This is hardly surprising, given previous statements and actions, but a redaction failure by the UK government in a Freedom of Information document handover resulted in TorrentFreak being able to see how Lucian Grainge (now CEO of Universal Music) explained to Peter Mandelson (whom he was lobbying to create the Digital Economy Act) how they wanted ISPs to report directly to record labels on people who might be file sharing, so the labels could take legal action:
"As ISPs can monitor the amount of power used by specific users and the sites connected to, it is possible for ISPs to pass on any details to owners of particular rights, who could then take legal action."
This, of course, is the dream state for the industry, though they haven't been able to get anyone to really go that far yet. Still, it is interesting to see them directly bringing it up with lawmakers.
Two quick announcements. First, this is the latest in our "case study" series, of content creators doing interesting things online, and seeing what we can learn from them. The case studies now have their own tab if you want to check out previous case studies. Second, this profile is about Dan Bull, but stay tuned, because tomorrow, he'll be coming out with a new song, commenting on ACTA and the Gallo Report. We'll post it here, but trust me, you don't want to miss it.
You may recall, about a year ago, there was a bit of a kerfuffle involving singer Lily Allen -- who had built her (major label) career, in part off of releasing a bunch of clearly infringing mixtapes of other artists, mixed with some of her own music on her MySpace page and her official website (controlled by EMI). And yet... she suddenly posted a rant against file sharing, talking about how it was destroying the industry. She even started a blog about how evil copying was, but amusingly plagiarized an entire Techdirt post. We were fine with it (our material is free to use however you'd like), but thought it was an interesting teaching moment about the value of copying, and how even those who claim they're against it implicitly seem to recognize that copying is "natural." While Lily apologized to me, as we noted there was no need to apologize -- the content was free for using. We were hoping that she would understand how her actions went against her own words. Instead, she blamed everyone else, claimed she was "attacked" and shut down her blog.
However, soon after all of this, a musician in the UK, named Dan Bull, wrote and recorded a musical "open letter" to Ms. Allen, for which he created a video, and posted the whole thing to YouTube, generating a ton of attention. If you haven't seen it (or even if you have...), check it out:
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm name checked in the song, which actually caused me to go out and buy Dan's album, even though he makes it available for free as well, uploaded to various file sharing systems that are regularly decried for "destroying" the industry. With the Dear Lily song getting so much attention, Dan has continued to write new songs along these lines, starting with an open letter to Peter Mandelson, the UK politician who was the main driving force behind the Digital Economy Act, which brought three strikes to the UK:
Earlier this year, as the debate heated up over kicking people offline via the Digital Economy Act, UK ISP TalkTalk had Dan Bull create a new song, reminding us how familiar the recording industry's complaints sound to their complaints from years back about how home taping was killing music:
Tomorrow he's coming out with his latest track related to copyright issues, specifically commenting on ACTA and the Gallo report. I've heard it already, and you don't want to miss it. We'll post it as soon as it's ready to go tomorrow. However, as we gear up for that, I spoke to Dan about his experience creating music that has championed the idea that copyright is a much bigger problem than a solution to the music industry, and what lessons he's learned.
The first thing, of course, is that his music career was completely transformed by the original Dear Lily video. Even though he'd already released an album, this one song, changed things. As Dan told me:
I've been putting my songs on YouTube for years without anyone really noticing, so I didn't expect anything different with Dear Lily. I uploaded the video, e-mailed the link to the P2P blog TorrentFreak, and went to bed. The next morning I woke up to find my inbox was broken due to responses arriving every couple of seconds. The video seemed to have struck the right chord at the right time, and I was summarising what was on everybody's mind. Except Lily Allen's.
He pointed out that the video got 80,000 views that first night, and the MP3 (made freely available, of course) was downloaded over 20,000 times. And, despite all the claims that folks who support file sharing or think that copyright has problems are just a bunch of freeloaders who want stuff for free, this song made Dan money:
I made more money from music that week than I had in my entire musical career previously. I'd say it was split 50/50 between sales of my album, and donations from people who just wanted to show their appreciation. It goes to show that filesharers aren't cheapskates; they're happy to hand over a bit of cash if they know who it's going to.
He also pointed out that, if all of the interest in his songs had been monitored by the folks who create the charts, the song actually would have ended up on the UK singles charts.
But, of course, was this just a flash in the pan, one-hit-wonder sort of thing? Not according to Dan. He notes that he had a decent group of supporters before:
But this was when I first started to feel like I had a real fanbase, and that there are lots of other people out there who feel the way I do. Plenty of the people who saw the video have stuck around to check out my new stuff too. It's also made it easier to get my other songs noticed, and I've been on television and radio a few times as a result.
And, in talking about attention from elsewhere, it's not just limited to music about copyright. He's becoming a go-to guy for music about all sorts of political issues, including a successful (and brilliant) UK Election Debate Rap Battle. The tech/copyright songs are still the songs that get the most people excited, but all of his new works are getting more and more attention. As Dan notes, the way you build a career is to continue to keep building, rather than relying on old works and copyright complaints:
I enjoyed the wave of publicity I had from the novelty of the Dear Lily video, but instead of trying to milk it I decided to carry on and write more songs. Each one I do gets a little more attention and it's very satisfying when new fans get in touch with me. It's good to discuss the issues with people who disagree as well - it makes me think hard about whether my beliefs are right.
Oh, and finally, I did wonder if he ever heard from either Lily Allen or Peter Mandelson in response to his open letters. No such luck, apparently, but he's heard from a reliable source that Allen has at least seen the video, and he got to perform Dear Mandy right outside the houses of Parliament in front of a bunch of TV cameras, so he's hoping that maybe, just maybe, Mandelson got to hear it "drifting through his window..."
Once again, this is another case of an artist really finding a way to connect with fans in a fun way, encouraging the free sharing of his music, but recognizing that fans are more than willing to pay, if given a reason to buy. And, of course, I do wonder how folks who insist that no "real" musician would ever speak out against copyright respond to folks like Dan Bull.
Anyway, thanks to Dan for taking the time to answer my questions, and stay tuned for his latest song and video...
You may recall a few weeks back that we wrote about how the Labour party in the UK had come under fire for a really bad campaign poster that portrayed an opposing candidate from the Conservative party as if he were a character in a BBC television program -- photoshopping the candidate's head onto the a promotional shot from the TV show. Labour ended up pulling the poster after the ad seemed to only help the competition -- but also after some questioned whether or not Labour (the party in power that had drafted the infamous Digital Economy Bill) was infringing on copyrights of the TV show in using the image from the show. Eventually, Peter Mandelson, the guy who basically wrote the Digital Economy Bill and was its main champion, took "responsibility" for the poster.
So it's a bit bizarre to hear that Labour and Mandelson have put out a second, quite similar, poster that appears to be just as questionable on the copyright front. Misterfricative writes in to alert us to a new controversy over yet another campaign poster involving the Conservative candidate photoshopped into an image from a BBC television program. Once again, the poster has been "withdrawn" over other aspects of the controversy, but it certainly looks like this should be Mandelson's second strike, right? After all, these posters are supposedly his responsibility. If he wants to set a good example, perhaps he should cut off his own internet access. But I guess he shouldn't worry. After all, as Mandelson himself pointed out, once kicked off, he can pay up in order to file an appeal.
What is it with politicians who push for "three strikes" and other draconian copyright laws always being caught infringing on copyrights themselves? We've already covered how Nicolas Sarkozy, who claims credit for the original "three strikes" plan, has been caught infringing on copyrights multiple times.
Now it appears the same may happening with Lord Peter Mandelson, the unelected politician in the UK (who had been forced to resign twice in his past), who suddenly started pushing for a similar three strikes law -- after a UK study had outright rejected it -- after dining with entertainment industry bigshots. From that came the Digital Economy Bill.
But it appears that even Mandelson, the great defender of copyright, isn't above getting into a bit of trouble with copyright himself. It appears that there's a bit of a controversy over a recent political ad put together by his Labour party -- and Mandelson is taking responsibility for the ad. That was in response to the fact that the ad backfired and seems to have rallied opponents.
But, as PeteProdge points out, it also appears that the ad very well might infringe on copyrights. That's because it takes an image from an old (popular) TV show in the UK, and replaces one character's head with a politician's head. The link here is a bit full of hyperbole, as it comes from someone who seems to be against orphan works legislation and in favor of even more ridiculous copyright laws. The BBC says that it never would have licensed the use of the program, however there are some questions over who might actually have the right to license the image.
I'm not entirely sure this is a big deal. One could probably make a pretty strong fair use/parody argument for allowing the use of the image here. However, for a politician who is so in favor of stricter copyright law, you would think he wouldn't go around using other people's works.
Dan Bull, who wrote, recorded and made videos for his brilliant open letters to both Lily Allen and Peter Mandelson, was asked by UK ISP TalkTalk if he would be interested in creating a new song concerning the Digital Economy Bill. In response, Bull created this lovely song reminding us all about the old home taping is killing music argument:
Make sure your sarcasm meter is properly tuned before watching... Best lines? "Home sewing's killing fashion, Home cooking's killing fast food, Home sleeping's killing hotels." Enjoy.
Remember how the UK was just playing a word game by claiming that it wouldn't disconnect users from the internet via Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill? That was quickly debunked, as people realized that the gov't was simply changing how it described the disconnection, calling it a "temporary account suspension" instead. Of course, that's still a disconnect. Another unresolved question, however, was how long is temporary? Turns out the answer is however long Peter Mandelson thinks is appropriate.
We've already pointed out how Lord Lucas seems to be quite concerned about the ridiculousness in the Digital Economy Bill, and has proposed a series of amendments to help get rid of these problematic elements. However, it looks like some others in the House of Lords are equally concerned as well. Michael Scott points us to the news that the Lords' Human Rights Joint Committee has put out a report that is highly critical of the more controversial points in the Digital Economy Bill, starting with the pressure on ISPs to disconnect users under a three strikes plan:
The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to have the power to require ISPs to take "technical measures" in respect of account holders who have been the subject of copyright infringement reports. The scope of the measures will be defined in secondary legislation and could be wide-ranging.
We do not believe that such a skeletal approach to powers which engage human rights is appropriate. There is potential for these powers to be applied in a disproportionate manner which could lead to a breach of internet users' rights to respect for correspondence and freedom of expression.
There are also grave concerns over section 17, which would effectively let the Business Secretary change copyright law at will:
The broad nature of this power has been the subject of much criticism. In correspondence with us, the Secretary of State explained that the Government intended to introduce amendments to limit the power in Clause 17 and to introduce a 'super-affirmative' procedure. The Government amendments would limit the circumstances in which the Government could use their powers to amend the Act by secondary legislation and would provide a system for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.
Despite the proposed amendments we are concerned that Clause 17 remains overly broad and that parliamentary scrutiny may remain inadequate. We call for a series of clarifications to address these concerns.
On top of that, they're still a bit skeptical even of requiring ISPs to send notices when a user is accused of infringement, noting that while they don't think this would be a restriction on human rights or freedom of expression, they would like "a further explanation of why they [the backers of the bill] consider their proposals are proportionate."
Definitely nice to see that this bill isn't just getting rushed through, and there are some folks who are heavily questioning the more ridiculous parts of the bill.
A little while back, we posted about Dan Bull's excellent song protesting Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, which (among other things) would force ISPs to kick off users accused of file sharing, and grant the UK Business Secretary incredible sweeping powers to change copyright law at will. And while the stated purpose behind such a law is to "help protect the entertainment industry" it seems that it's actually incentivizing the creation of new works in a different way. Martin points us to a competition that was recently held for songs about the Digital Economy Bill. The "winning" song is called "Only Idiots Assume" and is a punk ditty with some choice words for Peter Mandelson.
As if Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill proposal wasn't bad enough, Dave sends in yet another problem with it. While it does include a process for appealing if you are cut off for accusations (not convictions) of unauthorized file distribution or reproduction, you will have to pay up to appeal. So even if you are innocent, it will cost you money to make your case for why you shouldn't have been cut off in the first place.
When Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill was first announced, many people were so shocked by the provision that would let Mandelson or his successor change copyright law at will, with no Parliamentary approval, that they started focusing on that, rather than the expected problem with the bill, like the fact that it could allow people to be kicked offline without a conviction. There has been a lot of pushback from some politicians in the UK and various amendments proposed to fix the bill. And now it looks like the gov't has agreed to make some changes to the infamous Section 17 provision.
Of course, the concessions appear to be rather minor, and my more cynical view is that they knew they were going to do this all along. The idea is simple. Introduce one section that's even more ridiculous and outrageous than the sections you really want passed, and then let all the complaints and press coverage focus on that more ridiculous section. Then, after people get all worked up about it, "concede" just a little bit, and notice that most people no longer have the energy to fight about the other provisions.
