MySpace is trying to tell artists what widgets they can embed on their myspace pages. Think again. The backlash will kill the whole site.

It will be nice to see it happen. (Meaning it will be nice to either see the crappy myspace fail, or a smarter myspace wake up and relax these silly restrictions.)

MySpace Restrictions Upset Some Users
By Brad Stone for the NY Times.

Some users of MySpace feel as if their space is being invaded.

MySpace, the Web's largest social network, has gradually been imposing
limits on the software tools that users can embed in their pages, like
music and video players that also deliver advertising or enable
transactions...

But to some formerly enthusiastic MySpace users, the new restrictions
hamper their abilities to design their pages and promote new projects.

"The reason why I am so bummed out about MySpace now is because recently
they have been cutting down our freedom and taking away our rights slowly,"
wrote Tila Tequila, a singer who is one of MySpace's most popular and
visible users, in a blog posting over the weekend. "MySpace will now only
allow you to use 'MySpace' things."...

The tussle between MySpace and Indie911 underscores tensions between
established Internet companies and the latest generation of Web start-ups.
Without a critical mass of visitors to their sites, many of these smaller
companies are devising strategies that involve clamping on to sites like
MySpace and Facebook and trying to make money off their traffic.

MySpace, meanwhile, is trying to show that it can generate stable revenue.
Google will pay it at least $900 million over the next three years to serve
ads to the site's users. And last fall, MySpace announced a partnership
with Snocap, a San Francisco-based company, to sell music.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this year, MySpace blocked widgets from Revver,
a video-sharing site that embeds advertisements in its clips, and Imeem, a
music buying service.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/technology/20myspace.html?pagewanted=print

March 20, 2007
MySpace Restrictions Upset Some Users
By BRAD STONE

Some users of MySpace feel as if their space is being invaded.

MySpace, the Web's largest social network, has gradually been imposing
limits on the software tools that users can embed in their pages, like
music and video players that also deliver advertising or enable
transactions.

At stake is the ability of MySpace, which is owned by the News Corporation,
to ensure that it alone can commercially capitalize on its 90 million
visitors each month.

But to some formerly enthusiastic MySpace users, the new restrictions
hamper their abilities to design their pages and promote new projects.

"The reason why I am so bummed out about MySpace now is because recently
they have been cutting down our freedom and taking away our rights slowly,"
wrote Tila Tequila, a singer who is one of MySpace's most popular and
visible users, in a blog posting over the weekend. "MySpace will now only
allow you to use 'MySpace' things."

Ms. Tequila, born Tila Nguyen, has attracted attention by linking to more
than 1.7 million friends on her MySpace page. To promote her first album,
she recently added to her MySpace page a new music player and music store,
called the Hoooka, created by Indie911, a Los Angeles-based start-up
company.

Users listened to her music and played the accompanying videos 20,000 times
over the weekend. But the Hoooka disappeared on Sunday after a MySpace
founder, Tom Anderson, personally contacted Ms. Tequila to object,
according to someone with direct knowledge of the dispute. She then vented
her thoughts on her personal blog.

MySpace says that it will block these pieces of third-party software - also
called widgets - when they lend themselves to violations of its terms of
service, like the spread of pornography or copyrighted material. But it
also objects to widgets that enable users to sell items or advertise
without authorization, or without entering into a direct partnership with
the company.

A MySpace spokeswoman said yesterday that the service did not remove
anything from Ms. Tequila's page. "A MySpace representative contacted her
and told her that she had violated our terms of service in regards to
commercial activity," the spokeswoman said. "She removed the material
herself, after realizing it was not appropriate for MySpace."

Ms. Tequila and her representatives would not comment.

But Justin Goldberg, chief executive of Indie911, said MySpace's actions
undercut the notion that the social networks' users have complete creative
freedom. "We find it incredibly ironic and frustrating that a company that
has built its assets on the back of its users is turning around and telling
people they can't do anything that violates terms of service," he said.

"Why shouldn't they call it FoxSpace? Or RupertSpace?" Mr. Goldberg said,
referring to the News Corporation's chief, Rupert Murdoch.

The tussle between MySpace and Indie911 underscores tensions between
established Internet companies and the latest generation of Web start-ups.
Without a critical mass of visitors to their sites, many of these smaller
companies are devising strategies that involve clamping on to sites like
MySpace and Facebook and trying to make money off their traffic.

MySpace, meanwhile, is trying to show that it can generate stable revenue.
Google will pay it at least $900 million over the next three years to serve
ads to the site's users. And last fall, MySpace announced a partnership
with Snocap, a San Francisco-based company, to sell music.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this year, MySpace blocked widgets from Revver,
a video-sharing site that embeds advertisements in its clips, and Imeem, a
music buying service.

"Our users weren't happy," said Dalton Caldwell, Imeem's chief executive,
who was nevertheless ambivalent about the MySpace ban because he thought
the move might encourage his users to visit his site directly. "If MySpace
isn't really 'their space' after all, maybe users will think about things
differently."

In the past, MySpace executives have said that the service failed to block
companies like YouTube that began successful businesses from MySpace's
pages.

"We probably should have stopped YouTube," Michael Barrett, chief revenue
officer for Fox Interactive Media, a part of the News Corporation, said in
an interview in late February. "YouTube wouldn't exist if it wasn't for
MySpace. We've created companies on our back."

MySpace and its corporate parent say they want to find ways to support and
exploit the growing widget economy. Last year, Fox Interactive Media
introduced a service called Spring Widget. The service provides tools to
help developers create widgets for use both on computer desktops and online
networks like MySpace.

In a recent use of its technology, the studio behind the horror film "Dead
Silence" used a Spring Widget tool on its promotional MySpace page to count
down the minutes until the film's release.

Fred Wilson, a New York-based venture capitalist who invests in social
media companies, said the strategy showed that the News Corporation was
trying to take advantage of growing interest in widgets while also trying
to carefully control what made it onto MySpace.

But that could be a dangerous strategy, Mr. Wilson said.

"Every attempt everyone has ever made to try to dictate what a person's
Internet experience will be has ended up coming up empty," he said. "You
have to accept the fact that you are never going to be the be-all and
end-all of everyone's experience. They are one click away from everyone
else on the Web."

As for Ms. Tequila, who wrote on her blog that she was a personal friend of
Mr. Anderson, the MySpace co-founder, she wrote that she felt bad about
blasting the site but that she could not stay silent.

"You guys used to be so cool," she wrote of MySpace. "Don't turn into a
corporate evil monster."

Artist Groups Deliver "Joint Statement On Current Issues In Radio"

The press release is available online here.

John Connolly, National President, AFTRA:
The escalating vertical and horizontal consolidation of radio station ownership has harmed recording artists, from the freshest innovators to the most accomplished veteran stars - AFTRA members all. As a result of the homogeneous and limited playlists that have emerged with concentrated radio station ownership, fewer artists are able to receive airplay and reach an audience. Because these same media conglomerates also own concert venues and concert promotion companies, it can't help but create a modern version of payola -- radio station owners forcing artists to be represented by their promoters and perform in their venues or run the risk of being shut out of certain key markets entirely or negatively impact the artist's airtime across the country. This monopolistic structure severely impacts the ability of artists to succeed and also harms the public - we have access to less music with less diversity, and the music we hear is selected based on crass commercial promotional considerations rather than quality or performer artistry.

Thomas F. Lee, International President, AFM:
It's bad for musicians and bad for the public when a few large radio owners can pressure performers to use promoters and venues that they control, force artists to pay independent promotion fees in order to get airplay, and homogenize radio playlists around the country. The AFM and the music community continue to insist that the radio waves belong to the public, and to demand that Congress and the FCC ensure that radio serves the public interest.

Here is the full text of the press release in case the link goes bad (full text of the statement is below it):

http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/radioissuesstatement03.cfm

ARTIST GROUPS DELIVER "JOINT STATEMENT ON CURRENT ISSUES IN RADIO" TO FCC AND CONGRESS

WASHINGTON - Today a "Joint Statement on Current Issues in Radio" was delivered to the Federal Communications Commission and congressional leaders by four organizations: the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA); American Federation of Musicians (AFM); the Future of Music Coalition (FMC); and the Recording Artists' Coalition (RAC).

The "Joint Statement on Current Issues in Radio" was also signed by six other groups: Artist Empowerment Coalition (AEC); Association for Independent Music (AFIM); Just Plain Folks; Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI); National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM); and the Music Managers Forum (MMF).

In the statement, the organizations expressed gratitude that some of the issues of media ownership, payola and vertical integration first highlighted in a May 2002 letter have received more attention from Congress, the FCC and by the radio industry itself.

However, the organizations also expressed their continued concern about the problems that are caused or exacerbated by radio ownership consolidation and vertical integration in the radio industry. The organizations reiterated their call on the FCC and Congress to investigate such issues as vertical integration of radio ownership, payola, radio ownership consolidation and low power radio, to ensure that radio serves the public interest.

Representatives from AFTRA, AFM, and FMC further clarified why this statement is an important development:

John Connolly, National President, AFTRA:
The escalating vertical and horizontal consolidation of radio station ownership has harmed recording artists, from the freshest innovators to the most accomplished veteran stars - AFTRA members all. As a result of the homogeneous and limited playlists that have emerged with concentrated radio station ownership, fewer artists are able to receive airplay and reach an audience. Because these same media conglomerates also own concert venues and concert promotion companies, it can't help but create a modern version of payola -- radio station owners forcing artists to be represented by their promoters and perform in their venues or run the risk of being shut out of certain key markets entirely or negatively impact the artist's airtime across the country. This monopolistic structure severely impacts the ability of artists to succeed and also harms the public - we have access to less music with less diversity, and the music we hear is selected based on crass commercial promotional considerations rather than quality or performer artistry.

Thomas F. Lee, International President, AFM:
It's bad for musicians and bad for the public when a few large radio owners can pressure performers to use promoters and venues that they control, force artists to pay independent promotion fees in order to get airplay, and homogenize radio playlists around the country. The AFM and the music community continue to insist that the radio waves belong to the public, and to demand that Congress and the FCC ensure that radio serves the public interest.

Michael Bracy, Director, Government Relations, FMC:

Congressional leaders and many at the FCC now recognize that radio consolidation has led to homogenous playlists, fewer local voices and, in extreme cases, payola and blatant censorship. Now that policymakers and the public understand the dangers of concentration, the music community will continue to push for reform of commercial radio as it exists today, while expanding non-commercial opportunities across the country. We also must be vigilant in applying the lessons of radio consolidation to broader debates about media ownership and emerging new technologies.

# # #

CONTACTS:

AFTRA: Jayne Wallace, (212) 532-0800
AFM: Patricia Polach, (202) 842-2600
FMC: Michael Bracy, (202) 331-2958

Statement is available online at:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/radioissuesstatement03.cfm

This press release is available online at:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/Prradioissues03.cfm

Here is the full text of the statement in case the link goes bad:

http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/radioissuesstatement03.cfm

Broad Artist Coalition sends Statement to FCC and Congress on Current Issues in Radio

read press release
download document as a PDF

American Federation of Musicians (AFM)
American Federation of Television
and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
Artist Empowerment Coalition (AEC)
Association for Independent Music (AFIM)
Future of Music Coalition (FMC)
Just Plain Folks Music Organization (JPF)

Music Managers Forum (MMF)
Nashville Songwriters Association
International (NSAI)
National Association of
Recording Merchandisers (NARM)
Recording Artists' Coalition (RAC)

JOINT STATEMENT ON CURRENT ISSUES IN RADIO

October 8, 2003

Update to May 2002 Statement on Issues in Radio

In May 2002, a broad coalition of music industry and advocacy groups released a Statement on Current Issues in Radio. This update to that statement is signed by key organizations that represent musicians, singers, retailers and performing artists.

Although we are pleased that the issue of media consolidation is receiving national attention, we are concerned that many of the problems caused or exacerbated by radio consolidation have yet to be resolved. We therefore collectively reiterate our call on the Federal Communications Commission and Congress to ensure that radio serves the public interest. In this document we revisit our positions on vertical integration of radio ownership, payola, radio ownership consolidation and low power radio.

Vertical Integration of Radio Ownership with other
Entertainment and Media Enterprises

The leverage and control exerted by radio group owners that are also vertically integrated companies has continued to increase. Pollstar’s Online 2003 Mid-Year Top 50 Promoters chart shows that Clear Channel Entertainment has sold more total tickets than promoters numbered 2 through 30 combined[2]. Clear Channel continues to have a direct economic interest in promoting its own concerts and tours on its numerous radio stations. It also has an interest in limiting the promotional support of bands and artists who are performing for non-Clear Channel companies, at non-Clear Channel venues or under the sponsorship of non-Clear Channel stations.

Once again, we call on the FCC to investigate whether an artist's choice to play or not to play certain venues or to use or not to use a certain promotion company impacts that artist's position on or removal from radio station group play lists. We also call on the FCC and Congress to protect artists from being required or pressured to do free concerts or concerts at less than market rates at any venues owned by a radio station licensee in order to protect or enhance their ability to receive airplay of their music. We also request that the FCC and Congress protect an artist's right to negotiate fairly with companies like Ticketmaster that dominate the market and have exclusive contracts with the majority of performance venues.

Payola

Our May 2002 Statement called attention to de facto systems of payola under which programming decisions are influenced by varied forms of paid consideration and business relationships, rather than the merits of recordings. In our view, payola of this type has not abated. We reiterate our view that payments made or consideration provided to radio stations to influence playlists -- other than legitimate and reasonable promotional expenses -- must be prohibited, unless such payments are announced over the air. This includes payments made through independent radio promoters and considerations like free concerts or other services provided to radio stations.[3]

Our May 2002 statement focused on independent radio promotion as a disguised form of payola. We are gratified that, since the release of that statement, radio station owners Clear Channel and Cox Communications have announced that they will sever ties with independent radio promoters. However, Clear Channel's decision to abandon the increasingly controversial practice of independent radio promotion does little to protect artists and the public from future forms of payola. To the contrary, a recent press release by the company suggested that rather than using independent promoters, Clear Channel will now partner directly with labels to create in house promotional activities like "group-wide" contests involving artists.[4] This new promotional strategy does nothing to address our payola concerns and strikes yet another blow to localism. Since Clear Channel is a national radio group, their description of "group-wide" contests implies that they and other consolidated radio chains will very likely program from a centralized location and focus on artists with group-wide, i.e., national, appeal at the expense of artists with local appeal. This practice ignores the FCC principle that individual radio stations in radio groups are licensed to serve local communities. Furthermore, this practice, if implemented, will continue to harm local artists, making it nearly impossible for them to use their local popularity to garner local airtime and denying even the most successful local artists legitimate access to a local audience.

We are also worried that other in-kind exchanges may replace independent promotion and that radio stations will continue to select recordings for play lists based not on the merits of the recordings but on what the station “receives” in exchange for playing the song. These in-kind exchanges are more difficult to track but include a range of possibilities including artists playing for free or for a reduced rate at concerts promoted by the radio stations, or playing only at venues owned by the radio station’s parent company in order to receive a coveted spot on the playlist. These new partnerships may obscure pay-for-play exchanges and temporarily protect the radio companies from payola allegations, but they do nothing to protect the public or insure artists’ access to the public airwaves.

Widespread Radio Ownership Consolidation

A November 2002 study conducted by the Future of Music Coalition confirmed that radio consolidation has resulted in a loss of localism, less competition, fewer viewpoints and less diversity in radio programming in media markets across the country.[5]

We therefore reiterate our request that the FCC investigate the consolidation of radio ownership in light of the public interests that radio stations are charged to serve. The FCC must examine how consolidation affects the choice of music played on the radio, investigate the existence of national playlists, and clarify the role that consolidation has had on the skyrocketing costs of radio promotion.

Low Power Radio

Low Power FM stations are community-based, non-commercial radio stations that operate at 100 watts or less. Adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in January 2000, the Low Power FM service is designed to provide broadcasting outlets for local organizations – churches, schools, community groups, and unions – as an alternative to the many current centrally-programmed commercial stations that exist across the country.

Low Power FM stations can provide programming to meet the needs of specific and underrepresented groups including minorities, religious and linguistic communities, and can provide a much needed forum for debate about important local issues. LPFM stations strengthen community identity in urban neighborhoods, rural towns and other communities that are currently too small to win much attention from "mainstream," ratings-driven media.

Recording and performing artists, in particular, can benefit greatly by the creation and expansion of Low Power FM stations, giving them more outlets for airplay, especially on a local or regional level, or in genres that are currently under-represented on commercial radio.

In 2000, Congress directed the FCC to hire an outside entity -- the MITRE Corporation -- to conduct field tests to resolve the issue of Low Power FM's potential for interference with existing radio stations. In July 2003, the MITRE Study was released and the results concluded that the interference feared by incumbent broadcasters was not an issue. It will take congressional action to put Low Power radio back on track for serving a greater portion of America's cities. As artist advocates, we support the expansion of Low Power FM stations, and see this service as one of the antidotes to the effects of media concentration.

Conclusion

As advocates for artists and creators, we remain concerned about the problems that are caused or exacerbated by radio ownership consolidation and vertical integration in the radio industry. Some radio group owners may have severed ties with independent promoters, but other forms of payments and consideration are likely to develop if they are not checked by appropriate oversight and rules. Clear penalties must be established for radio station licensees who attempt to use their leverage to force artists to perform for free, to perform at less than market rates, or to perform in specific venues that are more beneficial for the licensees. Furthermore, we call on Congress to examine whether radio stations are serving the public interest by contributing to localism and independence in broadcasting – an issue that the FCC failed to address in its recent media review – and to ensure that the FCC has regulations in place that will uphold the public interest. Finally, we urge Congress to vote to reauthorize the FCC to relax their overly stringent interference protections and allow Low Power radio stations to be licensed in more densely populated areas.

Respectfully submitted by the following organizations:

American Federation of Musicians (AFM)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
Artist Empowerment Coalition (AEC)
Association for Independent Music (AFIM)
Future of Music Coalition (FMC)
Just Plain Folks Music Organization (JPF)
Music Managers Forum (MMF)
Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI)
National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM)
Recording Artists' Coalition (RAC)

Footnotes:

1. Joint Statement on Current Issues in Radio, May 24, 2002. http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/radioissuesstatement.cfm
2. Pollstar’s 2003 Mid-Year Business Analysis, July 2003 http://www.pollstaronline.com/my2003biz.asp
The charts displaying the top 50 promoters are available to Pollstar subscribers only. http://www.pollstaronline.com/PSOHome.asp
3. Eric Boehlert, “Pay for Play”, Salon.com, March 14, 2001. http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html
Eric Boehlert, “Will Congress Tackle Pay for Play?” Salon.com, June 25, 2002.
http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/06/25/pfp_congress/
Eric Boehlert, “Radio’s Big Bully”, Salon.com series on Clear Channel, radio, and pay for play. Salon.com, 2000-2002. http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/06/25/pfp_congress/
4. “Clear Channel Cuts Ties with Independent Promoters”, April 9, 2003. http://www.clearchannel.com/documents/press_releases/20030409_Corp_Indies.pdf
Greg Kot, “We haven't seen the last of pay-for-play”, Chicago Tribune, April 13, 2003. http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi0304130407apr13,1,668938.story
“Clear Channel Appoints In-House ‘Format Liaisons’: 12 Programmers Will Work Directly With Labels, Artists On Group-Wide Promotions”, Friday Morning Quarterback, April 15, 2003.
5. Future of Music Coalition, “Radio Deregulation: Has It Served Citizens and Musicians?” November 18, 2002. http://www.futureofmusic.org/research/radiostudy.cfm

The RIAA is suing "liquidlevel," one of Moby.com's board members!

Moby "can't see any good in coming from punishing people for being music fans and making the effort to hear new music." Right on dude!

He says he's tempted to use Kazaa to download some of his own music, just to see if he got sued.

Of course, they probably wouldn't, once they knew it was him. Because presumably, Moby is the copyright owner of his own music.

But this raises other questions about a musician's right to use the internet to promote themselves -- even if the record company says "no." Why would a record label punish an artist for trying to promote themselves (to sell more records or concert tickets)? It just doesn't make sense.

This all has a lot to do with the revolution that I have predicted (or instigated, depending on how you look at it :-)

Moby Tour Diary Update - RIAA 9/29/2003 - New York City

so apparently the riaa are sueing one of our very own moby.com board members, liquidlevel, for file-sharing.
personally i just can't see any good in coming from punishing people for being music fans and making the effort to hear new music.
i'm almost tempted to go onto kazaa and download some of my own music, just to see if the riaa would sue me for having mp3's of my own songs on my hard-drive.
-moby

There's a revolution going on guys, and it starts today!

Musicians are going to stand up for their right to use the Internet to promote their music.

Listeners are going to stand up for their right to not be spied on and treated as criminals for sharing that music.

Ready, set....GO!

Here's an awesome MP3 that will serve nicely as its theme song (courtesy of Zug):
RIAA Phone Call

Here's more information about it.
(Thanks, Jason.)

Lyrics:

well i recollect the days when music was free
you could tape from the radio, burn a CD
now the RIAA wants to know about me
my address, my number, my ISP
yo, bitches, ain't we still got privacy?
why the president be lettin' you spy on me
how many tricks they gonna be lettin you try on me?
trying to be spying on my MP3s

But you protect YOUR corporate privacy
Keep your phone number hidden from the bourgeoisie
Your customers have to play hide and seek
So here's the number to call if you disagree

775-0101
775-0101
202-775-0101

why's the RIAA starting litigations
the cops should be looking for the real perpetrations
the killers, the racists, the rapists
'stead of fucking with us for saving to our hard disk
raise your middle finger if you feel me loc
these fucking subpoenas are a fucking joke
leave us alone, throw us a bone
like i did with your mom that time at your home

There's NO SUCH THING as bad publicity
Even if you giving it out for free
So join us in the twenty-first century
Where we find our new songs on MP3s
Embrace the new technologies
Grokster, Kazaa, and P2P
So call this number now, and help them see
And if you call from work, your call is free!

775-0101
775-0101
202-775-0101

202 is the area code and we're dialin'
775 and then we be smilin'
0101-1-cary sherman
well isn't this fun it's ZUG.com

you know, they've never been fair to the bands.
now the riaa takes a stand?
can't believe we're getting preached to by the man
so what's the plan, stan? I've got a short attention span.

they've gotta change up the music industry
make it all available on MP3
listen to people like you and me
and make us wanna pay a monthly fee

this song is now my lyrical catastrophe
go ahead and grab it, it's completely free
aint gotta pay a dime to listen to me
So share this song and fuck the industry

That's funny, I thought scalping was immoral and illegal, and that there were laws against it and stuff. It sure seems like it when the cops arrest people in front of venues for doing so.

I guess it's OK when a corporation stands to make the profit from such practices.

What I want to know is: how are the increased ticket revenues going to make their way back to the artists? My guess is that they're not. Consumers will be hit with exorbitant ticket prices (when ticket prices are already too high for many to even go to concerts anymore). So fewer people will go to shows, and that means smaller crowds for artists. Only Ticketmaster stands to benefit from this system. It will keep track of the auction prices. It will redistribute the profits as it sees fit.

The article says that "venue operators, promoters and performers will decide whether to participate," but I wonder how many artists have enough weight to have any say in the matter. I wish that artists really did have the power to refuse to play concerts using this auction system. Some of the larger acts might be able to do this. It will really depend on which acts care about all of their fans, and which acts only care about their rich fans. Only time will tell.

Ticketmaster Auction Will Let Highest Bidder Set Concert Prices
By Chris Nelson for the NY Times.

With no official price ceiling on such tickets, Ticketmaster will be able to compete with brokers and scalpers for the highest price a market will bear.

"The tickets are worth what they're worth," said John Pleasants, Ticketmaster's president and chief executive. "If somebody wants to charge $50 for a ticket, but it's actually worth $1,000 on eBay, the ticket's worth $1,000. I think more and more, our clients - the promoters, the clients in the buildings and the bands themselves - are saying to themselves, `Maybe that money should be coming to me instead of Bob the Broker.' "

EBay has long been a busy marketplace for tickets auctioned by brokers and others. Late last week, for example, it had more than 22,000 listings for ticket sales.

Venue operators, promoters and performers will decide whether to participate in the Ticketmaster auctions, Mr. Pleasants said. In June, the company tested the system for the Lennox Lewis-Vitali Klitschko boxing match at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. The minimum bid for the package - two ringside seats, a boxing glove autographed by Mr. Lewis and access to workouts, among other features - was $3,000, and the top payer spent about $7,000, a Staples Center spokesman, Michael Roth, said.

Once the auction service goes live, Ticketmaster will receive flat fees or a percentage of the winning bids, to be decided with the operators of each event, said Sean Moriarty, Ticketmaster's executive vice president for products, technology and operations.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/01/technology/01TICK.html?ex=1063435225&ei=1&en=a951a7fd146551eb

Ticketmaster Auction Will Let Highest Bidder Set Concert Prices

September 1, 2003
By CHRIS NELSON

Three years after Ticketmaster introduced ticketFast, its online print-at-home ticketing service, consumers have so embraced it that the company now sells a half-million home-printed tickets for sporting and entertainment events each month in North America. Where ticketFast is available, 30 percent of tickets sold are now printed at home, said the company, which is by far the nation's largest ticket agency.

But consumers - many of whom have complained for years about climbing ticket prices and Ticketmaster service charges - may be less eager for the next phase of Ticketmaster's Internet evolution.

Late this year the company plans to begin auctioning the best seats to concerts through ticketmaster.com.

With no official price ceiling on such tickets, Ticketmaster will be able to compete with brokers and scalpers for the highest price a market will bear.

"The tickets are worth what they're worth," said John Pleasants, Ticketmaster's president and chief executive. "If somebody wants to charge $50 for a ticket, but it's actually worth $1,000 on eBay, the ticket's worth $1,000. I think more and more, our clients - the promoters, the clients in the buildings and the bands themselves - are saying to themselves, `Maybe that money should be coming to me instead of Bob the Broker.' "

EBay has long been a busy marketplace for tickets auctioned by brokers and others. Late last week, for example, it had more than 22,000 listings for ticket sales.

Venue operators, promoters and performers will decide whether to participate in the Ticketmaster auctions, Mr. Pleasants said. In June, the company tested the system for the Lennox Lewis-Vitali Klitschko boxing match at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. The minimum bid for the package - two ringside seats, a boxing glove autographed by Mr. Lewis and access to workouts, among other features - was $3,000, and the top payer spent about $7,000, a Staples Center spokesman, Michael Roth, said.

Once the auction service goes live, Ticketmaster will receive flat fees or a percentage of the winning bids, to be decided with the operators of each event, said Sean Moriarty, Ticketmaster's executive vice president for products, technology and operations.

Along with home printing, auctions are central to "a new age of the ticket," Mr. Pleasants said. In the second quarter of this year, tickets sold online, with or without home printing, represented 51 percent of Ticketmaster's ticket sales. The rest were sold by phone or at walk-up locations.

Ticket Forwarding allows season ticket holders for several sports teams (including the New York Knicks, Rangers and Giants) to e-mail extra tickets to other users, with Ticketmaster charging the sender $1.95 per transaction.

TicketExchange provides a forum for season ticket holders to auction tickets online. The seller and buyer pay Ticketmaster 5 percent to 10 percent of the resale price, a fee the company splits with the team.

In the case of the ticketFast home-printing service, buyers pay an additional $1.75 to $2.50 per order, with the fee set by the event operator. Home printing has won converts among people who want tickets immediately, instead of receiving them by mail or a delivery service or having to stand in line at a will-call window.

One satisfied customer is Brian Resnik, 29, of Tampa, Fla., who says the home-printing fee is a bargain compared with the $19.50 that Ticketmaster charges for two-day shipping through United Parcel Service.

But some other users, who praised the convenience of home printing, objected to being charged an extra fee.

"It's kind of mind-boggling to me," said Joe Guckin, 41, of Philadelphia, who used ticketFast to buy tickets for a Baltimore Orioles home game last season. "You're printing up the ticket, on your printer at home, your paper, your ink, etc. - and you have to pay for that?"

The company replies that home-printing consumers are helping to pay for the technology that makes the service possible.

Ticketmaster has spent $15 million to $20 million to outfit almost 700 stadiums, arenas, theaters and concert halls in this country and Canada with bar-code scanners that read and authenticate the tickets and computers that capture information such as which seats are filled and which doors have the most traffic, Mr. Moriarty said. In 2003, the company has sold 400,000 to 600,000 ticketFast tickets each month.

Some ticketFast customers, like Diane DeRooy, 52, of Seattle, complain that Ticketmaster assesses a lot of fees even before levying the print-at-home charge. A ticket to see Crosby, Stills & Nash on Friday at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, N.J., for example, carries $13.80 in venue, processing and convenience fees, plus a $2.50 charge for the home-printing option. Without the fees, a ticket costs $30.25 to $70.25.

Many of those customers are skeptical about Ticketmaster's plans to auction the best seats to concerts.

"The band's biggest fans ought to have the best seats, not the band's richest fans," said Tim Todd, 47, of Kansas City, Mo., who used ticketFast recently to buy tickets for a concert by the rock group Phish. Ticketmaster would be, in essence, official scalpers, Mr. Guckin said, voicing a sentiment expressed by some other customers.

Industry watchers agree that auctions will affect all concertgoers. Prime seats are undervalued in the marketplace, said Alan B. Krueger, a professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, who has studied ticket prices. He predicts that once auctions begin revealing a ticket's market value, prices as a whole will climb faster.

Gary Bongiovanni, editor of the concert industry trade magazine, Pollstar, predicted that all ticket prices would become more fluid. After a promoter assesses initial sales from an auction, remaining ticket prices could be raised or lowered to meet goals.

The notion of ticket auctions is annoying, Mr. Resnik said, but he is resigned to them.

"I guess the capitalist inside me would say, `Hey, if that's what they can get for tickets, I guess that's just something I can't afford, like a yacht and a Learjet.' "

AFTRA RALLY AGAINST CLEAR CHANNEL March 27 12:30 P.M. - 2 P.M.

(Clear Channel is an organizer of pro war rallies;
sent a memo to their 1000+ stations suggesting they
NOT play John Lennon's "Imagine" and a multitude of
other songs right after 9/11; has links to Bush
Administration; and also are accused of unfair
practices by artists touring who, in order to get
airplay on their stations in certain markets, must use
Clear Channel promoters.)

* * *

original call from AFTRA:

American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
March 2003

AFTRA

New York
Local

AFTRA RALLY
at BRYANT PARK,

Thursday, MARCH 27th at 12:30 PM

Clear Channel Communications,
the owner of WKTU, WLTW, WAXQ, WWPR, and WHTZ,
wants the right to fire DJs and replace them with
cheaper, out-of-state announcers who pre-record shows
through a process called "voice-tracking."

Clear Channel Communications wants to take the
hometown voices out of New York City radio.
COME TO THE RALLY TO
SUPPORT AND MEET
THE DJs YOU LISTEN TO EVERYDAY!

Bryant Park
42nd Street and 6th Avenue at the Fountain
Thursday, March 27th
12:30 pm - 2:00 pm

For more information contact:
Broadcast Department,
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists,
New York Local

www.keepnyradiolive.com
(212) 532-0800

It is a fight we are in together.

Natalie Merchant, No Strings Attached
By Jon Pareles for the NY Times.

When her Elektra contract expired in August 2002, she chose not to renew it or to seek a deal with another major label. "I would make a big-budget pop album, followed by a year of touring and promotion and then some downtime for recovery," she said. "I don't even know if I was writing music that was appropriate for that mold." Instead she will release her next album, a collection of traditional songs called "The House Carpenter's Daughter," on her own label, Myth America Records. It is to be released June 1 through Ms. Merchant's Web site, nataliemerchant .com, and July 1 in stores.

Recorded on a modest budget, marketed primarily to existing fans and not relying on radio exposure, "The House Carpenter's Daughter" breaks free of the commercial pressures that have turned major-label releases into risky gambles that can cost a million dollars in promotion alone. In contrast, Ms. Merchant's transition suggests the model of a sustainable career for a musician who is no longer eager to chase hits.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/arts/music/13NATA.html

Natalie Merchant, No Strings Attached
By JON PARELES

Natalie Merchant has stepped off the pop treadmill. After 17 years with Elektra Records, first as the main songwriter and singer of 10,000 Maniacs and then with million-selling solo albums of her reflective folk-rock, Ms. Merchant decided to go it alone.

When her Elektra contract expired in August 2002, she chose not to renew it or to seek a deal with another major label. "I would make a big-budget pop album, followed by a year of touring and promotion and then some downtime for recovery," she said. "I don't even know if I was writing music that was appropriate for that mold." Instead she will release her next album, a collection of traditional songs called "The House Carpenter's Daughter," on her own label, Myth America Records. It is to be released June 1 through Ms. Merchant's Web site, nataliemerchant .com, and July 1 in stores.

Recorded on a modest budget, marketed primarily to existing fans and not relying on radio exposure, "The House Carpenter's Daughter" breaks free of the commercial pressures that have turned major-label releases into risky gambles that can cost a million dollars in promotion alone. In contrast, Ms. Merchant's transition suggests the model of a sustainable career for a musician who is no longer eager to chase hits.

"The business is going one way, and Natalie's going another," said her manager, Gary Smith, also the general manager of Myth America.

Ms. Merchant has little to lose. "I'm in a privileged position," she said by telephone from Hawaii, where she lives part of the year; she also has a home in upstate New York. "I'm beyond financially independent. I had a lot of success, and I gathered together a very large audience. And I was in a rare position, because my material was unorthodox as the pop-hit mold went, but I was able to sell multiplatinum albums and have relatively large hits."

When a musician is signed to a label, the company pays for recording and promotion, then recoups expenses from the musician's royalties while retaining ownership of the finished recordings. (Elektra still owns Ms. Merchant's catalog; Rhino Records, distributed by the AOL Time Warner conglomerate that includes Elektra, is releasing a 10,000 Maniacs retrospective this summer.) A label also uses its expertise and clout to market and distribute an album.

Ms. Merchant paid for recording and packaging "The House Carpenter's Daughter," including the $3.50 manufacturing cost of an elaborate box for the first 30,000 copies. (The CD will sell for $16.95.) The special package "was printed in America for three times the price in Hong Kong," Ms. Merchant said.

"It's just not in keeping with American business practice right now," she added.

Even so, "The House Carpenter's Daughter" needs to sell only 50,000 copies to break even, less than 15 percent of what "Motherland," her last album for Elektra, sold.

"We're not trying to recoup some enormous debt," Mr. Smith said. "The economics of making this record are very prudent. When we sell 200,000 copies, we'll be standing on our chairs, hollering. If we released this record with these kinds of goals on a major label, we would look like a failure. At Elektra, if you just sell 1.5 million, everyone goes around with their heads down."

Ms. Merchant is not the first well-known musician to become independent. Prince, after battling Warner Records over his desire to release more music in a year than the label thought it could market, started his own company, NPG, and has since released double- and triple-CD sets at whim. Todd Rundgren markets his music directly to subscribers to his Web site, patronet.com.

"For those already through the door, doing it on your own is incredibly viable," said Jay Rosenthal, a music-business lawyer who represents the Recording Artists' Coalition. "It's going to be very attractive, and it's going to be a viable alternative even for bands who are doing well. The only reason to go to the major labels is to get your songs on the radio, to go for the promo money. If you don't need to get on the radio, and you've got a name, go out there and go for yourself. If there's any moment that artists should do it, it's now, before things get worse."

He added that some musicians would have no choice, as he expected major labels to cut their rosters by 30 to 50 percent in the next year...

Here's Cory answering a question from the audience about file formats and longevity:

"I think that, in general, promiscuity is a better longevity strategy than longevity itself. I think having one copy that's armor-plated is a less effective strategy for having your work last than having a bizillion copies." -- Cory Doctorow.

Audio - Cory Q and A (Lo-res 3 MB)
Cory Q and A - ALL (Hi-res 74 MB)
Cory Q and A - ALL (Lo-res 32 MB)
Cory Q and A - Part 1 of 2 (Lo-res 18 MB)
Cory Q and A - Part 2 of 2 (Lo-res 14 MB)

Don't Sever a High-Tech Lifeline for Musicians
By Janis Ian for the LA Times

The entertainment industry has a long history of trying to shut down new technology. Most often, it has imagined that new products and services threatened industry sales. It's been proved wrong time and time again; it fought home video tooth and nail, but videotapes and rentals now bring in more money than movie releases. Music history is littered with record industry campaigns against reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, minidiscs, music videos and MTV.

Verizon is appealing the decision, and it is vital that the judge's ruling be overturned.

The RIAA says it is doing all this to make more money for me and other artists like me, but don't be fooled. Many musicians would lose money, many fans would be denied a universe of new choices and the possibilities of Internet music would be cut off before the revolution even begins.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-ian2feb02.story

Los Angeles Times - latimes.com

Home | Register | Home Delivery | Site Map | Archives | Print Edition | Advertise | Feedback | Help
Join now!
RegisterMember Services
Marketplace
• Careers
• Cars
• Homes
• Rentals Marketplace
• Newspaper Ads
• Personals

Art, Theater, Night Life
Movies, Music, TV, Dining
print edition
Front Page
Inside "A"
California
Business
Sports
Calendar
Editorials, Op-Ed
Weekly
Health
Food
Highway 1
Sunday
Books
Calendar
Magazine
Opinion
Real Estate
Travel
TV Times

The World
The Nation
California / Local
Business
Politics
Sports
Technology
Travel
Editorials, Op-Ed
Sections
Arts & Entertainment
Books
Chess
Columns
Education
Food
Health
Highway 1
Kids' Reading Room
Magazine
Obituaries
Real Estate
Religion
Science
Sunday Opinion
Times Poll
Week in Focus
For the Record
Editions
Print Edition
National (PDF)
Wireless
NewsDirect
Extras
College Connection
Sweepstakes
Crossword
Horoscope
Lottery
Traffic
Weather
Multimedia
Archives

Enter Keyword(s):

Detailed Search
SITE MAP

Subscription Services
(800) 252-9141 Home Delivery Subscriptions
NewsDirect
Gift Subscriptions
College Discount
Mail Subscriptions
Additional Subscription
Information & FAQs

Marketplace
• Careers
• Homes
• Cars
• Rentals
• Newspaper Ads
• Personals
• Times Guides
• Recycler.com
LA Times Initiatives
Times in Education
Reading by 9
LA Times Books
LA Times Family Fund
Times-Mirror Foundation
Community Events
Inside the Times
Partners

KTLA
La Opinion

February 2, 2003
E-mail story Print

COMMENTARY
Don't Sever a High-Tech Lifeline for Musicians


Times Headlines


Countdown to War

Countdown to War

American Education: Still Separate, Still Unequal

The Male-Heavy World of Science

U.S. Ignores Putin's Assault on Rights

more >

Subscribe
OPINION


By Janis Ian
The Recording Industry Assn. of America recently won a court ruling that effectively will cut off the recording artists it represents from new listeners.

In RIAA vs. Verizon, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that anyone suspected of downloading so-called "infringing" files on the Internet -- usually an MP3 of a song -- could be sued. No evidence is required. An accuser fills out a form for a court clerk and the machinery is set in motion.

The record companies say this decision will mean more money for musicians, but they have it backward. The downloaded music they're shutting off actually creates sales by exposing artists to new fans.

If this ruling stands, many smaller musicians will be hurt financially, and many will be pushed out of the music business altogether.

I've been a recording artist for nearly 40 years, with top-selling songs such as "Society's Child," "At Seventeen" and "Jesse." Six months ago, I began offering free downloads of my songs on my Web site. Thousands of people have downloaded my music since then -- and they're not trying to steal. They're just looking for music they can no longer find on the tight playlists of their local radio stations.

That's how many artists gain new listeners these days -- through the Internet.

After I first posted downloadable music, my merchandise sales went up 300%. They're still double what they were before the MP3s went online.

I'm not going to make a fortune selling these extra recordings, but it does add up to a few thousand dollars a year. That's a welcome bit of additional income for me and for the vast majority of artists who don't sell as many records as Nelly and Ja Rule.

The Internet means exposure, and these days, unless you're in the Top 40, you're not getting on the radio. The Internet is the only outlet for many artists to be heard by an audience bigger than whoever shows up at a local coffeehouse. The Internet allows people like me to gain new fans; if only 10% of those downloading my music buy my records or come to my shows, I've just gained enough fans to fill Carnegie Hall twice over.

With the court's decision, the RIAA didn't just defeat Verizon, the Internet service provider that the RIAA sued. It damaged the viability of recording artists who don't conform to the mainstream musical tastes of the moment.

Do you like '50s-style acoustic folk? Big band music? European synth? If the decision stands, you'll have to rely on word of mouth to find it -- not the Internet. Because if you get hold of an "infringing" file, you may find yourself on the receiving end of a record company lawsuit too expensive for any individual to fight.

The entertainment industry has a long history of trying to shut down new technology. Most often, it has imagined that new products and services threatened industry sales. It's been proved wrong time and time again; it fought home video tooth and nail, but videotapes and rentals now bring in more money than movie releases. Music history is littered with record industry campaigns against reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, minidiscs, music videos and MTV.

Verizon is appealing the decision, and it is vital that the judge's ruling be overturned.

The RIAA says it is doing all this to make more money for me and other artists like me, but don't be fooled. Many musicians would lose money, many fans would be denied a universe of new choices and the possibilities of Internet music would be cut off before the revolution even begins.

*

Janis Ian is a singer, songwriter and recording artist with nine Grammy nominations. Web site: www.JanisIan.com.

Janis Ian is getting some major ink in USA Today:
Music industry spins falsehood

Many artists now benefit greatly from the free-download systems the RIAA seeks to destroy. These musicians, especially those without a major-label contract, can reach millions of new listeners with a downloadable song, enticing music fans to buy a CD or come to a concert of an artist they would have otherwise missed.

The RIAA and the entrenched music industry argue that free downloads are threats. The music industry had exactly the same response to the advent of reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, DATs, minidiscs, VCRs, music videos, MTV and a host of other products and services.

I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. Copyright protection is vital. But I do object to the industry spin that it is doing all this to protect artists. It is not protecting us; it is protecting itself.

I hope the court rejects the efforts of the music industry to assault the Internet and the music fans who use it. Speaking as an artist, I want us to work together -- industry leaders, musicians, songwriters and consumers -- to make technology work for all of us.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20021023/4557245s.htm

10/23/02
Page 13A

Music industry spins falsehood

By Janis Ian

The recording industry says downloading music from the Internet is ruining our business, destroying sales and costing artists such as me money.

Costing me money?

I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing: If a record executive says he will make me more money, I'd immediately protect my wallet.

Still, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is now in federal court trying to gain new powers to personally target Internet users in lawsuits for trading music files online. In a motion filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the RIAA is demanding that an Internet service provider, Verizon, turn over the name and contact information of one of its Internet subscribers who, the RIAA claims, might have unauthorized copies of songs on a home computer.

Attacking your own customers because they want to learn more about your products is a bizarre business strategy, one the music industry cannot afford to continue. Yet the RIAA effectively destroyed Napster on such grounds, and now it is using the same crazy logic to take on Internet service providers and even privacy rights.

The RIAA's claim that the industry and artists are hurt by free downloading is nonsense. Consider my experience: I'm a recording artist who has sold multiple platinum records since the 1960s. My site, janisian.com, began offering free downloads in July. About a thousand people per day have downloaded my music, most of them people who had never heard of me and never bought my CDs.

Welcome to 'Acousticville'

On the first day I posted downloadable music, my merchandise sales tripled, and they have stayed that way ever since. I'm not about to become a zillionaire as a result, but I am making more money. At a time when radio playlists are tighter and any kind of exposure is hard to come by, 365,000 copies of my work now will be heard. Even if only 3% of those people come to concerts or buy my CDs, I've gained about 10,000 new fans this year.

That's how artists become successful: exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, and no one buys CDs. After 37 years as a recording artist, when people write to tell me that they came to my concert because they downloaded a song and got curious, I am thrilled.

Who's really hurt by free downloads? The executives at major labels who twiddled their thumbs for years while company after company begged them to set up ''micropayment'' protocols and to license material for Internet-download sales.

Listen up

Many artists now benefit greatly from the free-download systems the RIAA seeks to destroy. These musicians, especially those without a major-label contract, can reach millions of new listeners with a downloadable song, enticing music fans to buy a CD or come to a concert of an artist they would have otherwise missed.

The RIAA and the entrenched music industry argue that free downloads are threats. The music industry had exactly the same response to the advent of reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, DATs, minidiscs, VCRs, music videos, MTV and a host of other products and services.

I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. Copyright protection is vital. But I do object to the industry spin that it is doing all this to protect artists. It is not protecting us; it is protecting itself.

I hope the court rejects the efforts of the music industry to assault the Internet and the music fans who use it. Speaking as an artist, I want us to work together -- industry leaders, musicians, songwriters and consumers -- to make technology work for all of us.

Janis Ian's popular-music credits include 17 major-label albums, nine Grammy nominations and 37 years of experience in the music industry.

There's a big industry in renovated, santized content. But nobody's asking the creators of that content for permission to alter the creative nature of their artwork. Yuck.

I remember seeing a story on the news about a company that was "cleaning up" Titanic. "This couldn't be legal or OK with the directors," I mused. Well it turns out it is illegal -- there are laws against altering movies and reselling them under the same name. And the directors are plenty pissed about it too.

See the story by Rick Lyman for the NY Times:

Hollywood Balks at High-Tech Sanitizers

"This is very dangerous, what's happening here,"
said Jay D. Roth, national executive director of
the Directors Guild of America. "This is not about
an artist getting upset because someone dares to
tamper with their masterpiece. This is fundamentally
about artistic and creative rights and whether
someone has the right to take an artist's
work, change it and then sell it."

Here's the entire text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/movies/19CLEA.html

September 19, 2002

Hollywood Balks at High-Tech Sanitizers
Photofest
New technology can clean up popular films like "Titanic."
By RICK LYMAN

OS ANGELES, Sept. 18 — After months of watching a gradual proliferation of companies offering sanitized versions of Hollywood hits to sensitive or politically conservative consumers, movie studios and filmmakers have decided it is time to get a handle on this phenomenon.

"This is very dangerous, what's happening here," said Jay D. Roth, national executive director of the Directors Guild of America. "This is not about an artist getting upset because someone dares to tamper with their masterpiece. This is fundamentally about artistic and creative rights and whether someone has the right to take an artist's work, change it and then sell it."
Advertisement

The issue goes well beyond this small, growing market in cleaned-up movies, whether it's taking the violence out of "Saving Private Ryan" or the nude scenes from "Titanic." As the entertainment industry moves into the digital age, and as more movies and other entertainment forms are reduced to easily malleable electronic bits, the capability will grow for enterprising entrepreneurs to duplicate, mutate or otherwise alter them.

"We're just beginning to understand that this is part of a wider issue," said Marshall Herskovitz, the veteran writer, director and producer. "As long as something exists as digital information, it can be changed. So as a society we have to come to grips with what the meaning of intellectual property will be in the future."

To filmmakers, who point to a federal law that prohibits anyone from altering a creative work and then reselling it with the original title and artist's name attached, it is a simple question of artistic rights.

"If people can take out stuff and do what they want with it and then sell it, it just completely debases the coinage," the director Michael Apted said. "You don't know what version of a film you're buying, frankly. I think it's ridiculous." To the studios the implications concern both copyright and branding. "This is all new to us," said Alan Horn, president of Warner Brothers. "We're all trying to understand it. But it doesn't sit well with me, frankly, because these people could go the other way, too, with more sex and more violence."

To the companies involved in selling these altered versions — or software that does the altering for you — the question is one of consumer choice. "We leave it entirely up to consumers where their comfort level lies," said Breck Rice, a founder of the Utah company Trilogy Studios, whose MovieMask software can filter out potentially offensive passages. "People get to choose for themselves."

At issue is a string of companies, based largely in Utah and Colorado, that offer edited videotapes and DVD's or software that allows users to play any DVD with the offensive passages automatically blocked.

One of the earliest to enter this field, a Utah company called CleanFlicks, has a chain of rental stores that offer sanitized versions of more than 100 Hollywood films, like "The Godfather" and "Mulholland Drive." Video II offers what it calls E-rated films (cleaned up versions of box-office hits) at several dozen Albertson's retail stores in Utah.

MovieMask has a different approach. Its software can be downloaded onto home computers and will shortly be available embedded into laptops and DVD players that can be connected directly to televisions. The software allows the consumer to watch more than three dozen possible versions of a movie, including the original one shown in theaters. It works only on films, about 75 so far, that have been watched and tagged by MovieMask editors.

Both the numbers of such companies and their reach have expanded in just the last few months. One company, ClearPlay, already offers its software embedded into a $699 DVD player. Another, Family Shield Technologies, offers a set-top box for $239.99 it calls MovieShield that offers its own array of filters, including making the screen go blank during offensive moments.

Although CleanFlicks has been operating for more than two years, it was not until MovieMask executives made a series of presentations around Hollywood in March that the issue came to the fore.

"We came to show them what our technology was capable of doing, purely to grab their attention," Mr. Rice said. "It certainly did that."

The directors were not pleased by what they saw. A swordfight from "The Princess Bride" (1987) was altered so it looked like the characters were using "Star Wars" light sabers. The scene from "Titanic" (1997) of Leonardo DiCaprio sketching a nude Kate Winslet has been altered by covering her with a digital corset. These are currently available from MovieMask but were intended to show the software's potential, Mr. Rice said. What it did, however, was to mobilize the directors and their organization to find a way to put a stop to this.

Last month the owner of several CleanFlicks stores in Colorado filed suit against 16 top Hollywood directors, including Steven Spielberg, asking the court to declare that what CleanFlicks was doing was perfectly legal. The company argues that anyone who buys a work of art is free to alter it, and that CleanFlicks is only providing a service to those who have already purchased copies of the film or become members of its rental club. CleanFlicks officials did not return calls for comment today. But Jeff Aldous, a lawyer for the company, said it had no knowledge of the Colorado lawsuit before it was filed and did not support it. "We realize there's going to be an issue at some point in time that we've got to discuss," he said.

Perhaps as early as this week the Directors Guild will file a response to the lawsuit, probably including some counterclaims. And for the first time, the major Hollywood studios, which have been strangely silent on this issue, may also support the action.

Exactly why the studios have not joined the fray is not entirely clear. But several people involved in the talks between the studios and the directors and writers guilds said the problem was a difference of opinion among the studios about the whole issue. They said some felt that the proliferation of these companies showed that a market existed for sanitized products, so perhaps the studios themselves should get into that business. Others felt that the market was too small to be worth the costs, especially since some video chains had indicated they would stock only one version of a film to conserve precious shelf space. And still others were more worried about protecting their brands.

"If you're a studio that's spent a lot of money developing a 'Spider-Man' brand, do you want to dilute it by having a `Spider-Man Lite' on the market competing with it?" asked an executive involved in the talks.

Officials for the clean-movie companies point out that Hollywood already does release sanitized versions of movies to airlines and some television networks. But directors respond that those versions are made with input from the filmmakers.

"That's exactly what we're trying to do here," said Mr. Rice of Trilogy Studios. "We want them to a part of our process, too. We believe that the technology is available today where everyone can win."

And if the directors are upset about what they have seen so far, they probably will not like to hear that MovieMask just signed a contract with a product-placement company to insert products into existing films, perhaps even region by region.

"The law as it stands now is just not sophisticated enough," Mr. Herskovitz said. "I think there won't be a satisfying solution until the laws are all rewritten."

Calif. Legislature Widens Probe of Music Contracts

State Sen. Kevin Murray, one of the Democratic legislators spearheading the probe, said on Monday a new hearing set for Sept. 24 would examine a range of accounting practices that artists' lawyers and managers allege cheat their clients out of millions of dollars each year.

"Clearly we are just generally looking at whether artists are treated fairly," Murray said...

While Murray earlier this month withdrew a bill which would have addressed many of those complaints, he said the legislature would continue to gather information with an eye to passing a comprehensive package of "artists rights" bills early next year.

"There is clearly some momentum and we continue to move forward," Murray told Reuters. "People are now thinking about artists rights, and about making California an artist-friendly state. These are creative people, and we want them to live here."

To prepare for the next set of hearings, the state Senate Rules Committee will issue a number of subpoenas to follow up on charges that the world's five largest recording companies use complex accounting procedures to cheat artists out of money that is their due.

Here's the complete text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=769&u=/nm/20020826/music_nm/leisure_artists_dc_4&printer=1

Calif. Legislature Widens Probe of Music Contracts
Mon Aug 26, 6:12 PM ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Reuters) - California's legislature has deepened its probe into music industry contracts, looking into charges that recording companies defraud pop stars through accounting tricks such as special deals with mail-order record clubs and video channels.

State Sen. Kevin Murray, one of the Democratic legislators spearheading the probe, said on Monday a new hearing set for Sept. 24 would examine a range of accounting practices that artists' lawyers and managers allege cheat their clients out of millions of dollars each year.

"Clearly we are just generally looking at whether artists are treated fairly," Murray said.

California's legislature has already held one set of hearings into the recording industry's treatment of music artists following a high-profile lobbying effort by the Recording Artists Coalition (RAC), led by stars like Eagles frontman Don Henley, Sheryl Crow and the Dixie Chicks.

The artists have complained that they are bound to contracts for over seven years -- longer than talent in other entertainment industries -- and are subject to multimillion-dollar lawsuits by recording companies for failing to deliver albums and fulfill other obligations under contract conditions they say are impossible to meet.

While Murray earlier this month withdrew a bill which would have addressed many of those complaints, he said the legislature would continue to gather information with an eye to passing a comprehensive package of "artists rights" bills early next year.

"There is clearly some momentum and we continue to move forward," Murray told Reuters. "People are now thinking about artists rights, and about making California an artist-friendly state. These are creative people, and we want them to live here."

To prepare for the next set of hearings, the state Senate Rules Committee will issue a number of subpoenas to follow up on charges that the world's five largest recording companies use complex accounting procedures to cheat artists out of money that is their due.

Several of the specific allegations include charges that recording companies have rigged the music video business to enrich themselves without adequately compensating artists, and that music company deals with mail-order record clubs also shortchange artists by delivering far lower royalty levels than retail music outlets.

Artist representatives also charge that recording companies use accounting tricks to underpay royalties for music which is sold overseas -- a charge record companies have denied.

The Recording Industry Association of America ( news - web sites) (RIAA), which represents all the big labels, including Bertelsmann AG ( news - web sites)'s BMG, EMI Group Plc ( news - web sites), AOL Time Warner Inc. , Vivendi Universal and Sony Corp ( news - web sites)., declined comment Monday, saying it was not in a position to discuss business deals which may be negotiated by individual companies.

The industry trade group had earlier said it was willing to make concessions to resolve the artists' concerns, but that they were holding out for terms that could not be met.

Entertainment lawyer Don Engel, who has represented both artists and record labels, said he was hopeful that the legislative examination of recording industry contracts would result in a fairer deal for artists.

"I tell people that if you want to be in the business, you are going to sign with a company that is going to cheat you," Engel said.

I love my boys, and this whole situation makes me just sick. Right now, there's no way for them to win. Newton says they didn't offer him enough money, and then says he would have never given them permission in the first place -- money or no.

This isn't encouraging for artists that try to take the time to track other artists down to ask their permission -- what if they say no?

It also sucks to find out your song is on a famous album -- and nobody told you or bothered to try to track you down (since Newton is a professor at a major university, I doubt it would have been that hard to find him).

It seems like we need compulsory licensing for samples, so people don't need permission, but can still get paid fairly.

At the same time, this ruling suggests that Newton didn't need to be notified or paid for the use of his work -- surely that's not a precedent worth supporting!

The Flute Case That Fell Apart
-- Ruling on Sampling Has Composers Rattled
by Teresa Wiltz for the Washington

Composers are nervously keeping an eye on the case,
wondering what kind of precedent it will set if Manella's
ruling is upheld...Licensing a sample is a two-part
process: Permission is needed from both the record
label and the composer. The Beastie Boys licensed
the sample from Newton's record label, Munich-based
ECM, but neither the company nor the group got
permission from Newton. Manella's ruling in effect
said that since the sample was a recording and not
a composition, his permission wasn't needed.

"The ruling in this case will have a chilling effect
on musically creative artists," says Richard Kessler,
executive director of the American Music Center,
a New York-based arts service organization with
more than 3,000 composers in its membership.
Kessler said his organization is considering
joining an amicus brief with other musical
organizations for the appeal.

As Kessler sees it, "the idea that the judge
would take a look at these six notes and
determine that they are not original and
didn't warrant protection, it's something
musical artists, composers will and should fear."

Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47321-2002Aug21.html

The Flute Case That Fell Apart
Ruling on Sampling Has Composers Rattled

By Teresa Wiltz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 22, 2002; Page C01

This is how jazz flutist James Newton found out -- eight years after the
fact -- that he was on a popular rap recording: A student strolled into his
class and said hey, prof, I didn't know you performed with the Beastie Boys.

Newton wasn't happy. A six-second snippet of his song "Choir" was a featured
attraction in the 1992 Beastie Boys hit "Pass the Mic." He says that he's
never received any compensation for the band's use of the recording and that
the Beastie Boys never bothered to ask his permission.

Finding out that the song had made it onto a "Beavis & Butt-head" cartoon
only fueled his ire. Newton, a professor at California State University, Los
Angeles, says that if he'd been asked, he never would have granted his
permission. So in 2000 he sued the Beastie Boys, charging the group with
copyright infringement. And, to his surprise and rage in June, he learned
he'd lost the case.

In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Nora M. Manella said that Newton's
sequence was basically a "recording," for which Newton and his publisher had
already been compensated, as opposed to a "composition," and that it was
"unoriginal as a matter of law." (She also denied a motion filed by the
Beastie Boys seeking reimbursement from Newton for almost $500,000 in legal
fees.) Newton is appealing the decision, and has taken to the Internet in
search of support.

The case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
pits Newton, a critically acclaimed avant-garde jazz flutist and former
Guggenheim fellow, against the Beastie Boys, a rap group known for both its
innovation in sampling (the use of snippets of other artists' recordings)
and for its progressive politics.

Composers are nervously keeping an eye on the case, wondering what kind of
precedent it will set if Manella's ruling is upheld.

At issue are complicated questions of copyright law, and whether Newton's
permission was needed for the "Choir" sample. Licensing a sample is a
two-part process: Permission is needed from both the record label and the
composer. The Beastie Boys licensed the sample from Newton's record label,
Munich-based ECM, but neither the company nor the group got permission from
Newton. Manella's ruling in effect said that since the sample was a
recording and not a composition, his permission wasn't needed.

"The ruling in this case will have a chilling effect on musically creative
artists," says Richard Kessler, executive director of the American Music
Center, a New York-based arts service organization with more than 3,000
composers in its membership. Kessler said his organization is considering
joining an amicus brief with other musical organizations for the appeal.

As Kessler sees it, "the idea that the judge would take a look at these six
notes and determine that they are not original and didn't warrant
protection, it's something musical artists, composers will and should fear."

Says Billy Taylor, jazz pianist, composer and Kennedy Center fixture: "If I
create something, whether I create it in my head or on some electronic
machine, it's just as finite as if I write it on a sheet of paper. It
doesn't matter if it's not written down if it's something he created,
whether he whistled it or hummed it."

The sequence in question is a six-second sample of "Choir," a 1982 recording
during which Newton simultaneously sings notes while playing the flute using
an overblowing technique, creating a "multiphonic" composition. The segment,
which was inspired by Newton's Southern Baptist roots, opens "Pass the Mic,"
and then loops repeatedly throughout the piece. The Beastie Boys album
"Check Your Head," released in 1992, went multi-platinum. The Beastie Boys
continue to perform the song in concert, and it appears on a DVD released in
2000.

The Beastie Boys' attorney, Adam Streisand, did not return a phone call
requesting comment. In a prepared statement, Mike D of the Beastie Boys
said: "We have dealt with this entire matter legally and fairly from day
one. It's clear by the judge's rulings that she agreed as well. It's
unfortunate that Mr. Newton wouldn't reason with us earlier and that it had
to come to this."

Newton said that the Beastie Boys offered to compensate him for the use of
his material but that the figure was "insulting." Neither he nor his
attorney, Alan Korn, would comment on the amount of the offer. A
spokesperson for ECM said that the label tried to contact Newton, but the
flutist had moved and the company did not have a current telephone number.
The label mailed him a check, for a modest amount, the standard fee for
licensing agreements, but it was returned for lack of a forwarding address.

This isn't the first time the Beastie Boys were sued for copyright
infringement related to sampling, nor is it the first time that a rapper has
been sued for sampling. In a 1991 landmark ruling, Biz Markie lost a court
case for sampling Gilbert O'Sullivan's 1977 hit "Alone Again (Naturally)" in
his song "Alone Again." His record "I Need A Haircut" on which the single
appeared, was subsequently pulled from the shelves.

"For my music to be dispelled by the court in this fashion was a very
difficult pill for me to swallow," Newton said.

"It sounds racist to me," Taylor said. "Pure English. Here's a [judge] who's
saying if it's not written in the old European form that I may have heard
about from someone who studied Mozart," it's not a legitimate composition.

It actually sounds like they might not be offering much of anything, but it makes a great press release. (I mean article.)

Here's the Reuters/Variety story by Sue Zeidler:
Companies Offer Concessions in Artist Dispute.

Boy it sure would be cool if they could pull that "retroactive" thing off. I will be one surprised puppy if it happens though. Good luck guys!

here's the text in case the link goes bad in the future:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=768&e=1&cid=769&u=/nm/20020808/music_nm/music_artists_dc_1

Music Companies Offer Concessions in Artist Dispute
Thu Aug 8,12:49 AM ET

By Sue Zeidler

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The world's biggest music labels on Wednesday said they have offered major concessions to a group of angry pop stars to try to settle a high-profile dispute regarding recording industry contracts.

But a representatives for the artists, who have been lobbying for a change to California labor law, said that a settlement was still not in sight.

"I want the artist community to know that the record companies came to the table with substantial compromises and it's now in the artists' hands," said Hilary Rosen, president and chief executive officer of the Recording Industry Association of America ( news - web sites) (RIAA).

Rosen said the RIAA, which represents all the big labels, including Bertelsmann AG ( news - web sites), EMI Group Plc ( news - web sites), AOL Time Warner Inc., Vivendi Universal and Sony Corp ( news - web sites)., has offered several key concessions during negotiating sessions in recent months.

But Jay Cooper, one of the entertainment attorneys involved in the negotiations on behalf of the artists, said the two sides were still apart on several major issues.

"I don't want to negotiate in the press," Cooper said. "It's too delicate. There are too many issues. Whether we'll settle or not, I have no idea."

The negotiations have come in part at the urging of the California lawmakers who are considering a repeal of a controversial amendment to the state labor code that allows recording to be tied to record contracts for more than seven years, longer than talent in industries like television and sports.

The bill proposing that change was the result of lobbying by the Recording Artists Coalition, led by stars like Don Henley, Sheryl Crow and the Dixie Chicks, who banded together against the labor code amendment.

The record label concessions offer significant restrictions on the amount of damages labels could seek from an artist who breaks his contract after seven years compared to current law.

Another concession would allow artists, in many cases, to satisfy significant obligations and avoid damages by delivering just one additional album, even if the contract requires more.

"This could be a historic agreement. It would dramatically reshape the artist-label relationship and instill critical certainty into the marketplace at a time when the entire industry needs it," Rosen said.

The biggest hurdle to reaching a deal was the issue of retroactivity, Rosen said. Artists' representatives want to make contract changes rendered by any deal retroactive, she said.

If applied retroactively, for example, an artist who signed a six-album deal and received handsome upfront advances could walk away after two albums, she said.

"The record company would be limited to damages on two albums instead of four, regardless of how much had already been invested. That's simply not fair and it's bad public policy," she said.

The dispute between the two sides has come amid a broader artist rights movement. In the past few months, Rev. Al Sharpton and attorney Johnnie Cochran launched a movement to reform record label business practices.

Janis Ian has written a great followup to her Internet Debacle article.

Here's an article for more backround about this situation, of which I just heard of today for the first time, and am not claiming to know anything about.

Nevertheless, I found the letter below (that was forwarded to me on a mailing list) pretty interesting:

To whom it may concern,

It seems like a real "Weird Nightmare" to be writing you this email. For the last two years I have been involved in a suit because the Beastie Boys sampled a part of my composition "Choir" and did not contact me for permission. They did not change in any way what they sampled from "Choir". It begins with the sampled six and a half seconds and loops in the song over forty times. "Pass the Mic'" has appeared in CD, MP3, LP, and DVD formats.

The law clearly states that to use someone else's music one must contact and receive permission from both the record company and the copyright owner. "Choir" was registered with the copyright office and ASCAP in 1978. My publishing company JANEW MUSIC controls 100% of the rights. Nevertheless the Beastie Boys only contacted and received permission from ECM Records and ignored me.

The case went up for summary judgement one month ago and Judge Nora Manella of US Federal Court ruled against me!!!!!!!!!!! She stated as a fact of law that my music was unoriginal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The liner notes of Axum begins with a quote from the New York Times that "James Newton is the most accomplished and original flutist now playing Jazz".The year that Axum was released (1982) was also the first year that I won the Down Beat International Critics Poll as the best jazz flutist. The judge must feel that her opinion is more significant than all of the experts in the field.

The six and a half second sample consists of three sung notes C,Db ,C and a held flute harmonic C2, as a result of the combination of voice, harmonic and a balanced distribution of each a series of shifting multiphonics are created. She ignored the multiphonics because they weren't written on the score and said that there are just three notes in the score which aren't protectable. If you go to the Beastie Boy's DVD of the piece "Pass the Mic" to signify the song their is only my flute sample and a drum beat . There is a spectrograph that moves wildly when my multiphonics are played. If there was only one pitch the movement would be minimal. She also consistently used European paradigms to judge my music. An aria from Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas" and Cole Porter's "Night and Day" were examples of what is protectable. "Choir" is about four black women singing in a church in rural Arkansas. This work is a modern approach to a spiritual. As you well know, one would be hard-pressed to find multiphonic fingerings in most jazz scores, even when multiphonics are used!!!! If I'm writing for a classical ensemble I'll write out the multiphonic fingerings because of how notation is used in that culture of music.

Spirituals come out of the oral tradition, and if they are notated they're in the most simplest form which is the way that I wrote out "Choir" On the same LP one can find "The Neser" which is influenced by Ravel and is a 8-minute work for flute quartet where everything is written out except a short alto flute cadenza. I certainly didn't become dumb when I dealt with my own culture in "Choir." The urgency of this letter is that after unjustly winning the case the Beastie Boys have filed a motion with the court for me to pay their legal fees of $492,000 after they stole my music. I have already spent a considerable amount of money for a creative musician and college professor. This would, of course, send me into bankrupcy, and I stand a chance of losing my home and all that I have worked for through the years. If you can spread the press release around to your colleagues in the European press, it will help the cause greatly. The more newspapers, magazines and journals that this is placed in will help. Please inform us of any press that appears so that we can use it in our legal endeavors. Also any of you that are heads of organizations or lawyers please contact my lawyer, Alan Korn (aakorn@igc.org), and he can give you the information of where to send Amicus letters.

This decision is a dangerous one that would affect jazz composers and other composers that choose to write in other ways. I have had plenty of training to write all of my scores in the most eurocentric Boulezian fashion but why should I be forced to to please a Judge who has very limited musical knowledge, certainly little of the Afro-American musical tradition. The strain on this trial and subsequent rulings have been immense. It has curtailed much of my artistic output because of the seriousness of this situation. For many years I have tried to give much as an artist and educator to the world community. This is a time when I have to now ask for your help. I have never sued anyone in all of my years on the planet up to this point. I am fighting for my rights and the abilty to express myself in my own and any other cultural perspective that I choose as an artist. Please spread this around as much as possible.

Yours in music and freedom,

James Newton

All's well that ends well, I suppose. The Dixie Chicks were basically demanding more cash and it looks like they got it. Good for them.

See the L.A. Times article by Chuck Philips:
Dixie Chicks, Sony End Feud With a New Deal.

In what at first appeared to be an annoucement straight out of left field, it turns out that Al Sharpton and artists rights have a lot more in common than first meets the eye, via Sharpton's National Action Network.

Check out this little ditty from Billboard (registration required so I have cut and pasted it from an email sent to me):
Sharpton To Call For Changes In Music Biz.

Sharpton To Call For Changes In Music Biz

Billboard Bulletin:

June 05, 2002,

Cochran, Sharpton To Call For Changes In Music Biz

Seeking to end what they call the "subservient way" major record labels treat recording artists, lawyer Johnnie Cochran and the Rev. Al Sharpton will today hold a news conference in L.A. in which they plan to propose "radical changes" for the music industry.

Operating as the legal arm of Sharpton's New York-based National Action Network civil-rights organization, Cochran is seeking meetings with the majors to "try and get a sense how [artist] relationships and contracts are evolved," according to a spokesperson. Changes they plan to propose include a system that would emulate the free-agency market that exists in professional sports; presumably this would give artists greater opportunities to shop their services to the highest bidder.

The RIAA did not return calls for comment. -- Erik Gruenwedel, L.A.

Let me preface this yap by stating that this is when I yap on this blog about Creative Commons it is me yapping as an artist and a technologist "at-large" and not necessarily in my official capacity as Technical Architect for Creative Commons. (Though most likely if I were to get official about it, the information I am conveying would not change. It might, however, be a lot more official-sounding.)

That said, my answer to a Slashdot reader seemed like it might be of interest to interested parties :-)

...the point I made was that if a commercial entity wished to use a work (in this case I was talking about one of my own songs) for say, a movie soundtrack, after I had released it under an "Attribution" (required) "Non-commercial" Custom License, that commercial entity would still have to contact me directly for such use (to presumably pay me money for such use, as such use would constitute infringement of its terms of use otherwise).

So I never said that our licenses would be used for commercial deals -- but I still apologize for my not being clearer with my example as it has apparently caused some confusion for my audience.

And I do see these licenses as having great potential to promote artists in commercial ways, yes. Artists that have a bevy of songs might want to release one or two under one of our licenses to get tunes out into the artistic community before a concert tour, for instance, or to sell t-shirts or the other kinds of "commercial" shwag, after the music itself has been "given" away.

I would also just like to clarify that we are absolutely *not* trying to water down the notion of what constitutes "public domain", and that's why the two "forks" of the conceptual prototype I demonstrated at E-tech (for our contributor licensing application) are very clearly split off in the beginning: you are creating a Public Domain Dedication *or* a Creative Commons Custom License that allows you to impose terms more restrictive than the Public Domain but less restrictive of copyright.

So the idea is to provide licenses that enable artists to either donate to the public domain outright (currently there is NO easy way for them to do so -- you literally have to pay money to figure out how to give you work away...) OR to donate their works in the "spirit" of the public domain (using a CC custom license) without giving the rights away to that movie studio who wants to use the song on a soundtrack. (which would be the case with a public domain track).

That said, I still think the public domain option could have commercially-powerful uses.

For instance, a movie studio may decide to use independent, popular, public domain works on a soundtrack that is *sold* -- what a way for the studio to save money, sure, but also what a way for a no name (like me) to even have a chance of being considered for such a soundtrack.

It goes both ways. My advice to everyone is this: If you are AT ALL WORRIED about the implications of putting your work into the public domain: don't do it -- use one of our Custom Licenses instead.

Wait until you've had a chance to understand fully both the legal implications and potential benefits of putting your work into the public domain, and can do so with complete confidence.

The point is to give artists a choice to contribute to (and reap the benefits of) a world-wide connected artistic community, if they're into it.

Thanks,

Lisa Rein
Technical Architect
Creative Commons
lisa@creativecommons.org