Web Sheriff
After my difficulties with the Web Sherriff last week a few people left some angry posts about them being bastards and so on, and I kind of got stuck in myself, accusing them of living in the 20th Century, which is fair enough I think.
However, I think it’s time someone actually stood up for Web Sheriff. Wipe the coffee off your monitor, yes, I am serious. Now, I am not stepping back from accusations that they are foolish dinosaurs desperately clinging onto an outmoded way of doing things and actually are entirely failing to protect the bands they represent.
But in their favour, unlike the RIAA before them, who genuinely are a malevolent bunch of dishonest, vicious whores, they actually don’t do anything all that bad apart from get in touch and ask you to take songs down. Now this is frustrating as hell, and it winds me up because I take this blog quite personally, and having one of their notices on your site is a bit like finding an uninvited guest in your living room and makes you react angrily. But I have received similar emails from managers of small bands like The Dodos and The 1900s and complied immediately as well. Now, these emails were better worded and didn’t carry a thinly disguised legal threat, which helped, but the upshoot is the same: please take that song down as we don’t want you giving it away for free.
I even, ludicrously, got one from a group no-one has heard of, asking me to take their song down. Manchester’s Modernaires are a terrific group who I’d love to feature more of, but the last time I did I was contacted (by their manager I think – I don’t really remember) informing me that they had signed some sort of release deal with a label or someone and that this deal included internet exclusivity. Now for a group that small to effectively forbid internet word of mouth advertising is, in my opinion, completely and utterly insane. Stupid, blinkered, self-defeating, and so utterly indicative of someone, somewhere completely failing to understand how the internet works, that it made me laugh and cry at the same time. But I took the songs down – of course I did, why wouldn’t I?
Now the Modernaires scenario arises, I would guess, from the label they are dealing with desperately trying to scrabble for more pageviews. There is an attitude at the moment that pageviews constitute clout, and to a degree I would agree with this, and that for all I don’t have much capital here at Song, by Toad, the perception is that I in some way ‘own’ a particular audience. I have my doubts about this, but I am guessing that this bunch simply want to drive traffic their way, and have decided on a stupid way of going about it.
But if you think they’re being totally unreasonable, consider this: as a blogger plugging, say, someone’s new 7″ single would you agree with me if I decided not to make the single itself available for download as part of the review? I wouldn’t do it myself, because I would want to encourage people to go and buy the thing. In the days when most people no longer have record players this may not be a particularly worthwhile stance, but I would feel wrong making it available. So I am not entirely disagreeing with the substance of the Modernaires’ management, just the way they actually put similar instincts to my own into practise.
In the case of the REMs and Ranconteurs of this world, the statement is more directly dismissive: we do not want or need your publicity, your discussion or your interest. Fair enough. Maybe it’s more nuanced than that: as much as we appreciate your publicity, discussion and interest, it comes with the inherent (debatable, but not spurious) drawback of making almost our entire record available for nothing on the internet, and we want people to buy the records instead. In the case of the Dodos, 1900s, and the New Pornographers, when they have contacted me (the latter via Web Sheriff) they have all said ‘we would prefer it if just these particular songs were made available as preview songs’, which I actually think is completely reasonable.
In the case of REM and the Raconteurs, there was no such thing, although there were other preview options available via Facebook streams and so on, but if I am being inflexible in terms of how I post music – no streams or other shit like that – it is a bit hypocritical to pull a face that they are being equally inflexible in how they publicise their music.
And lets not be disingenuous here, there is a perfectly reasonable argument of exploitation to be made. When I post songs by The Raconteurs, Radiohead, REM, whatever, my hits do increase. As the pageviews are the only currency in which I can really trade, this means that it can be argued that I am using their big name to increase the value of my own enterprise whilst offering very little in return. As I said at the time, they don’t need my review in particular, and neither do you. There are millions out there.
They have no obligation to value what we are doing here, and I am not stupid enough to think that what we do is in any way a benefit for groups of that size. They are well beyond needing the approval or even acknowledgement of anyone at this level. Even small groups have no obligation to want to be on these pages – that’s just arrogant. I am writing about music because I like it, for my benefit, not entirely for theirs so why should they feel any obligation to participate?
As I said, the malevolent tone and fairly explicit threat of Web Sheriff requests in the middle of a small time, personal website are jarring and a little scary. They are making it quite clear that they could sue if they wanted to, and as a result we react with understandable hostility. But they aren’t making requests that other, smaller enterprises do not and what they are requesting may be considered misguided, but it is not entirely unreasonable.
Effectively a great many sites like this and audiences like us are using blogs and small sites as away of actively turning our backs on the (capitals!) Music Industry Behemoth. Groups like REM and The Raconteurs are part of that behemoth, almost by default by virtue of their size and popularity. So if we are turning our backs on their world then it is a little bit churlish to take exception when they in turn do not feel obliged to grovellingly accept what crumbs of approval we actually do disdain to toss in their direction.
As to the songs, well I’m not sure how these are at all relevant, but they have been knocking around my inbox for a bit and I thought it was time someone heard them.
Teitur – Catherine the Waitress
Tobias Froberg – Blissfull
Tafra – I’m Sorry Brakne-Hoby
Sounds like S,bT’s getting the wrong kind of lots of attention – would this be in any way linked to you spreading your wings (hot to trot & bubbling under bands/Broken Records sessions/youtube, record label on the brink, etc.) & therefore getting wider/more frequent & higher profile nods & traffic redirects from other blogs & the likes, do you think?
‘Tis a double edged sword, no?
I know what you’re saying about the Web Sheriff, but I also think it’s just another extension of an industry (whether corporate or incorporated) frantically trying to control an area they were far too shortsighted/slow to pick up on (i.e. make money out of) in the beginning of the interweb’s evolution & resort to strong arm tactics (look at Ryan Adams’ record company successfully prosecuting – & sending to prison – that blogger for posting pre-release tracks about a year ago, with Adams standing silent, with his back to the whole thing, probably scared shitless due to contractual gagging or simply he’s as money-hungry as the rest of the fucking machine) in order to exert that bought authority. Because that’s essentially what it is, these days: bought. Acquired, rather than earned. They lost the grip of the whole thing the moment turned their blunderbusses on napster way back in the dark ages of music downloading.
I agree, though, posting singles is not good karma. But raising awareness via previously released tracks must surely be seen as good, honest free marketing? ‘course, though, it isn’t, in the big towers, & that’s how they’ll propogate the cancer of ignorance from within – they’ll bellyache ’till they die & we will eventually win.
I’ll leave you with a quote from Blazing Saddles:
Now is a time of great decision / Are we to stay or up and quit? / There’s no avoiding this conclusion: / Our town is turning into shit. Amen. (as sung by the Church congregation)
)
I hear what you’re saying about posting of singles -and i do think it’s sad that small record stores are facing extinction (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7356189.stm for an article about Avalanche), the important thing is helping people to hear it. But when bigger stores don’t stock stuff, how are people expected to hear things?
What frustrates me is why a handful of people should be permitted to get their hands on something before the general public do. This obsession with how things do in the first week is really distructive to books, films and music. If things were made available as soon as they were finished instead of being marketed to shit then they wouldn;t have to worry about leaks.
Some record companies do see the light, so do some artists. What saddened me recently, though, was having interviewed a band who said i could post a couple of tracks of theirs, they then got back to me and said their record company weren;t happy with them doing this.
People who download instead of buying anything are not helping anyone. To me, the internet is a tool to hear and hear about stuff I haven’t heard before, or to track down stuff I can’t buy in the shops. Many of the record companies are running scared, and so they should.
As far the RIAA, they have no interest in the artist’s integrity and it’s all about money.
Here endeth the rant…
Ed
It would help if you got the name of the band you were semi-moaning about correct! Modernaire not Modernaires.
Surely posting tracks without consent or those that are commerically available is asking for trouble? I think most bands (at least the smaller ones!) appreciate coverage but perhaps not the free release of their material. Now as an MP3 blogger, you’re obviously presented with a problem. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t feature a band and hence give them the “advertising” you were talking about. You appear to have largely ignored this aspect.
I think this could have been a really good post but I felt it was a little muddled and I had little idea of where you were going to end up. And obviously getting the band name wrong was a pretty significant gaffe, considering you were talking about how much you liked them (not enough to get their name right clearly!). However, most importantly, I’m still a bit confused as to whether you’re adopting a new stance or simply doing the old routine?
Oh I suppose it’s all very “reasonable,” and I absolutely agree that an artist should have the power to forbid anyone from disemminating his or her music in advance of its actual release on the artist’s terms. After it’s been released, though, I’m not so sure. After all, once an artist puts a piece of music into the stream of commerce, he or she has essentially induced the listening public to form an emotional attachment to the songs. Once that attachment forms I can’t help but think that the piece has been changed in some way; it has ceased to be the exclusive property of the artist and his instead become “ours” in a way that few other commodities do. Songs aren’t widgets. When a person shares music to which he is emotionally attached, with no expectation of profiting from the act of sharing, surely what he is really doing in 9 cases out of 10 is trying to connect with others whom he thinks might be touched in a similar way. That’s just plain nice, and if the artists don’t like that sort of thing they should go into another ine of work.
I realize that the consequence of this thinking is that some musicians will not be able to make much money from their art, and therefore perhaps it is selfish. The young, struggling artist whose 7″ single gets posted on a blog and spread all over the web for free may not be able to sell the thing and will therefore be unable to pursue music as a full-time career, unless of course the music spreads through word-of-mouth to such an extent that he can make a living (although probably a humble living) playing gigs and selling CDs to the faithful, who will pay just to keep the artist performing. The consequence? The world is deprived of the next Bono. But will it be deprived of great music?
Anon, are you some sort of idiot? Modernaire instead of Modernaires? That really, genuinely negates my entire discussion in your eyes? If it does then you are clearly some sort of cretin and I can only shake my head in disbelief. If you think that pointing out a minor spelling mistake is a substitute for any kind of substantial argument then you are a clown. Say something useful or piss off.
What I am saying, for those too stupid to read English, is that for all music blogs with their free downloads offer a really valuable free publicity service, there is a drawback to it all, which is the free availability of content that people naturally want to be paid for. There is a degree to which this is very important for a band, but there comes a point where the unlimited availability of their material becomes a drawback. That line is really not all that clear at the moment.
And, anon, I think it should be pretty clear that this post is not some sort of polemic which claims one particular position as the only right answer in the universe, it is supposed to be an open discussion of what is and isn’t beneficial for a band.
It is not, however, about spelling, you silly arse.
C&B I do think that your post-release point is very valid indeed. Once it’s out there it’s out there and trying to stick your willy in the dyke, so to speak, is just fucking silly. It’s a colossal waste of time and resources more than anything else, and one which the band ultimately has to pay for.
Does this translate as “I am a prick” in anyone else’s eyes?
Yep. I really think it’s the parenthetical with the exclamation point that does it.
It’s all bollocks really, isn’t it?
Is this not just the latest manifestation of the ‘Home Taping Is Killing Music’ movement?
By its very nature, popular music has to be made available in a portable format. That means it will be copied and distributed by the public outside of the terms of the contract the recording artist signed with the distribution agent.
If you buy a record, is it strictly for your sole personal use? Are you infringing someone’s copyright if you invite a friend round to sit down and listen to records in your living room? What about if your friend comes round all the time to listen to your records? Should such a practice be licenced, would you or your friend have to pay royalties via the PRS?
Sony, for example, are now a record label and are no doubt actively persuing the protection of their copyrights, but in the 80s and 90s they were one of the leading manufacturers of tape-to-tape double-cassette-deck home stereos. How do they equate themselves with that?
It’s all spin and arse.
Damn! I was going to slag off that ‘anon’ cock, too..
Modernaires is a shit name anyway.
Well he makes one single decent argument in two paragraphs worth of spelling corrections, which is that the free distribution of something commercially available can be viewed as detrimental. When nobody has heard of you, of course, it might be considered helpful. Even cosmetics companies give away sampler sachets in magazines, for pity’s sake.
Aye, & what about cover-mounted CDs? Are these not, essentially, tools of the trade for marketing purposes? Sure, the labels probably, most definitely, get their cut somewhere along the line, but essentially it’s just a means of getting music ‘out there’.
I totally agree with Dylan on his point regarding the ‘Home Taping’ crowd & he makes an extremely valid point about the likes of Sony. All these fuckers give you the means to do what they then turn round & tell you not to do or they’ll drop a fucking piano-sized lawsuit on your head (i.e. tape recorders, MD Recorders, Video recorders, DVD recorders, mobile phones with inbuilt recorders & cameras, MP3 players with mics, etc. etc.).
It’s pointless swings & roundabouts &, like I said, give it a while, maybe as long as a decade, & the big guns will be flaccid & useless in the whole marketplace; unless, of course, something really fucking scary happens & we go the way of China & start blocking certain aspesct of the viewing/downloading capabilities of the interweb. I mean, we’ve all seen the films about countires run by corporate entities lustig after nothing but power & money eh?
I dont feature too much in the way of new music over at The Vinyl Villain, but when I do, I tend not to post any mp3s of stuff that has just been released and is readily available for purchase.
And while I reckon that most of us who are active in this blogging lark (whether we run sites or make loads of comments all over the place) are the type who will download, listen and then purchase, its down to most folk being casual blog surfers who come in, download and sneaks off that I dont post new songs.
I’m going at length just now about Frightened Rabbit, and I want everyone to go out and make them stinking rich by purchasing Midnight Organ Fight. Christ its only £8 at Fopp or on-line, so it will hardly break the bank.
But right now, they are the among the top artists in terms of being searched at The Hype Machine and elbo, and you can bet this is down to loads of folk trying to find all the songs at different blogs to download for free just to save themselves a few shillings/cents. And that’s just unacceptable.
The things is, if I choose to apply that logic to a new act such as Frightened Rabbit on a small label not really in a position to undertake a huge marketing campaign to support the release, then I have to be consistent and say that it equally applies to REM/Warner Bros.
I don’t know, JC, I am not entirely sure I agree with you. I don’t doubt that there are indeed some like that, of course there must be. But don’t you think that these folk – the ones so determined not to pay for anything – aren’t far more likely to be found skulking about on torrent sites and P2P networks? Without the hassle of visiting fifteen different blogs and organising everything into a folder you can have the whole thing for free at the click of a mouse. I don’t really think blogs enable that level of piracy in any sort of meaningful way, although I am not saying I mightn’t be wrong there.
Johnny Lynch from Fence Records gave me a promo yesterday, asking me not to throw it up for download just yet because he wants to maintain some sort of exclusivity for people who come to a gig and get a free copy there. So I can appreciate that kind of attitude. But single tracks here and there – do I really think that has the capacity to genuinely damage music sales? Well no, not really. I can’t be sure, obviously, but I don’t know that this makes a massive difference.
Mind you, what about blogs that post three, or four, or five songs from an album? Well then you’re getting into very murky territory indeed, so I am not saying that there is either an easy nor a hard and fast answer, but I think you’re being more cautious than necessary.
We are definitely in the grey part of this argument. As an unsigned singer-songwriter making (just about) a living out of music in London I can tell you there isn’t a clear-cut right answer. The line is very difficult to draw and I think the aim is to reach a compromise where everyone wins and nobody looses too much. The music industry has to adapt in this new phase or else it will not last…
In my case, I have put a lot of my material out there, to be listened to, downloaded and hopefully spoken about. In this sense, I am looking at the potentially possitive aspect of free publicity and WOM that the Net provides. I am trying to cause some buzz and there’s nothing better than the social web for this. The negative side of free distribution is a very small price to pay (I know for a big band with no need for publicity this might differ, but they shouldn’t be the focus, in my modest opinion because they already have a lot of resources)
I know this could change if I was signed by a label and they wanted to sell my songs, but I think the key is to look at the songs we create or the music we create as a service and not a product. In this sense I agree with the notion that once a song is out, it belongs to everyone, not just the artist (this is what makes music great in my opinion), just like when someone gives a masterclass, or an MBA, the knowledge is passed on… You pay to receive it and enjoy its content for as long as you want… So the service here would be direct contact with the band, not the actual song…
I know the argument is a lot more complex because there are a lot of industry interests, ISP, governments and what not involved… but from my point of view all I want is to be able to make a decent living. If it means playing quality gigs all year round, so be it. I know of all the implications, but if taking out the distribution line means less profit from songs, we’ll find a new model that’s based on a direct band-fans relationship.
Like Bill Shankly said, “At a football club, there’s a holy trinity – the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don’t come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques”. Bill Shankly
Hi Toad,
I’ve been a regular reader of your blog for quite a while and having read the above post, I thought you might be interested in the lengthy conversations that have been had between myself and my other blog authors and Web Sheriff, who returned to reply many times to all our questions after the intial classic Web Sheriff post that they left:
http://readersrecommend.blogspot.com/2008/04/beginning-of-twist-intimidation-for.html
regards,
Blimpy
Readers Recommend Overspill Blog
I’ve probably put everyone off with my previous rant, but its always good to back something up with an opinion from someone who can actually write… This is from Cory Doctorow of the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/29/copyright.law
Quite good i thought.
Yes that is an interesting one. I’ve said this on numerous occasions about songwriters being accused of copying one another’s material: that is just how human creativity works. No-one produces a quantum leap eureka moment sitting in their bathtub which does not owe a massive debt to the absolutely dozens of influences and ideas sloshing about inside their heads at the same time.
That said, what music blogs do runs the full spectrum from cultural entity to lucrative profession. If I posted, say, your songs and didn’t pay you a thing, yet was making a significant living from advertising on this blog then where do we stand? To an extent I would be offering you more by advertising your presence and your music than I would be by, for example, paying you a licensing fee or royalty fee on a download – the number of downloads would not make enough money to seriously outweigh the word of mouth advertising.
However, as you imagine a blog getting bigger and bigger, more and more of them posting your stuff and the writers making more of a decent living out them, there must come a point, I suppose, where what we are doing can be legitimately described as exploitative. Using the artistic output of you and people like yourself to drive traffic to our site and hence to make money from it.
I still come back to the free Newspaper argument though – content is all free, in their case, but the advertising revenue pays for it. What would be a fair split of total blog revenue due to a band, then? Per download? Pageview? Hit anywhere on the site? You can bet your life that the legal entities in entertainment would demand a fee that would result in many times the income of the site being due to the major record labels, because that’s the sort of grasping, avaricious cunts that they are.
But bloggers can be just as bad, because I just don’t think the blanket assumption that anything a blogger does for an artist, however widely read or enthusiastic, is unquestionably good for the artist themselves. Largely, yes, but many bloggers paint themselves as some sort of beneficent ray of sunshine beaming down upon the impoverished world of unheard-of bands desperately scraping for some tiny crumb of approval, and I think this is vain, superficial, thoughtless bollocks.
Why the fuck did I capitalise the word newspaper? Sheesh, I depress myself sometimes.
Didn’t you mean RIAOA.
Well generally the ‘o’ is left out of the abbreviation isn’t it? I’ve never seen anyone use it before.
I see your points Matthew and from a legal point of view I can see there could be some issues. In my opinion though it comes down to mutual benefit. In a hypothetical case scenario were a blogger would showcase my music, I would benefit from the exposure without having to pay for this service (incredibly valuable in some cases) and the blogger does this with no guarantee that this service will produce any profit/benefit/reaction to his/her blog in return (as you’ve experienced before when featuring unknown bands). If the blog does get some return then its only fair. Where do we draw the line? I don’t know, but with Limewires, Torrents and the like out there, an mp3 blog that rates, comments and appreciates the music it offers I think it only adds value to a musical product/service. See that’s a whole new ball game because how do you put a price to that? How much is the value of a song increased if it gets a good review in a relevant blog?
As for the vain bloggers who think we “the unsigned bands” are desperately seeking their approval, well I couldn’t give a shit… The Net is just an extension of a live music venue. You have to get the crowd going and get as many people in the venue as you can, but don’t change the music just to get some attention.
That Guardian article is very interesting. There’s one area they didn’t mention:
I took a call at the office a few months back from someone representing a copyright authority concerning itself specifically with the distribution of newspaper/magazine/printed article cuttings within & by what it deemed corporate organisations & networking structures.
The jist of the conversation was, if you cut out of a paper or somesuch an article (for arguments sake, but equally can relate to a cartoon you liked or something of interest whether or not) relating to your company in one way or another & then ‘distribute’ that cutting, whether in the form of an email/newsletter/push pin noticeboard/etc. to your colleagues in the office (even blu-tacing it to your computer monitor) then that is a breach of copyright as you are taking it out of its original copyrighted format & placing it into another level of public consciousness/awareness. This, obviously, also refers to external ‘distribution’ in the form of, say, publicity material as well.
I was somewhat sceptical, especially when the lady told me that there was a way around this breach that was to pay an annual exemption/licence fee which allowed such ‘distribution’ internally. There was a whole other set of rules & payments for external usage.
Company bascially palmed her off for about a month or so, the polite way of saying nice try, but fuck off, until we receievd a ratehr wordy solicitor’s letter explaining it was an entirely legit & enforceable law &, should we decide to ignore it, we were liable to find ourselves in court.
Fairly gobsmacked, we was, but pay the fee we did. A sort of PRS for the printed world.
I’ve since looked into it &, yes, it’s absolutely above board – apparently EVERYONE is subject to this (I asked them what about the press offices of local & national govt. because I know for a fact they have monkeys trawling newspapers & the like for any reference to their neck of the woods & they cut out the article, hi-light the relevant areas, sign & date it, mount it on white card & send it out to everyone in the local & national offices for reference & note. They told me, yes, they are subject too – but are rarely ever pursued due to the complexities involved) & eventually everyone will be tapped for it. The reason we were was simply because of the profile of the company & the fact we’d recently appeared on Radio 4 twice, BBC TV & in all of the broadsheets.
Which kinda begs the question is there another tier system in place in this copyright jungle, also?
That aside, what a totally ludicrous law – but I bet you never knew you/your place of work was even infringing it?
To pinch from an article I’ve just quoted in a recent rant: “As Albert Einstein said: “Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.”"
That law is fucking terrifying. How on earth did they get anything so silly passed? Oh wait, I know, expensive lawyers and lobbyists on one side and no coherent, unified opposition on the other. Fucking parasites.
DC
Having once managed a Council Press Office for three years, I can gurantee you that we all pay a hefty fee to an organisation called the Newspaper Licensing Authority (NLA)…..and we’re not all monkeys trawling newspapers……
Aside from that….I thought you were going to get in touch about Colorblnd James Experience????
I know. Fucking useless isn’t he.
Hi JC – apols for taking so long to come back, but things have taken a busy beyond recognisable limits status at the moment.
re: the NLA (for that is indeed who were in touch, only I forgot their name as I was typing the previous), when I spoke with them/the disembodied voice she told me what I printed above. Maybe just an off day for her, or maybe not a priority of her list of remembering. When I worked, many moons ago, for the then Welsh Office’s DTI office I knew a lot of the people in the PO & I don’t remember them ever mentioning the NLA, or even it coming onto the radar of everyday work. Is it something that’s recently (i.e. in the last 5-10 years) come into being, or has it been all quiet & under the surface shark-like & we plebs don;t know about such stuff?
re: tCJE, i HAVE emailed 3 times – I suspect there’s a spam/junkmail bot/firewall or somesuch blocking my mails?? I’ll try again…
WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-3238013
Fax 44-(0)208-3238080
websheriff@websheriff.com
http://www.websheriff.com
Hi Toad,
Many thanks for your ’song’ … .. we like the shiny badge too !!
Joking aside, you raise many, valid points – as do your contributors – and, fyi, Web Sheriff does not believe in persecuting fans for their enthusiasm and occasional over-exuberance and, as such, we routinely arrange for band management and labels to provide fans and blogger with at least 2 (full-length) preview tracks ahead of release … .. this shows respect to the blogger community, whilst also recognsing the important role that blogs play in promoting new albums … .. equally, if the blogs feature the preview tracks instead of trying to leak the full album ahead of release, they too are reciprocating this respect and a more harmonious, on-line environment is created.
Taking two examples that we have worked on at either end of the spectrum, The Raconteurs didn’t provide preview tracks (which would have negated from their rush-release-straight-to-the-fans concept, by which they wanted their fans to hear the whole album more-or-less straight from the studio and without the usual, lengthy, promo fanfare), but they did provide a widget for the video to the lead single, that all bloggers were invited to feature on their sites … .. at the other end of the scale, we were approached by a new, indie band at the weekend to do a ‘freebie’ for them … .. now, whilst Web Sheriff is a commercial organisation and a very busy one at that, we are all (believe it or not !!) music lovers and, as we really believe in this band and want to help them ‘make-it’, we have agreed, but again strictly on the basis that they offer 3 free / preview tracks off their new album to fans and bloggers, in recognition of the importance of blogs in the 21st century, music landscape (or should that be ‘netscape’ ?!).
Anyway, thanks again and we just wanted to reciprocate by providing this insight into Web Sheriff’s position.
All The Best,
WEB SHERIFF
Yeah, I’d completely forgotten about The Raconteur’s insistence on the whole album none of this breaking it into individual tracks, even for sale. This is a bit poncey – if they really felt that then they should just have one track on that CD, surely – but at least their position is consistent.
I do however have a lot of sympathy with Campfires & Battlefields’ statement earlier that once something is released into the public sphere the artists/publishers/whatever should have hugely diminished control over what happens to it. That is the nature of a cultural enterprise – culture is shared, not delivered.
Web Sheriff have recently been issuing take-downs well after the release of an album though, and this is daft, surely? I mean, I never leak anything prior to release, and no review ever comes before an album release date, and still I get these notices. Not that I am advocated unlimited free everything from the point of release, but I think that distinction should be made, and at the moment you don’t really seem to make it.
In terms of the legality of the thing, well that’s pretty cut and dried, but there is another point to be made here which gets ignored a lot: are you seriously arguing that bloggers posting two review tracks of their choosing is going to have a negative impact on sales of the new REM album? I know there is the argument about being able to cobble together the album if you surf enough blogs for a long enough time, but that is such a tiresome process that this sounds like an argument with very little merit, to me. In other words, the law should be protecting the artists, but I am not sure that there is any actual protecting needing to be done here.
[...] Modernaire and the whole intellectual property issue. After seeing the enormous length to which that particular discussion unravelled I think Bill was placing enormous confidence in his editing abilities, to be able to get the [...]