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/

“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!

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