Pirated by iTunes

Pirated by iTunes, Artist Turns to BitTorrent | TorrentFreak
Many people that i’d meet at my shows would say that they bought my music on iTunes, yet I’ve never signed any sort of agreement allowing iTunes to host my music, and I’ve certainly never seen a dime of money for my albums hosted there.
So I started investigating the numbers from the label, which led me to some shocking revelations about how little the artist and label was getting in comparison to the retailers. When I got around to asking about iTunes, the owner of Sublight Records pleaded with me to “leave it be”. Everyone else made an extraordinary effort to ignore my calls and emails.

When I finally got a hold of the digital distributor (I must note that “digital distributor” is the most pathetic job title I’ve ever heard), I was told that once the files are in the iTunes system, it literally couldn’t be removed or taken down for a year. So, either Apple has created a self-aware doomsday machine that cannot be stopped or reasoned with, or everyone involved is just enjoying the gravy train of ripping off artists like myself and using Apple’s backbone of attorneys as an intimidation factor.
(Via DMG Live News)

I hope there will be a follow-up to that story, because I would like to know what really happened. As far as I understand iTunes does not actually encode the music. That is done by the labels or digital distributors. What seems possible, given the size of the iTunes library, is that an individual or a distributor might claim rights to an album and deliver it to iTunes, where it is sold until the artist or somebody else yells fire.

Jay Adelson, chief executive of Digg

Interview: Jay Adelson, chief executive of Digg – Times Online
Asked what should replace the current method, he suggested that a piece of software could be embedded into a digital file and log how many times the file is downloaded or streamed over the internet. That information could in turn can be used to determine advertising rates.

“For the majority of people, it means DRM as they know it disappears, but in truth what’s happening is the content is being monetised in a different way. All the media executives will tell you that their strategy is moving in the direction of being able to monetise content without DRM.”

That’s what this system was designed to do. ISRC is burned into CD-Audio and added in the mp3 tag. Whether it works is another question. From a tech-standpoint the above suggestion by Jay Adelson could easily be put into use. Let Google read the ISRC tags of music being dowloaded or streamed and adjust adrate.

Oh, the Insanity!

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use – washingtonpost.com
The industry’s lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings.

And:

At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG’s chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that “when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Copying a song you bought is “a nice way of saying ‘steals just one copy,’ ” she said.

Wait, I am allowed to use a TiVo or similar device to record and time-shift a television program – the devices from Dish Network additionally allow a person to skip the ads – but I am NOT allowed to rip the CDs I bought in order to hear the music on an iPod or similar device? Maybe the RIAA should also sue Apple for enabling the iPod to play back music ripped on a computer, as literally everything ripped on that computer is deemed illegal by the RIAA. Or what about this?

OLIVE | SAVE THE SOUND. – OLIVE’S AWARD-WINNING MUSIC SERVER LINE. – OVERVIEW
Simply copy your CDs with one click to the OPUS’ internal hard drive and enjoy instant access to all your music, in spectacular quality.

Aren’t they advocating an illegal activity?

This is insanity! Both ends of the spectrum that stretches between P2P and RIAA, are clearly outside any common sense.

How crazy are these two extremes? Well, what comes to my mind are religious fanatics, arguing about the divine nature of a leader’s uttering… is the message human or divine? Who cares about that! Is the message any good should be the question!

One last thought: the RIAA should ask the heads of the corporations that fund the RIAA how they listen to music. Do they not use iPods? Do they not use components like the Opus or a computer? Do they really carry CDs between their office and home stereos and to their car? Or do they buy 3 copies of every CD they like, so they can listen to it at home, in their car and in the office? Somebody should make the RIAA attorneys hand over their iPods and check what’s on them!

PS:

RIAA not suing over CD ripping, still kinda being jerks about it – Engadget
Okay, so we’ve done some digging into the RIAA’s lawsuit against Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s are “unauthorized copies,” and it turns out that Jeffery isn’t actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading. As we’re all unfortunately aware, that’s pretty standard stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA’s newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs “unauthorized copies” — something it’s been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there’s a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it’s never actually been ruled as such by a judge — so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn’t ever rule on it unless they argue that it’s illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?

U.S. copyright waived in tiny nation

U.S. copyright waived in tiny nation
The Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda has won the right to waive U.S. copyrights in films, television and music under an unusual ruling by the World Trade Organization. The landmark decision by the Geneva-based trade watchdog means that the tiny islands are able to violate intellectual property protection worth up to $21 million as part of a dispute between the countries over online gambling.

Shocking.