The major labels are very outspoken about the evils of piracy, and aggressively pursue those who chose to download music and not pay for it. That being the case, there is great ironyin the fact that up to 47% of Sony-BMG’s software is pirated.

Recently, a tech support call for a program called Ideal Migration (a Windows server management tool) was made by a Sony BMG employee, and the product code given was pirated.

The ensuing drama included a seizure of some of Sony-BMG’s assets.? Paul Henry, The CEO of the maker of the software, was quoted as saying “I think piracy is linked to the policy of a company. If the employee has the necessary funding to buy the software? he needs,? he will. If this is not the case, he will find alternative ways, as the work must be done in one way or another.”

Bottom Line: A company that is using pirated software should not be surprised when their products are pirated.

The RIAA’s head, Cary Sherman, wants to put encryption on our computer that will force us to decrypt music before listening to it. In other words, the filter will scan all your incoming data and then either allow or deny your ability to listen to it. since this idea likely won’t be popular (who’s going to willingly put a filter on their computer that blocks the files they are downloading?), the next suggestion is to put the filters in our modems.

Despite the predictable public backlash against these tactics (in an environment where the RIAA already has public approval that rivals the US Congress), some ISPs are moving ahead with these filters. The technical specifics are a bit thick, suffice it to say that various file encryptions can bypass these filters unless entire protocols are blocked.

Here’s a video of Mr. Sherman lauding the glories of filtering:

Bottom Line: Being out of touch with your consumers’ needs does not improve your financial picture, or your credibility.

The RIAA wants to expand copyright law, with the apparent intention of having more technicalities to prosecute.? The new law on the table is for album compilations.? Specifically, having each track count as separate count of infringement.

Goggle’s top copyright lawyer was quoted saying the parties pushing this bill have an “unslakable lust for more and more rights, longer terms of protection, draconian criminal provisions, and civil damages that bear no resemblance to the damages suffered”.

Bottom Line: Fining someone upward of $9,000 for a track with a value of a dollar may not be fair, but lawmakers still seem to align themselves with this kind of enforcement.

Although still unconfirmed, rumor has it that EMI is seriously considering pulling their funding from the RIAA.? According to a recent Variety article, EMI has taken early steps to exit from the IFPI, the international version of the RIAA.? Part of the move is a demand by EMI that the RIAA and IFPA produce a proposal on restructuring by March 31.

Citing the massive cost of participation in these trade organizations, it seems EMI is very unhappy with the results being produced by the RIAA and IFPI.? The public relations nightmares these organizations have created has been a major contributor the devaluation of music.? If file sharing wasn’t labelled an almost terrorist act, it could have a huge impact on the perceived value of music.

More as this develops….

As if throttling Bit Torrent, blocking access to sites like AllofMP3.com and PirateBay, and endless industry litigation aren’t eroding net neutrality enough, the IFPI is taking it a step further.? The IFPI is an international version of the RIAA, and the recently sent a memo to the European Union about file sharing.

The IFPI wants to see Europe’s internet monitored, managed, and controlled.? They are presenting a “complete solution to piracy”.? This three step process looks something like this:

1.? Scan the entire internet for audio files, and block files that don’t match up to a database of music.? This practice is called content filtering.? Although it seems benign, the practice of monitoring the entire internet is a slippery slope toward full scale surveillance.? Aside from harming commerce and academic research, having a huge government database of people’s web activity can be used for more malicious purposes then chasing down people who are illegally downloading music.

2.? Blocking peer to peer protocols.? A protocol is a standard for connecting and sharing data, and p2p networks have their own protocol.? If ISPs systematically ferret out and block these protocols, academics and businesses won’t be able to share large files, either.

3.? Blocking websites that offer illegal content.? Although the practice of blocking sites that offer pirated music is a method of controlling the practice, it is a legal precedent that governments can block web sites.? The power of the internet is its freedom, and blocking sites is a step toward censoring that freedom.? Once governments are free to block one kind of website, where will they draw the line?
Consider that a corporation is lobbying a government to restrict and monitor the internet airwaves.? If the IFPA has their way, they are setting the stage for full scale internet controls and censorship. While the intention of protecting their corporate interests isn’t truly malicious, the methods they suggest pave the way for an internet that is no longer open and free.
Bottom Line:? Setting a precedent for government control of the internet is a precursor to full scale internet censorship.? Considering the human tendency to use any means at our disposal, creating this kind of monitoring and control apparatus is a disturbing action for personal liberty.

The RIAA finally got their first case in court over people who serve MP3s on file sharing platforms. So all bland arguments aside, here’s the bottom line.:

The new argument is that if we rip or download songs we already own, we’re stealing.
Let’s cut through all the fancy arguments and cogent dissections and get right to the nitty gritty of it all.

Major media companies complain people aren’t buying music (as if over 500 million album slaes is some kind of small number), so they try to force us to buy music by restricting our access to it. The general public (that’s us) then gets indignant that we are being limited in our ability to enjoy music, and we download everything we can. The major labels then raise the prices of CDs, and add malware to their products (with some benign name so we don’t make the connection that a rootkit is a kind of virus).

We are told that when we buy music online, it will include some form of control, so that we can only enjoy it on proprietary software or hardware (think about how cellphone companies have 400 different adaptors to their chargers). Now they want us to believe we have no right to backup our data.

Now they are finally in court with us for downloading and sharing content, and they accuse us of stealing from them if we rip music we already own. There are now record players that will turn your albums into MP3s as you play them. I own lots of vinyl, and some of it is hard or impossible to find, even as an MP3. Am I criminal if I want to preserve my record collection? Most of these albums can only be obtained second hand at this point, anyways.

Where does it stop? At what point will they sue for the right to audit every harddrive on the planet, or require us to carry some sort of permit to listen to the music we have? Are we all to be fined for singing Happy Birthday?

Let’s look at it another way. People still pay for HBO. People still buy CDs, and digital downloads are a robust market (just not robust enough to support the behemoth of major record labels). It’s possible that if people weren’t forced to buy music, and told that everything we did with our music was a crime, we would be more inclined to buy more. What would happen if everyone stopped using DRM, and file sharing was accepted as part of society? What if intellectual property wasn’t treated like another flavor of soda?

If major labels want to revive their fiscal bottom lines, perhaps they could invest in developing talent, instead of suing us into buying music. Perhaps the answer to selling music lies inside of the music itself (this might explain why artists like Jimi Hendrix and Pink Floyd never stop connecting with younger generations).

Before I break down the long and short of this issue, I want to bring your attention to something.

Companies like Media Defender are not protecting copyright and content interests. They are actually encouraging people not to buy content. The more intrusively and forcefully companies like Media Defender attempt to control our content consumption, the more the general public will revolt. If companies want to protect their revenue, the way is to embrace p2p culture, not to subvert it.

On to the details:

MediaDefender is in the business of protecting content from piiracy. Specifically, they seek
out and protect content on peer to peer networks. They use a variety or sneaky tactics, including decoy files, to catch people who are downloading music.

Here’s how they describe their services on their site: “MediaDefender uses a range of non-invasive technological countermeasures employed on P2P networks to frustrate users’ attempts to steal/trade copyrighted content…Decoying and Spoofing are the most commonly known techniques that we employ. We send blank files and data noise that look exactly like a real response to an initiated search requests for a particular title…”

Oddly enough, they also offer service to seed content onto peer to peer networks. From the Media Defender site: “Peer-to-Peer* Marketing is when we capture live search requests from your targeted demographic and respond with your clients’ files”

In other words, not only are they hunting down file sharers, they are using the data they obtain for marketing purposes. This would be like the TSA using travel information to provide us with travel discounts and promotions.
Recently, a huge amount of internal corporate documents were leaked to the public through (insert dramatic irony) Bit Torrent. The documents were obtained by a group called MediaDefender-Defenders

It appears that Media Defender has been running a secret site where uploaded files can be tracked – without any permission. I believe the legal term for this kinf od action is entrapment. I find it amusing that the same file sharing networks that are being manipulated by companies like Media Defender are being subverting for the uses of major media conglomerates by companies including Media Defender.

Even better, according to the documents, Major record companies and movie studios were paying Media Defender to protect their albums from file sharing (and for a hefty fee, too). As if it wasn;t sketchy enough, the documents show that Media Defender actively sought to divert p2p traffic to their own p2 website (the now defunct Miivi.com), so they could catch people in the act of downloading. This kind of action is similar to sending a drug dealer door to door, and then arresting people who buy something.

As if all of this isn’t embarassing enough for Media Defender, executives of the company insisted in July that “MediaDefender was working on an internal project that involved video and didn’t realize that people would be trying to go to it and so we didn’t password-protect the site” (source- ArsTechnica).
I can understand that compaines like Media Defender can make a great living out of protecting content. As a label owner, I can even understand the desire to want to sell units. However, Media Defender is denying they intentionally attempted to entrap users (can you say liar?) . And if that isn’t enough, they are using the same information to create marketing strategies.

In spite of the fact that people can get any media they want for free, records still sell. Album sales may be dropping like hailstones, but record sales continue to be a multi-billion dollar industry.

Consumers have the power now, and we get to say what has value, not corporations.

Spotted on: ArsTechnica

A recent paper in the Journal of Political Economy explored the Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales. The study found (surprise!) that file sharing has little or no effect on record sales. The article does not specify what albums were in the study, so it’s relevance on independent and underground artists is questionable.
Check out the story here,

Universal Music filed a lawsuit against MySpace at the end of the day on Friday.? The lawsuit claims that Myspace is allowing their users to violate copyrights, in order to make a profit off of it. The suit also claims that MySpace encouraged copyright infingement. The suit even goes as far as suggesting that MySpace owes their success to using this same material.

Myspace asserts that they are in full compliance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which protects web sites from the copyright violations of their users, as long as they act fast when a rights-holder complains. Not to mention the fact that Myspace is a social networking site. The same thing accusations were thrown at YouTube shortly before they signed a deal with some of these major rights holders.

All links and cross-references aside, MySpace, YouTube, and even Universal are owned by huge corporations. The thing I find most interesting about the lawsuit is the part that says “UMG owns copyrights in thousands of sound recordings, including many of the most popular and well-known sound recordings in the world.”

So the soap opera continues, and somehow, the more I read, the less it all makes sense, or even seems to matter. How can a few dozen companies appear to own all of this fantastic music, movies and TV shows, and pass back and forth billions of dollars? Perhaps the real question to be asked is how just a few companies can own and make all the money off of this huge catalog of popular art.

Art, and especially music, are powerful because of the emotions they evoke, and have different values to different people. As the value of music continues to tank, these major music companies seem to striking more and more deals where major media corporations and websites are paying huge lumps of sum to each other. Money flows from Google to YouTube to Sony BMG to Viacom and around and around. Where exactly are the rest of us in all of this? Where is all this money going? If Universal won $400 million dollars from MySpace, how much would they pay to the artists?

To put it more simply, huge amounts of these catalogs were created by people who have left this world, or who are getting pennies out of billions of dollars that changes hands. The day of the post-major label is finally dawning. The age of the distributor.? Long Live D.I.Y.

originally published on dr.xnlb.com