Michaels Geist's update on the latest discussions on ACTA brought forward this pithy comment.
"Our silly cops here are concerned with trivial things like gang murders, armed holdups, stabbings, crystal meth, tracking rapists etc. I'm sure they would really appreciate being diverted to hunt down unlicensed Mickey Mouse dolls, and infringing mp3s of the latest Metallica album."
The topic under discussion was criminal penalties for copyright offences...
When governments get together behind closed doors to protect the interests of big business against the winds of change - and aginst the interests of their voters - you start to wonder where democracy went...
Can't we please just cut the terms for copyright back to something sensible (thereby simulating more new work, instead of letting companes live off back catalogs) and decriminilise non-commercial file sharing.
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
Showing posts with label avarice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label avarice. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Working 9 to 5: pay up or face the music
"Nine to five
What a way to make a livin'
Barely gettin' by
It's all takin' and no givin'
They just use you mind
And they never give you credit...."
....as made famous by Dolly Parton
It's no news that STIM, the Swedish performing rights society, wants payments from companies using music in their business or playing music in the workplace. Now though they have gone one further and started requiring licensing from companies that 'give their employee the possibility to play music'. ... which includes those providing them with a PC capable of playing tunes... which is pretty much any computer you can buy.
At up to 40 000 kronor per company (around £3300) that's a fat price to pay for something you dont even know get's used. Not only that of course but if you are playing music at your desk you're most probably not playing out loud i.e. making a public performance, and you have probably already paid for the music at least once - either buying the disc or download - or by the radio station paying to STIM.
Reading between the lines this looks like another case of outdated rules. Not so very long ago if the company gave you the ability to play music that usually meant a radio that was going to be played to the room. These days a music player comes free on every computer - a tool for the trade. It used to make sense that a company providing a means to make music meant it to be used in public... but that isnt true any more, and STIM wanting a tax on computers is just plain stupid - except of course they already have a tax on media and hard drives :-(
It is though another good example that you never pay for music.. but they are quite happy to get paid for letting you play music you already own.
Could this be why Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party are working for reform of copyright?
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Book publishers go phishing
On the same day that the courts decided the ISP Ephone has to give out IP details to book publishers over filesharing on a private (password restricted) server -Swedens first ruling under the controversial IPRED legislation - the Författarförbund (Swedish authors association) is warning it's members against signing agreements with publishers over e-book rights.
Publishers have been mailing their authors en masse to get them to sign over e-book rights to works in perpetuity. E-books are expected to take off big time and publishers are looking to stake their claim in the gold rush.
"Authors that have been around a while understand at once that this contract is not OK... "
...but some of the less wary are signing on the dotted line.
It's nice to know that the media industry is looking after the best interests of our creative talent...
Get those authors a spam filter!
Footnote: Contracts have automatic renewals after seven years with a four month period for authors to annul the agreement.
Publishers have been mailing their authors en masse to get them to sign over e-book rights to works in perpetuity. E-books are expected to take off big time and publishers are looking to stake their claim in the gold rush.
"Authors that have been around a while understand at once that this contract is not OK... "
...but some of the less wary are signing on the dotted line.
It's nice to know that the media industry is looking after the best interests of our creative talent...
Get those authors a spam filter!
Footnote: Contracts have automatic renewals after seven years with a four month period for authors to annul the agreement.
Monday, 22 June 2009
Pay it again, Sam
Shane Richmonds blog at the Telegraph has two pieces, here & here under the title 'What will the music industry tax next' - discussing a proposal from the 'Music Business Group' to the UK Intellectual Property Office consultation on copyright exceptions.
"The MBG, who represent "the collective view of the UK music industry" want to clamp down on format shifting, that is the process of, say, copying a CD to your iPod."
What they want is to have a tax on MP3 players to provide revenue for the artists who are having their works format shifted. It would be laughable if it wasn't clearly intended as a serious suggestion.
The argument goes that there is a value in having the music in a convenient format - and that part of that value should go to the artist... But hello guys... the artist makes music - and making music is what they want to get paid for (not that they really ever do). Now I've bought the CD. Now they have been paid and I have the right to play this album 24/7 if I want to. Where did the format come into this? It's not like I'm going to play it more than I already paid for now is it?
I go down to the shop and buy a wine box... hand over my cash and walk out. I get home and pour it into a glass... ching!!! Cash registers whirr and before I kow it there's a bill on the doormat for changing the format. Same wine... different receptacle. C'mon. Get a life!
There is no music on a CD. There are instructions for recreating music. A recipe. How I store the recipe has zip to do with the artists.. It's only music when the sound waves wash against my eardrums. If copyright is intended to prevent me changing the format then it is fundamentally flawed.
Of course - a tax on MP3 players is just what we already have here, albeit more honestly stated as a levy to compensate for piracy. Also levied on blank disks and stand alone hard drives. So when I save back ups of my photos or make a system restore DVD for my computer a cut goes to that creative artist that .... that did what exactly? Took money out my pocket for something they didn't create?
It's proposals like this that gets the music industry a bad name.... Shame that there seem to be so many of them!
"The MBG, who represent "the collective view of the UK music industry" want to clamp down on format shifting, that is the process of, say, copying a CD to your iPod."
What they want is to have a tax on MP3 players to provide revenue for the artists who are having their works format shifted. It would be laughable if it wasn't clearly intended as a serious suggestion.
The argument goes that there is a value in having the music in a convenient format - and that part of that value should go to the artist... But hello guys... the artist makes music - and making music is what they want to get paid for (not that they really ever do). Now I've bought the CD. Now they have been paid and I have the right to play this album 24/7 if I want to. Where did the format come into this? It's not like I'm going to play it more than I already paid for now is it?
I go down to the shop and buy a wine box... hand over my cash and walk out. I get home and pour it into a glass... ching!!! Cash registers whirr and before I kow it there's a bill on the doormat for changing the format. Same wine... different receptacle. C'mon. Get a life!
There is no music on a CD. There are instructions for recreating music. A recipe. How I store the recipe has zip to do with the artists.. It's only music when the sound waves wash against my eardrums. If copyright is intended to prevent me changing the format then it is fundamentally flawed.
Of course - a tax on MP3 players is just what we already have here, albeit more honestly stated as a levy to compensate for piracy. Also levied on blank disks and stand alone hard drives. So when I save back ups of my photos or make a system restore DVD for my computer a cut goes to that creative artist that .... that did what exactly? Took money out my pocket for something they didn't create?
It's proposals like this that gets the music industry a bad name.... Shame that there seem to be so many of them!
Friday, 17 April 2009
Over my dead body..
Svenska Dagbladet has an interview with Peter Sunde, one of the accused in the Pirate Bay trial that has it's verdict today.
At the end of the article the discussion moves to whether or not artists and authors lose out from spreading work on the internet. According to Peter studies show that they can in fact earn more by Internet distribution. But that only applies to the artists and authors - publishers (literary and musical) lose out by being cut out of the loop. And therein lies the nub of current conflict. The middle men that take the lion's share by controlling the channels of distribution.
"The big problem is that a few big companies have become oligopolies. Take authors for example. To get somewhere they have to turn to a publisher because they are sitting on all the distribution contracts. Or musicians: they need to have a contract with a record company to get played on the radio. They don't really have a choice."
The internet can offer a new deal for authors and artists to reach their public.. but only if the vested interests of the media industry step aside..
..which is where the title comes in.....
At the end of the article the discussion moves to whether or not artists and authors lose out from spreading work on the internet. According to Peter studies show that they can in fact earn more by Internet distribution. But that only applies to the artists and authors - publishers (literary and musical) lose out by being cut out of the loop. And therein lies the nub of current conflict. The middle men that take the lion's share by controlling the channels of distribution.
"The big problem is that a few big companies have become oligopolies. Take authors for example. To get somewhere they have to turn to a publisher because they are sitting on all the distribution contracts. Or musicians: they need to have a contract with a record company to get played on the radio. They don't really have a choice."
The internet can offer a new deal for authors and artists to reach their public.. but only if the vested interests of the media industry step aside..
..which is where the title comes in.....
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
Simply dumb
The Guardian reports that Amazon have caved in to demands by the Authors Guild to give authors controlling rights to remove the text to speech option on their Kindle 2 ebook service. The service lets you listen to a compute generated voice reading the ebook - but, complains the Writers Guild, Amazon's agreements don't give it audio rights to the books. All of which reads like copyright out of control...
And remember now... you can show this to your friends... but no reading it aloud!
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Pick and Mix
Just to round off on why people are buying less music - I came across this article on Competition in the Music Industry. It's not exactly fresh news - but it makes two interesting points - the first that people buying for download only choose the tracks they want - no more buying the whole album. Thus sales of downloaded music are likely to be lower than 'bundled' album sales. The second is that true competition should mean that prices are pressed and music companies are making less money.
In fact given that the sales of music seem to be shrinking so much year on year you might expect to see prices tumbling as firms compete to get a share of both CD and online sales. Unless of course they collude to maintain a minimum price. Where have I heard that before???
Also a bit long in the tooth - but this article on the right price for digital music pretty much hits the nail on the head. Like buying an airline seat at Ryanair - the price per track could vary depending on demand. Obscure tracks for minor artists would be dirt cheap - until they catch on and then the price starts to go up... And maybe next month when it's no longer hot property, the price will be back down to size...
In fact given that the sales of music seem to be shrinking so much year on year you might expect to see prices tumbling as firms compete to get a share of both CD and online sales. Unless of course they collude to maintain a minimum price. Where have I heard that before???
Also a bit long in the tooth - but this article on the right price for digital music pretty much hits the nail on the head. Like buying an airline seat at Ryanair - the price per track could vary depending on demand. Obscure tracks for minor artists would be dirt cheap - until they catch on and then the price starts to go up... And maybe next month when it's no longer hot property, the price will be back down to size...
Where did all the music go?
Right now I'm in the midst of a media boycott.. and THE trial is underway here in Stockholm pitting the music industry against The Pirate Bay. Reading soime of the replies that TPB have posted to notices from copyright holders I can't say I'm surprised that all sorts of people are guns blazing for a prosecution. Right now though that all seems to hang on technicalities - in that a Torrent tracker doesn't actually do more than link to where a file might be.
But that's by the by.. as part of the trial there's big talk of damages... that downloading copyright material is causing big losses to the music industry as people stop buying CDs. But despite wanting to press for punitive sums in damages it doesn't really seem to be proven that that is actually the case. There is a lot of music in circulation... but how much of that would ever be bought at industry list price is debatable.
But maybe people are buying less music for other reasons? People like me that can afford to go down to the shops and splash out on a few full price albums know that they are being ripped off - and like me look elsewhere for new music. Music from the internet doesn't have to be pirated... there are thousands of Internet radio stations to choose from... and here at least plenty of second hand stores to browse.
So I could pay full price - but I choose to buy from a source that gives me value for money, and the satisfaction of supporting a local entrepreneur - and makes sure that a big fat zero ends up in those dwindling sales figures. The spectre of media industry lawyers bullying customers into line has quite simply taken all the pleasure out of buying new....
The last CDs I bought were in fact second hand from Stadsmissionen - a charity here in Sweden supporting the homeless. A much more deserving cause.
But that's by the by.. as part of the trial there's big talk of damages... that downloading copyright material is causing big losses to the music industry as people stop buying CDs. But despite wanting to press for punitive sums in damages it doesn't really seem to be proven that that is actually the case. There is a lot of music in circulation... but how much of that would ever be bought at industry list price is debatable.
But maybe people are buying less music for other reasons? People like me that can afford to go down to the shops and splash out on a few full price albums know that they are being ripped off - and like me look elsewhere for new music. Music from the internet doesn't have to be pirated... there are thousands of Internet radio stations to choose from... and here at least plenty of second hand stores to browse.
So I could pay full price - but I choose to buy from a source that gives me value for money, and the satisfaction of supporting a local entrepreneur - and makes sure that a big fat zero ends up in those dwindling sales figures. The spectre of media industry lawyers bullying customers into line has quite simply taken all the pleasure out of buying new....
The last CDs I bought were in fact second hand from Stadsmissionen - a charity here in Sweden supporting the homeless. A much more deserving cause.
Monday, 26 January 2009
Rights and wrongs
Pretty soon the EU will be considering proposals to extend copyright on music to 95 years from the present 50 years... It's a proposal that's being pushed by the music industry -unsurprisingly - so you might think that it would be good for the music industry as a whole and for musicians in particular. Artists will earn more, and we will get a strong and vibrant music industry - won't we? Somehow I am unconvinced.
Why?
What does it mean for artists cutting records today?? Well... in fifty years time you can continue to earn on your records for a further 45 years. .. and if not you, then your descendants - at the very least your record label. Well, the fact is that the majority of artists struggle to GET rich on their current success, and earn very little from back catalog sales - and artists themselves see issues with these proposals because of dilution of revenue to go to artists estates, and problems with orphan works..
Anyway most artists trade some or all of their rights to income to their record company in return for someone who will (while it suits them) promote and distribute their music. So 95 years of rights must be worth more than 50 years right? Which means artists can get more when they sign away their right, right?
Well not exactly, that's the rub. Simple economics says that the 'net present value' of a return in 50 (or 90) years time is next to nothing. There is negligable economic benefit to justify any investment now in an asset that matures in 50 years... particularily with no clue as to whether an artist will be of interest then.
So what is the benefit then?? Well... record companies with back catalogs of titles that are 45 years or more old can see an extension of their chance to income from those old works. s soon to be worthless --- and by a stroke of the legislators pen they get to put millions on to their balance sheet.
But now lets assume that the consumer only has so much money to spend on entertainment... and that a record company normally spends a fixed proportion of it's budget on marketing and sales. The tempatation - nay, the clear intention - is that the record company will spend money to market and exploit the back catolog they're sitting on. This has two effects... money they draw in from consumers is money that's not available to be spent on new artists and new creativity. Moreover, because the media giants are focussed on milking their existing assets they are not investing in bringing on new talent and reinvigorating the market.
The nett effect? Today's culture loses out - the sources of revenue for new artists are lower - the opportunity for new artists to reach a wider audience are fewer, and the exposure of the audience to new music is less. We are culturally poorer - and fewer musicians are able to earn their daily bread.
Copyright is a limited monopoly granted by society to protect society's cultural interests by allowing artists to be supported from their creativity. But it's clear that for the most part this proposal does nothing to further the publics interest, nor even that of most artists... it is quite simply a protectionist measure which benefits two groups...
First there are the music companies that today have a soon to be worthless back catalog that can expect to get in effect free money from a change in the existing rules.
..and yes, there are some artists that continue to be popular and sell in volumes two generations after their initial work is published - but to be honest, songs that have been around for fifty years - especially well known and popular ones are very much part of the public domain. An artist or his/her record label have had more than enough time to rake in a reward for the months, weeks or minutes it took to produce.
Or as one academic put it... this idea is good only for "record companies, aging rock stars or, increasingly, artists' estates. It does nothing for innovation and creativity."
Why?
What does it mean for artists cutting records today?? Well... in fifty years time you can continue to earn on your records for a further 45 years. .. and if not you, then your descendants - at the very least your record label. Well, the fact is that the majority of artists struggle to GET rich on their current success, and earn very little from back catalog sales - and artists themselves see issues with these proposals because of dilution of revenue to go to artists estates, and problems with orphan works..
Anyway most artists trade some or all of their rights to income to their record company in return for someone who will (while it suits them) promote and distribute their music. So 95 years of rights must be worth more than 50 years right? Which means artists can get more when they sign away their right, right?
Well not exactly, that's the rub. Simple economics says that the 'net present value' of a return in 50 (or 90) years time is next to nothing. There is negligable economic benefit to justify any investment now in an asset that matures in 50 years... particularily with no clue as to whether an artist will be of interest then.
So what is the benefit then?? Well... record companies with back catalogs of titles that are 45 years or more old can see an extension of their chance to income from those old works. s soon to be worthless --- and by a stroke of the legislators pen they get to put millions on to their balance sheet.
But now lets assume that the consumer only has so much money to spend on entertainment... and that a record company normally spends a fixed proportion of it's budget on marketing and sales. The tempatation - nay, the clear intention - is that the record company will spend money to market and exploit the back catolog they're sitting on. This has two effects... money they draw in from consumers is money that's not available to be spent on new artists and new creativity. Moreover, because the media giants are focussed on milking their existing assets they are not investing in bringing on new talent and reinvigorating the market.
The nett effect? Today's culture loses out - the sources of revenue for new artists are lower - the opportunity for new artists to reach a wider audience are fewer, and the exposure of the audience to new music is less. We are culturally poorer - and fewer musicians are able to earn their daily bread.
Copyright is a limited monopoly granted by society to protect society's cultural interests by allowing artists to be supported from their creativity. But it's clear that for the most part this proposal does nothing to further the publics interest, nor even that of most artists... it is quite simply a protectionist measure which benefits two groups...
First there are the music companies that today have a soon to be worthless back catalog that can expect to get in effect free money from a change in the existing rules.
..and yes, there are some artists that continue to be popular and sell in volumes two generations after their initial work is published - but to be honest, songs that have been around for fifty years - especially well known and popular ones are very much part of the public domain. An artist or his/her record label have had more than enough time to rake in a reward for the months, weeks or minutes it took to produce.
Or as one academic put it... this idea is good only for "record companies, aging rock stars or, increasingly, artists' estates. It does nothing for innovation and creativity."
Sunday, 19 October 2008
The American Dream?
I watched the last of the American Presidential Debates yesterday - not live you understand, but in replay. It was my first real chance to see the candidates presenting themselves...
It was shocked by the huge difference in how the candidates came across. McCain commented several times on Obama's rhetoric - but to my ears Obama stuck to lucidly explaining what he wanted to do and why it was important for America to do it.
McCain was the one I thought lacked substance, making fine claims and aiming at an emotional appeal - trying to demonise his opponent as a liberalist wanting to steal money from the people to waste on public programmes - spreading muck about Obamas links with terrorism - and painting himself as the champion of the American dream. He made more than one reference to Sarah Palins special understanding and interest in those poor families dealing with autistic children - which crudely put is trying to get sympathy votes out of her personal circumstances.
He also made a great play on his record of fighting against the establishment and vested interests - very laudable - but I was left with the impression that this meant would struggle to unite his own party under his leadership, never mind leading the nation.
At times he looked frail - and at times he reminded me of one of those wind up monkeys. Asked a specific question he'd reply with some stock sound bite he'd prepared beforehand - something completely off subject.
It was, to put not too fine a point on it, scary to think that this was someone that could end up sitting down to negotiate with leaders in China, Russia or Iran.
The sad part was that behind the guff it's clear that he actually has been active in pushing for what he sees as good for his country.. and not just toed the line.
Obama.... pretty much stuck to presenting his platform of policies and defending the flack launched from across the table... He was probably too kind.
McCains policies will put more money in the pockets of 30 million Americans - the other 270 million will be better off under the Democrats...
The American dream - means aspiring to be part of that rich clique of 30 million... and for that it seems that half the electorate are willing to ignore the fact that they are not part of that small minority that are taking the cream. The ironic part is that getting rich is about redistributing wealth to the small number that succeed. Does the personal avarice of the American dream really mean people don't want to see the rest of the population get a decent education and the security and reassurance of good health care?
And for me it is somewhat ironic that the party that stands proud of that avaricious dream is the same party so warmly supported by all those evangelical Christians.
It was shocked by the huge difference in how the candidates came across. McCain commented several times on Obama's rhetoric - but to my ears Obama stuck to lucidly explaining what he wanted to do and why it was important for America to do it.
McCain was the one I thought lacked substance, making fine claims and aiming at an emotional appeal - trying to demonise his opponent as a liberalist wanting to steal money from the people to waste on public programmes - spreading muck about Obamas links with terrorism - and painting himself as the champion of the American dream. He made more than one reference to Sarah Palins special understanding and interest in those poor families dealing with autistic children - which crudely put is trying to get sympathy votes out of her personal circumstances.
He also made a great play on his record of fighting against the establishment and vested interests - very laudable - but I was left with the impression that this meant would struggle to unite his own party under his leadership, never mind leading the nation.
At times he looked frail - and at times he reminded me of one of those wind up monkeys. Asked a specific question he'd reply with some stock sound bite he'd prepared beforehand - something completely off subject.
It was, to put not too fine a point on it, scary to think that this was someone that could end up sitting down to negotiate with leaders in China, Russia or Iran.
The sad part was that behind the guff it's clear that he actually has been active in pushing for what he sees as good for his country.. and not just toed the line.
Obama.... pretty much stuck to presenting his platform of policies and defending the flack launched from across the table... He was probably too kind.
McCains policies will put more money in the pockets of 30 million Americans - the other 270 million will be better off under the Democrats...
The American dream - means aspiring to be part of that rich clique of 30 million... and for that it seems that half the electorate are willing to ignore the fact that they are not part of that small minority that are taking the cream. The ironic part is that getting rich is about redistributing wealth to the small number that succeed. Does the personal avarice of the American dream really mean people don't want to see the rest of the population get a decent education and the security and reassurance of good health care?
And for me it is somewhat ironic that the party that stands proud of that avaricious dream is the same party so warmly supported by all those evangelical Christians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
