Blink-182 Rewards Fans Who Uploaded Unauthorized Clips On YouTube

from the nicely-done dept

Thu, Aug 4th 2011 12:05pm — Mike Masnick

Nearly two years ago, we wrote about an interview with Tom Delonge from the band Blink-182, in which his views on the music industry seemed very closely aligned to exactly what we've been saying for years:

The one thing I've learned is that, like any other type of art, it evolves. So if you're a business that supports a type of art, you need to evolve with the art. Now, a lot of things have happened that have made creating art a lot easier with the computer. And it's also made the distribution of art a lot easier.... What I have chosen to believe is that if you look at your band with a modern filter, your band has so much potential to have all these different elements about it. You can create all this really cool merchandise and concert/live experiences. You can create a really cool portal on your website. You can mix all these elements together and I always believe that if the tools are available, you can monetize all these other elements, and not really worry about selling the record. In fact, I believe that, you should take down every barrier and put as much music out there for free...

In my mind, the way the music industry is changing is that music is easier to make and it's easier to give away for free. And that will enable the band and the music and the art and everything to be bigger than it's ever been. It's just how do you collect that and how do you build your business...

So it comes as little surprise to find out that the band has decided to do something cool with fans who "infringe." As a whole bunch of you have been sending in, the band created "the film festival you didn't know you entered," in which they (with the help of AT&T who appears to be sponsoring the band) collected a bunch of unauthorized YouTube clips and put them together in a montage to launch their first new single in eight years: The key is in the opening text: AT&T helped us search YouTube for every instance of fans using our music without our permission.

And then we rewarded them for it.

Thanks for being a fan. Always nice to see yet another band who recognizes the importance of connecting with fans rather than treating them like criminals.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blink-182, fans, rewards
Companies: at&t

43 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hulser (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:15pm

Why didn't they just ask YouTube?
"AT&T helped us search YouTube for every instance of fans using our music without our permission."

So...AT&T has their own version of YouTube's Content ID?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re: Why didn't they just ask YouTube?
  Or, you know, they just searched for "blink-182" and looked up every video that wasn't an audio-only video or an official blink-182 video.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hulser (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Why didn't they just ask YouTube?
    Or, you know, they just searched for "blink-182" and looked up every video that wasn't an audio-only video or an official blink-182 video.
    
    Well, right. That was kinda my (sarcastic, indirect) point. The wording "helped us" just seemed a bit odd to me. It implied some rather complex process (as in Content ID) rather than just a simple search.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Cowardly Anon, 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why didn't they just ask YouTube?
      Or, maybe, they offered the man power to weed through the results.
      
      That's why I took it to mean anyway.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why didn't they just ask YouTube?
        More likely it's just part of their sponsorship deal - a fancy version of "presented by"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Atkray (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why didn't they just ask YouTube?
        I don't think AT&T used weed to help them search, probably just the band members.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:18pm

You know what's the saddest thing? Some jerk is going to sue them for copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:33pm
  
  Re:
  Your comment is unclear. Some jerk is going to sue who? A fan, or the band?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    its perfectly clear. some fan is going to sue the band for misusing their video
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just John (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 8:58pm
  
  Re:
  The funny part is, that is what I was just thinking.
  The band made a great move there, but how come I smell someone else coming after them saying "I did not authorize the use of my image in their video for use of many lots of money. I want money now too."
  
  Or something like that...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:19pm

Yeah, but this sort of thing only works previously really popular but mostly out of the public eye for the last 8 years pop punk bands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re:
  I didn't see these guys giving away their music before they became multi-millionaires via cd sales...
  
  That the song is horrid crap not worth purchasing probably doesn't hurt either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mojo, 4 Aug 2011 @ 7:25pm
  
  Re: huh?
  Can someone translate this into english?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 2:05am
    
    Re: Re: huh?
    It's a mild mockery of the "Masnick effect".
    
    Basically, earlier in this site's life when new models were being discussed, some moron would come in say "yeah but it will only work for X". If an unknown was successful, they said it wouldn't work for big bands. If a name act tried it, they said it wouldn't work for unknowns.
    
    The pattern was quickly noticed, and mocked out of general usage.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Max, 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:23pm

Interesting
Google Reader says "This video contains content from UMG. It is restricted from playback on certain sites."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A. Fan, 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:24pm

One of my favourite bands just became a bit more favouriter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:27pm

This is potentially the biggest instance of copyright infringement ever perpetrated. Have the two large industrial concerns AT&T and Blink-182 thrown down their gauntlets and joined us in our corner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:32pm

Quoted within article...

The one thing I've learned is that, like any other type of art, it evolves. So if you're a business that supports a type of art, you need to evolve with the art.

Noooooo!

Shouldn't the art have to (d)evolve with the money and obsolete business models?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:33pm

It cool. It's perhaps proof they don't have anything else going on either. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:53pm

Another techdirt false dichotomy: Either you're a fan or you're a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re:
  Copyright infringement is against the law. Only criminals break the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 6:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Speeding is against the law. Only criminals speed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re:
  Another techdirt false dichotomy: Either you're a fan or you're a criminal.
  
  Huh? I have never said any such thing. I have only pointed out that there are some who treat their fans as fans, and others who treat their fans as criminals. I don't think fans should be criminalized. It's some of the folks in the industry who seem to think that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > Huh? I have never said any such thing.
    
    You should know by now that anonymous cowards are always going to put words in your mouth. They'll also accuse you of having a position that you never said you stood for. They'll even accuse you of having a position you've expressly disclaimed.
    
    So why do you stand for hurting puppies and kittens?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Just John (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 9:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You hurt puppies and kittens?
      
      I will report you to the Peta organization.
      
      You will see when 100 nude actresses are standing outside your door protesting what it means to cross puppies and kittens, and Peta.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - HothMonster, 5 Aug 2011 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You will see when 100 nude actresses are standing outside your door protesting what it means to cross puppies and kittens, and Peta."
        
        ?? thats what happens? I kill kittens then
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 4 Aug 2011 @ 3:44pm
    
    Re: Another techdirt false dichotomy: Either you're a fan or you're a criminal.
    I think what the AC means is that fans can be fans and still be criminals, too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:19pm
  
  Re:
  Not sure if serious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:18pm

I love it so much when I see stuff like this. Totally made my day :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:20pm

CORPORATE sponsorship.
I didn't gloss over your blithe minimizing: "(with the help of AT&T who appears to be sponsoring the band)". A Google search reveals that this is a major and direct link; they're openly and vigorously promoting it. -- To what end isn't clear, but it's just GIANT AT&T using a band to advertise, SAME OLD METHOD, so DOESN'T support your notions, Mike, this is just RANK COMMERCIALISM, rather sickening.

http://www.zacks.com/research/get_news.php?id=216p0599
"With AT&T's support, via the HTC Status(TM) and Facebook programs, this tour is really going to deliver the most in-depth experience for our fans."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: CORPORATE sponsorship.
  Pish tosh, sir.
  
  The is "Rank commercialism" PLUS treating the fans like fans rather than like criminals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David Muir (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 4:09pm
  
  Re: CORPORATE sponsorship.
  The idea remains illustrative. The corporate sponsorship embellishes the idea that big money can be involved even when the concepts of "free" and "connecting with fans" are used in a business model. You can see the Techdirt Insight community and other corporate ties and easily figure out that "commercialism" is not one of the things that this blog stands against. And advertising is still a valid way to monetize content, even though this blog has highlighted other innovative ways as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just John (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 9:10pm
  
  Re: CORPORATE sponsorship.
  Yes, I agree with you 100%.
  
  Who do businesses think they are, trying to advertise.
  
  Who do businesses think they are, trying to make money.
  
  We should boycott all businesses that advertise.
  
  We should boycott all people who support advertisement.
  
  Except, I will not be there with you when you make this bold move, because I like my technology, and do not want to live in a cave. I also do not like the barter system, or making all my own stuff...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 2:03am
  
  Re: CORPORATE sponsorship.
  ...and nothing Mike has ever said rules out corporate sponsorship. This 100% supports his notions, as it's the way that content is used to promote, not who pays for it, that's the issue usually argued. Nobody's against labels, for example, only the idiocy they usually act out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:44pm

"AT&T helped us search YouTube for every instance of fans using our music without our permission.

And then we rewarded them for it.

Thanks for being a fan."

----- NOW WE HAVE YOUR IP Addresses!!!..MWAHAHAHAHA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liam (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re:
  erm... no they don't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DS, 4 Aug 2011 @ 1:46pm

Blink-182 Rewards Fans Who Uploaded Unauthorized Clips On YouTube, But Punishes Everyone Else With Ears

I fixed it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jed, 4 Aug 2011 @ 2:14pm

If I like you...
If I like you (a band, a company, etc.) and what you produce/sell I will buy your stuff. Even if I don't have to (its available for free etc.) Because I want to support you so that you will make more stuff.

Also, I liked the song but I am a fan of Blink-182 and I like their sound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donny (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 3:20pm

I'm really taken by that quote:
"AT&T helped us search YouTube for every instance of fans using our music without our permission.

And then we rewarded them for it.

Thanks for being a fan."

Sometimes the best arguments are the ones implicit in the statement. I'd like to present just the above - no further explanation - to a pro-DRM/take-down individual and see what they make of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 4 Aug 2011 @ 5:31pm

http://blogs.forbes.com/davidewalt/2011/08/03/felicia-day-dragon-age-redemption/

When you treat people with respect is respect you get back, just ask Felicia Day.

She is making more money then in her previous career and all she does now is to give free content to the public LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 7:34pm

Since 1979, copyright infringement has been responsible for the death of over 9 million tubes.

The Techdirt Piracy Cartel alone has sponsored over half of those deaths.

Please, think of the tubes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2011 @ 8:31pm

not in germany :(
http://imgur.com/Ydh5K.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me, 11 Aug 2011 @ 12:26am

Mmm I wonder if AT&T payed them anything for it?

Would be nice if artists could just get sponsored, and release their music for free. ^.^

Tho. I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]