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.

“Music publishers, the record labels and digital music distribution outlets began a three-way legal wrestling match Monday over just how much songwriters and the publishing houses should get paid for digitally delivered music.”

At stake in this debate is mechanical royalties for internet streams. Major labels, Apple, and Yahoo want the royalty rate for artists to be lowered. The big publishing houses are currently promised nine cents a song, a figure that often gets negotiated lower, and the consortium against them wants that rate moved to 8%. Apparently, publishing revenues are up, while major label revenues are down. The Digital Media Association is upping the ante, pushing for the royalty rate to be dropped to 4%.

On the other side of the fence, the National Music Publishers Association wants the rates raised to 12.5%.

The driving concern here is the financial ‘burden’ that paying these royalties puts on the large companies that offer music. The claim is that streaming media should be treated like terrestrial radio.

Bottom Line: Without content, there is nothing to stream.

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.

Although the details are sketchy, the US Justice Department is looking into whether a subscription for the Big Four labels is an antitrust violation. Back in 2001, there was an antitrust investigation against the major labels for…. a subscription service. According to The Register, the Big Four have already been served notice this time around. Although the details are sketchy, it is apparent that the Dept. of Justice has an eye turned toward the industry (again).

Investigations around “Big Music” have been ongoing for the last few years. In 2000, the Federal Trade Commission settled with the major labels on price fixing and unlawful advertising practices relating to “Minimum Advertised Price” policies.

Super producer Rick Rubin has said “The subscription model is the only way to save the music business. If music is easily available at a price of five or six dollars a month, then nobody will steal it.” He also said, “Until a new model is agreed upon and rolling, we can be the best at the existing paradigm, but until the paradigm shifts, it’s going to be a declining business. This model is done.”

While a subscription service may stem the tide of file sharing, will it provide any kind of sustainability for artists? CD sales are falling end over end, but digital sales are brisk, and touring and merchandising are still viable revenue streams.

Everyone agrees it’s time for a new model, and noone seems to know what the new model will be. The sky may be falling, but music is still a multi-billion dollar business. The future lies in creating a model that generates positive public perception, convenience, and collectibility. The platform may be shifting wholly to digital music, but that doesn’t necessarily mean people won’t buy music anymore. The advent of the “360 deal” shows that the industry is embracing a new kind of marketing, where the band is the brand, not the content. At the end of the day, it’s all about the music, and people will pay for convenience and for music that they love.

Bottom Line: The paradigm shift at the heart of the music industry is upon us.

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….

The record industry is at it again, seeking to further limit our use of our catalogs of recorded music. In a current Arizona case, Atlantic vs. Howell, RIAA is now claiming that ripping our own CDs onto our computers for our own use is copyright infringement.

We already have DRM, which limits our enjoyment of music to a platform (iTunes and Windows Media Player are the prime examples of this). This new motion would force us to buy the same song over and over again, to listen to it in our car, on our stereo, on our computer, and on our portable MP3 player.

Is it any wonder that record sales are crashing and burning? Music is not a necessity, and people buy it because they want to enjoy it. The more we are backed into a corner, told that we cannot copy or back up our own music, the greater the backlash toward the record business and the faster album sales slump.

Maybe there’s a totally different angle we’re missing. If the RIAA and the big labels see that their model has failed perhaps all of this litigation is an attempt to squeeze every last penny they can out of us before they collapse under their own weight. All the claims of protecting copyrights and artists may be a sham. The more ridiculous the legal environment about copyright infringement becomes, the more damage is done to artists.

Within five to seven years, there won’t be major labels like there are now, and we will be free to buy the music we want one time and convert it to any format we choose.
However, the resentment that the RIAA is generating toward buying music may be around far longer. Mainstream media outlets tend to only trumpet the loudest voices (in this case the RIAA), and most of the alternative opinions and methods of distributing music are relatively unheard.

Without all of the DRM, root kits, and legal controls of our music catalogs, music will continue to be made and bought. The more restricted our music catalogs become, the less willing we will be to buy it. And who loses is the artist. Musicians make a living off their music. If people are unwilling to buy it, musician will not be viable career. And this backlash hits independent artists even harder. As music loses its value at the mainstream level, it loses it on the underground as well. Artists and labels that do not believe in DRM or controlling the use of their music suffer from the same public opinion that people have toward major labels. The only difference is the major labels positions are available on the newsstand, and to lobby for laws. In fact, indie labels are the second largest entity selling music, and are left with the same restrictions and laws set by the RIAA and the Big Four.

Bottom Line: The continued attempts to regulate music is the biggest source of the current collapse we see in music sales, and the devaluation of music as a commodity.

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.

Bit Torrent throttling is becoming a real issue. Although it has not yet seen much mainstream attention, controlling users access to internet bandwidth is a disturbing precedent to flow of free information. Seemingly an effort to control the illegal sharing of files, the impact of throttling can be far reaching.

Somewhere around a third of all web traffic is Bit Torrent File Sharing. Keep in mind that a significant amount of Bit Torrent traffic is legitimate, such as file backups for large companies, or as a tool for academic research. A neurocognitive scientist posted on the DSLReports forum how bandwidth throttling is hindering scientific research in a field where leading researchers live great distances from each other. In other words, limiting people’s ability to use their internet waves affects more than porn and Britney Spears.

People transferring large files across the internet can affect other uses online experience negatvely. However, if the uses are legal (and more and more users of Bit Torrent are using it for legal purposes), what legal right do ISPs have to limit our uses of their service? As Slashdot elegantly posed the question in February, “Do they want to irritate their BitTorrent-using contingent, or let BitTorrent flow unhindered at the risk degrading the experience of those who don’t download torrents?’”

Comcast, the # 2 internet provider in the United States, is being served a class action suit for limiting the bandwidth of Bit Torrent users. The suit alleges that it is a breach of contract for a user’s bandwidth to be limited. “The filing asserts that Hart upgraded his internet service to Comcast’s high-speed internet… package in September 2007 to gain faster speeds specifically for the blocked applications in question. In the subscriber agreement… none of the terms stated that Comcast would impede or limit the blocked applications.” (quoted from the Half Life Source article).

According to the The Consumerist, A recent internal ComCast memo gave call senter emplyees a strict script to deliver if customers had questions. Any employee who says anything not in the script would be subject to immediate termination. Adding oddness to the issue is a recent MSNBC article that shows tests confirm the throttling is happening.

Recently, a major Canadian ISP admitted they have been throttling Bit Torrent traffic for months, even going as far as to refuse service to users that consume large amount of bandwidth. An analysis on Bell Sympatico’s tactics can be seen on p2pnet.net.

The CEO of Bit Torrent, Ashwin Navin, said in an interview that throttling is “a symptom of a larger problem”.

Net Neutrality – Not just a fancy term

Network neutrality “…refers to a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. Precise definitions vary, but a broadband network free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached and the modes of communication allowed…” (quoted from Wikipedia).

Simply put, once companies can set limits on our ability to use the internet, where will it stop? Once the door cracks open, how do we close it?

I can sympathize with broadband companies that are concerned with Bit Torrent users sucking up all their bandwidth. It can get quite expensive to have to conitnually upgrade internet servers to meet capacity. The same thing happens in grocery stores when they have to open another checkout line. In capitalism, we often refer to this as “the cost of doing business”.

Bottom Line: Bit Torrent is the biggest single use of internet traffic. ISPs can save lots of money by throttling our use of bandwidth, or charging us if we pass monthly limits. To do so based on what we are doing violates network neutrality, and sets a precedent for controlling the internet.