Music Rights Now - Helping to Protect Intellectual Property Online

[Bart Elliott]

Last year, I told you about an organization,  http://www.musicrightsnow.org/]Music Rights Now , that is engaged in the fight against online music theft.

In January, a new Congress convened and the legislative process began again. Fortunately, building on the momentum generated last year, a bipartisan group of legislators recently introduced S. 968; a bill giving the Justice Department the authority to seek a federal court order to seize a domain name used by a website engaged in criminal piracy or counterfeiting. Under the bill the Court would also issue an order to intermediaries -- such as ISPs, payment processors, Internet registries, advertisers, etc. -- prohibiting them from doing business with such criminal operations.

If you'd like to help again, please click  http://www.capwiz.com/musicrightsnow/issues/alert/?alertid=46372526&type=CO&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_medium=email&utm_content=http%3a%2f%2fwww.capwiz.com%2fmusicrightsnow%2fissues%2falert%2f%3falertid%3d46372526%26type%3dCO&utm_campaign=17528358&utm_umg_et=112320578]HERE  to send an e-mail to your Senators and Representative to ask that they support this innovative legislation. Take the time to ask your colleagues and friends to send a message as well. It's easy to make an impact - just enter your home address and click "send."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHno8SGpTGw#ws]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHno8SGpTGw#ws

[Chris Whitten]

Is that a new video?
Thumbs up from me.  :)

[Bob Pettit]

There is a lot of unauthorized material on youtube, which I find very handy. Most is low quality as far as sound and video is concerned, but gives a taste of a band or song and I may end up buying the CD/DVD for myself if I like it. Granted, in the old days I bought a lot of stuff I listened to only once, so the artist got paid.

I hope any changes to the law addresses this, that like radio we can check stuff out stuff first before we buy.

It would be a dis-service if sites such as youtube were shutdown. Does thi new law have some sort of licensing agreement that will address this?

..

[Bart Elliott]

There is a lot of unauthorized material on youtube, which I find very handy. Most is low quality as far as sound and video is concerned, but gives a taste of a band or song and I may end up buying the CD/DVD for myself if I like it. Granted, in the old days I bought a lot of stuff I listened to only once, so the artist got paid.

I hope any changes to the law addresses this, that like radio we can check stuff out stuff first before we buy.

It would be a dis-service if sites such as youtube were shutdown. Does the new law have some sort of licensing agreement that will address this?

It's a FAR greater disservice to artists who don't get paid for the use of their creative works (ie. music, video). The last thing I'm personally worried about is helping the consumer. First, protect those who are making the product, then focus on how to get it to the masses.

There are already licensed entities in place that allow you to check out a product before you make a purchase (eg.  http://www.amazon.com/?&tag=drummercafe-20&camp=211041&creative=374005&linkCode=qs1&adid=1HNA3XE49YM8DW3SW87W&]Amazon.com ).

The main focus of this law is going to be sites that allow for illegal sharing of music; breaking copyright. After that, focusing on sites that allow for indirect sharing (like YouTube) ... making sure that they have licenses in place and/or deal with those who break copyright by removing the content.

Is that a new video?
Thumbs up from me.  :)

Not a new video, Chris. I shared this on Drummer Cafe TV over a year ago, and wanted to share that again here on the forum.  ;D

[Chris Whitten]

+1 the above.
Free internet radio, where you can pretty much customize the content, is fairly widespread now.
There is also free, official material on YouTube. Google (owners of YouTube) just need to make a lot more deals with content providers. I believe they are working through this, but it takes time.

[Tony]

Such a sticky topic.

It would be a disservice to shut down sites such as You Tube. These sights do not exist to perpetrate copyright violations, it is a by product of their nature. I can remember plugging a cassette into the boom box and taping my favorite songs on the Sunday Morning Countdown when I was a kid. Is this much different? Did the radio commit intellectual property theft or did I? I recently watched a  video on You Tube set to a Radiohead song I was unfamiliar with. I ended up buying 3 Radiohead CD's from Itunes later that week. There are positives and negatives to both sides of the coin but You Tube isn't going anywhere, that's for sure.

Policing is needed on these sights, maybe a licensing solution similar to the ASCAP/BMI club license, etc. However, copyright infringment and theft of intellectual property has been going on since man started banging on stetched skins with bones and drawing on cave walls in France. Besides, there are only 13 notes in Western music, so technically, most of what is being written today is some form of plagarism since the number of note combinations are finite.

I don't condone outright theft or illegal downloading of songs, albums, etc. But history has shown that the problem is not going away and it is not new to the digital age. Yet thousands of people make a living in the music business every year. No industry is perfect and most have issue that unfairly (in the workers mind) effect profit. They deal with it and adapt, while working on viable solutions that often use compromise. The music business can do the same thing.

[Bart Elliott]

I don't think there's been any discussion about shutting down sites like YouTube, although that is always assumed ... basically since that's the site most people know about and use.

YouTube is doing their part to assist with the law and copyright. The sites that allow users to share files, or download illegal copies ... that's the main focus.

It's good, in a way, that people assume that this is about YouTube. That means their not partaking of the sites that are really causing problems.  ;D

[Chris Whitten]

It would be a disservice to shut down sites such as You Tube.

Zero chance of that, as Bart rightly points out.

No industry is perfect and most have issue that unfairly (in the workers mind) effect profit. They deal with it and adapt, while working on viable solutions that often use compromise. The music business can do the same thing.

I don't think creative people should have to adapt to blatant illegality.
In other ways creative people always do adapt, and are often early adopters of new technologies and innovation.
The copyright infringement problem isn't one of new technology, but technology's use in an unlawful (I'm afraid IMO - selfish) way.

[Tony]

I don't think anyone should have to adapt to blatant illegality be it related to work or not. But it's intersting that you differentiate "creative people". My personal belief is that "creative people" think that their "intellectual property" is somehow worth more or deserves special treatment. I certainly can understand, I think everyone feels their work product is special.

My only real point is that I recognize theft is a problem in all businesses, especially one that mass produces any product. I personally just don't think that the music business is any different. In fact, they have been quite succesful in combating copyright infrigement which sort of does make them special.

[Bart Elliott]

My personal belief is that "creative people" think that their "intellectual property" is somehow worth more or deserves special treatment. I certainly can understand, I think everyone feels their work product is special.

My only real point is that I recognize theft is a problem in all businesses, especially one that mass produces any product. I personally just don't think that the music business is any different. In fact, they have been quite successful in combating copyright infringement which sort of does make them special.

Yeah, I completely disagree with all of that.

When you are in the music industry and see what goes on behind the scenes, it's very different picture than what the general public perceives.

The entertainment industry is very different from other industries. Not only does the general public believe it should be free, but almost every art form can be digitized, which makes the thievery all the more easier.

We have members right here on this forum who have spent thousands of dollars on creating/recording a music CD, only to have it be immediately available online, in it's entirety, for free. There's no other industry, other than perhaps software and information related industries, that suffer as much as the fine arts (ie. creative people).

[Chris Whitten]

I don't think anyone should have to adapt to blatant illegality be it related to work or not. But it's intersting that you differentiate "creative people".

Basically, the originators of all intellectual property are creative people. Creative people design bridges, develop iPads, make cymbals, create dining experiences, make clothes and landscape our parks.
For several hundred years now, society has understood that there is no motivation to innovate, if you allow non-innovators to copy someone else's hard work the first day they see the fruits of that hard work. In the final washup, it's society's loss if 'creativity' is not valued and rewarded. And in the music business you're 90% likely to be self employed and self funded - for example, like Bart creating, maintaining and paying for the Drummer Cafe. How about you open Tony's Cafe and copy a lot of the text from here, including videos, reviews and tutorials? How much do you think Bart would be motivated to continue while someone else was freeloading off his hard work?

As to your points about other business -
The best research we have (across many surveys and studies) is that music piracy sits at about 20% of all consumed music.
Techheads claim it's less, the music industry claims it's a lot more.
Let's be very conservative and say 10%.
The current official figures for stock loss (shoplifting and employee pilfering) on the American main street is 1.7%.
Have you noticed all those closed circuit tv cameras, tag alarms at store exits, store detectives, regular and aggressive prosecutions of shoplifters? In contrast it's highly likely that if music piracy was down at 1.7% we wouldn't even be discussing it.

[Tim van de Ven]

Basically, the originators of all intellectual property are creative people. Creative people design bridges, develop iPads, make cymbals, create dining experiences, make clothes and landscape our parks.
For several hundred years now, society has understood that there is no motivation to innovate, if you allow non-innovators to copy someone else's hard work the first day they see the fruits of that hard work. In the final washup, it's society's loss if 'creativity' is not valued and rewarded. And in the music business you're 90% likely to be self employed and self funded - for example, like Bart creating, maintaining and paying for the Drummer Cafe. How about you open Tony's Cafe and copy a lot of the text from here, including videos, reviews and tutorials? How much do you think Bart would be motivated to continue while someone else was freeloading off his hard work?

As to your points about other business -
The best research we have (across many surveys and studies) is that music piracy sits at about 20% of all consumed music.
Techheads claim it's less, the music industry claims it's a lot more.
Let's be very conservative and say 10%.
The current official figures for stock loss (shoplifting and employee pilfering) on the American main street is 1.7%.
Have you noticed all those closed circuit tv cameras, tag alarms at store exits, store detectives, regular and aggressive prosecutions of shoplifters? In contrast it's highly likely that if music piracy was down at 1.7% we wouldn't even be discussing it.

A big plus one on Chris' comments (and Bart's as well).

I firmly believe that my intellectual property has value, monetarily and artistically. I've had music that I've written (and performed) that was placed into commercials, cinema and in theatre; should I have simply given way my work? Not in a million years!

I deserve (as do other artists) to receive fair recompense for my efforts. I don't deserve to have my efforts appear on Torrent Streams so that people that are too cheap to pay 99 cents for it can steal it. Neither do any artists, for that manner. 

[Tony]

Thanks for your insights. As it it seems to always be pointed out, I am an outsider to the music business, only claiming my income from studio ownership (10 years) and playing semi professionaly for 20 years as part time income, but I am no outsider no fraud and theft of intellectual property. I venture to say that I am probably the only person hear who has actually taken part in a prosecution of an indvidual for theft of intellectual property. (on multiple ocassions).

I deserve (as do other artists) to receive fair recompense for my efforts. I don't deserve to have my efforts appear on Torrent Streams so that people that are too cheap to pay 99 cents for it can steal it. Neither do any artists, for that manner. 

Everyone deserves to be compensated for their work efforts and no one deserves to be stolen from. I have never disputed this point and have vainly tried to make sure that I supported this view. I just don't think "creative people" should get special treatment over their "intellectual property".

Basically, the originators of all intellectual property are creative people. Creative people design bridges, develop iPads, make cymbals, create dining experiences, make clothes and landscape our parks.

I sort of agree. While these people make up a part of the intellectual property field, the bulk of what is legally defined as intellectual property are research grants, University academic publishings, and government and corporate research work product, the bulk of which is not relesed to the general public. The property is very rarely owned by the computer tech who developed the technology to make the I-pad or the civil engineer that designed the bridge, it belongs to his company or government that he works for. The real issue with the theft of intellectual property rights happens long before I steal a web site idea that has been running for 10 years. IP theft is a real problem when Coldplay hears an unknown band play a song in a club and that band hears their main riff come on the radio 3 month later on the new Coldplay single. It's when a designer sees the dress ideas he sketched out appear at K-mart 2 weeks before his show because an intern snapped some pics of his sketch book and sold them 6 months earlier. It's when a University professor lies about his research figures to extend his multi-million dollar grant.

When your song is illegally downloaded it's pretty much like it got shoplifted. And I applaud the music industry in their efforts to keep this from happening.

[Bart Elliott]

Thanks for your insights. As it it seems to always be pointed out, I am an outsider to the music business, only claiming my income from studio ownership (10 years) and playing semi professional for 20 years as part time income, but I am no outsider no fraud and theft of intellectual property. I venture to say that I am probably the only person hear who has actually taken part in a prosecution of an individual for theft of intellectual property. (on multiple occasions).

Everyone deserves to be compensated for their work efforts and no one deserves to be stolen from. I have never disputed this point and have vainly tried to make sure that I supported this view. I just don't think "creative people" should get special treatment over their "intellectual property".

I sort of agree. While these people make up a part of the intellectual property field, the bulk of what is legally defined as intellectual property are research grants, University academic publishings, and government and corporate research work product, the bulk of which is not released to the general public. The property is very rarely owned by the computer tech who developed the technology to make the I-pad or the civil engineer that designed the bridge, it belongs to his company or government that he works for. The real issue with the theft of intellectual property rights happens long before I steal a web site idea that has been running for 10 years. IP theft is a real problem when Coldplay hears an unknown band play a song in a club and that band hears their main riff come on the radio 3 month later on the new Coldplay single. It's when a designer sees the dress ideas he sketched out appear at K-mart 2 weeks before his show because an intern snapped some pics of his sketch book and sold them 6 months earlier. It's when a University professor lies about his research figures to extend his multi-million dollar grant.

I don't understand why you seem to think that by making something known, such as the crime that is going on, or wanting to see laws upheld is some how "special treatment."  Sounds like you have an axe to grind with "creative people" in that you perceive they think they are unique or more special than anyone else. Personally, I've never suggested such craziness, nor have I read that from anyone here.

"Creative people" is everyone that you mentioned in your scenario, Tony. It's not just fine arts, but anyone who creates or invents something. You're talking about deeper issues, which obviously are just as important and need to be addressed.

So ... just because crime is happening elsewhere, or at a deeper level, big or small, doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about what's going on and how it's affecting us. I personally that the crimes within the entertainment industry have been neglected and overlooked; less energy and attention being given to the issues.

Lastly, Tony ... I've never singled or pointed you out as being an "outsider in the music business."  All of my comments are directed to anyone and everyone with whom they fit or apply. My quoting you doesn't mean that my response is directed AT you specifically; I'll use your name when speaking to you directly, like I am now.  8)

[Chris Whitten]

I am probably the only person hear who has actually taken part in a prosecution of an indvidual for theft of intellectual property. (on multiple ocassions).

Possibly.
I got involved with Ebay when a seller was reformatting one of my music products, burning it onto a DVDR and selling it.
It took a few months of repeated official takedown notices to Ebay before they finally acted, all the while the seller was completing sales successfully.
If I google one of my products, I get more search results pointing me to illegal download sites, than results pointing me to legal retail sites. I'm not personally involved in prosecution because the product is essentially owned by a parent company (Toontrack) and all their product line is aggressively targeted by 'thieves'.

[Tony]

Thanks again for all of your insight. Like I said, I applaud the industry for taking great efforts in bringing this problem to light and combating the offense.

Bart, thanks for pointing out that your comments weren't directed at me. I may have taken some of your comments directly to heart since I was the only one who seemed to be taking the position that caused your response. As for creative people, in fairness I used this term because others in the discussion have used it to designate a different set of people within the work force in society. I was simply adapting to their chosen terms so there wasn't any confusion. Quite honestly, the entire topic went sideways when I said that theft happens in all aspects of business and industry and that the music business is no different. I also pointed out that I found it interesting that some people chose to differentiate between creative people and everyone else. This seemed to touch a nerve with a few people and led to some posts explaining why the music business is different and why creative people are so important in society and the need to properly compensate them lest they stop providing their wares. I personally disagree with this and believe that people will always look to be creative and innovative, monetary reward aside.

Lastly, I respectfully disagree that crimes in the entertainment industry are overlooked and under enforced. Any "axe to grind" feelings you may detect could come from the other perspective. I actually worked on the enforcement side of the fence. The entertainment industry is one of the only areas that employ their own force of investigators and inspectors that make referrals to local and Federal law enforcement and also serve to bolster civil legal proceedings against those who are responsible for distributing and manufacturing "pirated" material. I have personally investigated copyright infringement and theft of intellectual property cases and in the big picture of crime, illegal downloads are simply not a big deal. But that is not to say that it isn't important, especially to those here who make their living in the industry. The sad reality is that we live in a society where we are cutting school budgets, slashing "entitlement" programs and the richest members in our society continue to enjoy tax cuts the rest of us haven't enjoyed.  Combating illegal piracy in a cash rich industry is not a priority. And IMHO that's ok because the music industry has great programs to educate people to the wrongs of this type of behavior and more importantly, they have the resources to do so. They pay their attorneys a tremendous amount of money to monitor and combat sites that encourage this type of behavior. I could write a separate essay on how diverting Government resources to combat this problem for one of the richest industries (entertainment) in the world is morally wrong with all the other issues we need to address, but then I would I would be getting political.  So if it comes across as having a bit of a chip on the shoulder about the whole issue, it is simply for the same reason you folks have your perspective; it's the sum of my experiences. I have had budgets slashed and manpower cut and still had to cater to entertainment execs that skew numbers and attribute every dollar lost in the music business as the result of piracy without any consideration to unemployment, lowered earning potential and general malaise within the economy. Chris said the numbers are 20% on a conservative basis. Funny, that seems to be the about the total revenue losses within the US music retail sales figures each year since 2000. Is it really all because of theft?

[Chris Whitten]

This seemed to touch a nerve with a few people and led to some posts explaining why the music business is different and why creative people are so important in society and the need to properly compensate them lest they stop providing their wares. I personally disagree with this and believe that people will always look to be creative and innovative, monetary reward aside.

I strongly disagree.
Some people will always want to nurse the sick, others will feel strongly motivated to join the armed forces and defend their country. In those cases we constantly debate the correct monetary reward, often agreeing that it isn't enough. You don't find many saying "whatever, they'll nurse anyway".
I think there's a provable human connection between life choices made and reward/lifestyle.
Who enjoys the better lifestyle, the ballet dancer or the business executive, the lacrosse player or the NFL linebacker?
That's why there are few who pursue ballet and lacrosse as full time careers, while millions study for a business degree, and there's intense competition between an endless tide of young men hoping for a career in football.
As musicians we hope to nurture and protect a scene we are passionate about. No future in music, and talented creative people will turn to video production, or script writing. That's a huge loss to the field of music if it happens, and I'm not willing to risk it based on the shakey theory that creative people will always create, even if it's much harder to earn a living, buy a house and raise a family by doing so.

Combating illegal piracy in a cash rich industry is not a priority.

Maybe if you were a full time musician you'd realise the vast majority of musicians aren't cash rich.
The sad reality is that the cash rich sector of the industry is not feeling the strain of piracy as much as the majority. Beyonce makes a huge amount of money from perfume sales, Jay-Z clothing and underwear?, Paul McCartney from touring for the umpteenth time. The record company execs get their meal allowance and gold watch when they retire whether music has been pirated or not.
I think most of us who are fighting piracy are fighting it on behalf of the ordinary working musicians, indie bands, struggling singer/songwriters, self releasers.
I have a friend who writes, records and releases his own music. He has NO support other than the money he can make himself. Due to the rampant pirating of digital music he hit on a strategy of printing up 1000 copies of 'limited edition' vinyl, but has unfortunately found that even then someone will buy the vinyl, copy it to mp3 and make it available illegally to anyone else who wants the music.

So before you criticize me, which I think you were, you may want to get away from the music corporations and wealthy executives, and experience life as a real, working musician.

[Chris Whitten]

Chris said the numbers are 20% on a conservative basis. Funny, that seems to be the about the total revenue losses within the US music retail sales figures each year since 2000. Is it really all because of theft?

Here is a very recent article which I think puts everything in a balanced perspectiuve.
The figures are all over the place actually, a few percentage up, a few down, but you can see which parts of the music industry are doing ok and which aren't:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/04/uk-music-industry-revenue-falls]http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/04/uk-music-industry-revenue-falls

[Mister Acrolite]

Amen to what Chris said. So many people operate with a skewed sense of what musicians make. There's no middle class in music. You're either a household name or you're starving. And this unrealistic and blase attitude about royalties/compensation helps keep things that way.

When it comes to the arts, our culture is rapidly becoming one of sheer consumption, based on the assumption that there will always be somebody producing something more for them to consume - and now they want it to be free.

Sorry, but homey don't play that. I want to be compensated for my work, whether I'm flipping burgers, playing drums, or writing marketing copy. When you work, you should get paid. Otherwise, why bother? It's not only not financially viable for you; it also makes you feel like crap to see that people think your work is worth nothing. And that isn't very inspiring.

[Tim van de Ven]

Chris and Keith have hit the proverbial nail on it's proverbial head.

When you are an artist, it's either outhouse or castle; there is no middle class.