Digital Freedom

The Proof Is In - DRM-Free MP3s Driving Music Sales

2008-07-07T07:09:00.001-07:00

At the Digital Freedom Campaign we do our best not to say 'I told you so' - wait, who are we kidding? We love it! And here's another chance for us to say it - the major labels have long insisted that without DRM protection of their digital content, and finally began capitulating throughout last year. Now WebUser is beginning to report the results, and as we predicted, making MP3's available DRM-Free is having a seriously significant positive affect on sales of at least one company, 7Digital. The proof is in - it turns out consumers really are willing to pay for content that they can use when they want, where they want, and how they want.

Associated Press Declares War on Bloggers, Fair Use

2008-06-30T14:46:00.000-07:00

By Mehan Jayasuriya of Public Knowledge, a Digital Freedom Partner

I’ve been plying my trade as a blogger for quite a while—okay, well, “quite a while” in blog years, anyway. During that time, I’ve learned that the old guard print journalists and their scrappy web counterparts don’t always see eye-to-eye on matters of citation and attribution. On the web, the mantra has always been “share and share alike”: most bloggers generally quote and cite each other freely, returning the favor in the form of a link. This works because the Internet economy runs on page views, which are equally coveted by advertisers, writers and business folks alike. Unfortunately, some content producers with roots in the print world, most notably the large wire services, have failed to understand this unspoken code of conduct. I know that I’m not the only one who has worked for a web publication that received a stern letter from the likes of Reuters or Bloomberg, which essentially said “don’t cite, quote or link to our content”. Sure, this proved to be an inconvenience at times—sometimes the major wire services had exclusive stories that no one else had—but to avoid a legal squabble, the easiest thing to do was to simply stop linking to and quoting from the offended party. After all, if these services want to shoot themselves in the foot, why not simply let them? Here’s why: because rights holders, including the major wire services, do not get to decide what is and isn’t fair use under the law.
As you probably know, the reason I’m bringing this up now is because of the Associated Press’ (AP) decision last week to go after parody news site Drudge Retort for linking to and printing short quotes from AP articles. Unlike some of the other wire services, the AP graciously allows bloggers and other Internet journalists to quote their articles—for a price. That’s right, if you want to quote an AP article in your blog post, you’ll be paying by the word for the privilege. What’s more, in order to purchase a license to quote AP content, you’ll have to agree to a Terms of Use agreement, which states, among other things, that you may not criticize either the AP or the author of the article in your post or article. If you do, the AP reserves the right to revoke the license granted.
The problem with the AP’s licensing structure is that it ignores existing fair use rights, which clearly state that a short quotation from any news story is fair game. “Sure, the AP has a copyright in its articles and can prohibit blogs from reposting those articles,” Greg Beck over at Public Citizen writes. “But the AP has no right to impose a tax on brief quotations from AP news stories for the purpose of referencing, discussing, or criticizing those stories and their authors. The right to quote a reasonable amount from a news story for purposes of commentary or criticism is guaranteed by the right of fair use in the Copyright Act, and by the First Amendment.”
Luckily, the blogosphere isn’t taking this one sitting down. Michael “one of the most famous people on the Internet” Arrington over at TechCrunch issued a call to arms, which resulted in an almost instantaneous boycott of AP stories on the web. In response, the AP announced that it would “rethink its policies toward bloggers.” While that's nice and all, there really isn't much here to think about. As Greg Beck points out, the AP still seems to be operating under the assumption that “it has the right to decide how much of its stories bloggers can use.” Fair Use rights apply to all news stories, with or without the AP’s blessing--end of story.
For better or for worse, that doesn’t seem to be a concept that the AP is willing to understand. So, here’s something they should understand: an invoice. Blogger Michelle Malkin decided to calculate, using the AP’s licensing structure, how much the AP owes her for quotations it has used from her blog posts in recent months (it’s also worth noting that the AP did not link to her blog in the articles where these quotes were used). By Malkin’s count, the AP owes her somewhere in the neighborhood of $132,125. “And there are a few other bloggers quoted recently by AP who should consider sending joke bills, too,” Malkin writes. Is there any chance that the AP will start paying bloggers? For the answer to that question, I’ll refer you to the image above.

Thanks to gapingvoid for the dinosaur cartoon and to our own Alex Curtis, who pointed me in its direction.

The Sims and Fair Use

2008-06-27T06:45:00.000-07:00

We’ve almost gotten jaded.

Everyday, it seems, someone sends us another homemade video or mashup featuring a transformative “fair use” application of digital content.

Every once in a while you see something so creative, so mindblowing, that you simply have to share.

So here's ours for the day: The top ten fan-made rap videos using the Sims. Enjoy.

The Music Business is Alive and Well at Bonnaroo

2008-06-23T14:32:00.000-07:00

In a wonderful article in todays New York Times musicians discuss how the concert business is booming despite the purported troubles of the music industry.

Many of these performers describe how they drive audiences to their concerts using social networking and mp3 downloads.

Essentially, they succeed by leveraging the new rules of the digital economy: use the abundant goods (digital files) to drive a market for the scarce goods (performances, merchandise, personal interaction with the band).

As Joel Cummins of Umphreys McGee puts it:

“If we can break even on a recording, then the rest of the business will take care of itself. I think that the Internet gives us a way of getting connected with our fans. We get to make the kind of music we like — it’s definitely a little more complicated than just three chords and the truth — and use a long-tail business model to find and play for people who want to see what we can do live.”

This is no surprise: in a culture awash in music, more people than ever are interested in hearing if played live. If this trend continues, a difficult time for the “music industry” may turn out to be a great time for musicians.

The Kin from Car park to YouTube to Army Wives

2008-06-19T23:36:00.000-07:00

From the Digital Freedom Campaign: As an example of the new immediacy created by the Internet and digital technologies, The Kin wrote the song "Time" on an airplane in 3 hours on a flight between NYC and LA. When they landed in LA, they recorded the song in a car park and it was up on YouTube thanks to the WebShow.TV on May 1, 2008. Now a mere month and a half later this same song "Time" was featured on the critically acclaimed Lifetime show "Army Wives" on June 15th.

More from the The Kin - The Ambassadors of Music - Our conversation continues as they discuss how they create new opportunities using digital techonology.

Music is digitally free and it is exciting to be a part of this time. It feels like it not only is bringing bands closer to their fans, but the production process is right next to the audience.

So when we write a new song, we get on a video camera and play it in a car park or something and we put it up on YouTube. And literally the time between writing it and listening to instead of being, not what it used to be, a year or a year and a half, it is now that day and we get feedback or people’s response immediately.

It is now more about the relationship with listeners, we have become human to them. Maybe it takes out some of the mystery or sparkle. It takes away the anonymity and the fans feel more like you in a way and they feel closer to you.

In the last six months we have really begun to see the potential of the endless ways you can relate to your fans, we are the Ambassadors of our music. This is the opposite of what you are taught as an Artist going into the music business. Back in the day there was an isolation between the Artists and the audience, a barrier. And so much of what we are doing today is building one fan at a time.

The people who come close and want to buy content from you, they are the lifeblood. You have to throw away the idea that it is not going to be a business. It is about making a living.

There has to be a new way. If you love something, there will be a bunch of fans who will love it too.

"You've Been Stealing From the Artist For Years, Now You Want Me To Stand Up For You?"

2008-06-19T08:46:00.000-07:00

That's what Kid Rock told his record label, Warner Music, when they asked him to publicly denounce file sharing. We couldn't have said it better (nor would we want to). Kid Rock has more spot-on observations to offer in a great interview with the BBC, such as "the internet was an opportunity for everyone to be treated fairly, for the consumer to get a fair price, for the artist to be paid fairly, for the record companies to make some money." Reading forward-looking quotes like this from a major label artist is beyond refreshing. This interview is symbolic of what inspires our campaign, and encapsulates everything we stand for.

Digital Freedom Rocks Capitol Hill

2008-06-13T07:46:00.000-07:00

In celebration of the innovation made possible by the digital revolution, the Digital Freedom Campaign last night hosted a “DJ for a Day” event, allowing artists, innovators, and consumers to demonstrate how they use digital technology and what digital freedom means to them.
Featuring Digital Freedom Campaign Artist of the Month The Kin, the event at Lounge 201 on Capitol Hill brought together policymakers and digital innovators to demonstrate how digital technology and balanced fair use rights have propelled an increasingly vibrant independent music scene.
“Digital technology has blown open the traditional ways that artists can get their music out there to people and let them know about it,” said Isaac Koren of The Kin. “From ringtones to ‘per click’ ad revenue and downloads on digital TV, the artist and their audience now have fewer boundaries between them and more ways for the artist to earn a living.”
Check out our photos: http://gallery.mac.com/t1bbs#100015

Digital Freedom and Politico partner for "DJ for a Day" Event

2008-06-11T08:08:00.000-07:00

The Digital Freedom Campaign protects the rights of artists, innovators and consumers to use digital technologies free of unreasonable restrictions or punitive lawsuits. Come join the Campaign for a first-hand look at how digital technology and balanced fair use rights have propelled musical innovation and the increasingly viable independent music scene. Be a DJ for a day, wielding your iPod from behind a DJ deck and providing music for the event! Bring your iPod, cue up your favorite songs, plug in and rock out to your favorite tunes. You may even end up rocking beside some D.C. celebrity DJ’s! Digital Freedom band the Kin (www.myspace.com/thekin) will be on hand to perform and speak briefly about the importance of new digital technologies to independent musicians and their fans. Music, food and drink will be provided.
Date: June 12, 2008Time: 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Venue: Lounge 201
Address: 201 Massachusetts Avenue, NE**Must be 21 or older to attend
**This event is by invitation only – those wishing to attend should email rsvp@digitalfreedom.org

A Funeral for DRM

2008-06-10T06:07:00.000-07:00

Is DRM dead? The Harvard Free Culture Chapter seems to think so, going so far as to hold a funeral, or zuneral, for DRM last week. The Digital Freedom Campaign would like to send our condolences. While DRM was a nemesis of everything we stand for, it was a worthy foe who stayed alive much longer than anyone could have expected, or wanted. Its impact on the industry's ability to give the customer what they want was significant, although wholly negative. So long DRM, you can be proud of the fact that you were the technology the consumer loved to hate.

Happy Anniversary to you ...

2008-06-09T14:46:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to The Copyright Alliance from the Digital Freedom Campaign on its one year anniversary and its launch of the “one voice” campaign. We welcome ‘one voice” to join us in the very important mission of educating and advocating individuals and artists in the creative community about the importance of their voices to the issue of copyright in the Digital Age. The Digital Freedom Campaign has been out in the field for close to two years on a mission to protect and educate artists and consumers, spreading the word at concerts, festivals, forums, and conferences across the country. We are proud to already count thousands of artists, bands and independent labels, as well as education institutions and consumer groups among our partners. We represent 290 million Americans who lawfully record, listen, enjoy and create digital content in the times and places of their choosing, while enjoying the extraordinary benefits of the digital age. We also represent the interests of the eleven million Americans whose livelihoods depend on the principle of copyright, whose industry will thrive if and when they provide consumers reasonable and convenient access to authorized content.

We’ll look forward to seeing “one voice” on the road - perhaps we can even share travel expenses!

Isaac and Thorry from The Kin speak about Digital Freedom

2008-06-04T18:27:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, Digital Freedom band, The Kin played at the Rock and Roll Hotel in DC. Wow, what a show. Before taking the stage we talked to them and asked them to share some thoughts about what Digital Freedom means to them. Here is what they had to say:

When we give away our music we are saying to you (the fan), this is a gift. Stay with us and continue to be a part of what we are doing.

We have been thinking that it is time to make the physical product more divergent and interesting than anything else you can get. It is the album that connects the fan to the experience.

Perhaps our fans could come to our shows with jump drives and we could load them at our shows. That should be free or we could even give away jump drives filled with our music.

This is a beautiful idea. Free music has brought us back to the essence of music and has taken us away from the physical, which is really a distraction from music. There is nothing physical about music - it is intangible. That is one of the greatest things about Digital Freedom.

Mötley Crüe’s No Motley Fool

2008-06-03T12:20:00.001-07:00

Last month, the rock band Mötley Crüe began selling their new single “Saints of LA” exclusively through the video game Rock Band—representing the first time a band has released a song exclusively through a video game. As it turns out, it was a smart move. Mötley Crüe has announced they have sold 80,000 copies of the song—more than double the sales from Amazon.com and iTunes combined. It's another new way for the music industry to find paying customers online. It’s yet another indication that the music industry is slowly, glacially figuring out how to make money. Now, imagine if the Crüe gives players what they want, and allows them to save their versions of the songs to their computers and iPods.

Kidz in the Hall on BTR

2008-06-03T07:48:00.000-07:00

Check out DF Hip Hop band Kidz in the Hall's interview on the Matt & Emily show on BreakThru Radio.
Every Friday a Digital Freedom artist is interviewed on the Matt & Emily show. Thanks BreakThru radio for helping to get the word out!

Okay, this is a joke, right?

2008-05-29T08:43:00.000-07:00

The Consumerist’s “Worst Company in America 2007”; yep, you guessed it – the infamous Recording Industry Association of America – wants to charge us all a PIRACY TAX!?! We hear through the grapevine that content company lobbyists, including the RIAA, are still talking to Capitol Hill about slapping a tax on our monthly Internet bills to compensate the record labels for “piracy.”

Wait, it gets better. If you haven’t heard about it, the plan is to make us ALL pay $5/month, whether you download a million songs, four songs, or none at all. And they don’t care whether you do it legally or illegally, peer-to-peer, or just use the Internet to send email to your grandmother. You’ve got an Internet connection; well, then you pay the tax. No soup for you.

Any reasonable person would think that this latest stunt wouldn’t pass the most basic of straight face tests, but if you’ve been paying any attention to our friends up north, the Canadian record industry has actually succeeded in some of this, putting a tax on blank, writable CDs. Even if consumers buy the CDs just to back up their documents, the record industry gets the fee. And here’s another dirty little secret from right here in the States -Microsoft Zune users already pay a hidden fee to Universal Music when they buy Zune because Universal assumes that people buy it for piracy.

If the overall climate for hi-jinks like this were more reality-based, we could get a really good laugh out of this stuff, but it’s not. Right now, reality bites. The RIAA continues to sue their own customers, is trying to get Congress to pass laws that withhold financial aid for students whose universities don’t monitor what they’re doing online, and they want to enlist the ISPs as copyright police forces. Dan Glickman, head of the all powerful Motion Picture Association of America, has also jumped in the pool, coming out swinging against the Open Internet, claiming that it “impede(s) our ability to respond to consumers in innovative ways”. We can’t even respond to that in a way becoming of the somewhat professional tone of this blog.

All we can say to this, we suppose, is hang on. This ride’s GOING TO GET a lot wackier before it gets better.

What do you think? Let us know...

Removing DRM Has No Effect on Piracy Levels

2008-05-21T06:52:00.000-07:00

The results are in. The Guardian last week wrote a comprehensive article on the state of DRM, including statistics detailing the affect that removing DRM from music tracks has had on piracy levels. Quoting from the article: "The industry has finally been able to get some hard data about how removing DRM restrictions from legitimately purchased tracks affects piracy," says Bill Rosenplatt, DRM specialist and president of GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies. "The statistics show that there's no effect on piracy."

These statistics prove our assertion (along with many, many others) that DRM does nothing to prevent piracy, serving only to annoy and alienate legitimate consumers. This is an amazing finding, and one that will hopefully inform the record industry and digital music distribution services that while curbing piracy is a noble effort, DRM does not help achieve that goal and could in fact detract from it.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

2008-05-15T11:51:00.000-07:00

While the Digital Freedom Campaign in no way condones copyright infringement (nor do we deny the right of record labels to sue infringers of its content), we have always felt that excessive infringement damages causes a chilling effect on innovation and needs to be addressed by Congress. According to Ars Technica, Universal feels the same way...when they are defendants, that is.

The case in question involves a successful lawsuit against Universal by the owners of an unlicensed sample on the late Notorious B.I.G.'s album Ready to Die. Universal appealed the ruling, calling the punitive damages "grossly excessive" and "far above the line of unconstitutional impropriety." Those words sound exactly the same as the ones Universal vehemently objects to...when they are the plaintiffs. Hey pot, we heard the kettle was calling you black...

Issues regarding DMCA notices from the RIAA

2008-05-13T05:55:00.000-07:00

By: Mark Luker, Vice President, EDUCAUSE

As part of our investigation into the recent "spike" in DMCA notifications sent to campuses by the RIAA, EDUCAUSE has learned some details we believe will be of importance to many in the higher education community.

In particular, we've learned that DMCA notices are frequently triggered by the presence in a "shared folder" of a file whose distribution from that shared folder would be unauthorized, rather than by observation of an actual unauthorized transmission of such a file. For simplicity, we'll call these "folder-based" and "transmission-based" DMCA notices.

We are told that the RIAA's DMCA notices are almost completely folder-based, and have been so for many years. (The exception is BitTorrent, where actual transmissions do play a role in the process.) The RIAA says they believed campuses were aware of this but, based on conversations with IT staff from around the higher education community, we know that many campuses were not.

The distinction between folder- and transmission-based infringement claims is important to campuses for a variety of reasons:

1- Confirmation. Upon receipt of a DMCA notice, some campuses use resources such as NetFlow logs to "sanity check" the data included in the notice, attempting to confirm that the claimed infringement was consistent with recorded network activity at the indicated time. Network activity characteristic of a folder-based infringement claim is radically different from network activity characteristic of a transmission-based claim.

2- Judicial charges. In response to a DMCA notice, some campuses initiate formal or informal judicial charges against the individual associated with the identified IP address, apply administrative penalties, or notify the individual and log the complaint for possible future action. In order to appropriately carry out these and other related processes -- and to best capture the "teachable moment" -- the campus must know whether the notice is folder- or transmission-based.

3- Repeat notifications. We are told that the RIAA will not generally send multiple notices based on the presence of a particular file in a particular shared folder on a particular machine. If the IP address of such a machine changes, however -- as is the norm in DHCP-based networks -- it may appear to the RIAA that multiple folder-based infringements have occurred, and multiple notices for the same file on the same machine may be generated.

4- Network filters. Some systems -- such as Audible Magic -- attempt to block transmission of nominally infringing content but do not attempt to block visibility of files in shared folders. Such systems might thus be expected to lower the number of transmission-based notices but would have little or no effect on folder-based notices.

In considering how these observations impact your campus, note the following:

This message applies only to the RIAA's processes, not those of the MPAA or other content owners. Further, while the RIAA has stated that their DMCA notices are folder-based, they stress that their Early Settlement Letters and lawsuits are transmission-based.

EDUCAUSE takes no position at this time as to whether the presence of a file in a "shared folder" does or does not constitute copyright infringement. Different courts have rendered different opinions on this so-called "making available" theory, most recently rejecting the theory on April 29 in Atlantic v Howell (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/big-victory-atlantic-v-howell-court-rejects-making).

EDUCAUSE also takes no position as to whether it is or is not appropriate for campuses to impose judicial or other sanctions against community members based solely on folder-based infringement claims.

EDUCAUSE and our members take copyright infringement seriously, with campus policies and practices going far beyond what the law requires and far beyond those of commercial ISP's. Without a clear understanding of how DMCA notices are generated, campuses cannot implement their policies appropriately, and so we will continue to seek clarification on these details from the entertainment industry.

We note in closing that the distinction between folder- and transmission-based infringement has no direct bearing on the recent "spike" in DMCA notifications. The RIAA affirms that the spike is due not to an increase in infringing activity on campus networks, but simply to changes in the mechanism used to detect and report the presence of files in shared folders. The number of DMCA notices received by any campus thus cannot be meaningfully correlated with the amount of actual infringement taking place on the campus network. For this reason, EDUCAUSE believes that counting DMCA notices is a completely inappropriate measure of success in combating infringement and an equally inappropriate basis for comparing the amount of infringement taking place campus-to-campus or year-to-year.

Mark Luker, VP EDUCAUSE

RIAA AND MPAA NOW APPEARING AT DIGITAL HOLLYWOOD AS MONTY PYTHON’S THE BLACK KNIGHT

2008-05-09T06:57:00.000-07:00

Yet again, we are left scratching our heads at the big content companies. Much like the Black Knight’s protestations to King Arthur that “none shall pass!” in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the RIAA seems to believe that despite having no arms and no legs, digital rights management (DRM) is supposedly poised for a comeback. Equally disturbing were comments by the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) Fritz Attaway that the MPAA intends to wield DRM as a weapon to threaten consumers about their lack of rights.

In a panel discussion at the Digital Hollywood conference, the content world established that it still lives in a completely different world than its customers. While the rest of the marketplace continues to successfully move towards business models for the digital age, David Hughes, who according to CNET heads up RIAA’s technology unit, effectively ridiculed the progress that international music labels – and RIAA member companies – EMI, Sony BMG and the Universal Music Group, and major retailers Amazon.com and Wal-Mart have made by readily making DRM-free music available to consumers. The MPAA seemed more concerned with limiting its customers’ rights than actually doing business with them.

Meanwhile, back on earth, the rest of us have already figured out that digital freedoms equal digital profitability. Giving consumers what they want – digital music – the way they want it – without burdensome DRM (digital rights management) software that locks them up – pays dividends to all stakeholders in the digital world – including the content industry.

The Digital Freedom Campaign is compelled to remind these big content companies that consumers have also rights in the digital age, and those rights include the ability to enjoy the content they legally purchase. Content and consumer rights are not a zero sum game.

DRM has suffered far more than a flesh wound, and we’ve all crossed the bridge into the digital age. Hey content companies – wake up!

Vote for Digital Freedom Band Kidz in the Hall on TRL

2008-05-08T08:46:00.000-07:00

I am happy to report that after only 5 days since the premier, Kidz In The Hall's video for the single "Drivin Down The Block" jumped from not being in the countdown to #6 in front of artists like Chris Brown, Danity Kane, and Panic At The Disco!!!!! This is remarkable news but we're not content. Lets get it to number #1, and show the world that independent music is alive and kicking!! Here's the link, please GO VOTE!!! And thanks again for the continued support.

www.trl.mtv.com - and DONT FORGET, you can vote as many times as you want! So keep voting!

http://www.myspace.com/kidzinthehall

Posted by Todd Kane, Marketing Consultant for Kidz in the Hall

DFC Comments on Internet Freedom Preservation Act Hearing

2008-05-06T11:55:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON— The Digital Freedom Campaign responded to today’s hearing on H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008.

"We are most appreciative of the Committee for holding today’s hearing on Net Neutrality. And in many ways, we have outgrown the term, as what we are really talking about now is the Open Internet versus the Closed Internet. This is especially important because even at today’s hearing, we continued to experience the myths that distract us from addressing this. We must stop confusing the Open Internet and commercial piracy. Open Internet does not mean open season on copyrighted content. It does not mean all-you-can-eat content for free, rampant commercial piracy, rights holders without rights or outright stealing. Content and conduit are two entirely different considerations, and it is always when we mix up the two that we get ourselves into trouble.

As some testimony suggested today, we must resist the urge to deputize ISPs as the copyright right police as this could impose a host of unintended consequences. We believe that piracy must be prevented, but not at the expense of eroding the openness of Internet. These benefits have allowed new independent artists the opportunity to reach new listeners and build a fan bases. This is the exact type of benefit that needs to be protected and not derailed by short sided attempts to impose overreaching solutions to curb online piracy."

MTV WELCOMES KIDZ IN THE HALL

2008-05-01T18:21:00.000-07:00

For those of you who missed MTV's TRL on Monday, our very own KIDZ IN THE HALL got a huge boost with the premiere of their video, “Drivin' Down The Block." This is a massive opportunity for any band or artist, but particularly for an independent hip-hop band.

Posted by Digital Freedom Campaign band Kidz In The Hall.

We have to play a part in everything we do. Hip Hop is more independent than any other genre, except maybe rock -- they are both very linear and we have to grind to make things happen.

We were those college kids who were on Napster back in the day and that is one of the reasons I wanted to make music. I had instant access to music I had never heard before. Once I heard more of those words and beats it made me want to create music and do what I am doing now.

Some Artists don’t really want to work anymore, they don’t want to put free music out there and give the fans YouTube videos. Everything has changed. There are a lot of Artists who are not willing to take the initiative to promote themselves. Today’s music industry is driven by the smarter artist; they will have to adapt to that - otherwise they will be weeded out.

A way for me to - not only find and be a fan of music in any genre - is for one person to influence many. That one kid in the dorm room that heard your song, loves it, and his ability to play it for all of his roommates and on his floor is priceless. It just happened yesterday... and when we were being interviewed by a college DJ, he told us, “My roommate played your music over and over..." [This was a digital-only release.] "...He put me on to you guys and and shared it with his friends and lot of those students are in the audience at this show.” More important, these students are the decision -makers and they have the power to bring us back for another show.

Stuff that we put out on blogs, websites, and share, that’s what the kids are listening to - and it's important to do that because it is building anticipation for our album. For us it is all about enhancing the experience of our fans. We love to give them parts of us on the internet, with videos, new songs, and re-mixes. We can connect with our fans online but when we meet them in the person we can give them an entirely different experience.

Even if we are giving away our music online, we sell our CDs at the show. Most of those kids who already have it on their Ipod are buying our CD at the show. We are selling to those kids, they get CD artwork our autographs and they talk with us, they shake our hands, all that adds to the experience.

Support Artists because you help us in achieving our dreams. Listen to our music, read about us in blogs, if you like our music, let your friends know, come out to the shows. This is the future and we are on the cutting edge of technology.

Editor’s note: So let’s continue to support Kidz in the Hall. Use the power of the Internet and vote this video onto the TRL countdown!!!!!!

http://www.mtv.com/ontv/dyn/trl/TRLvoting.jhtml

BreakThruRadio Interview with Digital Freedom Artist Jonathan Coulton

2008-04-29T08:21:00.000-07:00

From the Shameless Plug Department - BreakThruRadio will be featuring a Digital Freedom Artist every Friday on the Matt and Emily show. Check out their interview with Jonathan Coulton, an amazingly innovative artist whose career epitomizes the way artists are using the Internet to build a fan base. Jonathan has always eloquently articulated the state of copyright law and the music industry, and the Digital Freedom Campaign is extremely fortunate to have him as an active partner of our campaign and a member of our Artist Advisory Board. Our favorite quote from his interview had to be "I don't think any band should sign over the copyrights of their songs to anyone else." Take a listen and let us know what you think. And thanks BTR for giving our artists a platform to share their views...and their music!

Orphan Works 2008: House and Senate Bills Introduced

2008-04-25T09:42:00.000-07:00

Posted by Alex Curtis of Public Knowledge, a member of the Digital Freedom Campaign

Two orphan works bills were introduced to begin to bring balance back to copyright law—to help find owners and encourage new and creative uses of unexploited copyrighted works. Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have introduced orphan works legislation (S. 2913, the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008, H.R. 5889: The Orphan Works Act of 2008), rooted in the same language based on the previous Smith Bill, which was based on the Copyright Office’s recommendation. It’s been a long time coming and from working with staff, I know they’re very happy to have the bills finally introduced. Reps. Howard Berman (D-CA),Howard Coble (R-NC), John Conyers (D-MI), Lamar Smith (R-TX), (Chairman and Ranking Members of House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property and Full Judiciary Committee Chairman and Ranking Member respectively) and Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and their incredible staff members are to be congratulated for working to address concerns of both the user and owner communities.
The concept behind orphan works is simple: after a fruitless search to find the rightful owner, a searcher may the use a copyrighted work without the fear of hefty copyright infringement damages. Independent and documentary film makers, libraries, archives, and museums all have collections of orphaned works that they would like to transform into new works or display, but because they cannot find the owner to ask permission or license the work, the threat of copyright infringement (which carries statutory damages as high as $150,000 per work) freezes them in their tracks. These users already conduct exhaustive searches to track down owners, but for 99.999% of these orphans, the owners cannot be found for a number of reasons: a work wasn’t registered, ownership was transferred but never recorded, a corporation went out of business, or the author died without heirs. The almost 20 page bills are drafted to address the 0.001% of the cases out there, to assure owners that the incentives for creation are not lost.
And both bills go a long way to address the fears of owners while at the same time trying to bring visual works owners into the 21st century. Safeguards are put in place to ensure that users put “diligent effort” into their “qualifying searches” (previously known as “reasonably diligent” searches). The Copyright Office will maintain and make available helpful search guidelines from owners and users in the industry and if challenged a court will consider whether the user’s actions were reasonable and appropriate for the circumstances and whether the user employed the applicable best practices. This will promote the creation and development of search guidelines and will help to match more orphans with their owners. The Copyright Office will also have to certify market-based registry services for visual art. We proposed and have written a lot about this idea to address the owners’ problem of an ineffective registry. It’s not all that complex: because the Copyright Registry’s online search provides woefully inadequate results (only text based searches and results, no ability to compare digital works against an index of images), the market will fill the gaps so long as they meet some basic requirements. A number of services already exist to answer this call and this provision will further spur innovative uses of modern visual recognition technology—of which, unfortunately, visual artists have never collectively taken advantage.
In the unlikely event of an owner resurfacing, the bill provides for them to be reasonably compensated, and if the user acts in bad faith, the full panoply of copyright infringement damages rains down on them. This was done out of concern, again, for visual artists who have repeatedly said they’re not going to be able to take a claim to court because the value is too low. To go even further, the bills require the Register of Copyright to conduct a study (much like the one that lead to the creation of this orphan works legislation) on remedies for small copyright claims.
But now that the bills are introduced, that doesn’t mean the hard work is over. The two bills aren’t the same. First, the Senate bill is what I’ll call the “clean version.” It’s language is at the root of the House bill without the additional gimmes for owners. It has the characteristics of what I described above and, in PK’s opinion, would need very little tweaking, if any. One provision we would like to see is in the registry certification requirements, that these registries be free for public searches and machine readable. While we understand the desire to remain laissez-faire and not put requirements on market actors, these registries are essentially taking over for a failure of a government agency and resource—the Copyright Office’s Registry. If it were the government doing the job, it would of course be required to make the contents of its resources available to the public. If the goal is to drag visual artists into the light to make sure they can be found, allowing independent registries to become locked-up silos cuts the other way. We look forward to working with Senate staff on this issue.
The House version is, again, good at its roots, but resembles more of a well decorated Christmas tree. Hung on it, you’ll find a “Notice of Use Archive” (NUA), a prohibition on using orphans on useful articles, a registration premium, and an extended effective date. The NUA will be housed at the Copyright Office as a repository to which users will have to formally submit their diligent effort searches. We were initially told that this archive would be “dark,” in that its contents would only be revealed when a user was sued, but it’s not that limited in the House bill as introduced, though a lot of discretion is given to the Copyright Office on how to develop the NUA. Yes, users will be documenting their search, but to require an extra formal filing to a repository will be costly, perhaps more expensive than reasonable compensation if the user were able to negotiate with the owner. If it’s not dark, it also raises privacy and “copyright troll” concerns—as users will be announcing themselves like fish in a barrel, and because only a description of the work (not a copy of the work) is required, every photographer that thinks they’ve taken a photo that fits a description is going to be pestering the user and claiming ownership. The stated goals were to educate users as to how to conduct a search (we think the guidelines will do a better job), and to assure owners that searches were being conducted (if the archive is dark, the owner doesn’t know anything anyways). To top it off, to fall within this whole orphan works limitation, users must submit their search—if not, the user is an infringer.
I’ve described the useful articles exception before. Unfortunately, it’s real and painted with broader brush because it covers all kinds of works, not just visual works. It’s a carve out that isn’t limited to the textile constituency that asked for it, and puts U.S. copyright law in the odd position of preferring certain kinds of works and uses to others.
The House bill gives a court the discretion to take into account the value (if any) of a copyright registration when considering reasonable compensation. Truthfully, it’s the most watered down version of the language we’ve seen. In the context of orphan works, it’s all too often irrelevant whether or not the work is registered because users do find valid registrations, but still cannot identify and locate the rightful owner—because the record wasn’t maintained or the company went out of business. This registration premium is meant to somehow reward owners for registering their works in the first place, but it’s misguided because it would still reward owners for not maintaining the registration that could have actually lead to the owner being found.
The effective date in the House bill is 2013, compared to the 2011 date in the Senate, but both have an earlier trigger, dependent on the Office’s certification of at least two visual registries. We think that even with our suggested additional “open” requirement, existing services could meet these requirements today. Still, we’d like the dates to match, preferring the earlier one to the later.
There’s still work to be done, but today’s introduction is a big step forward. Having a bill out there with specific language helps a lot. Some of the visual artists are going to be already lining up to take their pot-shots at the bill. They’ll try to add more exceptions and carve-outs as poison pills so users will have no use for the legislation. We hope that doesn’t happen and will work hard with our film maker, library, museum, public television, and archive allies to make sure it doesn’t. We’re going to need your help, too, so sign-up on our site, join the FaceBook Rescue Orphan Works Cause, and stay tuned for an Action Alert to write your Member of Congress. Again, many thanks to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee staff for all their work on this, the first pro-user change to Copyright Law in almost two decades.

KIDZ IN THE HALL MAKE A STOP AT DA’ HOUSE BEFORE THEY HIT THE STAGE WITH GYM CLASS HEREOS AT COLLEGE CAMPUSES UP AND DOWN THE EAST COAST.

2008-04-25T05:32:00.000-07:00

Posted by Digital Freedom Band Kidz in the Hall:

We live a very free lifestyle making music and traveling the world but walking through the halls of the Rayburn building made us realize how important it is for bands like ours to speak out about our Digital Freedoms.

The same way we fight to get our messages out through words and beats of our music we will continue to fight this cause as well. Yesterday was an introductory chapter of a long book that hopefully has a great ending.

Dialogue is necessary and it is a good start for us to make a few visits to the Hill. But we didn’t even put a dent in this issue in order to make these congressmen become fully aware of this issue and the digital music revolution.

It is daunting when you run into walls when you speak with someone who doesn’t understand how much work you put into something and they have the power to take it all away.

Speaking with people who had adverse opinions to some of our ideas has made it even more worthwhile for us to get our message out, if everyone agreed with us and nothing happened then we would feel even worse.

We need to talk to more people who don’t hold the same ideas as we do about sharing music and reforming copyright on the internet

It’s a good thing for us that the days of naïveté are over (for artists). We understand the business, the issues and we are willing to fight for our rights. Major artists have lost connection with the fan and for us that connection is crucial for our success.

Most independent artists are more hands on and understand the importance of their digital rights. It is easy to care about Digital Freedom when these issues pay for your life.

"A Painful Reminder that DRM Ultimately Severely Limits Your Rights"

2008-04-24T05:53:00.000-07:00

Microsoft announced yesterday that it will be turning off its MSN Music license servers on August 31, 2008, forcing anyone who bought music from the MSN Music store to choose which computer and operating system they want it play from...forever. That's right, your legally purchased content can only be played on one operating system for the rest of eternity.

We are proud to conclude that the tide on DRM is turning as more and more digital music services and labels are offering DRM-Free content, but for the millions of purchases made at the MSN Music Store this sea change is of little consolation. Ars Technica stated it better than we ever could: "Microsoft's decision to turn off the MSN Music authorization servers serves as a painful reminder that DRM ultimately severely limits your rights."

Thoughts?