Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ category

Nonsense from Coldplay?

May 8, 2008

 So lots of people downloaded the free single from Coldplay last week. EMI claimed that the total number of downloads was 4 times the combined sales of the Top 40. Well great. There are always some great stats about how free stuff outperformed paid for content, just ask the IFPI! 

It gets worse. They are offering buy one get on free on the album tracks and Chris Martin has swallowed the no one buys albums anymore line:

“As I said before nobody buys albums any more, certainly no body buys full albums and we’ve made an album that you have to have from start to finish.”

The thing is some music fans do buy albums. Especially if then album is good. NEws travels fast on the internet. Maybe it is even some demographics do. It’s strange but the buy-on-get-one-free approach seems to undermine the value of the music, and this album in particular, much more than either Radiohead’s pay what you like or Nine Inch Nails giveaways or tiered pricing.

Coldplay may have received some great covereage with the single download. With the requirement of an email address in exchange for the track they may also have substantially grown their email database.

These subsequent comments make them look a bit desperate – or is it the label? I remember the unconvincing reports that EMI’s move to DRM-free had been a success. Question is did or will EMI make any money by consequence of this stunt?

Update: It gets worse…

“It doesn’t matter whether the record is good or bad,” he said.

“It matters that it’s colourful. The songs are supposed to be flavours, things we haven’t tasted before.”  






May 7, 2008

more Kevin Kelly

February 4, 2008

“The odd thing about free technology is that the “free as in beer” part is actually a distraction. As I have argued elsewhere (see my 2002 New York Times Magazine article on the future of music for example) the great attraction of “free” music is only partially that it does not cost anything. The chief importance of free music (and other free things) is held in the second English meaning of the word: free as in “freedom.” Free music is more than piracy because the freedom in the free digital downloads suddenly allowed music lovers to do all kinds of things with this music that they had longed to do but were unable to do before things were “free.” The “free” in digital music meant the audience could unbundled it from albums, sample it, create their own playlists, embed it, share it with love, bend it, graph it in colors, twist it, mash it, carry it, squeeze it, and enliven it with new ideas. The free-ization made it liquid and ‘free” to interact with other media. In the context of this freedom, the questionable legality of its free-ness was secondary. It didn’t really matter because music had been liberated by the free, almost made into a new media. Technology wants to be free, as in free beer, because as it become free it also increases freedom. The inherent talents, capabilities and benefits of a technology cannot be released until it is almost free. The drive toward the free unleashes the constraints on each species in the technium, allowing it to interact with as many other species of technology as is possible, engendering new hybrids and deeper ecologies of tools, and permitting human users more choices and freedoms of use. As a technology grows in abundance and cheapness, it is more likely to find its appropriate niche which it can sustain itself and support other technologies in commodity mode. As technology heads toward the free it unleashes the only lasting thing it can: options and possibilities.”

End of the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, for now

June 29, 2007

Not enough time to write on this today but WIPO is the UN’s copyright agency and they have been proposing a treaty to deal with signal theft. As with much deal making at the international level negotiations have rendered the treaty unworkable (talk of anti-copyright org.s and some countries peddling their own agendas). The Hollywood Reporter link fills in quite well and there’s always the EFF for the view from one side of the copyright debate…

Public shaming of leakers of content

June 21, 2007

Idolator posted a link to this blog before the writer could even get his first name and shame live. The idea according to the blogger behind the site is to:

…create a little blog to post the names, indelible and set out for all to see, of those people who’ve been given the care of having an early copy of a release and have set that responsibility aside and leaked the record they were entrusted with.

The comments are of course growing…

It’s obviously quite a shaky approach to trying to quell pre-release leaks of music being vulnerable to people sending in names maliciously. But it does suggest an interesting extension of some of the discussion that goes on in fans’ forums about whether to upload pre-release material. Some are so desperate to hear it that they want it posted, claiming they will buy it anyway. Others cite the undermining of an artist’s hard work and intentions as a reason not to post.

If this blog takes off, and I am not sure it will, it will be interesting to see what effect it has and the discussion that follow.

Irish ISPs forced to reveal file-sharers identities

June 11, 2007

There is a brief article on Billboard about how six Irish ISPs have been ordered to reveal teh names anad addresses of P2P file-sharers. It’s a project in itself to follow how caselaw is evolving across Europe with respect to balancing privacy against copyright holders desire for ISPs to reveal user details. Last week we mentioned the Promusicae v Telefonica case.  

Premier League sues YouTube

May 5, 2007

Following their threats to the 101GreatGoals blog last year, the Premier League is suing YouTube for copyright infringement. Blogger Nick at points out some of the interesting territorial aspects of the case as well as the point that apparently the Premier League is requesting a class action suit, which would mean one case against Google/YouTube for all content copyright holders.

Techdirt suggests the PL want a piece of Viacom’s action. You will of course remember that Viacom is the biggest recent big name to sue YouTube. Google recently responded to the Viacom claims, apparently saying that the rights of millions of net users were under threat if Viacom’s claims were upheld.