Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pearl Jam Releases Video Under Creative Commons

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the popular-to-be-free dept.

240

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."

cancel ×

240 comments

THIS IS THE FIRST POST AND MUST BE MODDED DOWN!!! (1)

GET THE FACTS! (850779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374271)

Eh?

Kudos to Pearl Jam (5, Insightful)

sheehaje (240093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374287)

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.

yeah, great idea! (-1, Troll)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374417)

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! (2, Informative)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374499)

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! (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374573)

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! (2, Interesting)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374805)

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:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads (5, Informative)

SlashdotOgre (739181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374425)

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.

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads (2, Informative)

krunk4ever (856261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374907)

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.

IT'S OFFICIAL (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374521)

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 (5, Informative)

stuboogie (900470) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374664)

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.

Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam (2, Informative)

mad.frog (525085) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374882)

I applaud their sentiment.

But, I gotta say:

musically, this video sucks.

Hmm (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374288)

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 (2, Interesting)

shawb (16347) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374493)

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 [pearljam.com] . 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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374539)

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 (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374603)

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

LK

Re:Hmm (3, Informative)

Poppler (822173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374722)

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 [wired.com] . Given, they're not young, but they never had much success on the charts until recently. After they produced an album [pitchforkmedia.com] 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 [wikipedia.org] on the Billboard charts. Their next album sold even better, reaching the top ten [wikipedia.org] .

Another example - Sufjan Stevens [mtv.com] , who actually is a "young rising star", recently said in an interview [pitchforkmedia.com]
[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.

This might sound stupid, but.... (5, Interesting)

Fredwick.com (975970) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374292)

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 [bittorrent.net] , easier [bearshare.com] ways to do that), so all in all it's just free publicity.

Re:This might sound stupid, but.... (2, Insightful)

toadlife (301863) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374638)

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.... (1)

Fredwick.com (975970) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374656)

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.... (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374737)

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.

whoops (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374747)

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.

Re:This might sound stupid, but.... (1)

DigitalHammer (581235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374690)

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.... (1)

jackstack (618328) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374715)

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

Re:This might sound stupid, but.... (1)

diqmay (773248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374823)

ahem! he said videos...

Re:This might sound stupid, but.... (3, Interesting)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374944)

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.

Publicity stunt (-1, Flamebait)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374293)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374316)

the eternal whiners of slashdot.

Re:Publicity stunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374498)

Honestly. The glass is always half empty here.

Re:Publicity stunt (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374317)

>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 (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374348)

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 (-1)

abandonment (739466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374318)

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 (4, Informative)

mattkinabrewmindspri (538862) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374354)

You can download it in an avi format from Google's page [google.com] 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 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374457)

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 (1)

mattkinabrewmindspri (538862) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374473)

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 (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374558)

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 (2, Interesting)

patio11 (857072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374754)

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 (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374971)

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 (1)

krunk4ever (856261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374912)

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 (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374809)

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

Re:Publicity stunt (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374335)

"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 (0, Flamebait)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374372)

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 (2, Funny)

finiteSet (834891) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374565)

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 [slashdot.org] now.

Re:Publicity stunt (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374386)

Stunt by who?

Google? The band? The label?

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

Re:Publicity stunt (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374400)

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 (1)

trooz1 (926198) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374408)

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 (0, Troll)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374434)

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 (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374962)

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 (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15375023)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374550)

get a clue, asshole

Re:Publicity stunt (2, Informative)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374840)

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.

Harvey Danger (3, Informative)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374297)

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

Re:Harvey Danger (4, Funny)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374978)

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 (2, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374979)

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 (1)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15375026)

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? (4, Funny)

Sathias (884801) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374299)

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? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374758)

"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 (2, Interesting)

VirionNW (936737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374302)

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 (3, Insightful)

VirionNW (936737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374332)

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.

Fuck Pearl Jam (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374319)

Is Eddie vetter still fellating the Taliban?

And they are on Sony's label too... (-1, Redundant)

Fizzlewhiff (256410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374321)

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

Re:And they are on Sony's label too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374440)

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: Pepetuate Pearl Jam's Video into eternity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374323)

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

MILF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374336)

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 [ndcontent.com]

Free Commercials? (1)

ChozCunningham (698051) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374340)

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? (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374995)

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.

Brilliant! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374344)

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! (1)

notanatheist (581086) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374519)

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.

Did Trent Reznor direct that thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374365)

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

Great pre-sleep video (3, Funny)

Danathar (267989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374368)

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

Thanks slashdot for giving me nightmares

Strange what offends us. (1)

Jerk City Troll (661616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374707)

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.

Re:Strange what offends us. (1)

Mikey-San (582838) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374735)

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.

Props to Pearl Jam (1)

Elf_h34d3r (955909) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374378)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374389)

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 (1)

stuboogie (900470) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374564)

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.

Good old Pearl Jam eh? (1)

nickgrieve (87668) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374392)

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

Bettermen (-1, Offtopic)

teslatug (543527) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374397)

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

Re:Bettermen (0, Flamebait)

Bleach and Vomit (975486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374438)

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 (3, Funny)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374484)

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

Re:Bettermen (4, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15375016)

"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?

Actual License? (1)

MrCopilot (871878) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374462)

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.

Ahhh!! My ears!! (2, Insightful)

hereschenes (813329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374474)

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!! (4, Insightful)

idugcoal (965425) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374765)

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!! (1)

hereschenes (813329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374817)

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.

no MTV (1)

doubtless (267357) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374541)

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 (2, Informative)

dido (9125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374626)

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 (1)

aXis100 (690904) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374703)

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 (2, Interesting)

Puff Daddy (678869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374773)

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 (3, Informative)

dark_panda (177006) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374826)

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

This is great and all... (3, Funny)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374589)

... but I don't think they took into account the fact that RMS doesn't like the Creative Commons [linuxp2p.com] . My guess is fans will avoid the video in droves for that reason alone.

Re:This is great and all... (2, Informative)

aXis100 (690904) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374716)

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.

lumping them together (3, Insightful)

theantix (466036) | more than 8 years ago | (#15375057)

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.

It may not be perfect, but it's a good move. (3, Insightful)

Marcos Eliziario (969923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374637)

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. (1)

onevulcanme (970002) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374653)

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? (1)

Karma Sucks (127136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374698)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374796)

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? (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374854)

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

Video only avaliable till May 24th... (1)

_Griphin_ (676977) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374904)

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).

They sold their tickets by zip code (2, Interesting)

bariswheel (854806) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374933)

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.

E-E-E-W! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374945)

Those guys have Morgellon's!!! [slashdot.org]

Mirror (3, Informative)

Ann Coulter (614889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374989)

Here is a copy of the videos [131.96.244.7] on a school server. Cheers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...