Category: Artists Rights Watch

Timothy B. Lee’s Epic Fail in the Washington Post on Piracy | CJR

We know there is a lot of bias reported that serves the corporate interests of Silicon Valley corporations but watching this story being reported, and revised, over the course of the day yesterday was truly stunning.

A piracy defense walks the plank at the Post

A blogger gets schooled by the meanies of Big Copyright
By Ryan Chittum

There are many problems with Timothy B. Lee’s Washington Post blog post on Hollywood’s supposed culpability for the theft of its own movies, beginning with the morally unserious jujitsu deployed in arguing that Hollywood is culpable for the theft of its own movies.

The Mercatus- and Cato-connected editor of the Washington Post tech blog that aims “to be indispensable to telecom lobbyists and IT professionals alike, while also being compelling and provocative to the average iPhone-toting commuter” also had a major correction that undermines the entire premise of the piece and reveals its one-sided reporting.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE AT THE COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_piracy_defense_walks_the_pla.php

by Trichordist Editor

Spain to make providers of ‘pirated’ Web content walk the plank | Digital Journal

Madrid – Well, not walk the plank exactly, but tough new laws are to be introduced in Spain and were set for approval in Parliament on Friday. The new laws call for six years in prison for linking to “pirated”, copyright-protected material from webpages.

Spain is changing the rules due to what is called “rampant” and “endemic” piracy in the country.

Anyone linking to “pirated” material, such as films or music, from their webpages are likely to see six years behind bars.

End users, who downloaded the content using those links, won’t be punished apparently. Also, according to Reuters, peer-to-peer file-sharing sites and search engines are exempt from the the new laws and will not face legal action.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/358787#ixzz2fyo4p1Vj

by Trichordist Editor

Google’s Fallacious Piracy Self-Study (Part 1) | Music Tech Policy

The Context

Even if you discount the moral hazard involved with funding a study of yourself, the Google survey of Google’s involvement with piracy is a breathtaking document. I would suggest that the self-study rests on a number of core principles for Google’s business:

1. Nothing to See Here, Move Along: First and foremost is Google’s deep and abiding desire to deflect criticism in the press, avoid civil lawsuits and settle criminal investigations. It has both succeeded and failed at all three. The fact that a company tries to avoid these things is not special; the degree to which Google tries to manage them is quite special.

The self-study is itself an exercise in all three and supports the most important public perception that Google draws on daily to succeed in its consumer facing business: Sympathetic trust. To paraphrase an old California pol, you know all the bad they’ve done, but you like them anyway.

This magical thinking only lasts for so long. Whether its Eric Schmidt’s New York soundproof man-cave from which no scream can emerge, doing a favor for journalist Tom Brokaw by providing a private jet for a Silicon Valley speaking engagement with jet fuel subsidized by the American taxpayer, siphoning piles of data to the National Security Agency under circumstances the average citizen will probably never learn the details of, or paying a $500,000,000 fine for violating the Controlled Substances Act for indiscriminately promoting the sale of prescription drugs (e.g., to addicts and kids), the press and the public is starting to wake up to the game.

And not just the game, but the magnitude of the game. As a senior chief once said, sorry pal, the BS filter is full.

Read The Full Post At Music Tech Policy:
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/googles-fallacious-piracy-self-study-part-1/

by Trichordist Editor

David Byrne: ‘The internet will suck all creative content out of the world’ | The Guardian UK

In future, if artists have to rely almost exclusively on the income from these services, they’ll be out of work within a year. Some of us have other sources of income, such as live concerts, and some of us have reached the point where we can play to decent numbers of people because a record label believed in us at some point in the past.

I can’t deny that label-support gave me a leg up – though not every successful artist needs it. So, yes, I could conceivably survive, as I don’t rely on the pittance that comes my way from music streaming, as could Yorke and some of the others.

But up-and-coming artists don’t have that advantage – some haven’t got to the point where they can make a living on live performances and licensing, so what do they think of these services?

We were also very happy to see this plug for the Content Creators Coalition. Be sure to read the full interview at The Guardian, the link is below.

The major labels are happy, the consumer is happy and the CEOs of the web services are happy. All good, except no one is left to speak for those who actually make the stuff. In response to this lack of representation, some artists – of all types, not just musicians – are forming an organisation called the Content Creators Coalition, an entity that speaks out on artists’ behalf.

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE GUARDIAN UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world

by trichordist

The music industry may be streaming towards a cliff | Business Spectator

In August the cellist Zoe Keating published a spreadsheet of her earnings from various streaming sites. In the first half of 2013 she scored 232,000 streams, for which she was paid $906.41.

I used the word “legitimate” above because by far the biggest “publisher” of music is BitTorrent, which is simply the internet protocol for enabling peer to peer sharing of files, and the foundation of Napster’s many successors. Some people I know have zettabytes of music and movies they have downloaded; BitTorrent has been estimated to account for as much as 70 per cent of all global internet traffic.

READ THE FULL POST AT THE BUSINESS SPECTATOR:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/10/9/information-technology/music-industry-may-be-streaming-towards-cliff

by Trichordist Editor

Media Lecturers at London School of Economics Misquote Professor Danaher | MTP

Not only did the LSE lecturers fail to provide the proper context for the Danaher et al conclusions, they also missed what I believe to be the most important issue of all when it comes to ad supported pirate sites (which is all the big ones).

There are no lost sales. All sales are monetized. If they are going to analyze the economics of file barter, they should take a hint from Google’s UK policy manager: Ad supported piracy is big business.

And none of the money flows to the artists. Including the knighted ones who as a group probably added a zero to the UK GDP–and that is something that the London School of Economics should be able to actually measure accurately.

In case you were interested in what Professor Danaher actually said in his team’s study, you can watch this video from Canadian Music Week:

READ THE FULL POST AT MUSIC TECH POLICY:
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/media-lecturers-at-london-school-of-economics-misquote-professor-danaher/

by trichordist

“It’s Madness” Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich on LSE Piracy Report

We’re not sure how The London School Of Economics (LSE) could get something so basic so wrong as to suggest that because a some contemporary major label and heritage artists may be making more money from live shows (arena concert grosses) that somehow basic artists rights are not important for protection.

The New Music Express reports that Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich get’s it right in response the the LSE’s shortsighted misunderstanding about artists revenue streams.

“T-shirts and tickets are nothing to do with ‘copyright and creation’, which is the supposed subject of this document.

I hope the government sees how ridiculous this document seems to people who make records.

The authors are ‘pro piracy’ and they wish to influence the UK government’s upcoming review of digital copyright law.

It’s madness.”

Indeed.

It appears that the LSE report would be suggesting that artists never should have been paid royalties from the distribution of recorded music because there have always been other ways to make money from music.

If one were to truly let this logic sink in, it would appear that the LSE is making a general argument against all copyright because the distribution of copyrighted works is only a loss leader to live performances, synchronization fees or endorsement deals. This is of course absurd on every level.

This lopsided logic from LSE seems to favor illegally operating internet corporations distributing music without consent or licenses. We know that there is a lot of money being made in the illegal distribution of music online and the LSE’s report seems aligned with the economic interests of those who knowingly exploit artists for profit.

We expect better from such a respected institution then to ignore the economic interests by companies and corporations that are profiting illegally from advertising supported music piracy.

Perhaps it’s this report in DigiDay (parent company The Economist) that says it best.

Visit the top torrent search engines, and you’ll find ad calls from Yahoo, Google, Turn, Zedo, RocketFuel, AdRoll, CPX Interactive and others.

According to AppNexus CEO Brian O’Kelley, it’s an easy problem to fix, but ad companies are attracted by the revenue torrent sites can generate for them. Kelley said his company refuses to serve ads to torrent sites and other sites facilitating the distribution of pirated content. It’s easy to do technically, he said, but others refuse to do it.

“We want everyone to technically stop their customers from advertising on these sites, but there’s a financial incentive to keep doing so,” he said. “Companies that aren’t taking a stand against this are making a lot of money.”

Thankfully Jonathan Taplin and the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab did some fantastic work earlier this year researching and studying how Ad Networks profit from piracy.

RELATED:

Over 50 Major Brands Supporting Music Piracy, It’s Big Business!

by Trichordist Editor

8 Reasons Why Pirating Hurts Everyone | ISPs Dot Org

Downloading the latest hit song can be as easy as pressing a button. With no investment necessary, any song or movie or even program can be found on person to person file sharing networks such as Limewire, Frostwire or BitTorrent. But is this downloading of free stuff really free? What does it cost us in the long run?

1. Copyrights – Historically, copyright laws have protected intellectual property, such as music. A copyright is a form of legal protection provided to the authors of original works of authorship, whether books, music, film or other creative works. Its aim is to allow authors, musicians, directors, etc., (and the companies that back them and distribute their work) to profit from their creativity and so encourage them and others to produce other works in future.

READ THE FULL POST HERE:
http://www.internetserviceproviders.org/blog/2011/8-reasons-why-pirating-hurts-everyone/

by Trichordist Editor

Why the LSE’s Piracy Arguments Just Don’t Hold Water | Music Industry Blog

It seems that there are always people who want to argue the sky is green and the grass is blue. Such seems to be the case with the London School Of Economics recent report on the impact of piracy on the creative industries.

The primary argument is that although recorded music sales are down (at least they got that much right) this is compensated for by live concerts and other revenues. As we point out here, over and over again these are all revenue streams that existed prior to the internet and therefore are an admission that the internet has failed to create a new middle class of professional musicians.

– Touring… existed BEFORE the internet
– Merchandise (T-Shirts)… existed BEFORE the internet
– Film/Sync Licensing… existed BEFORE the internet
– Sponsorships/Endorsements… existed BEFORE the internet

The Music Industry Blog makes quick work of debunking this dubious and logically flawed study.

The renowned LSE this week published a paper arguing against implementation of the UK’s Digital Economy Act and calling for policy makers to recognize that piracy is not hurting the music industry but is in fact helping parts of it grow. To these academic researchers the findings probably feel like some dazzling new insight but to anyone with more than a passing understanding of the music industry they are as if somebody just time travelled back to 1999. The piracy-helps-grow-the-pie / help-makes-the-sky-not-fall / actually-helps-the-industry arguments were common currency throughout most of the first decade of the digital music market.

In more recent years though, following perpetual revenue decline and the growing plight of struggling ‘middle-class’ artists and songwriters, most neutral observers recognize that the piracy=prosperity argument just doesn’t hold water anymore.

Though of course that won’t stop the pro-piracy lobby fawning over this ‘research’ as more ‘evidence’ for their case.

PLEASE READ THE FULL POST AT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY BLOG HERE:
http://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/why-the-lses-piracy-arguments-just-dont-hold-water/

Additional Reading:

The 1 Percent: Income Inequality Has Never Been Worse Among Touring Musicians…

Note that in 1982 almost 40% of the revenue was divided between the “bottom” 95% of artists, while in 2003 they received only 15% of all revenue.

READ THE FULL STORY AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130704onepct

Related:

Why Telling Artists To Stop Selling Music & Just Make Money Through Live Shows Is Ridiculous

Give-it-all-awayGiving away all your music for free and trying to make your living via other revenue streams can be a valid approach. Except that I don’t know of any musicians actually doing that.

…

There are a lot of reasons it’s ridiculous for people in the tech world, in particular, to say that you should just give away all your music for free and make a living through live shows.

READ THE FULL STORY AT HYPEBOT:
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2013/08/why-telling-artists-to-stop-selling-music-just-make-money-through-live-shows-is-ridiculous.html

by Trichordist Editor