Tag industry

One in Ten Thousand.

The Silicon Alley Insider raises an important question, with regard to Radiohead's testimony against RIAA in a case against a college student: Would Radiohead be able to take that stance if they hadn't sold millions, "without the protection and promotion of an RIAA that Radiohead now blithely dismisses"? But while arguing RIAA's importance with regard to the vast majority of musicians is mildly amusing in its fallacy, the article doesn't stop there:
We love Radiohead, but we're not sure if the band realizes they're superstars, and the normal rules don't apply to them anymore. The band's "pay what you want" idea for the In Rainbows album may have been successful, but for every one Radiohead there's ten thousand would-be rock stars selling CDs out of the trunks of their car (or MP3s on some little-visited web site) and starving.
So, one Radiohead per ten thousand would-be rock stars. Apparently the authors ignore that this is exactly the status quo that the RIAA nurtured in decades past, exactly what the internet, mp3, file sharing and indeed Radiohead's testimony help change: total control over music promotion, repertoire selection, bias in favour of genres/artists by a few multinational corporations aimed at nothing more than profit maximisation. Put another way: A small minority of artists getting all the exposure [and some of them going bankrupt despite the megacorps' multi-million contracts], while millions more being unable to promote their music, make money, live off it. Those same approaches that have led to a just few hundred artists getting millions and the rest starving. If anything, testifying against the RIAA, especially if you've attained superstar status, goes against that. Lastly, Radiohead --- whether you like or dislike their music --- have proven their artistic integrity as well as their popularity time and again, most certainly without RIAAs help. There's no doubt that the interests of musicians around the world should be protected; RIAA never did that and most probably never will.

That's not how Western democracies work

Dealing with illegal file-sharing is a job for the police. It is their job to enforce the law. Now we have given private corporations the legal right to go after our civilians. That's not how Western democracies work.[...] In a study, 80% of people thought we shouldn't go after file-sharers. But ask them how they feel about taking money out of the pockets of musicians, authors or artists and that number falls by a significant amount. Ultimately we have to change peoples perception on file-sharing.
Indeed we do. But most importantly we have to change executives' in those media multinationals perception on culture, art, freedom of communication and privacy as well as protect our liberties from unbounded profit and greed. If file sharing did anything, besides rendering the status quo obsolete, it was to bring to the spotlight on how slanted and unfair the media industry is: favouring less than 1% of the artists globally, fixing prices to maximise profit, compromising on our very own cultural foundations through the systematic, condescending promotion of junk while at the same time making thousands of executives rich for no reason whatsoever. There's no doubt that stealing is bad, although I'm not so sure that not-for-profit sharing of digital copies is. What I am sure about is that what the industry is accustomed to doing --- and keeps trying to achieve, now through the institutions --- is worse.

NF3

Looking for the newest compound that's going to destroy the world, take the mean ambient temperature to 150°C and kill us all? Look no further. True as it may be, the way we're going, I guess that by the time anyone wakes up to what's happening, let alone does something about it, we'll all be toast.

Charlie says 95, Ars says 50. Well, I say 30.

The lunacy of extended copyright and patent terms, the most threatening aspect of modern society with regards to freedom of information, progress, innovation and business comes to Europe, courtesy of Mr. Charlie McCreevy, the EU's Internal Market Commissioner. What Mr. Creevy seems to completely ignore is that the European Union is a completely different market and a different socio-political entity to the U.S., where extended copyright terms are already in place and the patent hell has already resulted in a vastly diminished cultural output1. And while in the United States there's increasing concern among academics, lawyers and even corporations (with the exception of the few colossal ones that stand to benefit) regarding the country's IPR legislation, many of the corporations controlling cultural output globally are European and would certainly like to see things change in Europe too. Given the radical change that the music 'industry' has been facing in the past decade, a proposal for the extension of the copyright term for music to 95 years by Mr. Creevy seems like a thinly concealed attempt by panicked record companies to hang on to whatever legislative vehicles are available to them in order to conserve a flawed and harmful (for everyone, but them) status quo. If anything, the copyright term should be reduced and should be accompanied by an overhaul of the intellectual property rights mechanism that --- to this day --- keeps musicians from enjoying the wealth that they deserve by forcing them to share the vast majority of the profits of their work with dozens of intermediaries, IPR management, marketing and promotional companies (the 'industry').
  • The main argument here is that with a more liberal legislative framework governing intellectual property in the United States, the cultural output of value, other things being equal, would be considerably higher to what it is under the dominance of a handful of multinationals and the unabated commercialisation of the main forms of art.

We will be paying artists directly.

One of my favourite sites leveraging social knowledge to benefit its users, last.fm announced yesterday that listeners will be able to stream full tracks and albums online for free on the site. And to top it all off, they will be paying artists directly from their advertising revenue. Yay!

Foreign Objects Prohibited

If there's ever going to be any sign of a fledging high technology defence industry in China, that'd be it. Building the Chinese Empire step by step.

NIN is Free.

So, last week Radiohead broke the mould for music distribution by an 'established' band and allowed their fans to pick the price for their upcoming album. Then, yesterday, Ian Brown from the Stone Roses and The Smiths' Johnny Marr both praised the move. And now, Trent Reznor (NIN) announces that after 18 years he's going to take over the distribution of his works, hopefully under a similar model. Is this becoming a trend? Does is signal the beginning new era? Maybe it is.