Month: May 2013

Pandora Wants You, the Working Musician, to Sign This Letter to Congress…

This is part of a broader attempt by Pandora to win the hearts-and-minds of working musicians, and bolster support in Congress.  Here’s an email shared with Digital Music News; we blotted out the name of the artist (and some other identifying details) but everything else is intact…

READ THE ENTIRE LETTER AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com

ALSO AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
Pandora Tries to Convince a Musician That He Isn’t Getting Screwed…

From: Blake Morgan
To: Tim Westergren @ Pandora

Without us, you don’t have a business.

The idea of “allowing” us to “participate” in a business that is built solely on distributing and circulating our copyrighted work is like a grocery store saying it has an idea to “allow” the manufacturers of the goods it carries to get paid. The store isn’t “allowing” Del Monte to get paid for their cans of green beans, right? Of course not.

by trichordist

The New Ruling Class of Silicon Valley and Their Exploitation Economy

The Daily Beast published a must read on the new ruling class and the transfer of wealth in the economy, America’s New Oligarchs—Fwd.us and Silicon Valley’s Shady 1 Percenters. Of particular interest was one sentence in this paragraph,

Perversely, the small number of jobs—mostly clustered in Silicon Valley—created by tech companies has helped its moguls avoid public scrutiny. Google employs 50,000, Facebook 4,600, and Twitter less than 1,000 domestic workers. In contrast, GM employs 200,000, Ford 164,000, and Exxon over 100,000. Put another way, Google, with a market cap of $215 billion, is about five times larger than GM yet has just one fourth as many workers.

This is an equation that defines inequality: more and more wealth concentrated in fewer hands and benefiting fewer workers.

Here is the operative sentence from the paragraph above with one word added…

Google, with a market cap of $215 billion, is about five times larger than GM yet has just one fourth as many [PAID] workers.

It occurs to us in the new exploitation economy of loser generated content that many people are “working” for Google and other tech companies supplying endless hours of consumer created content from Facebook posts to Instagram photos. That’s just the stuff that people are willing to give away by consent (although we don’t know how much privacy they are actually consenting to give up in the process).

But the larger truth is even more scary. Google and other internet businesses profit greatly by avoiding paying for the cost of the goods they are monetizing (primarily by advertising). YouTube is a company built on infringement and theft as a business model.

In other words, it’s a lot easier to make money when you don’t have to pay for the labor or fixed costs of developing and producing a product. You know products like music, film, books, software, etc.

Obviously if all of these creators and producers were paid fairly in the value chain to which their work is creating revenue, than there would be less profit for the distributor. What we have now is a distribution mechanism that profits without paying the creative producers. Which is exactly how a company like Google can earn such extraordinary wealth, essentially through stolen labor.

Read the whole story here at The Daily Beast:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/14/america-s-new-oligarchs-fwd-us-and-silicon-valley-s-shady-1-percenters.html

by Trichordist Editor

The Constitutional and Historical Foundations of Copyright Protection

The Constitutional and Historical Foundations of Copyright Protection
By Paul Clement, Viet Dinh & Jeffrey Harris [1]

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress authority “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”  There was little debate over this provision during the Convention, but James Madison (as Publius) emphasized in Federalist 43 that “[t]he utility of this power will scarcely be questioned,” and “[t]he copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law.”  With respect to both copyrights and patents, Madison asserted that “[t]he public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals.”

*     *      *

This history flatly refutes any notion that copyright law is a matter of legislative grace intended solely to serve utilitarian ends. The Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution was inspired by a long intellectual tradition—extending back to the very origins of printing and publishing—in which legislators, jurists, scholars, and commentators recognized authors’ inherent property rights in the fruits of their own labor.

Just as the scope of the pre-existing right informs both the contemporary public understanding of, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of, the right enshrined by the Second Amendment, see Heller, 554 U.S. at 592, 603, this pre-constitutional history is useful both in interpreting the scope of Congress’ copyright power and in informing policy debates about how that power should be exercised. The Supreme Court itself has harkened back to the Statute of Anne in interpreting the copyright laws. See Feltner, 523 U.S. at 349-50. A view of the copyright laws that ignores this history is sorely incomplete.

READ THE FULL REPORT AT:
http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/42-constitution-and-legal/1679-the-constitutional-and-historical-foundations-of-copyright-protection

by Trichordist Editor

The Copyright Principles Project: Selflessness, Valley Style Amongst A Dedicated Group of Likeminded People

Music Technology Policy

We heard a new twist on the Copyright Principles Project–because the participants are academics, they are not “self interested” the way that creators are.  Ah, disinterested elites on a quest for truth that only the anointed can divine.

Although this point of view is common to academics (who frequently seem to think that their views are superior to everyone else’s–as any law student can attest), allow this non acolyte to diverge from the path to an “A” (or other form of approval, such as a nice fresh fish so appreciated by trained seals) and express a contrary view at the risk of getting an “F”.

First off, the Copyright Principles Project is not entirely made up of people who don’t know each other and is also not entirely made up of academics.  Some corporate types are represented–just not one soul from the photography business, playwrights, visual artists, or anyone from…

View original post 611 more words

by thetrichordist

Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 27

Somethings are so simple, fundamental and common sense they cross the boundaries of countries and culture. If only these same principles could penetrate the fortress walls of Silicon Valley which now claims “the internet” as a nation state outside the governance or protection of human rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) (French) (Spanish) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

by Trichordist Editor

Getting Copyrights, Right. David Lowery at Politico

Our own David Lowery makes a lot of compelling arguments in Politico on Monday morning, but this one in particular regarding a copyright registry and orphan works should be of interests to all consumers and individuals as well as all creators. Copyright effects everyone, not just musicians.

Register Your Family Albums

Both conservatives and liberals should be frightened by the “Principles’” attempt to “reformalize” effective copyright protection by encouraging Goodlatte to take away “rights and remedies” for those who do not register their works. Especially those works that the report deems to have “no commercial value”—as decided by the elites rather than the market, apparently.

So if one of the “users” the principles seem to think they represent — like me — posts a photo of my children on my Facebook page but I don’t register it, and somehow a company or individual then uses this picture commercially, or in some other vile manner, this report explicitly states that I would not have the same “rights and remedies” that I currently enjoy. In fact my reading of this report says I would have no remedies unless I were to win an argument that my family photos have commercial value — full employment for lawyers.

So are we all gonna have to register our family photos with Big Brother in order to keep control of them?

Read the full article here at Politico:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/building-a-real-copyright-consensus-91231.html

by trichordist

Artists Rights Watch – Monday May 13, 2013

MUSIC TANK:
* Follow The Money: Can The Business Of Ad-Funded Piracy Be Throttled?

Piracy is not some romantic fantasy of rebellious teenagers sharing music and sticking it to the man; it is brand-sponsored – with advertisements for major blue chip FTSE and Fortune 500 corporations being served systematically to the most nefarious corners of the Web on an industrial scale – keeping the likes of MP3Ape and 4Shared in business, while diverting much-needed revenues from the pockets of creators.

We are delighted to announce that David Lowery (Artist & Commentator ) and Theo Bertram (UK Policy Manager, Google ) will both be key speakers at this event.

WIRED:
* The Real Danger of Copying Music (It’s Not What You Think)

It is one thing to sing for your supper occasionally, but to have to do so for every meal forces you into a peasant’s dilemma: The peasant’s dilemma is that there’s no buffer.

ADLAND:
* David Lowery’s UGA study compiles Top 40 list of brands supporting piracy

But isn’t it strange that Dodge Dart, Victoria’s Secret, AT&T and the like are advertising in illegal places. But I guess they figure why not, because money. Right? Maybe. But the more Taplin and Lowery (and Adland, for that matter) calls you out on it, the greater the chances your reputation, and your brand will take a hit.

DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
* Dear Congress: Please Consider These Points for Your Massive Copyright Overhaul…
* The RIAA Just Made It Easier to Earn a Gold Plaque Than to Pay Rent…
* Pandora Tries to Convince a Musician That He Isn’t Getting Screwed…

From: Blake Morgan
To: Tim Westergren @ Pandora

Without us, you don’t have a business.

The idea of “allowing” us to “participate” in a business that is built solely on distributing and circulating our copyrighted work is like a grocery store saying it has an idea to “allow” the manufacturers of the goods it carries to get paid. The store isn’t “allowing” Del Monte to get paid for their cans of green beans, right? Of course not.

COPYHYPE:
* Do Kim Dotcom’s lawyers think he’s guilty? The answer may shock you.

Taking your case to the court of public opinion could be a sign that your case in a court of law is not going well.

THE TELEGRAPH:
* Ads for Australia’s big brands on-sold to piracy websites

The companies were unaware their ads were running on a piracy website before being alerted by news.com.au. And the list of those affected is long, with Westpac, Telstra, ING Direct, Allianz Insurance, The Iconic, ANZ, The Good Guys, Commonwealth Bank, AustralianSuper and Medibank included.

JUNKEE:
* Combating The Cost Of The Free Economy

You can see where this is going: paying little for digital goods, which make up the majority of all goods sold, means that profit margins drop dramatically. So even when we are using these legal alternatives like Spotify, iTunes and Amazon, the goods they are selling are vastly undervalued – are ebooks really worth only $0.99? We need to get used to paying more for digital goods than we have been, because they are worth a lot more than what we have been paying. They aren’t just files and bytes of information — they are the goods now. For the incredible convenience alone, what we pay should be a lot more than we do.

We also need to stop thinking in terms of physical objects, and thinking in terms of the man hours that went into creating what we are consuming – ultimately, the medium through which we consume it does not dull our engagement with or enjoyment of those works.

TONEDEF:
* The Campaign To Stop The World’s Major Brands From Funding Music Piracy

“Whenever we talk to a brand about the fact that their ads are all over the pirate sites, they’re like, ‘Oh, how did that happen?’” says Taplin. “We thought it would be easier if they knew what ad networks were putting ads on pirate sites — so they could avoid them.”

MUSIC TECH POLICY:
* From EFF to Obstruction of Justice
* The Copyright Principles Project: The Arrogant Thimblerig of Contrived Consensus
* The Copyright Principles Project Misses the Point on Copyright Registration–we have registration now, where is the benefit?
* YouTube Beats TV With 1 Billion Watching….TV, and loves them some payola, escorts and drugs

THE STREET:
* The Digital Skeptic: Here’s All the Music Money Lost to the Web

I could model, sample and tinker with the numbers, as long as I gave the association credit. But now, taxiing for takeoff flying to the once-and-future monument of decay — Venice, Italy — all I can say is, it’s stunning how sad a song these numbers sing.

MUSIC WEEK:
* Google and Trichordist to debate piracy profits in London

In 2013, it seems somewhat amazing that advertising from major corporations is still being served to unlicensed music services – especially when, in theory, creative and tech businesses could pragmatically and constructively tackle the practice.

HOME MEDIA MAGAZINE:
* Report: Copyright Enforcement Needed Outside U.S.

Although copyright law and other remedies under the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] remain an effective tool against infringing services located in the United States, most, if not all illegal services have moved off shore to territories that lack effective enforcement mechanisms making it nearly impossible to slow the proliferation of infringing download and streaming services,” the report reads.

VOX INDIE:
* Kim Dotcom’s Truth = Nothing but Lies (mega lies)
* Steven Soderbergh Speaks out Against Online Piracy in his “State of Cinema” Address at SFIFF
* MacKeeper Software Ads Blanket Pirate Websites, Providing Profits to Thieves
* Google’s Hypocrisy-Seeing the World Through Green Colored Glasses

THE JAKARTA POST:
* Piracy may cost record firms $1.65m a day

The illegal download of Indonesian songs through the Internet has also caused a sharp decline in the sale of music CDs in the country. Last year, the sales of original music CDs totaled only 11 million copies, far lower than the average 90 million copies a year several years ago.

THE TIMES OF INDIA:
* International film piracy gang busted in Indore

For an year now, the duo were capturing full-length new Bollywood and Hollywood releases, first day-first show from major cine-plexes, Velocity and Sky Lounge section of Satyam Cineplex, and then sharing high-quality products via the internet with operators of pirated movie markets across the globe.

The duo was charging prices ranging between Rs 25,000 to Rs 3 lakh from the buyers, depending on the product quality.

MUSIC ALLY:
* Devo’s Kickstarter-funded DevoBots synthesizer iOS app goes live
* Event report: ‘Copyright in Crisis’ ft. PRS for Music and Pirate Party
* Hoping for Apple iRadio launch in June? Dealmaking continues…
* Music Dealers: ‘Brands are picking up the pieces of the music industry’

PRIVACY.NET:
* Why is Video Piracy Still Called A “Censorship” Problem?

Why is video piracy still called a censorship issue? And when did it become a threat to privacy? What I continue to find amazing is the fact that supporters of video piracy continue to refer to the attempts to block illegal access as “censorship.”

TORRENT FREAK:
* Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun
* Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator
* Police Flex Muscles Again, Arrest Admin of Sweden’s #2 BitTorrent Site
* FileServe Hit With $1,000,000 Movie Piracy Lawsuit

THE WOMB:
* I Just Signed Copyright Alliance Petition Against Brand Sponsored Piracy

by Trichordist Editor

Look who’s Pirating now! University Of Georgia Music Business Program’s Preliminary Study Of Advertising On Copyright Infringing Sites.

Jonathan Taplin at  USC’s  Annenberg Center has spent the last few month studying which parts of the online advertising ecosystem are delivering advertising (and hence revenue) to unlicensed music sharing and streaming sites.   His study has caused quite a stir in the advertising and entertainment industry.  Jonathan recently asked me to corroborate some of his findings regarding which brands are advertising on these websites. These are  the results of my preliminary survey.

Over two weeks in April  I had a group of students at UGA note which “brands” were advertising on a small set of sites that stream and distribute my own music without permission or compensation.  I chose sites that featured my own music for a very specific reason:  I could be 100% certain that they were exploiting my material without permission and were hence illegitimate sites.  Third party sources agree with my assessment. For instance The Google Transparency Report has all but 1 of these sites  in the top 200 recipients of DMCA takedown notices.

The purpose of the preliminary study  is not to identify how these advertisements end up on these infringing sites, but simply which brands are appearing on these sites.  We realize that brands often do not realize that their ads are appearing on these sites.   We hope this information is useful to advertisers, advertising agencies and the entertainment industry.  We believe along with artists the brands are also victimized by this practice because they are not geting the quality advertising for which they’ve contracted. And often their ads  appear next to unseemly videos and ads for adult and fetish sites thus damaging the image and reputation of the brands.  We encourage the listed brands to conduct audits of those responsible for placing these ads.  If it’s not possible for those responsible  to comply with an audit demand you should be aware that it is then highly likely that your ads will continue appearing on these sites!

Below I’ve listed the brands in two orders.  The first lists the brands by frequency, adjusted by a “breadth” coefficient. I will explain this breadth coefficient in subsequent post, but because of the way advertisers “track” web users,  the sheer number of a brand’s ads on a website can be somewhat misleading.   For instance ads for the apartment complex “River One” seemed to follow a single student the entire two weeks, but none of the other students recorded an ad from this company. This does not mean that “River One” isn’t in fact funding sites that exploit artists without compensation, it’s just a number of factors could be distorting their overall rankings.  Hence the breadth adjustment to dampen some of these effects.

In the following days  I’ll publish my rather simple  methodology and links to raw data.  Items that expose students identity will be redacted.

University Of Georgia Music Business Program Top 40 Brands Advertising On File Infringing Sites- Preliminary Survey (Breadth Adjustment):

Based on sample of 1,851 pageviews.

April 10-26 2013

rank Top Advertisers instances % “breadth” frequency adj for breadth
1 Country Financial 157 8.5% 100.00% 8.48%
2 Become.com 89 4.8% 100.00% 4.81%
3 AT&T 60 3.2% 100.00% 3.24%
4 Champion roofing 51 2.8% 100.00% 2.76%
5 State Farm 47 2.5% 75.00% 1.90%
6 Target 39 2.1% 87.50% 1.84%
7 Georgia Natural Gas 31 1.7% 100.00% 1.67%
8 AAA 29 1.6% 87.50% 1.37%
9 Rooms To Go 33 1.8% 62.50% 1.11%
10 Allstate 20 1.1% 100.00% 1.08%
11 Transunion 24 24 1.3% 75.00% 0.97%
12 H&R Block 18 1.0% 75.00% 0.73%
13 Pirate storm 26 1.4% 50.00% 0.70%
14 Quibids.com 13 0.7% 100.00% 0.70%
15 Coca-Cola/American Idol 16 0.9% 75.00% 0.65%
16 The New York Times 16 0.9% 75.00% 0.65%
17 One River Place (Atlanta GA) 94 5.1% 12.50% 0.63%
18 Progressive insurance 22 1.2% 50.00% 0.59%
19 Xfinity 15 0.8% 62.50% 0.51%
20 Nationwide 15 0.8% 50.00% 0.41%
21 Suntrust 14 0.8% 50.00% 0.38%
22 The Gold Coast Casino 11 0.6% 62.50% 0.37%
23 Norton 9 0.5% 62.50% 0.30%
24 Just fab boots 14 0.8% 37.50% 0.28%
25 Wartune 10 0.5% 50.00% 0.27%
26 Bing 5 0.3% 100.00% 0.27%
27 Dominos 15 0.8% 25.00% 0.20%
28 Karaolke Pink 28 1.5% 12.50% 0.19%
29 Charter 7 0.4% 50.00% 0.19%
30 Google chrome 12 0.6% 25.00% 0.16%
31 Sea World Busch Gardens 6 0.3% 50.00% 0.16%
32 Victoria’s Secret 11 0.6% 25.00% 0.15%
33 Royal Carribean 11 0.6% 25.00% 0.15%
34 Publix 7 0.4% 37.50% 0.14%
35 Dodge dart 20 1.1% 12.50% 0.14%
36 Bodies The Exhibtion 10 0.5% 25.00% 0.14%
37 The Heist 16 0.9% 12.50% 0.11%
38 HTC 5 0.3% 37.50% 0.10%
39 Pull-ups 5 0.3% 37.50% 0.10%
40 Spirit Airlines 5 0.3% 37.50% 0.10%

Unadjusted for “breadth.”

rank Top Advertisers instances % “breadth” frequency adj for breadth
1 Country Financial 157 8.5% 100.00% 8.48%
2 One River Place (Atlanta GA) 94 5.1% 12.50% 0.63%
3 Become.com 89 4.8% 100.00% 4.81%
4 AT&T 60 3.2% 100.00% 3.24%
5 Champion roofing 51 2.8% 100.00% 2.76%
6 State Farm 47 2.5% 75.00% 1.90%
7 Target 39 2.1% 87.50% 1.84%
8 Rooms To Go 33 1.8% 62.50% 1.11%
9 Georgia Natural Gas 31 1.7% 100.00% 1.67%
10 AAA 29 1.6% 87.50% 1.37%
11 Karaolke Pink 28 1.5% 12.50% 0.19%
12 Pirate storm 26 1.4% 50.00% 0.70%
13 Transunion 24 24 1.3% 75.00% 0.97%
14 Progressive insurance 22 1.2% 50.00% 0.59%
15 Allstate 20 1.1% 100.00% 1.08%
16 Dodge dart 20 1.1% 12.50% 0.14%
17 H&R Block 18 1.0% 75.00% 0.73%
18 Coca-Cola/American Idol 16 0.9% 75.00% 0.65%
19 The New York Times 16 0.9% 75.00% 0.65%
20 The Heist 16 0.9% 12.50% 0.11%
21 Xfinity 15 0.8% 62.50% 0.51%
22 Nationwide 15 0.8% 50.00% 0.41%
23 Dominos 15 0.8% 25.00% 0.20%
24 Suntrust 14 0.8% 50.00% 0.38%
25 Just fab boots 14 0.8% 37.50% 0.28%
26 Quibids.com 13 0.7% 100.00% 0.70%
27 Google chrome 12 0.6% 25.00% 0.16%
28 lowermybills.com 12 0.6% 12.50% 0.08%
29 The Gold Coast Casino 11 0.6% 62.50% 0.37%
30 Victoria’s Secret 11 0.6% 25.00% 0.15%
31 Royal Carribean 11 0.6% 25.00% 0.15%
32 Wartune 10 0.5% 50.00% 0.27%
33 Bodies The Exhibtion 10 0.5% 25.00% 0.14%
34 Norton 9 0.5% 62.50% 0.30%
35 Colorado tech 8 0.4% 12.50% 0.05%
36 Charter 7 0.4% 50.00% 0.19%
37 Publix 7 0.4% 37.50% 0.14%
38 Bruno Mars 7 0.4% 12.50% 0.05%
39 Sea World Busch Gardens 6 0.3% 50.00% 0.16%
40 Alzhiemer association 6 0.3% 25.00% 0.08%

by Dr. David C Lowery

Permission, Privacy and Piracy : Where Creators and Consumers Meet

It’s amazing how situationally dependent perspectives about the internet appear to be that something as fundamental as consent (aka permission) would be controversial. Much ink has been spilled over a consumers right to privacy in the digital age and that concern now extends beyond the internet to personal privacy fears over the potential misuse of domestic drones.

The irony of course about all the hysteria being discussed about drones (military, commercial or private) is that the greater threat to personal privacy is much more local than an unmanned aircraft at 14,000 feet, or even a home built quad copter. The real threat that will bring the real world to the same persistent observation (and cataloging) of our daily lives will be Google Glass (where is the EFF when you need them?).

Google Glass is a device that records to the cloud a persistent stream of visual and audio data as the user experiences it. Anything, and everything a person would have experienced as a personal and private experience will be recorded, cataloged, geo-tagged, and stored online. Automated face recognition technology will make it less possible to be anonymous in the real world than it currently is in the online world via the use of avatars.

But what does this have to do with piracy? Specifically what does this have to do with content piracy? How are privacy and piracy related? It’s simple, both privacy and piracy revolve around how we view the importance of the individuals right to grant consent. An individual should have the right to grant the specific permissions to access information about us and how that information can be used. Agreed?

This is the same fundamental individual right that governs the protection of a creators work from illegal exploitation. Permission is the cornerstone to a civilized society. Maybe ask these women in Texas about it?

Below is a recent example of how ordinary people, who are also creators got a first hand lesson in “permissionless innovation” aka, “you will be monetized” or “all ur net proceeds now belong to us.”

When Instagram attempted to change it’s terms of service that would allow the company to monetize the work of the individual without the individuals permission, consumers went ballistic. It seems that permission is not such a difficult concept to grasp when people are personally effected. This is why privacy is a much more universal issue, because everyone is effected by it.

It is strangely ironic (or not really) that the companies who were so quick to threaten an “internet blackout” really have no such motivation in detailing how individual personal data is being collected and monetized. Even when that data is from children. So much for being open and transparent.

What’s worse is that Google has been repeatedly caught red handed violating the privacy of not just it’s users but also unsuspecting consumers. Two cases that immediately come to mind are the Safari privacy scandal and resulting settlement and the much broader real world illegal data collection scheme known as Wi-Spy.

So, just like everyone understands the basic fundamental right to privacy is built on the permissions we grant by consent to other citizens, businesses and institutions, individual creators also have the same right to grant permission to who and how their work can be exploited (yes their work, as in labor) for profit and gain.

This is even more important when those doing the profiting are corporations and businesses like Google, various advertising networks and others.

by Trichordist Editor