• Nat Torkington
• Michael Geist
• Jamie Love
• Cory Doctorow

One thing that stands out, as Nat notes, is that the reported New Zealand positions are much more realistic and reasonable than MED’s public utterances would have lead us to anticipate. That’s great, but we’re only one voice at a table we shouldn’t really be sitting around. And I say again, there is nothing in a confidentiality agreement that limits you exposing your own position to your own citizens. If you’ve got nothing to fear…

ACTA is coming!! That’s right, sportsfans! The circus called ACTA is coming to Wellington on 12-16 April this year. In the lead up to that, the Commerce Minister, Simon Power, is calling for submissions “to help set a higher benchmark for the enforcement of intellectual property rights”, so there’s obviously no prejudging going on there ¡  Make your submission by 31 March.

Also, this week, InternetNZ announced that they will be hosting a PublicACTA session on the 10th of April, as a counterpoint to the SecretACTA sessions the Government is hosting. I’ll be at that session and I encourage anyone with a Saturday to spare to be there two.

And lastly, this week, I gave a presentation on ACTA at Ignite!Wellington, focussing on the secrecy, as well as something we haven’t heard too much about – pharmaceuticals. It’s worth noting that at the USTR Special 301 meetings this week counterfeit drugs was very prominent in the committee’s questioning of NGOs.

Have a look at the Ignite! site, as there were some other good sessions (Mike Brown’s zen poem about cycling across America was my favourite) but I’ve embedded the video of my talk below as well, if you just want the ACTA bits. It’s a testing format – 5 minutes, 20 slides changing every 15 seconds – but I enjoyed it and learned heaps for the next one  Very hard to draw down hours of material into 5 minutes. Might help to think of it as a series of tweets…

I am part of the Independent Reference Group, mainly because I don’t believe the filter will work, and because I am implacably opposed to any extension of it.

The members of the IRG are:

Nic McCully Deputy Chief Censor
Office of Film & Literature Classification

Nic Johnstone
Office of the Children’s Commissioner

Steve O’Brien Manager, Censorship Compliance Unit
Department of Internal Affairs

Mark Harris
Technology Research & Consulting

Andrew Bowater Government Relations Manager
Telecom

Duncan Campbell Deputy Editor
Netguide

My understanding is that this is not an exclusive list and may be added to if the need arises. The Independent Reference Group hasn’t met yet. The first meeting will be in early March. One of the first things I will be pushing for is publication of ISPs that have decided to join the scheme. I can understand why they would, and I expect it to be a marketing point for them.

It is an HTTP filter (which is why I believe it won’t be effective, as most of the really bad stuff passes through email, exclusive file sharing arrangements and the like). Anyone serious about obtaining images of child abuse (CAI in the jargon) will find it trivial to get around the filter. As I said to Thomas Beagle (http://www.techliberty.org.nz ) the other day, I think it’s security theatre, designed to make some sectors of the community feel safer.

Officials at DIA have assured me that they do not want to extend the filter, even to cover the other parts of s3(2), or I would not have agreed to be a part of the process at all. As the ZDNet article says, they have watched the train wreck that is the Great Wall of Conroy (my words, not theirs) and are determined to not make those sorts of errors.

However, we all need to understand that DIA can be instructed to follow Government policy. We need to monitor the policy making process and head any ’slippery slope’ plans off at the political level. I am mightily encouraged that InternetNZ is engaging with DIA on this. For those unaware, while a councillor of InternetNZ, I did the testing on the previous incarnation of a filtering product, the IWF list, in 2005. My report from that trial is still available from the InternetNZ website (PDF)

I welcome questions and discussion about filtering, CAI and censorship in general. I am also happy to take concerns to the IRG and be a conduit to and from that Group.

EDIT: Just noticed an article by Liz Quilty on the technical nature of the filter. These are good points.

There’s another interesting contrast: President Obama’s transparency memo – his first presidential act –  seems to have no impact on the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk, who still insists that the ACTA negotiations are a matter of “national security”. It’s an interesting sidenote that almost all the other nations involved in ACTA swear they’ve all urged greater transparency in the negotiations, so one is left wondering which country is actually keeping it secret. Lookin’ at you, Barack!

What do we actually know about ACTA? Well, it’s named the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, even though there appears to be nothing tradeable involved, and precious little about counterfeiting. It’s happening outside the bounds of the two international agencies specifically set up to do this sort of work – WIPO and the WTO. Why? Because the USTR couldn’t get it’s own way in those fora (having tried both – TRIPS did not deliver all the US wanted in the DMCA, and the WTO nations decided that they had more important things to worry about than the business models of US corporations) so it created a new one – a plurilateral, ‘voluntary’ arrangement where they could make up some rules and you’d have to agree if you want to play. The USTR has admitted that a lot of ACTA is based on the US-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, so anyone who wants an FTA with the US can excpect a requirement to join ACTA (“It’s not just us, you understand – it’s an *international* agreement” – yeah right).

But we are not allowed to see any details of the draft agreement or, if we are, we are not allowed to talk about it. Lawyers are, especially entertainment industry lawyers, but citizens (who are paying for it through taxes and who will be affected by it when it becomes law) are not. Even elected government representatives are not allowed to see the details that subordinate officials are negotiating – in Europe, America, the UK, questions have been asked at high levels, but no answers are forthcoming.

Pressure from individuals like Michael Geist, Jamie Love and myself through our respective freedom of information laws, from Organisations like the EFF, Creative Freedom Foundation, TechLiberty and acta.net.nz, from media commentators like Glyn Moody, Mike Masnick, Colin Jackson and many more, from actual politicians like Tom Watson(UK), Clare Curran(NZ), Jens Holm (Swe) and Senators Leahy, Spector, Sanders, Brown and Wyden(US) have forced some information into the public arena.

We know that:

There are 6 sections to the agreement:

1. Initial Provisions and Definitions;
2. Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights;
3. International Cooperation;
4. Enforcement Practices;
5. Institutional Arrangements; and
6. Final Provisions.

The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights chapter has four sections:

• civil enforcement,
• border measures,
• criminal enforcement, and
• the Internet.

Other than that, we know very little. We get bland bullet point agenda and anodyne reports from the nations involved but nothing of substance, nothing that would reasssure us that the officials actually have our interests at heart, as well as the “copyright industry”.

What we do get are (very occasional) leaks – first, that list above released on Wikileaks, back in 2008 (which was probably the first time most people heard about ACTA), and more recently (via Wikileaks again) a memo from a European Commission bureaucrat commenting on some draft text proposed by the US. (Wikileaks is currently unable to be used as they are cramped for funds – please donate)

Let’s look at that memo. It’s worth quoting the summary in full:

A. GENERAL COMMENT

An overarching issue is the relationship between the US proposal and relevant EU legislation. These particular themes relating to the concepts involved the scope of the proposal and the identification of possible conflicts.

Scope of the proposal

The US proposal mainly deals with copyright, apart from a single reference to trademarks in paragraph 1. Relevant EU legislation is generally broader in scope and this issue will require further clarification from a policy perspective. This clarification concerns paragraphs 2 and 3 as paragraphs 4 to 7 are only applying to copyright.

Concept

The US proposal refers to the “Digital Environment”.

This seems to imply all digital technologies. Digital technologies are not only used in an online environment but also off-line, for example in CDs, DVDs and Blue Ray. However, this chapter has been nicknamed “the internet chapter”. Does is cover both online and offline?

The EU Acquis wording refers to “Information Society Service”.

This concept defined ISS as “services normally provided for remuneration, supplied at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services”.

Possible conflicts

1) The US proposal provides for both civil and criminal protection against copyright infringement.

This goes beyond the WIPO treaties and the EU Acquis (Directive 2001/29/EC) (CISD) which refers to “adequate legal protection” without specifying in what this protection would consist of (see 1st comment regarding paragraph 4). Furthermore, the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) (ECD) applies horizontally across all areas of law which touch upon the provision of information society services, regardless of whether it is a matter of public, private or criminal law. It is not clear how the US proposal interprets this, if at all. For example, paragraph 3.a. is limited to civil remedies only.

2) EU may wish to review the potential implications, if any, with the recently adopted Consumers Rights Directive, which is part of revised Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications (Telecom Package).”

Right off the bat, we can see that there are inconsistencies between what the US wants and what the negotiators appear to have been talking about. The commentary points out the inconsistency with existing EU understanding, practice and law, and points to potential conflicts between ACTA, as proposed, and EU practice.

Sorry? They’ve been talking about this for 2 years and they still don’t understand what THEY mean by “digital environment”?? But we do get the point that “The US proposal mainly deals with copyright”. So why is this still the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement?

I was going to go through the document point by point, but this entry is already long. It’s worth doing and I will soon, but right now I’d like to focus on a few things:

• The document is 7 pages long.
• It disects a proposal document that is probably longer, but is broken up into 7 sections.
• It comments on each section, in detail.

I don’t know how many bureaucrats are reading this but, let me tell you, my old grey ears were hearing alarms right at that point. If there’s disatisfaction with every section of a document, because of first principles, it’s time to send it back to be rethought. Instead, the EU commentary is attempting to wordsmith it into acceptability.

The sections (paragraphs in govtspeak) are:

• Paragraph 1:  General Obligations
• Paragraph 2:  third party liability for copyright infringements.
• Paragraph 3:  circumstances under which third party liability may be limited.
• Paragraph 4:  Technical Measures.
• Paragraph 5:  independent civil and criminal enforcement
• Paragraph 6:  Rights’ Management.
• Paragraph 7:  limitations of Right’s management

Without the text of the proposal, it’s difficult to really determine what the commentary is actually refering to but a few quotes stand out.

Re Para 1

However, unlike these latter provisions, the proposal does not state that the procedures etc. also shall be fair, equitable and/or proportionate in relation to, for example, an alleged infringer. Against this background, it appears like the proposed paragraph is not coherent with TRIPs and IPRED

Re Para 2

EU understands this paragraph and accompanying footnotes as providing for an international minimum harmonization regarding the issue of what is called in some Member States “contributory copyright infringement”. This concept does not exist in the current Acquis communautaire and in the law of several Member States

Re Para 3

The aim of paragraph 3(b) is to establish a system that can be considered to make the exemptions from liability subject to specific conditions: notice-and-take down procedure to address the unauthorized storage or transmission of materials protected by copyright or related rights. Such an obligation is currently not found in the ECD.

Re Para 4

It is not clear if the scope of the provision covers only phonogram author rights and neighbouring rights (performers, producers) or do the definition of ‚”author” also includes film, audio, literature.

Re Para 5

Footnote 8 seems to govern “interoperability” issues, i.e. the ability of consumers to play, for example, music which they have downloaded legally, on different players such as an iPhone or a Microsoft Media Player. The footnote seems to be intended to make sure that contracting Parties do not require that such interoperability must be achievable.

We’re talking about some new law here, to achieve this “harmonization’ ACTA seeks. Things that aren’t illegal now in most countries (including the US) will become illegal “in order to fit with our international obligations”.

The US tried this with TRIPS in order to fuel the DMCA through Congress in its original form and fell at that hurdle. The international community said ‘woah, nelly, this far and no further!” and some of the more draconian measures (like ‘graduated response’) had to be dropped. This is them trying it again.

We’re talking about major changes that will hobble innovation and tie us to decaying business models that actually only benefit a very few corporations. How do artists, musicians and authors get any benefit out of this, when they’re already struggling with their respective industries to make a buck? It’s not piracy that’s taking your money, people – it’s the contracts you signed with your publishers.

Although ACTA had its origins with Big Pharma and Big Agribusiness, the copyright industry has leapt on it holus-bolus. They’re the shock troops now, taking the heat, but my money is on the pharmaceutical and agribusiness lobbies still being heavily involved. While we are rightly concerned about what is in the “Internet chapter”, I really want to read the rest of it, where the rules against generic drugs and patent-free seeds will be. That has the capacity to be just as important and we should not lose sight of that in our desire to keep information free.

The process used to get to the end point is just as important in democracy as the result achieved, often moreso. An open, uncorrupt and objective process is the only way to gain any sort of result that benefits all parties. ACTA, so far as we can see, is only going to benefit the corporations, and that’s why, in my opinion, they’re keeping it hidden.

Secretary Clinton said:

“The final freedom, one that was probably inherent in what both President and Mrs. Roosevelt thought about and wrote about all those years ago, is one that flows from the four I’ve already mentioned: the freedom to connect — the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate. Once you’re on the Internet, you don’t need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society.”

What we need to see now is the implementation of those high ideals, not more restrictions. The reality has to match the rhetoric. It’s way past time to open the shutters on the ACTA process. To the participating governments, if you’ve got nothing to hide, why are you hiding something?

PS You can sign an international petition for more openness in the ACTA process at http://a2knetwork.org/joint-declaration-acta

So what happened to drag me away from the keyboard?

• I got a dog (using the same rule as cats – see other blog)
• I helped run a BarCamp on Open Government
• I did a couple of other projects that I can’t link to or talk too much about
• I had bronchitis (been a pretty crappy winter all around, health-wise)
• I was accepted as an exhibitor in the Kapiti Arts Trail this weekend (#91)
• (I’m sure there was some other stuff)
• Oh yeah, I signed up on Twitter.

That last is the big one, really, as it chews up the most time. I have barely looked at RSS since April, and have only made one post to my family blog. It’s really quite fascinating to me (10K tweets later) and not a little frightening. I’m following most of the people I used to use RSS for, but now it’s in real time.

So, what’s hauled me back to the keyboard? ACTA – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – you may remember that I’ve blogged on this before. Well, it’s just entered its next round, in Korea, that well-known home of freedom and civil liberties (and the first country in the world to pass a 3 strikes law and implement it).

So, wassup with ACTA? For background, I’d like to point you to a recording of me discussing ACTA with Kim Hill on National Radio recently. Very pleased with the event and it’s now very timely, as ACTA has reared up again.

Those playing at home will remember that I’ve discussed the “intellectual property” aspect of ACTA before, and the fact that it’s being negotiated so secretly, more secretly than any other “trade treaty”. Long time players will also note that, in my submission to MED in June last year, I said (in para 17):

Further, the scarce official information available about ACTA would appear to indicate that it was intended to harmonize the enforcement of existing IPRs. However, the only current approach to a harmonized global concept of IP is occurring through WIPO, and ACTA appears to seek to operate independently of WIPO. There seems to be a fatal disconnect here – how can you harmonize enforcement if you don’t first harmonize the definition of infringements?

So now they’re seriously talking about this area and how they want to do it.

Michael Geist has broken the story and Cory Doctorow has broached it to the BoingBoing community. Neither of them appear to have actual text, but quote sources who say the draft text is modelled on the US-South Korea free trade agreement.

Geist outlines five issues:

1. Baseline obligations inspired by Article 41 of the TRIPs which focuses on the enforcement of intellectual property.
2. A requirement to establish third-party liability for copyright infringement.
3. Restrictions on limitations to 3rd party liability (ie. limited safe harbour rules for ISPs).  Notice-and-takedown, which is not currently the law in Canada nor a requirement under WIPO, would also be an ACTA requirement.
4. Anti-circumvention legislation that establishes a WIPO+ model by adopting both the WIPO Internet Treaties and the language currently found in U.S. free trade agreements that go beyond the WIPO treaty requirements.
5. Rights Management provisions, also modeled on U.S. free trade treaty language

Doctorow’s language is a little blunter – he notes that ISPs will have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material, that ISPs will have to cut off Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability, that the whole world must adopt US style notice-and-takedown rules without evidence of infringing copyright, and that there will be mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM.

We can’t confirm or deny what is in the actual draft because we don’t have a copy. The US administration wrote this chapter of the draft but is still regarding ACTA as a matter of national security. They recently let 42 individuals see a draft text, but only 4 were from what we regard as “civil society”. The rest were big corporates. This, the Obama Administration calls “transparency” and consultation. To be fair, Bush’s administration was worse, but this is not what we expect from a leader who campaigned on “change”, “hope” and “yes, we can”.

The New Zealand government is no better. Our officials say:

The countries participating in the development of ACTA have agreed that general information about ACTA’s objectives and the negotiating process should be made public. In that regard, MED has provided a range of relevant information about ACTA on its website. However, ACTA participants have also agreed that information relating to formal negotiating positions of governments should be protected, as is the standard practice in international treaty negotiations. It is in this context that we are unable to reiease many of the items you request.

First point – it is not the standard practice – the WTO Doha Round, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, World Health Organisation, WIPO – all publish the texts and proceedings as they go.

Secondly, the material published by all nations, including the Ministry of Economic Development is contextless spin, rather than substantive reporting of negotiations. “General information” is a kind way of putting it – “We’re doing something that will affect all of you but we’re not going to tell you until we’ve done it” is more accurate.

What is hardest to understand is how the governments involved – United States, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Canada and the European Union – can justify this secrecy in the face of domestic freedom of information laws, pledges of transparency and even the concept of democracy – government of the people, for the people and by the people.

It’s going to get worse before it gets better, and individual protests are going to be little waves crashing against the rocks of government indifference.  The proponents of this type of action have money, power and the ears of their legislators – we have our spirits, our wills and our need to be free. To make sure that’s enough, we need to join together and use our collective voice. In New Zealand, I recommend the Creative Freedom Foundation, InternetNZ and the NZ Open Source Society, all of whom have expressed their concerns to government previously. Elsewhere the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knowledge Ecology International, even your local Pirate Party and the like are carrying the flag.

The proponents of ACTA say it’s about protecting the property of the content creators, letting them earn a living, that opponents  want to steal the food from the mouths of artists and their children. They’ve persuaded (or coerced) some artists and writers to speak up in this matter, to plead their cause. But the real blocks to artists, writers and musicians earning their fair share of income are the publishers themselves, with iniquitous contracts, onerous debts and dubious expenses. All the publishers are trying to protect is a dying business model which even now is still earning them billions each year.

Copyright isn’t about property – it’s about knowledge. It’s a social contract between the creator and the receiver (I won’t say “consumer” because knowledge isn’t consumed; it’s shared) and protects both. Publishers have always owned the gate to knowledge. The Internet and digital technology changes that completely. We’re all publishers now.

In a knowledge economy, you’re not buying and selling knowledge, just as you’re not buying and selling cash in a cash economy. In a knowledge economy, knowledge is the currency used to obtain something from the receiver – attention, loyalty, or something else  - something of value to both parties. It’s a different market model from the industrial one we grew up with of few producers, scarce product and many consumers. Product is no longer scarce, nor can it be made artificially so. The old model is broken, yet the old guard is trying to hamstring the new for as long as possible.

Google ACTA, learn what it’s about and what it’s claimed to be about. Wake up your media who are strangely silent on this matter and make them report it, if only to report your protest. Contact your elected representatives and make them aware that you don’t want this, that you won’t stand for it and that you expect them to represent your will, not the will of Hollywood and the recording industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the big broadcasters, who all stand to make more money by locking in our choices in what we can do with information.

Don’t just sit there – DO something!

The appeal should be interesting

(Tip o’the hat to Simon Grigg)

Yesterday, Rob Stowell posted a link to a series of posts on Hypebot about free music, from inside the industry. I recommend reading them for some insight and to form your own opinion before reading on, because I’m about to dissect them.

I wrote on PAS:

Some of those people are clinging to a false hope. I think Kevin Kelly (surprise) and the guy from INgroove have it sussed, but most of the rest are still talking about “maintaining exclusivity” and using free as a promo.

I’ll stick with Reznor’s view from the clip I posted the other day – as soon as it gets published, someone will rip it and put it online for free. It is not possible to stop that technically. If your business model doesn’t take account of that, you don’t have a viable business model.

And it doesn’t matter whether it’s music, art, literature or photographs; if it can be delivered digitally, someone is going to give it away, whether you want them to or not.

Now that you know that, formulate a business plan that takes it into account. That is the only sustainable way to make money in this environment

Rob came back and quoted Glenn Peoples’ billboard.biz column that headlined this little angst-fest, saying:

There’s a little more in this than “industry people” wanting to (further) feather their nests. It comes back to robbery’s original feelings of misgiving: “free” sounds great, but it’ll have down-stream effects we may not like so much. Personally, I have a very low tolerance for advertising wrapped round my culture.

Which is interesting because that lets out television, radio, newspapers, movies and much of the Internet, including Public Address itself, which all have advertising support for revenue. But I digress. I started to respond on PAS but the post was getting long and convoluted, so I thought I’d put it here instead. Herewith is my analysis of the Hypebot series.

Glenn Peoples doesn’t take a stand in this debate. He’s reporting on the Hypebot series. But his report is pessimistic, to me:

In theory, a company should set price equal to marginal cost. Digital goods on the Internet, though, are not akin to razorblades. In reality, not all digital music can be priced at zero. The information comes with real costs. Even if it feels free (Nokia’s Comes With Music) it’s not free.

Peoples also quotes David Zaslov:

“We don’t want to lose marketshare, but at the same time, we don’t want to encourage free content. Free didn’t work for newspapers. Free didn’t work for the magazines. And it doesn’t work for the broadcast companies. We have to see how it develops. But ultimately, we all have to follow the behavior of the consumer.”

That’s the general flavour I get from the series, apart from the ones outlined below; we don’t want it but we’ll have to give in to part of it, begrudgingly.

Kyle Bylin is actually inarticulate – I’m not really sure which way he’s going.

Virgil Dickerson is positive, but I tried his sampler and a) didn’t warm to the music (personal taste) but b) thought even less of the technological presentation. I think he “gets” free, but he’s struggling to do more than teasers, despite what he says.

Greg Scholl is very begrudging and only sees the teaser aspect:

As for the second type of free music – giving away tracks to sell tracks – we very much believe in the use of free music downloads as a promotional tool, and encourage our clients to give a song away

Really misses the point, for me. He still sees the revenue as driven by the individual song, but the idea that each copy is monetizable (and therefore each download is “stolen” revenue) is what is standing in his way. Maybe he needs some it zen marketing – you’ve got to let go before you can receive.

Bruce Warila is actively hostile:

Now that music is unbundled and selling for copper (pennies), it’s time to fight a new battle. If sharers rob us (rightsholders) of our right to digital exclusivity, which is our right to exclusively launch, release or to maintain an exclusive digital presence, then we are the fools for not insisting otherwise

And let’s remember, he’s an “investor [and] currently acting as their strategy and technology officer” for this Music Xray outfit (still in beta), so he’s not speaking as a songwriter or musician when he’s talking about rightsholders. He goes on:

Your strategy now should be to prepare for the day when a brand offers to buy your exclusivity. Since your songs are your advertisements, your calling card and your audio pheromones, perhaps consider being a bit more mysterious about everything else in your life. Hold back the baby pictures, the studio session videos and the near death experience stories until the exclusive offer shows up in your inbox. After all, if your free music offers don’t get you marketplace traction, the other stuff is just a pile of (fill in the blank).”

That’s just sad, to me. It’s all about commodities. His brand new thing is going to crash and burn because it’s based on an old model – he’s just wrapping it in new paper.

Chris Vinson is sort of positive:

Once you have a fan, it’s a lot easier to ‘upsell’ them on other forms of same music — a $0.99 acoustic version, a CD, a live show, etc. But without that easy first step, there is a big chasm to cross. I think the key is to have a overall strategy, and include ‘free’ as that easy first step.

But this is still missing the point. He’s treating the teaser as a loss leader. It’ll work, up to a point, but compare it with Radiohead giving away the whole damn album. And still being the top seller.

Bruce Iglaur is still in the old mode as well:

At this point, no model for monetizing music (for example, advertising-based free streaming or downloading) other than traditional royalties has proven to fairly pay artists, songwriters or their patrons/financiers (the labels). So, a free track or stream with label and publisher approval? Sure. Distribution of music without label and publisher approval? Nope.

It can’t be stopped, but he continues to cling to a belief that it should be.

Jim Mahoney is even more doom’n'gloom:

Know that if you waive performance or other royalties in exchange for “promotional value” you may be putting the final nail in your coffin (at worst) or allowing others to profit on your music (by building their own business models and taking your audiences and selling advertising or subscriptions) while you make nothing tangible in return (at least).

Completely missing the concept that you might be making money anyway though others may be able to “profit on your music”. He’s fixed on the sales model and anything that interferes with that is wrong.

I’d agree that Kevin Arnold is kinda positive, but wary. He’s still on the promotional kick, though:

Just like the handouts at Costco, tasting at a winery, or swag bags at conventions and parties, labels and artists have long given away music in the form of samplers and promo CDs, free performances, and outlets like radio and MTV. In the digital world this act has value in ways that we’re still learning and consistently surprise us. Who would have thought that the free giveaway of Nine Inch Nails’ last record would end up with it being the top selling album at AmazonMP3 last year?

He’s aware but still not there in understanding. ” Who would have thought that the free giveaway [...] would end up with it being the top selling album [...]?” – that’s the key right there.

Think outside that box, as Reznor and co did, and do. It’s not just promo, it’s a new way of doing business that’s as old as the bible: “Cast your bread upon the waters”(Ecclesiastes 11.1) or “Give, and it will be given to you” (Luke 6:38). That’s not to say I’m turning to a deity to look after copyright – not at all – but the concept is not unlike Karma – what goes around, comes around.

Bruce Houghton’s little poem is almost right – “free music only has value if it sparks action” except it’s still tying the music to the purchase and so, for me, misses the ultimate point.

I’d have to say that, while I think I agree with Robb McDaniels, he’s a little incoherent. What I get out of his piece is that he understands that value is a malleable concept, and subject to perception. Maybe

Jeff Price gets it:

Free giveaway of music was, and still is, an important part of any marketing and promotion campaign. The change that has occurred is a music fan can now get any song they want for free, not just the ones being authorized. [...] I disagree strongly with the statement that the industry is not profitable – it is. In just one month, bands and digital only labels are generating tens of thousands of dollars,recouping their costs more quickly and making a healthy profit on top. Revenue is being generated from MUSIC SALES in unprecedented amounts allowing labels and artists to have real careers and earn significant annual income.

As does Susan Ferris:

Having a song that is available to the masses for free has proved profitable for us. We have been able to give a taste with out spoiling the dinner. Ultimately the fans have been truly appreciative and in return purchased the whole CD

Watch for Tunecore and Long Live Crime Records to move ahead in the future – understanding is everything in a knowledge economy.

Actually, I’m more hopeful than not, having read those pieces. The ones who get it will be the luminaries of the next decade of music. And the ones who don’t, won’t be around.

It’s highly resistant to OCR but Wikileaks is hosting a page where transcriptions are being lodged

I think it’s awfully interesting to note that all requests for information around the world have been met with “There isn’t a draft text yet, so we can’t release anything. As soon as we have something, we’ll show you.”

Yeah, right

Canada’s report on ACTA consultation notes was more interesting, frankly, and that was only a rerun of the stuff we’ve seen before from MED.

Glyn Moody had a good take, highlighting the paradox for the governments involved:

On the one hand, the negotiators have to pretend that “a comprehensive set of proposals for the text of the agreement does not yet exist”, so that we can’t find out the details; on the other, they want to finish off negotiations as quickly as possible, so as to prevent too many leaks. Of course, they can’t really have it both ways, which is leading to this rather grotesque dance of the seven veils, whereby bits and pieces are revealed in an attempt to keep us quiet in the meantime.

Michael Geist dissected what came out of Canada in a five-part post that gave more respect to the material than I thought was due.

Unless we see the full draft text, there really is nothing to report. Apparently, the parties are still hoping to meet in the next 8 weeks in Morocco, but we don’t appear to have a firm date yet.

Ho hum.

His column is published in the Toronto Star and the Ottowa Citizen, but that seems to be as close as the MSM is getting to ACTA. With the Russia Today video I wrote about the other day, even knee-jerk Rethuglicans are asking “Why isn’t the Mainstream Media all over this?”

It’s a really fair question, and one I’ve referred to before, but I’ve yet to see a coherent answer.

So I thought I’d ask:

letters@dompost.co.nz

Dear sir

The Government is negotiating an important intellectual property treaty, the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and has been for 12 months, as reported on the Ministry of Economic Development’s page at http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx. Yet I see no reporting of this in your newspaper, or any of the NZ Fairfax stable. Newspapers in Australia and Canada have been reporting on this but our media have been silent.

May one ask why?

Regards

Mark Harris
Waikanae

I hold no huge hope of useful response, but you have to ask.

UPDATE: my name was included in the “points notes” sidebar.

On Torrentfreak there is a report of an EU vote (481 in favour, 25 against and 21 abstentions) to accept a report about fundamental freedoms on the Internet.

For the third time in a year the European Parliament has spoken out against tougher anti-piracy legislation that would allow alleged file-sharers to be disconnected from the Internet based on evidence from anti-piracy lobby groups. Instead, they chose to protect rights and freedoms of Internet users.

Apparently, the French are not amused.

The report and (press release) contains lots of “whereas’s” and “having regard to’s ” but is essentially a “hands off!” to individual governments. It’s not a bad draft for that ever-phantom “Internet Bill of Rights” actually, and worth the read.

So, Germany has said no, the UK has backed off, Ireland’s action is a) voluntary, b) restricted to one ISP and c) likely to disappear as it was contingent on all the other Irish ISPs coming on board, which they declined to do, the EU has several times said no (three times in the last year, the press release says) and AT&T and Comcast in the US have both denied doing deals with the RIAA, as was reported last week. Oh, and New Zealand blocked it as well. Eventually.

Where does that leave the French? They’re not known for giving a franc about what the rest of Europe thinks, but I can’t see even a massive ego like Sarkozy wanting to jeopardize trade links just to push this through. They were supposed to be the precedent-setting vanguard for graduated response in Europe, just as we were for the English speaking world, and now they stand alone, up un creek sans le paddle, or even much l’eau.