"Even if every single song, book, and movie was distributed digitally for free, there would still be a need for the music, publishing, and movie industries. There would still be demand for editors, producers, marketers, and all sorts of other services that these industries have always provided."
Yes, but they are not the downstream of the free tomatoes, they are the farmers, breeders and harvesters of the scarce component, the original tomato. Free replication post creation, where's the money for the creators?
Since Government fiat established the opportunity for those walled gardens, I have no problem in calling on them to tear that wall down.
As for Verizon, I expect more doubt about incumbent's motives from TechDirt, you really believe Verizon's change of heart "all happened due to competitive pressures, rather than government fiat?"
I think you should check out the Block C conditions that Google managed to inject into the auction and ask yourself whether Verizon isn't just "showing willing." And pretty half-hearted willing at that.
On the MySpace suit, the point is one that the labels have failed to pick up on time and time again: that sites like MySpace actually help them out by letting people publicize their products and attract new listeners.
Oh, think UMG understands the free promotion they get, and the huge benefit that represents when the RIAA acknowleges promotional expenses are half the cost of a blockbuster.
And? You expect gratitude? UMG have probably worked out they can sue any and all of the illicit promotional channels AND the promotion, and consequent sales will continue.
You see its all about squeezing as hard as you can, screw your artists, get your fingers in the hardware, sell the recording, sue the free "advertiser" and get your promotion for free.
All you suffer is being despised which is what the big bucks for lawyers and suits are all about compensating, it wouldn't be brains and integrity now would it?
I've been waiting for a deal like this for sometime, but YouTube would be extremely foolish to enter in to an exclusive arrangement. While YouTube has broader appeal than ESPN, Disney and the other content MVNOs, the wider the better. One of the irritations in observing the current video broadband market is the futile fragmentation in search of "lock-in," something our Telco cousins will have to learn to live without.
Yes, YouTube is already and has always been available on wireless devices, anything that can browse the net wirelessly can get to YouTube, and they'd be foolish to change anything there.
The point here is in the integrated environment of the proprietary handset, ease of use can be improved for the naive user, who is often willing to pay for convenience, YouTube will need to find a way to share in that with the operator. Some kind of "commercial use" clause?
With YouTube's weight, combined with Google, and deals being done even by the likes of Cingular that recognise they can't do it all themselves, and content providers realise that exclusivity isn't worth it, the chance that this disaster will be avoided increase.