Tonsotunez 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (45) comment rss

  • On the post: The Myth Of Original Creators

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2009 @ 09:16am

    Re: It's The Expression of an Idea That Counts

    "As any basic instruction in economics and unintended consequences will tell you, the unintended consequences of gov't back monopolies will usually harm the overall market...

    Mike, your attempts at economic voodoo have been soundly debunked throughout this thread, so, I don't need to go there - but let's go here ... in your zeal to have the copyright law neutered in such a way as to remove all economic incentives for those who create, why don't we apply a little quid pro quo by making it illegal for anyone who currently uses music to make a profit to do so.

    For example let's make it illegal for Google and its various services, including YouTube, to earn a dime from any service that includes music.

    Let's make it illegal for radio and TV to profit when music is part of an attraction.

    Let's make sure that any restaurant or bar that uses music as part of their ambiance doesn't charge for food.

    As for the members of the Consumers Electronic Association let's be sure they aren't allowed make a profit from any electronic products that deliver music to the pubic. Apple, for example, should give ipods and iphones away at no charge.

    And, shouldn't concert promoters and theater owners be forbidden to present programs that include music?

    And, what about the scavengers feeding off the death of Michael Jackson, why should they be allowed to include any of his music in any of their offerings?

    What about the good ol' ISPs? Should they be allowed to charge for any part of their service that delivers music to their subscribers?

    As for our open source friends, shouldn't they be forbidden from creating any products that facilitates the delivery of music?

    On January 13, 1864, world renowned composer, Stephen Foster, died at age 37 with 38 cents in his pocket. Foster's only real income was the royalty he earned on sheet-music sales. Altogether he made $15,091.08 in royalties during his lifetime (his yearly average was $1,371 for his 11 most productive years). His heirs, Jane and Marion equally, later earned $4,199 in royalties, so that the total known royalties on his songs amounted to $19,290. (http://www.pitt.edu/~amerimus/foster.htm)

    There was no copyright protection in place for Foster at the time ... and the multitudes of technologies we have today that rake in huge sums of money by being conduits for music didn't exist either.

    Your proposals would condemn all creators to an economic life similar to that of Stephen Foster by stripping them of their rights granted by the copyright law. If that were to come to pass, it seems to me it would only be fair to restrict profit making technologies from advancing their businesses on the backs of music and those who create it.

  • On the post: The Myth Of Original Creators

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 04 Jul, 2009 @ 09:43am

    It's The Expression of an Idea That Counts

    That which is copyrightable is the EXPRESSION of an idea, not the idea itself.

    As with everything in life we build on the what came before us ... and, of course, that's the only way civilization advances.

    Anyone can express an idea any way they want, however, if they use someone copyrighted expression to facilitate their own expression they certainly open themselves to a legal challenge and rightfully so.

    Whatever technology allows people to do is quite irrelevant. No matter how brilliant a collage of other people's expressions may be, it's the use of the underlying expressions - and the public's awareness of those expressions - that make it brilliant.

    Great editors have always been important in the creative process, but they are only as good as the underlying material. DJ Danger Mouse would have been nothing without Jay-Z and and the Beatles. Who would have been interested in The Gray Album if it were a combined of works from the Creative Commons or from the vast reservoir material of unknown independent artists.

    Except in very limited fair use circumstances - from the copyright law perspective not from the Larry Lessig and crew bastardization of the term ... courts will always condemn the confiscation of copyrighted expression and the world's copyright laws will never be amended to allow it.

    Mike, you really need to stop being obsessed with trying to destroy the rights of those who truly advance our civilization - those who deliver the fresh expressions of ideas that provide those who aren't creative enough to operate without those expressions to move their personal agendas forward.

  • On the post: Will The RIAA Shut Down Public School Kids From Singing Pop Songs On YouTube?

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 29 May, 2009 @ 08:18am

    Mike ... Before Getting Your Panties In A Bunch...

    Please, please, please ... just for once, try to get your facts straight before choosing to display your ignorance.

    Your favorite whipping boy, the RIAA, has no involvement whatsoever with these types of uses. Their interest is only in copyrighted, commercially released recordings owned by their members ...

    This is a songwriter, music publisher issue.

    YouTube has licenses with the performing rights societies (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC) so that aspect is covered...

    The only possible hiccup might be with music publishers if the school did not secure a licenses that allow the synchronization of audio with video ... Most schools are careful about handling such details ... and most license for such uses are granted gratis.

    I know you feel it is you duty to wake up each morning, stumble out of bed and find something new to be wrong about ... but, your inability to comprehend anything you rant about is getting a little tiresome.

  • On the post: YouTube Ordered To Pay $1.6 Million To ASCAP

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 22 May, 2009 @ 06:30pm

    Well, Mike, Wrong Again

    Mike says: ASCAP gets to go in and demand cash from anyone who benefits from music anywhere, and a judge sorta randomly makes up reasons to give them cash.

    ASCAP operates under a consent decree mandated by the
    Department of Justice.

    Under the terms of the decree, ASCAP must license its catalog to anyone - or any organization - that requests a license.

    Once the request is made the requesting party is licensed and may immediately use the music in the ASCAP catalog subject to the requirement that they immediately enter into negotiations regarding the fees to be paid. If the fees can't be agreed upon, the consent decree requires that the parties must have the rates set by a rate court.

    YouTube requested a license ... negotiations were entered into, but, the parties could not agree upon a fee.

    A rate court proceeding was convened.

    The proceedings are exactly the same as in any other court. Evidence is gathered and presented and witnesses are called to establish each sides position in the matter. Then the judge, after carefully taking everyone's point of view under consideration, comes up with the rules to be followed and the fees to be paid.

    The proceedings can become quite lengthy and intense - not to mention costly - but one thing is without doubt - the results are never because the judge "sorta randomly makes up reasons to give (ASCAP) cash.

    The very first order of business is always to determine whether ASCAP is due anything pursuant to the U.S. Copyright Law. Nothing proceeds unless the answer to that question is 'yes.' Of course, YouTube knew the answer at the outset or they wouldn't have requested a license.

    To head off what would have been an appropriate discussion on this list, you state, "I know that ASCAP supporters will claim that the money is for songwriters, not the record labels, and it's important and blah blah blah ..."

    Well, just so you won't be disappointed, the money collected by ASCAP is for songwriters, not the record labels, and it's important and blah blah blah ...

    Why are you always so dead set against paying anything to anyone who creates music? Your message is always that artists, musicians, songwriters are such worthless human beings that don't deserve to be paid for their innovative creativity.

    Google is a business ... writing music is a business ... ASCAP is the agent for those who are in the business of writing music ...

    Google is a huge business using its might, muscle and money to trample everything in its sight - little guy, big guy any guy that gets in their way ... The use of other peoples music (without paying) has been a huge part of their success story ... However, in the case of songwriters, they have acknowledged - by requesting a license - that something is due the creators of music who are mostly small, independent business people.

    So, it was Google that preferred to have a court determine what that payment should be rather than entering into productive negotiations with the writer's agent, ASCAP.

    The procedure is well defined by the Department of Justice ... The way to a resolution was clear ... there is nothing at all messy or inefficient about the process as you suggest.

  • On the post: The Web, Creativity And Commerce: The Blurry Line Between Creativity And Ownership

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 17 May, 2009 @ 11:04am

    Last Days......Of The US Economy

    Interestingly enough, when the concept of the global economy was first being considered, the plan was, and always has been, that manufacturing jobs would move overseas and the US would become a service economy based on our country's ability to use its intellectual superiority to develop new industries based on intellectual property rights.

    Well, we've seen our manufacturing jobs move over seas alright ... even while our President is trying to bail out GM, GM is talking about moving the rest of its manufacturing jobs to China!!!

    What we're also seeing, however, is that advancements in technology are destroying all of our industries based on intellectual property ... in other words, eventually most of the US work force will be without opportunities for gainful employment - unless you consider serving burgers to fat Americans gainful employment ...

    So, if we don't wake up - and soon - to the understanding of what we are doing to ourselves by actively seeking the destruction of patents and copyrights so that we can enjoy the fruits of intellectual based industries without paying ... we will become a nation of sloths, beggars and government dependents looking to developing nations hell bend on our destruction for hand outs ... (as if we aren't doing that already.)

    It's not to late to save ourselves it we start realizing we are enabling our own destruction ... Thank God we have a President that understands that intellectual property is the only hope for the future of the United States.

  • On the post: Bailing Out The RIAA?

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 16 May, 2009 @ 10:35pm

    Radio Does Pay Public Performance Royalties

    "Is this a new copyright, akin to what was created by the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings act?"

    Yes.

    ASCAP, BMI or SESAC collect and pay songwriters, and music publishers.

    This would pay artists and record companies through SoundExchange

  • On the post: Bailing Out The RIAA?

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 15 May, 2009 @ 04:28pm

    Indie Artists Led The Fight For This Bill

    This latest push to get the US to grant performance rights to artists started some 4 to 5 years ago at the Future of Music Coalition conference in Washington DC.

    The Future of Music Coalition is dedicated to enhancing opportunities for indie artists to compete with the majors.

    At that conference, indie artists were advised that copyright laws in most other countries of the world provided for payment to artists for the performances of their works on broadcast media ... They were also told that because the US didn't have those rights in its copyright law, money for performances of US recordings overseas was being withheld and distributed among foreign artists whose countries had laws that did contain performance provisions.

    Over the years, we're talking billions of dollars not paid to US performers for the performances of their recordings in foreign countries!

    The Future of Music Coalition led the charge on behalf of its constituency - indie artists - to make lawmakers aware of the inequity.

    Artists (including those from the Recording Academy, AFM, AFTRA and other artist based organizations - indie and majors) as well as songwriters from all over the country joined in the effort to make Congress see how unfair US artists were being treated.

    Sure the RIAA joined in and lent its weight to the fight, but it was the artists (and mostly indie artists) that carried the water ...

    And, you will say ... sure the RIAA would join in because you all want to believe that they will get all of the benefit from the results of this bill.

    Not true ...

    Artists will get 60% of the monies earned and the record company will get 40%. Not only that, but the Artists will be paid direct ... no skimming off the top by the record companies.

    This is the right bill at the right time for all the right reasons.

    The National Association of Broadcaster (NAB) are the bad guys in this piece ...

    If you are for the advancement of indie artists ... you should support of this legislation. It will help them stay alive while they produce the music you say you want.

  • On the post: Bailing Out The RIAA?

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 15 May, 2009 @ 10:01am

    Extortion

    I haven't read all of the comments; so, maybe I'm late to the party with these thoughts.

    Radio created payola through extortion ... "You want your record played ... pay us under the table!"

    The NAB has gotten its way with Congress for years through extortion ... "You want to get re-elected in your district, don't listen to the artist's calls for parody with laws in the rest of the world or we'll bury you."

    With radio's power slipping away ... it's time for fairness to prevail ... There is no rational for anyone to provide high quality entertainment to radio for free if the trumped up reason - quid pro quo - (airplay causes record sales)is gone.

    American artists, whose music is the most popular in the world, have suffered for years in that they have received none of the billions of dollars paid in other countries for performances on radio - The rational? If US radio doesn't pay foreign artists for performances in the US, we (the foreign collections societies) are not going to pay American artists for the performance of their music in our countries.

    It's time for radio to start acting like any other business by paying for the goods (music) they need operate.

  • On the post: Why Would Amazon Want To Block Links From A File Sharing Search Engine?

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 08 May, 2009 @ 10:14am

    Re: Problematically Outdated Laws.

    Wow! Congratulations on your attempt to stifle free speech by calling me a troll. If you aren't interested in at least considering positions opposed to Mike Masnick's point of view ... what, exactly, is the value of having a comment section attached to his blog? From what I've read, I don't happen to believe Mike has the least bit of understanding about anything upon which he pontificates - and, have, in the past, presented points of view that oppose his positions. If you wish to be his lap dog, jerk yourself off to his uniformed perspectives and call me a troll for taking the time to express myself, you probably won't mind if I call you stupid.

  • On the post: Why Would Amazon Want To Block Links From A File Sharing Search Engine?

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 02 May, 2009 @ 10:34pm

    Problematically Outdated Laws.

    By this statement am I to assume you think the law should be changed to strip all rights from those who create music so you can take it from them without the fear of suffering any sort of penalty for doing so?

    The copyright law is specifically written to make creators the initial owners of all rights to whatever they create. To prevent creators from assigning those rights to others they believe might be useful in developing their careers - like record companies, motion picture production companies et al, (the people you live to hate) - you would have to take creators rights away from them by eliminating copyright laws entirely.

    So, what you are really saying is that you believe its a good idea to screw the creators of music by taking their rights away so you can have unencumbered access to free sources of music that don't pay creators rather than patronizing the ever growing number of legal sources of free or close to free music that do.

    With that sort of unthinking, uncaring, uneducated attitude, you know who you are really screwing?

    You.

    Starving creators is not the most effective way to encourage them to create.

  • On the post: Why Would Amazon Want To Block Links From A File Sharing Search Engine?

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 01 May, 2009 @ 09:12pm

    Legitimizing Creeps

    Amazon allowing the association of their trusted, high quality, fully licensed, legal brand with an illegitimate, unauthorized, malware infested piece of garbage site gives the appearance of legitimizing creeps and tarnishes the Amazon brand making it more difficult for them to deal effectively with the sources of the legitimate product they sell.

    A trademarked super brand like Amazon needs to do everything in its power to protect its image. Associating with those who have no respect for the rights of others isn't smart business.

  • On the post: There May Be Hope For The Recording Industry, Yet

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2009 @ 12:53pm

    Peeing

    Well, Mike, I'm glad someone lifted the flap and gave you a little peek inside the tent ... you've spent so much time peeing on the tent from the outside with your mind locked in a 2006-2007 frame of reference that you haven't noticed what's going on around you. At this point, more professionals in fields related to creativity and creators themselves have forgotten more about your dated perspective than you will ever know about their embrace of the exciting now world in which they live.

  • On the post: How Not To 'Save' The Music Industry: Ask The Folks Who Benefited From Old Inefficiencies

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2009 @ 07:34pm

    Collections Societies

    Mike says: "These collections societies are middlemen who profit off of the inefficiencies of the old system."

    It might be useful, Mike, if you would identify the collection societies of which you speak then explain exactly how they profit.

    The collection societies referenced in the MusicTank paper are not-for-profit advocates for their constituencies.

    The PRS for Music (http://www.prsformusic.com) in the UK, for example, represents songwriters and music publishers. They bargain collectively for their members - license, collect and protect their members rights, and pay out everything they take in, less overhead of about 15% which is rational for the activities they undertake.

    You seem to think it would be beneficial for songwriters to cut themselves loose from their societies and swarm the world like overly agitated ants to individually license, track and collect royalties from each of the thousands of music users who use their songs to make a profit.

    Explain to us exactly how they could do that...and what would happen if users told those lonely, stand alone songwriters to screw off?

    It's always a little easier to get someone to take you seriously when you have 600,000 other songwriters standing behind you.

    Songwriters, by the way, are not forced to join a collection society - they always have the option to go it alone ... most writers, the smallest of small business people, would view you suggestion as a very bad business decision.

    Be that as it may, Mike, it would be really valuable to all of us if you would give us some examples of collection society fat cats ... and, explain just how they are getting fat.

    You might want to take the time to find out what Collections Societies actually do before responding.

  • On the post: Time To Scrap All Music Industry Licensing Schemes

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2009 @ 06:14pm

    Fuel

    Like gasoline is to the automobile, music related technology is useless without fuel(music).

    I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that laws, licenses and fees required to drill for oil, refine it, and deliver it to a gas station so it can be pumped into your car should be abolished. If someone did make that suggestion and, against all odds, it became reality, oil would stay in the ground ... and people would be pushing their cars around town to make them 'run'.

    It's the same with the layers of intellectual endeavors that have to come together to make it possible for a song to come out of the head of its creator, find the right artist to sing it, producer to produce it, background musicians and singers to perform on it, engineers to mix and master it, marketers to market it and financiers to fund it before it becomes the recorded fuel that makes music related technology operate.

    If, per your suggestion, laws, licenses and fees required to encourage people to become proficient in, and hopefully make a living from, the various specialized fields of endeavor needed to deliver interesting and exciting music to the consumer were removed from the path of technology's march to the sea ... those who would have been inclined to take up music and music related endeavors on a profession basis would simply find something else to do with their lives and the torrent of great new music that has been pleasing the public since the invention of recording technology would dwindle to a trickle.

    Mike, you always use the self contained artists playing clubs and selling t-shirts as your model for music's future. There's no future for artists using that model. The total lack of enthusiasm for music offered via the Creative Commons is undeniable proof of that fact. In this click to delete world an artist's shelf life (if they can even get on the shelf in the first place) is about as long as their zany YouTube video stays hot ... Besides, what moron would think spending 40 years playing rotten clubs would be a life worth living.

    You also like to point to Trent Reznor as an example of what artists can do without labels... and seem to indicate that unknown artists could follow the same route and achieve similar results... One missing element each time you use Nine Inch Nails as an example is the fact that the group is a long time well established super BRAND built by their record label. So, of course, is the Grateful Dead.

    In this world of deposable music, I believe we are seeing the end of the era of mega brand artists - so, while the Nine Inch Nails example could be more damaging to labels than piracy in the future (because artists will use the labels to help build their brand then go out on their own when their contracts are over), it is disingenuous on your part to suggest that the formula will work for unknowns.

    Most unknown acts will never have the money or the carefully constructed public persona to do what Reznor did ... and, if they tried, 95% of them would be flushing their money down the drain because the percentage of successes to failures has not changed since the world went digital.

    As to the organizations you wish to have abolished, you display a profound lack of understanding as to what they do. You really should bone up on how they operate, before trying to give them the bone. Two of the organizations you mention are not for profits - they don't produce fat cat middle men - they negotiate rates and fees, license, collect and protect rights on behalf of their members, and pay out every penny they take in - less overhead costs (between 10-15% of gross.) It would be impossible for an individual artist - or songwriter - to do 1% of what these organizations do on their behalf and still find time to create and promote their music. Something to do with the concept of collective bargaining I believe.

    You should really try to understand what at you are talking about before passing yourself off as an expert in the field of music. You do a great disservice to yourself, your readers and to music.

    By the way, I hear you will be keynoting the Leadership Music Digital Summit in Nashville. One thing you might wish to keep in mind is that your audience will include a good number of digitally hip music industry professionals and professional creators. Try to feed them the kind of clearly uninformed malarkey you presented in this blog, and I guarantee you they will hand you your head. This won't be the standard unenlightened college student and uniformed Tex Nobody artist wanna-be crowd that usually show up at these sorts of events you will be facing.

    My suggestion, get a handle before you fly off the handle.

  • On the post: Recording Industry Lobbying Group Pushes Congress To Tax Radio Stations More

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2009 @ 08:41pm

    Re: Radio Station airplay

    Michael, true to format, trashes his target, provides links to mostly negative unfounded, unsubstantiated attacks on his target and fails to provide a link to his victim's website so those interested could easily take a look at their point of view.

    Well, here's the link.

    MusicFIRST
    http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/

    Although the RIAA supports MusicFIRST it is only one of many organizations representing thousands upon thousands of artists, musicians and singers that support MusicFirst. A list of the organizations is below.

    Additionally, hundreds of artists have joined the organization directly - their names are mentioned on the site.

    Before following anybody's rant blindly - which appears to be the case with respect to most of the responses to Michael's post - taking all points of view into consideration might be useful.

    Organizations Supporting MusicFIRST include:
    American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM),
    American Association of Independent Music (A2IM),
    American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA),
    Christian Music Trade Association (CMTA),
    Music Managers Forum - USA (MMF- USA),
    The Latin Recording Academy,
    The Recording Academy,
    The Rhythm & Blues Foundation, Inc,
    Recording Artists’ Coalition (RAC),
    Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA),
    Society of Singers,
    SoundExchange
    Vocal Group Hall of Fame.

  • On the post: Recording Industry Lobbying Group Pushes Congress To Tax Radio Stations More

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2009 @ 07:48pm

    Re: Radio Station airplay

    "And, PLEASE!!!!!, tell me how piracy is the fault of local radio stations???"

    Piracy is not the fault of local radio; but, radio is now used by its listeners to determine what to steal rather than what to purchase ...

    The, old I'll scratch your back you scratch mine quid pro quo that has existed for years - no longer exists.

    In this new age, radio needs to start doing its part to fund the high quality musical entertainment it uses to sell advertising otherwise there is no incentive to continue to deliver the entertainment programming that makes the commercials palatable.

  • On the post: Recording Industry Lobbying Group Pushes Congress To Tax Radio Stations More

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2009 @ 09:02pm

    Radio Station airplay

    The US is one of the few - if not the only - country in the world where radio stations don't pay performance royalties to artists ... Because US radio doesn't pay royalties - Societies around the world that collect artist performance royalties don't share those royalties with American artists. It's called reciprocity. With American music being far and away the most popular music in the world, American artists have lost billions in income they should have been receiving through the years.

    The National Association of Broadcasters is among the richest and most influential lobbies in Washington. After all they represent radio station in every electorial district in the country and spend tons of money to remind legislators how important their radio stations are to their campaigns when election time rolls around.

    Artists have been trying to be treated like the foreign counter parts for years. The NAB has squashed them like a bug every time they've tried and they are not letting up this time around.

    The reality is that if there ever was a quid pro quo where radio play helped sell records ... piracy has removed that little give and take ... It only took 62,000 sales to give Taylor Swift the number one position on the album charts this week ... piracy accounted for what would have been the remaining sales ... perhaps an additional 100,000 units.

    So, radio is using professional quality music provided to them without charge to sell advertising and the artist is getting rather little in return. Older artists who are no longer performing and whose recordings are getting sucked off the Net for nothing are totally out in the cold.

    As everyone in these sorts of blogs always says, changing times require changing the way we look at monetary considerations ... The time is right for artists to finally get what they should have gotten for years... get what artists throughout the rest of the world have always gotten.

    What is it about the artists everyone loves that leads consumers to believe that artists don't deserve to get paid.

  • On the post: ASCAP Continues Its Attack On Lessig; Free Culture

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2009 @ 08:33pm

    How You Get Paid At ASCAP

    "It is a simple question - no?"

    No.

    ASCAP pays everyone whose works are picked up in their surveys. There are, however, situations where writers get performances in venues that aren't surveyed. For those writers, ASCAP has a program (offered by no other PRO in the world) called ASCAPlus. Once a year writers can advise ASCAP of performances of their works in unsurveyed venues and are eligible for special cash awards for those performances. In essence, therefore, all writers who have had works publicly performed have the opportunity to be paid for those performances.

    But, of course, you would have known that if you had have taken the time to review the information on the ASCAP site.

  • On the post: ASCAP Continues Its Attack On Lessig; Free Culture

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2009 @ 05:53pm

    Why are royalties more complicated than say - Sales Tax?

    To: Chrles W - T consaul

    Would everybody please stop mixing up songwriters issues with artists issues. Take the time to understand the difference before feeding back artist arguments in songwriter conversations. Other than the fact that artists sing songs artists and songwriters have totally unrelated concerns.

  • On the post: ASCAP Continues Its Attack On Lessig; Free Culture

    Tonsotunez ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2009 @ 05:44pm

    Re: How You Get Paid At ASCAP

    Oh-please asks: "Does ASCAP pay all those for whom royalties were assessed?"

    If you mean by 'assessed' - captured in the variety of ways ASCAP surveys the use of music, the answer is 'yes'. If a work is detected has having been performed, the writers and publishers get credit for the performance.

Next >>