by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Music, Piracy, Tech
Study says SEO lapses by legit distributors are to blame for high ranking of pirate sites by search engines
What are we to make of the recently released study by the CCIA (a Washington D.C. tech industry lobbying group whose membership includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo) that claims that search is not a popular path to discover pirated content online? The study asserts, “that search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.” Apparently the real reason it’s easy to find links to illegal content online is not the fault of search engines, but simply poor SEO techniques by legit content distributors.
This so-called “research paper” titled “The Search Fixation: Infringement, Search Results, and Online Content” was written by Matt Schruers, an adjunct law professor and CCIA’s VP for Law and Policy. Freudian notions aside, headlines the paper generated were predictable. With the exception of Torrent Freak, every tech-oriented blog seems to have fallen in line echoing the idea that poor, maligned search engines play only a minor role in helping folks find free stuff online.
In this tit for tat spin war, this paper was designed as a direct response to a recent RIAA study that criticized Google for not being proactive in demoting pirate search results despite promises to the contrary. According to the study:
The contention that disappearing undesirable entries from search results would substantially prevent piracy is flawed however. The solutions to online infringement have little to do with search. Infringing sites receive limited traffic from search. In the context of music, the available evidence suggest that the frequency with which users input queries like “download,” “mp3,” or “torrent” is relatively low…
…Concerns about organic search results containing terms such as “mp3” or “download” are misplaced, however. Actual search data indicates that appending “mp3” or “download” as the RIAA paper suggests is statistically uncommon. Users far more frequently search for “[artist]” or “[artist]””[track]”…Google Trends data indicate that only a small fraction of searches for the artist’s name and track name also included the words “mp3” or “download.”
As evidence for his conclusions he makes the point (using a fancy Google trends chart) by using the (very wealthy) recording artist Rihanna to bolster his argument.
Sure looks convincing right? Well, the thing is, this chart doesn’t really say much of anything besides the fact that folks searched for “Rihanna” a lot when she had a new song released and searched for “Rihanna” a lot more than “Rihanna diamonds mp3.” So what? No one suggested that searching for information about an artist was equivalent to searching for free downloads. The RIAA’s research never made that point.
By combining the multiple search terms into one search on using Google trends, Schruers gives us a graph that looks to mirror his claim. The problem is–what is he actually comparing? Examining “search interest” (which is what Google trends allows you to do) and making the leap that piracy isn’t a problem because more people happened to search using the term “Rihanna” rather than for a (free) mp3 of her popular song? Come again?
It’s not hard to assume that lots of folks search for Rihanna because they want to find out more about her, not just because they’re seeking free downloads to her song. It’s no surprise that Rihanna searches outnumber those for mp3 downloads. It’s really a case of apples and oranges.
More useful might be putting in various search terms one by one as I did. Note searched for “rihanna diamonds download” the related terms (circled in red) included “mp3 rihanna diamonds” and “diamonds mp3 download.”
(Note: I actually included the search box in my screen grab example for clarity’s sake):
What about the terms “rihanna diamonds free.”
Looking at these results one can postulate upon the release of “Diamonds” interest in searching for illegal download options spiked. Below is the Google trends chart for the search term “Rihanna” and an inset for 2012 results. Clearly over that period searches for Rihanna fluctuate for various reasons–whether it is a new album release or altercation with Chris Brown.
What about trends in searching for watching free movies online now that Netflix and other streaming services are available? The chart below indicates the point at which Netflix launched its streaming service in early 2007. It’s worth noting that its launch coincides with an increased trend in search for “free” movies online. Does this mean Netflix streaming influenced piracy? No, what’s likely is that the upward trend partly reflects the emergence of technology that enables efficient streaming (and direct downloads) of high-quality movies online–pirated or otherwise.
While search is not the cause of this trend BUT there’s no denying it makes finding free content online (pirated content) easier. If one limits search to the United States, the trend line seems to have been more consistent, probably due to the fact users here have had better access to the internet than many other parts of the developing world.
One other point worth noting is that searches for the word “torrent” have diminished, after a peak in 2010 the trend-line has moved steadily downward.
Here’s an animated look at this over time. While it’s good news that interest in torrents appears to be waning, I imagine it’s because there’s now a myriad of easier ways to watch pirated films online. Why bother with torrents when with one click you can watch or download a movie? Here’s an animated view of search trends for the term “torrent” since 2004.
So while search trends may change over time–whether working on a term paper or looking up cancer treatments, online search is usually the starting point–what’s wrong with pressuring Google et al to be more proactive in removing results linking to illegal music, movies or counterfeit goods? In his report Schruers argues for an alternative:
The inclusion of NARM-recommended text (“don’t torrent; buy [here] instead”) on the artist’s site would remedy this. Linking users to other lawful music services in addition to iTunes could be another way to contribute toward improving those services’ page rank. Similarly, Universal Music points to Rihanna’s official website, Twitter account, and Facebook page, but points to no commercial websites from which the artist’s music is available. Addressing this would also contribute toward improved page rank.
In a further effort to let search engines off the hook Schruers concludes his report with this:
While DMCA notices and DMCA compliance programs are one component promoting a robust digital marketplace, efforts to disappear search results are unlikely to mitigate online infringement, in large part due to the irrelevance of general-purpose search engines in the average infringer’s toolbox. A more robust strategy would entail licensors and their licensees focusing on strategic search engine optimization–including but not limited to ‘objectionable’ terms–so as to promote the page rank of lawful sites and increase the visibility of legitimate online content offerings.
So, if I’m to understand him, the real solution to this problem would be for all of use content creators–filmmakers, musicians, etc.–to employ better SEO keyword methodology, i.e. co-opt popular pirate search terms like “free mp3” or “watch movies online free” so that legit search results will trump those of the pirate sites. Well duh…we did just that long ago on the website for our film “And Then Came Lola.” Included among our SEO keywords are:
free, movie, lola movie, and then came lola, online, buy, watch, telecharger, portugués (brasileño) subtítulos,subtítulos en español,sottotitoli in italiano, lesbian, download, movie, film, romantic comedy, fast girl films, streaming,video on demand, vod, DVD, iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, subtitles, مشاهدة فيلم مثليه,劳拉现身 , lezbiyen filmi, watch online, watch, free, putlocker, السينما للجميع
Doing so is a no brainer and-Rihanna aside–most indie filmmakers and musicians I know do just that AND also provide multiple links to legit content for their work….but despite such efforts, pirate sites can still dominate searches for “free” (illegal) content. Maybe we should just hire better web masters and SEO experts? For the record our film website’s home page includes both a list of worldwide links for purchase/watch the film, an iTunes app and embedded links in the text that include links to subtitles versions.
I took a look at various “objectionable” search terms via the Alexa website (note that it’s a subsidiary of Amazon) that provides data on web traffic and here’s what I discovered. Search for “watch free movies online” and you find this page.
Out of the first 9 results, only 2 appear to be legit sites (highlighted in yellow) are Crackle. and Hulu. The first result is for a site called “TubePlus” (pirate sites highlighted in green) which according to this story on itproportal.com is a “YouTube for pirates.”
Controversial file-sharing service Pirate Bay is openly supporting TubePlus, a revolutionary new hybrid video-sharing site that brings together content from BitTorrent sites, along with cyberlockers such as Megaupload and Hotfile, as well as P2P service eMule.
The newly launched site marks a big step into the mainstream for the traditionally geeky business of file-sharing.
Rather than finding and downloading files, users of TubePlus simply search for their favourite movies and TV programmes – and stream them directly into their browser using an interface that’s more than a little reminiscent of popular video-sharing site YouTube. There are even links to IMDb reviews of films and shows.
Another site (ranked at 945) is 1channel.ch, another notorious pirate website. Go there and you’ll find they’ve changed their name (yet again). At any rate, bottom line is that finding pirate sites is made possible in large part via web search.
Here’s another example using the search term “mp3” which demonstrates that pirate sites abound.
Also, for the record, using Rihanna’s approach to web promotion is not necessarily the best example as most people are well aware of who she is and where to find her music should they want to purchase it. Those who are that are really hurt by piracy are not the big stars with big bank accounts.
That brings us back full circle to the claim that “CCIA’s research paper indicates that search engines are not a major tool in the infringer’s toolbox.”
Sorry, but I read the entire paper and found no evidence to support this. Sure, lots of downloaders bypass search because they are experienced downloaders and know how to go to Pirate Bay or Filestube to find what they’re looking for, but where did they get their start? Perhaps it’s better to think of search engines like Google as a “gateway” to finding pirated content online.
Google search leads to illegal downloads, counterfeit products, illegal pharmacies and more. Clearly the search giant can de-list sites engaged in unlawful behavior (like child pornography) but rather than do so in this case, its proxy (the CIAA) gins up headlines to muddy the waters, deflect and obfuscate the real issues at play.
If Google were a brick and mortar mall featuring stores selling bootleg DVDs authorities would step in a force them to shut down the illegal enterprises, but when it comes to the online world the “tech” industry’s constant refrain is that the need to “innovate” trumps the need to do what’s right. Yet this debate isn’t really about protecting innovation, that’s simply tech-speak for protecting the industry’s bottom line (at the expense of those other innovators, content creators).
Last month I read another article by the same Matt Schruers titled “The Thing We Don’t Talk About in Piracy Estimates.” In it he noted, “some degree of infringement is not wealth destruction but rather wealth redistribution.” He went on to clarify:
Clearly, intellectual property is important to our economy — as is open competition, and the free exchange of ideas. These three forces are each valuable tools in the “innovation toolbox”, and allowing any one of them to be undermined – including intellectual property – may impair innovation, along with other important social goals. But as long as the empirical evidence around the policy conversation is so impoverished, we won’t be making well-informed decisions.
Schruer’s fondness for the term “toolbox” aside, I think he may want to take a look at his own use of “empirical evidence” to advance, or rather inhibit, meaningful conversations around web search and online piracy. This “free exchange of ideas” does not necessitate the “free” exchange of pirated content.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy, Politics, TV
David Kaplan, head of Warner Brother’s anti-piracy unit made news this week in Los Angeles at the 4th Anti-Piracy and Content Protection Summit. According to a Q & A with Kaplan posted on the event’s website, he characterized the studio’s approach to IP enforcement this way:
Generally speaking, we view piracy as a proxy of consumer demand. Accordingly, enforcement related efforts are balanced with looking at ways to adjust or develop business models to take advantage of that demand by offering fans what they are looking for when they are looking for it.
Of course this makes sense. Piracy apologists often attempt to rationalize the dubious notion that consumers are entitled to have everything available–anytime, anywhere– by charging that obsolete distribution models are a sign that distributors are ignoring audience demand.
However, it’s not as simple as it may seem. The reality is that it takes time to build new business methods–and meanwhile, in the thriving universe of digital theft–as is true with most black markets–the pirate’s model has never been constrained by such “trivial” issues as contracts, licensing, budgets, or the law.
In an ideal world filmmakers would be able to release their films to worldwide audience simultaneously. With models like day and date release finding success, it’s likely such an approach will someday become the norm.
But…even when that day does arrive, the other elephant in the room remains-Will consumers be willing to pay instead of going to pirate sites that offer fast and free options with the click of a mouse? Finding efficient ways to meet audience immediate demand only solves one piece of the piracy puzzle. The other is how to thwart the black market entrepreneurs who compete directly with legit distributors? Remember–profit comes easy when a business has little, to no overhead costs associated with the content it offers.
Kaplan sees this issue as a “top priority.”
I think our top priority would be to remove the financial incentives from
those who would profit by building businesses based on the unauthorized exploitation
of our intellectual property. A close second would be educating consumer about the
importance of IP protection and the availability of legitimate alternatives to piracy.
I’ve said it before –if the financial incentives to run pirate websites disappear, and popular content made readily available through legit channels, piracy’s impact will diminish. The problem remains–how do we get there? At a time where content creators are adapting to online distribution, ad providers, search engines, web hosts, and payment processors continue to drag their feet when it comes to making real inroads against infrastructure and incentives that underpin digital piracy.
n the White House’s just released “2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement” the word “voluntary” appears 36 times including this statement:
The U.S. Government is pursuing an innovative and multi-pronged strategy to combat infringing foreign based and foreign-controlled websites by encouraging cooperation by law enforcement, development
of voluntary best practices, and international leadership…
The White House document also offers this carefully worded prescription as one path forward combatting IP theft online:
22. Facilitate Voluntary Initiatives to Reduce Online Intellectual Property Infringement and Illegal Internet Pharmacies
As an Administration, we have adopted the approach of encouraging the private sector to develop and implement cooperative voluntary initiatives to reduce infringement that are practical and effective. It is critical that such efforts be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws and with the Administration’s broader Internet policy principles emphasizing privacy, free speech, competition, and due process. Together with law enforcement efforts, private sector voluntary actions can dramatically reduce online infringement and change the enforcement paradigm. We encourage all participants to continue to work with all interested stakeholders, including consumer advocacy groups, to ensure that voluntary initiatives are as effective and transparent as possible.
It’s great to think that we can all reach a consensus to combat the scourge of piracy through “cooperation.” However, the fact is there’s still a very long way to go. Until ad providers, advertisers and companies like Facebook and Google, whose tentacles reach far and wide throughout piracy’s infrastructure, get serious about cleaning up the act all this talk about “voluntary” initiatives is just talk.
The fact is, when it comes to profiting from online piracy, money speaks louder than words. It may just take a bit more “law enforcement” to make those responsible pay attention and take meaningful action to clean up their acts.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Music, Piracy
Yesterday Brad Buckles, Executive Vice President of the RIAA’s Anti-Piracy unit, wrote that “it’s time to rethink the notice and takedown provisions of the DMCA.” In a piece posted on the RIAA’s blog, he went on to outline the various ways that the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) isn’t working. Up to this point we’ve heard a lot of discussion, mostly from copyright skeptics, about how the DMCA hurts innovation and thus tangentially, consumers. Little notice has been paid as to how the law (passed in 1998) has failed musicians, filmmakers, authors, journalists and others who create content–content now largely distributed via the digital realm.
Clearly the law is due for an overhaul, update, revision…. use whatever term you’d like. The bottom line is that the DMCA does little to help us (creators) safeguard our work, and by extension, our livelihoods.
Much is made (up) about supposed abuse of the DMCA takedown procedure by evil movie studios and record companies. It’s an issue that’s been overblown and is, frankly, one that pales in comparison to the daily barrage of pirated or plagiarized copies of their work that creators discover online each day. As I wrote in an earlier post on this blog:
Piracy apologists like to focus on erroneous takedowns and highlight stories whereby a 9 year-old in Finland had her computer confiscated, or a grandmother in Colorado had her ISP account wrongfully suspended. Certainly mistakes happen, and when they do it’s unfortunate, but they are few and far between when compared with the cumulative harm being done to those whose livelihoods are damaged by rampant online theft. For every search result removed in error there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, removed for valid reasons. Sensationalistic anecdotes make for splashy headlines and provide convenient red herrings for those who defend the piracy status quo–big bad Hollywood versus the grandmothers of the world–but meanwhile the genuine stories documenting piracy’s ruin are routinely minimized or ignored.
Also lost in this debate is the fact that if one takes the time to read the DMCA, it’s easy to see that the law actually favors the reported party, not the other way around. If a site has been removed in error, the owner can use the Google website to file a counter-claim with a click of a mouse. That immediately puts the onus on the party that filed the original DMCA request to go to court and prove the legitimacy of their claim. If that next step isn’t taken, the takedown becomes moot. Filing a court case is a costly endeavor so it’s unlikely that those whose file false DMCA claims, whether in error or purposely, would bother to spend money to enforce a bogus DMCA. Conversely, those content creators who don’t have deep pockets have little recourse when it comes to enforcing a valid DMCA takedown if the other party, representing an infringing (pirate) website, chooses to file a counter-claim.
In his post Buckles also points that the current system is largely impotent against a tide of online piracy for profit:
…the targets of our notices don’t even pretend to be innovators constructing new and better ways to legally enjoy music – they have simply created business models that allow them to profit from giving someone else’s property away for free. So while 20 million might sound impressive, the problem we face with illegal downloading on the Internet is immeasurably larger. And that is just for music.
We are using a bucket to deal with an ocean of illegal downloading. Under a controversial interpretation by search engines, takedown notices must be directed at specific links to specific sound recordings and do nothing to stop the same files from being reposted as fast as they are removed.
This warped system sustains an environment where (distribution) decisions that should up to the creator are instead made by profiteers too lazy (and cheap) to create their own content to monetize. Spin aside, the fact is that piracy does dilute the market for legitimately distributed content and does negatively impact the a creator’s bottom line. While the economic costs are obvious, a more insidious, but perhaps equally important reality is that this theft is gradually eroding the quality and diversity of creative work contributes to our collective culture. The sad truth is that we won’t realize how much we are missing if it’s never made.
Silicon Valley is thriving and millionaires made daily–but at whose expense? An industry that “innovates” on the back of another’s labor without due compensation is simply exploitative. Can’t we do better than that? Can’t we revise the DMCA so that it will shelter content creators from theft in a manner that is effective and affordable for independent artists and larger entities alike?
The real problem with the DMCA is not so much with the takedown process, but with the “safe harbor” provision the oft-abused language that provides shelter to digital thieves at the expense of rights holders. “Safe Harbor” has enabled the growth of a criminal cancer and it’s a cancer–that as of now–cannot be beaten, only kept (marginally) at bay. As I’ve suggested previously, any update to the law should include a requirement that in order to qualify for the limitations to liability that safe-harbor offers, user-generated content sites must implement reasonable technology to mitigate content theft.
Just as technology has evolved that facilitates the easy, worldwide dissemination of content– fingerprinting technology exists that could automate the takedown process. YouTube has already done so with its Content ID System. In order to qualify for “safe harbor” why can’t the future Kim Dotcom’s of the world do the same?
Digital technology can serve not as our nemesis, but our savior. Let’s craft legislation that leverages these technological capabilities to safeguard our creative work. Of course it will add somewhat to overhead costs, but so what? Why shouldn’t these businesses have to bear capital costs just as creators do when they produce a film, record a song, or write a novel?
Buckles writes “Creators of all types and sizes – and especially the individual creators who try to protect their content on their own, spending their own time and money sending takedown notices instead of making the movies and music to which they’ve devoted their lives — will tell you that the system isn’t working. The balance is off.”
Indeed, the balance is off, and as momentum builds in Washington to address issues of copyright and digital piracy, let’s hope creators voices are heard above the din of hyperbole and political posturing. As Buckle points out, “something isn’t working with this system which was intended to balance the rights of content creators with the rights of companies like Google.” Over these past 15 years the tech industry has thrived in large part because the DMCA is a flawed piece of legislation. Now let’s see if they–along with other interested parties–step up to help fix it keeping everyone’s best interests in mind.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy, Politics, Tech
Derek Khanna first came to public notice in 2012 after writing a lopsided anti-copyright “policy brief” for Republican Study Committee called “Three Myths About Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It.” A day after the document was released it was withdrawn and Khanna lost his job at the end of the 112th Congress. He blamed wealthy donors in the “entertainment industry” for his dismissal and quickly became a martyr for the anti-copyright cause. He ended up at as Yale Law Fellow with the Information Society Project.
Unfortunately, like many of those in the legal field who are working to undermine creator’s rights, Mr. Khanna speaks from a decidedly one-sided perspective in penning a piece for today’s Washington Post that ominously warns that “Hollywood should not decide our copyright laws.” Aside from selecting a splashy but lazy (and inaccurate) headline for his piece, he conveniently ignored the (Tech) elephant in the room when he wrote, ” Last year’s defeat of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) caused industry groups to intensify their lobbying efforts. And they haven’t been subtle about it.” Sure, television and motion picture interests have increased their presence in Washington, but then so has “Big Tech.”
May I remind you that the reality of the anti-SOPA uprising was in large part a result of a deliberate (and well-funded) astro-turf campaign managed by the big guns of tech (Google, et al) to gin up the public. How hard is it to get the internet in a spin when you’re in control of its major gateways? Certainly there was room for open discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act and possible revisions to improve it, but the option for an open debate was quickly overwhelmed by an online avalanche of protest. Never mind that the majority of those who Tweeted or posted condemnations on Facebook hadn’t actually read the bill. For them all that was required was a mendacious meme that SOPA would “break the internet” and do away with “free speech” online.
It’s also worth noting that Mr. Khanna’s current employer (the Yale Law Information Society Project) receives some of its funding from Google–a company not exactly known for its love of present copyright law.
I do agree with one thing Khanna wrote in his post piece:
So in its deliberations, Goodlatte’s committee should ensure that Hollywood isn’t the only voice at the table. Both content creators and innovators desperately want to see copyright reform.
However, after that non-controversial statement it all goes downhill, quickly as Mr. Khanna gives readers a list of examples that, to him, demonstrate why copyright law is bad for creators and industry innovators alike. Why’s that a problem? Well, it’s a problem because, as is often the case with the copy-left, he doesn’t see fit to talk to tell the full story as to how crucial copyright protection is for those whose livelihoods depend on content creation. Khanna lists Hank Shocklee of Public Enemy, as an example of an artist constrained by current copyright law, but fails to mention that while Shocklee is a musician, he’s known for work often derived from sampling the work of others. His situation is not exactly representative of all artists, musical or otherwise, who have a stake in this debate.
Why not talk to some 45% of professional musicians who are no longer working in large part because our current copyright law is flouted by today’s digital pirate profiteers? Why not make mention of the independent filmmakers whose innovations are routinely stolen and monetized by bootleggers and online thieves?
Mr. Khanna also drones on in typical fashion about the DMCA. Yes, it’s an outdated law, but not for the reason he states. It’s outdated because it’s unworkable for creators, small and large, because its “safe harbor” provisions make protecting one’s content from pirate profiteers nearly impossible. He closes his piece by saying:
We can craft a system of copyright that compensates rights holders and incentivizes innovation for start-ups and new artists. It is not an either or proposition. But we’ll only get a balanced copyright system if Congress hears from a broad range of voices. It can’t just be special interests controlling the debate, writing the amendments in backrooms, and writing big checks to members of Congress.
True enough, BUT please remember that artists ARE innovators and that the tech industry represents a big “special interest.” Next time hearings are held in Washington let’s hope that a diversity of creator’s voices is heard rather than a panel of legal theorists–and if he writes about copyright reform again, perhaps Mr. Khanna would be wise take the same “balanced” approach he’s suggesting for members of Congress.
by Ellen Seidler | Music, Piracy
I want my favorite musicians making music, not raising funds so that they can
Today I received an email from one of my favorite indie bands, Saucy Monky, announcing Part 2 of their Trophy Girl EP series and asking for support to raise funds for the effort via their fundraising page at the crowd-source funding site GoFundMe.com. Their pitch is straightforward, describing the project and the perks/rewards for each donation level. These days I’m sure there are dozens of indie musicians launching similar crowd-funding campaigns every day, but what really struck me about their email was this:
Here are a few things you may or may not know about today’s music business. The convenience of Spotify and Pandora are incredible. We personally LOVE these sites. However, for our entire catalogue, which everyone can listen to for free – anytime, we get paid a few cents a month. Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face” garnered one million plays on Spotify and earned just $167!
Thankfully, people still buy digital downloads on iTunes, but this new movement isn’t the best news for self-financed acts. We used to sell tons of hard copy CD’s on CDBaby.com. Now, no-one buys CD’s online anymore. Only at shows. And that leads to touring costs… bla bla bla. You get the picture.
What we would love to do in return for any contribution, is give something back to you. We’d like to give you something for every penny we earn. All of the exclusives are listed on this site and also on our website
When I asked Annmarie for clarification on the comment “We personally LOVE these sites” [Spotify and Pandora] she explained:
I love them as a music lover (being able to listen to anything i want), I hate them as a musician coz i can’t make a dime!
Forgive me, but while crowd-source campaigns have their place, can’t we as fans (and consumers) hope for a system that provides musicians (and other creators) with the means to make a decent living from their work rather than have to resort to constant fundraising efforts in order to sustain it? I don’t need Saucy Monky to “give something back” to me….they’ve given me, and continue to give me, their music (which I’m happy to pay for). They, and all the other musicians out there, shouldn’t have to do cartwheels and promise me things every time they want to produce a new album. Their music is the only goody I want.
Somewhere along the way our system got so broken that the true value of the creations we enjoy got lost amid a squabble over whether it was valuable. Of course it’s valuable–and it’s valuable in ways that go far beyond dollars and cents. Unfortunately it’s not free–in terms of those same dollars and cents–to actually create most things we value.
Allow me to reference a fundamental concept I learned in my high school economics class–and that is that everything has cost associated with it–even our time. As such, is it too much for musicians to ask that their time be compensated in some fashion, or should we demand that creating quality music be an all-volunteer endeavor? Some seem to feel the latter option is A-OK, but I doubt those same individuals would be happy not being paid for the work that they do. Note that even a if one’s art is truly a “labor of love” it’s a love that does involve labor.
This discussion shouldn’t be framed as artist versus consumer. Doesn’t everyone share a common interest in providing a sustainable and robust eco-system that can support musicians and nurture their growth? Such a system could offer a greater diversity in choices as to how, and what, we creative products we enjoy. Why can’t the innovators in tech align with the innovators in music to offer the public and option where both sides profit? Can’t we develop distribution methods that satisfy the consumer and the artist? These aren’t goals that need be mutually exclusive. Step one is valuing the musicians who make the music.
As for Saucy Monky? Well, I’ll be making my donation to help ensure that there will be a Part 2 of Trophy Girl, but I won’t give up on the hope that someday in the near future, the band can just do what they do best–give up their full-time day jobs and their part-time work as fundraisers–and focus on making more music for everyone to enjoy.
Here’s their fundraising message in full:
| Saucy Monky News May 2013 |
 Hi Everyone!As you know, the music business days of huge record deals & publishing advances are long gone. Nowadays, bands & artists survive through the love of their fan base, their friends, and believers in their music, using fundraising sites such as Pledgemusic, Kickstarter and Gofundme.comWe are about to release Part 2 of our Trophy Girl Series, worldwide on June 25th! Once again, we had an amazing opportunity to make a (soon to be released) video for our new single “Do I have Your Attention?” with emerging filmmaker Justin Birquist from In Vitro Films! We need your help in raising funds to cover costs for the filming process, the mastering of the record, and once again, hiring our PR company to help us promote and market these amazing assets (of which we are so proud!).So we are back with more fun fundraising exclusives! Please considering purchasing one of them so we can hire a publicity team to promote our upcoming new release TROPHY GIRL Part 2. Here’s a sample of what we have on offer:1. Karma $5 Donation For An Om Chant In Your Honor2. Saucy Monky will entertain you and your friends in your very own living room! 3. We will send you a lipstick kissed poster!4. We will sing Happy Birthday to your loved one on video.5. Buy an advance download of our EP before it’s released6. Annmarie and Cynthia will be your Tour Guides in LA8. Join Annmarie and Steve for a fun night in Vegas!!9. Saucy Monky will record and produce your song.
10. Get a thank you credit on our Full Length release
Click Here To Go Directly To Our Fundraising Site (and listen to a snippet of “DO I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION?”)
Thanks to you guys and our fundraising campaign last year, we were able to finance an amazing video (“AWKWARD”) and release the first part of our Trophy Girl collection with the help of a few amazing publicists & PR companies. Boy, did it make a HUGE difference. “AWKWARD” now has 27,500 and counting views. This is an incredible achievement for an indie band on the rise. We have had reviews and write-ups in dozens of US publications, internet mags, and music sites abroad. Including the Advocate, NME, Glaad, Autostraddle, HotPress and many more. We even ended up on Playboy radio, and the Kato Kaelin show!
Here are a few things you may or may not know about today’s music business. The convenience of Spotify and Pandora are incredible. We personally LOVE these sites. However, for our entire catalogue, which everyone can listen to for free – anytime, we get paid a few cents a month. Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face” garnered one million plays on Spotify and earned just $167!
Thankfully, people still buy digital downloads on iTunes, but this new movement isn’t the best news for self-financed acts. We used to sell tons of hard copy CD’s on CDBaby.com. Now, no-one buys CD’s online anymore. Only at shows. And that leads to touring costs… bla bla bla. You get the picture.
What we would love to do in return for any contribution, is give something back to you. We’d like to give you something for every penny we earn. All of the exclusives are listed on this site and also on our website
One of our favorite returns and options for contributions are HOUSE CONCERTS. You can get a glimpse of our set & what that might look & sound like here: Saucy Monky Acoustic Living Room Sessions
If you have any ideas on what you’d like from Saucy Monky that aren’t listed (now keep it clean ), please feel free to e-mail us at [email protected] with your idea (this e-mail goes directly to the band). Also, if you plan on booking a house concert, please drop us a note first.
We have increments ranging from $5-$5,000 and every cent goes a long way (as Mother Teresa said, “every drop makes the ocean”). If you buy a reward, we promise we won’t disappoint.
All our love and gratitude for your ongoing support,
xo Annmarie and Cynthia on behalf of Saucy Monky
Our Website
Facebook
Youtube
Twitter |
|
What about the terms “rihanna diamonds free.”
