By now you may have heard that the jury found Jammie Thomas Rasset guilty of stealing music and set the judgement at $80,000 per song for a total of 1.92 million.  There has been a lot tossed around about that figure for and against both parties.  People who hate “The Man” are decrying it as the continuation of oppression to the people.  Fewer people are saying the defendant deserved it and probably more because she wants to blame it on her kids.  It also looks like there are some who are able to peel away the rhetoric and look at this significant event in our understanding of intellectual property in the digital age. 

Continued debate about the merits of the legality of downloading and the size of the award will continue around the blogosphere and most assuredly will make its way to heated disputes at summer music festivals, keg parties and any place a music lover will find an ear.  Two million dollars is a lot of money, people take notice.  For me, that is the aspect of this case that really matters.  What is music worth?  

The RIAA started this campaign to educate people about the laws surrounding ownership for intellectual property.  Now even more people hate the labels and want to steal from them just to get back at them.  But what could they do?  Society in general takes a cavalier attitude towards the arts.  If you don’t agree, go to your local school district and do the math.  In Minnesota, the people of the state just voted for funding for the arts but it had to be tacked onto a broader bill supporting the outdoors.  Division of the spending for the arts ended up being not even 25% of the total amount. 

The point is, people may be stealing music because they aren’t getting the message that artistry is worth something in our society.  Think what you will of the RIAA’s informational campaign of suing the fans, they are coming from the fundamental principle that their product is worth something.  It is really hard to dispute that.  As they point out in on their blog at least 24 people came up with some figure for music.  That is encouraging.

 Ten years ago this month, a geeky college kid  changed the music industry.   Not sure if  Jammie Thomas ever met Shawn Fanning, but here in June 2009, they are intimate characters in a drama unfolding in a Minneapolis federal courtroom.  

Fanning created Napster opening the door to a new world of paradigm shifts in intellectual property copyright law, particularly in the music industry.  It took a while for the recording business to respond to this new business model and when they did, one of the ways they fought back was to sue their customers – or mostly to threaten to sue.  When pressed, the RIAA would tell you there is blatant copyright violation with file sharing and the message had to get out: stealing music is against the law.  Actually going to trial couldn’t be good PR, could it?  So the letters were sent out and customers settled out of court in light of awards of up to $150,000 PER SONG.  It worked ok for a while.  People got the idea that something was going on with music.  “You mean we have to pay for it?”  Then a few years ago, an unmarried mom challenged her letter and took on the recording industry.  It was the first case tried for file sharing music in the country.  She lost.  The jury awarded the recording industry $220,000. 

This week the case is being retried due to the judge mistakingly instructing the jury in the last trial that having files on a computer equated to intent for distribution, which is the crux of the copyright law in this case.  A visit to the trial brings to life the dry issues like “fair use”,  “internet addresses”, “intent to distribute” and etc. 

Harvard law prof, Lawrence Lessig’s assertion that we are creating a nation of criminals with current copyright law played out in Judge Michael Davis’ courtroom 15E this week. The courtroom had a jury literally facing Ms Thomas (since remarried) with the label suits sitting between them.  No conversation or instruction on copyright law in music is as real as when you see the defendent’s life on stage at the bequest of “the man”.  She was defending a love for music and in an exhcange with the RIAA lawyers that sounded like they were sharing favorite bands.  “You like Green Day?” “Ya” “Chevelle” “Ya”  and on with about 10 artists.  Sounded like any conversation I’ve had or heard with fans getting to know each other through music.  “Cool, they’re a great band!”  Surreal here though, in the set up for accusing her of stealing the music. 

Much has been made of the attempt to secure copyright for artists, through the labels, with lawsuits but rarely is it played out for everyone to see.   Did she download, re:steal, the music?   Probably.  Did she steal it whith the intent to distribute?  Probably not.  Did she know that a P2P app would be used to distribute?  Probably.  But did we need to see her testify that it may have been her ex boyfriend who actually downloaded music?  Or see the layout of her apartment with the location of the computer?  It really approached the feel of the old Perry Mason classics.  (Although if you know Perry Mason, you may not know what the big fuss is about downloading.) The old boyfriend on the stand. “Did she give you a… burnedCD????”  The embarrasing pause, “Yes.”  Shortly after that, a particular gem.  American -no the world -complisitor in the case, Best Buy takes the stand as the plaintiff’s witness.  The Best Buy witness was escorted to the stand by one of the RIAA’s suits.  He’s a member of the (insert P Mason theme- if you don’t know it, here it is) GEEK SQUAD in full uniform.  Tie, Badge, Logo…  It was at this point that the proceedings appeared well, plain odd.  What’s the point?

The RIAA has indicated new strategies in their PR-challenged attempt at informing the public on the legalities of the music they listen to.  And that may be the moving point on this episode of the changing music business/intellectual property model in the, sigh, new digital revolution.  Better that the industry moves on to educating users on the value of music and of its place in our world.  Interestingly, on this anniversary of Napster, the former head of the group doing all this threatening and suing, Hilary Rosen has some pointed insight on what could/should be done regarding the industry’s response to downloading music.  Ms Rosen was in charge when Shawn started Napster.  In a Q and A with Billboard, she points out that a educational campaign on the importance of music and more PR on artists’ place in our society might work more toward helping the lagging recording industry. 

Closing arguments are tomorrow at 9 am cst on your favorite blog/aggregator/station…

Just finishing up the latest analysis of the recording industry’s trials and tribulation, Appetite for Self-Destruction: The Spectacular Crash of the Record Industry in the Digital Age by Steve Knopper. If you’ve bought a CD or downloaded music in the last 30 years, you’re in this book as part of the machine that helped to shape the current state of the record business. Knopper does a nice job of laying out 8 specific things the industry did to shoot itself in the legs and while you may think that digital downloads alone caused CD sales to fall annually, he tells a more detailed story of how corporate underestimation, egos, mistakes and technology led to falling sales. But it really is a larger picture. Aside from reigning in the bloated egos prevalent in the entertainment industry, it’s hard to see what control the labels had in the battle against free or low-priced product in the digital age. Intellectual property has met its match and here we are.

I have a friend who is in the newspaper business and he is worried. Papers are falling as fast as the stock market these days. They are also in the business of selling intellectual property. There was probably less excessive optimism among paper owners but, like the recording industry, they didn’t see this coming and even if they did what can you do? On an open market for content, I can read the same story for free on any number of sites. It’s fun to be an observer in a revolution. We can sit back and watch these industries struggle to overcome demise with business models or technology aimed at keeping their head above water. Net Nuetrality? Subscription Internet? Embedded Advertising? What? The local paper now has reporters putting up a video “Newsbreak”on their website to ostensibly give the reader added value, or to see the advertising on the site, or to see seasoned journalists struggling to be on-air talent and compete with on-air talent. I thought of the labels when I viewed “Newsbreak” -
it ain’t pretty but you gotta love the effort.

History of Twin Cities Rock

It’s good to know where you came from so you know where you’re going. Or as someone best put it: wherever you go, there you are…

In this case, if you are interested in the business of music, you ought to know the history of the scene in your local community. MPR produced this excellent overview of the Twin City’s rock progression over the last decades.

Straight No Chaser – 12 Days of Christmas

I love it! You try to present the most up-to-date information about the music business and the next week it changes! That’s the point, the model is changing and evolving as we speak. I wrote last week in this blog about the a cappella group Straight No Chaser breaking through in the “new music business model” and this week you can no longer find the video on YouTube. Try it. Click on the video on the blog below and see what happens. Welcome to the business of music in 2008.

Here’s a group that gathered up 8 million views with no help from any label, they get signed by a label and those 8 million fans can’t get the video. That’s the challange of the age for us here in the digital revolution: how to monetize a free social network. The cat who left the bag is trying to get paid and now one can find him…

These guys will undoubtedly reap the benefit of the financial support that the label will provide but at what cost? The really cool thing about this story was that they did it by themselves. Yes, they probably need some type of entity/investment to take them to the next level but along the way, the fans who helped them get to this level are confused about their involvement, the artists are angry over the video being pulled and Warner plows ahead removing content. Welcome to the business of music in 2008.

Artists need to get paid – that’s the overriding part of the new equation. Don’t blame the label for protecting content but there has to be a less invasive way to do it. The social part of the social network has come to expect content – lot’s of it it in fact. I’m not sure taking it down is going to solve the problem. In fact, Straight No Chaser offers the video on it’s MySpace site for now. Probably a matter of time before it’s pulled there too.

What is the value of intellecutual property in the digital age? It’s not just the monetary gate-keepers of the industry who need to figure that one out. 2009 might be a good time for the social network to start thinking harder about that too.

What a great time to be talking about music business! Think back to long, long ago in a time before iTunes and imagine a college a capella group just signed a record deal after their video reached millions on something called YouTube. Cool, dude. Ya, like, right.

I think it’s cool that the group takes its name from an artist that represented much of the same transformational quality in his compositions that we are seeing in the business today. Thelonius Monk might not recognize the current landscape but he surely would appreciate the groundbreaking techniques artists are using today to get their music out.

Last year, a couple of members of the Indiana University a capella group, Straight No Chaser, put up an old video of the group performing their unique version of the Twelve Days of Christmas and it took off. Millions of hits. Now they have a record deal.

We were talking about this in the Entertainment and Networking class today and exploring why this group ended up creating a splash. First of all, they’re good – really good. They were able to get themselves in front of lots of people fairly easily on YouTube. Lucky for them, but not unexpected these days, one of those people watching happened to be Atlantic CEO Craig Kallman who saw potential sales with the group. The class also picked up on the unique aspect of Straight No Chaser. Something different.

For all of the great possibilities opening up for artists in the long tail digital age, this is the paradox: It’s never been easier to get your music out but it’s harder to get it noticed. You’ve always had to be good, persistent and have some amount of luck but at least we knew the rules. The rules are changing and some artists are creating them. Monk would like that.

Saw the great epic “Australia” over the weekend. Hands down, this is the funniest movie I have ever seen! Where else could you pay only 10 bucks to see cows, racism, Elton John, great retro Bonanza-like green screen technology, magicians, a smarmy love story and Toto too? Hilarious!! I really thought it was a test to see how much an audience could stand. If you don’t want to go here’s what you do: watch Walker Texas Ranger, The Wizard of Oz, a Lifetime made-for TV love story, Roots and top it off with your favorite Elton John stock movie song. You’ll still probably save yourself about an hour and a half! Still, you should go to see how extraordinarily funny it really is. Is the director, Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge), trying to create a crazy, wacky dreamlike world where nothing fits? If so, way to go Baz!

This one looks cool. Glen Campbell, Tommy Tedesco and Carole Kaye give the groove to the pop stars of the sixties. Check out the shades on Ms Kaye. The Funk Brothers of the west.