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!

Viral Music Videos A Problem For RIAA

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the what-isn't-a-problem-for-them dept.

182

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.'"

cancel ×

182 comments

proof the RIAA is insane (5, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464573)

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.

Re:proof the RIAA is insane (-1, Redundant)

croddy (659025) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464582)

Indeed. Somebody please call the Waaaaahmbulance

proof the RIAA is ISN'T insane (4, Interesting)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464642)

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.

Re:proof the RIAA is ISN'T insane (1)

BorgCopyeditor (590345) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464741)

They could have seen this coming as long ago as the advent of audio and video cassettes. Getting twigged to it now is thus not especially to be praised, though you're right that it does serve as circumstantial evidence that they're not insane.

Re:proof the RIAA is ISN'T insane (4, Insightful)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465032)

>They could have seen this coming as long ago as the advent of audio and video cassettes.

The MPAA did. Their Jack Valenti told the House of Representatives in 1982 "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone". They went clear to the Supreme Court in 1984 to ban the Betamax and almost succeeded (four justices (Blackmun, Marshall, Powell and Rehnquist) agreed with the appeals court that Sony's products were illegal).

At every point in the last few decades when an innovation increased the **AA's revenues but decreased their control, they have fought it like berserkers.

Re:proof the RIAA is ISN'T insane (2, Insightful)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464902)

But then, the RIAA has taken on a life of it's own. What's with people hanging on to things long after they're able to serve a purpose. It's not like there isn't other ways to make money. Why have the RIAA, the MPAA, and others... the executives for the tobacco companies comes to mind, fallen into this trap?

Uh... (1)

rakslice (90330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465041)

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.

Re:proof the RIAA is insane (3, Funny)

milkman_matt (593465) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464747)

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?).

Careful! Someone may want to start selling comics online next!

Re:proof the RIAA is insane - Every Note (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464787)

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 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.

Re:proof the RIAA is insane - Every Note (3, Funny)

spacecowboy420 (450426) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464825)

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"...

Re:proof the RIAA is insane - Every Note (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464953)

I would not, because if they try, they will most likely have the required legislation passed...

Re:proof the RIAA is insane - Every Note (2, Interesting)

CTalkobt (81900) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465375)

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.

Re:proof the RIAA is insane (1)

Mortiss (812218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465473)

This comment makes me ask a question: What kind of people are **AA execs? Has anyone had a chance to be in one of their meetings where they decide to push their ideas? Finally, has anyone in /. community had a chance to have a discussion with one of those people? What were their first impressions from that conversation(ie. personality, inteeligence wise) and how did those people respond to data that clearly points out that they are stabbing themseves in the foot with their current agenda?

Viral sites are on the rise for this very reason! (3, Insightful)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464577)

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)

Re:Viral sites are on the rise for this very reaso (4, Funny)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464819)

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.

Re:Viral sites are on the rise for this very reaso (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15465446)

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.
whatever, looser.

Re:Viral sites are on the rise for this very reaso (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465325)

People are going to post it to sites like youtube, google video or similar.

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.

Erm. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464580)

I hope YouTube isn't hosted in sweden.

Re:Erm. (0, Offtopic)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464600)

Score: +1 Funny

Re:Erm. (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464907)

Meanwhile, hosted in Sweden or not, Anime Music Videos march on! http://www.animemusicvideos.org/home/home.php [animemusicvideos.org]

Re:Erm. (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465063)

I 3 such videos... they ARE the only thing worth watching on such crappy res.

Re:Erm. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15465177)

Wow, a million videos of the scene in FF7 where Sepiroth kills Aeris set to Linkin Park music. HOLY SHIT I DO NOT CARE.

Viral... (5, Funny)

brenddie (897982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464581)

For a moment I though this was about some kind of "sony-rootkit" fiasco from the MPAA...

Re:Viral... (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464731)

Heh. Yea, my first thought was "Viral CDs a problem for Rest of Us"

Dear **AA: (5, Interesting)

Avillia (871800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464609)

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.

Re:Dear **AA: (3, Insightful)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464723)

The **AA are a bunch of greedy ass-spelunkers. The videos PROMOTE their artists, giving the public more interest in an artist... thus creating an influx of new fans, eager to buy CD's, posters, and all sorts of other merch (generating more money for the **AA [a lot more money is made off the sale of a $20 CD than the pennies made from selling space for ads before music videos]). Some sites host these videos without ads and don't make any money off those videos -- the **AA wants to FORCE the videos to be a source of money so they can funnel off the profits (they sure do love that stuff). As previous users have commented -- these videos aren't DVD quality "omg so good I'm gonna throw it up on my media center and show all my friends" videos, they're grainy and poor... if anything -- videos with good content will make people want to see the video in high quality -- increasing the influx of users to the **AA's video sites where they can force people to sit through all the merry-old ads they want and get as much money as their hearts desire (oh wait, they don't have hearts).

Mod Parent RANT +1 (0, Offtopic)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464801)

Mod parent RANT +1

(Note: there should be a RANT -1 moderation as well.)

FUCK FAGZORS!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464615)

FUCK YOU ALL FAGZORS!!

The music industry is never happy (5, Insightful)

MassEnergySpaceTime (957330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464616)

"...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.

Re:The music industry is never happy (2, Funny)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464894)

I'm sure they'll be happy once they've banned talking about music or videos.

That, and whistling in public.

Re:The music industry is never happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464904)

That, and whistling in public.

Well, that is, unless you have express written consent by the Recording Industry Association of America and its affiliates.

Re:The music industry is never happy (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465100)

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!

Re:The music industry is never happy (1)

grahammm (9083) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465167)

Live performances of music are nothing to with the Recording Industry associations. Live performances are licensed by organisations such as the Performing Rights Society.

Re:The music industry is never happy (2, Funny)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465466)

Once they finally ban music in order to completely eliminate piracy, they'll stop whining. That is, until they realize that they - the music industry - just banned music. But they won't be able to whine about that, since it'll be too musical. Then the entire world bursts out in songs of joy that the RIAA is dead, and is promptly arrested.

What a future.

Pay?? For a music video?? (5, Insightful)

imunfair (877689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464632)

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.

Re:Pay?? For a music video?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464671)

>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?

Re:Pay?? For a music video?? (5, Funny)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464724)

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?

What the fuck does this even mean? HAVE YOU STOPPED FAILING ENGLISH YET?

I buy Music Videos...but only collections (1)

JRGhaddar (448765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464806)

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 [amazon.com] 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 [youtube.com] 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.

Re:Pay?? For a music video?? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464836)

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/ [promoonly.com] for info.

Re:Pay?? For a music video?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15465128)

I'd imagine that would be a slightly higher resolution than the average youtube upload...

Re:Pay?? For a music video?? (1)

X86Daddy (446356) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464910)

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.

Re:Pay?? For a music video?? (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465164)

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" [youtube.com] 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 [youtube.com] 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.

Re:Pay?? For a music video?? (1)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465221)

Classically, music videos are the free things on MTV and VH1 used to promote the music.

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.

Re:Pay?? For a music video?? (2, Interesting)

mh101 (620659) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465285)

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.

They want people to pay to watch commercials!? (4, Interesting)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464645)

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.

So, $3.7 million in three months... (4, Insightful)

MassEnergySpaceTime (957330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464661)

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?

Re:So, $3.7 million in three months... (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465268)

Nah, according to them all that means is they've got a $3.7 million share when they should have an $X million share (where X is a very large number someone with a calculator pulled out their ass) because of all the "lost sales due to piracy".

Y'can't win with these fuckers. I wouldn't be suprised if they started charging people for air one day, just because it was "used as a transmission medium for their protected works".

Wonder what it would take to make the *AA happy? (4, Informative)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464678)

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/ [magnetbox.com] for music that they don't benefit from. See if buying music they don't get paid for makes them any happier?

But it would only make them... (1)

jsharkey (975973) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464715)

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?)

Re:Wonder what it would take to make the *AA happy (2, Interesting)

drivekiller (926247) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464887)

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.

Re:Wonder what it would take to make the *AA happy (1)

Unipuma (532655) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465244)

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.

Oblig. Blues Brothers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464680)

What do you want for nothing?

Rubber biscuit?

Huh? (2, Interesting)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464691)

$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.

awwwww poor RIAA (2, Interesting)

jkfresh (603888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464716)



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.

Big Corporate Media (3, Insightful)

UriahZ (952170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464729)

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...

Re:Big Corporate Media (1)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464783)

I wish I could, but believe it or not, their defenders are still out there. I ran into 2 on another site just today. No matter what they do, people defend them with "well, it's their IP so they should be able to do what they want".

Re:Big Corporate Media (1)

FLEB (312391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464913)

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.


Yes.

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.

No. Do without. It's not that hard. It's just music, and it's not even all music. Boycott or get off the soapbox.

Re:Big Corporate Media (1)

FLEB (312391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464923)

In retrospect, s/soapbox/high horse/.

Re:Big Corporate Media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15465482)

No. Do without. It's not that hard. It's just music, and it's not even all music. Boycott or get off the soapbox.

Some Slashdotters don't seem to understand that music is actually very important to some of us; I certainly feel that having the ability to listen to e.g. The Beatles' works(the GP's example, but a splendid one in that they are very hard to "do without" as most popular music today is in some way inspired by them) is far more important to me than the "piracy cause".

I haven't bought a Beatles album in a long time precisely because of what the GP stated: I, personally, believe the people involved in the creation of that music have received all the monetary reward they needed to get for making it. Nevertheless, I have downloaded their music, because I want to listen to it. When I feel the desire for music by a band that actually need money or exposure, I tend to buy the album; but when acquiring music that is already enormously popular, I do it by downloading illegally. I'm not saying that this is legal; I'm not neccessarily saying that it should be legal - it would probably be pretty hard to force a "free culture" ideology upon a capitalist economy.

Nevertheless, I feel it is moral - so I do it. I have no interest in your "soapbox" except where its interests and ideologies coincide with mine, and I suspect the GP feels likewise.

Re:Big Corporate Media (1)

Baricom (763970) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464927)

Maybe there's a whole big contingent of people out there who think listening to music without paying for it is actually stealing.

I'm not going to defend the MAFIAA, but I am going to take a stand and say that the concept of copyright is a good thing. I agree that it's been completely taken out of proportion and now favors the industry instead of the public, as it's supposed to. That doesn't mean we should scrap the whole idea.

I would strongly support a ten-year term or two five-year terms, or possibly longer if there was a requirement that the work must be widely available at a reasonable price to retain protection.

Yes, I think listening to music without paying, when that's what the artist expects you to do, is stealing. I also think they're asking for too much, which is why I haven't bought music for over a year. The two schools of thought aren't mutually exclusive.

I wonder if strong leadership and extensive organization could effect the degree of change the world needs before everything really goes to hell.

Possibly, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't think there's enough forward-thinking politicians to elect that could affect a vote.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464734)

Hopes are that YouTube and others will ink similar deals with the industry in the long run.

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.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464952)

My reading was that the RIAA hopes that...

Futility. (3, Insightful)

IcebergSlim (450399) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464743)

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.)

Re:Futility. (1)

fimion (890504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465484)

In the immortal words of Leia Organa:
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

What's next? Pay-per-view advertising? (4, Funny)

AmazingRuss (555076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464744)

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!"

Who is "us"? (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464808)

...get laws passed that force us to buy their crap...

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".

Excellent idea! (4, Funny)

macemoneta (154740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464765)

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.

I'd buy the real thing...If it was available. (2, Informative)

meburke (736645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464767)

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

Re:I'd buy the real thing...If it was available. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464802)

TEST

Re:I'd buy the real thing...If it was available. (1)

scaryice (890643) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464881)

BTW, that sounds like an amazing do-it-yourself project. How awesome would that be to have it your home?

I want HD transfers... (1)

henele (574362) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465255)

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...

YTMND parodies are next i tell you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464773)

"How could this happen to me!"
- EMO meme on YTMND.

Re:YTMND parodies are next i tell you! (1)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464845)

YTMND parodies everything... ever... over and over again.

( http://snakeliving.ytmnd.com/ [ytmnd.com] )

Torrent Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464816)

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.

If they haven't enforced video copyright before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464848)

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 see of this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464849)

The more I am glad I quit buying new music back in 95 or so.

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 ... some 80's and very little 90's.

I know I might be missing out .... 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.

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 ..... 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.

Internal RIAA memo: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464854)

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.

Well at least there's a place to see them... (1)

FuryG3 (113706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464896)

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.

O-Zone (Numa Numa) (5, Interesting)

kent.dickey (685796) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464919)

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 [newgrounds.com] 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.

Re:O-Zone (Numa Numa) (2, Funny)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465356)

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 [newgrounds.com] 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.

I know this is slashdot and the culture is to be inward nerd looking, but even then I think you are vastly overestimating the general public's interest in non-uniform memory architecture.

The RIAA has a problem with everything. (5, Insightful)

Daikiki (227620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464943)

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.

Re:The RIAA has a problem with everything. (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465228)

I don't understand why copyright infringement is justified in a crowd that condemns GPL violations, a person that says one is acceptable and not another is contradicting themselves as both rely on copyright law. Professional video production work is very expensive and I don't see the incentive in removing any fair chance at an income stream.

Re:The RIAA has a problem with everything. (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465329)

"I don't understand"

Because Slashdot is comprised of more than one person. Happy to help.

Re:The RIAA has a problem with everything. (1)

Buran (150348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465364)

Simple -- because file sharing is seen as socially okay because of how music has been such a vital and everyday part of society and until recently was freely shared at will. The GPL requirements, too, can be explained that way -- because the GPL requires free and unlimited sharing of ideas.

There's no inconsistency here unless you don't believe that people should be perfectly free to share as they wish.

Tell ya what, (2, Funny)

vonsneerderhooten (254776) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464961)

lemme kno when the RIAA is happy.

It might be news then.

The real RIAA fear: teens get bored with music (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464969)

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".

The RIAA is a paid organization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15464975)

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.

they don't own our culture (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15464988)

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

retards (2, Insightful)

tHeSiD (805906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465019)

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"

They want it all, not just most of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15465047)

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!"

How long before RIAA wants you to license your ear (2, Insightful)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465069)

Your ears are used to commit piracy. You must pay.

Re:How long before RIAA wants you to license your (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15465281)

I'm drunk, hello

commercial market? ha! (2, Informative)

llZENll (545605) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465101)

"$3.7 million in three months"

This amount isn't even close to paying for the videos themselves, each video today costs .5-10M to produce (http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/musicvideo s/musicvideos.html).

Re:commercial market? ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15465386)

Sounds like some hollywood accounting.

Who cares? Most music video is JUNK anyway! (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465121)

As a pragmatist, I'll make the statement that perhaps this is actually a good idea (for a change).

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.)

Re:Who cares? Most music video is JUNK anyway! (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465347)

I never really understood the concept of what is essentially _watching_ music anyways. I will be the first to admit that I have seen, and sought out a few music videos. But I believe I could count all on two hands had I kept count.

Subject (4, Interesting)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465320)

Pardon me for not giving a fuck what the music industry likes. It hasn't given a fuck what I like for years.

RIAA is irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15465384)

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 (1)

peregrinefisher (979081) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465385)

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.

RIAA here is an acronym for you (2, Funny)

ThePengwin (934031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15465502)

STFU
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...