If what is talked about Jayz's album is true....shouldnt they take action on the person who actually put it there in the first place rather than the company who innocently made space for people to put videos and music there? Isn't it the people who break the law and rules by putting the copyrighted videos and music onto their myspace??

I for one use myspace to my advantage to publicise my band and spread the word about my band across wales (most welsh bands uses myspace as their bands homepage, to show their gig dates etc.)

I agree totally there is no difference between seeing the music video on Myspace U Tube or the Television they are all free.. !

FYI, video on TV is not free. There is a money exchange in every case. The issue is "who-pays-who" and who collects the money.

Free? Not on TV. Advertisers, which artists are usually considered as, pay someone. And trust me, royalties do come into play if you have stuff copyrighted.

I know this "sounds" simple but there is money being shifted from one source to another.

Remember the old "payola" issue? Which, by the way, emerged again over the past few years.

If the "Rolling Stones" had a video they put on TV, they had to pay dearly to put it there. Money changed hands.

About the only "free" thing I know of in this business is a "free" drink when the venue gives it to you.

On the other hand, we have stuff that is not copyrighted and share shamelessly. Backgrounds and screen savers would be good examples - even though I have not had the time to "give" those away yet. But sooner or later I will.

Please, don't confuse video with free. It really ain't that simple.

Peace,

Dreaminghawk

Videos are advertisements and you want your ads everywhere. MTV used to get their videos for free back when they played videos. Back in the day, nobody paid for showing videos. It was an expense incurred by the labels or bands.

OK. So nobody will request your video on TRL if it's already on myspace....I doubt that would be a huge problem for most bands. You can go to yahoo and check just about every video ever made.

I agree with the Ice Cube article you guys posted not to long ago. I think labels are out for a quick buck and don't care about longevity in the artists career. Look at all the Johnny come lately's that are getting deals and over exposed. Most of which are one hit or one album wonders.
I don't agree with Universal in this case. I think it's great for the artists because they are getting free advertisement and the label if they choose so actually saves some promo money paying MTV to put the video in heavy rotation...but, as long as fans are doing the right thing and purchasing the cd at a store or online at ITunes, etc. Also, for Indie bands this can do wonders.
We don't have the ins and big connections like these huge labels do and if you don't have a big label backing you, you don't get play on any major video channel....but, we can use MySpace as a great source for getting our videos seen and music heard by people all around the world, who would normally never get that chance. If anything MySpace is a Godsent to both Indie and Signed artists.

This is just the start of many more law suits to come against MySpace. MySpace is a FREE portal for anything really. Child pornography, pirated music, FREE pirated video. MySpace offers a vehicle to which any person can easily share information...even if they didn't pay to obtain the information. This is against the law...PERIOD! Copyright laws are supposed to protect against this but MYSpace is allowing it to happen by not controlling the site enough. They also know the minute they start controlling content...the users will drop like flies. See NAPSTER for this example.

The other problem is that tv does cost money and if a person can go download a video without having to pay money to have CABLE TV...then it is stealing and it is robbing the TV companies of viewers which traslates into lost advertising revenue by the millions of $$$'s.

Do you still think there is no issue here? If you do...then you are just jealous of the deep pockets and you should really get some more education.

American Gypsy and The New Fuse seem to be the only ones who get what the issue is about. When you see a video on TV, somebody paid to get it run. When you hear a song on the radio, someone was paid to get that song played. I remember when Pink Floyd released The Wall. The label thought at first all they needed was to send it to radio stations and they'd play it. It didn't get played until the label hired a "consultant" to "recommend" it to the stations. But OF COURSE, payola doesn't exist!

To the bands who think that any exposure is a good thing: I want to put up a website devoted to such giants of the industry as Englebert Humperdinck and Wayne Newton. I plan to offer free downloads of their stuff and I'd love to sandwich your stuff between Wayne and Englebert. You don't have a problem with that, right? It won't have any impact on the image you want people to have of you, right? I don't need to get your permission and I don't need to pay you either, do I?

I also want to flood the net with one of your songs and play it, like, 24-7 until everyone is sick of it and sick of you. It may make you one of those one hit wonders(who don't get paid) but hey it's publicity, right? Again I don't need to ask your permission and I certainly don't have to PAY you, do I?

I mean, music should be free, right? Why should you expect to get PAID for spending countless hours rehearsing, writing, arranging, recording and distributing CDs? That's so mercenary, man! You should GIVE it away. It's great publicity.

And think of the publicity you'll get from being willing to play gigs for free! Why,every club in the world will want to book you if they don't have to pay you. While we're on the subject, I got an indie label I'd like to release your stuff on. There's no money involved, but you'll get a truckload of publicity. Simply record a CD and pay to make around 10,000 copies for our first run(that way I don't have to rent a warehouse to store them in case it takes a while to sell them). Then just pay to ship 'em to me. I don't really care about or need publicity,just money. And since you're after the publicity, you won't mind if I don't pay you.

And while you're at it, write the script, hire the videographer, shoot, edit and make copies of a video and send it to me along with a check to cover the cost of getting it played. You don't mind the expense since it's going to get you publicity, right?

The funny thing is, I go to Walmart and I see videos FOR SALE. I go to Twist and Shout(an independent new and used CD store here) and I see videos FOR SALE. Once upon a time, maybe videos were just seen as a promotional tool only. But I have a news flash for you. Videos are income sources too. They're controlled by copyright just like songs. Try re-shooting a punk or jazz version of Thriller without getting permission and paying for that permission, by the way. See how fast Michael Jackson AND his label sues your ass. I doubt they'll buy the argument that your version generates publicity for his version and he should be grateful.

see i get what The New Fuse is saying, and he is right...but only to an extent i think, i mean yes it is true it is techcally against copyrite laws. but i just dont think its the bigger picture, i still think if unversal were really bothered about the lost revenue it should be illegal download sites they should sue not myspace.

i mean honestly...how many people here pay for cable tv just to watch music videos? im guessing none, i know i certanly dont. i pay anyway for all the other things, and i still watch music videos on tv as well, its a nice way to see new videos/bands who you mite not have known existed if you were just doing searches on the net. so i dont take that as an issue.

no offence but do i take it that: the rhythm dosent use myspace at all? besides we are not talking about flooding the interent with a bands song, we are talking about having a bands video on there, wich is very diferent, i dont think the 2 artists you named ever made music videos...
In fact from that argument it makes universal look even more stupid, if they have pyaed money to tv companies to show a video a few times a day, why complain at haveing it shown to 130million people for free? surely thats just gud busnines sence?

Elliott.

I'm not sure if Wayne and Englebert ever made vids. But I could take footage from old TV shows, if nothing else. Should I be allowed to do that without permission? Should I be allowed to take a video YOU shot 10 years ago when you were perhaps not as good a player, singer or writer, or for that matter not even the same band as you are now, without permission? And there's the issue of whether you'd want YOUR band to be sandwiched in between their stuff without having anything to say about it. As far as good business sense, if I'm paying to run a video, I can control more of the variables - how much it gets played(avoiding under- or over-exposure), the target audience etc. See my Blue Mountain Arts analogy at the end of this post for more about this.

I could also argue that I don't subscribe to cable to just watch mysteries or documentaries or..... the point is cable TV is of value to someone because of it's content. For some subscribers, it's worth the price for the sports channels alone. For others, all they watch are the re-runs of Gilligan's Island. For others, it's only worth the price it costs because they can watch dramas AND comedies AND sports AND videos AND CNN.

Bottom line: MTV, TRL, VH-1 etc are carried on TV for one reason only. THEY GENERATE MONEY. If these shows weren't on TV, being paid for by advertisers, their content would be in music retail stores being paid for by viewers. Hell, their content IS in stores being sold to viewers.

And in the United States at least, "free" TV is pretty much a thing of the past. Virtually everyone has paid subscriptions to either cable or satellite TV. The only reason to subscribe is for the content. Unless millions of people wanted to watch music videos, they wouldn't be carried by cable or satellite providers.

Here's an analogy: BlueMountainArts.com was an online e-card company that gave away free electronic greeting cards that could be downloaded and printed or sent via email. They made their money by selling the company to another company that has since gone out of business. Their rationale for the selling price of close to a hundred million dollars, as I recall, was that they were getting around 78,000 hits a day from visitors to their site and with that many hits a day, surely the buyer would be able to sell them something. That was a faulty argument, simply because no one knew how many hits were by the same individuals over and over again, no one knew the demographics(age, income, education etc). One of the principals later admitted as much AFTER he got his payday. I don't say that MySpace is like BlueMountainArts.com, but I'm also not seeing anyone who can tell me their MySpace audience is a guaranteed long term career builder.

Gypsy raises a great point that I and others have missed. It just goes to show the true motivation behind this. Major labels are like oil companies, they hate technology because it destroys thier infrustructure. Still no pity for the majors!

#1. NO ONE BUYS VIDEOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#2. the sole purpose of a video is to promote the music

#3. Myspace has become more important for promoting music than any other medium period. hands down, no question.

i have a hard time believing that any umg artists would be anything less than angry that their own label has decided to sue people for freely promoting their band. speaking specifically about suing myspace for allowing users to post "pirated videos", if you agree with umg......??????????? GROW A BRAIN!! so what if by the letter of the law it's copyright infringement. it does nothing but help sell your product which is the whole point anyways! i feel better now

Me thinks the "recording corporations" are trying to pass blame for the lack of "ingenuity" or rather, the lack of "interest" in the corporate by-products.

So what if someone posts a video by a band they "like." Isn't this called promotion? I find some of the coolest music (videos) by browsing youtube and places like myspace. If I dig it, I research more, and decide if it's something that I like (and more often than not, I buy it).

Point is, music that sucks, is music that sucks, no matter how much you put into "producing videos."

The labels need to stop passing blame, and realize that the garbage they are "putting out" is just that... GARBAGE!

Word,
T

If you agree with TR's take on the topic, UMG may be suing because the traffic isn't quantifiable.

A fat settlement may seem more tangible to their attorneys and accountants.

I've seemed to cause quite the debate.

Let's get one thing straight though. I am a big fan of MySpace. I use it everyday and have shows lined up all throughout this month because of bands on my friends list who have emailed me.

I'm always curious as to what people's thoughts are on labels and MySpace. My intentions were only to stimulate conversation, not start a war.

After reading your comments, I did have a few things to add. First, I think it's about time we stopped thinking that labels are all evil. You wouldn't have a record collection if it weren't for them. Who do you think released your favorite artist's album? It wasn't MySpace. Chances are it was one of the big labels that we all hate so much.

Yes, the artists made the music, but the labels put in the dollars to record and promote it. OK, I admit, the artists didn't get that much money, but they did get the fame.

Then you have to ask yourselves, "Are you doing this for the money or to be recognized as a good musician or songwriter?"

For those who keep saying it's about the music, why should the idea of a label taking all the profits bother them?

Thank God for people like Terry McBride of Nettwerk and companies like The Firm for trying to change how record labels do business. For them the music comes first.

You need to buy music in order for people to continue making music. This even applies to people doing it on their own. Would it not be nice if sales from your first album paid to record your second?

The question is not whether MySpace is great for promoting. There's no doubt that it is. The question is whether they have the right to broadcast videos without permission.

If UMG gave MySpace permission, then there would be no lawsuit. Many of you then might ask, "Well why doesn't UMG just allow MySpace to play videos from their artists?" Good question. There's this thing called licensing. Everytime a video is played a royalty is paid out to labels and artists. Yes, I said artists.

The same can be said about msuic played on the radio. Artists were making a killing back when the only way to hear a song was by buying it or listening to it on the radio. Because when played on the radio, there were controls that paid the artists a mechanical royalty.

It goes back to the same question we had about MP3s. Why don't labels give away their music? It's simple. Because it cost them money to record the album, promote it, and ship it out to music stores.

Embracing technology? Sure. Let's embrace it, but don't forget what some of the consequences can be. It's like the evolution of the automotive industry. How many people lost their jobs to a machine? There were a lot more bands getting signed before MP3s came out.

With this said all I can say is that it should be up to the artist and the artist's label on how the music should be promoted. If they agree to allow fans to give away their music, then they have that right, but it should be their decision to make. Your music, your decision.

Fuse- do you honestly think that some one will cancel thier cable because they can watch videos of musicians on myspace? Come one man, maybe you need the education. Not to mention the tact to not attack people for their opinions for the sake of the rich getting richer.

Keif- The bottom line is the only money being effected is the labels' and the people that need "payola" dime from the labels. If they have a right to that dough they should try and go and get it, but don't try to say this effects artists pockets because it doesn't. Any new artist is gonna get ripped off regardless and we all know that.

They make little money from the videos being showed on TV - I'm fairly sure it works the same way as radio stations playing music.
But the record companies are just trying to grab some cash from Myspace.
If anything, people sharing videos just does the artist better, because if a person puts a video of some awesome, say, radiohead or gig on their myspace, then all of the viewers will think, "hey, they look cool, i might check them out live sometime or pick up their album".
I really want the record companies to not be wiped out by the digital revolution, BUT, I think they have to find a way to live with it - that's what the music industry is right now, digital, and fighting it isn't doing them any good, and to their name.

Mairi,
for Depot.

As an underground record label, I think that Universal has the right to sue for what they believe is theirs.

On the other hand, as more indie and underground labels continue to sprout around the world, Universal will soon notice that they will be the small guy looking in. Why?

Most Underground and Indie labels permit their fans to download the music for free, so advertising is lessened a bit.

We make our money developing Artists that are viewed as "real human beings that love their fans" and "are available to hang out with their fans after a concert at after parties, autograph signings, etc"

We tend to have better marketing techniques, lower overhead and defintely not any million dollar signing bonses to our artists.

Here are some techniques that make us $$$$:

1) Sales of Authographed CD's at concerts.
2) Sales of Authographed T-Shirts at concerts.
4) Sales of Authographed Posters at concerts.
5) Sales of Authographed instant 8x10 Photos
6) Having Official After Parties and having band members mingle with their fans.
7) Personalized Event Glow Sticks and Stickers
Maintaining a great e-mail database to include fan birthdates and have your computer automatically send them electronic birthday cards. When was the last time you got one!

This is what music is all about, being "REAL" AND "STAYING REAL".

Fans are starting to stay home from the big concerts.......have you noticed that most new major artists don't do that many concerts. Most lipsync and when you see them in person they sound like crap.

Universal if you want real artists then come over here to Bandzoogle.com and you'll find the "Real Deal".

OK Capitol...I just got a few of your band's
posters and 8X10's and now I'm showing them on my Myspace page for people to download and print themselves. I believe this would cut into your $$$ just a little no?
And indie labels giving downloads away free? The ones I can count on one hand are little mom and pop labels, I don't know about "underground" labels. Maybe that's why they are "underground"
Just being the devil's advocate, nothing personal.

I can't believe that half the posts on this thread show that some of these people never picked up a music business book or spoke with an entertainment lawyer, yet they just splur out what they BELIEVE is right. I laughed everytime I saw the word "free" used when arguing over points they clearly have no clue about.

I agree that there are both sides to the argument. However, I think that if the "music" is being downloaded then there is something wrong.

I agree with one of the comments about the video's, If you don't pay for them on TV what's the difference, it will still drive people to buy the CD. I think Myspace is a great community for artists to generate some hype and network.

Downloading and free sharing of music does have a massive impact on the viability and shelf life of an artist. Allow me to share a Napster story. I have recorded 4 Comedy CD's with 3 other guys. When Napster was around 1 of the skits was traded and downloaded on Napster over 800 000 times. We sold to date 1700 cd's. What a massive diffence in sales, and this for something that apparently, given the numbers, was popular. Thank god that our production cost's are very low, but imagine putting in 1/2 or 1 million dollars to promote an album that everyone already has.

If 1/8 of the people who downloaded from Napster our skit (which we didn't put there) had purchased an album, than I really wouldn't care.

That just isn't the case. People like that beleive that they have a right because they see all the "Bling" and such in some videos, so they believe that all artist's with a record deals are rich. Ultimately, it is the artist who gets hurt the most since the label recoups before royalties are paid.

On the positive side, legal downloading now represents approx: 12% of all music sold. So perhaps some people are getting the point. To them I say " Thank You".

Keep the faith!

I don't understand why they are upset. I had a video out back in 1997 that I made very little money on as far as TV plays. It was never for sale, so neither the record label or me made any money on sales. Maybe, had I had great commercial success, later a video collection could have been sold in a store but until then the video was just to promote CD sales. Had myspace been around back then I would have welcomed my video being on people's pages. It could do nothing but help me. I can't think of anything it could do to hurt me especially since the videos are created to drive album sales. The more it can be viewed the better!

JD Myers

Well, we can all jump into the whirl pool of "intellectual property rights" but this just seems to be another example of "business as usual" for a sinking major label. The DIY ethic combined with the internet has become a
major force, and record companies can't control it. These are the same companies that said cd prices would eventually drop below $10 but here we are still paying $18-$20 for a cd twenty years later. They also tend to litigate at the drop of a hat under the guise of "protecting the rights of the artist" when they are really just protecting their bottom line. I personally like MySpace and have made some great contacts for shows overseas. One previous poster squawked about MySpace just being for "twelve-year-olds" and that no "serious artist" should be on there- Sorry, but that's BS- It's just another tool in the promo game.

Here's a question... How many of you have sold CDs as a direct result of being on MySpace? I ask because the only way to resolve this is to prove that MySpace actually helped you sell CDs.

If UMG were racking in the dough as a result of having MySpace broadcast their videos, then there would be no issue. The problem is that there are no stats proving that videos on MySpace help sell CDs.

Once again, I must repeat, I am a fan of MySpace and I use my profile to help me get shows and promote the band, but not one friend on my list has asked me about my CD. I don't have one to sell (one day maybe), but nobody knows that and nobody has cared to asked.

KEIF

Tech support for Bandzoogle

Guitar player for Playing With Diana (Yes, I play in a band too)

I definitely have sold CD's as a result of being on myspace. Almost all of the sales went through CD Baby because that's where I had myspace set to go. I recently changed that link to go to my website and I've sold a few since then. It also is the number one driver of traffic to my website.

Also, it has brought folks out to my shows where I've met them and they've bought my CD.

If I'm selling CD's because of it, the big guys HAVE to be.

JD

UMG are morons. If their videos are being exposed across the internet to thousands of people then myspace are doing them a favour. damm i have had a gutful of majors. no sence all money money money.