Tyvärr är det så att när man lyssnar på de nedladdade programmen i sin MP3-spelare så kommer inte hela musiken med. Det p.g.a upphovsrättsliga skäl. På SRs hemsida står det så här: ”Sveriges Radios avtal med de upphovsrättsliga organisationerna tillåter inte att vi tillhandahåller visst upphovsrättsskyddat material för nedladdning.” Alltså, det är så att Sveriges Radio inte får förmedla musik i ett program som du fritt kan ladda hem på nätet.

Jag vet att SR inget hellre vill än att lägga ut ”hela” program istället för stympade versioner som nu. Men det är alltså ”de upphovsrättsliga organisationerna” som stoppar det.

Ett av argumenten från ”de upphovsrättsliga organisationerna” är att skydda det konstnärliga verket. Gott nog, men va faaan, är inte ett radioprogram att likställa med ett konstnärligtverk?

Jag vet att många av sommarvärdarna, och alla andra som jobbar med program på SR, använder massor av tid för att på ett kreativt och konstnärligt sätt få till sina program. Talet, tonen och musiken i programmet bildar tillsammans ett ”konstnärligtverk” som i sin tur är skyddat av SRs upphovsrätt.

Vilket i och för sig talar mot mitt argument att låta SR fritt distribuera sina program via poddradio. Men vad jag vill ha sagt är att musiken i programmen är till för helheten och inte för att någon i efterhand ska sitta och klippa bort talet och sedan spara musiken i filer för att sedan gratis dela ut det på nätet. Det tror jag faktiskt ingen orkar göra.

Här om dagen laddade jag ned Fredrik Häréns sommar program från den 25.e juni och blev glatt överraskad över ett nytt grepp från Fredrik och producenten Ulph Nyström. Det var bara 2 låtar i hela programmet. Istället valde Fredrik att använda….. Ja vadå??? Lyssna här så får du höra. Hur som helst, jag tycker att det var ett bra inlägg i debatten, vilket Fredrik kommenterar i sitt program.

Snälla Upphovsorganisationer, STIM, IFPI och allt vad ni heter! Låt Sveriges Radio använda musiken fullt ut i sina Poddradioprogram. Är det inte dags för ”Pay-back time” från artister, låtskrivare och musiker som fått draghjälp med sina karriärer genom att Sveriges Radios olika kanaler spelar deras verk….

Hallå alla upphovsmän! Tänk på det här då… Eftersom det är fler och fler som väljer att lyssna på t.ex. Sommar i P1 via poddradio så blir era ”konstnärligaverk” halshuggna och inte spelade i sin helhet, vilket jag antar att ni vill….

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry reported that 62% or China's digital music sales are in the format of ringback tones (click here to read IFPI report). Ringback tones are not the same as ringtones. Ringbacks are what you hear in your ear piece right after you call somebody (the ring) until they pick up the phone.

Ironically only 4% of China's digtial music sales are in the format of digital music singles (a song download). So what accounts for the rest of China's digital music downloading? The IFPI stated that "China has the biggest mobile and the second biggest broadband subscriber base in the world" IFPI Asia China Music Sales Report. Of their remaining digital music sales the majority is divided between online subscriptions to music services or Internet providers (13%) and master ringtone (not ringback tones) sales (14%).

China has the largest population in the world and as a result they are one of the biggest potential music buyers. If you want to be successful in the Asian music market, it begins with China. The Chinese like ringback tones so Indie artists make sure your music is available in ringback tone format as well as master ringtone format.

By Jamille Luney
Music Analyst

Subscribe in a reader

Kyseinen tutkimus ei ole ensimmäinen kerta, kun vastaan tulee kommentteja siitä, että kuluttajat oikeasti arvostavat musiikkia sen verran, että ovat valmiita siitä myös maksamaan, jos vain palvelu on kohdallaan. Ongelmana on siis se, että ihmiset eivät välttämättä ole valmiita maksamaan niistä palveluista, joita ääniteteollisuus heille tällä hetkellä tarjoaa. Ala käyttää valtavasti energiaa omien ratkaisujensa tyrkyttämiseen, ja lähtökohtana on alan oma kontrollinhalu käydä kauppaa tavalla joka heille sopii. Kannattaisiko välillä kokeilla vilpitöntä asiakaslähtöisyyttä?

Äänitealan virallisen totuuden mukaan vertaisverkot ovat uhka, mutta jos ala joskus oppii kuuntelemaan kuluttajia, niin ehkä vertaisverkot nähdään vielä myös bisnesmahdollisuutena alan sisälläkin. IFPI:n käsityksen mukaan vertaisverkot pitää yksinkertaisesti tappaa, sillä ne estävät IFPI:n näkökulmasta laillisten palveluiden kehittämisen. Tuossa ajattelussa voisi olla hieman avartamisen varaa. Mitä jos onkin niin, että tietyistä jakelumalleista kiinnipitäminen estää tehokkaiden ja asiakasystävällisten uusien jakelumallien luomisen? Voisiko ajatella niin, että tappamisen sijaan vertaisverkot integroitaisiin osaksi musiikin laillista jakelua ja korvaukset otettaisiin vahingonkorvausten sijaan rojalteina?

Mielenkiintoinen pointti tutkimuksen tuloksissa oli myös se, että brittinuorison mielestä CD on edelleen arvostetuin musiikin tallenneformaatti. Seuraavaksi eniten arvostettiin tiedostoja ja streamit jäivät hännän huipuksi. Omistaminen on siis nuorista edelleen arvokasta, ja fyysiseen tuotteeseen sisältyy edelleen tiettyä premium-arvoa verrattuna pelkkiin bitteihin. No, ainakaan minulle tämä ei ollut varsinainen uutinen. Toisin saattaa olla niiden kohdalla, jotka ovat ennustaneet viimeiset kymmenen vuotta, että "CD kuolee ensi vuonna". CD on kieltämättä ottanut suuressa mittakaavassa turpaansa ihan kunnolla, mutta etenkin tietyissä genreissä levyn omistaminen on edelleen olennainen osa faniutta ja myyntikäyrät nousussa. En siis vielä suostu ostamaan kukkia CD:n haudalle.

Toinen asia, joka tulee usein vastaan erilaisilla keskustelufoorumeilla on se, että ihmiset suhtautuvat negatiivisesti (suuriin) levy-yhtiöihin, jotka koetaan riistävinä välistävetäjinä. Tälle ikävälle teollisuuden haaralle ei haluta antaa rahaa, mutta ihmiset ovat valmiita maksamaan musiikista artisteille. Levy-yhtiöiden bisneksen kannalta tämä on merkki asetelman kääntymisestä päälaelleen. Jos kuluttajat eivät halua ostaa musiikkia levy-yhtiöiltä näiden sanelemilla säännöillä, vaan maksaa suoraan artistille, niin levy-yhtiöiden pitää opetella kokonaan uusi rooli alalla: asiakaspalvelu. Sen sijaan, että levy-yhtiöt pääsisivät edelleen kontrolloimaan artistia mm. omimalla artistin tekijänoikeudet esityksiinsä, levy-yhtiöiden on opittava tarjoamaan palveluita artisteille. Tähän asti levy-yhtiöt ovat olleet herran roolissa ja maksaneet artistille murusia, mutta jatkossa asetelma saattaa hyvinkin kääntyä toisin päin: artisti alkaa maksaa levy-yhtiölle saamistaan palveluista. Silloin ei enää riitä, että on iso ja äänekäs, vaan on osattava palvelun jalo taito.

Levy-yhtiöiden on astuttava kiltisti taaemmas, lopetettava määräily ja antaa artistien astua selvästi alan vetureiksi. Artistin ja kuluttajan välinen rajapinta on ratkaiseva alue, ja levy-yhtiöiden on opittava toimimaan tuon rajapinnan kasvattajana molempia osapuolia palvellen. Levy-yhtiöillä on kuitenkin paljon osaamista, jota ala ja artistit tarvitsevat esimerkiksi markkinoinnin ja A&R:n osalta. Uudet bisnesmallit on siis rakennettava kompetenssilähtöisesti kontrollin sijaan.

Äänitebisneksen kannalta yllä mainitut seikat vaativat syvällistä asenteiden muokkaamista. Oman aseman suojelun sijaan ääniteteollisuuden on opeteltava palvelemaan kahta bisneksen kannalta olennaista tahoa eli artisteja ja kuluttajia. Alan on opeteltava elämään ihmisiksi noiden tahojen tasalla ja tarpeiden mukaan, eikä pyrkiä asettumaan niiden yläpuolelle. Etenkin suuret levy-yhtiöt ovat tottuneet norsunluutorneihinsa ja valtaansa, joiden kautta ovat rakentuneet myös monet alan ns. lainalaisuudet. Näillä "lainalaisuuksilla" perustellaan koko bisneksen elossapysymisen edellytyksiä. Väitetyt selviämisen edellytykset ovat kuitenkin enemmän positioiden suojelua kuin selväjärkistä tulevaisuuteen tähtäävää bisnesajattelua.

Worldwide music sales are dropping to their lowest level since 1985, according to new figures from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. Online piracy is seen as a key culprit. The organization wants Internet providers to help to stop illegal copying. (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article4160553.ece 6/18)

Lets look at what got us into this mess in the first place. P2P file sharing was already rampant before the music industry worked out how to monetise music in the digital realm. And yes the ISPs stood by and in my mind are criminals in the sense that they blatantly turned a blind eye to copyright breaches that could only occur with the use of their broadband networks and backbone infrastructure. To plead ignorance is not a defence in court. So why have the likes of Yahoo, Google, MSN et al all managed to get away with stating that exact defence?

I’m surprised it has taken the music industry this long to mobilise its resources to actually move this debate into the public sphere. Napster had been around since the late nineties, so how come it has taken almost a decade to begin to confront the real perpetrators? The music industry stuck its head in the sand and tried to sue their own customers instead of approaching the real facilitators. Let me be very clear, this issue is about facilitating file sharing and making loads of money from it, whilst groundlessly trying to admonish responsibility.

The positive thing is that the record industry is now tackling the root of the problem head on. So well done on that note! From reading the transcript of Paul McGuinness’s speech I would have to agree that the tables have turned and that the only “dinosaurs” left now are running the ISPs. In a meeting with Feargal Sharky the CEO of British Music Rights, in late February he was very clear that neither the music industry or the ISPs will be happy if the government carries out its threat of legislating in the UK.

It is interesting to note that at this same conference Lachie Rutherford, President at Warner Music Asia Pacific, outlined that only 2% of revenues from downloads and ringtones are shared with performers. By contrast I'd like to know how much is actually received by the labels. Whilst it is clear that not only do ISPs and the new digital pipes have to be transparent in their distribution of music, the same goes for record labels. It's ok for labels to deride ISPs for non-transparency but labels need to get their own houses in order as well.

The key argument in the music industry's favour is that these digital pipes (ISPs and portals) continue to derive revenues from broadband subscriptions and advertising. What proportion of that money is making its way to the music business? The answer is very little. What would happen to the ISPs, portals and other digital distributors if the rich media content business were to go belly up? If no new content is released ISPs will have no content for which users of their pipes actually purchased a broadband connection in the first place.

Research last year estimated that up to 80% of ISP traffic can be accounted for by peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent and Limewire. It's obvious that the majority of this traffic is music and video/film. So why should digital pipes be the only ones making money? ISPs have made huge amounts of money from being accessories to criminal activity. No other industry would have a hope in hell of getting away with being an accessory to millions of copyright crimes for as long as the ISPs have.

Let's now get back to the core theme of this post, i.e. Have ISPs been thieves in the past and are they continuing to be thieves now in terms of the music business?

Firstly, I would say they are not theives in the sense they are not actually stealing the music like the P2P file-sharers. However, they have been and continue to be accessories to criminal activity by their refusal to take action against people that use their broadband connections to break the law. Simply saying it is not their problem is not good enough. In fact it is downright childish and is not a sustainable defence in court.

The music industry has been forced to grow up quickly in the digital realm, it is about time the digital pipes did so as well. The unwillingness of the ISPs to act against file-sharers implicates them as accessories to crimes against music copyright owners. Perhaps the IFPI, rather than prosecuting end users should actually begin prosecuting the ISPs?

The music industry might be on solid ground here. Music consumption is at an all time high, yet the business is not receiving its share of the money. If these digital pipes will not come to the table then they will no doubt have government legislation imposed on them (starting in the UK and France). In truth ISPs are the only ones who have the power to stop file sharing and if they refuse to be proactive in pursuing action to prevent illegal file sharing they should be prosecuted just like other criminals.

The ball is now in the ISPs court as the music industry has been proactive in reaching out to these same companies who have been active participants in criminal activity against copyright owners. Ideally this whole situation would be negotiated in a proper businesslike manner. However, the olive branch has been extended by the music business to the ISPs. If this olive branch is thrown back in the music industries face the recorded music business will need to bring legal action against the accessories to these crimes. Being an accessory to a crime is as bad as the crime itself, especially when it is enabled to occur primarily due to the negligent behaviour of the accessory to the crime.

Marty Friedman -Ex Member of Megadeth

Hello everyone! This week I will reply to this site I found about music piracy, simply titled 'Music Piracy - Ten Inconvenient Truths.' I found this on the 'IFPI' site, which represents the worldwide recording industry. Here are the 10 inconvenient truths it listed:

1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment “free music” rhetoric.

2. Allofmp3.com, the well-known Russian website, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.

3. Organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.

4. Illegal file-sharers don’t care whether the copyright infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.

5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on “underground” artists and more inclination to invest in “bankers” like American Idol stars.

6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.

7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth – it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.

8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle or higher income earners.

9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.

10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.

Now, I wish to to dispute a few of these comments, and add my own. Of course, I have no numbers to back me up, unlike the IFPI, and this is merely my opinion. If I've said anything that's blatantly wrong, let me know in the comments and I'll take it back. So here are my 10 inconvenient truths:

1. (Point 1) The Pirate Bay making money through advertising has little to do with the "free music" it provides/advocates. Advertising companies pay the Pirate Bay for advertising space, and therefore Pirate Bay can afford to provide free stuff. Webcomics such as Ctrl-Alt-Del sell advertising space so they can afford to continue writing their comics and hosting them. The Pirate Bay making money in such a way means that they aren't making money at anyone's expense.
2. (Point 3) Sure, counterfeit CDs can be sold to make money for criminals. But what money can they possibly make from free file-sharing?
3. (Point 5) Reduced revenues for record companies and therefore reduced interest in underground bands just forces these underground bands to find other ways to get in touch with the people which these record companies are further alienating through their brutish attempts to control them. An example is the Arctic Monkeys, who, although now a huge UK band, started off gaining mainstream popularity through MySpace. Underground bands don't need record companies to get popular if they're good. 'Bankers' do.
4. (Point 7) Anti-copyright movements mostly consist of the consumers who are getting more and more fed-up with the methods of organisations such as the RIAA. They may not know much about the economical aspect of the music industry, but they know a lot when it comes down to how their rights are being treated, hence the backlash.
5. (Point 10) Anti-piracy campaigners often claim that it is the underground and small bands that suffer, yet how is this true if it is mostly the popular music that is downloaded?
6. And if it is the popular bands that receive the most attention from pirates, surely they are also the ones most able to handle it financially?
7. The most money a musician or band makes is rarely from album or single sales. Merchandise and Live performances are the true money-makers for most.
8. Due to the way the consumer is being alienated by these organisations and record companies, musicians are finding other ways to get in touch, and those that don't are losing popularity. Look at what happened to Metallica when they took on Napster. And now look at bands such as Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead, who are finding new ways to bring their music to the masses.
9. Record companies and copyright organisations are, on the whole, still not realising the potential that the Internet provides financially, and therefore, rather than embracing it, they are trying to fight against something which is impossible to control. Again leading to the alienation of the consumer.
10. The customer is always right ;)

Yeah, that's all. Again, if I've made an incorrect claim, let me know. I have no agenda, just playing devil's advocate :)

Rock on! \m/

Télécharger le rapport à l'adresse suivante : http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2008.pdf

This got me thinking about some intellectual monopolies again, hence this post.

First of all, I would like to start by saying that these taxes should of course be abolished. Whilst I do not know how the situation in other countries is, in my country this tax is only possible because there is a clause in the law that states that artists can be renumerated when someone makes a copy for personal use. Now, this is a completely idiotic clause since this has nothing to do with downloading music illegally, or copying music illegally, but only with copying a CD that you have legitimately bought. Now, I honestly can not come up with any good reason as to why you should have to pay an artist when you just want to make sure that the CD you bought does not get scratched, does not get stolen from your car, etc. If I buy a CD, well then I want to be able to do with this CD whatever I want, as long as the copies I make or the music I play is only meant for use in a circle of close friends (maybe excluding copies there) and relatives. If such a tax is meant to compensate for illegal copying and downloading, well then since everyone is paying a tax for it, the copying and downloading should be made legal. Hence, this section of the law obviously needs to be redrafted to either remove this tax immediately and let people copy their legally obtained CDs and other works freely, or the law should be made into a real tax for illegal downloading and copying and this downloading and copying should be made legal. You cannot write in the law that it is meant to compensate for one thing (which does not need compensation) and then support the law by saying that it is used to compensate for another!

Still, there is another problem with these taxes. No one knows exactly what is being copied. So what is being done? The taxes get transferred to an obscure organisation of which no one knows exactly who they represent and based on some magic calculation they determine how much of the copying shares you get. That is truly outrageous, as it is a system that makes the richer just richer and the poorer just poorer. Wouldn't it be better to use this tax to subsidize younger artists by building rehearsal rooms, by subsidizing theater and all those other art forms that really need to be subsidized as they cannot survive otherwise?

Then I have a last proposal that should fix some of the problems in copyright (especially for music). In Europe, most countries have some private organisation that "protects" the rights of the artist. However, these are all based on the idea that an artist should pay them money and transfer their copyrights to them. Now, copyrights are obviously worth money, so it seems silly to have to pay a fee as an artist to such an organisation. Furthermore, the fact that the copyright gets fully transferred is very bad for fans and "consumers" (ugly word, it seems to establish that people are sheep that should do nothing than consume whatever happens to grow on the plains).

A better system would be one in which it is prohibited that such exclusive deals can happen. In a world with such a legislation, many different companies could "sell" licenses for doing something with a certain copyright. This reflects how most trading is done nowadays anyhow. Consider for example shops. Shops have deals with producers for selling some of their products, e.g. many different companies sell products of the coca-cola company. The shops then compete with each other by offering lower prices for products, or by giving extra's to their shoppers and so on and so on. This competition benefits "consumers" as it makes sure that the prices are not being kept virtually high.

This system would work for music as well. If one wants to organise a party, now, in my country at least, he has to pay a huge fine, based on all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the music such as the price of a beer etc., to the only corporation (technically it is a not-for-profit organisation, but that is hardly the true case) that has the right to exploit intellectual monopolies. If however there could be many different companies that can buy the same rights to license music for all kinds of uses, then there could be competition and such absurd calculations could not exist as one would soon be priced out of the market by a smarter competitor.

Hence, such a system would benefit the ordinary person, but also the artists, as they can sell licenses (and set their prices) to as many organisations as they please and hence can probably generate more income.

Artists have traditionally always been screwed over when rights were involved, which is what has led to the problems we face today (if artists would just have refused to give up all their rights to record companies or to corporations like SABAM,BUMA/STEMRA instead of rolling over on their backs and giving them money and their rights, which are also worth a lot of money, it would not be such a big mess). A change as proposed here, where it is disallowed to sell the full rights to a work will obviously be strongly opposed by many, but as the arguments I have laid out have shown, it is only beneficial for both the artist and the "consumer". And in my opinion these are the persons that matter most.

Thank you for your attention. I hope that anyone reading this will agree and start promoting this idea on his own, so that it one day will be caught up upon by politicians and hopefully a change for the better can be implemented.

Ρίξτε μια ματιά εδώ. Νομίζω μας αφορά...

First I will examine some of the responses from these teenagers I lectured last week. It was heartening to hear that close to 95% of them still brought hard copy CD albums and used torrent sites to check out new music before deciding what to buy and add to their hard copy CD collections. So where does this leave the IFPI’s premise that file sharers or torrent users are leading to the decline in recorded music sales? In Tatters in my own mind anyway. As these teens are too young to have credit cards or mobile phone contracts in their own names, they are left with no means to purchase digital tracks!

When and how is the industry going to address legal access for teenagers who are too young to have access to credit cards to purchase digital music legally? What are the models? Is the only model the industry can come up with ad-funded? If so, from these kids responses, we are doomed. When I asked them if they would be prepared to listen or view advertisements before having access to stream or own a digital track, 100% said “No”. Why would they waste time listening to advertisements when they could access their desired track instantly via a torrent site?

My suggestion would be for the industry to insist on a revenue share from the banner advertisements displayed on these torrent sites and then perhaps there would be significant revenues as we all know that the ratio is almost 1000:1 in terms of digital tracks consumed illegally via torrent sites (such as lime wire) as opposed to being purchased legally. Yes – every single one of these kids has a mobile phone but it is their parents who are named on the mobile contracts. Each had purchased one or two ringtones but that was it, as almost all of these teenagers also used an MP3 player. Less than 20% of them used the MP3 player in their mobile phones.

I replied to the music promoter posting by agreeing that perhaps not only should artists be prepared to give their music away for free in exchange for an email address but they should also collect the fans mobile number as well. I query whether attaining an email address alone is a valuable exchange. We are all over inundated with email spam. Experience has showed me that after a successful live show, fans are more than willing to give you their email details without you having to give them a CD for free. The industry executives point was that record labels have stopped investing in new talent apart from the “radio 2 supermarket acts” – hello duffy and adele! He goes further, stating that artists have to treat themselves as mini-companies in a cottage industry. I agree with this, to a point.

Only what sort of cottage industry is it if you are giving away the core of your product range for free? Companies have to turn a profit and it can be a long time before an artist rises to the top. To be a viable cottage industry, the artist cannot afford to go bankrupt which I fear would be the case if they have to give away their assets (i.e. recorded music) for free. If artists devalue their music by giving it away for free, what’s left for the music companies to buy? Not a whole lot. Certainly doesn’t sound like smart business to me.

It is important to note that each of these young teenagers I spoke with agreed that artists really had no choice but to give away their music free. The practice provided good exposure as well as increased listener expansion opportunities. I do take heed and accept these arguments. But on this point I would like to ask whether live music promoters would be willing to give a higher percentage of ticket sales to new and upcoming artists if they agree to give away their music for free at concerts? My suspicion is that the promoters who are currently advocating free music give-aways would not themselves be willing to give away free tickets to the live music shows they promote. They probably wouldn’t all leap up to support the idea of offering artists better percentages of live music ticket sales in exchange for the give-aways either. The irony is that whether it be recorded music or a live concert, both models rely on giving away the asset of music for free.

Given that new up and coming artists already give away their recorded music for free in the digital realm via the likes of sites like myspace, why increase the pressure on label investment by further devaluing hard copy CD albums? It is clear to me from speaking with these young teenagers that all is not lost in physical CD sales as teenagers place a higher value on CDs than they do on digital tracks. Perhaps keeping tracks in the digital realm free to an extent and then discovering new ways of adding value to recorded music and physical sales is the answer. Think NIN or Coldplay, give digital away and add value to the physical copy with special incentives or packaging.

Nella raccomandazione dei tutori dell'industria fonografica non si cela l'invito ad impugnare come strumenti neutrali le reti P2P, utilizzandole per appropriarsi e rimettere in circolo contenuti che l'autore ha deciso di distribuire in maniera virale. Quello dell'industria fonografica è un vero e proprio scivolone.

Nel quadro della campagna "Young People, Music & The Internet", organizzata dall'associazione Childnet International in collaborazione con le etichette rappresentate da IFPI, ci si rivolge direttamente ai genitori e agli educatori troppo confusi dalle definizioni farfugliate dei giovani e abbozzate dai media generalisti. Si consegna nelle loro mani un documento con tutte le istruzioni per vigilare in maniera responsabile sui ragazzi, per controllare che i loro comportamenti in rete non sconfinino nell'illegalità.
In particolare, si rinnova l'invito a prendere il sito pro-music.org e le diverse declinazioni nazionali come punto di riferimento: vi sono contenuti degli agili prontuari per il download sicuro e legale, elenchi di siti nei quale i propri figli possono dilapidare senza remore la propria paghetta. Nelle parole di IFPI, "si spiega dove trovare fonti legali di musica, si spiega come scaricare della musica senza esporre il computer a virus e altri rischi".

Un editor di Torrent Freak, incuriosito dalla proposta delle etichette, si è precipitato sul sito olandese di Pro-Music. Quello che si è trovato di fronte è stato un panorama desolante: alcuni dei siti raccomandati - ma vale anche per la versione italiana della guida di Pro-Music - avevano ceduto il posto a pagine vuote. Altri redirezionavano verso pagine di tutt'altra natura, sprazzi di pornografia compresi. Ma è un sito in particolare ad aver catturato l'attenzione di Torrent Freak: download.nl, che a sua volte redireziona verso mp3.nl, offre una semplice interfaccia di ricerca di file ordinata per categorie, offre la possibilità di scegliere la fonte alla quale attingere il file cercato. Accanto alle fonti legali e a pagamento spicca anche P2P: si raccomanda agli utenti di dotarsi di LimeWire o Shareaza per ottenere in cambio il file.
La rete si intride di indignazione lo scandalo nel quale è inciampato l'incedere sicuro di IFPI è troppo clamoroso perché passi inosservato. Si auspica che i genitori vengano informati: per seguire alla lettera le raccomandazioni dell'industria potrebbero incoraggiare i pargoli a frequentare pagine malfamate.
Articolo

Höchstens für die Vermarktung werden die Dinosaurier der Verwertungsindustrie noch gebraucht. Aber in den Zeiten des Internet ist auch das fraglich. Wieviel Lobby-, Gesetzes- und Ermittlungsarbeit, wieviel unsinnige Propaganda (sorry: Aufklärung), wieviel nutzlose manpower muss von Industrie, Staat und Gesellschaft geleistet werden, nur um die Interessen von ein paar wenigen durchzusetzen? Und das nur weil sie das Geld haben und an den Schalthebeln der Macht und der Medien sitzen! " Wer das Geld hat, hat die Macht und wer die Macht hat, hat das Recht!"

Dabei ist dieses System zutiefst undemokratisch: der Weltverband "International Federation of the Phonographic Industry" oder kurz "IFPI" wurde unter Geburtshilfe von Mussolini 1933 in Italien aus der Taufe gehoben. Ziel war die Schaffung eines mächtigen Monopole (sorry: Verbandes), der bestimmen sollte, wo es lang geht, der seine Vorstellungen bei den nationalen Gesetzgebern durchdrückem konnte. Und das ist noch heute so. Auch in der EU und im Bundestag. Und wie das mit Monopolen und Kartellen so ist, ihr Hunger nach mehr ist grenzenlos. Die neueste "Idee": Das Wegwerfen von CDs verbieten.

Und was steht am Ende? Der geknebelte Konsument, dem vorgeschrieben wird, wann er was wie und wo sehen und hören darf. Der geknebelte Künstler, der nach Gutdünken vom Verwerter mit Brosamen abgespeist wird. Ein paar fette Firmen deren Rendite stimmt und die ihren Aktionäre glücklich machen. Und zu guter letzt eine völlig verarmte, weil auf Einheitsbrei getrimmte "Kulturindustrie".Dieter Bohlen & Co. für alle!

Da empfehle ich doch lieber meine eigenen Five Faves. Dank youtube haben sie die richtigen Antidots :-)

* Original Gedankenspliiter war ein Forenbeitrag von mir zum 75. Geburtstag der ISPSI auf telepolis.

Sättet de förhåller sig till pengar gör att jag inte kan låta bli att asociera till Austin Powers. Scenen jag tänker på är en scen ur en av uppföljarna och anspelar tillbaka på följande scen ur den första filmen.

Dr. Evil seems to have a problem in general with understanding money, especially regarding the modern American economy and inflation. In the first film, he intends to hold the world ransom for $1 million, but doesn't understand that $1 million isn't as large a sum of money as it was in the 1960s, because of inflation, and the demand causes the U.N. to burst out laughing. In the second film, however, Dr. Evil goes back to 1969 and plans to hold the world ransom for $100 billion, an amount of money that didn't exist back then, and when he tells the amount to the President, he receives a similar reaction from the first film when the President and his cabinet laugh at him. In the second film, Dr. Evil says, "Why make trillions when we can make...BILLIONS?," not knowing that trillions are larger than billions. In the third movie, he demands "1 billion, gagillion, fafillion, shabolubalu million illion yillion...yen." This time his demand is met with simple confusion from the world leaders.

Rubriksättningen på Piratbyråns kommentar ger mig skäl att tro att jag inte är ensam om att göra den här asociationen.

Detta är ett framtidsscenario som beskrivs av Christian Engström här. Det är bra att läsa detta nu eftersom det kan bli precis så om inte någon stoppar upp den här integritetskränkande verksamheten som det innebär att släppa loss antipiratbyrån och ifpi i vårt privatliv.

- Mary

My reflections on this :
- How is this helping musicians?
- None what so ever, the audience will continue sharing, but will regard the music industry with even more dismay. Progressive musicians with an insight in the possibilities of the internet, will have an even harder time working seriously.
- How much of this fine will go to the musicians that were shared?
- None at all. It will go to the government, funding things as the continued struggle against file sharing. This way, the struggle against file sharing will become an industry of its own, profitable as medieval wars that could continue as long as the money kept pouring in from looting cities. The musicians will not se a single coin of the sums that are to be paid by the guilty.
- Is this a development I prefer?
- Nope. They are backing their way into the future with blinkers to cover their eyes. Frustrating times, these.

Here is the article, in swedish, sorry: http://www.svd.se/kulturnoje/nyheter/artikel_1211875.svd

I am one of the network supporters and stability monitor my job is to make sure that the network stays in one piece and that if someone has a problem that Tech Support cant solve I step in before we send a truck and make sure its absolutely needed. At any rate I am getting off track.

Every now and then we get a notice from one of the big boys saying that someone on our network has been caught stealing a movie or music or book or what the hell ever they are downloading. At that point all we do is call the person and tell them to delete it. We refuse to give the subs info out to anyone. Normally they will remove the file because just having us call is normally scary enough. That being said if they persist then we will cut their connection to help protect them. And if all else fails we make the big boys supina the info from us.

From a business stand point file sharing and people using the network is a great thing. It keeps people connected and if they are using the torrents or lime wire or what the hell ever they are going to know that they can download a shit ton more than it would cost to pay us. The ifpi says this is bad because they down loaders are clogging the lines. This is true and its not. Yes if everyone started downloading right now all hell would break lose in my office. But not everyone is going to do that. Thing increase at a relatively slow rate. We also keep a VERY close eye on the network utilization and have the necessary provisions set up to expand the network if we need to. The ifpi would have people believe that the file sharing is growing so fast that if not stopped it will bring company's like mine and even the big boys to their knees.

This is not only bull shit but is just scare tactics. I work for the 25th largest communications company in the world. And in comparison that makes us a little guy, and I know damn well we are not going to buckle any time soon. As a matter of fact even with the shit economy and everything going the way it is my department has grown in size and will be growing again at the end of the year to incorporate almost 40 more college graduates. We go'n to be aight.

What I foresee happening is that we as an ISP will start looking to these "super" users to start funding the bandwidth they use. We will begin to have a gaming and/or power user tier. Some thing that will cost more but allow you to have better speed and do what you want to do better. But at the same time it would cost almost twice as much. For example if we gave residential people the power to get 5Mb down and 4Mb up that is only a small change for us but for a torrent / file sharing site that is a GREAT change. And we could charge double the cost for very minimal work.

The point is that despite what the ifpi says the ISPs will be okay. We stand to make a great deal of money just about any way the battle goes. So picking a fight with us is not a smart idea.

So the business model is a bit unclear but leads to the right direction. Knowing that the 95% which are not paying for music at the moment somehow or other can not be reached. How this trend will end in the future? The only sense could be to make the consumer go to the live concerts when they like the song. So no more economies of scale but more a service model is targeted here. 

Hm, I am still waiting for the E-Mail with the link for the song download(4-43PM --> now  i already wait since 10 minutes).

Update: i just received it (4-47PM). First impression: I do not understand why the file is packed with zip. Ok, it saved 2k of internet traffic but a lot of user who try a download for the first time could be deterred. My mother for example would like to try out legal online downloads but is not techi enough to understand what to do with a zip file. I am not sure what the industry thinks how to get more people to legal downloads when they make it unnecessary difficult for the users. The digital natives download the album anyway via bit torrent and in mp3, without DRM easy to use etc. But please do not try to convince people to buy online when make it on purpose difficult for people which make the first steps in online downloads.

but nevertheless, thanks for the song, it is really cool and i hope to see them live again soon :-)

That show that people love to download free file from cyber world because its so easy, you donsnt have to walk to out from your home just to get a couple of CD software, music atc.

According to TPB when you read this blog their stats allready more than 12 million actually. ||

Turns out, IFPI doesn't own or have any hold over any the rights to Peezay's music, and Peezay, whose lyrics often support file sharing, never wanted to be included in a lawsuit targeting a file sharing site. In fact, he was never approached, nor asked about his desire for involvement, and has informed the IFPI of such, effectively eliminating him and their claim for $19,000 in lost revenue for his music from their $2.5M lawsuit. The best questions are these: considering the IFPI never asked Peezay if he wanted to be included, how many other artists are in the lawsuit against their will? If they are involved unknowingly, how can they remove themselves? And finally...the most important question to me...if IFPI claims Peezay lost $19,000 on illegal file sharing, and actually succeeded in recovering this money through the suit, how much of it would Peezay have ever actually seen in his bank account?

Industry execs wonder why the music business is turning to mixmatch methods of distribution and artists are looking at ways to be profitable without the man in the suit sitting in the skyscraper. How can they possibly wonder? They treat their artists like cattle, herding them into slaughter houses of record deals and online distribution lawsuits claiming it's for the good of their client. Then they pretend to be shocked that the artist is upset when, left with the bloody carcass and grisly remains of their music career, their creativity and earning power is turned into nothing but ground beef for the labels to sell at a profit. The greatest hoax perpetuated by the major labels is that they're actually paying the cows.

En Febrero, la IFPI fue a juicio contra la página web para conseguir que el proveedor danés Tele2 bloquease su acceso, acusándola de proteger y fomentar infracciones contra el copyright. Un post en el blog de uno de los administradores de Pirate Bay, Brokep, deja caer que es posible que la organización busque una indemnización por daños y perjuicios. Tele2 está apelando al veredicto del juzgado, pero mientras tanto el bloqueo DNS sigue vigente hasta que se resuelva el caso.

El bloqueo no ha tenido más que consecuencias positivas para la página puesto que ha pasado de ser la número 29 en orden de popularidad en Dinamarca a ser la número 24 debido a toda la publicidad que este tipo de casos conllevan. Brokep también comenta que el dinero que consigan será destinado a la fundación de una organización que se encargue de ayudar a los artistas emergentes daneses.

Fuente: The Register

Ifpi drar tillbaka en av målsägarangivelserna i det stundande piratebay-åtalet då det visat sig att det rör sig om en artist de inte företräder.

- Johanna Nylander