UPDATED: I sit here and listen to the last song on the new Hilltop Hoods CD – Fifty in Five off the album State of the Art – and I am literally speechless.
Listen to this song. Read the lyrics.
This is a narrative about humanity. My interpretation of the title is that it reflects on the last fifty years of world events in five minutes and it does so with absolute style and precision.
I was listening to it repeatedly last night knowing that I wanted to write about it and yet hours later still feel that I cannot find the words to do it justice. I had thought to write up something about all of the individual events that the lyrics cover but what I really want to write about is the emotion that this song brings out in me. This song makes me feel sad, angry, disappointed and worried. The lack of repetition and the lack of chorus are indicative of the fact that this song is not an anthem. It is not there to make us want to do something. It does not try to bring people together to make a positive change. It is the epitome of sadness and the confronting, bitter truth.
The sheer volume of lyrics is overwhelming. I have written shorter essays than this. They cover an enormous range of topics and events with an international perspective that shows the wide spread damage and devastation of the corruption and decay of modern society. I hesitate to give examples because the nature of the lyrics are to mention so much in such a short space that not one thing is given priority over another; it is a list. I wonder if the composers had to restrict themselves and had to leave things out. Ironically we might applaud the level of detail and quantity of information they have included and yet the song itself is written to speak of the sheer dissatisfaction of how so much wrong has occurred in just fifty years.
It mentions the future but only in context and connection with the past. It is not at all hope for what may change or what may come next. It tells us how we have set ourselves up to fail. How stupidity, ignorance, lack of leadership and ourselves are to blame for what comes next: ‘the generation next will degenerate and die’.
In sections the song talks about the distractions that prevent us from seeing the destruction that is before us. Things like the Macerena, superman, chicken dance and botox. The song reflects on the youth – women getting fake tits and young kids in detox. My interpretation is that references to technology including the internet and 3g cellular phones are also negative statements about distractions and how we have the technology to communicate and yet we just don’t in the way that matters. The reference to how ‘mp3s saw the death of an industry’ reflects on how the loss of the music industry renders poets/musicians incapable of helping us to make sense of the world and to be the agents of social change that we so desperately need.
Towards the end, the lyrics move from merely being a list to using cultural references to characterise the distraction of society. It warps into text that includes numerous references to horror movie titles and the names of drugs – aspects of our culture that reflect the sentiments of the song: the terror and dependence that we suffer. At the height of the passion, questions are asked - a rhetorical question: 'what happened to the love?' and another that asks 'what happened to the cubs?' [they were fed to the wolves]. Questioning the loss of the positive motivations of the 1960's and the focus on the needs of children, brings an element of uncertainty to the lyrics when concepts rather than events are considered.
The musicality of the song is well worth mentioning too.
As with most hip hop, the lyrics flow without a break but here the lack of pauses and the perpetual motion illustrate how these events have taken place one after the other without room for reflection, without the chance to stop and take account of what’s happening. The flood of events and the flood of lyrics parallel a world that does not have a chance to take its breath.
At one stage the lead singer sounds like he is gritting or clenching his teeth in frustration or disgust. He is easily heard above the music but as the song builds he becomes louder, more predominant and has more and more angst. The incomprehensible sweet whispering layered above the tale reminds me of the sugar coating of the media but perhaps is really meant to be the spoonful of sugar to be taken with the medicine.
The music has moments that seem regular – when it is not overwhelming and provides a solid background to the text. At others times there are distinct samples and the integration of instruments and styles – a sample of Martin Luther King (the loss of hope), John F Kennedy (a small, barely audible sample that depicts that we can no longer hear or remember what he said), groaning/moaning (pain), helicopters, rifles, a bomb (war), a brass line from an 'olden days' song at the same time as the discussion of right wing overlords and refugees, the building of tension and urgency by the use of piano chords and the interposing of another voice which yells out key words (adding emphasis and trying to get our attention).
Indeed the dynamics of the song depend heavily on the change of colours in the underlying score with little change in the pitch and speed of the vocalist and drums that have a consistent tempo. The song does not noticeably speed up but rather the consistency illustrates the persistence and unrelenting nature of the chaos that we face.
When discussing the ozone layer and the how the earth is cooking itself the music becomes harsh and percussive which reflects the pain, discomfort and discord of the global suicide that is taking place.
Finally, at key points the music goes quiet with a small number of instruments playing a thin or light melody in the background. This gives the lyrics the space to make some points stand out from others: ‘A blowjob brought about the fall of a dynasty, and Mp3s saw the fall of an industry... Rich bleeding the kind, the blind leading the blind and history competes, no competing with time... The government and church on which we try to rely, both rob us til it hurts chasing lie after lie.’
The song finishes with resignation: ‘Can you believe what we have become? As we walk into the sun.’ The phrasing here speaks of how things are going to get worse; disgust and disbelief; and makes the statement that the end is here. This part is sung by a different vocalist which completely removes it from the body of the song.
The music at the end of the song is a solo piano - this contrasts dramatically with the thick and heavy instruments that come before it. The sound is much more melodic and has a sense of simplicity about it. The music in this section is far less challenging - more mainstream and verging on romantic in nature - perhaps highlighting the idea that this is the part of the message that everyone should hear or that we over romanticise the idea that humanity is good or that it will survive despite it all.
The contrast between the vocals and music in the last section of the song compared with what has occurred earlier depict how removed we are from our own history - how we look on these events as though they are someone elses responsibility and someone elses past. The very last vocal sound is a breath - the last gasp of air or a sigh - perhaps this the death of humanity or at least an expression of disappointment.
This is, at the same time, the most brilliant and yet most awful political song I have heard. I became very emotional after I listened to it tonight. I HATE THIS.
FUCK.
________
I was having trouble working out the origin of the brass line that I refer to above as the 'olden days' song as well as the whispering voice that is layered over the top.
Given the frequency of the whispering voice it is likely that this is the sample from a 1960s song called 2010 referred to in the following articles - see: GroopieBlog, Hilltop Hoods Preview State of the Art Tracks (6 April 2009) <http://www.pagesonline.it/groupieblog/archives/1880> at 19 June 2009 & all aussie hip hop blog, State of the Art Preview (10 June 2009) <http://allaussiehiphop.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/state-of-the-art-album-preview/> at 19 June 2009. There are 27 songs listed with this title on iTunes - none of these appear to be the original all having release dates after 1990.
The brass line is also an important sample. While I realise the parameters of the song suggest that only samples from the past 50 years are likely to be included this seems to be a type of sound much older than the 1960s - it has a serenade feel to it. It verges on a type of 'national anthem' and to me feels more like something from the 1920s or 1950s.
These are important samples to this song and I would like to trace their origins - much like the need for this song to trace society's past to reach a conclusion. The architecture of the internet and the lack of copyright registrations prevent me from knowing with certainty where they have come from. While I do not, at this point, wish to delve into a detailed discussion of sampling and copyright law (even though I could!) it is worth noting these as examples of how this form of culture can take elements of the past and say something new with them, provided the regulatory forces at work enable that to happen.
I was also thinking about the place of this song on the CD. It is the last track and my first thought was that this was because it is the most serious of the songs - it is different from the content of the other tracks at least in its overt nature. On a more artistic level perhaps it is located at the end of the CD because this is the last thing, we as a society, want to hear or pay attention to - or because time is running out and our responses will undoubtedly be at the last minute.
I also took time to reflect on the fact that it is at the end of the CD from a tangible format perspective. Consider for a moment the nature of pay per song download stores and how unlikely it is that those that consume music on a song by song basis will ever hear this. Even the disconnection from the printed lyrics in the digital age presents a major hurdle to the consumption of the message of this song - lyric sites are on the web but their accuracy can sometimes be questionable.
A major label would definately hesitate to release this as a single but hopefully Golden Era Records don't. The loss of the tangible format presents may complications including the fact that things we need to hear cannot be packaged with the things we choose to hear - so many young kids will never hear this song - the world and the industry have indeed changed: we need to make it for the better.
[Imagine how long it took to compose this - the hard work and the dedication.... It is so rare to have a contemporary song so rich in detail; artistic and powerful... Will this make it to the mainstream media?...Imagine the beauty of the mashup that could be done with the video to this song... I could go on forever about this track but I have to stop here... for now...]
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
What’s the Deal with Record Labels?
Many of us sit back and wonder why it is that record labels act the way they do. I have written earlier about how the corporations law prevents them from making decisions based on morals and forces them to consider profits above all else. But what are the impacts for musicians and the music?
The Standard Deal
Typically record labels offer ‘standard’ deals to artists (especially the unknown ones) that have unfair and onerous conditions. Many artists, with the exception of those with a very savy manager or significant popularity, walk into a record label’s office prepared to accept any terms they offer. The artist believes that without their support they simply cannot create but the short term gains most often outweigh the long term benefits. Indeed it is not until sometime later, once the contract is in full swing, that they can really assess their needs compared to what they are being offered and by then it is generally too late.
All but the most successful artists are forced to work under terms which are financially unsustainable and grossly unfair, sometimes without access to resources that would help them to produce better music and without the ability to renegotiate.
With the exception of those that have an agreement that would be considered in law to be ‘unconscionable’, there is little that can be done but to find ways around the conditions that have been imposed.
Some artists seek the advice of organisations such as the Musicians Union but the contracts which already underfoot, are strict in their terms and there is little that can be done to negotiate a better deal.
Artists under standard contracts are left with little option but to rely on alternative forms of revenue – this has typically been in the form of concert ticket sales and merchandising which until recently were not part of recording contracts.
Those lucky enough to have a short term contract may have the opportunity to reconsider their options and look around for another label but this process itself is stressful with the old label looking over their shoulder.
For those artists that do have some success and are able to prove their worth, the length of the deal which often has clauses that enable the label to keep extending the current arrangements (option clauses) means they are trapped and must continue to work under the same conditions regardless of whether their needs or abilities have changed.
For others, those that are not as successful, the contracts may still be extended despite the fact that the label has no intention of supporting them in the future and yet they are not able to sign with another label or go out on their own as an independent.
Furthermore, even the most successful artists are forced to make ‘artistic compromises’ – in short this has meant that the labels can refuse to release music that they consider unworthy of financial investment or unlikely to be popular with the masses. For political music this is very problematic with songs deemed too controversial unlikely to be released unless they have an associated marketing angle.
One artist famous for a dispute with his record label is Prince/The Artist Formerly Known As Prince. Prince was in dispute with his record label, Warner Brothers, who had trademarked his name and owned all associated rights to the music marketed under that name. I remember well the jokes that many in the industry made at the time asking why he would pick the Love Symbol and such a silly name. The reason was that his record label could hold him to the contract if he used the name 'Prince'. By changing his name in this way he gained the benefit of both avoiding the terms of the contract he was in while negotiations were taking place and continuing to work based on the reputation he had already built.
However for most artists the results of ‘corporate patronage and indentured servitude’ are catastrophic. They are unable to plan their lives as they do not know from one day to the next what will be happening. They have terms that are financially unsustainable and demanding commitments that they cannot meet. Some struggle to work with the little that they have and others elect non performance. Pure and complete non performance of a contract is a breach of the agreement but by sabotaging themselves - writing poor songs, being unreliable, difficult to work with and generally uncooperative - some artists may be released from their deals. Others are retained, perhaps out of spite, and all lose whatever reputation they have developed to that point. They suffer career paralysis and eventually their popularity dies.
In all circumstances record labels control the recording copyrights and what was done in the past continues to be the property of the record label so the labels continue to reap the profits despite the ongoing frustration of the artist.
Enter the Internet
Up until the last decade this was the fate of the majority of musicians. However the internet has transformed the options for artists. They are much more likely to be able succeed without the support of major labels, for the most part superstar status still depends on it, but many more are able to connect with their fans and give them a reason to buy their music without having to enter into deals that are uncompromising and unfair. Those that were signed to a major label in the past, Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor being one such example, are refusing to get back into bed with the record labels knowing that they have the reputation, intelligence and experience which enables them to go forward without the help of others.
Indeed those that are signed to major labels can take advantage of this new form of communication. One recent example of this is DJ Danger Mouse who was prevented from releasing his new album because of a dispute with his record label. Instead he released a CD case with an extensive booklet of photographs and a blank disk, telling consumers to ‘Use It As You Will’ – implying that as the music was available on file sharing networks that they should feel free to download and burn a copy.
Some have stated that the digital environment creates a ‘competition issue’. Those that are familiar with trade practices law will know that many countries attempt to regulate markets to ensure that they do not become too concentrated – in Australia it is the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) while in the USA it is the Sherman Act (1890). (Kazaa unsuccessfully argued anti trust grounds in an early MGM v Grokster decision [1]).
The internet means that record labels are in competition with the entire world. It has the potential to create a much more open marketplace where there is far less control and concentration. While on the one hand this alters the power of record labels to dictate the terms, it also dissipates the potential for artists to penetrate the global market place and for some forms of music, particularly the political, this may have associated consequences.
The New Deal
Record labels have not responded well to the digital environment and the competition that they are now faced with. The tendency has been to do as much as possible to constrict the competition – lawsuits against emerging technology are just one part of this equation – the move to 360 degree contracts where they control every aspect of a musicians career and can make money from all parts of their business has been another.
But not all labels are taking that approach. There are number of record labels, such as Magnatune (‘We’re Not Evil’), that are attempting to work with artists rather than exploit them. This has typically meant less financial investment but greater understanding for the uniqueness of some artists and the need to ensure that they are comfortable with their contractual arrangements. However many artists are scared and do not know enough about these labels to make the change, perhaps more time will help them to see that they do not operate in the same way as the record labels of the past.
What Does it Mean for the Music?
Music is and has always been intangible. It is non rivalrous meaning that it can be duplicated without loss of quality and in infinite quantity. The artificial scarcity that was created by the reduction to material form (the CD) has now largely been replaced with unfettered and cheap supply. It is only natural that music should want to be free, to explore and communicate with as many people as it wants, and yet it remains in an environment where it can be difficult to assess who will permit this and who won’t.
Some, those of the old school, get angry with those that seek to enable the music to live out its intangibility. Some seek to enable the intangibility but fail to consider the implications of the lack of financial support that is needed to sustain a professional sector of creators. Others seek the mid point. They know that there needs to be more freedom and are willing to give it but also seek to create an environment in which the music is able to have some support without being dominated and controlled to the point where it can no longer reach its true potential. Those in this mid ground advocate a collective licensing regime. Whilst requiring detailed planning and foresight it is nonetheless achievable and would make an enourmous difference to the choices that are currently in place.
A collective licensing regime has been advocated by the likes of Netanel [2], Fisher [3], Lessig [4], the Electronic Frontiers Foundation and The Songwriters Association of Canada. Experiments have taken place in countries such as Canada and China (Fisher) and in the USA recent steps have been taken to trial different versions in colleges as a means to reduce illegal file sharing by students (Choruss).
While there is a way to go yet, these developments are both positive and essential. While some forms of music, the emotive and purely entertaining forms, will be produced in most conditions due to their social function, they can be produced to a higher standard under better conditions. Other forms of music, such as political music, require greater attention. This form of music in particular has an important social function but under negative community conditions – capitalism, closed or structurally deterministic architecture, neoclassicist copyright law and prohibitive social norms – it cannot achieve its potential as an agent for social change.
If the major record labels are going to have a place in musicians' lives in the future, they need to act now because they are running out of time. It is impossible to unscramble an egg - things will never return to the way they were before. It is time the labels realised this and got on with helping musicians to achieve their goals.
Further Reading
[1] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al v Grokster Ltd et al 269 F.Supp. 2d 1213; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11329; Copy. L. Rep (CCH) P28,634; 2003-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P74,081
[2] N W Netanel, ‘Impose a Noncommerical Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File-Swapping and Remixing’ (2003-2004) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 1-84
[3] William W. Fisher III, Promises to Keep (2004)
[4] Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (2004) 301
Musicians Union of Australia <http://www.musicians.asn.au/union/index.html> at 16 June 2009
The Standard Deal
Typically record labels offer ‘standard’ deals to artists (especially the unknown ones) that have unfair and onerous conditions. Many artists, with the exception of those with a very savy manager or significant popularity, walk into a record label’s office prepared to accept any terms they offer. The artist believes that without their support they simply cannot create but the short term gains most often outweigh the long term benefits. Indeed it is not until sometime later, once the contract is in full swing, that they can really assess their needs compared to what they are being offered and by then it is generally too late.
All but the most successful artists are forced to work under terms which are financially unsustainable and grossly unfair, sometimes without access to resources that would help them to produce better music and without the ability to renegotiate.
With the exception of those that have an agreement that would be considered in law to be ‘unconscionable’, there is little that can be done but to find ways around the conditions that have been imposed.
Some artists seek the advice of organisations such as the Musicians Union but the contracts which already underfoot, are strict in their terms and there is little that can be done to negotiate a better deal.
Artists under standard contracts are left with little option but to rely on alternative forms of revenue – this has typically been in the form of concert ticket sales and merchandising which until recently were not part of recording contracts.
Those lucky enough to have a short term contract may have the opportunity to reconsider their options and look around for another label but this process itself is stressful with the old label looking over their shoulder.
For those artists that do have some success and are able to prove their worth, the length of the deal which often has clauses that enable the label to keep extending the current arrangements (option clauses) means they are trapped and must continue to work under the same conditions regardless of whether their needs or abilities have changed.
For others, those that are not as successful, the contracts may still be extended despite the fact that the label has no intention of supporting them in the future and yet they are not able to sign with another label or go out on their own as an independent.
Furthermore, even the most successful artists are forced to make ‘artistic compromises’ – in short this has meant that the labels can refuse to release music that they consider unworthy of financial investment or unlikely to be popular with the masses. For political music this is very problematic with songs deemed too controversial unlikely to be released unless they have an associated marketing angle.
One artist famous for a dispute with his record label is Prince/The Artist Formerly Known As Prince. Prince was in dispute with his record label, Warner Brothers, who had trademarked his name and owned all associated rights to the music marketed under that name. I remember well the jokes that many in the industry made at the time asking why he would pick the Love Symbol and such a silly name. The reason was that his record label could hold him to the contract if he used the name 'Prince'. By changing his name in this way he gained the benefit of both avoiding the terms of the contract he was in while negotiations were taking place and continuing to work based on the reputation he had already built.
However for most artists the results of ‘corporate patronage and indentured servitude’ are catastrophic. They are unable to plan their lives as they do not know from one day to the next what will be happening. They have terms that are financially unsustainable and demanding commitments that they cannot meet. Some struggle to work with the little that they have and others elect non performance. Pure and complete non performance of a contract is a breach of the agreement but by sabotaging themselves - writing poor songs, being unreliable, difficult to work with and generally uncooperative - some artists may be released from their deals. Others are retained, perhaps out of spite, and all lose whatever reputation they have developed to that point. They suffer career paralysis and eventually their popularity dies.
In all circumstances record labels control the recording copyrights and what was done in the past continues to be the property of the record label so the labels continue to reap the profits despite the ongoing frustration of the artist.
Enter the Internet
Up until the last decade this was the fate of the majority of musicians. However the internet has transformed the options for artists. They are much more likely to be able succeed without the support of major labels, for the most part superstar status still depends on it, but many more are able to connect with their fans and give them a reason to buy their music without having to enter into deals that are uncompromising and unfair. Those that were signed to a major label in the past, Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor being one such example, are refusing to get back into bed with the record labels knowing that they have the reputation, intelligence and experience which enables them to go forward without the help of others.
Indeed those that are signed to major labels can take advantage of this new form of communication. One recent example of this is DJ Danger Mouse who was prevented from releasing his new album because of a dispute with his record label. Instead he released a CD case with an extensive booklet of photographs and a blank disk, telling consumers to ‘Use It As You Will’ – implying that as the music was available on file sharing networks that they should feel free to download and burn a copy.
Some have stated that the digital environment creates a ‘competition issue’. Those that are familiar with trade practices law will know that many countries attempt to regulate markets to ensure that they do not become too concentrated – in Australia it is the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) while in the USA it is the Sherman Act (1890). (Kazaa unsuccessfully argued anti trust grounds in an early MGM v Grokster decision [1]).
The internet means that record labels are in competition with the entire world. It has the potential to create a much more open marketplace where there is far less control and concentration. While on the one hand this alters the power of record labels to dictate the terms, it also dissipates the potential for artists to penetrate the global market place and for some forms of music, particularly the political, this may have associated consequences.
The New Deal
Record labels have not responded well to the digital environment and the competition that they are now faced with. The tendency has been to do as much as possible to constrict the competition – lawsuits against emerging technology are just one part of this equation – the move to 360 degree contracts where they control every aspect of a musicians career and can make money from all parts of their business has been another.
But not all labels are taking that approach. There are number of record labels, such as Magnatune (‘We’re Not Evil’), that are attempting to work with artists rather than exploit them. This has typically meant less financial investment but greater understanding for the uniqueness of some artists and the need to ensure that they are comfortable with their contractual arrangements. However many artists are scared and do not know enough about these labels to make the change, perhaps more time will help them to see that they do not operate in the same way as the record labels of the past.
What Does it Mean for the Music?
Music is and has always been intangible. It is non rivalrous meaning that it can be duplicated without loss of quality and in infinite quantity. The artificial scarcity that was created by the reduction to material form (the CD) has now largely been replaced with unfettered and cheap supply. It is only natural that music should want to be free, to explore and communicate with as many people as it wants, and yet it remains in an environment where it can be difficult to assess who will permit this and who won’t.
Some, those of the old school, get angry with those that seek to enable the music to live out its intangibility. Some seek to enable the intangibility but fail to consider the implications of the lack of financial support that is needed to sustain a professional sector of creators. Others seek the mid point. They know that there needs to be more freedom and are willing to give it but also seek to create an environment in which the music is able to have some support without being dominated and controlled to the point where it can no longer reach its true potential. Those in this mid ground advocate a collective licensing regime. Whilst requiring detailed planning and foresight it is nonetheless achievable and would make an enourmous difference to the choices that are currently in place.
A collective licensing regime has been advocated by the likes of Netanel [2], Fisher [3], Lessig [4], the Electronic Frontiers Foundation and The Songwriters Association of Canada. Experiments have taken place in countries such as Canada and China (Fisher) and in the USA recent steps have been taken to trial different versions in colleges as a means to reduce illegal file sharing by students (Choruss).
While there is a way to go yet, these developments are both positive and essential. While some forms of music, the emotive and purely entertaining forms, will be produced in most conditions due to their social function, they can be produced to a higher standard under better conditions. Other forms of music, such as political music, require greater attention. This form of music in particular has an important social function but under negative community conditions – capitalism, closed or structurally deterministic architecture, neoclassicist copyright law and prohibitive social norms – it cannot achieve its potential as an agent for social change.
If the major record labels are going to have a place in musicians' lives in the future, they need to act now because they are running out of time. It is impossible to unscramble an egg - things will never return to the way they were before. It is time the labels realised this and got on with helping musicians to achieve their goals.
Further Reading
[1] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al v Grokster Ltd et al 269 F.Supp. 2d 1213; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11329; Copy. L. Rep (CCH) P28,634; 2003-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P74,081
[2] N W Netanel, ‘Impose a Noncommerical Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File-Swapping and Remixing’ (2003-2004) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 1-84
[3] William W. Fisher III, Promises to Keep (2004)
[4] Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (2004) 301
ArsTechnica, Canadian artists' new/old plan: $5 to share music legally (24 March 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/canadian-songwriters-plan-5-to-share-music-legally.ars> at 29 March 2009
Electronic Frontiers Foundation, File Sharing: It’s Music to our Ears, Making p2p Pay Artists (2004) <http://www.eff.org/share/compensation.php> at 12 April 2006
EFF Deeplinks, More on Choruss, Pro and Con (20 March 2009) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/03/more-choruss-pro-and-con> at 11 April 2009
EFF Deeplinks, Danger Mouse Releases a Blank CD-R (18 May 2009) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/danger-mouse-inducem> at 29 May 2009
Future of Music Coalition, Major Label Contract Clause Critique (2001) <http://www.futureofmusic.org/contractcrit.cfm> at 16 June 2009
OpenContentAustraliaResearchReview, Capitalism and the Alcoholism of the Music Industry (18 May 2009) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2009/05/capitalism-and-alcoholism-of-music.html> at 16 June 2009
Open Content Australia, Year in Review: Recording Contracts (18 December 2008) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2008/12/year-in-review-recording-contracts.html > at 16 June 2009
TechDirt, My Keynote At The (RIAA Sponsored) Leadership Music Digital Summit (30 April 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/0407024607.shtml> at 3 May 2009
TechDirt, U2 Manager: Free Is The Enemy Of Good; And It's Moral To Protect Old Business Models (29 May 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090528/1919455049.shtml> at 31 May 2009
Testimony of William W. Fisher III before theSubcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness Committee on Education and the WorkforceHearing on: The Internet and the College Campus: How the Entertainment Industry and Higher Education are Working to Combat Illegal Piracy (26 September 2006) <http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/109th/21st/piracy092606/fisher.htm> at 17 October 2006
The Dues, “Record Earning” Deemed Oxymoronic (Issue 9 Vol 1) March 2006 <http://www.musicians.asn.au/ezine/archives/issue9/page2.html> at 16 June 2009
The Dues, How to Make it To The Top and Still End Up in Debt (Issue 2 Vol 1) <http://www.musicians.asn.au/ezine/archives/issue2/> at 16 June 2009
Wikipedia, Prince (musician) (14 June 2009) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)> at 16 June 2009
Good Copy Bad Copy<http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/> at 22 April 2008
Musicians Union of Australia <http://www.musicians.asn.au/union/index.html> at 16 June 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Overseeing the Three Strikes Policies
There were some interesting developments in France recently with the Constitutional Council refusing parts of the proposed three strikes legislation. I have written earlier about the growing trend to disconnect users from the internet and some of the implications this is likely to have.
The policy itself is flawed for a number of reasons. One concern is the fact that it prevents people from communicating on a whole range of levels – as we all know internet access is a fundamental component of modern life and has a much greater social function than simply the sharing of music. It is the most open and immediate form of communication available enabling each and every person to communicate with friends, family, their local communities, their interest groups, the government and the world at large. Being disconnected from the internet because of the sharing of culture, from a basic free speech perspective, is an unjustifiable and disproportionate loss of human rights.
Furthermore with respect to the sharing of culture itself, the policy is both counter intuitive and counter productive.
The purpose of culture is to communicate. The underlying aim of entertainment or education is secondary to the broader aim of enabling connections and the exchange of ideas. Disconnecting users undermines the very intent of producing culture in the first place. Simply put, the sharing of culture is a natural and inherent component of its creation – most (but not all) artists recognise the importance of this but corporations typically do not.
In addition, these policies are counterproductive. Reactionary punishment for something that has occurred in the past is only of benefit when it outweighs the costs. While cutting a user off the internet may act as a deterrent to that person and perhaps others in the future, the more likely result is one in which alternative means of sharing are developed.
Disconnecting one user from the internet may simply result in another household member needing to have the internet connection in their name. It remains impossible to police who in that household is using the internet at a particular moment in time and as such it is unlikely to prevent the offender from sharing culture again in the future. The ever increasing development of digital devices with vast storage capacity means that the sharing of culture can take place on or off the internet and disconnections are more likely to make this harder to track and monetise than stop it from happening altogether.
The bigger problem and one that the music industry appears to either be ignoring or ignorant of, is that this policy actually stops users from consuming culture in ‘legitimate ways’. Not having internet access at all prevents users from accessing iTunes just as much as it stops them from using BitTorrent or Limewire. The collateral damage of these policies is therefore greater than what their implementation can achieve.
Countries that consider disconnection as the most appropriate sanction include France, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea. While France and New Zealand are both in the process of reworking their legislation, Taiwan has passed laws which appear to introduce a non mandatory disconnection regime. South Korea is the only country with a mandatory policy in place at present. In Ireland one ISP has agreed to implement a three strikes policy that includes disconnections, as part of a settlement agreement for a secondary copyright liability claim. Steps to introduce the policy nationwide have not been successful to date. It has also been reported that Italy is considering the introduction of a three strikes policy which has the ultimate penalty of disconnection.
In other countries, alternative penalties are being considered. The recording industry in the United States is in the process of trying to get ISPs to voluntarily embrace the policy but without disconnections. Some six month after the initial announcement not one ISP has agreed to implement the process. Similar moves are underfoot in the UK with increasing pressure on the government to introduce the policy, with the slow down of internet connections rather than disconnection being the ultimate sanction. Early next week the final Digital Britain Report is expected to recommend the introduction of this policy.
In all of these circumstances there is a common concern regarding the lack of judicial oversight. It is imperative that we ask the questions: why do we have judges and why is it okay that they be removed from this process?
Speaking broadly about legal systems in general, regardless of whether they are adversarial or inquisitorial, judges take a particular place in the system of democracy. Their independence from government and institutions (including corporations) is fundamental to their role. They are adjudicators that decide disputes based on evidence according to the laws which (in theory?) reflect the standards of the community. Largely only accountable through the media or on appeals, those that are placed in this position of authority must have extensive training in their field(s). In some areas of law strict liability is imposed by the legislature which removes their discretion however in many other areas they must have the capacity to make a qualitative determination of often complex and detailed events. The reasoning for their decisions forms a basis of knowledge on which others can act in the future to exercise their rights.
The desire of the content industry to remove the judiciary from the determination of copyright disputes is primarily born from concerns about efficiency and cost. In effect the three strikes policies seek to create a strict liability offence for the sharing of culture – where the presumption is of guilt and the offence proved by default rather than the more typical approach of innocence as a presumption. Much like a speeding ticket, the desire is to place the liability on the holder of the internet account without the opportunity for it to be rebutted. But here there is often more than one driver, there could be many potential users of an account and without the opportunity to defend an accusation, there remains implicit potential for injustice. Indeed, the name 'Graduated Response' appears to be a misnomer - there is no real graduation - there are 2 warnings and then the ultimate price is paid.
The costs of justice are well known. As has been well evidenced and a matter of much contention in the mass lawsuit campaign against individual users, the average person simply does not have the financial resources to defend themselves against civil litigation by major record labels - instead being forced to settle disputes regardless of whether they were personally liable. While this system was excruciatingly imperfect it nonetheless allowed some opportunity for redress.
The recording industry incurred costs too. While those that were forced to settle most likely covered some of the costs involved in their investigation, the initiation of John/Jane Doe lawsuits, the sending out of letters of demand and the running costs of the settlement payment centre, these expenses nonetheless existed and detracted from the viability of the initiative. It seems there was also momentum and assistance building for those seeking to defend these actions and this would have added significantly to the costs of the program, only being offset by the potential for massive damages payouts in the event that the lawsuit was successful.
The other aspect to the judicial system is time. There is often a significant delay between the commencement of litigation and the time when a matter is heard. Furthermore, there are often delays in the hearing of cases with some taking a number of months and there is an extensive delay in the hearing of appeals which are more likely in emerging areas of law or contention.
The aim of the three strikes policies are therefore to allow for the quick and inexpensive determination of disputes. Having said that; the French proposal was expected to cost $40 million to implement annually – money that should be in the pockets of artists. But as a society, what price do we place on free speech? Is this the type of human right that should be calculated quickly and cheaply?
Of course the content industry would respond with arguments about ‘theft’ and ‘property’. But as a community are we blind to the inherent implications of these policies? In my view the court system, imperfections and all, is a fundamental aspect of democracy and the oversight of the judiciary is of paramount importance to a legislative system corrupted by capitalism. Every bureaucracy makes mistakes and no matter what procedures are in place there remains opportunity for human and technological error and there must be a forum to redress complaints. The vulnerable and the weak need these avenues to remain open and we are all in that position when major corporations collude to achieve their profit lines. While the majority of internet connections are in the name of the parents, it is the children that will suffer.
France has seen the need for continued involvement of dispute resolution mechanisms, but so far, is the only country to have done so.
Further Reading
FRANCE
The New York Times, French Council Defangs Plan to Crack Down on Internet Piracy (10 June 2009) <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/technology/internet/11net.html?_r=1> at 12 June 2009
TechDirt, French Constitutional Council Guts 'Three Strikes' As Unconstitutional (10 June 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090610/1103345185.shtml> at 12 June 2009
The Register, France suspends Three Strikes (10 June 2009) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/10/france_three_strikes_hadopi_suspended/> at 12 June 2009
ZeroPaid, France’s Top Court Rules “Three-Strikes” Unconstitutional (10 June 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86401/frances-top-court-rules-three-strikes-unconstitutional/> at 12 June 2009
WashingtonPost/The Associated Press, New French law on Internet piracy meets skepticism (21 May 2009) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052101770.html> at 29 May 2009
ZeroPaid, French Minister - Three Strikes Law Would See 1000 Disconnections Daily (24 May 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86288/french-minister-three-strikes-law-would-see-1000-disconnections-daily/> at 28 May 2009
ZeroPaid, French Arts Community Revolts Against French Three Strikes Legislation (30 April 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86130/french-arts-community-revolts-against-french-three-strikes-legislation/> at 3 May 2009
ZeroPaid, French ISPs: 'Three-Strikes' will cost us $40 mill Annually (10 March 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/10047/French+ISPs%3A+%27Three-Strikes%27+will+Cost+Us+%2440mill+Annually> at 12 March 2009
ITALY
TechDirt, Italian Politicians Look To Push Through French-Style 3 Strikes Law (21 January 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090121/0834043477.shtml> at 24 January 2009
UK
TechDirt, Study Says File Sharers Would Ignore Warning Letters; Recording Industry Gets The Wrong Message (10 June 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090610/0234295184.shtml> at 12 June 2009
ZeroPaid, UK ISP: Idea of Stopping File-Sharing is “Very Naive” (9 June 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86388/uk-isp-idea-of-stopping-file-sharing-is-very-naive/> at 12 June 2009
TechDirt, British Government Says No To Three Strikes (5 June 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/1019495131.shtml> at 8 June 2009
BBC News, Web pirates placed in 'slow lane' (4 June 2009) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8083866.stm> at 8 June 2009
ZeroPaid, UK Minister Says “Three-Strikes” too Draconian (5 June 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86371/uk-minister-says-three-strikes-too-draconian/> at 8 June 2009
ArsTechnica, UK ISPs refuse to play Internet copyright cops (12 May 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/uk-isps-refuse-to-play-internet-copyright-cops.ars> at 15 May 2009
IRELAND
TechDirt, Irish ISPs Point Out They're Under No Obligation To Follow Three Strikes Policy (17 March 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2011434125.shtml> at 18 March 2009
The Register, Irish ISPs rally against record label anti-piracy threat (17 March 2009) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/17/irish_isps_rally_against_irma_threats/> at 18 March 2009
Digital Music News, Irish ISPs Battle Back Against Three-Strikes... (19 March 2009) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031809irish> at 20 March 2009
Billboard.biz, Irish ISPs Reject Labels' 'Three Strikes' Demand (19 March 2009) <http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3icd8ec261b0f1e7f730729c488530e3ba> at 20 March 2009
ArsTechnica, Blackout Ireland rallies support against P2P disconnections (5 March 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/blackout-ireland-rallies-support-against-p2p-disconnections.ars> at 6 March 2009
Slyck, Ireland says Yes, Germany No to 3 Strikes (3 February 2009) <http://www.slyck.com/story1829_Ireland_says_Yes_Germany_No_to_3_Strikes> at 4 February 2009
The Register, Irish ISP Eircom in 'three strikes' file sharer crackdown (3 February 2009) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/03/eircom_agrees_to_three_strikes_enforcement/> at 4 February 2009
Digital Music News, Big Precedent: Irish ISP Adopting Three Strikes... (30 January 2009) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012909eircom> at 31 January 2009
TechDirt, Irish ISP Accused Of Copyright Violations Agrees To Implement Three Strikes (29 January 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090128/1855013560.shtml> at 31 January 2009
ZeroPaid, Irish ISP Agrees to Three-Strikes Policy For File-Sharers (29 January 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9984/Irish+ISP+Agrees+to+Three-Strikes+Policy+for+File-Sharers> at 31 January 2009
EFF Deeplinks, Irish ISP Agrees to Three Strikes Against Its Customers (28 January 2009) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/irish-isp-agrees-three-strikes-against-its-users> at 30 January 2009
USA
Digital Music News, France Says No, But What About the US? (11 June 2009) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/061009us> at 12 June 2009
Digital Music News, 6 Months, 0 Disconnecting ISPs: RIAA Still Coming Up Short... (4 June 2009) <http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/06020riaa> at 8 June 2009
TechDirt, Six Months And Still No ISPs Officially Signed Up On The RIAA's Program (4 June 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/0137485124.shtml> at 8 June 2009
NEW ZEALAND
Computerworld, Work continues on Copyright Act (4 May 2009) <http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/593AE7BB01CE30EBCC2575AB0077BDC2> at 6 May 2009
TechDirt, New Zealand Denies It's Scrapping Copyright Laws (4 May 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0440064740.shtml> at 5 May 2009
National Business Review, Entire Copyright Act to be scrapped (1 May 2009) <http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/entire-copyright-act-be-scrapped-101820> at 3 May 2009
TechDirt, New Zealand Officials To Scrap Copyright Law; Start From Scratch (30 April 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090430/1400034708.shtml> at 3 May 2009
ArsTechnica, "3 strikes" strikes out in NZ as government yanks law (23 March 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/3-strikes-strikes-out-in-nz-as-government-yanks-law.ars> at 29 March 2009
TechDirt, Musicians In New Zealand Protesting 'Guilt Upon Accusation' Plan (6 January 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090105/1232323289.shtml> at 7 January 2009
SOUTH KOREA
ZeroPaid, South Korea to Become 1st Country with "Three Strikes" for File Sharers? (29 March 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/85895/south-korea-to-become-1st-country-with-three-strikes-for-file-sharers/> at 30 March 2009
TechDirt, South Korea The Latest To Introduce Three Strikes Plan (11 March 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090311/0213404068.shtml> at 12 March 2009
TAIWAN
ZeroPaid, Taiwan Passes “Three-Strikes” Anti-P2P law (28 April 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86072/taiwan-passes-three-strikes-anti-p2p-law/> at 29 April 2009
TechDirt, Taiwan Sorta, But Not Really, Approves Three Strikes Law (28 April 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090427/1843094669.shtml> at 29 April 2009
OTHER
The Register, Billy Bragg: Three-strikes lobbying is 'shameful' (20 May 2009) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/20/bragg_three_strikes/> at 22 May 2009
ZeroPaid, U2’s Band Manager Praises France’s “Three-Strikes” Law (8 April 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/85953/u2s-band-manager-praises-frances-three-strikes-law/> at 11 April 2009
ArsTechnica, Google: Internet disconnection a "disproportionate" penalty (17 March 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/google-cutting-internet-access-for-p2p-abuse-disproportionate.ars> at 23 March 2009
ArsTechnica, 37% of P2P users say they'll ignore disconnection threats (18 January 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090118-37-of-p2p-users-say-theyll-ignore-disconnection-threats.html> at 21 January 2009
OpenContentAustraliaResearchReview, Graduated Response Update (29 March 2009) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2009/03/graduated-response-update.html>at 14 June 2009
OpenContentAustralia, NZ Delays Guilt Upon Accusation (25 February 2009) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2009/02/nz-delays-guilt-upon-accusation.html> at 29 March 2009
Digital Music News, Pirate Bay Martyrdom Continues... The Decision Stands (12 June 2009) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/061109pirate> at 12 June 2009
The Local, 'Pirate Bay judge not biased': court (8 June 2009) <http://www.thelocal.se/19946/20090608/> at 12 June 2009
ZeroPaid, Court Review Says Pirate Bay Trial Judge Not Biased (8 June 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86385/court-review-says-pirate-bay-trial-judge-not-biased/> at 9 June 2009
EFF, RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later - White Paper (September 2008)
<http://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later> at 14 June 2009
The policy itself is flawed for a number of reasons. One concern is the fact that it prevents people from communicating on a whole range of levels – as we all know internet access is a fundamental component of modern life and has a much greater social function than simply the sharing of music. It is the most open and immediate form of communication available enabling each and every person to communicate with friends, family, their local communities, their interest groups, the government and the world at large. Being disconnected from the internet because of the sharing of culture, from a basic free speech perspective, is an unjustifiable and disproportionate loss of human rights.
Furthermore with respect to the sharing of culture itself, the policy is both counter intuitive and counter productive.
The purpose of culture is to communicate. The underlying aim of entertainment or education is secondary to the broader aim of enabling connections and the exchange of ideas. Disconnecting users undermines the very intent of producing culture in the first place. Simply put, the sharing of culture is a natural and inherent component of its creation – most (but not all) artists recognise the importance of this but corporations typically do not.
In addition, these policies are counterproductive. Reactionary punishment for something that has occurred in the past is only of benefit when it outweighs the costs. While cutting a user off the internet may act as a deterrent to that person and perhaps others in the future, the more likely result is one in which alternative means of sharing are developed.
Disconnecting one user from the internet may simply result in another household member needing to have the internet connection in their name. It remains impossible to police who in that household is using the internet at a particular moment in time and as such it is unlikely to prevent the offender from sharing culture again in the future. The ever increasing development of digital devices with vast storage capacity means that the sharing of culture can take place on or off the internet and disconnections are more likely to make this harder to track and monetise than stop it from happening altogether.
The bigger problem and one that the music industry appears to either be ignoring or ignorant of, is that this policy actually stops users from consuming culture in ‘legitimate ways’. Not having internet access at all prevents users from accessing iTunes just as much as it stops them from using BitTorrent or Limewire. The collateral damage of these policies is therefore greater than what their implementation can achieve.
Countries that consider disconnection as the most appropriate sanction include France, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea. While France and New Zealand are both in the process of reworking their legislation, Taiwan has passed laws which appear to introduce a non mandatory disconnection regime. South Korea is the only country with a mandatory policy in place at present. In Ireland one ISP has agreed to implement a three strikes policy that includes disconnections, as part of a settlement agreement for a secondary copyright liability claim. Steps to introduce the policy nationwide have not been successful to date. It has also been reported that Italy is considering the introduction of a three strikes policy which has the ultimate penalty of disconnection.
In other countries, alternative penalties are being considered. The recording industry in the United States is in the process of trying to get ISPs to voluntarily embrace the policy but without disconnections. Some six month after the initial announcement not one ISP has agreed to implement the process. Similar moves are underfoot in the UK with increasing pressure on the government to introduce the policy, with the slow down of internet connections rather than disconnection being the ultimate sanction. Early next week the final Digital Britain Report is expected to recommend the introduction of this policy.
In all of these circumstances there is a common concern regarding the lack of judicial oversight. It is imperative that we ask the questions: why do we have judges and why is it okay that they be removed from this process?
Speaking broadly about legal systems in general, regardless of whether they are adversarial or inquisitorial, judges take a particular place in the system of democracy. Their independence from government and institutions (including corporations) is fundamental to their role. They are adjudicators that decide disputes based on evidence according to the laws which (in theory?) reflect the standards of the community. Largely only accountable through the media or on appeals, those that are placed in this position of authority must have extensive training in their field(s). In some areas of law strict liability is imposed by the legislature which removes their discretion however in many other areas they must have the capacity to make a qualitative determination of often complex and detailed events. The reasoning for their decisions forms a basis of knowledge on which others can act in the future to exercise their rights.
The desire of the content industry to remove the judiciary from the determination of copyright disputes is primarily born from concerns about efficiency and cost. In effect the three strikes policies seek to create a strict liability offence for the sharing of culture – where the presumption is of guilt and the offence proved by default rather than the more typical approach of innocence as a presumption. Much like a speeding ticket, the desire is to place the liability on the holder of the internet account without the opportunity for it to be rebutted. But here there is often more than one driver, there could be many potential users of an account and without the opportunity to defend an accusation, there remains implicit potential for injustice. Indeed, the name 'Graduated Response' appears to be a misnomer - there is no real graduation - there are 2 warnings and then the ultimate price is paid.
The costs of justice are well known. As has been well evidenced and a matter of much contention in the mass lawsuit campaign against individual users, the average person simply does not have the financial resources to defend themselves against civil litigation by major record labels - instead being forced to settle disputes regardless of whether they were personally liable. While this system was excruciatingly imperfect it nonetheless allowed some opportunity for redress.
The recording industry incurred costs too. While those that were forced to settle most likely covered some of the costs involved in their investigation, the initiation of John/Jane Doe lawsuits, the sending out of letters of demand and the running costs of the settlement payment centre, these expenses nonetheless existed and detracted from the viability of the initiative. It seems there was also momentum and assistance building for those seeking to defend these actions and this would have added significantly to the costs of the program, only being offset by the potential for massive damages payouts in the event that the lawsuit was successful.
The other aspect to the judicial system is time. There is often a significant delay between the commencement of litigation and the time when a matter is heard. Furthermore, there are often delays in the hearing of cases with some taking a number of months and there is an extensive delay in the hearing of appeals which are more likely in emerging areas of law or contention.
The aim of the three strikes policies are therefore to allow for the quick and inexpensive determination of disputes. Having said that; the French proposal was expected to cost $40 million to implement annually – money that should be in the pockets of artists. But as a society, what price do we place on free speech? Is this the type of human right that should be calculated quickly and cheaply?
Of course the content industry would respond with arguments about ‘theft’ and ‘property’. But as a community are we blind to the inherent implications of these policies? In my view the court system, imperfections and all, is a fundamental aspect of democracy and the oversight of the judiciary is of paramount importance to a legislative system corrupted by capitalism. Every bureaucracy makes mistakes and no matter what procedures are in place there remains opportunity for human and technological error and there must be a forum to redress complaints. The vulnerable and the weak need these avenues to remain open and we are all in that position when major corporations collude to achieve their profit lines. While the majority of internet connections are in the name of the parents, it is the children that will suffer.
France has seen the need for continued involvement of dispute resolution mechanisms, but so far, is the only country to have done so.
Further Reading
FRANCE
The New York Times, French Council Defangs Plan to Crack Down on Internet Piracy (10 June 2009) <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/technology/internet/11net.html?_r=1> at 12 June 2009
TechDirt, French Constitutional Council Guts 'Three Strikes' As Unconstitutional (10 June 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090610/1103345185.shtml> at 12 June 2009
The Register, France suspends Three Strikes (10 June 2009) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/10/france_three_strikes_hadopi_suspended/> at 12 June 2009
ZeroPaid, France’s Top Court Rules “Three-Strikes” Unconstitutional (10 June 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86401/frances-top-court-rules-three-strikes-unconstitutional/> at 12 June 2009
WashingtonPost/The Associated Press, New French law on Internet piracy meets skepticism (21 May 2009) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052101770.html> at 29 May 2009
ZeroPaid, French Minister - Three Strikes Law Would See 1000 Disconnections Daily (24 May 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86288/french-minister-three-strikes-law-would-see-1000-disconnections-daily/> at 28 May 2009
ZeroPaid, French Arts Community Revolts Against French Three Strikes Legislation (30 April 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86130/french-arts-community-revolts-against-french-three-strikes-legislation/> at 3 May 2009
ZeroPaid, French ISPs: 'Three-Strikes' will cost us $40 mill Annually (10 March 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/10047/French+ISPs%3A+%27Three-Strikes%27+will+Cost+Us+%2440mill+Annually> at 12 March 2009
ITALY
TechDirt, Italian Politicians Look To Push Through French-Style 3 Strikes Law (21 January 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090121/0834043477.shtml> at 24 January 2009
UK
TechDirt, Study Says File Sharers Would Ignore Warning Letters; Recording Industry Gets The Wrong Message (10 June 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090610/0234295184.shtml> at 12 June 2009
ZeroPaid, UK ISP: Idea of Stopping File-Sharing is “Very Naive” (9 June 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86388/uk-isp-idea-of-stopping-file-sharing-is-very-naive/> at 12 June 2009
TechDirt, British Government Says No To Three Strikes (5 June 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/1019495131.shtml> at 8 June 2009
BBC News, Web pirates placed in 'slow lane' (4 June 2009) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8083866.stm> at 8 June 2009
ZeroPaid, UK Minister Says “Three-Strikes” too Draconian (5 June 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86371/uk-minister-says-three-strikes-too-draconian/> at 8 June 2009
ArsTechnica, UK ISPs refuse to play Internet copyright cops (12 May 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/uk-isps-refuse-to-play-internet-copyright-cops.ars> at 15 May 2009
IRELAND
TechDirt, Irish ISPs Point Out They're Under No Obligation To Follow Three Strikes Policy (17 March 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2011434125.shtml> at 18 March 2009
The Register, Irish ISPs rally against record label anti-piracy threat (17 March 2009) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/17/irish_isps_rally_against_irma_threats/> at 18 March 2009
Digital Music News, Irish ISPs Battle Back Against Three-Strikes... (19 March 2009) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031809irish> at 20 March 2009
Billboard.biz, Irish ISPs Reject Labels' 'Three Strikes' Demand (19 March 2009) <http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3icd8ec261b0f1e7f730729c488530e3ba> at 20 March 2009
ArsTechnica, Blackout Ireland rallies support against P2P disconnections (5 March 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/blackout-ireland-rallies-support-against-p2p-disconnections.ars> at 6 March 2009
Slyck, Ireland says Yes, Germany No to 3 Strikes (3 February 2009) <http://www.slyck.com/story1829_Ireland_says_Yes_Germany_No_to_3_Strikes> at 4 February 2009
The Register, Irish ISP Eircom in 'three strikes' file sharer crackdown (3 February 2009) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/03/eircom_agrees_to_three_strikes_enforcement/> at 4 February 2009
Digital Music News, Big Precedent: Irish ISP Adopting Three Strikes... (30 January 2009) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012909eircom> at 31 January 2009
TechDirt, Irish ISP Accused Of Copyright Violations Agrees To Implement Three Strikes (29 January 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090128/1855013560.shtml> at 31 January 2009
ZeroPaid, Irish ISP Agrees to Three-Strikes Policy For File-Sharers (29 January 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9984/Irish+ISP+Agrees+to+Three-Strikes+Policy+for+File-Sharers> at 31 January 2009
EFF Deeplinks, Irish ISP Agrees to Three Strikes Against Its Customers (28 January 2009) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/irish-isp-agrees-three-strikes-against-its-users> at 30 January 2009
USA
Digital Music News, France Says No, But What About the US? (11 June 2009) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/061009us> at 12 June 2009
Digital Music News, 6 Months, 0 Disconnecting ISPs: RIAA Still Coming Up Short... (4 June 2009) <http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/06020riaa> at 8 June 2009
TechDirt, Six Months And Still No ISPs Officially Signed Up On The RIAA's Program (4 June 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/0137485124.shtml> at 8 June 2009
NEW ZEALAND
Computerworld, Work continues on Copyright Act (4 May 2009) <http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/593AE7BB01CE30EBCC2575AB0077BDC2> at 6 May 2009
TechDirt, New Zealand Denies It's Scrapping Copyright Laws (4 May 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0440064740.shtml> at 5 May 2009
National Business Review, Entire Copyright Act to be scrapped (1 May 2009) <http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/entire-copyright-act-be-scrapped-101820> at 3 May 2009
TechDirt, New Zealand Officials To Scrap Copyright Law; Start From Scratch (30 April 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090430/1400034708.shtml> at 3 May 2009
ArsTechnica, "3 strikes" strikes out in NZ as government yanks law (23 March 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/3-strikes-strikes-out-in-nz-as-government-yanks-law.ars> at 29 March 2009
TechDirt, Musicians In New Zealand Protesting 'Guilt Upon Accusation' Plan (6 January 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090105/1232323289.shtml> at 7 January 2009
SOUTH KOREA
ZeroPaid, South Korea to Become 1st Country with "Three Strikes" for File Sharers? (29 March 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/85895/south-korea-to-become-1st-country-with-three-strikes-for-file-sharers/> at 30 March 2009
TechDirt, South Korea The Latest To Introduce Three Strikes Plan (11 March 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090311/0213404068.shtml> at 12 March 2009
TAIWAN
ZeroPaid, Taiwan Passes “Three-Strikes” Anti-P2P law (28 April 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86072/taiwan-passes-three-strikes-anti-p2p-law/> at 29 April 2009
TechDirt, Taiwan Sorta, But Not Really, Approves Three Strikes Law (28 April 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090427/1843094669.shtml> at 29 April 2009
OTHER
The Register, Billy Bragg: Three-strikes lobbying is 'shameful' (20 May 2009) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/20/bragg_three_strikes/> at 22 May 2009
ZeroPaid, U2’s Band Manager Praises France’s “Three-Strikes” Law (8 April 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/85953/u2s-band-manager-praises-frances-three-strikes-law/> at 11 April 2009
ArsTechnica, Google: Internet disconnection a "disproportionate" penalty (17 March 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/google-cutting-internet-access-for-p2p-abuse-disproportionate.ars> at 23 March 2009
ArsTechnica, 37% of P2P users say they'll ignore disconnection threats (18 January 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090118-37-of-p2p-users-say-theyll-ignore-disconnection-threats.html> at 21 January 2009
OpenContentAustraliaResearchReview, Graduated Response Update (29 March 2009) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2009/03/graduated-response-update.html>at 14 June 2009
OpenContentAustralia, NZ Delays Guilt Upon Accusation (25 February 2009) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2009/02/nz-delays-guilt-upon-accusation.html> at 29 March 2009
Digital Music News, Pirate Bay Martyrdom Continues... The Decision Stands (12 June 2009) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/061109pirate> at 12 June 2009
The Local, 'Pirate Bay judge not biased': court (8 June 2009) <http://www.thelocal.se/19946/20090608/> at 12 June 2009
ZeroPaid, Court Review Says Pirate Bay Trial Judge Not Biased (8 June 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86385/court-review-says-pirate-bay-trial-judge-not-biased/> at 9 June 2009
EFF, RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later - White Paper (September 2008)
<http://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later> at 14 June 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Free Music Archive.
I am a few days from really being back on this space but thought to let you know about the Free Music Archive. This site was started by WFMU, a freeform radio station in the United States.
The latest Creative Commons newsletter advises that the site was launched in April 2009. It hosts tracks available as free downloads using a number of licenses including Creative Commons. Users can download from a catalogue of 8,659 tracks (it was launched with 5,000 songs).
The site looks good but has some way to go in terms of growth and development. Nine thousand tracks is a good start but small compared to other sites such as Jamendo which, at present, hosts some 20,478 albums.
Like Jamendo, the Free Music Archive seeks to embrace new business models. It is intended that links will be provided enabling users to buy the full album and/or giving users the option of tipping an artist by making a deposit to the artists’ PayPal account (from what I can see these are not yet in place). Artist profiles also include tourdates allowing fans to both enjoy their art and support creators/performers by attending concerts.
Another good thing about the site is the album/track descriptions - these are much more detailed than what is found on many other sites including iTunes, eMusic and file sharing networks. The search function allows for key word searching of both the descriptions and the tracks which is a big improvement in terms of the architecture needed to help listeners find political music. One could well imagine the power of combing this design attribute with a much larger catalogue.
This site is in its infancy but is one to watch in the future.Take a look around and be exposed to some new independent artists. But be careful first to check that the license conditions permit uses that suit your needs.
More Information
Free Music Archive <http://freemusicarchive.org/>
Jamendo <http://www.jamendo.com/en/>
The latest Creative Commons newsletter advises that the site was launched in April 2009. It hosts tracks available as free downloads using a number of licenses including Creative Commons. Users can download from a catalogue of 8,659 tracks (it was launched with 5,000 songs).
The site looks good but has some way to go in terms of growth and development. Nine thousand tracks is a good start but small compared to other sites such as Jamendo which, at present, hosts some 20,478 albums.
Like Jamendo, the Free Music Archive seeks to embrace new business models. It is intended that links will be provided enabling users to buy the full album and/or giving users the option of tipping an artist by making a deposit to the artists’ PayPal account (from what I can see these are not yet in place). Artist profiles also include tourdates allowing fans to both enjoy their art and support creators/performers by attending concerts.
Another good thing about the site is the album/track descriptions - these are much more detailed than what is found on many other sites including iTunes, eMusic and file sharing networks. The search function allows for key word searching of both the descriptions and the tracks which is a big improvement in terms of the architecture needed to help listeners find political music. One could well imagine the power of combing this design attribute with a much larger catalogue.
This site is in its infancy but is one to watch in the future.Take a look around and be exposed to some new independent artists. But be careful first to check that the license conditions permit uses that suit your needs.
More Information
Free Music Archive <http://freemusicarchive.org/>
Jamendo <http://www.jamendo.com/en/>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
