US media giants against US google(youtube)... O gee I wonder who all those pro-piracy, anti-copyright spinsters(applies only to those who are) will favor in this court battle ?

Usual 'hate-replies' are welcome :)

Said a Premier League Spokesman last night, "We own football. These little people who post highlights of a football game should remember who is boss around here. If they don't like it then go and watch curling, or speedway, or some other so-called sport that these peasents like to dribble over."

Pausing to breathe for a monent as his snout came out of the trough the spokesman continued. "We're making a simple statement to those who think they can share a video of a small piece of action from a game; Go and shove your money up your rectum you braindead football fan chav scum.

In fact, we're considering playing games without spectators. They're obsolete now, more trouble than they're worth. We reckon it could make us more money by encouraging them to watch via digital subscription and save on all the Policing, crowd control, heating and other energy costs. Maybe even use this YouTube scum to have pay-per-view highlights. Mmmmmm, another gravy train......."

By the way, did you know you can't publish the season's football fixtures unless you pay for the right to do so? I bet the printers are struggling to stack the fivers coming off the presses.

When big music got their knickers in a twist about music file sharing they got all litigious as well. Rather than thinking "hey, it seems people actually want to watch a 30 second highlight of their team scoring a goal on a saturday without paying for a 12 month subscription to see them - I wonder how we can make it easy and cheap for them so they don't have to do it unlawfully" they just try and stop it (or even more lazily just say "thanks for showing that to everyone - give us some money").

Google must have known that all these company lawyers were just sitting there waiting for the deal to go through so they could chase them for money, i'm just surprised they didn't have this "fingerprinting" system ready to impose from the moment they took it over.

I do wonder how many companies going after YouTube will turn round in a few years time (or less) and ask them to do some sort of pay-per-view hosting for them - it's a fantastic channel to get their product out through. I just hope they get told to get knotted.

It IS about time that content creator's rights are protected...especially "second-tier" content providers, ones that are currently NOT reaping millions or billions in viewing revenue. It's easy to hate the music industry (especially if you have never worked in it and have no understanding of how much record companies invest in bands that usually don't even recoup their costs!), but a lot of second-tier content providers just don't have outsized returns, and piracy can make a barely profitable industry totally uneconomic.

The issue is the web itself - Tim Berners-Lee may have invented HTML servers and browsers, but he was NOT the man to invent the world wide web. Probably the best claim to that is Ted Nelson, who wrote "Computer Lib / Dream Machines". His now-famous rantings in 1974 (http://www.digibarn.com/collections/books/computer-lib/) about hyperlinked documents and text presaged everything that HTML eventually became - WITH the very specific inclusion of micro-payment engines that would easily allow linked content to be paid for without any real overhead, and with such ease that everyone won. This was to be known as Project Xanadu.

Unfortunately, the actual DEVELOPMENT of Xanadu's technology proved too much for the then available hardware and software, despite several attempts to create and publish such an engine by Ted and his disciples. One of the unfortunate caveats of such a micropayment engine is that you need larger, more centralized servers, rather than HTML, which facilitiates a server on nearly anything (as you don't need the micropayment engine and any security).

So now we are stuck with a second-rate web system that does not facilitate micropayments, and we are now reaping the unintended consequence that we have no way to share things simply, easily, and still protect the original author's/creator's rights.

BUT - that is a technical failure, and such a technical failure does not mean those rights do not exist anymore. It just means it's time to fix the web...

Robert Hill: "One of the unfortunate caveats of such a micropayment engine is that you need larger, more centralized servers, rather than HTML, which facilitiates a server on nearly anything (as you don't need the micropayment engine and any security)."

But this distributed nature is precisely what makes the web possible! Ted Nelson's project got nowhere (and never will) because it requires a large central system of servers and administration to be in place before anything happens.

It's called Akamai, and other global content-accellerating services, and you could also include all the ads served by Double-Click and their ilk as centralized servers. For that matter, Google is a virtual central server that EVERYONE connects to.

I'm not saying that the fix is easy, or will work as seamlessly as a simple HTML server. It may be a hybrid approach too - with simple HTML servers for non-registered content, and something Xanadu-like for commercial media (with appropriate DRM, alas).

But not to debate the architecture here: the time has come for EASY micropayments linked to displaying/playing content. And it needs to be MICROpayments - like a few US cents, or a couple of UK pence, not whole pound sterling or a few dollars. Something that people are happy enough to pay, and yet allow other people to find some value in thinking and generating content. The Xanadu approach was to make EVERY link a live one, in that the original document would be accessed even for small bits of text. Our current model is way too chunky - focusing more on entire MP3 tracks or videos, rather than smaller bits of content. We (especially the W3 committee) need to put our thinking caps on a bit, and maybe lose the presupposition that HTML is perfect as it now stands...I have a copy of Nelson's book (second printing!) that I am happy to loan to any W3 committee member if it will help with inspiration...

While they are at it, why don't they defend the right of the rich not to be photographed?.

Oh, wait a minute, copywriting arose as a compromise between rights of owners, authors and distributors. Looks like it is due for a rework.

"It's easy to hate the music industry (especially if you have never worked in it and have no understanding of how much record companies invest in bands that usually don't even recoup their costs!)"...

No. It's easy to hate the music industry because a band can earn $10m+ for their label and come out in debt.

It's easy to hate the music industry because their lobbying groups are going to destroy internet radio, which helps make it possible for music from completely independent musicians like me to be heard.

And most of all, it's easy - oh, so easy - to hate the music industry because they have supported and continue to support laws which would effectively make the creation of any kind of music illegal without their explicit permission.

Don't believe me? Check the history of a bill (thankfully failed) which would have made any electronic device capable of outputting audio "call home" to ensure that the audio was licensed, and would have made it illegal to make any recording or output device which did not adhere to this spec.

And finally, even your use of the term "don't even recoup their costs" is a fine example of music biz doublespeak. A band that doesn't recoup its costs may well have earned a huge amount of profit for the label - just not enough so that the band's 1% share of gross pays for all their promotion, tour costs, and manufacturing.

Take your lies elsewhere. The music industry is easy to hate because the music industry is hateful.

For concentrating on one line of my reasoned response, which you took as a signal to engage in a tantrum of childlike proportions.

I have worked, not for the music industry, but for National Public Radio, where I used to assist in engineering a series of live jazz showcases in the Mid-West. But I have been close to a lot of people in the industry, on the studio and muscian side.

And albums, properly recorded, produced, and then marketed, cost money. Lots of it to do it well. Top studio engineers/producers/writers/etc. want to be paid, because they have a lifetime of skills and talents. And then add what it costs to MARKET a band and an album these days, and the costs are staggering for a national rollout. Support a tour that will promote that album? EEKS!

NO ONE is stopping a band from recording in a garage studio and posting their own MP3s on the web or any social networking site. No one is even stopping them from doing that and charging for it. Prince's label didn't even stop him from giving away his last album on CD - because he paid for it, start to finish.

But the music industry does front all these costs for new bands, and even established bands. And it expects to, over the course of time, make money from that. Any band that doesn't like the terms one label offers can negotiate with another label - it IS a free market, and many musicians have started their own labels in almost all genres. And yet - still there is a cry that the terms aren't fair?

The sad fact is that music will always be a pyramid - with those at the very top earning outsized results, while everyone else struggles. That's because its one of those things that everyone has a dream of making a living at, if only they could. It has always been this way - but its only now that people have decided that they need a "cause celebre" to justify their theft of intellectual capital that so many people bemoan the status of the "musician victims".

Your average classical violinist, one good enough to perform in Carengie Hall and Lincoln Center several times per month, is lucky to make between $30k and (if in the NY Symphony) $100k per year. AFTER a lifetime of strenuous practice from age 8 or so, and MUST own an instrument that costs ~$100k+. Don't talk to me about poor pop musicians...lol.

Well here's another reminder of how hateful I am with this morning's cup of coffee. That's one thing I can say about Reg Readership - they at least keep producers on their toes.

The entire music industry is hateful Robert? Didn't you just profess to be a part of that industry? That's the point that most people on the Reg seem to miss. The music industry is not just a cabal of 15 rich guys in a room in LA. It's broad big and chock full of different people.

These bands getting ripped off for their work (and yes I agree it happens every second) are simply failing to read their contracts or better yet (like any other business) have a lawyer look over them before signing. And while I agree that net radio should be protected I would also point out that its widespread appeal is almost nothing. Who needs radio when we have p2p, usenet and the God almighty sneaker-net? The people are their own DJs now. So iWeb Radio's potential to spread your work is almost nil. Now a hot video on youtube and myspace is a different story. But do you have the time, money and skill to produce, direct and star in such an effort?

If a band earns 10 mil for their label and ends up in debt they should clearly fire their manager. He/she is completely incompetent. And there in lies the rump. No one can make it by themselves in any industry. While music itself doesn't have to be a collaborative art its production, sale, distribution and marketing is collaborative. And musicians need to start taking heed of this instead of just saying 'That's the industry for you'.

The system must change and is changing. If, as a body, the audience declares they are no longer willing to pay for your services then you will have to turn to the advertisers and electronics manufacturers to keep you alive because they need you. So I wouldn't go alienating every last single member of the industry Robert. If so you better have a nice day job.

Though something tells me you already do.

Will - I think you misread someone's comments of quotes of me as my own writing. Or you mis-understood my sarcasm in the original post (when I say "easy" it is sarcastic and dismissive, for the record). Nothing could be further from the truth - please see the message that I posted 3 minutes before yours, defending the music industry, and saying, as you do, that it is a free market, and to get a better contract if they so wish. I am very much pro-content creator's rights, and the corporations that they freely choose and contractually align with to distribute those creations.

And I DO have a nice day job...not in the music industry anymore. But I do create a bit of intellectual property in it...

Although I'm personally on YouToogle's side here, I just love the expression 'FBI Quality'. Exactly what is this meant to express? That it'll be barely legal and involve shady undercover deals? That dissenters will be assassinated and records altered or covered up for 50 years?