I am pleased to be finding some new Australian political music as part of my thesis research and preparation for my new radio show. I really love the song ‘The King is Dead’ by The Herd which is about former Prime Minister John Howard being voted out of office. The interesting point to note is the need for contextual relevance. Like many political tracks this one is not only relevant to a particular geographic location but also likely to be relevant to that audience for a short period of time. In twelve months the music itself will still be excellent but as time moves on the lyrics will date.
If you’re not already aware of the song go to their MySpace page and listen to it.
Further Reading
The Herd, MySpace <http://www.myspace.com/runningwiththeherd>
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Music with a Message: Week 1
I’ve been planning my first week of songs for my new community radio show and thought to share the playlist with you. I have been experiencing first hand how difficult it is to locate political music when you really want to - it’s not impossible to find but not readily available as a discrete category of music. Between my own music collection, eMusic and the odd iTunes purchase I have been accumulating quite a few new and excellent tracks. My ideas for next weekend look like this:
Julian Lennon - Salt Water
John Butler Trio - Treat Your Mama & The Gov Did Nothing
Pink - Mr President
NoFX - Franco Un-American
Green Day - American Idiot
Yothu Yindi - Treaty
The Get Up Mob - From Little Things Big Things Grow
Blue King Brown - One Day & Stand Up
Bob Marley - Get Up Stand Up
Ben Harper - With My Own Two Hands
Billy Bragg – Ideology & Days Like These
This is a good mix of music addressing the misuse of power by governments, the environment, apathy, indigenous rights, and the need to be politically motivated. I particularly like Pink’s Dear Mr President – the version I have is sung with the Indigo Girls.
Julian Lennon - Salt Water
John Butler Trio - Treat Your Mama & The Gov Did Nothing
Pink - Mr President
NoFX - Franco Un-American
Green Day - American Idiot
Yothu Yindi - Treaty
The Get Up Mob - From Little Things Big Things Grow
Blue King Brown - One Day & Stand Up
Bob Marley - Get Up Stand Up
Ben Harper - With My Own Two Hands
Billy Bragg – Ideology & Days Like These
This is a good mix of music addressing the misuse of power by governments, the environment, apathy, indigenous rights, and the need to be politically motivated. I particularly like Pink’s Dear Mr President – the version I have is sung with the Indigo Girls.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
ISP Filtering in Australia
I wrote earlier this year about the Australian Governments proposed ISP filtering scheme and out lined a number of very good reasons as to why this is extremely bad policy. Yesterday, over six months after I wrote to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, I received an unsatisfactory response.
The letter states:
A key part of the Government’s plan to make the internet a safer place for children is the introduction of ISP level filtering. Filtering would cover illegal and prohibited content using an expanded ACMA black list of prohibited sites, which includes images of the sexual abuse of children.
Consideration is being given to more sophisticated filtering techniques for those families who wish to exclude other online content.
The Government’s ISP filtering policy is being developed through an informed and considered approach, including an AMCA laboratory trial, extensive industry consultation, and close examination of overseas models to assess their suitability for Australia. A real world ‘live’ pilot involving ISPs and their customers will follow the laboratory trial.
The Government is committed to working closely with the industry to address any concerns, including costs and internet speeds. These concerns will be carefully considered during the pilot and will inform the Government’s cyber-safety policy.
To comment on these statements – firstly the government’s ISP filtering plan will not make children safer. As I outlined both in my letter to the Minister and the related blog post, filtering is an imperfect technology, there are many ways for content producers to get around the attempts to restrict material and any filtering scheme will simply initiate an arms race where each side will constantly try out do the other. This leads to enormous ongoing maintenance costs which in the end will be put back on the consumer without ever achieving the desired results.
The second of the above paragraphs provides further concern. Whilst the Government to date has not gone down the path of filtering content other than that which is deemed offensive, the prospect of filtering other content raises serious questions. Filtering in any form posses a significant threat to free speech, diversity, neutrality and democracy.
It is interesting that the Government refers to the process as being ‘informed and considered’ particularly as previous inquiries on exactly the same topic found that ISP level filtering was ineffective, expensive and ultimately unjustified. A real space trial proposed by the Howard Government was abandoned after the major telecommunications carriers refused to participate.
Further statements from Senator Conroy’s letter do little to ease my concerns:
The Government regards freedom of speech as very important and the Government’s cyber-safety policy is in no way designed to curtail this...
[W]hile the internet has created substantial benefits for children, it has also exposed them to a number of dangers, including exposure to offensive content. As such parents rightly expect the Government to play its part in the protection of children online.
The Government’s actions and policy do very little to reflect a genuine concern for free speech. Regardless of how the try to justify it on this occasion, it nonetheless remains the first step on a slippery slope to censorship.
Furthermore, attempting to use parental concerns as the basis for introducing ISP filtering is erroneous. The most recent survey on this matter, conducted by the Government’s own Australian Communications and Media Authority, found that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children’s safety on the internet. Reponses suggested a range of techniques being implemented including keeping computers in open spaces in their house, reviewing the history of web pages visited, sitting with and monitoring their children’s use and browser filtering.
It seems more likely to me that the Government made a rash and sensationalistic policy statement during the election designed to secure the votes of swinging conservatives. One can only question whether, in the face of an adverse report on this proposal out of their own inquiry, the Government would have the strength to resist the pull of a minority of conservative voters.
Further Reading
ABC News, Govt sticks to guns on internet porn filters (6 March 2008) <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/06/2181828.htm> at 26 June 2008
Australian Media and Communications Authority, Media and Communications in Australian Families (17 December 2007) <http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310893> at 10 March 2008
The letter states:
A key part of the Government’s plan to make the internet a safer place for children is the introduction of ISP level filtering. Filtering would cover illegal and prohibited content using an expanded ACMA black list of prohibited sites, which includes images of the sexual abuse of children.
Consideration is being given to more sophisticated filtering techniques for those families who wish to exclude other online content.
The Government’s ISP filtering policy is being developed through an informed and considered approach, including an AMCA laboratory trial, extensive industry consultation, and close examination of overseas models to assess their suitability for Australia. A real world ‘live’ pilot involving ISPs and their customers will follow the laboratory trial.
The Government is committed to working closely with the industry to address any concerns, including costs and internet speeds. These concerns will be carefully considered during the pilot and will inform the Government’s cyber-safety policy.
To comment on these statements – firstly the government’s ISP filtering plan will not make children safer. As I outlined both in my letter to the Minister and the related blog post, filtering is an imperfect technology, there are many ways for content producers to get around the attempts to restrict material and any filtering scheme will simply initiate an arms race where each side will constantly try out do the other. This leads to enormous ongoing maintenance costs which in the end will be put back on the consumer without ever achieving the desired results.
The second of the above paragraphs provides further concern. Whilst the Government to date has not gone down the path of filtering content other than that which is deemed offensive, the prospect of filtering other content raises serious questions. Filtering in any form posses a significant threat to free speech, diversity, neutrality and democracy.
It is interesting that the Government refers to the process as being ‘informed and considered’ particularly as previous inquiries on exactly the same topic found that ISP level filtering was ineffective, expensive and ultimately unjustified. A real space trial proposed by the Howard Government was abandoned after the major telecommunications carriers refused to participate.
Further statements from Senator Conroy’s letter do little to ease my concerns:
The Government regards freedom of speech as very important and the Government’s cyber-safety policy is in no way designed to curtail this...
[W]hile the internet has created substantial benefits for children, it has also exposed them to a number of dangers, including exposure to offensive content. As such parents rightly expect the Government to play its part in the protection of children online.
The Government’s actions and policy do very little to reflect a genuine concern for free speech. Regardless of how the try to justify it on this occasion, it nonetheless remains the first step on a slippery slope to censorship.
Furthermore, attempting to use parental concerns as the basis for introducing ISP filtering is erroneous. The most recent survey on this matter, conducted by the Government’s own Australian Communications and Media Authority, found that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children’s safety on the internet. Reponses suggested a range of techniques being implemented including keeping computers in open spaces in their house, reviewing the history of web pages visited, sitting with and monitoring their children’s use and browser filtering.
It seems more likely to me that the Government made a rash and sensationalistic policy statement during the election designed to secure the votes of swinging conservatives. One can only question whether, in the face of an adverse report on this proposal out of their own inquiry, the Government would have the strength to resist the pull of a minority of conservative voters.
Further Reading
ABC News, Govt sticks to guns on internet porn filters (6 March 2008) <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/06/2181828.htm> at 26 June 2008
Australian Media and Communications Authority, Media and Communications in Australian Families (17 December 2007) <http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310893> at 10 March 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Developing the Australasian Creative Commons: Conference Notes
This week I attended the Developing the Australasian Creative Commons conference held at the Queensland State Library in Brisbane. Whilst there were a number of excellent speakers canvassing a wide range of topics including the use of CC licenses in education, libraries, government and private industry; today I am reporting back on two sessions that I found to be very interesting. The first is a presentation given by Sebastian Chan from the Powerhouse Museum and the second is the roundtable discussion relating to the developments in the music industry.
Powerhouse Museum
Readers of my blog will recall a post from earlier this year relating to the Powerhouse Museums decision to open up access to the Tyrrell photographic collection by adding it to the Flickr Commons.
Sebastian Chan gave an excellent presentation in which he discussed the Museum’s experiences through the course of this venture. He noted in particular that the collection, prior to its release on Flickr had received around 31,000 views in a 12 month period. In the first month it was made available on Flickr this number of views had been reached with over 40,000 views in four weeks. Now that the collection has been available for eleven weeks the total number of views has reached 86,000. This is a fantastic result for a public domain collection and certainly an excellent illustration of how technology can deliver access to works that by rights should be made freely and openly available to the public.
Another interesting point from Sebastian’s talk related to the need for museums to adapt to the digital age, particularly given that much of their income in the past has depended on people paying to access works, many of which are already within the public domain. He considered there to be some way to go in redeveloping business models and a need to lobby governments further to ensure that income streams are replaced rather than lost.
He also noted how the use of creative commons licenses and technology platforms such as the Flickr Commons can create complications for organisations that must report usage and access statistics. He noted that since the collection had been uploaded to the site that some of the material had been copied to Wikimedia Commons. Whilst legally this is not problematic it does pose problems for the museum as they need to report how many times the material has been viewed.
In all, it was an enjoyable and inspiring presentation. Those who have not yet viewed the Tyrrell collection can access it here and here.
An Orchestra of Millions
The second session I wish to mention today is the presentations made relating to developments in the music industry.
Professor Julian Knowles from the Queensland University of Technology made mention of the difficulties recording artists have recouping money from record contracts and discussed the need to change their business structure to focus on live performances.
He discussed the recent example (May 2008) of The Whitlams who gave away 700,000 CDs as part of a newspaper promotion and how many bands were now incorporating ‘free’ into their business model in order to attract listeners and recoup funds from other sources.
He suggested that the fragmentation of the market has led to the development of many more sole trader or small business structures rather than the tendency to develop big name artists. He suggested that a base audience for the average artist or group was now around 20,000 with the aim of getting around $10.00 from each to sustain the creation of works on a professional basis.
He also discussed the difficult situation created by copyright law and considered remixing and sampling unviable due to license costs and the time it takes to get permission to use exisitng creations.
Professor Knowles also made reference to the commonality of file sharing and questioned whether there are opportunities for it to be monetised and the need to embrace the principle that the more something it is used the more it is worth.
Andrew Garton from Secession Records also spoke in relation to sampling and remixing. He explained his involvement in ‘generative compositions’ and spoke of personal experience in composing music with dozens to hundreds of samples. In particular he spoke of an incident where he had attended a live performance of a UK sound artists who had scanned (illegally) the airwaves surrounding the venue. Garton obtained a copy of the performance from a friend, separated and uploaded the ‘sound fonts’ (small sections of the performance) only to later be threatened by the artist for breach of copyright despite the performance itself having been illegally produced.
More recently he has worked in the screen cultural sector. As part of Arts Law Week one year he held a competition in which teams had to create a short film of up to two minutes. One team had to produce the film lawfully and the other had to produce it illegally. The lawyer acting as the judge of the competition found that those who had produced the illegal film would most likely have been covered by the parody and satire provisions in the Copyright Act and were thus likely to have produced a lawful work, where as those that had been required to produce the work lawfully appeared to have breached copyright law multiple times. This illustrates both the irony and difficulties for creators in ensuring the legality of their creations.
Yunyu is a musician, originally from Singapore, who won an unearthed competition four years ago. Now, in Sydney, she commented on the lack of respect for copyright law in many Asian countries and suggested that in Singapore copyright law is taken as ‘the right to make copies’. She commented on her experience and the reasons why she uses CC Licenses to allow others to share her music and how she makes money from other sources such as merchandising. She also raised the issue, similar to that raised by Billy Bragg recently, about how new technology platforms such as MySpace were gaining wealth, particularly through advertising, without the funds being equitably distributed to the artists who contribute their content to the sites.
Paul Draper is a Professor at Griffith University and the Qld Conservatorium who made a very interesting observation about the difference between music and sound recordings suggesting that the distinction has been lost and needs to be re-established to assist the public in revaluing compositions as creations. He spoke particularly about the Fete de la musique held in Brisbane recently and how many musicians participated but none were paid and yet all the technical equipment such as lighting and sound systems had to be paid for.
Scott Morris from APRA also spoke about technology platforms such as MySpace and YouTube as new entrants to the music value chain. He noted the move toward the advertising support model for many of these services and commented that this was an old business model simply applied to new environments. For APRA he suggested that the digital music environment has produced some excitement as the amount of tracks has increased exponentially with them now having to catalogue a much broader range of compositions. He suggested that the wording of the creative commons licenses still posses some problems and is not yet compatible with some of the objectives of the collection society.
Each speaker brought a different perspective to the conference and made valid points on the changes currently taking place in the music industry. It was an interesting session and produced a lively debate between the panellists.
Jamendo
In my post earlier in the week I mentioned that one of the speakers at this conference was to be Sylvain Zimmer Chief Technology Officer from Jamendo. He did not attend in the end, however I am soon to be sent out a copy of the conference proceedings in which there is up to date material relation to Jamendo. I hope to be able to make a post on this shortly.
Further Reading
Powerhouse Museum, Tyrrell Collection <http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/tyrrell/> at 25 June 2008
Flickr Commons <http://www.flickr.com/commons> at 25 June 2008
The Whitlams, Lets Give Away 700,000 Albums (28 May 2008) <http://www.thewhitlams.com/NEWS/default.asp> at 25 June 2008
TechDirt, It's Not Exploitation If You Chose To Take Part (24 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080322/142342625.shtml> at 3 April 2008
Fete de la musique <http://fetedelamusique.culture.fr/87_English.html> at 25 June 2008
Powerhouse Museum
Readers of my blog will recall a post from earlier this year relating to the Powerhouse Museums decision to open up access to the Tyrrell photographic collection by adding it to the Flickr Commons.
Sebastian Chan gave an excellent presentation in which he discussed the Museum’s experiences through the course of this venture. He noted in particular that the collection, prior to its release on Flickr had received around 31,000 views in a 12 month period. In the first month it was made available on Flickr this number of views had been reached with over 40,000 views in four weeks. Now that the collection has been available for eleven weeks the total number of views has reached 86,000. This is a fantastic result for a public domain collection and certainly an excellent illustration of how technology can deliver access to works that by rights should be made freely and openly available to the public.
Another interesting point from Sebastian’s talk related to the need for museums to adapt to the digital age, particularly given that much of their income in the past has depended on people paying to access works, many of which are already within the public domain. He considered there to be some way to go in redeveloping business models and a need to lobby governments further to ensure that income streams are replaced rather than lost.
He also noted how the use of creative commons licenses and technology platforms such as the Flickr Commons can create complications for organisations that must report usage and access statistics. He noted that since the collection had been uploaded to the site that some of the material had been copied to Wikimedia Commons. Whilst legally this is not problematic it does pose problems for the museum as they need to report how many times the material has been viewed.
In all, it was an enjoyable and inspiring presentation. Those who have not yet viewed the Tyrrell collection can access it here and here.
An Orchestra of Millions
The second session I wish to mention today is the presentations made relating to developments in the music industry.
Professor Julian Knowles from the Queensland University of Technology made mention of the difficulties recording artists have recouping money from record contracts and discussed the need to change their business structure to focus on live performances.
He discussed the recent example (May 2008) of The Whitlams who gave away 700,000 CDs as part of a newspaper promotion and how many bands were now incorporating ‘free’ into their business model in order to attract listeners and recoup funds from other sources.
He suggested that the fragmentation of the market has led to the development of many more sole trader or small business structures rather than the tendency to develop big name artists. He suggested that a base audience for the average artist or group was now around 20,000 with the aim of getting around $10.00 from each to sustain the creation of works on a professional basis.
He also discussed the difficult situation created by copyright law and considered remixing and sampling unviable due to license costs and the time it takes to get permission to use exisitng creations.
Professor Knowles also made reference to the commonality of file sharing and questioned whether there are opportunities for it to be monetised and the need to embrace the principle that the more something it is used the more it is worth.
Andrew Garton from Secession Records also spoke in relation to sampling and remixing. He explained his involvement in ‘generative compositions’ and spoke of personal experience in composing music with dozens to hundreds of samples. In particular he spoke of an incident where he had attended a live performance of a UK sound artists who had scanned (illegally) the airwaves surrounding the venue. Garton obtained a copy of the performance from a friend, separated and uploaded the ‘sound fonts’ (small sections of the performance) only to later be threatened by the artist for breach of copyright despite the performance itself having been illegally produced.
More recently he has worked in the screen cultural sector. As part of Arts Law Week one year he held a competition in which teams had to create a short film of up to two minutes. One team had to produce the film lawfully and the other had to produce it illegally. The lawyer acting as the judge of the competition found that those who had produced the illegal film would most likely have been covered by the parody and satire provisions in the Copyright Act and were thus likely to have produced a lawful work, where as those that had been required to produce the work lawfully appeared to have breached copyright law multiple times. This illustrates both the irony and difficulties for creators in ensuring the legality of their creations.
Yunyu is a musician, originally from Singapore, who won an unearthed competition four years ago. Now, in Sydney, she commented on the lack of respect for copyright law in many Asian countries and suggested that in Singapore copyright law is taken as ‘the right to make copies’. She commented on her experience and the reasons why she uses CC Licenses to allow others to share her music and how she makes money from other sources such as merchandising. She also raised the issue, similar to that raised by Billy Bragg recently, about how new technology platforms such as MySpace were gaining wealth, particularly through advertising, without the funds being equitably distributed to the artists who contribute their content to the sites.
Paul Draper is a Professor at Griffith University and the Qld Conservatorium who made a very interesting observation about the difference between music and sound recordings suggesting that the distinction has been lost and needs to be re-established to assist the public in revaluing compositions as creations. He spoke particularly about the Fete de la musique held in Brisbane recently and how many musicians participated but none were paid and yet all the technical equipment such as lighting and sound systems had to be paid for.
Scott Morris from APRA also spoke about technology platforms such as MySpace and YouTube as new entrants to the music value chain. He noted the move toward the advertising support model for many of these services and commented that this was an old business model simply applied to new environments. For APRA he suggested that the digital music environment has produced some excitement as the amount of tracks has increased exponentially with them now having to catalogue a much broader range of compositions. He suggested that the wording of the creative commons licenses still posses some problems and is not yet compatible with some of the objectives of the collection society.
Each speaker brought a different perspective to the conference and made valid points on the changes currently taking place in the music industry. It was an interesting session and produced a lively debate between the panellists.
Jamendo
In my post earlier in the week I mentioned that one of the speakers at this conference was to be Sylvain Zimmer Chief Technology Officer from Jamendo. He did not attend in the end, however I am soon to be sent out a copy of the conference proceedings in which there is up to date material relation to Jamendo. I hope to be able to make a post on this shortly.
Further Reading
Powerhouse Museum, Tyrrell Collection <http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/tyrrell/> at 25 June 2008
Flickr Commons <http://www.flickr.com/commons> at 25 June 2008
The Whitlams, Lets Give Away 700,000 Albums (28 May 2008) <http://www.thewhitlams.com/NEWS/default.asp> at 25 June 2008
TechDirt, It's Not Exploitation If You Chose To Take Part (24 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080322/142342625.shtml> at 3 April 2008
Fete de la musique <http://fetedelamusique.culture.fr/87_English.html> at 25 June 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Wicked Website: M.U.S.E.
I came across the website for Musicians United to Save the Environment recently and was excited to read about this organisation and their endeavours. MUSE is a non profit association set up and run my musicians interested in protecting the environment.
They release compilations of music, sell merchandising and hold live performances, directing the profits to fund environmental protection and sustainability projects within the United States.
The have a list of over twenty organisations they have supported so far on their website. Most recently they helped to fund the 18th annual Heartwood Forest Council which they describe as the ‘largest annual gathering of citizens from across the Eastern, Midwestern, and Southern United States’ who care about the health and well-being of their nation's forests.
In describing the birth of the organisation, Walkin’ Jim Stoltz states:
When I first proposed the idea for a non-profit organization to Craig Wagner in January of 1997, I saw a group of concerned musicians coming together to release a series of compilations benefiting various environmental causes. I felt that our community of eco-musicians could make a better, organized impact in helping some of the small non-profits that do so much good with so little funding. In my travels as a touring musician I work a lot with groups that give 200%. They’ve got heart and soul volunteers that dedicate much of their free time to the cause of protecting the Planet. Why not put music to work to help these kind(s) of organizations?
This is fantastic example of musicians working together to support political action. The artists involved often gather inspiration from the environment around them and issues relating to the preservation of natural resources. Music as an art form helps to educate others and as a commodity can be used to raise funds and provide financial assistance to organisations working toward a sustainable future.
More Information
M.U.S.E. <http://www.musemusic.org/index.php?pr=Home_Page> at23 June 2008
M.U.S.E. Music Makes a Difference Blog <http://www.musemusic.org/index.php?pr=Music_Makes_A_Difference> at 23 June 2008
They release compilations of music, sell merchandising and hold live performances, directing the profits to fund environmental protection and sustainability projects within the United States.
The have a list of over twenty organisations they have supported so far on their website. Most recently they helped to fund the 18th annual Heartwood Forest Council which they describe as the ‘largest annual gathering of citizens from across the Eastern, Midwestern, and Southern United States’ who care about the health and well-being of their nation's forests.
In describing the birth of the organisation, Walkin’ Jim Stoltz states:
When I first proposed the idea for a non-profit organization to Craig Wagner in January of 1997, I saw a group of concerned musicians coming together to release a series of compilations benefiting various environmental causes. I felt that our community of eco-musicians could make a better, organized impact in helping some of the small non-profits that do so much good with so little funding. In my travels as a touring musician I work a lot with groups that give 200%. They’ve got heart and soul volunteers that dedicate much of their free time to the cause of protecting the Planet. Why not put music to work to help these kind(s) of organizations?
This is fantastic example of musicians working together to support political action. The artists involved often gather inspiration from the environment around them and issues relating to the preservation of natural resources. Music as an art form helps to educate others and as a commodity can be used to raise funds and provide financial assistance to organisations working toward a sustainable future.
More Information
M.U.S.E. <http://www.musemusic.org/index.php?pr=Home_Page> at23 June 2008
M.U.S.E. Music Makes a Difference Blog <http://www.musemusic.org/index.php?pr=Music_Makes_A_Difference> at 23 June 2008
Building the Australasian Creative Commons
Tomorrow I am planning to attend the Building the Australasian Creative Commons conference on at the State Library in Brisbane. I am particularly excited about the session called ‘An Orchestra of Millions’ with one of the speakers being Sylvain Zimmer, Founder and Chief Technical Officer of Jamendo. Jamendo currently have 10,000 published albums all under creative commons licenses.
Creative Commons was started by Professor Lawrence Lessig from Stanford University, San Francisco. Much like the licenses used by the free software movement, creative commons developed a series of licenses which creators can attach to their works enabling a wider range of uses than would otherwise be possible under copyright law. Among other options, creators may elect to allow freedoms such as: open sharing of their works, sharing for non commercial purposes, and may specify whether attribution is required. The purpose of this is to ensure the exchange of creative works and to allow creators the opportunity to sample without the need to obtain permission from the copyright holder.
In his text, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity Lessig explains the concept of a free culture (at pg xiv):
A free culture supports and protects creators and innovators. It does this directly by granting intellectual property rights. But it does so indirectly by limiting the reach of those rights, to guarantee that follow-on creators and innovators remain as free as possible from the control of the past... The opposite of a free culture is a permission culture – a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators form the past.
The conference in Brisbane will provide:
...an opportunity for those interested in the free internet to come together to exchange ideas, information and inspiration. It brings together experts from Australasia to discuss the latest developments and implementations of Creative Commons in the region. It aims to be an open forum where anyone can voice their thoughts on issues relating to furthering the commons worldwide.
More information including the conference program can be found at the Australian Creative Commons website.
Later in the week I hope to blog about my attendance and let you know about all the exciting information and ideas that follow from this ‘meeting of the minds’.
Further Reading
Creative Commons Australia: http://www.creativecommons.org/
Professor Lawrence Lessig: http://www.lessig.org/
Jamendo: http://www.jamendo.com/
Creative Commons was started by Professor Lawrence Lessig from Stanford University, San Francisco. Much like the licenses used by the free software movement, creative commons developed a series of licenses which creators can attach to their works enabling a wider range of uses than would otherwise be possible under copyright law. Among other options, creators may elect to allow freedoms such as: open sharing of their works, sharing for non commercial purposes, and may specify whether attribution is required. The purpose of this is to ensure the exchange of creative works and to allow creators the opportunity to sample without the need to obtain permission from the copyright holder.
In his text, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity Lessig explains the concept of a free culture (at pg xiv):
A free culture supports and protects creators and innovators. It does this directly by granting intellectual property rights. But it does so indirectly by limiting the reach of those rights, to guarantee that follow-on creators and innovators remain as free as possible from the control of the past... The opposite of a free culture is a permission culture – a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators form the past.
The conference in Brisbane will provide:
...an opportunity for those interested in the free internet to come together to exchange ideas, information and inspiration. It brings together experts from Australasia to discuss the latest developments and implementations of Creative Commons in the region. It aims to be an open forum where anyone can voice their thoughts on issues relating to furthering the commons worldwide.
More information including the conference program can be found at the Australian Creative Commons website.
Later in the week I hope to blog about my attendance and let you know about all the exciting information and ideas that follow from this ‘meeting of the minds’.
Further Reading
Creative Commons Australia: http://www.creativecommons.org/
Professor Lawrence Lessig: http://www.lessig.org/
Jamendo: http://www.jamendo.com/
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Song of The Moment: Dukes of Windsor - It's a War
UPDATED: The Melbourne group Dukes of Windsor have released a new single titled ‘Its A War’ with lyrics that clearly refer to the futility of war - ‘All for none and none for all, Its a War’. Jesse Hughes from Eagles of Death Metal is the guest vocalist on the track.
The single is available as a free download from their website. There is also a YouTube competition to make an alternative video clip. The Grand prize is a day at their next video shoot, the opportunity to meet the band and CDs and DVDs of Universal music releases. Five runners up will also win the CDs and DVDs .
The band have what appears to be the official version of their film clip available on their MySpace page but it does little to inform the viewer of their interpretation of the lyrics. Although dressed in army greens, predominantly the clip features the band members running through the snow and having a snow ball fight with each other. There is a short section in which they run past a child doing a painting and throw red and yellow at each other which could be analogous for war particularly as red paint is left in the snow. The clip ends with one of the band members running into a shack and closing the door only to re-open it seemingly surprised that the others did not make it there.
In my opinion this clip lets down what might otherwise be a powerful political song. The song has (sound) samples of marching both at the beginning and at the end but the clip itself does little to depict war or to inform the audience of what appears to be the underlying message to the lyrics. Its a very safe clip indeed.
The YouTube competition was announced on their website on the 4 June 2008 and so far there are not many entries however if you have time check out the video uploaded by Hottidownunda1, do. This is a fantastic clip which provides a much better illustration of the sentiments of the song.
Another entry to the competition by eggplantboy7 encourages a war against pathetic Hollywood Films – perhaps someone might be inspired to upload a clip about the war on file sharing.
Both of these entries use images that would be subject to copyright protection in Australia (although may well be within the Fair Use provisions of the USA Copyright Act). Australians could not lawfully make these clips despite this clearly being a non commercial use. It is also arguable that just downloading clips which contain images that are protected by copyright in Australia is a breach of the law and possible that the band may be seen as authorising a breach of copyright by holding the competition.
This further illustrates why Australian copyright law is out of step with the every day use of creative works and inhibits creativity. It would be interesting to know if Universal music actually take steps to see whether the entrants are from the USA, Australia or another jurisdiction.
More Information
Dukes of Windsor website: <http://www.dukesofwindsor.com.au/>
Dukes of Windsor MySpace: <http://www.myspace.com/dukesofwindsor>
Dukes of Windsor YouTube Competition: http://www.youtube.com/group/itsawar
Triple J, Duke Of Windsor blame triple j for Jesse Hughes cameo (18 April 2008) <http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/musicnews/s2221236.htm> at 22 June 2008
TechDirt, Is Watching An Infringing YouTube Video Copyright Infringement? (16 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080514/1736121116.shtml> at 21 May 208
CNet News, Legal liability for YouTube viewers (19 May 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9936833-46.html> at 23 June 2008
The single is available as a free download from their website. There is also a YouTube competition to make an alternative video clip. The Grand prize is a day at their next video shoot, the opportunity to meet the band and CDs and DVDs of Universal music releases. Five runners up will also win the CDs and DVDs .
The band have what appears to be the official version of their film clip available on their MySpace page but it does little to inform the viewer of their interpretation of the lyrics. Although dressed in army greens, predominantly the clip features the band members running through the snow and having a snow ball fight with each other. There is a short section in which they run past a child doing a painting and throw red and yellow at each other which could be analogous for war particularly as red paint is left in the snow. The clip ends with one of the band members running into a shack and closing the door only to re-open it seemingly surprised that the others did not make it there.
In my opinion this clip lets down what might otherwise be a powerful political song. The song has (sound) samples of marching both at the beginning and at the end but the clip itself does little to depict war or to inform the audience of what appears to be the underlying message to the lyrics. Its a very safe clip indeed.
The YouTube competition was announced on their website on the 4 June 2008 and so far there are not many entries however if you have time check out the video uploaded by Hottidownunda1, do. This is a fantastic clip which provides a much better illustration of the sentiments of the song.
Another entry to the competition by eggplantboy7 encourages a war against pathetic Hollywood Films – perhaps someone might be inspired to upload a clip about the war on file sharing.
Both of these entries use images that would be subject to copyright protection in Australia (although may well be within the Fair Use provisions of the USA Copyright Act). Australians could not lawfully make these clips despite this clearly being a non commercial use. It is also arguable that just downloading clips which contain images that are protected by copyright in Australia is a breach of the law and possible that the band may be seen as authorising a breach of copyright by holding the competition.
This further illustrates why Australian copyright law is out of step with the every day use of creative works and inhibits creativity. It would be interesting to know if Universal music actually take steps to see whether the entrants are from the USA, Australia or another jurisdiction.
More Information
Dukes of Windsor website: <http://www.dukesofwindsor.com.au/>
Dukes of Windsor MySpace: <http://www.myspace.com/dukesofwindsor>
Dukes of Windsor YouTube Competition: http://www.youtube.com/group/itsawar
Triple J, Duke Of Windsor blame triple j for Jesse Hughes cameo (18 April 2008) <http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/musicnews/s2221236.htm> at 22 June 2008
TechDirt, Is Watching An Infringing YouTube Video Copyright Infringement? (16 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080514/1736121116.shtml> at 21 May 208
CNet News, Legal liability for YouTube viewers (19 May 2008) <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9936833-46.html> at 23 June 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Wicked Websites: BlueKingBrown
In addition to the Song of the Moment segment I started last week I have decided to also add another ongoing category of posts, which for want of a better term, I will be calling Wicked Websites.
I was watching my favourite TV show last night (I don’t watch a lot of television but this one is a must for anyone who hasn’t seen it…) Spicks and Specks is a music quiz show on Australia’s ABC. Each week they have four guests – two for each team plus two team captains, who battle it out for the glory of having answered the most music trivia questions.
Last night they had Natalie Pa'apa'a on who is the lead singer of BlueKingBrown and she gave a short example of a song they are recording for their new album. The band started out busking on the streets of Byron Bay (not far from where I live) and are known for their very politically motivating music. Natalie explained that lyrics, regardless of the message within them, can never communicate or produce social change unless there is that initial reaction and identification with melody, rhythm or some other element of the music.
I have been scouring the ABC website to find a clip from last night but so far not much luck. However, a quick visit to Blue King Brown’s website site demonstrates a lot about the types of political issues they are interested in and often write about.
They have activism pages dedicated to the: Environment, Indigenous Affairs, NGO’s & Aid Work, Radical Laws Policies and Political Issues, Activism Through Art, Food & Produce, Indy Media, Fair Trade, So No to Nuclear Weapons, and In Our Region: East Timor.
I have loved their music for a long time and it forms some of the core music I refer to and use as a bench mark when considering my ‘scale of political music’ – it is most certainly up the end of ‘most political’.
Take a good look around their site, listen to some of their music (they have a few clips on YouTube which look to have been uploaded by the band) and as they say: Educate Yourself, Inform Your Networks, Act Now!
Further Reading:
ABC, Spicks and Specks: <http://www.abc.net.au/tv/spicksandspecks/default.htm> at 19 June 2008
BlueKingBrown: <http://www.bluekingbrown.com/index.html > at 19 June 2008
BlueKingBrownTV: <http://www.youtube.com/user/bluekingbrownTV> at 19 June 2008
I was watching my favourite TV show last night (I don’t watch a lot of television but this one is a must for anyone who hasn’t seen it…) Spicks and Specks is a music quiz show on Australia’s ABC. Each week they have four guests – two for each team plus two team captains, who battle it out for the glory of having answered the most music trivia questions.
Last night they had Natalie Pa'apa'a on who is the lead singer of BlueKingBrown and she gave a short example of a song they are recording for their new album. The band started out busking on the streets of Byron Bay (not far from where I live) and are known for their very politically motivating music. Natalie explained that lyrics, regardless of the message within them, can never communicate or produce social change unless there is that initial reaction and identification with melody, rhythm or some other element of the music.
I have been scouring the ABC website to find a clip from last night but so far not much luck. However, a quick visit to Blue King Brown’s website site demonstrates a lot about the types of political issues they are interested in and often write about.
They have activism pages dedicated to the: Environment, Indigenous Affairs, NGO’s & Aid Work, Radical Laws Policies and Political Issues, Activism Through Art, Food & Produce, Indy Media, Fair Trade, So No to Nuclear Weapons, and In Our Region: East Timor.
I have loved their music for a long time and it forms some of the core music I refer to and use as a bench mark when considering my ‘scale of political music’ – it is most certainly up the end of ‘most political’.
Take a good look around their site, listen to some of their music (they have a few clips on YouTube which look to have been uploaded by the band) and as they say: Educate Yourself, Inform Your Networks, Act Now!
Further Reading:
ABC, Spicks and Specks: <http://www.abc.net.au/tv/spicksandspecks/default.htm> at 19 June 2008
BlueKingBrown: <http://www.bluekingbrown.com/index.html > at 19 June 2008
BlueKingBrownTV: <http://www.youtube.com/user/bluekingbrownTV> at 19 June 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
BMR Music Survey
It was only yesterday that I was looking through all the articles I have collected on file sharing statistics and thinking that it had been some time since a survey had been conducted specifically highlighting the music sharing behaviour of people across age groups. Then last night I read of the British Music Rights ‘Music Experience and Behaviour in Young People’ survey. This is certainly worth a look and provides an excellent insight into the music buying and sharing habits of 773 people and covers the age groups of 14-17, 18-24 and 25+.
Some of the more interesting conclusions include that there are two aspects to a listeners relationship with music – the first being the emotional attachment they have to the music and the artists, and the second being the desire to explore and experiment with new music. Other aspects of the findings are unsurprising, particularly the suggestion that sharing and copying are culturally endemic and that much of the value associated with music is currently unmonetised.
Here is a breakdown of some of the results:
Some of the more interesting conclusions include that there are two aspects to a listeners relationship with music – the first being the emotional attachment they have to the music and the artists, and the second being the desire to explore and experiment with new music. Other aspects of the findings are unsurprising, particularly the suggestion that sharing and copying are culturally endemic and that much of the value associated with music is currently unmonetised.
Here is a breakdown of some of the results:
- Sixty percent of the money each person spent was on music was in relation to concerts (scarce goods) with forty percent being spent on recorded music (non scarce goods).
- A very small percentage of people said they spent money on subscription services with CDs, digital downloads and second hand music all being more popular.
- The average mp3 collection consisted of 1770.98 tracks but it is not clear whether this includes or is separate from the average CD collection reported later in the survey as being around 100 CDs.
- If going to a desert island (presumably one with power) 73% suggested they would take their music collection .
Statistics specifically relating to downloading music include:
- Sixty three percent of respondents download music illegally and on average this equates to 53 tracks per month.
- The top three reasons for downloading include because it is free; to find rare or unreleased material; and to try before purchasing.
- Just over twenty percent of those that download refuse to upload (leeching) but the reasons given don’t make a lot of sense – the most common reason was fear of a virus, security risk or because of pop-ups.
- The reasons given for uploading reflect what Lawrence Lessig refers to as ‘social norms’ – the vast majority of up loaders (around 70%) do so because they wish to return the favour to others.
- Eighty percent of respondents expressed support for a legal file-sharing service.
Overall fifty six percent of respondents suggested that companies who profit by allowing others to share music should pay a music license – presumably this refers to file sharing services however no information is given as to whether respondents thought that these companies were failing to seek these licenses (Limewire, Kazaa, eDonkey, the original Napster and others have all sought reasonable licensing terms from the record labels). Ninety percent of respondents said that this money should go to composers, musicians and performers with no mention of record labels (who are actually more commonly the copyright holders).
There are also some interesting statistics relating to copyright awareness, perceptions of legality and sources of information on the law which provide interesting reading.
Whilst certainly indicative of the general population and a reasonable sample size, the report issued does not provide raw data, details of the questions asked or methodology which would aid in its comprehension. Nonetheless it does provide a detailed illustration of the consumption and exposure to music of the average British citizen.
Further Reading
British Music Rights, Music Experience and Behaviour in Young People: Main Findings and Conclusions (Spring 2008) <http://www.bmr.org/cms/uploads/files/UoH%20Reseach%202008.pdf> at 18 June 2008
ArsTechnica, Survey: young people happy to pay for music—on their terms (16 June 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080616-survey-young-adults-willing-to-pay-for-musicon-their-terms.html> at 18 June 2008
The Register, 80% want legal P2P - survey (16 June 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/bmr_music_survey/> at 17 June 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Song of the Moment: The Offspring – Hammerhead
I downloaded a copy of the new The Offspring track this afternoon called Hammerhead. This song, which is being made available as a free mp3 download from their site, has a great beat and strong lyrics.
The first time I read the lyrics I instantly thought 'this is an anti war song' but on second take they could be open to a wider interpretation. The lyrics refer to the hammering of war, questions where it will end and makes reference to others hiding behind their desks. However in other parts of the song the lyrics refer to the taking of a life so that ten others might live, suggesting that this is just the way it goes - I think this is sarcasim but others might see it as a justification for war.
They have also announced a YouTube video clip contest for US residents. Fan created clips for the Hammerhead track can be uploaded to their YouTube group with instructions to:
Be creative. Be current. Be literal. Be abstract. Use your own self-shot/documentary footage. Find the right footage for your voice. Share your experiences. Use this as another way to tell your own story. Whatever makes sense to you to make the best video you can.
The band will select from the top rated videos with the following prizes:
Grand Prize Winner: $10,000 (picked by band)
Most Viewed Submission: $3000
Most Favourited Submission: $2000
Entries are being accepted until the 24 June 2008 – see their website for more details.
More information
The Offspring <http://www.offspring.com/>
The Offspring, Hammerhead Video Contest Announcement <http://www.offspring.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Offspring.woa/wa/news?newsID=437018> at 17 June 2008
The first time I read the lyrics I instantly thought 'this is an anti war song' but on second take they could be open to a wider interpretation. The lyrics refer to the hammering of war, questions where it will end and makes reference to others hiding behind their desks. However in other parts of the song the lyrics refer to the taking of a life so that ten others might live, suggesting that this is just the way it goes - I think this is sarcasim but others might see it as a justification for war.
They have also announced a YouTube video clip contest for US residents. Fan created clips for the Hammerhead track can be uploaded to their YouTube group with instructions to:
Be creative. Be current. Be literal. Be abstract. Use your own self-shot/documentary footage. Find the right footage for your voice. Share your experiences. Use this as another way to tell your own story. Whatever makes sense to you to make the best video you can.
The band will select from the top rated videos with the following prizes:
Grand Prize Winner: $10,000 (picked by band)
Most Viewed Submission: $3000
Most Favourited Submission: $2000
Entries are being accepted until the 24 June 2008 – see their website for more details.
More information
The Offspring <http://www.offspring.com/>
The Offspring, Hammerhead Video Contest Announcement <http://www.offspring.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Offspring.woa/wa/news?newsID=437018> at 17 June 2008
Police ‘n’ Copyrights
There have been three interesting stories about the relationship between police and copyrights on the internet in recent times and I thought to bring them to your attention as an illustration of how (even the most) average of people can sometimes run into trouble when it comes to copyright law.
The first example concerns the South Australian Police who had their IT system audited earlier this year. The auditor found the prevalence of copyright films on the network to be so wide spread that disciplinary action was not taken. According to reports in The Australian:
HUNDREDS of police officers across South Australia caught using their work computers to illegally copy movie DVDs will escape prosecution. The activity - strictly banned under federal copyright laws - was detected during an audit conducted by the information technology branch of SA Police.
In Sweden recent reports have also highlighted the fact that one of the police who investigated and conducted the raids on the Pirate Bay actually entered into a contract with Warner Music during the course of the investigation - bringing the validity and impartiality of the whole investigation into question.
More recently in the UK, the PRS (Performing Rights Society) accused 34 police stations of failing to pay the license fees for the playing of music in a place open to the public – namely the police stations.
These examples, whilst in different jurisdictions and different in nature, nonetheless contribute to a wider perception, particularly held by the youth, that copyright law is out of date with current social behaviour and therefore not deserving of compliance. This is demonstrated by statistics which continually highlight the fact that file sharing is primarily undertaken by young people despite the ongoing education campaigns and publicity relating to file sharing lawsuits.
When young people are unable to indentify with the basis for laws many are likely to not only react against those laws but inevitably other unrelated laws as well. Disrespect for one set of laws therefore contributes to a fracturing of the wider social order.
When those in positions of authority do not comply, this furthers perceptions that the law is out of step and when they are not reprimanded or held accountable for their actions this leads to a perception of hypocrisy and mistrust.
To maintain social cohesion, there is a basic need for the majority of the population to comply with rules. In order to do this the general population must know of these rules, understand them and develop appropriate patterns of behaviour. One of the key arguments given against the present copyright regime is that these laws are so far from current social standards that they breed disrespect for the law.
Further Reading
TechDirt, Australian Police: Cracking Down On Piracy... Except When The Police Are The Pirates (8 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/100432788.shtml> at 17 June 2008
The Australian, DVD piracy too rife among police to prosecute (7 April 2008) <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23495134-5006787,00.html> ay 17 June 2008
TechDirt, Warner Music Admits It Hired Police Investigator Before The Pirate Bay Investigation Was Complete (5 June 2008)
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080605/1646031320.shtml> at 17 June 2008
TechDirt, UK Police Accused Of Violating Copyright By Listening To Music In Police Stations (12 June 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080612/1158191390.shtml> at 17 June 2008
TorrentFreak, Police Chief Faces High Court Anti-Piracy Action (12 June 2008) <http://torrentfreak.com/police-chief-faces-high-court-anti-piracy-action-120608/> at 17 June 2008
This Is Lancashire, Lancashire Police face music over copyright (12 June 2008) <http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/lancashirenews/display.var.2336965.0.lancashire_police_face_music_over_copyright.php> at 17 June 2008
The NPD Group, Consumers Acquire More Music in 2007, But Spend Less (26 February 2008) <http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_080226a.html> at 27 February 2008
Digital Music News, Piper Jaffray Study Indicates Lowered Teenage Swapping (12 October 2007) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/101107study> at 15 October 2007
Slyck, P2P Downloading Still a Top Choice for Kids (30 January 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1651_P2P_Downloading_Still_a_Top_Choice_for_Kids> at 31 January 2008
The Age, 95% of music downloads are illegal (25 January 2008) <http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/95-of-music-downloads-are-illegal/2008/01/24/1201025084723.html> at 31 January 2008
Slyck, P2P Downloads Crush iTunes/Digital Sales 20:1 (24 January 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1642_P2P_Downloads_Crush_iTunesDigital_Sales_201> at 31 January 2008
The first example concerns the South Australian Police who had their IT system audited earlier this year. The auditor found the prevalence of copyright films on the network to be so wide spread that disciplinary action was not taken. According to reports in The Australian:
HUNDREDS of police officers across South Australia caught using their work computers to illegally copy movie DVDs will escape prosecution. The activity - strictly banned under federal copyright laws - was detected during an audit conducted by the information technology branch of SA Police.
In Sweden recent reports have also highlighted the fact that one of the police who investigated and conducted the raids on the Pirate Bay actually entered into a contract with Warner Music during the course of the investigation - bringing the validity and impartiality of the whole investigation into question.
More recently in the UK, the PRS (Performing Rights Society) accused 34 police stations of failing to pay the license fees for the playing of music in a place open to the public – namely the police stations.
These examples, whilst in different jurisdictions and different in nature, nonetheless contribute to a wider perception, particularly held by the youth, that copyright law is out of date with current social behaviour and therefore not deserving of compliance. This is demonstrated by statistics which continually highlight the fact that file sharing is primarily undertaken by young people despite the ongoing education campaigns and publicity relating to file sharing lawsuits.
When young people are unable to indentify with the basis for laws many are likely to not only react against those laws but inevitably other unrelated laws as well. Disrespect for one set of laws therefore contributes to a fracturing of the wider social order.
When those in positions of authority do not comply, this furthers perceptions that the law is out of step and when they are not reprimanded or held accountable for their actions this leads to a perception of hypocrisy and mistrust.
To maintain social cohesion, there is a basic need for the majority of the population to comply with rules. In order to do this the general population must know of these rules, understand them and develop appropriate patterns of behaviour. One of the key arguments given against the present copyright regime is that these laws are so far from current social standards that they breed disrespect for the law.
Further Reading
TechDirt, Australian Police: Cracking Down On Piracy... Except When The Police Are The Pirates (8 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/100432788.shtml> at 17 June 2008
The Australian, DVD piracy too rife among police to prosecute (7 April 2008) <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23495134-5006787,00.html> ay 17 June 2008
TechDirt, Warner Music Admits It Hired Police Investigator Before The Pirate Bay Investigation Was Complete (5 June 2008)
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080605/1646031320.shtml> at 17 June 2008
TechDirt, UK Police Accused Of Violating Copyright By Listening To Music In Police Stations (12 June 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080612/1158191390.shtml> at 17 June 2008
TorrentFreak, Police Chief Faces High Court Anti-Piracy Action (12 June 2008) <http://torrentfreak.com/police-chief-faces-high-court-anti-piracy-action-120608/> at 17 June 2008
This Is Lancashire, Lancashire Police face music over copyright (12 June 2008) <http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/lancashirenews/display.var.2336965.0.lancashire_police_face_music_over_copyright.php> at 17 June 2008
The NPD Group, Consumers Acquire More Music in 2007, But Spend Less (26 February 2008) <http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_080226a.html> at 27 February 2008
Digital Music News, Piper Jaffray Study Indicates Lowered Teenage Swapping (12 October 2007) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/101107study> at 15 October 2007
Slyck, P2P Downloading Still a Top Choice for Kids (30 January 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1651_P2P_Downloading_Still_a_Top_Choice_for_Kids> at 31 January 2008
The Age, 95% of music downloads are illegal (25 January 2008) <http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/95-of-music-downloads-are-illegal/2008/01/24/1201025084723.html> at 31 January 2008
Slyck, P2P Downloads Crush iTunes/Digital Sales 20:1 (24 January 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1642_P2P_Downloads_Crush_iTunesDigital_Sales_201> at 31 January 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Back In The 80s
This week I am due to start volunteering at my local community radio station (2NCR). In my interview last week I expressed my desire to work with the programming team in the hope that one day I will be able to start a program of my own dedicated to discussing and listening to music of a protest/social justice/environmental nature.
I was very pleased to find the “In the 80’s” website the other day and thought to bring to your attention the very detailed list they have of protest/cold war music from that era. Unfortunately the related 1970’s and 1990’s sites don’t have the same type of list.
This will be something of a focus for me for the next few years so its exciting to find such a comprehensive list and certainly a good start to this aspect of my project.
Sally
Further Reading
In the 80s, Songs from the Cold War from the 80s
<http://www.inthe80s.com/coldwar.shtml> at 13 June 2008
In the 80s, Greatest Eighties Protest Songs
<http://www.inthe80s.com/protest.shtml> at 13 June 2008
Wikipedia, Protest Music (13 June 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_music> at 13 June 2008
I was very pleased to find the “In the 80’s” website the other day and thought to bring to your attention the very detailed list they have of protest/cold war music from that era. Unfortunately the related 1970’s and 1990’s sites don’t have the same type of list.
This will be something of a focus for me for the next few years so its exciting to find such a comprehensive list and certainly a good start to this aspect of my project.
Sally
Further Reading
In the 80s, Songs from the Cold War from the 80s
<http://www.inthe80s.com/coldwar.shtml> at 13 June 2008
In the 80s, Greatest Eighties Protest Songs
<http://www.inthe80s.com/protest.shtml> at 13 June 2008
Wikipedia, Protest Music (13 June 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_music> at 13 June 2008
The Burden and Standard of Proof
When a case is brought before a court the party pursing the matter and seeking the courts intervention is said to carry the burden of proof. For file sharing lawsuits this burden is, at least in theory, placed on the record labels seeking to establish that the defendant has downloaded works that are subject to copyright.
The standard of proof refers to the level of evidence required to establish their claim. Most people are aware that the standard of proof in a criminal case is ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ but not many are aware that in civil cases, where the penalty is purely financial damages, the standard of proof is lower – the labels need only satisfy the court that it is ‘more probable than not’ that a defendant has broken the law.
There have been numerous articles and court cases in a number of jurisdictions which have brought into question both the burden and standard of proof for copyright infringement for the use of file sharing software.
The burden of proof, whilst in theory is placed on the plaintiff (the person seeking the remedy), in practice it often falls on the defendant to displace allegations. While the record labels, through their contracting third parties, provide the court with ‘evidence’ of file sharing, many defendants have had to provide additional evidence to counter claims of infringement. One such case was that of Tanya Andersen who sought the courts assistance in having the hard drive of her computer forensically examined in order to prove that no infringing files had ever been on it.
However it is the standard of proof which is more commonly questioned in the context of these lawsuits and which, by necessity, often triggers the need for defendants to make positive moves to establish their innocence.
Most recently researchers at the University of Washington found that inanimate objects such as printers could be identified as file sharers using the investigation methods that the contracting parties of the record labels use. Indeed, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the methods used to track and identify copyright infringers are fallible – to the extent where one may very well question whether the standard of evidence provided can demonstrate that a defendant has, more probably than not, infringed copyright. There is a big difference between what is possible and what is probable.
In an Amicus Curiae Brief submitted by Professors of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society in the case of Capitol Records Inc et. al v Noor Alaujun, in the Massachusetts District Court, a number of evidentiary problems were identified in relation to individual law suits including errors identifying materials, as well as errors identifying users such as incorrect IP addresses and the identification of incorrect ISP accounts.
The technical nature of tracking and establishing the identity of file sharers is one factor which produces this level of uncertainty and difficulties for the courts. Judges typically do not have the technical background or level of understanding to be able to question or indentify the inherent deficiencies of the evidence that is presented before them. What many fail to realise is that regardless of the investigation methods employed, there is no way of ever determining who was at which computer terminal at a certain time. This is a particular problem for those who share a house, including families.
There have been a number of cases which have acknowledged the deficiencies of the evidence presented before the courts. One of the most definitive was heard in Canada where the Judge held that the evidence presented which included IP addresses of the defendants was insufficient to establish that they were responsible for downloading music and thus refused to order the ISPs to disclose the identities of the alleged file sharers.
Similarly in many European jurisdictions a criminal case must be commenced in order to gain access to the IP addresses of individuals accused of file sharing. This is because the legislators, through their various privacy regimes, require a higher standard of proof be met before disclosure is seen to be justifiable.
In the United States, however, there has been no case in which problems with the method of investigation or standard of proof has been directly considered. Numerous cases nonetheless have been withdrawn, more commonly at the last minute, when the accused has been able to provide evidence displacing the claim.
In UMG v Lindor the accused was a 58 year old widow who has never used the computer of her late husband; in other cases the person with the internet account has been accused of file sharing when other people in the house were responsible; in BMG v Thao the person accused of file sharing was not a customer of the ISP in question at the time of the investigation; in the Ward case the defendant was accused of using Kazaa which was only available for Windows when she used an Apple Macintosh computer; in the Chan case the mother was able to displace claims of file sharing only to have fresh claims lodged against her daughter. More recently in the Cassin case the record labels have withdrawn their claim because they are unable to indentify which person in the house was using the computer at the time of the infringement.
For those with the means to challenge the subpoena process there is the opportunity to displace this evidence albeit at a large cost to themselves both financially and in time. For many others, however, who do not have the means to challenge the process adopted by the record labels this is nothing short of injustice. The legal representatives of the record labels have now officially adopted a scheme whereby the amount of damages sought from an ‘accused’ are increased the longer it takes for them to settle the claim and so what results is nothing short of a perversion of the legal system.
An excellent discussion of these and related issues is given by the Electronic Frontiers Foundation paper: EFF, RIAA v. the People: Four Years Later report (August, 2007) <http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf> at 2 September 2007
Further Reading
BMG Canada Inc, et al v John Doe, Jane Doe and all those persons who are infringing copyright in the plaintiffs’ sound recordings 2004 FC 488
BMG Canada Inc, et al v John Doe, Jane Doe and all those persons who are infringing copyright in the plaintiffs’ sound recordings 2005 FCA 193
BusinessWeek, Does She Look Like a Music Pirate? (24 April 2008) <http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/08_18/b4082042959954.htm> at 30 April 2008
EFF Deeplink, Laser Printers Found Guilty of "Making Available" Crimes (5 June 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/laser-printers-found-guilty-making-available-crime> at 13 June 2008
ZeroPaid, U of Chicago Professor Questions RIAA's Use of IP Addresses in Lawsuits (17 July 2007) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8909/U+of+Chicago+Professor+Questions+RIAA%27s+Use+of+IP+Addresses+in+Lawsuits> at 22 July 2007
TechDirt, Are The RIAA's Investigation Techniques Illegal? (26 June 2007) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070626/010102.shtml> at 1 July 2007
The Berkman Center/Digital Media Project, P2p Music Downloading – Brief of Amicus Curiae Reviewing Fact and Law (24 May 2004) <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/uploads/352/amicusbrief.pdf> in <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/capitol_amicus> at 8 June 2006
RecordingIndsutry v ThePeopleBlog, Prof. Johan Pouwelse Agrees To Take on the RIAA's Expert (14 May 2007) <http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/05/prof-johan-pouwelse-agrees-to-take-on.html> at 29 May 2007
ArsTechnica, Study paints grim picture of automated P2p enforcement (5 June 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080605-study-paints-grim-picture-of-automated-dmca-notice-accuracy.html> at 6 June 2008
The Recording Industry v The People Blog, RIAA Drops Another Case In Chicago Against Misidentified Defendant (3 May 2007) <http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/05/riaa-drops-another-case-in-chicago.html> at 16 June 2008
New York Times/ CNet News.com, Judge: File sharing legal in Canada (31 March 2004) <http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1027_3-5182641.html> at 1 April 2004
P2p Blog, German court: P2P lawsuits are unconstitutional (21 June 2008) <http://www.p2p-blog.com/index.php?itemid=696> at 15 June 2008
ArsTechnica, Battle brewing over MediaSentry's subpoena stonewalling (5 March 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080305-battle-brewing-over-mediasentrys-subpoena-stonewalling.html> at 6 March 2008
EFF Deep Links, Innocent RIAA Defendant Fights Back, Wins $70,000 Fee Award (17 July 2007) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005363.php> at 28 July 2007
CNet News, RIAA’s case of mistaken identity? (24 September 2003) <http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5081469.html?tag=st_rn> at 14 February 2006
Recording Industry v The People Blog, Judge Denies Guardian Ad Litem Motion in Priority v Brittany Chan: RIAA Argues Brittany and Her Parents Should Pay to Have Guardian’s Fees (21 March) <http://recordongindustryvthepeople.blogspot.com/2006/03/judge-denies-guardian-ad-litem-motion.html> at 22 March 2006
ArsTechnica, Third time's the charm? RIAA tries end run around old case (13 June 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080613-third-times-the-charm-riaa-tries-end-run-around-old-case.html> at 15 June 2008
ZeroPaid, RIAA Must Pay $107,834 in Legal Fees (17 May 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9497/RIAA+Must+Pay+%24107%2C834+in+Legal+Fees> at 21 May 2008
The Register, RIAA ordered to shell out $100k for P2P witch hunt (15 May 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/15/tanya_andersen_attorneys_fees/> at 21 May 2008
ArsTechnica, RIAA doubles settlement cost for students fighting subpoenas (11 June 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080611-riaa-doubles-settlement-cost-for-students-fighting-subpoenas.html> at 13 June 208
EFF, RIAA v. the People: Four Years Later report (August, 2007) <http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf> at 2 September 2007
The standard of proof refers to the level of evidence required to establish their claim. Most people are aware that the standard of proof in a criminal case is ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ but not many are aware that in civil cases, where the penalty is purely financial damages, the standard of proof is lower – the labels need only satisfy the court that it is ‘more probable than not’ that a defendant has broken the law.
There have been numerous articles and court cases in a number of jurisdictions which have brought into question both the burden and standard of proof for copyright infringement for the use of file sharing software.
The burden of proof, whilst in theory is placed on the plaintiff (the person seeking the remedy), in practice it often falls on the defendant to displace allegations. While the record labels, through their contracting third parties, provide the court with ‘evidence’ of file sharing, many defendants have had to provide additional evidence to counter claims of infringement. One such case was that of Tanya Andersen who sought the courts assistance in having the hard drive of her computer forensically examined in order to prove that no infringing files had ever been on it.
However it is the standard of proof which is more commonly questioned in the context of these lawsuits and which, by necessity, often triggers the need for defendants to make positive moves to establish their innocence.
Most recently researchers at the University of Washington found that inanimate objects such as printers could be identified as file sharers using the investigation methods that the contracting parties of the record labels use. Indeed, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the methods used to track and identify copyright infringers are fallible – to the extent where one may very well question whether the standard of evidence provided can demonstrate that a defendant has, more probably than not, infringed copyright. There is a big difference between what is possible and what is probable.
In an Amicus Curiae Brief submitted by Professors of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society in the case of Capitol Records Inc et. al v Noor Alaujun, in the Massachusetts District Court, a number of evidentiary problems were identified in relation to individual law suits including errors identifying materials, as well as errors identifying users such as incorrect IP addresses and the identification of incorrect ISP accounts.
The technical nature of tracking and establishing the identity of file sharers is one factor which produces this level of uncertainty and difficulties for the courts. Judges typically do not have the technical background or level of understanding to be able to question or indentify the inherent deficiencies of the evidence that is presented before them. What many fail to realise is that regardless of the investigation methods employed, there is no way of ever determining who was at which computer terminal at a certain time. This is a particular problem for those who share a house, including families.
There have been a number of cases which have acknowledged the deficiencies of the evidence presented before the courts. One of the most definitive was heard in Canada where the Judge held that the evidence presented which included IP addresses of the defendants was insufficient to establish that they were responsible for downloading music and thus refused to order the ISPs to disclose the identities of the alleged file sharers.
Similarly in many European jurisdictions a criminal case must be commenced in order to gain access to the IP addresses of individuals accused of file sharing. This is because the legislators, through their various privacy regimes, require a higher standard of proof be met before disclosure is seen to be justifiable.
In the United States, however, there has been no case in which problems with the method of investigation or standard of proof has been directly considered. Numerous cases nonetheless have been withdrawn, more commonly at the last minute, when the accused has been able to provide evidence displacing the claim.
In UMG v Lindor the accused was a 58 year old widow who has never used the computer of her late husband; in other cases the person with the internet account has been accused of file sharing when other people in the house were responsible; in BMG v Thao the person accused of file sharing was not a customer of the ISP in question at the time of the investigation; in the Ward case the defendant was accused of using Kazaa which was only available for Windows when she used an Apple Macintosh computer; in the Chan case the mother was able to displace claims of file sharing only to have fresh claims lodged against her daughter. More recently in the Cassin case the record labels have withdrawn their claim because they are unable to indentify which person in the house was using the computer at the time of the infringement.
For those with the means to challenge the subpoena process there is the opportunity to displace this evidence albeit at a large cost to themselves both financially and in time. For many others, however, who do not have the means to challenge the process adopted by the record labels this is nothing short of injustice. The legal representatives of the record labels have now officially adopted a scheme whereby the amount of damages sought from an ‘accused’ are increased the longer it takes for them to settle the claim and so what results is nothing short of a perversion of the legal system.
An excellent discussion of these and related issues is given by the Electronic Frontiers Foundation paper: EFF, RIAA v. the People: Four Years Later report (August, 2007) <http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf> at 2 September 2007
Further Reading
BMG Canada Inc, et al v John Doe, Jane Doe and all those persons who are infringing copyright in the plaintiffs’ sound recordings 2004 FC 488
BMG Canada Inc, et al v John Doe, Jane Doe and all those persons who are infringing copyright in the plaintiffs’ sound recordings 2005 FCA 193
BusinessWeek, Does She Look Like a Music Pirate? (24 April 2008) <http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/08_18/b4082042959954.htm> at 30 April 2008
EFF Deeplink, Laser Printers Found Guilty of "Making Available" Crimes (5 June 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/laser-printers-found-guilty-making-available-crime> at 13 June 2008
ZeroPaid, U of Chicago Professor Questions RIAA's Use of IP Addresses in Lawsuits (17 July 2007) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8909/U+of+Chicago+Professor+Questions+RIAA%27s+Use+of+IP+Addresses+in+Lawsuits> at 22 July 2007
TechDirt, Are The RIAA's Investigation Techniques Illegal? (26 June 2007) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070626/010102.shtml> at 1 July 2007
The Berkman Center/Digital Media Project, P2p Music Downloading – Brief of Amicus Curiae Reviewing Fact and Law (24 May 2004) <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/uploads/352/amicusbrief.pdf> in <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/capitol_amicus> at 8 June 2006
RecordingIndsutry v ThePeopleBlog, Prof. Johan Pouwelse Agrees To Take on the RIAA's Expert (14 May 2007) <http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/05/prof-johan-pouwelse-agrees-to-take-on.html> at 29 May 2007
ArsTechnica, Study paints grim picture of automated P2p enforcement (5 June 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080605-study-paints-grim-picture-of-automated-dmca-notice-accuracy.html> at 6 June 2008
The Recording Industry v The People Blog, RIAA Drops Another Case In Chicago Against Misidentified Defendant (3 May 2007) <http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/05/riaa-drops-another-case-in-chicago.html> at 16 June 2008
New York Times/ CNet News.com, Judge: File sharing legal in Canada (31 March 2004) <http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1027_3-5182641.html> at 1 April 2004
P2p Blog, German court: P2P lawsuits are unconstitutional (21 June 2008) <http://www.p2p-blog.com/index.php?itemid=696> at 15 June 2008
ArsTechnica, Battle brewing over MediaSentry's subpoena stonewalling (5 March 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080305-battle-brewing-over-mediasentrys-subpoena-stonewalling.html> at 6 March 2008
EFF Deep Links, Innocent RIAA Defendant Fights Back, Wins $70,000 Fee Award (17 July 2007) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005363.php> at 28 July 2007
CNet News, RIAA’s case of mistaken identity? (24 September 2003) <http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5081469.html?tag=st_rn> at 14 February 2006
Recording Industry v The People Blog, Judge Denies Guardian Ad Litem Motion in Priority v Brittany Chan: RIAA Argues Brittany and Her Parents Should Pay to Have Guardian’s Fees (21 March) <http://recordongindustryvthepeople.blogspot.com/2006/03/judge-denies-guardian-ad-litem-motion.html> at 22 March 2006
ArsTechnica, Third time's the charm? RIAA tries end run around old case (13 June 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080613-third-times-the-charm-riaa-tries-end-run-around-old-case.html> at 15 June 2008
ZeroPaid, RIAA Must Pay $107,834 in Legal Fees (17 May 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9497/RIAA+Must+Pay+%24107%2C834+in+Legal+Fees> at 21 May 2008
The Register, RIAA ordered to shell out $100k for P2P witch hunt (15 May 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/15/tanya_andersen_attorneys_fees/> at 21 May 2008
ArsTechnica, RIAA doubles settlement cost for students fighting subpoenas (11 June 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080611-riaa-doubles-settlement-cost-for-students-fighting-subpoenas.html> at 13 June 208
EFF, RIAA v. the People: Four Years Later report (August, 2007) <http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf> at 2 September 2007
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Prince/Radiohead and YouTube
I have been reading with interest the recent tug of war and apparent misuse of the US Copyright Act by Prince with respect to his live performance of the Radiohead song Creep. Prince played this song at a concert and an audience member filmed part of the performance and posted it to YouTube. Prince’s label then used the DMCA to have the clip removed but Radiohead, the copyright owners of the song, sought for the clip to be reinstated:
Radiohead's Thom Yorke has reportedly objected to the takedown in a recent interview: "Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song."
Commentators have suggested that Prince’s actions were unlawful because while anti-bootlegging law may have been applicable, the DMCA take down procedure used to have the clip removed was not available as a remedy.
This raises an interesting distinction between Australian and US copyright law as recent amendments in this country would now allow an artist in a similar position as Prince to take action under Part XIA of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) with respect to the performance itself.
In Australia protection for performances was introduced in 2007. Among other rights, section 248G establishes the rights of an artist to control the direct and indirect recording of performances, the copying of performances, as well as communicating them to the public.
Section 248PA provides both an indictable and summary offence for the direct recording of a performance without the authority of the performer during the period of protection which is 20 years for a cinematograph work or 50 years for a sound recording, taken from the date the performance was first given.
A person found guilty of an indictable offence could be liable for up to 550 penalty units ($60,500) or five years imprisonment. A corporation found guilty of the same offence is potentially liable for five times this amount. The equivalent summary offence is punishable by 120 penalty units ($13,200) or 2 years imprisonment.
These rights are in addition to moral rights provided to performers in Part IX of the Copyright Act which relate to attribution, false attribution and integrity.
In a scenario such as this an injunction would be available to prevent a clip being communicated to the public against the wishes of the performer, the take down procedures relating to hosts of internet content would also be applicable. Whilst section 248G provides that the provisions relate to performances in Australia, section 248U and 248V see the protection also being offered to international artists when performances take place in Australia.
The division (XIA) of the Australian Copyright Act dealing with the protection of performances became effective when the Australian Government acceded to the WPPT – WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. While the laws had been drafted and placed in the Australian Copyright Act for quite some time they did not become effective until 26 July 2007.
Article 6 of the WPPT requires member countries to protect the economic rights of performers by enabling them to enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the broadcasting and communication of their performances to the public and the fixation of these performances.
Article 7 provides that performers shall have the exclusive right of reproducing their performances and Article 8 provides for the exclusive right to distribute the original and copies of performances. Moral rights are also afforded under the treaty under Article 5.
It is interesting to place this treaty in a discussion of the purpose of copyright law - namely the need to establish an environment which provides incentives for artists to create. Clearly in this instance the uploading of the Radiohead song was a non commercial use and arguably the clip would have produced greater interest in Prince’s live performances. Therefore suggestions that this clip breached Prince’s economic rights are difficult to sustain.
One report suggests that Prince was filming the live performance himself. Taking this into account it could be argued that seeking to have the clip removed from YouTube was a reasonable request, however, it is unlikely that a short clip such as this would have had a major impact on the sale of any forthcoming DVD.
This situation also serves to illustrate the complexity and expansion of intellectual property law.
Performer’s rights in general have been criticized as being both unnecessary and ineffective. Undoubtedly there were other singers, musicians and dancers performing this song with him. All of these artists would have had to contract away their rights in order to work with Prince.
Furthermore this situation demonstrates the difficulty in complying with the rights of composers, recording artists and performers when each is a different person. Luckily in the USA there are no moral rights – in Australia the situation would be even more complex than this.
Prince’s actions have created poor publicity for him and potentially damaged the goodwill he has developed with his fans. These types of events however do help bands such as Radiohead and others in the open content field by highlighting the potential to abuse DMCA takedown notices.
The general public are learning time and again of the potential for copyright law to impact on free speech. It's all a little bit creepy :-)
Further Reading
TechDirt, Even Lawyers Are Confused About What's Legal Or Not In The Prince/Radiohead Spat (12 June 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/1651401368.shtml> at 13 June 2008
TechDirt, Prince And Radiohead Fight Over YouTube Song (30 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/1507241271.shtml> at 4 June 2008
EFF Deeplinks, Prince Issues One Takedown Too Many (2 June 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/prince-issues-one-takedown-too-many> at 7 June 2008
ZeroPaid, Prince Removes Radiohead 'Creep' Cover From YouTube (31 May 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9524/Prince+Removes+Radiohead+%27Creep%27+Cover+from+YouTube> at 5 June 2008
TechDirt, Is Watching An Infringing YouTube Video Copyright Infringement? (16 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080514/1736121116.shtml> at 21 May 208
Billboard, Radiohead To Prince: Unblock 'Creep' YouTube Vids (30 May 2008) <http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003809963> at 13 June 2008
William van Caenegem, Intellectual Property (2nd ed.) 83- 84
WIPO, WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (20 December 1996) <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/trtdocs_wo034.html> at 15 June 2008
Attorney Generals Department, Australia to Join Internet Copyright Treaties (26 April 2007) http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/AllDocs/E8AC29AB4FF5A19FCA2572C9000F9A17?OpenDocument> at 10 May 2007
Australian Copyright Council, Government announces accession to WIPO Internet treaties (8 May 2007) <http://www.copyright.org.au/news/newsbytopic/u27462> at 10 May 2007
FreedomtoDiffer, Australia to Join Internet Copyright Treaties (26 April 2007) <http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2007/04/australia_to_jo.html> at 30 April 2007
Radiohead's Thom Yorke has reportedly objected to the takedown in a recent interview: "Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song."
Commentators have suggested that Prince’s actions were unlawful because while anti-bootlegging law may have been applicable, the DMCA take down procedure used to have the clip removed was not available as a remedy.
This raises an interesting distinction between Australian and US copyright law as recent amendments in this country would now allow an artist in a similar position as Prince to take action under Part XIA of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) with respect to the performance itself.
In Australia protection for performances was introduced in 2007. Among other rights, section 248G establishes the rights of an artist to control the direct and indirect recording of performances, the copying of performances, as well as communicating them to the public.
Section 248PA provides both an indictable and summary offence for the direct recording of a performance without the authority of the performer during the period of protection which is 20 years for a cinematograph work or 50 years for a sound recording, taken from the date the performance was first given.
A person found guilty of an indictable offence could be liable for up to 550 penalty units ($60,500) or five years imprisonment. A corporation found guilty of the same offence is potentially liable for five times this amount. The equivalent summary offence is punishable by 120 penalty units ($13,200) or 2 years imprisonment.
These rights are in addition to moral rights provided to performers in Part IX of the Copyright Act which relate to attribution, false attribution and integrity.
In a scenario such as this an injunction would be available to prevent a clip being communicated to the public against the wishes of the performer, the take down procedures relating to hosts of internet content would also be applicable. Whilst section 248G provides that the provisions relate to performances in Australia, section 248U and 248V see the protection also being offered to international artists when performances take place in Australia.
The division (XIA) of the Australian Copyright Act dealing with the protection of performances became effective when the Australian Government acceded to the WPPT – WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. While the laws had been drafted and placed in the Australian Copyright Act for quite some time they did not become effective until 26 July 2007.
Article 6 of the WPPT requires member countries to protect the economic rights of performers by enabling them to enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the broadcasting and communication of their performances to the public and the fixation of these performances.
Article 7 provides that performers shall have the exclusive right of reproducing their performances and Article 8 provides for the exclusive right to distribute the original and copies of performances. Moral rights are also afforded under the treaty under Article 5.
It is interesting to place this treaty in a discussion of the purpose of copyright law - namely the need to establish an environment which provides incentives for artists to create. Clearly in this instance the uploading of the Radiohead song was a non commercial use and arguably the clip would have produced greater interest in Prince’s live performances. Therefore suggestions that this clip breached Prince’s economic rights are difficult to sustain.
One report suggests that Prince was filming the live performance himself. Taking this into account it could be argued that seeking to have the clip removed from YouTube was a reasonable request, however, it is unlikely that a short clip such as this would have had a major impact on the sale of any forthcoming DVD.
This situation also serves to illustrate the complexity and expansion of intellectual property law.
Performer’s rights in general have been criticized as being both unnecessary and ineffective. Undoubtedly there were other singers, musicians and dancers performing this song with him. All of these artists would have had to contract away their rights in order to work with Prince.
Furthermore this situation demonstrates the difficulty in complying with the rights of composers, recording artists and performers when each is a different person. Luckily in the USA there are no moral rights – in Australia the situation would be even more complex than this.
Prince’s actions have created poor publicity for him and potentially damaged the goodwill he has developed with his fans. These types of events however do help bands such as Radiohead and others in the open content field by highlighting the potential to abuse DMCA takedown notices.
The general public are learning time and again of the potential for copyright law to impact on free speech. It's all a little bit creepy :-)
Further Reading
TechDirt, Even Lawyers Are Confused About What's Legal Or Not In The Prince/Radiohead Spat (12 June 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/1651401368.shtml> at 13 June 2008
TechDirt, Prince And Radiohead Fight Over YouTube Song (30 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/1507241271.shtml> at 4 June 2008
EFF Deeplinks, Prince Issues One Takedown Too Many (2 June 2008) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/prince-issues-one-takedown-too-many> at 7 June 2008
ZeroPaid, Prince Removes Radiohead 'Creep' Cover From YouTube (31 May 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9524/Prince+Removes+Radiohead+%27Creep%27+Cover+from+YouTube> at 5 June 2008
TechDirt, Is Watching An Infringing YouTube Video Copyright Infringement? (16 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080514/1736121116.shtml> at 21 May 208
Billboard, Radiohead To Prince: Unblock 'Creep' YouTube Vids (30 May 2008) <http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003809963> at 13 June 2008
William van Caenegem, Intellectual Property (2nd ed.) 83- 84
WIPO, WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (20 December 1996) <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/trtdocs_wo034.html> at 15 June 2008
Attorney Generals Department, Australia to Join Internet Copyright Treaties (26 April 2007) http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/AllDocs/E8AC29AB4FF5A19FCA2572C9000F9A17?OpenDocument> at 10 May 2007
Australian Copyright Council, Government announces accession to WIPO Internet treaties (8 May 2007) <http://www.copyright.org.au/news/newsbytopic/u27462> at 10 May 2007
FreedomtoDiffer, Australia to Join Internet Copyright Treaties (26 April 2007) <http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2007/04/australia_to_jo.html> at 30 April 2007
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Copyright Law and the Scope for Implied Licenses
In Australia, as in many countries, the common law will construct or imply a contract in many circumstances. Yorston Fortescue and Turner define an implied contract as follows (at 55-56):
An implied contract is one in which the agreement is not reached by words, written or spoken, but by acts or conduct of the parties. An example of this type of contract is where you hail and enter a taxi. By this act the law implies that you promise to pay the fare to your destination and the taxi driver impliedly agrees to transport you.
The use of contract law in combination with copyright law is not a new phenomenon. Contract law is used to transfer ownership of copyrights between creators and investors – one need look no further than a recording contract between an artist and a record label as an example of this. Contract law is also used to establish licenses which restrict uses of copyright works - those that take the time to read the contracts associated with iTunes, Napster or any of the mainstream digital music stores would see that there are terms and conditions above and beyond the rights traditionally given to copyright holders. Similarly but with the opposite effect, open content licenses, such as the suit of licenses developed by creative commons, provide consumers with greater rights than those offered to them under copyright legislation.
I have been considering for some time whether there might be scope to argue for an implied license with respect to copyrights on the internet. In many circumstances it seems that creators make their works available on the internet without adding an open content license and yet do nothing to enforce their copyrights. This situation creates a great level of uncertainty for many users, particularly those that are aware of the automatic application of copyright and who seek to do the right thing. Those that are oblivious to the operation of copyright law are in constant danger of being sued for what they consider to be normal behaviour on the internet – something as simple as printing a recipe could leave them liable to pay damages. This is despite the fact that the general expectation in society is that those that make this information available are impliedly consenting to other people using it.
When it comes to music this is particularly problematic as many bands make tracks available without attaching licenses, mainstream copyright holders are vigorous (but not effective) in policing the uses of their works and the average person is left with a complex and expensive process to secure licenses without having any real way of knowing whether or not they are needed or will be forthcoming. Creative Commons is an excellent way of providing this information and expanding the rights traditionally offered, however the fact remains that it has not yet reached the level of saturation which overcomes these obstacles and it requires positive steps to be taken to advise others of the additional rights that are in place.
To me it seems more appropriate both from a policy and practical point of view to alter the default position of copyright through the use of an implied license mechanism. It would take very little for the courts to develop a system of recognition for non commercial uses on the internet.
One way would be to develop the doctrine of implied licenses to allow all non commercial uses regardless of the amount of the copyright work that has been used. This would prevent copyright owners from creating unnecessary burdens on the free flow of information and would not enable them to control what should be fair use of their works. In my mind this would be the best option as it would provide a level of certainty not currently available and reflect they way most people use the internet today.
Another option would be to allow all non commercial uses unless a copyright owner has taken steps to have the use of the work removed from the internet. In some respects the DMCA and equivalent legislation allow this to take place already but it does not provide the level of certainty needed. The DMCA is under constant scrutiny for being abused with copyright works being removed from the internet even when the use has been lawful. The difference between this form of an implied license and what is in place now would be that the average person would be entitled to expect a right to non commercial uses unless some positive step is taken by the copyright owner to exert their rights. This would secure the place of fair use/dealing and the public domain rather than the current situation which sees these concepts under constant threat.
Another option would be to enable all non commercial uses but to require notification of the use to the copyright holder up front and enable them to exercise a level of discretion in having the work removed from the internet when it does not fall within the current scope of fair dealing or fair use rights. This would overcome the difficulty many copyright holders currently have in both tracking the uses of their works and policing the commercial and unlawful uses that take place. To be possible however such a system would require an effective and ongoing registration system with minimal administrative costs for the searching and location of copyright owners.
In effect, a blanket implied non commercial license would alter the default position for copyright on the internet. It would enhance the flow of information, support cultural diversity and inturn free expression and democracy. Given the present level of influence of the major copyright holders over the legislators, it seems unlikely at present that copyright law itself will be altered to reflect the way most people use internet content. Nonetheless it may still be possible for the common law to step in and create the same effect through the doctrine of implied contracts.
Further Reading
Yorston, Fortescue and Turner, Australian Commercial Law (20th .ed., 1994)
Creative Commons, http://www.creativecommons.org/
TechDirt, Even Lawyers Are Confused About What's Legal Or Not In The Prince/Radiohead Spat (12 June 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/1651401368.shtml> at 13 June 2008
TechDirt, Would You Believe Copyright Infringement Notices Are Based On Faulty Information? (5 June 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080605/1227001318.shtml> at 7 June 2008
TechDirt, Judge Dismisses DMCA-Abuse Lawsuit Over Video Of Baby Dancing To Prince (28 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080428/105749968.shtml> at 30 April 2008
TechDirt, Can The DMCA Be Used To Stifle Speech? (28 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080326/194543660.shtml> at 30 March 2008
TechDirt, Air Force The Latest To Make Illegal False DMCA Claim (10 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080307/162737475.shtml> 7 March 2008
TechDirt, DMCA Misuse: Trying To Take Down A Negative Movie Review (14 January 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080113/235553.shtml> at 18 January 2008
(There are heaps more DMCA abuse articles on my other weblog: http://www.ocaustralia.blogspot.com/ - go for your life!)
An implied contract is one in which the agreement is not reached by words, written or spoken, but by acts or conduct of the parties. An example of this type of contract is where you hail and enter a taxi. By this act the law implies that you promise to pay the fare to your destination and the taxi driver impliedly agrees to transport you.
The use of contract law in combination with copyright law is not a new phenomenon. Contract law is used to transfer ownership of copyrights between creators and investors – one need look no further than a recording contract between an artist and a record label as an example of this. Contract law is also used to establish licenses which restrict uses of copyright works - those that take the time to read the contracts associated with iTunes, Napster or any of the mainstream digital music stores would see that there are terms and conditions above and beyond the rights traditionally given to copyright holders. Similarly but with the opposite effect, open content licenses, such as the suit of licenses developed by creative commons, provide consumers with greater rights than those offered to them under copyright legislation.
I have been considering for some time whether there might be scope to argue for an implied license with respect to copyrights on the internet. In many circumstances it seems that creators make their works available on the internet without adding an open content license and yet do nothing to enforce their copyrights. This situation creates a great level of uncertainty for many users, particularly those that are aware of the automatic application of copyright and who seek to do the right thing. Those that are oblivious to the operation of copyright law are in constant danger of being sued for what they consider to be normal behaviour on the internet – something as simple as printing a recipe could leave them liable to pay damages. This is despite the fact that the general expectation in society is that those that make this information available are impliedly consenting to other people using it.
When it comes to music this is particularly problematic as many bands make tracks available without attaching licenses, mainstream copyright holders are vigorous (but not effective) in policing the uses of their works and the average person is left with a complex and expensive process to secure licenses without having any real way of knowing whether or not they are needed or will be forthcoming. Creative Commons is an excellent way of providing this information and expanding the rights traditionally offered, however the fact remains that it has not yet reached the level of saturation which overcomes these obstacles and it requires positive steps to be taken to advise others of the additional rights that are in place.
To me it seems more appropriate both from a policy and practical point of view to alter the default position of copyright through the use of an implied license mechanism. It would take very little for the courts to develop a system of recognition for non commercial uses on the internet.
One way would be to develop the doctrine of implied licenses to allow all non commercial uses regardless of the amount of the copyright work that has been used. This would prevent copyright owners from creating unnecessary burdens on the free flow of information and would not enable them to control what should be fair use of their works. In my mind this would be the best option as it would provide a level of certainty not currently available and reflect they way most people use the internet today.
Another option would be to allow all non commercial uses unless a copyright owner has taken steps to have the use of the work removed from the internet. In some respects the DMCA and equivalent legislation allow this to take place already but it does not provide the level of certainty needed. The DMCA is under constant scrutiny for being abused with copyright works being removed from the internet even when the use has been lawful. The difference between this form of an implied license and what is in place now would be that the average person would be entitled to expect a right to non commercial uses unless some positive step is taken by the copyright owner to exert their rights. This would secure the place of fair use/dealing and the public domain rather than the current situation which sees these concepts under constant threat.
Another option would be to enable all non commercial uses but to require notification of the use to the copyright holder up front and enable them to exercise a level of discretion in having the work removed from the internet when it does not fall within the current scope of fair dealing or fair use rights. This would overcome the difficulty many copyright holders currently have in both tracking the uses of their works and policing the commercial and unlawful uses that take place. To be possible however such a system would require an effective and ongoing registration system with minimal administrative costs for the searching and location of copyright owners.
In effect, a blanket implied non commercial license would alter the default position for copyright on the internet. It would enhance the flow of information, support cultural diversity and inturn free expression and democracy. Given the present level of influence of the major copyright holders over the legislators, it seems unlikely at present that copyright law itself will be altered to reflect the way most people use internet content. Nonetheless it may still be possible for the common law to step in and create the same effect through the doctrine of implied contracts.
Further Reading
Yorston, Fortescue and Turner, Australian Commercial Law (20th .ed., 1994)
Creative Commons, http://www.creativecommons.org/
TechDirt, Even Lawyers Are Confused About What's Legal Or Not In The Prince/Radiohead Spat (12 June 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/1651401368.shtml> at 13 June 2008
TechDirt, Would You Believe Copyright Infringement Notices Are Based On Faulty Information? (5 June 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080605/1227001318.shtml> at 7 June 2008
TechDirt, Judge Dismisses DMCA-Abuse Lawsuit Over Video Of Baby Dancing To Prince (28 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080428/105749968.shtml> at 30 April 2008
TechDirt, Can The DMCA Be Used To Stifle Speech? (28 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080326/194543660.shtml> at 30 March 2008
TechDirt, Air Force The Latest To Make Illegal False DMCA Claim (10 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080307/162737475.shtml> 7 March 2008
TechDirt, DMCA Misuse: Trying To Take Down A Negative Movie Review (14 January 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080113/235553.shtml> at 18 January 2008
(There are heaps more DMCA abuse articles on my other weblog: http://www.ocaustralia.blogspot.com/ - go for your life!)
Friday, June 13, 2008
UPDATED: Song of the Moment
UPDATED: I was thinking of starting a new segment called 'Song of the Week' but (those who know me will laugh at this...) I am too BUSY to say it will happen every week.
So the song of the moment is Pinks 'Cos I Can' and I quote:
"I don't give a damn. I don't play your rules I make my own... I'll do what I want. Cuz I can..."
Check it out if you haven't already
Sal
(PS yes I know this is not overly political but it was for someonelses benefit ... political songs will be the main types of songs I blog about so if you want to suggest one feel free to leave a comment!)
So the song of the moment is Pinks 'Cos I Can' and I quote:
"I don't give a damn. I don't play your rules I make my own... I'll do what I want. Cuz I can..."
Check it out if you haven't already
Sal
(PS yes I know this is not overly political but it was for someonelses benefit ... political songs will be the main types of songs I blog about so if you want to suggest one feel free to leave a comment!)
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
On Shooting One's Self in the Foot
These clips have been on YouTube for a fair while but are both interesting and complementary when watched together.
Karl Fogels states that the DMCA and DRM are accurate reflections of the public's belief that copyright law is necessary for creative development and that its is not until the public's perceptions are changed that laws and the greater majority of artists will change. For me this brings home the need to speak to a wider audience than just those in my law school and in part reflects this years steps towards accessing a greater number of people (via my blog and my recent entry into community radio) :
QuestionCopyright.org -- Interviews, Chicago 2006
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7NmQzEME9vA
The Surprising History of Copyright and What It Means For...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a462o6NcD9A&feature=related
Further Reading:
http://www.questioncopyright.org
Karl Fogels states that the DMCA and DRM are accurate reflections of the public's belief that copyright law is necessary for creative development and that its is not until the public's perceptions are changed that laws and the greater majority of artists will change. For me this brings home the need to speak to a wider audience than just those in my law school and in part reflects this years steps towards accessing a greater number of people (via my blog and my recent entry into community radio) :
QuestionCopyright.org -- Interviews, Chicago 2006
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7NmQzEME9vA
The Surprising History of Copyright and What It Means For...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a462o6NcD9A&feature=related
Further Reading:
http://www.questioncopyright.org
Monday, June 9, 2008
Draft: Society’s Bill of Rights for Digital Music
I was reading with some interest the TechDirt analysis of the ASCAP Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers and thought to start drafting something similar for society - naturally there are some differences but if others would like to add some comments to this perhaps we could all start to think a little more about how we want our society and the future to be shaped:
1. All internet users, regardless of their country of origin should have equal access to music
2. All music should have be given equal prominence and treatment no matter what
software platform it is on
3. All internet users should have equal opportunity to upload and share their creations
4. All non commercial uses should be treated as such with no threat of copyright, contract or
other law suits
5. All digital music should be free of digital rights management protection
6. All commercial creators shall cooperate with the development of an alternative licensing
regime which will seek to maximise the free flow of culture whilst providing reasonable
compensation
7. All citizens of the world shall be free to enjoy and exchange music from all other countries
without any digital, economic, social or lawful restrictions other than those associated with
the above mentioned alternative licensing and compensation scheme
8. All citizens will be entitled to take an active role in developing new music including new
styles, political and socially beneficial music, and undertake to educate the youth to do so as
well
9. All creators will be free to continue to exploit their music in real space in anyway they chose
but only in addition to their participation in the alternative licensing and compensation
scheme
10. These rights shall endure for eternity and beyond.
Further Reading:
ASCAP, A Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers (May 2008)<http://www.ascap.com/rights/> at 9 June 2008
TechDirt, ASCAPs Bill of Wrongs (30 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080529/2308011264.shtml> at 9 June 2008
1. All internet users, regardless of their country of origin should have equal access to music
2. All music should have be given equal prominence and treatment no matter what
software platform it is on
3. All internet users should have equal opportunity to upload and share their creations
4. All non commercial uses should be treated as such with no threat of copyright, contract or
other law suits
5. All digital music should be free of digital rights management protection
6. All commercial creators shall cooperate with the development of an alternative licensing
regime which will seek to maximise the free flow of culture whilst providing reasonable
compensation
7. All citizens of the world shall be free to enjoy and exchange music from all other countries
without any digital, economic, social or lawful restrictions other than those associated with
the above mentioned alternative licensing and compensation scheme
8. All citizens will be entitled to take an active role in developing new music including new
styles, political and socially beneficial music, and undertake to educate the youth to do so as
well
9. All creators will be free to continue to exploit their music in real space in anyway they chose
but only in addition to their participation in the alternative licensing and compensation
scheme
10. These rights shall endure for eternity and beyond.
Further Reading:
ASCAP, A Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers (May 2008)<http://www.ascap.com/rights/> at 9 June 2008
TechDirt, ASCAPs Bill of Wrongs (30 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080529/2308011264.shtml> at 9 June 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Free Music Software
Just thought to add this link to the blog - have been looking around for some open source midi software and came across this site which might be of some interest:
Freebyte Music Software <http://www.freebyte.com/music/#editors>
Freebyte Music Software <http://www.freebyte.com/music/#editors>
Saturday, June 7, 2008
The Leaky Boat
Recently there have been more examples of albums/singles being leaked onto the internet prior to their official release dates. There are a number of reasons why this occurs. Sometimes the leak is based on deception - where a person in a position of trust does not do the right thing. More often these days, however, it seems that these leaks are deliberate.
The biggest risk that a major label artist/copyright holder used to take was that an insufficient number of people would like their music – this was because the commercial market place was narrow and very well controlled by the labels who could more or less guarantee access to an audience (not always because of payola but this was part of the equation particularly in the USA). Now that the internet/technology has opened the marketplace and virtually any person can be an artist, the greater risk is that a new song will not be heard by anyone.
So these days it seems that these leaks are increasingly designed to attract publicity. Many commentators have noted that in the process of suing file sharing networks the record labels have actually generated publicity and assisted in increasing the traffic to these sites. One can only question whether the labels have recognised this trend and are now seeking to use it to their advantage.
Perhaps this overestimates the cunningness or intelligence of the labels. They still seem to prefer staggered release dates – something a country like Australia has grown to hate a lot and undoubtedly results in an increase in illegal sharing. While there are certainly valid arguments in suggesting that an artist should be able to control the release of their music to the public, in the digital age staggered release dates are completely illogical.
While the publicity that the leaks attract is directed in a negative fashion toward a particular person or the networks on which leaked works appear, the coverage nonetheless assists by making people aware of the songs in question. Despite the labels continued stance that all free downloads equal a lost sale and their ongoing argument that downloading does not help to provide awareness or result in some sales, in real terms I think they are learning to take advantage of the situation.
Further Reading
Digital Music News, Coldplay Album Starts Leaking; Release Date Mid-June
(6 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060508coldplay> at 7 June 2008
Digital Music News, Usher Survives; Shifts 433,000 Albums First Week (5 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060408usher> at 6 June 2008
Digital Music News, The Usher Leak: Download Estimates Emerge... (26 May 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/052608usher> at 4 June 2008
Digital Music News, ..But Upcoming Usher Album Starts Leaking (22
May 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/052208usherleak> at 4 June 2008
Reuters, Labels mull release strategies in age of piracy (29 April 2008) <http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN2941336220080429> at 30 April 2008
ZeroPaid, New Gnarls Barkley 'The Odd Couple' Album Leaked to BitTorrent (15 March 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9330/New+Gnarls+Barkley+%27The+Odd+Couple%27+Album+Leaked+to+BitTorrent%21> at 18 March 2008
Digital Music News, Madonna Brings Hard Candy to Hair; Ads Starting Now (16 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031608madonna> at 18 March 2008
The Times Onlines, Arctic Monkeys go bananas over file-sharing (31 March 2007) <http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article1594238.ece> at 3 April 2007
TechDirt, Psst, Universal Music, The World Is Global Now (13 August 2007) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/190148.shtml> at 19 August 2007
ZeroPaid, The Pirate Bay Enters Top 100 Websites (24 May 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9510/The+Pirate+Bay+Enters+Top+100+Websites> at 5 June 2008
TechDirt, How The RIAA/MPAA Helped Catapult The Pirate Bay Into Being One Of The World's Most Popular Sites (20 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080519/0227541162.shtml> at 21 May 2008
The Register, Pirate Bay to sue music industry (16 April 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/16/piratebay_sues_music_industry/> at 26 April 2008
Digital Music News, Pirate Bay Pulls an IFPI... Legal Battlefield Intensifies (17 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/041608pirate> at 26 April 2008
TechDirt, What Good Will A Swedish Lawsuit Against The Pirate Bay Do? (29 January 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080128/19330699.shtml> at 31 January 2008
Digital Music News, Senator Prods Radio Conglomerates on Payola Compliance (12 July 2007) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/071207feingold/view> at 15 July 2007
p2pnet.net, First payola, now Dark Payola (18 April 2007) <http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12004> at 19 April 2007
Digital Music News, FCC Issues Payola Decrees Involving Terrestrial Conglomerates (16 April 2007) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/041607fcc> at 17 April 2007
Digital Music News, Major Radio Conglomerates, FCC Forge Payola Agreement (5 March 2007) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/030507payola> at 7 March 2007
The biggest risk that a major label artist/copyright holder used to take was that an insufficient number of people would like their music – this was because the commercial market place was narrow and very well controlled by the labels who could more or less guarantee access to an audience (not always because of payola but this was part of the equation particularly in the USA). Now that the internet/technology has opened the marketplace and virtually any person can be an artist, the greater risk is that a new song will not be heard by anyone.
So these days it seems that these leaks are increasingly designed to attract publicity. Many commentators have noted that in the process of suing file sharing networks the record labels have actually generated publicity and assisted in increasing the traffic to these sites. One can only question whether the labels have recognised this trend and are now seeking to use it to their advantage.
Perhaps this overestimates the cunningness or intelligence of the labels. They still seem to prefer staggered release dates – something a country like Australia has grown to hate a lot and undoubtedly results in an increase in illegal sharing. While there are certainly valid arguments in suggesting that an artist should be able to control the release of their music to the public, in the digital age staggered release dates are completely illogical.
While the publicity that the leaks attract is directed in a negative fashion toward a particular person or the networks on which leaked works appear, the coverage nonetheless assists by making people aware of the songs in question. Despite the labels continued stance that all free downloads equal a lost sale and their ongoing argument that downloading does not help to provide awareness or result in some sales, in real terms I think they are learning to take advantage of the situation.
Further Reading
Digital Music News, Coldplay Album Starts Leaking; Release Date Mid-June
(6 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060508coldplay> at 7 June 2008
Digital Music News, Usher Survives; Shifts 433,000 Albums First Week (5 June 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060408usher> at 6 June 2008
Digital Music News, The Usher Leak: Download Estimates Emerge... (26 May 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/052608usher> at 4 June 2008
Digital Music News, ..But Upcoming Usher Album Starts Leaking (22
May 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/052208usherleak> at 4 June 2008
Reuters, Labels mull release strategies in age of piracy (29 April 2008) <http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN2941336220080429> at 30 April 2008
ZeroPaid, New Gnarls Barkley 'The Odd Couple' Album Leaked to BitTorrent (15 March 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9330/New+Gnarls+Barkley+%27The+Odd+Couple%27+Album+Leaked+to+BitTorrent%21> at 18 March 2008
Digital Music News, Madonna Brings Hard Candy to Hair; Ads Starting Now (16 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031608madonna> at 18 March 2008
The Times Onlines, Arctic Monkeys go bananas over file-sharing (31 March 2007) <http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article1594238.ece> at 3 April 2007
TechDirt, Psst, Universal Music, The World Is Global Now (13 August 2007) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/190148.shtml> at 19 August 2007
ZeroPaid, The Pirate Bay Enters Top 100 Websites (24 May 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9510/The+Pirate+Bay+Enters+Top+100+Websites> at 5 June 2008
TechDirt, How The RIAA/MPAA Helped Catapult The Pirate Bay Into Being One Of The World's Most Popular Sites (20 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080519/0227541162.shtml> at 21 May 2008
The Register, Pirate Bay to sue music industry (16 April 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/16/piratebay_sues_music_industry/> at 26 April 2008
Digital Music News, Pirate Bay Pulls an IFPI... Legal Battlefield Intensifies (17 April 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/041608pirate> at 26 April 2008
TechDirt, What Good Will A Swedish Lawsuit Against The Pirate Bay Do? (29 January 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080128/19330699.shtml> at 31 January 2008
Digital Music News, Senator Prods Radio Conglomerates on Payola Compliance (12 July 2007) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/071207feingold/view> at 15 July 2007
p2pnet.net, First payola, now Dark Payola (18 April 2007) <http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12004> at 19 April 2007
Digital Music News, FCC Issues Payola Decrees Involving Terrestrial Conglomerates (16 April 2007) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/041607fcc> at 17 April 2007
Digital Music News, Major Radio Conglomerates, FCC Forge Payola Agreement (5 March 2007) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/030507payola> at 7 March 2007
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Song of The Unicorn
First of all let me say sorry for the recent interruption to this blog – life can be unpredictable at times. Hopefully from now things will return to normal...
I have blogged before about the fantastic selection of children’s music available on eMusic and wanted to share with you a beautiful album I downloaded for my daughter recently.
Song of the Unicorn is one of the many fabulous albums available in the Classical Kids series. It tells the story of a young prince (Owen) and princess (Megan) sent on a mission to find a unicorn to cure their mother’s illness. Set in medieval times, characters include Merlin the Wizard and King Arthur. Combining fact and fantasy, the music reflects the renaissance period and the story includes a discussion about the birth of music.
Merlin talks about notes being born of silence and carried on the wind on the island of Atlantis 10,000 years earlier and how the people played their pipes to celebrate the harvest. With a volcanic eruption the city of Atlantis is sunk beneath the sea and for a thousand years music lived a half life before monks in monasteries began to chant and tried to write down the notes to their songs. He then talks of travelling musicians bringing new instruments from far away lands – Lutes from Asia, Pipes from Africa and the Harp from Europe and how music was now ready to move into the future. He talks of the future and how the shadows in his cave represent the cello, violin, clarinet, oboe and trombone which will not be heard for another 1000 years.
Megan is given the task of determining the future of music with Merlin stating: “If you wish to change the future you must foretell it.”Megan must reveal the unicorn song to save her mother and as she starts to play her Lute and begins to imagine, she succeeds by evoking what we now refer to as orchestral music. Merlin wonders how a child could dream such beauty and says that when they hear that music again they will know that they have cured their mother’s illness. They must find a unicorn but the unicorn will only approach a child who is pure of heart and sitting in an open field singing.
Megan and Own then travel to the island of Avalon to find the unicorns and are assisted by King Arthur who warns them of his sister Morgan. While waiting for the boat to take them over to the island Megan plays her Lute again, this time singing songs about their travels and how she wishes to be back at home in the kingdom. Morgan, having tried but failed to catch a unicorn in the past and desperate for one of their magic horns, tricks Megan and Owen by saying that she is the only one that can make their mother better and that she will only do so if they bring a unicorn to her.
Megan succeeds in drawing the unicorn close to her but Morgan’s archers are waiting by and shoot arrows at the unicorn – these are magically diverted to part the sky and Megan and the unicorn are saved. Megan then says to the unicorn that the only thing she can give it is freedom and with that the unicorn touches its horn on her instrument and on her necklace, and the beautiful music that she imagined in Merlin’s cave starts to play again. Later they return to the castle to find their mother has been cured and she tells them of her dream about two children and a unicorn.
This story and music are both beautiful and this is an album my daughter and I will cherish forever, however we understand the message from this story on different levels. I particularly like the idea of the birth of music from silence and the evolution it takes over time and under differing conditions and influences. I also very much appreciate the notion that the future of music is in the hands of the children and that without the ability and desire to imagine the future all we have is the present and the past.
The magic unicorn can also take on a representative form for me as I imagine that its desire to allow music to move into the future takes place only once it has been freed. Morgan, with her deception and motivation to kill the unicorn, could some ways be symbolic of the current regulatory climate music faces today, paralleling the desire to keep the magic of music as private property for the purposes of personal gain. Like much of culture, these symbols and meanings are a matter of personal interpretation.
From an educational point of view this CD, like all of those we have listened to so far in this series, is fantastic. The layering of an interesting story with periodic music educates, illustrates and entices young people in a way that is in itself a form of magic. On one level my daughter hears a story about two children, but underneath it there is the history of music presented in an effortless and enjoyable way. Megan acts also as a role model in some respects, not just because of the purity of her heart, but to show children that making music is beautiful, a way of connecting with people, expressing emotions and changing the world.
I have blogged before about the fantastic selection of children’s music available on eMusic and wanted to share with you a beautiful album I downloaded for my daughter recently.
Song of the Unicorn is one of the many fabulous albums available in the Classical Kids series. It tells the story of a young prince (Owen) and princess (Megan) sent on a mission to find a unicorn to cure their mother’s illness. Set in medieval times, characters include Merlin the Wizard and King Arthur. Combining fact and fantasy, the music reflects the renaissance period and the story includes a discussion about the birth of music.
Merlin talks about notes being born of silence and carried on the wind on the island of Atlantis 10,000 years earlier and how the people played their pipes to celebrate the harvest. With a volcanic eruption the city of Atlantis is sunk beneath the sea and for a thousand years music lived a half life before monks in monasteries began to chant and tried to write down the notes to their songs. He then talks of travelling musicians bringing new instruments from far away lands – Lutes from Asia, Pipes from Africa and the Harp from Europe and how music was now ready to move into the future. He talks of the future and how the shadows in his cave represent the cello, violin, clarinet, oboe and trombone which will not be heard for another 1000 years.
Megan is given the task of determining the future of music with Merlin stating: “If you wish to change the future you must foretell it.”Megan must reveal the unicorn song to save her mother and as she starts to play her Lute and begins to imagine, she succeeds by evoking what we now refer to as orchestral music. Merlin wonders how a child could dream such beauty and says that when they hear that music again they will know that they have cured their mother’s illness. They must find a unicorn but the unicorn will only approach a child who is pure of heart and sitting in an open field singing.
Megan and Own then travel to the island of Avalon to find the unicorns and are assisted by King Arthur who warns them of his sister Morgan. While waiting for the boat to take them over to the island Megan plays her Lute again, this time singing songs about their travels and how she wishes to be back at home in the kingdom. Morgan, having tried but failed to catch a unicorn in the past and desperate for one of their magic horns, tricks Megan and Owen by saying that she is the only one that can make their mother better and that she will only do so if they bring a unicorn to her.
Megan succeeds in drawing the unicorn close to her but Morgan’s archers are waiting by and shoot arrows at the unicorn – these are magically diverted to part the sky and Megan and the unicorn are saved. Megan then says to the unicorn that the only thing she can give it is freedom and with that the unicorn touches its horn on her instrument and on her necklace, and the beautiful music that she imagined in Merlin’s cave starts to play again. Later they return to the castle to find their mother has been cured and she tells them of her dream about two children and a unicorn.
This story and music are both beautiful and this is an album my daughter and I will cherish forever, however we understand the message from this story on different levels. I particularly like the idea of the birth of music from silence and the evolution it takes over time and under differing conditions and influences. I also very much appreciate the notion that the future of music is in the hands of the children and that without the ability and desire to imagine the future all we have is the present and the past.
The magic unicorn can also take on a representative form for me as I imagine that its desire to allow music to move into the future takes place only once it has been freed. Morgan, with her deception and motivation to kill the unicorn, could some ways be symbolic of the current regulatory climate music faces today, paralleling the desire to keep the magic of music as private property for the purposes of personal gain. Like much of culture, these symbols and meanings are a matter of personal interpretation.
From an educational point of view this CD, like all of those we have listened to so far in this series, is fantastic. The layering of an interesting story with periodic music educates, illustrates and entices young people in a way that is in itself a form of magic. On one level my daughter hears a story about two children, but underneath it there is the history of music presented in an effortless and enjoyable way. Megan acts also as a role model in some respects, not just because of the purity of her heart, but to show children that making music is beautiful, a way of connecting with people, expressing emotions and changing the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
