But a new reality has tripped him up and it’s the same one shafting artists all across the world: Namely, that everyone wants to listen, and no one wants to pay. This week, Iggy gave a lecture for the British Broadcasting Corp. called Free Music in a Capitalist Society. Artists have always been ripped off by corporations, he said; now the public is in on the free ride, too: “The cat is out of the bag and the new electronic devices, which estrange people from their morals, also make it easier to steal music than to pay for it.”
To keep skinny body and maverick soul together, Iggy’s become a DJ, a car-insurance pitchman and a fashion model. If he had to live off royalties, he said, he’d have to “tend bars between sets.” As I listened to his enthusiastic stoner Midwestern drawl, I thought: If Iggy Pop can’t make it, what message does that send to all the baby Iggys out there? In a society where worth is judged by price, for better or worse, what are you saying to someone when you won’t pay for the thing he’s crafted?
Announcement From c3 (The Content Creators Coalition)
“Google is in the process of systematically destroying our artistic future… if the creative community doesn’t intervene now, and by now, I mean, fucking now — we will be bound to a multigenerational clusterfuck that will take 40 to 50 years to unravel.” - Kurt Sutter Attacks Google: Stop Profiting from Piracy (Guest Column) | Variety
DEMONSTRATE TO SUPPORT ARTISTS RIGHTS
when: THIS SUNDAY, Oct 19th, at 4:30-5:00pm
where: Google 8th ave btwn 15th and 16th sts in Manhattan)
MARCH WITH US at 4pm sharp from Le Poisson Rouge
(158 Bleecker St., btwn Sullivan and Thompson in Manhattan )
MEET US at Kelly Park at 4:15 pm
(W 16th St., btwn 8th and 9th avenue in Manhattan)
This action is sponsored by the c3, the Content Creators Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to the achievement of economic justice in the digital domain.
* Google: Stop the Attack on Artists’ Rights.
* Google/YouTube: Pay Creators For All Use Of Copyrighted Materials: When Profit Is Being Made, The Artist Must Be Paid: Support An Artists Right To Choose: Take-Down-Means-Stay-Down!
* Google: Stop brokering ads to corporate black market sites.
SUPPORT ARTISTS RIGHTS! #supportartistsrights
Join Us: ccc-nyc.org http://ccc-nyc.org/
Perhaps it is ironic that Kim Dotcom is the arch nemesis of the record industry while Spotify CEO Daniel Ek is celebrated as the former Co-Founder and CEO of uTorrent. uTorrent is described as “the world’s most popular BitTorrent client with more than 100 million downloads” on Mr. Ek’s Wikipedia page.
This week the embattled Dotcom is said to have given up his stake (and shares) in his much ballyhooed digital music company Baboom.
In the screen shot below from the TechCrunch, “CrunchBase” we see the BitTorrent cast of characters we’ve gotten to know so well sharing duties at uTorrent. Here we have Bram Cohen, Matt Mason and of course former uTorrent Co-Founder and CEO Daniel Ek (still prominently displayed).
In many ways both Ek and Dotcom represent the same devaluation and destruction of the arts by building personal fortunes as the result of monetizing the work of creators, without paying those creators for their work.
The cost of music is not in the distribution of music, the cost of music is in the creation of music.
Megaupload and uTorrent have monetized the mass scale distribution of infringing works for profit. In other words, infringement as a business model where the cost of goods goes unpaid and creators are uncompensated. uTorrent is self described as “a free-of-charge, ad-supported, closed source BitTorrent Client.” Megaupload and uTorrent have both relied heavily on advertising for revenue.
Mr. Ek like his previous cohorts Bram Cohen and Matt Mason would like to say that BitTorrent is not a piracy platform, however multiple independent studies have repeatedly concluded that 99% or more of the files being distributed via BitTorrent are in fact, infringing.
All of this of course points to the fact that Megaupload and BitTorrent have hidden behind the DMCA, which has failed at it’s intent to protect artists. It could be argued that uTorrent and Megaupload have participated in business models enabling one of the largest transfers of wealth in history from individual creators to Silicon Valley companies and operatives.
Daniel Ek is reported to have a net personal wealth valued at $400 Million Dollars. Kim Dotcom’s fortune has been recently estimated to be $200 Million Dollars.
“The main reason music streaming services are winning over millions of consumers is the fact that they require no payment unless the user desires to pay.” – Music Streaming vs. Music Piracy | Medium.Com
Right now there is little functional difference to most musicians between music streaming and music piracy. This realization should not come as a surprise to musicians when they learn that the CEO of the largest and most used on demand streaming company was both the Co-Founder and CEO of uTorrent, “the world’s most popular BitTorrent client with more than 100 million downloads.”
If Spotify wants musicians to take it seriously, perhaps it’s time for a CEO musicians can respect. The record industry might also want to reconsider who it chooses as friend and foe as well. More on that later…
Hypebot noticed this Facebook post from Rosanne Cash which echoes the sentiments of many artists, that streaming in it’s current form and economics is pretty much legitimized piracy…
READ THE FULL POST AT HYPEBOT:
BitTorrent’s Matt Mason let this one loose…
““We’re not interested in streaming for the sake of lining the pockets of a few people at major labels. We’re interested in helping artists make money from their work in the long term… I’m not trying to bash the people at the labels, but it does seem like the senior executives at the majors have said ‘we give up, let’s just make some money on the Spotify IPO, then go home and let the next generation sort it out’.”
You’re kidding right? We can’t make this up. As if BitTorrent has done anything other than destroy the lives of creators to have a self empowered right to make their own choices with their own work… So in your mind Matt, BitTorrent are the good guys and Spotify are the bad guys?
What percentage of music is Spotify distributing illegally? What percentage of music on Spotify are artist not getting paid on? Ok, now ask the same questions of BitTorrent. Research finds that 99%+ of files distrbuted via BitTorrent are infringing (see the links below).
Wow, just wow.
And there’s this line from Matt’s interview with the Guardian UK:
“We’re a technology company, we’re really good at moving files. We’re not so great at being a label, a film studio or a book publisher.”
We know Matt because being a label, a film studio or a book publisher would mean you would actually pay the creators for the work you are distributing and investing in developing their careers through financial advances, marketing, promotion, pr, and other resources. Obviously things BitTorrent is loath to do for artists.
But let’s ask, how much money has BitTorrent invested into developing artists and helping them “make money from their work in the long term”… ah, that would be zero.
READ THE FULL POST AT MUSIC ALLY:
We reported on this earlier this year and it’s great to see other voices stepping up!
by Stephen Carlisle
In other words, Google’s not going to do anything unless Google gets a slice of the profit. When asked, shouldn’t search engines have an affirmative duty to prevent the reposting of materials, she responded that it would be “impractical to enforce and it would chill online speech.” 19 This answer begs the question: since when is the repeated posting of “blatantly infringing” material online protected speech? To quote the Supreme Court of the United States, the First Amendment “securely protects the freedom to make—or decline to make—one’s own speech; it bears less heavily when speakers assert the right to make other people’s speeches.” 20 According to the RIAA, they have sent more than two million takedown requests to Google about the website mp3skull. Despite this, mp3skull continues to top Google’s search results for “artist+songname+download.” 21 Whose speech is being chilled here?
READ THE FULL STORY AT:
“As much as I hated major labels and indie labels, probably more than anyone I know, one thing you can say for them is that they were able to translate the success of one band and invest in a new band that no one knew about. And there is nothing currently that is actually doing that anymore. So that’s a structural problem. But you know who is going to fight to keep the current status quo are the tech companies that have grease running down their faces and hands from the fat of their plunder.”
“A pilot scheme saw a 12% drop in advertising [on piracy sites] from major household brands, the kind of big names that lend legitimacy to illegal sites,” said Javid. “It’s a small first step. But over time the list, along with action taken by payment facilitators, will provide a valuable tool for making copyright infringement a much less lucrative business.
“And that’s the best way to stop the career copyright criminals… Copyright crooks don’t love music – they love money, and they’ve been attracted to the industry solely by its potential to make them rich. Take away their profits and you take away their reason for being.”
Read the Full Story at Music Week:
Arguments for digital piracy are drivel – it’s high time we steered away from this cultural cliff, argues author Chris Ruen.
Piracy may feel like victimless “free culture” to the user, but they are in fact participating in a digital black market. It’s not about information wanting to be free, but rather it’s about exploitative black marketeers and willfully blind tech companies wanting to get rich. They are simply capitalising on loopholes in the regulatory framework. In this sense, mass digital piracy is a symptom of underdevelopment. It’s the Internet Third World, with outdoor markets hawking counterfeit goods and purveyors bribing the local cops to look the other way.
Tech companies will go on skimming profits off the top of this black market until enlightened governments cooperate to squeeze out these illicit profiteers in an effective and transparent manner. As Google’s own Chief Economist Hal Varian has written, “all that is required is the political will to enforce intellectual property rights”.
READ THE FULL STORY AT THE NEW STATESMAN:
The fact is: pirate sites don’t discriminate based on a movie’s budget. As long as they can generate revenue from advertising and credit card payments—while giving away your stolen content for free—pirate site operators have little reason to care if a film starts with an investment of $10,000 or $200 million. Whether you’re employed by a major studio or a do-it-yourself creator, if you’re involved in the making of TV or film, it’s safe to assume that piracy takes a big cut out of your business.
We know piracy won’t go away altogether, and we won’t always agree on the best way to go about disrupting it. But we can agree on a vision for a digital future that better serves audiences and artists alike, and that future depends on reducing piracy.
READ THE FULL POST AT INDIEWIRE: