4 ms·

The Digital Music Industry Is Inept (2012)

99 points by Audiophilip 12y ago

domador 12y ago
I had always wondered how iTunes and other digital music services go about verifying a musician's ownership of his or her songs when they're initially uploaded. If this article represents a pattern, the answer would be "blind trust" and zero due diligence.
- TylerE 12y ago
  The due diligence is when you sign the agreement that says you own what you upload. Thus if they get sued later they just refer to the uploader.
- alwaysdoit 12y ago
  If two parties both send you a song and claim to own it, how would you determine who was the original creator? This is a nontrivial problem. From what I understand, they defer to the party with the higher revenue/sales numbers. There are ways this can be abused, and we've seen plenty, but it at least provides a larger target to be sued if they are actually behaving fraudulently.
naringas 12y ago
sounds a bit like some form of identity theft. in any case, shouldn't he be suing the label selling his music? instead of all the stores they're selling it on?
- ismyrnow 12y ago
  Sounds like he wants to avoid paying a lawyer to do something that the big record labels can do with a click, that is, get a network to honor a DMCA takedown request. It shouldn't be so difficult for an individual to prevent someone else from profiting from their work. It sounds like yet another case where legislation favors the megacorps that put those laws there, claiming they were only for the good of the artists.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Veratyr 12y ago
    DMCA legally has to be honored regardless of the source, as long as the notice is complete. There's no "megacorp" favoring going on here. I'm sure if he actually issued DMCA takedown notices these listings would be gone within a day but since searching the post for DMCA shows zero results, it sounds like he hasn't done this. EDIT: And to be clear, you don't need an expensive lawyer to file a DMCA notice. There are plenty of free templates all over the internet you can print and mail.
    - rpenm 12y ago
      He mentions sending "cease and desist" letters - unclear if that means DMCA notices. He actually mentions receiving a DMCA notice for his own work despite providing proof of ownership to Youtube (but misspells DMCA, thus evading your search).
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Identity theft is bank-speak for fraud. This is a copyright violation, just as the article says. It is not particularly unreasonable to expect the stores to act faster than a court.
bravura 12y ago
This story appears to date from 2012: http://www.aux.tv/2012/10/electronic-artist-the-flashbulb-is-the-entire-music-industry/ http://www.aux.tv/2012/10/electronic-artist-the-flashbulb-is...
- privong 12y ago
  Yes, though it appears that he is still having related issues[0] and so I guess the spririt, if not the letter, of the 2012 post still rings true. [0] http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/?p=625 http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/?p=625
- __david__ 12y ago
  Interesting. I did a tiny bit of digging to see where things stand today. When I search for "Undiscovered Colors" in iTunes, his recording (The Flashbulb) shows up first in the list. "The Inventor" doesn't show up at all. When I play the song preview and use Shazam, Shazam tells me it's "Undiscovered Colors" by "Flash Bulb & Inventor". There is no link to Inventor's version, presumably because it is no longer on iTunes. There's a link to a video in Shazam and that takes me to The Flashbulb's official Undiscovered Colors video on YouTube[1]. On YouTube I found what I think is Inventor's version, though it's called "The Flashbulb - Undiscovered Colors (Inventor Dubstep Remix)"[2]. Calling it a remix at least seems closer to the truth. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgoAgYR4584 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgoAgYR4584 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVHobhMHrQ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVHobhMHrQ0
- runn1ng 12y ago
  Yep, even based on the source code, the article is from October 2012.
- dang 12y ago
  Thanks. Added.
- rpenm 12y ago
  I hate undated blog entries.
JumpCrisscross 12y ago
> So since the guy who runs “Foul Play” apparently printed out my cease and desist notice, rolled it into a tube, and smoked crack out of it, I’m going to assume that he won’t show up to court either So the author saved himself the effort of filing a lawsuit? Part of me is annoyed at the retailers' indifference. But a greater part is glad that adjudication is left to our courts.
NovaS1X 12y ago
Not surprising. The entire legal framework around music is a disaster and harmful to both listeners and artists. The only people who win are lawyers and large corporations. The DMCA and its supporting system are a toxic waste of the industry. That being said, I'm happy to see and article from Benn on HN. I'm a huge fan and his work as The Flashbulb as put out some of my favorite albums, with The Opus at the End of Everything being my all time favorite album from any genre or artist. I hope that he sees resolution but I hold out little hope.
1337biz 12y ago
I have some issues with he pre-emptive enforcement that guy expects from all these different platforms. Just going around saying some other guy "put some bird sounds" over his song seems a very subjective judgment. Sure, in his case that might be the truth, but who is going to be the judge what is an original work and what not. If the other guy really put just some bird sounds over his track and is now so massively successful - either the bird sounds were missing from making a so-so track into a successful song - or he should seriously review what is wrong with his way of promoting his music.

99 points by Audiophilip 12y ago

I had always wondered how iTunes and other digital music services go about verifying a musician's ownership of his or her songs when they're initially uploaded. If this article represents a pattern, the answer would be "blind trust" and zero due diligence.

TylerE 12y ago
The due diligence is when you sign the agreement that says you own what you upload. Thus if they get sued later they just refer to the uploader.
alwaysdoit 12y ago
If two parties both send you a song and claim to own it, how would you determine who was the original creator? This is a nontrivial problem. From what I understand, they defer to the party with the higher revenue/sales numbers. There are ways this can be abused, and we've seen plenty, but it at least provides a larger target to be sued if they are actually behaving fraudulently.

naringas 12y ago

sounds a bit like some form of identity theft. in any case, shouldn't he be suing the label selling his music? instead of all the stores they're selling it on?

ismyrnow 12y ago
Sounds like he wants to avoid paying a lawyer to do something that the big record labels can do with a click, that is, get a network to honor a DMCA takedown request. It shouldn't be so difficult for an individual to prevent someone else from profiting from their work. It sounds like yet another case where legislation favors the megacorps that put those laws there, claiming they were only for the good of the artists.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Veratyr 12y ago
  DMCA legally has to be honored regardless of the source, as long as the notice is complete. There's no "megacorp" favoring going on here. I'm sure if he actually issued DMCA takedown notices these listings would be gone within a day but since searching the post for DMCA shows zero results, it sounds like he hasn't done this. EDIT: And to be clear, you don't need an expensive lawyer to file a DMCA notice. There are plenty of free templates all over the internet you can print and mail.
  - rpenm 12y ago
    He mentions sending "cease and desist" letters - unclear if that means DMCA notices. He actually mentions receiving a DMCA notice for his own work despite providing proof of ownership to Youtube (but misspells DMCA, thus evading your search).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
maxerickson 12y ago
Identity theft is bank-speak for fraud. This is a copyright violation, just as the article says. It is not particularly unreasonable to expect the stores to act faster than a court.

bravura 12y ago

This story appears to date from 2012: http://www.aux.tv/2012/10/electronic-artist-the-flashbulb-is-the-entire-music-industry/ http://www.aux.tv/2012/10/electronic-artist-the-flashbulb-is...

privong 12y ago
Yes, though it appears that he is still having related issues[0] and so I guess the spririt, if not the letter, of the 2012 post still rings true. [0] http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/?p=625 http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/?p=625
__david__ 12y ago
Interesting. I did a tiny bit of digging to see where things stand today. When I search for "Undiscovered Colors" in iTunes, his recording (The Flashbulb) shows up first in the list. "The Inventor" doesn't show up at all. When I play the song preview and use Shazam, Shazam tells me it's "Undiscovered Colors" by "Flash Bulb & Inventor". There is no link to Inventor's version, presumably because it is no longer on iTunes. There's a link to a video in Shazam and that takes me to The Flashbulb's official Undiscovered Colors video on YouTube[1]. On YouTube I found what I think is Inventor's version, though it's called "The Flashbulb - Undiscovered Colors (Inventor Dubstep Remix)"[2]. Calling it a remix at least seems closer to the truth. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgoAgYR4584 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgoAgYR4584 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVHobhMHrQ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVHobhMHrQ0
runn1ng 12y ago
Yep, even based on the source code, the article is from October 2012.
dang 12y ago
Thanks. Added.
rpenm 12y ago
I hate undated blog entries.

JumpCrisscross 12y ago

> So since the guy who runs “Foul Play” apparently printed out my cease and desist notice, rolled it into a tube, and smoked crack out of it, I’m going to assume that he won’t show up to court either So the author saved himself the effort of filing a lawsuit? Part of me is annoyed at the retailers' indifference. But a greater part is glad that adjudication is left to our courts.

NovaS1X 12y ago

Not surprising. The entire legal framework around music is a disaster and harmful to both listeners and artists. The only people who win are lawyers and large corporations. The DMCA and its supporting system are a toxic waste of the industry. That being said, I'm happy to see and article from Benn on HN. I'm a huge fan and his work as The Flashbulb as put out some of my favorite albums, with The Opus at the End of Everything being my all time favorite album from any genre or artist. I hope that he sees resolution but I hold out little hope.

1337biz 12y ago

I have some issues with he pre-emptive enforcement that guy expects from all these different platforms. Just going around saying some other guy "put some bird sounds" over his song seems a very subjective judgment. Sure, in his case that might be the truth, but who is going to be the judge what is an original work and what not. If the other guy really put just some bird sounds over his track and is now so massively successful - either the bird sounds were missing from making a so-so track into a successful song - or he should seriously review what is wrong with his way of promoting his music.