I love what Google has done with Blogger. The new template editor is fantastic and I wish all of those teenager-infested social networking sites had them. If they did I bet we wouldn't have to look at so many eye sores on the Internet.
Anyway, it's a nice editor with some AJAX thrown in. You can click and drag the positions of the "x Comments" "TIME" and the "Labels" stuff. You can also edit those so they say, "x People Commented on This Post". I think the best feature is the instant preview you get when editing the colours and fonts of the blog. It's great stuff.
Blogger beta
I love what Google has done with Blogger. The new template editor is fantastic and I wish all of those teenager-infested social networking sites had them. If they did I bet we wouldn't have to look at so many eye sores on the Internet.
Anyway, it's a nice editor with some AJAX thrown in. You can click and drag the positions of the "x Comments" "TIME" and the "Labels" stuff. You can also edit those so they say, "x People Commented on This Post". I think the best feature is the instant preview you get when editing the colours and fonts of the blog. It's great stuff.
Anyway, it's a nice editor with some AJAX thrown in. You can click and drag the positions of the "x Comments" "TIME" and the "Labels" stuff. You can also edit those so they say, "x People Commented on This Post". I think the best feature is the instant preview you get when editing the colours and fonts of the blog. It's great stuff.
Another MySpace Problem
I was reading The Register, a UK technology site, and I stumbled upon this. Apparently, MySpace refuses to pay royalties to artists and as the article says "while composers get rewarded when music is played in hotel lobbies, clothes shops and pubs, they don't get a penny from it being played, and endlessly replayed, over MySpace's network."
MySpace, with its parent company Intermix Media, were bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. which owns such media companies as FOX News, Harper Collins and the New York Post, for half a billion dollars. MySpace consumes a lot of bandwidth and has ads plastered everywhere. They can afford to pay a few of the more popular artists at the very least.
The following shows what heartless bastards work at MySpace.
They're a marketing site, just like the radio and TV are and they should be subject to the same royalty arrangements that music TV channels and radio stations have. Who cares how many people listen to your damn song if you can't make a single cent? Exactly like MySpace and YouTube...Who cares how many people visit those websites if they can't make a cent?
A short post I know, the next one will be longer.
MySpace, with its parent company Intermix Media, were bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. which owns such media companies as FOX News, Harper Collins and the New York Post, for half a billion dollars. MySpace consumes a lot of bandwidth and has ads plastered everywhere. They can afford to pay a few of the more popular artists at the very least.
The following shows what heartless bastards work at MySpace.
Asked by moderator Jim Griffin why MySpace shouldn't make some kind of contribution - she replied that bands could get on their bikes and look for other revenue sources.MySpace is supposed to be the alternate revenue stream! Why the hell would any artist use MySpace?
The great thing about MySpace, she said, was that so many bands took business back under their own initiative.
"People love to go to your show and buy your T-shirt," she said.
What if the band doesn't want to, or can't afford to perform, came back the response. The question was sidestepped.
"We provide hundreds of millions of dollars of technology investment for new artists. It takes money to build a website."Judging from the look of MySpace and all of the HTML "hacks" that users have to use to make their profiles look a little less ugly, they're failing in terms of providing a great product.
That brought splutters from the panel. Former EMI exec Ted Cohen replied that this was an argument others could make.
"You say 'We want your music for free, and here's some technology?' Microsoft could say that!"
Oh, but we don't want it for free, she replied.
They're a marketing site, just like the radio and TV are and they should be subject to the same royalty arrangements that music TV channels and radio stations have. Who cares how many people listen to your damn song if you can't make a single cent? Exactly like MySpace and YouTube...Who cares how many people visit those websites if they can't make a cent?
A short post I know, the next one will be longer.
Another MySpace Problem
I was reading The Register, a UK technology site, and I stumbled upon this. Apparently, MySpace refuses to pay royalties to artists and as the article says "while composers get rewarded when music is played in hotel lobbies, clothes shops and pubs, they don't get a penny from it being played, and endlessly replayed, over MySpace's network."
MySpace, with its parent company Intermix Media, were bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. which owns such media companies as FOX News, Harper Collins and the New York Post, for half a billion dollars. MySpace consumes a lot of bandwidth and has ads plastered everywhere. They can afford to pay a few of the more popular artists at the very least.
The following shows what heartless bastards work at MySpace.
They're a marketing site, just like the radio and TV are and they should be subject to the same royalty arrangements that music TV channels and radio stations have. Who cares how many people listen to your damn song if you can't make a single cent? Exactly like MySpace and YouTube...Who cares how many people visit those websites if they can't make a cent?
A short post I know, the next one will be longer.
MySpace, with its parent company Intermix Media, were bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. which owns such media companies as FOX News, Harper Collins and the New York Post, for half a billion dollars. MySpace consumes a lot of bandwidth and has ads plastered everywhere. They can afford to pay a few of the more popular artists at the very least.
The following shows what heartless bastards work at MySpace.
Asked by moderator Jim Griffin why MySpace shouldn't make some kind of contribution - she replied that bands could get on their bikes and look for other revenue sources.MySpace is supposed to be the alternate revenue stream! Why the hell would any artist use MySpace?
The great thing about MySpace, she said, was that so many bands took business back under their own initiative.
"People love to go to your show and buy your T-shirt," she said.
What if the band doesn't want to, or can't afford to perform, came back the response. The question was sidestepped.
"We provide hundreds of millions of dollars of technology investment for new artists. It takes money to build a website."Judging from the look of MySpace and all of the HTML "hacks" that users have to use to make their profiles look a little less ugly, they're failing in terms of providing a great product.
That brought splutters from the panel. Former EMI exec Ted Cohen replied that this was an argument others could make.
"You say 'We want your music for free, and here's some technology?' Microsoft could say that!"
Oh, but we don't want it for free, she replied.
They're a marketing site, just like the radio and TV are and they should be subject to the same royalty arrangements that music TV channels and radio stations have. Who cares how many people listen to your damn song if you can't make a single cent? Exactly like MySpace and YouTube...Who cares how many people visit those websites if they can't make a cent?
A short post I know, the next one will be longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)