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."
This might sound stupid, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
well now (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Publicity stunt (Score:1, Interesting)
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:Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Publicity stunt (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:no MTV (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:yeah, great idea! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
They sold their tickets by zip code (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This might sound stupid, but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
also check out first free creative commons porn... (Score:1, Interesting)
at digg.com
http://digg.com/movies/first_free_porno_released_
http://digg.com/movies/first_free_porno_released_
Re:This isn't going against the RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)