R.E.M. open-sources its music videos: The future of content?

R.E.M. might have goofy lyrics at times ("you're drifting off to sleep with your teeth in your mouth") but it has broken interesting new ground with its decision to open-source 11 videos for a new song from its new album. R.E.M. will be releasing the videos under the Artistic License, appropriately enough.

Viewers are encouraged to remix the videos and share them on the song's YouTube page. The band will not be doing a Radiohead and offering the album for free, but this is an interesting twist somewhere in between that approach and the standard industry practice.

Think about that. What possible purpose could there be in locking down a music video? Such things are meant to promote the underlying music. It makes soooo much economic sense for R.E.M. to open up the videos and let people remix them to help promote R.E.M.'s new album. But R.E.M. isn't alone in this general idea.

It's a bit like this hyper-cool video from The Shins ("Phantom Limb"), where The Shins encouraged its fans to upload their videos from an Austin, Texas, concert to compile them into a music video. It's very, very cool to watch. Much better than the normal music videos out there. You really get the sense of being in the 30,000-strong crowd by watching it.

The future of media isn't amateurs uploading and remixing content. It's also not a bunch of professionals ramming "culture" down the throats of the mute masses. It's a combination of the two, iterating toward a collaborative product.

It sounds great.

[MyRightEye]

Take a look at Open Source Track
http://OpenSourceTrack.com

[Goodman.seth]

This does sound like a cool idea, and very well could become standard practice with many artitst. The only thing that's bugging me is that now we will be bombarded with a lot of crap. There will be some great, artistic work put out by some people, but then there will be 150 junk video "remixes" that will sort of devalue the art of the music. I know any publicity is good publicity, but I'm already missing the days when you watched a professional video from an experienced director with a big budget. A good video has the ability to bring emotional attachment to a great song through images, and I suppose the opposite could be said of a bad video. And what about controversial content that the artists doesn't endorse (like expletive, racist, or religious imagery)? Will there be a disclaimer, or Un-offical, warning? Not everyone is an artist, but everyone sure as hell thinks they are.

[dascha1]

There is nothing new under the sun... it's only news. The concept of mixing your own has been around for a very long time. For example - "quad-sound" back in the 60's and 70's where you could essentially direct where you wanted a Locomotive to move onto different Tracks with four Alternatives being the max at the time.

Good luck making it into the Forbes Top 5 Wealthiest with this idea REM ET AL!

[The_Flying_V]

Open Source is a mentality....the world is catching on! :)

[grossj144]

How is this open source? While the Artistic License is indeed used for open-source packages, the videos don't quite fit the spirit and intent of the license. Might a Creative Commons license have been a better choice?

Those questions aside, I am fond of REM and now I must say they are starting to catch on to the wonderful world of openness! Open content, open source, open world!

[brianwolters]

This is great but what's better? No more "blah" R.E.M....they've been blah from Up, to Reveal to Around the Sun...this song and new sound is WELCOME!!!!

[onebedroom]

the first one submitted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m87wmVoPxNI