Swedish ‘music rights’ ass: same old dirge
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- “The Internet offers fantastic opportunities for simple, fast distribution of music to people around the world” says STIM.
And, “Of all information-sharing that takes placeon the Internet, music and music-related information represents the single largest category,” it says, continuing, “We share songs, playlists, music recommendations and music advertising more than anything else. Of course, everyone involved with music should see this as a wonderful acknowledgement of the enormous importance of music in people’s lives.”
But the quotes aren’t attributed to someone within the P2P sharing community. Rather, they’re from Kenth Muldin (right), CEO, STIM3. And they come in his introduction to Pirates, file-sharers and music users, a, “survey of the conditions for new music services on the Internet”.
STIM is short for Swedish Performing Rights Society), an, “incorporated association that is owned by the creators of music and their music publishers and that operates on their behalf. STIM has 60,000 registered members. The Society issues licences to people and organizations wishing to use music. The organization distributes the monies collected to music creators and music publishers, on an individual basis STIM works with similar organizations throughout the world.”
Oh.
And it’s singing the same old dirge.
Creators of music, “are finding it more and more difficult to get paid for their work, in a world where music is seen as something that is and should be available free of charge,” it says. “In the long run, this will undermine the creation of music in the future in a way that few actually want.”
For ‘few’ read Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music.
“In the debate about file-sharing, not least in the light of the court case against Pirate Bay and in view of the Swedish law based on IPRED (the EU’s Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive), voices are often raised to argue that it should be legal to distribute and share music and other cultural products on the Net, at least for non-commercial use,” says STIM, going on »»»
To us, whose task is to distribute financial compensation to tens of thousands of famous and non-famous creators when their music is played, it is clear that in the long term a situation of this kind would lead to a decline in the production of music and less diversity in the field of music.
Paradoxically enough, it is above all the most commercially successful artists of all and their record companies who could probably secure full financing in that kind of a future, while songwriters and artists without huge live tours and substantial advertising revenue could be reduced to practising their art as amateurs in their leisure hours, despite the fact that their music is in demand on the Net.
To reconcile the opportunities of the Internet with the principles of copyright, STIM has launched the idea of a special Internet subscription that offers the legal right to file-share, while at the same time providing payment to creators of music for their work. The vision is that everyone should be able to listen to all the music that is available on the Internet in the same way as we watch TV programmes – paid-for and legally – but without having to wonder about how much the programme we are watching is costing to watch.
The purpose of this document is to report on STIM’s investigations into the possibilities for a model of this kind. We wanted firstly to find out more about how users of music on the Net view these issues and secondly to look into the technical aspects. Via an Internet questionnaire – completed anonymously – we put a number of questions to 1,123 music users on the Net. A majority of respondents have paid for less than a half of their digital music library. More than 50 percent of respondents also stated that their digital music collections held more than 1,000 songs.
Some of the most important findings are as follows:
- Nine out of ten music users on the Internet – 86.2 percent – would be interested in paying for a voluntary subscription legally entitling them to file-share music. Only 5.2 percent of respondents stated that a subscription of this kind was of absolutely no interest. Those expressing the greatest interest of all were users who already had a large digital music collection and the third of respondents who have paid for less than 10 percent of the music in their collection, i.e. users who today are likely to be obtaining via the Internet by illegal means and to a considerable extent.
- File-sharers want to do the right thing. People share files because it is free and simple and because they can transfer the files where they want. The points (i) that it is illegal and (ii) that the creators of music are not paid are said to be disadvantages by two thirds of respondents – 66.3 and 65.3 percent – respectively.
- When the respondents were asked themselves to state how much they would be willing to pay for a subscription entitling them to file-share music on the Internet, a majority – 51.8 percent – replied that they would consider paying between SEK 50 and 150 per month. One in five people – 18.8 percent – would consider paying between SEK 150 and 300, while 21.7 percent would consider paying less than SEK 50. Only 7.6 percent of the respondents would not consider paying anything at all.
- Streaming of music via services such as Spotify or Last.fm offers many advantages, but is not thought to offer the potential to replace file-sharing totally. Eight out of ten respondents – 80.5 percent – state that it is important to be able to collect music and have it accessible without being on-line. According to nine out of ten – 90.3 percent – it is important to be able to transfer the music from their computer and listen to it somewhere else.
The favourable reception for STIM’s proposed special file-sharing subscription accords closely with the results of a public opinion survey that STIM commissioned Synovate to conduct in autumn 2008. In that survey, seven out of ten were in favour of STIM’s file-sharing proposal and three out of four – 75 percent – replied that the creators of music should receive financial compensation when his or her music is distributed via the Internet.
STIM has also had the technical possibilities investigated for measuring reliably the music that Internet users are listening to on their computer. The objective is to be able to distribute revenue to songwriters and artists accurately, while respecting the personal integrity of the Internet user. The conclusion was that effective technology exists that could be used for the purpose, and that is already being used on a large scale by various existing music services. The technology is stable and functions without disturbing the user.
Up to the present, the main result of the debate on file-sharing and copyright has been that two irreconcilable camps have become ever more deeply entrenched: on the one side, a single-track policy to pursue illegal file-sharing by legal means, in the form of increasingly stringent control procedures, and on the other a total lack of respect for the work that lies behind every song that is downloaded. At the same time, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have adopted a passive stance and have totally shifted the problem on to the ideological and legal tug-of-war between on one side a vociferous clique of its file-sharing customers and on the other the huge record and media companies.
The results of this survey should help to break the deadlock, as it shows that the music users on the Net are calling for a subscription that allows for legal sharing of music files. STIM’s proposed licensing system remains on offer to the ISPs – the ones who can develop and offer a subscription of this type to their customers.
The ball has for a long time been in the court of the ISPs. It is now high time that they start working seriously to offer their customers what they are calling for. Whoever first produces a commercial subscription product and shows the way, will at the same time be accepting their responsibility for diversity and breadth in the music industry of the future.
No need to stay tuned.
April, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Is it a license or yet another “covenant not to sue”?
Anything other than a (blanket) license to share is an invitation for lawsuits from parties not covered by the “agreement”. If labels are covered by the agreement, those who actually created the works are not.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090319/1003034179.shtml
”
STIM has also had the technical possibilities investigated for measuring reliably the music that Internet users are listening to on their computer. The objective is to be able to distribute revenue to songwriters and artists accurately, while respecting the personal integrity of the Internet user. The conclusion was that effective technology exists that could be used for the purpose, and that is already being used on a large scale by various existing music services. The technology is stable and functions without disturbing the user.
”
By persecuting music fans they will lose the ability to measure reliably. Encryption simply will not permit it.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
he long term a situation of this kind would lead to a decline in the production of music and less diversity in the field of music
______
We don’t have to worry about it leading to that, it is already that. Today is about making money and protecting the copyright holders. In the making money, gone are the musicians as CEOs that could play music. Now it is use a computer to judge how simular it is to a past hit to try and get a formulatic hit time after time. Unfortunetly that leads to less diversity and to more of it sounding the same. The old “nothing new” line if you will.
Nine out of ten music users on the Internet – 86.2 percent
______
More of those bogus numbers you pull out of the hat when you need them. I’m sure if there was a survey company that did this, they were happy to recieve the money for the sponcored survey.
______
File-sharers want to do the right thing.
Duh, where was this attitude during the days of Napster? Where is it today with TPB? This “we’re the good guys trying to make a living” isn’t playing so well after all the years of thuggery. Right now, down the drain bankrupt sounds like a great plan for the major music labels because of their past actions. Nothing would please me more than a start over that might bring some sort of reality that once belonged in the major labels concerns back into operation. What I see now, I don’t like. I won’t fund it by paying more money for. Face it and get over it, the major labels have earned their hate relationship with the customer and I am one that doesn’t approve of how they do business and will celebrate the day they close their doors under the present management.
______
they would consider paying between SEK 50 and 150 per month.
Again we get down to the only thing important to the major labels. Why don’t I see anything about culture and the majors’ responcibility to further it for the benefit of all? We never get into those issues with the puff pieces do we? Nor fair use, which the majors want dead and buried. Times must be getting hard up for them to even consider mouthing the phrases of blanket licensing. I bet there is a really bad taste in their mouth to even have to phrase it, however it is couched.
______
Spotify or Last.fm offers many advantages, but is not thought to offer the potential to replace file-sharing totally.
Yet the main problem with both services are survivability issues because of high license fees that prevent these services from taking off. Again the majors have shot themselves in the foot, believing that free is not a valid model. They want coin and lots of it. No one on the net is making that sort of money. Their reality is having to be adjusted in just how valuable the back catalog is.
______
it is important to be able to transfer the music from their computer and listen to it somewhere else.
Where is all the DRM enabling speech? You know the customer empowerment that is so often slung around. Could it be that again the customer needs to remind those same media that DRM is unacceptable for paid music? Looks to me like they are trying to dress it up real nicely. Nice dress or not, a pig is still a pig and a sow’s ear is still a sow’s ear. The past has shown us the major labels are scared to death you might be able to transfer bought music to ever how it fits in your lifestyle.
______
STIMâs proposed special file-sharing subscription
Which is the music industries wet dream. Instead of buying a tune and once the sale is over, the money stops as well, they would rather you pay and pay, over and over again. The only way that works is if they can terminate the play ability you have paid for by DRM. Sorry, no sale on DRM. I won’t rent it, I won’t buy defective discs that contain such.
_____
The technology is stable and functions without disturbing the user.
Was sure it had to come up. Shortly after writing the above comment, it raises it’s ugly head. In puff peices, it’s like fairy tales, everything is rosy. Tell that to someone who bought a song and it won’t play on the player of their choice.
______
start working seriously to offer their customers what they are calling for
And I guess it is believed that the ISPs want 3 strikes and your out? You mean they actually like to terminate customers and end the billing cycle? Hello. Is there anyone with any sense remaining in the music industry?
Puff pieces like this are not taken seriously by the average consumer. It is not the legislatars you need to convince, it is the customer from where the money comes from you need to be talking to. So far it is a fancy, hi faltaing noise with little bearing on reality in this puff piece. I have heard nothing but bogus figures so favored by the industry to justify their actions with little bearing on the real uses the music listener puts music to. If you can not meet that demand, which so far the industry has failed miserably at because of greed and control issues, then you are not going to have a long term sustainable business. The CEOs of big music have pretty much ruined a good thing they used to have. They have lost their direction in what is important. If you take care of what is important (which is the customer) they will take care of you, making sure in the process you have plenty of money. That failing to do so, is not the customer’s fault.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Last.fm is a corporate enterprise.
Cheers!
April 25th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Jon:
Don’t take this the wrong way, but why do you post Corpspeak drivel like this?
Rule of thumb: ANY organization which claims to include “music creators” AND “publishers” is inevitably a corporate front organization, the primary purpose of which is SCREWING “the artists”, to benefit “the publishers”.
Of course, we already know this, but too many people don’t.
Too many people still believe that fellating the RIAA/it’s various sockpuppets in other countries means they get to be the next Nickelback.
Not gonna happen. Trust me: when they’ve used up their current crop of boybands and crack-whores, they’ll just crank out some more, Mili Vanilli style.
April 26th, 2009 at 10:02 am
@ Henry:
“why do you post Corpspeak drivel like this?”
If people don’t have a chance see it in all its glory, once in a while, instead of excerpts, they don’t know just how ludicrous it is.
Cheers!
April 26th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Jon:
Good point
April 27th, 2009 at 1:19 am
“this kind would lead to a decline in the production of music and less diversity in the field of music.”
There was popular music before the recording industry, and there will be popular music after the recording industry. It costs next to nothing to record and release an album these days.
“while songwriters and artists without huge live tours and substantial advertising revenue could be reduced to practising their art as amateurs in their leisure hours”
And that’s a bad thing, *how* exactly? A musician is anyone who sings or plays a musical instrument. If 99% of the musicians in the world practice their art as ART and don’t become rich off of it, what exactly is so earth-shattering about the other 1% joining them?
The industry needs to wake up and smell its own irrelevance. Maybe then money-grubbing studio whores like KISS will finally go away….
July 13th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
???