Tag Archives: theft

Copyright, Music, My Stories, Piracy, Stupidity, Treating Fans Like Shit

Customers And Creators. Fans And Artists. They are the ones that matter.

Village Roadshow is grasping at straws in their fight against piracy. Still failing to understand why it is a phenomenon and how it can be competed against. And the spokesperson for all of the propaganda and misinformation is Village Roadshow senior executive Graham Burke.

He has gone after Google because he believes that Google is deliberately misinforming the public in their arguments on copyright breaches and on-line piracy.

You see Mr Burke reckons that Australia needs stronger anti-piracy legislation in conjunction with expensive legally available products because he has reports that this kind of approach works in other countries. He also believes that a three-strikes policy will stop people from stealing. Yep, the CEO of Village Roadshow still refers to copyright infringement as THEFT. If copyright infringement is theft, then prosecute the thieves under theft laws.

Why go after them under Copyright laws?

Mr Burke points to the music business to debunk the theory that online piracy is primarily an availability and pricing problem.

Yes, Spotify and streaming services are all over the world and music piracy still exists. There is no doubt about that.

That is because people still want to download music for free, so where is the legal service that allows users to download mp3’s for free. Of course there isn’t a proper licensed one, so people turn to illegal downloading.

A free ad-supported service that allows users to download or trade in mp3’s will bring billions of dollars into the recording industry. Hell, the recording industry and the movie industry claim that pirated sites make millions upon millions from advertisements. So why don’t they along with iTunes, Spotify or a new player like Arena offer the same service.

Instead, we get Governments introducing new policies to “CRACKDOWN” on Copyright Infringement. And of course, these laws are all being collaborated in secret between certain interest groups.

As misleading as Graham Burke is, he has found an ally in Attorney-General George Brandis who benefited greatly from Village Roadshow in campaign contributions. In Australia, we pay the second highest honesty tax.

Yep, the powerful Retail Lobby groups pushed for a tax around $290 per household to offset the $AU1.86 billion in losses they incur from customer “deviant behaviour”. Let’s look at the deviant behaviour of Australians;

– Creating a fake US iTunes account to access and pay for content not available in Australia

– Using an IP Address to access content at a fairer price due to GeoBlocking.

– Illegally downloading TV shows, music and books from the internet for free, for personal consumption.

– Online shopping from other parts of the world because it is cheaper.

But the above behaviours are deemed “acceptable” by the people because hey, every news outlet reports that Australia has the highest rate of piracy. However, large organisations with a lot of cash, disagree with this. Instead of focusing on their models they focus on legislation. They need a tailored approach to their problem. If you have movie piracy, then it is your fault. If you have music piracy, then it is your fault.

Make your movie available as soon as it hits the cinema’s to download. Hell, most houses now have a home cinema.

But as long as people like Graham Burke exist and there are many of them, the industries will moan and complain. Once he finished with Google, he moved on to iiNet and accused them of “scaremongering”.

iiNet says that a graduated response is the wrong path to take in the piracy debate.

Village Roadshow wants to be judge, jury and executioner. There is no due process here whatsoever.

As we have seen with all of the takedown requests sent to Google, the Rights Holders are the main entities that are censoring the internet.

George Brandis has also labelled Australia the worst offender in the world when it comes to piracy.

So what we have here is a company called Foxtel (owned by News Corp) who has Game of Thrones locked up behind a paywall, claiming that over 500,000 Australians “legally watched each episode of the fourth and most recent season of Game of Thrones, but as many watched it illegally through online file-sharing.”

Then you have Choice, a consumer rights group that puts the blame at Foxtel’s ‘‘outdated business model’’ for the spike in GoT piracy.

So who is to blame.

500,000 illegally downloaded each episode according to Foxtel.

So why don’t Foxtel monetise those people by offering a service that benefits all. $10 to watch 10 episodes of Game Of Thrones, whenever you want. That is a cool $5 million.

Because in the end, all of these organisations in the middle, make their money from two groups.

CUSTOMERS and CREATORS.

Standard
A to Z of Making It, Copyright, Music, My Stories, Stupidity, Treating Fans Like Shit

What Do Artists Need? Stronger Copyright Laws or Better Business Models

I absolutely support that musicians should be paid for their work.

What I don’t get is how the record labels and misguided artists feel entitled to push for stronger copyright enforcement as a way to guarantee an income which is contrary to the foundations of what copyright was designed to do.

As we all know, Copyright laws have been hijacked by Corporations that at this point in time, copyright is contrary to freedom, and in particular freedom of speech, to a degree where it is illegal to sing “Happy Birthday” at a birthday party.

The “Happy Birthday” song goes all the way back to 1893 and right now it is “protected” by copyright until 2030 because someone decided to retroactively place it back under copyright. If that doesn’t tell everybody that something is very wrong with Copyright then I really don’t know what will.

Because people who really believe in stronger copyright laws believe that if those extra enforcement laws do not exist then musicians will cease to create. Those same people believe that if people are not paid upfront to write an album, then musicians will cease to create.

The maximalist viewpoint doesn’t seem to be supported.

Look at Sweden, the birth place of Spotify and The Pirate Bay. Guess what, the country has a thriving culture around music. Sweden to me is the scene to be at right now. Other policy changes by the Swedish Government around making medical care free has also contributed to this vibrant music scene. And all of this has been achieved with the threat of copyright infringement.

Remember all of the lies that have come out from the entertainment industries.

“Home taping killed music” was a good one. Guess that is why the music business and as a by-product the recording business grew exponentially once cassettes came into the market. I guess that is why no popular music has been made since cassettes came into the market.

The point is that copyright protectionism is purely about protecting old business models. Stronger Copyright has nothing to do about supporting thriving new industries. Stronger Copyright has nothing to do about finding new ways of doing things. The thing is the Copyright cartels have had a big win in successfully skewing the argument that file sharing is “theft”.

Remember all of those commercials about stealing that seemed to appear on a legally purchased DVD. The irony. I purchase a DVD and then I get blasted with ads that links copyright infringement to theft. BUT, if file sharing was actually “stealing”, then file-sharers could no doubt be prosecuted under existing theft law.

But they don’t. Because file sharing is not theft of property. It is a violation of copyright. That’s an important difference.

Duplicating a pile of 1’s and 0’s does not deprive anybody of the original content. What all of this copying does is drive down the value of the product. What is the price of a song when the internet is littered with millions of copies of the same song and they are free.

That right there is a market with a customer base in the billions and it needed to be satisfied. And that is where YouTube, Spotify, Pandora and other streaming services come into play. They are there to monetize that market by competing with free through ad-supported business models. Hey, if it is good enough for the free to air TV networks, why can’t it be good enough for music networks.

But this “free market” has a big problem when it runs up against Government protected monopolies.

And the thing is, people do also pay for music. Many studies are actually showing that the biggest consumers of illegal media are also the biggest purchasers of legal media. Ultimately this seems to show that people are more than happy to pay for content they enjoy.

Metallica’s self-titled Black album is still moving on average 2000 units a week. And it is doing this even though millions of copies of the album are available to be downloaded for free. It is doing this even though it is available for streaming on Spotify and YouTube.

Volbeat has been selling records on a weekly basis in the U.S since 2011. They are doing these numbers even though their album/s are available to be downloaded on peer-to-peer networks. They are doing these numbers even though their albums are available for streaming.

Same deal with Five Finger Death Punch, Avenged Sevenfold and Skillet. Still selling, regardless of the state of piracy.

So what is it. Do artists need stronger copyright laws or better business models and terms that pay them a fair days pay for a fair days work?

Standard
Copyright, Music, My Stories, Piracy, Stupidity, Treating Fans Like Shit

What I Am Over Reading …..

Metallica’s New Album

Seriously it has been six years since Death Magnetic was released. For the last six months, the band has been working on songs. They have mentioned in press interviews that they have thousands of riffs stockpiled. The hype means nothing in 2014. Do people want a full Metallica album every six or seven years? I know what I would prefer, more quality frequent releases.

In relation to new music, “The Lords Of Summer” is the only new offering, while “Beyond Magnetic” broke the cobwebs on some old Death Magnetic demos. And the less said about “Lulu” the better.

However the Metallica live show sells out.

Led Zeppelin ReIssues

Seriously. How many times can someone own the original three albums or the songs contained within those albums.

Rockstars becoming owners of ,insert business venture here>

The fans want you to write music and play for them. Instead we get our heroes become owners in football clubs, technology start ups and so forth.

Piracy

Seriously. Is this still an issue in 2014?

YouTube and Spotify more or less have everything that a person would want. However the labels along with the RIAA still use piracy as a means to get more laws written. In Australia, our Attorney General is talking up a three strikes policy as a means to combat piracy even though evidence from all over the world has shown that these policies have done nothing to stop copyright infringement.

It’s because the people have no respect for copyright law anymore and the corporations that abuse it. Music survived for centuries upon centuries because there was no copyright. Artists copied each other. Music and melodies got passed on from family members to family members via copying each other.

Google Needs To Do More

People like U2 manager Paul McGuinness or the RIAA or the MPAA or the various bots they employ to issue takedowns need to get a life because Google is not to blame for copyright infringement. Google is not to blame for the THEFT of music. I believe the latest comment from McGuinness is that “Google is the greatest theft enabler on the internet”.

Seriously McGuinness should look up what THEFT means because as far as I know, U2 still has their music on iTunes. No one has stolen the mp3 that exists there. However if millions of copies of that same mp3 exist all over the internet, is that Google’s fault.

Streaming Doesn’t Pay

It does pay. If you are not getting any of the pie speak to the label or the organisation that is getting the pie. But according to Paul McGuinness again, bands should gate their releases like the good old days.

Sales

Seriously,they are irrelevant. All they do is give the old guard a way to measure something that is irrelevant because the new way to measure an artists reach is just too hard to fathom for them.

Are people listening to the album? That is the question. Instead of focusing on Soundscan numbers, what is happening on the live front?

Press Releases for new albums

People can see through the hype and bullshit. In other words, we don’t care about what the bands say about “how great this new album is” or “how it is a definitive statement of the band right now”. All we care about is if we like it. If it is great we will push it. If it is crap, expect it to disappear.

Because if publicity does increase sales, then bands should be selling by the millions and selling out their shows. But they don’t.

Standard
A to Z of Making It, Copyright, Music, My Stories, Piracy

Time Is Working Against The Artist

It’s 1992. The labels are signing Seattle bands, left, right and centre while at the same time they are dropping hard rock and heavy metal bands left, right and centre. That is the power the record label had. Not only could they make an artist famous, they could also destroy an artist. You see when you control all the points in the distribution and marketing chain, you more or less control everything.

With the massive power that the major labels had, we always saw artist/s as famous. We always thought that once an artist was signed to a label deal, they had it made. It was a big misconception.

Fame for an artist in most cases meant a large advance that had to be recouped by withholding royalty payments. That is why record label accounting gets messy and it cannot be trusted.

So in 2013, things have changed dramatically. With this change, the power is still with the major record labels. They gathered enough power during the Eighties and Nineties to be a force to be reckoned. Then in the Two Thousands the massive mergers and takeovers happened, further enhancing the power of the record labels. Then in order to allow digital start-ups, the record labels did one of three things; charge high licensing fees or litigate the start-up to bankruptcy or negotiate a large ownership stake in the start-up.

So even though the internet has lowered the barriers of entry, without the money and power of the label behind the artists, there is a pretty good chance, the artist would probably go unnoticed. Remember 4 million songs haven’t even been listened too on Spotify.

So when certain artists are complaining about a low royalty payment, maybe that is the royalty payment that is relevant to the niche the artist is in. Maybe it is a royalty payment that they have earned. You don’t see a current household name complaining. It’s because they worked hard at obtaining a certain thing called leverage.

Digital distribution offers an artist new audiences in places where brick-and-mortar stores would be impossible or unsustainable, like foreign countries or rural areas. The end result is growth across the board, both physical and digital provided that the artist gets noticed.

So is piracy that bad for an artist who is trying to get traction?

The majors and the mainstream journalists attached to news outlets operated by media moguls have done a great job selling the “one pirated item equals one lost sale” statistic and the “illegal downloading (piracy) is theft” argument. It is a statistic that rights holders, lobby groups and misguided artists exaggerate and it is a statistic they use to either kill off innovation or to stifle innovation.

Piracy (better known as copyright infringement) is basically one person (A) copying something of value that another person (B) owns. This leads to a situation that has both people (A and B) having a copy of the same item.

So it is safe to say that one pirated item is not theft. Theft is basically one person (A) taken something of value that another person (B) owns, which means that Person (B) no longer has the item.

So let’s assume that piracy spreads the artists’ material to places that are unknown to the artist and the people who download the music might become a fan and share their thoughts with others. They could even go to a show or they could go and purchase the next album or the artists back catalogue. There are a lot of could’s in the above theory. However the music business is all based on could’s.

For example, in the heyday of the record labels, this is how the above would have panned out.
Let’s assume that a record deal spreads the artists’ material to places that are unknown to the artist and the people who hear the music on radio or MTV might become a fan and share their thoughts with others. They could even go to a show or they could go and purchase the next album or the artists back catalogue. As you can see, the heyday theory also holds a lot of could’s.

Of course the difference is the money. The labels once upon a time threw money at artists and provided tour support. Today, the labels only go for the sure bet and 360 deals.

From a fan perspective, the main thing working against the artist today is time. Why would a music lover want to invest their time in an artist? I recently invested a lot of time in the TV show “Sons of Anarchy” because knowledge of the show was being shared at work and I wanted to be part of the conversation. I invested a lot of time in the show because fans of the show shared their thoughts with me. They convinced me that I needed to watch it.

One thing is certain in 2013. We move on fast. Look at the Top 10 lists of pirated movies that TorrentFreak publish each week. It’s always changing and very rare for the same movie to be at number one for two weeks in a row. Look at the Top 10 of the Charts published by each country. The artists in the list are always changing.

Standard