Contact
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Stay Up to Speed
    Album or Art of The Week

     

     

    Tuesday
    16Mar2010

    File-Sharing and Link Sites Declared Legal in Spain

    Written by enigmax on March 15, 2010 for TorrentFreak.com

    After early calls to shut down a Spanish file-sharing site were dismissed, music group SGAE pinned its hopes on success at the full trial. But, the outcome for them was nothing short of a disaster. The judge declared that both non-commercial file-sharing link sites and non-profit use of P2P networks are legal in Spain.

    Despite many rulings which have declared file-sharing sites legal if they don’t profit directly from copyright infringements, in recent years its become something of a custom in Spain for music rights groups to attempt to close down sites in advance of a full hearing to assess their legality.

    One such case involves eDonkey link site elrincondejesus.com and although fairly low profile worldwide, the site will now start to set headlines.

    Back in May last year, site and bar owner Jesus Guerra received a complaint from music group SGAE (Sociedad General de Autores y Editores) which alleged the site abused the copyrights of its members.

    In a June court appearance, SGAE hoped to get an early injunction to shut Elrincondejesus immediately in advance of a full hearing which would happen at a later date. Guerra protested that his site is legal, carries no advertising and simply provides links like any other search engine.

    Judge Raul N. García Orejudo threw out the request for an immediate closure of the site in July, declaring: “P2P networks, as a mere transmission of data between Internet users, do not violate, in principle, any right protected by Intellectual Property Law.”

    Now the full case has been heard and the outcome is nothing short of a disaster for SGAE.

    In order to assess if there had been a breach of Spain’s Intellectual Property Act, the court had to decide if simply providing links to copyrighted works was the same as making those works available to the public. Judge Raul N. García Orejudo decided that offering an index of links and/or linking to copyright material is not the same as distribution and noted that under current law there is nothing which prohibits such sites from operating.

    In making his decision the judge also looked at the finances of the site. He said the site was not a business since the operator of Elrincondejesus made no direct or indirect profits from its operation. Apparently on a roll after confirming non-profit file-sharing sites are legal, he gave users of those sites a nice surprise too.

    “P2P networks are mere conduits for the transmission of data between Internet users, and on this basis they do not infringe rights protected by Intellectual Property laws,” he declared. Therefore, if an individual uses P2P networks like eDonkey or BitTorrent to obtain copyright material for non-profit reasons, the act is completely legal.

    The outcome of this case is such bad news for SGAE it’s expected they will appeal the decision. Or get the law changed. Or both.

    Monday
    15Mar2010

    How Pandora Slipped Past the Junkyard 

    By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER

    OAKLAND, Calif. — Tim Westergren recently sat in a Las Vegas penthouse suite, a glass of red wine in one hand and a truffle-infused Kobe beef burger in the other, courtesy of the investment bankers who were throwing a party to court him.

    Tim Westergren says the recent success of his Internet radio service, Pandora, feels a bit surreal.

    It was a surreal moment for Mr. Westergren, who founded Pandora, the Internet radio station. For most of its 10 years, it has been on the verge of death, struggling to find investors and battling record labels over royalties.

    Had Pandora died, it would have joined myriad music start-ups in the tech company graveyard, like SpiralFrog and the original Napster. Instead, with a successful iPhone app fueling interest, Pandora is attracting attention from investment bankers who think it could go public, the pinnacle of success for a start-up.

    Pandora’s 48 million users tune in an average 11.6 hours a month. That could increase as Pandora strikes deals with the makers of cars, televisions and stereos that could one day, Pandora hopes, make it as ubiquitous as AM/FM radio.

    “We were in a pretty deep dark hole for a long time,” said Mr. Westergren, who is now the company's chief strategy officer.. “But now it’s a pretty out-of-body experience.”

    At the end of 2009, Pandora reported its first profitable quarter and $50 million in annual revenue — mostly from ads and the rest from subscriptions and payments from iTunes and Amazon.com when people buy music. Revenue will probably be $100 million this year, said Ralph Schackart, a digital media analyst at William Blair.

    Pandora’s success can be credited to old-fashioned perseverance, its ability to harness intense loyalty from users and a willingness to shift directions — from business to consumer, from subscription to free, from computer to mobile — when its fortunes flagged.

    Its library now has 700,000 songs, each categorized by an employee based on 400 musical attributes, like whether the voice is breathy, like Charlotte Gainsbourg, or gravelly like Tom Waits. Listeners pick a song or musician they like, and Pandora serves up songs with similar qualities — Charlotte Gainsbourg to Feist to Viva Voce to Belle and Sebastian. Unlike other music services like MySpace Music or Spotify, now available in parts of Europe, listeners cannot request specific songs.

    Though Pandora’s executives say it is focusing on growth, not a public offering, the company is taking steps to make it possible. Last month, it hired a chief financial officer, Steve Cakebread, who had that job at Salesforce.com when it went public.

    It is all a long way from January 2000, when Mr. Westergren founded the company. Trained as a jazz pianist, he spent a decade playing in rock bands before taking a job as a film composer. While analyzing the construction of music to figure out what film directors would like, he came up with an idea to create a music genome.

    This being 1999, he turned the idea into a Web start-up and raised $1.5 million from angel investors. It was originally called Savage Beast Technologies and sold music recommendation services to businesses like Best Buy.

    By the end of 2001, he had 50 employees and no money. Every two weeks, he held all-hands meetings to beg people to work, unpaid, for another two weeks. That went on for two years.

    Meanwhile, he appealed to venture capitalists, charged up 11 credit cards and considered a company trip to Reno to gamble for more money. The dot-com bubble had burst, and shell-shocked investors were not interested in a company that relied on people, who required salaries and health insurance, instead of computers.

    In March 2004, he made his 348th pitch seeking backers. Larry Marcus, a venture capitalist at Walden Venture Capital and a musician, decided to lead a $9 million investment.

    “The pitch that he gave wasn’t that interesting,” Mr. Marcus said. “But what was incredibly interesting was Tim himself. We could tell he was an entrepreneur who wasn’t going to fail.”

    Mr. Westergren took $2 million of it and called another all-hands meeting to pay everyone back. The next order of business: focus the service on consumers instead of businesses, change the name and replace Mr. Westergren as chief executive with Joe Kennedy, who had experience building consumer products at E-Loan and Saturn. Pandora’s listenership climbed, and in December 2005, it sold its first ad.

    But in 2007, Pandora got news that threatened most of its revenue. A federal royalty board had raised the fee that online radio stations had to pay to record labels for each song. “Overnight our business was broken,” Mr. Westergren said. “We contemplated pulling the plug.”

    Instead, Pandora hired a lobbyist in Washington and recruited its listeners to write to their representatives. “A lot of these users think they’re customers of the cause rather than users per se,” said Willy C. Shih, a professor at Harvard Business School who has written a case study on Pandora. “It’s a different spin on marketing.” The board agreed to negotiations and after two years settled on a lower rate.

    Some music lovers dislike Pandora’s approach to choosing music based on its characteristics rather than cultural associations. Slacker Radio, a competitor with three times as many songs but less than a third of Pandora’s listeners, takes a different approach. A ’90s alternative station should be informed by Seattle grunge, said Jonathan Sasse, senior vice president for marketing at Slacker. “It’s not just that this has an 80-beat-a-minute guitar riff,” he said. “It’s that this band toured with Eddie Vedder.”

    Yet in 2008, Pandora built an iPhone app that let people stream music. Almost immediately, 35,000 new users a day joined Pandora from their cellphones, doubling the number of daily signups.

    For Pandora and its listeners, it was a revelation. Internet radio was not just for the computer. People could listen to their phone on the treadmill or plug it into their car or living room speakers.

    In January, Pandora announced a deal with Ford to include Pandora in its voice-activated Sync system, so drivers will be able to say, “Launch my Lady Gaga station” to play their personalized station based on the music of that performer. Consumer electronics companies like Samsung, Vizio and Sonos are also integrating Pandora into their Blu-ray players, TVs and music systems.

    “Think about what made AM/FM radio so accessible,” said Mr. Kennedy, Pandora’s chief. “You get into the car or buy a clock for your nightstand and push a button and radio comes out,” he said. “That’s what we’re hoping to match.”

    Friday
    05Mar2010

    The Future Won't Be Free

    Fifteen years and two careers ago, I, like a lot of young, aspiring digirati, migrated to New York to be part of what was to become the dotcom revolution. I worked in the new-media division of a well-regarded communications agency, designing and building Web sites for big corporate clients. Many of these sites were intended to give away huge amounts of content, and I toured the world, making countless speeches extolling the virtues of free-for-all online access. I generally got a warm reception.

     

    In those days I frequently spouted Stewart Brand's maxim that "information wants to be free." And, like almost everyone else at the time, I was quoting only half of what he said. "On the one hand," Brand explained, "information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other." A nuanced thought like this was harder to paraphrase, and selling "free" made us seem like visionaries—radicals even. The fact that the grown-ups looked quizzically at our (largely absent) business models only confirmed how smart we thought we were.

     

    Unfortunately as we've seen since, for companies whose core product is content—like every newspaper and magazine you read, including this one—the idea that we Internet visionaries sold is a total load of crap. We persuaded executives to compete with themselves online by setting up Web sites that offered for free the same content their staffs labored so strenuously to produce and sell in their print publications. The theory was that companies were supposed to make back the money by, uh, "monetizing the attention economy," or some other similarly vaporous concept, that meant either charging customers later on, or selling advertisements, or both.

     

    They bought in, and now the Internet is pulverizing them. Notice I didn't say "infotech" or "digital media" are doing the pulverizing—it's the Internet, specifically. Following our lead, companies have now trained a generation of young people to never, ever, ever expect to pay for content on a laptop or desktop. But this is not quite the apocalypse. Many new digital platforms are brewing, and early on in the development of each one there will be a battle for the business model—a fight to figure out who will pay. The advent of every new device is another chance to turn it all around.

     

    When I buy the dead-tree version of my local newspaper, I have no expectation that it should be free. If I pick it up and walk out of the coffee shop without paying, that's stealing. But when I walk upstairs to my office and log on to the Web site for the same paper, I feel a divine right to access the entirety of that paper—and 10 years of its archives—for free. Yet when I use another little computer invented more recently (Amazon's Kindle, say) to access that very same newspaper, I do pay. And I expect to pay. When the market floods this year with the iPad and its inevitable clones, I'll expect to pay on those as well.

    In the long run, the first decade of the Web could come to be seen as a momentary aberration—an echo of '60s free culture when we all took the bad, digital acid. So, media companies, on behalf of all misdirected Internet visionaries, I'm sorry. We like you—we really do—and we don't want a world without you. If you can hold on until we all have new kinds of screens, and new sets of expectations, you'll be fine. You'll be different, but fine. Just, please, don't take my word for it this time. Ask around.

    Zolli is executive director of PopTech, a social-innovation incubator and thought-leadership conference.

    Wednesday
    03Mar2010

    RIP: a Remix Manifesto

    In response to a packed viewing of the Brett Gaylor opensource experiment/documentary "RIP: a Remix Manifesto", I thought I would post a few links to other reading material for those wanting to further explore the argument of creativity in the digital age.  No doubt this film has its points and arguements, as well as providing an entertaining way of exploring the oftentimes dull topic of Intellectual Properties.  However, like most documentarys it is jaded towards one side of the arguement, and it is important to view both sides of this battle.  So, here are a few Belmont University Copyright Society suggested readings/viewings for further researching the issues:

    Free Culture: the Nature and Future of Creativity - Lawrence Lessig (Link.)

     

    Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind - James Boyle (Link.)

    The Pirate's Dilemna - Matt Mason (Link.)

    Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property (Link.)

    Free: the Future of a Radical Price - Chris Anderson (Link.)

     

    Also, check out these articles:

    • The Economy of Ideas (Link.)
    • Updating Fair Use for Innovators and Creators in the Digital Age: Two Targeted Reforms (Link.)
    Tuesday
    02Mar2010

    Cooking Up Some Good Tunes: What the Music Industry Can Learn from the Culinary Arts

    Today, I got the daily email from blogger of the Letsetz Letter, Bob Leftsetz.  The subjects of this email were two things very dear to my heart: Music & Food.  While this article made my stomach growl in hunger, I believe it also had some good points.  Here is the article in its entirety:

    Triple-Ds

    That's "Diners, Drive-Ins & Dives" to the uninitiated.

    Food porn.  That's what the Food Network is.  And it's SO successful Scripps is dialing up another outlet, the Cooking Channel (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/business/media/19adco.html).  You see the public just can't get enough.

    Yes, that used to be a famous Depeche Mode song, from an era when music was king on TV.  Now food rules.  It's like we've closed the door on Woodstock, everyone's laid down his guitar and picked up a frying pan and is innovating like crazy.

    And you can see some amazing dishes on the other Food Network shows.  But I love the cuisine on Triple-D.  Not only because it's basic and understandable, but because of the raw creativity of cooks who are doing it not to become famous, not to franchise into billionairedom, but to satisfy their coterie of customers, who are thrilled to the point where they contact Guy Fieri and tell him he's got to visit their favorite joint.

    Cheeseburger soup.  That was one of the specialties at the roadside establishment Mr. Fieri visited the other night.  Upon tasting it, Guy said..."Tastes just like cheeseburgers!"

    Mmm...  Made me want to fire up my car and go.

    Hell, screw going to see Bon Jovi one more time, I'd bet more people would sign up for a bus tour schlepping them from one of Triple-D's haunts to another.  It wouldn't be about social stratification, everybody would walk into the dive and partake just like everybody else.  Oohing and ahhing...  What do they say, we all put our pants on the same way?  Well, we all eat the same way too, it's a common denominator.

    Not amongst the stars.  They don't eat at all.  Their public does.  Which is one reason why no one can relate to today's stars.  Who's got the time to work out six hours a day and then walk around lightheaded on celery?  In other words, there's more honesty on Triple-D than any show on MTV.  I'd rather own the Food Network than the outlet that dropped "Music Television" from its name any day.

    But the reason I'm writing this is because the cooks, and they don't need to be called chefs, and many aren't trained whatsoever, are endless fountains of creativity.  The way local bands used to be.

    Going to music school?  Shit, our favorites never walked the halls.  They listened to a ton of records, they practiced ad infinitum, at first copying legends and then making up their own sound.

    And there were a zillion different sounds.  Everybody didn't sound alike.  Hell, dial up today's Top Forty radio, you've got no idea who the acts are, and it doesn't even matter.  And it's not much different in country radio either.  There are rules.  Ain't that ridiculous, music was about BREAKING RULES!

    These cooks are breaking rules left and right.  Experimenting.  You're drawn to them and their food, you want to visit their establishments, the same way you used to be addicted to FM radio and needed to go see these bands live.

    Yup, you now go to a concert once a year.  But you go out to eat on a regular basis.  It's cheap theater.  Everyone partakes.  The way live music used to be.  Before music became about beats with inane, oftentimes misogynistic, lyrics dolloped on top.

    People know what a great restaurant is.  They can't stop talking about it, they bring their friends, tell acquaintances they need to go, the same way they used to testify about bands.  Sure, people still testify about music, but music no longer drives the culture, because most people see it as faux, evanescent entertainment that is ultimately meaningless.  And who'd go to a restaurant with only one good dish?  Sure, an establishment like that could do some business, but in order to succeed EVERYTHING on the menu's got to be good.  And at the Triple-D places, they are.

    Used to be you percolated in your own backyard, established a sound that your neighborhood became addicted to, and then word spread.  Now you go on "American Idol" to try to win the sweepstakes overnight.  And winning ain't what it used to be.

    You've got to be in it for the music.  You've got to love to explore.  You've got to be willing to take chances.  You've got to do it for the smiles on the faces of fans you know the names of, not for the unknown teeming masses.  It's got to be personal.  Because we like nothing more than what speaks to us, what makes us feel human.

    You know the feeling of eating something you've never thought of that knocks your socks off, that makes your taste buds roar in delight?  That's what hearing a great record should feel like.  Sure, it may be reminiscent of what came before, but ultimately it's totally unique, you couldn't even contemplate the sound before you experienced it.  Like hearing Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing" or Gnarls Barkley's "Crazy" the very first time.

    It's got to be more about the individual and less about the corporation.  Major players in music want it their way, when the renaissance will only come when the players do it THEIR WAY!

    http://www.foodnetwork.com/diners-drive-ins-and-dives/index.html