Pearl Jam Releases Video Under Creative Commons

minitrue writes "Pearl Jam released their first music video in quite a while under a Creative Commons license allowing anyone to "legally copy, distribute and share the clip" for noncommercial purposes. Creative Commons thinks this may be the first video produced by a major label ever to be CC-licensed. So although the file is only available as a free download via Google Video through May 24, fans can continue sharing it online themselves in perpetuity."

Comments

THIS IS THE FIRST POST AND MUST BE MODDED DOWN!!!

[GET THE FACTS!]

Eh?

Kudos to Pearl Jam

[sheehaje]

These are guys who've been in the arena trying to fight unfairness with Ticketmaster and the bigger Music Houses. While they might not be everyones flavour musically, they are definately on of the bands trying to break molds with how their music is distributed. Maybe this is a little bittersweet, but damn good to see someone trying to get paid without ripping half the world off.

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam

[mad.frog]

I applaud their sentiment.

But, I gotta say:

musically, this video sucks.

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam

[Anonymous Coward]

They lost the fight with ticketmaster a long time ago.
Pearl Jam is currently on tour... If you want to get in to see them in Cleveland, Oh... The poorest major city in the United States... The tickets are $54 a piece BEFORE the ticketmaster fees.

Don't get excited. The grunge heroes aren't interested in community. They just need to reach people with $54 bucks so they can sell tickets because shows are where the money's at.

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam

[JahToasted]

Yeah, the song is probably great in a stadium, but not really something to have on while reading a book.

The video seems pretty lame to me. The Do the Evolution video they did with Todd McFarlane is the one I'd like to see put into CC.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Public Enemy, Pearl Jam, etc...

It's really cool to see musicians embracing new technology and movements like this, but why is it that the only artists we ever see doing this are the ones whose careers are over? :(

Re:Hmm

[shawb]

It could be two things

1)The realize that they already have enough money and now are just trying to let people listen to some music they make.

2)The record companies gets the feeling that the band/artist/whatever is likely to do this in the future. That's when the career ends.

Oh, and another thing. Pearl Jam's career really isn't dead. They're currently on tour. It looks like they even have double bookings for some stadium sized venues. As in they sold out a stadium... twice. That's pretty good for a "dead" band that is getting very little radio support on the tour.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the artist formerly known as Prince. Who is now known as Prince.

Yeah, I don't think you'll see any young rising stars embracing free distribution licenses with their content on the internet.

Re:Hmm

[Lord Kano]

The artist formerly known as "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince", but now called Prince again?

LK

Re:Hmm

[Poppler]

I don't think you'll see any young rising stars embracing free distribution licenses with their content on the internet.

True, I have seen very few bands embrace free disitribution licenses, but I doubt most artists are even aware that these licenses exist. What I have seen is bands explicity stated that they don't mind their work being shared freely.
The first example that comes to mind is Wilco. Given, they're not young, but they never had much success on the charts until recently. After they produced an album that was deemed too 'experimental', they were dropped from their label.
Instead of giving up, they put an mp3 stream of the whole album on their site and openly embraced file sharing. The album started to get a lot of buzz. Soon enough an independent label agreed to release the record, despite the fact that "hundreds of thousands" of people had already downloaded it (at least according to singer Jeff Tweedy in the Wired interview).
The album was critically acclaimed and became their greatest commercial success to date, reaching #13 on the Billboard charts. Their next album sold even better, reaching the top ten.

Another example - Sufjan Stevens, who actually is a "young rising star", recently said in an interview

[My music is] definitely not public domain. I have a publisher and I make money from the publishing of the songs. That's a big part of an income, so I'm not going to pretend that I'm that socialistic about my music. But I'm not so possessive about it that I would sue anyone who misused it. If someone were to sample my work, I would have a hard time seeking payment for that. I don't even have a problem with people illegally downloading that stuff.[emphasis mine]

Not everyone giving away their music is over the hill - and some of them are still making a living making music.

Re:Hmm

[bazorg]

3) is that the band is struggling for some time now to be released from their contract with Sony. They realise that it's cheaper to bite the bullet and work with them till the contract is over, but in the meantime they experiment with other channels before they're 100% free to do what they want.

In the past they've been quite vocal about the price policies of both Sony and Ticketmaster, but really had no chance in or out of court. Will probably be a good thing if big bands start to work with alternative channels, but big enough to at least have people question "the way things are". Other people have thought about it before, it would be something in the line of Apple Computer getting in the business of Apple Records :)

Re:Hmm

[GuyWithLag]

Because all "new" artists that get promoted have a contract with their music studio/distributor that makes the iron maiden look positively roomy, spacious and comfortable.

Re:Hmm

[gEvil (beta)]

While I think that Yankee Hotel Foxtrot is a great album, I've always had some problems with the official story. Yes, Reprise (a Warner imprint) chose not to release the album and dropped the band. Yes, Nonesuch (another Warner imprint) chose to pick the band up. All the while, they just happened to have a camera crew documenting the entire thing. It all seems way too contrived for me. After all, bouncing bands aroung between different imprints isn't all that uncommon. And when a documentary is made that just happens to capture the whole sordid saga, it just screams "promotion" to me. And it worked...

Re:Hmm

[poppen_fresh]

2)The record companies gets the feeling that the band/artist/whatever is likely to do this in the future. That's when the career ends.

I don't think either thing you mentioned is the case here. I think that Pearl Jam genuinely wants to get their music out there. Their new record is their first on their new label, and this label seems more supportive of this kind of venture.

PJ releases their own "bootlegs"; they are starting to be compared to the Grateful Dead in many ways. I think this is one of those things that PJ likes doing.

Re:Hmm

[FLEB]

Bingo. Add to that the fact that most of the labels with the ability to promote on an adequately worldwide level for "star making" are the long-time heavyweights with solidified standards-and-practices (and less innovation). Unless some label takes a U-turn or some smaller company finds a way to muscle into common popular radio, I doubt you'll see much innovation in "rising stars". The sweet spot (IMO) is in the "indie labels"-- labels that are big enough and discriminating enough to provide some promotion and crap-filtering, but small and nimble enough to have some freedom to innovate.

Re:Hmm

[The Wicked Priest]

I don't even have a problem with people illegally downloading that stuff.

Moby has said something very similar, as have others. But it would be incorrect to classify this as "giving away their music". He can say he doesn't have a problem with it, but it's still illegal. He hasn't taken the steps to make it legal, which of course he very well could do (and which, in this case, is what Pearl Jam is doing). Either he doesn't realize that, or he just wants to have it both ways.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Meoward]

Valid points. But I think we're missing the point behind the whole YHF phenomenon.

Jeff Tweedy and co. proved that the Internet is a viable means for legally distributing music, and that bands don't need record labels as much as they used to. You better believe that this didn't escape Steve Jobs' attention.

This isn't to say that record labels are dying. But even today the industry is not coping well with this alternative distribution channel (tired of hearing "Piracy!" yet?).

There are plenty of magazine articles and books on the whole Wilco story, but I'm still waiting for Harvard Business Review to pick up on it, and the forced transformation of an entire industry as a result.

Re:Hmm

[Poppler]

The concept of non-restrictive licensing is still pretty new to the music world. As a result, musicians who aren't well versed in copyright law (most of them) see licensing as a choice is between traditional copyright and public domain.
I agree that Steven's statement was ironic - the downloading is only "illegal" because Stevens himself was reserving the rights. However, I doubt he really knows or cares much about licensing or copyright law. He's probably more concerned with his music, and he's letting his listners know that he doesn't mind them sharing it.
I would consider that a relatively progressive attitude, uninformed as it may be.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

you're making a very big assumption that he is the decider. i don't know about stevens in particular (seen him live but don't actually own any of his CDs), but most artists have absolutely no say in whether or not their music can be freely distributed. many artists have gotten in serious trouble with their labels for personally posting mp3s on their websites.

This might sound stupid, but....

[Fredwick.com]

why wouldn't a band want people to share their videos? I could understand if they were a primary source of revenue for the band, but as far as I know they're not. These days it's not like someone's going to go to thr trouble of ripping the audio out of a video stream to obtain an illegal copy of the song (since there are other, easier ways to do that), so all in all it's just free publicity.

Re:This might sound stupid, but....

[toadlife]

Because most of their revenue probably derives from concert sales. Allowing the sharing of their videos only serves to get more young people introduced to Pearl Jam. The more 14 year olds discover Pearl Jam, the more 14 year olds might go out and discover their old albums like Ten and Vs, and also come to see them live.

Re:This might sound stupid, but....

[Fredwick.com]

Exactly. I realize I worded my initial comment a bit funky, but my point was that there's really no reason for bands to care that people download and share their videos. The story made it sound like a big deal that the band was letting people download their video for free.

Re:This might sound stupid, but....

[DigitalHammer]

HA! That's if they (or their parents) are willing/can afford it. The last time I went to a Pearl Jam concert (2005 tour), it cost me over $70 USD in ticket and gas costs alone. That doesn't include a nifty concert poster or tshirt, which combined can raise the cost over $100. I'll admit they put on a great live act and all but sometimes I wonder if its really worth that much. Whatever though, I met Jeff Ament. :P

Re:This might sound stupid, but....

[jackstack]

FYI - They DO ALLOW their bootlegs to be freely downloaded via bittorrent! See: http://bt.etree.org/index.php?cat=137

Re:This might sound stupid, but....

[toadlife]

Ok I see. Well you are right. My guess would be that it's a big deal here because it's got a creative commons license attached to it (which in reality means little). Since just about everyone here is an open source zealot, it's automatically big news.

Re:This might sound stupid, but....

[diqmay]

ahem! he said videos...

Re:This might sound stupid, but....

[lysergic.acid]

If the artists actually cared about getting their music out, they wouldn't mind people sharing videos or even the albums. The reason why the record labels care is because they're too shortsighted and greedy. Most record execs just can't stand the notion of people enjoying the content for free. It doesn't matter that this creates more buzz, more fans, more sales in the long run--it's the principles. It's just like people who complain about hand-outs being given to the less fortunate (I mean, are you really jealous of people who get hand-outs because they actually need them?). They're the kind of people who worry more about welfare going to a few freeloaders than taking comfort in the fact that it also helps millions of single mothers and dispossessed families keep food on the table.

It's irrational stinginess that serves no purpose, but is just ingrained in prevailing industry attitudes. So most labels don't put out music videos for free because they want everyone to buy the DVD if they actually want to watch the music video. They don't see that a music video played on millions of people's computers has the same marketing value as one played on millions of television sets on MTV or VH1. There's really nothing wrong with selling music videos on DVDs, but it is in the best interest of the musicians and the label to also provide the content for free.

It has nothing to do with fear of people extracting the audio layer from the music videos. That's just ridiculous. What Pearl Jam is doing is definitely appreciated by a lot of fans, and it isn't being done by most mainstream musicians so I don't get why people are accusing them of just pulling a "publicity stunt". Just because it's in their best interest doesn't mean it's a publicity stunt. This is actually good for the fans as well, and it might encourage others to follow suit.

Sentiments like yours only hinder the adoption of these rational approaches to content distribution. I work for an indie record label, and I'm always trying to convince my boss that it makes sense to allow people to share music and to be more genrous with the content. But it really undermines these efforts when people like you react so cynically whenever a label starts thinking more progressively than others.

Why can't you simply accept that Pearl Jam is trying to do something nice for the fans?--which in turn also benefits the artist, which has always been the case. It's not good enough that they're derogating from conventions in a way that benefits the fans, but they must hurt themselves in the process for it to not be labelled as simply a "publicity stunt"?

I think people like you are a bit too jaded and don't really understand or appreciate what the music sharing movement is about. Artists and record labels don't have an obligation to take losses just so you can enjoy the music they produce, however, there are practices that are mutually beneficial. Just because the artists/labels stand to benefit from the content they produce doesn't mean that they're evil or something. So stop ragging on the good guys in the industry who are actually embracing free content and music sharing.

Re:This might sound stupid, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost impossible for bands to get videos on the air.
I worked at The Box back in the '90s (cable video music channel, you could dial-in and pick the videos) and the dirty secret was that we broke a lot of bands, as we were the only one that would play their videos.
So yes, it's free publicity. Until now, no one had the bandwidth for the free stuff. We encoded at 4Mbps, which required about 170MB per video.
FWIW, the downside of dial-in video choices, was that the Titanic video w/ Celine Dion was played a bajillion times when the movie came out.

Rick DeBay

Re:This might sound stupid, but....

[VooDoo999]

So that Sony/BMG can sell you a copy of the video instead?

In all fairness, I don't know what the profit breakdown is between Sony/BMG & Pearl Jam (and maybe even Todd McFarlane) on this, but I'm guessing it skews heavily toward Sony/BMG.

Re:This might sound stupid, but....

[RealGrouchy]

Oh, sure, the *band* would want it, but the *record companies/industry* wants to get their hands on every penny they possibly can (evidently taking 70+ cents from every iTunes dollar when the artist only gets 4.5 cents isn't enough for them).

I think that Pearl Jam is simply the first major artist to convince/cajole their label into doing it.

- RG>

Publicity stunt

[suv4x4]

If you see the video you'll notice there's nothing interesting you could do with it.

That's just a publicity stunt, even worse: they release it under this license, but still only give it free "until May 24-th". Does that make sense? No, it doesn't make any sense.

The Chubaca video release strategy.

Re:Publicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

the eternal whiners of slashdot.

Re:Publicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

>That's just a publicity stunt, even worse: they release it under this license, but still only give it free "until May 24-th". Does that make sense? No, it doesn't make any sense.

It does makes sense. They're saying "we're going to distribute it ourselves up to 2006-05-24, let others distribute it after that, P2P, Torrent or otherwise."

If they start suing people after 2005-06-24, then it's a legal stunt to try and crush these types of licenses.

Re:Publicity stunt

[abandonment]

not only this, but how is 'releasing it free' on google video useful at all? we'll release it for free, but only under a custom, who-knows-what format that no one can really do anything with anyways...

pure publicity stunt.

release the video in mpeg or an actual 'editable' format and THEN it's useful or at least MIGHT be useful to the community.

what trent reznor did was useful - releasing raw audio tracks for users to play with - this is just publicity stunt...

Re:Publicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

"Chubaca" ??? Who or what in the hell is that? If you meant CHEWBACCA from STAR WARS, may I have your nerd membership card back? We have several Star Wars nerds on standby to beat you inefectually with foam light sabers.

Re:Publicity stunt

[suv4x4]

They're saying "we're going to distribute it ourselves up to 2006-05-24, let others distribute it after that, P2P, Torrent or otherwise.

They are distributing it via Google, not themselves, there are thousands of videos on Google available for free forever.

Re:Publicity stunt

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

You can download it in an avi format from Google's page by clicking "Download" on the right side of the page.

And forgive me, as I'm using a Mac, but I was able to open it in QuickTime, and I could easily edit it and export it to a different format.

Re:Publicity stunt

[suv4x4]

Chubaca" ??? Who or what in the hell is that? If you meant CHEWBACCA from STAR WARS, may I have your nerd membership card back? We have several Star Wars nerds on standby to beat you inefectually with foam light sabers.

I'm kinda happy I don't know the exact spelling. How 'bout you. Can you speak Chewbaccian with a perfect accent? Bet you can, bet you can..

Re:Publicity stunt

[Duncan3]

Stunt by who?

Google? The band? The label?

Since Google probably paid for the "exclusive" I'd say Google.

Re:Publicity stunt

[suv4x4]

Google? The band? The label?

Band or label. And I guess the label. I don't think Google even has any idea this video's been hosted there.

Since Google probably paid for the "exclusive" I'd say Google.

You don't pay for something released under Creative Commons license. That's the whole friggin point. Dude, like I said, IT. MAKES. NO. SENSE.

Re:Publicity stunt

[trooz1]

I'm not complaining, it's a free music video. I wish more bands would do this, as sometimes I just want to kick back and watch music videos. Sure, there is always iTunes, but hell, Pearl Jam just saved me 2 bucks by offering this video for free. Bittorrent is just too unreliable when it comes to people seeding older videos. Plus, I don't want a smattering of MTV2 logos that take up half the screen.

Waaah, publicity stunt. It's free! Enjoy it and don't whine about it.

Re:Publicity stunt

[suv4x4]

Waaah, publicity stunt. It's free! Enjoy it and don't whine about it.

Yea it's free, until May 24-th (they you gotta look it up on bittorents or youtube).
And yea enjoy it, in all its compress Flash video 320x240 uneditable low bitrate glory.

Gosh that's so pathetic. I'd rather watch MTV (even if the logo "takes half the screen" , my ass).

Re:Publicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive ME, but I am using Mozilla, with of course no Flash or Javascript or other silliness enabled, and there is no "Download" link coming up on the right side of the page - or anywhere. In fact, there is no content which renders at all in Mozilla - Google offers up a blank page.

Google video is pretty useless for those of us out here with sensible Internet browsers using sensible browser settings.

Re:Publicity stunt

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

I'm using Firefox, and with Flash content blocked, I still see a link on the right side at the top. It appears to be a javascript link.

Re:Publicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly. The glass is always half empty here.

Re:Publicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

get a clue, asshole

Re:Publicity stunt

[CronoCloud]

Try this:

Windows version:

wget -O pearl_jam_video_windows_avi_version.avi "http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version= 0&secureurl=xAAAAG7ggqAHSiJjpW0D3w4aYTVhnhtRNWE0My RQp3IfM-QsTnyzS0dRlbfae86pQtrE1wOrbSl7BmSH_X_BAlb7 8vC9fjLxPt2AHDTSokN1k7ib2kpFEu4S9Q_kC4CUEvc7fDJGZm nNCW6I_BlNxRaAy8HcylbBNbq0eglNMG3-valiJrnV97cqpoXy Iv7tsPDZ4i_6aAfVaANodKL4micOCLCXGTPo1Y2UsVG_uxTeXd AFoHIYX7FpRNVirAzHFAIEg1S-rX9zgWVPsarspIPX2co&sigh =asW3s7aRyYm7TwJpfsUCL1TILWY&begin=0&len=237269&do cid=6187666924357770983"

iPod version:

wget -O pearl_jam_video_for_ipod.mp4 "http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version= 0&secureurl=xAAAAG7ggqAHSiJjpW0D3w4aYTVhnhtRNWE0My RQp3IfM-QsTnyzS0dRlbfae86pQtrE1wOrbSl7BmSH_X_BAlb7 8vBforJEfWzR7TYyw4D-wNxGBSsifD4mSm_8JafUJYp-vrS7-d eQheyyuSoiPpIMaONWA9ChHaR4LED5DmZu9taR_mNrBV9GwgjG 1Q5pJyEEniF6e0GSkdlgM5eT7qRQBSyU5hV1H94wiSNUn3nJnH K8bOcOmbTE8-fkoip9k6KkXkPqQH2eWxzCMbOGWiXHH5s&sigh =VUOHKkEX8EVOJKtVYTTuOTrBGZw&begin=0&len=237269&do cid=6187666924357770983"

PSP AVC version:

  wget -O pearl_jam_video_for_psp_avc.mp4 "http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version= 0&secureurl=xAAAAG7ggqAHSiJjpW0D3w4aYTVhnhtRNWE0My RQp3IfM-QsTnyzS0dRlbfae86pQtrE1wOrbSl7BmSH_X_BAlb7 8vBe3pD79Ch27vzHyc_a2tVPdxg6_PmWJpiJsFzCPvSTcp24Gs DavXdilKp2aTwB12c5hfNVbnWTYVxOUq5D-uSuPFie3OhKND90 j7tN5qx3VTCBWibvzTWtaonIgZ7bwzARH2HbZc5A6x0MFpUztF UmhNMvBJu9idziuVfhOzcyvHZH7oSNoROnKfJwceTqKH0&sigh =3yoi2wQ9w1OjxWJfNNeW2_W2rck&begin=0&len=237269&do cid=6187666924357770983"

Re:Publicity stunt

[finiteSet]

We have several Star Wars nerds on standby to beat you inefectually with foam light sabers.

Foam light sabers are so 8 hours ago, everyone is using Macbooks now.

Re:Publicity stunt

[patio11]

If you exported it to a different format, you just violated your license agreement (CC licensing comes with a bunch of options, the band has opted to forbid modification/transformation/derivative works).

Re:Publicity stunt

[babbling]

Google videos actually are MPEG-4, but you're right - the Creative Commons license that they chose forbids derivative works, unfortunately.

Re:Publicity stunt

[suv4x4]

get a clue, asshole

Shit, AC, after I've read this extremely informative and useful post of yours I got a clue and now I live a better, more meaningful life.

Re:Publicity stunt

[krunk4ever]

saving you can download it as an avi is somewhat misleading since avi is just a video container and can be used with practically any codec.

the formats that google video had and is supporting include gvp (google video player), mp4 (video ipod), and mp4 (sony psp). I'm not sure if the latter 2 mp4s are the same files, but I usually just get the video ipod mp4 and convert it to a format/codec that I prefer.

Re:Publicity stunt

[lysergic.acid]

Where the hell did you get "it's free until May 24th" from? It's licensed under the Creative Commons license. That means you can freely download/distribute it indefinitely. May 24th is just when the official download will no longer be available. The whole point of allowing fans to distribute it is to--duh--allow fans to distribute it.

And you can download it in a variety of formats. The flash version is just for the convenience of people who want to stream it from their browser. If you want it in AVI format, you can download it from the link on the side.

Your reading comprehension & website navigation abilities are the only things here that are pathetic. If you wanna complain about something, atleast try to grasp what the situation is...

Re:Publicity stunt

[Firehed]

As far as I know, "modification" under the CC licenses doesn't include (at least, not intentionally) transcoding. At least that's my interpretation, and I have all my web content and whatnot released under the same CC license. I could care less if someone wants to convert my jpgs to gifs, I just don't want them cropping out my watermark.

Re:Publicity stunt

[suv4x4]

And you can download it in a variety of formats. The flash version is just for the convenience of people who want to stream it from their browser. If you want it in AVI format, you can download it from the link on the side.

There's no AVI, there's a QVP shortcut to the same crunched version you can play in the Google Video Player, and two low-res, low-bitrate MP4 versions for iPod and PSP.

Those downloads are free by the Google servers, there's no reason to limit them to May 24-th, when they can stay there forever and cost the band nothing.

Those formats are available with any free clip you can upload (it takes a couple of mins and is free).

You gotta be really stupid not to see they try to create hype and "pressure" for people to download the video before it's "taken offline", when they could just do nothing and leave it there forever without any cost on them.

Your reading comprehension & website navigation abilities are the only things here that are pathetic.

I find this especially ironic of you to say that.

Re:Publicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for that. I dont know why we should have to download google video software to download a DRM free video

Re:Publicity stunt

[bazorg]

Yes it is interesting as Mac and Prefbar users benefit from getting an AVI file instead of the Google file format...

Re:Publicity stunt

[SmokedS]

There's no AVI, there's a QVP shortcut to the same crunched version you can play in the Google Video Player, and two low-res, low-bitrate MP4 versions for iPod and PSP.
Uhu? So why am I'm watching a 30MB large avi of the video right now that I got by clicking the download button?

Re:Publicity stunt

[CronoCloud]

PSP video on Google video is PSP H.264 AVCI

Pod MP4 SP and PSP Mp4 SP are slightly different, due to the Sony atom in the video header. IPods can play PSP MP4 SP, but PSP's can't play the IPod MP4. Which is annoying when it comes to vodcasts, most are encoded for the iPod, when they should encode for PSP, because then both machines can play it.

Re:Publicity stunt

[suv4x4]

Uhu? So why am I'm watching a 30MB large avi of the video right now that I got by clicking the download button?

Cuz you wished really hard? How could I know, it's just a fact Google offers no AVI downloads.

If you're willing to install a special Firefox extension you can *extract* the AVI url from the video page, which is:

http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0 &secureurl=xAAAAG7g....

But I've no idea what the heck is up with you.

Re:Publicity stunt

[SmokedS]

I get the same exakt result either with Konqueror or Firefox. An avi download. The one you for some reason need to "extract". No extensions involved.
If you get some other results, well I'm so sorry for you. Perhaps you'd get better results trying to look for a solution rather than attacking and deriding anyone who points out that your assertions are incorrect. One thing is damned sure: You attitude is not making you any friends in this thread.

Re:Publicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Google says "Did you mean: ineffectually "

It's easy to look like a retard when acting pedantic on Slashdot, my Anonymous Coward.

Re:Publicity stunt

[evilviper]

Forgive ME, but I am using Mozilla, with of course no Flash or Javascript or other silliness enabled, and there is no "Download" link coming up on the right side of the page - or anywhere.

Use the "noscript" extension. I have javascript disabled for all sites, and make exceptions for very few. In fact, only Google and Netflix are in my list of allowed sites.

I also recomend "cookiebutton" and "refcontrol".

Re:Publicity stunt

[suv4x4]

One thing is damned sure: You attitude is not making you any friends in this thread.

We're just two nicks, and having "friends" or "enemies" is just a colored circle right there next to our nicks, it's safe to say I don't care.

Re:Publicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

'cause it would be _so hard_ for sony to add that in a firmware update. it's trivial, they won't do it because they want to fuck you. you bought a psp, you're fucked.

Re:Publicity stunt

[SmokedS]

Believe it or not, everyone that you speak to here is a real person. Being offensive does offend. Being nice does make you friends.
That you assume that I mean Slashdot functionality when i mention friends is quite sad.

Re:Publicity stunt

[suv4x4]

Believe it or not, everyone that you speak to here is a real person. Being offensive does offend. Being nice does make you friends.
That you assume that I mean Slashdot functionality when i mention friends is quite sad.

Look: I believe you and some of the other folks that replied here are taking all this way too seriously, which is why you may get offended in which case I'm sorry.

But what I said remains true: there's no reason to limit the download availability to May 24 (to create artificial demand), the provided "masters" are of low quality.

The 30 MB AVI that was mentioned isn't even CLOSE to NTSC, let alone PAL, EDTV or NTSC, neither is it in format that is suitable for editing... it doesn't even play in WMP and requires VLC or MPlayer), and the whole deal with the Creative Commons License is just a trick to get geeks and Slashdot interested.

Think a bit, it costs them $0 to keep it there on Google forever, but in 2 days, they will make the video paid (I guess you noticed that on May 24-th the Google video will be *sold*, i.e. this is why it's not free in that sense, although it's free to share under the license).

I bet most of the audience here doesn't even like the clip or even the music, but since they do the opposite of what RIAA/MPAA is doing, they all feel they gotta pat the band on the band for the bravery they had releasing their video under the license.

We've all the freedom to express our opinion here. I do believe it's a publicity stunt, to which I got replied to "get a clue asshole" and the sort, it's normal I got somewhat upset, just like you are.

Harvey Danger

[From A Far Away Land]

If you're looking for other Slashdot advertized "free" music, check out Harvey Danger who had an article about them here last year. Their album is distributed via Bit Torrent.

Re:Harvey Danger

[Firehed]

Almost every album on the planet is distributed via BitTorrent. Some less legally than others, I suppose, but they're still there.

Re:Harvey Danger

[lysergic.acid]

shouldn't the quotes be around "advertized"?

I don't get why people complain about IP and anti-piracy laws, but when artists actually start embracing the whole music-sharing rhetoric people get upset that it gets reported and accuse the artists of pulling a publicity stunt.

I mean, are we trying to convince artists that we don't want them to let people download/share music for free? What is the problem here? What does it take for people to stop complaining about the music industry?

Re:Harvey Danger

[quokkapox]

Bittorrent distribution of music like Harvey Danger and Pearl Jam brings another aspect of the whole net neutrality spat into focus. The protocol allows the vast majority of the bulk data to be exchanged freely and legally amongst peers while the centralized distribution site need only host a tracker (if that).

The greedy telcos are bitching about big companies using their pipes to feed large amounts of bandwidth to the users. What are they going to say once most of the data has been passed down to their customers' PCs and is efficiently cached and distributed via P2P?

You would think they would *encourage* P2P distribution because data would be passed around on their internal networks instead of constantly being re-downloaded from the original source.

Won't somebody think of the lost sales?

[Sathias]

By releasing this for free I'm sure they would be missing out on some lost sales, maybe the RIAA will sue them.

Re:Won't somebody think of the lost sales?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"By releasing this for free I'm sure they would be missing out on some lost sales, maybe the RIAA will sue them."

The sad thing is that the RIAA did lose sales from my downloading of MP3s. I downloaded a few songs from CDs I thought I wanted and decided that the songs (and therefore, the albums) sucked. Frankly, I'm happy with the end of their "open your mouth and close your eyes" business model.

well now

[VirionNW]

It's an interesting move, though in a way it feels a bit like they're jumping on the bandwagon. Of course, the bandwagon can always use some big names on it, right? The quality of the file is pretty nice, beats the usual tiny mpeg smattered with MTV and various other station logos, especially in the day of dumb animated logos and advertisments.

Re:well now

[VirionNW]

Actually, I just remembered, this could have been so much better if they opened up the licensing to allow remixing and editing, didn't NIN do that and give out Garage Band files of the work too? Maybe they'll open it up by hosting it past the 24th, even torrent it, that'd at least add some credibility and promote the "share" aspect they seem to be pushing, at least one would hope.

Re:well now

[shotgunefx]

I don't think so. Pretty much inline with their other things they've done, like take on TicketMaster.

Fuck Pearl Jam

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Eddie vetter still fellating the Taliban?

Re:Fuck Pearl Jam

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, along with most of Hollyweird.

And they are on Sony's label too...

[Fizzlewhiff]

I wonder how long before the RIAA sues Pearl Jam for doing this.

Re:And they are on Sony's label too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pearl Jam is popular enough that they probably have the negotiating power with their label that we wouldn't see with almost all other bands.

Re:And they are on Sony's label too...

[dirtyhank]

Actually they're not under Sony label anymore. Their contract expired with their previous album (Riot Act) and signed with "J Records". Apparently they have a deal with Sony to handle worldwide distribution, but that's all.

Re:And they are on Sony's label too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, J Records is part of the Sony BMG major label so technically they're still related to Sony.

Re:And they are on Sony's label too...

[buzlink]

Why do people keep thinking this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Records

Re: Pepetuate Pearl Jam's Video into eternity

[Anonymous Coward]

Subject: Re: Pepetuate Pearl Jam's Video into eternity
Body: No.

MILF

[Anonymous Coward]

Just had to post this somewhere. Found out tonight that this chick that I personally know (friend's girlfriend of a friend) is on milfhunter.com. Link to the preview is below. It's interesting, because in real life, she's a 9.95, but on the video, I'd say an 8.

Curious to see what you p0rn fiends think.

http://www.ndcontent.com/mh/girls/cheryl.wmv

Free Commercials?

[ChozCunningham]

It's amazing to me that virtually all music videos for singles, which are essentially commercials for albums, aren't under a similar license, and that that hasn't been the status quo for some time. Of course, legalities aside, I guess it has been the status quo....

Re:Free Commercials?

[lysergic.acid]

Playing a music video on MTV may be considered advertising for the album, but so is playing the single on the radio. That doesn't make the actual content devoid of artistic & entertainment value in itself. I collect music videos, both downloaded off the net and purchased on DVDs, so I don't think that they're just advertisements. They should be available for free in addition to for purchase on DVDs, but saying that their just advertisements is an insult to the people who work on the videos.

Re:Free Commercials?

[bmsleight]

been the status quo for some time. Of course, legalities aside, I guess it has been the status quo....

Wow even Status Quo are relasing videos now ?

Re: Free Commercials?

[ChozCunningham]

I am a huge fan of music videos, from some of the more simple live-performance documentary type things to intense big budget affairs that convey several themes with interesting interpretations. However, they are budgeted and made with the purpose, at this time, to sell the records. Some people collect movie posters or tin ads for coca-cola; perhaps they are pretty, historical etc. but they are still ads.

Brilliant!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is genius! If the concept of a video is to promote your album, why not make it free to distribute? I mean MTV isn't going to play it unless your target audience are preteens. And even then they'll only show 30 seconds of it with somebody saying something stupid like "OMG! Ponies!" in the background.

Re:Brilliant!

[notanatheist]

OMG! Ponies!! Try watching a little DL.TV. After April 1st and all that pink it's more Slashdot than CowboyNeal! Maybe CowboyNeal should release a video to spark more interest for him.

Re:Brilliant!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they're prohibitng that under the no-derivative part of their license . . .

Did Trent Reznor direct that thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, while it sounded like PJ, it looked like NIN.

Re:Did Trent Reznor direct that thing?

[SnowZero]

Kind of reminds me of "Head like a hole" with all the hollow head and color-shifted imagery.

Great pre-sleep video

[Danathar]

Thanks! That was EXACTLY what I was looking to watch JUST before hitting the sack at night :(

Thanks slashdot for giving me nightmares

Props to Pearl Jam

[Elf_h34d3r]

I have to thank my brother for turning me onto this band

He always believed that it was more support to go visit a band in concert and honestly, Pearl Jam has always been one of my favorite bands since I was introduced to them. I have a friend who has a band who shares this whole concept of making their music available, and they ended up opening for Sublime one time. It's a Good Thing (TM) some mainstream bands are taking a stand against RIAA.

they used to be scammers iirc

[Anonymous Coward]

not 100% sure, but i think it was vitalogy or some such album that they only released on vinyl (aka record, phonograph, google thomas edison) so that fans would buy the record, then have to wait to re buy the cd...

Re:they used to be scammers iirc

[stuboogie]

There was no scam involved. Pearl Jam, especially Eddie Vedder, love Vinyl. They are of the age that grew up listening to REAL albums, and they still love the sound of vinyl. That is the sentiment behind their song Spin The Black Circle. They released their albums in limited quantity on vinyl as well as CD for the fans who share their love of that particular format.

They also send out Christmas singles to members of the Ten Club (fan club). These are on vinyl as well.

Re:they used to be scammers iirc

[biscrage]

my friend argues that song is about shooting up, i always thought it was about records. (former ten club member-- wishes he could get ahold of all the christmas singles)

Re:they used to be scammers iirc

[downunda_wookiee]

Vinyl is also regarded by many as the longest lasting medium for storing music. It does not break down as fast as magnetic tape or cds or dvds. More than half of the Library of Congress's music collection is on vinyl (in the form of LPs, 78s and 45s).

Good old Pearl Jam eh?

[nickgrieve]

Aren't they just a nice bunch of guys...

Bettermen

[teslatug]

Go Pearl Jam! My favorite band gets even better. I hope they continue this with their live music.

Re:Bettermen

[Bleach and Vomit]

Pearljam sucks. I work in a music store in the downtown area of a metropolis. We have sold (1)one copy of their new CD since the release. Another band that releases shit for the sake of money just because they can (David Bowie?). You oldschool pearljam fans are being violated by buying this CD.

Re:Bettermen

[bigbigbison]

So sales are the most accurate mesurement of quality? Who knew that Kelly Clarkson and the Black Eyed Peas were so awesome?

Re:Bettermen

[lysergic.acid]

"Another band that releases shit for the sake of money just because they can"

What is that supposed to mean?

They produced a music video, as musicians sometimes do.
They released it under a Creative Commons license, which is rare.
This allows people to do rare things with a mainstream artist's creative content, like download it/enjoy it/distribute it for free.
Most artists would have prohibited the above mentioned activities in their license.
Thus, what Pearl Jam has done is interesting news for most of us, and it would benefit fans if other artists followed Pearl Jam's lead.

So what is there for you to possibly complain about? That they haven't sold many CDs at your store? What does that have to do with anything?

Do you have a coherent point to make, or did you just want to post incoherent ramblings?

Re:Bettermen

[whitey5386]

Parent brings up a rather valid point. And to be on topic, we are talking about digital distribution of a main stream artist. I know that I reserved their album around a month in advance on iTunes to get the advertised bonus content. I also know of friends who are PJ fans and have used the purchase from iTunes links that were on their site. So what if a CD isn't purchased. This the 2000s, isn't it?

Re:Bettermen

[Bleach and Vomit]

"They released it under a Creative Commons license, which is rare. This allows people to do rare things with a mainstream artist's creative content, like download it/enjoy it/distribute it for free."
People will download and distribute any music video they want. Who cares if it is legal? This entire article is irrelevant. The point is this: Pearljam sucks.

Re:Bettermen

[Bleach and Vomit]

I was just informing everyone that the general consensus is that Pearljam sucks. A band's popularity and fan base is based on our opinions. A majority (>50%) says Pearljam sucks. Therefore Pearljam sucks. Thanks! :]

yeah, great idea!

[commodoresloat]

Instead of paying to have your album advertised, give the advertisement away for free! Not only that, release it under a "free" license you don't really understand in a format nobody can do anything with! And then, get your lawyers to add some stupid conditions to the license so it really isn't "free" anymore! Then have marketing post a link to slashdot.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[simcop2387]

i fail to see what changes and conditions they added to the license they directly link to the creative commons copy of the license, format is debatable but what at all is wrong with google video where you can download the file also? you know its right there on the right of the video in the flash player.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Jeremi]

Instead of paying to have your album advertised, give the advertisement away for free! Not only that, release it under a "free" license you don't really understand in a format nobody can do anything with! And then, get your lawyers to add some stupid conditions to the license so it really isn't "free" anymore! Then have marketing post a link to slashdot.

I'm sorry you've had such a bad day, dear -- why don't you go to bed and get some rest, you'll probably feel a whole lot better in the morning.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[lysergic.acid]

Except music videos aren't advertisements; how does adding a cinematic dimension to the musical content reduce it to advertising?

Music videos may be used to advertise the album, but so are the songs on the album when they're played on the radio or broadcasted elsewhere--does that the album itself an "advertisement"? Touring also helps sell albums--does that mean concert goers are just being suckered into paying for "advertisements"?

And just because you can't make money off of the video or create derivative works from it doesn't mean it's not free anymore. They're being a lot more generous with their work than most major artists and are setting a good precendent for others to follow. So stop skewing the situation just so you can make substanceless complaints.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Except music videos aren't advertisements; how does adding a cinematic dimension to the musical content reduce it to advertising?

People don't buy videos. They buy albums and singles. And don't get all pedantic on me about how some people do buy videos, its a teeny-tiny minority of sales, and would not be financially viable if the videos were not already made for some other reason, like say, advertising.

just because you can't make money off of the video or create derivative works from it doesn't mean it's not free anymore.

The simplest thing with the most utility that someone might do is rip the audio out of the video and make it into an mp3. But that would be a derivative work and is thus prohibited.

So yeah, this is a rather useless bit of fluff advertising, nothing more.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[lysergic.acid]

People don't buy videos. They buy albums and singles. And don't get all pedantic on me about how some people do buy videos, its a teeny-tiny minority of sales, and would not be financially viable if the videos were not already made for some other reason, like say, advertising.

Stating that people do purchase music videos isn't pedantic, neither is stating that lots of people simply enjoy watching music videos and appreciate them for their intrinsic entertainment/artistic value. Whether video sales are the main source of revenue for artists/labels is completely irrelevant. A creative work doesn't have to be profitable, or 'financially viable', to have artistic or entertainment value. Likewise, just because music videos boost sales doesn't mean that they are merely advertisements. Are singles just advertisements as well because they are played on the radio to boost sales? What about merchandise like t-shirts and posters? Touring and live performances would be 'financially unviable' too for most artists if merchandise weren't sold at each show. Does that mean that the musical performances themselves are just advertisements?

I happen to work in the music industry and know lots of musicians, many of whom have produced music videos with their bands. It is a very artistically driven process, much like the creation of any other creative work. The same energy and creative process goes into it as with the production of the album itself. It is simply adding a visual narrative to the music and gives the artist another channel to express themselves through. Playing a music video on MTV or VH1 is no different from playing a single on the radio. The intrinsic value of the creative content doesn't change just because it's being played to promote the album. Most of the music videos that indie artists produce don't even get any play on the air--which is why they are often hard to get funding for--but bands still push for them to be made just as they may push for the label to help them record an album regardless of whether it's going to sell or not. Directors like Chris Cunningham have made prolific careers out of just making music videos, which people watch and buy for its inherent entertainment value.

The simplest thing with the most utility that someone might do is rip the audio out of the video and make it into an mp3. But that would be a derivative work and is thus prohibited.

So yeah, this is a rather useless bit of fluff advertising, nothing more.

That is retarded. I'd venture to say that 99% of the people who download the video simply want to watch the video in its entirety. Downloading it just to rip the audio layer is like getting an illustrated book to cut out just the text. Just because you can't appreciate music videos for what they are doesn't mean that other people can't either. You don't seem to understand a lot of things about music or art.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You don't seem to understand a lot of things about music or art.

It's called the music business for a reason, and you've done a remarkably thorough job of proving that you don't know a thing about business.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's put his music knowledge cards on the table, while you've shown everyone how bitter you are today :(

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

He's put his music knowledge cards on the table, while you've shown everyone how bitter you are today :(

Big deal. He could be Liberace reincarnate for all the bearing it would have on the discussion. Neither the word "art" nor any of its synonyms appear in the OP, nor in lysergic.acid's response to the OP. It's only when his patently silly claim that music videos are not advertisements is shown up that he goes off on a interminable tangent about "art," completely ignoring the actual topic at hand - namely that the release of the video under these specific terms is just another promotional tool in the music biz's portfolio of tools.

As at least one other poster has spelled out, if this release was about the "art" of music, then they would have followed in NIN's footsteps by releasing the components that went into the final product along with a license that gives people the liberty to use the stuff for new artistic creations.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Gray]

It's a question of semantics. Purpose vs. Intent. The creators of the video may not intend to create advertising, but the people who paid for it definitly do.

The purpose of a music video is to make direct attention to other, money making, ventures. The album, the tour, the t-shirt. Music videos are made, at significant expense, to get attention paid to these ventures. Sounds a lot like an advertisement to me.. The 30 second spot promoting a soft drink has exactly the same purpose, to direct attention to the money making venture.

Ask yourself, why would anybody spend all that money to produce a video and then even more money trying very hard to get that video show publicly, if not to advertise?

Only a very narrow minded idiot would try and stop people from trading music their videos. Their entire reason for benign is to generate attention. Pearl Jam may be the first to use creative commons, but this is far from the first time someone has used nerd culture for free PR. The tech press is notoriously naive.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Gray]

You hit the nail on the head.

"Pearl Jam has a new album coming out. How can we get people to care about this?"

"What is it, 1992? Who cares about Pearl Jam anymore, certainly not MTV and their under 14 demographic"

"We need to get at the old people who still give a toss about that whole dirty grunge business."

"I know, release the video under creative commons on the Internet."

"That's a great idea! The old nerds will all talk about it and watch it when they never would have before. We'll get so much free attention from just the right people and it won't cost a dime."

Re:yeah, great idea!

[zenslug]

You and Jaw-Wren are haters. Call me a troll (although I feel like I'm feeding trolls), but you both remind me of the self-absorbed comic book store owner on the Simpsons.

Some people, quite a few, actually, stil enjoy listening to Pearl Jam. If you don't, fine, that's up to you, but don't come here and mouth off as if Pearl Jam is as washed up as Britney Spears. Pearl Jam is a solid band with a solid following and specific sound that not everyone likes. Fine.

Seeing as how you don't follow Pearl Jam, you wouldn't understand where they come from and the approach that they've taken to embracing their fanbase. They fight against the heavy business types in the music industry. Obviously they have done well for themselves business-wise, but that doesn't mean that they can't also push for change, which they do.

This is not just some publicity stunt. I'm sure they could care less that you've even heard about the video. This isn't aimed at you.

What you've said about a music video being an advertisement, well, I think that is true, but it is not hard-and-fast as either side of this debate has been portraying. It is art and business, and for each band, each song that has a video, the balance between the two is along a spectrum.

Both of you should STFU and stop acting high and mighty with your musical taste and great business sense.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

you both remind me of the self-absorbed comic book store owner on the Simpsons.

Lollerskates! Funny that. You remind me of the stereotypical macintosh user. I never knew that Pearl Jam had a reality distortion field.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[lysergic.acid]

It's a question of semantics. Purpose vs. Intent. The creators of the video may not intend to create advertising, but the people who paid for it definitly do.

It's not a question of semantics. It's simply poor reasoning. Playing a video on MTV may be used to promote an album, but that doesn't make the content itself an advertisement, just like playing a single off the album on the radio may be used to promote sales, but that doesn't change the artistic merit of that track.

The purpose of a music video is to make direct attention to other, money making, ventures. The album, the tour, the t-shirt. Music videos are made, at significant expense, to get attention paid to these ventures. Sounds a lot like an advertisement to me.. The 30 second spot promoting a soft drink has exactly the same purpose, to direct attention to the money making venture.

As I said before, from a business perspective, touring is done mainly to promote an album also. The record label forks out money to give bands touring support because they see it as promotion for the band and the album, which increase the fanbase and subsequently sales. Touring itself would not generate much revenue for the band if it weren't for the sale or merchandise on the tour, and it doesn't generate any direct revenue at all for the label. But that doesn't mean that the live performances are simply advertisements. Likewise, just because music videos, like radio singles and touring, may serve to promote the band and the album, it doesn't mean that that is their sole purpose.

Ask yourself, why would anybody spend all that money to produce a video and then even more money trying very hard to get that video show publicly, if not to advertise?

Why would record labels fork out thousands of dollars for touring support? It serves to advertise the album, but the content still retains its intrinsic entertainment/artistic value. Art and entertainment aren't defined by their financial viability. There are indie bands and directors that create music videos which aren't ever played on MTV or VH1. Why do you think they spend the time and effort to make these videos? Believe it or not, some artists aren't just in it for the money.

Only a very narrow minded idiot would try and stop people from trading music their videos. Their entire reason for benign is to generate attention. Pearl Jam may be the first to use creative commons, but this is far from the first time someone has used nerd culture for free PR. The tech press is notoriously naive.

It's not not narrowminded, it's shortsighted. But why would anyone want to trade music videos, collect them, or buy them on DVDs if they're just advertisement? How do people like Chris Cunningham make money by selling music video compilations if all they are are advertisements?

An artist doesn't release their content under a free license, then they're being idiots. An artist does release their content under a free icense--they're just greedy sell-outs that want free PR. What exactly do you want from musicians?

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a question of semantics. It's simply poor reasoning.

You got that right.

How do people like Chris Cunningham make money by selling music video compilations if all they are are advertisements?

The same way people make money selling public domain movies on DVD. The cost of creating the videos is already paid for, so as long as they sell enough to recoup the manufacturing and distribution costs, everything else is free money.

You've got this huge focus on aahhhrt somehow negating the commercial nature of a production. Well I'm sure this must come as a shock to you, but just about all artistic creations in the US are done as commercial endeavors. As a self-admitted performer in the music business, you are aptly demonstrating why so many musicians get screwed over by the publishers - a total lack of understanding that the music business is a business and you and your creations are just interchangeable product as far as the publishers see things.

Comparing Pearl Jam to an indie band? Yeah, right.

An artist doesn't release their content under a free license, then they're being idiots. An artist does release their content under a free icense--they're just greedy sell-outs that want free PR. What exactly do you want from musicians?

Well, how about for one of them to wise up and stop putting words in other people's mouths? Here's a clue - this CC variant is a free license, not a Free license. If you don't know the difference, you shouldn't be posting here.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[lysergic.acid]

Nice retort. But I think I know a little about the business aspect of the music industry, seeing as I work for a record label and have been working there for several years.

I know the marketing value of freely distributing content, but that doesn't make the content itself advertisements. As I said before, getting a music video played on MTV is no different than getting a song played on the radio. From a business perspective, it is advertising, but so is touring. That doesn't mean that the song or music video or live performance lose their inherent entertainment & artistic value.

Prior to a release we send out thousands of albums as promos. We even print and package these discs specifically for promo purposes. Does that make those CDs any different from the ones that get shipped to stores? Does writing "promo" on the cover suddenly make that CD just a piece of advertisement and make the content lose its intrinsic entertainment value? Oh, but those promo CDs have no "financial viability" and they're only used to facilitate sales...

Just because it's labeled as promotional content in one form doesn't mean the content itself is just an advertisement. People still go out and buy music video compilations, posters, stickers, shirts, etc. that were all originally intended by the label to promote the album or band. Pretty much all merchandise that the label has made is used for promoting/advertising the band or a particular album--that's their financial justification; that's business.

We pay tens of thousands of dollars to get a recording remastered in order to re-release it and sell more albums, but the remastered content isn't just advertising, and neither is the fact that it's remastered since it does in fact sound much better than the original. Just 'cause something is paid for because of its promotional/marketing value doesn't make it lose its inherent value. The label's intent doesn't derogate from the artist's vision or how one enjoys the content. Interviews are arranged by the label in order to give publicity to the band and/or the album, but that is completely inconsequential to the content that is created. Your argument is based on very selective reasoning.

I mean, why would people want to trade/download/collect/buy music videos if all they are are advertisements? What part of the process of creating a visual narrative to go with a song categorically reduces the artistic and entertainment value of the final product?

Re:yeah, great idea!

[lysergic.acid]

1. My point about Chris Cunningham was that people do go out and buy his works on DVD, so there are plenty of people who enjoy watching music videos for its own sake. A publishing company wouldn't license his works, and the works of other music video directors, to put out a series of music video compilations if there were no market for such content. This is secondary licensing which is completely separate from the original comissioning of the music videos.
2. I never denied the marketing value of music videos, and I've acknowledged the fact that they are aired to promote bands/albums. What I'm arguing is that music videos aren't just advertisements, atleast no more than singles that get played on the radio, radio/magazine interviews, and touring. Promotional content is different from an ad. Labeling something as promotional content doesn't change its intrinsic entertainment value of the original content. Because something is funded as a commercial endeavor doesn't preclude it from having intrinsic entertainment/artistic value.
3. I never claimed to be a performer. I'm a graphic designer--I design album artwork, posters, stickers, t-shirts, etc. And I understand why musicians get screwed, and the ugly nature of the recording industry. I'm very close with the record label owner and I have no illusions about how he percieves the music and the artists. However, that doesn't change the artistic merits of the musicians, nor does his financial motives undermine the artistic vision created by the director and the band.

Additionally, Chris Cunningham's Rubber Johnny video was originally commissioned as a promotional clip for the new Aphex Twin album. However, the band and the director liked the concept so much that they decided to expand it into a full-length music video and feature it on its own DVD. The content is so disturbing to some that it was banned by many networks and doesn't get any play on any major music television networks, and pretty much the only people who see the video are those who buy/download the DVD for its own sake. Clearly the director & the band weren't only motivated by commercial interests to create the music video. Calling music videos for bands like Aphex Twin, Marilyn Manson, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, the Cure, and many others, mere advertisements is an insult to the band and to the directors. There's nothing about the format that precludes it from having intrinsic artistic and entertainment value.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There's nothing about the format that precludes it from having intrinsic artistic and entertainment value.

Dooood. Art, art, art, art, art, art, art, art, art, art.

We got it after your first post using the word.

Here's the summary of all responses -- Irrelevant to business.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[lysergic.acid]

Well, that is what the argument is about: whether music videos are mere advertisements or if they have intrinsic artistic/entertainment value. If you can't give a constructive argument against what I've said, then simply don't reply. All you're doing now is trolling with ad hominem attacks and immature retorts.

I could just as well post:

Dooood. Advertisements, advertisements, advertisements, advertisements, advertisements, advertisements, advertisements.

We got it after your first post using the word.

Here's the summary of all responses -- Irrelevant to art.

However, I choose to back up my position with reasoned arguments and by pointing out the gaping holes in your reasoning. But apparently you still don't get it.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

However, I choose to back up my position with reasoned arguments and by pointing out the gaping holes in your reasoning. But apparently you still don't get it.

Far from it. For example, in my first post I said that citing the relatively miniscule number of video sales in comparison to actual music sales would be meaningless. Yet just a post ago you start off trying to do just that, completely oblivious to the already established point that since the video production costs are all ready paid for it is all just gravy.

In other words, your position was anticipated, debunked and passed by in my very first post, yet you continued down that irrelevant path anyway. That's why my prior post was not ad hominem, it was an accurately humorous depiction of your argument.

I could just as well post:

You could - but you would be just as off-topic as you have been ever since your 2nd post. Go back and read the OP. "Art" is not a factor, not even a mitigating factor, in his point -- NOR IN YOUR INITIAL RESPONSE.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[lysergic.acid]

Yea, you anticipated that I would mention a pertinent detail that stands in contradiction to your position, but simply by ignoring that reality and saying "it's pedantic to say this" doesn't refute it. It just shows that you like to conveniently ignore facts that contradict you.

And for someone who thinks he has such an astute understanding of how the music business works, you sure seem to be pretty oblivious to the economics of merchandising. Most professionally done music videos cost around $5000-6000 to $50,000-60,000 to make, depending on how big the band is. A DVD, including packaging, usually costs about $4 to $9 per unit to manufacture in bulk. So having 10,000 DVDs manufactured easily costs more than the original production costs of the video--or did you think that once a music video is shot, the label can just pull packaged DVDs out of thin air?

Now, why would a record label have all these DVDs manufactured and stocked in retail stores if there weren't a demand for them? Why would companies like Palm Pictures license these works from the artists and labels to feature them on DVDs if no one buys them? Do you think Palm and other studios/production companies just wants to pay Warped Records, Sony BMG, etc. to 'advertise' for them?

You've done about as much debunking as a creationist saying "don't give me any of that evolution crap" in an argument about human origin. And just because you don't recognize music videos as creative works in their own right doesn't make mentioning their artistic merits and entertainment value irrelevant. How can it be irrelevant when we're arguing about whether music videos are creative works having their own 'artistic' merits or merely advertisements devoid of any intrinsic 'entertainment' value?

The fact that 'art' is neither a factor in the OP's claim nor yours regarding a product of the 'music' industry is exactly why you're both wrong. But I guess since I disagree with the OP I must be off-topic--what a tactful way to weasel out of the argument. But I guess if you STILL can't understand the difference between promotional content and advertising, then there's really no use in trying to explain it to you...

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

for someone who thinks he has such an astute understanding of how the music business works, you sure seem to be pretty oblivious to the economics of merchandising.

Not as oblivious as you just proved yourself to be:

A DVD, including packaging, usually costs about $4 to $9 per unit to manufacture in bulk.

You are off by an order of magnitude. I just priced out 10,000 DVDs, with Amaray cases, 4/0 wrap with 4-color printing and shrink wrap. That's 88 cents per disc at the first place I checked and $1.03 at the 2nd. Don't even bother scrambling to add in authoring costs, I own the Gondry/Jonze/Cunningham DVDs from Palm and my 5 year-old could have done a better job of authoring.

So having 10,000 DVDs manufactured easily costs more than the original production costs of the video

Let's just pretend you were actually right about the costs. The answer would still be the same - as long as they can sell them for more than the production costs, it is gravy. Got it? G-R-A-V-Y. Even if they did cost $9 to manufacture and distribute, they still sell for at least $11 each.

Now, why would a record label have all these DVDs manufactured and stocked in retail stores if there weren't a demand for them?

You continually conflate miniscule demand with large demand. It isn't binary. It isn't all or nothing. But, for the 3rd time, it is TINY compared to the demand for the music itself. Talk about someone who "conveniently ignores facts that contradict him" - 3 freaking times and it still hasn't sunk in.

But I guess since I disagree with the OP I must be off-topic--what a tactful way to weasel out of the argument

Hey, you were on-topic with your first post. Wrong, but at least on-topic. Once proved wrong, you scrambled for a red herring and have been desperately milking it ever since. It's going to take you days to get that fish smell off your hands.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

The music business is old and rotten. We're starting a new one. Don't be part of the solution if you don't want, but don't push your old ways on us.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[lysergic.acid]

You are off by an order of magnitude. I just priced out 10,000 DVDs, with Amaray cases, 4/0 wrap with 4-color printing and shrink wrap. That's 88 cents per disc at the first place I checked and $1.03 at the 2nd. Don't even bother scrambling to add in authoring costs, I own the Gondry/Jonze/Cunningham DVDs from Palm and my 5 year-old could have done a better job of authoring.

I call bullshit. Either you just pulled those numbers out of your ass or those places you "checked" do piss-poor quality work. Commercial quality DVD-9's cost atleast ~$2 per unit to manufacture and print the discs themselves, packaging and assembly (which are sometimes necessary to do by hand, especially if you want to include things such as external obie strips) costs atleast $1-2 per unit. So that's ~$3 minimum if you find a cheap place and only use simple inserts on light-weight paper. The Chris Cunningham collection happens to come with a 24-page booklet of illustrations/photos/stills which is printed on moderately heavy gloss/matte paper enclosed in a heavy card stock. The booklet itself is of pretty high quality, as with the packaging and the actual DVD. Adding on the cost of the booklet the per unit price for the publishing company is guaranteed to be atleast ~$5 by a moderate estimate.

A DVD made for less than $1 per unit might pass for a medium-sized business that needs them for internal purposes or for distributing cheap video-pamphlets, but for a business that deals primarily in CDs and DVDs they would not fly. In fact, the prices you give are more along the lines of unit prices for CDs in regular jewel cases, and nowhere near the cost of DVD manufacturing costs.

Also, I happen to have some experience designing CD/DVD artwork & layouts, and I do in fact own a copy of the Chris Cunningham DVD myself. The design, quality, and artwork of the inserts, booklets, along with the DVD contents all happen to be superb. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it would behoove you to just give it a rest.

My guess is you've probably never seen a cheap poorly printed/packaged CD or DVD and have never worked in a business that deals exclusively with those types of digital media. Perhaps if you were selling crap-quality pirated DVDs like those you find being sold by Asian street vendors, you could use $1.03 packaged DVDs, but not if you work in the music business and digital media is your primary product.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I call bullshit.

These were literally the first two websites I checked. I am sure I could find plenty more like them if I wanted to. Both companies appear to do their work in the USA, and not mexico or the far east, so should be even more expensive than what's available to any large publisher.
http://www.mediatechnics.com/phpquote/dvdreplicati on.php
http://www.groovehouse.com/

Your turn to put up or shut up. Let's see an actual source for your numbers besides your ass.

Also, I happen to have some experience designing CD/DVD artwork & layouts, and I do in fact own a copy of the Chris Cunningham DVD myself. The design, quality, and artwork of the inserts, booklets, along with the DVD contents all happen to be superb.

I'm confident I own more than an order of magnitude more DVDs than you do. Palm has always struck with me the low quality of their physical presentation. While the "Work of Director..." series is a step up in quality for them, it still ain't very slick. I have indeed seen worse, and in my collection, of which there are 30-40 music video/concert DVDs, those are consistently bottom of the barrel. Rarely even in the league of Amaray.

The point being that even the moderate quality of the "Work of Director..." series is atypical of the field. Which just goes to show that the publishers see them as unimportant sidelines to their real money-maker - selling music.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[LunaticTippy]

You seem to think because it is artistic it ain't an ad.

I know several ad designers who would take offense. There are countless artistic advertisements. Think of Apple's 1984 ad, or some of the dot-com stupid bowl ads.

Ad != Artless. Art != adfree.

Whole argument is stupid, just wanted to make a point.

Re:yeah, great idea!

[Gray]

You knew it'd boil down to just another person bitterly trying to hold onto the icons on their youth. Britney swipe and everything, clique much?

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads

[SlashdotOgre]

Another cool thing the band does is sell all their concerts via download in either MP3 ($9.99) or FLAC ($14.99); in the previous Canadian tour the downloads were often available within 24 hours of the show, now they're a couple days later. These shows are soundboard quality (pretty much the best you can hope for in a "bootleg") and completely DRM. The band is even cool about people trading shows; they've stated in the past they don't expect the average fan to buy every show -- just get a couple, like the ones you go to, and trade with your friends. In the 2000 tour, they were selling actual CD's of their shows for near cost (9.99 for a double CD), I don't believe the band themselves made a profit from the sale. This was in order to stop the ridiculous prices their old bootlegs went for on eBay despite that fact that you can get almost any show for free by just asking on alt.music.pearl-jam.

Actual License?

[MrCopilot]

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 You are free: * to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work Under the following conditions:

by Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
nc Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
nd No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
* Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.

Excellent I can now reenact the entire video, if I do it faithfully. Thanks You Mr. Vedder.

No seriously, baby steps, right.

Re:Actual License?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent I can now reenact the entire video, if I do it faithfully. Thanks You Mr. Vedder.

No seriously, baby steps, right.

just say what the fuck you mean. i don't want to have to decode cryptic little riddles when i read this goddamn page.

Re:Actual License?

[idonthack]

You're missing the important part.

You are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

Previously, all of those were illegal, under all conditions, unless you paid someone lots of money.

Re:Actual License?

[MrCopilot]

You're missing the important part. You are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work Previously, all of those were illegal, under all conditions, unless you paid someone lots of money.

No I got the point exactly, you are missing it. You can watch the video, you can copy the video. you can give it to a friend, all for non commercial purposes.

All good things. Unless you are a DJ or own a bar. This is a very liberal license and beats the hell out of "We will sue you". But from such a pricipled band like Pearl Jam, I expect almost too much. Baby steps refers to gradual process towards the goal.

Ahhh!! My ears!!

[hereschenes]

Did you LISTEN to that monstrosity, or just watch it with the volume muted? Surely Eddie V could have invested in an auto-tune plugin for his sequencer, at least...

Re:Ahhh!! My ears!!

[idugcoal]

I disagree wholeheartedly. That unfamiliar, not-exactly-in-tune-to-the-cent pitch you hear from Eddie's voice (and at some point throughout the song, from every other harmonic instrument, as well), is something missing in today's soulless and sterile music enviornment. Call it "blue notes" (actually bluer "regions" around notes), emotion, angst, feeling; even call it "out of tune," if you want. I'll take it every day over whichever plastic, overcompressed "prostitute with a thug posse"s the labels (albeit, the same bastard labels) give us as options. Auto-Tune (and the like) do have their uses, but this is NOT one of them. There are other places to go if that's the sound you prefer.

Re:Ahhh!! My ears!!

[hereschenes]

I know what you're saying, and I'm not saying that I like music to be mega-processed or anything. Indeed, take many of today's starlets out of the studio, and all you're left with is a bag of artificial body appendages. It's certainly good to hear things sounding natural and raw, but there's a difference between that and atonal whining. Of course, all this is imho, as with pretty much everything in music. YMMV, etc.

Re:Ahhh!! My ears!!

[tenco]

atonal whining

It's Grunge. What did you expect?

SCNR

Re:Ahhh!! My ears!!

[idugcoal]

I think that Eddie probably had a couple of better takes left in him, and I agree that "natural and raw" are two important elements (especially re: rock music) that have practically been edited out of the music industry, in general. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that PJ left this song, their current video-supported single, less-than-perfect as a reaction to all of the so-perfect-it's-unlistenable drivel we've all been bombarded with of late. Kudos to the band for, over the years, flippin the bird at the status quo, whether it be ticket surcharges with Ticketmaster, providing high-quality yet affordable recordings of live performances and encouraging trade among fans, or this most recent step, confidently asserting that they aren't perfect and they don't care if you know.

Besides, I GOTTA give it up to anyone with something to lose who is willing to risk loss to fight the RIAA. (And by "something to lose," I don't mean "500 GB of pirated mp3's.")

Re:Ahhh!! My ears!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, remember Kurt Cobain's shirt? It said "Grunge is dead." :P

IT'S OFFICIAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Pearl Jam is now an over-the-hill burnout band, trying desperate internet publicity stunts in order to stay relevant.

In showbiz, it's a well known fact that releasing something to the internet is a last-ditch effort to rescue product that is basically DOA.

Re:IT'S OFFICIAL

[stuboogie]

I don't think a band that debuts at #2 on the Billboard Top 200 chart is "an over-the-hill burnout band, trying desperate internet publicity stunts in order to stay relevant."

Considering Tool was at #1 that same week, I would say Pearl Jam is still quite relevant. Will they sell as many albums as quickly as they did with Ten or Vs.? Maybe not, but they have gone Platinum on every album they have released. IIRC.

no MTV

[doubtless]

Pearl Jam is also pretty opposed to the MTV way of music video, they only had 2 music videos on MTV their entire career.

Re:no MTV

[dido]

I remember at least five: 1. Evenflow, 2. Alive, 3. Jeremy, 4. Animal, 5. Daughter. All 1992-1993 thereabouts, before MTV started becoming totally wussy. Damn I'm old. :(

Re:no MTV

[aXis100]

Agreed, but their "filmclips" they were mostly just live performances of their songs, as opposed to the full on short-film filmclips of today.

I was suprised to see that this video isnt a plain (and good) old live one.

Re:no MTV

[Puff Daddy]

They've also had excellent videos completely devoid of live performances, I'm thinking specifically of "Do the Evolution." Pearl Jam with Seth McFarlane animating the video. That might be my favorite video ever.

Re:no MTV

[dark_panda]

That's Todd McFarlane, of Spawn and Spiderman comics fame. Seth MacFarlane is the Family Guy/American Dad dude.

That definitely would have made for quite a different video.

J

Re:no MTV

[Anonymous Coward]

Pearl Jam is also pretty opposed to the MTV way of music video, they only had 2 music videos on MTV their entire career.

That explains why.

Re:no MTV

[vertinox]

earl Jam is also pretty opposed to the MTV way of music video, they only had 2 music videos on MTV their entire career.

MTV plays music videos?

Re:no MTV

[kimvette]

At one time MTV used to stand for Music Television instead of Moronic Television.

Re:no MTV

[Opportunist]

So I'm not the only one old enough to remember that? Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Ok, back to watching VH1-Classic...

Re:no MTV

[StreetScream]

more like eMpTyV

Re:no MTV

[SleepyHappyDoc]

After Jeremy, they didn't release any videos for a long time. Someone took concert footage of Animal and Daughter and made them into unofficial videos, but the band had nothing to do with that. Recently, they've dipped their toes back in, what with 'Do The Evolution' from Yield, 'I Am Mine' from Riot Act and now this. Binaural may have had a video, too...I can't recall.

There's an old video floating around for 'Oceans', but I don't believe that was ever officially released, as well as the original video for 'Jeremy' (not the one you remember, there's a different one that never aired).

Re:no MTV

[Puff Daddy]

Whoops... Thanks for the correction. That would have been a much, much shittier video.

This is great and all...

[Infonaut]

... but I don't think they took into account the fact that RMS doesn't like the Creative Commons. My guess is fans will avoid the video in droves for that reason alone.

Re:This is great and all...

[aXis100]

That's a pretty broad statement considering he actually said:

Some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses; most permit at least noncommercial verbatim copying. But some, such as the Sampling Licenses and Developing Countries Licenses, don't even permit that, which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work. All these licenses have in common is a label, but people regularly mistake that common label for something substantial.

I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable. It would be self-delusion to try to endorse just some of the Creative Commons licenses, because people lump them together; they will misconstrue any endorsement of some as a blanket endorsement of all. I therefore find myself constrained to reject Creative Commons entirely.

Re:This is great and all...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that 90% of the people that listen to music couldn't care less who RMS is I doubt people will avoid downloading it.

It may not be perfect, but it's a good move.

[Marcos Eliziario]

In essence, video clips are just advertising, and based on that, this move would not qualify too much on the revolutionary side of things. But, if you think about it as a political statement, it's a very good thing to do in dark times like these. Think about how many folks are going to see such a license for the first time on their lifes. Think about all the fan-kids out there with garage bands that will start seeing open licenses as something cool. Think about how many media droids are going to need to educate themselves on the "open" movement to be able to write a comment on that. Of course, none of this could happen, but how can we know?

This is a great move in my opinion.

[onevulcanme]

I think this is a fantastic move by Pearl Jam. This means that if an honest person who is not out to make a profit can simply share a song with friends without violating the law and risk persecution. More musicians and artists need to utilize this method! I don't listen to a lot of music myself, but hate the fact that so many innocent people are being needlessly persecuted when they were not after one dime of profit. Go Pearl Jam!

only available until May 24th?

[Karma Sucks]

I don't get it. Why is it only available on Google until May 24th? What's preventing us from re-uploading it permanently to Google Video?

Re:only available until May 24th?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the "time limited offer" ploy.. Don't you just feel the necessity of downloading that video for free while you still can?

Re:only available until May 24th?

[babbling]

Nothing. They probably won't link to it, though...

Strange what offends us.

[Jerk City Troll]

I find that no matter how grusome, synthesized imagery has absolutely no affect on me. However, if I watch someone pull their toenail out, I cringe and shudder. The moral of the story is: people need to work harder at distinguishing reality and fantasy.

Re:Strange what offends us.

[Mikey-San]

I find that no matter how grusome, synthesized imagery has absolutely no affect on me. However, if I watch someone pull their toenail out [ebaumsworld.com], I cringe and shudder. The moral of the story is: people need to work harder at distinguishing reality and fantasy.

He didn't say it offended him. The imagery struck something in his head and he (jokingly) suspects that it will give him nightmares. There's nothing stupid about this at all.

The video is full of rather nightmarish, dark imagery. Something doesn't need to offend or actually scare us to trigger a nightmare. After all, even if you decide what you find offensive, you don't decide what your subconscious chooses to turn into ghoulish demons in your sleep.

whoops

[toadlife]

I just realized that I misread your orignal comment. I missed the 'nt at the end of would. Your wording wans't funky. My reading was.

Video only avaliable till May 24th...

[_Griphin_]

I wonder if it's the same video that Much Music up here in Canada showed a few days ago. It's a good example of releasing work that could possible rip the artist off (these people need to get paid for their hard work right?!? I mean someone needs to pay the video director who charges too much for work that any band could do).

Re:Video only avaliable till May 24th...

[FudRucker]

i downloaded a copy and will either seed it to bittorrent or use frostwire to allow sharing, i am sure others will too :)

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads

[krunk4ever]

These shows are soundboard quality (pretty much the best you can hope for in a "bootleg") and completely DRM.

think you meant DRM free, but good to know.

They sold their tickets by zip code

[bariswheel]

Pearl Jam just played a show here in Santa Barbara a few weeks ago. To be fair to the people living around there, they sold their tickets disciminating by zip codes on credit cards. If you didn't have a zip code that fell within their accepted proximity to where they played (santa barbara bowl) you would not be able to buy a ticket. A band that supports the cause and does things that make a lot of sense. I have a lot of respect and admiration for Pearl Jam because of this. Oh, they also make incredibly good music.

Re:They sold their tickets by zip code

[RexRhino]

I know they are trying to be all "down with the people" and all that... and that isn't a bad thing, really. But the whole idea of only accepting orders for tickets based on credit card zip codes isn't the way to do it. What ever happened to music fans line up for shows, pay cash at the door, and that was that. Only middle early 30s adults are gonna be paying a lot of money , via credit card, to see Pearl Jam. The whole buying $100 tickets 6 months in advanced is a whole stadium rock thing that is totally the opposite of "down with the people". What they are trying to do is OK, but how they are going about it is all wrong.

Re:They sold their tickets by zip code

[bariswheel]

Point taken...then again though if my only chance of getting a ticket to sit by the ticket office for 3 days, I wouldn't be able to get a ticket, since I work for a living and that is impossible for me to do. Then again that could mean I don't deserve a ticket. There should be a way for both of those processes to meet in the middle somewhere...

Re:They sold their tickets by zip code

[Anonymous Coward]

this is actually was a move by the Santa Barbara Bowl not Pearl Jam, they do it for other shows at the Bowl as well...

E-E-E-W!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those guys have Morgellon's!!!

Mirror

[Ann Coulter]

Here is a copy of the videos on a school server. Cheers.

Re:Mirror

[cliffski]

with the schools approval, one presumes?

Re:Mirror

[Cal Paterson]

Apparantly not, since the server is now down.

lumping them together

[theantix]

I know some people don't like RMS, but he nailed this one for sure. Just look at the Slashdot headline for this article "Pearl Jam Releases Video Under Creative Commons"... lumping them all together just as RMS suggested people would. "Creative Commons" without describing the varient doesn't mean anything at all, yet that is the message the headline gives and a real problem with the suite of CC licenses. Certainly, people can specifiy which CC license you are talking about (as the body text of the slashdot article does), but it's still overly confusing.

Consider the analogous slashdot heading "Company Releases Program Under GPL" -- the GPL is a title that unlike CC has a specific meaning, if it's GPL you know what to expect whether you like that license or not. The problem with CC is really worse than the similarily vaguely defined label "open source" because some of the CC licenses are really quite restrictive.

I do understand what the people behind CC are trying to do, and I respect that. I just wish that they had put more effort into promoting the use of individual specific licenses instead of the CC 'brand'. GNU does this well, they have GPL, GFDL, LGPL as their own separate brand instead of just calling it a "GNU license" which doesn't convey the specificness those different concepts represent.

Re:lumping them together

[brsmith4]

Oh, give me a break! 99% of the people out there are completely unfamiliar with content licenses and will only know that 'Pearl Jam released the video for free'. Add to that the fact that, if you were truly interested in the details, determining which Creative Commons license was used to release that video is a trivial task, it becomes obvious that RMS's and your subsequent rantings are completely misplaced. RMS has an interest in content and software licensing that adheres to some philosophical model that he espouses and that is quite fine by me. However, he should not and nor should you expect everyone or anyone, for that matter, to really give a flying fuck as to the extent or degree these various licenses are explicated and differentiated for the masses. Consumers care not for licenses, their by-laws, subsections or philosophical underpinnings. For the consumer, getting the 'gist' is sufficient and in this case, Google provides a link to the basic details of the license which is quite sufficient for the purposes of said consumer.

And I reiterate: So what? /. said the video was released under "Creative Commons". Sure, it's like saying the Operating System I run is "Microsoft" without a distinction between the various brand names and product lines they produce for such a purpose, but so what? Why do we feel that consumers should be knowledgable with respect to these things? I cannot, for the life of me, see any benefit and would probably laugh histerically at the first iPod trend-setter crowd I caught wind of pedantically arguing the merits of various CC flavors and why Pearl Jam or T-Bone chose to use some specific variant. Honestly, there are better things to worry about (even if those things include mindless drama or drawing hype for some new whiz-bang consumer gizmo that everyone just "needs" to have; licensing is truly a boring subject IMHO).

Re:lumping them together

[Anonymous Coward]

You're getting confused there, friend. I wish as much as anyone that consumers could legally afford to "not care" about how things are licensed, but in the current climate such apathy could be devestating -- in case you missed the memo, people are being sued constantly for copyright infringement, and whether or not copying a music video qualifies as such depends largely on the terms of the license in question. So they have to care.

The reason that refering to something as a "CC" license is dangerous is because there are many CC licenses, some of which are not "Free". And I'm not using some pie-in-the-sky hippy free software advocate definition of free, either: there are CC licenses that are essentially "all-rights-reserved", that do not allow redistribution, etc. That is to say, a work released under a CC license not allowing redistribution cannot, well, be redistributed, and swapping it with your friends is just as illegal as copying an MPAA-produced DVD.

The problem -- don't let your distrust of RMS get in the way here -- is that when we say "CC license" we are refering to all licenses in the Creative Commons family, including the aforementioned "all-rights-reserved" license that doesn't allow redistribution. The Pearl Jam video in question is Free, certainly, but the problem is that in the minds of consumers, CC-licensing is being associated with "Free" when in fact that is only true sometimes. The danger is that they will find something CC-licensed that is not free, redistribute it, and get sued in the process.

As you noted, you cannot expect all consumers to care about licensing issues, which is why branding is important. By refering to a whole group of licenses with wildly different requirements as just "CC licenses", you are in fact forcing the consumer to become a laywer, lest they mistakenly assume that they have been granted rights by the copyright holder that they in fact have not. This is the danger.

The term "CC" is too broad.

Having said that though, I think Lawrence Lessig and Co are doing something cool and I applaud them for it. That doesn't mean that we can't criticise (constructively, of course) their chosen implementation.

Cheers.

Re:lumping them together

[cgenman]

Oh, give me a break! 99% of the people out there are completely unfamiliar with content licenses and will only know that 'Pearl Jam released the video for free'.

Except that the video isn't "free," it's reproducable. You can't edit the video. You can't remix the video. You can't make cuts of the video. You can't make a video inspired by the video. You can't touch the video creatively in any way at all.

Generally when you're talking about Creative Commons, you're talking about things that people have very nearly put in the public domain. Things that you're free to do with as you want. Things like old folk tales, the national anthem, Mozart, and history. In this case, you don't even have the right to take a screenshot and put that up on your site. I'd hardly call that "free."

Stallman may be an eccentric fundamentalist, but the fact that you don't know what the CC license means is further evidence that he's exactly fucking right.

Re:lumping them together

[brsmith4]

Except that the video isn't "free," it's reproducable. You can't edit the video. You can't remix the video. You can't make cuts of the video. You can't make a video inspired by the video. You can't touch the video creatively in any way at all.

Ugh... That's enough to make me sick. Raving zealotry! j/k

I know that people take their licensing very seriously and their use of the word "free" even more seriously, but for christssake, let it go for once. It was obvious that I mean "Free" as in beer, as in no co$t, as in no commercial interference with which to generate revenue, as in no royaltie$ involved in the distribution of said content, as in the consumer receives the finished product without owing duty or compensation via an expenditure of cash or any other contrived method of revenue extraction. That said, I must be the only person who runs Linux, uses Free (as in speech) software and has opted not to be a part of this little "license war" (actually, I'm not the only one). The fact of the matter is, I HONESTLY DON'T CARE and neither do the swarms of consumers out there (the ones I was referring to as downloading this video and getting it for free (oops, better clarify again for the nit-picky GNU/CC/et al. license bot: Free as in beer, as in no cost, as in ... ok, enough)).

The other poster who responded to my comment made it clear to me where I may have gone astray in my assessment and I appreciate that person taking the time to explain it to me. However, this distinction of the word "free" has been rehashed soooooo many times on this site and others that any subsequent rumblings that take place as a result of some poor shmoe's momentary lapse in elucidating which form of "free" he actually meant to convey, will pique little or no further interest in the subject on my part and likely fall on deaf ears for most others.

To claim that I didn't make this distinction clear implies a genuine inability, on the part of the reader, to read between the lines and again, it's not my problem and not my war; and to conclude, based on your inability to infer the intended meaning, that it is somehow my stupidity with regards to the CC license that is at fault, does not lend any credibility to Stallman's original argument and is merely an argument divorced from all logic and reality.

1) I refer to "consumer" and "free" in my statements. This should allude to "Free as in beer". This was done rather profusely and in an obvious manner.

2) Because you apparantly did not see this, you claim I made some error in differentiating the various forms of the word "free" despite the obviousness of my attempt to relate to a consumer base.

3) Therefore, you conclude, I know nothing about the CC license and am generally uninformed about the details of the CC license and as a result, Stallman is right.

Pretty weak, man... pretty weak.

Re:lumping them together

[cgenman]

I'm in the "content creation" business. Some things are "free" for me to use, and some parts of culture are locked off of all commentary and social re-envisioning.

Saying that a particular music video is "free" as in beer is a bit silly. Of course it's free: it's an advertisement. You can download a ton of videos free on MTV.com, apple.com, and a million other sites. It's like saying a toyota commercial is free. Of course it's free, it's an ad.

Envoking the Commons puts it in a different space. Things in the commons are owned by everyone who experiences it. You can take Aristotle's writings and make a game because they're out of copyright and in the public space. Disney made movies out of Cinderella, The Jungle Book, Arabian Nights, and Sleeping Beauty because they were out of copyright and in public space. You cannot, however, remix a Chevy SUV ad to point to the connection between wasteful energy policies and the mess in the middle east because it is not in the public space of the creative commons. The judge might rule in your favor eventually if your commentary is biting enough, but that would be after spending tens of thousands of dollars you probably don't have to defend the inevitable lawsuit and subsequent appeals.

This was the original reason for the creative commons. To create open intellectual areas where ideas, dialog, sounds, etc could be exhanged freely and hopefully create new and interesting forms of culture. And to do so without the constant threat of lawsuits.

It's not that you don't "know" what the difference is that makes Stallman right, it is very much that you don't care about that distinction. Yet it's the very distinction that the Creative Commons was setup in order to make. The Creative Commons is supposed to be about changing people from consumers of culture to editors, commenters, and stewards of culture.

If you don't care about any of that, that's certainly your perogative. But if you agree that the CC was setup to make people care, and you don't, then the CC has failed.

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads

[dyftm]

A lot of people accuse Metallica of being whiney money grabbers, but they do this as well. They even release MP3 downloads of old shows roughly once a month for free. 128k MP3s are $9.95, FLACs are $12.95 (DRM-free of course!).

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that Metallica doesn't want people to share their bootlegs.

It's just AVI renamed GVI

[ben there...]

The Google Video Player uses a GVP file to link to the actual video. You can either open that in a text editor and copy out the link to the AVI or load the file in Google Video Player then rename the resulting GVI file in your My Videos folder to AVI.

The videos can then be opened for transcoding in QuickTime Pro or VirtualDub (GPL). They appear to be DivX encoded.

Re:It's just AVI renamed GVI

[abandonment]

ah. didn't realize that - have been looking for a description of what these stupid videos are (didn't spend a whole lot of time mind you).

should have figured it would be a simple playlist file...

danka - either way, it's still a publicity stunt ;P

The download is DivX 480x360

[ben there...]

It's just a DivX AVI with a GVI extension. After you've loaded it in Google Video Player, look in your My Videos\Google Videos folder, and rename the file to AVI.

Then edit it however you normally edit AVIs.

DRM

[daybot]

Are you guys nuts?! This is a Sony BMG release; by exploiting a vulnerability in the handling of each video frame, simply playing this video in any format installs a rootkit :O

Re:DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Please start marking the parent as uninformed, not funny. Pearl Jam is no longer with Sony. The new album is the first that marks their severing from the giant. They are now part of J-Records.

Re:DRM

[daybot]

Please start marking the parent as uninformed, not funny. Pearl Jam is no longer with Sony. The new album is the first that marks their severing from the giant. They are now part of J-Records. Um... no. J-Records is owned by Sony BMG. Check Wikipedia.

Hah. Some license.

[matt me]

It's this license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ the 'selfish unfree license with no permissions'.

You cannot derive the work, nor can you use it commercially. Bang go freedoms 0 1 and 2. The work is still copyrighted, like a photograph licensed online, our only freedom is to look at it.

'Redistribution' doesn't mean anything online. Redistribution of a mars bar or a patented camera would mean building the product yourself using the original design. With anything digital rather than physical redistribution can't exist. Everything is a copy, there is no 'master', copies are made whenever you view content on the web, as the same data is send over the internet protocol. There's no difference between 'view' and 'download', whether the data is saved to your home, your cache, or even not stored except in RAM. You are being 'given' the identical digital data. It's ridiculous to suppose that once you posess this data you cannot share it, and that the first server still controls the data because it perceives itself different. This is like writing a book, but not selling it and insisting everyone but come round your house to read the typeset.

Videos are of course avaliable to view for free a million places on the webs so certainly redistribution == distribution. Take a 30 meg quicktime video you can download. http://www.chrismilk.com/audioslave/ Now if you send that file to your friend or if they download it from that same site, how can you distinguish?

The internet was creating to freely and openly share data, why are we trying to close it back up? If you want to hold your work forever, DO NOT UPLOAD IT. So Pearl Jam, this is nothing but an empty publicity stunt. And Creative Commons, if someone unticks all the boxes 'allow commerical use', 'allow deriatives', if you really have principles, then display a message, 'the license you have chosen is "enforced copyright" you IP-fascist'.

Re:Hah. Some license.

[shark72]

You raise some interesting points. As background, what sort of artistic works have you produced, and how have you licensed them? Have you ever undertook something as big and costly as a music video, and then released it with less restrictive terms? In particular, has it been something related to your livelihood?

It's easy for us, as consumers, to state that creators should give away their stuff for free and unrestricted; and when they don't, it's also easy for us to rationalize ignoring others' copyrights. Kudos to you if you've created major works of art and given them away restriction-free -- and if you have, you know it's a pretty big and scary step.

Good Old Pearl Jam, totally expected move, however

[layer3switch]

CC'd music video is pretty pointless. If you have noticed while you were watching the PJ's "Life Wasted" video, there are other Sony BMG Entertainment music videos you can watch as well. Yes, the video file can be freely distributed, but it's like distributing guitar tabs under CC license. It's just not going to make much sense for fans and average music lovers. If PJ wanted to make change, release their composed music under CC, not mp3 or music video. Effects will be same, but it makes stronger statement than "Pearl Jam release their unpopular music video LIFE WASTED under Creative Common License".

whelp, i'm out

[shnot]

i'm gonna go buy some pearl jam cds, t-shirts and concert tickets. bbl.

unwarranted hostility misses the point

[mbius]

Correct, you can download Audioslave's video. And if you send it to your grandmother, no one will know. However: you say "videos are available to view for free a million places on the web." Most of these sites (from Youtube to ebaum) would be in violation of copyright to host that video, and will comply with a cease-and-desist rather than face legal action. "Guerilla hosting" is not reliable, as witnessed by the fact that, for every music video you can find surreptitiously hosted, there are fifty you can't.

The other aspect of GPL you've glossed over is "commercial use and derivatives." You can't wish copyright law out of existence; without this protection, General Dynamics gets to use Pearl Jam to sell nuclear warheads, maybe copyrighting its own rework of the lyrics en route. That would be disgusting.

From the horse's mouth: That is somewhat of a misunderstanding--we cannot "ban DRM". What we can do is prevent GPL-covered software from being corrupted into an instrument for implementing DRM. --Richard Stallman

As soon as you say any form of copyright is a good idea, your technical argument ("viewing creates a copy! bits and bytes!") becomes justification for the DMCA. Fair use and common sense become casualties of digital media.

Don't be a dweeb. Free Software are still the good guys.

all albums on vinyl

[muzik4machines]

all of them were printed on vinyl, No Code was especially great with the 12 inches polaroids and the 24x24 sleeve

Afraid Google cannot handle the load?

[Mostly a lurker]

Please tell me how there can be any point in trying to slashdot a school's server.

Re:Afraid Google cannot handle the load?

[solarium_rider]

Finals Week.

This isn't going against the RIAA

[deesine]

Offering a music video for free, that is essentially already free, is not taking a stand against the RIAA.

Wake me up when they offer their next album under CC licensing.

Re:This isn't going against the RIAA

[Elf_h34d3r]

That's true, but the fact that they're even aware of a license that was created for the purpose of distributing man pages and wiki's and the likes tells you something.

Re:This isn't going against the RIAA

[reaktor]

They offer downloads of their concerts in MP3 (and some in FLAC) format. And encourage sharing recordings of their concerts. Bypassing the greedy RIAA. www.pearljam.com

Not remixable

[robotsrule]

It's too bad it carries the "No Derivative" attribute of the CC license. If it didn't, the fans could have had fun remixing it. :) Note, I'm not saying they should have; kudos to them for using the CC at all. I'm just saying it would have been fun.

Re:Not remixable

[Rob T Firefly]

It'll still be fun for those of us who never asked permission in the first place, but you're right, it would have been nice to be able to do it on the "up and up."

I usually call it quits after ten

[winkerton]

Perhaps they should have too.

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads

[Lord Ender]

"they've stated in the past they don't expect the average fan to buy every show -- just get a couple, like the ones you go to, and trade with your friends"

Do they own the all the copyrights to their songs? Most bands don't. So if they are like most bands, it doesn't matter what they say, they don't have the legal authority to grant you the rights to copy their stuff. Once all rights are signed away in a recording contract, you could be just as pwned by the RIAA for copying, despite what the "artist" says.

Easy d/l here

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

Click, and IE downloads the 30MB avi.

http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0 &secureurl=xAAAAG7ggqAHSiJjpW0D3w4aYTVhnhtRNWE0MyR Qp3IfM-QsTnyzS0dRlbfae86pQtrE1wOrbSl7BmSH_X_BAlb78 vC9fjLxPt2AHDTSokN1k7ib2kpFEu4S9Q_kC4CUEvc7fPWWaBw 0rETrmBu47bPdhRRTaHnU93AS8x73Z4eGsnfVldzC-kzpNmmvC vpocpMTYQpMa9q_-IcVurUwp78s8xThPXmu39sjQO1yUBd3R7n GxOnoREcG6JoX52IdoEb7otKqUM_OHQ_9Oc9quH2UOng&sigh= yF8ayjd7jARMlavDi4KhYp8y3MQ&begin=0&len=237269&doc id=6187666924357770983docid:6187666924357770983

Re:Easy d/l here

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks man, the links off googles site were choking under firefox and safari on my old powerbook.

free until

[Lord Ender]

"Music video for "Life Wasted" by Pearl Jam. New release of latest Pearl Jam video. Free until 5/24/2006. Musical Category: Pop
The license for this video is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/"

Free until? Is this DRMd? What good is creativecommons if there is DRM?

And how do I import this into video editing software? WTF is "GVI" format?

Re:free until

[EricTheO]

I don't find it very "Creative" to only have the download in the "Google Video Player(.gvp) format. I have plenty of players why do I need Googles? So they can track my usage? -Eric

Re:free until

[EricTheO]

http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answ er=32170&topic=1490 -Eric

Re:free until

[Rob T Firefly]

It isn't DRM'd, they are just going to kill the official free source of the video on the 24th and move it to Google Video's pay service, but let fans continue to trade it freely among themselves without fear of prosecution. The proprietary Google Video format is pretty useless, though. I wonder if anyone has managed to transcode it to something less stupid yet.

Re:free until

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a plaintext file. open it in emacs or vi or edit.com or notepad or whathaveyou.

While it says Sony BMG....

[calebl23]

Pearl Jam has actually moved away from Sony. Their latest album was released independently, and their label contract has run its course and finished. They may have worked with Sony (their former label) to make the video, but they now own their content, and I'm sure that's why they were able to get it shared under the CC license. If they were still actually with Sony, no way this would have happened, since the band I'm sure has wanted to do things like this for ages.

Re:While it says Sony BMG....

[buzlink]

Not correct.
J-Records is apart of Sony/BMG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Records

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads

[enigma.obscura]

Phish does this as well, or at least used to as of a year or two ago. For roughly the same prices, you could download flac or mp3 formats of their live shows. Also posted within a day or two of the show. They also provided the album art in pdf format, even the cd art. A guy I burned some shows for printed out all the artwork and labels and it looked great - every bit as good as store bought. I say very progressive.

Pearl Jam JUMPS the SHARK !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pearl Jam JUMPS the SHARK !!!

.

also check out first free creative commons porn...

[Anonymous Coward]

....

at digg.com

http://digg.com/movies/first_free_porno_released_o n_inet_under_creative_commons_license
http://digg.com/movies/first_free_porno_released_o n_inet_under_creative_commons_license

Telcos are already ahead of that

[Opportunist]

Over here, it's common to "shape" traffic in a way that pretty much throttles P2P traffic to a crawl.

It's not like they're gonna put a limiter on P2P traffic, or charge for it. They already do that.

Props to PJ

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the world contains a Lars and an anti-Lars. ^_^

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to add to this that the download doesn't just give you the music. They also give you some PDFs to print off which you cut up and put into CD cases. It has a nice looking front and back, listings of all of the songs etc. We downloaded our concert we attended the next day and we love listening to it every couple of weeks. Definitely worth the $10 it cost us!

Notice a trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Pearl Jam is now the second large-name band that I have heard of doing this (releasing recordings of their shows for little/no cost, allowing trading, DRM free video, etc...). Dave Matthews Band (amongst what I am sure are a slew of other fantastic groups) are doing this as well, and have been for a quite a while.

Notice that these are the bands that seem to stay around for a long, long time, accruing large amounts of money over the long haul, as opposed to the pro-DRM industry-made groups who are in it for the short-rake and tend to disappear as quickly as they appear.

Notice also that these DRM free bands are also the ones that are making huge amounts of money by touring (i.e. doing their thing live). This is perhaps the most exciting end result of this battle; industry manufactured music (and I use that term loosely here) doesn't translate into the live venue very well at all, and subsequently the artists (again, loosely used) tend to either tour for a short period of time, or not tour at all.

Kudo's to Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band, and all the other real muscians out there who are using the Internet to their advantage, and undercutting the pencil-pushing morons who, sadly, have been running this industry for so very long.

Did anyone else see a robot?

[PetoskeyGuy]

Just watched the video and about 3 minutes, 35 seconds into it there appears to be a very short clip of ghengis or one of the 6 legged MIT robots walking up something with a red lit background. It's in silhouette so I can't be sure. Anyone else see that?

Great thing but they suck badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like a sacrificial lamb from BMG to me..."we'll show all those people who think its cool to share video"...come on was anyone actually entertained at all by that terrible video and song? BMG decided to intentionally release a steaming pile of crap as a sacrifice to ensure it doesn't catch on.

Imagine if a major current act released something with the creative commons..or even Pearl Jam just a real song and a video that actually contains art and not just crap spewed out by an apparent 12 year old. If BMG really thought this was a good idea they would have released several videos.

BMG was probably initially upset when Pearl Jam asked to release this video under Creative Commons..then when they actually heard the song and watched the video they were like "OK great idea Eddie-o" and posted this pile of steamy poop on the Internet.

Re:Pnies are fucking hardcore

[Anonymous Coward]

Ponies?! That's mad sick!

They did it before

[Anonymous Coward]

Pearl Jam already did something similiar with their previous single "World Wide Suicide" that was available for download freely from their website for one or two days and then could be shared among the fans. They didn't put any license on it then thought. But I don't see anything spectacular about this CC license - after all, it just says that you can distribute it over the net. I think that they decided to use it as it is already well-known and pretty reliable from law-point-of-view.

Not Free

[cgenman]

What the person was referring to was probably how the particular creative commons license happens to be the least free one, arguably not a creative commons license at all. You can redistribute the video, but not edit, make modifications of, make derivitave works from, be inspired by, or any of the other things one would expect from a "creative commons."

Basically, this means that anyone can redistribute their advertisement exactly as they framed it, but nothing else.

One-time fee for work made for hire

[tepples]

these people need to get paid for their hard work right?

Some directors and other music video production personnel work for a one-time (or "buyout") fee, not royalties per copy.

Ahhh, my rears!

[SlashdotTroll]

I think that Eddie probably had a couple of better takes left in him, and I agree that "natural and raw" are two important elements (especially re: rock music) that have practically been edited out of the music industry, in general. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that PJ left this song, their current video-supported single, less-than-perfect as a reaction to all of the so-perfect-it's-unlistenable drivel we've all been bombarded with of late.

I thought Bobcat Whiley could sing like him/Vetter. Pearl Jam is dead but Peanut-Butter and Jelly of Pearl Jam will live on---the music has died since Nirvana and Alice in Chains moved away, but they can do somthing about childrens' school lunch or the music they hear when eating their lunch. Also, musicians shouldn't be inspired by the anti-Sizzler saladbar, and go all "rib" with garlands of a man's bloody flesh and bones uncooked. It's unhealthy to eat sushi'd man-rib.

Pearl Jam should retire

[Anonymous Coward]

15 years ago they were I guess fresh, but they have sucked for a long time, so it's nice that they are trying to be free, but it all just isn't worth it.

Bewya!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pearl Jam has always been my favorite band. i Have heard about their battles with Ticketmaster, and now with this new move, My respect for them only grows. Right On! Finally a band that gets it! You can be a good musician, entertain people, and make a living without necessarily choking them and ripping them off. KUDOS TO PEARL JAM

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads

[Dabido]

You should find most songwriters still own the rights to their own songs now-a-days. [Which is often the artist]. Standard contracts don't include those sorts of clauses where the artist signs their copyright over to the record company anymore. Mainly as there is a thing called an 'unfair contract' which came about, and a lot of artists recovered the rights to their songs when that came about. [Not all though, I think Michael Jackson still owns the rights to the Beatles biggest hits - which means he collects the royalties when the check is sent out ... that's because he bought Northern Song, you might remember the news when he was bidding against Paul McCartney when that came up - which is why Sir Paul doesn't speak to Michael anymore].

There are two different copyrights, one is on the SONG itself. This is why the artists get royalties [dig up Sonny Bono and ask him if you don't believe me]. Whoever owns THAT copyright gets a royalty for that whenever the song is played/used/re-recorded etc.

The other is on the recording.

So, a band walks into a studio, records an album, and the record company owns the copyright on THAT recording and only on that recording. Any other recording (either previous or later) will belong to whoever has the rights on that recording. [Might be another record company, the band, some kid down the street etc] In the case of the band recording themselves live and distributing on the internet or via CD's it would be the band who owns the copyright.

The record company gets a royalty for the recording they own when it gets used, but any re-recording of the song they won't get a cent from.

So, that's why Pearl Jam can record their concerts and distribute the songs. Anyone else making a recording of the concert is doing so without permission and as such doesn't own the copyright on the bootleg they make, as they don't have the 'right' to make copies, not even the original bootleg they record. If however you were to phone Pearl Jam or some other band in advance and get written permission from them to record their concert, then you can probably take it home and own that ... I believe Axle Rose was on record at one stage saying that they didn't mind their fans taking photos or making recordings of their concerts as long as it was for personal use. [But, don't take my word for that, contact Axle Rose for comfirmation first.]

Hope that clears it up for you. :-)

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads

[Lord Ender]

Are you saying the following clause is illegal for a contract?: "Any future performance of any of the songs on the album Sony produced for Pearl Jam is the property of Sony."

or are you just saying that it is uncommon these days?

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads

[jdgeorge]

Are you saying the following clause is illegal for a contract?: "Any future performance of any of the songs on the album Sony produced for Pearl Jam is the property of Sony."

My (layman's) understanding is that such a clause (or just about any other clause which is not supported by the laws of your jurisdiction) is not "illegal" in a contract, but is likely to be unenforceable. So, the clause probably wouldn't invalidate the contract, but it may be no more than a lot of hot air from the person who wrote the clause into the contract. Similarly, you're likely to find unenforceable language in many employment contracts... so likely, in fact, that most employment contracts I have seen also contain a clause that acknowledges that parts of the contract may be unenforceable, in which case the remainder of the contract is still valid.

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads

[Dabido]

There would be a specific phrase in the contract concerning the copyright on the recording. It would specifically be taking about the 'performance' of the 'recording', which is the copyright Sony owns.

I don't know if it would be worded in the same way as you have written it, but like I said, there is the copyright on the recording, which is owned by Sony, and a copyright on the song, which teh writers of the son owns [in this case Pearl Jam].

If a contract included a phrase which transfered the copyright of the song [which Pearl Jam owns] over to Sony, then I'd say that would be a pretty rare occurance today, as it means whenever Pearl Jam performs their own music, they have to pay Sony. In the old days it was common to have such phrases in contracts (which is why John Foggarty can't play old Credence Clearwater Revival songs), but like I said, there is a thing called 'Unfair Contract'. Many artists started fighting back, and a lot of them regained their copyrights on songs. This was because the artists were often recording the music, and never seeing any benefit. [ie the record company basically got to keep all the money etc]. So the courts sided with the artists who could prove that the contract basically was leaving them doing all the work and receiving no benefits for their works. [A lot of artists were paid to record, and as such had a harder time claiming an unfair contract, which is why not all artists have been able to reverse their copyrights, as the record companies could claim the artist did in fact understand they were signing over their copyright for X amount of dollars].

But, standard contracts now-a-days usually has all the rights of the Song staying with the artists, and the record company owning the copyright on the recording.

So, if such a phrase as what you have given us is in the contract, then it is most likely refering to the performance of the recording. Which is why playing 'Alive' in radio will mean the Radio Station owes about one cent to Sony [for performance of the recording], and about one cent to Pearl jam [for performance of the song], and that one cent will be collected by either ASCAP, BMI in the US or the relevant collection agency in each country. [In Australia, where I am, it is APRA that does the collection]. These are also the agencies you need to contact in order to get permission to perform the songs [as you don't contact the artists themselves normally].

So, if I wanted to perform 'Alive' by Pearl jam, I'd contact APRA, get a License granting permission/clearance to perform the song, and APRA collect royalties off me for everytime I play the song. [So, if I play 100 concerts I owe Pearl Jam about $1] :-) I don't owe Sony anything, as they have no copyright on the actual song.

BUT, if I was to play the SONY owned recording of the song, I'd go to APRA, get the license once again, and then I'd pay APRA who distribute the royalties to Sony and Pearl jam (and it'd cost me twice as much). Radio stations normally already contain such a license for public broadcast for all the major labels and probably most of the minor ones as well in their area.

Now-a-days, if the record company did include something in the contract effectively taking the copyright for an artists song, they'd have to prove in a court of law that the artist had 100% understanding that that was the case, else the artist could reverse the decision under 'unfair contract' claiming that they were not aware of the fact they were in effect signing over their songs copyright.

[So, a phrase similar to what you've written might be legal, or it might be unenforcable. It would get decided on an artist to artist basis. The court could go either way depending on the circumstances].

Check with a Lawyer if you have such a clause in a contract. If it's just refering to the Sound Recording, then the record company has that right, if it's refering to the actual copyright on the song, then see about getting the contract changed under the 'unfai