All posts tagged Internet

  • September 15, 2008

    EMI Records’ Threatening Legal Disclaimer

    A friend handed me a few CDs this afternoon. One of them was Dreamt For Light Years In The Belly Of A Mountain by Sparklehorse. After I placed the disc into my computer tray and ripped the tracks to MP3 – which is a habit that I undertake immediately after acquiring any new music – I had a quick glance at the liner notes to try to ascertain something about the artist, as I was as yet unfamiliar.

    I came across this paragraph:

    Thank you for buying this music. This recording and artwork are protected by copyright law. Using Internet services to distribute copyrighted music, giving away illegal copies of discs or lending discs to others for them to copy is illegal and does not support those in making this piece of music – especially the artist. By carrying out any of these actions it has the same effect as stealing music. Applicable laws provide severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution and digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. Many examples of where to buyal legal downloads can be found at www.musicfromemi.com

    How quaint. This disc was released in 2006. Sparklehorse are signed to Capital Records and distributed by EMI.

    Clumsy wording aside, the message is plenty amusing. I smiled at the MP3 encoding program running in the background, quietly transferring the contents of the plastic disc into audio data.

    A friend handed me the album with his recommendation. I have every intention of listening and giving him my feedback. I might like it, I might not. But it’s highly unlikely that I’d have given the artist my time without this personal recommendation. I surely wouldn’t have dropped $20 without being remotely familiar with their music.

    Naturally, after transcribing the above paragraph, I googled the phrase to see what came back. Unsuprisingly, someone had already dissected EMI’s bullshit legal posturing in February 2006.

    Jon Dyer found the message in his store-bought Morningwood CD and discussed its ridiculousness at length in this post. A few choice quotes are included below – I suggest you read the full article.

    The day I want a band to give me legal advice is the same day that I ask my lawyer to jump up on the desk, strap on an axe, and rock like Great White at a fireman’s ball.

    …one of the last things that I want to read in some liner notes is a big, pseudo legal warning about what I can and can’t do with my purchase. If you’re determined to go this route, have the courtesy to be brief, accurate, and honest with what you write. And have the cojones to put your extensive warnings on the outside of the CD, so I can see what you’re all about before I lay down the $10.

    Lending CDs to people is how some people communicate. And what they are doing with that communication is free, evangelical advertising for the bands that they lend. To lie and say that this is illegal is beyond stupid: It alienates the fans, stops free advertising without loss of sale, and actually insults the people who actually took the time to read your liner notes. Like me.

    On the other hand – at least I’m talking about Sparklehorse. They’ll stick in my mind a little longer than the average band, whether I like the music or not, purely due to EMI’s hilariously threatening legal disclaimer. 

    I wish I could confirm or deny whether they’re still including a similar message in their 2008 releases, but I don’t think I’ve bought a recording by an EMI artist in years. I’ll have to look when picking up You Am I‘s new album.

    2 Comments / Writing /

  • June 14, 2008

    Zoo Photography Fallout

    My previous post provoked some passionate and interesting discussion within the national music community. My FasterLouder editor Liam McGinniss posted a news article on the site and kicked off a thread on the FL forums. I engaged with the conversation throughout Thursday before deciding to notify Birds Of Tokyo, and The Zoo’s management. The latter was the first to reply:

    hi joc here from the Zoo –

    just writing in response to the camera regulations and all of the posts – as we have stated on the website and mail out’s since bringing the policy in –

    Please do not record the event unless you have gained permission from the venue and the performing act themselves, this also applies to patron crowd shots as well.

    If you are interested in taking photo’s you are able to email the Zoo and ask permission to take shots as a number of people have done since this new policy has come into play. We then forward each request to the management / agent and it is then up to each act if they want their photo’s taken.

    It is a lot more work for The Zoo but we are then trying to ensure that each act’s privacy and wish is taken into account not just assuming they are ok with people taking shots. It is each individual’s right to have or not have their photo taken – and i don’t think they should be thought of in a less than favourable light if that is their attitude to this matter. We have in the past been less strict on this matter and their were recent events that made us review the policy but we are walking along a new path for the Zoo and one we are trying to handle with our normal integrity and trying to consider all involved.

    I am sure other venues would just say – no camera’s and that is it. They wouldn’t have the headache’s in trying to make a system fair for all. So please consider that when people are very rude and not understanding.

    all the best

    Joc Curran
    Owner/Manager
    The Zoo

    Birds Of Tokyo guitarist Adam Spark replied later that day:

    hey fella,
    cheers for the message…thats all interesting news to us!! heh…
    we didnt threaten legal anything…weird…our manager just asked some kid to take off the new tracks from you tube, which most of my friends bands do also…
    but as far as all that stuff goes with the zoo….nothing to do with us mate…there is alot of misinformation on there i think!! we love people taking photos and film away!! just dont post up the new material just before new material is coming out…i dont think thats unfair? we just want people to hear our new material in its best form, after all we pay alot of money for people to make us sound good!! haha
    other than that….post everything up on the net! fine with us!

    cheers for the insight tho sir!! and yes i remember that off kilter solo! heheh pretty close!!
    cheers.
    adam s.

    It’s heartening that both parties were quick to respond, though both clearly dodged some issues. Transparency would be ideal, but impossible when both parties have interests to protect.

    Joc isn’t wrong about the headaches that these new regulations have caused. Theoretically, they’ll have to respond to several hundred photography requests from concert attendees every week. Realistically, though, as the word spreads and cameras are confiscated for the duration of the night, punters will simply stop bringing their cameras to shows at The Zoo. Few will bother to email requests beforehand.

    This outcome might be ideal for the handful of professional photographers who frequent the venue each week – that is, less amateur point-and-click photographers to contend with up front – but on the whole, the music community loses.

    You know those guys who stand and film a show before uploading it to YouTube? They won’t be at the Zoo anymore. I’ve been in contact with one, and he’s told me as much. Fans of bands who play at the venue – both local and international – are the losers in this situation, as footage of their Zoo performances will dwindle and soon die off.

    FasterLouder forum user Demosthenes wrote:

    It’s more than the Tivoli or the Arena do for punters. And if you sent such a request to the Entertainment Centre or the Convention Centre it’d probably disappear into a black hole.

    User Bananaphone wrote:

    …going to see a gig is a night out. People at the Zoo take snaps of themselves and their friends just as much as they do the band!

    While I’ve navigated this discussion without appearing to be an alarmist (hopefully), I think that these regulations will have a negative effect on the Brisbane music scene. It mightn’t be immediately noticeable; hell, in all likelihood, we’ll soon have accepted the rules as the norm and forgotten the issue, as is often the case with cultural change. After a brief period of protest, change is assimilated.

    It’s a shame, but it’s reality.

    3 Comments / Writing /

  • June 11, 2008

    Camera-Shy Birds Of Tokyo

    While lining up to attend a show at my favourite Brisbane live music venue last night, I was confronted with some new and conspicuous signage. I’d seen the update on The Zoo’s site last week, but it’d slipped my mind until I re-read in person:

    Dear Zoo Patrons,

    No recording or photographic equipment is allowed to be brought into the Zoo.

    Please do not record the event unless you have gained permission from the venue and the performing act themselves, this also applies to patron crowd shots as well.

    Anyone caught doing so, with out pre arranged consent will have their gear confiscated until the end of the night.

    Thank you in advance for your understanding on this issue.

    All the best,
    The Zoo.

    Curious. Upon questioning those who knew, it appears that these restrictions are the result of a Birds Of Tokyo show in late May.

    The band played some new material to a sold-out crowd. Several among the audience decided to film these songs – in “high quality”, so I’m told – and upload the footage to YouTube. The band, who have a new album due later this year, responded by threatening legal action lest The Zoo instate and enforce the camera restrictions for future shows. The videos in question have been removed from YouTube.

    Let’s examine the facts, and assume that the videos were uploaded by a single party:
    1. This person paid to buy a ticket to watch Birds Of Tokyo; therefore,
    2. It’s reasonable to assume that they’re a Birds Of Tokyo fan.
    3. This fan wanted to share new Birds Of Tokyo material with other Birds Of Tokyo fans throughout the world; the easiest way to do that was to:
    4. Upload Birds Of Tokyo footage to YouTube.

    I don’t think that I need to point out the inherent stupidity in demanding rules be put in place after the act occurred and the band had left the venue. I’d be surprised if The Zoo had anything further to do with Birds Of Tokyo.

    An ostensibly friendly action by a Birds Of Tokyo fan has caused wider ramifications upon the Brisbane music scene – specifically, by scaring The Zoo into changing their conditions of entry, which have long been casual and reasonable, much like the venue’s staff.

    Why did this happen? Because Birds Of Tokyo are apparently more concerned with shielding their precious new material than encouraging their dedicated fanbase to continue doing what they will always attempt to do – that is, share with fellow fans.

    This is an awful strategic decision on Birds of Tokyo’s behalf. It seems that they’ve forgotten that sharing is the essence of being a music fan. Though, bear in mind that I’m taking this hearsay on face value – it could have been a decision made by their record label, their management, or I could be entirely wrong.

    National fame and notoriety. Sold-out Australian tours. A Triple J Hottest 100 placing. 10,151 MySpace friends. Why the fuck should Birds Of Tokyo care if a fan uploads a couple of bootleg, unreleased songs online and a couple of thousand people check it out?

    Their complete failure to view this occurrence as anything other than an act of positive word-of-mouth marketing from the most influential sector of their community – an actual goddamn Birds Of Tokyo fan – astounds and angers me. It’s irrevocably warped my already-dwindling perception of the band.

    This is the price you pay for attempting to control the actions of your fanbase. This is a glaring example of failing to consider an issue in whole before acting.

    Thanks for fucking up sixteen years of amicable amateur photography at The Zoo, Birds Of Tokyo.

    EDIT 12/06/08 – A discussion about this topic is taking place on the FasterLouder forum.

    8 Comments / Writing /

  • June 8, 2008

    Always-On

    Seth describes a world whose eyes and ears are synchronised via technology:

    So, very soon, you will own a cell phone that has a very good camera and knows where you are within ten or fifteen feet. And the web will know who you are and who your friends are…. This is going to happen. The only question is whether you are one of the people who will make it happen. I guess there’s an even bigger question: will we do it right?

    Complete connectivity is difficult to imagine. I understand the principles of the notion, but my thoughts remain firmly grounded by its logistics.

    Speaking locally, the biggest barrier to overcome when discussing an always-on world is the price of data transmission.

    I can’t see this barrier being lowered in the near future. It’s unfortunate. Australia has always been behind in terms of broadband cost and speed. ISP policy has traditionally placed harsh restrictions on bandwidth, too.

    The effect that these data limitations have had on Australia’s web economy are obvious. It’s frustrating to read about US-based technological advancements while using an internet infrastructure that’s at least five years behind.

    Phone-streaming services like Qik are financially unfeasible in the current data climate. My recent research into internet plans for a phone upgrade confirms this. Until the price of data transmission lowers, there’s little point in such an investment. The always-on notion is admirable, but out of Australian grasp for the foreseeable future.

    No Comments / Writing /
Newer Entries →