14 1 / 2012
The White House's Position on SOPA/PIPA
Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet
By Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra, and Howard Schmidt
Thanks for taking the time to sign this petition. Both your words and actions illustrate the importance of maintaining an open and democratic Internet.
Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support—and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.
While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.
We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.
Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.
This is not just a matter for legislation. We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.
So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many of members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.
Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.
Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it.
Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget
Aneesh Chopra is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy
Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff
03 1 / 2012
The Danger of an Attack on Piracy Online - NYTimes.com
Reposted from http://nyti.ms/t32Sno
By invoking the acronym SOPA right at the get-go, I may be daring many of you to check the next column over for something a little less chewy. After all, SOPA, which stands for Stop Online Piracy Act, sounds like a piece of arcane Internet government regulation — legislation that entertainment companies desperately care about and that leaves Web nation and free-speech crusaders frothing at the mouth. The rest of us? What were we talking about again?
Stay with me here. SOPA deals with technical digital issues that may seem to be a sideshow but could become crucial to American media and technology businesses and the people who consume their products. The legislation is the rare broadly bipartisan piece of apple pie. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to resume hearings on it this month and all indications are that it will approve the measure, setting up a vote in the full chamber. The Senate is also expected to vote on its own version of the bill when it returns from the holiday break. Virtually every traditional media company in the United States loudly and enthusiastically supports SOPA, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for the rest of us. The open consumer Web has been a motor of American innovation and the attempt to curtail some of its excesses could throw sand in the works of a big machine on which we have all come to rely. Rather than launch into a long-winded argument about why the legislation is a bad idea — it is, as currently written — I thought it might be worthwhile to boil SOPA down into a series of questions…
(continued http://nyti.ms/t32Sno)
Permalink 98 notes
31 12 / 2011
US Radio versus Music Services: A comparison of the value of spins versus streams | david touve » media
Reposted from http://davidtouve.com/2011/12/18/us-radio-versus-music-services-a-comparison-of-the-value-of-spins-versus-streams/ on December 18, 2011 at 03:56PM
Following on a estimate of the music industry collections from UK Radio stations, I have done my best to estimate effective per spin per listener rates collected from US Radio stations.
Importantly, the goal here was to estimate the effective value of each radio spin *per listener* so that rate can be compared to not only that rate being observed for the effective value of a stream on music services (e.g., Rdio, Rhapsody, or Spotify) per listener, but also those rates applicable to webcasting streams.
First, a quick clarification: Most chatter about radio royalties hinges on the value of a spin, and yet the chatter about music service royalties hinges on the value of a stream. However, this comparison between spins and streams is not usually/always equivalent. Why?
The usual “spin” value often refers to a radio play on a station or syndicated show that was experienced by a large audience (sometimes millions of people).
A stream payment usually refers to a play/stream by a music service experienced by a single listener (or at least a single subscriber account).
Therefore, I am trying to compare spins and streams on equal terms by converting this spin-to-millions value from Radio to a value per listener, as is the case for music services. Please scroll to the end of this post for an explanation of the per spin/stream per listener comparison in the context of licenses based upon percentages of revenue or blanket fees and advances.
Now for the numbers…
The Short Story:
Just the calculated rates and none of the overly numerical explanations…
Important: effective rates below are estimates of amounts paid only for the performance of the musical work (song/lyrics) and to the stakeholders of those works (publishers, songwriters, and lyricists). In the US, radio stations pay royalties for only these performance rights and do not pay for performing rights to the stakeholders of the sound recording.
Taking a stand:
or
$186.00 to $372.00 <- per 1,000,000 listeners in the radio audience
$0.0002977923 <- Estimated effective rate per spin per listener*
$0.0000992641 to $0.0005955847 <-Range**
at 15 songs per hour
$0.0003722404 <- Estimated effective rate per spin per listener*
$0.0001240801 to $0.0007444808 <-Range**
at 12 songs per hour
$0.0004963206 <- Estimated effective rate per spin per listener*
$0.0001654402 to $0.0009926411 <-Range**
at 9 songs per hour
$0.0013 <- Effective rate per stream per listener on music services
$0.000300 to $0.0015 <- Range
estimated through songwriter reports, musical work only
The Long Story (with the Inputs):
The effective rates paid by radio and music services in the US are less directly comparable to those rates paid in the UK. Unlike in the UK, radio broadcasters in the USA pay royalties to only one set of music rightsholders: those with an interest in the musical work [the publisher(s), lyricist(s), and songwriter(s)]. Music services in both countries, on the other hand, are paying both sets of rightsholders.
I will begin with the total Dollars collected from Radio by the three performance rights collectives in the US: ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. While ASCAP openly discloses its domestic collections from Radio, BMI only discloses these values indirectly (in its annual report)—reporting the proportion of total collections that are not international, and that proportion of domestic collections that are from Radio. I had to estimate SESAC’s collections. Being a private company, SESAC does not publicly disclose its collections.
I will then break down this total value of collected Dollars on a daily, hourly, and finally per spin basis (for the set of music tracks hitting the ears of listeners at any moment in time in the US across all music radio stations).
Since not all radio stations are playing music (predominantly or exclusively), I have chosen to follow the royalty dollars to the radio-listening audience, through the tracks plausibly heard by only this audience.
Finally, I arrive at an effective range of the per spin per listener value through a set of estimates of the average size of only the music radio listening audience during the day in the US.
The overly numerical banter:
(A) $230,881,000 <- Dollars collected from Radio by ASCAP (pdf)
(B) $198,303,000 <- Dollars collected from Radio by BMI (imputed)
(C) $42,918,400 <- Dollars collected from Radio by SESAC (estimated)
(A)+(B)+(C) <- Dollars collected from Radio by the Collectives
equals
$472,102,400 <- Estimate of Total Dollars collected from Radio in the US
/ 365 <- Number of days in the year, resulting in per day payments
/ 24 <- Number of hours in the day, resulting in per hour payments
equals
$53,892.97 <- Dollars collected per hour from US Music Radio
So, if music royalties were measured like a taxi meter, the meter would rack up royalties at a rate $53,892.97 per hour.
/ 12 <- Number of songs played per hour, resulting in per song payments
equals
$4,491.08 <- Dollars collected per simultaneous spins across entire US Music Radio
The meaning of this $4491.08 is simple. PROs collect royalties from the performance of about X songs per hour (where X might be 12, or 15, or 9) across all music radio stations. $4,491 is simply the Collections per Hour divided by X, if X were 12 songs per hour.
Note: That figure—$4,491.08—is not the value of a spin on a single station or show, like Jack FM. It is an estimate of the average total value of all spins across all music stations in the US given some number of songs played per hour. A source like Jack FM would be one of the shows/stations playing music at any time. If, however, I reckoned that any station/network were 10% of the listening audience at some point in time, the value of that spin on that single station might be around $449.11.
Some might disagree with the rate of 12 tracks per hour (or about 36 minutes of music). And so I also ran estimates asserting 15 tracks per hour (about 45 minutes of music) and 9 tracks per hour (24 minutes of music).
We need to divide $4,491.08, however, by the average size of the US radio audience throughout the day that is listening to music radio to get an estimate of the value of each spin per listener. Essentially, if I could flip a switch and know how many people were listening to music on the radio at any moment, how many people (on average) would I find to be listening?
Unfortunately, such a switch does not exist. But a variation exists in the form of Arbitron’s estimates of the radio audience.
In the US, Arbitron estimated that during the most recent quarter approximately 241,300,000 people over the age of 12 listened to the radio at some time. This estimate is not the same as an estimate of the average size of the listening audience, however. In particular, it is not that portion of the audience that is listening to music (on the) radio at moments in time.
Arbitron estimates Hour-by-Hour listening as a proportion of its quarterly radio audience. In their 2010 Radio Today report (page 89), these ratings throughout the day range from a high of approximately 17% of quarterly listeners to a low of around 1% of quarterly listeners. The average across the 24-hour period appears to be in vicinity of 9.5%.
241,300,000 <- Arbitron estimate of quarterly radio listening audience, Q3 2011
$4,491.08 <- Dollars collected per spin if across entire US Radio audience
/ 6,032,500 <- approximately 2.5% of the quarterly radio audience
or
/ 12,065,000 <- approximately 5% of the quarterly radio audience
or
/ 24,130,000 <- approximately 10% of the quarterly radio audience
or
/ 36,195,000 <- approximately 15% of the quarterly radio audience
—————————-
Dollars collected per spin per listener for Radio in the US for various estimates of the average listening audience:
At 15 songs per hour
$0.0005955847 <- if the average listening audience is 6,032,500 people
$0.0002977923 <- if the average listening audience is 12,065,000 people
$0.0001488962 <- if the average listening audience is 24,130,000 people
$0.0000992641 <- if the average listening audience is 36,195,000 people
At 12 songs per hour
$0.0007444808 <- if the average listening audience is 6,032,500 people
$0.0003722404 <- if the average listening audience is 12,065,000 people
$0.0001861202 <- if the average listening audience is 24,130,000 people
$0.0001240801 <- if the average listening audience is 36,195,000 people
At 9 songs per hour
$0.0009926411 <- if the average listening audience is 6,032,500 people
$0.0004963206 <- if the average listening audience is 12,065,000 people
$0.0002481603 <- if the average listening audience is 24,130,000 people
$0.0001654402 <- if the average listening audience is 36,195,000 people
Finally, and importantly, I realize that Radio stations in the US do not pay royalties on a per spin (and per listener) basis. Instead, these Radio royalties are calculated by such means as a percentage of revenue, or as a result of a negotiation over a blanket fee.
I also realize that music services—such as MOG, Rdio, Rhapsody, and Spotify—are not—by default—paying royalties on a per stream (per listener) basis. Instead, these royalties may be calculated through a number of means, none of which can be openly discussed due to the joys of non-disclosure clauses.
However, the resulting pool of money from Radio can be and has been counted. And various sources have reported online their payments from music services. As a result, nerds like me can try to estimate some effective rate given the size of the pools, the rough number of tracks played, and the number of listeners.
*
The estimates above are a function of considering the average music radio listening audience (across moments in the day) to be 5% of the estimated quarterly radio audience as reported by Arbitron. For comparison, Arbitron estimates the average size of US Radio (all formats) audience to be approximately 9.5% of the quarterly audience. I worked below this number given (a) not all stations are music stations and (b) Arbitron may be overestimating the size of the Radio audience.
**
The ranges above are a function of considering the average music radio listening audience (across moments in the day) to be 2.5%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of the estimated quarterly radio audience as reported by Arbitron. For clarity, the smallest assumed listening audience will lead to the highest estimated rate per stream per listener in the ranges.
Permalink 68 notes
30 12 / 2011
Why I Think Tomahawk is the Future of Music Consumption | J Herskowitz
If you follow me on Twitter then you know I have been very vocal lately about the new media player (nay, music player) called Tomahawk. Perhaps some of you hopped over to the site, looked at the screenshot and thought… “oh, yet another spreadsheet for music files”. If you did, I urge you to look further as it is so much more.
Instead of me explaining the features (you can get better descriptions of those at www.gettomahawk.com), I’m going to talk about some of the value propositions that I hope to see Tomahawk deliver. Specifically, a day in which music fans can easily share their tastes across a range of music service providers. Today, if you subscribe to Rhapsody and I get my music from eMusic, we can’t easily share our music. And no… I’m not talking about sharing your music files, I’m talking about your music taste and discoveries.
Today we live in a world of seemingly endless number of content silos, your playlists and taste data largely locked up within their walls with no easy way to get them out or share them. Twitter and Facebook have, in many ways, made this specific problem much worse. For example, let’s say you post a link to your favorite new song. Unless I subscribe to the same service (or you have linked to a free source) then I have to click the link, see what the song was (maybe listen to a snippet), then go and search for it from whatever source/service/store I use. Not really the poster child for an easy user experience. The increasing fragmentation of the music provider market means that every day my Twitter stream is filled with virtual spam for music services I don’t use (and that’s saying something because I use many). I don’t blame the people I follow, they just want to tell their followers about some great new discovery, but the link is largely noise as it provides no value to me - unless I establish a relationship with whatever source/service/store they use. In my mind, this is one of the main contributors to YouTube (and MP3 links) becoming the defacto music sharing standard. Yes, they are free, but more importantly they “just play”.
Last.fm (which I love), is the closest thing to a music taste translation layer we have today, but it doesn’t solve the problem in the way Tomahawk has the potential to. While I can get loads of great data around other peoples’ (as well as my own) tastes, that data is not easily actionable. I can visit their profile pages, or subscribe to an RSS feed of a friends’ data, but then I’m stuck having to manually resolve that information against my music sources. Why can’t I subscribe to this information as a dynamically updated playlist in my media player, and have each of those tracks automatically resolved against all of the content I have the rights and ability to access?
This brings me to my next pain point. I have the rights, and ability, to access content from a large number of sources - yet no single interface that lets me easily do so. Content from my home computer, my laptop, streaming tracks from my Ex.fm library, SoundCloud, Topspin widgets, band sites, label sites, music blogs. The list is endless…. and unfortunately so are the required number of interfaces one has to use. Not to mention that many of those web-interfaces provide (in my opinion) a suboptimal user experience.
- “What tab is that music coming from?!”
- “Bah, I accidentally navigated away from the page/closed by browser and interrupted playback.
Now imagine a world where we share music metadata, and the logic of how that audio gets rendered is determined by the consumer of the data, not the sharer. Under the hood that user can can add plug-ins/content resolvers for all of the music sources that they have rights too (local machine, remote machine, subscription service, web sources, etc.). Spotify users sharing with iTunes users sharing with Rhapsody users, sharing with Mog users. Tastes and curation freely flowing. Music discovery propagates like never before.
OK, so now we are all able to speak the same raw musical language (metadata), but what about the context? But wait… (as they say on bad TV commercials)… there is more! Tomahawk has a web server, API (see the awesome Playdar for more info), and authentication mechanism built-in. Now bloggers, writers, curators, reviewers and more can provide context around music without having a way to provide the files/streams too (or go through the legal/licensing gauntlet required to do so). Instead of providing links to a half dozen music providers, or a bunch of MP3 links, or embedded YouTube videos - these curators can rely on you to bring your (accessible) content to their context. They can just provide metadata that Tomahawk can see, and use, to go out and automatically fetch the streams in background and play back to you (through their websites).
Not only does this benefit the consumers and the curators, but also the music subscription providers. Why should they be incuring the royalty obligations to stream me a song that I already own? As I have worked 3 music subscription services myself, I can - without hesitation - tell you that every penny saved is another penny closer to a having a sustainable business model. With Tomahawk’s cascading content resolving framework, if you already have a copy of the song it will play that one instead of unnecessarily streaming it. When it comes to the next song in queue, it independently finds the best source for that one and seamlessly, and invisibly, handles the transition between the two. As a consumer, you no longer have to know or care where the music is - you get to just focus on what you want to listen to. For those that have heard me on this soapbox before, they know that I like to call this “taking the work out of play”.
There are a lot of previously impossible user experiences that this content resolution approach enables. I have tried to touch on some of them, and hopefully I haven’t confused the hell out of you. As with many innovative technologies it is sometimes hard to convey the value until you try it yourself. But, in the meantime maybe these screencasts can help:
- Screencast of Tomahawk (and bookmarklet) showing the beauty of decoupling metadata from the file source. http://t.co/nqs0Lba
- Firefox + Greasemonkey + Playdar HTTP API + Wikipedia + Tomahawk = true love. http://www.screencast.com/t/iEyaewmuo
- Creating a custom artist station (using the @echonest api). http://t.co/PRyVzgm.
The good news is that Tomahawk is totally free and open-source. So not only can you use it, you can directly participate in the realization of the value the platform can deliver. I hope you enjoy it, I know I sure am.
Permalink 106 notes
