Techdirt Is A Never Ending “Dumb Off”

A long time ago my good friend Dan Vickrey of the Counting Crows  explained to me the concept of  a Dumb Off.   Essentially this is what you call an argument between two people  that actually agree.  Generally this is because one or both  parties insists that the other person is saying something that they are not.  In the music world these Dumb Offs usually occur in the van or on the bus after the show when people are really really drunk.

In the internet world  they occur (with  alarming frequency) on Techdirt.

Most of you are not be familiar with Techdirt.com.  Allow me to explain.   This is an obscure blog that is run by He-who-was-named-on-the-Google-Shill-List (Mike Masnick)and his Canadian sidekick Barnacle Boy - I mean Leigh Beadon.   We at The Trichordist mostly know about this blog cause every time they write about us we get a barely perceptible  extra dozen views.    They generally write minitrues that benefit Google/Oceania  when argued in the broader much more popular  tech blogs. The reason you’ve never heard of Techdirt is cause this is the place where they try out these arguments  before they turn them over to the thinner, better looking and more professional  bloggers.  Bloggers that likely went to Harvard or Yale, not Cornell.

Last week I heard Techdirt ran a story claiming I was wrong about my claim that Copyright is in Human Rights treaties.  I was curious since they (once again) were rebutting something I never said so I decided maybe I should read this article.  It took a while. I fell asleep three times  and it was only after an injection of cheap Guatemalan adrenalin that I managed to finish it.

In yet another attempt to discredit us, Barnacle Boy- I mean the unsuccessful  Canadian hip hop artist Leigh Beadon falsely and knowingly claims I say copyright is in human rights treaties.  To bolster his case he links to an article that I didn’t write and says nothing of the kind. But these kind of real world facts have never stopped the Google policy id- oops  I mean Techdirt  from writing stuff like this before. What the linked article does say  and what I often say is: Artists’ Rights (not copyright) are enshrined in Human Rights treaties. These rights are then expressed on the national level in copyright laws.

Whoops, your bad.

Looks like we are agreeing on this one point.   Thus I declare this a  Dumb Off.  In my band you get a $250 dollar fine for participation in any Dumb Off.  Pay  it to the tour manager.

Now normally we’d ask for a correction but we’re not exactly sure who to ask? See we are not entirely sure that Masnick  and Beadon actually exist.  Reading Techdirt one might be forgiven for assuming Masnick and Beadon are simply mildly sophisticated AI from some half assed Google AI project tucked between Google’s space program boondoggle and the driverless car boondoggle.   Certainly Masnick’s attempts at humor AND Leigh’s rhyming style fall into the unfortunate  “Uncanny Valley” between human and robotic. Thus lending credence to our theory.

So we ask:  Are they programmed to make corrections?  Or do we just write the AI programmers and ask for the correction? This is uncharted territory for us.

So however much we have enjoyed seeing Techdirt bravely taking a stand against human rights treaties and morality itself,  and however excited we are about using this against them later,  we do have to correct the record.  You just can’t make shit up.  Even on the internet.  Here is the main blog that The  Trichordist published on Artists Rights and Human Rights.    This was written by Chris Castle.

The Human Rights of Artists

…These rights resonate in a number of international and national documents, but a good international agreement to consider first is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966. It is important to remember that human rights are fundamental, inalienable and universal entitlements belonging to individuals, individual artists in our case. As a legal matter, human rights can be distinguished from intellectual property rights as intellectual property rights are arguably subordinate to human rights and actually implement at the national level the human rights recognized as transcending international and national intellectual property laws…

Ergo a “Dumb Off”.  I think the judges will agree. $250.

thetrichordist:

Austin readers of Trichordist please save the date! David will be speaking in Austin tomorrow night, see this post for details!

Originally posted on Four Nights of Music Rights:

Can you believe that we made it to Meeting 4!!

October 30: Music Clearances for Tech Startups and Artist Rights: Do Good Business and Protect Your Work

Guest Speaker:  David Lowery, of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven and editor of The Trichordist, on artist rights.

Band Basics Mini-Topic: Bank accounts, bookkeeping, taxes, health issues and insurance coverage. Staying Healthy:  SIMS Foundation and HAAM Guest Speaker: Jennifer Stowe, Director of Services, Health Alliance for Austin Musicians

Please register at this link.

View original

Weekly Recap Sunday October 28, 2012

Grab the coffee!

Recent Posts:
* Is Tim Westergren (Pandora) Really Just A Beard For Clear Channel?
* “We’re Gonna Boycott Your Band” And Other Empty Freehadist Threats- 6 Months Of Campaigning Against Piracy.
* Pittsburg Post-Gazette TV Critic Instructs Readers In How To Get Pirated Copies Of DVD’s…and Fund Terrorism?
* UPDATE : Pittsburg Post-Gazette Published Piracy Link
* Pandora Comes Out Of The Closet; Confirms Clear Channel and Pandora “More Than Just Friends’

From Around The Web…

COPYHYPE:
* Essential Reading of the Week as Compiled by Terry Hart at Copyhype.

HUFFINGTON POST:
* John Mellencamp Talks Internet Piracy

CNET:
* Commentary on John Mellencamp Talks Internet Piracy

BBC:
* More piracy sites faced with blocking as BPI contacts UK ISPs
“since the April court order, The Pirate Bay has lost three quarters of its visitors.”

SPIEGEL ONLINE:
* Voters Growing Disillusioned with Germany’s Pirate Party

THE CYNICAL MUSICIAN:
* Got Change?

TORRENT FREAK:
* TV Shack Admin Richard O’Dwyer “Almost Certain” To Be Extradited To US
* Torrent Site Webhost Ordered to Pay “Piracy” Damages
* Pirate Bay Censored in Ireland After Mysterious Court Order (Updated)

DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
* Taylor Swift’s Label: Streaming “Doesn’t Make Sense to a Small Record Company…”
* It Was 2012. And Streaming Hadn’t Yet Gone Mainstream…

HYPEBOT:
* Metallica Prepping First Independent Release

MUSIC TECH POLICY:
* Friends Don’t Let Friends Get IRFAd: Five Simple Facts About the “Internet Radio Fairness Act”
* Google and Clear Channel Send Their Shills Out for IRFA Lobby Fest
* Constitutional Opportunism Continues with IRFA: Copyright Royalty Judges are Properly Appointed

Pandora Comes Out Of The Closet; Confirms Clear Channel and Pandora “More Than Just Friends’

Editor’s note:  The Internet Radio “Fairness” Coalition Launched yesterday and as we predicted this is just old line radio broadcasters (including Clear Channel) cross-dressing as Internet Radio Broadcasters in attempt to trick public into supporting this bad bill. 

Hey music  business journalists.  Hear that?  It’s the wake the fuck up alarm.  And it’s telling you that The Trichordist was right all along: Pandora is simply bearding for Clear Channel. It says so right here.

This is not about making rates “fair” for Pandora. Pandora already has fair rates, it’s not musicians problem they don’t want to sell more advertising. Pandora plays 1 minute of advertising per hour compared to satellites 13 minutes an hour.

If this bill were really about Pandora getting fair rates why the fuck would  both Pandora and Clear Channel  be supporting this bill?  Do you really think Clear Channel wants to help Pandora steal more audience share from them?  No of course not.    That’s why, by every measure (including wordcount) ,90% of this bill is serious special interest bullshit. Things like:

*Fires Current Copyright Judges

*Mandates what new judges can consider as “evidence”.

*Judges can’t consider previous rulings.  Or as we prefer to call it “the Orwellian He who controls the past controls the future clause.”

*Eliminates requirements judges have experience in copyright or economics.

* Stands the anti-monopoly Sherman Act on it’s head by using it to limit free speech  of performing rights organizations, industry associations, artists guilds even unions.

This bill is so shitty it may achieve the impossible: Bipartisan consensus.

Conservatives hate it cause it’s crony capitalism.  Silicon valley asking the US government to fix their business model.  Most real businesses outside  profitless-innovation-land  (Silicon Valley) negotiate with their suppliers instead of running to the Nanny State to fix their business model.   It’s 2012 Silicon Valley, grow up!

Liberals hate it cause it’s Agency Capture.  These large corporations couldn’t get their way with  the CRB so now they are trying to dismantle the board and remake it in their image.

We ask Tim Westergren to come clean. Quit pretending this fight is about his “cool” internet radio broadcaster being treated unfairly by “uncool” corporate broadcasters like Clear Channel.  You guys are on the same side!  No more bullshit.

The Internet Radio Fairness website was registered way back in June 2012. This has been planned for a while.   “Tim you go first, then we’ll launch this site later”  The contacts are all in Richardson TX. Pandora is not based in Texas.. which of these members of the coalition are based in Texas?.. .hmm.

UPDATE : Pittsburg Post-Gazette Published Piracy Link

See what happens when you call people out on their foolishness?  Things get fixed.

On wednesday we called out The Pittsburgh Post Gazette and their TV critic Rob Owens for instructing readers in how to get bootleg DVDs from an illegal website in Kuala Lumpur ,Malaysia.

As a result they took action.  They removed the offending link and the copyright theft inducing language.

While we applaud the Post-Gazette for taking this action.  It would be super extra nice if they alerted and apologized to their readers for sending them to a site  that appears to be co-located  with various scam and terror sites.  Hopefully none  of the Post-Gazette’s readers  gave this site their credit card numbers or personal information.

And  thank you to our readers who alerted us to this story.  Here is the link to the original post:

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/pittsburg-post-gazette-tv-critic-instructs-readers-in-how-to-get-pirated-copies-of-dvds-oh-and-fund-terrorism/

And then we got this nice letter from Kate Parry Assistant Managing Editor/Special Projects and Features Star Tribune Minneapolis. They also ran this story because they syndicate Owen’s column.

Dear Mr. Lowery,
Thank you very much for taking the time to contact us about the reference in the Rob Owen tv column to the piracy website. Mike Klingensmith forwarded your email. We’ve removed that paragraph from the column. Owen is a writer for the newspaper in Pittsburgh and his column comes to us through a syndication service and feeds into the website. We’ll keep an eye on his columns in the future to see if any other references show up. I’d welcome you to contact us any time you see something that appears to be amiss on our website.

Sincerely,

Kate Parry
Assistant Managing Editor/Special Projects and Features
Star Tribune
Minneapolis

Pittsburg Post-Gazette TV Critic Instructs Readers In How To Get Pirated Copies Of DVD’s…and Fund Terrorism?

You’d think a newspaper writer would understand that the reason  he/she hasn’t got a raise in 10 years is due to content theft.  And you’d think they’d not encourage people to buy pirated material.  You would also think that a respectable company Post Gazette  wouldn’t want to send their readers into the arms of scammers, mobsters and terrorists. Think again.

A reader recently alerted us to a Q & A by Pittsburg Post-Gazette TV critic Rob Owens, in which he points readers to an illegal bootleg DVD site where they can get copies of shows not legally available on DVDs.  He does warn users that the DVDs are of an undetermined quality.

What he doesn’t tell his readers  is that this site is in Kuala Lampur and hosted by the hosting company Piradius.net.  Just search that name and you will find dozens of reports of serious scams and malware coming off this host.  This writer simply describes them as “black hat hosting” and details the many sketchy websites hosted by this company:

http://blog.dynamoo.com/2009/07/piradiusnet-yohostorg-black-hat-hosting.html

This guy claims they have ties to terror groups:

http://tannsteven.blogspot.com/

Seriously!

So yes the reader may actually get a DVD of the entire China Beach Series but it’s highly likely that they will get much more than they bargained for: Malware? Credit Card Fraud? Identity Theft?  And in the process of buying that DVD it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that some of that money ends up supporting terror groups!

This illustrates a point we like to make here at the http://www.trichordist.com.  Many of the illegal sites that trade in stolen content appear to be linked to people committing much more serious crime. They are after all criminals.  And no matter what your trade, it’s always good to diversify. And of course if you’re that morally impaired then a terrorists money is just as good as anyone elses money.  Right?

Content theft has been incorrectly portrayed as innocent teenagers in their bedrooms sharing music and movies.  We understand why the public is confused cause the “innocent teenager” bullshit has been propagated by know-nothing tech bloggers and fake civil libertarians from foundations like EFF who do know better.   In reality the bulk of the traffic in illegal content is really coming off enterprise level sites and oftentimes  these sites are operated by people with direct  ties to very bad people.  Buyer beware indeed!

And by the way….how is what the Post-Gazette published different than the CBS Interactive/CNET case where CBS was found responsible for inducing copyright on its CNET property by instructing readers in how to obtain illegal files from Limewire? This cost CBS a shit load of money.  I doubt the Post-Gazette has the cash to pay the kind of penalty that CBS paid.

Isn’t this column by Rob Owens also inducement?   Doesn’t the Pittsburg Post-Gazette have some exposure?  And now that this column appears to be syndicated to many other papers who rely on the editors at the Post-Gazette to get it right not induce infringement.  Further–since this hosting company is offshore (update: and tied to big league terrorism)  shouldn’t the DOJ and DHS  get involved?

Finally I find it kind of disgusting that the writer reflexively blames recording artists for the non-release of many many TV series DVD packages.  In my experience what is happening with these DVD packages is the TV show’s producers are trying to low ball the musicians, or pay them virtually nothing for these DVD releases.  It’s the show’s producers holding up the releases of these shows not musicians.

Editors Update: HOLY FUCKING SHIT  DOES THIS HOST HAVE TIES TO Al QAEDA?

http://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/15122-Al-Qaedas-New-Digital-Shingle-Al-Fidaa.html

AQ’s New Propaganda Board:

“Al-Fidaa, the newest site in the Al Qaeda webring to spread the usual propaganda. This site popped up last week and I am just getting round to checking it out fully….

….Could we in fact get some digital forensics love on those boxes out there? One also wonders just how many Malay jihadi’s there are out there and how many of them may in fact work for networks like Piradius. I ask this because many a server has been stealthed onto boxes run in those networks and I think from the looks of them, that they are being managed locally, not just hacked.”

http://internet-haganah.com/harchives/006869.html

“That IP address (124.217.252.55) is provided to the Afghan Taliban by Malaysian company piradius.net. Piradius.net has been central to the online activities of al-Qaida and its affiliated organizations for many years.

The following is the most reasonable explanation I can come up with to explain why this is the case:

1. Piradius provides services to jihadi terrorist organizations because at the highest levels of Piradius there is substantial support for the ideology and goals of those terrorist organizations, if not for their methods. This is not the work of some rogue low-level employee, nor is it reasonable to suggest that this behavior is strictly coincidental.”

“We’re Gonna Boycott Your Band” And Other Empty Freehadist Threats- 6 Months Of Campaigning Against Piracy.

The Sleep of reason brings forth monsters… and freehadists.

I remember posting something on Facebook in early January about content theft. something to this effect: “despite the problems with SOPA we still need to address massive piracy of artists’ sound recordings”.  This produced a massive reaction.  Mostly negative.  Often the comments were threats.  They generally went like this:

“Unlike! I’ll never buy another one of your albums again”

or

“I’m gonna boycott your band”.

At the time I wasn’t the only artist that seemed to be speaking out.   And these other artists were getting roughly the same treatment.  The barrage of hate mail was unrelenting.  Many artists were bullied back into silence or “converted” under the influence of something like the Stockholm Syndrome.

But after a while I noticed something curious.  Very few of the critics seemed to have actually “liked” my bands in the first place. None of them seemed to have jobs (unless they were being paid to spend all day on facebook arguing about their constitutional right to steal other peoples shit and dress it up as “free speech”)  Nor were they my “friends” on Facebook.  They were commenting on my public comments on my personal Facebook page. I had no idea who these people were or where they came from.

I have a Facebook account because I have to have one as a public figure.  I regard posting to Facebook as somewhere between yard work and a dental appointment. I prefer my interaction with data packets on a command line not through some buggy and slow browser interface.  So I really don’t give a shit if someone is gonna unfriend me or unlike my band.  It’s  hilarious to me when people say that, cause all it means to me is less unpaid slave labor for the Web 2.0 overlords. It also means that all the effort and work I do out in THE REAL WORLD  enriches Facebook slightly less when our fans share pics and videos on their pages.  So go ahead friend, unfriend me. Please.

This was my calculation.  Most of the  freeehadists getting so hysterical were not fans anyway. And If they were fans of my bands and they are defending stealing from artists they likely weren’t buying my music anyway. Further if they are so stingy  they can’t buy a 99 cent song, or $9.99 album, the odds that these cheap ass parasites were gonna leave their parents basements to go to a show and buy a T-shirt was close to zero.  I was better off worrying about getting hit by a meteorite.   Anyway unless you’re in the top 1% of touring acts,  touring is so marginally profitable it really isn’t much money anyway. Oh so i’m only gonna earn $27 dollars a day instead of $29.  Fuck ‘em.  They aren’t fans anyway.

About this time I happened to see  a photo of some kids “protesting” Metallica or Lars Ulrich.  I couldn’t help noticing the angriest one was wearing a  Nirvana shirt. See that explains everything!  It also occurred to me I hadn’t seen any Wall Street Journal headlines that read “Fan backlash forces Lars Ulrich to Sell Jet and Two Mansions”.  This was truly encouraging.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So after 6 months of running my artists’ rights blog and serious mano y mano combat with the freehadists, how did it affect my career?  How does it compare to the same period 2011.

*Did album sales suddenly plunge?  No, not according to my royalty statements.

*Did I make less money on the road? No.  In fact live revenues went up significantly.

*Did radio/tv play decrease?  Not according to my Sound exchange and  BMI statements.

*Did we have fewer placements in commercials, TV and Film?  No.  And honestly I don’t mean to be a poor winner here but I can’t resist it.  We’ve had a pretty fucking good year. The usual commercial work  plus a couple major film placements.  Young Adult and now Perks of Being a Wallflower (currently #1 soundtrack even while showing on limited screens).

*And what about the ultimate expression of Internet fandom?  The ultimate in click society impulsiveness ?What about Facebook Page Likes? The easiest and most painless thing for a fan to give up.  The quickest and easiest way to show displeasure.  Unlike. Our facebook likes should have shown some declines   Right?

Nope. Never once did our net Facebook page likes go negative. Not even for one day.   Even during the most heated debates.  Further some of the bigger positive spikes in facebook likes were on the day  I posted the most controversial stuff.

Turns out that Freehadists having fits on the interwebs, only matters to other Freehadists having fits on the internet.  It doesn’t really matter out in the real world. And it doesn’t really matter on Facebook.  Most normal people either agree with us about fair artist compensation, are open-minded or tolerate differences of opinion.

Turns out when artists speak out against file-sharing and take on the freehadists  NOTHING BAD HAPPENS.I hope this encourages other artists to speak out. It’s actually quite fun and refreshing after having to listen to  their bullshit for the last 15 years.

 New Facebook likes or if you prefer the “delta”  of our Facebook fanbase (above)

 In my experience real world events produce greater effects on Facebook fan delta than “internet based events”.  In other words playing a few shows dwarfs any sort of  reaction  you get by relentlessly posting and interacting on Facebook .  Put the Facebook down and play your guitar. (Below)

(Thanks to http://www.nextbigsound.com for this data)

Is Tim Westergren (Pandora) Really Just A Beard For Clear Channel?

Let me state this up front.  I have no problem with any broadcaster making a profit whether it’s Pandora, Sirius or Clear Channel. Even a lot of profit.  They have their financial interests and duty to their shareholders.  They have a financial interest in the IRFA bill. And I have my own financial interest in stopping this bill as it is written. In this case our interests are opposed.   On some level you can see this as a labor dispute or even a complex negotiation between buyers and suppliers. This is not my objection.

My objection is to how this is being done.  I object to Pandora’s attempt to “opt out” of the free market and instead ask Congress to step in and fix its financial model.  This is an abuse of the legislative process and deserves the description “crony capitalism”.  I  also strongly object to the campaign of disinformation which has accompanied this bill.

But if that was all there was to this bill this would be one blog post. 500 words max.  But it’s not.  This bill being pushed by Pandora Founder Tim Westergren must be seen in its historical and financial context. Further it helps to understand why an artist like me decides to do battle with this bill and the individuals and institutions that will profit from passage of this bill.

(I approach this with some trepidation as any one of these companies that I criticize could choose to be vindictive and harm me and either of my two ensembles by reducing airplay.  But I feel I must.)

As an artist that benefitted from a system which valued content and artists’ contributions, I feel obliged to make sure the next generation of artists (which include my  sons) have the same opportunities that I had. Many of my musician friends in the business fail to understand this.  We often see quotes from some of our older legacy artists endorsing illegal file sharing as “the new radio”.

Or they praise semi-legitimate tech schemes that suck value from artists’ songs or recordings while sharing the tiniest bit of revenue with artists.  I don’t think they are bad people but  they fail to see what is really happening here. And what will happen to the next generation.  They are severely limiting the next generation of musicians’ financial options.  And dooming them to exploitation at the hands of large corporations.

For even free music is not “free”.  Plenty of people are profiting off “free” music. Illegal sites run by sketchy (or worse) groups profit by selling ads.  Online advertising networks owned by Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and others profit by serving ads to these sites. Madison Avenue advertising firms profit by designing these online campaigns.  Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Paypal profit by providing payment processing to these illegal sites.  And the bittorrent ecosystem is not any different.  uTorrent™  insiders report  they make millions just from the advertising on their conduit toolbar.

Music is not free in the digital age.  It’s just that artists are too often not getting any  of the revenue that their music generates.

These legacy artists had the choice to decide how to monetize their music.  For example, the Grateful Dead chose to sell their recorded studio albums but chose to freely share their live performances as long as no one made any money off of sharing activities.  Indeed I have done exactly this my entire career with Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker.  We have over 4 thousand tracks on the internet music archive.  But I am fully aware that it is our duty as successful artists to protect the rights of the next generation of musicians. We should do our part to protect their ability to monetize their music if they so chose. Successful musicians need to understand that it is hypocritical to let the door close on the next generation of musicians.

The big picture here is that since the dawn of the digital age there has been unrelenting pressure from the tech industry and its lobbyists to devalue, even demonetize, recorded music (-ed note: and all intellectual property. Your job is next!).  This Pandora bill is just one battle in a long running war.

The reason I am criticizing Tim Westergren personally is because he has chosen to be the public face of this bill.  Further  as a musician he understands that this is the battle.  Indeed he was once  firmly on the side of musicians, advocating that Congress force terrestrial broadcasters  to pay a royalty to performers.  Here in 2009 he states that clearly!  He advocates that AM and FM radio do the right  thing and pay royalties to performers and support HR848 the Performance Rights Act. Now as Tim Westergren emerges from his IPO cocoon we see not a beautiful artist friendly butterfly but an ugly Wall Street moth advocating a race to the bottom. Fuck it, other people aren’t paying artists fairly, why should we? 

Nice. A beautiful display of Silicon Valley iEthics.™

But it’s much worse than that. Much of this bill appears to be written by or at the behest of Sirius XM and the National Association of Broadcasters. That would be  Clear Channel and other non-cool broadcasters.  The clauses in this bill that advocated firing of judges; what evidence the judges could consider; attempts to stand The Sherman Act on its head (and use it to muzzle PROs and artist groups) seemed bizarre coming from Tim “I’m a musician too” Westergren.

At least it seemed bizarre until I considered this horrible possibility:

Tim Westergren is a beard for Clear Channel, Sirius and The NAB!  

Indeed much of this bill does what  another similarly named bill does.  Flash back to the 2007 and the  National Association of Broadcasters sponsored Internet Radio Equality Act This act often shares similar concepts.  This bill of course fell flat on it’s face because consumers are not gonna write their congressmen on behalf of Clear Channel!

It looks to me as if someone somewhere just reheated this 2007 bill and got Tim Westergren to lead the charge.  After the Anti-SOPA Silicon Valley corporate counterrevolution of 2012 many people learned that if you just stick “freedom”,”fair” and “internet” on the front of your cause most people won’t bother to read  the ugly Orwellian details.  The tl/dr generation happily click, like, share and tweet the corporate agenda all the while (incorrectly) thinking that they are doing something vaguely revolutionary. Sad.

But the real Orwellian touch is falsely framing the debate as the cool internet broadcaster Pandora vs the uncool traditional broadcasters.  While not-so-secretly larding the bill with all kinds of goodies that help those uncool traditional broadcasters.

If my analysis is correct I just have to say “Touché, Tim,  you’ve actually harnessed the consumers dislike of traditional broadcasters to financially benefit those same broadcasters.”

And I also have to say, as I’ve done all week  “Screw You.”

Cause in reality this is Wall Street,  Silicon Valley and National Association of Broadcaster teaming up to screw over artists.   This is not hip internet radio broadcaster vs The Man.  It’s Pandora selling out to The Man.

“Screw You” cause you’re participating in the devaluing of the labor of your fellow musicians.  And not this generation but the generations to come.

Finally “Screw You Tim” cause you’re directly profiting from this  little charade.  By dangling the shiny object of lower royalty rates in front of investors it appears that investors see Pandora’s stock as potentially more valuable. Look at the headline on the  financial website www.Trefis.com after this bill was misrepresented to the public:

“Pandora’s Value Could Double If The Internet Radio Fairness Act Passes

Meanwhile Tim Westergren continues to sell an average of  a million dollars of Pandora stock a month.

Weekly Recap Sunday October 21, 2012 aka Pandorathon, On and On…

Grab the Coffee!

Recent Posts, aka The Pandorathon:
* Sign the @musiciansunion (AFM) Letter: Friends don’t let friends get IRFA’d!
* If Pandora wants Terrestial Radio Royalty Rates, Act Like It – Problem Solved!
* Tim Westergren’s Sophomore Slump. New Bill Sucks, Old Radio Fairness Bill Was Way Better.
* Screw You Too, Pandora. Part I. Pandora The Union Buster! Jail time for Collective Bargaining?
* Four Simple Reasons Why the Pandora Radio Act Screws Musicians (EZ Reader)
* Screw You Too, Pandora. Part II: Did Pandora Lie During Their IPO? Or are they just plain old greedy.
* IRFA Analysis: Section 2
* Screw you too, Pandora™ PT III. Kangaroo Court: Pandora Bill Requires Firing of Copyright Judges and Replacement with Fake Judges.
* Screw You Too Pandora! Pt IV. Why Conservatives and Libertarians Should Be Appalled By The IRFA Bill.
* Radio Fairness? Sirius/XM Paid My Band $2,213 Pandora Paid $91

And, in case you missed it:
* Amex must really like advertising on #1 copyright infringing and illegal porn linking site Filestube
* Mythbusting : Music Is Too Expensive!?
* Remembering Steve Jobs

From Around The Web.

C|NET:
* Breaking Bad’s Bryan Cranston on Piracy and TV’s golden age

SPIN:
* Downloaders Beware: Copyright Alert System Arises as Torrent Sites Enter the Cloud

COPYHYPE:
* Friday’s End Notes Oct 19, 2012

VOXINDIE:
* Blogspot.com, a Bridge to Piracy?
* Why Doesn’t YouTube Address the Real Content ID Fail?

ETHICAL FAN:
* Calling All Lawyers! uTorrent Increases “Privacy” and Counters Mass-Monitoring of Downloads

COPYLIKE via MEMEGENERATOR:
* Scumbag Steve – Downloads Music for free Buys $300 headphones
* Join Copylike on Facebook

THE CYNICAL MUSICIAN:
* If a Tree Falls in the Forest and Nobody Hears It…

TORRENTFREAK:
* Microsoft Will Ban Halo 4 Pirates from XBOX Live
* Maybe he should have thought twice? Pirate Bay Founder in Jail.

DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
* Trent Reznor returns to Major Label System

HYPEBOT:
* SXSW announces first 40 Panels for 2013

MUSIC TECH POLICY
* Betting the Company: The Internet Radio Fairness Act has little to do with the Internet, Radio or Fairness
* An Overlooked Brookings Institute Study on Fighting Piracy at the Corporate Level

AFM:
* Check out the American Federation of Musicians on Facebook

CREATIVE AMERICA:
* Petition for an Internet The Works for Everyone

Radio Fairness? Sirius/XM Paid My Band $2,213 Pandora Paid $91

By the sound of it you’d think that Pandora pays a lot of money to artists compared to something like Sirius XM radio.   Pandora keeps comparing the percentage paid to artists (50%) to satellite radio (10%).  And they keep crying out for “fairness”.

This is really manipulative.  Pandora is largely an ad supported model.   Sirius/XM is subscription supported.  As a result Sirius has much better revenues.  It doesn’t make sense to compare percentages.

Let’s look at what the two services really pay!

So for the 3rd quarter of 2012

Sirius paid Camper Van Beethoven  $2,213.70

Pandora Paid Camper Van Beethoven $91.07

And terrestrial radio?  Or what civilians call normal local FM/AM?

well… let’s just say they  paid me A LOT more than either of these services.

Now wait a minute!!  Pandora supporters say  that terrestrial radio doesn’t pay any royalties to performers.  That’s true, but only technically true.   Because of a quirk in the laws  terrestrial radio pays THE SONGWRITERS not the performers.  Often times they are the same.  sometimes not. But terrestrial radio is paying royalties.  Pandora is purposely distorting the facts.

Shareholders:  what other facts might they be distorting?