A/V File Sharing
April 29, 2005 1:11 PM   Subscribe

Why, in this modern age of file sharing, do some musical artists seem to openly welcome live audio recording/sharing of concerts but appear reluctant, if not actively opposed, to live video recording/sharing of the same events?
posted by RockyChrysler to Media & Arts (6 answers total)
They're used to big bulky video cameras that block the views of paying customers for the benefit of non-paying video watchers.

Even with today's smaller consumer video camera, the cameraman is going to be jockeying for a good angle and disturbing concert-goers in way the guy
with a tape recorder in his back-pack won't.
posted by orthogonality at 1:25 PM on April 29, 2005

The way I see it, everybody kind of knows that the perceived value of a CD has gone down. The RIAA is fighting because it's losing, but the artists have other sources of revenue to jump on, like DVDs. Bootlegging live sets can be a great addition to word of mouth, especially with regards to drawing people to live shows, but a live DVD of the same event still has earning potential.

My perspective is from a music fan who buys few CDs but owns a couple of DVDs. They're still worth it for me, basically.
posted by rfordh at 1:26 PM on April 29, 2005

Is the band opposed to video? Or more likely, is it the band's management who is opposed to video, for whatever reason?
posted by mischief at 1:47 PM on April 29, 2005

I second orthogonality. People with cameraphones are annoying when they hold them above their heads at arm's length to get a clean shot. Video is the same x100.
posted by smackfu at 2:38 PM on April 29, 2005

I think that the method of distribution of live audio/video are perceived to be vastly different. I think that the bands that are audio friendly but not video friendly feel that they are giving much more away for free. Some bands could care less though, as long people are not trading commercial releases.

Kind of off topic, but there is a list of bands that allow taping (btat.)
posted by schyler523 at 7:42 PM on April 29, 2005

From what I hear, musicans make much more money from touring than from record sales. If you bootleg a recording of a concert, or even a released studio album, you stand to increase interest in the band. This may result in more album sales for them, but more importantly, may well result in more ticket sales as people who are new to their music go to see them perform live. But if videos of their live performances are available (especially free), why not stay home and see them "live"? You get to skip the high ticket prices, high food and drink prices, impluse souvenir purchases (at high prices), jockeying for a good seat or floor position with the rest of the sweaty crowd, etc. etc. In addition, you are again more likely to spread the word about the band after a concert than after watching a video of a concert. A live show is an experience that you tend to tell people about; watching a video is something you might mention if someone asks what you did last night.
posted by attercoppe at 10:11 AM on April 30, 2005

« Older Why no stairs in office buildings?   |   Online printing service Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.