The RIAA Killed the YouTube Star?

Back in the day, music videos were an expensive promotional tool and labels fought tooth and nail to get them shown on MTV.  But, there was only so many hours in the day for Kajagoogoo, Eddy Grant and The Fixx.  Then, the Internet came around.  Cool!  Suddenly, there were places to go where labels could show off all sorts of artist videos and bring attention to new acts.  And, even better, when people watched videos it didn't cannibalize any existing business.  Not like that naughty Napster.

Fast forward a few years.  YouTube and its ilk bust on the scenes.   Suddenly, people are posting and sharing their favorite videos like crazy.  You can find videos straight out of Bangalore, Vilnius and Compton.  Awesome! 

Or, not so awesome.

See, the music industry has also discovered that you can make money selling music videos online, and according to Billboard, made $3.7  million in the first months of selling high quality videos at places like Google Video.

Well, if there's money to be made, the music industry thought, then all those people posting their favorite videos online must be getting the way of an even bigger payday.  And, thus, Billboard noted this month:

In recent weeks the Recording Industry Association of America has been stepping up its efforts to stop sharing of popular videos on such sites, particularly on the rapidly expanding YouTube. The site, which now claims more than 6 million visitors and 40 million streams daily, has become a haven for unlicensed music videos, which users are capturing with TiVo and other digital video recorders and then posting the files to the Web. Much of the material is coming from recorded MTV broadcasts.

The RIAA recently issued cease-and-desist letters to YouTube users sharing videos from the likes of Nelly Furtado, Beyonce and Rihanna.

So, to recap, ever since the dawn of time (or, when MTV launched) videos were basically loss-leading advertisements that the music industry wanted as many to see as possible.  Now, suddenly, they're "product".

Well darn.  Still, the music industry folk have every right to control their product as they see fit.  Yet, taking down Nelly and Beyonce is one thing, but we hope that they don't go overboard and prevent user-driven video sites from being a fantastic way to discover new (or long-tail) music. 

And, perhaps even more importantly, please don't get in the way of folks interacting with and displaying their emotional connections to music using new communications medium just yet.

This is a real worry after reading an A1 piece in the WSJ on Saturday that led:

The music industry is grappling again with how to protect its copyrights on the Internet, as amateur videos featuring commercial songs flood the Web.

Some of the most popular videos on sites such as YouTube and Google Video show amateurs lip synching to music by the Backstreet Boys, *Nsync and other pop artists. Many home-videos posted on such sites include songs as soundtracks, as well as snippets of concerts captured by music fans with their cellphone cameras. Virtually all this material is put online without securing permission from the owner of the rights...

It continued:

...with the videos attracting millions of users -- and a rising amount of advertising revenue -- some in the music industry are debating whether to attempt a crackdown. At a May meeting of the Recording Industry Association of America, the industry's main trade group, the world's largest music company, Universal Music Group, pushed for an aggressive stance against amateur videos using commercial songs.

But, as far as we know, no actions have been yet been taken against amateurs as all sides try to work out the murkiness of the fast emerging space.  From the Journal piece:

"There are a lot of questions about whether a quality remix of background music with good video imagery is positive publicity" for the music companies, says Jason Zajac, Yahoo general manager of social media. "It definitely has not been nailed down and I think even the music industry's views will evolve over time."

We repeat, we haven't heard of any actions have been taken yet.  Why do we need to repeat ourselves?  Because the angry mobosphere echo-chamber is currently going ape-doo-doo over this post on the indie music site Project Opus that claims:

Instead of embracing the opportunity, UMG (Universal Music Group) has pushed for "an agressive (sic) stance against amateur video using commerical songs." Some YouTube users have reportedly received cease and desist letters from the RIAA, demanding that the posted video be taken down.

Hmmmm?  Where did we read that UMG "agressive stance" line before?  Maybe the front page of the Wall Street Journal?   Except the Journal spelled aggressive right.  And no evidence was presented that amateur users have been told to take their content down.

Yet the Journal, or, more importantly, the likely facts of the matter aren't mentioned anywhere on sites like TechDirt or Ars Technica who wrote about RIAA's supposedly dirty deeds here and here, respectively.  Even better (or worse) is this case study in how service like Digg can sometime be a faster and more democratic means to blind pack journalism.

Still, the RIAA should consider the Project Opus one big fat (albeit unintentional) trial balloon that has fallen to the earth in technicolor flames.  Wonder how is this guy could possibly be hurting your business before sicking the lawyers on his cheesy self...

And, spend more time thinking about using YouTube as a promotional tool like Matador Records did when they ran a contest to see who could make the best Pretty Girls Make Graves video.   Here's the winner:

Finally, don't go messing with great (real) videos like this one from LCD Soundsystem, or we're creating a Project Opie site that the inDiggNation will really sink their thumbs into...