Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing

from the fight-it-out dept

Early last week, reader dcm sent over an interesting blog post by Jason Robert Brown, a somewhat well known theatrical composer where he posted a debate he had with a teenager concerning file sharing. Since then, it appears the story also appeared on Reddit and some other sites, and now everyone is submitting it to me (that'll teach me not to leave interesting stories to write up over the long weekend...). Anyway, the basics of the story aren't too surprising: Brown is upset that the girl isn't paying him, the girl tries to explain that she wouldn't buy his work otherwise (she doesn't have the means), but is trying to promote his work because she likes it and thinks more should know about it. And, from those two very different viewpoints, nothing approaching agreement is ever reached.

It's definitely an interesting discussion, in that both sides mostly remain friendly throughout the debate. Brown starts off with a simple request to various users of some file sharing system to please stop sharing his works because it's "totally not cool" with him. Thankfully, he doesn't threaten anyone or break out any legalistic cease-and-desist type language. There is some back and forth at the beginning where the girl doesn't believe that "THE" Jason Robert Brown is really emailing her, but then the conversation gets a bit more interesting. She starts out by asking him a simple question about why he's spending so much time asking everyone to take down his scores:

I'd like to ask you a question. Why are you doing this? I just searched you on this site and all of the stuff that people have of yours up there say that it's "Not for Trade Per Composer's Request." Did you think about the aspiring actors and actresses who really need some good sheet music? If you're really who you claim to be, then I assume you know that Parade, Last Five Years, 13 The Musical, etc. are all genius pieces of work and that a lot of people who would love to have that sheet music can't afford it. Thus the term "starving artist." Performers really need quick and easy ways to attain good sheet music and you're stopping a lot of people from getting what they need. It matters a great deal to them that they can get it for free. Why does it matter so much to you that they don't?

Brown takes a while to actually get around to responding to the questions (there are some emails in between), but he finally says:

I should think the answer is obvious: I think it's annoying and obnoxious that people think they're entitled to get the sheet music to my songs for free, and I'd like to make those people (you, for example) conscious of the immorality, illegality, and unfairness of their behavior.

The teenager, Eleanor (sometimes referred to as Brenna, but that's not worth discussing), points out that many artists have no real means of obtaining his works, but by being able to download the scores for free and use them, they're making many more people aware of his works. She presents a hypothetical that describes the value of word of mouth marketing for those who might not be aware of his works, even highlighting how many of those people will likely end up making transactions that help his bottom line. He, not surprisingly, is not buying it:

That same scenario could take place exactly the same way if you paid for the music. And that's how that scenario is SUPPOSED to take place. You assume that because a good thing comes from an illegal act, it's therefore mitigated. That's nonsense. I'm glad people want to sing my songs, and I'm glad that when other people hear them, they enjoy them -- that doesn't mean I surrender my right to get paid for providing the sheet music.

This is a point that is raised quite often, but misses the point, which Eleanor is quick to point out: that the scenario won't happen, because many up-and-coming artists will simply shift to music from composers who do allow it to be traded for free:

You think the same scenario could have taken place exactly the same way? Funny. Most of the teenagers I have met who are into theatre would do the free song before they would do the one for $3.99 unless they had a really good reason. It could theoretically take place the same way. The question is would it? And the answer is probably not. I never said that it was an amazing thing happening and I never said that it doesn't start with what I'm sure seems to you as a bad thing. I "assume that because a good thing comes from an illegal act, it's therefore mitigated"? .... Yes. I assume that because something that good comes from something so insignificantly negative, it's therefore mitigated.

Brown comes back with a few comments about how it's not worth arguing with a teenager who thinks anyone who tries to correct her is "the enemy," but then comes up with three "stories" of his own about why file sharing is wrong -- even though none of them actually show that. Instead, there are two that are about borrowing a physical item, and one about fair use. What's most amusing here, however, is that Brown seems to have no problem with the kind of fair use where you rip a CD, but doesn't seem to think that Eleanor's use of his music could possibly be fair use. Then he concludes with four paragraphs where he tries to convince her she's wrong and tells her she should take his works out of the library instead:

Now you're frustrated because even if you wanted to do the right thing, the ethical and legal thing, you still need a credit card to buy the sheet music and that isn't going to happen. Listen, Eleanor, I'm frustrated on your behalf. It really sucks to be a teenager. I'm not being sarcastic or ironic, I really get it. I wrote a whole show about it. But being able to steal something doesn't mean you should. If your parents really won't pony up the four bucks to buy a copy of the sheet music, then you can ask them to take you to the library and you can take out all the music you want, free, and pick the song you want to use for an audition or a talent show, and you can keep borrowing the book from the library until you're done with it or until the library demands it back. My song may not be in your library -- you could ask them to get it from another library, through an interlibrary loan (this is common, standard library practice), but if you're in a time crunch, that's not practical -- so you may have to just pick another song. It may not be the perfect song, but if you're a talented girl, it won't matter all that much. As long as it shows off what you can do and who you are, it will suffice because you are a teenager and the people who you are auditioning for will cut you slack on that account.

That's the end of my jeremiad, and I'd be surprised if it persuaded you in any real way, but it is the truth and it is your responsibility as a citizen, as a member of the theatrical community, and as a considerate human being to pay attention to the laws, ethics and customs that make it possible for you to do the thing you love. I'm very much impressed by how passionately you've stood your ground, and how articulate you've been in doing so, and I can't tell you how excited I am that you didn't misspell anything, not once in this entire exchange. (Well, you wrote "you're" when you meant "your" once, but I'll let it go.) But being able to argue a point doesn't make it right -- lots of lawyers lose cases all the time.

I'm sorry if you still think I'm a jerk, but what I'm talking about here is not "insignificant." The entire record business is in free-fall because people no longer feel the moral responsibility to buy music; they just download it for free from the Internet, from YouTube, from their friends. When I make a cast album or a CD of my own, I do it knowing that it will never earn its money back, that I'm essentially throwing that money away so that I can put those songs out in the world. That shouldn't be the case, and I suspect in your heart you believe that too. All of us who write music for the theater are very much concerned that the sheet music business will eventually go the same way as the record business. I'm doing my little part to keep that from happening.

If you want me to talk to your parents and ask them to buy you the sheet music, just have them write me an email. You know how to find me.

Not surprisingly, I side more with Eleanor than with Brown in this debate, but I do think it's a good thing that the two sides engaged in a civil discussion on this topic, and think it's a bit unfortunate, as Brown notes in his "update" that he's hearing from "hostile" men who are trying to "educate" him on this subject. I would bet, of course, that many of the people trying to educate Brown are not, actually, hostile at all, but I'm sure some of them certainly are. And it's unfortunate, then, that he automatically lumps all such responses into the "hostile" camp.

The simple fact of the matter is that Brown is, in fact, wrong on many of his key points, though it's not surprising that he is. For example, his claims that "the entire record business is in free-fall because people no longer feel the moral responsibility to buy music," is quite an incorrect statement. First of all, since when has there ever been a "moral responsibility to buy music?" There hasn't been. And, of course, while certain major record labels may see their business in free-fall, the actual music business is doing incredibly well -- in fact, it's having quite a renaissance in terms of the number of albums released, and the amount of overall money that people are spending on it. It's just that they're not spending it on recordings (or sheet music) directly.

That said, Brown has made his living this way for a while, so you can see why he'd be upset that the old way of making money has been disappearing, but I doubt that a significant portion of his earnings came from teenage girls buying his sheet music in order to perform it at talent shows. In fact, since most of his work is for the theater, there are numerous business models available to him that have little, if nothing, to do with direct recordings, and for which file sharing -- like the kind Eleanor cites -- could help attract more revenue if he'd learn to adapt, rather than demand that the rest of the world adapt to him.

In the end, though, Brown did not go legalistic (even if he did go moralistic) and seemed at least willing to engage with Eleanor. I doubt he's going to change his mind any time soon, but we've seen a lot worse and a lot more obnoxious from folks who were a lot less informed. Brown strikes me as the kind of guy who, if actually given more evidence on this subject might actually come around to recognizing that, perhaps, it was he who made the wrong assumptions, rather than Eleanor, even if it might take quite some time before he realizes this.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, jason robert brown, morality, music, sheet music

Music Licensing Firm Offers Cheap Licenses For YouTube Videos

from the but,-um,-what-about-free? dept

The New York Times is reporting that music licensing firm Rumblefish is trying to help people making YouTube videos avoid takedowns or the dreaded YouTube ContentID "silencing" by offering music that can be licensed for YouTube videos at $1.99 per song (for non-commercial purposes only). While it's at least somewhat good to see music licensing firms recognizing that this market isn't going to buy hugely expensive licenses, and trying to adjust to handle this new market, it sort of ignores the fact that there are still a ton of Creative Commons and similarly licensed (or public domain) music out there that they can use. Since the Rumblefish catalog in this offer doesn't include any major label music or "big name" artists, it seems like those who might be interested in such a thing could probably find just as good, if not better, Creative Commons-licensed music. On top of that, this is the same Rumblefish who caused some problems last year when it claimed licensing rights over some public domain music, pissing off a bunch of YouTube users.

Filed Under: licensing, music, youtube
Companies: rumblefish

ASCAP Members Pissed Off At ASCAP's Attack On Creative Commons

from the fundraising-for-whom? dept

Last week, we posted about how ASCAP was attacking EFF, Public Knowledge and (most bizarre of all) Creative Commons, as part of its fundraising drive. As we pointed out, this showed ASCAP's true colors. For an organization that presents itself as trying to supports artists' rights, it's downright ridiculous to attack a group like Creative Commons that only looks to give musicians more choices in what they do with their own rights. In following some of the reaction to the article, I saw a tweet from musician Eric Young, where he publicly declared plans to quit ASCAP over this fundraising appeal:

#FUCKASCAP #iQuit ... this is the 1st public anncmnt of my resignation from ASCAP. this is bullshit.

That left me wondering how other ASCAP members were feeling about this, and thankfully, Slashdot points us to a blog post on the Mind the Gap blog that discusses this issue (towards the end). In the comments, though, a number of ASCAP members express their displeasure with the organization.

Corey Dargel who also tweeted his displeasure and plans to quit ASCAP commented:

I think ASCAP should be ashamed of itself, and I am presently ashamed to be a card-carrying member of ASCAP. The language in that fundraising email is fear-based and reactionary. Furthermore, it is misleading and disingenuous. ASCAP portrays itself as a grassroots organization and calls attention to the "deep pockets" of Creative Commons, but in fact it is *ASCAP*, not Creative Commons, that's siding with corporate interests and "deep pockets."

A Rich T. explains his problems with the ASCAP campaign:

I'm the agent for my father, who was a studio musician, performer, music & songwriter from the late 50's until the late 80's, when he retired.

We've been fighting with ASCAP for 6 years to get the money they received for selling the rights to several of his early recordings to a overseas company.

He also handed out free "right to record" statements at the end of each live show back when the recording industry was pushing the "taping is stealing" propaganda.

he's totally against anything that would further criminalize fair use, and has asked me to help him write up a appropriately scathing letter to ASCAP on the subject.

ASCAP member sarah is upset at the fear mongering:

I got this letter yesterday; and all I could think was even if it was true, it wouldn't affect me -- seeing as how several songs I co-wrote have been airing regularly for over 2 years on TV (kid's show stuff, so I do mean regularly), yet I haven't seen a penny through ASCAP. I think they should worry about their own mission statement and get creators actually PAID.

And if I was actually getting my royalties, I would still think the letter was ridiculous and fear-mongering. But what else are they going to do -- let everyone know there's an issue that people need to thoughtfully and sensibly make up their own minds on? Of course not.

Musician Jeremy Jarratt also announced plans to quit ASCAP:

I'm a card-carrying member of ASCAP as well. At least, i was until i got their message. I'm disaffiliating myself as soon as i can figure out how. This is ingenuous at best, and an insult to anyone with even the remotest modicum of understanding of modern digital content distribution. It shows only how antiquated this whole entire game is.

ASCAP should change their moniker to ASSHAT: American Society of Socially-Harmful Attorneys and Treasurers.

Someone going by the name Bobkat who is a member of ASCAP admits that he generally likes ASCAP protecting his rights, but is disgusted with the tone of the letter and now very conflicted over how he feels about ASCAP:

I'm also a member of ASCAP, and I was digusted by the tone of the letter. I hold Creative Commons and the EFF in high regard, and painting them as some kind of enemy of musicians is ridiculous. As a musician, I don't feel like a small-time individual has many options; I have a pretty broad idea of fair use, myself, but if Kanye sampled my song and made millions off of it then damn right I would want a piece. Without the resources to hire a lawyer, who else but ASCAP could help me get my share? Yet at the same time, I don't completely trust that they're really always protecting my best interests; and in this case I believe they have amply demonstrated how clumsy and old-fashioned their philosophy is. What a crummy situation.

Similarly conflicted is Dennis Bathory-Kitsz who wrote a very long comment trying to explain both sides, but finally coming down on the side where he hopes ASCAP changes its stance (this one was long, so just some excerpts here):

I'm a longtime member of both ASCAP and EFF, and I find the whole situation painful.

ASCAP's broadcast and international royalty collections are poor (former is a lottery, latter is unenthusiastic) but their domestic performance royalties are good and appropriately scaled. I appreciate that, and also appreciate that their staff is actually fairly small.

That said, I have to say I'm always disappointed by ASCAP's rough behavior (even if they're not nearly as awful as the RIAA). Maybe it's a negotiating stance, but it just tastes bad....

....

I attended one of the first ASCAP committee meetings about internet music use back in 1995 (where I met folks such as Laurie Spiegel and Morton Subotnik for the first time). I suspect that the composers in attendance 15 years ago are disappointed if not disgusted by the bullying position ASCAP has been taking (revealed as much in the "Daily Briefing" emails they send out as in the recent letter).

So I hope ASCAP will rethink its position and arrive at a truly creative solution that acknowledges how culture (to which they're nominally allied) functions as opposed to a hard-line interpretation of the law. This is no easy task, as Congress has been doing the bidding of the real deep pockets in the past few decades.

Meanwhile, there were some similar comments found on the BoingBoing article on ASCAP's letter as well. For example, there is this comment from the musician Kemmler who posted the email he sent back upon getting ASCAP's fundraising pitch:

Dear Mr. Williams -

I'm not interested in supporting any initiative based on this sort of information-free screed. I've personally relied on creative-commons licensed materials to use in my own work, as well as a license which provides a convenient way to both promote and control the dissemination of my own work.

I also have a firm respect for the EFF and their efforts in protecting the interests of consumers and small business where they pertain to new media channels, the internet, or IP.

As a musician, and as an entrepreneur making my living selling equipment to studios and musicians, I obviously have a great deal to lose if the putative forces of "copyleft" somehow succeed in preventing music being paid for. However, I cannot condone, or fail to decry the practice of vilifying institutions like Creative Commons, which poses absolutely no conceivable illegitimate threat to ASCAP or its members.

If someone wants to license their materials under a CC license - that's their right. If someone wants to use CC-licensed material, and not pay ASCAP for some other material - that's also their right. Please grow up and get a grip.

Similar to some of the conflicted artists above, someone going by the name "BrooklynTwang" who appears to be the musician Rench posted a comment about how he supports ASCAP and what it does, but hates this fundraising campaign:

I am an ASCAP member. I hate this fundraising letter and I am telling them so.

You can tell them too, right here
http://www.ascap.com/legislation/legislation-form.html

Just FYI though regarding the ASCAP-is-corporate-assholes talk, I am not a rich rockstar but I make money licensing music for film, tv, and commercials. I am happy to give music away free to the public, but if some corporation is going to use it to sell crap, they should pay me. Not just the up front fee, but royalties for each time they run the ad/show/film. ASCAP makes them do that so they don't get away with shortchanging artists like me. Thats one thing that ASCAP does, and thats why I am a member. ASCAP is not just another corporation. They are a player in a complex position between artists and corporations. They are not the bad guys, they are just not as good as they should be these days. Next time we vote on the ASCAP board members I will grill the nominees about this.

That's not all either, but a quick sampling. I'm sure that this won't have a noticeable impact on ASCAP, which has 380,000 members, most of whom probably don't know or don't care much about the details of what it is ASCAP is misleadingly attacking. But ASCAP might want to be careful before continuing to attack organizations that actually do have musicians' best interests in mind. They might find that more and more will start to question ASCAP's motives as well. In the end, I doubt there was anything malicious in ASCAP's fundraising letter. It's just that the organization is so far out of touch with what's happening in the music world today that it actually thinks attacking these groups makes sense.

Filed Under: copyright, music
Companies: ascap, creative commons, eff, public knowledge

Mick Jagger: Artists Really Only Made Money Selling Music For About 25 Years

from the the-new-normal-is-the-old-normal dept

A bunch of people submitted this a while back, but I'm just getting around to writing it up. In an interview with the BBC, Mick Jagger is asked about things like file sharing, and he notes that, realistically, artists only made money selling music directly for a very short time:

But I have a take on that - people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn't make any money out of records because record companies wouldn't pay you! They didn't pay anyone!

Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.

So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn't.

Now, I don't think that's entirely accurate on a few points. He's right that labels didn't pay artists, or often found creative accounting ways not to pay artists. But he's also wrong that "everyone made money" during those 25 years. Only a small percentage of artists actually made money during those years. There were a few that were heavily promoted by the labels and became rock stars, like Jagger. Other artists never made much at all.

Filed Under: business models, mick jagger, music

Michael Robertson's Crowdsourced List Of 1,400 Examples Of EMI Giving Away Free Music; EMI Denies All But 3

from the um... dept

Want some free music from EMI? You may remember that EMI is in a legal battle with Michael Robertson and his current company MP3Tunes (well, one of his current companies). MP3Tunes is a music locker. It only lets you upload your own songs, but also does have a search engine, Sideload.com, that will search for freely available music online. As part of the lawsuit, EMI insisted that EMI has never authorized music to be posted for free online, so any and all music from EMI that is found by Sideload must be unauthorized. Except... of course. that's not true. EMI hands out free mp3s to journalists all the time to post, and often has them on their own website. When asked about it, EMI finally admitted to allowing a grand total of three songs to be distributed freely online.

To prove that EMI was lying, last fall, Michael Robertson offered up a bookmarklet that people could use to let him know whenever they found free MP3s of EMI music on legitimate sites (mainstream media, artist's own websites, label marketing sites, etc.). That "You Lie, EMI" bookmarklet seems to have worked wonders. Robertson has now collected over 1,400 examples of EMI giving away free MP3s. He's even put the whole list in a nice Google spreadsheet, so you can check it out yourself (and even see where EMI has put up free music).

I'm not surprised to see our friend Lily Allen on the list. As you may recall, last fall, right after Lily went on a bit of a rant about the evils of file sharing and distributing unauthorized music, we pointed out that on her official LilyAllenMusic website, she and EMI (who runs the website) were distributing mixtapes full of songs from EMI artists... and artists from other record labels as well (though, we doubt EMI got the rights to do that).

Either way, nice job crowdsourcing the proof that EMI does, in fact, lie:

This list is just a fraction of the songs EMI makes available, but it's irrefutable that EMI uses free song files as promotion. Astonishingly they are still telling the court that they don't authorize song files to be distributed for free. They are denying these songs are legitimate in spite of overwhelming evidence of MP3 files from retailers, blogs, artist sites, label sites, and marketing sites. Even when you point to one of their own corporate blogs which offers downloads they remain steadfast in their claim that they don't distribute MP3s online for free.

Thanks to the MP3tunes user community, we have powerful evidence to refute EMI's claims that they don't distribute promotional songs. I think it's one of the first examples of crowdsourcing evidence. The evidence was assembled not by parties to the litigation or their legal teams but citizens with a computer and motivation to help out. We'll learn later this year whether it will help MP3tunes prevail.

But weren't we just told by the head of PPL in the UK (home of EMI) that "there is no such thing" as "promotion" when it comes to music, and "for free" should be erased from our vocabulary. Perhaps that explains EMI's actions. They no longer recognize the concept of free promotion as existing after listening to Fran Nevrkla's speech.

Filed Under: free, michael robertson, mp3s, music, promotion
Companies: emi, mp3tunes

Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?

from the play-it-again dept

We recently wrote about Daniel Pink's new book Drive and how there are some situations where money is not just the wrong motivator for creativity, but it can actually harm creativity. While some in the comments falsely interpreted that to mean money is never a motivator or that it somehow means everyone should give up their money, others did have many thoughtful responses. That discussion got Ray Dowd, a copyright litigator in New York, thinking about a variety of topics related to motivation and copyright, noting that if the key point of copyright is to create incentives for creativity, the studies covered by Drive certainly should be an important part of the larger discussion.

From there, he goes through a variety of situations where copyright is clearly harming creativity, rather than helping it, including a discussion on the bizarre notion that satire cannot be fair use, but parody can be. However, where it gets most interesting, is when he discusses how copyright, and the more recent draconian enforcement of copyright law, is having a massively negative impact on jazz and jazz musicians:

When the Copyright Society had its convention in New Orleans a few years back, I was struck by the plight of Jazz musicians: they didn't have the right to a compulsory license. So a bunch of white kids doing an exact cover of a Led Zep tune can force Led Zep to license the song at a cheap rate.

But Jazz - which remixes, rearranges and is an art form that is derivative - can't get a compulsory license, and the changes and modifications to the original can't be protected without an additional license from the copyright owner - even though a sound recording in a cover song can.

According to the jazz musicians, the licensing practices of copyright owners have put them out of making a living and basically strangled their creativity. It was a heartbreaking presentation. Jazz and its successors which rely on sampling, borrowing, remixing - all activities emanating from African-American traditions - have been severely penalized, to the point of practical extinction.

That's a clear, concrete (and, as a jazz fan, depressing) example of an area in which copyright is clearly doing the exact opposite of its intended purpose. I'm really curious to hear from defenders of the copyright status quo (or who believe in even stronger copyright protections) to see how they defend this situation. I'm also reminded, yet again, of James Boyle's excellent chapter on how soul music owes its very existence to the fact that copyright laws weren't enforced that strongly a few decades back (and, the laws themselves weren't nearly as limiting).

In the face of increasing examples of such copyright policies doing exactly the opposite of what they intend, how is it that our elected officials continue to buy the claims from a few entrenched industries, that copyright needs to be made even more strict? How many more musicians have to have their art and creativity stifled?

Filed Under: copyright, creativity, derivative works, jazz, music

Could Collection Societies Help Up-And-Coming Artists With A 20/80 Distribution System?

from the one-idea dept

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of music collection societies in general. I tend to think that once they get the right to collect they begin to abuse that power in ways that actually harm musicians and songwriters more than help them. That's because once they're given a right to demand payments, they continually look to expand that right: covering more areas and increasing the amount they can demand.

While, at first, that might seem like a good thing for the musicians and songwriters they represent, what many don't take into account is the wider repercussions and unintended consequences. For example, by making music more expensive to play, they actually take away a lot of the incentive for many places to play music -- thereby cutting down on promotional venues for certain artists. This has hit coffee shops and other small venues especially hard, and that's quite a problem since so many musicians actually get their start performing at various open mic nights. The second problem, of course, is in distribution. How do these collection societies accurately distribute money. By their very nature, they really can't track how often songs from less-well-known artists and songwriters are played, and so they often just focus on bigger acts -- effectively taking money that should go to smaller artists and giving it to bigger artists! If you catch representatives from those groups off-guard, they even seem willing to admit that, such as the time that a BMI exec responded to such criticism from a songwriter who wasn't getting paid: "I would like to tell him is that he needs to write a hit song."

Andrew Dubber has been thinking about this issue, and is wondering if there might be a slightly better solution that would help up-and-coming artists. His idea is that these collection societies should take 20% of their overall pot of money, and divide it equally among the lower 80% of the musicians and songwriters who are members. It wouldn't be that much money, but it would give them all some money. The remaining 80% of the collection revenues would still be handed out as usual, using whatever techniques the collection societies use to figure out who gets what. My first reaction on hearing this is that it would get people to sign up for a chance at "free money," making it something like a welfare system for musicians. But, Dubber points out in the comments that in order to qualify, you'll still need to have a song that was used somewhere else. You can't just say you're a musician.

I'm still not totally convinced that this would work, and I'm also not convinced that the collection society setup is even worth saving at all. But if such societies are going to be around (and it's almost certain they're not going anywhere), then we might as well look at ways to make them actually help more musicians, rather than simply propping up the top of the top, while holding back new comers.

Filed Under: collection society, distribution, fairness, music

For Staunch Copyright Defenders, Big Singers From Big Labels Seem To Copy From Others A Lot...

from the just-saying... dept

Reader Dan points us to a long, but fascinating article by someone tracing a number of stories involving famous Western pop stars copying famous songs that originated in Cameroon, without any credit (or, of course, money) -- including the song by Shakira that is currently the World Cup theme song -- which some folks did some online detective work to track down its origins:

Ze Bella who had retired from the Presidential Guards in 2002 was enjoying a quiet retirement in his village when he got a call from an acquaintance in France informing him that Shakira had just released a version of Zangalewa. This information was soon confirmed by Emile Kojidy another Golden Sounds alum now living in the United States. They were both right.

A few days earlier, the Internet had been inundated with buzz about the new song by Columbian pop star Shakira titled "Zaminamina" which was rumoured to be the official anthem for the FIFA 2010 World Cup. To many listeners, the song was eerily familiar and many bloggers and journalist sought to find out the origins of the song....

To Cameroonians and many African, the origins of the song was no mystery as they instantly recognized it as a remix of "Zangalewa". Thus began a frenzied online campaign to alert the world that this was not a Shakira original but a remix.

After the evidence became overwhelming, and people started complaining, Shakira's label (Sony) was forced to come to the table and settle (some believe that FIFA pushed them to make sure that the song was "cleared" before they would use it as the World Cup official song). Now, I, like many don't think there's anything wrong with musicians building on the works of others. It's how music has pretty much always been created. However, it does seem very hypocritical for all these big labels and big musicians to be whining about copyright infringement, when it appears that they try to get away with it themselves when they can.

Filed Under: cameroon, copying, music, shakira, world cup
Companies: fifa, sony

More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes

from the stomping-them-out dept

The Guardian recently had an article wondering if "the internet" was killing the idea of the local music scene with a "local sound." In discussing that article, Glyn Moody says it's much more likely that it's absurd licensing regimes that are killing local scenes. Indeed. This is something we've discussed for a few years. The excessive demands of licensing and collection societies have really damaged local music scenes harming countless up-and-coming musicians by closing down the main venue for most new musicians to build up their performance chops through demands for ridiculous and excessive licenses.

It seems that more people are noticing this.

The Boston Globe recently had an article highlighting how these practices are incredibly damaging for local music scenes:

Across New England, church coffeehouses, library cafes, and eateries that pass the hat to pay local musicians or open their doors to casual jam sessions are experiencing a crackdown by performance rights organizations, or PROs, which collect royalties for songwriters.

The FurdLog blog wonders that if people say downloading unauthorized material is "theft," then what should we call this practice of performance rights organizations bullying small venues around the country into closing. What a shame. It's really stunning how much harm ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are doing for musicians -- the very people they're supposed to help.

Filed Under: collection societies, music, open mic, pros
Companies: ascap, bmi, sesac

Music In Real Time: Keep Up Or Get Left Behind

from the it-ain't-like-it-used-to-be dept

The Swedish organization Media Evolution is putting on a conference called Moving Images about how the concept of "real time" is impacting the media industry. As a part of that event, they're running a "blog race," where different bloggers are writing up a discussion on one aspect of what the conference covers. I'm taking the relay baton from Andreas Ekstrom who wrote about how we are constantly pushing the boundaries of transparency in the real time world, and next week I'm handing the baton off to Bjorn Jeffery at Bonnier R&D, who will be talking about real time in the journalism world.

---

As for me... I'm talking about it in the context of the music industry. As I started to think about this, I came across a fantastic "must read" blog post from France, that details pretty much everything you need to know about today's digital landscape for promoting your music. It's incredibly thorough. I have no idea who wrote it, and the only reason I know about it is because someone sent a Twitter message to me about it -- but I can't even thank them, because whoever did that has since deleted their Twitter account! However, if you're a musician and you're doing anything online (and you should be), it's worth looking through this just to make sure you know what's out there.

But, what really struck me as I read this is that if you go back a decade almost none of what's discussed in the article even existed. At all. Most of the services discussed have popped up in the past few years. The digital skills you need to know to be a musician today are changing so rapidly that the service you figure out today might not even exist in a few years -- and the hot service next year might not even exist at all today. It's no surprise that this bothers and worries some people. They worry about how they might need to spend all this time figuring out these online things, rather than making music. That's a totally understandable reaction. But most musicians are going to need to get over that. Welcome to the new world. And so far, it appears that most of those worries are unfounded.

It's true that, in the past, the major record labels handled a lot of the marketing side of things -- but the cost was super high for musicians. Basically, you gave up all control (and most of the money). And you were basically waiting for a lottery ticket. If the major label decided you were one of a small number of bands it was going to put its monetary muscle behind, then you could break through. If not, you were going to have go back to finding a day job and getting totally bogus royalty statements from a label that's never going to pay you any money beyond the advance, which all went into recording your album, over which you no longer have any control. Was it worth it? Well, when there were no other options and this was the only shot at success, perhaps.

But these days? All those services that are discussed are the real time music world today. They let anyone route around the old gatekeepers, retain control, and take charge. They allow artists to create, promote, distribute, communicate and inspire -- all in real time. You can ignore them if you want, but you do so at your own peril. More and more musicians have been taking charge over their careers and they're pointing out that musicians who ignore the social networking aspect of the music business only have themselves to blame. It's not that hard by itself, but it's part of being successful today in the business.

And, in many ways that's incredibly exciting. Taking out the need for a middleman gives musicians more control over their own destinies. Yes, they still need to be good and they still need to work hard, but they no longer are at the mercy of a gatekeeper. And it's opening up all sorts of new possibilities.

Musicians are realizing that the "real time" music industry is a great way to not just build up true fans, but to keep them interested. I was looking recently at a musician I like, and in the last year alone, he actually ended up "releasing" the equivalent of six albums -- because he just kept creating music, and releasing it (both digital and CD). I'm guessing that the same people who complain by saying that musicians who do social networking won't have time to make music will also now complain about this kind of output: saying that if he's making so many albums, how can he have time for anything else? But, you can't really have it both ways, can you?

In fact, if you look, it seems like the musicians who are most active on social networks, also seem to be producing a lot more music than those who went the old route (contrary to the claims). They're realizing that with the barriers for everything getting lower, the "real time" music industry means that they can just keep creating music, releasing it, and building up fans and a true, sustainable business as they go. Social networking in real time doesn't take away from the ability to create music -- it can enhance it.

So, the real time music industry isn't just about communicating in real time. It's about doing everything in real time: creating, producing, distributing, marketing, promoting, connecting, performing. Take out the roadblocks and everything becomes a bigger opportunity, and a constant chance to keep connecting with your fans every chance you get. And when you realize that, it's difficult not to get really excited about what's coming next for the music industry.

Filed Under: music, music industry, real time