We already wrote about the recent filing in the EMI v. MP3Tunes case, in which Michael Robertson shows that (contrary to EMI’s statements to the court) EMI regularly promoted its music by giving out free MP3s. However, I wanted to do a separate post looking at one specific email highlighted in the filing. It shows an email from 2008 from Stephen Gullberg, an employee of EMI Publishing, talking about marketing plans involving giving away free MP3 downloads. I’ve bolded the parts that struck me as particularly interesting. Gullberg is emailing with a counterpart at EMI:
Free Promotional MP3 of one song to the public for free download
from Peter Moréns album (as do most indie labels). They would
offer “Social Competence” for free download on
touchandgorecords.com, Peter and Touch and Go’s Myspace
pages, plus encourage as many third party online zines, podcasts,
blogs, major web portals to host the MP3 for free download on
their site. We are being told that historically the track which is
offered for free like this is usually still the top selling track in
digital retail. They would like to offer this promotional MP3
download for nine months. After that initially period the
promotional partners will replace the MP3 download with a stream
for the duration of the license of the album including offering a
stream of the song on their website and on their Myspace page and
Peter’s Myspace page, or until they decide to ask these partners to
remove the stream.
The label has given us a further explanation of why they pursue this strategy. One promotional MP3 per album is the
best way they can virally promote the album which will increase sales and thus revenue on the compositional side as
well as the master recording side. This promotional technique has proven to be so effective, that virtually every free
track they have issued from an album has maintained itself as the top selling track from the album. It also enables
them to offer something from the album to the myriad of sites, blogs, podcasts out there that would be tempted to
give away unauthorized materials, perhaps the entire album, if they do not have the option to feature a track that
they offer to them. This control mechanism is vital to their methods of slowing piracy of albums.
And yet, all this time, the RIAA keeps insisting that free music is a problem? Even as employees at the labels knew years ago that free was “so effective” as a promotional technique that it helped sell the same track much more.
We recently covered some of the details of various “six strikes” policies being implemented by most of the large broadband providers in the US, noting that with Verizon’s, it appeared that small businesses that offered free and open WiFi could get in trouble for doing so. TorrentFreak has followed up with Jill Lesser, the executive director of the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), the organization coordinating these plans, and discovered that this impact on small businesses is not an error, and Lesser does not seem to see a problem with it, arguing that offering such open and free WiFi is a violation of the terms of service for most small businesses.
“In addition, the terms of service on such accounts do not allow them to be used to provide free WiFi or ‘hotspots’ so the hypothetical cafe owner offering public WiFi will not be subject to the CAS if they are following their terms of service.”
Similarly, she says that if it impacts small businesses or home-based businesses that use residential accounts, she doesn’t see it as a problem, since those businesses shouldn’t “allow” their employees to “engage in copyright theft.” Of course, it’s not theft, but infringement — and it’s frustrating that someone like Lesser would misrepresent these things.
That said, her cavalier attitude towards these very common scenarios, which will have real impacts on a variety of small businesses, is unfortunate and dangerous. The importance of a fully working broadband connection to small businesses todays cannot be overstated. To suggest that all of this is okay because they’re not following an almost universally ignored term in the terms of service on such accounts seems to be dismissing things way too simply.
The end result of this is likely to be a lot less public and open WiFi at a time when we actually need much more open access. That may not matter to the RIAA and MPAA — who still don’t understand the importance and value of internet access — but it matters an awful lot to the pubilc and a variety of small businesses.
Over the weekend, in our post about Aaron Swartz, we highlighted Larry Lessig’s quite reasonable anger at US Attorney Carmen Ortiz’s failure to even suggest that she and her office might review their actions against Aaron Swartz to see if they were reasonable. He wasn’t calling on them to necessarily repudiate their actions — but to at least admit that they would review what they had done to determine if it was appropriate. Instead, Ortiz’s statement took the hard line that what they had done was appropriate, full stop.
Ortiz’s spokeswoman, Christina DiIorio-Sterling, said last night the Swartz case won’t affect the office’s handling of other cases. “Absolutely not,” she said. “We thought the case was reasonably handled and we would not have done things differently.
“We’re going to continue doing the work of the office and of following our mission.”
Many others are calling on Ortiz, or her bosses in the Justice Department, to recognize just how much power they have over someone’s life, and that this power must be used carefully. The response of Ortiz and her spokespeople seems to show not even the slightest sympathy or recognition that they have the power to destroy lives, and that such power needs to be used judiciously. It strikes me that someone who fails to have humility while in control of such power is someone who is simply not qualified to hold such an office.
Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds.
While it may seem like a shot across the bow of videogames to score some cheap political points, what Obama actually has in mind is a bit more subtle. (Make no mistake, though: this subject wouldn't have been broached if not for the Newtown shooting.)
Conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence: The President is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and scientific agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. It is based on legal analysis that concludes such research is not prohibited by any appropriations language. The CDC will start immediately by assessing existing strategies for preventing gun violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the greatest potential public health impact. And the Administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.
Two things worth noting in this paragraph:
The “Presidential Memorandum” lifts a moratorium on this sort of research by the CDC, something that has been in place for over 15 years. Kyle Orland at Ars Technica explains:
[T]he federal Centers for Disease Control have been prohibited from funding studies that “advocate or promote gun control” since 1996, when Congress cut the $2.6 million the organization had been using to fund gun injury research through its Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Further moves since then have prevented the CDC from even receiving federal crime data for gun research, and prohibited the National Institute of Health from doing gun violence research as well.
And why was this research prohibited? Depending on who you ask, it's either because the NRA didn't like guns being tied to injuries and death (Orland calls it a “chilling effect” brought on by Arthur Kellerman's study) or the study itself was severely flawed and skewed to fit the pre-existing bias of the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which operated under the CDC's direction.
Secondly, the wording directs the CDC to focus on areas with the “greatest potential public health impact.” The administration may namecheck current hot buttons like videogames and violent media, but as it's worded, the CDC has no instruction to start its work by assessing these areas. As Orland states, this one sentence is likely nothing more than a brief concession to the current political climate:
Making a brief mention of video game studies as a part of a $10 million funding request is a good way to pay lip service to these political concerns on both the left and the right without really making it a priority. If studying video game and media violence were actually a major focus of the president's gun control agenda, it would have a much more prominent place in both his remarks and his official funding requests. Instead, the real money the president is asking from Congress will go to more important things: $20 million for the National Violent Death Reporting System, $14 million for police and security training, $150 million for in-school mental health counselors, $30 million to develop school emergency management plans, and so on.
Overall, putting the CDC in charge is probably (in the parlance of government works) the “least worst” way to handle this. The CDC will have access to more mental health-related data than other existing entities, a factor that definitely needs to be considered. (But this factor also presents its own problems: it's entirely too easy to write off mass murderers as mentally defective. The idea of taking someone's life, much less multiple lives, is so repulsive to “normal” human beings that the kneejerk reaction is to blame it on mental illness. It's safe to say that normal people would never commit mass murder, but it's way too simplistic to assume that every perpetrator is mentally defective.) It should also have access to demographic and other environmental factors, which should give it a more rounded picture than the limited sample sizes and variables of smaller studies and surveys.
Another factor that makes the CDC a preferable choice is the fact that it's an existing agency. Turning this task over to a special committee would result in a room filled to capacity with appointees and their predispositions. (The argument can also be made that the CDC carries its own predispositions, but expecting a government directive, especially an executive order, to conjure up a completely impartial study is to show a level of faith the government simply doesn't deserve.)
Now, the downside.
Any conclusions the CDC comes to will be immediately suspect. No matter what it finds, the conclusions will be disputed. The presence or absence of a link between violent media and gun violence will only exacerbate the divide between both sides of the debate. To date, no link has been conclusively proven. This study's outcome will likely be more of the same. It's nearly impossible isolate people and “violent media” from the other factors that affect the equation. The CDC should be able to incorporate its existing knowledge in regards to risk factors, but the answers it comes up with will fail to satisfy everyone. Ultimately, it will change nothing, but it will have the power to inform government policy going forward and, depending on the political climate, it's likely that gossamer-thin correlation will be enough to justify legislation.
Then there's the tangled issue of gun control policy, something the CDC has waded into in the past. Again, any conclusions drawn will be contrasted against its history with the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and its biased approach to the study of gun violence. (Particularly troublesome is a 1987 CDC report, in which the director of the NCIPC thought enough evidence existed to “confiscate all firearms from the general population” in order to prevent 8,600 homicides a year.) The administration has done a disservice to both groups (video game fans, gun owners) by making this study inseparable from a larger gun control proposal.
The best case scenario, like so much in government, is that nothing happens. The studies are proposed, the climate shifts and, like so much before it, it's discarded in favor of What's Ailing the Nation Now. While it would be interesting to see the CDC perform an in-depth study (especially if the data collected is made available to the public), the chance of a negative outcome (in terms of misguided legislation, etc.) is way too high.
On the whole, though, it is refreshing to see videogames treated as part of the media, rather than a wholly distinct scapegoat capable of destroying society on its own. Unfortunately, even with its rather brief appearance in the administration's set of proposals, it appears the government still wants to control media (as opposed to “the media”) and this single paragraph could help rationalize unconstitutional measures.
