Rock Videos- okay to share? (1 Viewer)

[Anthony Hom]

I 've always wondered about this. I noticed many rock videos, many from the 80's and 90's are being shared through the usual pipelines on the internet.

The question is: are these files subjected to the same piracy laws as the songs by themselves? I know you cannot sell them or use them as a means for making profits, thats a given. But unlike MP3s, music videos have always been regarded as promotional, in short advertising.

This seems to make sense since very few of the total music videos are actually for sale and they really don't sell them in the record stores like CDs.

The fact is, the record company essentially don't sell the videos, except maybe to MTV and the like. So, if they are copied, it's not really taking any money from sales. And if it's viewed, so people wnat to buy more CDs, who is it hurting? The makers of the video must have already got paid.

 

[MikeAW]

Anthony....You've got to be kidding, right ?

Where do you and this question, come from...Disneyland or someplace like that ?

The RIAA would love you, you are soooooooooo honest. I guess all of their promotion about piracy worked...at least with one person !

 

[Chris V]

Geez Mike....it was just a question...and not a bad one. My question is, where would you buy these videos? Can you go to Wally World and buy a copy of Mr. Roboto? However, my guess would be that they are protected, but like I said...where in the world would I buy them if I wanted to?

 

[Graeme Clark]

Besides the fact that you didn't even attempt to answer his question Mike, you response makes little to no sense. Why exactly would the RIAA love him? Because he's trying to figure out exactly what is and isn't legal?

That doesn't automatically make hime a boy scout.

I'm somewhat curious also. Like you say, they really are litte more than advertisements, but yet we don't see sites like adcritic.com for music videos. My guess is that there is some lagal issues with free sharing them.

 

[MikeAW]

Search the internet guys...it's out there !
How about searching Yahoo groups as your first stop, and become a member of an egroup there!
http://groups.yahoo.com/
Trust me...you will find one there for ANY music choice ! Hundreds of choices...REALLY! Lots of trading !!!!!

 

[Martin Fontaine]

As far as my moral ethics go:

It's wrong to download MP3s, listen to them/burn them to audio CDs instead of buying the album if I like it unless it's out of print or not available at all (I have nothing againts paying 40-50$ for an import album if it's good)

But this all goes down to the fact that I *CAN* buy the music that is available on MP3. But you *CAN'T* buy a music video (Except sometimes, there's a MOV/AVI/MPG file on the album) So to me, there's nothing wrong with trading MPGs of music videos online.

 

[Jeff_P]

I find this to be a good question, as I have been downloading some videos lately. I do download mp3's but only of music that I would not have bought anyway so no one is losing out. If I like it I will buy the CD. Someone has to support these artist, they need food on the table too.

But music videos is a good question. I am sure it would be considered wrong because then someone might not buy that video collection that will come out on video someday.

 

[Anthony Hom]

I knew I would get flamed on this question, but its a valid point. Everytime I see promotional material, it usually has the description "NOT FOR SALE". I know this implies vendors not to sell them as retail, but fine, let's say people have no interest in selling them. But what about exchanging them without changing money? It's not like these MPGs are the real deal, they are small windows, not full screen 640x480. So the quality is already diminished.

My theory is the music industry is out of their element with videos. They are marketing tools, but selling them has never been addressed. I suspect many videos that are for sale (like Prince, selling his on DVD) are done independently by the artist (formerly named of course). They may get their act together eventually, but MPG rock videos are just as pervasive as MP3.

Again, I don't see the damage. Rock videos are not sold in stores or on-line, they only help promote the artists for people to seek out their material.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

BUt, by the same logic- radio broadcasts of music are offered for free as a promotional tool... wouldn't this also be available for trading- since it was distributed for "free" over the airwaves?

Technically MTV still has to pay publishing to the artist to show videos-- just like radio pays for airplay. Although videos are "promotional" tools- they are still product.

-Vince

PS; Mike, your posts are a bit out of line. Not only rude, but in violation of forum policies about pirating-- and not even close to answering the question (hey didn't say he was having trouble FINDING files, rather he was wondering how legal they were).

This person asked a simple question- and you treated him as if he were an idiot for being an honest person.

Please be a bit more careful about your posts on this issue in the future.

 

[Misha Scott]

I can't touch this from a legal standpoint. But as far as I know it's always been pretty much "OK" to video tape a commercially broadcast TV program, and then let somebody else borrow the tape.

Right? Or am I off the mark. Seems like we've all done it for years and years, and nobody ever raises an eyebrow. I suspect any corporation that actually tried to file charges against an individual for doing this, would be laughed out of court. No?

If the above assumption is in fact true, then how the heck could it possibly be illegal to share a commercially broadcast TV program via the internet? Music videos are, indeed broadcast over normal, commercial TV channels, are they not? It seems to me that the ONLY difference with the internet is the media - a different method is used to share the same commercially broadcast content.

Please help me see the difference.

Regards,

Meesh

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Quote:



I can't touch this from a legal standpoint. But as far as I know it's always been pretty much "OK" to video tape a commercially broadcast TV program, and then let somebody else borrow the tape.





Legal- debatable. Worthy to prosecute- certainly not.

However- let's extend that further. You tape something available for free (lets say a free concert, or maybe a football game). You loan that tape to a friend. Is that covered under fair use? I don't know for sure- but even if it is not- it's silly to think that the legal system would have time to come after you.

However, if you start making MULTIPLE COPIES of that concert or football game- and making it available to multiple neighbors and friends- would the owner of the property come after you? Maybe, but probably not.

What if you started making copies and gave them to everyone in your city or town, even if you never met them. Would you get in trouble?

See where I'm going with this. The internet is a whole different idea of "sharing" than simply loaning a tape to your friends. The immediately obvious issue is the idea of exclusivity-- if you have one tape copy and loan it- there is still only one copy. You are not distributing at that point, at least not in an manner which the owner should find offensive.

With an intangable like music or media- it isn't finite. If I share my sandwich with you, there is less sandwich and only a finite amount of sandwich available for sharing. The same is true for something you taped and loaned to a friend- it is finite- there is one. But once copies are made- that exclusivity is no longer the case- and I think you get beyond the idea of "fair use".

At the point that it extends to "sharing" with people you don't know or have never met- it would certainly be tough to legally extend that to the analogy you made above of sharing a tape with a friend...
Even casting aside legal questions- it would take someone with seriously convoluted logic to be able to not see a difference between sharing a single tape of something with a friend and providing infinite copies to strangers.

The internet has opened up ideas that people didn't realy imagine when they worded the current laws of fair use. Fair Use is a very very good idea- however its inception didn't anticipate what has come- and so certainly the legality is a grey area.

Ask many of the better known "tape traders" from years ago- I have seen friends being served with "Cease and Desist" orders from artists shortly after the tape trading thing spread to the internet and newsgroups.
Even back when it was no bigger than strangers negotiating trades of one or two items via the mail- the business was going after some of them because it had extended to a global scale.
Now when it is anonamous immediate distribution- you can see that they probably have an even bigger bone to pick.


Quote:



how the heck could it possibly be illegal to share a commercially broadcast TV program via the internet? Music videos are, indeed broadcast over normal, commercial TV channels, are they not? It seems to me that the ONLY difference with the internet is the media - a different method is used to share the same commercially broadcast content.





Well, another big difference is control.

You allude that the only difference is the method- and that simply isn't true. Another difference is the idea that at anytime the owner of the media could stop commercial TV from distributing it, if you are distributing it- they no longer have that control. The distributor on "commercial TV" is paying a fee everytime they show it... you aren't.

There is an agreement between the owner and the entity distributing it- you are taking it upon yourself to redistribute it... and that is certainly a difference.

As I pointed out above (both in previous posts and this one)- there are royalties paid by MTV to display that video- and at any point the owner could make MTV stop distributing it. They have control of their property and the distribution of it-- they choose who to give rights to distribute.

Fair use says anything that is distributed in such a manner for your consumption, you should have the right to retain for further consumption. Fine. However- this idea doesn't extend to further distribution of that thing. When it was distributed to you- it was distributed for your consumption-- it was not a granted license for to also become a distributor.

In order for MTV to be a distributor of that item to you- they had to pay fees. They had to follow agreements (i.e. how long they had rights as distributor)-- now you're assume you have the rights transferred to you just because you have the item in your hand??

I guess to take it further- suppose someone bought 1000 CDs and chose to distribute them for free. They made the agreement with the producer to pay a certain price to have the product and distribute it. For whatever reason, they determine it is in their best interest to give it away (lets say as a promo item to get you interested in something else).

They give one to you. As far as you were concerned, that item was distributed to you for FREE, right?

However the owner of the music still owns the music. They still have the rights to sell the music in the future. The fact that it was distributed, by a 3rd party, to you for free doesn't grant you legal rights to make more copies to distribute them.

You didn't really pay for the item in the first place- let alone pay for a license to provide it as a distributor.

I hope that make sense. Again- basically the point you've missed is just because something is given to you as a consumer, doesn't grant you distribution rights.

• Blah-Blah productions supplies NBC networks with FRIENDS for a licensing fee, giving NBC the right to distribute FRIENDS commercially over their free network.
• NBC grants affiliates a licence to distribute it to you the consumer. That distribution is isolated to Thursday nights at a specific time. If either NBC or the local affiliate wanted to distribute friends during the day instead of thursday night- they don't have the rights to do that (without buying syndication rights).
• You also, just because it was broadcast to you, don't have the rights to retain it and redistribute it. Blah-blah still owns control of their property and should be allowed to distribute it in the future however they wish.

-Vince

 

[Misha Scott]

Vince, you said:

"...it would take someone with seriously convoluted logic to be able to not see a difference...

Well gee, thanks Vince! Same to you buddy. I haven't posted in this forum in probably a year. Now I remember why I left in the first place. Condescending damned Administrators.
Regards,
Meesh

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Quote:

Wooooooh, slow down partner.



Reread my post understanding this: those comments were not intended to be "targeted" at you. When I composed that reply, it was under the impression that the questions you had posed were ACTUAL QUESTIONS- that you really wondered what the difference between the two examples you listed were.



I didn't realize that, in fact, you already had a cemented opinion on the topic and were asking the question as more of a rhetorical bait to argue with you. If I would have realized, I wouldn't have responded.



Again- when I read your post, I thought you were seriously and honestly asking the queestion "Please help me see the difference" that you actually realized that you might have overlooked an issue in the process of making your conclusions. I went ahead and explained to you the difference.



If you disagree that those are "differences"- I guess that's certainly your option. I don't think they were unclear, so if you don't see the difference between consumption and distribution then we simply disagree.



I would still say, again with no intended offense to you, that it is a bit of a conceptual stretch to use "loaning a single tape I made to a friend" as analogous to "offering infinite digital copies to strangers". But, if you disagree - that's fine.



My intent was not to debate the issue with you, as I have little or no desire to change your mind on it. Rather, I was offering a genuine and [I had hoped] helpful answer to your specific question.



-vince

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Whew - all this talk about sandwiches is making me hungry!

 

[Misha Scott]

I should be ashamed of myself for getting back in this thread. I can't let the accusation stand that I ignored what Vince wrote; after all I imagine that he put a lot of thought into what he had to say.

Wait, I'm rationizing? LOL! You're saying that legally and conceptually that me letting my friend Ryan [borrow] a videotape of this week's WEST WING is the same thing as me allowing infinite strangers download the file from me on Gnutella? I'm rationalizing?

Yes, it should be considered the same. I don't see any reasonable, logically defendable difference. The ONLY difference that would be posed by storing my legaly recorded (not pirated) music videos on a hard disc, connected to the internet, is that it offers greater access to others than a VCR cassette does. People other than me can still access my VCR cassettes - heck, even you have confessed to loaning a copy of "West Wing" to Ryan - it's just not as easy. In fact, I'll extend an open invitation for anyone willing to fly over here - you may borrow any VCR cassette in my collection. That's the part that pisses the corporations off, that's the REAL sticky wicket - it's EASIER using the new medium. They agreed to make home recording legal, now they can't put the genie back in the bottle. I say tough! Either it's legal or it's not legal. Media is media - analog, digital, or bio-chemical. If I give someone access to my hard-drive, it shouldn't be any different than giving someone a key to my video cabinet. I say, unless they're willing to try to outlaw home recording of the RF spectrum, they should let it lie.
Regards,
Meesh

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I was actually agreeing with you Vince until:

A solution like Napster takes the importance off of recorded creation of music (and singles specifically) and places it back on the live performance of music.

I think you are way off base here. All Napster provides is an easy way for people to steal recordings. Nothing more, nothing less. This whole notion that musicians should be forced to perform live because people will steal their recorded work is simply wrong. You don't have the right to tell me or anyone else how they can exploit their talents. If I want to perform live, fine, if I don't that is my choice. If I prefer to work alone and make records, who are you to tell me that I have to get a band and live in a bus playing in smokey clubs to a bunch of drunks to get paid for my work? It is not up to you to dictate how anyone should make their living. If you prefer to experience music in a live setting, that is your perogative, and there are certainly a number of artists to serve you.
Some people like to listen to music without having to go to a live venue, put up with bad mixes, and obnoxious audiences. They would rather enjoy it in their car, or in the privacy of their homes, where they can appreciate the art that goes into making a great record.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Jeff,
Don't think that I don't understand what you're saying- and you are exactly right. I can't say I can justify the use of Napster, as I pointed out in my example above-- living in a violent neighborhood precipitates change, but no one would call the violence a just act.
However- that little side rant was just a personal one- my beliefs about music, art and creation. Selfish really, without a doubt, but still I find myself silently rejoycing to find artists to be forced to come around to my way of thinking.
As a person who pretty much makes his living making records, I can assure you that very few amount to "great art" going into the process. Most times, an album ends up being great DESPITE the process. I'm not saying great records don't happen- but I (again personally) feel that the affordability of recording equipment makes it completely possible for a band to make an excellent sounding album, free of outside influence, for very low prices. At that point, the music could be- in theory- given away without any serious loss.
I'm not suggesting doing away with albums- quite the opposite really. I'm just privately entertained by the idea of modern "musicians" being forced to "put up or shut up" so to speak. The idea that the money in the business and emphasis would be placed back on the Live end of things. Just a reversal of priority-- emphasis on Live with album as promotion for live as oppose to the other way around (as it is now).
Again- just my selfish notion of how, in "Vince World version 1.0" the music "industry" would be structured. Music would return to its roots- the idea of live performance of music being the purpose, rather than performance being simply a promotional tool for album sales.
-Vince

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I don't know Vince, but rejoicing that someone's livelihood is being threatened, and advocating the theft of their income seems pretty cold to me.
As for the lower cost of recording equipment allowing people to make great sounding albums, it is still skill and experience that are required to make truly great sounding records. Sure, you can fluke out and get a great sound on occasion, but you can't learn how to engineer and produce from a book. Thankfully these lower prices will allow true artists who otherwise couldn't afford to create that opportunity.
That goes nowhere towards the development of the craft of songwriting, which seems to be an overlooked part of the whole industry of music. The focus now is merchantability, how well you fill out a pair of jeans, and whether you'd look good on a billboard, and very little to do with talent or content.
My version of the industry would be a bit different. It would be a place where creative talent was nurtured and developed, where artists weren't treated as widgets, and where those who did the work actually got paid for it. It woudln't be ablout coddling people's egos, but more of challenging their creativity.
I certainly wouldn't be supportive of depriving them of the rewards of their labor.
As for sharing videos, Vince is right, it is not legal. He's also right that unless you are making a commercial enterprise of it, chances are the FBI won't be knocking on your door any time soon.

 

[Anthony Hom]

Hey,

I'm surprised this thread to this direction. Too many complexities here, and I think the question still remains no closer to an answer than when it started. It did bring up some important thoughts on this subject.

Home taping was a problem for the industry (music and film), but tolerated it because home taping was slow and takes time to do without spending alot on duplication equipment. Out of the hands for 80 of all home tape people.

The internet provides a different method of distribution. No handing out of a real object. Just a computer file, only now, people are coming to you and finding the video.

It's almost more like broadcasting than anything else. You aren't doing the copying, you are posting the video file, others are copying it off you.

But again, how is it a loss for the record industry to allow the copying of rock videos? They can only be seen on computers in good quality, and they promote the sale of a record. Even if you can distribute the videos, who would buy them, when you can watch them for free on MTV or VH-1? The numbers just aren't there.

It doesn't hurt the artist to have their video distributed because they are not selling it directly as a product, and people viewing them might get people to buy their records, the real product.