Hello, again, hello
It has been a really long time since I've written anything on Mad Mad Media. My job duties here at the Press have changed, so I've been busy learning about a thousand new and exciting things. So, I'm sorry I haven't written anything in some time.
I have been thinking a lot lately about the entertainment industry. Every day it seems like there's a new crusade against file sharing, or some filmmaker/musician, whatever, complaining about how they are being robbed by people downloading their stuff for free on the Internet.
I feel for them.
A few months ago, I interviewed a musician named Mary Bue. She's an awesome indie artist who hits Sheboygan every once in a while. When I was researching her music, I typed in her name and "mp3" in a search engine to see if I could find any of her music online. What I found was a Russian Web site selling her latest CD, Boat With No Oars, for $2.
When I was interviewing her, I asked her how her CD ended up on that site. It was the first she had heard about it. A couple of weeks ago I emailed her on her MySpace page to see what she had found out. Here is her reply.
"I don't know what to do about it!! i mean, these sites are selling my music for two dollars and thirty four cents. my label really is hands off with whatever i'm doing. i have control of all my discs and their sales, etc. i doubt i'm selling enough to hire someone to prosecute for these sales, so basically i'm being ripped off."
It's the same thing with movies. This summer, filmmaker Eli Roth released Hostel: Part II, the follow-up to his 2005 gory spectacle Hostel. Many expected it to be a huge it...it wasn't. Hostel 2 became one of the most downloaded films ever.
In a recent interview with MTV, Roth said "And a copy of "Hostel 2" leaked out before its release and they had it, it was like millions and millions of hits. Not only was it downloaded, but in the countries it was downloaded — like Mexico and Brazil — there were copies on the street for practically a penny. You could buy "Hostel 2" for a quarter in Mexico City. As a result, in a lot of countries where the piracy was bad, they just didn't even release it."
Most recently, early versions of Britney Spears' latest CD, Blackout, were leaked on the Web, forcing Spears' record company, Jive, to release the disc early. It will hit stores tomorrow.
In a recent AP article, Jive record reps said, the company was "doing everything possible to prevent and avoid any further illegal distribution of songs," including the leaking of "unfinished material and demos represented as completed legitimate songs" to the internet."
This pisses me off.
It makes me angry because art is important. And while I'm seething with this animosity, I am having a hard time trying to figure out who to blame.
Obviously, any company that is selling something without the owner's permission is stealing. Russian law is still pretty lax (even after the closing of AllofMP3), as are copyright laws in other countries ... but, in my limited knowledge of the laws in these countries, these companies may be selling this material legally under their law.
My question is, how did they get these CDs in the first place? How did Britney Spears' demos hit the net before news of her last hit and run? How did an early version of Hostel 2 hit the web before it hit theaters? How did Mary Bue's CD, which is distributed by the tiny Cephalopod Records, find its way onto now several Russian online music sites?
No one seems to have answers. We need to find some.
I have been thinking a lot lately about the entertainment industry. Every day it seems like there's a new crusade against file sharing, or some filmmaker/musician, whatever, complaining about how they are being robbed by people downloading their stuff for free on the Internet.
I feel for them.
A few months ago, I interviewed a musician named Mary Bue. She's an awesome indie artist who hits Sheboygan every once in a while. When I was researching her music, I typed in her name and "mp3" in a search engine to see if I could find any of her music online. What I found was a Russian Web site selling her latest CD, Boat With No Oars, for $2.
When I was interviewing her, I asked her how her CD ended up on that site. It was the first she had heard about it. A couple of weeks ago I emailed her on her MySpace page to see what she had found out. Here is her reply.
"I don't know what to do about it!! i mean, these sites are selling my music for two dollars and thirty four cents. my label really is hands off with whatever i'm doing. i have control of all my discs and their sales, etc. i doubt i'm selling enough to hire someone to prosecute for these sales, so basically i'm being ripped off."
It's the same thing with movies. This summer, filmmaker Eli Roth released Hostel: Part II, the follow-up to his 2005 gory spectacle Hostel. Many expected it to be a huge it...it wasn't. Hostel 2 became one of the most downloaded films ever.
In a recent interview with MTV, Roth said "And a copy of "Hostel 2" leaked out before its release and they had it, it was like millions and millions of hits. Not only was it downloaded, but in the countries it was downloaded — like Mexico and Brazil — there were copies on the street for practically a penny. You could buy "Hostel 2" for a quarter in Mexico City. As a result, in a lot of countries where the piracy was bad, they just didn't even release it."
Most recently, early versions of Britney Spears' latest CD, Blackout, were leaked on the Web, forcing Spears' record company, Jive, to release the disc early. It will hit stores tomorrow.
In a recent AP article, Jive record reps said, the company was "doing everything possible to prevent and avoid any further illegal distribution of songs," including the leaking of "unfinished material and demos represented as completed legitimate songs" to the internet."
This pisses me off.
It makes me angry because art is important. And while I'm seething with this animosity, I am having a hard time trying to figure out who to blame.
Obviously, any company that is selling something without the owner's permission is stealing. Russian law is still pretty lax (even after the closing of AllofMP3), as are copyright laws in other countries ... but, in my limited knowledge of the laws in these countries, these companies may be selling this material legally under their law.
My question is, how did they get these CDs in the first place? How did Britney Spears' demos hit the net before news of her last hit and run? How did an early version of Hostel 2 hit the web before it hit theaters? How did Mary Bue's CD, which is distributed by the tiny Cephalopod Records, find its way onto now several Russian online music sites?
No one seems to have answers. We need to find some.
posted by Eric LaRose at
4:11 PM
2 Comments:
Eric, this seems like a change in heart from our previous conversations about media on the web. Glad to see you're interested in protecting artists. What about file sharing sites -- the Napsters of the world -- aren't they ripping off artists?
Tony
By
Anonymous, at 10:33 PM
Yes. While one can debate the legality, or illegality, of file sharing sites ... using sites like Limewire and Kazaa (Napster went legit years ago) can take money out of a musician's pocket. The question is, who put the music on there? Some artists have made their music available online (through file sharing services, podcasts, blogs, MySpace and so on) and give permission to fans to trade live, rare or promo tracks as a way to promote their work and grow their fanbase.
In that case, then no, it's not ripping anyone off.
But if someone uploads their entire music collection on the web for anyone to grab without getting proper permission to do it, then they are taking money from the artists.
I know my stance has changed slightly. I don't think there's anything wrong with downloading music, so long as the Web site you're downloading from is legit. But it seems that more and more people are not going through the proper channels, and getting permission from musicians or their record companies before they put music online. The water is getting to muddy, and this practice has to stop.
These Web sites have to pay the artists for their work, whether it be through proceeds from direct sales or by giving them a cut of their advertising revenue.
Of course, in a perfect world, these artists would be protected by the companies that distribute their work.
By
Eric LaRose, at 10:51 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home