers will be able to "defeat" terrestrial radio with more ease than if they stayed separate. XM and Sirius together do not make a stronger unit, they just make more of the same thing. Yes, they are bringing Oprah and Howard Stern together under one roof but really, who listens to both of them? I have never subscribed to satellite radio but according to blogger Frank Ahrens, he is not very willing to pay for programs to which he does not intend to listen.
I am always very wary of mergers and potential monopolies. I believe, as most people in the music industry do, that media consolidation has led to the downfall of radio, television and the record companies. Competition is the key to progress; this includes competition in content, format, advertising and monetary value. Competition equals innovation. Consolidation equals the same old thing, just with a shiny new exterior.
If Sirius and XM remain the only satellite radio companies, or the singular satellite company, I doubt they will become what we all hope they will be; the radio we are all waiting for to save us from our iPod playlists. Sirius and XM have been in the market too long. A new satellite radio company will have to come along to change the market and meet the demands of this generation. But who will it be if everyone else is working for the single super-sized Sirius, seriously?
Thomasch, Paul and Kenneth Li. "Sirius, XM see deal closing in 2007." ABCNews.com. 20 Feb 2007.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
And I Digress...
While this topic does not fall within the scope of this blog, this must be addressed due to its pure absurdity. Societal labels have gone too far.
Professor Jerry Del Colliano mentioned this music industry trend in his Music, Broadcasting and the Mobile Future lecture last week and the entire class was dumbfounded. Not only had none of us heard of this term but none of us knew for the love of God how or why this term came about in our culture.
I know these people. They are my African-American friends who wear aviator sunglasses at night, who wear really tight pants and dance in what I can only describe as the "Velma Dance," from Scooby Doo cartoons. They listen to punk, emo and indie music more often then they listen to "Black" music like rap and hip hop. They are hipsters, just like their Caucasian counterparts. However, a New York Times article decided to segment these indie music lovers by race and call them...wait for it...blipsters.
This is not offensive in and of itself because as a society, we compartmentalize trends and subcultures based on race. I will not digress further into my political beliefs that a colorblind society could be more detrimental to minorities than how it is today, but we have and will always tie music trends with race. However, this term reflects how African-Americans are given the short end of the stick when receiving labels. Just like how every feminine term, like female or woman are derived from the masculine terms male and man, Black culture terms are derivatives of Caucasian culture terms. Blipster is not only indicative of the secondary status of Black culture trends, the term is just flat out lazy. Please New York Times, be a little more creative.
The only positive element of this debacle is that racial boundaries in music are being torn down by the African-American community. The past two decades have seen White America embrace Black music but the opposite cannot be observed. With this movement of African-Americans embracing and creating rock and roll music, the genre they started before the Whites hijacked it and made it their own, maybe everyone who listens to Death Cab for Cutie can just be called a hipster, or someone who needs to stop crying and get over the fact that she just doesn't like you.
Jessica Pressler. "Blipsters Rock On." New York Times. 29 Jan 2007.
Professor Jerry Del Colliano mentioned this music industry trend in his Music, Broadcasting and the Mobile Future lecture last week and the entire class was dumbfounded. Not only had none of us heard of this term but none of us knew for the love of God how or why this term came about in our culture.
I know these people. They are my African-American friends who wear aviator sunglasses at night, who wear really tight pants and dance in what I can only describe as the "Velma Dance," from Scooby Doo cartoons. They listen to punk, emo and indie music more often then they listen to "Black" music like rap and hip hop. They are hipsters, just like their Caucasian counterparts. However, a New York Times article decided to segment these indie music lovers by race and call them...wait for it...blipsters.
This is not offensive in and of itself because as a society, we compartmentalize trends and subcultures based on race. I will not digress further into my political beliefs that a colorblind society could be more detrimental to minorities than how it is today, but we have and will always tie music trends with race. However, this term reflects how African-Americans are given the short end of the stick when receiving labels. Just like how every feminine term, like female or woman are derived from the masculine terms male and man, Black culture terms are derivatives of Caucasian culture terms. Blipster is not only indicative of the secondary status of Black culture trends, the term is just flat out lazy. Please New York Times, be a little more creative.
The only positive element of this debacle is that racial boundaries in music are being torn down by the African-American community. The past two decades have seen White America embrace Black music but the opposite cannot be observed. With this movement of African-Americans embracing and creating rock and roll music, the genre they started before the Whites hijacked it and made it their own, maybe everyone who listens to Death Cab for Cutie can just be called a hipster, or someone who needs to stop crying and get over the fact that she just doesn't like you.
Jessica Pressler. "Blipsters Rock On." New York Times. 29 Jan 2007.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Guerrilla Advertising Gone Wild!
Advertising has been the name of the game in broadcasting since its inception. But when does advertising go beyond what is acceptable? Many media consumers are asking that question now as we face digitization and "internetization" of our media. Will we accept advertising as it is now, lengthy and obtrusive, or will we say "to heck with it" and TiVo everything once that technology becomes available? I think the latter will prevail and that is why broadcasters are using drastic and somehow distasteful means to advertise their shows and their sponsors.
Cartoon Network launched an advertising ploy on the streets of 10 major U.S. cities that featured distorted portrayals of the characters from their hit show "Aqua Teen Hunger Force." While this seems innocent enough, the switchboards used to project these images on bridges and in other public places instigated fear of terrorism in Boston on January 31. Bomb squads were called in, bridges were closed, Cartoon Network executive vice president Jim Sample resigned, and Turner Broadcasting and its advertising affiliates are out $2 million.
Now, who is to blame? I was quick to say that Cartoon Network made a stupid marketing decision (the Nielsen ratings for "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" stayed almost the same the week after the advertising campaign as the week before) but now I am starting to realize that this type of unwarranted panic is an element of the current American mindset. The United States lives in a constant state of fear of terrorism so much so that a switchboard that projects an image of a cartoon character can be mistaken for an explosive! However, Cartoon Network did not make the best decision in placing these projectors on sensitive structures like bridges. According to an unofficial poll taken on ABCNews.com as of today, 12,499 out of 15,617 blame the local, state and federal authorities for blowing this "prank" out of proportion while only 1,789 pollsters thought Turner Broadcasting was to blame for its negligence to alert the authorities of their campaign.
In the greater sense, I think we are all to blame. The broadcasters are to blame for stuffing their advertising down our throats, or putting suspicious electronic boxes on our bridges. We are to blame for assuming anything out of the ordinary is something to fear. I say advertising needs to shift from guerrilla and repetitive to creative and provocative. It will have to or everyone will own a TiVo before the broadcasters can blink an eye.
Harry R. Webber. "Cartoon Network Head Resigns After Scare." ABC News. 10 Feb 2007.
Cartoon Network launched an advertising ploy on the streets of 10 major U.S. cities that featured distorted portrayals of the characters from their hit show "Aqua Teen Hunger Force." While this seems innocent enough, the switchboards used to project these images on bridges and in other public places instigated fear of terrorism in Boston on January 31. Bomb squads were called in, bridges were closed, Cartoon Network executive vice president Jim Sample resigned, and Turner Broadcasting and its advertising affiliates are out $2 million.
Now, who is to blame? I was quick to say that Cartoon Network made a stupid marketing decision (the Nielsen ratings for "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" stayed almost the same the week after the advertising campaign as the week before) but now I am starting to realize that this type of unwarranted panic is an element of the current American mindset. The United States lives in a constant state of fear of terrorism so much so that a switchboard that projects an image of a cartoon character can be mistaken for an explosive! However, Cartoon Network did not make the best decision in placing these projectors on sensitive structures like bridges. According to an unofficial poll taken on ABCNews.com as of today, 12,499 out of 15,617 blame the local, state and federal authorities for blowing this "prank" out of proportion while only 1,789 pollsters thought Turner Broadcasting was to blame for its negligence to alert the authorities of their campaign.
In the greater sense, I think we are all to blame. The broadcasters are to blame for stuffing their advertising down our throats, or putting suspicious electronic boxes on our bridges. We are to blame for assuming anything out of the ordinary is something to fear. I say advertising needs to shift from guerrilla and repetitive to creative and provocative. It will have to or everyone will own a TiVo before the broadcasters can blink an eye.
Harry R. Webber. "Cartoon Network Head Resigns After Scare." ABC News. 10 Feb 2007.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Get Your YouTube Out of MySpace!
NewsCorp chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch has reported that MySpace is taking in close to $25 million dollars in advertising revenue and continues to grow roughly 30% each quarter. This is unexpectedly rapid growth according to Murdoch, who struck up a deal to purchase another modern Internet phenomenon, YouTube, but lost the company to Google. Murdoch predicts that in five years 10 percent of NewCorp's company revenue will come from digital media, mostly thanks to MySpace.
This idea that MySpace is pulling so much money from ad revenue is shocking in a world where everyone is avoiding commercial advertisements on television by using TiVo and even slightly archaic subscription rental services like Netflix. Nobody enjoys the 60-second Advil commercial you have to watch while catching up on last week's episode of Lost on your laptop.
Murdoch makes a good point. YouTube, a video search engine, will drive away its audience if it uses commercial advertising within the video format, which it ultimately will do in order to become a lucrative media venture in the current, if not uninventive, revenue model. YouTube is an experience while MySpace is a community, as Murdoch puts correctly. MySpace uses much more unobtrusive advertising techniques, ones that do not interrupt the booming occurrences of video media on the website. MySpace is a much more integrated digital media model while YouTube can be like bad television created by the unemployed guy who lives next door.
MySpace and YouTube are undeniable elements of our current cultural, economic and technological framework. However, one has more staying power than the other. I vote for MySpace. While it is ultimately in the hands of an old suit, it is created, fed and consumed by the people. It is not just for the high school and college generation anymore; even my post-Baby Boomer/Pre-Generation X mother has a MySpace Music page. YouTube will eventually go down the tubes if the restrictions posed by Viacom are any indication. MySpace has a stake in my space for years to come, as long as it stays democratized.
Mike Shields. "Murdoch: MySpace Monthly Ad Revenue Nears $25 Mil." Media Week. 8 Feb 2007.
This idea that MySpace is pulling so much money from ad revenue is shocking in a world where everyone is avoiding commercial advertisements on television by using TiVo and even slightly archaic subscription rental services like Netflix. Nobody enjoys the 60-second Advil commercial you have to watch while catching up on last week's episode of Lost on your laptop.
Murdoch makes a good point. YouTube, a video search engine, will drive away its audience if it uses commercial advertising within the video format, which it ultimately will do in order to become a lucrative media venture in the current, if not uninventive, revenue model. YouTube is an experience while MySpace is a community, as Murdoch puts correctly. MySpace uses much more unobtrusive advertising techniques, ones that do not interrupt the booming occurrences of video media on the website. MySpace is a much more integrated digital media model while YouTube can be like bad television created by the unemployed guy who lives next door.
MySpace and YouTube are undeniable elements of our current cultural, economic and technological framework. However, one has more staying power than the other. I vote for MySpace. While it is ultimately in the hands of an old suit, it is created, fed and consumed by the people. It is not just for the high school and college generation anymore; even my post-Baby Boomer/Pre-Generation X mother has a MySpace Music page. YouTube will eventually go down the tubes if the restrictions posed by Viacom are any indication. MySpace has a stake in my space for years to come, as long as it stays democratized.
Mike Shields. "Murdoch: MySpace Monthly Ad Revenue Nears $25 Mil." Media Week. 8 Feb 2007.
Monday, February 5, 2007
The End of Radio as Described by the Savior of Radio
I was listening to KPFK Los Angeles's program "Democracy Now" on my way to Culver City when I heard terrifying 911 calls from residents affected by a train derailent in Minot, North Dakota five years ago. Call after call the victims of the disaster were told by the local emergency dispatcher to stay inside and turn on their radios to get more information. Horrified residents cried for help as they realized their children were outside and many panted as they started to lose the ability to breathe. The radio station that they were told to listen to did not broadcast a single piece of information during the disaster about the train derailment and the subsequent two hundred forty thousand gallons of anhydrous ammonia that leaked into the atmosphere.
Many think that radio consolidation only affects the musical content that we consume. However, radio was actually created as a means for communication during war and disasters. Radio is a method of maintaining national security. As a result of radio consolidation and the dominance of Clear Channel and Infinity in radio ownership, hundreds of radio stations are programmed from a centralized location, rendering live disc jockeys unnecessary and thus eliminating the presence of community-based information on local radio stations. That is why there was no information for the victims in Minot. Their local radio station was owned by Clear Channel and nobody was at the station during the time of the disaster.
Radio consolidation has much greater ramifications than a lack of quality content. Eric Kleinenberg, Associate Professor of Sociology at New York University, who was featured on 'Democracy Now," wrote "Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America's Media" which addresses this topic as well as the lack of minority representation on the radio and the success of non-corporate radio stations like Prometheus Radio Project. While this program highlighted the catastrophic consequences of the current state of radio, the program did not only focus on the negative. Professor Kleinenberg announced on the program that the FCC will be opening a full power non-commercial/educational FM radio station licensing window in April or May of 2007. This information is also included on Prometheus' website at www.prometheusradio.org.
Radio which started as an indispensible communication medium has become something corporate America needs to reinvent but choses to ignore. The future of radio relies on music enthusiasts, activists and forward thinkers to take advantage of this opportunity offered by the FCC (shockingly enough). Independent radio, like KPFK, will save radio. It is amazing that they remain so humble.
"Democracy Now": http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/153207
Many think that radio consolidation only affects the musical content that we consume. However, radio was actually created as a means for communication during war and disasters. Radio is a method of maintaining national security. As a result of radio consolidation and the dominance of Clear Channel and Infinity in radio ownership, hundreds of radio stations are programmed from a centralized location, rendering live disc jockeys unnecessary and thus eliminating the presence of community-based information on local radio stations. That is why there was no information for the victims in Minot. Their local radio station was owned by Clear Channel and nobody was at the station during the time of the disaster.
Radio consolidation has much greater ramifications than a lack of quality content. Eric Kleinenberg, Associate Professor of Sociology at New York University, who was featured on 'Democracy Now," wrote "Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America's Media" which addresses this topic as well as the lack of minority representation on the radio and the success of non-corporate radio stations like Prometheus Radio Project. While this program highlighted the catastrophic consequences of the current state of radio, the program did not only focus on the negative. Professor Kleinenberg announced on the program that the FCC will be opening a full power non-commercial/educational FM radio station licensing window in April or May of 2007. This information is also included on Prometheus' website at www.prometheusradio.org.
Radio which started as an indispensible communication medium has become something corporate America needs to reinvent but choses to ignore. The future of radio relies on music enthusiasts, activists and forward thinkers to take advantage of this opportunity offered by the FCC (shockingly enough). Independent radio, like KPFK, will save radio. It is amazing that they remain so humble.
"Democracy Now": http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/153207
All You Need is (Apple) Love
After years of heated trademark battles, the Beatles and Apple have finally decided to live in the world together.
The Beatles holding company, whose name is Apple Corp Ltd, accepted Steve Jobs' hardware company Apple Inc., as long as the latter did not put a stake in the music business. The iPod and iTunes violated that agreement and the two companies have been at odds ever since.
Now that this matter has been settled the Beatles, one of the last major acts holding out on the legal downloading market, might finally catch up with the times. The band that recreated rock and roll music has not been present in digital media and internet outlets except on illegal sites like Kazaa and Limewire. The act of preventing an almost non-threatening trademark infringement has left one of the most influential artists in history in the past and suffering from consumer piracy. Their innovation has given way to the stuffy, traditional, unimaginative view of the music industry. What a depressing fact. Hopefully this settlement will pave the way for all artists to put their work in the most successful music distribution model available, and put more money in Steve Jobs' bulging pockets.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/news/Beatles_Apple_Inc_Settle_Lawsuit#40946
The Beatles holding company, whose name is Apple Corp Ltd, accepted Steve Jobs' hardware company Apple Inc., as long as the latter did not put a stake in the music business. The iPod and iTunes violated that agreement and the two companies have been at odds ever since.
Now that this matter has been settled the Beatles, one of the last major acts holding out on the legal downloading market, might finally catch up with the times. The band that recreated rock and roll music has not been present in digital media and internet outlets except on illegal sites like Kazaa and Limewire. The act of preventing an almost non-threatening trademark infringement has left one of the most influential artists in history in the past and suffering from consumer piracy. Their innovation has given way to the stuffy, traditional, unimaginative view of the music industry. What a depressing fact. Hopefully this settlement will pave the way for all artists to put their work in the most successful music distribution model available, and put more money in Steve Jobs' bulging pockets.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/news/Beatles_Apple_Inc_Settle_Lawsuit#40946
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
