Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Viral Music Videos A Problem For RIAA 182

Posted by Zonk
from the what-isn't-a-problem-for-them dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Viral Music Videos A Problem For RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • by yagu (721525) * <yayagu@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:27PM (#15464573) Journal

    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.

    • by EvanED (569694) <evaned.gmail@com> on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:42PM (#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.
      • 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.
        • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @01:54AM (#15465032) Homepage Journal
          >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.
      • 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?
      • by rakslice (90330)
        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 pro
      • Too bad that no corporation can control "different distribution channels" on the Internet then.

        Sure, they can try, like they did with The Pirate Bay, but it's a different question if they'll succeed.
        • If the cost to 'control' distribution channels like YouTube is less than the profits they'll make, they'll do it.

          All they really need is a small army of min wage workers to police the sites and report violations.

          YouTube already has a policy that allows for copyright holders to pull their material from the site.

          The Pirate Bay is a spurious example and comparing the two is completely invalid for a variety of reasons.
    • by milkman_matt (593465) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @12:15AM (#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!
    • 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.

  • by crazyjeremy (857410) * on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:28PM (#15464577) Homepage Journal
    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)
  • Erm. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:28PM (#15464580)
    I hope YouTube isn't hosted in sweden.
    • Re:Erm. (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by crazyjeremy (857410) *
      Score: +1 Funny
    • Re:Erm. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by castrox (630511)
      No worries. Us Swedes will hang our minister of justice and continue to mock MPAA et. al. In fact he's already facing constitutional questioning, something I'll be sure to watch. Interesting that the governments website is still DDOS'ed.
  • Viral... (Score:5, Funny)

    by brenddie (897982) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:29PM (#15464581)
    For a moment I though this was about some kind of "sony-rootkit" fiasco from the MPAA...
  • Dear **AA: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Avillia (871800) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:35PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MrSquirrel (976630)
      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
    • Mod parent RANT +1

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

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

      by Sj0 (472011)
      Why bother allowing them to hold the cards? Nothing says the RIAA and MPAA are the only source of audio and visual entertainment.
  • by MassEnergySpaceTime (957330) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:37PM (#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.
    • I'm sure they'll be happy once they've banned talking about music or videos.

      That, and whistling in public.

    • 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.

    • They remind me of the office full of middle aged women I work with. They hate their jobs and they hate their lives, so what do they do? Complain about everything. Especially where technology is concerned. I actually had somebody ask me if I could lubricate their keyboard because the space bar squeaks. WTF!

      And for the record, all of the new Dell keyboards squeak. It's a design flaw.
  • by imunfair (877689) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:39PM (#15464632) Homepage
    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.
    • 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
    • by Anonymous Coward
      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.
    • 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.
    • 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, w
    • 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 v

    • 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
    • This isn't a movie or even porn we're talking about here.

      (emphasis mine)

      Have you seen what the modern video clips of female performers and rap artist look like? I'd say it's the closest thing to porn.
    • hmm, 21. eh? My guess, by the time you'll 30 you'll have to pay to see all adverts! It's entertainment and IP, so why should it be free??

      Probably we'll already paying for adverts anyway, I just didn't find out the mechanism yet...

  • by Xenographic (557057) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:43PM (#15464645) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Ok, granted most of the pop stuff is a commercial, in fact I like Bill Hicks interpretation of them being pornography. "Causing sexual thoughts with no artistic merit". Yup, sounds like the top ten singles chart videos!

      However, there are some great ones that I have already paid for. Fatboy Slims "Praise You" (Spike Jonze) is a brilliant example of guerilla filming. Aphex Twins "Window Licker" (again Spike Jonze) is a classic. De-lites "Groove is in the Heart" makes EVERYONE smile everytime. The Prodigy's

  • by MassEnergySpaceTime (957330) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:48PM (#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?
    • 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".
    • A sensible, logical, pro-P2P argument. I'm sorry sir, we'll just have to add you to our ignore list.

      Sincerely,

      The RIAA
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:53PM (#15464678) Journal
    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?
    • 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 wou
    • 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.
  • Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iamdrscience (541136) <(michaelmtripp) (at) (gmail.com)> on Saturday June 03, 2006 @11:58PM (#15464691) Homepage
    $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 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jkfresh (603888)


    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
  • by UriahZ (952170) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @12:11AM (#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...
    • 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".
    • 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 lon
      • One of their issues is that you can't "unwatch" or "unlisten" to media you've already been exposed to. By you remembering what you've experienced, they lose recurring revenue.

        There is a solution, however: free "brownies" with every movie purchase!

  • Futility. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IcebergSlim (450399) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @12:13AM (#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.)
  • by AmazingRuss (555076) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @12:14AM (#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!"
    • ...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".

  • by macemoneta (154740) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @12:19AM (#15464765) Homepage
    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.
    • 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!

      That has already happened. MPAA sued sometime a channel projecting trailers 24/7. MPAA argued the channel uses copyrighted content for their own benefit without approval from the copyright owners.

      There are also some attempts (even now) to prevent officially published movie trailers from the official sites fr
  • by meburke (736645) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @12:19AM (#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
    • 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...
  • 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) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kent.dickey (685796) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @01:12AM (#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.
    • 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.
  • Until the only way to listen to music is to walk up to a music booth through a metal detector to prevent you from bringing in any recording equipment, and up to a music booth. At this music booth you will insert five dollar bills. You will then select a song using a touchscreen. You will then take paper headphone covers from a dispenser on the wall. You will place the headphone covers over the public headphones, connected to the booth by a flexible metal tube. You will then listen to your music until your credit has expired. Rocking out or playing air guitar will be discouraged, although singing along in a quiet voice will be tolerated, unless there's somebody wihtin earshot.

    Maybe then, the RIAA will stop whining.
    • I 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.
      • "I don't understand"

        Because Slashdot is comprised of more than one person. Happy to help.
      • 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.
      • Are you stupid or what?

        - GPL works are bloody free! If some company is too _greedy_ to use other peoples work that they are happy to share and want to make some money out of it saving on its own labour, that we find that unethical.

        - Music, movies etc are not free! And since most people believe that the prices are over-the-top on those they sure are inclined to seek cheaper methods of obtaining it. Also - most of the time the rules how they "sell" the content to you are queer - eg: try to return a CD or DVD
      • It's because that copyright was originally a deal between the public and producers of content, where the producer would get a temporary monopoly over their content in order for them to profit and to encourage them to make more content. However, organizations like the RIAA, as well as corporations like Disney seem to think that they have the right to profit off their creations indefinently, which is against the original spirit behind creating copyright in the first place. Since these organizations seem to
    • 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.... Maybe then, the RIAA will stop whining.

      You can't be more wrong. After this here's what RIAA would whine about:

      * Whine how people don't go frequently enough to the booths, and demand that a portable version in everyone's home is made mandatory.
      * Whine people can't listen to music when they're at work, make the booths mandatory there
  • lemme kno when the RIAA is happy.

    It might be news then.
  • by Animats (122034) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @01:31AM (#15464969) Homepage
    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".
    • This could be happening. As a horse owner at a big stable that offers lessons, I see dozens of kids in the age 9-15 range. They all have cell phones. Some bring game machines like a DS. But I just realized that I've never seen an iPod or any other music player in that crowd. If this is a trend, the music industry is in trouble.
  • 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
  • by geoff lane (93738) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @02:08AM (#15465069)
    Your ears are used to commit piracy. You must pay.
  • by llZENll (545605)
    "$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).
  • 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 t

    • 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.

      If that was true, music would of gotten a lot better in the past few years, as channels like MTV and VH1 have basically stopped playing music videos entirely, and a good por
  • Subject (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Legion303 (97901) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @03:52AM (#15465320) Homepage
    Pardon me for not giving a fuck what the music industry likes. It hasn't given a fuck what I like for years.
  • Here I'm not even sure the costs of developing HDMI interfaces, starting the DRM industry, developing DMCA laws, etc, is low enough to not be above what's actually lost on piracy (in reality, not theory), but being overprotective about music videos just have to be stopping more advertising value than what money they lost due to free exposure. Do anyone really get tired of music from YouTube videos? :-p That would be a seriously pathetic way to listen to music given the audio quality, which surely matter mos
  • by suv4x4 (956391) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:25AM (#15465650)
    No freebie, no sales. The freebie could be breaking evn on a concert tour while making yourself popular, or the opposite: releasing your music for free on the net and then profitting from more expensive tickers.

    It can be something as simple as a movie trailer or a music video or even an ad block (latter least effective, since people know the final goal is to trick them into buying something).

    Doesn't RIAA realize this? Yes it does. But what you don't realize is that RIAA wants control. Viral marketing is good if RIAA creates it, if people start it themselves, it's bad.

    If channels exist for commercial videos to be spread virally, they can be used to easily spread non-commercial non-RIAA production as well. That would mean less people buy RIAA product, more people learn about independent productions.

    This can spell serious trouble for RIAA. This is why their first goal is closing the entire channel and not just filtering out their content.
  • If the MPAA and RIAA have such a problem with copyright infringement, I have the perfect solution: Lets just take away copyright from music and movies. Seriously. I ask you this, what makes movies and music a "useful art" worthy of protection? What value does it add to the life of American citizens? The country has changed, and for the worse. Instead of protecting the things that we once valued as bettering society, we now protect the things that allow the powers-that-be to make money. And that's just plain
  • Music Matters. If you doubt it for an instant, try a frenzied, frustrating commute or a long, lonely drive without the companionship of your favorite artist's voice. Go for a morning run without the heart-pumping energy of a pace-setting song. Imagine a memory empty of the artists that have become cultural icons. They unite millions in a single image of common understanding. Without Elvis, our collective image of the '50s would simply be teens screaming at an empty stage. Without the Beatles, Abbey Road wou

Contemptuous lights flashed flashed across the computer's console. -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Working...