Eideard

The chief executive of the company behind mobile gaming phenomenon, Angry Birds, has said that piracy helps companies attract more business.

Talking at the annual Midem music conference, in Cannes today, Mikael Hed, the chief executive of Rovio, said: “Piracy may not be a bad thing: it can get us more business at the end of the day.”

He admitted that the games company, which is based in Finland and experienced huge success with the Angry Birds brand, learned from the music industry’s mistakes when thinking about how to deal with piracy…

“We could learn a lot from the music industry, and the rather terrible ways the music industry has tried to combat piracy…”

Hed told Midem delegates that it was futile to pursue people who copy Angry Birds’ games and concepts unless they were harmful to the brand reported The Guardian. He said that he sees any type of piracy as being helpful to the brand in attracting new fans.

Not anything that serious geeks haven’t been discussing – and agreeing with – for years. The failure of the music and movie moguls to understand the Web and digital communications started this discussion – even before piracy became significant. They get the prize for dumb greed when it comes to dealing with intellectual property, anyway. Mostly for screwing creative artists all along.

The Obama administration said over the weekend that it would not support legislation mandating changes to Internet infrastructure to fight online copyright and trademark infringement.

“Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security,” the administration said in a statement on Saturday. “Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk…”

The DNS-redirecting provisions in both bills were designed to prevent American citizens from visiting sites the attorney general maintains are dedicated to infringing activities…without having to prove a damned thing in a court of law!

The Obama administration’s announcement appears to have conceded to opposition from security experts who say the plan would sabotage U.S. government-approved efforts to secure DNS against hackers and break the Internet’s unified naming system by introducing lies into infrastructure. The government is agreeing with experts who maintain that the SOPA and PIPA and the Senate’s Protect IP Act would break the Internet’s universal character and hamper U.S. government-supported efforts to roll out DNSSEC, which is intended to prevent hackers from hijacking the net through fake DNS entries.

Victoria Espinel [L] with some other folks from work

The White House announcement was penned by Victoria Espinel…Aneesh Chopra…and Howard Schmidt…

The usual creeps – ranging from RIAA and MPAA to individual Congress-critters beholden to lobbyist bucks – made the usual excuses and ready themselves to fall back on revisions which still mean operating outside constitutional law.

The Supreme Court has declined to review a ruling that reinstated an antitrust lawsuit alleging major record labels conspired to fix prices and terms under which music would be sold over the Internet.

The justices rejected without comment an appeal by a number of companies that included Sony Corp, a unit of Vivendi SA, Warner Music Group Corp and EMI Group of the ruling by a U.S. appeals Court in New York.

The heart and soul of the RIAA corporate kingdom.

The appeals court ruled that a federal judge had erred in 2008 in dismissing the lawsuit filed on behalf of people who downloaded music over the Internet. They had sued record labels that control more than 80 percent of U.S. digital music sales.

The lawsuit accused the record companies of agreeing to the wholesale price floor of about 70 cents a song when rivals began offering music on the Internet at a much cheaper rate.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused themselves and did not consider the case.

This will be their next requirement

Radio broadcasters and music labels are seeking to legally mandate FM radio reception as a feature in all consumer mobile devices in an effort to expand the market for radio.

A report by Nate Anderson of the Ars “Law & Disorder” blog notes that competing interests in radio and studio industry groups have sided on a proposal to force hardware makers to add FM radio chips to mobile phones and other consumser devices…

Negotiations between the two trade groups have found agreement on a plan that requires radio stations to pay new, limited performance rights fees to the studios annually, but that plan is tied to the ability of the two groups to pass laws forcing mobile device makers to add FM radio features to their devices…

Apple hasn’t commented on the plan, but the Consumer Electronics Association is strongly opposed to the idea. “The back room scheme of the [National Association of Broadcasters] and RIAA to have Congress mandate broadcast radios in portable devices, including mobile phones, is the height of absurdity,” CEA president Gary Shapiro said in the report, adding that such a move is “not in our national interest.”

The Performance Rights Act currently before Congress is at the center of the controversy. “The performance royalty legislation voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee does not include this onerous and backward-looking radio requirement,” Shapiro said, indicating that the CEA wants the bill to continue without any FM radio requirements being mandated.

“Rather than adapt to the digital marketplace,” Shapiro said, “NAB and RIAA act like buggy-whip industries that refuse to innovate and seek to impose penalties on those that do.”

These associations are wholly composed of the most reactionary and predatory sharks in the world of entertainment. Music, discussion, any of the content falling within their purview is only a commodity to be regulated to produce the most profit.

The rights of consumers are as meaningless in their 19th minds as concepts like progress and ethics.

Investigators for the Department of Justice began asking questions about Apple’s business practices involving digital music at least three weeks ago, multiple music industry sources told CNET.

DOJ investigators have interviewed numerous executives at record companies and digital music stores and according to those with knowledge of the discussions, it is clear that investigators are interested in learning whether Apple has employed anticompetitive tactics.

The sources said that the department’s inquiry is just in a fact-finding stage and that there is nothing to indicate investigators have found any wrongdoing or would file a complaint against Apple…

Apple has a history of throwing its weight around the music sector. Apple’s iTunes accounts for 70 percent of all digital song sales and wields huge power. Apple has often used that clout to dictate terms to suppliers — that is, the major labels.

Here are just a few examples: The major labels wanted variable pricing on songs and albums and for years Apple resisted. In 2005, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said the top recording companies were “getting greedy”after music execs considered a music price hike. Last year, Apple finally gave the labels some additional control over song pricing.

The big record companies wanted the ability to sell albums that were unbundled, meaning they wanted Apple to sell hot LPs as a full package and refrain from selling individual songs from these works. Again, on this issue Apple hasn’t given much ground.

To iTunes’ fans, Apple was a freedom fighter. The perception was that Apple was standing up for consumers.

Apple’s refusal to force customers to buy full albums saved them from having to shell out money for songs they didn’t want. To them, Apple’s reluctance to raise the 99 cent song price was another way the company kept music costs down. And the government never made a peep about these practices.

Regardless of papier mache whines like this, the DOJ isn’t about to investigate the MPAA or RIAA. They aren’t even prepared to come down on the side of consumers and protect Fair Use – which has been eroded every year by greedy entertainment giants, pliable bureaucrats and judges.

British songwriters, composers and music publishers earned $944.8 million in royalties in 2009, up 2.6 percent on 2008 and the first time the growth in digital revenues outperformed the drop in CD and DVD earnings.

The global music business has been shrinking steadily in recent years, hit by online piracy [so they say] and the rapid decline in physical format sales like CDs, which have more than made up for the rapid growth in legal digital revenues.

And people refusing to buy crappy music.

“2009 was the first year in which the growth in revenues from the legal digital market compensated for the decline in revenues from traditional CDs and DVDs, though we remain cautious as to whether this represents a true turning point,” said PRS for Music chief executive Robert Ashcroft.

And despite the growth in digital revenues last year, they still represent a small proportion of the overall market…

The UK music market fell slightly, hit by a drop in advertising revenues and the ringtone market among other factors.

Oh yeah. The ringtone market. I’m forever amazed and amused over the amount of money spent on a reasonably useless bit of programming.

Meanwhile, is the RIAA listening? I doubt it.

Since Apple granted music labels the flexibility to set individual song prices between $0.69 and $1.29 on the iTunes Music Store, growth of digital music sales has slowed, one music executive has revealed.

According to Peter Kafka at MediaMemo, Warner Music Group revealed Tuesday that it has seen digital music sales slow down since the price increase took effect in April 2009. Digital album downloads grew 5 percent in December, down from 10 percent in the September quarter and 11 percent in the June quarter. Digital revenue is slowing as well: Warner saw 8 percent growth in the holiday quarter, versus 20 percent a year before.

Warner CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. reportedly said the pricing change has been a “net positive” for Warner, but conceded that a 30 percent price increase during a recession was not the best move…

Do you think so? Idiot!

In early 2009, Apple convinced record labels to remove digital rights management from iTunes music downloads. But in the process, the Cupertino, Calif., company conceded price flexibility. Starting last April, some popular tracks saw a 30 percent increase in price, from 99 cents to $1.29.

Anyone believe the Music Barons have a clue about marketing to 21st Century consumers?

To a certain extent, I’m afraid to write this. Though they’ve already seized my computer and copied my hard drive, I have no guarantee they won’t do it again. For the past four years, they’ve been threatening me, making demands for trial, deposing my parents, sisters, friends, and myself twice – the first time for nine hours, the second for seven. I face up to $4.5m in fines and the last case like mine that went to trial had a jury verdict of $1.92m.

When I contemplate this, I have to remind myself what I’m being charged with. Investment fraud? Robbing a casino? A cyber-attack against the federal government? No. I shared music. And refused to cave.

No matter how many people I explain this to, the reaction is always the same: dumbfounded surprise and visceral indignance, both of which are a result of the amazing secrecy the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has operated under. “How did they get you?” I’m asked. I explain that there are 40,000 people like me, being sued for the same thing, and we were picked from a pool of millions who shared music. And that’s when a look appears on the face of whoever I’m talking to, the horrified “it could have been me!” look.

The reason this has remained so silent despite passionate opposition is that nearly all people settle. My story of becoming an exception started four years ago.

In my mind, the RIAA are the ultimate example of incompetent corporate greed – channeled through the sewer of unprincipled lawyers. Shit for brains. Slime for ethics.

RTFA. And you can follow Joel Tenebaum’s trial in the world of digital communications. Wonder – as I do – if Fair Use will be allowed again by an American court?

The trial starts today, 27 Monday July. Regrettably, it won’t be webcast as we requested due to the RIAA’s successful opposition, but we will tweet (with the hashtag #jfb) and blog as much as possible, and there is a website where you can follow us and learn more.

Some legal experts question the constitutionality of a $1.92 million fine given to a woman accused of pirating 24 songs. A Minnesota jury ordered Jammie Thomas-Rasset to pay that yesterday, saying she “willfully” violated music copyrights and should cough up $80,000 per illegally downloaded track.

The verdict brings a new twist to a seemingly endless legal battle brought about by the Recording Industry of America (RIAA)….

The size of the fine was guided by U.S. copyright law, which provides for a penalty of anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per violation. It was up to the jury, however, to decide where to land within that spectrum. The problem, von Lohmann says, is that there are no meaningful guidelines on how that decision should be reached….

Here’s where things start to get dicey: The Supreme Court has previously indicated that “grossly excessive” punitive damage awards are a violation of the U.S. Constitution. An award can be considered “grossly excessive” if there’s too big of a gap between the actual harm done and the amount of money being named.

This story isn’t so much about the RIAA as it is about how our legal system works. The better your lawyer, the lower the fine. If you’re poor, you’re screwed. Besides, many jurors are sheep, and are  incapable of judging the law as well as the facts, or even knowing the difference.

Who thinks that this is an equitable punishment? No one of merit is my guess.

French politicians have unexpectedly rejected a bill that would have cut off the internet connections of anyone found to be repeatedly downloading music or videos without paying for them. The legislation would also have led to the creation of the world’s first state surveillance system on web pirates…

The bill had been championed by the president, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose wife, the singer Carla Bruni, has long advocated a crackdown on piracy. On Monday, film director Steven Soderbergh urged US authorities to draw inspiration from the French bill in their fight against piracy.

Under the proposed legislation, new powers would have been granted to music and film companies to enable them to monitor internet users and report illegal downloads to a new copyright protection agency.

Anyone found to have broken the law would have been traced via their IP (internet protocol) address and handed up to three warnings before their connection was severed for up to a year. Offenders would have had to keep paying for their internet connection despite it having been cut off…

Civil liberties campaigners and members of the Socialist party said the new surveillance powers were tantamount to “the criminalisation of an entire generation”.

Others had said it could end up punishing the wrong people, for instance parents whose children download in secret or employers whose staff use computers at work to break the law.

Always heartwarming to witness politicians with enough courage to support individual liberties over profit. The system may not be perfect; but, surveillance, threats and repression are illegitimate solutions.