The groundswell against SOPA now includes many corners of the music industry, including some very high-profile artists. After our initial report pointing to heavy SOPA support from a number of large music organizations, the DC-based Future of Music Coalition (FOMC) contacted Digital Music News to reaffirm their firm opposition to the bill. They also pointed to resistance from music organizations that include the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Chorus America, Dance/USA, Fractured Atlas, National Alliance for Media Art and Culture, National Alliance for Musical Theatre, National Performance Network, OPERA America, and the Theatre Communications Group.
But artists are also taking to the streets to protest SOPA. The following open letter is signed by an artist group that includes MGMT, Trent Reznor, OK Go, Zoe Keating, Amanda Palmer, Quiet Company, Hank Shocklee, and even the Lonely Island.
James Wednesday, January 18, 2012
"These bills would allow entire websites to be blocked without due process" - jeez, did they not actually read the thing? I mean, if SOPA was as bad as this, none of us would want it.
As for the list itself, well, it's not that impressive, is it. For example, MGMT were quite happy to take their label advance and then wanted to give the album away for free, so their opinion isn't worth much IMHO.
The only one I'm disappointed in there is Daniel Lorca, but given the rest of Nada Surf aren't listed I guess perhaps they didn't agree with him.
MarvinB Wednesday, January 18, 2012
These artits understand that SOPA puts the non traditional media and distribution outlets that they utilize to market their music at risk, which takes money out of their tourning and sales initiatives. It's really not rocket science.
Visitor Thursday, January 19, 2012
"non traditional media and distribution outlets" - that's the nicest euphemism for piracy I've ever heard!
Indeed, SOPA isn't rocket science, but it does require people to actually read and understand it, preferably before signing a letter against its implementation.
visitor Thursday, January 19, 2012
I have read and understand it, and ironically MY porblem with SOPA is that it seems that it's writers are either maliciously opposed to free speech, and extremely ignorant of I.T. and the ramifications of their "solutions"
H.X. Sunday, January 22, 2012
They are not ignorant of I.T., they are the same people who approved Google's marriage with NSA and Facebook's marriage with CIA.
Visitor Sunday, January 22, 2012
What, do you work for Universal music or something? Your allegience to SOPA is cute, but how can you expect artists and music fans to read and understand this bill when half of the congressmen signing onto it haven't even read the damn thing. Is this really how laws are supposed to be passed? This thing would have passed with no question if it weren't for the fact people are paying attention. Leave the internet as it is.
Food For Thought Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Respectfully, DMN, their statement isn't THAT different than A2IM's which you characterized as A2IM re-affirming their support for SOPA when it reads to me that they're saying, "ok opponents of SOPA, if not SOPA than what? let's get meaningful dialogue going because the current situation isn't working for indie labels and artists".
The above artists come out against SOPA but like so many who oppose SOPA they make allegations about what could happen that anyone who has read the bill (and its accompanying Managers Amendment) can find in the bill. I say, POINT TO THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL that supports what you're asserting is the problem.
There is no question that Google, et al are saying they're interested in protecting free speech but as any good American knows, corporations are about protecting their MONEY! This is about money on both sides but only one is being honest about it.
paul Wednesday, January 18, 2012
@Food for Thought
Parts of the A2IM statement give the impression that the organization may be stepping back from its strong SOPA stumping. I'm not in those meetings, so I can't say for sure, though that would be a reasonable strategic move given the groundswell against this bill and serious questions about its future.
Then again, this suggests continued support for things like DNS control, which was a major sticking point of the SOPA proposed legislation.
from the A2IM statement this morning:
"Our independent labels and their artists have no practical way of taking down illegal links to their music from rogue foreign websites accessed via US search engines."
Visitor Wednesday, January 18, 2012
A2IM listens to its members is all I can say about that.
Most of us aren't constitutional experts and aren't technology experts. We are, however, pretty experienced at knowing that DMCA takedown notices are jokes that allow websites to play games with us because they know we don't have the ability (or time) to sue them. We know that Google can and does hide content - child porn. Other sites use fingerprinting services like Audible Magic to stop unlicensed content from appearing on their sites. We know that the myths that we simply need to "innovate" and piracy won't hurt us are BS. We know that we contribute A LOT to music fans, our artists' careers, and our culture. We also know that by law we have the exclusive right to exploit our masters so we think that if our music is being used or distributed by a site that you own it is your problem to police what goes on on your site or you need a license from us for that exploitation.
Indies have been, throughout this digital revolution, reasonable and willing to try things that the majors have not. In return, we've gotten treated like crap or dismissed by digital services straight along. You and anyone else who thinks that MOST indie labels and professional artists don't want EFFECTIVE anti-piracy laws you really need to venture out beyond the niche crowd who posts on blogs. OF COURSE they won't go on record because, as the poster above says, they're cowards - including me - because we won't go on the record because who wants to deal with the BS keyboard bullies who bash anyone who dares say we want to be paid for our music!!!
Rent Treznor Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Cowards, i say!
The telling part is them quoting the mis-information being spread by the uninformed.
they just don't want to alienate fans and field backlash.. they can say "i was against that" and join the "me too" crowd.
We as creators need to join together, otherwise we might as well go flip burgers...
Trent Reznor is a known Communist, so i'm not surprized to see his name on the list (though the fact that he can afford to give away music today is precisely because of the mega label investment to build up. So much for not biting the hand..)
David Thursday, January 19, 2012
Actually, Trent Reznor is a wealthy millionaire. So, by definition he can't be a communist, even if he claims (?) to be one.
Evan_Guerin Thursday, January 19, 2012
Cowards? How about innovators and thought leaders. I'm sorry you're not making $5 off your albums anymore, but if you're unwilling to change the model for pricing and distribution then people will either choose to
1) ignore your wares
2) find another way to get them
Intellectual property, be it music, video production, patents, and the like are protected behind laws that are out of line with the original intent. Please tell me why an artist needs to own the IP to a work 70 years after it's release. The average life expectancy of a human is only in the 70s. But that's a wild tangent, I digress.
The real point is that while art has a value, your percieved value of your work has been inflated, much like the housing bubble burst and millions of American's homes are forclosed on and property values continue to normalize. Get used to the fact that making money off of recordings pre-turn-of-the-century was a bubble due to burst.
Industries rise and fall with the times, look at Kodak for goodness sake, a huge corporation that couldn't get with the times is now flung to the wayside. Record labels need to grow up, get into the new era and figure out a way to survive or die. Laws are not meant to be passed to protect corporations, rather individuals.
STOP defending book burning, at this point you're no better than the Nazi regime, Communist China, or a fictional government from the pages of novels like 1984 and Farenheit 451. The free exchange of knowledge and art are what strengthen a society and culture, not what tears it apart.
simple Thursday, January 19, 2012
«Please tell me why an artist needs to own the IP to a work 70 years after it's release.»
Because not everyone is Lady Gaga and when a musician dies, sometimes they leave children behind. Children who need health, education, e.t.c. - just like you.
Visitor Thursday, January 19, 2012
we're already flipping fucking burgers.
Jeff Robinson Thursday, January 19, 2012
Funny how voting against beginning legislation negates the likelihood of any future or revised legislation being passed. Through not being passed it will forever be remembered as the 'Save Online Piracy Act'. The masses get what they want and the industry can't self-regulate itself out of a paper bag. Most laws, once passed, take 5 to 10 years to assess their full effect and then revisions are put in place. This one didn't even make it out of the gate, which means the industry remains a victim.
Oh well Thursday, January 19, 2012
I am very sorry to see Zoë Keating's name on that list. I didn't know she is anti-copyright. I guess that means I will have to avoid proposing her catalog for sync deals for my company. Can't do business with people who care more about their Twitter timeline. Hey, maybe Google or Facebook can pay her some money, now that she can't be bothered to receive royalties' checks? I hope she can make a living on Valley's donations?
Visitor Thursday, January 19, 2012
you should read the letter : "As creative professionals, we experience copyright infringement on a very personal level. Commercial piracy is deeply unfair and pervasive leaks of unreleased films and music regularly interfere with the integrity of our creations. We are grateful for the measures policymakers have enacted to protect our works."
you can be PRO copyright and AGAINST sopa/pipa, please stop being dismissing any real debate as crypto-stalinist ranting
Zoe Keating Saturday, January 21, 2012
I'm sorry you feel that way "Oh Well" but please don't conflate anti-SOPA with anti-copyright.
I will, and do, defend my copyrights wherever I think it's appropriate and useful.
I will not defend bad and misguided legislation.
I will also sign my name to this comment ;-)
Oh well Saturday, January 21, 2012
anti-SOPA *is* anti-copyright.
It could very well be otherwise, but unfortunately the IT industry played the usual PR tricks. And you fell for it, among other people. It is not a surprise that Google's PR money can affect so many. They convinced the sheeples that RIAA is "corporate America", although there is no music corporation in the Forbes top list as we speak. Top names? Google. Oh. Surprise...
You don't dare to defend copyright on your Twitter and Facebook, because you know you will be attacked by the very same people who now pretend they think you are "cool". You are not alone. Many artists are like this today.
Give it a shot, defend your rights on Twitter and you will find out just how "dedicated" all those "fans" and "followers" are.
As for why I don't sign my posts with my real name: I am not a "cool" person with a million "followers". So, I don't like to be attacked by Anonymous. You know, the gang with the botnets. Surely you must have heard about them at this point?
But you are immune to these attacks, no...?
Dan Tuesday, January 24, 2012
I'm a musician. I'm anti-SOPA. In fact, I'm more than that. I'm anti-record label.
SOPA does not protect artists; it protects those who make the most from record sales: Labels. Labels have treated artists as slave laborers since the beginning. Any artist who has signed with a label can tell you it's a deal with the Devil. You lose your freedom, you lose your rights, your music becomes a product, rather than art.
I choose to distribute my work freely through my own website, youtube, facebook...just to share with others what I love doing. The truth is I make nothing off my recordings, but I've done fairly well playing live. I owe nothing to anyone, and I love the freedom I have in the creative process.
The record industry trolls who post comments here can talk about SOPA protecting artists. But why? Well...because the labels don't exist without artists. Artists, on the other hand, can still thrive without labels.
John Saturday, January 21, 2012
Zoë and the other artists' who signed the letter in question are NOT anti-copyright. They are however, against bad legislation. There is a HUGE difference. We all need to try to be more thoughtful and understanding of the situation and realize that we need a solution that is good one. Your apparently knee jerk response to what you imagine (incorrectly) as an attack against you, your company, and copyright protection - to stop working with an artist who expresses an opinion against legislation that as written could harm the way every website and server does business (sort of a guilty until proven innocence situation, that removed due process from the situation, and has already been proven so flawed that Congress is expected to go back to the drawing board) isn't fair. Just sayin' you need to re-think...
Oh well Saturday, January 21, 2012
When a musician talks publicly against copyright, I have every reason to be concerned. Why? Because I have to make decisions every month that directly result in musicians getting royalties - and then they use those royalties to pay their rent, their families' expenses, their medical insurance.
A musician who speaks against copyright does not deserve to be paid royalties. Simple as that. They can go and ask for a donation from Google or Facebook. Anyone who actually tries it, let me know if they even let you past the front gate security guards. They won't even talk to your face.
Try sending a DMCA notice to Google Search. They will upload it to Chilling Effects. That's what your pathetic list of less than 20 artists supports. The public mocking of musicians.
At the end of the day, I still have to give someone money. You know, those papers that you trade for milk and bread. Why should I give money to someone who caters to the IT industry's PR needs? That's just stupid. I have to give it to someone from the vast majority of musicians who actually know what their interest is.
Zoe Keating Sunday, January 22, 2012
Dear Oh Well,
I think you must be getting me mixed up with someone else because if you do a little research you'll discover that not only do I stick up for my copyrights, but I'm rather known for speaking out against the exploitation of independent musicians by corporations. In fact, it was speaking up about an incident involving an unlicensed and uncredited use of my music that might just have gotten me 1 million followers to begin with.
It's true though that I have never wasted my energy criticizing file-sharing....because I don't see it as a problem. I owe my entire success to the openness of the internet and the ease with which people can find and listen to my music. Now, this doesn't mean I don't think my music is not worth paying for. I use resources like social media to let listeners know I am an artist worthy of their hard-earned dollars, to let them know that if they decide to purchase my music, they are supporting me and my family directly with minimal middlemen (just iTunes, or Amazon, or Bandcamp, or Paypal). I've used the CSA analogy in the past...if we want fresh, healthy food to continue to be available, we should buy it directly from local farmers. If we want interesting new music to continue to be created, we should buy it directly from a niche artist. Not everyone cares about that, but If someone chooses not to support me and just listen for free, so be it. They are listening, which is what I care about more than money.
The current legal system works ok (there are flaws yes) to allow me to go after the things that *I* take issue with (like companies, sometimes major ones, using my music in their content or to advertise their products without permission or credit).
There are huge amounts of money involved on both sides of this fight, extremely little of it earmarked for artists. Neither side has my best interests in mind. Regardless, the proposed legislation is completely the wrong approach and will do far more harm than good. I diverge with the majority of tech folks in making this distinction: that sharing is not wrong...but profiting off the free sharing of other's work is. I do not believe entities should be able to reap-in unlimited advertising and subscription money from my free unlicensed content. My proposed solution would be but to convert file-sharing services to not-for-profits. Real digital libraries!
Chris Sunday, January 22, 2012
So, what you are proposing is to allow people to share copies of Ableton Live on these file-sharing services and use that software, as long as the file-sharing services are not making any money (for example, from AdSense)?
Ha, good call Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Why am I not surprised that she doesn't dare to answer your question...?
I want to know too Tuesday, January 24, 2012
What about Intel's IP? Can we share that on file-sharing services as well? You had a gig with Intel, why don't you ask them if it's OK with them to see their IP spread around.
Dalton Priddy Friday, January 20, 2012
I would hardly think that less than 20 people representing the entire entertainment industry with most i've never heard of and i've been in the undustry for over 40 years will change what the majority support in SOPA.
Hysteria is a powerful tool when used to influence those who are paranoid and delusional to begin with.
Maybe oneday songs, art and movies will be released using advanced encryption technology, hacker proof and traceable.
Maybe oneday current laws and current enforcement agencies will get off their lazy ass and get to work withmore MegaUploads shutdown.