Techdirt. Stories about "sga"

Who's Who Of Clueless Music Industry Lobbyists Send Angry Letter To Wrong Publisher

Mike Masnick — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:44:20 PST

Sometimes it just feels like the legacy music industry folks spend their time trying to make it easy for us to call them on their bizarre positions. The latest is a pretty laughable angry letter from a who's who of the organizations, who represent the past of the music industry. Signers to the letter include (among others) the heads of the RIAA, ASCAP, SoundExchange, BMI, SESAC, NMPA, AFTRA, Harry Fox and the Songwriter's Guild. The target of their scorn? Well, officially, it's the CEO of Ziff Davis, publisher of PC Mag, for publishing two articles in the wake of the shutdown of Limewire telling people about "alternatives" to Limewire. The problem? Well, beyond being totally pointless, PC Mag only published one of the articles (the one the letter seems to find less objectionable). The other article that they complained about was published by a totally different publication. Accuracy is not big with the old school music industry, it seems.

Yes, PC Mag published an article highlighting alternatives to LimeWire, just like a ton of other websites did. Anyone who was looking for an alternative to LimeWire didn't need PCMag to find them. In fact, many reports noted a noticeable increase of downloads of those alternatives pretty quickly after LimeWire went down. The lobbyists get pretty worked up about all this, though:

Let's be honest. The vast majority of LimeWire's users were interested in one thing and one thing only: downloading our music for free with the full knowledge that what they were doing was illegal. The harm done to the creative community when people are encouraged to steal our music is immeasurable. Disclaimer or no, when you offer a list of alternative P2P sites to LimeWire -- and include more of the serial offenders -- PC Magazine is slyly encouraging people to steal more music and place at risk the tens of thousands of music industry jobs -- including singers, songwriters, musicians and the technical professionals who put it all together. Even worse is offering a direct link to a "resurrected" Limewire as follows: "I went ahead and downloaded LimeWire Pirate Edition for *ahem* research purposes, and can report that it appears to be working very smoothly. In the event that you, yourself, would like to do some research, you can download the client here (direct link)."

Yes, they're quite upset about that article about the LimeWire Pirate Edition (which we wrote about as well). Only problem? PCMag didn't publish it. Nor did any other Ziff Davis publications. It was actually in PC World, which is published by IDG -- a totally different company than Ziff Davis. Now, it's not hard to confuse PCMag and PC World -- lots of people do. But when sending an angry letter condemning a publisher, you would think that maybe one of these super powerful industry lobbyist/mouthpieces would think to actually check the sources before mouthing off.

Apparently not.

Given this mistake, it should come as little surprise that the rest of the letter is also full of factually ridiculous claims, such as "job loss" numbers due to "piracy" -- numbers that have been widely debunked so many times that it's almost pathological that these groups still cling to them like some talisman. Also, it's kind of funny that they imply the publishing business would feel differently if it had also been decimated by free competition (they call it "piracy," but they mean free competition). Ziff Davis is, in fact, a shell of its former self due to exactly that situation. However, the company has been trying hard to resurrect itself by actually competing in the marketplace -- something the signers of this letter could learn from.

Of course, I'm sort of curious what these groups actually think they're accomplishing with a letter like this. If it's to pressure magazines like PC Mag (or, ahem, PC World) not to publish such stories, that won't stop the info from getting out there. It will only increase the irrelevance of those publications -- especially if they feel brow-beaten by a bunch of dinosaurs, who refuse to adapt no matter how many times it's been shown to them how they can embrace the future successfully. This really feels like the sort of letter that these guys signed onto so they can show their constituency that they're "doing something" by stomping their feet, rather than actually doing something helpful like helping those they represent to adapt and embrace new opportunities. The full amusing letter is included after the jump...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As The RIAA Lobbies For More Royalties For Itself, It's Fighting (And Losing) Over Having To Pay Royalties To Songwriters

Mike Masnick — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:26:58 PDT

The RIAA is in the middle of a big fight for new royalties (i.e., a performance rights tax) on songs played on the radio, going on and on about how anyone against those fees are "stealing" from them. Yet, when it comes to the royalties that RIAA members have to pay to others, suddenly those are worth fighting against. As you hopefully know, there are a few different copyrights related to music. There's the copyright on the recording itself, which is usually held by the record label. But there is also the copyright on the song or composition, which can be held by a music publisher or the songwriter.

For whatever reason, while there is a compulsory license setup for anyone doing a cover song, such that if you cover a song, you don't have to first get permission to do so, but you just have to pay an agreed upon rate, which is usually set by the Copyright Royalty Board (a group of judges who more or less pick a number out of a hat). There are all sorts of problems with having a group of judges trying to randomly set prices on royalties, but it is how the system is set up. What's amusing is that after a recent Copyright Royalty Board ruling on cover songs set the rate higher than the RIAA liked, the RIAA went to court to get those rates changed. A district court turned the RIAA down, and now an appeals court has done the same. Specifically, the RIAA got upset that the CRB said it had to pay late fees, and also that it says composition copyright holders should get a whopping 24 cents for every ringtone sold (way above the rate for songs on CDs). Instead, the RIAA argued that songwriters/publishers should receive a percentage of revenue. This one really makes me laugh. For years, various digital music startups have tried to license music from the RIAA -- and all of them go to the RIAA with a "percentage of revenue" offer. In every single case the RIAA turns them down, demanding huge upfront fees and guarantees on revenue. Funny that when it's their own money on the line, suddenly a percentage of revenue is the preferred option.

In both cases, the court rules against the RIAA, pointing out that, even though the RIAA doesn't like the ruling, the CRB is well within its legal mandate to make both decisions. To be honest, I actually think the RIAA is correct that these rates and the reasoning behind them are ridiculous and not at all sensible. The ringtone rate, in particular, is particularly egregious, and make it difficult for creative business models that embrace things like free ringtones to exist.

However, I find it to be quite hilarious to see the RIAA arguing so vehemently against these rate rulings, when it's demanding similar rulings on its own behalf. Apparently, the RIAA really only supports such rates when it gets to collect them. When it has to pay out, suddenly those royalties are a problem. Funny how that works...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Songwriters Guild Claims The Internet Makes It Impossible To Create Content

Mike Masnick — Tue, 4 May 2010 08:00:39 PDT

Ah well. Last Friday we highlighted that the White House had posted the public comments on the IP enforcement plan, and pointed out a few of them. We had avoided the ones from most of the well-known lobbying groups because they tread on ground that had already been trampled to death, but a bunch of you have been submitting the filing from the Songwriters Guild of America, which takes ridiculous arguments to entirely new levels. Phillip pointed us to Ars Technica's take on the comment, highlighting the utterly ridiculous claim that bank robbery is less of an issue than copyright infringement, but the rest of the filing also raises some bizarre arguments as well.

Of course, the SGA, and its boss, Rick Carnes, are sort of famous for their over-the-top ridiculous claims that were debunked ages ago, but Carnes never seems to let up. In Carnes' world, the gov't owes songwriters a living, and the fact that the market has changed is of no concern to him, because he doesn't want to change, and the government should do everything possible to stop such market changes. Carnes/SGA also have also said that "network neutrality" means more piracy, that songwriters cannot write without copyright and, my favorite, that no technological change should ever be allowed to decrease royalties for songwriters.

So what's in this filing? Let's start at the beginning:

The current Internet delivery system is not tenable for creators and copyright owners.

Yes, you read that right. The current internet -- perhaps the greatest tool for content creation ever is not a tenable delivery system for content creators. Of course, that's easily debunked, because more content is being created today thanks to the internet and the fact that it's a very efficient delivery system. The fact that thousands upon thousands of content creators have embraced the internet, used it to help create, promote, distribute and share their music -- and as a way to build better, more efficient business models? According to Carnes and the SGA, that's "not tenable." Weird. Someone alert everyone else on the internet.

Digital piracy has almost completely destroyed the profession of songwriting, and is slowly destroying the music industry.

And yet, more songs are being produced and released every year than ever before and more money is being put into the music industry than ever before. That's a funny definition of "destroyed" and "destroying."

Of course, the crux of the Guild's argument is basically that music publishers no longer employ songwriters. Yes, and phone companies don't employ as many operators as they used to. Times change. Technology changes. Get used to it. Copyright law is not a law to require that there be a specific profession for songwriters. Copyright law is designed to promote the progress of science and the useful arts -- and if more music is being created than ever before, it appears that progress is being promoted, even if the profession of songwriting changes. But, why let facts get in the way of the claim that unauthorized file sharing will destroy the US economy:

Such piracy has deeply and materially harmed the songwriter community, but it also threatens the overall U.S. economy; the economic fate of U.S. copyright industries is critical to U.S. economic success, both domestically and in the global marketplace

Of course, he cites the already debunked claims about how much the "copyright industries" contribute to the US economy, totally ignoring the counter study that shows that exceptions to copyright law contribute much more to the economy, by using the very same methodology as the study the SGA cites. The SGA assumes, totally incorrectly, that the amount the so-called "copyright industries" contribute to society is entirely because of copyright law. And that's bunk. Most of it has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright. That the SGA has become so reliant on the crutch of copyright law and are unable to adapt is not the US gov't's problem.

The SGA then goes on to make the absolutely incredible suggestion that the FBI should be in charge of enforcing civil copyright infringement claims:

The FBI, or similar law enforcement agency, should be given the authority to investigate copyright infringement cases and pursue civil fines and penalties.

This is unprecedented. The FBI and the US gov't should not be involved in civil matters (matters between two private parties), but only criminal ones. This, by the way, is where the SGA makes the bizarre claim about bank robbers being less of an issue:

There are numerous economic crimes of much lesser magnitude (such as bank robbery) that are routinely and fully investigated, for which law enforcement agencies such as the FBI have significant resources. By contrast, online copyright piracy dwarfs bank robbery in causing economic losses, yet the FBI has limited criminal investigative interest and no civil mandate whatsoever to pursue this devastating economic harm. This inequity must change.

Except bank robbery is a crime. File sharing is not. It's a civil issue and a business model issue. And the arguments that the "losses" from file sharing are greater than actual robbery is simply not supported by the facts. As we noted, the recent GAO report should have put an end to those claims, but the SGA conveniently will ignore such things.

From there, the SGA goes on the attack against net neutrality again, insisting that net neutrality and unauthorized file sharing are linked hand-in-hand:

The Internet as currently constructed has facilitated digital copyright piracy that has led to the ruination of the music industry.

Other than the fact that the music industry is larger than ever before, it's difficult to see what point he's making.

There are ridiculous arguments and there are ridiculous arguments. Rick Carnes' filing with the IPEC goes beyond pretty much anything else out there to the level of being flat out incredible. It's incredibly backwards looking, wrong, and downright misleading.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Entertainment Industry Explains How True Net Neutrality Is Just Another Word For Theft

Mike Masnick — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:13:11 PST

With comments due last week on the FCC's proposed new net neutrality rules, we've already covered some of the filings, while noting the problems of carving out a special exemption for copyright. But, of course, that special exemption for copyright means everything to an entertainment industry that has no interest in adapting its business models. Both the RIAA and MPAA filed their own comments, which were pretty similar, and equally misleading. The RIAA's filing (pdf) repeatedly referred to copyright infringement as "theft" (you would think lawyers would know the difference) and insisted not just that there should be a copyright exemption, but that the FCC itself should require ISPs to act as copyright cops. The MPAA's filing (pdf) is almost a carbon copy of the RIAA's. There is very little difference between the two.

But if you want to see an even more extreme argument, check out the filing from the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA) (pdf), who we'd already pointed out was running around aimlessly screaming that network neutrality would mean more unauthorized file sharing (they call it "piracy"). In the SGA's filing, they claim that net neutrality wouldn't solve any actual problem, and the real problem is the inability of songwriters to get paid in the way they used to, back in the idyllic days before the internet existed. So they'd much rather that the FCC break the internet in order to bring back those days. That's a bit of a paraphrase, but it's really not that far off.

The language used by the SGA goes even beyond that of the others, referring to things like "rampant looting" and insisting that with net neutrality we would face the end of songwriting. Seriously. While the SGA claims that it wants to promote new innovation and technology, it appears to only mean technology that can be used to block file sharing. It's very excited about those technologies, and not at all concerned about all the technologies (even the ones used by lots of folks every day) that would be broken without a neutral internet.

Not that any of these filings are all that surprising, but it does show how low the entertainment industry has decided to stoop in trying to get others to bring back old business models, rather than adapt to the changing times.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Songwriters Guild: Network Neutrality Means More Piracy

Mike Masnick — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:30:00 PST

There has been an effort made by some to try to connect the totally unrelated issues of network neutrality and unauthorized file sharing together. There is no connection between the two, but that won't stop busy lobbyists from doing their best to drum up such a connection. Copycense points us to the news that Grover Nordquit's group has decided to push this line of nonsense by parroting claims by the Songwriter's Guild of America (SGA) that accepting net neutrality is akin to encouraging piracy. How? That's not clear, because there's really no connection at all. The best they can say is that net neutrality would prevent efforts to crack down on file sharing (except, every plan for net neutrality has explicitly had exceptions for such things). I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am not in favor of laws mandating neutrality, but the arguments made by those against it are so over-the-top ridiculous that it's actually making me wonder why. There are reasonable arguments against mandating neutrality, but these groups don't make them.

That it's the SGA making these arguments initially shouldn't come as a surprise. The group has a rather antiquated view of business models and modern technology, and its boss has declared in the past that songwriting would not occur without copyright -- an obviously incorrect statement. The SGA has become a caricature of itself in the last few years. Rather than admitting that the market is changing and working with songwriters to help them adapt, it has basically decided the only reasonable strategy is to go crying to the government for more protectionism, and greater mandatory licensing fees. This is an odd group for the anti-net neutrality types to team up with, since most of them claim their reasons for being against net neutrality is to get away from government meddling in the internet industry. And then they go and team up with the SGA, who's entire purpose is to encourage more government meddling in the music business? Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed...

Separately, it's probably worth noting that ITIF, a "think tank" in DC and which has been a huge anti-net neutrality voice, has just come out with a poorly researched, poorly argued, joke of a report on "reducing digital piracy." In it, they promote kicking people off the internet (based on accusations, not convictions) under a three strikes regime, and also that ISPs should filter and monitor their networks to try to stop infringement. Apparently, ITIF is not a big fan of your privacy... but it's own... well, just try to find out who funds ITIF? That's secret. Funny how that works. Otherwise the report repeats a bunch of sweeping claims that have no support in reality, and does not back them up. It states, repeatedly, that you can't compete with free, even as many smart businesses do that every day. The report advocates DRM, and amusingly fails to mention the massive failure of every DRM system to date, and the harm it has done to legitimate users. But, of course, it saves most of its focus on supporting "technical measures" from ISPs to inspect your content and stop you if they think you're doing anything wrong. Welcome to the big brother state. The report also supports ACTA, even though it admits it doesn't know what's included. Basically, it's "recommendations" straight from the entertainment industry, with no basis in reality. And, with a nice "net neutrality" tie-in. Those ties seem likely to get closer, which is unfortunate. Funny that those who keep claiming they want the government to "stay out" of the internet, are so keen to have them very actively involved when it comes to copyright.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story