Politicians, Yet Again, Think The Constitution Doesn't Apply To Video Games
Rational Thoughts On Network Neutrality

The RIAA Says No Dancing To Music On YouTube

Culture

from the how-dare-you! dept

Wed, Jun 14th 2006 06:38pm -

We already know that the entertainment industry loves to try to get people to pay for every possible use of their content. Remember the filmmaker who almost couldn’t release his documentary because there was a four and a half second clip of The Simpsons playing in the background in one scene? It seems that with the rise of user-generated video, a lot more people are learning about the fun of licensing rights. The RIAA is apparently sending out cease-and-desist letters to YouTube users who dare to put up videos of things such as themselves dancing to music they haven’t licensed. It’s difficult to see how the RIAA can make a credible claim of “losses” in this case. Clearly, some kids videotaping themselves bopping along to some song aren’t going to pay a license fee — and these sorts of viral videos tend to help build up more interest in artists. So what good does it do to go after these videos?


205 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The RIAA Says No Dancing To Music On YouTube”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
205 Comments
DittoBox (user link) says:

BS

This is BS now. The RIAA can’t possibly be anymore insane or maniacal.

Some kid records himself dancing to some obscure song, it then get’s catapulted to worldwide popularity. How is getting *free* product placement bad?

I don’t understand it! In any other industry this is free advertising and product placing. To any other industry this is the best blood thing you can ask for! To the RIAA it’s Grand Larceny!

What complete idiotic fools.

rijit (profile) says:

Well at least the MPAA is not suing dead people anymore.

It would depend on how the music is played right? If it is a public radio station they are listening to then they have no case since it is aired in public yeah? If the dancers bought the music they have a license as well you would think. Though they would probably say it is broadcasting, hence they need to license it.

Scott says:

Re: Re:

Apparently you know nothing about copyright law. While I am not happy with the RIAAs tactics, especially with their position that mp3 files somehow qualify as “perfect copies”, these kind of off-handed statements are often taken as fact simply because the MPAA and RIAA are perceived as evil due to their stong-armed approach to copyright infringement. Your assessment that an artist would lose any copyright simply by allowing a public radio station to play their song is, quite frankly, bullshit. That would be akin to an artist losing rights on a painted work by displaying the painting in a public art show. The medium an artist uses to display/air/play an original work, whether it be a publicly funded or privately owned broadcast has absolutely no bearing on copyright holdings. By the same token, selling a copy of an original work to the public does not transfer ownership of the work to the public. The dancers may own the polycarbonate and aluminum that the pits are stored on, but they do NOT own the pits.

John (user link) says:

There’s no difference I can see between uploading an MP3 to the net

And uploading a video to the net

If the former is a copyright violation due to it containing a copyright song, so is the latter. It doesn’t matter how unprofessional the individual looks dancing to the tune.

You don’t have to claim losses for a copyright violation. A violation is a violation. (losses can increase damages, but you can win a case on the mere violation of copyright law.)

I’m not a lawyer. And I’m not saying artists should care. But I can see why the RIAA cares. (They’re not the artist)

J B says:

Re: Re:

JOHN, you are an idiot, did you read the headline, this is pure non sense, are you trying to tell me that if i upload a video of my self working out with a copyright video or audio in the background i am breaking the LAW ? Give me a FREAKIN BREAK, when will this non-sense stop, are you the same type of people that agrees with the Sony RootKit fiasco? the RIAA, the record and movie industry is nothing but pure greed, they do not care about you the end user or the artist, there was never a better time to pirate copyright material than now and i will continue to do so, F*** THE RIAA!

-JB

DittoBox (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Way to go. You just:

A) Fed a troll.

B) Made a complete ass of yourself.

C) Made those of us who really do care —but like to phrase our concerns in a far more civil way— look just like you: an ass.

Thanks for representing us so poorly. If I were any more cynincal than I am now I’d suspect the both of you of being RIAA goons out to make those against the RIAA look bad.

Ron says:

RIAA can FLIP themselves

I am so sick and tired of the RIAA. Man, anymore it seems everywhere you look and turn there’s the RIAA breathing down someone’s neck anymore. You can’t go a day without hearing a thing about them. What really sucks is they are really making themselves out to be the bastard child of all corporations. I mean who do you hate the most. Heck, people are complaining about the gov’t spying on phone calls that are really targeted for oversea calls when their should be a loud and clear outcry on these “in-your-face” every freaking minute RIAA people. Man, just stop already with these stupid ignorant allegations of how you’re loosing mony when in fact you’re making more money than ever. I understand about making sure people don’t steal music but come on…. this is just going WAY TOO FAR with this crap. Anyway, I could go on and on about this but I won’t. I am FED UP with this by now. Oh yah, just one last thing. I DO PURCHASE all my music legally. Don’t want the RIAA on my back.

Adolf Hitler says:

I don't see what the issue is here?

You as citizens should have no say in what you do think or say, that is the job of the government and industry reps such as the RIAA and MPAA. I fully endorse the actions of the RIAA even though I feel they are quite lacking…honestly public execution for this violations would make things stop much faster.

Outlaw says:

Re: I don't see what the issue is here?

If you feel that what the RIAA is doing than you are a communist bastard. They are telling us (even those of us who do buy the music) do not have any fair use rights to what we purchased. They say we cannot put our bought songs onto an ipod. make a video with music in the backround and they are suing children, senior citizens and dead people because they do not know and cannot prove who is or is not downloading music. All that they are going to do is cause the system to go underground making it harder for them to catch the downloader. Some programs already shut their doors but still operate for those who know how to get in the back door. Don’t be stupid. They did not go after us in the 80’s when we where making copies of our cassette tapes.

James says:

John is right on there. The law is the law and the law says that if you don’t own the rights to broadcast something, you can’t legally broadcast it. Buying a CD does not give you the rights to broadcast the music in any form, regardless of profit or motive.

All you people shouting “hahaha stupid RIAA” are, I’m sorry to say, only shouting about your ignorance of the law. You may not like paying for music, you may think the prices are outrageous, you may think the RIAA is overzealous and profit-hungry and their lawyers need to take a pill, and largely I’d agree with you, but you can’t legally argue with their right to pursue copyright infringers if they want to because the law says they have that right.

THAT is why the attourneys that are parents of these kids aren’t going to touch the case – they know that legally they will get crushed because their kids are acting illegally.

Maybe one day everything will be free and you’ll be able to rip off anyone’s work without facing consequences. Until then though, overzealous as they may be, the RIAA is legally within their rights to hunt you down.

DittoBox (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I think it’s rooted more in the fair use provisions that allow these kinds of things.

But it’s still grey.

What concerns me the most is that the noise to signal ratio in TechDirt comments is getting really bad as of late. There is little or no civil public discourse. This particular article is the worst I’ve seen in a while.

James says:

Re: Re: Re:

AC: You bet I would accept it! Did you not read a word I wrote? And if a law was made making it legal to break into my house and steal all my digital photos, I’d work hard to have the stupid law changed, not bitch about it on forums.

Adrian: I thought the point of the music industry was to make money through entertaining people. I agree that there is an element of stupidity in what the RIAA does, but until people get off their asses to get copyright law changed, they are totally within their rights. South Park? A idea from the common law: what someone creates belongs to them until they assign the rights elsewhere. Music is no different to any other IP. The IP laws are outdated and badly suited to the modern world, agreed. The RIAA overreacts, agreed. It’s OK to rip off whatever you want because music should be free, not agreed.

Banagor: I agree that the RIAA is acting stupidly and taking it to far. But the “hooray for piracy” shitheads annoy me just as much as the RIAA does. Both miss the point. And I never said I defended the C&D campaign – I just said that bitching about it is stupid because they’re within their legal rights to do so.

Mike says:

Re: Re:

Sure John and James, I’ll be sure to turn off my music before I ever think of turning on my webcam lest the RIAA kick in my door and drag me off to the gallows to be hung. Laws can be repealed or changed if the legislators put their minds to it. This mindset that the law is the law is exactly why vigilante justice happens when ricidulous laws are on the books or when so-called “justice” gets out of hand. Watch your mouth or you could accidently find yourself in the crosshairs of the RIAA when you accidently “break the law”. Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and professing their righteousness, perhaps you could take a stand like the rest of us.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Are you a MORON James? You do have the RIGHT to broadcast what is in the background. It’s not copyright infringement!!! You could even charge people to watch you dancing in the video. Why? Because this is a video about you in real life, a documentary. You are documenting something about your life! You now own the copyright to the piece of video, unless of course you place it in the public domain, such as YouTube, then the world owns it.

F’ing moron, there is such a thing as Fair Use. F’ing moron, I think the RIAA should start charging you for any music that eminates to anyone eles’s ears that you purchased. If you play a CD in your car, and other’s can hear you play it, maybe the RIAA should send you a Cease and Decist order. As, you only purchased the license for your use, not anyone’s elses use.

Yep, that’s exactly how ridiculous the argument is.

neuro says:

Re: Re:

Oh, yes, James, these kids sure are broadcasting music illegally — all in its’ 24 kbps glory, via a home PC microphone.

Seriously, you’re confusing illegal downloading with a video that has _purchased_ music in the background; its fair-use. You, in your post, described what was illegal and wasn’t without any explanation, but the truth is, their divine right to sue the working class in itself is unconstitutional. It is more likely to be that it represents the outcome consequence of a failing business model that needs to change.

Boycott RIAA Artists says:

Want the RIAA too Cease and Decist ?

Boycott purchasing music from RIAA support record companies.

If artisits see the RIAA is loosing them fans and buyers of their product, then the RIAA will cease too exist.

The RIAA is acting as like the politburo of the old soviet days in Russia, only this time it’s ordinary people in America !

James says:

Bobby, I’d join right in with you in shouting “stupid law”. But most of these people, I’d wager my last iTunes credit, just hate the RIAA because they want them to pay for music and they don’t want too. Boo hoo.

There is definitely IMHO scope for change in the law with respect to fair use, so instead of preaching to the choir in places like this, petition your local congressman to introduce common sense into copyright law.

Put it this way: if someone broke into your house, took copies of all your digital photos and posted them on their own website, would you be upset? It doesn’t matter if they made money out of it, or only posted a few of them, or whatever: the fact is they illegally took your property and put it out there for anyone to see. I’d be pissed and so would you! And all you people saying f**k the RIAA are no different from those burglars.

I wouldn’t want you in my house and sure as anything would take a hockey stick to you if I caught you.

Adrian says:

Re: Re:

You’re forgetting one huge difference: people usually want to keep their photographs private, while the whole point of the music industry is to gain credibility and get your music “out there.” The RIAA is sending mixed signals. On one hand, they want us to buy music and spread it. On the other hand, they think public playing of licensed music should be illegal. An idea taken from South Park: what artists create belongs to society. Why do musicians create music in the first place? To entertain. Why create something and then try to hide it from the world?

Jeff says:

Re: Re: Re:

I agree except the line about musicians create music solely to entertain. There are a good number of musicians that create simply for their own enjoyment, and they couldn’t care less who they entertain. The fact that they later might choose to release their material and attempt to commercially profit from their work is a secondary concern for such musicians. So if you ammend the above to read “commercial musicians” or consider the word “commercial” to be implied, sure, I agree. However, the problem with establishing new laws or rules, whether they restrict freedoms or enhance freedoms, is that they can be applied to wider groups of people than initially considered. In the case of musical intellectual property, it seems like a good idea to keep in mind that not all music is created for sale, but might still yet be considered intellectual property. What, for example, would prevent a musician from creating works for his or her own creative hobby, and then those works being considered as part of the creator’s estate after death? Perhaps to the creator is was just a hobby, but then posthumously the creator’s relatives could say “Hey this is still really good stuff” and release it. Or to go the contrary route, wouldn’t it be (morally) a bad thing for someone to be able to get famous for re-recording a song you made just for fun (never mind here whether you’re dead or alive when the re-recorder gets famous from your work).

MVP says:

Re: Re:

“Put it this way: if someone broke into your house, took copies of all your digital photos and posted them on their own website, would you be upset?”

Completely wrong analogy. No one stole anything. The record companies SOLD a copy of the music, which individuals have fair use rights on.

Your analogy should really say: “Would you be mad if you SOLD your photographs to someone and they posted a cropped image of one of those photos on the internet.” Completely different.

John says:

Re: Re:

Well put, James. I disagree with you but, your comment does make good sense. I dislike the RIAA and clones for other reasons. I do not download music, I purchase all of my CD’s, I buy all of the music books that I use. Still, I have used and share some very amaturish tablature with fellow musicians. We aren’t trying to cut the MPA out. Merely trading technique. The MPA and clones have valid reasons for what they do but, so do some of the people they are trying to put in jail. The law does allow us to use this tab for educational purposes and Loran Kieser needs to back off. These are not my words but, words from the EFF’s lawsuit. The MPA (Loran Kieser) did drop his suit. But, in public he continues to beat his chest.

Banagor Paladin (user link) says:

RIAA Rights

I have to say, I’m not surprised by the reaction.

Legally speaking, the RIAA is correct: it’s against the law. It’s pretty obvious to anyone that this is the fact.

Morally and ethically speaking, they’re absolutely frigging wrong. I’m sorry, but just because the law says something is so does not make it right. I am by far not a dissident of legal practices, being a conservative writer for the most part, but this is just ridiculous. Not only are they not facing up to the reality of things today, they are also not facing up to the fact that this presents a hugely bad face for their association.

Let’s be real: kids playing music and dancing to it which, by and large, mostly only their friends will see, is not a violation of the law in the *spirit* of the law. If some kid suddenly makes $1 million off a video of him dancing to some music, then fine – ask for a cut. But be reasonable.

By their own account, it would be illegal to play music in your back yard if your neighbors could hear it because you don’t have the right to “broadcast” that music into the public domain. That is just outrageously stupid. Everyone knows it is incredibly stupid – even neocons like myself. It bespeaks of an incredibly paranoid mind to take that sort of position.

That it is against the law, I can understand. But that they actually act upon it, or that nobody thinks that it has gone on for far too long to actually set about to change it (with the help of the RIAA to get back into the good graces of the public) is beyond me. And it should be beyond all of you as well – those of you defending this C&D letter campaign.

I’m all for artists making money, and even billions of dollars. But let’s not do it by becoming tyrannical with art. This is exactly why everyone hates lawyers.

It’s a dumb frigging action, everyone can see that, and those who can’t are simply too stupid to have a single coherent thought of their own.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: RIAA Rights

In responce to Bangar (post #41)

Thank you for summing up my thoughts on this.

In addition, I wouldlike to direct everyone’s attention to the following site, pointing out how ludicrious the effects of laws related to this article’s content.

http://www.unhappybirthday.com/

Yes, it is ILLEGAL to sing “Happy Birthday to You” in the presence of others. This holds for any licensed song; You are, by law, forbidden to make a “public performance”.

Jay says:

Hmmm....

Well, I’ve schooled myself and looked into performance licensing of music for a dance group I tried to start a while back, and I’ve been looking into podcasting. While there are podcasting and online performance licenses available, none can be considered reasonable for this kind of performance. BMI has a minimum license of $295 and no less than $250 per quarter for ASCAP, for web/internet performances. That’s just the performance rights, you still have to license mechanical and other rights with the pubishers and artists. Bleh! It’s too complicated.

The point is, there are no reasonable and/or simple licenses for these kinds of performances, especially since they assume you plan to make money with it. Some 13 year old girls dancing around to a Brittany song on Youtube aren’t going to make money off of it. Until they can come down with reasonable licensing, I’d say thumb your nose at the RIAA and ask them if they can provide a reasonable/simple license. Chances are, they can’t, but that wouldn’t stop them trying to litigate you anyway. Hell, they aren’t afraid to sue dead people and people with no computers.

Scott says:

Re: Hmmm....

I think the issue here is that those are explicitly for broadcasting the music as the primary context. The music here is actually a secondary consideration to the dancing.

The law may be able to be strictly interpretted to make this illegal, but it is ridiculous.

If you want to broadcast music, play music that is copyrighted, etc. then I agree that you should pay fees.

Matthew says:

Lemme get this straight

The distribution of their copyrighted music through videos is infringement, then does that mean when I make home videos and they have music playing in the background I can’t legally send copies to my relatives?

Would the RIAA go after me if they found out?

Pretty soon they’re gonna go after the video camera industry for creating a means of pirating copyrighted material.

Jerks

Vletrmx says:

So then...

I suppose the next thing you know people all over are going to get sued for putting cheesy music in Powerpoint video montages for weddings and such? The next step is banning the use copyrighted music for thier slideshows. Soon half of America’s high schools will be empty because kids were using Metallica in thier presentations on WWII.

Michael Rossiter (profile) says:

The real reason the RIAA does what it does

It should by now be fairly obvious what the RIAA/MPAA are up to…Stage 1 is to commit to stupid, ridiculous lawsuits. Stage 2 is to suggest completely unworkable and unfair regulation. Stage 3 is to push through the legislation they REALLY wanted all along, which compared to the previous things they did seems reasonable and sane by comparison.

Many governments do this..they want a law no-one would accept, so they start by suggesting a harsh law which everyone rejects, then introduce the original planned bill which seems tame.

Mark P says:

Most of you are missing the point.....again

I think everyone (well almost everyone) is missing some add’l points.

1) What is the difference between posting an MP3 that I can download illegally and posting a video with me dancing whlel the same MP3 is playing? NOTHING. How hard is it to extract only the audio and now have the MP3 song on my harddrive? If the RIAA doesnt act, how long before someone throw some stupid video on top of the song so they can trade music illegally. Heck the video can be a still image by the argumetns presented here since the content of the video doesnt determine legality.

2) Those that argue that playing music loudly so that the neighbors can hear may constitute a breech of the law are also missing the point. Legallythis maybe true, but from a practical standpoint everyone has ignored what appears to be the defining factor in the RIAA’s selection of C&D letters – is the content being transferred digitially?

3) I also think everyone is ignoring the impact of these videos with songs on the rest of the RIAA’s business. How long before radio stations start to object to paying fees when little Sally can broadcast that same song with no charge to anyone, anywhere at anytime.

4) and finally, what happens when the vidoe collection starts adding meta data recognizing the song, sound quality and other properties and than adds search functionality to segment by music? How does this differ from Kazzaa. Heck how long before someone makes an interface like Kazzaa to search out the video sites only on music and automatically strips the video out during the download?

All of these items lead to the central point that if you project what appear to be minor threats into the broader pictutre the RIAA has too act now before a precedent is set.

As I have said before most of the people on this board want the business models of music and video to stay static while technology advances becuase this will lead to a reduction in the fees they pay. THe music and movie industries have every right to protect and even grow revenues in light of these changes since last i checked these are not non-profit organizations. The smartest thing I have heard is a music ban or writing to congress since this leverages the too most powerful catalysts of change, Economics (supply and demand) and democracy.

Mark

drjones says:

Re: Most of you are missing the point.....again

huh?? Most everyone wants the industry to stay static? I dont think so. People are tired of feeling like suckers when they walk into a record store and buy something. Whether its legal or not, the RIAA and its members, make a living by ripping people off, the bands they sign even more so than the customers. Once a band signs with a big label, they basically become indentured servants.. serfs.

For an example of an industry that has embraced the web and digital content for years now.. look at porn. Adult content is one of the most pirated forms of entertainment on the net, with legit digital distributers competing against the pirates and doing just fine (Video on demand, monthly billing, etc). The adult industry didnt hesitate one second, and jumped on the web technology as soon as they could, and they are all happier for it.. RIAA, MPAA take notes!

Ben says:

Re: Most of you are missing the point.....again

And which company do you work for Mr. P? You must be new to this site, because as has been stated in the past none of us want the Business model of either the MPAA or RIAA to remain “static”. The authers of this site have repeatedly commented about how the industry can embrace digital media, without copyrights, and make more money than they are now. You obviously dont understand the consumers of the current market. Yes, it is possible to strip the audio off of a YouTube video and sell and reproduce for no cost, but the quality of that audio is so poor no one would listen to it. YouTube is free advertising for any song/video that happens to be put on it. And attacking every little amature or kid goofing off around the house is one of the BEST ways to alienate you from your customers. The more they sue the more people will notice and the less people will buy their ever degrading sludge. The day is comming that the RIAA and the MPAA will be out of a job and forever closed, and on that day many people will celebrate.

James says:

Re: Most of you are missing the point.....again

Whatever, what kind of country do we live in where people who put music on youtube are held more accountable to laws than a president that was wrong about a whole premise of going to war. Yes, it’s illegal to steal someone’s intellectual property, but putting music on youtube isn’t someone’s attempt to steal unlike using Kazaa.

Anonymous Coward says:

Does anyone realize that licensing of music is not the law, but something that started with the music industry? The fact is, you don’t need to license music to use it. The police are not going to arrest you for using it.

However, the music companies and the RIAA could file suit to sue you for it’s use. If they win, it’s how the Jury feels about it. However, the music industry and RIAA could sue you if you purchased a recording and played it loud enough for any other person other than yourself to hear it. And.., again, it all comes down to what the Jury decides for the outcome. That is.., if it gets to a Jury trial.

Anonymous Coward says:

Speaking of morons…

You do have the RIGHT to broadcast what is in the background. It’s not copyright infringement!!!

– Not necessarily true. Depends on content and circumstances. Most commercial material would not automatically be exempt.

You could even charge people to watch you dancing in the video. Why? Because this is a video about you in real life, a documentary. You are documenting something about your life!

– Not true as regards to recognizable copyright materials appearing in your video. Over simplified, but basically the reason why WKRP has never been released on DVD – music rights for 100’s of recogizable songs.

You now own the copyright to the piece of video, unless of course you place it in the public domain, such as YouTube, then the world owns it.

– Placing a video on YouTube does not release it into public domain. Their TOS even states explicitly that the copyright owner retains all rights

cheesesoda (user link) says:

Coke and Mentos don't complain...

You know that all-so-popular scientific experiment conducted with Mentos and diet cola? Coca-Cola and Perfetti Van Melle don’t have any issues with their free product advertisement with all of these videos showing up on YouTube and Google Video when people post them up. I don’t see how this is much different. Whatever keeps these music companies happy, I suppose.

Realistic says:

It’s not about doing any good… it’s about flexing muscle. The entertainment industry pulls down more bucks than almost any other industry (especially more than the government). So they can afford to bring useless lawsuits to court & drown people in paperwork & keep doing this because they will never go into the red. Until they admit that times & especially technology has changed since the early part of the 1900’s and focus on that REAL problem & how to fix it, they will continue to be a thorn in everyones butt!

Linguistical says:

Freedom

The great thing about this country is that we can peaceably assemble and bitch about whatever we want. James, sorry dude, but stereotyping everyone that complains about the RIAA’s practices as thieves speaks volumes about who you are. Venues like this forum are all about people expressing their opinions, whether informed or not.

As far as doing something about the RIAA, the best thing is to not buy their product and to make sure everyone knows why. But, if you feel inclined to steel music or use it in your video that’s your choice. You may get a C&D letter, but who cares. By the time you get it your video will probably be mirrored in thousands of places if it’s good. If they sue you, do you think any court would do anything more than tell you to stop using their song in your video?

Personally, I think the RIAA and the industry they represent sucks. But, if your an entertainer and choose to be part of that industry or a consumer and want to continue to fund them, that’s your choice. I don’t buy any of their products and probably won’t even if they do change their practices…just personal choice.

Piracy? If people want to make their statement that way, that’s their choice. Sometimes just talking about laws and nagging politicians doesn’t work and other measures need to be taken. I’m pretty sure we didn’t gain our freedom as a nation by writing letters.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Freedom

If they sue you, do you think any court would do anything more than tell you to stop using their song in your video?

Absolutely the courts will do more. The courts these days will be only too happy to help them make a example of you.

I’m pretty sure we didn’t gain our freedom as a nation by writing letters.

And it won’t be regained that way either.

mpaariaahater says:

stupid as stupid is

the only way to put them out of business is no one i mean every swinging person who buys music going to concerts,and go to movies and rent movies ,stop buying ,renting ,going,to it for 2 years and then will you see the backlash of pain come to them because when the music industry and movie industry stop seeing money come in they will die thats the only way they will die,

you are the people keeping them alive you f,ing yourselves you are giving them the money to abuse you think about it

the money they use to go after you and others is the money you give them from buying music movies going to movies going to concerts buying ipods tv’s all the advertisements that generate funds for them we the people are feeding them to stay alive.. wake up because you are being stupid its like feeding the hungry grizzy bears who keep biting you in the ass but you keep feeding them and complain about it to everyone else ,lol

so stop crying about the mpaa and the riaa if you not going to do anything about it and the only way to do this is to have a MASS NO BUYING ,RENTING GOING , TO MOVIES, CONCERTS, NO BUYING MUSIC, TV’S STEREOS,

CAN YOU PEOPLE DO THAT FOR 2 YEARS IF YOU DID THE WHOLE INDUSTRY WOULD DIE ACTORS AND MUSICIANS WOULD RALLY AND PUT A END TO THE RIAA AND MPAA THEMSELVES AFTER THEY SEE THE PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF THERE SHIT, THEY WOULD THEN BEGIN TO SEE THAT IT IS US THE PEOPLE THAT KEEP THEM ALIVE AND RICH IN MONEY ITS US THAT MAKE THE MPAA AND THE RIAA WE ARE FEEDING THEM TO ABUSE US,SO WTFU AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND THAT TAKES ALL AMERICANS TO DO IT CAN YOU DO THAT FOR 2 YEARS ASK YOURSELVES IF YOU DID THEY WILL SEE THAT ITS US THAT HAVE THE POWER ,WE HAVE MORE POWER THEN YOU CAN BELIEVE IF WE ALL STOOD AS ONE AND THATS THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE ..

Mousky (user link) says:

Stupid

I’m fed up with all of this. I don’t buy CDs anymore because they might not work in my computer or my car or any other legally purchased CD player.

I don’t buy DVDs anymore because the copy-protection scheme drives my legally purchased DVD players nuts – I have to watch some DVDs using my PS2. Hey Disney, guess what, I won’t be buying Season 4 of Scrubs since Season 3 will not play in my legal DVD players. What do you think of your copy-protection scheme now? If anything, you are pushing me to get a pirated copy in the future. Idiots.

It’s clear that the lawyers are running the show at the RIAA and MPAA. At some point someone at the RIAA and MPAA will have to realize that annoying your paying customers is not a wise business decision. Surely, someone with half a brain will realize this, right?

mpaariaahater says:

YOU ARE RIGHT

Right you are my friend .. my point is if all people stop buying i say 2 years but maybe even less ,and even folks overseas you will see a end come to them.. because we are feeding them the power instead we can have that power if we all stood together and thats to have a mass no buy 2 year boycott by the people and i mean every old ,young man woman child.. and thats the only way other then that

we might as well bend over and let them f us somemore..cause we are paying for them to do so .. so its time for everyone to wake up…

postitutes with strapon=mpaa = riaa = the john—>we the people

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

Not a challange, just a question

OK… I’m a ballroom dancer. Later in the month, I plan on doing a performance dance which, obviously is done to music. I plan on having that dance recorded for 2 reasons. 1) so I can view it and learn from it (like sports training), and 2) so I can put it on MySpace so my friends can see. Not all of my friends can make it to see the dance.

Now this dance is not a paid performance… there’s no admission or cover fee. I’m not getting paid for this and no one is paying to see it (except gas money to get there). so….

If I don’t license the song to which I’m dancing, would the RIAA come after me? Should they? More importantly, I purchased that song legally (yes, believe it or not, it’s a legal MP3).

Seriously… the video is about me dancing, not the song that’s playing. And it’s my song. Shouldn’t I be able to dance to it? Shouldn’t I be able to let my friends see it? Shouldn’t I be able to record that so other friends can see it?

As to the argument that someone could rip the song from the vid and record it… so? How is that my responsibility? How could I be liable for some action that someone else might take?

oh, and I do want to put my 2cents in on a previous comment:

“All of these items lead to the central point that if you project what appear to be minor threats into the broader picture the RIAA has too act now before a precedent is set. ”

-Mark P

The RIAA should act now to protect their interests… but not as they have been. They should be changing their business model to meet new competition. Not suing the hand that feeds them.

Bionn says:

The RIAA appears to be a massive scam.

I don’t really understand the legalities of all of this, but it appears to me that the RIAA is like a hive of lawyers that is masquerading as a legitimate watchdog organization. It’s nothing but an excuse for them to create opportunities to generate revenue through legal council and suits. The RIAA appears to be a massive scam.

anony moose says:

James and John

From Wikipedia regarding fair use: “The first factor questions whether the use under consideration helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only “supersede the objects” of the original for reasons of, say, personal profit. In order to justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new.”

The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios for a case in which substantial copying — entire programs for private viewing — was upheld as fair use.

“The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner’s ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant’s specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner’s market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original.”

Depending on a COURT OF LAW this video could constitute fair use, and I argue that it should, as 1) It adds to the origional peice of work; 2) Quality of the origional is significantly reduced and as such would not be a viable source for copying; and 3) This does not harm the origional product in it’s market, conversly, it may help it in the origional’s market

PirateSupreme says:

Remember Numa Numa?

Do you know what it costs for an advertising campaign? Do you know what mass-media advertisers charge to get your crap onto the front page of of newspapers and onto headline news across the world? On the frontpage of some of the top visited sites in the world? It costs a hell of a lot, and a tiny band from Romania got it all for free. I can guarentee you at least 20%-30% of the people who experienced some sort of encouter with the video probably went out looking for that CD, and even if they didn’t, whatever no name label they’re signed to just saved billions.

I can’t believe the RIAA is so anal that they have to crack down on the usage of unliscenced songs playing in the background of viral videos. It’s not like these are pre-release tracks, or high quality streams, it’s not even like these are complete songs. Hell i bet I could find longer, better quality clips of most of those songs on the artists website. You really have to wonder, not how much business suffers from these kinds of videos, but how much money has been saved and how much profit was the result. And the RIAA want to stop this all, why? It seems to go against every logical sense in my body, but that’s the RIAA for you.

Stop supporting these money-hungry bastards, stop giving them any kind of fuel to continue this kind of ludicris action. Stop buying their CDs, stop buying their merch and make sure to turn off your MTV or MuchMusic.

gargamel says:

When will they quit b@t^$i%*

The RIAA has absolutely gone over the edge. I need to patent the words recording and industry, so that way I can send them a C&D letter to stop using my patented words and see how they like it. I know that I cannot do that but I would like to figure something out just so they can see how it feels. They cannot prove any losses due to the internet, but because they have been losing money because loss of talent, they need to be able to point some where. I remember a fuss was raised over the recordable tape. And look how far that went. If I received a C&D letter, I wonder if I could sue them for harassament and mis-proper use of the Federal Mail Service by sending “if’y” C&D letters that may be a scare tactic and futhermore harassing. I wish that I could find a way to return the favor. Overall, I think that this is all BS! The RIAA needs to start pointing some where else for their losses. IMHO. =]

Anonymous Coward says:

isnt incidentil copyright infringment alowed in am

Apart from the obvious lunicy of this proposal isnt incidental copyright infringment covered in the USA. In the Uk (acording to the ofical site on copyright stuff if i rember rightly) copyright infringment is permited if it is unitentional for example if u film ur self doing something and music hapens to be on in the background its legal. It would seem this priciple isnt in US copyright law thus alowing even more silly isues like this to arise. That said this isue is some what a grey area because u do know the music is playing but it would still require clarification in the courts over the use of such cease and desist orders. Sorry fro my rambling and poor spelling.

nyteshad0w (user link) says:

We are your worst nightmare

We will continue to steal your content until the RIAA will cease its business practices. There is no need for you anymore, we are in control of our music now. The days of us over-paying for your content are over, and we steal your content in massive quantity. Nothing you do can make us stop, we are here to stay. It would be in your best interest to quit while youre still ahead (financially), your law suits and legal paperwork will do nothing for people like me.

I will say again that you are no longer needed, the internet has taken your place and everything is cheaper then what you charge, if not free. The bands can promote their music online then make up by playing concerts and selling merchandise.

You suits will never get the picture. You made the same arguement with the invention of radio and tape players, and this time its for real. As long as the average user can get his or her content, you will no longer have any say. Your threats and intimidation are not the way to do business, and you have no interest in your artists, you exist only to sue the same people that you have been ripping off for years. Even your artists dont condone what you do, maybe its time you throw in the towel and give up.

In conclusion: We will continue to steal your product and there is nothing you can do about it. For every person you sue, 1000 more will take its place. The newsgroups and peer to peer networks are still very active, and we enjoy our free content since you are unable to sensefully negotiate with the public.

Nd4SpdSe says:

STupid

This is just stupid

Personally, the videos are good advertisement. Look at the Numa Numa song….how many people actually knew/heard it before that video? Not me…and that ended up being free publicity for them.

Personally, I suggest all non-American residences to make videos and put them on YouTube, cause it’ll piss off the RIAA, and they can’t do anything about it 🙂

Anonymous Coward says:

The point of copyright laws is so that you don’t take someone else’s original work in its entirity and present it as if it were your own. Or so that you don’t take someone else’s work in its original form and make money from it by selling it without their knowledge and not giving them anything.

I know something that would solve all of the RIAA’s money problems. Why not try releasing something with some kind of actual quality and talent? Instead of over-hyped, diluted, derivative garbage. Half of the time, the only reason people even want to buy those albums is because they bombard us with the songs everywhere we go, and mix the song with sex appeal, fashion, status symbols, and flashy music videos when the song itself is horrible. I wouldn’t be surprised if they used subliminal messages. It’s sad that me, who hasn’t turned on a radio in six years, and rarely watches TV, somehow already knows all of the lyrics to the latest pop song even before it comes out. Because I’ve heard it in every single commercial break, every 7 minutes, and then when the show comes back on, the song is playing in the background.

ogryzek says:

Need to reformat my brain

So there’s this pop tune that is stuck in my head, and I just cannot stop whistling it… It happens in the shower, it happens in the public. Can’t stop it…

So what do I do now ? Where can I get a license for it ? Whom do I pay for public performances ?

Other times it just plays in my head but I guess it still counts, doesn’t it ? …I just don’t want to screw some poor chap at RIAA.

Please, somebody help me…

Sandbomb says:

BOYCOTT!!!!!!

Okay, im sure everyone is aware of movie and music piracy and the attempt by movie and audio labels to stop it. every year millions are brought to court to pay huge loads of money just to compinsate for “illegally” viewing a small movie or playing a song that might not even popularly last for a month. But this year…2006, it will all change, a boycott of original movie and music products (DVDS, VHS and CDs) etc will be boycotted by who ever wishes to do so to prove to movie studios and music labels that WE are the customers and WE make them who they are. it shall start on the 4th of July and hopefully end on 4th of August. i sure hope you participate in this (hoped to be) global event. for more send or add this email “sandbomb_bc@hotmail.com”. thank you for your time and i hope you spread the word.

Krow says:

In Canada But...

I live in Canada, and file sharing here is Legal, but I am still very pissed off that the RIAA and the MPAA are sticking their noses in somdething they don’t even need to. If people like what they hear, they will buy it. But so far, I have only ever seen crappy ass movies in the theaters, hence, I hardly ever go to a movie. Even if file-sharing becomes illegal, I will continue to go one my course. And I will boycott anything that has special copy protection.

You are Idiots says:

You are Idiots

After reviewing your comments, it is clear that you are all idiots. Any person with the most basic understanding of the law would know that the RIAA is actually protecting the interests of musicians and songwriters. They are enforcing rights under the Copyright Act, which has its origin in the US Constitution “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Key words “promote…arts…EXLUSIVE RIGHT” Without exclusivity, and enforcing exclusive rights, then all those CDs you own wouldn’t be there…and you prob. wouldn’t have same passion for music that you do now (ostensibly acquired from listening to those CDs over the years)

Once you get over the fact that you are stealing, and justifying it with ignorance, I think you will agree that while it sometimes seems outrageous, you are benefiting from the RIAA’s actions.

You are Idiots says:

You are Idiots

After reviewing your comments, it is clear that you are all idiots. Any person with the most basic understanding of the law would know that the RIAA is actually protecting the interests of musicians and songwriters. They are enforcing rights under the Copyright Act, which has its origin in the US Constitution “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Key words “promote…arts…EXLUSIVE RIGHT” Without exclusivity, and enforcing exclusive rights, then all those CDs you own wouldn’t be there…and you prob. wouldn’t have same passion for music that you do now (ostensibly acquired from listening to those CDs over the years)

Once you get over the fact that you are stealing, and justifying it with ignorance, I think you will agree that while it sometimes seems outrageous, you are benefiting from the RIAA’s actions.

Michael says:

Copyright

The story at the top is 100% correct..

“these sorts of viral videos tend to help build up more interest in artists” which is 100% true.. I would only think it to be “illegal” when you can “Download” the video or song.. youtube doesn’t have this option.. the only way is to get a program that allows that access.. and if someone is doing that.. then.. that is illegal..

Basically, yes, this is advertisment for music… if the artist is credited.. such as, at the beginning or end of any video reads, such and such artist and song…

When someone dances to that song and doesn’t really give credit to the artist.. atleast stating who really made the song.. I can see it to be illegal then…

Really though.. it’s more as an advertisment for that song.. or even video if a video was edited..

As long as anyone gives credit to the artist.. tells of the movie title if you use a movie with an artist.. then I think nothing can really be done in that case…

The way the RIAA is acting is very “Absurd”..

a non e muss says:

Been following RIAA actions for a couple years now. I see the same general discussions, the same arguments being lashed out at each other, the same cries for “boycott!”, cries of “you are all idiots/piracy supporters”, “fuck the RIAA!” etc etc. Some people seem to have more opinion then knowledge, and others vice versa. But nothing has really changed, save for the escalating litigation from the RIAA’s attack dogs.

So it seems to me (35 percent legit music, 60 percent file-traded, 5 percent actual-shared) that we, the mass, can do nothing but fiddle our thumbs and wait for this historical scandal to play out. We all lack the money and cooperation to effectively do anything about this. Except continue to do what we already do.

The pro-RIAA argument that states file trading is pure piracy holds a bit of water. Yes, by downloading free music I am stealing. I would rather not pay for it. I would prefer to keep acquiring music in this fashion.

However, it is only because, at present times, there really doesn’t exist a conveniant and balanced medium for getting music on your PC, other than iTunes and perhaps a few others. 99 cents for a song, by itself, is not much. Multiply that by the number of songs you [would like to] listen to, and that price becomes exorbant. The point here is that licensed music is still too high-priced for consumers, and that much of the profit does not return to the original artist anyways (esp. the big names). CD’s are beginning to be obsolete, and I’m sure in ten years (or maybe less) they will be. Consumers want conveniant and cheap, and they love free. Is there anyone here who is honestly going to blame the consumer for who (s)he is? From reading some the posts, I guess there are such people, i.e. poster You Are All Idiots. Yes if it weren’t for the RIAA, we probably wouldnt have those CD’s we have. We’d have something better. And less expensive. And more than likely of better quality. You Are All Idiots, the next time you feel like berating needlessly you should shut off your computer and head for Washington D.C. Let’s see how smart you really are.

Until some revolutionary format comes out, until the economy becomes A LOT healthier, we’ll still have to deal with the RIAA and its strong-arm tactics. But I can guarantee that the death of the RIAA is approaching. Just like all oppressive regimes, they all eventually cave in on themselves. This is just a waiting game.

John says:

Personal Liberty

Not much left to say, you are dead right on this one. Plus, it is becoming much more wide spread than you realize. The MPA, RIAA, MPAA, etc. are leading the way for other companies to abuse our rights. Earthlink has recently added new “services” to their customers bills without the customers consent. Then demanding payment. You have to call Earthlink and ask them to remove those “services” or pay monthly for something you may not use. So, we must fight the MPA, et all or loose everything to the copycat companies hoping to bleed us dry.

Galen says:

Down with the RIAA

Im just writing to say that the Riaa is a group of nazis. They dont care about art or the user of their products.All they care about is how they can screw one more individual out of money because they make crappy business decissions and have no talent labels. I hope the Riaa goes down fast and that every person that buys music and movies will find out if its an riaa artist and boycott them.

Anonymous Coward says:

I have a question

Yes you should be sued. What you’re doing os completely illegal and detrimental to the totalitarian machine that is the RIAA. Yes ,that was blatant sarcasm. If you’re using a song (or movie clip), even a copyrighted one, for non-profit, what’s the problem? The RIAA just restricts the media, necessarily putting holes in our economy. And what for? So They profit.

Rubberhead (user link) says:

copyright infringement

Wasn’t the original intent of copyright to keep others from passing their work off as their own and to keep others from profitting off someone else’s work?

Clearly, a couple seconds of audio in the background isn’t attempting either of those things. So, what case does the RIAA have in actuality? No profit is being stolen and no plagarism is taking place, so no copyright has been infringed, right? Or am I just crazy?

James says:

Why Buy?

Look i dont feel confortable giving any artist money for buying another diamond studed pool. Being a artist or entertainer isnt about the money its about making entertainting people not the money any artist that thinks otherwise is a asshole. And come on plently of people who arent capable of using limewire or stuff like that will still buy. The real problem is corparations like walmart who is really stealing and accually shutting people down.

RIAA sucks

Anonymous Coward says:

Remember Numa Numa?

Maybe that’s the whole reason the RIAA wants to stop this….because they won’t have virtually exclusive control over the music people see/hear/buy…..too many people making indie music popular because it’s practically free to do so now? Actual good music circulating? Maybe they don’t want to stop people from sharing the RIAA music but the indie/good music? Just thinking out loud here. I don’t understand why judges don’t have the common sense and common decency to throw this evil BS out of court. Laws are in effect to protect the common man, not the elite at the expense of the common man. It’s just disgusting that these abuses are allowed…not that I want artists to lose money but come on. Show me one example of a popular artist going hungry because of pirated music. There are REAL injustices in the world and this is NOT one of them. I’d like to force these lawyer bastards to go help raped, orphaned babies in Africa. UGH. Anyway….

I believe there’s some kind of compromise to all this and being an unreasonable stickler (on either side) isn’t going to do any good.

Citizens In Favor of the Death of the RIAA says:

Rise up against the Homegrown Music Terrorists, be

Before I start, I would like to say that I do not advocate downloading music illegally. The artists do deserve a cut, but the music industry is something that it should have never been. A cash cow to mainly feed the higher ups, and leave the artists with a small cut.

Back in my day, a long time ago, I used to download songs illegally, mainly to listen to new music. How is the RIAA really supposed to think that people will just blindly buy an album because the song on MTV is kind of catchy. It doesn’t work like that, sad to say. If I liked the album, I’d order it or buy it, to support the artists. I, myself, am a musician, and an advocate for the “art over business” argument that scars the face of music today.

Music started as entertainment in the early days of recorded history. Granted, an artist composes or records a great work, they should be able to charge money for the patrons who listen to it. They should not, however, go around threatening everyone with frivolous lawsuits designed to put more money into the pocket of the executives. They’re gonna sue for $750 per song because that’s how much they’re “losing”? That amount is way too high, and it’s just a way to punish a few people for what a lot of people are doing. Truth is, people need to be punished for breaking the law, but today’s hunt for music pirates has turned this period in history into a Digital Witch Hunt.

Luckily, there are services out there that have the DRM tags, which allow me to do the music testing like I did, but legally this time. Maybe the RIAA should grow half a brain, and stop with the terrorist tactics against innocent people. They’re no better than the terrorists against this country, only this time, they’ve been homegrown, right under our noses, with a falsified sense of law.

Patgar says:

We're Not Gonna Take It!

I loved comment 108, i’m gonna post it everywhere. Anyways I say we all go to RIAA headquarters (wherever it is) with pirated versions of Twisted Sister’s “We’re Not Gonna Take It”, circle the place constantly blasting this song illegally (in their eyes) and keep blastin it til the bastards either leave, or try to get rid of us…thats when we pull out the heavy weapons…

Whamazing says:

SOME Musicians LIKE us!

My favourite, high profile band (Lifehouse) actually give us die hard fans their music. Eric, a guy they know, has a website, with their permission (NOT Geffen, their Record Company) to allow us to FREELY download and SHARE their music. They actually give the website out, when they remember.

In fact, the frontman, Jason, said this in a LIVE interview: As long as my music is out there and people are listening, I don’t care how it is done.

The RIAA is going crazy over this, taking it out of context. I mean, for example if a person who plays guitar or piano (or in one case drums) finds tabs/sheet music whatever and learns a song, then posts a video of themselves playing this song…what does that mean? Can the RIAA c&d them or sue them for it? It is not the purchased or illegal download, it is not the actual musical artist, and it is not a studio released version, it is simply a person playing music.

How far is this going to go?

Ranger says:

Copyright infringments, NOT!

I know all too well the ramifications of adding Music to anything.
I made some Videos using music in the background and made the mistake of uploading them to You Tube. I gave the artist full credit for the music content in the Video. You Tube cancelled My account.
Like You said in this article, wouldn’t the artists think a little free advertisement for their music be a good thing? I guess not.
It’s not like People are using artists Music to make Money, they are expressing themselves through the music.
It’s sad that our society ihas become this greedy.
I know if I was an artist I would be flattered someone though enugh of My music to use it in an expressive manner.
I’ve even had some artists e-mail, thanking Me for using their music!

Ranger says:

BS

My thoughts exactly!
I always put the artist and name of the song in all My Videos.
When People see the Video they know where the music came from and who the artist is.
I guess I could pay them a royalty, then turn around and charge them for advertising the Song on My Viedo. I’d say this would sort of cancel the other out.
It’s just so sad that the Music industry stoops to such levels, no wonder P2P sites are so popular…

DudeAsInCool (user link) says:

RIAA & The Law

True, James, and they have plenty of lobbyists working for them to expand copyright ownership and to make laws and strengthen them in their favor. Well, one day, they will no longer be in business and the laws will change.

As to your suggestion that people here may not know the letter of the law – they certainly know the difference between right and wrong, good business practices and bad business practices, and a corporate lackey, when they read one.

Marcus Endean says:

RIAA

I guess from now on when the big labels are recording a music video in any city they will have to pay a royalty for each building that shows in the background of every shot in the video. Maybe the architects and the builders should be compensated too because money will be charged for people to see these images.
When I’m at a park overhearing other people’s music should I pay a fee? Or, can I sue because I don’t like that particular song and I’m being forced to hear it?
A comparison of pre-internet music revenue and current music revenue would be interesting. They’ve never had such good exposure to a world market.

DJ Casper says:

They are going to far as usual, i mean come on they clearly aint profiting from dancing around having fun on you tube but the thing they forget is these girls are giving them free exposure and advertising. We all know who britney is but what if they did this with a new upcoming song thats only out in their own country? wouldnt this be exposing the song to other countrys getting the bands ready for when they releace tracks in other countrys that have already heard the songs through utube etc? i really think they are shooting themselfs in the foot on this one since theres no real loss but im sure they will be when they goto far and stop us even playing it loud in our cars homes because somebody might hear it free…

Ross Gellar says:

I don't see what the issue is here?

Making copies of cassette tapes was limited to maybe 3 of your friends if that. Music downloading involves thousands of peers sharing. You can argue that making music cheaper to purchase is the key, but some people feel paying .99 cents, which seems reasonable to me, is too much, and would rather download it for free.

I think the RIAA has overstepped its bounds as far as Fair Use goes, but, every corporation has it’s interests to protect, especially in this Digital Millenium when pirating music is easier than ever.

You can make the RIAA out to be evil, but that’s because you are not part of the recording industry. If you were losing millions of dollars daily because of easily copied and shared music, you would tend to get a little paranoid and go over-board.

As far as YouTube goes, this would also be a concern as videos are easily downloaded and audio streams ripped out. Though why anyone would want to rip a poor audio quality stream is beyond me, but that’s what the concern is.

Do I agree with the RIAA, for the most part they have some legit beefs. Do they go too far? Possibly. I’m sorry, I know this won’t be a popular post. And no, I don’t work for the RIAA.

Ross Gellar says:

Re:

James, you make a good point about people hating the RIAA for making them pay for music. iTunes is very reasonably priced. Why should music be a commodity that you don’t have to pay for. This isn’t really an issue about the RIAA being evil, it’s an issue about being told that free music is not right.

Has the RIAA overstepped it’s bounds in certain areas? Yes. Would you be happy if there were no recording artists because no one paid for music?

Ross Gellar says:

Re:

My Hamster: There are several, in particular, the ones that had their music recorded by Sony during the Root Kit fiasco.

Among the artists that currently support the RIAA:

Metallica, Peter Gabriel, Celine Dionne, Shekira, U2 and several others.

Oddly enough, Metallica used to be a proponent of music sharing, until the same music sharing made them big enough to make money off of the music.

None of your says:

I wonder if a Auto worker who built a car 20 years ago could come back and ask us to pay him/her every time you seat in your car and drive it or how about Leonardo da Vinci if he could come back and say: now you all pay me for all those years you been looking at my Mona Lisa. After all he was a real and true Artist. Oh wait how about Albert Einstein for all he created for us. No other industry in the world can do what the so called Musicians can do today with this insane laws. Wake up AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Hate Adolf Hitler says:

Adolf Hitler

To Adolf Hitler,

If normal citizens have no say, if it’s only the government and business reps that have say. Given that you are a worthless citizen yourself then you have NO SAY at telling us we have no say. STFU !!!

Fuck you Mr. Adolf Hitler, you have no say at telling me I have no say. You can go fuck yourself and bend over the RIAA and the government. You seem to enjoy getting screwed, I certainly have no say about that. Enjoy getting screwed you worthless motherfucker.

enric says:

copyleft

I’d sugest to buy only copyleft music. buy music from the internet and independent artists, where you can get rid of the performing rights control. send the money direct to the artist!

At the end the musicians have created the monster with their need to collect money.
When the internet was not here, there was not any other option. Now the musicians should free theirselve from the tirany.

steveking says:

YouTubeRobot.com today announces YouTube Robot 2.0, a tool that enables you to download video from YouTube.com onto your PC, convert it to various formats to watch it when you are on the road on mobile devices like mobile phone, iPod, iPhone, Pocket PC, PSP, or Zune.

YouTube Robot allows you to search for videos using keywords or browse video by category, author, channel, language, tags, etc. When you find something noteworthy, you can preview the video right in YouTube Robot and then download it onto the hard disk drive. The speed, at which you will be downloading, is very high: up to 5 times faster than other software when you download a single file and up to 4 times faster when you download multiple files at a time.

Manual download is not the only option with YouTube Robot. You may as well schedule the download and conversion tasks to be executed automatically, even when you are not around. Downloading is followed by conversion to the format of your choice and uploading videos to a mobile device (if needed). For example, you can plug in iPod, select the video, go to bed, and when you wake up next morning, your iPod will be ready to play new YouTube videos.

Product page: ww w.youtuberobot.com
Direct download link: ww w.youtuberobot.com/download/utuberobot.exe
web-site: ww w.youtuberobot.com
E-mail: support@youtuberobot.com

FIRE THEM! says:

THIS JUST GOES TOO FAR! FIRE THEM!

This is redicules! How paranoid can they get. Videos with people dancing to music actually advertises the song (& the artist). I wonder if this means the guy who made thousands of prisoners dance to Micheal Jackson’s “Thriller” will get sued. RIAA needs to face the music. Dancing to music is how we use music in the real world.

Boycott the RIAA. If you want them to lose, don’t buy music they distribute, plain & simple. Support independent artists instead.

The Economics Know the Truth, RIAA doesn't says:

You are Idiots

@ 132

Hey dumbass! You’ve been brainwashed! When you pay for a song online, your paying the RECORD LABEL, NOT THE ARTIST.

Get your facts straight You are Idiots, we dance to music—-people use music like this in the REAL world! So get out of your prehistoric dreamland & do some research on both sides. What’s next? Are you going to sue us for singing our favorite song in the shower. People like you make me sick to my stomach. Fuck you! Fuck yourself! Fuck your family! And fuck your computer-illiterate mind. Rot in hell you retarded fascist!

People like you are just bad for business! Take it from an expert!

FIRE THEM! says:

TAKE THIS RIAA!

—
—–—–—–/´¯’|)
—————|—-|
—————|—-|
—————|—-|
———–/´¯/’–‘/´¯`•_
———-/’/–/—-/—–/¨¯
——–(‘(———- ¯~/’–‘)
———————-‘—–/
———-”————_-•´
———————–(
————-———–

F*** YOU RIAA

Nicole says:

RIAA

Wait so this means that I can’t post a video with any music in it that has a copyright? I can’t even record a video of my dance class because we’re using a song that I don’t own? Why should anyone have fun anymore. Everytime someone does, we get in trouble for it or punished for something we have absolutely NO CONTROL over. I clearly don’t understand much about the RIAA but wouldn’t they want artists to suceed in any way possible…. and if so why wouldn’t they encourage the use of unknown artists’ material… they’ll get the business in the end. Someone would end up signing them, making millions because ” Oh I heard that girl on Youtube I’m gonna buy her album…”

Anonymous Coward says:

this is all bs, half the things i listen to AND HAVE PAYED FOR are things i have found through youtube. People put the song name and band name into the description (and give credit to the band) i like the song, i want a better quality version of it and i go to iTunes and download it. I dont get why they are freaking out about this, its helping bands for crying out loud

John Bickerton (profile) says:

You are Idiots

The record label has a contract with the artist. The artist is paid by the label based on sales. When you cheat the artist he/she doesn’t get paid.

This poster’s comments are pretty old now but just to clarify – the issue isn’t someone dancing alone to their music on a video – the issue is youtube, a for profit company making money off of the content uploaded by their users. The video becomes an asset of youtube and is monetized – so the song becomes part of the income generated by youtube (profits). So the music creators are asking to be compensated by youtube.

It isn’t about the content of the video, it’s how the video becomes an asset of a billion dollar distribution company.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Politicians, Yet Again, Think The Constitution Doesn't Apply To Video Games
Rational Thoughts On Network Neutrality
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...