The Real Best Fix For Youtube And The Music Industry

Tidal? hahaha heerrrr...

Currently with ads:

If I watch a music video four times on YouTube one night, with 1000 views roughly translating to a dollar in Adsense earnings, I am virtually creating 0.004 dollars of revenue.

Look around, this is a problem - and one that a solution is constantly being scouted for.

Also, adverts suck! So bad. Having content being broken up by annoying, mostly-skipped and reapeating adverts is an excuse for freeness - nobody would pay to get adverts.

I'm sure I've mentioned this business model before...

Implement a pay service, maybe Google play, so that users can buy 100 YouTube credits for a dollar. The original Adsense service will exist but another more exclusive revenue stream will be in effect aswell. Adverts could still be shown for credit users but at a much lower frequency and of much lower obtrusion.

To watch a video of a certain category (such as music or entertainment) the user must use a credit equating to a cent. This will allow the account access to the video for a short amount of time (maybe an hour) and will lower the cost of infinite access by one credit.

Uploaders can charge a price for unlimited access (relative ownership) which could mean Youtube allows the buyers to download the files to their devices for offline play. I COULD BE STEVE JOBS

"The problem is, which nobody wants to accept, is that properly monetising the internet requires constant implementation of new co-existing methods of creating more and more revenue. This is because when the cost of a non-essential service to consumers increases with inflation, the amount of users drops"

This would mean that as well as Adsense revenue, 100 credit-paid views would transfer 1 dollar of currency, creating a revenue stream that works 10 times faster than Adsense. All of this would benefit from increased use of teasers and trailers.

Of course, movie trailers and other sub-produce must be free to view, at least initially. Maybe after a user account views one of these free videos a small number of times, credits are required to continue replaying. 

See, Bandcamp does it already..

There is no risk of setting the free view limit too low or high, all people have to do to view a free video when their accounts free views for that video are used up is sign out. 

This scheme could (and I think, should) be implemented throughout the majority of the internet, allowing services and media to be paid for. Of course most types of domains would have their own terms; webmasters would be able to choose whether or not to use the script but all of the major publications would adhere to this beneficial change.

Yes, it would be world news and yes, it would be radical to initiate.

Even if the Adsense revenues decrease slightly from this new complimentary system, the losses will definitely be offset by the credits system.

All of the music videos are credit-paid, the whole category, "NO!! Indies you can't put up your music for free, you must charge a credit". The music industry should love this, if only they weren't so deaf.

This may also bring a stop to the clown acts such as Riff Raff and others who people only click videos of to see what everyone's talking about; when money is an issue, people aren't so accepting.

Because a dollar for 100 chosen videos is fair and unobtrusive, certainly lasting many users more than a week. This IS NOT a bad idea.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/11/12/youtube-enters-the-subscription-streaming-fray-with-music-key/

Proof Amazon Seller Ratings Arent True

One of the main selling points for online sales platforms is the availability of customer feedback. People think that if a merchant is bad, the unsatisfied customers will give them a bad image.

Instead, Amazon lets it's sellers filter out undesirable customer reviews.

Abstractly, because a negative list of reviews is resultant of honesty from the seller, a positive list of ratings and reviews can be seen as a sign of a company being untrustworthy.

Solution For Digitalization?

The expectation now is that by 2020 European nations such as France, England and Portugal will have riots and social uprising due to the effects of digitalization (computers taking peoples jobs to point of displacement of the majority of people).

Mass scale riots and rebellion would be good and very very bad.

This fear and reality of humans being displaced by computers is undeniably caused by rich devils, choosing to make themselves and their companies more money by saving it and making it easier with the use of computers.

One coder could create, every year, software instructions that would replace the utility of thousands of humans. 

Surely, one way to prevent this 'inevitable' scenario would be to utilise law. I'm no lawyer but I'm sure that there are ethical requirements for organisations to adhere to.

Surely, Unions can take companies to Court for unethical business practices. If a multinational company, that makes upwards of $10 Billion annually, desires to make 100,000 people redundant to save $2 Billion a year... Is that ethical? Do law systems allow this?

Hey WTF Music Business

The music industry is in a state of emergency: file sharing, youtube and streaming media capturers have rendered recorded music as free, genres are more than plentiful and with the increased ease of music production there are more music makers than ever before. There are literally 50,000 rappers out there now who can REALLY write better verses than 50 Cent, Lil Wayne or Eminem.

How To Listen To A Stutterer (Solved)

COMPREHENSION LESSON, LYRICAL WEAPO....

Understand that speaking with a stammerer isn’t ever likely to be a normal conversation. The person that you speak with doesn’t converse or think of talking in the same way as a fluent talker.

What Happened to the Music Industry?

(SHORT AS)

A Better Justice System

I know, I know that I should be hopeless about huge reforms of any law system. Too convoluted to edit, it seems that the law-books can only be expanded.