If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Posting Guidelines.
You have to register before you can post.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Digital Domain Media Group Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection on Tuesday and said its production business would be sold, raising questions about millions of dollars in Florida subsidies for a new studio
(Reuters) - The music industry won the latest round on Tuesday in its long-running legal battle against a woman accused of illegally downloading and sharing two dozen songs on the Kazaa peer-to-peer network.The
Last month for the first time in history, the number one album sold fewer than 10,000 copies. Arts correspondent Colin Paterson went to the announcement of this year's 12-strong Mercury Prize shortlist to ask why anyone should care about what appears to be a dying format.
WARNING! The following is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We strongly recommend seeking the advice of a lawyer. Find below easy to follow step by step instructions to de-list your infringing links from Google Web Search. As you scroll down the page and make your selections, more questions will appear.…
Seems like there's an awful lot of Google bashing (much of which by yours truly). Not that's it's not deserved, however... it's important to recognize the positive and productive early first steps by Google to clean up their act... So much of what they've previously said was "impossible" is now actually being implemented.
It's a start, and there will be much more of this as the writing is on the wall (red flag knowledge). Things happen when you work towards making them happen... none of the below happens without people pressuring Google to do the right thing. Sometimes, companies just need a nudge.
1) You can now take down 10,000 (yes 10,000) infringing links in a single dmca notice... let me say that again... 10,000 infringing links, delisted from Google search in just ONE dmca notice!
2) Google drops the ranking of sites dedicate to infringement... We'll be tracking this to see how much of this we can objectively measure, but... again, it's a start. This should be followed by eventually dropping bad actor sites from search entirely and pulling their ad networks from serving advertising to these sites as well!
3) YouTube Content Management System allows for musicians, filmmakers and rights holders to preemptively block and/or monetize content on YouTube. Google understands you can't keep ripping off creators and then expect to be in business with them. They also know that User Generated Content has a glass ceiling they can't break through. So now they have to show up and play nice with Hollywood, artists and creators.
Now these are three small steps, but they are having a big impact. Maybe not as big as some would like, but these first baby steps have started the course to proper respect for creators. These are the first tiny building blocks upon which many more cooperative policies and tools will be built.
So again, not on their side. But as Don Hills like's to say, they're not perfect. They can't get it wrong 100% of the time. Got to give credit where credit is due for the good work they have begun.
This is what happens when people work together for positive change. I can already here the screams of agony from the freehadist. But this has never had anything to do with free culture or free speech, it's always been about free money... and that's (slowly) coming to an end.
Not that I don't think Google is still Evil, but... now maybe only 97% Evil as opposed to 100%...
If you don't know who Chris Randall is, he is a musician who used to be in a band called 'Sister Machine Gun', and he is also half of 'Audio Damage', a company which make effects and virtual instruments
There's a lotofdiscussion on the forums about where and how one should license their music for online distribution, but a recent story makes me wonder if artists should also advocate for more consumer-friendly end-user licensing terms perhaps even as part of an effort to regain a favorable position in the public mindshare after years of hostility to the digital domain.
The situation is complicated because the prohibition against transferring the rights to the licenses for use of the digital files is not solely a result of Apple policy; the copyright-holding distributors who provide material to iTunes very surely do so on condition that the license provided to end-users is non-transferrable and for personal use only. But now that more and more of our personal possession are taking the form personal-use licenses for digital data, there's going to be a lot of controversy in the coming years over what happens to these rights when we die, and if non-transferrable digital-goods licenses should even be allowable in the first place; is it simply an unfair business practice (the European Union is trending toward this conclusion)?
Bruce Willis' situation isn't the first time this problem has come up -- manypunditshavepreviouslyremarked on the matter -- but a high-profile celebrity drawing attention to the issue can certainly raise the stakes. So I ask fellow musicians here: do you know if your distributor insists on non-transferrable licensing clauses? (Of course, if they didn't, would the digital storefront even care? It might be even worse for the consumer if there were different terms for each purchase from iTunes.) What's your personal opinion on digital file transfer/inheritance rights; do you think purchasers of your music should have the option to bequeath their licenses after death? What about before their death? Do you think this is even an important issue for artists to care about?
We need to remember this when we talk about things in a historical context ... you can say that things that are adjusted for inflation between say the '70's and now ... I think music is always a bargain myself , but disposable incomes are super low at the moment .
WE need to be sure we give the customer a great deal of value for their money ... It is a good thing that so many good folks still buy music !! Looking at the stats in the linked page and assuming that kids work most for minimum wages , I'm feeling a little humble that I was able to spend so much on music discovery when I was a pup .. ( thanks Columbia House !!)
Conventional wisdom, or really any wisdom at all, would say: "How could anyone think anyone would click the 'buy it now for $1' button??? Not when it's there for free!" I think... well, it's my impression even a few patrons of this forum might take that point of view, if only for the sake of argument.
So this is anyone prepared to predict that NOBODY will buy this song? Not nobody, not no how?
Technology may change but principles do not. A society that encourages the creative spirit is rare in history and worth defending. The internet and digital technology have opened up many new opportunities for artists, but it has also opened up new opportunities for those who wish to exploit those artists. Unfortunately, many of those seeking…
The Recording Academy has launched a petition effort to convince digital music services to include the credits of musicians, producers, songwriters, engineers, etc. who've been involved in a production.
In my teenage youth I was often a 'credit reader', and enjoyed knowing who was involved. I don't believe that exists currently.
Personally I would encourage you to share the link with friends, family, fans and associates. I believe including credits not only benefits creators, but fans as well.
This is what Real Censorship looks like for those who confuse easily. This is sad breaking news. (Reuters) – Three women from Russian punk band Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in jail on Friday for their protest against President Vladimir Putin in a church, an outcome supporters described as the Kremlin leader’s “personal…
(Reuters) – Three women from Russian punk band Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in jail on Friday for their protest against President Vladimir Putin in a church, an outcome supporters described as the Kremlin leader’s “personal revenge”.
Is Rihanna broke?? Quite possibly, as MediaTakeout.com is reporting that Rihanna is short selling her mansion. via MediaTakeout.com- The Bajan singer is asking sellers to pay $2.5 MILLION LESS than the amount she paid for the home just two years...
so... they CAN have control over search rankings... funny how that is... and, they CAN know what is a problem... funny how that is... and they CAN do something about it... funny how that is...
and all this time it was so IMPOSSIBLE, but now, not so as the walls get closer and tighter and more light is shined on the obvious wrong doings...
funny how that is...
free and open VS fair and ethical...see if google actually wants quality content, from Hollywood, to monetize ads against legally, they are going to have to start being good citizens. Looks like Ari's trip up north is having some effect...
By Alexei Oreskovic SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Google Inc and Oracle Corp's copyright and patent battle took a strange twist on Tuesday, after a judge ordered the companies to disclose the names of journalists, bloggers and other commentators on their payrolls. U.S. District Judge William Alsup said he was concerned that Google and Oracle and/or their counsel may have retained or paid people who may have published comment on the case. The order, several months after a jury found that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents, hints at the possibility of a hidden world of for-pay press coverage and injects uncertainty into the widely-followed case. Alsup issued a one page order but did not go into full details of the court's concerns. "The court is concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in the case," Alsup wrote in Tuesday's order. He said the information "would be of use on appeal" and could "make clear whether any treatise, article, commentary or analysis on the issues posed by this case are possibly influenced by financial relationships to the parties or counsel." The companies must submit the information by noon August 17. Oracle sued Google in federal court, claiming the search engine giant's Android mobile platform violated its patents and copyright to Java, seeking roughly $1 billion on its copyright claims. But the jury ruled in Google's favor and the judge decided Oracle could not claim copyright protection on most of the Java material that Oracle took to trial. Oracle has said it will appeal. The trial, which featured testimony from high-profile technology executives including Oracle Chief Executive Larry Ellison and Google CEO Larry Page, attracted heavy media coverage from the mainstream press and technology-focused blogs. One of the more well-known bloggers on intellectual property matters and on the Oracle vs Google case, Florian Mueller, revealed three days into the trial that Oracle had recently become a consulting client of his. People who followed the case said they weren't aware of any other similar examples. An Oracle spokeswoman said in a statement that the company has "always disclosed all of its financial relationships in this matter, and it is time for Google do to the same.
At least, presuming the regulators don't say nope, this industry needs more competition, and nix the deal. Makes you wonder who'll be next to get out of the business, take a big paycheck now because making money in the the future looks increasingly uncertain.
Seems especially ironic that big artists may be on the chopping block precisely because of the anti-competition laws. Course, they'll probably be shuffled around and survive, but mid-level ones may not be so lucky.
Is music your hobby or your profession? The new music industry and music tech may have given more artists a chance at success, but in many cases it hasn't yet provided the income streams. This infographic from Ditto Music offers a sobering look at digital music income streams for musicians.
they give away music but charge for licensing. has anyone actually licensed anything from here?
Interesting the Freehadist think that music should be free on the internet, but film and tv producers should have to pay for it? How is that any different? If I use a song in a movie or tv show the artist still has theirs, and they get "free exposure", right?
There was speculation that the tour became unviable due to high ticket costs and a crowded concert market.
If touring is going to be the saviour of the music industry, it's not helpful when artists only agree to play live in the most profitable regions.
That's why I personally think records are a key product that musicians produce.
No Madonna fan misses out on her records, but they haven't seen her live since 1993.
The last time McCartney played Down Under was 1991!
Electronic Special - On Sale Now The Ultimate Electronic Music Magazine The new mag for electronic music fans. No gear reviews, no walk throughs, just up close and personal with the artists you love.
Apologies to anyone who feels I've chosen the wrong forum to post in, but I wanted to let people know about a new magazine devoted to electronic music past and present called suitably enough, 'Electronic' which launches in the UK this week. It is available worldwide via: Electronic Special | My Favourite Magazines
It is a music orientated magazine rather than a gear magazine, although of course with electronic artists it's impossible to divorce their work from the technology they use. But I'm not trying to pass it off as something it isn't.
The first issue features Underworld, Human League, Derrick May, Carl Craig, Ritchie Hawtin, Juan Atkins, John Foxx, Twin Shadow, Kraftwerk, Gary Numan, Vangelis, Heaven 17, Fad Gadget and many more.
I'm biased naturally because I write for the magazine, but I guessed a few of you might be interested. If anyone has any feedback, suggestions or questions please feel free to get in touch. You can also tweet me directly @thatbillbruce.
I'm not the publisher or the editor and I don't have shares in the company I'm just a contributor. I'm always on the lookout for snippets of synth and electronic music related gossip. I can't guarantee it will be used, but no harm in trying.
It's interesting to hear where she is coming from being a program director for KYSR and assistant program director / music director at KIIS here in LA.
After watching the entire episode I can't help but be bothered by a lot of what she is saying. Particularly with the story regarding Foster The People (@19:00) I found it odd that she was perfectly happy being a solid 6-9 months behind the rest of the world who had already considered it a hit. She did make a good point about playing music prematurely, but is everyone really shooting for what she talks about? Is there no music that is good enough for the radio that doesn't require you to have made a plan with their publicist?
I also found some of the remarks she made while talking about Azealia Banks (28:00) a little off-putting. Now, I COMPLETELY understand not being able to play her music on the radio before an edit. No question about that. However, saying that you don't know how to get ahold of an artist or find out who she is signed to / if she is signed is a little ridiculous.
Thoughts? I'd love to hear some feedback from anyone with experience in the business of commercial radio. It's an area of the industry I've never known, so if I have the wrong idea please fill me in. It's rare that I hear any discussion on the topic.
i get emails from this company now and then that are pretty transparently spam
"hey, i heard your album If you get a chance, you should check out our site for direct licensing Music Licensing Network | Blanksound. It allows people to buy sync licenses from you to use your music in their audiovisual work (films, games etc). You set your own prices and retain all rights to your material.
If you uploaded some tracks I would love to feature it on the homepage list and share it."
but the site looks legit.. i've not been able to track down any real info about them.
anyone here have any experience with them or similar???
The idea comes from Projekt Records founder Sam Rosenthal, an indie disillusioned with a system that seems completely stacked against artist interests. "Talking with my sister about the issues surrounding fair compensation for musicians, the phrase 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Musicians' popped out of my mouth! I loved it. I wrote it down. I created a graphic...."
Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos, post links and videos, and learn more about the people they meet.
I'm looking for ideas on how to expand my reach via Facebook, given that I don't play live and I'm entirely a "studio musician." My goal is just to get exposure via social networking.
I started it roughly a year ago and have 97 people following it now (97 likes) from all over the world... but I'm wondering how I can get that small number of people to spread the word to their friends.
I was thinking about providing an incentive--a free track--for people who invite their friends to Like my page or post about my music on their timeline. But I can't see any way in FB to track when someone does that so that I can offer them the incentive. Have any of you run social campaigns like this?
I want to promote my SoundCloud page but it seems like its really really hard! What strategies do you guys use for your SoundCloud promotion? Is it all based on following each other, or? I used services such as this one for my promotion and it works wonders but as a student I don't have unlimited dosh ($). So pitch in guys, tell me what you do!