RIAA challenges YouTube and GoogleVideo over video distribut

maybe i dont know the whole picture, but it seems to me that record companies are upset with decreased sales. decreased sales = less revenue.

speaking from experience, i love to buy cds. love it love it love it. i own a thousand of them. literally. but, i dont own NEARLY as many as i'd like to, because paying $15 a pop for a cd is too much for a college graduate with loan payments on a teacher's salary. record companies have already lost ALOT of my revenue. not because i am downloading illegally (although I admit I have downloaded the odd song) but because they are pricing themselves out of my range.

i really believe that if major labels dropped their prices, they'd see an increase in sales. your average cd at your average store is about $15, so why not drop that to $8 or $10 TOPS. they may cut their profits in the immediate future (but not lose profit, mind you) but the distant future will see increased unit sales. at least that's how i see it.

Echoing TL's thoughts, let's keep on track. It's been (for this type of discussion) fairly civil and informative so far (*crosses fingers* :wink: )

There are obviously a lot of sides and viewpoints to this matter (like pretty much everything in life) and a discussion of these various views can be both enlightening and educational. Notice the word "discussion," which implies that you're listening (reading) to another's viewpoint rather than simply getting up on a soapbox.

Carry on!

Peace

I am sorry David. I was typing my post when you posted yours. I really am trying to keep with the discussion and I feel that it is all pertinant to the topic. Don't worry I won't verbally attack anyone! :wink:

Mike, yes - I'm talking about all the investors. One share costs about $40, and I'm sure there are people who only own one share... does that mean the maximum any employee should earn is 22 cents per year? That's the amount one share would earn.

But the CEO makes 1/441th of what the corporation does. That's not true in all cases. (EDIT: The highest paid CEO anywhere last year was Terry Semel at Yahoo, with $230 million - 1/136th of Yahoo's operating profits, more than triple what the highest paid music exec gets in proportional terms!)

Is a fireman worth more? If my house is on fire, yeah, maybe. A doctor? A cop? A teacher? Depends on your perspective. They're not responsible for billions in shareholder assets, or tens of thousands of jobs.

Should Springsteen (or any other musician) make $100 million? Probably not. But again, that's perspective.

But those are red herrings anyway. The argument that the execs make more than the artists is false - dozens of artists make far more than the highest paid record exec. The argument that execs (as a group) make more than the shareholders (as a group) is also false.

So... to try to bring this back to topic... the argument should be: if the RIAA is not justified in seeking royalties from unlicensed online performance, why not?

What is it about the use of music in a Google video that makes it different from radio play, or performance in a venue?

Or on the flip side, what is it in 'fair use' that allows a filmmaker to appropriate a sound track (at no charge) when it has the potential to be viewed by millions online? Isn't someone losing out?

My "friendly advice" is for everyone, Mike. I'm not singling you out.

Back on track, folks.

Thank you for your patience... :wink:

Peace

Sorry Noteboat but I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I know if you and I were alone we could discuss this heated but not uncivil.

Peace 8)

Coming back on track, a question just occurred to me: would anyone actually pay for a video of some amateur dancing? The thing is - it's obvious that a record company has issues with someone obtaining for free a product that it makes available for sale, but what of stuff that's offered for free because noone would actually buy it. I mean - someone tapes themselves dancing and puts it on the net. It may be fun to watch, but it's home video junk. Regardless of the music used, it's a product that cannot be sold (and noone ever intended it to be). Conclusion - there's no money to be made off it.

What I'm getting at is that maybe the RIAA are getting too worked up about it. These are not music videos. They do actually offer increased exposure for the songs in question. Isn't this action actually doing more damage than good?

they are concerned that it sets a precedent for others.

your example is probably correct if the video is obviously just people goofing off or having fun, but if it was the "Laker Girls" or some known entity using copyrighted music then you have a whole new situation for the RIAA to sink their greedy teeth into.

What if the music in the video was mixed in afterwards instead of recorded by the camera? That way everyone could rip the sound off with minimal quality loss in seconds. Or in other words: it would allow people to upload music, add a lame video to it and giving instructions how to get rid of it.

Don't forget that it isn't about the exact situation but about what *could* happen. If they'd publicy allow this it could get them into big, big legal issues.

this is silly. are they gonna sue me for listening to loud music in my car with the windows down? i mean, i paid for the CD, but the people in other cars didn't pay a dime and they're listening for free!!!

this is silly. are they gonna sue me for listening to loud music in my car with the windows down? i mean, i paid for the CD, but the people in other cars didn't pay a dime and they're listening for free!!!

and they may have a recording device trained on your open windows while you are listening! you should be arrested for uploading! :lol:

It's an interesting coincidence that yesterday I got my hands on an issue of our (Polish) premiere pro-audio magazine, where the issue of copyrights was addressed by a lawyer. As is usual in such cases the matter of fair use came up. Now, the thing that surprised me most is that apparently American legislation with regards to copyright has been passed with public (as opposed to copyright holders') interest in mind. The fair use doctrine is supposed to promote the spread of cultural and ecducational values etc. From other sources I hear that fair use is taking a beating at the moment and this particular action by the RIAA seems to support such a view.

I wouldn't worry too much about people recording audio from such sources, for a couple of reasons: it's too much of a pain for the average Joe, the sound quality on YouTube videos is nothing to write home about and it's a lot simpler to download the stuff off p2p.

I see this particular matter as defining - to some extent - the phonographic industry's view with regard to use of recordings. Remember, if we were to take literally the typical copyright blurb on CDs, we should not be playing them for friends (not at parties certainly, as it would amount to public broadcast :) ), let alone lending them to said friends or selling stuff we no longer want. As for setting precidents - I am a great believer in common sense. If a given activity is of little threat to the copyright holders' rights (and clearly these are not people who are out to make money off these videos - especially since it's highly unlikely there's money to be made), then setting out to stomp it down with all guns blazing seems something of an overreaction. What the RIAA should be doing is pursuing those who violate copyright for commercial gain. There is a difference and the two activities should be treated differently.

Faza: "What the RIAA should be doing is pursuing those who violate copyright for commercial gain. There is a difference and the two activities should be treated differently"

I think That puts it nicely in a nut shell 8) --the dog

Mikespe - Man I'm with you on this one

Dog - I think you got it right

Yes, I agree.