But Mommy, I’m Special! The Internet Society Wants to Punch Your Nose and Commoditize You Without Your Permission

The solution to issues facing artists and creators on the internet can be summed up in two words, consent and compensation. Those opposed to these two very simple things are those who are profiting by exploiting the artists and creators who seek it. Read on.

Music Technology Policy

“It’s really important that we protect the rights of really good looking people in this society,”

Attorney Andrew Bridges of Fenwick & West (frequently representing Google) quoted at Beautiful Person Derek Khanna’s SXSW Panel

_________________________________

This rather stunning bit of Googley sarcasm from the frequently-Googley litigator Mr. Bridges sums up the geek view of the world.  The Rich and Smart should win over The Beautiful and Famous.  (That he said it on a panel with one deemed to be of the 50 Most Beautiful Men on Capitol Hill and who is seemingly doing everything in his power to be famous–Mr. Khanna–does have a certain irony.)

But whatever the sarcasm and whatever the irony, Mr. Bridges apparently places himself in the conga line of those who believe that the Internet is “special”.  And nowhere is this “we’re special, screw off” more apparent than in the wandering Internet Society Issues…

View original post 1,675 more words

by Trichordist Editor

Fixing the Digital Economy by Jaron Lanier | The New York Times

Insightful commentary in the New York Times from Technologist, Inventor, Author Jaron Lanier. Both of Jaron Lanier’s books are recommended on the Trichordist Bookshelf.

TWO big trends in the world appear to contradict each other.

On the one hand, computer networks are said to be disrupting centralized power of all kinds and giving it to the individual. Customers can bring corporations to their knees by tweeting complaints. A tiny organization like WikiLeaks can alarm the great powers with nothing but encryption and net access. Young Egyptians can organize a nearly instant revolution with their mobile phones and the Internet.

But then there’s the other trend. Inequality is soaring in rich countries around the world, not just the United States. Money from the top 1 percent has flooded our politics. The job market in America has been hollowed out; unpaid internships are common and “entry-level” jobs seem to last a lifetime, while technical and management posts become ever more lucrative. The individual appears to be powerless in the face of tough prospects.

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE NEW YORK TIMES HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/opinion/sunday/fixing-the-digital-economy.html

by trichordist

Time and Cost of Making an Album Case Study: NIRVANA

Excellent review and insight into the current of state of album recording:

By the time it was done, Nevermind ended up costing double what was originally planned: about $130,000 and one full month of work. (And that still doesn’t include the full producer and mixer’s rates, which would have come in part from royalties on the few albums like this one that did take off.)

Although a $130,000 bill might seem exorbitant by the scorched-earth standards of today’s music industry, at the time, it was actually a pretty modest budget for a multi-platinum release.

Consider for a moment that so far, Nevermind has sold 25 million copies in the US alone. That’s a huge return on investment. It makes Nevermind more profitable for everyone involved than a dozen or so Bleaches, upfront costs be damned.

(In fact, as much as we like to point and laugh at the big flops, these larger-budget releases are actually more likely to break even, not less. The label’s original hope was that Nevermind would sell 500,000 copies — an achievable goal that still would have easily covered these recording costs and more.)

To make an album of this sound quality today, you could probably get away with spending a bit less. But not by as much as you might think. My best estimate is that $30,000-$60,000 could get this record made in a similar kind of room with comparable recording talent. This assumes that a pretty decent studio, coupled with an somewhat established producer that has actually worked on a few records you love, will run an average of $1,000 – $2,000/day in 2013.

The costs have dropped a bit— not because the equipment costs that much less, but simply because the paying market for recorded music has shrunk so significantly.

READ THE FULL POST AT TRUST ME I’M A SCIENTIST:
http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013/06/03/time-and-cost-of-making-an-album-case-study-nirvana/

by trichordist

Tim Westergren’s Mask Is Slipping: Pandora’s Scorched Earth Attack on Songwriters

Music Technology Policy

In yet another disastrous act of misguided desperation, Pandora announced that they purchased a radio station in Rapid City, South Dakota.  That’s not South San Francisco, it’s South Dakota–1500 miles away.

Why did they buy that station?  To somehow try to bootstrap themselves into the most important thing in their miserable lives–paying songwriters less.  (And artists will be next.)

Pandora has no connection to South Dakota, much less Rapid City–and that’s not why the FCC grants licenses to radio station owners.  But in the world of media concentration perfected by Pandora’s running buddies Clear Channel, buying a radio station in a city you have no connection to for purposes not related to proper use of the public airwaves to benefit the citizens of Rapid City is just business as usual.  Send in the Silicon Valley lawyers with the IPO checkbook to screw the songwriters whatever the cost.

Just…

View original post 146 more words

by thetrichordist

Uncertainty, Copyright and Courage by Paul Williams

On Wednesday, June 5th, ASCAP President and Chairman Paul Williams delivered a powerful keynote to attendees of the CISAC World Creators Summit in DC. He spoke passionately and pointedly about what it means to be a creator in today’s challenging digital environment.

This excerpt of the talk touches on one of many well made points.

Literature, music and art have value to individuals, to businesses and to countries. They open our hearts and minds. They inspire. They teach. They comfort. They drive economic growth and innovation. They define our time; they define our cultures; they bring us together.

So then, why are we now in the position of having to defend ourselves against the insidious erosion of the basic principles of copyright in so many parts of the world?

Intellectual property rights are a cornerstone of democracy. As a citizen, a creator and a consumer, I should have a reasonable expectation that I live in a society where thieves and outlaws are not allowed to run rampant – even when they are operating in cyberspace. But when lawmakers in North America and Europe tried to enact legislation that would help enforce laws against online fraud and theft, the technology sector said it would break the internet. They called it censorship.

Creators are in the business of free expression. Freedom of speech is about political speech, it is not about protecting fraud or theft. They trivialized what free speech means. Forces that want to control and diminish the value of our work for their own economic benefit are systematically attacking the rights of creators. They are methodically attacking the validity of copyright laws. They are building their businesses in a way that makes enforcement of our copyrights next to impossible.

The hope that creative work will pay off for the author, composer, filmmaker or photographer if it becomes successful is no longer a given. Fair payment has become another profound uncertainty in the professional life of every creator. This is true for people at the top of their game, and especially so for those just starting out. This is true globally – not just in the United States, in Canada, in the European Union – all over the world.

PLEASE READ THE FULL KEYNOTE ADDRESS HERE AT ASCAP:
http://www.ascap.com/playback/2013/06/action/uncertainty_copyright_and_courage.aspx

by Trichordist Editor

DMCA Safe Harbor is NOT a “License to Infringe”

Thanks to Music Tech Policy for alerting us to this post from The Association of Independent Music Publishers:

Apparently, some internet users interpret the DMCA “safe harbor,” which is designed to strike a balance between copyright and technology, as something quite different, a “license” to post anything you like, even if you know it is infringing, unless and until the copyright owner complains.

The distinction may seem small, but it may represent how the general public regards copyright on the internet.  Instead of avoiding infringement and respecting copyright, the concept of the “DMCA License” is that you don’t have to respect copyright.  Do what you like, and at the worst the copyright owner might force your ISP to remove the material.

There is no such thing as a “DMCA License” because under the DMCA, copyright owners are not in any way consenting to unauthorized use.  They are simply trying to keep up with the millions of infringements, using what the law gives them to work with.

READ THE FULL POST HERE:
http://www.aimp.org/copyrightCorner/8/The_DMCA_License

by Trichordist Editor

Google in Spotlight for Links to Criminal Websites… Again…

Just like groundhog’s day for Google… Here we go… Again…

“On every check we have made, Google’s search engine gave us easy access to illegal goods including websites which offer dangerous drugs without a prescription, counterfeit goods of every description, and infringing copies of movies, music, software and games,” said Attorney General Hood.  “This behavior means that Google is putting consumers at risk and facilitating wrongdoing, all while profiting handsomely from illegal behavior.”

If reading this triggers a sense of deja vu, don’t worry– you’re not crazy.  Less than 2 years ago, in August of 2011, Google agreed to a 500 million dollar settlement with the U.S. Justice Department over online advertisements for illegal Canadian pharmacies.

READ THE FULL POST AT VOX INDIE:
http://voxindie.org/google-links-to-criminal-websites-under-scrutiny

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN READING:
Google, Advertising, Money and Piracy. A History of Wrongdoing Exposed.

AND:
ADWEEK : “Ad Industry Takes Major Step to Fight Online Piracy”… Again…

by Trichordist Editor

New models, huh?

YouTube’s biggest partners are learning there’s nothing innovative in the exploitation of labor. David Newhoff at The Illusion of More offers this insight…

…the first and most important story is this one about YouTube’s biggest producing partners coming to realize that their revenue doesn’t exactly coincide with increases in viewership.

I can’t say I was surprised to read, “These partners feel that YouTube’s business approach enriches YouTube without making them nearly as wealthy.”  Presumably, this is simply a failure of the partners to embrace the new model of “you make product, we make money.”

READ THE FULL POST HERE AT THE ILLUSION OF MORE:
http://illusionofmore.com/new-models/

YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY:
So Much For Innovation, YouTuber’s Meet The New Boss…

by Trichordist Editor

“Fair Trade Music” Initiative Launched

FROM THE PRESS RELEASE:

For the first time in music industry history, over 25,000 songwriters and composers from nearly fifty countries throughout Europe, North America, South America, and Africa have joined together to form a new, wholly independent advocacy Network for music creators. Its immediate goal will be the championing of a set of Fair Trade Music Principles designed to ensure transparency, fair compensation, and autonomy for music creators in an increasingly complex and non-transparent music business landscape.

The Fair Trade Music Principles are as follows:

1. FAIR COMPENSATION — Music business models must be built on principles of fair and sustainable compensation for music creators.

2. TRANSPARENCY–International standards must be developed and adopted that ensure efficient and transparent management of rights and revenues derived from the use of our works. These standards must apply to all entities that license such rights, and which collect and/or distribute such revenues.

3. RECAPTURE OF OUR RIGHTS–Music Creators must have the ability to recapture the rights to their works in a time frame no greater than 35 years, as is currently available to songwriters, composers and artists in the United States. The effect of recapture of rights must apply globally.

4. INDEPENDENT MUSIC CREATOR ORGANIZATIONS–Music Creators must have their own independent entities that advocate for, educate and provide knowledgeable support for members of their community, including aspiring songwriters, composers and artists. Music Creators speak for themselves, not through those with interests in conflict with them.

5. FREEDOM OF SPEECH–Music Creators must be free to speak, write and communicate without fear of censorship, retaliation or repression in a manner consistent with basic human rights and constitutional principles.

READ MORE HERE:
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130604-903736.html

YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY:
Principles for an Ethical and Sustainable Internet

by Trichordist Editor

The Tech Industry is a “Special Interest” too!

Vox Indie’s Ellen Seidler points out that the Tech Industry is a special interest too in response to Derek Khanna’s assertion that “Hollywood” or rather the musicians, artists, filmmakers, photographers and other creators are a “special interest” who should not have a voice in how the fruits of their own labor are monetized and exploited, and by whom.

Let us not forget that these are rights not just granted by the United States Constitution but also in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948.

Derek Khanna argues that the special interest that is the elite Silicon Valley internet and tech businesses who profit from exploiting artists should be making the rules. Fancy that, self serving, self interests for profit hungry corporations the size of a nation states wanting to make their own rules over the proceeds from individual labor.

Mr. Khanna gives readers a list of examples that, to him, demonstrate why copyright law is bad for creators and industry innovators alike. Why’s that a problem? Well, it’s a problem because, as is often the case with the copy-left, he doesn’t see fit to talk to tell the full story as to how crucial copyright protection is for those whose livelihoods depend on content creation. Khanna lists Hank Shocklee of Public Enemy, as an example of an artist constrained by current copyright law, but fails to mention that while Shocklee is a musician, he’s known for work often derived from sampling the work of others. His situation is not exactly representative of all artists, musical or otherwise, who have a stake in this debate.

Why not talk to some 45% of professional musicians who are no longer working in large part because our current copyright law is flouted by today’s digital pirate profiteers? Why not make mention of the independent filmmakers whose innovations are routinely stolen and monetized by bootleggers and online thieves?

READ THE FULL POST HERE AT VOX INDIE:
http://voxindie.org/Derek-Khanna-one-sided-copyright-reform

YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY:
Derek Khanna is Wrong: Copyleft Mystery Man’s Misleading Memo Creates its Own Myths…

Time For Silicon Valley To Grow Up And Take Responsibility For Their Online Advertising Business Model.

by Trichordist Editor