Videos: new RIAA p2p targets
p2p news / p2pnet: As if the members of the Big Four Organized Music cartel, “devastated,” they claim, by hundreds of millions of file sharing, criminal customers, didn’t have enough trouble, they now have something else to worry about.
“The rise of user-generated content sites like YouTube, MySpace, Google Video and iFilm has sparked a revolution in the viral sharing of music videos across these Web communities,” says Reuters/Billboard. “The problem is, much of the distribution taking place – outside a select number of promotional deals – is happening without the approval of record companies.”
Say it ain’t SO!
But it is and the RIAA, owned by Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, “recently issued cease-and-desist letters to YouTube users sharing videos from the likes of Nelly Furtado, Beyonce and Rihanna,” says the story, going on:
“The site, which now claims more than 6 million visitors and 40 million streams daily, has become a haven for unlicensed music videos, which users are capturing with TiVo and other digital video recorders and then posting the files to the Web. Much of the material is coming from recorded MTV broadcasts.”
According to Reuters/Billboard, “one source close to the situation says that the recording industry is lobbying YouTube and other viral video sites to implement content-filtering technologies to identify and block unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.”
DRM.
“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, says the story, adding:
“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. 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.”
As far back as 2002, Ispso-Reid estimated some 60 million Americans had downloaded and it’s likely the number has grown substantially since then.
Our most recent statistics from p2p research firm Big Champagne are out of date, but they still show the numbers of users simultaneously logged onto the p2p networks at any given moment has been rising steadily.
The labels claim people who share music with each other are criminals and thieves. Accordingly, the Big Four have fired subpoenas at 19,000 American men, women and even children, accusing them of being thieves.
Has singling out 19,000 from 60 million had any effect on file sharing? No, although the RIAA claims it has, in statements repeated as gospel by the the gullible (the most favourable interpretation) mainstream media.
Traditional print and electronic press outlets also give credence to label disinformation which suggests subpoenas amount to actual ‘prosecutions,’ and that the people who received them have been found guilty of file sharing.
However, file sharing isn’t a crime, or anywhere near it. Nothing has been stolen, no money has changed hands, and it’s never been shown that a file shared equals a sale lost. In reality, at absolute worst, people who share files may (or may not) have infringed a copyright.
Stay tuned.
Digg this story.
Also See:
Reuters/Billboard – Viral video sharing is new headache for music biz, June 2, 2006
Ispso-Reid – Americans Continue To Embrace Potential Of Digital Music, December 4, 2002
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
NOTE: p2pnet is being sued by Sharman Networks and Nikki Hemming, ceo of p2p application Kazaa. “The suit is a little odd, since P2PNet.net is a champion of peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is the same business that Kazaa is in,” says The Globe & Mail. If you’d like to help p2pnet, or find out more, please go here.
June 3rd, 2006 at 10:16 pm
I can fix this problem:
1) Stop broadcast of music videos.
2) Problem solved.
June 4th, 2006 at 1:57 am
it sounds like someone is angling to get the broadcast flag issue raised again.
June 4th, 2006 at 5:10 am
Who cares! We can generate our own videos. I hate those commercially produced videos anyway. They’re like commercials. Let’s keep YouTube for us and let the RIAA have commercial television. It sux.
June 4th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Sure all those numbers and dates look good, im just wondering what p2p networks they got their numbers from. Sounds like more properganda coming from the RIAA.
June 4th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Copyright is a real issue. As a computer geek, I appreciate the protection afforded to stuff I write/create and offer a level of professional respect to others who produce intellectual works. I don’t pirate.
BUT, that having been said, it is far more convenient for me to listen to a few tracks from ABC’s album on line, than to go to HMV and ask them to open a copy for me to hear before I decide whether or not to buy it. Of the last 10 CD’s I bought, one was introduced to me by TV advertising, one by a music store owner and two by my appreciation for the particular artist. That leaves 6 – or 60% – that caught my ear on the net.
RIAA might be a bit pissed that I could listen to these for free, but the copyright owners, the CD manufacturer, the artists and the song-writers all ‘won’ because I was able to find and review the work for free. Three of them I would never have heard of, seen or purchased had it not been for free downloads.
Now, maybe my attitude on copyright is a bit more ‘legit’ than most, but I doubt I am alone in buying copies of CDs I hear first for free and like. I would also bet the dollar value gained by record companies from file-sharing (i.e. free previews and access to stuff that never got to stores) is considerably greater than their real loss.
In the earlier days of movies on TV there was a school of thought that believed if a million people watched a film on TV it was a million ticket sales lost to the theater chains and studio. Eventually they realized it was a million viewings that would not have otherwise occurred and for which they at least got something. The exposure for the next film was good for stars, directors, producers and theaters as well.
Yahoo!
(Not an anonymous coward as the heading would suggest, but the victim of a faulty registration system)
June 4th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Quoting:
“However, file sharing isn’t a crime, or anywhere near it. Nothing has been stolen, no money has changed hands, and it’s never been shown that a file shared equals a sale lost. In reality, at absolute worst, people who share files may (or may not) have infringed a copyright.”
This notion has been repeated verbatim in this forum many times and needs to be challenged. Let me give you an example of theft where there is no money changing hands. What If I were to steal your identity and apply for credit and pay all the bills properly. To you this would be totally invisible and non-detrimental. So why if this happened to you would you be and feel violated?
1. I would have borrowed your brand that you worked so hard to establish in order to get easy credit. Just like people on peer to peer and YouTube borrow the branding of artists to increase their coolness factor.
2. It would still be a crime per the law and I can be prosecuted by the state even if there is no monetary harm to you directly. You see, there is harm to the social structure that has to be accounted for.
Worst yet, the above benign scenario where I pay all my bills promptly and not eventually harm you with the identity theft would be exceedingly rare. Identity theft is rarely done by honorable people and that’s why it can be such a nightmare. Let me add, that non-monetary music and video theft has a similar degrading effect not only upon the person engaged in it but also on society at large.
June 4th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Sophistry.
June 4th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
“Let me add, that non-monetary music and video theft has a similar degrading effect not only upon the person engaged in it but also on society at large. ”
This statement has NEVER been proven. Ever.
In fact, it has been shown to have a ZERO effect on sales.
The effect on “society at large” is simply an attempt to use
morality to stop something that harms no one.
If you wish to use a “moral compass” to point the direction to
good and right, perhaps you might want to show it to the
labels that are suing that have been caught and CONVICTED
of …..
Fraud
Payola
Bribery
Breach of contract ( deliberately failing to pay royalties to those
artists they care sooooo much about ).
etc …. there is much more, all with actual CONVICTIONS.
Allowing large wealthy corporations to do as they will, with ony
wrist slaps for punishment, allowing them to buy laws that
help them victimize regular people in the name of profit,
welll ….
That has a HUGE “degrading effect not only upon the person engaged in it but also on society at large. ”
Very huge.
The word “Honorable” has no place in any article defending the
media industry.
( not even going to go into the fact that most people that
dl .. yes MOST .. actually used to go out and buy .. IF they
liked it .. thereby increasing sales. Now ??? Blame “piracy”
all you like, it’s people BOYCOTTING that’s hurting them.
Since they control the news outlets, no one will know the truth )
June 4th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
While I love to use anologies myself I can see where you are coming from. there are holes in this anology however. first it is correct that under the definition of stealing and theft I can see the argument that it shouldn’t be called indentity theft. perhaps Indentity infringment since another individual is using your identity temporarily. You are still you. nothing has been stolen there.
HOWEVER… that’s where the simularity ends. Money has changed hands indirectly and through a third party. You got money to pay your bills by using my identity for credit. In turn I have to pay back that money or have my credit ruined preventing me from buying a home car or starting a business. IE, your actions has hurt me financially and can be proven. In the case of the music and movie industry, every single independent study on the problem cannot find any proof where the industry has been hurt by file sharing. on the contrary many studies suggest the oppisite.
“Just like people on peer to peer and YouTube borrow the branding of artists to increase their coolness factor.”
coolness factor?? everyone I know who has downloaded music do so because they love the muisc, not because it makes them look cool.
“Identity theft is rarely done by honorable people and that’s why it can be such a nightmare. Let me add, that non-monetary music and video theft has a similar degrading effect not only upon the person engaged in it but also on society at large.”
So using that anology 60 million people in the U.S and tens of million people around the world are not honorable people??
I suggest you look at the methods and techniques the industry itself uses to gain control and ownership of songs that isn’t even theirs to begin with before you start talking about honorable people.
Rick
June 5th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Hey Rick-
Thanks for taking on my analogy above. I was trying to get to some logic inside my own head about how file sharing works. I will grant you in complete the argument that the music companies are less than admirable in their behavior. Having established that, I was trying to get to some logic about if it degrades a person in their own self esteem (totally ignoring the society at large issue which mostly involves how much incentive talented people have to produce works that enliven our environment. I am a musician and my own daughter despite a high interest level and even higher talent level came of age during this file sharing period. She told me she has no interest in pursuing music precisely because of the low monetary value placed on music by her peers and ever higher risks of being in music. In the pain I felt at that moment, I also felt society lost some luster. That’s all I was aiming for with that comment).
June 5th, 2006 at 12:36 am
You should thank the honorable RIAA for preventing your daughter from engaging in music …
lets not forget that four multinational corporations control 82% of the global music copyrights (& with the potential merger of EMI & Warner this would become 3 companies); that their business model is based on restriciting cultural diversity; that on average only 30 CDs a year in the USA actually produce royalties for artists signed to major labels – becuase of the one sided exploitative contracts that arists are faced with, the average american artists needs to sell 1 million CDs before they see any royalties meanwhile the record label has recouped $11 million in gross revenue; that their business model was always based on creating an ARTIFICAL scarcity that no longer exists and instead of evolving to meet market conditions (like so many industries have had to do because of technology), they are using their political and financial power to litigate their way back into a market (at least trying to).
The simple fact is that there are other ways to make money from music that doesnt depend on controlling every copy but as it would open the market to competition and reduce their ability to control everything they’re simply not into it…
imagine if steam train drivers had a legal entitlement to prevent us from using cars… imagine if the agricultural industry had a legal entitlement to prevent automated farming …. imagine if secretaries had had a legal entitlement to prevent wide spread word processing…
the people arent wrong, the law and the industry are…
June 5th, 2006 at 12:54 am
Well I wouldn’t give up on your daughter yet. She has an obvious love for music. however she’s probably trying to figure out a path for herself to provide income in order to live. That doesn’t mean she’s going to give up on music. I’m not a musician but I am trained in theatre and all artists have one thing in common. they love their art and that love keeps the art going. not money. Right now she may not have an intrest to pursue music as a career but that doesn’t mean she won’t pursue it as a hobby. I’m willing to bet that hobby will produce many quality works. That’s much better than having the music cartel parade her around like Britney Spears.
Rick
June 5th, 2006 at 6:16 am
Using credit cards, passports, driver’s licences issues in someone else’s name is called FRAUD. The only reason the mainstram media uses the term “identity theft” is because they think Joe Sixpack won’t understand complex ideas and has to have things spelled out for him. Apparently Joe Sixpack CAN understand FRAUD when it is made to seem similar to someone nicking off with his car.
Sticking music videos on YouTube is called COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT *NOT* MUSIC VIDEO STEALING.
This Newspeak is really giving me the shits.