
Here’s Why Musicians Won’t Stand for Illegal Uploads Anymore - 6stringmerc
http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1088-heres-why-musicians-wont-stand-for-illegal-uploads-anymore/
======
6stringmerc
FWIW I'm pretty okay with the Safe Harbor provisions as they are, considering
the conglomorate rights management entities of the RIAA et al are, by most
accounts, doing bang-up business and getting their fingers into everybody's
pockets to get their percentages. True, they aren't getting 40% (or whatever)
ROI like in the heydey of premium pricing for CDs in the peak market, but the
industry's biggest players are equipped and able to manage their rights as-is.
Just look at Prince - he has no trouble auditing his material on the internet,
down to a dancing baby case of all things (which didn't really clear things up
either).

Recent technological advancements by SoundCloud and Dubset purport to be able
to identify music pieces using back-end tech. This is a huge development, and
could force the issue with other digital service providers. It's a matter of
technology catching up to the desired methods of tracking and revenue
collection, and it looks like we're a lot closer. Modern problems, modern
tools to address them.

As an independent, I'd probably care more if I saw large numbers leading to
miniscule revenues, but let's be honest, we're talking the music business and
musicians have traditionally not made much income from recorded works. If one
of my songs gets used on a viral video without permission and it blows up and
gets some ad revenue, yeah, that's a case to pursue (and probably win). Other
times this DMCA stuff seems a bit more alarmist than consumer friendly.

Oh, and there seems to be a really glaring factual error in the article about
Grooveshark:

> _" In that case, the court found that Grooveshark had created a
> 'technological Pez dispenser' that required copyright owners to submit
> 'successive takedown notices' in order to remove a single sound recording
> from the service," the 18 record industry groups wrote in the brief. "This
> type of brazen work-around of the DMCA by Grooveshark and other rogue actors
> of the DMCA devalues music and suppresses the legitimate market for it."_

No, in that case, the Record Labels uncovered evidence that Grooveshark
employees had uploaded songs and encouraged each other via internal e-mails to
upload popular songs. That was the stake through the heart. That is definitely
not DMCA compliant and they got utterly destroyed for it. If anything, it's an
example that the RIAA still has tremendous rights-management power. See also:
Aurous.

End personal opinion, YMMV.

