Pearl Jam Releases Video Under Creative Commons 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."
Harvey Danger (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Publicity stunt (Score:5, Informative)
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:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads (Score:5, Informative)
Re:yeah, great idea! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:no MTV (Score:3, Informative)
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:IT'S OFFICIAL (Score:5, Informative)
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:This is great and all... (Score:3, Informative)
Some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses; most permit at least noncommercial verbatim copying. But some, such as the Sampling Licenses and Developing Countries Licenses, don't even permit that, which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work. All these licenses have in common is a label, but people regularly mistake that common label for something substantial.
I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable. It would be self-delusion to try to endorse just some of the Creative Commons licenses, because people lump them together; they will misconstrue any endorsement of some as a blanket endorsement of all. I therefore find myself constrained to reject Creative Commons entirely.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
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]
Not everyone giving away their music is over the hill - and some of them are still making a living making music.
Re:no MTV (Score:4, Informative)
That definitely would have made for quite a different video.
J
Re:Publicity stunt (Score:3, Informative)
Shit, AC, after I've read this extremely informative and useful post of yours I got a clue and now I live a better, more meaningful life.
Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam (Score:3, Informative)
But, I gotta say:
musically, this video sucks.
Re:Kudos to Pearl Jam -- DRM free downloads (Score:3, Informative)
think you meant DRM free, but good to know.
Mirror (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This isn't going against the RIAA (Score:2, Informative)