Slashdot Mirror
Viral Music Videos A Problem For RIAA
prostoalex writes "A few years ago music videos were considered promotional, a tease to get the viewer to buy the whole album. However, now that a commercial market for music videos is springing up, the music industry is not quite happy with YouTube, iFilm, Google Video and other video sharing sites distributing the music videos of famous artists. Billboard magazine says: 'The RIAA estimates that sales of music videos topped $3.7 million in three months, after being introduced in October. Meanwhile, the major labels also are sharing in the profits of ad-supported video-on-demand offerings from AOL, Yahoo, Music Choice and others. That is revenue the music industry is keenly interested in protecting. Hopes are that YouTube and others will ink similar deals with the industry in the long run.'"
Has the RIAA seen the quality of the videos on youtube? We're not talking about redistribution of DVDs here, these are snippets people find interesting and worth sharing. And the quality of these videos is something you'd only look at in tiny resolution on a computer, and probably only once or twice.
From the article: "Viral video sharing would not have been an issue just 18 months ago, when the labels still viewed music videos as a promotional tool for selling albums. Now that their efforts have created interest in their videos, they want to take it away in any form except for what they dictate.
The RIAA and MPAA remind me of an old Peanuts cartoon, where Lucy takes all of Linus' toys away, and leaves him a rubber band to play with... I've got to dig that up, it's so appropriate (do you remember it?).
These videos surfacing on youtube and other video sites are free publicity and advertising for the subjects! I'm beginning to think the RIAA has some bizarre credo, something along the lines of, "No matter what!, we MUST stop any sharing, enjoyment, distribution of ANYTHING that we can possible stamp with OUR ownership!". I'm also convinced the people running RIAA are totally insane.
There's an adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Eventually, the RIAA and MPAA may prove that wrong. Idiots.
When will they learn? If they make a funny / cool / sexy video... People are going to post it to sites like youtube, google video or similar. The artists' company will just have to pay a cleanup crew to keep bugging the content sites to remove their protected content. That will just have to be part of their business.
Heck... It's getting easier to build sites with the ability to share content... Mtrx.net (see my sig) can share videos/images/music... But I've only turned on images and I'm not taking customers. But if I did, it would be a full time job for several people to scan thousands of uploads for copyrighted content... Which is a good reason not to take new people yet... Point being, the companies that have the most to lose will end up footing the bill (and because of this they will also keep trying to sue the pants off little guys when their customers post copyrighted content to their subsites)
Funnypics
I hope YouTube isn't hosted in sweden.
For a moment I though this was about some kind of "sony-rootkit" fiasco from the MPAA...
The best test environment is production. - Me
chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
No one gives a fuck that you think you should get paid for the "right" to help you advertise. Your attempts to charge for the flow of information have failed horibly in every aspect. Maybe if you would stop making shitty, cut and publish content and allow your customers some of the most basic rights, you would get more respect from mankind. However, you continue to attempt to make pathetic laws and bombard the public with blatant lies and slander wherever appliable, and thus no one cares that you can't buy yourselves another $200,000 stretch and a nice new diamond ring for your wife while African children starve to death.
Signed,
The World.
"...the music industry is not quite happy..."
I don't think the music industry will ever be happy. I think they will always find some reason to complain, whether it was radio, audio cassette, file sharing, or now music video posting.
Respect the laws of physics, for the laws of physics have no respect for you.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I don't know of anyone that buys music videos, and I'm only 21. Classically, music videos are the free things on MTV and VH1 used to promote the music.
Why would I pay for something that I have to watch and can't just turn on while I'm doing other stuff, unless it is going to provide me with some new content? Once I have seen a music video once, why would I ever want one enough to pay for it again? This isn't a movie or even porn we're talking about here. This is just another example of the RIAA inflating the amount of money they actually gain from something.
Unless they're charging over a dollar each for these they would have to have sold 1.2 million per month - that's 41,000 per day. I find that highly unlikely. Nothing to see here, just the RIAA trying to squeeze blood from a turnip and screwing themselves out of a perfectly good advertising method.
A pretty girl on a music video with a good voice will make me more likely to buy a CD or song, but not if they try to make me pay for the music video, I'll just stop watching them.
If anything, it's proof that the RIAA isn't insane, and realizes that it needs to control different distribution channels if it's gonna last more than another decade.
If they expect people to pay to watch what are, in essence, commercials, or even to have the "priveledge" of showing their commercials on your site, well, screw 'em :]
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go find something, anything, to pirate after the shameful and possibly illegal things they did to the Pirate Bay the other day.
And another thought, the RIAA says they made $3.7 million in 3 months... while P2P networks are out there with mp3s, movies... and probably music videos as well!
I know I've downloaded few music videos over the years, so I'm sure people share music videos out there in P2P.
Doesn't that shoot a hole in the claim that P2P file sharing is killing the RIAA when they're able to make $3.7 million in 3 months selling stuff that's available in P2P?
Respect the laws of physics, for the laws of physics have no respect for you.
>A pretty girl on a music video with a good voice will make me more likely to buy a CD or song, but not if they try to make me pay for the music video, I'll just stop watching them
most people are not like you, they would just download the video, and if they like the music, maybe a few more good songs from the artist (if they have any other good songs). Why bother paying the rapist to rape you some more when you can just rape yourself, or masterbate if your not into self-rape, same thing, right?
FTFA: "NEW YORK (Billboard) - As the recording industry tries to block file trading of songs across peer-to-peer networks, blogs and other viral distribution channels, the major labels suddenly have a whole new piracy concern: music videos."
Interestingly, every new and (arguably) useful tool on the Internet seems to somehow allow people to pirate the *AA's protected content. Somewhere in all that, somebody, group, or even countries should be hitting the *AA et al with the clue stick.... hard! Not that I think if they did get a clue it would make anything cheaper or easier for anyone that wants to use their content.
Instead of inventing licensing models that make sense, they simply seem to be trying to stop all use of their content.
Personally, I think it would be sort of sucky for a few months, but if everyone just stopped buying music and videos from *AA affiliated musicians, perhaps the hint would work. Try http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ for music that they don't benefit from. See if buying music they don't get paid for makes them any happier?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
What do you want for nothing?
Rubber biscuit?
$3.7M sounds like a relatively small amount of money to be spread across an entire industry. It seems like the advertising they get from the videos would be more valuable than that, especially considering that inevitably a lot of that $3.7M is going towards keeping videos off of free sites (legal fees, etc.).
It also seems a little foolish for the RIAA because while some of the videos on YouTube and the like are videos record companies could make money off of, the majority of them are videos that are too old or obscure.
Personally, I think it would be sort of sucky for a few months, but if everyone just stopped buying music and videos from *AA affiliated musicians, perhaps the hint would work.
If we stopped buying, then they would just scream about how P2P was robbing them of their profits! For crying out loud, they will whine no matter what you do!! This business model probably came out of their R+D departments observing two-year-old toddlers!
If artists held a survey asking where their listeners discovered them, they would fall of their chairs when the results came back showing over 50% of their fan-base discovered them by downloading first. (Hasn't anyone done surveys like this before?)
Awww, something else for the RIAA to whine about.
Ya know, this shit gets old. I wish I could blame somebody else when I make less money than I would like. If something doesn't turn out the way I want, it has to be the fault of someone else.
Fuck the RIAA. You cocksuckers are a bunch of whiney-ass motherfuckers. Get down on my dick while I rape your shit off usenet. There is no reason to pay for anything anymore, especially music and movies. Why should I finance the war on fair use?
If I deprive the artists of the $0.10 that they might have made had I bought their cd, well that's a fucking dime. They make money when they tour. It is worth more to deprive the Media Mafia of their ill-gotten gains.
I used to buy a lot of music. Now I just don't give a shit.
Fuck the RIAA, fuck your bought-off legislators, and while you bitches are at it suck my dick.
What the fuck does this even mean? HAVE YOU STOPPED FAILING ENGLISH YET?
Is there anyone left out there who actually believes these assholes deserve to retain any degree of their unprecedented money, power, and political influence? Tell me I'm wrong, please. Maybe there's a whole big contingent of people out there who think listening to music without paying for it is actually stealing. Those are probably the same people who think musicians make more than a few cents per every album sold, and that every song 'stolen' represents lost revenue equal to the retail price of that song. In other words, the sadly ignorant. ASCAP is even worse-- only the top-selling bands make any significant money whatsoever from ASCAP licensing revenues. Meanwhile, they're making money for their legal department by suing the bars and clubs who host DJs and cover bands.
As a musician, I think that's a big crock of shit.
That said, I keep the RIAA off my back the old fashioned way-- I rip my friends' CDs rather than download off the net, and similarly share the wealth off-line. Not like I could've bought the Beatles' albums in the Apple Store anyway. And Sir McCartney certainly doesn't need it, if he even sees royalties from those sales anymore. Perhaps it's time to drop the copyright timelimits, yeah?
Ultimately, it's increasingly clear that these incestuous corporate associations not only don't have the best interests of the emerging world culture at heart, but are an active enemy to both their customers and the future of the very industry they claim to represent. I know the list of evil organizations in the world is getting over-long at this point, but they really do need to be stopped, along with all the other fucks out there wrecking civilization for everyone else.
I wonder if strong leadership and extensive organization could effect the degree of change the world needs before everything really goes to hell...
Who the hell hopes that? I hope they tell the RIAA to get bent. The RIAA won't be happy until I have to fork over some money every time I get a song stuck in my head. Fuck them.
No matter how hard the **AA's of the world try and no matter how much money they throw at their problem, they will NEVER, EVER stop determined people from obtaining their content for free. They will always be reacting to the proactive.
Furthermore, the harder they try, the more they're just going to end up pissing off their ever-dwindling base of consumers. Right or wrong and for better or worse, it's reality.
(The above concept applies to the dumb-fsking war on terrorism, too, but I won't even begin ranting about that horrorshow.)
These people are off the deep end. Maybe they should cut to the chase and get laws passed that force us to buy their crap at gunpoint.
"Time for your new Brittany CD, citizen!"
Music videos are advertisements - commercials, and charging for them is the best idea I have heard in decades! Perhaps the idea will catch on, and all advertisements will be withheld from us unless we pay. Poor us, life will be so boring just watching our programs without the joy commercial interruptions bring.
The MPAA could learn a lot from this! That's right, keep those movie trailers under lock and key! They usually show all the interesting parts of the movie, and they are condensed into just a few minutes! Who would pay to see a bloated movie when the Cliff Notes version is available?!? They should be charging more for the trailers than the movies. Pull them from the theaters and TV! That way, people will want to see the movies even more.
Oh, and someone check the water coolers at the RIAA. I suspect that some joker has been dropping LSD in with the bottle deliveries.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Two options:
I'd love to be able to buy vcd/dvd video albums at a reasonable price. Particularly if I can get them locally and don't have to play them on my zone-free DVD player.
(There was, back in 1986, a jukebox/video I saw in some bars. Pick your song/album, and the video showed on the screen. I want one!)
Same for an iTunes-type service. I'd gladly pay to download good videos from a legitimate site. Hell, I'd pay to download good videos from an illegitimate site since the record industry isn't meeting my customer demands.
However, the videos on Google Video, and YouTube are mostly JUNK! I want artist-approved videos, not crappy, half-baked attempts at self-agrandizement.
Mike
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
"How could this happen to me!"
- EMO meme on YTMND.
I'm certain that the final goal of the RIAA is to own every note in the musical scale, and collect a payment for every time any of those notes are played.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
(Note: there should be a RANT -1 moderation as well.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Buying a DVD of a certain band's music videos....no, but buying a collection of music videos from a specific director yes.
The Director's Collection Series has some of the greatest music videos ever made. Works from the likes of Spike Jones and Michel Gondry are definitely worth purchasing, but I agree that the RIAA is out of hand (again).
The market for music videos is very small and very specific. I think they are using the revenue generated by these collections to support there argument, which doesn't make sense to me because the individuals who purchase these collections like myself are fans of the director, not so much the artist. For example I love the video Michel Gondry did for Kylie Minogue's Come Into My World, but I have never purchased a Kylie Minogue cd or mp3 and never will. Trying to gain this "theoretical" revenue is ridiculous because the people who would buy music videos are already buying these collections. There is no significant revenue being lost to gain.
Short of forcing me to buy their stuff, I don't understand the problem - if it is crap, what do you care what they charge for it?
If their crap is not free and you don't want it, don't buy it.
The industry may or may not know what they are doing when it comes to optimizing their profits, but that is their business. Time will tell, meanwhile don't buy "crap".
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Good, I'm glad we can discuss this!
I've got a stash of 160 GB of DVD quality music videos I've been trying to find a good opportunity to torrent. I'd gladly send to the videos to someone if they'll put them up in a torrent.
I don't have anything to say, but I just wanted to applaud you for being the first person in the history of Slashdot to spell "lose" correctly. Bravo, sir.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
I would love to see them start trying to get guitar manufacturers to pay the RIAA tax because the istruments could be used for stealing "stairway to heaven" and "smoke on the water"...
ymmv
Actually, these are quite valuable in the DJ market. Lots of clubs are getting to DJing with music videos, and they're not cheap.
Check http://www.promoonly.com/video/ for info.
How can they do so now?
They pretty much signalled to the market that they didn't have a problem with it.
The more I am glad I quit buying new music back in 95 or so.
... some 80's and very little 90's.
.... but it is sure hard to go wrong with Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, Miles Davis, The Doors, Kiss, Janis Joplin, Johnny Cash, David Bowie, Beatles, Jimi Hendrix etc.
..... some even albums (Velvet Underground albums anyone?) .... so I look forward to a hopeful life long boycott of RIAA without suffering any real music loss.
After I saw the rise of boys to men or New Kids on the Block, I retreated back to my roots, 60's and 70's
I know I might be missing out
I have bought 3 new albums in the last 7 years. 2 from Beck and 1 from System of a Down.
And incidently, many of the old bands I like are already recorded and backed up
Cereal is now a source of misled revenue. The Cereal companies have been taking a large portion of our funding since the early 60's. We must stop these companies from taking our rightfully earned money.
Next Month: Tooth Paste, and how it has ruined our Cereal market.
Personally, I think it would be sort of sucky for a few months, but if everyone just stopped buying music and videos from *AA affiliated musicians, perhaps the hint would work.
"sucky"? I think it would be fabulous. It's time to get serious. Call or write your local commercial radio station and tell them you are boycotting all their advertisers for supporting the RIAA. We must do everything we can to stop these RIAA-related articles from showing up on slashdot.
Now that they aren't on MTV/VH1 anymore, can you blame people for wanting to see them somewhere else?
I don't even know how to *buy* music videos, let alone why anyone would want to.
Once I have seen a music video once, why would I ever want one enough to pay for it again? This isn't a movie or even porn we're talking about here.
You've never seen Sir Mix a Lot's "Put 'Em On The Glass" then.
The music industry doesn't seem to know how to make money anymore.
Just take the Numa Numa video on the internet from a year ago. This is a potential hit song made popular in the US from the "Numa Numa" video at http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/206373 that went nowhere on the buying charts due to pure stupidity of the recording industry. If you liked this song, you couldn't buy it.
iTunes only added it to their collection well after the interest in it subsided (and I bought it then). Sure it was in Romanian, but that really wasn't a big deal--just look at the success of 99 Luftballooons from 20 years ago.
The record industry is over-focused on piracy from folks who would never buy their music anyway. The positive word-of-mouth of a good song more than outweighs any piracy of a good song. And the greedy executives don't realize they'll make more money when teenagers grow up and *buy* music from nostalgia then they'll ever get from the same people when they are teenagers. But if the greedy recording companies force teenagers to get their music through piracy because they have no alternative, then those customers may be gone for good.
I'm old enough to know what I want in music, and as best as I can tell, the recording industry doesn't want to sell it to me at any price. They want to sell me their crap instead.
Until the only way to listen to music is to walk up to a music booth through a metal detector to prevent you from bringing in any recording equipment, and up to a music booth. At this music booth you will insert five dollar bills. You will then select a song using a touchscreen. You will then take paper headphone covers from a dispenser on the wall. You will place the headphone covers over the public headphones, connected to the booth by a flexible metal tube. You will then listen to your music until your credit has expired. Rocking out or playing air guitar will be discouraged, although singing along in a quiet voice will be tolerated, unless there's somebody wihtin earshot.
Maybe then, the RIAA will stop whining.
I want the fire back.
I would not, because if they try, they will most likely have the required legislation passed...
lemme kno when the RIAA is happy.
It might be news then.I'm waiting to see articles with quotes like "I used to listen to music, but it cut into my gaming time", or "Hip hop is so for losers".
They are paid to help artists and owners of copyright to protect their product (among other functions). If artists and/or the copyright owners do not want their wares distributed for free it's their right. Get over it. It's not your to give out freely, you are not the owner. If you don't like it make something yourself and distribute it for free. If an artist is on a label and the label doesn't allow free distribution but the artist wants it than it's best that they get the fuck off the label and go indy.
If enough musicians feel strongly enough that their goods should be shared than the RIAA will have no funding because no musicians will be on labels and no money will come in.
So stop being nothing more than a crying thief.
every historical era is defined by an ideological struggle which defines the status quo of future eras
in our time, that struggle is the balance between corporate ownership and public culture
the riaa/ mpaa won't stop until they own all of our culture, period. every single bit of expression of it
its a pathology: greed, greed, greed, and it will never stop
but the struggle is too esoteric now, too new to have reached the man in the street yet
only us dweebs and tech heads see the outrageousness of this creeping doom on the horizon right now
but give it time. eventually it will rear its ugly head on the radar of public consciousness
and then maybe, hopefully, this pathology that is ip law that wants to own absolutely every bit of cultural expression will get the bitch slap down it deserves
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Lets see RIAA/MPAA bring down google and yahoo... stupid mofos cant even bring down TPB and they go head on Google "THe GOogle" and Yahoo "THe yahoo"
Are you saying that the consumer market for music videos is worth more on its own to than the promotional value of music videos to the album market?
What's more likely, I expect, is that the majors want to have their cake and eat it too -- milking the promotional value in a controlled way so they can also sell the videos to consumers on the side... Obviously sites like YouTube are going to be the only way a lot of people see an unfamiliar artist's video these days, so that kind of use obviously fills the promotional role. So what if it's cutting into the small consumer market for videos in a minor way? It's creating lots of buzz for the artists and their music, and that can be monetized through music sales (gee... isn't that the business you're in, in fact?)
Although it seems like the record industry is a business-skills-vacuum sometimes, they've got to be able to figure this one out.
In other words: "It's OK as long as it makes us money and we can't charge you for it... but the second we can make a buck on it, even if that buck only exists in our mind, it's ILLEGAL, you little thieves, and we will GET YOU!"
Your ears are used to commit piracy. You must pay.
"$3.7 million in three months"
.5-10M to produce (http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/musicvideo s/musicvideos.html).
This amount isn't even close to paying for the videos themselves, each video today costs
Apart from DVDs of entire concerts, I personally have absolutely *NO* interest or regard more music video - if anything, music video and MTV are a *scourge* on popular music in as much as both have allowed talentless artistes to churn out souless, plasticised music and have it sell in its millions purely because of a video that is deemed as controversial - in that case, a music video serves no other purpose than to advertise the music product.
Going on from this, since most videos are short-lived but expensive productions, I'll make the assumption that the cost of making each video is recouped from the cost of each CD - therefore, part of the cost of every CD I buy goes to making music videos I have no interest in seeing & if those videos were not made, then feasibly the cost of each CD could be cheaper. (Yes, I'm fully aware that the **AA and record companies and blood-sucking, price-fixing bottom feeders who would probably never pass this saving onto the consumer anyway but this is just an idea.)
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I'd imagine that would be a slightly higher resolution than the average youtube upload...
Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I don't know of anyone that buys music videos, and I'm only 21. Classically, music videos are the free things on MTV and VH1 used to promote the music.
I've bought music videos... not many but a few. Not all videos make their way to MTV/VH1, but I would agree for the most part most videos are taped off the air, or copied from some other source, and traded.
This being said... there are videos I would buy.... for example THE GO BETWEENS "Right Here" off their Tallulah album, which just so happens to be on youtube. I would also be most pleased to buy any tape that has Red Box's Chenko and "For America" (later not on youtube). But I can't, they don't sell it. To me it's a piece of history that would otherwise be lost if it wasn't for the pirates, and likely the pirates who make some of this stuff popular enough to find it's way on compilation albums.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
And since VH1 and MTV have decided that all-day marathons of America's Next Top Model or Pimp My Ride are more important than music, aren't YouTube, Google Video, and the like just acting as a replacement of sorts?
As far as people in our generation (I'm 19) buying music videos...there's a good chance that iTunes might bring the amount of people that do up slightly, but the fact remains that I've never bought a music video and I'd assume that that's true for most of my friends. And even with the selection in iTunes...the only one that's tempted me is Thriller, which definitely isn't your standard music video.
I'm not entirely sure that music videos aren't on their way out now. The market has changed, and it seems like their usefulness for promotion has been declining and will continue to unless things change significantly.
Goo goo g'joob.
I think I can guess what is next.
If a blogger writes about an artist or an album, they're going to claim that that blog is illegally using said artist's name. (To make money through site-advertising, which auto-magically results in 5.27 million dollars loss to the *AA a month, according to their calculations.)
And we'll probably get *AA sponsored websites where for only $10.95 a month, you can mention their artists in your blogs.
From my perspective the product I want is HD transfers of the videos... Big artist videos can be more expensive per-minute than feature films, but stores like ITMS sell poor replications - quality wise (source -> product) its an even bigger drop than the lossy music compression of the stores.. 720p, 5.1 video downloads would be a great way to enjoy artists who's visual side is as, or more, important than their music...
I'm drunk, hello
I agree. I've downloaded many music videos to see them, and with few exceptions they're not something I'm going to watch repeatedly, and I delete them afterwards. In fact, I find many music videos are just plain boring, even though I really like the song.
I bought the DVD with Weird Al Yankovic's videos, because I found them to be quite entertaining, and they actually add to the song. If more people could make music videos that were truly entertaining, then maybe there would be a reason to buy them other than just because you're a die-hard fan. But to be fair, I imagine it's much easier to make an entertaining comedy video to go with comedy music, than dramatic/artistic videos for other styles of music.
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Pardon me for not giving a fuck what the music industry likes. It hasn't given a fuck what I like for years.
People are going to share and swap stuff regardless of whether or not there's sites like this.
Secondly, this is only a problem now?!?! People have been swapping music videos over gnutella and edonkey for years. They never seemed perturbed enough to raise a stink then, but I suppose they see the possibility of Youtube turning a profit someday, so they release the hounds.
Ya know, phrased like that I might actually support the RIAA. No more ultra bad versions of Stairway to Heaven when I walk in the musical instrument store.
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
The RIAA certainly doesn't represent what would have been its customers, before it started attacking them. It certainly is no longer relevant, as it tries to protect the outdated business models of its redundant members, none of whom are necessary in an age where distribution can be handled without their involvement. The RIAA is just speeding up its own demise. It has now been 5 years since I bought anything from an RIAA member.
Music Videos are the new mp3's. Look at them or just listen. Future car stereos will all be able to play DVD-like disks. I never would have bought music videos but when I can find them on Limewire and Bittorrent it turns out I will watch them.
STFU
Here I'm not even sure the costs of developing HDMI interfaces, starting the DRM industry, developing DMCA laws, etc, is low enough to not be above what's actually lost on piracy (in reality, not theory), but being overprotective about music videos just have to be stopping more advertising value than what money they lost due to free exposure. Do anyone really get tired of music from YouTube videos? :-p That would be a seriously pathetic way to listen to music given the audio quality, which surely matter most?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
..and I will say it again: YouTube is a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit waiting to happen. Someone's bound to get pissed sooner or later. And frankly, I expect sooner...
You do realise that in many cases you can find entire music videos from YouTube? This isn't sampling, this is simply ripping the whole thing from TV or a DVD. That's not anywhere near fair use.
And don't try to get around it by portraying the uploaders as 'promoters'. "Wow! Free publicity!" It's not legal to reproduce a book with this weak excuse, or a film, or a TV series. Yes, believe it or not, the RIAA want to stop losing revenue becase of people like yourself exchanging the works of their artists for free! Don't exaggerate their position by implying that they want to stop all "enjoyment of ANYTHING that we can possible [sic] stamp with OUR ownership!"; that's bullshit. They're just protecting their copyright, and if you think that's somehow wrong: (1) come up with a decent fucking argument, and (2) complain about copyright law, not the companies.
Free marketing, anyone ? Considering the fact that the artists may not get (probably the video expenses are part of their advance payment, which they sort of owe the recording company) any royalties out of the videos, it's pretty clear (as if it wasn't earlier..) RIAA is not about music and artists, but for wider profit margins. The worse still, a recording deal may have a clause for royalty deduction from the album sales while the album is being promoted on television - a music video being in circulation.. What's with the greed nowadays ?
No freebie, no sales. The freebie could be breaking evn on a concert tour while making yourself popular, or the opposite: releasing your music for free on the net and then profitting from more expensive tickers.
It can be something as simple as a movie trailer or a music video or even an ad block (latter least effective, since people know the final goal is to trick them into buying something).
Doesn't RIAA realize this? Yes it does. But what you don't realize is that RIAA wants control. Viral marketing is good if RIAA creates it, if people start it themselves, it's bad.
If channels exist for commercial videos to be spread virally, they can be used to easily spread non-commercial non-RIAA production as well. That would mean less people buy RIAA product, more people learn about independent productions.
This can spell serious trouble for RIAA. This is why their first goal is closing the entire channel and not just filtering out their content.
This isn't a movie or even porn we're talking about here.
(emphasis mine)
Have you seen what the modern video clips of female performers and rap artist look like? I'd say it's the closest thing to porn.
You misspelled comrade, comrade!
Stopping Content Restriction Annulment and Protection means not calling it DRM.
Meet an executive from the RIAA? Just shoot them. We'll stop hearing from them soon enough.
Probably we'll already paying for adverts anyway, I just didn't find out the mechanism yet...
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
"And don't try to get around it by portraying the uploaders as 'promoters'. "Wow! Free publicity!" It's not legal to reproduce a book with this weak excuse, or a film, or a TV series. Yes, believe it or not, the RIAA want to stop losing revenue becase of people like yourself exchanging the works of their artists for free! Don't exaggerate their position by implying that they want to stop all "enjoyment of ANYTHING that we can possible [sic] stamp with OUR ownership!"; that's bullshit. They're just protecting their copyright, and if you think that's somehow wrong: (1) come up with a decent fucking argument, and (2) complain about copyright law, not the companies."
That's funny, I seem to remember the purpose of music videos as being purely promotional. People aren't upset because they want to download the music and have it for free, they're upset because the RIAA is undertaking a blatant moneygrabbing attempt. Would you be saying the same if filmmakers started demanding that they be paid every time someone shows their movie trailers?
I think it's okay to complain about the companies AND copyright law. Who is so gullible as to believe that the companies with the most to lose/gain from copyright laws have nothing to do with the laws being passed? I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the interest of the general public to extend copyright durations, but it WAS in the interest of the megacompanies who own the rights to works that would have become public domain. Especially Disney. Every time Mickey Mouse comes close to becoming public domain, boom, they extend the duration of copyrights. I highly doubt that is coincidence.
I'm not one of those information-wants-to-be-free people. Information doesn't want jack, and it's idiocy to anthropomorphize it. But copyright durations have grown to insane lengths. I don't even really mind those long durations that much, if it's the original creator holding the rights. I think the durations should be trimmed to 15 or 20 years if the rights have left the original creator, however. In other words, if Prince writes a new tune, he can keep those rights for 100 years or whatever the duration is currently. But if he sells those rights to anyone else, truncate the duration to 15 or 20 years, as originally intended.
Copyright was created to help works reach the public domain and enhance our freely available cultural heritage; it was not created to help megacorporations milk the work of artists for centuries at the expense of public accessibility.
"No Stairway? Denied." - Wayne Campbell
If the MPAA and RIAA have such a problem with copyright infringement, I have the perfect solution: Lets just take away copyright from music and movies. Seriously. I ask you this, what makes movies and music a "useful art" worthy of protection? What value does it add to the life of American citizens? The country has changed, and for the worse. Instead of protecting the things that we once valued as bettering society, we now protect the things that allow the powers-that-be to make money. And that's just plain wrong. In fact its as un-American as you can get and just goes to illustrate how capitalism has led to the abject greed that is sending the nation down the toilet. IMO we need to worry less about bogeyman terrorists and focus on the true threat to this country, which are greedy businessmen corruption this nation's soul. /rant
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
However, there are some great ones that I have already paid for. Fatboy Slims "Praise You" (Spike Jonze) is a brilliant example of guerilla filming. Aphex Twins "Window Licker" (again Spike Jonze) is a classic. De-lites "Groove is in the Heart" makes EVERYONE smile everytime. The Prodigy's "Smack My Bitch up" exposes the inner-sexist in the viewer. The Beastie Boy's "Sabotage" (yet another Spike Jonze one) is utterly brilliant and still holds up. And there are lots more, Bjork, Chemical Brothers, Daft Punk and many other groups generally put out videos that stand well above "commerical" status.
I've noticed I see many more "video removed by user" and "video removed due to copyright violation" on youtube.
That's why a lot of traffic is migrating away from YouTube and moving to Google video or even blip.tv
The RIAA and MPAA are effectively killing their own markets.
I'm no fan of the RIAA, but that's not quite accutrate.
The RIAA did not make this money, the RIAA members did (a small distinction)
Also, RIAA members sold $3.7 million of music video. Some of this (quite a lot, I imagine) is eaten up in making the music videos (or recording the album). It's not all profit.
That said, the record labels still make quite a lot of money
We are already. The advertising budget is factored in to the retail price of an item/service.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Me fail English? That's unpossible!
- Ralph Wiggum
the riaa estimate EVERYTHING costs them several billions per year... piracy, legal online stores, theft in stores, now even music videos...
whats next? radio/tv stations & discos which let people hear music (more or less) for free? if they cancel the contracts with all radio stations, tv stations and discos then all people have to buy cds to hear the music again... and the people will surely buy the cds containing music that they have never heared before...
this will save the riaa for sure!
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
The reason the copyright law sucks is because the companies bought it that way. They requested that feature specifically, and paid for it. For good measure, in Eldred v Ashcroft, they essentially bought the right to buy any kind of copyright law they want -- without having to demonstrate that it fulfills the Constitutional mandate (promoting science & useful arts).
The problem with copyright law is that it more-or-less is writen by the companies. So it's not possible to just complain about one.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I like the idea of the RIAA Radar (and I'm aware that there are similar sites out there), but as I've told them before, I will never partake of a service that attempts to refer to me as a "consumer."
On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to protect the value of music. Of course, music isn't the only part of our lives that deserves more appreciation than it sometimes gets. The people of music do, too. Technology initiatives of record companies and policy initiatives coordinated by the RIAA are working toward a seamless, interconnected world for music fans.
From http://www.riaa.com/issues/default.asp
So they basically admit it. The RIAA keeps working to ensure the price of music is inflated. They pretty much admit people don't think their product is worth as much as they say it is, hence the need to "proctect its value". What's funny is their website has nothing to do with music. None, whatsoever. There are no links on it to ways to get legit music, it is all propoganda about why we need to reinforce their tired and non-functional business model. I also noticed their only feedback link is to their webmaster (poor guy). Are they afraid of the feedback people would give them? If anyone has an email address I could use to let them know how retarded they are, I'd appreciate it.
today is spelling optional day.
Nope, there is always something else. How about humming that tune? Hmm? Hmm? You know that's costing them 5^22453536.1$ every year. Evil hummers... that's OUR tune!
Oh, think that they wouldn't do that, eh? You're not cynical enough yet.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
That is revenue the music industry is keenly interested in protecting. Is there revenue that the RIAA isn't keenly interested in protecting?
poor highly motivated technologically astute teenagers
interestingly enough, also the prime demographic for the culture brokers
so that's the warzone
frankly, anyone over 21 is too rich and too undermotivated to matter anymore
the corporations can spend trillions in advanced r&d, but if they ask for money, and the teenager doesn't have it (which is the case 99% of the time)
then take a wild guess what is going to happen next
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://www.eve-online.com/background/potw/apr01.as p
Lucas is one of the worst when it comes to copyright. Remember when he didn't want to release Star Wars 4-6 on DVD because people would pirate it?
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Aren't music videos advertisements for the music...shouldn't people be spresding them around. I would think that would help the RIAA
For those not paying attention:
Remember those bands they threw together on TV? 5 girls? and the 3 girls, 2 guys? Scandalous? Well, the members of the BAND paid for the music video to be made. This includes the food on the set, costumes, and everything. This is why they didn't make a cent. They slogged their asses off for weeks and came out of it with next to nothing. They even had to give back the flashy clothes. This is how it works. The money is recouped, yes, but it is the artist who pays for it - and they have no say in making it or promoting it.
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
ah, indeed. Then I guess that already more than half of what we pay for a lot of goods is just advertising (e.g. pepsi, mineral water, nike et al.).
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
A music video is normally funded entirely out of an artist's pay check or advance, this usually isn't even optional, the label will simply tell the artists "we're taking x amount of money to make videos for these songs on your new album". I wonder how much of the money the RIAA is going to give back to the person who paid for it? My guess would be zero.
> Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I don't know of anyone that buys music videos.
Actually I do, but only for my all time favorite bands. I like supporting the groups and I love the cinematography or feeling like I am at a concert in Prague. I usually watch them like I listen to my mp3s, on another monitor while I am working. None the less, I am of the opinion the RIAA can eat sh*t and die.
Shameless plug: http://toorg.blogspot.com/
Can't everyone just listen to the radio for a few months (assuming your computer still has one)?