Largest Artist Community Group Comes Out Against SOPA & PIPA

from the protecting-the-artists? dept

Fractured Atlas, which claims to be the largest organization for artists, has come out strongly against SOPA/PIPA. The group notes that, clearly, it's in favor of helping artists, but that these bills are the wrong way to do so. It discusses both the problems with blocking, as well as the private right of action:

Fractured Atlas has the largest membership of any arts service organization in the country. As a non-profit, our raison d’etre is to support and assist the arts community in whatever ways we can. It should go without saying that we believe passionately in the importance of artists being paid for their work. We fundamentally believe in copyright and think it can and should be enforced. The problem is that these bills are the wrong way to do it.

The enforcement mechanisms in SOPA and Protect IP will have a dangerous, destabilizing effect on the technical fabric of the internet...

Yet, SOPA/PIPA supporters will continue to insist that they're doing this "for the artists"? Will Congress ever realize that the RIAA and MPAA don't represent artists? They represent the big major labels and Hollywood studios, who spend an awful lot of effort to figure out ways not to actually have to pay artists.

Filed Under: artists, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: fractured atlas

Universal Music Issues Questionable Takedown On Megaupload Video That Featured Their Artists [Updated]

from the this-is-going-to-get-interesting dept

As a bunch of you have noticed, the video that we had a couple posts ago, involving a bunch of the RIAA's biggest artists singing or speaking along to a song endorsing MegaUpload (which the RIAA insists is a rogue site) has been... taken down due to a copyright claim from Universal Music. Here's a screenshot: We're hearing a few different stories as to what's going on, but some people are insistent that nothing in the video violates a UMG copyright. We will do an update or do a new post once there's more info, but (of course) trying to censor information online only seems to make it that much more popular. And it appears that the video is already showing up elsewhere. Either way, it's quite a story isn't it? RIAA and Universal Music insist that they're trying to shut down this site "for the artists." Then the artists speak up in support of the site... and Universal Music censors them using the same copyright law they're trying to expand...

Update: TorrentFreak has the response from MegaUpload:

“Those UMG criminals. They are sending illegitimate takedown notices for content they don’t own,” he told us. “Dirty tricks in an effort to stop our massively successful viral campaign.”

So did Universal have any right at all to issue YouTube with a takedown notice? Uncleared samples, anything?

“Mega owns everything in this video. And we have signed agreements with every featured artist for this campaign,” Kim told TorrentFreak.

“UMG did something illegal and unfair by reporting Mega’s content to be infringing. They had no right to do that. We reserve our rights to take legal action. But we like to give them the opportunity to apologize.”

“UMG is such a rogue label,” Kim added, wholly appreciating the irony.

The TorrentFreak has some quotes from some legal experts, pointing out that that is exactly why we don't need things like SOPA and PIPA which would go much further and allow significantly more collateral damage on such bogus takedowns.

Filed Under: artists, censorship, copyright, takedown
Companies: megaupload, riaa, universal music

Why We Don't Need To 'Think Of The Artists': They're Doing Fine

from the what's-the-problem? dept

Just as politicians routinely invite us to "think of the children" when they want to push through some new liberty-reducing law, so the copyright industries regularly invoke "the artists" when they want to justify longer copyright terms or harsher enforcement laws.

They claim they are being hit so badly by piracy that artists are suffering as a result. But that's a little hard to square with the fact that media companies still manage to pay their CEOs huge salaries. This suggests (a) the media companies are not doing too badly and (b) that if they really cared about the woes of their artists, they could alleviate it by redirecting some of their fat cats' hefty salary downstairs.

Of course, most people have long ago seen through this rather implausible concern on the part of the copyright industries, but that still leaves open the question of how artists are faring. Here's some interesting evidence that in Australia, musicians, at least, aren't doing too badly:

Even though recorded music sales are down, artists are taking a bigger slice of the overall music industry revenue pie - and more total revenue - than they have in decades. Largely fuelled by copyright-based performance royalties collected on their behalf by APRA and AMCOS, artists' revenues from public performance royalties have doubled in Australia from $110 million in 2000 to $220 million in the past 10 years. Compare that with the recording industry, where wholesale sales have dropped from $594 million to $384 million over the past decade and it seems that it is the record labels that are feeling more pain than the artists they claim are the major victims of online piracy.

As the writer points out, this suggests that artists aren't really suffering from the supposed scourge of piracy. And since everyone – even the record labels, apparently – agrees that what really matters is whether creators are able to make a living from their work, and thus carry on creating, this has to be good news. It also indicates politicians should stop trying to prop up the copyright industries' old business models and just let the artists get on with it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: artists, payments, performance royalties

Why Creative Commons Licenses Help Rather Than Hinder Struggling Artists

from the exactly-wrong dept

Creative Commons (CC) has been with us for nearly a decade, so you would have thought people might understand it by now. Apparently not, judging by the title of this blog post: "How Creative Commons Can Stifle Artistic Output."

The author, George Howard, begins reasonably enough:

Now, the servicing of the muse is not compelled by money, but, rather, other impulses. However, absent some type of financial return for the artists’ work, bad things happen: artists begin to believe that their work is without value, and they stop; or, artists have to subsidize their artistic income by working a soul-crushing job that eventually diminishes their ability/desire/time to create…and they stop. In either case, art stops being created. This to me is unacceptable. I defy anyone to give me a good argument against the creation of more art.

Clearly from that description Howard is concerned mainly with artists that are relatively unknown and/or struggling, and his point about their need to make money is a fair one. But from that premise he then makes this extraordinary leap:

All of this is why I react negatively to proponents of the so-called “copyleft” movement.

He goes on:

As a bit of background, the copyleft movement originated from software development, where hobbyist programmers desired to make software free (or very cheap) in order to reduce/eliminate piracy.

That is wrong in just about every respect. Copyleft, which actually depends upon copyright in order to work, was invented in 1983 by Richard Stallman. Far from being a "hobbyist", Stallman was one of the best programmers of his day. Moreover, copyleft – specifically the GNU General Public License – was devized not to "reduce/eliminate piracy", but almost its polar opposite: to encourage and facilitate sharing.

The author's understanding of how Creative Commons licenses work seems equally shaky:

There are several justifications for an artist or songwriter to give up copyrights. The first is reasonable: that by providing a means for artists to more easily exchange rights, reduces transaction costs, and thus encourages collaboration.

Artists employing Creative Commons licenses do not "give up copyrights": they always retain them. But they grant additional permissions to others – to share, to adapt, to sell. That's not about "exchanging rights" – there's no quid pro quo required, and rarely does this result in any artistic collaboration; instead it's from a desire to see your work enjoyed or re-used more widely.

The second — that current copyright law enforces and encourages a restrictive permission culture to the detriment of the public good — is not. By this I mean that the idea that copyright somehow impedes creativity and artistic development is just plain wrong.

The idea that copyright on a work impedes "creativity and artistic development" refers to its effect not on the original creator, but on other artists, since by definition copyright is a monopoly that forbids them from building on the creations of others unless they ask permission – often expensive or impossible to obtain. Creative Commons licenses, by contrast, encourage this kind of activity by granting permissions upfront to everyone, making them particularly beneficial for those rising creators with limited means but plenty of ideas.

Despite this, Howard insists the problem lies not with copyright itself, but elsewhere:

what really impedes creativity and artistic development is the artist’s perception that his or her music is valueless/the inability of the artist to monetize his or her output.

And yet it's copyright that exacerbates this perception among struggling and still unknown artists that their art is valueless, not CC licenses. Copyright places obstacles in the way of sharing your enthusiasm for a creative work by passing it on so that it can be explored and enjoyed by others. All CC licenses permit this, and it is precisely this spreading of the word that is likely to lead to the creator becoming better known and appreciated.

Nor does making works more freely available preclude the possibility of earning money from them. Fans may buy the work in other formats – for example as a book, CD or LP as well as a download. People may want to make direct contributions to support the artist to encourage them to produce more. Techdirt has devoted many posts to the different ways in which revenue can be generated from CC-licensed goods that are made available online.

Howard concludes:

Artists tend to have — at best — an uncomfortable relationship with the monetization of their work, and need no encouragement to devalue it. Rather, artists need to be reminded that their contribution to this deeply troubled world is valuable. The exchange of value between an artist and his or her fans, is a means to allow the artist to continue creating art, and thus is crucial.

His own words emphasise that what is crucial is an "exchange of value between an artist and his or her fans". Copyright, with its ever-expanding range of restrictions and harsh punishments for those who overstep the mark – even unwittingly – hardly promotes that exchange. Creative Commons licenses are the true allies of artists who are struggling for recognition and remuneration, thanks to their broad permissions and explicit encouragement to share and enjoy, which promotes and enhances that exchange - and helps to generate that crucial financial return too.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: artists, creative commons

New Letter From Artists & Content Creators Against PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE Act

from the please-sign dept

The big entertainment industry gatekeepers have been pushing PROTECT IP and now the new E-PARASITE bill, pretending that it's got the support of content creators. That's why you see bogus grassroots operations pop up, whereby the big gatekeepers, who do everything they can to not pay content creators, pretend that the laws that make them more powerful are actually about protecting artists.

But real artists and content creators recognize that PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE is really about shutting down the innovations and new technologies that have given them more control over their own destiny, a greater ability to connect with fans and many new ways to make money. And that's why they oppose this attempt by the US government to give the gatekeepers more control to hold back artists. A new letter from actual content creators is making the rounds, pointing out that contrary to the claims of the legacy gatekeepers, they do not support censorship bills like PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE, but prefer to believe in the power of new innovation to provide them with more opportunities.

We, the undersigned artists, have all been empowered by the Internet. Today, artists can reach large audiences and make a living because the Internet and digital tools have democratized the means to create, distribute, and promote our work.

We write to you today because we are concerned with S.968, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). Copyright law exists to promote the arts, but the new penalties in PIPA could be used against the new social media channels we depend on to make a living, and endanger freedom of expression.

If you're an artist, please consider signing on.

Filed Under: artists, copyright, e-parasite, protect ip, 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

Artists In The US Want To Get Paid Multiple Times For A Single Work

from the not-this-again dept

Another day, another plan to try to expand "intellectual property rights" into ridiculous arenas. We had thought that the idea of resales rights for artists was a complete non-starter in the US. Resales rights are a ridiculous concept, which effectively destroys the right of first sale and that harms artists but it is often pitched as being for the benefit of artists. The idea is that if you buy the work of an artist, and then later resell it, the artist gets a cut. Every time you resell the work... the artist gets a cut. The simplified and economically clueless rationale for this is that artists often sell their works cheaply when they're unknown, and then it's the collectors down the road who reap the benefits when that artist becomes famous.

This may sound appealing, but it leaves out the much bigger picture. First, this punishes those who invest in young artists by making it more expensive and more difficult to ever resell their artwork. This also means that people will buy less artwork as an investment, because you've automatically cut out a significant chunk of any profit. Limiting the market for a new artist is not a way to help that artist. As for the story of the "poor artist" who gets cut out of the appreciation of his own work... that's also hogwash. Sure they may sell early pieces for less, but the fame does not preclude them from making new works, and charging appropriately for them based on their fame (some of which may have come about because of the risk that early buyers/supporters/patrons took).

Can you imagine if this expanded to other areas? What if you had to pay back the furniture builder when you sold your old sofa? Or the home developer when you sold your house (oops, someone's trying that, too).

The whole thing is a bizarre and counterproductive concept. In past years, we've seen both the UK and Australia look to set up resale rights. Australia eventually put in place a watered down version, which isn't quite as bad, but still has problems.

Anyway, after not hearing a peep about such an idea in the US in years... it appears that there's a new lobbying campaign for a resale right in the US. Of course, it's being pushed for by the Artists Rights' Society, the main copyright licensing agency for artists in the US. Realizing that art galleries have freaked out about this in the past, ARS is trying to get this approved by exempting art galleries from this, not realizing how much worse that actually makes this for artists and for individual patrons of the arts. Now galleries have a favored position regarding terms and individual patrons have to pay an extra tax.

It appears that ARS has hired Bruce Lehman to be the main lobbyist on this issue. Does that name ring a bell? Lehman is the guy who constructed the DMCA. A few years back, Lehman admitted that the DMCA had been a disaster and said that we'd be better off entering a "post-copyright era." Of course, he didn't take the blame himself, but rather blamed the recording industry execs for failing to get digital. He also seemed to think that the DMCA's overreach was a huge surprise, despite the fact that many, many critics brought it up at the time Lehman was pushing it -- and Lehman's response at the time was to threaten to "rip [the] throat out" of James Boyle, who had warned of problems of the DMCA. Lehman also sought to get Boyle denied tenure at the university he was teaching at for pointing out why the DMCA was a bad idea.

Given that history, I'm at a loss as to why he should be trusted when it comes to any form of new copyright-related policy.

Filed Under: artists, bruce lehman, copyright, resale right

Major Labels Shamed Into Promising To Give Some Of $105 Million Limewire Settlement To Artists

from the but-how-much? dept

After Limewire settled with the major labels last week, many of us questioned how much of that money would go to actual artists. Many people, quite reasonably, pointed to a quote from a few years ago from the RIAA's Jonathan Lamy saying, "Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs." That line got a lot of attention, and I wondered if the labels would be forced to actually give some money to artists, and it appears that may be happening. Lamy came out and said that his quote was about something else -- the RIAA's lawsuits against individuals (hurray for suing fans!), rather than this lawsuit against Limewire. Now, the major labels are starting to step forward and say that yes, yes, yes, they'll give some of the money to artists. I'm guessing, at this point, that it's purely a crisis management type situation, where the labels are realizing they need to show that they're giving some of the money to artists (in part because all these stories mean that the artists themselves have started asking). So now that the labels promise to give some of the money to artists, let's see if they ever say how much actually goes to artists...

Filed Under: artists, labels, music, settlement
Companies: limewire, riaa

Self-Perpetuating Copyright Enforcement

from the but-think-about-the-artists dept

One of the most powerful emotional tricks used by the copyright industry against those seeking to reduce the term and reach of copyright to more rational levels is to invoke the poor, starving artists, who would suffer if this were to happen.

The fact that the vast majority of creators earn most money soon after producing their work, and relatively little years later, means that taking copyright back to the original 14-year term specified in the Statute of Anne would have minimal effect on them, but it's an undeniably clever pitch.

In reality, the copyright industry couldn't give two hoots about the artists it feeds off, as the following makes clear:

RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy previously told TorrentFreak that the ‘damages’ accrued from piracy-related lawsuits will not go to any of the artists, but towards funding more anti-piracy campaigns. “Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs,” he said.

If the copyright industry *really* cared about the artists, this money would go straight into their deserving pockets.

Moreover, this "re-investment" in anti-piracy programmes makes such actions self-fueling: the money supposedly gained for those poor, starving wretches is actually used to fund the next action, which funds the next action, and so on.

This means that the copyright organisations have a real incentive to choose a strategy that privileges heavy-handed enforcement over new business models. The latter might result in creators getting paid more, while the former ensures that the fat-cats running the enforcement machine continue to lap up the cream....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Cross posted from Open....

Filed Under: artists, copyright, enforcement

ASCAP Tells Artists It's Cutting Their Payments As It Brags To The Press How Much More Money It's Collecting

from the whose-interests? dept

ASCAP feels like the gift that keeps on giving to those of us covering it. If you're an artist... not so much. We've covered many examples of how ASCAP's aggressive efforts to shut down venues from hosting up-and-coming singers is harming local musicians. And, we've also pointed out how they use a system to overpay large acts at the expense of small acts. Now it's getting even worse. Just as ASCAP is attacking groups like Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge -- who help artists find more ways to take control over their own careers, it's also cutting back on payments to many of its artists:

ASCAP cut payments to some members of it's ASCAPlus program by 20-30%. "Unfortunately, because of the fiscal climate, less money was available this year for the award program," ASCAP said in a letter to those receiving checks.

Ah, right. The tough economic climate. We do know about that. But... wait. Here's an ASCAP press release from just five months ago, claiming it was bringing in more money than ever:

"Music is performed more often, in more places, in more ways by more businesses than ever before. That expanded music use, combined with dramatic ASCAP Membership growth, market share increases and effective strategic management have led to stunning revenue and distribution growth for 2009."

Okay, so ASCAP is collecting more money and distributing more money, but it's cutting the amount given to ASCAPlus members by a huge amount. What's ASCAPlus? Ah, right, the smaller artists who can't make a big stink about this:

"writer members of any genre whose performances are primarily in venues not surveyed; and/or writer members whose catalogs have prestige value for which they would not otherwise be compensated."

In other words, ASCAP appears to be taking more money away from small artists, and giving it to their biggest artists. No wonder ASCAP's Paul Williams refuses to debate Larry Lessig, claiming he'd rather focus on "fair compensation to music creators." Unless you're a smaller, less well known artist. Then ASCAP wants your share to be a little less fair. Actually, quite a bit less fair. Like 20 to 30%.

Filed Under: artists, ascaplus, collection societies, payments
Companies: ascap