Last major music labels give up on DRM

The last two of the big music labels -- and of course the independent labels weren't stupid and arrogant enough to install spyware and rootkits on their customers' computers -- Warner Music and Sony BRM, have finally stopped trying to hold the tide back and have given up using DRM on their music downloads, at least for most of their catalogues. Warner caved to the inevitable in December last year and allowed Amazon to sell mp3s, and in January Sony BRM also announced that they are giving up DRM for music downloads.

This isn't quite the death of DRM for music, but it's close.

George's residency over now

Alas and alack, George Kamikawa's residency at the Rainbow Hotel has ended :-(

Last time I managed to get to see George play was back in February. Now he's heading back to Japan for personal reasons, but (fingers crossed) he'll be back in Melbourne in October.

Some snippets on file-sharing news

I haven't written about the music industry and file-sharing for a while, so this is a good time to catch up on some news.

Apple's iTunes continues to be the biggest on-line seller of music around, and Apple still refuses to licence their Digital Restrictions Management software to other companies. Nevertheless, one company has found a way to compete with Apple, and has been rewarded by becoming the second-biggest seller of music on-line: eMusic sells mp3s without DRM software. The big labels are reluctant to compete with Apple by offering unencumbered music, so eMusic concentrates on the indie and over-25s markets, and with five million sales a month, it is extremely profitable for them and the bands.

Faced with interoperability problems and consumer surveys that show that UK consumers believe that only DRM-free music is worth paying for, the music labels are rethinking their approach. EMI already sells DRM-free music on iTunes; Universal is about to offer DRM-free music (but not on iTunes); and the CTO of label Gracenote is predicting that the major labels are likely to drop DRM for downloads within six months.

Meanwhile, the RIAA's battle against file-sharing isn't going well. One cleared defendant has been awarded $68,000 to cover her legal fees; another cleared defendant has launched a class-action suit against the RIAA for malicious prosecution; and another defendant has had the lawsuit against her dismissed with prejudice.

File-sharing is, essentially, normal, in the same way that taping music off the radio or TV shows off the telly are. Even the children of Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman turn to the file-sharing networks to discover new music. The tide has turned, and we're far better off reforming copyright law to make sure artists remain compensated than we are trying to enforce out-dated laws.

Attempts to shut down torrent-tracking sites still fail; the Pirate Bay has just re-launched Suprnova.org with a taunting message to the executives who tried to shut them down:

"Finally, some words for non-internet loving companies: This is how it works. Whatever you sink, we build back up. Whomever you sue, ten new pirates are recruited. Wherever you go, we are already ahead of you. You are the past and the forgotten, we are the internet and the future."

Home-made album hits the top of the charts

This is me, catching up on old news... thanks to Geek at Play comes this report from April: classically trained pianist and acoustic guitarist Kate Walsh's home-made album is (was) at the top of the iTunes album charts, knocking Take That off the top of the chart.

("Take that, Take That!")

Acoustic guitarist Kate Walsh has knocked Take That off the top of the iTunes download album chart - but does not even own an iPod.
The 23-year-old guitarist recorded her album in a friend’s bedroom and named it Tim’s House in his honour.

For good or ill, the Internet is revolutionizing the distribution of music.

Cat piano

Reminds me of the Amazing Marvin Suggs and his Muppaphone: an 17th century Italian musician created a cat piano to entertain his bored prince. Cats with different voices were placed in cages, and then triggered to meow with a sharp spike.

George Kamikawa

Some years ago, Mrs Impala and I stumbled across a rare and precious thing: a talented street busker in Bourke Street. George Kamikawa [warning: Linux-hostile site requiring Flash and/or Shockwave] is a Japanese musician who had taken up Blues and Country music just a few years earlier.

Last night we went to see him do a live gig at the Rainbow Hotel in Fitzroy. He is even better now: well and truly into virtuoso territory with the guitar, steel guitar and harmonica. He even made the kazoo sound less awful than usual.

Although George's English isn't fantastic, it is good enough, and barely detectable while singing -- even in Van Morrison's "Crazy Love". Not being a Blues aficionado, I didn't recognise many of the songs he played, but he shure made perty noises *wink*

See also this blog post about George, with links to various clips on YouTube.

If you're in Melbourne, check him out.

Music downloads hit the UK Charts

For the first time, British music charts are counting songs purchased as electronic downloads as sales even if they aren't available for sale in physical form. And the results suggest that it could stir-up the music industry, giving independents more muscle and even allowing classic tracks to re-enter the charts.

According to the Independent:

The Indie band Snow Patrol underlined their claim to be the hottest act on the new-look charts yesterday when they notched up a top 10 success with a deleted album track which is only available online.

"Chasing Cars", a previous single from the top-selling album of 2006, Eyes Open, entered at number nine, as the Top 40 underwent the biggest shake-up in its 50-year history.

[...]

Bubbling under, the top 100 saw eight previously deleted tracks come back. These included James Morisson and the Killers. The X Factor effect also helped the Proclaimers and Aerosmith gain a tentative fingerhold on the charts after being covered by hopefuls Ben and the MacDonald Brothers in the series.

The Independent also raises the spectre possibility of the Beatles re-capturing all the Top Ten positions, if and when somebody negotiates a deal for their tracks to be released for download.

The RIAA according to McSweeney's

McSweeney's has parody letter of demand from the RIAA:

If you would prefer not to be stripped of your home and dignity, please send us $3,750 in the return envelope. If your toddler has been named in this lawsuit, explain to them that the fruits of their labor as an adult will go to pay a debt that will ultimately lead to their death at a young age due to their inability to afford medical insurance. Toddlers never understand that, but they'll get the point if you make them cry. If your household pet has been named in this lawsuit, it will be euthanized. If you are a 13-year-old girl, do not expect that the bad publicity in the past has made us hesitant to sue little girls—it has only made us hate you even more. If you, your household pet, or your toddler did not commit any of the acts above, then we will sue you and ruin your life forever for lying. Then we will sue you again, because it's not about the money anymore. It's about revenge.

Warner does deal to open up video library

And in further news, pigs have been spotted flying south for the winter.

(How many mixed metaphors can I fit in one post, I wonder?)

While Universal is suing YouTube for copyright infringement, Warner Brothers' music division have seen the writing on the wall and, instead of trying to keep the tide from coming in, have done a deal with YouTube to let their music videos roam free on the Internet.

The deal will involve Warner Brothers opening up their entire back-catalog of music videos, including those from major artists such as Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Madonna, which will be posted to YouTube. People will be allowed to download and remix the videos and repost them on YouTube.

The MPAA and RIAA, who have claimed that Internet sharing is causing the sky to fall, have apparently locked themselves in a bunker under Washington and are waiting for the world to end.

iTunes buyers vote with their wallets

The BBC is reporting that on average only 5% of the tracks on the average iPod have been bought from iTunes, with even fewer coming from other music sites. The majority are downloaded from file sharing sites or ripped from CDs.

The report cautions not to artificially divide music listeners into "pirates" and "buyers", and points out that:

[...] the only salient characteristic shared by all owners of portable music players was that they were more likely to buy more music - especially CDs.

"Digital music purchasing has not yet fundamentally changed the way in which digital music customers buy music," read the report.

This tells me that free as in beer (free of charge) is far less important to music listeners than free as in speech (free of restrictions). People are willing to pay for their music, but they aren't willing to accept lousy digital restrictions or artificial file formats that nobody but the music industry wants.

The CBC and DRM

Dr. Michael Geist explains why the CBC is wrong to claim that they have no choice about using Digital Restrictions Management software to lock their streaming music.

Tod Maffin, who runs the blog, defends the CBC's use of DRM, arguing that DRM is required under its commercial music broadcast licenses and that the CBC invites lawsuits if it fails to adequately protect its streams.

While I'm a big fan of CBC's streaming services, the suggestion that CBC must use DRM is plainly wrong. First, there are many other public broadcasters who not only reject DRM, but have adopted open licenses (RadioBras in Brazil makes all of its content available under Creative Commons licenses). Second, there is no legal requirement to use DRM under Canadian law. If certain rights holders demand DRM use, the CBC has an alternative. It can reject those demands and choose instead to use only music that rights holders permit to be broadcast without DRM.

As Dr. Geist goes on to explain, there is no shortage of open music: hundreds of thousands of songs published under Creative Commons licences, and thousands of public domain recordings. In addition, most Canadian independent labels have given DRM a resounding No! As those independents are creating 90% of new Canadian music, the CBC has lots of Canadian content to choose from, instead of sticking with the same old forgettable foreign labels promoting foreign artists.

Second biggest on-line music store is DRM-free

Boing Boing is reporting that the world's second-biggest seller of legal on-line music is entirely DRM free.

USA Today is surprised at eMusic's success, given that the major labels refuse to licence their "big hits" to them. That means no Shakira, Beyoncé or U2 -- but plenty of jazz, classical and indie music: Johnny Cash, Ray Charles, Credence Clearwater Revival, Miles Davis, Van Morrison, Moby, the White Stripes, Diana Krall, Scott H. Biram, the Pipettes, Dashboard Confessional and Peaches.

Rebutting the piracy report

Dr. Michael Geist rebutts the mischaracterizations and omissions (or, in the vernacular, "crap") of the IFPI's latest piracy report.

Among other points, Geist notes that the IFPI's characterisation of Canada as having the highest per capita rate of peer-to-peer piracy in the world is false:

Not true. While CRIA regularly makes this claim, the 2004 OECD report refers only to P2P usage, without reaching conclusions on whether the activity infringes copyright. In fact, the same report specifically notes that "P2P is not simply downloading of MP3 files. In fact, file sharing has already moved to the next level and will be applied for all types of on-line information, data distribution, grid computing and distributed file systems." The OECD data captured all of these activites and made no claim that Canada has the highest per capital incidence of unauthorized file swapping in the world.

Geiss also points out that the report fails to mention:

• the dozens of major Canadian artists who oppose DRM and the suing of fans


• the revenue from private copying


• the six leading independent music labels who defected from the CRIA


• the study which found that Canada's recording industry grew steadily from 1999 to 2004


• that 90% of new Canadian music comes from independent labels which are thriving under the existing copyright laws

The horror of the ear-worm

Speaking about Philadelphia Freedom, I've had Elton John's song of the same name running through my head for four days now. I've been unable to stop it, even with extreme measures. Not even a mutant melding of the Muppet's Mahna Mahna and Spanish Flea has been able to drive it out.

I may have to resort to "It's A Small World" to get rid of it.

Convenience more important than price

Ed Felten at Freedom To Tinker discusses evidence that people choose to download songs from file-sharing sites, not because they are free of cost, but because they are more convenient and free of Digital Restrictions Management software:

In explaining the popularity of Napster and other file-sharing systems, commentators have often overemphasized the price factor and underestimated convenience. Here we see students given the option of a free subscription service, and passing it up to use another free (though illegal) system, or a for-pay system that is more convenient than the free one.

(Emphasis added.)

Recording Industry vs The People

Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman, two lawyers from New York, have a blog Recording Industry vs The People which records the legally dubious war being waged by the RIAA against music fans and computer users -- with, it seems, the full approval of the US Department of Justice.

Of particular note is How the RIAA Litigation Process Works.

In a nutshell, the RIAA plays fast and loose with both the intent and letter of the law. Defendants are sued without any investigation, let alone evidence that they violated copyright. Defendants have included people who have never even used a computer, or have never engaged in illegal file-sharing. In many cases, no music downloading even took place. The RIAA games the system, turning it into a unfair case where the defendant is denied a fair trial.

On occasion, the RIAA's own technical witnesses have admitted that as far as they knew, the only downloads that ever took place off the defendants' computers were when they, the witness, copied files off the computer. You'd think that admission alone would be enough to sink the lawsuit, but in the lottery of the American justice system, not necessarily. Just because no crime took place doesn't mean that the defendant doesn't have to suffer for committing it.

Undoubtedly, there is illegal file-sharing taking place somewhere -- the RIAA hasn't invented that claim out of nothing. (They have however undoubtedly invented the figures they claim for financial losses due to file-sharing.) However, the lawsuits seem to be based on the idea that, since the crime of copyright infringement occurred somewhere, somebody has to be punished for it, and it is hardly necessary to bother making sure that the person punished is the person who committed the crime.

Unfortunately, it seems that between the DoJ taking the attitude that giant corporations like the RIAA can do no wrong, and individual judges with imperfect understanding of copyright law and even worse understanding of the technology involved, the RIAA has a nice little money-spinner going for them. In an example that is unusual only for the judge's honesty, in Interscope v. Duty, the judge denied the motion to dismissal, not because he agreed with the RIAA, but because he admitted he didn't understood the technology well enough to tell whether or not there was a case to answer.

I was going to say the lawsuits were a winner for the RIAA, but since the stated aim of the lawsuits is to discourage file-sharing, and file-sharing is even more prevalent now than before the lawsuits began, they certainly aren't having the effect the RIAA says they want. They are, however, bringing in a bucketload of money into the RIAA's coffers -- with absolutely no indication that one single cent of that money ends up being paid to the artists the RIAA claims to represent.

Also worth reading is Andrew Harden's warm-and-fuzzy guest op-ed, Between the RIAA and a Hard Place. Much of Harden's op-ed comes perilously close to soppy computer-hugging (which doesn't make it wrong, merely unconvincing to hard-headed politicians and judges) but, if nothing else, it is important for his explanation of why the RIAA's tactics threaten virtually every computer user in the world:

In the case of Elektra v. Barker, attorneys for the Recording Industry Association of America have made the argument that simply having a "Shared" folder on your computer can be considered grounds for infringement and, by extension, prosecution. [...]

The problem with this is that nearly every PC in use right now, running a modern operating system like, for example, Microsoft Windows XP, has a "Shared" folder on it. In fact, it might even have several. But you know who created these folders? Not the people using them, not some fiendish Internet pirates (sans eye patch and cool boat), but rather, Microsoft itself.

The RIAA has successfully fooled judges into imagining that "file-sharing" is just another word for "copyright infringement". But it isn't. The RIAA might like to believe that they are the only copyright holders in the world, but they aren't. File-sharing is just what it says: a way of sharing files between computers. It can be used to share your own files from one computer to another, which is not infringement, or it can be used to infringe copyright. It is dishonest of the RIAA's lawyers to suggest that the mere presense of file-sharing technology is evidence of a crime; and it will be disasterous if they get their wish to make it a criminal offence to even possess so-called "anti-circumvention" tools.

Tough questions for the Entertainment Industry

The EFF is asking the entertainment industry some questions they don't want to answer, including:

• The RIAA has sued over 20,000 music fans for file sharing, who have on average paid a $3,750 settlement. That's over $75,000,000. Has any money collected from your lawsuits gone to pay actual artists? Where's all that money going?


• Major entertainment companies have repeatedly brought lawsuits to block new technologies, including the VCR, Digital Audio Tape recorders, the first MP3 player, the ReplayTV PVR, and now P2P software. Why is your industry so hostile to new technologies?


• Unlike the major record labels, many popular indie labels offer mp3 downloads through sites like eMusic. Why won't you let fans purchase mp3s as well?


• The major movie studios have been enjoying some of their most profitable years in history over the past five years. Can you cite to any specific studies that prove noncommercial file sharing among fans, as opposed to commercial DVD piracy, has hurt the studios' bottom line in any significant way?


• Is it legal for me to skip the commercials when I play back time-shifted TV recordings on my TiVo or other PVR? How is this different than getting up and going to the bathroom?


• Why are there region-code restrictions on DVDs? How does this prevent copyright infringement? Is it illegal for me to buy or and use a region-free DVD player, or to modify a DVD player to be region-free?

Fifty Conservative rock songs

Two weeks ago, the National Review published John J. Miller's list of fifty Conservative rock songs. Well, mostly rock songs, with a few pop or country thrown in for good measure.

Now, some folks have taken this as demonstrating the sheer unadulterated gall of Miller for misrepresenting politically liberal, and even radical, songs as conservative. Others have suggested that perhaps he's just stupid and doesn't understand the songs -- some of those songs even use irony and sarcasm. It has been suggested by many people that he's guilty of cherry-picking lyrics out of context. And a very few have pointed out that Conservatives don't have a monopoly on (for example) the love for freedom.

A few have wondered about Miller's failure to include The Kinks' Young Conservatives. And what about Bruce Springsteen's Born In The U.S.A.? At least Jon Swift includes Born In The U.S.A. as his #2 choice, behind only Bobby McFerrin's Don't Worry, Be Happy. Now there is a Conservative who gets it.

But the burning question that keeps me awake at nights is, how could Miller have missed Hulk Hogan's Real American?

How iTunes rips off Weird Al

The king of comic rock, Weird Al Yankovic, explains on his blog that he makes less money from iTunes downloads than from regular CD sales, even though there are fewer costs involved in the download than the physical product.

Weird Al writes:

Tim Sloane of Ijamsville, MD asks: Al, which of these purchasing methods should I use in order to make sure the most profit gets to you: Buying one of your albums on CD, or buying one of your albums on iTunes?

I am extremely grateful for your support, no matter which format you choose to legally obtain my music in, so you should do whatever makes the most sense for you personally. But since you ASKED... I actually do get significantly more money from CD sales, as opposed to downloads. This is the one thing about my renegotiated record contract that never made much sense to me. It costs the label NOTHING for somebody to download an album (no manufacturing costs, shipping, or really any overhead of any kind) and yet the artist (me) winds up making less from it. Go figure.

Go figure indeed. There are thieves and pirates involved in stealing from artists, and most of them work for the record labels.

Over on The Digital Music Weblog, Grant Robertson discusses the financial arrangements between Apple, the music studios, and the artists. There is no reason to think that Weird Al has an especially raw deal:

If all of your fans bought through iTunes rather than buying CDs at the record store you'd be looking at an overall reduction in income of 85%!

Eighty Five Percent! If they cut my income by 85%, I'd be making soup from old shoes down by the railroad tracks!

Searching for musicians is "too interactive"

The BBC is reporting that a legal, licenced music site has shut down after they were prevented from allowing their customers to search for music by the name of the artist.

Internet firm Tiscali has suspended its music sharing Juke Box and accused the European recording industry of being "virtually impossible to work with".

It took the move after it was told to remove the service's search by artist.

[...] the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) said Juke Box had offered a level of interactvity that breached its licence.

What's next? The IFPI to ban customers from asking for a specific album or track?

Link.