Lyndahere And Free Culture...Taking responsibility for our actions online.

I recently read a blog about an American student Emily White who was working as an intern at her college radio station. The student stated openly and honestly that she had downloaded approximately 11 000 songs without paying for them and had only ever paid for 15 CDs in her life. She was under the impression like many young people that it was acceptable to download songs and distribute them for free from the various file sharing sites available. The student now wanting to work in the music industry is thinking about the moral implications of her actions on artists and the industry she loves. There were nearly 500 responses to her blog posting and raised some very interesting responses justifying illegal downloading. David Lowery is an academic teaching music economics as the University of Georgia in the United States and his response raised many issues that affect musicians and singers like Great Big Sea.

I have just downloaded my second officially free single off the Internet by Great Big Sea’s Murray Foster’s Cocksure Lads “You Have Gotta Stay Cocksure”. The single was available from the University of Toronto’s official university magazine page where he did an interview (Murray Foster is an alumni from the University of Toronto). My first single was Great Big Sea’s Alan Doyle Mutiny on the Dawn available on his webpage. I also joined MySpace and have access to a five free songs. I have never downloaded anything off a computer other than webpages, documents and images for personal use (basically because I don’t have the technical expertise and equipment). These songs weren’t that hard to find. After a brief search I was also able to find a range of free illegal music available for both concerts and recorded material made from copies generously shared by people who had no part in creating it for Great Big Sea and the members of the band.

David Lowery argues society should not accept the free culture while praising the college student for grabbling with the moral and ethical implications her actions are having on the profession she wishes to work in. One of the primary reasons used to justify illegal downloading is the music companies and their artists they sign make a lot of money. Not all artists and musicians make millions of dollars like the Rolling Stones, Madonna and more recently Justin Bieber. The average income of a musician is approximately $35000 a year. Record companies pay advances and specific royalties to artists. And most have to repay the advances from record sales. If there are insufficient record sales then the debt may be written off. Under the law music companies are required to pay songwriters and issue a license. Artists are paid approximately 9.1 cents for every song they sell. Despite popular belief artists don’t make money on the road…they go on the road to support the sales of their album.

David Lowery recognises there are many moral and ethical issues associated with the implementation of technology. Copyright has worked well for musicians and artists of all kinds for hundreds of years and has protected their work, allowed them to decide how they want to distribute it and make money. But technology like the internet has radically changed all that. It is through this change in technology that individuals and organisations can now exploit artists and make their work freely available. Because people have unlimited access they may do so without thinking about the moral and ethical implications for society. These private corporations want individuals to recognise it is acceptable practice to download illegal material because we have the technology to do so even though it is illegal under the law. For example Lyndahere (@lyndahere) uploads her illegal material onto YouTube. Because it is there and we are able to watch it is acceptable.

David Lowery states “We are being asked to continue to let these companies violate the law without being punished or prosecuted. We are being asked to change our morality and principals to match what I think are immoral and unethical business models”. Lowery continues Google supports companies that place advertisements on sites that support piracy and include “The Pirate Bay, or Kim Dotcom and Megaupload. They are “legitimate” companies like Google that serve ads to... They are companies like Grooveshark that operate streaming sites... and over the objections of the artist, much less payment of royalties lawfully set by the artist”.

Lowery also raises the issue of file sharing sites charging entry fees to their sites full of free material. “It turns out that Verizon, AT&T, Charter etc etc are charging a toll to get into this neighborhood to get the free stuff. Further, companies like Google are selling maps (search results) that tell you where the stuff is that you want to loot. Companies like Megavideo are charging for a high speed looting service (premium accounts for faster downloads). Google is also selling ads in this neighborhood and sharing the revenue with everyone except the people who make the stuff being looted”. Youtube also support piracy in that it allows people to establish accounts and load up illegally copied material. They make their money from massive amounts of advertising. It is becoming increasingly frustrating to watch legal videos on Youtube when we are required to watch advertisements before the video. So there is a catch in watching allegedly “free” material. Youtube is also full of accounts that supply music with song words and images collected off the internet with some having thousands of hits that have copyrighted material. Some illegally copied videos even have advertising attached so Youtube must be aware that the account is not the lawful owner.

The Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) have successfully prosecuted individuals and companies (RIAA Homepage 2012). Through my research I have found there are substantial attempts to establish education programs for a range of people including parents and children and within the education environment at all levels. But it is difficult to establish if these are successful. Governments have been unable to successfully monitor and implement strategies to combat breaches in the laws. People do it because it seems acceptable behaviour within their culture, and justify it using a range of reasons including as Lyndahere wrote the “music should be heard”. People do it knowing they have little chance of being caught even if reported to appropriate bodies such as the anti-piracy commission in Canada. David Lowery argues rather than leaving it up to governments it is in the hands of every individual like Emily White (and Lyndahere) to examine their morals and behaviour and decide that stealing music and royalties that rightfully belong to the artists is not right. It is important to persuade others of this.

People really love the music artists produce. There are many things young people and all people can do to support musicians and other employees of the music industry other than pirating copies of concerts and recordings. This includes buying their music from legitimate sources like itunes and directly from their official sites and at concerts. As David Lowery states how difficult is it to login on to their site and download music paying artists the money due. Corporations advertise on illegal file sharing sites. Individuals can write to corporations and not buy their products. Google technically does not support piracy. For example I do not buy any products advertised on YouTube as it supports accounts containing illegally downloaded material in particular that of Great Big Sea and other artists. People can also write to their senator or congressman about the issues such as copyright that currently being negotiated and direct funds to those that create it. I do continue to watch videos on YouTube but only those that are associated with legal sites and any revenue would go to the artists and the industry.

While there are many people who make ethical choices in their life paying for music still isn’t one of them. Lyndahere (@lyndahere) Twitter site is full of retweets of worthy causes and attended events for charity to film and record Great Big Sea and Alan Doyle and placing them on YouTube.

Lyndahere And Bootlegging...My understanding of what it is?

I broke down on the weekend. I watched some live recordings off YouTube. They were not from Lyndahere (@lyndahere) but legitimate recordings from radio stations and others who had attended a range of promotional events and concerts so I thought that was a bit of a compromise. I was comforted by the fact that most people still would rather watch a legal recording from a television or radio station than an illegal recording of a concert from those that attend from the number of hits. While radio and television stations are not as quick and enterprising as Lyndahere at getting a product to the consumers it is well worth the wait to watch something legal and of quality. But exactly what am I watching.

Bootlegging is a really interesting subject and will take some time to investigate. 

Music piracy is “general term referring to the illegal duplication and distribution of sound recordings, comprised of four specific forms: bootleg recordings, counterfeit recordings, pirate recordings and online piracy”. 

There are four different types of piracy according to the Record Industry Piracy Glossary (2012): counterfeit, pirate and online and bootlegging. 

Counterfeit is the “unauthorised recording of duplication of pre-recorded sounds as well as the unauthorized duplication of the original trademark, artwork and packaging." 

Online piracy is the” unauthorised transfer of sound recordings from the Internet” and pirate recordings is the “unauthorised recordings of only the sounds of legitimate recordings.” 

Bootleg recordings are the “unauthorized recording of a musical broadcast on radio or television or of a live concert”. So basically I have been watching bootlegged copies on Lyndahere’s site.

The RIAA (2012) identifies state and federal laws involved in music piracy. There are three federal laws U.S. Copyright Law, Trafficking In Counterfeit Labels, Trademark Counterfeiting4 and the Anti-Bootleg Statue related to music piracy. The US Copyright as I understand it has been discussed elsewhere in this blog...to be continued

Lyndahere, US Copyright Laws and YouTube...My understanding.

Although this has been stated elsewhere on this blog it provides a background. There are two YouTube sites operated by Lyndahere (@lyndahere) known to people that have illegally recorded broadcasted content from appearances of Alan Doyle, Great Big Sea and other artists. On Lyndahere’s YouTube site BetweenTheRock there is a massive 1250 plus recordings mostly taken by her with a hand held video camera of Alan Doyle and the members of Great Big Sea and on AndPassionateKisses approximately 50 recordings mostly illegally recorded from Canadian television stations. These include the Alan Doyle ‘Live at Revival’ on CMT TV special. She has illegally recorded a total of 7 songs. They include Alan Doyle interviews and performances from the Global, Canada AM, interviews on HNIC Game Day, singing the national anthems, the Christmas carols for the Gift of Giving for charity (GBS), Labour Day specials, hockey interviews, the Juno Awards, and the ECMA Songwriters Circle.

Copyright is defined in the US by the Recording Industry Association America “copyright law protects the value of creative work. When you make unauthorized copies of someone’s creative work, you are taking something of value from the owner without his or her permission… (RIAA Homepage 2012). 

The US Copyright Act states on sound recordings…

§ 1101 · Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

“(a) Unauthorized Acts.—Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved—

(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,

(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or

(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States, shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright”.

The Record Industry Association of America states “Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. (Title 17, United States Code, Sections 501 and 506)” (RIAA Homepage 2012). 

It is therefore illegal under the copyright to make recordings of live performances and distribute them on Youtube regardless of where the performance took place. While @lyndahere fully acknowledges the material which she has filmed it is still a breach of copyright.

Like the Canadian Copyright Act there is a fair usage exception. The US Copyright Office states there are four points to fair usage under sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act. “The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work”. Under US copyright there is also a concept known as parody exception which is associated with using copyrighted material for creating spoofs or critique.

On his webpage “The Most Frequent Copyright Violations” Carnes (2012) writes of copyright in Youtube “Many users upload copyrighted material to websites that do not facilitate file sharing, such as YouTube. Even though these websites do not offer a means to download the copyrighted material, users gain free access to the copyrighted material. Some illegally uploaded YouTube videos featuring copyrighted music include disclaimers invoking the "fair use" exception to copyright protection, which allows anyone to use a small portion of a copyrighted work for certain purposes such as commentary or education. However, the fair use exception does not permit the use of an entire song. The US Copyright Office states there are no number of words lines or images that can be taken without permission that could be used under the fair use exception rule.

YouTube pays half a cent for each hit played. While that doesn’t sound like a lot of money in the case of Lyndahere who has had over a million and a half hits that amounts to approximately $15000 dollars over four years. It is difficult to know how many other sites she has and how much music she is making uploading illegal material onto YouTube. For some enterprising people it may mean a living if enough sites are established and the connections made with consumers out of other people’s work they had no role in creating. For some very successful music artists that amounts to millions of dollars in extra revenue or for others it means missing out on money that is rightfully theirs.

Fair Usage In Canada...My understanding.

Over the past couple of years several individual Americans and companies have been prosecuted for illegally downloading songs and distributing them on peer-to-peer networks by the Record Industry Association of America (Wikpedia 2012). RIAA represents the recording industry in America and part of their goals is to monitor the laws, regulations and policies of the industry (Wikapedia 2012, RIAA Homepage 2012). Two high profile cases have included a single mother from Minneapolis who was ordered to pay record companies $220 000 for illegally downloading and sharing approximately 24 copyrighted songs and a Boston university students was prosecuted and fined $675 000 for downloading approximately 30 songs. In the case of the Boston university student the defence of “fair usage” was not allowed by the court.

Fair usage known as fair dealing under the “Canadian Copyright Act' allows users of copyrighted material to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting. With respect to criticism, review, and news reporting, the user must mention the source of the material, along with the name of the author, performer, maker, or broadcaster for the dealing to be fair” (Wikapedia 2012).

The 2004 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada outlined the six principals of fair dealing. They included the purpose of the dealing, the character of the dealing, the amount of dealing, alternatives to dealing, the nature of the work and the effect of the dealing.

One of principals is the purpose of the dealing. It is difficult to identify what the purpose of @lyndahere’s Between the Rock and a Hard Place webpage is. Her introduction states it is about the Canadian province of Newfoundland, Alan Doyle, Great Big Sea and even Russell Crowe the Australian actor. To be honest I have only read her posts for 2012 due to their extensive nature. They are part review of the shows she has attended but more a criticism of their organisation rather than the artists and their music. Not all of the copies of the songs filmed by @lyndahere are directly linked or named in reviews of Great Big Sea shows or Alan Doyle shows on webpage nor have they been reviewed. It is more of a place to discuss the ups and downs of her personal life and personal opinions, the usual declaration of love for Alan Doyle, to show off some photos and video recordings and more recently writing fiction.

Under the principle of how much has been copyrighted she has filmed and downloaded whole concerts, albums and CDs and released them via Youtube. “There are a few videos with low or no drums that I might put up or maybe I’ll just go with snippets all to further wet the appetite for and perhaps increase the viewership and sales of CMT special and most important of all Alan’s Boy on the Bridge solo album…” @lyndahere Between the Rock and A Hard Place 16 February 2012 on attending Alan Doyle’s ‘Live at Revival’.

Under the principal of ‘alternatives to dealing’ there are non-copyrighted equivalents of her own work. She has multiple copies of most of the songs she has recorded of Great Big Sea and Alan Doyle at various locations around the world. The continual filming of songs is not necessary to review of her work. In most cases there is nothing more than a list all the tunes played. So the dealing was not necessary to achieve the blog post.

Under the principal the ‘nature of the work’ states that one of the aims of copyright is that a “reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider dissemination of work” one of the goals of copyright law…If however the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that dealing was unfair” (Wikipedia 2012). @lyndahere distributes songs and material of Great Big Sea and Alan Doyle without permission and consultation. I would consider an album not released confidential. Although I have not read the conditions on entry to the filming of the Alan Doyle documentary/special or the conditions of entry to Great Big Sea and Alan Doyle shows I would imagine there would be a clause in the sale of tickets as there are in my country that state that a condition of entry into the event is that a patron cannot record or take pictures at the event.

It’s easy enough to follow most of his radio appearances…but what has caught my attention the most is how diligently Alan has been working so much that his dear sweet voice is beginning to fray around the edges though that slightly pleading edge makes him sound all the more compelling to me to get his solo music heard…”@lyndahere Between the Rock and A Hard Place 18 June 2012.

The effect of the dealing…It is difficult to know how the impact of @lyndahere has affected the market of the original work. She has with no qualms and no expertise decided to release the work of Great Big Sea and Alan Doyle. I would say a lot. It is difficult to tell how many people kept and distributed her original recordings released of his solo album rather than buy an album or download songs from legal sites. The first contact that many fans have with new music is via a @lyndahere recorded video. They form first impressions based on what they watch which is my greatest fear. But this is not to give her too much credit. Her imagination justifying and validating her actions.

Great Big Sea and Alan Doyle have a 20 year proven track record in Canada, the US and around the world. They have won industry awards and sold over 1.5 million records. In Canada eight CDs have achieved gold status (50 000 plus) and three of double platinum and two triple platinum (100 000 plus). Next year 2013 will be a celebration of 20 years in the music business with the release of a consolation CD and a national tour.