Bob Dylan is releasing previously unreleased demo tracks from early in his career.

Reposted from: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/ More at:  Early unreleased Dylan songs in new album

More than a dozen early Bob Dylan tracks that were never officially released will make their debut on the next volume of The Bootleg Series.

The Witmark Demos: 1962-1964 — a reference to M. Witmark & Sons, one of his early publishers — will feature 47 tracks overall, according to music industry trade publication Billboard.

The songs showcase Dylan, accompanied by an acoustic guitar, with some piano and harmonica as well.

Dylan’s early versions of now-classic tunes like Mr. Tambourine Man, Blowin’ in the Wind and The Times They Are A-Changin’ are included on the two-disc package.

The track listing includes 15 songs — such as Ballad for a Friend and Guess I’m Doing Fine — never before released to the public.

Columbia Records will release the album on Oct. 19.

The New York Times reports on a framework deal, published by The National Association of Broadcasters,regarding a potential mandate of royalty payments made to artists for radio play.

Reposted from: http://www.NYTimes.com/ More at: Radio Stations Propose Paying to Play Music, -Joseph Plambeck

For more than 70 years, over-the-air radio stations have played music without paying the performers who recorded the songs.

That could be changing.

This month, the National Association of Broadcasters released what it described as a framework of a deal in which stations would pay a total of about $100 million a year in performance fees.

“It’s a crack in the dam,” said David Kaut, a regulatory analyst for the research firm Stifel Nicolaus.

The association’s outline suggests that the largest stations pay a performance fee of 1 percent of net revenue, and smaller stations a lower rate or none at all. While labels and musicians have long sought performance fees, broadcasters have argued that the stations provide important promotion for artists, and that a fee might put small stations out of business.

Even if a final compromise is reached, it would still need Congressional approval.

Monday, the broadcasting group will hold an online discussion to answer questions from its members.

“I think some people inside the industry think we should fight and fight and fight,” said Peter Smyth, a board member of the radio group and chief executive of Greater Media, which owns 23 stations. “But at the end of the day, we have to make good deals that help us move forward.”

Mitch Bainwol, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group that represents record labels, said that the plan released by the broadcasters “signals a new day where two very significant sectors that should be partners ride off together in a productive way.”

Last year, after the both the House and Senate judiciary committees approved bills that would require performance fees for broadcast radio, lawmakers asked the two sides to work out a deal themselves. The groups have regularly discussed the issue since February.

Laws passed in the 1990s require fees to be paid for online radio. Last year, SoundExchange, the organization that collects performance fees, brought in more than $180 million. The money is generally split between the copyright holder, often a record label, and the artist. Under the new plan, fees for online radio would be reduced.

The record industry would welcome any additional income, as revenue from recorded music has been cut almost in half over the last 10 years.

“It took me a really long time to come to the conclusion that I would pay performance royalties,” said Mr. Smyth. “Eight months ago, I’d say it’s nuts.”

Mr. Smyth said his feelings changed when he realized the risk involved in trying to oppose the bill. Stations fear that Congress could eventually require higher fees than they are proposing.

Although the two sides appear closer than ever before to a deal, serious hurdles remain.

The framework released by the broadcasters calls for a federal mandate that every cellphone sold in the United States include a chip to allow FM radio reception — a “critically important” part of the plan, said Dennis Wharton, the group’s spokesman. Having radio available in all cellphones could help broadcasters compete with online streaming services like Pandora, which are popular on mobile devices. Mr. Wharton said the chip would help provide a public service, as information during a local emergency could be heard on a phone.

The record companies are in favor of the chip requirement, but the cellphone industry has expressed serious concerns, saying that it could make phones bulkier and shorten battery life. “We are completely, inalterably opposed to this,” said Gary Shapiro, chief executive of the Consumer Electronics Association, which represents some wireless companies.

Mr. Bainwol said that in the last year many potential deal-breakers had arisen, but that the two sides had so far found ways to work around them. The chip question, he said, just happens to be the “issue du jour.”

The music labels would like to put something in front of lawmakers shortly after Labor Day, in hopes that something could be passed before the end of the current Congress. Whatever the timing, Marty Machowsky, a spokesman for the MusicFirst Coalition, which represents labels and musicians, said that the outline distributed by the broadcasters’ association was an important development.

“There’s really a sense,” he said, “that this has the potential to be a significant breakthrough.”

RELATED ARTICLES: Radio Industry vs. Performance Royalty, Savannah Music Group Denounces Performance Royalties; Calls For Immediate Opt-Out Provision

In an interview by Russell Flannery, The Sparrow Quartet discusses the Folk Music Industry in China.

Reposted from www.Forbes.com. Read more here: Hard Pickin’ Into China’s Growing Music Industry, -Russell Flannery

China is a growing yet difficult market for the music industry. Mandarin Chinese singers from Greater China and Asia resonate best with local crowds, though global stars backed by large music companies such as Sony or Universal can also make money.

Abigail Washburn has a harder row to hoe. The Nashville-based, 30-year-old folk singer and banjo player is much-feted in the U.S., where she has toured with Steve Martin’s bluegrass band and enjoyed successful albums and tours on her own and with “Abigail Washburn and the Sparrow Quartet.” The quartet’s members notably include Washburn’s Grammy Award-winning husband, Bela Fleck. Yet U.S. folk and bluegrass music is a smaller business niche compared with rock and pop. Mandarin Chinese-speaking Washburn has been warmly welcomed in China but says the music industry here “can be frustrating.”

Washburn was back in the country this summer to perform at the Shanghai Expo and in other cities ahead of a new album, “City of Refuge,” due early next year. Forbes talked with Washburn in Shanghai last month about her path to China and the difficulties of breaking into the music industry here.

Q: When did you first come to China, why?

A: In 1996, on a class trip on a Colorado college summer program in Shanghai. I just knew I didn’t want to take French. (Smiles.) I needed a language credit.

I didn’t like it here in ‘96. I was overwhelmed. I couldn’t communicate with anybody, and everybody was trying to sell me crap. It’s not like that anymore. I also felt like all these kids were making friends with me because they were assigned to be friends with me. I went back to the States, and I was thinking to myself, “Screw this China stuff.” I came back, and I’ve loved it.

Q: Did you start singing before you came to China, or after?
A: After, as a result of China. I would have friends here ask me, “What’s so special about America?” And so when I went back to the States (after studying in Shanghai), I started keeping my ears out for things. I was at Colorado College at the time, and I had some friends who liked bluegrass music. A friend put on a LP of “Dr. Watson” playing the banjo. It was primitive. It blew my mind. I bought a banjo, started playing, and, brought it back with me to China. At business meetings, we would go to a karaoke, and I’d bring my banjo and sing. I started translating some American songs into Chinese. Before you know it, I started writing songs and by a miracle, I was offered a record deal.

Q: What year was that?

A: 2003. It was the year I was going to do a master’s in law at Peking University. I thought I was going to be in Beijing as an expat for good. I went on a “visit America” road trip before I left for China. I went to Massachusetts, Vermont, Tennessee and New York City. And I went to West Virginia and learned some fiddle music. I stopped in Louisville, Kentucky for a convention called the “International Bluegrass Music Association Convention.” A record executive came by and said, “You’ve got to make a record.” At that point, I had translated a (lot of) rock songs into Chinese. I just played for them. It was just one of the weirder things they ever had heard.

Q: Now you’re here in China, trying to make a living. How’s the market for American folk singers?
A: It’s just spread out, and interesting. First, it’s really hard to (describe) a typical Chinese crowd. Also, when you talk about the music industry, it can be frustrating. It is in the States now, too. In some ways, it feels like Beijing and Shanghai are ahead of the States, because they’ve actually skipped over CDs and record labels. They just do direct to consumer sales, which is where it needs to go in the U.S.

But (China’s) such a small market (with) so little investment. And of course, in the music scene everywhere (in China), nobody has permits and (yet) everybody does everything. And that’s the point. That’s China. It’s all bustling, and people are making money (in China. But) there just isn’t much money for musicians and people involved. There are different aspects in the music scene, just like in the States. There are folk musicians who act (like) distributors, or play locally. But there is no well defined touring circuit here. It’s sort of guerilla warfare. You sort of go out and just make your way. I am your typical American business which makes more money in America than in China.

Q: Does playing in China help your business or cache in the States?
A: It does add an angle of human interest on why someone would like this doing something like this. It adds to (my) uniqueness in the music industry.

Q: How do China and your frequent visits to China affect your music in the States?
A: I play Chinese music in the States for English-speaking audiences at big festivals. If it’s a music festival (at) some hill in West Virginia, they are will think it’s weird but pretty cool. But then if it’s Joe’s Pub in Central Park in New York, people will embrace it because its progressive, creative artistry and it represents sort of where things are going, or something odd, which is what they like. Just depends where.

Legendary drummer, studio musician, and author, Martin Atkins is traveling with Vans WARPED Tour as a mentor to upcoming artists. In the article bellow are some quotes from Atkins private seminars.

Martin Atkins and Vans WARPED Tour founder Kevin Lyman are a members of our 10th IMA Judging panel.

Reposted from www.WellMakeMusic.com. Read more here: New Music Seminar Recap, Part Two: Some Words of Advice from Martin Atkins, -WAMM

(Literally) The First Thing He Said at the Start of His Presentation
“You’re f*cked! You’re f*cked, you’re f*cked, you’re f*cked, nobody cares, nobody cares, nobody cares, nobody gives a sh*t about you and your band!”

An Example of How to Prepare For Unforeseen Catastrophe
“You have to be prepared for uncontrollable diarrhea on stage. Just take laxatives before rehearsal and laugh through it.”

On the Merits of Releasing as Much Unique Music as Possible
“Record an album, record an EP, record an acoustic EP, record a live album, pretend to go to Germany and record a live EP…”

On Effectively Budgeting Your Time, in the Interest of Developing a Diverse Skill-set
“Be as good as you need to be. If you wanna play sitar, and you live in Oklahoma City, you just need to know how to f*cking hold it.”

The Real Secret to Using Social Media
“It’s like Japanese table manners. Pour everybody else’s drinks. Take care of everybody else. Then somebody will take care of you.”

If you would like to read Atkins book you can purchase it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Tour-Smart-Break-Martin-Atkins/dp/0979731305

Reposted from www.AudioGraphics.com. More at Radio Industry vs. Performance Royalty

I don’t suspect that what follows will have much impact. After reading numerous articles and comments on the Performance Royalty issue at radio industry web sites, I’ve decided there needs to be a clarification on what this fight is about. What’s appearing as reasons for radio not having to pay, what the NAB supposedly placed in front of its board and members, and how this will play out in stations going dark or turning to all talk appears to have nothing to do with the real issue: change in the fundamentals of radio.

Little resembles how radio was done two decades ago, relative to how it is done today. There is a new advertising landscape. There are now multiple ways for artists and record labels to reach the masses. In addition, a lengthy list of laws have appeared within the past decade.

You can take this argument any way you want, as evidenced by what’s being written and said. Only, don’t take it back to the statement that the record labels have had a cozy relationship with radio for a long time and that shouldn’t change. Why not? Everything else has.

Radio Business Report/Television Business Report has the most detailed set of articles concerning this subject.

• More broadcasters weigh in on PRA negotiations
• Record label denounces potential Performance Royalty deal
• NAB Radio Board meeting outlines PRA talks
• Opinions differ on PRA negotiations
• Just say No to PRA negotiations

Read and heed them all. They show how a situation is going from bad to worse. All that’s displayed, however, are emotions and demands that won’t figure into the final equation.

Let’s not go over why, or for how long, PRA has been knocking on radio’s door. Those words have been spoken here many times – and they are the reason I don’t believe these words will have much impact, either.

Let’s look instead at the NAB’s proposed negotiative points: whether radio still holds “promotional” appeal for records, if the radio industry is prepared to pay onerous rates already being paid by other music-based businesses, and whether emotions hold value when discussing Performance Royalty rates.

Start with the last point because it’s a quick answer. No! Nobody on that Copyright Royalty Board cares about what you feel. They never have and won’t in this third stage of bringing parity. (Internet radio took the first hit, with satellite and cable owing up when PRA was pressed for their industries.) The charge today is to bring an equitable payment of use for music when that music is used to make money.

I’ve been involved with PRA since its inception, and I have learned this is not personal. It is, though, business. And there’s much support for seeing the musicians, with artists, compensated each time their work is used to support a business model. So, strike any comments about promotional value. They don’t matter. Radio is just one spoke of many in a music distribution system that is completely changed. (There’s that word again.)

One article at RBR/TVBR is about someone filing a lawsuit because they believe SoundExchange is a monopoly; this person also feels that he should have the right – the RIGHT – to operate his radio station after investing whatever amount of time and money is claimed. The laws don’t support this argument, and it’s been shot down multiple times – before the radio industry decided that PRA was close enough to affect it, back when it was hoping PRA would shutter many aspiring internet radio stations. Another point in this person’s lawsuit argues against recordkeeping: “I ask the court to relieve me of having to list each song, artist and title when they play as it cannot be done technically with my automation system.” My automation system? I’m wondering if this fellow still has a dial telephone in his home. If your automation system is out-of-date, get another.

There are proposed NAB demands “on the table” in another of the articles (listed above). A few demands are within reason. However, most are items of lunacy, far removed from the discussion, and cannot be tied to a settlement with musicFirst (or anyone on the other side).

Let’s, again, move to the easiest to answer. “Inclusion of radio chips on all mobile phones.” Will someone in an executive suite in the radio industry please explain how the payment of royalty issue comes close to the politics for getting a radio chip in a mobile phone? Better yet, will anyone explain why the carriers – those folks who control the cell phone industry – would volunteer to include an ability to listen to a terrestrial signal when they all see a basket of money by providing a music source that originates with them? Those persons in radio who believe that this point will ever see a moment of discussion are living a fantasy, following in the footsteps of Gary Fries who, time-and-time again, kept the radio industry salavating with all those promises of moving into the future. Words were all they were. Actions never followed the claims made by Fries when he led RAB. Now you can add the radio chip in exchange for paying royalties as another of those word groups with no bite.

Another NAB topic concerns PRA payment negating “AFTRA issues.” Here are two disjointed items that cannot be connected. Has anyone discussed this concept with AFTRA?

The points that NAB talks of – a tiered payment plan and across-the-board reduction in online streaming payments – are very much in play. They probably have been in the music industry’s plan since the inception of talks with broadcasters. But, a “permanent removal of CRB jurisdiction for terrestrial and [its] streaming” is not something that can be waived by the record labels, musicFirst, or SoundExchange. Doing so would bring the wrath of cable, satellite and internet radio players, all groups that have grown much stronger since PRA was introduced.

I’m wondering how executives in the typewriter industry responded when they saw the world changing. No, there’s no need to wonder. We all know how those companies fared. Same can be said for the film and developing industries. All failed to change, and all are a memory.

So here’s the clarification that must be accepted by NAB and its members – the radio industry failed to change at the risk of losing its power. It ignored the oncoming train, which is only a few feet away now, and there’s no board member or argument that justifies why radio should be excluded from making the same payments that other music-based businesses are forced to make. (Please, don’t refer to making “stars” out of artists. That’s something “American Idol” and iTunes seem to be doing better than radio today.)

If you’re a station owner, or group head, there were warnings that you needed to prepare for what lies ahead. Nobody took them seriously enough to motivate change in the radio business model, leaving this industry under a big question mark. (Don’t let the article at RBR/TVBR about a record label denouncing Performance Royalties represent a beacon of hope. There are dozens – if not hundreds – of labels leaning the other way.)

I don’t like it that any business should have to pay a performance royalty when that business is providing exposure. Besides, as has been stated before, why should an unknown act that’s breaking into the music scene be paid the same amount as an established artist and group? That’s just the way the ball bounced as Performance Royalties were being forced on others, when NAB and RAB were sitting quietly on the sidelines.

Unfortunately the radio industry didn’t see fit to get into the game until its final inning.

There is no winning now, only decisions on how to soften the impact of this “change.”

PS: Imagine what will happen to the radio industry if all those stations that claim they will swing to talk, do. That change will be far more devastating than what is offered through PRA.

Related article: http://www.independentmusicawards.com/ima/savannahmusic/

The RIAA is utilizing “Googlezon’s” net neutrality proposal to target illegal downloading.

Reposted from www.ZeroPaid.com. Read more here: RIAA Uses Net Neutrality to Lump Together Fight Against P2P, Child Porn

Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) hopes that Google and Verizon’s recently announced “joint policy proposal for an open Internet” will mean that ISPs will be “permitted” and “encouraged” to fight illegal network activity “whether copyright infringement, child pornography or other illegal conduct.”
Copyright holders have a long and sordid history of trying to equate P2P with child porn, and again we see this manifested in recent comments made by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) about Google and Verizon’s announcement about a “joint policy proposal for an open Internet.”
Earlier this week Google and Verizon proposed a new new legislative framework for Net neutrality guided by two main goals:
Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.
America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.
The RIAA, which after ending the practice of suing individual file-sharers back in 2008 in favor of ISP-level cooperation, has been waiting impatiently for the opportunity to somehow convince ISPs that it’s in their best interest to fight copyright infringement on their networks.
Unlucky for it ISPs, at least for now, haven’t been much interested in targeting erstwhile loyal, paying customers unless their illegal file-sharing activity has an adverse effect on an ISP’s network in terms of data or bandwidth usage.
So the RIAA sees the Net neutrality debate as important opportunity to try and convince them otherwise.
Google and Verizon’s proposal says that “wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.”
In response, the RIAA says that it is pleased that they “recognize that lawful and unlawful content should be treated differently,” but goes on to give only two examples of unlawful activity: copyright infringement and child pornography. Not to downplay the latter, but it’s funny that of all the unlawful online activity to choose from like fraud, identity theft, spam, harassment, etc. it chooses child porn. It’s no accident.
The RIAA’s international cousin the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry’s (IFPI) has been trying to equate P2P with child porn for years. As far back as 2007 the IFPI has said that “technology similar to that used to block access to child pornography could be used to block access to websites that facilitate infringing file-sharing of copyrighted music.”
Earlier this year the IFPI took that sentiment to the next level, going so far as to exclaim that “child pornography is great…because politicians understand child pornography.”
“By playing that card,” IFPI lawyer Johan Schlüter told an audience gathered at an anti-P2P conference in Sweden, “we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file-sharing sites.”
So it’s not by coincidence that the RIAA mentions P2P and child porn in the same breath. The IFPI’s right. Child porn is something that politicians understand, and the RIAA apparently sees this as important tactic to use as well.
The RIAA mentions that it hopes to take part in the legislative and regulatory process of fleshing out a Net neutrality solution. Lets only hope that groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have a seat at the table and have a chance to reiterate the differences between the two.
The harm caused by child porn is very real, but the the harm caused by P2P is illusory at best. With the music industry’s profits, at least in the UK, having risen for the last 2 years in a row it’s hard to imagine why the RIAA would even compare the two acts. That is, unless, it’s “playing that card.”

70th District California State Assembly Member, Chuck DeVore was sued

for copyright infringement of 2 songs used during his Senate campaign.

Reposted from www.Mi2N.com. Read More here: Don Henley Settles Damages Claims And Gets Apology Following Court Ruling That Politician Infringed Songs

After winning a federal court ruling that the use of their copyrighted songs in campaign ads was infringing, musicians Don Henley, Mike Campbell and Danny Kortchmar have agreed to settle their damages claims against California politician Chuck DeVore and campaign worker Justin Hart for an undisclosed amount.

The lawsuit was filed after DeVore and Hart made videos using the Henley hit songs The Boys of Summer, written by Henley and Campbell, and All She Wants To Do Is Dance, written by Kortchmar, to promote DeVore’s recent attempt to run for the U.S. Senate.

1984 Cover of “The Boys of Summer” single written by Don Henley and Mike Campell

DeVore and Hart posted the campaign ads on YouTube and other sites. Rejecting the defendants’ claim that the videos were fair use “parodies,” the court found that the defendants’ use of the songs violated the plaintiffs’ copyrights.

DeVore and Hart issued the following statement: “We apologize for using the musical works of Don Henley, Mike Campbell and Danny Kortchmar without respect for their rights under copyright law. The court’s ruling in this case confirms that political candidates, regardless of affiliation, should seek appropriate license authority before they use copyrighted works.

“Further, we regret all inaccurate, derogatory or disparaging remarks made about Mr. Henley during the course of this dispute.”

Cover of the 1985 single “All She Want To Do Is Dance” written by Danny Kortchmar

Don Henley commented, “My colleagues and I brought this lawsuit to protect our music from being taken and used, without permission, to promote someone else’s agenda. It was not a question of political ideology, but the right of artists to control the use of the works they create, and protect their livelihoods.”

Congress plans to mandate royalty payments to artists for radio airplay, Savanna Music Group objects.  Savanna is a voice among many indie music groups that believe mandated royalty payments will encourage radio stations to only give air time to major acts, that provide a guaranteed listen.

This situation creates a disadvantage for the indie artist, because radio will no longer offer a free publicity outlet for new and upcoming music.  Savanna Music Group suggests an “opt-out” (of mandatory royalty payments) program so independent artists can continue to rely on radio as an accessible promotional outlet.

Reposted from www.Mi2N.com. Read More here: Savannah Music Group Denounces Performance Royalties; Calls For Immediate Opt-Out Provision

Officials at Savannah Music Group (SMG) and its subsidiary Savannah Records called for Congress to add an opt-out clause to allow radio stations to play the music of new and independent labels for free, while leaving intact writers’ and publishers’ royalties. Apparently pressured by the threat that Congress will enact a system whereby radio stations pay record companies and artists for airplay, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) today passed an emergency measure recommending that radio accept performance royalties. Historically, radio stations have not been obligated to pay record companies or artists because of the promotional value of airplay.

“This recapitulation is a disaster not only for radio, but for independent artists, independent record labels and songwriters as well,” says Jeff Cohen, Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of Savannah Music Group, an independent publishing and record company formed in 2008.

“I understand the politics of the NAB wanting to get ahead of a Congressional steamroller,” says Dave Gibson, president and creative head of Savannah, “but there is no sense in flattening all the independents and creative shops in the process.”

In public hearings, the radio industry has testified that a performance royalty will result in fewer stations playing music, and airplay being concentrated on already established artists. While this may benefit the major multi-national record companies, it will make it more difficult for new music and new artists to get the radio exposure they need to be successful, and therefore disadvantage small companies like Savannah and its artists.

“We are grateful for the support that radio has given Savannah’s music and artists,” says Laurie Spoon, vice president of Savannah Records. “Should a performance royalty be mandated by Congress, artists and labels must have the opportunity to opt out. If not, the major record labels win, and the songwriters and artists lose.”

The first court ordered financial debt payment paid by music pirates to the music industry for illegal CD sales.

Reposted from www.Mi2N.com. More at Music Pirates Ordered To Pay £170,000 To Record Companies

A pirate music dealer was ordered to hand over £100,000 in payment to the record companies she ripped off by running an organised crime gang and illegal trading empire.

Farrah Nissa had coordinated an operation that clandestinely imported an estimated 1.2 million counterfeit CDs from the Czech Republic and sold them in the UK. Today’s order was made by Judge Bing at Snaresbrook Crown Court in recognition that the pirate music distributor had caused significant loss to the music industry. He ordered that the money that had been confiscated from her under the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 be diverted to pay compensation to the music industry.

The money will be collected by the BPI, which represents the recording industry in the UK, on behalf of PPL, the music licensing company that collects performance rights revenues for record companies in the UK, who will then compensate their members.

Nissa had been convicted, along with three co-defendants, of conspiracy to infringe copyright law in March 2008 and served a substantial prison sentence. Another of those found guilty, Wasim Mir, was ordered to hand over £70,000 back in December 2009 for his role in the illegal operation.

The music pirates sold unlicensed urban music compilations through shops and market stalls across London and southern England. One of these compilations, In The Club, ran for more than 15 editions. Nissa’s company, SFH, was one of the largest independent brokers in the UK.

This is the first case in which music pirates have been required to pay record companies compensation for the damage they have caused. This recovery policy was formulated by IFPI, which represents the recording industry worldwide, and implemented in partnership with BPI and the police’s London Regional Assets Recovery Team (RART) who identified the profits that had been made from this criminal enterprise.

The original criminal case followed a joint investigation by IFPI and BPI, coordinating the international and UK lines of enquiry. BPI conducted a test purchase of a CD that was dispatched to IFPI’s forensic facility. Using cutting edge technology, investigators pinpointed the source of the discs as a manufacturing plant in the Czech Republic. The operators of the plant assisted the industry investigators in identifying the four illegal traders based in the UK. The industry team was then able to take its evidence to the Metropolitan Police for further investigation.

Jeremy Banks, director, anti-piracy, IFPI, says: “Today’s ruling shows that when it comes to music piracy crime really does not pay. We have always pursued a strategy of disrupting the manufacture and supply of counterfeit CDs, now in the UK we are able to take the profit out of the process as well. I would like to thank the Metropolitan Police Service for their thorough investigation of this aspect of the case and the Fraud Prosecution Service for recognizing that music piracy is not a victimless crime.”

David Wood, BPI director of anti-piracy, says: “This was a complex and lengthy enquiry into an organized criminal gang who had tried to hide behind a shield of respectability. I would like to acknowledge the professionalism and dedication of all those who took part in this successful prosecution. The decision to strip the gang of the illegal gain accumulated demonstrates the seriousness of the crime committed.”

The definition of being “Indie” has changed over the years to the point where indie has become an umbrella term.  Digital Music News questions the meaning of the word.

Reposted from www.DigitalMusicNews.com. More at So, Does “Indie” Really Mean Anything Anymore?

“Indie cred” used to stand for something.  It meant selling 7-inches at local record stores, not paying radio stations for spins, and not watering things down for mainstream acceptance.  But these days, everyone has direct access to the fan, major labels are weaker than ever, and traditional endpoints like terrestrial radio are losing influence.

Meanwhile, the worlds of indie and major seem increasingly blurred.  So-called indie bands are often upstreamed into the major label world (for example, Interpol onto Capitol), and so-called “indie distributors” like RED are often owned by majors (in this case, Sony Music Entertainment).

So, what does “indie” really mean anymore?  And, is it dead?  That was the smart question asked by Paste writer Nick Purdy, who chatted with A2IM chief Rich Bengloff on the matter.  Bengloff pointed to continued access issues involving traditional brick-n-mortar retailers and radio stations, offering a reminder that old-school formats still wield considerable influence.  But Bengloff is stumping for many of the same issues as the RIAA, including anti-piracy objectives (A2IM supports ‘graduated response’); demands for recording royalties from terrestrial radio plays, and even DMCA-related concerns (A2IM is working to appeal the outcome of Veoh v. UMG).

So what is the difference then?  In the digital sphere, Bengloff also pointed to issues getting exposure on platforms like the iTunes Store.  But anyone can upload and chart on iTunes these days, and an artist website is a dedicated showcase and retailer unto itself.  In that light, is the term “indie” just another relic of a not-too-distant past?  It’s a question worth asking…

Cartoon reposted from: http://usawcartoons.blogspot.com/