RouteNote Blog » music piracy http://routenote.com/blog The World of Music Licensing and Distribution Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:52:08 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 Music Piracy – Back and Forth On Damages In US Courts http://routenote.com/blog/music-piracy-back-and-forth-on-damages-in-us-courts/ http://routenote.com/blog/music-piracy-back-and-forth-on-damages-in-us-courts/#comments Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:24:43 +0000 Dashiel http://routenote.com/blog/?p=2669 riaa logo Jammie Thomas-Rasset may have caught a break, depending on whether the US courts can agree with one another on the amount of damages appropriate to each breach of music copyright. Originally, the consortium of record labels was awarded damages of $80,000 per track involved in their case (the plaintiffs only sought damages for 24 out of an alleged 1,702 tracks – $136,160,000, before you get your calculator out), but this was redacted by a certain Chief Judge Davis to a mere $2,250, reducing the total damage payment from $1.92 million to $54,000.

Despite the fact that this reduction is at odds with a statute that imposes a much higher limit of $150,000, it seems that this isn’t good enough for the defending legal team, and they’ve moved for a new trial. This exposes them to a new award for damages, which in turn would be subject to the same sort of adjustment… This repeating, ‘Wheel Of Fortune’ style allocation is bound to go on for a while, depending on the pressure from the recording industry, who have equal determination to, and presumably deeper pockets than the defendant, but whatever sum the clicker stops on, it will have very far reaching repercussions for the future of the fight against piracy in the States.

Related Articles

]]> http://routenote.com/blog/music-piracy-back-and-forth-on-damages-in-us-courts/feed/ 0 UK Digital Bill Will Raise ISP Subs by £25 Per Year http://routenote.com/blog/uk-digital-bill-will-raise-isp-subs-by-25-per-year/ http://routenote.com/blog/uk-digital-bill-will-raise-isp-subs-by-25-per-year/#comments Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:11:03 +0000 Dashiel http://routenote.com/blog/?p=2444 A lot of poorly substantiated figures are being thrown around regarding what online music piracy costs the industry. Illegal digital downloads of copyrighted material like music, movies and games has been one of the hottest political topics of the last year, with everyone from Peter Mandelson to Lily Allen weighing in on the subject, but no-one can come up with a definitive figure on how much of the market value the music industry has lost over the last ten years is attributable to pirates stealing music rather than buying it from music download stores like iTunes and Emusic. The BPI’s contention that “Jupiter estimate that losses to online music piracy amounted to £180m in 2008, and predict they will rise to £200m in 2009″ is seemingly based on the idea that one illegal download equals one lost sale, but that’s not really true; bacause someone is prepared to pinch something to listen to it, doesn’t mean they are necessarily prepared to pay full price for a copy. This is certainly the opinion of BT consumer boss John Petton, who called the BPI’s claims “melodramatic”, and estimated that the cost of enforcing the measures that the UK government proposes to deal with online piracy will cost around £365m ($583.4m) a year [!].

Scoffing ensued from rights agencies after this announcement from BT, but now government ministers have revealed that the costs will be more like £500 million annually. According to the Times – “Impact assessments published alongside the Bill predict that the measures will generate £1.7 billion in extra sales for the film and music industries over the next ten years, as well as £350 million for the Government in extra VAT.” These figures are presumably based on the assumption that everything that is stolen would otherwise be bought, which is pretty optimistic… What is certain if the current bill is enacted, is that the majority of law-abiding consumers will end up paying a vast amount to police the actions of the few – if the wild estimates we report are true, more money than is lost by the music industry to pirates annually by a factor of two. Hardly an equitable proposition.

What should be remembered is that this explosion of piracy has been driven by consumer demand, and the convenience offered by online piracy. Rather than focusing on punishing the minority responsible for the piracy, it would seem more appropriate for the music industry and rights bodies to direct their efforts towards making the convenience and level of ‘service’ provided by file sharing legally and financially viable. If we are being expected to pay £25 extra a year each for our net connection, more than double what the music industry says it’s losing to pirates, then surely it would be better to provide extra services to the average consumer for that money, than to spend it on persecuting people who probably wouldn’t be pirating in the first place if what they were after was more readily available online.

Related Articles

]]> http://routenote.com/blog/uk-digital-bill-will-raise-isp-subs-by-25-per-year/feed/ 0 The Death of Illegal Downloading http://routenote.com/blog/the-death-of-illegal-downloading/ http://routenote.com/blog/the-death-of-illegal-downloading/#comments Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:16:56 +0000 Dashiel http://routenote.com/blog/?p=2159 An interesting article here, because we’ve been saying this for a while: the Guardian basically patting Spotify on the back for having an instrumental part in the decline of illegal filesharing. A great reason to let us do your online distribution for you, as we’re working with Spotify.

While the government and the music industry posture about illegal filesharing, smaller, smarter companies are simply out-competing it.

Stand by for the death of illegal music downloads. It is already gathering pace, being one of the fastest growing – or contracting – activities on the web. It is not happening because of the music industry’s rough justice (such as suing customers); nor because of Lord Mandelson’s variant of “three strikes and you’re out” for people caught downloading illegally – though doubtless they will claim credit.

You can read the rest of this very insightful article at the Guardian. ;)

Related Articles

]]> http://routenote.com/blog/the-death-of-illegal-downloading/feed/ 1 MC Hammer Weighs In Against Draconian Piracy Laws http://routenote.com/blog/mc-hammer-weighs-in-against-draconian-piracy-laws/ http://routenote.com/blog/mc-hammer-weighs-in-against-draconian-piracy-laws/#comments Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:33:44 +0000 Dashiel http://routenote.com/blog/?p=2100 MC Hammer - Biggest trousers in showbiz?The peak of his success might have been 20 years ago, (‘Please Hammer Don’t Hurt ‘Em’ was the 74th biggest selling album ever, according to the RIAA) but he’s still alive and kicking against the harsh punishment that is being called for by the RIAA and other copyright protection bodies:

“The approach that the music industry took to fight piracy was the wrong strategy… …When there is a murder done with [a] gun, do they go back to the guy who sold the gun at the store and arrest him? No they don’t. They arrest the person who [fired]  it. So in this particular case, somebody is stealing content using the freeway. You can’t go back and sue the construction men”

MC Hammer is now promoting his own website http://dancejam.com/ – as well as releasing the music therefrom himself. How can you say no to the only man who could rival Simon Cowell for the silliest trousers in showbiz?

Related Articles

]]> http://routenote.com/blog/mc-hammer-weighs-in-against-draconian-piracy-laws/feed/ 0 IFPI – New Research On Music Buying Habits http://routenote.com/blog/ifpi-new-research-on-music-buying-habits/ http://routenote.com/blog/ifpi-new-research-on-music-buying-habits/#comments Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:18:48 +0000 Dashiel http://routenote.com/blog/?p=2075 Another new survey conducted in the EU argues that music sharers buy less music over the course of a year than those who are classified as online or physical only buyers.

http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/Jupiter_Research_study_on_online_piracy.pdf

Oddly iPod owners aren’t classified as digital music buyers, and it’s not clear how these categories have been delineated or how people have been divided into them, or whether they are mutually exclusive. I wish that when research like this is commissioned it was released in its entirety, to allow us to make our own decisions about it, rather than accepting the opinions of those who publish it based on limited information release. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but it might help us get to the truth if it happened.

Related Articles

]]> http://routenote.com/blog/ifpi-new-research-on-music-buying-habits/feed/ 0 Spotify, MOG, Streaming, Piracy and the Future of Digital Music http://routenote.com/blog/spotify-mog-streaming-piracy-and-the-future-of-digital-music/ http://routenote.com/blog/spotify-mog-streaming-piracy-and-the-future-of-digital-music/#comments Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:22:05 +0000 Dashiel http://routenote.com/blog/?p=2053 stop piracyThe Pirate BayThe debate on music piracy is a bit like that on global warming; vocal and vehement, and extremely polarised (pardon the pun). Evidence can be produced to support the most extreme opinions, and is wrangled over until those in the middle don’t know what is believable. Consensus seems to be that even though music pirates are active music fans, and likely to be buying music as well as ‘stealing’ it online , piracy is damaging to sales of actual music tracks, although this may be slightly offset by increased gig attendance and other types of premium content purchase – box sets, t-shirts etc.

It also seems to be accepted that legal methods of ad supported, free-to-the-consumer streaming is the best way of combating the rise of piracy – the great user experience that Spotify has been able to offer has seen it expand faster than it can deal with; attracting users to use a great free streaming service isn’t hard, but finding a way of profiting from all those users is, balancing ad revenue against streaming and licensing costs, and Spotify’s launch in the States has had to be delayed while they evolve their model, and figure out how to move people onto their £10 a month premium service.

Actually - It's copyright infringement

While they figure this out, MOG is stepping up to the plate in the States with their £5 a month subscription only model, that allows playlisting and file searching in a pretty similar way to Spotify’s interface [see the video at the bottom of this post]. A poll conducted by Demos (a company that sends people out with clipboards) suggests that revenue (income and adoption) would be maximised at the £5 price point:

Streaming Subscription Revenues But this doesn’t account for the costs inherent in delivering the amount of music that people tend to consume through such streaming services; leaving the computer streaming music all day, an individual could incur a lot of charges for their service provider.

So which footpath of digital development is going to turn out to be the music superhighway of the future? In my humble opinion, it’s going to come down to user experience: if we discount piracy as a viable future for the industry (no revenue means no artists) then we’re left with paying per track, either for streams or downloads, or for a month on month subscription service. These will remain as competing options, probably with iTunes still in pole position of the download market, given it’s current market dominance, and the relentless success of the iPod and it’s cousin the iPhone, and for the rest it’ll come down to whoever provides the slinkiest, most versatile service for whatever the music industry decides is the rock bottom price per stream, plus the minimum streaming cost. I for one hope that the big 4 accept thatad-supported music streaming is the best and only real way of putting an end to piracy, that they come to terms with the smaller license fee and infrastructure that will be demanded by this model. Of the options currently available, I think that Spotify has the most user friendly platform, I’m proud that we’re working with them, and I suggest that you upload your music to their service, via RouteNote’s digital music distribution platform right…. Now.


Related Articles

]]> http://routenote.com/blog/spotify-mog-streaming-piracy-and-the-future-of-digital-music/feed/ 1 Buy Ableton discounted until January http://routenote.com/blog/buy-ableton-discounted-until-january/ http://routenote.com/blog/buy-ableton-discounted-until-january/#comments Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:13:28 +0000 Dashiel http://routenote.com/blog/?p=1853 Ableton 8It’s Ableton’s 10th anniversary this year, and to celebrate the fact (and get more people using the r software :) they’re giving a discount of 20% on the Ableton Live 8 [down from 349 to 299 Euros]and Suite 8 [down from 549 to 449 Euros], with other price drops across the rest of their range. If you’ve been putting off a purchase, now might be a good moment to go for it, although if your budget doesn’t quite stretch that far, you can get hold of a new product called Ableton Live Intro, with limited functionality but still allowing 64 tracks and 12 effects for E99.  All you really need is that and an SM57 and you’re ready to record your next stripped down masterpiece for sale via our music distribution service, and it’s so affordable that there’s no excuse for ripping or torrenting it – if everyone downloaded their software and content for free then how would you sell your music?

Sound on Sound reports that “Ableton have also announced the release date for Max for as the 23rd November 2009. Max for Live is designed to bring the power of Cycling 74’s Max/MSP modular programming environment to Live users, allowing them to build their own instruments and effects. Max for Live will be available from the Ableton web shop, at a cost 249 Euros for Live 8 users, and with a discount available for Max/MSP 5 owners. An independent web-group has already appeared for Max for Live at www.maxforlive.com, and was set up by an enterprising electronic musician called Clint, soon after the announcement of Max for Live at Namm in 2008.”

Related Articles

]]> http://routenote.com/blog/buy-ableton-discounted-until-january/feed/ 0 BlueBeat – Psycho Acoustic Crusher http://routenote.com/blog/bluebeat-psycho-acoustic-crusher/ http://routenote.com/blog/bluebeat-psycho-acoustic-crusher/#comments Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:00:39 +0000 Dashiel http://routenote.com/blog/?p=1845 We picked up on Blue Beat’s strange decision to start streaming otherwise unavailable tracks from the Beatles’ back catalogue without the right’s owners permission, but it turns out their infringements are much more widespread. As music business news site Hypebot has just reported, they also claim to have the rights to sell music from AC/DC and Dan The Automator right through to Frank Zappa and ZZ Top. A totally spurious claim, based on this piece of US copyright legislation:

17 U.S.C. § 114(b):

“The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording.”

A piece of law designed to allow people to make different tracks using parts of the original piece – sampling the Amen break [1:45], or nicking a riff off Labi Siffre [2:10], but not intended to cover what Blue Beat have done, which is to re-record the song pretty much wholesale. Their defence [via Ben Sheffner's blog] is pinned on their hopes that their copyrighted PsychoAcoustic process creates a new piece of intellectual property, that they own… basically they contend that some hocus-pocus like changing the file from a WAV to an MP3, playing it on a My First Boombox and re-recording through a microphone in a glass of milk, or some other magical process of transformation that ends up with the same noise at the end, will be enough to transform their ‘version’ into a derivative work rather than just a rip off. Unlikely. If anyone out there was thinking of it, we’d ask you not to try and upload anything similar to our digital music distribution service. The precise details of why BlueBeat consider their process to constitute a method of creating a new artefact aren’t online yet, but I’m looking forward to seeing what they say in their next filing on the 10th of Nov.

Related Articles

]]> http://routenote.com/blog/bluebeat-psycho-acoustic-crusher/feed/ 0 Investment and Innovation Imperative for the future of Digital Online http://routenote.com/blog/investment-and-innovation-imperative-for-the-future-of-digital-online/ http://routenote.com/blog/investment-and-innovation-imperative-for-the-future-of-digital-online/#comments Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:00:40 +0000 Dashiel http://routenote.com/blog/?p=1773 Interesting post over at MidemNet about why Deezer (a French streaming service) feel they are now coming in second place to Spotify: the author basically concludes that investment and innovation in the next wave of technology is essential if we’re going to move away from both the lugubrious bricks and mortar retail system of yesteryear, and the increasingly piratical, file sharing future that looms threateningly ahead of the online music industry.

Related Articles

]]> http://routenote.com/blog/investment-and-innovation-imperative-for-the-future-of-digital-online/feed/ 0 UK Digital Music Market Trends http://routenote.com/blog/uk-digital-market-trends/ http://routenote.com/blog/uk-digital-market-trends/#comments Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:18:35 +0000 Dashiel http://routenote.com/blog/?p=1658 The UK has seen record levels of digital sales in 2009, with 10 trading weeks and the Christmas period still to come. 117 million singles have been sold so far, with 98.6% of these sales in digital formats.

.

 Year Physical (millions) Digital (millions) Total Sales

.

 2002 43.9 0 43.9

.

 2003 30.8 0 30.8

.

 2004 26.5 5.7 32.2

.

 2005 21.4 26.4 47.8

.

 2006 13.9 66.9 80.8

.

 2007 8.6 77.9 86.5

.

 2008 4.9 110.2 115.1

.

 2009 1.6 116 117.6

Not only has the singles market more than doubled in the number of units sold sine ’02, but it’s almost entirely divested itself of the physical media. This growth is not reproduced in the album market (old figures here), which in 2008 saw a shallow (compared to predictions) decline of between 3.2% and 6% depending on who you listen to, despite 68% year on year growth in digital (read people shifting over to buy digital formats rather than physical).

This is encouraging news for the music industry in the UK – despite the panic that filesharing and online piracy keeps sending through the motley ranks of the big execs, there’s not that big a downturn in sales. Music piracy is a massive phenomenon; according to the IFPI, 95% of music downloads are illegal, but is it really hurting the industry if sales are staying firm in the face of this explosion in Piracy. The BPI’s Chief Exec Geoff Taylor stated “That singles have hit these heights while there are still more than a billion illegal downloads every year in the UK is testimony to the quality of releases this year and the vibrancy of the UK download market.  Consumers are responding to the value and innovation offered by the legal services and these new figures show how the market could explode if Government acts to tackle illegal peer-to-peer filesharing.” His implication is clearly that all the pirates out there would be forced to buy their music instead of getting it free  – but I think this is something of a false premise: just because people like getting something for free, doesn’t mean they would be prepared to pay for it. I’ve been introduced to a lot of bands by people burning me CD’s or sending me tracks over the net, even way back when my teenage girlfriends used to make me mix tapes it was the same sort of piracy, but the upshot of that was that I’ve discovered more bands, been to more gigs and bought more CD’s, vinyl and downloads than I ever would have if I’d not been so freely able to share music. I strongly feel that bands should profit from people’s enjoyment and sharing of the great music they make, but it should be directly related to the cost of time effort and money involved in getting that particular piece of music to that particular person.

I would pay more for an LP than for a download because I’m getting more. Not just intangible 1′s and 0′s but a real lump of plastic and paper and design as well as the music. MP3 stores cost money to run, tech guys, ISP’s, designers and even marketing people (sadly) have to be paid, but those costs aren’t there with file sharing networks, or at least they’re not paid for by the guys in the music industry. If the site makes money, that should be shared equitably with the artists whose work they exploit, but artists should take into account that they’re not just losing download sales, they’re also gaining fans through these channels, fans that will buy tickets and albums and merchandise and write about you on their blogs and tell their friends about you, if you’re good enough, and you give them a reason to buy. *deep breath* Sorry. Rant over.

What will always be true is that supply must follow demand; if people want new ways of getting music cheaply online, the traditional market and online music stores must adapt to provide them, or fail in the competition with less legitimate routes of supply.

Related Articles

]]> http://routenote.com/blog/uk-digital-market-trends/feed/ 0