The whole “self-release new album on the internet for whatever price the customer chooses experiment-thingy” appears to have actually worked. (As if you expected Radiohead to fail at something...) At this point, it seems like everybody and their mothers know what happened with the most recent Radiohead album, but in case you’ve been in a coma, it goes like this:

A year ago, Radiohead rolled up their sleeves, slicked back their hair, looked The Man in the face and spit hard. By deciding to self-release their album In Rainbows (TMT Review), they demonstrated just how out-of-touch the traditional distribution model was. It was a great success, of course. Everything was wonderful, the music world was changed forever, yadda yadda yadda.

The caveat? The results of the experiment were never released... until now, that is!

According to musically.com, Warner Chappell (Radiohead’s publishing company) is set to make an official announcement soon that will "reveal details of their view of the Radiohead licensing experiment at the ‘You Are in Control’ conference in Iceland." In the meantime, the website has published some stats already, claiming that “three million album purchases including the box sets, CDs, and all downloads including iTunes and pay-what-you-like downloads.” This includes 100,000 purchases of the $80 box set version of the album, which is a lot of copies to even the most cynical of us. In fact, according to the site, "Radiohead had made more money before In Rainbows was physically released than they made in total on Hail To the Thief."

On the less positive side, it seems that quite a few people still torrented the album even though it was available for "free." But did Radiohead even care about the sales? Apparently so:

Dyball points to the fact that the band and their management never announced a timeline for the pay-what-you-like experiment and were watching the average price daily with a view to potentially withdrawing it any moment should it drop too low. Dyball points out that the average price went down after the download moved from uberfans to less committed fans, as expected.

Here are some other stats, straight from the source:

 After being made available for free for 3 months the album was no.1 in the UK and in the US
 1st Radiohead album on iTunes – no.1 album selling 30,000 units in the US in the first week
 The physical CD has sold 1.75 million to date and is still top 200 UK & US
 They sold 100k boxsets via W.A.S.T.E.
 Nearing 17 million plays on last.fm
 1.2 million fans will see the tour
 The digital income from the experiment made a material difference to WCM’s UK digital revenue this year

The band still isn’t telling how much it made per download, so we really don’t know how rich Radiohead are. Still, I think they’ve probably made enough at this point for Thom to finally just buy himself some sanity.

After nearly a year of being soundly criticized by various industry groups and copyright law concerns, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, or PRO-IP Act, has been passed into law. The act, among other things, allows for the creation of a "copyright czar" and permits the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct civil lawsuits on behalf of private copyright holders.

The most troubling part of the PRO-IP Act — to me, at least — is that it extends the concept of forfeiture to IP piracy. Usually used in cases of large-scale drug-dealing, Publicknowledge.org’s Art Brodsky sums up forfeiture as it relates to IP thusly: “Let’s suppose that there’s one computer in the house, and one person uses it for downloads and one for homework. The whole computer goes.”

There’s a whole tangled mess of lobbying and special interest that I’m sure will reveal itself as this law becomes more widely practiced, but for now we’re left with one salient point made by the White House on the day of the bill’s signing: "Terrorist networks use counterfeit sales to finance their operations."

Music industry types have always been notoriously stupid, by and large. But luckily for them, they’ve always found themselves one rung higher on the ladder of evolutionary common sense than one particularly sordid group of cranially-crippled bottom feeders: consumers with disposable income. Yes, it’s sad but true; it’s zombies like these who have allowed such past pointless capitalistic mutations as the salad spinner, the robot vacuum, and Nickelback to somehow cram themselves into an already bloated marketplace and thrive there, surviving only on a diet of poor self-esteem and allocated Denny’s tips.

So it should come as no surprise that the struggling music publishers at EMI music have burned the mid-afternoon oil and come up with a new and devious way to extract another few pennies out of the value of the ol’ music/lyrics music copyright: turning lyric sheets into fashion statements. Sadly, EMI Music Publishing is merely the latest to embrace the growing trend of, well, squeezing blood from proverbial turnips, having inked a deal with the British grocery store Sainsbury’s "Tu Clothing" line that will involve printing various juicy lyrics from some of the publishing house’s 1.3 million-song catalog on the latest fashions for men, women, and, uggh, children. This time around, songs such as “My Girl,” “ABC,” “(Theme From) The Monkees,” “Wild Thing,” and “Dancing in the Street” are set to be featured. Man, I can’t wait to pick up those “When it’s cold outside, I’ve got the month of May” legwarmers and “you make everything groovy” boxer shorts for Christmas presents this year.

Jonathan Channon, executive vice president for EMI, couldn’t resist a bit of assholistc punnery during his statment: "Classic songs are part of the fabric of everybody’s lives, and we’re delighted that people will now be able to wear their favorite songs through this deal." I mean, yeah, I’d be delighted too if I could get paid a second time for something I already own, wouldn’t you? Just think of all of the time that’d afford you to, say, think-up hammy media one-liners. In defense against naysaying pundits like me, EMI Publishing’s lyrics division was quick to point out that previous initiatives have already seen its lyrics licensed for board games, posters, and greeting cards — part of an apparent push by publishers in general to find new ways to avoid having to look for “real” work these days. After all, what other skills could they possibly have?

If you thought Ticketmaster was annoying, I bet you will find or do find TicketsNow even more annoying. TicketsNow is the Ticketmaster-owned company that allows you to buy premium-event tickets from ticket agencies, sometimes before they even go on sale. This means what could be a $50-face price ticket is instead a $300-face price ticket. It kind of makes you feel like an idiot knowing you paid $250 more than the person sitting next to you, just so you could be sure you got a ticket in the first place.

Well, now after you buy your insanely priced ticket from TicketsNow, you can resell it to some other dumbass for even more! The new service introduced by TicketsNow is called “Sell Your Tickets On TicketsNow” and gives ticket sellers access to tons of fans looking for tickets. The seller has the ability to set the ticket price to whatever they feel is appropriate and can be changed at any time. The seller can even list their tickets as free and just pay the commission fee to TicketsNow. How it works is you list your tickets for whatever asking price, and when someone buys them, TicketsNow sends you notification and a link to a printable shipping label.

Sorry, I know this article is pretty much all ‘opinion.’ I just think this service sucks. I’d rather just sell my ticket to an honest fan for face value.

Market instability, oil price lunacy, hearing 30 seconds of 30 Seconds to Mars... it doesn’t take much to get some organizations in a huff over what they believe to be their bucks. Music’s publishing bodyrollaz like ASCAP and BMI are always trying to get paid in the name of protecting their musical charges, but it looks like they may be in for a fight when it comes to screwing royalties from those intent on using 30-second music clips. In an amicus brief filed jointly by DiMA (Digital Media Association) and NARM (National Association of Recording Merchandisers) last month, the two groups asked a federal court to apply "fair use" with regard to the use of 30-second song samples on the internet.

"DiMA supports fair compensation for copyright owners," states DiMA Executive Director of Jonathan Potter. "DiMA members pay tens of millions of dollars in royalties to songwriters and publishers for online music sales. But the performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) who represent songwriters and publishers demand additional payment for the preview clips that facilitate these online sales."

The legal action stems from an ASCAP vs. AT&T case, which has the telephone/DSL/wireless giant fighting for its right to use 30-second ringtone and ring-back-tone song previews. Amicus briefs contain pertinent but unsolicited information filed by "friends of the court" in order to get judges to consider broader legal implications and third-party ramifications when making their decisions. In this instance, DiMA and NARM would like a federal district court, in deciding the AT&T case, to consider protection and fair use for internet retailers that use 30-second song preview clips. If the courts decide on the side of ASCAP, then it may mean a double payday for publishing houses and songwriters in the future.

Lay back and let Potter further seduce you with his amicus brief impetuses:

Internet retailers sell an extraordinary percentage of all recorded music. The iTunes Store is America’s largest music retailer, and Amazon.com, Best Buy and other DiMA members use 30-second clips to sell both CDs and digital downloads. If ASCAP succeeds in pressing its demand for a new payment for these previews, Internet music retailers would be disadvantaged simply because they are selling online, and songwriters and music publishers would be getting a royalty for the preview on top of the appropriate and well-deserved royalty that is paid when the music itself is sold.

The joint filers hope the federal court will see the possible benefits of protected use of these 30-second clips. Essentially this is free promotion for the artists, songwriters, and publishers themselves and could only help to sell their products in the long run. But the law is an unpredictable, prickly beast. For instance, a court found O.J. Simpson guilty of armed robbery and kidnapping last week. That guy’s never done anything wrong!

Be careful the next time you fart... an ASCAP stooge may request royalties on behalf of someone like Daughtry or something.

The Hamburg district court ruled Tuesday that the file-hosting giant Rapidshare has insufficiently attempted to prevent piracy on their site. In a ruling that could sound the death knell for Rapidshare, the site must not only continue to remove copyrighted material from the site, but it must also “proactively check content before publishing it" if the material comes from a user who has past infringements.

Unlike the United States, Germany has no “safe harbor” laws that exempt a website from liability when individual users upload copyrighted materials, providing the site administrators remove infringing content once notified. Such provisions have kept YouTube relatively safe from the snares of lawsuits, but unfortunately the same cannot be said for Rapidshare.

In order to curb piracy as much as possible, Rapidshare uses a hash filter to prevent previously removed material from reaching the site and employs six full-time people to scour the site and remove copyrighted material. The German court, however, determined the filter could be too easily circumvented and the anti-piracy staff was not effective in patrolling for infringements. Rapidshare argued if they were required to check every file individually before it was uploaded to the site, there’d be no way for the business to stay afloat. The court replied in its decision, "A business model that doesn’t use common methods of prevention cannot claim the protection of the law." Charming.

If you happen to know German, you can read the court’s full decision here. For everybody else, send off those ZIP files of cat pictures to your gramma and pornographic films to your friends while you can, because Rapidshare might not be there forever.

(Via Ars Technica and P2P Blog .)

After just four years, Sony BMG is now officially deceased. Sony Corp announced today that is has finally completed the acquisition of Bertelsmann’s 50% stake in the Sony BMG venture. Rebranded as Sony Music Entertainment Inc. (SMEI) — clever name! — the entirety of its operations are now wholly owned by Sony Corporation of America, a company whose annual sales amounted to $88.7 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008, topping TMT’s fiscal earnings by what experts might call "a significant margin."

And the cost of acquiring Bertelsmann’s stake? Oh, just $1.2 billion. Chump change. Now all Sony has to do is save itself by focusing its leadership and finally settling into manageable roles. And I’d expect increasing crossover between Sony artists and the Playstation console, because as the saying goes, "Money is great!"

Meanwhile, soak in Sony BMG’s beautiful website while it’s still up. Boy, I’m really going to miss that brand. It really defined who I am as an individual, etc.

Leading a coalition of internet advocacy groups and web-related companies, Google Inc. recently testified in front of the Department of Commerce in Washington. The issue at hand was the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a developing international treaty that aims to reduce piracy and counterfeiting of copyrighted material. While the treaty is yet unwritten, the proceedings surrounding its composition have been conducted in secrecy.

Though the treaty also concerns such physical goods as electronics and pharmaceuticals, it is its provisions toward digital media that garnered Google’s attention. A leaked outline of the treaty indicated that it might endow corporate copyright holders with the ability to hold ISPs (internet service providers) responsible for any copyrighted material distributed using their services. While internet issues had allegedly not yet been discussed in the hearings, the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the U.S. trade office, demanding it publicize the details of the negotiations.

Although signing the treaty would require no change to existing U.S. law, Google urged the Bush administration not to sign (or to at least exclude the internet from the treaty), as doing so would freeze the law in its current state. In a changing media climate, argued representatives from Google, the U.S. Congress and courts have not yet found the appropriate balance between copyright protection and free exchange of information. Asked Google policy counsel Johanna Shelton, “Why would we want to enshrine one view of U.S. law?”

In the opinion of this writer, this balance (between copyright and fair use) will never be “settled.” As our methods of media distribution adapt to rapidly-developing technology, there may be no “end point” for U.S. copyright law. Gone are the days of a static approach to an unchanging media environment. There now exists, rather, a constantly shifting equilibrium that must be maintained by both the government and its citizens as the circumstances develop.

In a welcomed update to a story we posted two weeks ago (TMT News), the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act Bill — approved last Friday by the Senate — seems geared for a veto after the Department of Justice and the Department of Commerce issued a joint statement September 23, 2008 voicing concerns over the increased bureaucracy and the weakened separation of powers mandated by the bill.

According to Wired’s David Kravets:

The White House successfully lobbied the Senate to remove language tasking the Department of Justice with suing copyright and trademark infringers on behalf of Hollywood, the recording industry, manufacturers and software makers. But the Bush administration also doesn’t want a copyright czar, a position on par with the nation’s drug czar Congress created in 1982 to wage the War on Drugs. Lawmakers, however, sent him the package anyway.

The EIPRA would grant federal prosecutors with the authority to pursue file-sharers in violation of copyright laws and create an IP Enforcement Coordinator within the executive branch — an intrusion into federal authority and federal spending which would afford copyright holders with pro bono representation from Department of Justice prosecutors. And remember, we live in an era of “fiscal responsibility,” as the DoJ’s letter states.

(BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, the potential veto on the EIPRA bill totally ruins the wicked awesome, yet wholly imaginary “The RIAA is Conspiring with the Federal Government to Eradicate All Traces of Internet Privacy in a Desperate Ploy to Recoup Diminishing Revenue / Name that Tune Contest!” So, I guess by default, the prize goes to the Department of Justice for stickin’ it to the RIAA. And to teddy bear companies, screw those guys. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, read our first story on this bill so you don’t miss out on my sharp wit!)

The music market took an extra large hit this week on Wal-Street, when the value of DRM songs from Wal-Mart began to plummet at a rate not matched since the great Wax Recording Crash when vinyl came along. After it was recently uncovered by economic experts that Wal-mart, who began offering DRM MP3s in August 2007, had been irresponsibly offering customers cheap DRM music that it could not support after the company switched to DRM-free music this past February, music consumers fell into a panic and many analysts began to paint a doomsday picture of the future of digital music.

With little time to spare before the impending crash, frazzled Wal-Mart publicists addressed the panic-stricken nation on the internet, highlighting, in a nutshell, the details of a highly controversial DRM music bailout plan:

As the final stage of our transition to a full DRM-free MP3 download store, Walmart will be shutting down our digital rights management system that supports protected songs and albums purchased from our site. If you have purchased protected WMA music files from our site prior to Feb 2008, we strongly recommend that you back up your songs by burning them to a recordable audio CD. By backing up your songs, you will be able to access them from any personal computer. This change does not impact songs or albums purchased after Feb 2008, as those are DRM-free.

While naysayers of the DRM bailout argue fiercely about "what bullshit" it is to have to burn physical copies of all of their DRM digital music after it has already been bought and paid-for, proponents of Wal-mart’s daring and unconventional bailout procedure counter with an insistence that sacrifices must be made if our global music economy hopes to recover from the crippling international stigma of DRM.

"DRM-free digital music is the future of digital downloads," said one particularly attractive proponent who later accompanied this reporter to dinner. "I know that burning CDs to back up all of your old music from Wal-mart is a sacrifice for many, but think about the alternative: without compliance, this music will be lost forever, and the face of digital stores will be permanently and irrevocably damaged on the world stage." My, what pretty words! Isn’t she great!?