www.washingtonpost.com from digg.com ...

"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."

         

"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. But today videos are a rapidly growing money-maker for the music business. The RIAA estimates that sales of music videos topped $3.7 million in three months, after being introduced in October."

         

Next week: Look for news that the RIAA is seeking injunctions and monetary damages from people who talk about bands they like to their friends.

         

What morons. I sincerely think the people at the RIAA needs to be institutionalized. Rather than let consumers give their performers free publicity, they want to curtail it. Really smart business decision. Why don't they just come out and say we hate our customers. Or better yet, why don't they just go back to making vinyl records instead of cds.

Hmmm...you can watch music videos for free on tv, but not on the web. You can record music off the radio, but not on the web. Maybe the RIAA should just ban the web and everyone can call it a day.

Eventually, this will happen :)

www.beatking.com

         

when will this attitude blow up in their face (as surely it must)?

to continue where lusk left off:

"That is revenue the music industry is keenly interested in protecting. [...] One industry insider familiar with the situation says, "The recording industry has an important antipiracy goal in music video to ensure that business moves forward."

business moves forward?? i'm glad this stuff gets explicitly publicised.

and: why is it this anti-piracy thing keeps reminding me of other anti- initiatives: anti-terrorism, anti-drug enforcement...? fundamentally: hypocritical and anti-people (and, ipso facto, at best: back-firing; in the long run: doomed).

         

They're probably just pissed because on sites like Yahoo and iFilm they sell Ad space before each of the clips. If they can shut down the competition to those sites, then the number of "hits" per day on their own sites will likely increase and thus allow them to charge more for each Ad on the site. It's all corporate bullshit. Maximum profit. None of this surprises me. Us directors just need to keep our cool and get organized. All our financing should come direct from the performers. Just cut the business turds out of the loop completely.

         

what makes it even weirder: what are they afraid of? shitty youtube-quality? of videos, that haven't ever been released on DVD?

         

PROG: "why is it this anti-piracy thing keeps reminding me of other anti-initiatives" -- A+ my friend. Very much so anti life in general. Well thought. But the suggestion of 'doom' depends upon which lake the coin is tossed. Doom for the industry or doom for the race? The latter seems more terrifyingly prescient.

And to answer funtoosh, it's all a question of economics. 3.7mill in a single quarter is very promising. So, 'bans', 'punishments', 'fines' and the like are fear tactics used to control said profits, regardless of quality gain/loss.

         

lusk: lake? race?? much simpler, my thinking: "doomed"= top-down bullshit is destined to fail. of course, while it's busy failing, the cost in collateral injustice will continue to quietly tally...

         

I'm sure I hold a very unpopular opinion here, but I am in favor of copyright holders controlling and turning a profit off thier creative work.

The RIAA are dolts. They do many, MANY things wrong, and often in completely the wrong way - but I do agree that downloading is and and will severely damage the industry. The RIAA's efforts will prolly not acheive their goal - but they are a big, old-scool organization trying to dance the new media tango.

I am not sure what the solution is, but even cynical greedy corporate entities cannot be blamed for trying to keep themselves alive.

People who download are not "customers" they are essentially thieves. Downloaders might go and buy a CD the next day and THEN they are customers, but file sharing music, videos and movies is NOT being a customer. Consumer, yes. Customer, no.

Many of the videos on this site (though prolly not the popular ones with the cool kids) are paid for by record labels. They make money only when people pay for stuff. It's pretty simple. Maybe you are in favor of some kind of "over-turning the system" where artists control everything and so forth. Great, but get ready for lots of $3.28 music videos of artists sitting in their apartments.

Bjork (for one example) got to make cool, expensive videos because of New Kids on the Block and Kenny G records getting sold by the millions as her success never really justified the level of support and promotion her career received. If all those NKOTB CDs had been pirated, we would have missed out on some really cool videos.

Flame away, but I think most people who argue for "free media" and "free art" are just lazy/broke people who want stuff without paying. In the same way that people who go on and on about Hemp clothing and hemp powered cars just wanna get high without it being illegal. Don't make BS arguments - if you want free music - just say so. Of course free music means unpaid musicians and video directors - but that is a small price to pay for getting to see the new Kanye video for free. No?

         

30f hit the nail right on the head. If we can all get high without it being illegal the whole situation would be much more laid-back and easier to work out, and surely an agreement could be made that satisfied all parties, peace pipe style.

         

But in all seriousness, yes this will become a definite issue and was one of my main worries/concerns when I started Videoteque. However, after asking around and talking to a few directors, it's not the artists and the directors getting hurt here - most directors (or at least the ones I spoke with) receive their payment up front for their work on the video and gain nothing but exposure from a video's success or widespread distribution. The artists, on the other hand, gain no direct monetary profit from the success of a music video, and can only benefit from the popularity of one of their videos as it increases the likelihood that a viewer will see their video and, assuming they enjoy it, buy the album. This leaves the only beneficiary to be the record label, and lord knows they need all the money they can get so we can get more Paris Hilton albums, without which the artistic evolution of music would be in grave danger.

Revisiting what 30f said though, regarding how the success of past bands makes it possible for the creation of new videos, yes, had those bands not generated profit new artists might not have the financial resources to produce great videos, but the issue being debated her is not the issue of pirating music, it's the newfound concern of pirating music videos. It's true that "free music means unpaid musicians', but it's free music videos is the main concern of this article. Those fantastic Bjork videos weren't made possible by the financial success of NKOTB and Kenny G's music videos, as their was no direct monetary profit from those videos, as music videos have been a free promotional tool up until only recently. If the label wanted to generate direct profit from videos they should have been charging for them a long time ago. You can't "pirate" a product that is free in the first place, so the issue of music video piracy wouldn't be relevant if labels hadn't gotten greedy and demanded charging for them. You can't give something away for free for 20+ years and then expect people to be perfectly happy about paying for them when all of a sudden you realize you can make a profit from them. What's next, a $1 surcharge for ketchup and napkins at McDonald's?

         

To further flesh this out..

I don't feel record labels are being greedy for seizing on a smart opportunity. Everything in the end does cost something (even Wal-Mart-cheap organic food [read this from the line "To index the price.."]), and I think it's smart for consumers to, overall, pay a balanced market price for everything they get: nothing is free but goodwill.

I agree with progosk: the industry (and the whole world, if I may be so grandiose) is having to deal with the new bottom-up scenario that the Internet is affecting. The balance has momentarily shifted, and I think it is to everyone's benefit.

         

in response to derek - I referenced NKOTB records as what financed Bjork videos, not the "Hanging Tough" clip. That is changing, though. I understand that it might be confusing that labels now want to charge and as you say it is silly to "expect people to be perfectly happy about paying for them when all of a sudden you realize you can make a profit from them." People don't have to be happy, but they DO have to pay. I am not happy about paying $5.50 for popcorn at the movie theater, but if I express my unhappiness by jumping over the counter and grabbing some - I will probably face consequences. I think your argument is just another excuse of the "I don't wanna pay, so this why I shouldn't have to" variety.

I work in music video. Pays all my bills. In some micro-miniscule part, the money from pirated songs and now videos (keep, up, times are changing oh so fast) gets put into my pocket. I like eating food and living indoors, so I will support the label's right to get paid (as corrupt and un-artistic as they are).

kev references the new "bottom up" scenario that the industry has to deal with. He is correct about the facts, but I am not sure that that this change is to everyone's benefit. Based on my janky skill set, I will never make money selling actual things. I will earn my living and send my kids to college on the back of the ideas I create. Those ideas are all I have to offer and any threat to intellectual property is one that I (and others on this site should) take very f-ing seriously. Maybe I should get into the dollar per packet ketchup business.

         

Very true, actually. I feel that pinch quite a bit myself, though my fiscal income is based elsewhere. (Lord knows I'd love to make a living working for some idealized hybrid of mvdbase/mvpa/mvdga/mtv)

Perhaps in the future there will be a system (Web 3.0?) - like Slashdot or Digg + eBay - where you converse like we're doing, but then people vote for how much of the 'broad Internet tax' you earn for your thoughts. Put the real money where the real value is.

Quick! Someone gimme $50

         

one more thing comes to my mind, reading thru this ... is this a shift in the status of a music video?

back in the 80s, there were no music videos for sale. they were shown on tv, and i guess they'd be considered as a means of marketing/supporting the sales of the records, in the same way that flyers, interviews, advertisements, and, these days, web sites are supposed to work. hence, there was no debate on the retail price of a video. no point.

now today, MVs can easily be marketed, on DVD, via itunes for your ipod, etc. so they are being sold separately now. what s more, they are being viewed more like an artistic achievement of their own, more similar to writing the song than to say creating a web site for a record. that is a good thing, of course.

nevertheless, a video still has the promotional character, for me. it does feel a bit weird to buy a video from itunes, which in turn makes me want to buy the record, as i would not consider to pay to watch a band's website.

anyway, what i was trying to say is that music videos appear to keep evolving from a kind of supporting form into a more separate art form, aren't they? which is cool in a way, but at times ... a bit difficult to accept ...

(ah, not sure if that made any sense to anyone ...)

         

If major labels start charging for access to videos, this will surely increase the promotional potential of those videos that remain free to distribute. Over time, the labels will presumably work out how revenue gained from video sales sits against lost promotional opportunity.

Another thing to bear in mind, is that a video downloaded will usually contain an easily extractable version of the track itself. If the music is the central product, then it is certainly a problem to be giving it away for free. Lost sales mean lower chart position means less exposure and publicity as well as revenue.

For the time being, labels seem to be happy about streaming versions of something online, as they can remove it and thus control it. The problem they seem to have is perfect fidelity downloadable versions, the propagation of which they can't monitor or control.

Exposure is a pretty intangible thing, whilst sales are definitely not. However, for the record, I think that trying to control access in this way might be a little short sighted. On the other hand, it might be a little short sighted not to.