RSS Feed News
 
John's Huffington Post Piracy Piece Stirs Debate
11.07.2012 - In the ten days since John posted his thoughts about Internet Piracy on Huffington Post  it has generated approximately 1000 comments plus hundreds more on Facebook as well as related blog reports and commentaries. We're posting a piece that reinforces John's position here that came in response to a piece in The New Republic that was critical and dismissive of John’s view.

The New Republic  took John to task for many points he made while The Trichordist expounded on John's point of view and, later, provided more insight in a secord article

It was John’s hope that his piece would further discussion and reflection from lawmakers, the music industry, consumers at large and advertisers about what role they play in the damage inflicted by piracy on the those who hope to earn a earn a livelihood in music.

John is glad that the conversation catalyzed by his piece has become as animated as it has and only offers this additional comment that paraphrases a line in his song “Jim Crow”:
“You can call it what you want to  - But it's still stealing”

Mellencamp Character Assassination. The New Republic Bravely Stands Up For Corporations and Criminal Groups That Exploit Artists. The Trichordist - By David Lowery

I’m sort of delighted by this. I mean I went to a very liberal college and there’s a certain kind elitist and dim knee jerk liberal I really dislike.  Dorm room revolutionaries who end up unwittingly doing the work of the man.  The kind that end up blogging for The New Republic.

Recently John Cougar Mellancamp wrote a piece in which he criticized the music business.  In particular he criticized them and his fellow artists  for not standing up to  large corporations like Google who have monetized illegal file-sharing by selling advertising against illegal download search results and also by providing advertising directly to file infringing sites.

The New Republic-always the class act-decided to respond with a character assassination piece.   They sent the remarkably ignorant Lydia DePillis (on twitter @lydiadepillis)  a 3 year real estate journalism veteran to “School” the 40 year music business veteran John  Mellencamp on the history and future of the music business.  It’s freaking hilarious.  Not only does this “professional” journalist not understand that  the main point is that Mellencamp is criticizing the music business for not protecting artists she wanders completely off topic and makes historical claims that have no basis in fact. Further she incorrectly disputes Mellencamp’s facts.

I’m just gonna give you one example.  The 3 year journalism veteran claims that search engines don’t make money off the searches for illegal downloads.   it took exactly 3.2 seconds for me to disprove this…

...Also she then dismisses and mocks Mellencamp’s correct claim that Google makes plenty of money serving ads on sites that it knows are infringing. .

Here is Google’s Doubleclick serving an ad for Jeep on the that same site www.dilandau.eu A site that Google’s own transparency report ranks as the 24th most copyright infringing site in the world. Isn’t knowingly providing money to an illegal enterprise a RICO predicate?

It is sad but not surprising to see The New Republic standing up for the right of giant corporations and criminal groups to make money by exploiting artists songs. The New Republic has totally lost it’s way. They are now for the big corporations and against the little guy.

If The New Republic has any journalistic integrity left it needs to correct the falsehoods in this article. Further they should apologize to Mellencamp for the nasty tone of this article. I’m sure they won’t but it’s worth a try. Maybe tweeting at the author will work better @lydiadepillis

The Trichordist followed up their piece about John with another interesting piece about advertising on sites with pirated material. Read it here: Madison Avenue and Media Piracy, Are Online Ad Networks the Birth of SkyNet?

 

What John Mellencamp Doesn’t Understand About His Industry’s Future, or Past -  The New Republic By Lydia DePillis

John Cougar Mellencamp, country music crooner and defender of old media, has had it with all that music floating around for free on the internet these days. Last week, he took to the Huffington Post to air his disapproval, in a column that so perfectly encapsulates the enduring mentality of analog incumbent industries that we thought it worth closer read.

“I’ve been doing this a long time and I’m confounded by the apathy of those who have participated in music-related successes and are now witnessing the demise of the entertainment business as it has existed since the beginning of recorded sound and moving pictures.”

This would imply that the entertainment business has never before adapted to new platforms for distributing music and movies. And yet, FM radio, tape recorders, and the Walkman all forced the music industry to change.

“Tell me where, under today’s conditions of de facto indentured servitude, will the new artists come from?”

Let’s talk instead about the indentured servitude of artists to major labels who produce records to be as commercially palatable as possible in order to support massive operating costs.

If I were a young songwriter today, I would be looking for another way to earn a living. The same would go for the young screenwriter or novelist. And what about the guy who only had one or two hit records 10 or 50 years ago? What happens to this guy who depends on that income to support his family if people are stealing those songs now? Tough luck, right?”

Sure, there was a time in the past when it was easier for musicians to make money. But that period was not so long and not so great for everybody as you suggest—only about 25 years, if Mick Jagger is to be believed.

“We need to restore intellectual property to its rightful owners and reconstruct the business that has lost thousands and thousands of jobs plus billions of dollars in revenue.”

According to the recording industry’s own numbers, the sector grew from $132 billion in revenues in 2005 to $168 billion in 2010. The record labels' revenues from digital music grew 5 percent in 2010 and another 8 percent in 2011. Somebody’s making money here.

“Why is thievery allowed to continue on the Internet? And why do people think it's so impossible to correct?”

Nielsen reports that only 28 percent of internet users globally use illegal music services on a monthly basis. That's not insignificant, but it leaves quite a bit of market share for paying business.

“Right after radio was invented, they played music and sold advertising. Then it dawned on some: ‘Hey, they’re playing our music, and they’re selling advertising on our backs; we should get paid.’ So performing rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI were established with the express intention of protecting the intellectual property of artists who create it... They turned new delivery systems into multi-billion dollar businesses. That was progress.”

Here’s what they also did: Having tried and failed to keep their artists from playing on the radio in the 1920s, record companies came up with high-fidelity technology that just sounded better, and allowed them to keep selling records. Real progress comes from innovation, not squashing anything that threatens your cash cow.

“But where are ASCAP and BMI today on the new delivery system—the Internet? Where are the record companies? Where are the book publishers? Where are the unions to which we pay dues that are supposed to protect actors, writers, songwriters, and producers? And, most importantly, where's the government? Apparently everybody’s too busy making excuses and shrugging their shoulders to realize their gravy train has gone up the waterspout.”

Where are they? In court and on Capitol Hill, constantly, for the past decade. Killing Napster, Limewire, and Kazaa. Suing thousands of individual downloaders. Trying like hell to pass anti-piracy legislation, and failing after internet users rose up in opposition (even movie industry chief Chris Dodd admits SOPA and PIPA aren’t coming back). They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble (and money) by instead working on new models for distributing their content.

“There is a law that exists to deal with copyright and the Internet that dates back to the good ol’ days of 1990s: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It was supposed to bring U.S. copyright law into the digital age but it included something called Safe Harbor Provisions’ that basically says that each artist is responsible for retrieving his own merchandise and shutting down anyone stealing their property, which is kind of a joke.... [U]nder the Safe Harbor Provisions, search engines behave like unpoliced department stores where anyone can steal whatever they want with no real threat of significant repercussions.”

Wrong analogy: The search engine doesn’t profit when songs are downloaded, legally or illegally. Rather, it’s more like UPS, which sends and delivers what people want. Would you sue the big brown for carrying stolen goods?

“On top of everything, they’re collecting advertising money from Madison Avenue. So what's happening is your search engine leads you to an illegal downloading site where you can download you name the artisttheir entire catalog and, at the same time, see products and services offered for sale ranging from soft drinks to pornography and, adding insult to injury, that merchandise appears to be endorsed by the artist to whom it's attached. The artist, who is already being stolen from, now appears to be shilling for these products.”

Just like you’re endorsing the breast enlargement ads on the side of my screen right now?

“Recent history has shown that things can, in fact, change. When online gambling, once a huge and thriving underground business, was determined to be illegal sites went out of business almost overnight. Why? Because legal gaming enterprises and government regulation brought the hammer down where it hurt the most—credit card companies were told they could not be part of this dubious trade and they complied immediately.”

Except that now, some states are legalizing online gambling because it’ll generate more revenue when regulated and taxed—not to mention create thousands of jobs. It’s not the state’s job to privilege one revenue model over another.

“In the same way, if anti-piracy legislation were the order of the day servers, wherever they may be including the mythical ‘cloud,’ could and would be shut down thanks to technologies that have been developed and successfully employed during the fight against terrorism. The means to get this done actually exists; what we’re lacking, at the moment, is the will to do it.”

Shorter Mellencamp: The U.S. government should put the same resources into going after people swapping music on the internet as it does pursuing terrorists.
Actually, it’s not that easy to automatically identify music that’s being distributed without the creator’s permission, which is why search engines rely on content owners to submit claims. Google is already using those claims to demote websites that repeatedly violate copyright protections. Going around shutting down data centers for every stolen song that slips through would just take out large chunks of the rest of the internet, to little effect.
Ultimately, clinging to an old business model means that artists lose out, too. Courtney Love said it best, way back in 2000: "I’m looking for people to help connect me to more fans, because I believe fans will leave a tip based on the enjoyment and service I provide. I’m not scared of them getting a preview.”



John is glad that the conversation catalyzed by his piece has become as animated as it has and only offers this additional comment that paraphrases a line in his song “Jim Crow”:
“You can call it what you want to  - But it's still stealing”


Back
 
 

Keep up the fight

John, I’m in the publishing business and I was completely disgusted by the search engine giants proclaiming a few years ago how they were “sharing” with the world books and other content for the first time. I guess they never heard of libraries or other outlets of content prior to the Internet. I enjoy consuming content on the web as much as anybody, but there is complete lack of respect for the effort and capital invested in creating content. And just because as an owner I’ve chosen to make content available for free or at a very low cost on the web, doesn’t mean I’ve given anyone permission to re-use, re-distribute, re-sell, copy, or do whatever they wish with my content. All the new media has certainly strained an owner’s ability to police and monitor their intellectual property for violations but that’s what we are left to do today. I wish you all the best in influencing legislators to bring protection laws up to date. Take care.

Posted by ulowecx 2012-11-08 08:59:00.

What the New Republic doesn't understand about music!

What the New Republic doesn't seem to understand is there are some fundamental differences between home taping of music in the 70s or 80s vs. putting a song for free public download on a pirate internet site. What are the differences? It actually took some effort to record an album. Second, that copy wasn't shared with the entire world. In most cases it was probably shared with one or two people-- and in a lot of cases-- probably to "turn them on" to a new artist. While I suspect Mr. Mellencamp would characterize home taping as stealing too, and he'd be right, I think there was more of an upside for the artist. I can't speak for everyone. But if I got turned on and liked the artist--I'd want to buy a real copy of the album. Either on vinyl, CD or cassette. Not so much because it sounded better, but because I wanted the whole package. I wanted to know what I'm missing. So the artist would get their money from me. With digital downloads, it's easy to put a song on a pirate site. Not much effort involved. It's not shared between two buddies, it's shared with the world. And in a digital world...I suspect most of us don't care about the whole package. So there is no incentive to go spend the money on the real thing. Artists and labels need to innovate to make people buy stuff as opposed to illegally download it? I don't know...we seem to have voted for inferior digital music that doesn't sound very good. We've voted to cherry pick and buy songs vs. albums...The guy who re-invents the music business, when it comes to distributing music is going to be rich...although I think Steve Jobs already did that. And we may not be better off for it. That's just my take on one little piece of

Posted by robcreighton 2012-11-08 08:52:38.

 
 

 

WEBSITE & CONTENTS © JOHN MELLENCAMP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.             PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF USE | CONTACT

 

Email Updates! Home Powered by BubbleUp,Ltd. John Mellencamp on YouTube.com John Mellencamp on Wikipedia John Mellencamp on MySpace.com John Mellencamp on Facebook.com John Mellencamp on Twitter.com John Mellencamp on iLike.com John Mellencamp on Pandora.com John Mellencamp on LastFM.com