I Own My Music

p2pnet news view | Off Topic:- “You would not believe the misuses of the poppy we have to investigate,” Butt says.

‘Butt’ is Royal Canadian Legion spokesman Bob Butt, and he’s quoted in a Toronto Sun story on how the Dutch Oven Bakery in Coburg, Ontario, crossed bayonets with the legion over, Yes, alleged copyright infringement.

It’d been “fulfilling the order of some poppy cookies for the family of a fallen Canadian soldier from the Afghanistan conflict,” says the story.

But, “That would be a violation of the trademark,” explained Butt.

He apparently said the legion understood people are “well meaning” when they use the poppy and unaware of the rules.

“But rules are rules.”

Butt “points out that the legion has the right to do with the poppy what it feels is in its best interest and that none of it has ever been for commercial use,” says the story.

Ah SO!

Poppyrights, anyone?

(Cheers, Marc)

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Toronto Sun – Bakery told to nix poppy tribute, November 6, 2009

Excerpt from:
Baker in trouble over Poppy Day Poppyrights

p2pnet news view P2P | Politics:- The latest round of ACTA negotiations, which concluded yesterday in in Seoul, Korea, might have been summed up as secret talks on transparency, Michael Geist suggested.

“Having spent the first day focused on the now-leaked Internet provisions and the second day on the leaked criminal provisions, negotiators will spend this morning discussing whether they should make the draft treaty public,” he blogged.

Now, “As the ACTA story begins to capture mainstream media attention (front page of the Ottawa Citizen, coverage from the Washington Post, NZ Herald, the Atlantic, Wired), the press release from the now-concluded Seoul talks should be released shortly,” he says today, going on:

” If the past releases are any indication, it will thank the Korean government and blandly describe the talks on Internet and criminal provisions.

And in an update, ” release out, exactly as predicted“.

We’ve reproduced it in full below, for what it’s worth, which is nothing »»»

The 6th Round of Negotiations on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

The 6th round of negotiations on the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was held in Seoul on November 4th to 6th, 2009, hosted by the Republic of Korea. Participants in the negotiations included Australia, Canada, the European Union, represented by the European Commission, the EU Presidency (Sweden), and EU Member States, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States of America (alphabetically ordered).

The meeting was chaired by Mr. Gheewhan Kim, Director-General, and Ms. Miyon Lee, Director, Multilateral Trade Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Participants underlined the importance of ACTA as an agreement which shall provide for an enhanced framework to fight global infringement of intellectual property rights, particularly in the context of counterfeiting and piracy.

The discussions at the meeting were productive and focused on enforcement of rights in the digital environment and criminal enforcement. Participants also discussed the importance of transparency including the availability of opportunities for stakeholders and the public in general to provide meaningful input into the negotiating process.

Participants in the meeting agreed that the next meeting would be hosted by Mexico in January 2010. Participants also reaffirmed their commitment to continue their work with the aim of concluding the agreement as soon as possible in 2010.

However, says Geist, “More informative is the actual document that served as the basis for my postings earlier this week …

He has the documet embedded on his blog, pointing out a login is required for PDF download.

Definitely stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

summed up – ACTA in Korea: ’secret talks on transparency’, November 5, 2009
blogged – ACTA Negotiations, Day Three: Secret Talks on Transparency, November 5, 2009

See the original post here:
ACTA talks in Seoul? Zip.

p2pnet news view | Products:- According All Things Digital, everything is copacetic with Skype co-founders Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis and a “wide range of prominent Silicon Valley players”.

Or if it isn’t now, it soon will be — and possibly “around the time the markets open tomorrow,” says the story.

A settlement “between a consortium of private equity investors, who successfully bid for Skype in September, and the original founders of Skype, who have filed several lawsuits in an effort to scuttle the consortium’s $1.9 billion deal to buy a majority of Skype from eBay,” was on the verge f being agreed, p2pnet posted yesterday, quoting the New York Times.

The deal would “restructure the group that is buying Skype,” it said, aso noting, “Index Ventures, a London-based venture capital firm whose partner, Michelangelo Volpi, was at the center of litigation over the Skype sale, is most likely withdrawing from the deal”.

All Things Digital has sources sayng, “lawyers are apparently putting the finishing touches on the paperwork and have signature papers completed by both sides to be able to wrap it up quickly.”

So, “while nothing is ever over until it is over, it looks like it is over,” and, “Sources also said that as part of the deal to end the legal madness, Zennström and Friis will get 10 percent of Skype back for rights to key software technology they control, an option to pay $83 million for another three percent of the Internet telephony service and two seats on the 23-member board.”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

All Things Digital – I Love the Smell of Settlement in the Morning: Skype Founders Set to Get 10 Percent, Option to Buy Three Percent More and Two Board Seats, November 4, 2009
p2pnet – Zennstrom and Friis: Skype, the sequel, November 4, 2009
New York Times – End to a Fight Over Skype May Be Near, November 3, 2009

Originally posted here:
Adding ‘finishing touches’ to Skype deal

p2pnet news view P2P | Politics | Music:- Members of Britain’s new Featured Artists Coalition want the European Commission to help them recover their rights to their own music.

As things stand, an EC “use it or lose it” copyright clause means recordings revert to performers if the producer or label no longer wants to market the recording — but only  after half a century.

However, FAC members, including Billy Bragg (right), today met with senior civil servants at the Intellectual Property Office in London in a bid to get the cause whittled down to 35 years

“We also discussed how it might be possible to restrict copyright to short term licences rather than assignment for life of copyright,” says Bragg in a comment post on a2f2a.com, the artists-to-fans-to-artists site he co-founded.

During the meeting “A senior civil servant stated that the focus of copyright was moving from permission to remuneration,” he says, going on:

“Talking afterwards we all felt that was very significant, a tacit acceptance of the FAC argument that non-commercial behaviour needs to be lifted out of copyright law.”

Now Bragg is looking for support to break the cycle from file sharers, “particularly in the big fight that we will have next month when the government publish their Digital Britain Bill,” he says.

Copyright is the “stick that they use to beat you and I believe that, as it is being debated at the highest level over the next six months, as governments ask for submissions on the subject, we can work together to disarm the industry to such an extent that they can no longer beat you up over non-commercial use,” he says.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

November, 2009

Continue reading here:
Cut ‘use it or lose it’ clause to 35 years, artists say

p2pnet news view | DRM:- DRM is DUMB. No two ways about it.

Anything which can be seen or heard can be copied by one means or another.

And Henrik Andersen was so tired of Denmark’s  intellectual property laws he turned himself into local cops and admitted copying 100 movies and 10 seasons of a TV series.

But he hadn’t downloaded them.

He’d bought them

Nor was he confessing for copying them — doing so for personal use is legal in Denmark.

Rather, he was owning up to having broken DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) consumer control technology, which is against the law, there, says BusinessDK, noting the ministry of culture had intended to update local laws regarding  “copy protection” to enable people to make copies for personal use.

Says TorrentFreak, “However, as Henrik points out, while this might be the government’s plan, the movie industry has failed to live up to this vision, hence his intended piracy martyrdom to draw attention to the issue.

“As the culture minister sees no reason to change the law, she must, in my opinion, not understand the problem, therefore I choose to confess to you, to see whether you are prepared to get the legislation tested in court,” says Henrik as he concludes his confession.

Henrik has given anti-pirate outfit Antipiratgruppen until December 1to respond,” it says, adding:

“Even given a prosecution on a plate, it’s extremely unlikely they will take him up on his offer.”

(Cheers, Lars)

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

BusinessDK – Dansker har meldt sig selv for piratkopiering, November 4, 2009
TorrentFreak - DRM Breaker Reports Himself To Anti-Piracy Group, November 4, 2009

Go here to see the original:
DRM breaker turns himself into cops

p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Chris Parsons uses the cartoon on the right for his Copyright and the blank media levy post, inspired by Chris Ovenden’s ‘In Favour of a Music Tax‘ on a2f2a.com.

The cartoon is by hartboy on Flickr with a caption which reads »»»

This is the argument the RIAA and similar groups make when explaining why downloading music is bad.

Except, when you steal a CD, you get a misdemeanor, pay a couple bucks in fines, and the store has one less CD to sell.

When you download a song, you get sued for up to $150,000 and no one has lost anything.

It’s like if you light your candle using someone else’s candle and they sue you for stealing their flame.

“In other words,” hartboy adds, “it makes perfect sense to consider copyright exactly the same as tangible property“.

RIAA is short for Recording Industry Association Assholes.

[Also see Shoplifter sued for copyright crime.]

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

November, 2009

More here:
Shoplifter sued for copyright infringement

p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Since I did a number on the Bell Cash Cows, it seemed only fair to do the same for Shaw.

Says the security blazer on the left, “Hey guys. Shut that down. You guys aren’t licensed to broadcast here.

“We have to have that video tape erased!”

Good luck with that.

heh

Jon

(Thanks, Marc)

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Bell Cash Cows – Bell Canada’s cash cows, November 25, 2009

Read the original here:
Shaw Cash Cow – MOOOO!

p2pnet news view P2P:- Jenna McWilliams says she’s been reading Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “good little revolutionary” that she is.

She’s an an educational researcher for project new media literacies and a Guardian online columnist, as well as the creator of sleeping alone and starting out early where we find:

“Some of my colleagues find this fact cute. Cute like this: “Oh, lookit Jenna getting all outraged again. Now she’s even carrying Freire around with her. That’s so cute.”

heh

But, that’s okay, she says, going on »»»

Other cute things include: anteaters and baby pterodactyls.

Reading Freire can make a guy excessively aware of anything that gives off even the faintest whiff of colonizing tendencies: Actions or words that ignore, dismiss, or (intentionally or unintentionally) distort or misrepresent the interests of oppressed groups.

A good recent example of this is Peggy Orenstein’s recent New York Times piece Stop Your Search Engines.

The piece, which focuses on “our” struggle to control overwhelming levels of information inundation, offers a peek into how even the best writers so often end up re-colonizing marginalized voices by treating personal issues as if they were universal concerns. It’s a common trend in writing about new media, which coincidentally happens to be the topic of Orenstein’s piece. She explains that, much like the irresistible urge of the Sirens’ call in Homer’s The Odyssey, the internet and the knowledge contained therein can drain “our” spirit, energy, and very lifeforce away. “It is heartening,” she writes,

that the yearning for learning is the most powerful of all human cravings (though it applies equally to obtaining the wisdom of Zeus or the YouTube video on how to peel a banana like a monkey). Yet the sea surrounding the Sirens was littered with corpses. Can increased knowledge really destroy us?

Well, yes…. [T]he trap is more of a bait and switch: the promise is of infinite knowledge, but what’s delivered is infinite information, and the two are hardly the same. In that sense, Homer may have been the original neuropsychologist: centuries after his death, brain studies show that true learning is largely an unconscious process. If we’re inundated with data, our brains’ synthesizing functions are overwhelmed by the effort to keep up. And the original purpose — deeper knowledge of a subject — is lost, as surely as the corpses surrounding Sirenum scopuli.

There’s a lot of “we”-ing and “us”-ing in this article. The piece, after all, is part of a regular feature called “The Way We Live Now,” a feature intended to represent personal approaches to larger cultural issues. And this is exactly what Orenstein attempts to do. She cites Fred Stutzman, the inventor of an internet-blocking application called Freedom, as saying that “we’re moving toward this era where we’ll never be able to escape from the cloud.” (emphasis mine)

The internet, Orenstein argues, “has allowed us (emphasis mine) to reflexively indulge every passing interest, to expect answers to every fleeting question, to believe that if we search long enough, surf a little further, we can hit the dry land of knowing ‘everything that happens’ and that such knowledge is both possible and desirable. In the end, though, there is just more sea, and as alluring as we can find the perpetual pursuit of little thoughts, the net result may only be to prevent us from forming the big ones. (emphasis mine, emphasis mine, emphasis, emphasis mine)

We sure do spend a lot of time talking about what the internet means to us, don’t we? I’ve been as guilty of this as the next guy — it’s a nice rhetorical move, a way of enlisting allies around a cause and demonstrating an awareness of cultural trends.

It also silences people who aren’t part of the “we” in question.

One of the most exciting aspects of the internet as an information and communication source is that it offers the promise of real revolution: of tools for dancing along with and in resistance and opposition to dominant cultural forces.

We feel inundated, overwhelmed at times, by information, but when information is necessary, useful, and used it feels anything but. They — people who, for example, have used Twitter as a tool for revolution; who have used cellphones to document the most abominable acts of cruelty and degradation; who have used news sites and blogs and forums to gather information they couldn’t otherwise access – are less likely than “we” are to feel like limits must be set, like too much knowledge is a dangerous thing, like “self-binding” is the only path to true productivity.

Pervasive among members of dominant groups, writes Paulo Freire, is a fear of freedom: a fear that liberating the oppressed — making possible true conscientizacao, or critical consciousness and the will to resist oppression — will threaten the status quo.

“We,” Jenna adds, “would do well to remember that the internet serves many purposes, some revolutionary and others not, but the leisure and reflexivity with which many of ‘us’ approach consistent internet access is a long, long ways from universal.

“It’s the old Tree of Knowledge issue again: Eating the apple only constitutes a fall from grace if you had the luxury of grace in the first place.”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

sleeping alone and starting out early – who you calling ‘we’? Part 2: Peggy Orenstein version, October 25, 2009

See the article here:
Of ‘we’-ing and ‘us’-ing

p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Is Carphone Warehouse’s TalkTalk speaking out of both sides of its mouth?

“We’re full of bright ideas,” it says on its site. But as p2pnet revealed recently, one of them is a plan to have parents acting as corporate copyright control cops on behalf of the entertainment industry.

Mums and dads would censor their kids online with a U, 14 or 18 certificate, or an unclassified rating system

Parents “choosing” the U or 14 options, “would be able to block computers in the household from accessing certain filesharing sites such as the Pirate Bay, as well as pornography and gambling, without having to install extra software on the computer,” the Financial Times quoted  Carphone Warehouse boss Charles Dunstone stating.

The move would, “help consumers understand a system that blacklists sites that facilitate piracy,” says the story, also quoting Dunstone as declaring, “This is something that we are going to do anyway, as a service to our customers. But through doing it we can also help the content industry by blacklisting sites that have BitTorrent files on them.”

But in a bold PR move, TalkTalk, the UK’s the second largest ISP, “has threatened to launch legal action if business secretary Peter Mandelson follows through with his plan to cut off persistent illegal filesharers’ internet connections,” says the Guardian.

As we’ve emphasised many times, the cut ‘em off scheme is no more Mandelson’s and it is ‘3 Strikes’ Sarkozy’s  over in France.

It’s a wholly creative industries creation. Under it, various government are being herded into deals through which they agreed to act as corporate enforcement agencies, paid for out of the public purse.

If TalkTalk, or anyone else, wants to scupper the Three Strikes plan, they’d best sue the originators, not their dupes.

‘Guilty until proven innocent’

ISPs such as TalkTalk  are expected to act as copyright cops, turning on their own customs,  with the likes of Mandelson and Sarkozy acting as entertainment cartel mouthpieces, fronting for them in their respective parliaments.

“TalkTalk, which has more than 4 million ISP customers and owns the Tiscali and AOL brands, claimed the government’s plan was based on filesharers being ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and constituted an infringement of human rights,” says the Guardian going on:

“The approach is based on the principle of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and substitutes proper judicial process for a kangaroo court,” said Andrew Heaney, the executive director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk. “We know this approach will lead to wrongful accusations.”

Of course, encouraging parents to act against their own children as copyright controllers has much the same effect, with kids presumed guilty of being potential copyright crooks whose activities need to be carefully monitored and, possibly, cut off.

“The government plans to look at increased action against illegal downloaders, including potentially suspending the accounts of persistent offenders, from July 2011 if a 70% reduction in online piracy is not achieved by sending warning letters,” says the story. “Customers will have the right to appeal if they are targeted and their connection subjected to technical measures.

“If the government moves to stage two we would consider that extra-judicial technical measures and would look to appeal the decision [to the courts] because it infringes human rights,” Heaney  says in a story. “TalkTalk will continue to resist any attempts to make it impose technical measures on its customers unless directed to do so by a court or recognised tribunal.”

It will instead expect parents to impose technical measures on their kids.

Mandelson has just“confirmed that it would become government policy, following months of speculation,” said the BBC yesterday, going on »»»

Initially Ofcom will monitor whether file-sharing is going down with the disconnection policy not brought into force until at least April 2011.

The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills emphasised that there would be a “toolkit” of technical measures employed to encourage illegal file-sharers to desist.

This would include squeezing their bandwidth and imposing download caps.

Traffic throttling, in other words, with ISPs applying the brakes.

“By what is, we’re sure, merely a concidence, Hollywood mouthperson and MPAA boss Bob Pisano was recently in the UK to suggest traffic throttling rather than outright disconnection would be the way to go,” p2pnet reported on Wednesday, adding:

“Pisano flew to London, ‘to meet Lord Puttnam, the film-maker, who is expected to be a key voice in building support for the plans,’the story adds, said Times Online.

“And by a similar coincidence, Sony Music boss Michael Lynton yesterday felt it incumbent upon himself to chime in with his suport of the UK version of the entertainment industry Three Strikes marketing plan.”

Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

p2pnet – TalkTalk to launch parent-run censor scheme, September 29, 2009
Financial Times – Age ratings plan to fight internet piracy, September 25, 2009
over in France – ‘3 Strikes’ Sarkozy blows $396,841 on a shower!,  I’mOctober 29, 2009
BBC – Net pirates to be ‘disconnected’, October 28, 2009
Times Online – MI5 comes out against cutting off internet pirates, October 26, 2009
similar coincidence - Sony movie boss touts 3 strikes scheme, October 27, 2009

Original post:
TalkTalk double-speak?

p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- The Future of Music Coalition (FMC) describes itself as US “national nonprofit organization that works to ensure a diverse musical culture where artists flourish, are compensated fairly for their work, and where fans can find the music they want”.

It’s just wrapped a three-day music policy meeting and in italics at the top of  the allournoise post on the ’summit’ is this quote from Jed Carlson, ReverbNation »»»

Old model: get signed or get lost. New model: fan relationships create a value pipeline … (The new artist) revenue pie chart: gigs 35%, merch 17%, digital sales 11%, CDs 6%, royalties 9%.

It’s a great quote and it’s dead on.

Unfortunately, however, on the FMC, as with just about every other music-centred organisation, corporate and independent, the fans — the people upon whom it all depends — are still all-but invisible with no presence and no representation.

a2f2a.com was set up specifically to link artists directly with fans, and vice versa.

It’s short for artists-to-fans-to-artists and one of its co-founders is Billy Bragg, the British singer/musician who’s become famous not only for his music, but also for the strength of his opinions and beliefs, and the power of his advocacy.

In a 2008 New York Times editorial, he stated »»»

Technology is advancing far too quickly for the old safeguards of intellectual property rights to keep up, and while we wait for the technical fixes to emerge, those of us who want to explore the opportunities the Internet offers need to establish a set of ground rules that give us the power to decide how our music is exploited and by whom.

We need to do this not for the established artists who already have lawyers, managers and careers, but for the fledgling songwriters and musicians posting original material onto the Web tonight. The first legal agreement that they enter into as artists will occur when they click to accept the terms and conditions of the site that will host their music. Worryingly, no one is looking out for them.

If young musicians are to have a chance of enjoying a fruitful career, then we need to establish the principle of artists’ rights throughout the Internet — and we need to do it now.

But fans, too, have rights and that in 2009 Bragg is keenly aware of this fundamental reality is evidenced by the fact his name is on a2f2a’s masthead.

He’s not just a figurehead, though. He’s also one of the most prolific comment posters, doing his best to answer each and every query thrown at him by music lovers who, thanks to a2f2a, now for the first time have an opportunity to talk with a major artist P2P — person-to-person.

Giving music away

Peter Jenner (right) was at the FMC meet.

He, too, is famous — as the manager of Pink Floyd, T Rex, Ian Dury, Roy Harper, The Clash — and, since 1983, Billy Bragg.

Jenner, among others, gave an, “excellent commentary on copyright issues,” says allournoise.

It’s a fascinating  post and we hope the FMC and Nikki, who’ named as the poster, won’t mind if we quote the last portion in full.

What’s on the tabel for artists, it asks under The Rise of Service Models and Giving Music Away, going on »»»

Some people don’t really understand the Internet, particularly those who can’t see it beyond a revenue source that will mitigate the decline of traditional revenue sources such as manufacturing.

Peter Jenner insisted that “we have to stop thinking of the Internet like a shop and more like a radio station.” The Internet is not a store. Nor is it a library, or a well. It’s not even really a highway — or a Thunder Road, for that matter, although the highway metaphor conveys the speed of innovation and the advantages conferred by access.

One panelist stated, “say goodbye to the world of scarcity”… “not Tower records but iPods, not shelf space but Netflix, I mean we’re going from scarcity to abundance to ubiquity of music and that is what we have to license, rather than control. We need to license access bundled into the networks, into devices, where we can get away from the scarcity idea that a copy needs to be paid every time a copy happens.”

Peter Jenner: “The industry is clinging to a business built on mass-produced ’small bits of plastic”‘ sold inside physical stores.

DIY 2.0: The Consumer as Collaborator, The Band as its own Label

The most obvious example of the consumer as collaborator is in sampling and remixing. But more generally, the contemporary consumer has more control over the music experience.  And like we’ve been hearing, the move away from product based marketing is leading into relationship oriented marketing, where fans have more direct contact with bands and with each other.

In this landscape, it’s harder to get people’s attention. Artists must gain and keep trust, rather than rely on distribution monopolies. Streaming services like last.fm are more personalized than terrestrial radio. Rhapsody and some other services provide editorial content, with much greater flexibility, and a wider breadth of content. Social media means the fan herself is the ultimate promotion tool.

Wired.com’s Eliot Van Buskirk reminds us that, it’s not about sales, you have to be a community organizer. It’s about the number of engaged fans.

Despite the phenomenon of Myspace (which is almost exclusively the domain of bands these days it seems) , the Internet itself has not and most likely will not solve the problems plaguing the music industry.  In her FMC panel discussion, publicist Ariel Hyatt delivered some sobering statistics demonstrating some issues with the glut of music available. Out of 5 million bands on MySpace last year, 105,575 released albums. 110 bands sold 250,000 or more copies of their album. 1,515 bands sold over 10,000 albums and 5,945 bands sold 1000 albums or less.

Despite the myriad new developments there are certain realities that may not really change. Like Mac McCaughan, of Merge Records/Superchunk said, “I feel so old fashioned having a label.” That might be, but the fact is artists may not want to do certain tasks or may simply not be as effective as an agent in matters like promotion.

From what I gathered, the FMC’s conclusion for now is that…. Artists need to work hard. I didn’t find that particularly innovative.

Same Old Song…

I also didn’t buy them dressing up old practices to fit the new mold, like the session focusing on NPRs All Songs Considered. I love All Songs Considered. I’ve found several artists I like through the show and site, and the effort to promote unknown/little known artists is laudable. However, the journalist-serving-as-curator doesn’t exactly scream innovation. Despite that it seems nearly everyone considers NPR one of the good guys as far as broadcasters go, the format of All Songs Considered largely reasserts the longstanding history of the media figure as tastemaker, albeit a reformulation.

NPR may not directly profit from pushing certain bands the way music journalists historically have by pushing bands for labels. But NPR does benefit from the “reverse promotion” that comes with airing the bands’ music, and that should be considered. A non-profit organziation named Weathervane is looking to adopt this model.

Several talks showcased alternative ways of promoting and distributing music, like the popular European internet streaming service, Spotify. They deliberated at length about how  the consumer has demanded changes from day one of the file haring debate. Namely, a-la-carte, on demand access to digital files. However, they failed to mention how Spotify has yet to tackle the tangle of intellectual property laws in the U.S.. Furthermore, Spotify is showing a similar collusion with industry in its lack of transparency regarding its dealings with Google, etc.

Fundamental Changes are Organic, Incremental, but also Accelerated in the Digital Context

Last Jenner quote, regarding the RIAA’s reluctance to budge on copyright. “It’s an enormous bit to get the turkeys to vote for Christmas.”

True to his form throughout the summit, it’s succinct, pithy, and perfectly British, capturing the crux of the issue quite adequately.

However, I think a consideration of what role organizations like the FMC play, and what progress comes from big, periodic conferences like the Policy Summit, CMJ, and Public Media Camp is necessary.  The FMC and the summits undoubtedly spark ideas and interactions which ultimately make a difference. But often times the scheduled presentations are not where the real solutions are found. Revolutionary change usually occurs through more organic processes, springing from the interaction of creative stakeholders who are well positioned and willing to take risks–and frankly, who get lucky. The tectonic plates of existing legal, financial and political systems aren’t themselves compelled by great ideas, even those pithily espoused in a British accent by Peter Jenner. (Incidentally, I suspect he was drunk. I think he’d proudly admit to it.)

Digital technologies transformed the industry with speed and power that was startling.  The resulting legal challenges came quickly.  We will never actually know how much piracy went on, or what role the industry’s anti-consumer behavior played in encouraging piracy.  It is also arguable whether the transformation would have been as rapid and pervasive if the market power of the industry had not been challenged by consumers.  As Peter later added regarding consumer demand for digital music, “…we [consumers] don’t care if it’s on EMI or Universal, NOBODY GIVES A DAMN.”

Innovations for a more egalitarian music economy, won’t occur in the vacuum of academia or in the molasses of legalese. I also don’t think they occur at conferences, although they may be popularized that way. At a CMJ panel this week, Peter Kirn, editor-in-chief of createdigitalmusic.com stated, “the key word that started with ‘A’ at these things used to be ‘album.’ Now, it’s ‘app,’”.

As the FMC itself states: Technology creates possibilities but the market structure that emerges is a product of business models built on the technology, and those models reflect the political and economic power of the players in the market; in this case, consumers, artists and record companies. Technologies will advance further. And new entities will arise, as independent labels have developed in the last ten years, to meet artists’ needs and consumer demands in a way that labels haven’t.

We should expect advances in intellectual property law to follow, like it did in the 1930s for radio legislation allocating spectrum. And like we’ve recently seen. The music industry response to digital technology moved through stages, from complete hostility toward digital distribution; to DRM-wrapped, device-tied usage fees; to unwrapped, first sales (use anywhere).

POLICY/LEGISLATIVE ISSUES

Public Performance Rights Act
Radio pays songwriters but not artists, arguing that promotional value is payment enough. However, internet streaming which is 32 times more diverse and arguably, a more effective promoter of more artists, do have to pay royalties, driving many legitimate entities out of the market, or into serious debt, like Pandora.  There is a bill in the House on this issue.

Low Power FM radio in Rural Communities
Consolidation has mostly done away with local programming. LPFM gives people a voice and a venue to discuss local issues. ex: LPFM stayed on the air during Katrina when no other stations did.

NEW MODELS

New Investment Mechanisms
The 360 degree deal, allowing labels to offset diminishing revenues from declining record sales, by obtaining a percentage from tours and promotional ventures.

There are also many new direct Investment arrangements allowing fans to support bands directly, like Polyphonic, Kickstarter, Sellaband.

Other third party partnerships, like songs made for advertisements are also being explored.

Mobile Platforms
At the CMJ conference ongoing this week in New York, there was a lot more discussion of mobile, and the possibilities presented to consumers experiencing and interacting with music in spaces and circumstances that were previously impossible. There are ways in which it can also translate to revenue, as it already has in Japan’s use of mobile music. For example, About 8% of Shazaam inquiries end in a purchase according to Will Mills. Michael Schneider of Mobile Roadie also discussed new technologies that would allow artists, through their phone applications to send out to send out files/messages based on the users location (e.g. at their concert).

Importance of Meta-Data
Companies like BandMetrics and Bands in Town, aggregate information available from ticket sales, website traffic, mp3 sales, and other available data to help bands better promote themselves, and also to ensure royalties are properly paid. prvide artists with and ReverbNation, a company that provides Music 2.0 marketing technology to Artists, Labels, Managers, and Venues.

“Nowadays,” adds Nikki on alloursaounds, “band should seek to cause enough of a splash independently, so they can command better terms with a label in the future. Soulja Boy proved he was a good investment using data acquired from sales in iTunes, data organized and available to them as TuneCore artists, and then prove themselves a good investment to a major.”

A “good investment to a major,” eh?

Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

New York Times – The Royalty Scam, March 22, 2008
allournoise – The Future Of Music: What Are Working Musicians Working Toward?, October 23, 2009

View post:
New model for artists: build fan relationships