Category: artist rights

Weekly News and Recap! Sunday Sep 2, 2012

Grab the Coffee!

Recent Posts:
* Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Internet
* Neil Young Exploited by Ford, Cooper Mini, Target, State Farm, Adobe, Alaska Air, ATT…
* CNBC Tonight : Hollywood Robbery — Thursday, August 30th 9p | 12a ET
* Hey Tom Waits! Who’s That Bandido Ripping You Off Now? … Wendy’s, Yahoo, BMW…
* The Making of Le Noise: the new album from Neil Young (9-14-10)

The Illusion of More : Dissecting the Digital Utopia
– A fantastic new blog and audio podcast launched this week which explores the good, the bad and the ugly of Internet culture, “Now that we’re just about 20 years into the digital age, and the babies born to the sound of dial-up modems are young adults who’ve never known life without the Web, it seems like a good time to explore some of the best and the worst of what we’re making of this technology.” Check out The Illusion of More [here].

Copyhype’s Friday Endnotes 08/31/12
– In addition to the weekly recap here, we strongly recommend the weekly reading of Friday’s Endnotes from Terry Hart’s fantastic blog, Copyhype. Terry often delivers thoughtful and insightful analysis of recent copyright cases, legal developments and news stories that are important to artists and creators.

Artists Exploitation is a Mass Scale, Enterprise Level, Infringing Business
– We are pleased to see several other blogs picking up on this story and asking the same questions we have been. Who is responsible for the funding of illegal artists exploitation on sites dedicated to infringement? Adland picked up the ball this week on our Neil Young post and commented from the perspective from within the Advertising Industry. Several other blogs also have been picking up on the story including Bill Rosenblatt’s Copyright and Technology, Terry Hart’s Copyhype, and Bruce Warlia at Music Think Tank.

Apple V Samsung, $1 Billion Dollar Victory for Apple leaves Anti-IP/Freedhadists with panties all bunched up…
– This is a major win for all artists and creators of Intellectual Property. Even though this case is about patents and not copyrights it clearly illustrates (again) that when presented to a jury (Tenenbaum/Thomas), people understand right from wrong and that copying without permission, is in fact stealing someone else’s hard work for profit. It’s important to note, this jury is comprised of regular folks being presented the actual facts in a court of law. All of the free culture nonsense that reverberates through the echo chamber of tech blogosphere has little impact in the bright light of reality. We are encouraged by the common sense and fairness that this jury displayed, Ars Technica reports;

The jury “wanted to send a message to the industry at large that patent infringing is not the right thing to do, not just Samsung,” Hogan told the newspaper. “We felt like we were 100 percent fair, but we wanted something more than a slap on the wrist.”

Comscore released a white paper this week on the Economics of Online Advertising.
– You can download the white paper [here]. Readers of this blog will note that we are somewhat skeptical of the economics of online advertising as they seem to be largely dependent upon “exploitation economics” to remain profitable. This could be the use of unpaid bloggers for corporate gain, or the use of unlicensed content to aggregate an audience large enough to monetize with advertising. One only need look at the post IPO performance of Facebook to see this in action. Given the above, we found this statement particularly interesting,

“Bottom line, despite all the ingenuity of market participants, the current market situation is untenable.”

Cult of Mac Writer John Bownlee on “Why I Stopped Pirating Music”
– It’s a bitter sweet essay not unlike the one written by NPR’s infamous intern Emily White. We’re encouraged by the notion that as people mature from their 20s into their 30 recognize the value (not the cost) of music in their lives. Not only do they recognize this value, but they recognize the value in actually paying the creators of that work for enriching their own lives. As Brownlee writes, “As a thirty-three year old man, I’m ashamed of the piracy of my twenties” which is encouraging. However it’s the second part of the sentence, the rationalization for a decade plus of denying artists their rightful compensation that still remains as the bitter part, “but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that it gradually helped transform me from a person who didn’t care about music into a music lover, an individual with a true passion for sound, and a fervent believer in buying music.”  The takeaway may be that one in their twenties will not pay for music if they don’t have to, but we should be grateful to them if they should grow a conscience and awareness in their thirties? We hope that people like John will stop with the rationalizations, and just admit to themselves and others that the artists that provide enrichment of their lives are deserving of compensation for the consumption of their work and for their contributions to the listeners life.

Streaming and Sustainability, Maybe it Just Doesn’t Work?
– This isn’t just about Spotify as Pandora also faces challenges with scaling it’s business. Maybe the truth is that internet advertising dependent businesses for content just don’t work once one factors in the actual fixed costs to produce and license the content itself? It’s no mystery to us why the illegally operating infringing sites monetizing content seem to be the only ones making money. They’re not actually paying for the content they are monetizing against. This is not a failure of the content industries, it is a failure of the internet community to figure out how to build models that can actually pay for the content they are using to attract the audience they need in which to sell advertising. Not surprisingly, Pandora has hired K-Street lobbyists in an attempt to deny artists of royalties and to line their own pockets. This may also be why Spotify is betting on a subscription model and not advertising, as Digital Music News reports.

Pirates meltdown as they realize that Copyright Law is not going to be abolished anytime soon.
– It is endlessly fascinating to us that the entirety of the free culture movement is defined by the same talking points as a petulant two year old, “I want it, I want it, I want it.” The constant whining and crying is really troublesome as they could be actually working on cooperative and innovative solutions for all stakeholders. Although Rick Falkvinge at Torrent Freak fears having these conversations for the next forty years, we’re a little more optimistic that only those who like walking into walls instead of walking through doorways will insist on continuing the pointless discussion about the unprincipled practice of exploiting the labor of others. We suspect in forty years people will look back at this moment in time and realize the truth that the exploitative robber baron’s of internet industry got a nearly two decade free ride as education and the law reconciled core societal values that have been present for centuries. Copyright is an individual right.

FilesTube Facebook Page Hacked
– Fascinating as it is entertaining. This week the Facebook page of FilesTube was hacked and an endless streaming of taunting and humorous pictures were posted. Not sure why, or who would be motivated to do this but it does indicate that not all hackers are aligned with the free culture movement. Wouldn’t a true “Robin Hood” movement actually transfer wealth from corporations to artists and creators as opposed to the other way around? One again, Torrent Freak reports.

Another one bites the dust, FileSonic Offline.
– The BBC Reports that FileSonic is the latest cyberlocker to go offline, “It’s becoming more difficult for file-sharing sites to operate without getting into trouble both from the authorities and also lawsuits from copyright owners.” Add to this that IMAGiNE BitTorrent Piracy Group Members Have All Plead Guilty and Sweden Ordered Pirate Bay Founder’s Arrest, while Cambodia Mulls Options. It’s getting hard out there for a Pimp, maybe the pirates should just listen to Larry Lessig and “Get Over It”?

Google, YouTube, Porn, Infringement, Copyright Policy and Consequences.
– We pretty much adhere to the time tested idea that eventually, the truth will out. We’ve said for a long time that managing copyright online is a question of will and not capability. This stunning story on Buzzfeed from a Google/YouTube temp worker confirmed what we’ve always believed. If there are consequences for bad behavior (such as porn and other nasty stuff getting onto YouTube) then there are ways to figure out how to manage it. This simply illustrates the obvious, consequences lead responsibility. Or in other words, necessity if the mother of innovation,

“One of the most shocking parts of my job was working on porn issues. Child porn is the biggest thing for internet companies. By law you have to take it down in 24 hours upon notice and report it to federal authorities.”

The Illegal Exploitation of Creators Work is not limited to Musicians.
– Javier Bardem, the Academy Award Winning star of “No Country For Old Men” explains how piracy removes opportunities from actors and other creative artisans.

Be sure to check out the CNBC, Crime Inc. Broadcast of Hollywood Robbery
– Airing Sunday, September 2nd, 11:00 PM EST/PST.

by trichordist

The Making of Le Noise: the new album from Neil Young (9-14-10)

It’s Friday.

Sometimes, ya just got to appreciate the artist, the process and the music to put everything in perspective. Neil Young + Daniel Lanois = Awesome.

ITUNES:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/le-noise-deluxe-version/id393716373

And, for those who may have missed it, this awesome post from http://adland.tv:
http://adland.tv/content/brand-banners-pirate-sites-whose-fault-it-anyway

Neil Young Exploited by Ford, Cooper Mini, Target, State Farm, Adobe, Alaska Air, ATT, Boy Scouts, DIRECTV, LG, Princess Cruises, HP, Westin, Charmin, RapidShare

by trichordist

Hey Tom Waits! Who’s That Bandido Ripping You Off Now? … Wendy’s, Yahoo, BMW, Mitt Romney, Adobe, Cadillac, LG, Target, Westin Hotels, Priceline, Hyatt Hotels, Weight Watchers, VISA, State Farm, Mini Cooper, ADT Security…

Remember the bad old days of the music business of yore? When sleazy cigar chomping gangsters would give an old bluesman $20 for a song? Later when that song became a hit, the old bluesman discovered that he had signed away all his rights to that song for 20 bucks. And the gangsters kept all that cash that rolled in.

Well the new guys are much worse. These cigar chomping Vladmirs don’t even bother giving the bluesman the 20 bucks. They take the old bluesman’s songs without permission, slather them in ads, and charge for faster downloads. If the artists complain about this, they are shouted down by Vladmir’s useful idiots at foundations like the EFF or glassy-eyed digital utopians from Berkeley* and Harvard. “Censorship” and “Freedom” they shout. Nevermind that many of the websites they are protecting are based in countries like Belarus and Russia. Not exactly paragons of democracy and freedom.

And what about the brands that advertise on these sites and the ad networks that put the ads there, and the payment processors who process the money for them? These guys are no different than the bankers and money launderers that enable the cartels.

This is bullshit right? Cause every single one of these companies advertising here, their advertising agencies and the ad networks have either “corporate responsibility” initiatives or grandiose statements of best and ethical practices. And here they are making a mockery of all that right here for all the world to see.

Plus it’s against the law.

What do you have to say BMW, Mitt Romney, Adobe, Cadillac, LG, Target, Visa, Wendy’s, Westin, Priceline, Weight Watchers, Hyatt, Hilton, Yahoo, Urban Outfitters and University of Phoenix?

(According to Google, the websites in this screenshot — filestube, 4shared,Kat.ph and Dilandau — are the #1, #6, #11, and #8 top copyright infringing sites in the world.)

(*Berkeley runs the aptly named http://www.chillingeffects.org that is dedicated to posting the names of everyone that files DMCA “takedown” notices of copyright infringing links. You read that right, the birthplace of the free speech movement runs a site that basically punishes, er, publishes the name and address of the little guy that attempts to protect his/her freedom of expression. Intimidation pure and simple. You can write the Chancellor of Berkeley here: chancellor<AT>Berkeley.edu)

Here’s yer Bandido’s…

* BMW on Kick Ass Torrents
* Mitt Romney, ADT Security on 4Shared
* Adobe, Mini Cooper on FilesTube
* Cadillac on FilesTube
* LG on FilesTube
* Target on Mp3Crank
* VISA, State Farm on Mp3 Crank
* Wendy’s on Kick Ass Torrents
* Westin on Kick Ass Torrents
* Priceline, Weight Watchers on 4Shared
* Hyatt on 4Shared
* Weight Watchers, Hilton on 4Shared
* Yahoo on Dilandau
* Urban Outfitters on FilesTube

And this video from Tom is awesome too…

by trichordist

Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Internet

Technology may change but principles do not. A society that encourages the creative spirit is rare in history and worth defending. The internet and digital technology have opened up many new opportunities for artists, but it has also opened up new opportunities for those who wish to exploit those artists.

We offer for discussion a set of principles as a guide for companies and policy makers to keep in mind. It is our hope that these principles will help build a sustainable online creative ecosystem, one that benefits creators, innovators, and the general public alike.

1. FAIR AND ETHICAL LABOR PRACTICES: RESPECT WORKERS’ RIGHTS
A fair and ethical internet is built on the respect and protection of the rights of individuals to determine who benefits from their labor and creations.

Since the rise of digital utopians in the 1990s, we’ve unfortunately seen many very old arguments surface as to why the economic benefits of a few big companies should be valued over the labor rights of many. This problem is what drives workers to organize to protect their labor and demand fair compensation. Not only are artist rights protected by the US Constitution, artist rights are also internationally recognized as human rights protected by many international treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, however, there are those who seek to capture the value of artist rights profit only for themselves by systematically violating these rights for commercial gain.

A free and open internet works best without overbearing regulation, but it will not work at all without protection for fundamental rights of working people.

2. CONSENT IS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILIZATION: RESPECT ARTISTS’ INTEGRITY
Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose. Your rights end where mine begin.

Rights secured by the Constitution are intended to protect the individual from hostile majority forces and the tyranny of the mob, particularly the corporate mob. This is especially true regarding copyright, which is itself a vehicle of the right of free expression for individuals, and protected by the Constitution.

Everyone understands the value of individual privacy in the digital age. The essence of the artist’s control over the integrity of their work is not that different. Individual consent should be required for a corporation to profit from taking any creative work (just like individual consent is required for taking personal information) because the creative work goes to the artist’s personhood. Protecting an individual’s right to their personhood and the protection of their free expression are building blocks in the foundation of civilization.

3. PROTECT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: DON’T TRIVIALIZE CENSORSHIP
Freedom of speech requires freedom of expression. Copyright protects free expression. Together, they ensure a robust marketplace of ideas that advances truth, knowledge, and culture.

Let’s get this straight. Censorship is intolerable. You don’t have to look very far to see artists being censored by governments — there are many historical examples . No one understands this more than the scores of individual artists, musicians, painters, writers, poets, filmmakers and creators of all disciplines who have actually (and literally) have been persecuted, disappeared or assassinated for their views all over the world. Sadly, many confuse the actual freedom of expression with the mistaken idea that preventing the illegal exploitation of that very expression is the same thing. It’s not.

The copying and distribution of those expressions without the creators permission is simply exploitation without consent or compensation. Would you think that a car thief is being censored when they are prosecuted for stealing your car or a bank robber is being censored when they are prosecuted for stealing your money? Don’t trivialize “censorship”.

4. FAIR COMPENSATION: IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT, DON’T BUY IT
In any value chain where the individual creator’s work is exploited, the creator must be compensated.

Most fair and reasonable people embrace “Fair Trade” products to support and encourage fair compensation of labor. Unions have fought long hard-won battles for the protection of labor rights. As a society we recognize the individual’s right to fair compensation of labor as a fundamental cornerstone to an ethical and healthy society. The internet is inhabited by as many different varied participants as the physical world, and the respect for human labor should not be devalued simply because technology makes it possible to be unethical.

It’s very simple–the answer if you don’t like an artist’s work is not to steal it–just don’t buy it. They’ll get the message.

5. MUTUAL RESPECT: IT’S ABOUT GETTING IT RIGHT, NOT GETTING AWAY WITH IT
Mutual respect for the diversity of all online citizens is the cornerstone of a healthy and robust community.

The mutual respect granted by intellectual property rights allows individual creators the freedom to determine what permissions they wish to grant and at what price. No one has to pay that price, but the creator is entitled to set it. Denying these freedoms to creators because the mob or a public company wants to overrun a musician, author, illustrator or photographer violates the very protections against mob rule that the Constitution is intended to secure. Sadly, this is largely how individual rights are viewed today by some online corporate interests.

6. PARASITIC EXPLOITATION IS NOT INNOVATION: FREE AND OPEN SHOULD BE FAIR AND HONEST
The illegal exploitation of individuals for commercial gain is not innovation, it is techno-thuggery and cyberbullying.

We see many companies on the internet illegally exploiting the work, labor, innovation and creations of others simply because they can get away with it. We’re often told that innovation requires the unauthorized exploitation of creators in some kind of technological determinism that rejects the innovation of creators because it“scales”. That is just another way of using “convenience” as an excuse for theft. Any business that requires the illegal exploitation of individuals to be profitable is not a business but rather is a parasitic engine of oppression.

7. SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION SOLVES PROBLEMS: FAIR NOT FAKE
Sustainable innovation is best represented by solving problems, not creating them by adding intentional opaque layers of obfuscation.

The organized and deliberate complexity of some online ad networks, pirate site operations, and other businesses creates an impenetrable black box to protect illicit money flows and give the participants plausible deniability. Then we are told to “follow the money” through advertising networks, down a rabbit hole to a maze followed by another rabbit hole. That’s not innovation. It is old school wire fraud. This should not be a badge of honor for the online community but rather a point of embarrassment that the Internet—one of the greatest technological achievements of all time–is trivialized by making it nothing more than a safe house for many illegitimate businesses profiting at the expense of honest citizens.

8. COMMON GOALS, BEST PRACTICES AND SOLUTIONS:
There are centuries of mutual ground between creators, commerce and rights holders. Let’s not throw this away.

Let’s not set a goal of building a large database for clearances of all copyrights and do nothing until it is operational. That solution almost guarantees that there won’t be many new works to put in that database. Such a database has never existed and is incredibly complex. A transparent rights clearinghouse is a possible solution, but the lack of one it is definitely not an excuse for bad behavior.

by trichordist

Jared Leto Exploited by Rapidshare, VW, Go Pro, LG, Emirates Airlines, Adobe, Ford and Target

In this round we find advertisers exploiting Jared Leto‘s band 30 Seconds To Mars by Volkswagon, Go Pro cameras, LG electronics and appliances, Emirates Airlines, Adobe software, Ford and Target. It’s also interesting to note that in this series of screen shots the infringing links appear to be hosted on Rapidshare. This is the same Rapidshare that has been offended by being put on a piracy watch list. It seems to us that if Rapidshare wants to champion best practices for cyberlockers, they would do well to clean up their own business first.

The hits just keep on coming… How much money do we have to follow before there is some accountability on behalf of the brands and advertising networks? Let us be clear about this. Piracy is being financed by advertising dollars, originating with major brands, trusted to advertising agencies and then ultimately distributed to questionable online advertising networks and then to the pirate sites themselves.

This is not about free speech. This is not about censorship. It’s about money. It’s about a lot of money. It’s about a lot of money being made by advertising networks and pirate sites and not paying artists a penny. This is the exploitation economy where anyone and everyone can profit from a creators work, except the creator themselves.

FilesTube points to Rapidshare as a host of infringing uploads of artists work. Also not the Adobe advertising. Wouldn’t be ironic if users searched FilesTube and RapidShare for Adobe software products?

by trichordist

Death Cab For Cutie Exploited by Google, Target, AT&T, Ford, Urban Outfitters, United Airlines, Rejuvenation and Crate and Barrel

Google was right. This is a follow the money story. As reported by PC Pro Magazine, Google says,

“Instead of imposing blocks or filters that might damage fundamental freedoms, governments should construct coalitions with reputable advertising networks, payment processors and rightsholders. Together, these coalitions can crack down and squeeze the financing behind online infringement.”

We’d like to think that Google themselves would be one of the “reputable advertising networks.” As pictured below, Google appears to be not just the ad network serving the ad, but also the brand buying the advertising for it’s product, Google Advertising. Needless to say this is a disappointing find given the recent report.

What’s worse is that major consumer brands are benefiting from having access to the audience (and key demographics) built by individual artists. In this case Death Cab For Cutie who based on the advertisers seems to be a very good demographic indeed supporting ads from Target, SC Johnson and AT&T and that’s just on one site with infringing material.

What incentive is there for brands and advertisers to work with artists and creators to create ad campaigns when the brands can simply “steal” access to the artists audience by paying ad networks to turn a blind eye to sites dedicated to infringing activity?

So far we’ve seen that Google understands, and recommends that advertising networks be accountable to where they are serving ads, despite the fact that Google themselves appears to be still serving ads to sites entirely dedicated to copyright infringement. We’ve also seen above how the music of Ben Gibbard‘s band Death Cab For Cutie is able to draw advertising revenue from Target and AT&T.

Below we see how deep this really goes. By focusing on just FilesTube we can see that Death Cab For Cutie draws advertising revenue to the site from Ford, Urban Outfitters, United Airlines, Rejuvenation and Crate & Barrel. These are all well respected brands, that appeal to a demographic with considerable disposable income. And yet, none of these brands compensate Ben Gibbard, Death Cab For Cutie or any of the various rights holders for access to the bands music and fans.

So yes, this is a follow the money story. When we follow the money it leads to major brands and online advertising networks all profiting from the artists work and paying nothing to the artists. Not one single penny. Zero. Zilch. Nadda. That’s what makes this discussion about free beer, and not free speech as some would like to propose.

by trichordist

Music Technology Policy

We got this nice comment today from Francine Hardaway on behalf of Zedo (who we called out in an earlier post).  It’s gratifying to hear that a company in the ad network business cares enough about artists to respond to criticism.  This exchange highlights the most important aspect of the collision of legitimate companies with the seedy underbelly of the Internet–it’s not enough to sit back and wait for someone to formally notify you when things are going wrong.

Ad networks are the Pinto of the 21st Century and it’s important not to cover up responsibility as it will only come back to bite in the end.  Not to mention that good companies are run by good people who want to do the right thing.

I’m particularly glad to get this response because Esther Dyson’s book “Release 2.0” inspired me in the 90s.  We look forward to not seeing Zedo show up on pirate…

View original post 144 more words

by trichordist

Neko Case Exploited by Macy’s, Levi’s, Princess Cruises, Skype, Yahoo, Marvel and Electronic Arts

Wow. Just wow. It’s not like Neko Case is Lady GaGa sitting on gazillions of dollars (and not that it should make a difference). This is how the Exploitation Economy works. It’s about money. Advertising money. A lot of advertising money. None of which is shared or distributed to the artists, ever. Not one penny. Not one single cent. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nadda.

And yet there are those who confuse free beer with free speech. Nothing here is about censorship. This really appears to be about mass scale, enterprise level, orchestrated infringement farms for profit.

by trichordist

SXSW Panels for Artists Rights – Show Your Support @ SXSW Panel Picker

Please show your support to advance the conversation for Artists Rights by voting for these two panels being considered for this year’s SXSW. We hope to see you in Austin. Deadline for voting is Friday August 31st.

###

MUSIC: “Who’s Ripping Me Off Now”
http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/3736

Description

In June, a blog post by musician David Lowery set off a firestorm. Written to an intern at NPR who admitted to not having paid for the 11,000 tracks in her collection, the post generated more than a million views in just one week and numerous media stories.

In its wake, musicians, fans and the industry were all re-evaluating long held beliefs. Who is “the man” today? Can the Internet be both innovative and ethical? Who speaks for the artists? And what obligation does the fan have to his or her favorite artists (if any).

Join David Lowery, Cake’s John McCrea and experts from music and tech policy as they try to answer these timely and controversial questions.

Questions Answered

1. Is the new boss (tech) worse than the old boss (labels)?

2. What policy changes need to be considered to make the internet fairer for music creators

3. Can artists make a living without making money from recordings?

4. Who’s profiting from Spotify?

5. What obligation does the music fan have (if any) to the music creator?

###

INTERACTIVE: “Innovative, Open, Ethical & Sustainable Internet”
http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/6170

Description

Everyone agrees the internet needs to be Open and encourage Innovation, but does it have to be “permissionless innovation” as some are proposing? The internet and digital technology have opened up many new opportunities for artists, but it has also opened up new opportunities for those who wish to exploit those artists.

This panel asks the difficult questions about the balance of rights of all citizens, including the rights of the individual citizens who are themselves both creators and consumers participating in both sides of the debate. The reality of contemporary online content distribution is that a blind eye has been turned to enterprise level, mass scale, for profit, businesses who are not including creators participation in the monetization of the value chain. This is both unethical and in the long term unsustainable.

This panel will explore mutually beneficial solutions for all stakeholders WITHOUT the need for new or additional legislation to do so.

Questions Answered

1. Why is premissionless innovation necessary? Consent is the cornerstone of civilization. How do we find the balance in the rights of all citizens to BOTH privacy and protection of individual rights such as copyright? Perhaps through the use of a master rights registry or database would make it possible to not require case by case “permission” but still have rights granted by consent.

2. Why isn’t there a way to create online indie record stores that specialize in specific genres superserving those consumers (death metal for example)? Rights Holders need to work with developers to create an easy “One Stop” rights licensing solution to encourage competition and innovation without cumbersome requirements. Ideally there would be an online equivalent to old school “One Stops” who sold records to indie stores before they developed credit lines with the distros directly. SNOCAP?

3. Why does there seem to be so much confusion between the what is the actual freedom of expression and wanting to illegally exploit that very expression? Ice-T’s “Cop Killer” or 2Live Crew’s “Me So Horny” are actual artistic expressions protected by the Constitution. The illegal coping and distribution of those expressions without the creators permission is simply exploitation without consent or compensation to the artists themselves.

4. The mutual respect granted by intellectual property rights allows individual creators the freedom to determine what permissions they wish to grant and at what price. No one has to pay that price, but the creator is entitled to set it.

5. Why are consumers willing to pay more for Fair Trade coffee but not willing to pay for music, movies and other content? Public attitudes about creators rights are not aligned with the reality of most people struggling to sustain professional creative careers. All this begs the question, if the internet is working for musicians, why are less musicians working professionally now than prior to the internet. The promise of empowerment has failed.

###

by trichordist