Ridiculous: Vietnam Sentences Musicians To Jail For Songs That Protest Government Actions

from the freedom-isn't-free dept

We talk a lot about the importance of free speech here in the US, and worry tremendously about any efforts to chip away at such free speech rights. Even as we worry about how free speech issues are dealt with at home, we're very aware that most other countries have significantly less respect for basic free expression concepts. It's somewhat horrifying to learn that last week, a court in Vietnam sentenced two Vietnamese musicians to years in prison for writing, recording and posting online some "protest" songs:

Both were accused of posting songs on a Web site of Patriotic Youth, a opposition group based overseas. Mr. Tri, 34, who uses the stage name Viet Khang, has criticized the government in his songs for not taking a harder line against China in territorial disputes. A video for his song, "Viet Nam Toi Dau" ("Where Is My Vietnam?"), has become a YouTube hit, with 700,000 views. Mr. Binh, 37, recorded the song "Courage in the Prison" ("Nguc Toi Hien Ngang") in support of an imprisoned blogger, Nguyen Van Hai. The song urges people to mount nonviolent protests.

And we're not just talking about a few weeks in prison, either. Tri got four years and Binh got six years. Binh's situation is especially ridiculous since his song is about an equally ridiculous prison sentence for a blogger. Basic political dissent is important to any free society, and to completely lock people up over some rather straightforward protest songs (that don't advocate violence or anything like that) is really quite horrifying. The US, thankfully, has condemned these sentences, but this is an issue that more people need to know about and speak out about.

Filed Under: bloggers, free speech, musicians, political protests, vietnam

RIAA's Bogus Math Strikes Again: Claimed 41% Decline In Musicians... Not Even Close To True

from the well,-look-at-that dept

Hey, it's time for some bogus stat debunking, thanks to Matthew Lasar at Ars Technica, showing that, once again, "RIAA math" is something more closely aligned with stuff we made up that people might actually believe.

There have been a variety of similar stats being thrown around these days in debates around what's happening in the music industry from defenders of the old way of doing things, arguing that there's been a massive decline in the number of musicians out there. The stat pops up in different forms, but keeps coming back up. We first saw a version of it back in 2010 when the RIAA put up a blog post claiming that "illegal downloading = fewer musicians." While we appreciate them finally realizing that unauthorized downloading isn't "theft," the chart claims to have posted data from the Bureau of Labor statistics, showing a correlation between the number of "musicians and artists" and the decline in recorded music: Even leaving aside the "correlation =/= causation" argument that could be made, the chart itself plays with numbers a bit. Note that the scales are different, meaning that the data was "fitted" to make it look like a direct correlation when that's not actually the case. RIAA math, as per usual, tends to be all about lies.

But, that chart seems to have taken on a life of its own in bizarre and ridiculous ways. Back in April, class warrior Timberg, claimed that BLS data showed a 45% decline of people employed in "musical groups and artists" from 2002 to 2011. That number has become a key touchstone for the rabid defenders of the old way. Not a week goes by without someone claiming something like it in our comments -- usually even messing up what was said. For example, that comment says that the 45% represented a decline in wages -- which is not actually what any of the numbers have shown.

In June, the RIAA's Cary Sherman gave a talk at PDF, in which he cited BLS data claiming a decline in artists of 41% from 1999 to 2011. That number was then picked up by Paul Resnikoff who posted the RIAA's updated version of the graphic and, again, insisted that BLS data says there are 41% "fewer paid musicians" since 1999. Once again, that's not actually what the chart says. It's not about "paid musicians." It's about how many people claim to be "musicians or artists on a full time basis." There are plenty of "paid musicians" who aren't full time.

Either way... Matthew Lasar, over at Ars Technica digs into the numbers to find that the RIAA's and others' claims... are completely bogus. First off, it appears that they failed the "how to calculate percentage change" test. Lasar also finds that the actual change based on the source data appears to be maybe a decline of a little over 8%. As he notes "8.4 percent, I'm sure most readers will agree, is a long way from 41 percent."

When confronted about this, first the RIAA admitted to playing some games with the numbers, not by using more stable yearly data, like Lasar did, but rather by using monthly data... and by selectively choosing which months to use.

"As far as the 41%, from that data set," came Friedlander's reply, "if you look at any of a variety of months between late 1999 and 2011 and 2012 (such as July '99 vs Aug '11) you can see declines around the 41% level (different months yield different figures, but some are even higher than 41%)."

In other words, it fluctuates pretty drastically. Anyone who wanted to reasonably show a change, would at the very least choose the same month in different years -- since there is likely to be significant seasonal fluctuation in musician employment (for example, July is a big month for weddings, which might mean more musicians who play weddings are "full time" musicians for July). As Lasar notes, this calls into serious question why the RIAA and others are making categorical statements that just don't appear to be supported by the data. Furthermore, even if the RIAA's bogus claim of 41% is based on monthly data... that chart that it's been spreading around shows yearly data, but implies, incorrectly, that it shows a 41% decline:

The problem with this response was that Sherman's categorical statement that we've seen a 41 percent drop in the number of musicians and artists since 1999 wasn't based on a monthly chart. It was based on the yearly table that he showed the Personal Democracy conference.

Finally, Lasar notes that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is actually pretty optimistic for employment among musicians to grow at about 10% over the next decade:

The number of people attending musical performances, such as orchestra, opera, and rock concerts, is expected to increase from 2010 to 2020. As a result, more musicians and singers will be needed to play at these performances.

There will be additional demand for musicians to serve as session musicians and backup artists for recordings and to go on tour. Singers will be needed to sing backup and to make recordings for commercials, films, and television.

That said, I don't think a slight and temporary decline in full time musicians should be all that surprising. It's true that labels funded a bunch of musicians for many years -- but often for short periods of time and with very questionable accounting practices. The problem, of course, is that many musicians came to believe, incorrectly, that the major labels were the only way to make money in music, and so they did little to cultivate new business models. These days, however, that's happening more and more, but we don't have enough experience for people to know what really works and what doesn't. So it's an era of experimentation -- and that means that an awful lot more musicians are making some money, whereas before they made none. That's good for all of those musicians -- and might (in fact) mean that more money overall is going to musicians -- it's just more spread out. But we haven't yet reached the point where things have developed enough to match the number of full time musicians, though as people become more comfortable with these new models, that seems almost certain to happen.

Either way, it looks like RIAA math has once again been shown to be a complete fabrication, relied on by people who want to continue to support the ridiculous story that artists need labels to make money. It's sad that so many people cling to an obviously false tale, but it's good to see the numbers debunked. Hopefully we can now move on from that silly narrative and focus on new business models that do help artists get paid -- rather than ones that just help the RIAA divert money from artists.

Filed Under: musicians, stats
Companies: riaa

Dan Bull, Amanda Palmer & El-P: A Big Week For Artists' Voices On Techdirt

from the change-of-pace dept

Today, instead of the usual community favorites post, we wanted to take the opportunity to highlight our own top picks for the week. It was an easy choice, because we love it when artists and creators visit the site to speak about their experiences, and this week we were lucky enough to have guest posts from three different musicians. They all had a lot of great stuff to say, and here are a few highlights.

The first came about as a result of my post on rapper/producer El-P's friendly message to fans who downloaded the early leak of his album. El-P joined the comments, then followed up with a guest post discussing his approach to the music industry, and his thoughts on the popular debates about it:

So how do I feel? What's the right way? Fuck if I know. But I'll adapt and I'll do it with respect and class and not kicking and screaming. There's a hell of a lot I could say about both sides of this particular subject, but honestly does it matter? You all have formed your opinions on it already and in the end people like me are still out here trying to make a living no matter what those opinions are... right, wrong or in-between.

Unfortunately the comment thread on that post was hijacked by one particularly obnoxious AC, but amidst the noise there was also a strong response from some community members who were grateful to El-P for sharing his frank and thoughtful opinion, just as we were.

Next, we got a visit from the one and only Amanda Fucking Palmer! Amidst all the excitement surrounding her Kickstarter project, Amanda deftly employed an allegory about bamboo to describe the campaign's massive success, and the many years of work that made it possible:

There's a great story about how bamboo grows. A farmer plants a bamboo shoot underground, and waters and tends it for about three years. Nothing grows that's visible, but the farmer trots out there, tending to this invisible thing with a certain amount of faith that things are going to work out. When the bamboo finally appears above ground, it can shoot up to thirty feet in a month. This is like my kickstarter campaign. The numbers aren't shocking to me, not at all. I set the goal for the kickstarter at $100,000 hoping we'd make it quickly, and hoping we'd surpass it by a long-shot.

Incidentally, as I pointed out on Twitter, Amanda Palmer is an anagram for A Mr. Panda Meal. Coincidence?

Last but not least, Dan Bull took a break from writing epic raps to write an epic post. After Dan successfully used the Pirate Bay and its Promo Bay program to get his new single on the charts, we wondered what he must think about his country's decision to censor the site. Now we have our answer: he thinks it was pretty damn ridiculous.

Now, thanks to the High Court ruling, no aspiring musician will be able to use The Promo Bay to gain exposure in the UK. Once again, the British Phonographic Industry is throttling any channel of distribution which doesn't allow them the cut to which they believe they are entitled. I'd like to see what the BPI's head, Geoff Taylor, has to say to George Barnett, the unsigned British songwriter whose fanbase skyrocketed after being featured on The Promo Bay. The only thing that the BPI has done for George is to entirely prohibit his primary means of exposure.

Of course, those aren't the only choice words Dan has for the BPI.

Big thanks to El-P, Amanda Palmer and Dan Bull for stopping by and sharing their thoughts! For some other creators featured on Techdirt this week (just not in person), check out game developer Stardock's Jon Shafer on building a loyal fan base, producer Swizz Beatz on embracing technology, My Bloody Valentine's Kevin Shields on a dispute with Sony, and author Paulo Coelho's stats on his $0.99 ebook sale.

Filed Under: amanda palmer, artists, bpi, dan bull, el-p, music industry, musicians, promo bay
Companies: kickstarter, the pirate bay

Musicians' Manager Says SOPA & PIPA Are Not What Musicians Need

from the good-for-him dept

It's always nice to find musician managers who are willing to speak out when the record labels are pushing for bad laws. Ryan Chisholm, a manager at Bill Silva Entertainment, has penned a guest column for Billboard where he argues that SOPA and PIPA are not the way to help musicians:

The music industry already has a poor rapport with many consumers. SOPA/Protect IP only adds fuels the fire of those disgruntled (and web-savvy) listeners who are pissed off that we in the industry can't all get on the same page to agree on deal points to establish a consumer-friendly, legitimate marketplace that rewards creators, rightsholders and fans alike. Worse still, SOPA/Protect IP could make it harder for tomorrow's innovative services to be developed. Today, we are only beginning to realize the potential of sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, SoundCloud - along with numerous popular blogs and thousands of music sites - in driving discovery of and monetization around music. These platforms have become some of the greatest tools we in the business have ever had at our disposal. These sites provide fans the opportunity to participate more directly and meaningfully in the content provided by artists and rightwsholders. In their current form, SOPA/Protect IP give far too much leeway for legitimate expression to be silenced on the grounds of combating infringement. This affects far more than the entertainment industries.

Elsewhere he points out -- as we have -- that the best way to fight infringement is to offer better legitimate services, but SOPA and PIPA don't help in that endeavor at all. Those are definitely important points that many of us have been making for quite some time... but unfortunately, these points seem to be entirely excluded from the discussion over these bills.

Filed Under: manager, music, musicians, protect ip, ryan chisholm, sopa

Apparently The Creative Class Is Dead Because No One Works At Tower Records Any More

from the can-someone-please-explain dept

I honestly had to read Scott Timberg's column at Salon, called "The creative class is a lie," a few times before I was sure that it wasn't satire, and he actually believes the ridiculous things he wrote up. The article mainly tries to pick up on the ideas of Richard Florida, who has been arguing about the importance of "the creative class" in driving the US economy. According to Timberg, the creative class is disappearing. Now, we can debate whether or not that's actually true (and the evidence we've seen suggests the opposite), but the evidence presented by Timberg isn't evidence at all. It's arguing something completely different:

It’s happening at all levels, small and large. Record shops and independent bookstores close at a steady clip; newspapers and magazines announce new waves of layoffs. Tower Records crashed in 2006, costing 3,000 jobs. This summer’s bankruptcy of Borders Books — almost 700 stores closed, putting roughly 11,000 people out of work — is the most tangible and recent example. One of the last video rental shops in Los Angeles — Rocket Video — just announced that it will close at the end of the month.

I keep reading this paragraph over and over again, and it gets no less insane each time. Since when were the folks who work behind the counter at Tower Records and Borders "the creative class?" As far as I can tell, Timberg appears to be arguing that when the people who made buggy whips were put out of work, it demonstrated the death of the transportation industry. He's honestly arguing that the end of incidental jobs, related to an obsolete technology or system, represents the end of an entire industry -- while completely ignoring the (large and growing) entirely new system that has taken the place of the obsolete one. That's ridiculous.

Does he mention that for actual musicians and actual writers there are now many more ways to create, distribute, promote and make money? No. That would involve actually knowing what's going on. He complains about young authors and musicians "struggling through the dreary combination of economic slump and Internet reset." But, was there ever a time that the vast majority of young authors and musicians were not "struggling"? The adjective "starving" typically comes before "artist" for a reason. And the reality is that in the past it was much more difficult to make a living as an author or a musician, because the only way to succeed was to get chosen by one of a very small number of gatekeepers -- the record labels or the big publishers -- and then even after that you'd have to be one of the approximately 10% of creators they sign who they actually decide are worth making successful. Most musicians and most authors -- even those who sign to major labels and publishing houses -- still end up struggling economically. That's always been the case. Pretending that it's something new is a lie.

If Timberg were paying attention, he'd realize that the opportunities for musicians and authors today are much greater, because they don't have to be chosen by the big gatekeepers. They can put out music themselves and monetize it via any number of new and useful DIY platforms, from Bandcamp to Tunecore to Topspin and onwards. And authors have the same opportunity. They can put up their own websites and do self-publishing via Amazon or Lulu. And there are a growing number of success stories of such "direct-to-fan" campaigns in both industries -- people who would have been completely trampled and never accepted by the old industry.

And because of this, we're seeing a massive revival of cultural creativity. And that's because it's not limited to just a few gatekeepers and tastemakers, but everyone can contribute to "the creative class," and people can find their niche and find their audience. It's an amazing era of cultural output... and yet Timberg is missing it all because he's expecting to find it in the counter jockey at Tower Records?

Apparently this is a start of a new "series" from Timberg on Salon to investigate "the hollowing out of the creative class -- its origins, its erosion, the price of 'free,' and offer possible solutions and reasons for hope." But there's a problem there. The very assumption that underpins the entire series is false. If anything, the evidence suggests we're seeing more creativity than ever before. More output. And it's not just amateur content. The size of the creative industries continues to grow, and the opportunities for struggling artists to make a living have never been greater -- in large part because the internet that Timberg doesn't seem to know about has provided the tools to break down the gates and enable large segments of these folks, who never could have made any money at all, to now make significantly more.

Filed Under: artists, authors, creative class, musicians, scott timberg

After Watching This Video, Can Anyone Say That Remix Isn't An Act Of A Musician?

from the live-mashup dept

One thing we hear all the time from folks who dislike remixes or mashups aren't "real" music is that a computer isn't a real "instrument." However, when I see and hear artists like Girl Talk, Kutiman and Pogo, I can't see how anyone with any ounce of intellectual honesty can claim that these are not true musicians in every sense of the word. And yet, people still argue that they're not, saying that sitting at a computer cutting up sounds isn't the same thing as playing a real "instrument." But... I point out that if someone is sitting at an electronic keyboard and pressing the keys, all they're really doing is playing a sound created by someone else. Is that really all that different than mashing up sounds played by someone else? What if you take things a step further and program clips of other songs into a keyboard and have someone play it?

Step on up, Madeon. While it's not a keyboard directly but (perhaps more impressively) a Novation Launchpad, this 17-year-old recently released this incredible video of him mashing up 39 of his favorite songs into one song... live. I defy anyone to claim that what he's doing here is anything less than a musician playing a keyboard or guitar: Just like a musician, he's using an instrument and the sounds that it makes to create something new and wonderful.

Filed Under: culture, madeon, music, musicians, remix

RIAA Accounting: How To Sell 1 Million Albums And Still Owe $500,000

from the who's-ripping-off-whom-again? dept

Last year, we had a post on RIAA accounting, detailing how labels screw over many musicians, even some of the best selling ones, such that they never actually make a dime in royalties. Bas points us to an excellent 14 minute video from lawyer Martin Frascogna, entitled How To Sell 1 Million Albums and Owe $500,000: It definitely covers a lot of the same ground (in fact, his advance numbers and sales numbers match up exactly with the numbers we quoted last time from Courtney Love), but it also delves into some of the sneakier aspects of record label contracts with musicians -- things that many musicians simply won't know about or understand when they sign their contract. Using those points, he breaks down how a band might think it's getting royalties on $20 million worth of sales but then find out that, thanks to some of these fun tricks, the basis for calculating the royalty takes that number all the way down to $4.9 million (and then with a 10% royalty, the official take is $490,000 -- but if the advance is $1 million... the band still technically "owes" $500,000).

And, as we noted in the post last year, don't think that because a band goes "unrecouped" that the label loses money on them. The "recouping" only comes from the 10% royalty rates, which are really much, much lower (in this example, the "real" royalty rate is more like 2.5% due to the clauses in the contract). That leaves 97.5% of the money in play. Obviously, some of that is covering costs and expenses. But there's plenty of cash that makes its way into the label's bank account, when an album sells $20 million.

As for what kinds of tricks the labels use, well, Frascogna notes "breakage fees" of 20%, which are based on breakage rates for vinyl from half a century ago. That CDs don't break so much and that digital files don't break at all, doesn't matter. The labels still try to get a super high breakage rate that they get to deduct. For them, it's pure profit. Then there are "uncollected account" withholdings, on the basis that some retailers go bankrupt and don't pay for the stock they had. The way it's described here, that's often just a set number, rather than based on any actual, documented cases of uncollected fees. Next up? "Free goods." Now, we talk about the importance of free goods all the time. But here it's used in a different manner. Basically the labels deduct the "cost" of providing reviewers/radio stations/etc. with "free" copies of your album. That money comes straight out of the gross that the royalty is calculated on. The fact that you could just email the mp3 to those folks yourself? Well, pay no attention to that newfangled technology.

Next up, there are "container charges." That's for things like the jewel cases and inserts for CDs. Again, the fact that digital music doesn't have such expenses is pretty much ignored. Also, the fact that all of these expenses get deducted from the artists' share? That also seems wrong. Even more insane? Apparently the standard "container charge" is an additional 30% off the revenue. Again, in many cases that's just pure profit for the labels.

Finally, there's the ever lovely and totally amorphous "reserves." As Frascogna notes: "no one really knows what reserves entail." It's basically a blank check for the record labels to claim they have to keep some of the money themselves for "other stuff," which is mostly undefined. In this case, some labels simply set a straight percentage, up to 20% more of the gross that artists never get to see as part of their own royalties.

Bring all that together, and the 10% royalty looks more like a 2.5% royalty, and that's not enough to even get halfway to recouping even if you sell 1 million albums at the high high price of $20/album. And that doesn't even touch on splitting up any money you get between band members and paying the manager/agent, etc. When you dig in to things like this, you can understand how artists like Lyle Lovett can say they've sold 4.6 million albums and never made a dime in royalties from album sales.

Now, many of these points can be negotiable if you're knowledgeable about them. But many artists sign such contracts without realizing what that fine print really means -- and that's just what a lot of the labels are counting on.

Filed Under: accounting, musicians, record labels

New Study Shows Many Artists Think File Sharing Helps, Not Hurts

from the especially-younger-artists dept

With the Dutch government introducing draconian anti-copyright policies, the government also decided to survey musicians, and the results were somewhat surprising. Many, many artists did not think that file sharing harms them, with plenty believing it helped. It appears there was a big age factor in the results -- with younger artists being much less concerned about file sharing than older artists. Only 28% of artists asked believed that file sharing hurt them financially. And slightly over half of artists surveyed claimed that file sharing helps them build an audience by getting their work more widely known.

You would think, then, that this would push back against the government's new copyright policies, but apparently, it does not.

Of course, some will also point out that even though these artists claim that file sharing isn't harming them and that it's often helping them... the majority still believed in DRM and stricter enforcement against infringement. That seems like a bit of a conundrum, and it appears the government basically just focused on this latter point, rather than the earlier points. But, it's really not too surprising. If you ask someone: do you want a government-granted monopoly privelege and/or a method for limiting competition, many will say yes. Even with empirical data that they're better off without it, it's difficult for people to give up government protectionism... But that's no reason to just grant such protectionist policies. It makes sense to see if a sugar monopoly actually benefits the overall production of sugar in a country. It does not make sense to ask the sugar monopolist if they need a sugar monopoly.

Filed Under: file sharing, harms, helps, musicians, netherlands

A Million Dollar Record Deal Is Probably Not What You Think It Is

from the sounds-nice,-though dept

Our recent post on recording industry accounting got plenty of attention, and it appears that more and more media sources are bursting the bubble of the myth of major record label deals. The latest is the BBC, which has a story about how a £1 million record deal isn't quite what most people think it is. Apparently, over in the UK, they throw around "£1 million record deal" like they throw around "$1 million record deal" in the US (despite the fact that the actual amounts are pretty different), and people think it sounds impressive. But, of course, as we've already noted, it's not really that impressive. Most of that money goes towards other stuff, and then the label keeps taking money that you earn to "recoup" the advance, even as it's taking most of your album sales revenue directly for itself anyway (and not counting that towards the recoup).

The article highlights a guy who won one of the big UK TV music competition shows... but has already been dropped from his label despite selling 500,000 singles and having a top 5 album in the charts. The final quote in the article basically highlights how a million dollar/pound recording deal really doesn't mean anything at all:

"What record companies are actually saying when they offer a £1m record deal is, 'we're going to pay the basic costs and, as long as you make it very quickly, then you can make a lot of money'.

"But you're going to have to make it very quickly.

"Now it seems to me that, if you don't make it in five minutes or on The X Factor, then you don't make it."

So there you go. A million pound/dollar recording deal covers your basic costs, and if you don't make it back in about five minutes, then you're basically a lost cause. Once again, those "big" record deals aren't looking so hot any more, are they?

Filed Under: accounting, musicians, record labels