Media Identities: why pirate music?

Standard

Interesting read in the Guardian about the history of music downloading, with an extract from a new book (How Music Got Free). This article is interesting from the perspective of both impact of new media and media identities because the question comes up – all of this piracy stuff is very involved, complex, awkward, even expensive. Why do it, when downloading from iTunes is easier? Snip:

Oink’s heavily trafficked user forums revealed a community that resembled Ellis himself: technically literate middle-class twentysomethings, mostly male, enrolled in university or employed in entry-level jobs. A significant number of members weren’t even that lucky, but were instead what the British government called “Neets”: Not in Education, Employment, or Training. Concerts were a popular topic of discussion; so were drugs. One of the busiest threads on the site simply asked “Why Do You Pirate Music?” Thousands of different answers came in. Oinkers talked of cost, contempt for major labels, the birth of a new kind of community, courageous political activism, and sometimes simply greed. The biggest draw of all was the mere existence of such forums. They were a place to learn about emerging technology, about new bands, about underground shows. iTunes was just a store, basically a mall – Oink was a community.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jun/07/stephen-witt-how-music-got-free-music-piracy-filesharing

Advertisements

New Statesman | “Fifteen years of utter bollocks”: how a generation’s freeloading has starved creativity

Standard

It’s true that some of the classic excuses for piracy had their brief moments of seeming credibility. In 2000, when the debate over digital piracy sprung to life, we didn’t have content providers like Spotify or Netflix, much less iTunes. The fact that there were so few legal options for consuming digital content was one of the main rationalisations for taking a soft stance toward piracy. The legitimate digital market was either too inconvenient or nonexistent, and piracy filled in these gaps in the developing web.

via New Statesman | “Fifteen years of utter bollocks”: how a generation’s freeloading has starved creativity.

Lawyer assesses Pinterest’s copyright situation

Standard

“You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Cold Brew Labs, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, damages, losses, and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable legal and accounting fees, arising out of or in any way connected with (i) your access to or use of the Site, Application, Services or Site Content, (ii) your Member Content, or (iii) your violation of these Terms.”

Basically, if a photographer sues you for pinning an image illegally on Pinterest, the user must not only pay for his or her lawyer, they must also pay for Pinterest’s lawyer.  In addition, the defendant must pay all charges against him or herself, along with all of Pinterest’s charges

via Lawyer assesses Pinterest’s copyright situation.

Musicians win copyright extension to 70 years | Media | guardian.co.uk

Standard

Thousands of music performers, from little-known session musicians to Sir Cliff Richard, will receive royalties from songs released in the 60s for an extra 20 years, under new copyright laws ratified by the EU on Monday.The legislation – known as “Cliffs law” after its most high-profile campaigner – extends copyright on music recordings from 50 years to 70 years.Copyright on many of the most popular 60s tunes, including many Dame Shirley Bassey hits, had been due to expire within two years but will now last until at least 2033

via Musicians win copyright extension to 70 years | Media | guardian.co.uk.

The real cost of free | Cory Doctorow | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Standard

What should other artists do? Well, I’m not really bothered. The sad truth is that almost everything almost every artist tries to earn money will fail. This has nothing to do with the internet, of course. Consider the remarkable statement from Alanis Morissette’s attorney at the Future of Music Conference: 97% of the artists signed to a major label before Napster earned $600 or less a year from it. And these were the lucky lotto winners, the tiny fraction of 1% who made it to a record deal. Almost every artist who sets out to earn a living from art won’t get there (for me, it took 19 years before I could afford to quit my day job), whether or not they give away their work, sign to a label, or stick it through every letterbox in Zone 1.

via The real cost of free | Cory Doctorow | Technology | guardian.co.uk.

Glee vs copyright: do as I say, not as I do – Boing Boing

Standard

In one recent episode, the AV Club helps cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester film a near-exact copy of Madonna’s Vogue music video (the real-life fine for copying Madonna’s original? up to $150,000). Just a few episodes later, a video of Sue dancing to Olivia Newton-John’s 1981 hit Physical is posted online (damages for recording the entirety of Physical on Sue’s camcorder: up to $300,000). And let’s not forget the glee club’s many mash-ups — songs created by mixing together two other musical pieces. Each mash-up is a “preparation of a derivative work” of the original two songs’ compositions – an action for which there is no compulsory license available, meaning (in plain English) that if the Glee kids were a real group of teenagers, they could not feasibly ask for — or hope to get — the copyright permissions they would need to make their songs, and their actions, legal under copyright law. Punishment for making each mash-up? Up to another $150,000 — times two.

via Glee vs copyright: do as I say, not as I do – Boing Boing.

Brad Paisley on Twitter: welcome to the future?

Standard

If you follow Country superstar @Brad Paisley on Twitter, you will see a great example of old media meets new: Paisley has just tried tweeting (and posting pictures) from the stage during his concerts.

This is a bit like the common habit of watching telly and tweeting at the same time. Those of his fans in the audience who have their smartphones with them can also see his updates and his Twitpics.

Don’t know how I’d feel if I was in that audience with my 96-year-old Nokia. I wonder what it looks like when he stops to tweet? Then again, he’s such a great guitar player, he could probably tweet and play at the same time. This probably works quite well for his US audience, which will be predominantly young people in their teens and twenties. If Paisley ever played in the UK, he’d get an audience of Radio 2 greyhairs who would wonder what the hell he was playing at.

Paisley uses Echofon, which means he’s using an iPhone. But then we knew he had an iPhone, because we saw the video. I’d link to it on YouTube, but those b@st@rds at EMI have blocked it. Even though – you will note – I paid for a legitimate copy from iTunes, I still have to put up with their nonsense (adds *copyfight* tag to post).