Open Letter: Dear Mister Minister, Mr. Van Quickenborne,

Common Rights

The growing digital market has been glowing with possibilities for any artistic talent to create works, show and distribute them towards the world, for fairly cheap prive and in the most alternative forms imaginable. There are even alternative licenses on the market, like the known Creative Commons platform, which allows more around copying and distribution of protected works. This doesn’t need the artist to join artists-right organizations, while claiming all rights away with a signature and being limited with the promotion and distribution and more of her/his own works.

Technology has strived forward with micro-components, where the known walkman has become nothing larger than the size of a cigarette lighter. It is because of this digital age around micro-technology, that the passion to create music has never become so easy and cheap, through digital recording methods. Although, a work in production will take a lot of space, LOTS of space; mostly even more than 20x of a finished piece; because of all separate tracks (multitracks), samples, formats and extras involved with the production of such.

Still, it is not to be ignored that in the 20th century, works are being copied illegally; even on larger scale. That’s why there has been the start-up of Auvibel; the organization collecting taxes on all writable media like CD’s, DVD’s, K7, minidisk etc. This tax has to be paid by every end-user in Belgium, even when the media has been used only to store own works on. The collection of this money goes to rights-organizations. This is very bad to digest by many Belgian artists, because they are not getting any money of this entire operation, unless we sign away our rights to such rights-organizations like Sabam.

It doesn’t stay with this, Auvibel will start at 1 february 2010, to collect a tax on all disk drives, memory cards, usb-sticks, mp3/mp4 players and set-top boxes.

So, we, producers of the new digital world have to pay more taxes on media which we are using exclusive to store and manipulate our own works; while this tax benefits only a small amount of artists, the members of a “rights organization”. Also very important, newer devices like sequencers, samplers, sound modules use memory cards, disk drives and usb-sticks massaly by the dozens, which all will be taxed soon?

Why, does the indie artist have to pay for the lost income and compensate for the other artists, while we can’t even have the same arrangement and only have to caugh up money? We don’t even get a chance for adoption for other license terms with these rights-interest organizations and we are already getting taxed for more giving away money to these organizations not wanting to support us without draconian signout deals.

There are a lot of Belgian artists not wanting to connect to a rights-organization like Sabam, for variour reasons:

• They won’t get a choice what can be done with their own works regarding distribution and conditions;
• Different new distribution methods are being taxated with the old stamp;
• Sabam artists cannot create free music without being collected (CC, freeware);
• You can’t burn your works on CD to promote yourself without paying their own tax;
• Because of the agressive tactics this organization has (party’s, cafe’s and CC usage);
• Works under your own name are automatically property of Sabam; even if the artist does not want this

In the US there is a system where “Creative Commons” licenses work together with “Copyright Control”.

This is already adopted by very known artists like Radiohead and NiN and is in discussion with our neighbour countries , the Netherlands and France; so why can our own Belgian artist can’t be him/herself, without being mentally forced with their own works? This shouldn’t be a trap but a challenge for our Belgian talents.

Maybe, it’s urgent to change things from the past towards the future, because the current business model of a license on cd, is not anymore the only product available on the market. They changed the business-model slightly in the US, because the cat is already out of the bag since the digital age has allowed quick production and reproduction. Artists can choose their own license and distribution model, where they are quicker motivated to connect to a rights-organization defending their believes without shooting themselves in both feet.

European stores are very afraid to sell/export their storage-media products to Belgium, because of the strict regulation of import by Auvibel. This has changed our market to only a few familiar brands to be available in the Belgian stores, making it impossible to get better and designed cd’s and dvd’s without being outside the country. The market is very closed with this, where Belgium looses a lot of income with the use of new technologies which our neighbour countries already have for some time on their markets.

By charging this tax, you will punish the common artist of the future and you won’t leave a positive image, that our new, innovative digital world and it’s social happening gets embraced and supported, which the Belgian culture and market will only helps to get bigger. Our neighbour countries already have given a nice signal towards their artistic talent and I hope little Belgium will do the same towards the entire creative happening of audio and video.

As end, here a few links:

• Homerecording.be: open letter of artists protecting themself against the Auvibel tax
• French deal highlights open licensing and collecting societies in Europe
• Improbable Match, CC And Collecting Societies In Europe
• CC-NL/Buma pilot for flexible rights management
• Muziekindustrie, wake up for alternative licensing!
• Sabam, really for the common? (open letter in progress)
• Facebook group: against the Auvibel Taks

I am convinced that my letter will give you some insight towards a revision of your decision, hereby I sign,

yours sincerely,

Who says music can’t be free while creating value? Think twice, because NiN’s CC-Licensed album, Ghosts I-IV, has been one of the best selling albums of 2008! This while this album could be freely downloaded as Creative Commons release. This is clearly the evidence Creative Commons can cooperate perfectly together with other licensing; while NiN fans could have turned to any file sharing network to download the entire CC-BY-SA album legally.

Ghosts I-IV

Release timetable:

• 2 march 2008: Released without any advertisement or notice
• 4 march 2008: Extra servers were needed to handle the downloads
• 1 week later: 750,000 download and purchase transactions have been reported
• hitting #1 on Billboard’s electronic charts
• 8 april 2008: Physical albums available through double CD & 4 LP set
• 1 may 2008: Deluxe & Ultra Deluxe Limited Editions released

Release differences:

• Ghosts I: free, containing the first 9 tracks (official website | BitTorrent)
• Digital Release (Halo 26): $5, direct download, 40 page PDF book, digital extras, DRM free format.
• Double CD (Halo 26 CD): $10, two audio cd’s and 16 page booklet with access to the Digital Release.
• Vinyl release (Halo 26 V): $39, 4-LP vinyl set (heavy duty vinyl).
• Deluxe Edition (Halo 26 DE): $75, Includes 2 audio cd’s, data DVD with multitrack files, Blu-ray disk with albums in 96khz stereo, slideshow, 48-page hardcover photobook and access to the Digital Release.
• Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition (Halo 26 LE): $300, Includes everything from the Deluxe Edition including the 4-LP set and 2 exclusive limited edition Giclee prints. Limited to 2500 pieces, signed by Trent Reznor. (sold out!)

One of the reasons is that fans understood that purchasing MP3s would directly support the artists they like. Another reason for those sales is because of the extensive features added to the pack. I’ve always been a firm believer the contents create the setting; which they sure did by releasing 4 different physical packages ranging from $10 to $300 for the Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition which is a box with about eight exclusive additional features including two audio cd’s, a data DVD with multitrack files, Blu-ray disk with albums in 96khz, slideshows, 48-page hardcover photobook, direct access to the Digital Release, two limited Giclee prints and signed by the one and only Trent Reznor…

It has generated over $1.6 million in revenue in its first week and has received the critical acclaim and two Grammy nominations; so next time you’ll think Creative Commons hurts sales, think again about NiN! They’ve chosen an alternative distribution method which fits more to the common people, adapting to the new age of digital distribution. Maybe this could be the exact reason the music industry is afraid, of loosing control of the distribution market; because artists are still having troubles combining CC-licensing with draconian exclusive membership deals through their agency.

Thom Yorke, advices in the article about the Real Value of Music, “you don’t sign a huge record contract that strips you of all your digital rights, so that when you sell something on iTunes you get absolutely zero. That would be the first priority. If you’re an emerging artist, it must be frightening at the moment. Then again, I don’t see a downside at all to big record companies not having access to new artists, because they have no idea what to do with them now anyway.” When or how the music industry is going to understand this advice is another task, since the emerging digital distribution market has brought the cat out of the bag, how much our common sense really wants to pay for music…

Reznor explained his move by saying “It’s a stance we’re taking that we feel is appropriate … with digital technology, and outdated copyright laws, and all the nonsense that’s going on these days”. Jim Guerinot, the manager of NiN explained as “a reaction to what doesn’t exist today … It’s more just like, Hey, in a vacuum I can do whatever I want to do.”

NiN has reached two goals, reach those who weren’t familiar with the group by offering an open environment to get in touch with their works and give a reason to those who like the album and like to have more, supporting the artists directly. The Internet Distribution market has opened the last year as like we’ve experienced the .com age before! Aggregrators aid artists getting their album online through Amazon, iTunes, Amiestreet and other major music stores. Using CC-Licensing gave NiN the opportunity to increase the sales of their release.

It would be the ultimate question if this model could work for all, or those who already have their basic fundations set; although; Radiohead did a similar experiment with free downloads in October 2007. Their album, called “In Rainbows” was distributed as DRM free 160kbit MP3 format. Upon purchase, the fan could specify the desired price to buy the album directly through the website. At 3 december 2007 a limited discbox was available through pre-order and on 10 December 2007 the official digital download was no longer available at inrainbows.com. It was Radiohead’s first album available for download through the digital distribution market while it reached no.1 in the first Official U.K. Albums chart of 2008 at billboard. NME reported that “In Rainbows” created more money than their previous album “Hail to the Thief” while a further analysis of this report is available through enough cowbell.

Online distribution is a form of promotion and exposure. The physical distribution market is not alone anymore, forcing the music industry to walk other paths. Create a bling production with all the artworks, inlays, photo’s and other extra’s your fans crave and it will get sold. That’s one of the major reasons, I’ve been releasing my own productions in a similar way, through extra’s complementing the final product; because direct sales support the artist directly! Creative Commons is sure an aid in exposing any (new) artist around the block!

So, Music Industry, especially those who like to be in charge; smell the coffee, wake up! Artists are waiting for alternative ways to promote and distribute their music; getting in the billboard lists; without signing our lives away through exclusive contracts! Where is our support for alternative licensing schemes? It’s 2009 and we want our creative rights back!

• musicindustryreport.org
  

My soulmate wanted to rip the CD to put on his Archos Jukebox, since he is not using CD’s anymore but still buys them to be legal and to have the full version.

Since I have put in the CD I can’t run my company invoice system anymore, can’t do anything at all with that cdrom drive, can’t even play a game. Every time I put in the CD it cannot be recognized by my system.

I already tried to uninstall the software but the problem stays, which forces me to reinstall the PC completely (which I definitely don’t have the time for now at the moment and will cost me days to get my invoicing and updates done).

Is this legal ? Can this be allowed ? I am literally loosing money now just because I wanted to rip that legal and bought cd for him straight to his Archos. It’s not even music I like to listen to… (no offense intended to all fans around here) …

Apparantly it is legal folks ..
CD’s that demolish your PC ready to reinstall!…

I am really starting to get even more annoyed since I do not know which CD’s I can even TRUST anymore without the need to re-install my PC? To stay on topic ; A lot of data is on backup but also a lot of data (my vinyl and protected CD’s ripped to WAV format) will be lost after this re-install.

These copyprotections are taking more time than I have; to be even more specific, certain CD’s like Solid Sounds I need to rip manually to be able to USE this CD in my older car cd player and pro Denon DJ CD player!!! Since I am DJ and using vinyl and CD’s a lot I find this unacceptable. Put in this pro-DJ player and you got to wait up to 6 minutes before the CD *might* get read; which is too long for a clubDJ to mix to the next song; unless I have a 8-10 minute song running from vinyl…

Is this copyprotection a convenience only for the record company or should the audio CD be a convenience for the listener? Where’s the time you put in the CD in your favorite cd player you like to listen to the music you like ? The time of putting your cd in your car cdplayer, cd-rom drive or professional CD player is over and it’s only getting worse, looking to this example of the latest CD I tried to rip for my friend.

And this is not even the end, my soulmate has bought 2 other CD’s, which one of them is the new Faithless CD (the other one I can’t remember because we have a different taste (and yet the same) of music) and he can’t rip it to use on his MP3 player *and* he can’t use it on his home CD player (unreadable disks).

I used to buy 2 to 5 cd’s a month, since I am not sure anymore which cd’s work or not I started buying more vinyl again, but hell, I do not want to buy ANY releases of the same producers that cripple the audio CD’s I have bought for 20 EURO or more!

The recording industry has lost at least 600 EURO last year only because I do not want to buy or use cd’s anymore.. what’s the use to buy a cd if I can’t use it?

I have built up a nice record collection of +30000 vinyl records and +2000 cd’s. Probably the collection of my cd’s will not be updated anymore as I protest to this kind of behavior towards the consumer. I currently have about 62 cd’s of the last 2 years that I cannot use at all unless I rip it and copy it. This is about 1200 EURO/$ I have lost because I cannot use them as DJ.

This will conclude the recording industry will not get MY money of minimally 720 EURO/$ per year anymore, which I will spend on independent vinyl recording companies which are not related to the ones that cripple MY cd’s I have bought with my well-deserved money which I pay my taxes on.

For so far my rant … for the ones that care ; I started to care a lot since I have lost my cd-rom drive on a very mysterious way