NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, I haven't seen a thread on this yet, but if I have missed one I apologise.

http://www.polyvibeentertainmentgroup.com/2006/06/15/no-dancing-to-music-for-you/

In an announcement that rivals Footloose for the internet age, the RIAA has now taken to sending Cease and Disist letters to YouTube users that have videotaped themselves dancing to popular music. While no loss of income can be proven, the RIAA is claiming that because the clips contain un-licensed music that their interests and rights are being trampled by kids like these. As you can see the quality of these amateur videos is abismal, and the viral nature of video, with users posting links to each other, has been a nice organic form of marketing that you can’t buy if you wanted to, but RIAA officials, and the Big-4 they represent are starting the crack down. While most of the C&D letters will not amount to much, they do amount to this: a scare tactic, targeting largley uneducated (in copyright law) and underage music lovers that are cheap to send, and is largely a show of force. I don’t konw about you, but this seems like it would fall easily into the category of Fair Use.

Now suing people for downloading music, I understnad. I dont agree with it, but I understand it. But this is just retarted. Can anyone defend this?

Assuming that the music is owned by the kids, then it becomes fair use. Whether it falls under parody, not-for-profit, or some other exclusion is unknown to me. But I can say that RIAA simply has a stick up its ass, and until it proves that those songs were acquired illegally no crime has been committed.

NT

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
*breathe*
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
*breathe*
HA

They have video of fucking copyrighted stuff on YouTube and the fucking RIAA is sending them C&Ds about home videos with pop music?

These people don't fucking quit.

http://images.jgumby.com/funny/downloading_communism.gif

It's not fair use, where that the case I could put any music I felt like in a film without anyones consent, and that just isn't true. If I where to put up a film even on a free site like triggerstreet.com I still can't use copywrighted music unless I have permission. YouTube is no different.

I'm always amused that people are stuned and shocked that people would want to protect the fruit of thier labor and work. I have to say I don't understand the sense of entitlement that goes along with the insistance that people think that they should be entertained for free. You guys want free music? Learn an instrument.

http://images.jgumby.com/funny/downloading_communism.gif
ROFLMAO!!

Movies can't be downloaded from YouTube thus there can be no music pirating from the movies. Therefore, RIAA can blow it out their fucking ear.

It's not fair use, where that the case I could put any music I felt like in a film without anyones consent, and that just isn't true. If I where to put up a film even on a free site like triggerstreet.com I still can't use copywrighted music unless I have permission. YouTube is no different.

I'm always amused that people are stuned and shocked that people would want to protect the fruit of thier labor and work. I have to say I don't understand the sense of entitlement that goes along with the insistance that people think that they should be entertained for free. You guys want free music? Learn an instrument.

Yes, but the real question is...is it good for business? So many artists are starting to rail against the RIAA because of actions like this. Labels are moving away from them as well. The RIAA is killing their business with their own greed.

Yes, but the real question is...is it good for business?

No, the real question is "what do the artists want".
They are the ones who created the materials. They therefor have the right to decide what happens with them. And if they wish to be allied with stupid greedy bastards - so be it. Their decision to make, not yours, not mine.

No, the real question is "what do the artists want".
They are the ones who created the materials. They therefor have the right to decide what happens with them. And if they wish to be allied with stupid greedy bastards - so be it. Their decision to make, not yours, not mine.
That's basically posing the question to the artist. "Is it good for your business?" The artist may no think so because s/he may feel cheated because of it and not be able or willing to produce such quality work.

I dont see what the problem is... do they think that somebody is going to extract the sound from the video and then share it? It's not worth the effort when you can just download the song if thats what you really want anyway. The kids dancing to these songs aren't causing any profit loss for anyone - unless someone can make a reasonable case to the contrary.

I dont see what the problem is... do they think that somebody is going to extract the sound from the video and then share it? It's not worth the effort when you can just download the song if thats what you really want anyway. The kids dancing to these songs aren't causing any profit loss for anyone - unless someone can make a reasonable case to the contrary.
Reasonable case? RIAA? Surely you jest.

Reasonable case? RIAA? Surely you jest.


No I don't expect the RIAA to come up with it. I am talking about those on this board that would defend their sillyness as actually being good for anything at all. I want them to come up with a plausible scenario how this could hurt anybodies business.

One would think that these kids dancing to songs they find popular and sharing them would be good advertising.

No I don't expect the RIAA to come up with it. I am talking about those on this board that would defend their sillyness as actually being good for anything at all. I want them to come up with a plausible scenario how this could hurt anybodies business.

One would think that these kids dancing to songs they find popular and sharing them would be good advertising.
Logically, the more people that hear your song, the more word of mouth you get, thus the more people listen to your music, thus the more shit you sell. Of course, the RIAA and the huge bands that have been disconnected with real people for the past few decades don't realize this.

It's about time that numa-numa wanker was thrown in jail.

It's about time that numa-numa wanker was thrown in jail.

You're just jealous of his leet skillz.

http://images.jgumby.com/funny/downloading_communism.gif
*dies laughing*

No I don't expect the RIAA to come up with it. I am talking about those on this board that would defend their sillyness as actually being good for anything at all. I want them to come up with a plausible scenario how this could hurt anybodies business.

Why would that be relevant ? If the owner of the material doesn't want people to do certain things with his or her property - than that should not be done, period. Regardless of how good it would be for him/her if you got your way.

OMG someone sue everyone who has ever made a Fraps movie. :eek:

RIAA can go and perform a homosexual act on itself. :upyours:

Why would that be relevant ? If the owner of the material doesn't want people to do certain things with his or her property - than that should not be done, period. Regardless of how good it would be for him/her if you got your way.

if an artist doesnt want some kid dancing to his song on a home video and shared with friends, they they need to come up with a good reason why or not release songs for people to listen and dance to.

lets say you got married and there was video of you and yrou wife dancing to the songs you picked out for the dj. then you decided to put this wedding video on yoru webpage to share with family and friends who werent able to attend yoru wedding. Shoudl you go to jail? Should you have to pay a fine? Should the artist have a right to force yout o take the video down because their song is in it and they dont want people to see you dancing to their song? If so... why? You aren't makign money off of it, nor are you preventing them from making money. And if you are then I would liek to hear how, otherwise there is no reason for such a silly restriction.

if an artist doesnt want some kid dancing to his song on a home video and shared with friends, they they need to come up with a good reason why or not release songs for people to listen and dance to.

No, they do not need to have a reason at all. They have every right to act illogical, stupid, selfish, silly or whatever - since it is their property.

We of course have the freedom to refuse to oblige the nutase by not touching his property with a ten foot pole.

No, they do not need to have a reason at all. They have every right to act illogical, stupid, selfish, silly or whatever - since it is their property.

We of course have the freedom to refuse to oblige the nutase by not touching his property with a ten foot pole.


okay well you keep your personal opinion and live by that and I will keep my personal opinion and live by that and if the law finds for the artists in this then fine, but I doubt that will happen without a compellign reason.

I feel that once the artist releases a song for public consumption they need to give us a good reason why they dont want their songs to be heard in home videos, if they are against it. ALthough I don't see any artists complaining here anyway... just the RIAA - who I don't dive a shit about..

A realistic case? Fine.

The movie industry learned a long time ago that in a consolidated industry, the means to the greatest amount of profit is to concentrate resources on a very few products that are known to be money-makers. This is why the mainstream movie industry is utter shit with little to no originality.

The recording industry has been consolidating itself for years now with exclusive distribution deals with record stores and the like, and they too have take to heart the lesson of the movie industry. If they can concentrate their resources on a very few products that are known to be money-makers, they can make huge profits without having to invest in all the little bands that may or may not be a success.

Unfortunately for them, music has a lot lower barrier to entry, so it's more difficult to stay consolidated than it is for the movie industry. However, so long as the general public does not start looking for anything innovative and is more or less satisfied with the pap that the industry puts out, this isn't a big deal. What is a big deal is if people start developing their own unique tastes in music -- say by being exposed to various other genres, artists, or styles. Trying to market to three million individuals is a lot less cost-effective than trying to market to seven genres.

So it's not about short-term profit. The RIAA companies have, and always have had, the technology to open up their entire libraries at 30 cents a song online and make a massive killing -- Sony is a member for chrissakes. It's not like they don't know online. The danger is that if they do that and people start listening to anything they want, it gets harder for them to back "winners".

No, they do not need to have a reason at all. They have every right to act illogical, stupid, selfish, silly or whatever - since it is their property.

We of course have the freedom to refuse to oblige the nutase by not touching his property with a ten foot pole.
Once they release it through a contract (i.e. sale), it is no longer theirs. They have no rights to infringe on those of others' personal use of the song.

While no loss of income can be proven
If they cannot prove harm, the case is thrown out.

Also we should sue people who listen to music at dances since technically they don't own that music and dozens of people who didn't buy it get to listen to it.

Also we should sue people who listen to music at dances since technically they don't own that music and dozens of people who didn't buy it get to listen to it.

Radio! Don't forget about radio!

No I don't expect the RIAA to come up with it. I am talking about those on this board that would defend their sillyness as actually being good for anything at all. I want them to come up with a plausible scenario how this could hurt anybodies business.

One would think that these kids dancing to songs they find popular and sharing them would be good advertising.

*Raises hand to be the devil's advocate*

Have you actually seen these videos? My gawd they are awful! After seeing some of those rhythm rejecting talentless kids dancing and lipsynching to the RIAA music horrible images are burnt into my psyche that will forever prevent me from enjoying or buying the original music again. It is a horrible abomination and must be stopped!

Why would that be relevant ? If the owner of the material doesn't want people to do certain things with his or her property - than that should not be done, period. Regardless of how good it would be for him/her if you got your way.
Except it's not THEIR property. They own the license to make and sell it and to keep others from doing the same as well as indiscriminately sharing the song itself. But the people who are dancing to it are the ones who own it, as such. The only thing they can't do is make said video and then sell it.

Except it's not THEIR property. They own the license to make and sell it and to keep others from doing the same as well as indiscriminately sharing the song itself. But the people who are dancing to it are the ones who own it, as such. The only thing they can't do is make said video and then sell it.
With YouTube, it would be more trouble than it's worth to get the music because you can't download the videos.

With YouTube, it would be more trouble than it's worth to get the music because you can't download the videos.

Welllllll.....it isnt as easy as it could be anyway.

With YouTube, it would be more trouble than it's worth to get the music because you can't download the videos.
No, I was talking about the people who made the videos selling them.

OK, I haven't seen a thread on this yet, but if I have missed one I apologise.

http://www.polyvibeentertainmentgroup.com/2006/06/15/no-dancing-to-music-for-you/



Now suing people for downloading music, I understnad. I dont agree with it, but I understand it. But this is just retarted. Can anyone defend this?
Strange the RIAA site doesn't even mention about the Cease and Desist.

Also we should sue people who listen to music at dances since technically they don't own that music and dozens of people who didn't buy it get to listen to it.

In the UK, at least, those venues which play recorded music to their patrons pay annual subscriptions to the PPL for a permit to do so (or, are required to do so by law anyhow).

You guys want free music? Learn an instrument.
That's getting harder to do as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4508158.stm

In the UK, at least, those venues which play recorded music to their patrons pay annual subscriptions to the PPL for a permit to do so (or, are required to do so by law anyhow).
Yeah, dancehalls have to pay a fee for using the music, but if it was up to the RIAA, they would have to pay some sort of fee per song per person that could hear it every single time a song was played.

That's getting harder to do as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4508158.stm
"Unauthorised use of lyrics and tablature deprives the songwriter of the ability to make a living, and is no different than stealing," he said.
That is the guy for the US MPA. You always notice how it is never the artists themselves coming out against anything, it is always some big group called an "association" like they are an actual group of artists talking about how doing X deprives the artists of money. And it is always the US groups.

Why the fuck should anyone listen if the artists themselves are going on record as against it? If they can sell products by the power of their celebrity recognition, I'm sure the record company would have them out there fighting against it. So since they arnt' and don't, I doubt they could give a fuck. Well besides some huge ass group like Aerosmith or Metallica, groups that have been around longer alot of the people listening to them have been alive and think they are above everyone else.

That is the guy for the US MPA. You always notice how it is never the artists themselves coming out against anything, it is always some big group called an "association" like they are an actual group of artists talking about how doing X deprives the artists of money. And it is always the US groups.
You do have a point, but something else to think about is whether or not the artists really are involved with those associations. Maybe they don't want the bad publicity for being whiny, greedy little snots. It is true, though, that the companies have the most money at stake.

That is the guy for the US MPA. You always notice how it is never the artists themselves coming out against anything, it is always some big group called an "association" like they are an actual group of artists talking about how doing X deprives the artists of money. And it is always the US groups.

Mmmhm.

And it's a totally crap argument.

Most sheet music you find is unauthorised and full of errors anyway. I have only once bought sheet music, and it was second hand (probably illegal too)....so they haven't made a cent out of me. Half of the artists I listen to don't even have sheet music available for them anyway, so my learning a song using tablature found on the internet isn't hurting anyone's profits.

It's even dumber when it comes to lyrics: "Oh, I know the lyrics of the song, so i'm not going to bother buying the album!" o.O?

But he wants to see people who write guitar tablature serve jailtime. Where does it end? Am I breaking the law if I teach someone to play a song? What if I interpret it by ear without buying the sheet music? Ugh!

You do have a point, but something else to think about is whether or not the artists really are involved with those associations. Maybe they don't want the bad publicity for being whiny, greedy little snots. It is true, though, that the companies have the most money at stake.
People think most of them are whiny, greedy snots anyway.

People think most of them are whiny, greedy snots anyway.
Yes, but they have very little evidence in most cases to support the claim. And it's all about reputation. People may think that, but their reputation says something else. They may lose a chunk of their fanbase if they destroy their own reputation. Frankly, I think most artists whose work is downloaded can afford to lose a little business anyway. The generally better, smaller artists aren't usually popular enough to be hosted until they are becoming the big, rich artists.

I dont see what the problem is... do they think that somebody is going to extract the sound from the video and then share it? It's not worth the effort when you can just download the song if thats what you really want anyway. The kids dancing to these songs aren't causing any profit loss for anyone - unless someone can make a reasonable case to the contrary.
Not to mention that the quality of the sound on YouTube is so ridiculously degraded that it would be worse than recording onto a beaten up cassette tape from FM radio. This is a case where the RIAA has the right to go after these kids, but it's really fucking stupid for them to do so.

Strange the RIAA site doesn't even mention about the Cease and Desist.
There's an update to the link that suggests this may be an urban legend of sorts--people may have gotten cease and desist letters claiming to be from the RIAA, but it's likely the RIAA wasn't behind them. Funny how easy it is to believe the RIAA would do something that dumb, though, isn't it?