Digital Freedom

Hollywood and Silicon Valley Join Hands in San Jose

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:15:00 +0000

By Michael Petricone, VP of Government Affairs, CEA

For those of us in DC, discussions of "digital content" usually revolve around legislation, lawsuits, and attempts to limit the rights of lawful consumers.

That's why last's week's trip to the Digital Hollywood Conference in San Jose was a breath of fresh air. On panel after panel, technology and content representatives sat together and acknowledged the realities and vast potential of our digital world.

Certain themes emerged:

1. Monetizing behavior is easier than changing it.

2. DRM does not prevent piracy, and annoys legitimate customers.

3. Legitimate players can thrive if they offer a good deal at a good price (see the overwhelming theatrical success of the Dark Night, despite the film's wide availability on file sharing sites).

Overall, there was shared optimism about digital technology's potential to empower artists, maximize distribution, and open up new revenue streams.

Now, someone just has to bring the good news to the policymakers in DC.

Vote for Our Panel Idea for SXSW!

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:42:00 +0000

From the department of shameless self-promotion - The Digital Freedom Campaign has submitted what we think is a great idea for a panel at the South by Southwest festival next year, titled: "Policy Trainwreck: How Copyright Law Failed the Digital Age." Panels are chosen based partly on how many people vote for each idea in the SXSW Panel Picker on the SXSW website. Here is the link to our idea, we would greatly appreciate it if you would help us stuff the ballot box by voting for our submission today!

Victory for Home Recording in Cablevision Remote DVR Case

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:29:00 +0000

By Sherwin Siy, Public Knowledge

On August 4, a federal appeals court ruled that Cablevision’s remote DVRs—which worked like off-site TiVos—didn’t infringe copyright. The decision, which overturns an earlier district court opinion, stated that there was no significant legal difference between the remote DVRs and a VCR. An all-too-brief summary of the history and findings follows.

The original case arose out of Cablevision’s creation and marketing of the “RS-DVR,” a service that, like a TiVo, let cable subscribers select different TV shows to be recorded digitally onto a hard drive. Unlike a TiVo, however, the hard drives of the RS-DVR are stored on Cablevision property. The difference between these configurations led to arguments by content companies that Cablevision was infringing the copyrights in their TV shows. Three particular acts were singled out:

First, as Cablevision received a signal from the content companies, it created a buffer copy of about .1 seconds of the show as the system checked to see if a customer had decided to record the show. Plaintiffs argued this was an infringing reproduction.

Second, if a customer had picked a show to be recorded, the stream of data representing that show would be copied from the buffer onto a server for that customer to view later. Plaintiffs argued that this recording was another infringing reproduction.

Third, when a customer decided to watch the show they had recorded, the show would be transmitted from the remote server for viewing in the customer’s home. Plaintiffs argued that this violated their “public performance” right in a show.

Last year, Public Knowledge joined a coalition of public interest, consumer, and industry groups in filing an amicus brief in support of Cablevision’s position, arguing that since the recorded copies are made and transmitted at the direction of the customer, that Cablevision was not the one “doing” the copying and public performing of the shows, and therefore could not be infringing. The brief also noted that playing back a recorded show over the RS-DVR wasn’t a public performance, which meant that it wasn’t an infringement. Another amicus brief, filed on behalf of a group of copyright law professors, had argued that temporary buffer copies shouldn’t be considered infringing.

To our great relief, the appeals court mostly agreed with these arguments.

On the issue of the first buffer copy, the court held that buffer copies weren’t infringements because they were too fleeting to be considered “fixed,” a requirement before something is considered a “copy” that can infringe (or otherwise implicate) a copyright. Although the entirety of a show would pass through the buffer bit by bit (and thus be “embodied” within it), a fixation needs to be more than just an embodiment—it also needs to be more than “transitory.” The court decided that this tenth-of-a-second buffer was too transitory to meet the statutory definition of a fixation, and therefore couldn’t be an infringement.

On the second question of the stored, recorded copies of the shows, the court made a couple of important distinctions. First, it noted that the plaintiffs were alleging direct infringement—i.e., that Cablevision was itself making infringing copies, not secondary liability—which was what Sony was accused of when it was making VCRs, or what Grokster was accused of doing for file-sharers. The court then noted that in a case alleging direct infringement, it’s important to see who is performing the action alleged to be infringing. Since here, the individual user makes the decision whether or not the copy is created, they are the ones making the copy, not Cablevision. Just as a VCR owner (as opposed to a VCR manufacturer) pressing REC on a box makes a copy, so too is the individual customer (and not Cablevision) the one making the recording here.

On the third question of the public performance, the court, interestingly, didn’t rule on who was “doing” the performance, instead relying entirely on the question of whether or not the transmission was a “public performance” in the first place. In order to be considered a performance “to the public,” a transmission has to be able to be received by different members of the public, whether at the same time or at different times. Plaintiffs argued that since the same show that was transmitted in realtime (with a license) by Cablevision, and could also be viewed later by any customer who recorded it, that Cablevision was making a public performance with those later transmissions. However, the appeals court stated that these later transmissions existed separately from the earlier, licensed transmission. In other words, in determining whether or not you have a public performance, the court held that you need to look at whether or not you are passing the same transmission to multiple people; not the same work. Although it might be the same episode of “House” broadcast at its scheduled time and later shown to me on my RS-DVR, the transmissions are separate; originating from different signals, and aimed at different audiences: the first is a public transmission, sent by Cablevision to all their subscribers; the second is, well, a private transmission, sent only to me. After all, as the court points out, if transmitting a work that had been previously transmitted to the public was always going to be a “public performance” of the work, than I could be infringing the public performance right by recording a TV show in my living room and then later playing it in my bedroom.

The appeals court’s decision, and its discussion of the merits of the various arguments, goes into far more detail than I can provide in this brief report. However, the upshot of the decision is not only a victory for user rights, home recording, and new digital technologies—it’s a victory for common sense.

Yahoo Does the Right Thing

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:30:00 +0000

The Digital Freedom Campaign wants to applaud Yahoo for their decision to compensate consumers of their music store whose purchases will be rendered useless when they take their DRM Authentication servers offline September 30. Yahoo is offering coupons to these consumers to re-purchase their music through their new music partner, Rhapsody. Their original announcement was another ugly reminder of the shackles DRM puts on legally purchased content, but we are happy to see Yahoo do the right thing and make the best of an otherwise bad situation.

Universal Launches Lost Tunes - A DRM-Free Online "Small Local Record Store"

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:30:00 +0000

Universal Music Group today announced the launch of their new online music service Lost Tunes, which focuses on distributing rare content from their catalogue. Best of all, this service is yet another nail in the coffin of DRM, as Lost Tunes will sell their high-quality MP3's DRM-Free! The Digital Freedom Campaign would like to congratulate Universal Music for finally seeing the blinding light and selling more and more of their catalogue without copy protection. Now they just need to point that light at their movie division.

Ars to DRM: We're Not Pro-Piracy, We're Just Not Dumb as Rocks

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:56:00 +0000

That line from this Ars Technica article, discussing the fact that the Yahoo! Music Store customers will have the music tracks purchased from their site rendered obsolete when they take their DRM license key servers offline on September 30, 2008. Most of you probably remember when Microsoft did the same thing a couple months ago, then backed off after the consumer outrage that followed, agreeing to keep their DRM servers active through 2011. Google Video went through the exact same issue a year ago with its online store, but at least they agreed to provide full refunds to their customers. What do all these situations add up to? The Ars Technica headline says it all: DRM Still Sucks. And similar to Ars, the Digital Freedom Campaign is not pro-piracy, as some would like you to believe, we're just not dumb as rocks.

Dear MPAA,

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:43:00 +0000

Congratulations on your record setting weekend!!! Now, please stop trying to impose restrictions on consumers.

Not only don’t MPAA’s own studies not back up their inflated piracy claims, but real world experience doesn’t either. Last weekend The Dark Knight opened to rapturous reviews and record-setting revenues – despite the fact that unauthorized copies of the movie were easily available online. Clearly the relationship between piracy, file sharing and box office receipts is not as linear as the movie industry claims.

Put a different way, even in the internet age, if you make an excellent movie then people will come see it. Given last weekend’s unambiguous lesson, we hope the MPAA will drop its demands for the broadcast flag, analog hole legislation, selectable output control, and other unnecessary consumer limitations. But we’re not holding our breath.

Do not adjust your television. The MPAA is controlling transmission.

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:23:00 +0000

Posted by Jef Pearlman, Staff Attorney for Public Knowledge, a Digital Freedom Partner

If you’ve never seen the intro (original/new) to the TV show “The Outer Limits” then perhaps now is the time. Be sure to have the sound up: There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission…Perhaps if the intro was written today, it would say, “There is nothing wrong with your television set. But do not attempt to view our movies. The MPAA is controlling transmission.”

As Jon Law wrote on our blog last month, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has asked the FCC to let it selectively turn off different types of connectors in viewers’ homes. This technology, called “Selectable Output Control,” lets the creators and distributors of video pick and choose which video connectors will display their content — and which will not. The MPAA claims that in order to move release dates for Video-on-Demand (VoD) earlier than they are now (and before DVDs) they need this added control over your home electronics.

Yesterday, we, along with CFA, DFC, EFF, MAP, NAF, and U.S. PIRG submitted Comments to the FCC opposing the MPAA’s petition. We have three basic problems with it: Consumers Will Be Harmed In The (Non-)Displaying of this Film. Consumers expect that when they spend a lot of money on high definition television equipment, DVRs, Slingboxes, and home theater setups, they will be able to display all high definition content for the foreseeable future. They don’t expect that when movie companies choose to change their release dates, their setups will suddenly stop working.

The MPAA was pretty vague about what would happen to those people who rely on analog/component connections for high definition video. In the best case scenario, they simply will not have the option to order the movies as their neighbors — neighbors who have the same cable service and same hardware but just use different cables. At worst, they will order a high definition movie, only to find that the display is blank.

If the MPAA gets their way, at minimum 11 million people will be cut off from these services. But no big deal, right? I mean, the others are getting stuff sooner!

Move Along, Nothing to See Here
In its petition (and, indeed, anywhere), MPAA failed to provide any evidence that this kind of control was needed to prevent copyright infringement. We’ve learned from iTunes and Amazon that if you offer content legally, conveniently, and in an unrestricted way, people will buy it rather than pirate it. Disney CEO Robert Iger said it himself: “The best way to combat piracy is to bring content to market on a well-timed, well-priced basis.” So why do they need this control? Read on…

The MPAA Is Controlling Transmission. And Reception. And Use.

The MPAA’s petition asks not only for the ability to turn off analog or unprotected digital connections. It asks for the ability to turn of any connection on a per-work basis. But why would they want to turn off other connections? Check out Sony’s release of Hancock on its (otherwise cool) Bravia Internet service for a peek into a possible future. Sony is releasing Hancock to users of its Internet service before it goes out on DVD or VoD. However, only owners of a compatible Sony television will be able to use that box, because the movie will only go out of the box over the proprietary Sony “DMeX” connection.

What would happen if the MPAA decided to turn off all connections except for a proprietary MPAA one for new release movies? What if it then used its ability to license that connector as leverage? What kind of rules could it set for what your television could or could not do? Do you think you’d be able to use that connection with cool devices like a Slingbox?

I don’t usually consider myself part of the tinfoil hat crowd, but I do know that I don’t want media companies dictating what type of connections my television has and what I can do with the content I have legally acquired. Consumer electronics companies should be free to innovate and make their decisions based on what reasonable consumers want and what makes technological sense — not based on what the upstream content owners demand. But with Selectable Output Control in hand, the MPAA might be able to put a stop to that.

We’ll let you know what happens as this proceeding moves forward. For more information, check out our press release or read the filing itself.

"Fair Use? Who Cares?"

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:56:00 +0000

Remember Universal's controversial takedown notice of a YouTube video from last year featuring a baby dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy"? When the takedown notice was challenged, Universal didn't argue with the assertion that the video was a "fair use" of Prince's song , and the video went back online. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a Digital Freedom Campaign Partner, is representing the victim and is asking a District Judge to exercise a clause in the DMCA which allows victims of meritless takedown notices to seek damages and award the victim attorneys' fees and other monetary damages. Universal is arguing that DMCA takedown notices can ignore Fair Use, as detailed in a great WIRED article from last Thursday (A major label looking to ignore Fair Use? You don't say!). The judge has not indicated when he would rule, but did say that this case was a "very important issue of statutory interpretation." We couldn't agree more...

Mark Hosler of Negativland on BreakThru Radio

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:28:00 +0000

Check out BreakThru Radio’s interview with Mark Hosler of Negativland, aka the father’s of mashup. Mark discusses the evolution of the mashup, Negativland and the Digital Freedom Campaign. Thanks to BreakThru Radio for their continued support of the Digital Freedom Campaign.

Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:43:00 +0000

The Center for Social Media at American University recently released a great guide to current acceptable practices for use of online video, titled "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video." A distinguished panel of experts, including members of the Digital Freedom Campaign's academic advisory board, came together to form this guide. It is a great resource for those using video content for any number of purposes to answer important questions about how to use copyrighted video appropriately. We could go on and on about how useful a guide like this is in attempting to define fair use and its limits, but would rather encourage you to read the document for yourself and see what you think. Our sincere thanks go out to the Center for Social Media and the panel of experts who contributed to the study for their efforts!

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

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:09:00 +0000

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 DRM protection of digital content was necessary to prevent piracy, but they finally began offering DRM-Free MP3's last year, after massive consumer outrage over the restrictions that DRM put on their lawfully purchased content. Now WebUser is beginning to report the results of this experiment, and just 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

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:46:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:45:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:32:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:36:00 +0000

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?"

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:46:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:46:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:08:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:07:00 +0000

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 ...

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:46:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:27:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:20:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:48:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Digital Freedom Campaign) — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:43:00 +0000

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...