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

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/

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

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

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/

“Luddite” Artists Point Out That BitTorrent Doesn’t Know Shit About Their Own Technology.

Like Germans BitTorrent is “mostly unitentionally  funny.”*  The  company has decided that they should attempt to legitimize their artist exploiting torrenting system with a charm offensive by buying billboards in Los Angeles.  Check this one out.

It seems to me that BitTorrent is suggesting that by using their product you are somehow safe from snooping by the NSA.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nope you aren’t even safe from a so-called luddite musician. Check it out.

Here are the IP addresses, ports  and some sample Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven songs being hosted and illegally torrented by 33 Bit Torrent users.  This is using one of the vast number of tools available to snoop on Bit Torrent traffic–think the NSA doesn’t use this for jihadi communications????

And to the folks illegally sharing my music?   You might want to ask what other naughty stuff I can see on your computer?

Seriously, if I could figure this out in 20 minutes how hard is it for the NSA? FBI? Local PD? Hacker?

Apparently BitTorrent doesn’t even understand how it’s own product works. Luddites.

*No offense Germans, I’m simply paraphrasing my favorite German Author Thomas Meinecke.

The IP Address The Port Sample File Name
98.194.45.42 45832 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.125.248.153 16079 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.122.163.166 53855 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.187.147.156 31163 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.180.160.68 49992 12 – Circles.flac
68.35.217.145 48451 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.173.109.168 39167 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
50.131.219.101 43611 12 – Circles.flac
71.198.221.119 47128 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
69.245.16.52 19150 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.126.53.161 46736 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
50.159.89.238 20533 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.255.69.205 61427 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
76.121.64.84 11373 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.225.183.21 21709 05 – Peaches in the Summertime.flac
174.60.188.235 32303 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.185.200.229 38984 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
71.228.181.111 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
68.61.76.14 44025 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
24.130.205.30 16422 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
71.207.200.119 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.232.177.136 39146 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
68.49.180.22 33418 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.239.116.29 56239 69-Cracker-Euro-Trash Girl.flac
71.207.226.46 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.230.67.200 61161 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
76.106.137.141 33912 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.252.25.93 50437 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.101.248.189 16076 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
68.63.112.223 26424 69-Cracker-Euro-Trash Girl.flac
98.211.89.34 45985 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.23.241.13 50364 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
66.229.199.147 55914 10-Cracker-Lonesome Johnny Blues.flac

Internet Exploitation, Not Just a Problem For Artists | Nick Lewis

Guest Post by Nick Lewis (Copyright in the Author)

Nick Lewis is a mastering engineer from Brighton, UK. Visit his website at www.brightonmastering.co.uk

Most talk about the exploitative internet is focused on artists. But they’re just the headline. Artists may be the front-line, the visible face, but the effects go much deeper.

Artists being paid less due to piracy, pay-what-you-like and advertising funded models has a direct effect on entire subsections of the economy. And these sectors serve as omens for the future of increasingly information-based economies like the UK.

The trickle-down effect

Think about everything that goes into making and releasing a record. Recording engineers, mixing engineers, mastering engineers, mixing desks, outboard, microphones, speakers, software, computers, pressing plants, their staff and equipment, blank stock manufacturers, distributors, warehouses, vans, drivers, PR agencies – the list goes on.

No one gets paid if no one buys the record.

I can’t count the number of times artists have promised to send a single/EP/album to me for mastering by a certain date only for that date to slip because they can’t get the money together. Very often it never materialises: they’ve given up and either forgone mastering, tried to do it themselves or got their hobbyist mate to do it. This isn’t good for me or the band.

The same goes for mixing. Probably 90% of everything I work on has been mixed by the artist themselves. And I’ll tell you something – you can immediately tell when something has come from a proper studio mixed by a proper mixing engineer. It’s night and day. Sure, sometimes it’s a conscious choice on the part of the band, but most of the time they just can’t afford to mix in a proper studio.

The fewer working studios there are, the less money spent on high-end equipment and the fewer techs can afford to keep working. You see where this is going.

Loss of expertise

 This isn’t just bad for people losing money. Less money means less investment which means lower quality. Fewer people can afford to make a living doing the things that make a difference to how a record sounds (for example).

Yes you can make a record on a laptop. But it won’t come close to Abbey Road. This is about time with experts where artists can concentrate on their art and not worry about anything else. This is about a level of technical knowledge, let alone appropriate acoustic spaces.

People can’t afford to take on apprentices like they used to. A lot of the top mixing and mastering engineers now work from private facilities at home. Eventually all these people will retire and their skills will go with them. The people that replace them will never have learnt from them, and very likely never had the money to invest in the same quality of equipment.

Soft skills are already suffering because there’s not enough money in it. People have to get day jobs and pursue them as a hobby or not at all. That means a lower quality end product.

Beyond music

 This isn’t just about music. It’s not even just about creative enterprises. The downward trajectory of price to zero will eventually affect anything transmittable in binary. Data, software: anything that can be distributed with a computer.

For countries like mine, the UK, which is increasingly moving towards an information based economy, where manufacturing is taking a backseat and media and services dominate – this can only spell disaster. When competition from open source projects, piracy and vastly under-priced international alternatives hits everything from financial services to software development we will have nothing left to sell.

Free market fallacy

The internet has provided the mechanism for the biggest, fastest, unregulated free market the world has ever seen. And its sheer size is exposing the flaws in the system.

The free market theory is that competition will drive price down, which is good for the consumer. Adam Smith couldn’t possibly have predicted what would happen in the face of intangible, easily copyable assets and hyper-globalisation. The trend towards zero is not good for the consumer in the long-term as the quality of product degrades or disappears altogether along with the skills and supportive infrastructure that go into it.

A sustainable internet isn’t just about ensuring musicians and artists get paid fairly for their work, it’s about protecting our economies. Further, it’s about choosing what kind of a world we want to live in.

The French (among others) have a fixed book price agreement, recently extended to include e-books, to protect their publishing industry. The net effect is 2,500+ book shops in France, while the UK sector, left to laissez faire, dwindles. This is a direct expression of the value placed on literature in France – both in itself and as an economic sector. It’s also an example of the kind of measure we need to fight for online. As musicians queue up to descry the new business models of the digital economy, it’s clear the ‘invisible hand’ isn’t working for artists, listeners or the jobs and skills that depend on both.

This isn’t just about art. Art is just the beginning. This is about restoring the link between price and value in an information economy.

“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!

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/