“We used to fool ourselves,’ he said. “We used to think our content was perfect just exactly as it was. We expected our business would remain blissfully unaffected even as the world of interactivity, constant connection and file sharing was exploding. And of course we were wrong. How were we wrong? By standing still or moving at a glacial pace, we inadvertently went to war with consumers by denying them what they wanted and could otherwise find and as a result of course, consumers won.”
MacUser: News: Music boss: we were wrong to go to war with consumers

Much of this is very obvious to anyone who has been observing (event glancing at) the Recording Industry during this long debacle. But the fact that Bronfman would change his tune so radically is quite interesting.
That is, of course, if his words have been reported accurately. Which seems to be the case, looking at the transcript of Bronfman Jr.’s speech (PDF).<—a85199270255aa6b0ed891223893dd85—>

Going back to the series of ideas about the future of the record industry as published by Rolling Stone a few weeks ago and mentioned here.

In the original article, five "theories" about what the future may hold for the record industry were listed, in connection with quotes from participants in that industry.

• Theory 1: Ad-Supported Music
• Theory 2: Peer-to-Peer Goes Legit
• Theory 3: Endless Access Points for Music
• Theory 4: Labels Change Their Stripes
• Theory 5: Consumers Become Retailers

These "theories" encourage me to add my own personal ideas about the future of music and the record industry. With reference to the Global Business Network, my ideas are thought of as scenarios or possible models. Given my very limited experience with the record industry itself (I’m an ethnomusicologist and a musician), these are purely based on my personal opinions and may seem unrealistic. But the exercise is quite fun.

Some of these scenarios overlap with one another or with the Rolling Stone "theories." This is how it should be as the future is rarely one-dimensional.

Scenario 1: DIY Music

Music ceases to be a spectator sport. Sales of recording equipment, music instruction material, musical instruments, music-related software, and musical charts all skyrocket, eventually making up for lost revenues in the record industry. While professional musicians remain important, emphasis is put on music-making activities. Music teachers, music researchers, and music therapists all gain recognition in the process. Increasingly, musickers and musicians are put on a continuum.

While it may not represent a radical shift, I notice such a tendency toward "democratised" music-making. Games like Guitar Hero, social networking sites like GarageBand.com, television shows like American Idol, and computer software like iLife GarageBand all seem to point in the same direction. Given the number of YouTube videos of people playing or otherwise participating in music, one can envision business models based on the fact that playing music is itself quite enjoyable.

As an analogy, home cooking might have an impact on restaurant businesses.

Scenario 2: Alternative Business Plans

Related to ideas about licensing mentioned in Rolling Stone but music-making becomes more of a commercial endeavour, like some forms of photography have become. Licensing music for use in videogames, grocery stores, wedding videos, lounges, commercials, ringtones, elevators… What would be sold then would not be the access to musical recordings but the association between musical elements and some location, product, person, or use. While such a scenario sounds very restrictive it could in fact be quite liberating as long as the licensing systems are extremely user-friendly and if musicians are truly involved in the financial transactions.

I recently blogged about ringtone sales as making some sense, in my mind. Through data available in the previous Rolling Stone article, I came to realise that the figures I had in mind were apparently off-base and that ringtone sales amount to much less than I originally thought. Still, it seems that some of those alternative business models have some chance of becoming quite important in the near future.

Scenario 3: The Two Cultures

Inspired by Lessig’s well-known Free Culture book, the idea that "permission culture and free culture" or "commercial culture and noncommercial culture" may coexist for a significant amount of time. I have actually given this scenario a fair bit of thought and it seems to me to be panning out to a certain extent.

The most radical examples of "free culture" are still rather marginal in terms of the awareness of the general population in North America but there seems to be a lot of dynamism in "free culture" in North America and elsewhere, especially as they relate to online activities.

Scenario 4: Status Quo

I really doubt that this is the scenario which will pan out but it’s important to think about the general instability of the current model. Most participants in the record industry’s business (including many musicians and music listeners) agree that the current situation is not at all viable. In fact, the agreement between record industry executives and music listeners is quite striking: we all know that things need to change. We just don’t agree on where those changes should lead us.

Scenario 5: Dinosaurs Wake Up

Though I have come to doubt that the member corporations in the Recording Industry Association of America might "get a clue" any time soon, it is something to consider. If it were the case, executives in these corporations might be able to save their stakes in the commercial transactions involving music. In order to do so, they would need to implement important changes to please everybody involved. In fact, they would need to make amends with those who have been involved in those numerous lawsuits, many of which are quite ludicrous.

Scenario 6: Music is Dead, Long Live Musics!

Call it the CriticalWorld scenario: Thinking Globalisation Through Music.

This one would be quite close to my heart, as an ethnomusicologist and anthropologist. And it’s a scenario which seems to be off the radar of many people "in the industry." People who grok this scenario tend to be closer to the "free culture" movement, possibly because of the Anglo-American origins of market-based liberalism.

The Euro-American dominance on music distribution networks makes way for a music diversity. Music scenes flourish all around the World, musicians from different parts of the World travel anywhere else without having to go through major distribution labels, music becomes social glue across any cultural or social border.

Of course, some music scenes may become more important than others and there is likely to be a lot of overlap between musical styles and genres across the Globe. But music diversity can be a powerful force whether or not we think of biological analogies. In this context, talking about "The Music Industry" would be like talking about "The Cuisine" or "The Language." Some people might envision a completely homogeneous world but I just cannot see that it will happen.

My hunch is that some mix of these and other ideas will make up "the future of music" yet there will not be a single direction for the whole of music-related businesses.

The future is bright. And complex.

This post represents my own (Alexandre Enkerli’s) personal views and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone at CriticalWorld.<—adb9f2cb44d2840fd025a29ff88330b6—>

For the companies that choose to plow ahead, the question is how to weather the worsening storm. One answer: diversify into businesses that do not rely directly on CD sales or downloads. The biggest one is music publishing, which represents songwriters (who may or may not also be performers) and earns money when their songs are used in TV commercials, video games or other media.

At this point, the project hasn’t really been launched but the main ideas are there.

Personally, I would say that the site is low on features. The tracks themselves are interesting but the “value proposition” of downloading tracks for free on such a relatively simple site may push people toward sites which focus on music communities. Which might be a good thing for independent music.<—75080996242ad97bb6fd653e29121fdd—>

Ironically, with its numerous pirated downloads available, the whole album has not leaked yet. According to a source, the only leaks are the ones Reznor approved himself. And whether he realizes it or not, Reznor may be building a new option for presenting music that augments the existing CD/tour scenario. “It’s not about slapping something on top of an existing experience,” the source says. “It must be its own entity. Make the experience as immersive as possible for fans.”

Nicoli cited internal EMI tests in which higher-quality, DRM-free songs outsold its lower-quality, copy-protected counterparts 10-to-1.

Many people, including Steve Jobs and the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, have been calling for the end of DRM. EMI’s move is a bit less gutzy but it does sound like a move in the right direction, at least from a technological standpoint. Let’s hope Universal, Sony-BMG, and even Edgar Bronfman’s Warner Music will follow suit.<—d8a0b9e0e6800061e3d8af2c4fa06434—>

Bertelsmann settles over naughty Napster | The Register

DMCA architect lambasts music moguls | The Register

Not that these items really prefigure what might happen from this point on, but the winds are slowly shifting.<—908b52d9b89efbf1b3d8cc391c432aa7—><—146c0b37716af8ae3a40e5e01fc09f97—>

(The name of the trophy and some of the comments are a bit vulgar…)

The runner-up was Halliburton. Both the RIAA and Halliburton are well-known for political reasons. Of course, the RIAA is more of a lobby group than a typical company. Yes, they represent the “Big Four,” major labels for recorded music, which work like typical companies (making profits by selling the output of work done by people who have contracts with them). But the RIAA, like WIPO, is something like the network of these Big Four which then tend to represent an oligarchy.

The RIAA’s interactions with “consumers” (The Public) have mostly to do with lawsuits and disinformation campaigns. The RIAA’s main impact on those consumers is a series of copy-protection schemes which make digital management of music less pleasant. Some of the musicians who are represented by the Big Four may have some involvement with the RIAA but, even there, the RIAA is often seen as the problem in music-related industries, not the solution.

So it’s no surprise that the RIAA should be viewed negatively by a majority of people. They’re probably perceived by a very small group of people (executives at the Big Four), even though most label executives (besides our friend Edgar Bronfman Jr.) are realising that they need to adapt to the new conditions (which the RIAA isn’t doing). Apart from that tiny group, the RIAA is not having any positive impact whatsoever. Hence the image problem.

What’s funny is that, if the RIAA members eventually wake up from their torpor, they will still think that the image itself is the problem and will go on a massive campaign to make people think they have done something useful. Not looking at the situation as a whole is what will eventually kill the RIAA.

Not sure who will cry over the loss.

“We can’t think of it as counting unit sales anymore,” said Kenswil. “We have to license … and think like the publishers.”

What remains to be seen is whether this is a desperate strategy of a group of zombies or the announcement of a seachange in the global music industry.

Sony Music and Universal Music Group are marking certain artists of theirs as “prohibited” for sharing

it looks like it’s roughly 40-50 percent of artist that fall under this prohibited banner

Erm… What? You gotta be kidding, right?
How can this beneficial to any artist? Oh, I know! By blocking access to certain artists, you make sure that those who are not blocked get more exposure… Where the plan fails is that Zune is crippled enough from the start that music lovers are unlikely to use it very extensively to help their peers discover music.
Sorry, recording industry. Better luck next time—4e9d4a47862aa0b92f31ab31e8f195b1—>

David Pakman, the C.E.O. of eMusic, said the major labels have watched their revenues decline about $10 billion since a 2001 peak; meanwhile, revenue earned by the independents has held steady. He said his service offers music from 9,800 labels, each of which has embraced downloads in MP3 format. Only four labels still cling to copy protection, even though piracy has not declined, and those are the four major labels.

The same article points to a wireless music subscription service in South Korea which allows users to listen to music for $5 a month. It would be interesting to know more about that service and its effects on local music.
As mentioned before, the “Fair-Trade Music” site CalabashMusic.com applies no restriction to the audio files they sell. In a context in which major music labels are getting burnt by DRM, it is in fact possible that independent labels might eventually win big, which could mean a lot in terms of music diversity.

If you purchase a track with Microsoft® Points, you can sync it to your Zune, rip it to a CD, or even send it to a friend’s Zune so they can see if they like it.[1]

[1] The Zune to Zune sharing feature may not be available for all audio files on your device, and works only between Zune devices within wireless range of each other. This feature allows recipients to play full-length sample tracks up to 3 times in 3 days. Recipients cannot re-send music that they have received via the sharing feature.

There you have it.

Seems like Calabash Music’s "Fair-Trade Music" concept has been on my mind lately. A bit of context…

I had mentioned Calabash Music here before. It’s an online music store which specialises in what people tend to call "World Music." I have been downloading their free singles for quite a while but haven’t yet purchased music from the service. I do hope that Madou Diarra and Dakan (the band in which I play) will sell its music through Calabash Music.

Yesterday, after having listened to a podcast about online music stores which sell tracks without copy protection, I posted an entry right here and another on my personal blog. Though I didn’t mention Calabash Music specifically, it was clearly at the back of my mind when I wrote one of my crazier posts about music, coffee, beer, and glocalisation.

Thinking about it a bit more, and thanks to fellow Critical World member Pascal, I now feel that this concept of "fair-trade music" is especially relevant for Critical World, whose mission is to Think Globalisation Through Music.

Through a cursory look at Calabash Music’s Q&A for musicians and Artist Terms of Agreement, it does seem like they care about artists. IANAL but it does sound like their conditions are rather "good for artists." This part is rather telling:

Q. How does the money work?

A. Our customers may purchase downloads of your music at a price range between 75 and 99 cents per song. Your music is sold by the downloadable track. You will receive 50% of the net revenues from your music downloads sold. Net revenues are determined as the gross revenues less merchant fees. Artists can expect to earn an average of 44 cents per track sold. We pay you four times a year (every quarter) for your downloads. (If the amount we owe you is less than $50 then we will hold the amount until the amount is greater than $50.) We give you an account with a user name and password that allows you to look at reports of how many downloads your songs have received and how much money you have earned.

Apart from the actual royalty structure, the very fact that Calabash Music prominently displays this explanation on their website implies a direct relationship with artists. You get the impression that you don’t even need an agent to sell music through Calabash Music. Of course, agents are still extremely important for artists but in this "fair-trade" model, they don’t hold all the cards. Because coffee is the best-known case for fair-trade, the notion of a "direct relationship coffee" is quite appropriate here:

Absolution in Your Cup. The real meaning of Fair Trade coffee

Farmers were being squeezed by middlemen, known as coyotes, so that even the dismal profits from cheap mass-produced coffee failed to reach them. Growers lacked basic information about what their crop was worth, how to maximize production, and how to market their beans, and it was to the coyotes’ advantage to keep it that way. Fair Traders, by contrast, sought a direct relationship between coffee farmers and coffee drinkers: clean, just, transparent transactions.

In "fair-trade music," the agent is less of a middleman and more of a consultant, helping artists to negotiate deals in their own terms. Calabash Music serves as middleman to a certain extent but mostly as a distributor, not as a gatekeeper. The notion is that this model is more ethical than "free-trade" because it gives control to those who produce what is being sold. It’s especially compelling an idea in a global context. Musicians from around the Globe are able to sell their own music to listeners from around the Globe. Control is distributed, to a certain extent.

One of the most basic characteristics of fair-trade coffee is that there is a floor price ($1.26/lbs.) for green coffee beans. Calabash Music’s royalty scheme uses a similar principle in that musicians are getting a "fair share" of the profits, allegedly much higher than the net artist royalty on other online music stores. It undercuts the law of supply and demand to ensure that those who did the work get a "fair share." Of course, this "fair share" is decided by the "fair trade system" itself. In anti-globalization/alter-mondialisme terms, those in "developing countries" still get their business decisions made by those in "industrial countries." But to the consumer, buying "fair-trade" seems like "the ethical thing to do": selling a clear conscience at a premium.

Of course, not all is good with "fair-trade."

You’d think this confluence of social responsibility and double lattes, good business practices and lefty politics, would make [coffee activist] Katzeff a happy man. But he and a growing number of roasters say the Fair Trade movement has lost its way. The movement has always aroused suspicion on the right, where free traders object to its price floors and anti-globalization rhetoric. Yet critics from the left are more vocal and more angry by half; they point to unhappy farmers, duped consumers, an entrenched Fair Trade bureaucracy, and a grassroots campaign gone corporate.

Calabash Music is too small to get the same treatment as TransFair (the regulatory body for fair-trade coffee in the U.S.). But it doesn’t mean that the disadvantages of the fair-trade model won’t hit the music industry.

There are major differences between "fair-trade coffee" and a fair-trade model applied to music. One is that, contrary to coffee, music is not a commodity. In the online distribution of audio files, supply is unlimited in that you don’t suddenly run out of a specific MP3 file. Online distribution is still costly, but the costs scale much differently from the distribution of physical goods.

A related issue is that "music consumption" is affordable, almost anywhere on the planet. While coffee growers may be too poor to afford brewed coffee, the poorest musician in Mali can listen to music. There is a huge imbalance between The Rich and The Poor, between The Core and The Periphery, but this imbalance cannot be described in a similar way.

The injustice in music has a lot to do with issues in what so-called "Intellectual Property." An important dimension of an "ethical" music model would be that it doesn’t prevent music listeners from privately using music as they wish. Ethical music would also ensure that musicians are the ones who get the better part of the profits instead of large-scale pirates, producers, or retailers. The whole "protect the artists" stance, applied to the actual artists (not the record labels). A new business model which actually compensates musicians for their work. That, most might agree, would be fair.

Though some music productions may sound indistinguishable from one another, music is quite distinctive. While some coffee consumers may not care about the coffee they drink, music listeners select music according to their tastes. With this distinctiveness comes a sense of "brand," to think in marketing terms, but also a sense of shared experience. Fans of a given Indie Rock band may feel a bond which can extend far beyond the "consumption" of the music. In coffee, even the most enthusiastic connoisseur will never remain loyal to a single type of coffee bean or even a single coffee "origin." In globalised music, a Polish accountant can become fanatic about an Argentinian band the same way a Thai mechanic can listen to Canadian singer Céline Dion.

So it is possible that Calabash Music may benefit from the "fair-trade mentality" without being hit from the disadvantages. Simply thinking about the connections between globalised markets may give us the key.

“The tecno-brega DJ’s usually acknowledge in their live presentations the presence of people from various neighborhoods, and this acknowledgement is of great value to the audience, leading thousands of buy copies of the recorded live presentation.”

In honour of the Day Against DRM, Cory Doctorow appeared on CNET’s The Real Deal podcast with Tom Merritt. Doctorow mentioned Tecno Brega in his discussion of DRM and the notion that those artists are not discouraging others from getting paid by selling recordings of their music. Like radio in other contexts, inexpensive recordings are promotional items for these artists. Contrary to radio, this promotion is done without control from labels (in a payola or other playlist scheme).
What strikes me even more, though, is the phenomenon of mentioning neighborhoods in these recordings. As is the case with hunters associations in Mali, musical acknowledgement represents a cultural value which may, in turn, bring about commercial value. In fact, in Mali, people who sponsor performance events for the hunters associations are often people linked to hunters without being hunters themselves. They simply want the musicians to talk about them.
Who said that Jessica Simpson’s customized “A Public Affair” was innovative?<—8aaefc15baed3937bf76d099efce10ac—>

Here goes:

About two years ago, when the iPod was The One True Ring of must-have tech
toys, there was an interesting NYT article I read (I think in the Sunday Magazine section) that mentioned that the reverse was more intentionally true: within Apple, it was the iTunes Store’s purpose to lure more iPod buyers.

In a different direction, those who survive only on the crutch of DRM seem to be having little problem getting all our devices reengineered to
forcibly respect DRM. (I’ve heard stories that they’ll even require “DRM data” to be policed even at the bus level.)

On the other hand, these two points notwithstanding, A causally benefitting B does not seem to contradict B causally benefitting A. I of course don’t think it’s unreasonable to observe that the iPod in turn helps people become used to having DRM present in their everyday lives.

I’ll say right out that I wish I had better concrete suggestions, other than that the current laws and interpretations are on an untenable course
that will eventually require too much regulation and restriction. Here’s what I have for now.

What is necessary in order to generate a profit in music, art, or any medium? There seem to be two dominant costs to offset: the production
itself, and the marketing that attracts people to willingly give their money in exchange for some sort of access to the product. I have comments
about both of these, which apply almost equally well to both the mainstream American music and movie industries.

The second item, marketing, seems to be the more obvious failure of the current system. Music company spokespeople routinely explain how “it
costs more and more money now to get people to buy an album”. They don’t seem to consider (publicly, at least) that they could be trying ways that are more effective for their target consumers. I stretch to find a common analogy, but it’s like doing any old task inefficiently and dumping more and more resources into it in a way that’s not really helping, and making
it everyone’s problem that you’re not more openminded. Most people to whom music is marketed happen to be younger-than-median, too. These people know how to use the Internet, and are more susceptible to new
routes of information spreading. Why not foster people’s natural information sharing that we are now witnessing, instead of using the old
model of injecting advertisements into our field of view?

The first seems simpler. It doesn’t take a huge contract or huge production budget to attract an artist, but more a contract that offers a decent living and means to produce. Focus more on musical talents that produce larger amounts of work and experimentation, instead of some giant
rock band that puts out one album every 2-3 years. Do people have any memory that people used to be musicians as a day-in-day-out job, and not just while occasionally “recording” and frequently “on tour”? Contrast the musical output of said rock band with that of any average jazz musician, or even with the output of pop acts in the late 1950s and early 1960s. If your community is more interconnected, and information is more conveniently available for people, the extra quantity of output will not become more confusing in your attempts to advertise it to people.

These things said, I suggest harvesting grass-roots music sharing and community building, with means to pay the artists built into the system so people have less disincentive to do so. Try to ecourage and reward communities that have interest in an artist as a means of building loyalty—-this might be much less expensive than present marketing. If
the quantity of music is higher, there will be less squabling over the payment over individual items. Make the incomes of the artists, or their
earnings for each piece, public. It will show people that the music comes at a cost, and give people incentives to pay artists directly for their
work. Also, in this model, artists can freelance agencies to try to find community promotion of their work, instead of being dependent on a record label for promotion and distribution. Dot dot dot.

Something like this will get coded up eventually by someone, and I wouldn’t be surprised of a large (non-)consortium of independent artists
sprang up to use it. The question I haven’t answered is how fiscally viable it can be made.

With regards to the movie industry, well, some things don’t ranslate over quite right, but in spirit much does. Focus less on the larger, less
rewarding, to-be-blockbusters movies, which seem to yield so little profit on top of the investment, and often so much loss. Film is harder to produce in quantity than music is, I admit.. but independent film seems to
be viable these days in any case. Again, I don’t really have the clearest picture.

Those are some thoughts. I’ll try to stop here, so that I don’t repeat myself, and so that I don’t get too much more overboardly idealistic.
Bottom line: there are other ways of trying to do business, that the big consortia seem to have chosen not to seriously explore, but which might
actually be beneficial for a large number of artists if they give it a try. (Or, which might not be.)

Via Slashdot. The RIAA has insufficient evidence against at least one of the people it has brought to trial.

More importantly, where is there money for musicians? In contracts to produce albums? In connection with commerical “social network sites?” In tours? In contracts with television shows? In providing jingles for television commercials? In providing samples for specific uses (such as ringtones)? In teaching music? In composing music for movies? In mixing previously recorded music? In small shows at coffee shops? In grants from the Canada Council? In research on diverse aspects of music? In musical accompaniment to diverse activities? In preparing musical content to be used by would-be musicians? In donations from rich patrons pleased to be sung? In association with political, religious, or social groups?
Is there really a single answer?

No, music isn’t a commodity. But many musicians want to earn a wage directly from their work in music. A “record deal” isn’t the only way to do it.
Of course, other people (more numerous than many seem to think) make music for other reasons. From the parent singing a lullaby to a postal worker whistling a tune at work, music is a lot of things to a lot of people. Not that the financial aspect is unimportant. But the money which relates directly with the “music industry” is clearly but a fraction of what music really represents for the world.<—9b6e25df7bfc59d116b29f46a825d2fb—>

Wonder what Bronfman has to say about this…<—6d502746ab48791678da7cdd428eac58—>

Under a blanket (or ‘compulsory’ license) for consumer downloads, record labels fear they would lose control of their hard-fought grip on physical distribution channels, and lose control over pricing. In fact, they’d simply have to work harder to gain a bigger share of the pie, and innovate to find new outlets for their copyrighted material.

the staff at the RIAA are thoughtful, good people who work hard to protect their constituency

Why is French music from Quebec almost entirely absent from most Canadian online music services?

It’d be interesting to determine the effects of Canadian Content rules (“CanCon”) on the state of Quebec’s musics. It’s quite possible that CanCon has been one of the reasons behind the vitality of Francophone music in Quebec, especially when considering airplay on Anglophone radio stations. Yet, it seems to me that the current state of the “music industry” in Quebec is much less dependent on CanCon than it might have been in the past. This is not a full-fledged analysis on my part and I might be completely off-base. But this preliminary hypothesis is based on a few observations as a French-speaking Quebecker, a «Canadien errant» (an itinerant French-Canadian), and a fan of Francophone musics. My emphasis here is on «chanson», the type of music done by «auteurs compositeurs interprètes» (“singers-songwriters”). In terms of sales, it’s a relatively important market but it’s mostly significant as part of Québécois identity.
Through a significant period of Quebec’s recent history, there was a perception that musicians, especially singers, had to succeed in Paris to be recognized in Quebec. France was, and still remains to some extent, the main reference for Quebec’s “cultural institutions” and there was a sense that Quebec culture was dependent on French recognition. Many actors in Quebec’s music scenes looked up to France as a significant source of prestige. Obviously, Quebec artists were also influenced by British and American cultures. But pride in “our artists” was most often triggered by the accolades they would receive in France.
Quebec’s singers are now much less dependent on France. For instance, Daniel Bélanger, Ariane Moffatt, and other musicians on the Audiogram independent label have achieved significant success in Quebec before ever performing in France. In fact, a few French artists even achieve recognition in Quebec before they do so in France, partly because of large musicals like Plamondon and Cocciante’s adaptation of Notre-Dame de Paris. Some could say that Quebec culture is now much more inward-looking and insular than it ever was. The effect is a relative autonomy in the world of “cultural industries” (arts and entertainment, media, etc.).
Which brings another point, often bemoaned by many Quebeckers but clearly central to Quebec’s current situation: media convergence. In Quebec, “convergence” is often used as a buzzword to designate (and often decry) the practises of large corporations like Quebecor which own several media outlets and use this type of integration to cross-promote the people with whom they sign contract (or, as some put it, “to plug the artists they own”). Quebecor itself, seen as a giant, argues that it is in fact much smaller and more benevolent than the real threat of international media conglomerates (typically coming from the United States). Whatever the case may be, this discourse plays on cultural identity. No matter how evil or monopolistic it may be, Quebecor is still a Quebec institution (it says so in its name). And the contents they push are identified as part of Quebec culture, whether they’re original Quebec content or are adaptated from content which has worked in France and the United States.
By to the CRTC and content rules. Quebec content (QueCon) is covered in part by CanCon, at least through language-specific rules (Acadian and Franco-Ontarian musics are different though connected stories). Cultural protectionism does titillate cultural identity. Québécois don’t typically think of Canada’s federal agencies like the CRTC as defenders of Quebec’s distinct culture. In fact, some Québécois critics see the CRTC almost as a threat to Quebec culture, perhaps even more so than anything coming from the United States. This perception might be completely inaccurate but it does inform the attitudes of many Québécois on culture and media.
In such a context, how important is it for the CRTC to “protect” Quebec content?<—0e1e868329cb81e3a22a710f726d685e—>

Steven makes the case that record labels still need to learn that music is not a commodity, and marketing it in that way alienates fans who view it in an almost spiritual sense. Music is a touchstone in our lives – it’s the soundtrack of our past, tied directly to our emotions and memories. The impression of fans is that the recording industry wants to control what most people consider to be something very personal.

Page is part of the Canadian Music Creators Coalition which has a simple message based on three principles:

1. Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical


2. Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive


3. Cultural Policy Should Support Actual Canadian Artists

Members of that coalition include such disparate musicians as Chantal Kreviazuk, Sam Roberts, Avril Lavigne, and Sarah McLachlan. While this coalition’s meant as a movement for Canadian artists, its message goes much further than Canadian exceptionalism.
Material available on the site and press coverage of the movement is surprisingly insightful and clear. While they may oversimplify some issues, their voice is loud and clear.

if anyone played a riff – an identifiable piece of music – he was in breach of copyright and was breaking the law.

That might be the reason there’s a sign prohibiting Stairway to Heaven from being played in Wayne’s World! <—eff952777ceb343f1e2ad3ab06b88ac1—>

We do live in interesting times.

Consumers International – Copyright and Access to Knowledge
The Statement to WIPO (Word) is quite short (3 pages) and quite useful. Haven’t read the Full Report (PDF) yet, but it sounds interesting. Focusing on knowledge, learning, and teaching seems like a good strategy in the context.

McCann also has a website devoted to Music and Copyright, including lots of links and documents. Fortunately enough, his participation on the SEM-L mailing-list on issues of music reappropriation has been advocating for moving away from the simplistic view of copyright as legalistic-commercial issue.<—79452c389c4ef3af47c4fda2498c6d2b—>

GLOBAL STORIES: Citizens’ Media from Around the World
A week of events celebrating autonomous, independent media

October 17th to 21st at Concordia University

überculture collective, along with The Link, CKUT, CUTV and Concordia University, are pleased to invite you to join us for the second annual celebration of International Media Democracy Day in Montreal. Centring on the official date of IMDD, Oct. 18th, this year’s week of events aims to carry on where last year’s conference left off, examining how and where information is produced and disseminated and how we can build effective, grass-roots alternatives to corporate dominated media.

This year’s theme, GLOBAL STORIES: Citizens’ Media from Around the World, aims to look at citizen-based media both in Canada and abroad and hopes to explore how it has become possible for small, localized, independent media outlets to develop a global reach.

The week’s highlight will be a keynote address and Q & A on Tuesday Oct. 18 featuring Clemencia Rodriguez, a Latin American media activist who has extensively explored citizen-based media, and John Downing, founder and director of the Global Media Research Center and author of Radical Media.
Kicking off the week will be the Montreal instalment of the cross-Canada Measuring Security Measures series, co-sponsored by the NFB/CitizenShift. With events taking place in ten different Canadian cities, MSM will explore the changing nature of security measures in Canada since Sept. 11, 2001. The Montreal event, taking place at 7pm on Monday, Oct. 17th, will pay particularly close attention to the corporate media’s role in shaping the security agenda. MSM-Montreal will feature screenings of never before seen independent films examining state-security in Canada and a panel featuring Adil Charkaoui, Julius Grey and Yasmin Jawani.

Below is a brief schedule of events for the week. For more information and to download the program, please visit
überculture .

IMDD 2005 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:

October 17:
5:45pm: Book Launch – Something New in the Air: A History of First Peoples’ Television in Canada, by Lorna Roth. Concordia’s School of Community and Public Affairs.

7pm: Measuring Security Measures – part of a Canada-wide project co-sponsored by the NFB looking at security measures in Canada since 9/11,vfeaturing security certificate activist Adil Charkaoui, civil rights lawyer Julius Grey and Concordia communication studies professor Yasmin Jawani. Room H-110, Hall Building.

October 18:
10am – 4pm: Alternative Media Fair bringing together over 30 independent media organizations from across Quebec and further. Mezzanine, Concordia Hall Building

7pm: Keynote address by Clemencia Rodriguez (Latin American media activist and author of Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study of Citizens Media) and John DH Downing (founder, Global Media Research Center and author of Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements). Room H-110, Hall Building.

October 19:
5:30pm: Building an Independent Media Movement from Montreal to Beirut, a presentation & interactive slide show on indymedia in Beirut by media activist and CKUT host Stefan Christoff. Co-sponsored by CKUT and ISM & CMAQ. Concordia University SCPA.

7:30pm: Security and Surveillance: How big is Big Brother? A public discussion with moderator Kenneth C. Werbin (Concordia University) and guests. Co-sponsored by University of the Streets. Café Esperanza, 5490 St. Laurent Blvd.

October 20
6pm: Being Controversial in the Media – Panel discussion organized by the Link, featuring Matthew Hays, Linda Kay, Josey Vogels and Jan Ravensbergen. D.B. Clarke Theatre, Hall Building.

October 21
7pm: Video for Change – A Witness Book Launch and Wine and Cheese with Liz Miller (Concordia University) and Katerina Cizek (Filmmaker and writer) and Video Projections from Volatile Works and Les Lucioles. Graduate Students Association Lounge.

8pm: Link Alumni party at Reggie’s Pub

10pm: Global Stories wrap party featuring live music, DJs and raffle at Reggie’s Pub (co-hosted by überculture and the Link)

überculture—>

Do you want to make revolutionary radio? Are you interested in social
justice issues in Africa? Are you creative, political and ready to step up
to the mic? The Amandla Radio Show wants you!

************************************************************************
THE AMANDLA RADIO SHOW ON CKUT IS LOOKING FOR VOLUNTEERS

************************************************************************
Volunteers do not have to have any radio experience but do need a desire to learn!

WHO WE ARE:

Amandla is a bilingual African current affairs show which airs on CKUT 90.3
fm every Wednesday from 7 pm to 8 pm. For over 13 years, we have been
covering issues in Africa which are ignored and misrepresented in the
mainstream media. We focus much of our work on grassroots struggles,
resistance movements and social justice concerns in Africa while revealing
the international dimension of the issues we cover. The shows

WHO WE ARE LOOKING FOR:

We are looking for hosts for our radio show in French and English, as well
as occasional contributors, researchers and engineers/technicians.
Volunteers do not have to have any radio experience but do need a desire to
learn! We are more than happy to train new volunteers and, by becoming a
member of CKUT, you can sign up for a variety of training sessions.
As an Amandla volunteer, you will also have access to production studios to
bring your shows to life on the CKUT airwaves.

INTERESTED??

For more information, contact us at amandla_montreal@yahoo.ca or through CKUT
Radio McGill at www.ckut.ca or news@ckut.ca

—___________________________________________
Graffiti.net free e-mail @ www.graffiti.net
Check out our value-added Premium features, such as a 1 GB mailbox for just US$9.95 per year!

Powered By Outblaze

This listserve is intended for members of Critical World and other people interested in thinking about and making world music. Please remember that if you reply automatically to this email your response will be sent to everyone on the critical world listserve. If you have any questions please send an email to info@criticalworld.net.
Think critical: www.criticalworld.net<—97bd4203b768501dcfda3a2bca42cf96—>

A highly-influential global knowledge-building platform on Music and Society in the 21st Century.

Topics:
1) The Power of Music in a Fast Changing World
2) Music and Technology: What Lies Ahead
3) Globalization and the Future of Music
4) Urban music

Venue: Hollywood Renaissance Hotel, Los AngelesAudience: Policy-makers, industry executives, professionals, artists

Enquiries: forum.imc@unesco.org Web address: http://worldforumonmusic.com Organized by: International Music Council of UNESCO and City of Los Angeles Cultural Affairs Department<—1ef6d6a597c7dca61b2b23937abbb10e—>

September 22-24 2005, Montreal

Artivistic :: art.information.activism/e

= http://artivistic.omweb.org ==

Artivistic is a transdisciplinary event on the
interPlay between art, information and activism.

The bilingual event will bring together diverse
practitioners and theorists of activist art and
communication through performances, art exhibitions,
interventions, workshops and roundtables.

The event includes a benefit for Steve Kurtz
(Critical Art Ensemble) and Robert Ferrell on the
evening of the 22nd September, towards the CAE Legal
Defense Fund.

The artistic and free-form conference asks three
overlapping questions in order to consider new +
different possibilities:

• Why is Activism Associated with the Street? A
  question here on the notion of space and the politics
  that underlies it;

• Who Owns your Body_Mind? A question for analysing
  the authority of scientific knowledge in relation to
  society;

• Who is Allowed to Communicate? A question on
  communications and media, information as a right and
  vector of freedom.

The event is an independent and interuniversity
initiative. It aims to promote open transdisciplinary
+ intercultural dialogue and research on activist art,
to create and facilitate a human network of diverse
peoples, and to inspire, proliferate, activate.

For the complete program and for conference
registration, please visit:

Inquiries/registration : artivisters@graffiti.net

Conference location:

3 days of conference, including workshops,
meals/coffee and conference package (excluding special
events):

Registration form:
http://artivistic.omweb.org/modules/wakka/Registration

—= special events =—
CABARET for CAE (The Upgrade! Montreal / [ctrl]
collective) benefit with djs, performance & a silent
art auction with Canadian & international artists:

Urban Happening with public-active installations,
performance, music and live painting:

‘Volatile Shorts’ + closing event with djs, vjs,
performance & tactical media screenings (Volatile
Works et al.):

———————————///

= du 22 au 24 sept 2005, Montr&#233;al ==

Artivistic :: art.information.activism/e

= http://artivistic.omweb.org ==

Artivistic est un événement transdisciplinaire qui
s’intéresse à l’interAction entre art, information et
activisme.

L’événement bilingue propose performances, expositions
d’art, interventions, ateliers et tables-rondes, en
réunissant diversEs praticien-nEs et théoricien-nEs de
l’art et de la communication engagés d’ici et
d’ailleurs.

L’événement inclue une soirée bénéfice pour Steve
Kurtz (Critical Art Ensemble) et Robert Ferrell le
soir du 22 septembre, aux profits du CAE Legal Defense
Fund.

Le colloque artistique à forme ouverte s’articule
autour de trois problématiques reliées entre elles
afin de considérer et d’encourager des possibilités
nouvelles et différentes:

• Qu’est-ce qui unit l’activisme et la rue? Une
  question ici sur toute notion d’espace et les
  dynamiques politiques qui la sous-tend;

• À qui appartient votre corps_esprit? Une question
  pour l’analyse de l’autorité du savoir scientifique
  par rapport à la société;

• Qui est en droit de communiquer? Une question qui
  aborde les communications et l’information en tant que
  droit et vecteur de liberté.

L’événement est une initiative indépendante et
interuniversitaire. Elle a pour but de promouvoir la
recherche et le dialogue transdisciplinaire et
interculturel sur l’art activiste; de créer un réseau
humain de personnes diverses; et d’inspirer,
proliférer, activer.

Pour le programme complet et pour s’inscrire au
colloque, visitez le:

Questions/inscription : artivisters@graffiti.net

Lieu du colloque:

3 jours de colloque, incluant ateliers, nourrriture /
café et pochette de colloque (excluant événements
spéciaux):

Formulaire d’inscription:
http://artivistic.omweb.org/modules/wakka/Inscription

—= événements spéciaux =—
CABARET pour CAE (The Upgrade! Montreal / [ctrl]
collective) soirée bénéfice avec djs, art performance
& une vente aux enchères silencieuse avec artistes
canadiens et étrangers:

Happening urbain avec installations publiques-actives,
performance, musique et live painting:

‘Volatile Shorts’ + événement de clôture avec djs,
vjs, performance & projections de média tactique
(Volatile Works et al.):

===

Sophie Le-Phat Ho
coordinator, Artivistic /05
c. 514 993 2312
f. 450 466 0664
artivisters@graffiti.net
http://artivistic.omweb.org

Also available, a PDF version of an article by John Collins on the subject and a blog entry on the issue (also linking Collins’ paper).<—9963e84de70d7f3289d6adfbadd14ab4—>

publicity and marketing in the U.S. for “world music”

Based in Bloomington, Ind., a small and ethnomusicology-friendly publicity/marketing firm specialized in “world music” and related genres.

Does such marketing help musical diversity?<—4014af770eeea26ddb6f40067959219d—>

once we’re even, it can go free

exploiting the niches, and offering consumers more freedom

The [British] government wants to extend copyright laws to ensure pop songs are protected for almost twice as long as the current 50 years.<—1245f5eea80719d1e3dbdffd47f3e34f—>