Blaise Alleyne 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (334) comment rss

  • On the post: Would King Lear Ever Have Been Written If Copyright Law Existed?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2009 @ 01:15pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Whether are not there are examples of actual copyright infringement, it seems like there'd be a good chance of lawsuits. Look at all the claims against J. K. Rowling, or the Satriani/Coldplay lawsuit. When copyright touches so many things for so long, you don't need to actually infringe copyright to be the subject of an expensive lawsuit -- you just need to be successful.

  • On the post: Less Well Known Artists Make Use Of Mobile Platforms To Interact With Fans

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2009 @ 06:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Blaise, Terry McBride is like Trent Reznor: If you ignore how the heck he got there, he looks like a genius today. But both are heavily leveraging foundations built outside of the "new" system, and I really wonder how they would do without that support."


    I don't share your skepticism. Of course they've got foundations in old business models, because they got started when those business models made sense. This argument will be increasingly irrelevant as time goes on, and more and more people who've started up without those foundations continue to show what it takes to be successful.

    "Also, linking to stuff on techdirt is just linking to OPINION. If you want to prove a point, link to something that isn't your boss's opinion."

    *sigh* You are really bad at following conversations, eh? This will probably be my last comment.

    You said: "The only time anyone around here talks about record labels it's "greedy assholes" and "buggy whip sellers" and all sorts of nonsense."

    So, I linked to a bunch of Techdirt articles which weren't like that at all. The point I was trying to prove was about Techdirt's opinion.

    If you can't follow the conversation, it's not worth continuing.

  • On the post: Less Well Known Artists Make Use Of Mobile Platforms To Interact With Fans

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2009 @ 02:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's all? You're going to ignore the rest of the comment because you disagree with the McBride example? Nettwerk was one of about eight examples over those five posts. (And McBride is a good example not because of how he built his business, but because of how he's running his business.)

    Seems like you've got your mind made up and you're more interested in restating your complaints than actually responding to the post or to my comments. Hey, if that works for you...

  • On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2009 @ 11:15pm

    Collective Licensing and Freedom of Speech

    There are two main arguments I tend to bring up here.

    First, collective licensing agreements often mean that the creator doesn't have absolute control. Look at how politicians used music during the last American election (John McCain and the Foo Fighters?). Second, didn't Guitar Hero use cover songs at first to avoid having to negotiate with rock stars? Maybe I'm missing something about moral rights, but in those situations, people can just pay the fees and use the music, even if the creator objects.

    Second, the real moral argument, I think, is based on an ethic of freedom of speech for artists. Sometimes, people worry about artistic "vandalism." What if you've got some folk songwriter who is throughly offended by a death metal cover of her song? Should she have the right to deny other artists from "destroying" or "vandalizing" her work? The problem is, who defines what's distorted and what's vandalized? I think there's a serious issue of artistic freedom here. I wouldn't want my ability to make art to be contingent on another artist's approval.

  • On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2009 @ 10:59pm

    Re: Moral rights separate from copyright

    Non-commercial restrictions and moral rights are definitely separate things.

    And, CC licenses do waive most moral rights claims. Here's the text from the licence I use, Attribution-Share Alike Canada 2.5 (Canadian copyright law has moral rights, unlike in the US):

    "Except as otherwise agreed by the Original Author, if You Use a Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works in any material form, You must not do anything that would offend the Moral Rights of the Original Author, including but not limited to:

    1. You must not falsely attribute the Work to someone other than the Original Author; and
    2. If applicable, You must respect the Original Author's wish to remain anonymous or pseudonymous.
    All other moral rights are waived. This means the Original Author is not reserving the ability to prevent downstream creators from engaging in material distortion or modification of the work, including, but limited to, associating the Work with a particular product, service, cause or institution."

  • On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2009 @ 10:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Music is only an infinite good because we are currently tolerating widespread "infringing" (aka, obtaining without payment) of the music. Shut down file trading, and that "infinite good" goes back to being what it is, a product like any other."


    Digital audio files aren't infinite goods because of the law. It's because of technology.

    Copyright law can't change the fact that the marginal cost of reproduction of a digital audio file is essentially $0.

  • On the post: Less Well Known Artists Make Use Of Mobile Platforms To Interact With Fans

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2009 @ 09:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Yup, the only time anyone around here talks about record labels it's "greedy assholes" and "buggy whip sellers" and all sorts of nonsense."


    Maybe it wasn't obvious that "Really?" was a link: Adopting New Music Business Models Doesn't Mean The Death Of Record Labels

    Some other posts about labels who are doing it right:
    1. Indie Label That Gets It: Sell Things People Want, Not Just What They Hear
    2. Terry McBride Explains How Nettwerk Puts Fans In Control
    3. A Record Label That Embraces BitTorrent
    4. And a more detailed piece with a few different examples: An Outsider Gets A Peek Behind The Scenes Of The Music Industry's Mindset: Optimism Into Denial


    More importantly though... when did I say that labels and management companies weren't useful? I'm not "anti-label," Techdirt isn't "anti-label," and there's nothing at all "anti-label" about the Fanteraction platform. I bet it'd be nice for an artist to have someone else to setup a page and queue the songs up during a performance.

    But, my point was that this platform is even useful for the little guys who don't have a label or can't afford management yet. It's an application of the technology that makes it useful even if you've only got an audience of 10.

    Is it anti-label to say that?

  • On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2009 @ 08:54pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "It is completely beyond me why a songwriter/music creator would not want to be a member of SOCAN. Don't you want to get SOCAN cheques?"


    I don't expect you to understand, but, no, I don't actually want to get SOCAN cheques. Not when they're seeking to implement restrictive new media tariffs on bloggers and podcasters, not when it's an all-or-nothing choice and you have to automatically assign all your performance rights to the collective, making membership incompatible with certain Creative Commons licences which I use for my music.

    "These types of attitudes are ruining it for the rest of us. Musicians are their own worst enemies."


    How so?

    Yesterday, I had a friendly chat with someone at the SOCAN booth at NXNE yesterday, and a similar attitude came through.

    On one hand, as the rhetoric goes, a songwriter owns his songs, and has a right to be compensated for any use -- it's property, just like any other!

    Yet, when you get down to the specifics... SOCAN wants me to automatically assign all my rights to them, which would mean that I am unable to waive my own rights even if I want to. If I could selectively register works with SOCAN, I'd join, but SOCAN's all-or-nothing approach is much more about supporting the collective and SOCAN's bottom line than about "giving me control over my property."

  • On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2009 @ 02:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: free free free

    "It is very naive to compare Google with a working musician."


    I didn't compare Google with working musicians. That was just a response to your unbelievable comment: "I can't think of a single other business that is giving away anything!!"

    "Google isn't really giving anything away."


    Seriously? 99% of the services they provide are for free, and I'm being paid by Google right now to write code for an open source project (not only is that free (gratis), but it's also "giving away intellectual property" (libre)).


    "They are zillionaires."


    Yes... and, they became Zillionaires by building successful business models based on free.

    The fact that they're filthy rich supports the argument that you can give stuff away and still make a profit.

    "You cannot possibly compare Google's (or Nine Inch Nail's) ability to give things away with mine. I have yet to see this in action."


    Then you haven't been paying very close attention, because it's not just the big guys giving stuff away for free, whether we're talking about software or music.

    "Personally, I can't afford to give anything more away."


    *sigh*

    The whole point is to give away stuff for free when it doesn't cost anything to do so. When the marginal cost of reproduction is zero. Once you've made a digital audio file, the difference in cost is negligible if 1 copy is made or if 1 million copies are made.

    It hardly costs anything to give abundant goods away for free, or to let someone broadcast your song and promote your music.

    "I make a living from music. Do you?"


    A good chunk of my income actually does come from music, thanks.

    "It is clear that if the restaurant across the street gives away excellent (or even half decent) food for free then NO I could not compete."


    Right. Just like there's water flowing from the taps in our country, and absolutely no one makes a living selling bottled water. Oh, wait...

    "Where is the competition? Yes they would have the right to do it, but I would go out of business very swiftly because naturally people would eat at the free restaurant instead of paying at mine."


    Benefits. Make better food. Get feedback from your customers. Give people a reason to buy.

    The zero is irrelevant. What if it cost you $x to make a slice of pizza, and a shop across the street was selling it for $x/2. It doesn't even have to be free. The point is, they've undercut your price.

    You have two options: compete by price, or by benefit.

    You can match or beat the price. Or, you can make you offering more valuable.

    The only difference with $0 is that you can't really beat the price. You can still match it (if they can give away all their food and stay in business, why can't you?), or you can give people a reason to buy your food.

    Apple computers are more expensive, but they give customers a reason to pay a premium by offered perceived benefits.

    "I could always start giving away my food too, but then that would cost me a lot of money, and what reasonable business person would want to stay in a business like that?"


    Um, obviously the people across the street. Either they stay in business, in which case they're extremely reasonable because they've decimated the competition from you. Or, they go out of business... in which case, why are you complaining?

    Or, more likely, you find a way to adapt and give people a reason to buy your food. Sure, some people will always go for the cheaper stuff, but there's a reason some people eat at fancy restaurants instead of McDonald's all the time.

    It's not really that hard to understand...

    "I am not aware of any other business where the participants are so willing to cut their own throats and participate in their own demise."


    It happens all the time in technology, because things are moving so quickly (e.g. Intel).

    The problem is, if you don't find a way to "undercut" yourself, someone else will. You can hang on to the copyright cash cow, but when people are figuring out how to make a living with out it, that well is going to dry up soon. You can hang on to the dwindling source of revenue, or you can be one of the people learning how to make money elsewhere.

    "Who said there aren't plenty of times when you don't have to pay for music (like when you whistle a tune on the bus)? Who said that?"


    You did: "Of course you have to pay for music wherever and however it appears. Shut up."

    "We are talking about situations where Performance Rights apply. Maybe you should read up on them."


    Performance Rights is not the same was "wherever and however [music] appears." Plus, it's not at all clear cut what constitutes a performance, offline or online.

    Is hosting songs on a website a public performance? What if you need a password to access them, and only 3 people (your family members) have accounts? What if those three people are your friends? What if 3000 people have accounts? 3 million?

    When does it become public?

    You made a comment that you always need to pay for "music wherever and however it is used;" I'm using reductio ad absurdum because that's an absurd statement.

    "Open mics are not just frequented by rank beginners but by those at all levels and the Performance Rights apply regardless. I can think of a several examples right in my own city. These venues should not be exempt from paying the fees. They are making money from food and drinks being sold. If they weren't, *they wouldn't do it*. That's business (unless you're a musician, or course)"


    Have you read any of the other comments? Some of them aren't able to do it with the shakedowns from BMI. That's the point.

    For many who are starting it, the promotional value of being able to play at an open mic or having your CD spun in a venue is much more important than the nickels you'd get in royalties. Yet, these collection organizations are creative financial disincentives for venues to support open mics or play CDs from local artists.

    "And it is not the case that when you get "good enough" you will be able to demand money. Where do you get that idea? This is certainly a myth of the highest order. There are dozens of "good" musicians under every rock who can't make money from their work because now they are expected to give it away...cause after all, they're just like Google."


    Ok, agreed. That was sloppy on my part. Being good isn't enough -- you also need a business model that works.

    You're confusing what to give away. It makes sense to charge for live performances -- that's a scarcity, and it requires your time and presence. It doesn't make as much sense to charge a venue to play your recordings -- it doesn't cost you anything for them to spin your CD, and it's actually promoting your music. Why create a disincentive for venues to promote your music?

    It makes even less sense to worry about charging for every use of a digital audio file -- that's probably the only place where a comparison to Google makes some sense (as Google gives away open source software, or lets people use Gmail for free).

  • On the post: Less Well Known Artists Make Use Of Mobile Platforms To Interact With Fans

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2009 @ 01:56pm

    Re: Re: Yet another thing to add to an open source music web site ...

    libre.fm is under heavy development, but I think that's geared more toward music listeners than artists (a la last.fm -- though, last.fm has features for artists too). *shrugs* That's the only one that comes to mind...

  • On the post: Less Well Known Artists Make Use Of Mobile Platforms To Interact With Fans

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2009 @ 07:14pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Promotion, marketing, recording, distribution, contacts with appropriate radio and TV in each market, local people on the ground, contacts with the event promoters, other bands to match an upcoming act with as the opening act, etc."


    What did I say to exclude record labels? Or, are you suggesting that artists shouldn't have to connect with fans or give them a reason to buy if they've got a label?

    How are the labels doing right now that aren't focusing on connecting with fans?

    "It's the amazing thing that nobody around here ever talks about."


    Really?

  • On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2009 @ 04:14pm

    Re: free free free

    "I can't think of a single other business that is giving away anything!!"


    Really? ... really?! Not a single one?

    There's an entire book coming out about these businesses, if you need some help. Maybe, give Google a test run, as both an example of a business giving away something, and a tool to find other businesses doing the same.

    Have you been to many websites before?

    "re musicians having the right to give their music away. I'll bet you would think differently if there was a venue across the street from yours that was giving away food and booze, all the time. Do you think you'd be saying they have the right to do that?"


    Um... why wouldn't they have a right to do that? If they can stay in business, how could you possibly claim that don't have a right to do that? On what grounds?

    That you can't compete?

    Your inability to compete doesn't take away anybody's right to give away stuff they own for free. You clearly haven't thought this through for very long.

    "Open mic nights etc sound so altuistic but they are essential a way of getting free employees to boost your business. Everyone seems to think this is ok. Tell me where is the musician's income supposed to come from? Where, tell me?"


    Open mic nights are obviously for musicians who aren't able to make a living off their music yet. They provide a platform for getting started. Lots of great songwriters have honed their skills and fine-tuned their craft at open mic nights, before getting the confidence, experience and exposure they need to make money off their music.

    Or, sometimes more established artists will go to open mic nights for the community, for the chance to share music and to try out something new.

    Open mic nights aren't exploiting artists as "free employees" (I think you mean "unpaid"). Artists play their music for free in exchange for access to the platform (stage) and community (audience, often full of other songwriters).

    I bet that if a songwriter was good enough to demand money for their performance, they wouldn't be frequenting an open mic night. These are for the little guys who are getting started (like myself).

    "Of course you have to pay for music wherever and however it appears. Shut up."


    Really? What if I whistle a tune on the bus. What if it's your tune? Do I owe you money?

    What if kids are singing songs in school? Is that exploiting songwriters unfairly?

    What if a guitar teacher is playing a song to teach it to me? What if it's a violin teacher, and that song is in the public domain?


    If you think about this for a bit longer than it takes to type a comment, you'll realize that there plenty of times when you don't have to pay for music, depending on where and how you use it.

  • On the post: Less Well Known Artists Make Use Of Mobile Platforms To Interact With Fans

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2009 @ 03:52pm

    Re:

    Um... this isn't a one-to-one connection, this is a one-to-many connection (from artist to audience). In fact, it's not even very personal...

    The only personal thing about it is that the artist was playing to a small room. The small room is what's personal, not the technology.

    The point is that this sort of technology has uses in both a small room or a stadium.

    Or... are you suggesting that artists playing in a small room should ignore the people listening to them? I'd tend to think it's a great opportunity to form an authentic connection, and then have those people serve as ambassadors for your music and your performance elsewhere and grow your market.

    Unless, you have another idea of how to reach a critical mass?

  • On the post: Yusuf Islam Forgives Coldplay For Copying His Song, Even Though They Probably Didn't

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2009 @ 01:07am

    Re: Depends on your definition I suppose

    "Blaise, what I take away from Yusuf's statement is that even if they had written this song without ever having heard Yusuf's song (which may well be the case), he would still consider it to be "copied" because his song came first. To him it was the timeline that mattered. But he also goes on to basically say "No big deal." I disagree with Yusuf's definition of copied in this case, but the total gist of his message seems very valid to me."

    Well, yeah, I realize it's a bit more complex. For example (and just for argument's sake)... if Coldplay copied from Satrian, and Satriani copied from Islam, then it's still "Islam's melody" ultimately.

    But I think there are two main problems still.
    1. What if it wasn't copied at all? With so many examples of the same melody, what are the chances that everyone someone copied from Islam (or from someone else who copied from Islam) versus that at least some of them came up with the melody independently? If they came up with it independently, it doesn't matter if Islam came up with it earlier; it's not copied.
    2. What's so original about Islam? Now, I don't know much about Yusuf Islam's / Cat Steven's music, but he obviously must have had inspirations and been affected by the music he listened to as well. What makes him so sure that the melody originated with his song? I don't know of any well known examples before him (though, some of the recent examples are from independent artists who we likely wouldn't have heard of in an earlier time), but I'm skeptical that Islam's creation is so "pure" and "uncopied" given how many other artists have used a similar melody


    You're right though, depends what he means by copying. To expand copying to include unconscious copying is one thing, but to expand the definition to include independent creation is nonsensical.

  • On the post: Electronic Arts Stages Protest of Dante's Inferno at E3

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 16 Jun, 2009 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Too bad we can't resell this stupid stunt.

    I was just reading Why Crunch Mode Doesn't Work yesterday.

  • On the post: ASCAP Thinks That Video Game Providers Should Pay Music Performance Royalties

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 05:12pm

    Re: If the only tool you sell is a hammer...

    Good point.

  • On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 02:28am

    Re: ASCAP, BMI

    The alternative is royalty-free licensing, but it's not easy.

    It's not easy to get away from the collection societies, because they believe that they have a right to collect for any use of any music, just in case it's theirs (as evidenced by this post).

    But the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) and Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA) licences both involve waiving performance rights, so an establishment which only plays CC BY or CC BY-SA music should (in theory) not owe anyone performance royalties. (As I musician, I license my works under a CC BY-SA licence and I'm not a member of any collection agency.)

    Somehow, though, I'd still expect the collection societies to come knocking.

  • On the post: Canadian Copyright Expert On Levy Proposals: Today's Quickie Legislative Solutions Are Tomorrow's Absurdities

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2009 @ 08:49pm

    Re:

    Well, this wasn't so much a study as an observation. Yes, he's been an advocate against the levy, probably because he thinks a $2500 levy on a $300 ipod would have been a bad idea.

  • On the post: Canadian Copyright Expert On Levy Proposals: Today's Quickie Legislative Solutions Are Tomorrow's Absurdities

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2009 @ 08:42pm

    Re:

    The "expert" text at the bottom appears on any posts from the Insight Community that make the Techdirt front page.

    Any comments on the actual post?

  • On the post: The Intellectual Property Asshole Competition

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 25 May, 2009 @ 09:30pm

    Available Online For Free

    This is the same Evan Roth doing that Available Online For Free project.

Next >>