Entries Tagged 'Music Industry' ↓

The news following the ADISQ Gala (and the media attention that gave them) earlier this week was that they – in conjunction with several other arts-related groups – want the CRTC to consider regulating Canadian Content on the Internet. Of course Michael Geist has the story: ADISQ Seeks Internet Canadian Content Requirements.

Personally, I am a big fan of CanCon regulations in terms of radio and TV. I think the success of the Canadian musicians in recent years is largely attributable to the fact that CanCon ensured that there was a Canadian music industry. But I also think a large part of the most recent success of those musicians is even more largely attributable to the wonders of the Long Tail than any regulatory scheme. For me, then, although I would support targeted funding to artists (NOT industry-run, though) and other such mechanisms to ensure that they can adequately represent themselves on the Internet, I am certain that content regulation is not the way to go. It’s actually a bit of a joke, the very idea that such regulations could be considered.

Also, check out Casey McKinnon’s views on the subject to understand an artist/producer’s point of view. (Casey runs the great Galacticast with my former colleague Rudy Jahchan.)

has seemingly not been a hit on campus: Free, Legal and Ignored (from the Wall Street Journal). Sampling only works if it’s a product people want.

from something called the Aspen Summit. It seems that in his keynote address, Edgar Bronfman (CEO of Warner Music) said that “The War is Over” between the content industry and consumers. We shall see…

Grokster, StreamCast Lose. From the post on SCOTUSblog: “In a decision announced by Justice David H. Souter, the Court said: ‘We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties’ – that is, computer users using free downloading software.”

I’m no legal analyst, but it strikes me that the specification that the distributor of the device that may be used for infringing purposes must promote such usage in order to be liable is very important, and will likely precipitate further legal battles before the issue is settled. AFAIK all such distributors caution users against such infringing usage.

of articles about yesterday’s oral argument in Grokster v MGM that were heard in the US Supreme Court: Reuters, Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times, Wired News, Emily Bazelon in Slate, a context/impact piece in Salon by Andrew Leonard, Hiawatha Bray in the Boston Globe.

who was present at today’s MGM v Grokster arguments at the US Supreme Court. He has posted an excellent summary of the day’s events on his blog.