Confusion Over Digital Payouts to Musicians

Artists upset about low digital payouts must read this piece about clearing up Spotify payment confusion.  It tells the side of the story that the RIAA and SoundExchange and David Lowery and Damon Krukowski do not.

The music industry stuck their heads in the sand about the pros and cons related to the digitization of music in the 1990s, conducted their affairs in an atmosphere of fear and lack of understanding, and many bad decisions resulted. The power in the music industry is now shifting from labels to artists and managers. Now that we have more control, let's be careful not to make similar mistakes because we're approaching the discussion from that same vantage point of misinformation and fear.

The starting place for this argument shouldn't be "streaming services don't pay enough for the use of music," but "thank goodness the future of music now, as opposed to in the days of Napster, includes artists getting paid for the use of their music!"

Read more.

Strike Three, Yer Offline!

People share and copy digital files. This is a fact of life in a time where most westerners on the planet have access to the world's greatest copying machine: a computer.

The RIAA has tried combating this trend in many ways, most of which punished customers and/or the people innovating ways to distribute its product. For example, suing Napster and other companies that made file-sharing easier. Suing individuals (including grandmothers and dead people) for sharing digital files. Crippling digital files by infecting them with Digital Rights Management implements making the files (a) less useful across platforms than they should be, (b) subject to self-destruction if the seller goes out of business or decides to change it's terms.

The latest attempt, with anti-filesharing zealots in France taking the lead, involves a three strikes rule where, if a user is caught infringing copyright material three times, the alleged infringer and his or her "whole household is taken offline and added to a list of address to which it is illegal to provide Internet access."

First of all, it is impossible to inspect every file shared across the internet, particularly those sent via torrents. Most transmission methods involve breaking files up into granular pieces and routing those scrambled pieces to their intended destination through many different routes. Without employing extremely invasive spying methods on average citizens, there is no way to track who is sending what to whom.

Even if the files being transferred are indeed identified, who knows if the contents are copyrighted, being transferred with consent, and for what purpose they are being transferred in this way. For example, as an internet radio station, record labels, bands, and radio promotion companies send me promotional versions of albums all the time. About 40% of those albums arrive via digital distribution using similar and sometimes the same methods that would likely be seen by a monitoring service as "piracy." Think about how hard it is to clean a stained credit report that was sullied by identity theft...I can only imagine how hard it would be to clear ones record once your name is added to some unaccountable "filesharing watch list."

In France this three strikes, then disconnect plan will be overseen by a government agency called Hadopi beginning this Spring. Guess what? Hadopi may soon be sued by the designer of the font it used, without permission, in it's logo. It would be funny if it weren't so damned serious.

Agencies like Hadopi, which can't navigate it's own way around the copyright minefield, are going to be in charge of policing the internet for copyright infringement? And given the power to ban users and their families from using the internet?

Imagine for a moment what being banned from using the internet would mean for hundreds of millions of people who rely on the internet for communication, news, entertainment, work, play, banking, paying bills, education, medical information...you name it, it's online these days.

Now imagine how much power those agencies are being granted.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Then, when this starts coming up in a jurisdiction near you, voice your opinion against Big Brother and his minions. Loudly.

Thanks.





http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/12/frances-anti-piracy.html

http://torrentfreak.com/french-3-strikes-group-unveils-copyright-infringing-logo-100112/

SoundExchange Offers Webcasters Unacceptable Take-It-Or-Leave-It Offer

From Radio & Internet Newsletter:

In a column today about the ongoing judicial appeal of the 2006-10 CRB royalty decision, San Francisco-based MarketWatch columnist Therese Poletti writes, "The dysfunctional music industry suffers from a classic case of biting the hand that feeds it.

"Over the last two years," she notes, "record companies have tried to squeeze excessive royalties from Internet-radio stations — the very stations that can help fuel future digital-music sales — and it's endangering some Web-based radio firms." Poletti argues that the exposure and sales Internet radio affords and generates are benefits, not challenges to the embattled industry.

Most who are close to negotiations seem to want to stay mum about the situation; Poletti says reps of Pandora and SoundExchange didn't want to talk to her.

But Michael Spiegelman, head of Yahoo Music, is somewhat more removed, as his company recently turned over its webcasting business to CBS Radio (as has AOL, both companies citing the rising costs of licensing as a major impetus). Spiegelman told MarketWatch, "Internet radio facilitated discovery while compensating artists and labels for their effort. They may feel in the short term (the high royalty rate) gets them a better revenue stream. But in the short term, it's driving the Webcasters out of business."

Closer to the action is Jon Potter, head of DiMA (Digital Media Association, which represents large company webcasters). He says the record industry isn't even actually negotiating. "We were presented with a take-it-or-leave-it offer from SoundExchange. It was unacceptable."

Poletti, a senior columnist for MarketWatch, concludes, "I hope the appellate court is more sympathetic to the young Webcasting firms than the CRB. But the music industry never should have let their negotiations derail this badly. Once again, the industry seems to be using artists as a cover for incessant greed. Instead, they should encourage as much legal digital music as possible."

Read the entire MarketWatch story here.

Webcasters Submit Briefs This Month

No, not that kind of briefs. Legal briefs, silly. The briefs are part of webcasters' appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn the Copyright Royalty Board's monumental March 2007 mistake raising far beyond reason the copyright royalty rate on internet radio.

From The Radio And Internet Newsletter (RAIN):

According to the timeline currently in place, the briefs of the various webcasters are due on Feb. 25.

The brief of the CRB, represented by the Department of Justice, is due on April 25, and SoundExchange’s brief is due on May 15. The reply briefs are due on June 12, but oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. Such a calendar suggests that the appeal will be decided at the end of 2008, at the earliest.

Until then, the parties may continue to negotiate and reach agreement outside of court, as has already occurred. SoundExchange, representing the music industry, has shown a desire to achieve separate agreements among the parties, rather than a comprehensive settlement that covers all parties…

The royalty rate legislation that is before Congress, if enacted, may ultimately nullify the Court of Appeals’ decision and any agreements SoundExchange has entered.

Still, what is needed is a rate structure that is technology-neutral…

Read bout it in the New York Law Journal via KurtHanson.com.

U2 Vying To Be The New Metallica (Not A Good Thing)

In a speech at MIDEM’s first International Manager Summit, U2's manager Paul McGuinness asserted that your Internet Service Provider should pay his band and their label part of their profits because the service ISPs provide allows people to illegally share music.

While this strategy to crack down on file sharing may be marginally better than the one employed by the RIAA (suing housewives, kids, grandmothers, and dead people), it still grossly misplaces fault and reassigns responsibility for the mess that is the recored music industry today.

Based on this speech, it would be hypocritical for Mr. McGuinness to not also champion the (equally absurd) idea that labels/artists should pay a surcharge to ISPs for the bandwidth used for each legal music download from iTunes, Amazon, whathaveyou.

I'm surprised to hear something this shortsighted blaring out of the U2 camp. Who do they think they are, Metallica?

Read McGuinness's (lengthy) MIDEM speech.

What Does Digital Freedom Mean To You?

Well, it certainly doesn't mean buying intentionally damaged media that won't play on the media player you got for your birthday. Nor does it mean trekking down to some giant store to buy a gift card that you have to take back home to redeem online for one of the 37 titles made available through this genius campaign.

This video from DigitalFreedom.org featuring Middle Distance Runner gives an example of what the landscape could look like for emerging artists in today's increasingly digital consumer society: