U2's concert at the Rose Bowl, was by far one of the biggest events for music in web history!! According to the web page housing the concert, it has received close to 7 million views!!!



Though the Google-owned You Tube has not currently released they're figures for this event, one can only imagine how astonishing they are. What a big win for You Tube, and fellow rockers... U2

Thanks to Enrique for submitting this article blurb.

My friends I discuss how Youtube it's going to take over the TV. Youtube is free and every body can post a video and become famous and then get pay for the ads. I actually spend more time watching youtube than TV. I pay $80 for my cable service plus internet that's a total of $ 100 something plus all the taxes that they like to include. if i only paid for the internet service have the programing for all the shows on internet i will definitely pay only for internet and connect any device to my tv. and i think there are some but actually my wife if the owner of the remote control. but imagine having Youtube on your tv be able to watch all the programing online movies on demand for free. Hollywood will disappear and we will have the option to see artistic movies, foreign movies and TV shows. some day all this will happen. mean while i will seat on my chair and watch youtube...

Submitted and written by Martin

Those who regularly upload videos to YouTube will be painfully aware of the new YouTube - Warner Music Group pact. Any "unauthorised use of copyrighted music" in a video, even a small incomplete portion of a song, can and most probably will in most cases result in the video audio being muted, essentially destroying the video itself. This is obviously a new move by the Warner Music Group to clamp down on piracy, which is at this very moment crippling the music industry and ruining the careers of many artists in the process. I will admit that the motives for this new partnership are rather noble. Music is an art and the song writers, musicians, editors and singers deserve a little more than just credit. But is blocking YouTube videos really the way to go about stopping piracy? In fact is cracking down on piracy itself even the way to stop it?



To solve a problem like this you sever the root, you don't just sprinkle the leaves with poison. Think of the reason people have turned to piracy. £30 pounds for a newly released CD. £1 for a single song off iTunes. People just can't afford it, and to be perfectly honest, music is ridiculously overpriced. Look at what the film industry has done over the last year or so: piracy used to be a tremendous problem for the film industry, it was in danger of driving big blockbusters to extinction, so what did the production companies do? They didn't go about suing those unfortunate few for millions to make an example, they didn't go about taking entire websites off the web, they didn't spend hundreds of thousands developing new anti piracy technology to be engraved on their DVD's, why? Because they realised that no matter what defences they erected against piracy, if people felt the need to do so, they would simply find a way around them, evolution on a smaller and much faster scale. Like the plant which develops thorns to defend against the insect, and the insect which develops a longer proboscis to reach past the thorns, it is an endless fruitless battle, there is no winner. So the film industry did something radical, something which would transform the film world, something which no one expected, but something which proved to be enormously beneficial. They lowered prices.

£15 for a boxset, £10 for a special edition new release, older DVD's dropping as far down as £6, £5, £2. Sales have since rocketed, cheaper prices means less money coming in per film yes, but so many films are bought that profit has since reached an all time high. They breached a psychological barrier with the customer. When presented with a quality product which will burn through their wallet, and a cheaper, worse quality item for free, people will choose the free item. The extra money isn't worth the extra quality. But when presented with a quality DVD, just a fraction of the price above the rubbishy version, which will people choose? The extra effort needed to attain an illegal copy doesn't seem worth the few pounds it would cost to go for the shiny convenient option.



My question is, why not apply this technique to the music industry? Surely it makes sense, less hassle for those involved in piracy, less hassle for those who have to organise campaigns against piracy, less hassle against the artist, and most importantly, more freedom to post music online to enhance your own creation.

But even if this is not the case, how can it help to mute the audio of YouTube videos? Most people put a lot of time and effort into their contribution to the online library of films and videos on YouTube. I say let us have mutual respect for each others art, if WMG wants us to respect their artists by paying them for what they do, then they must in turn show us respect for what we do. And besides, copyright has gotten slightly out of hand. Nobody is going to download a rendition of Bonkers which includes a voice over, grainy audio and only 30 seconds of the song, so why take away the artist who included it in his creation (a lot of the time promoting it in the process), why take away the rewards of his hard work?

If you want to crack down on piracy, fine. Just leave YouTubers alone.

Increase YouTube views for free by submitting your own article. Get free YouTube views here.