It’s been called, bluntly, “Internet censorship” by opponents. And now, US legislation that claims to curb piracy faces mounting challenges as that opposition grows, particularly as the White House warns it will block the bills.

Today, even as a flood of delightful new music toys become available, it’s worth pausing to consider why this matters – and, if you vote in the United States, to call your Senators and Representatives (again, if needed).

Many of us who create music believe the dynamic, user-driven nature of the Web is our best chance at a bright future. Free and open Internet communication is part of the fabric of societies around the world, and for music, offers a chance to share what we do, to discover new work, and to build our musical lives. They can be the basis of some of the most vibrant businesses that support musical practice, as well as contributing intangible but invaluable creative, technical, and spiritual input into what we make.

I wanted to collect today some of the best writing on the topic, from people who know this issue far more intimately than I do. Thanks to readers for their tips on this, as well.

Essential Reading

Ars Technica has some extraordinary coverage today. In particular, see:
Even without DNS provisions, SOPA and PIPA remain fatally flawed [Ars Technica] (goes into very detailed specifics of the legal issues)

What does SOPA mean for us foreigners? [Ars Technica] (The answer might surprise you: one of the flaws with SOPA is that the definition of “foreign” doesn’t even make sense. But in short, you don’t have to be in the US to be impacted by this legislation; foreign sites are specifically singled out for action. Do read the whole article; another huge, detailed report.)

How PIPA and SOPA Violate White House Principles Supporting Free Speech and Innovation [Electronic Frontier Foundation]

Google and Facebook and the like have come under attack as big corporations that benefit from Internet use and, some critics argue, from piracy. Why should they be using their deep pockets to talk about this issue? Google’s take today I think responds to that neatly. They have a beautiful infographic of a megaphone that counts all the critics – including law and Constitutional experts and human rights and pro-democracy groups – opposed to this legislation. And while I don’t know that Google always lives up to the “don’t be evil” mantra, I think digging into your deep pockets in this case is perfectly appropriate and defensible.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

The best report-in-a-nutshell comes from The Verge, and lawyer-journalist Nilay Patel:
Why The Verge and Vox Media are opposed to SOPA

In brief:

• Sites that host user-contributed content are threatened by weaker safe harbor rules and high compliance costs.
• Overzealous compliance by search and payment providers could make life miserable for the rest of us.
• Significant flaws in due process and seizure.

Those kinds of problems threaten the whole Internet ecosystem of user-contributed work and threaten democracy and the course of law. (Uh, other than that, no problem here.)

Musicians Take a Stand

The evidence at hand makes it all the more disturbing to see groups of labels, content companies, and so-called artist advocacy groups using our name – the musical community – to claim this legislation is somehow good for us. Unfortunately, the analysis of people working in law and policy outside the content industry tell us otherwise.

At least one artist and regular CDM reader and friend, TRICIL, is blacking out his own artist site. Here’s what he had to say:

You may have heard of America’s ludicrous Stop Online Piracy Act bill that’s being brought forth for legislation.

In concert with Wikipedia, Boing Boing, and a host of other sites, I’ve “blacked out” tricil.net in protest for the next 24 hours.

For my fellow Americans, you can take action by visiting http://tricil.net and clicking the “CENSORED” bar on the top right to email your local congressman and spread the word. This will also “uncensor” my site, but you can put the bars back and take a screenshot if you’d like.

If the bill passes, sites like Vimeo, YouTube, SoundCloud, and my own are all at risk. I’ve taken my material off of those sites for the next 24 hours to show what effect this legislation could have on independent artists.

Read more at americancensorship.org

Thank you for taking a stand with me,

TRICIL

Watch the Reasons Why It’s Bad

Clay Shirky has a great video out for TED:

CDM Under These Rules

I won’t be blocking out CDM today, as instead, I’d like to continue the conversation. But what could happen to a site like this one?

• We could be targeted by a unfair compliance issue because of a complaint about content on this site – without fair protections and due process to allow us to respond.
• We could see sites we rely on – from SoundCloud to Vimeo to YouTube – face restrictive rules and compliance that would threaten their livelihood, and strangle channels through which musicians and artists make their work known.
• In a severe case, a compliance issue could literally shut down the site forever, especially given our limited resources.

But that said, I’m less concerned about a threat to CDM as the rest of the Internet on which we rely, the dynamism that made this site worth producing in the first place. And as a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the Internet, I’m morally and ethically concerned about laws that deviate from Constitutional rule of law and common sense.

If you’ve found other reading on this issue or other ways to take action, I’d love to hear them.

Previously:
Opinion: US Internet Censorship Could Cripple Online Music Web; Where to Find Out More, Where to Act

And yes, you acted – and your action made a difference, as the opposition grows in strength and the legislation withers. Winning battles can sometimes be a good thing.

If you haven’t been following the (excellent) coverage elsewhere, just how bad is the “Firewall of the United States,” the draconian Internet dystopia misguided legislation in the US proposes to create?

That legislation is so vague, so far-reaching, so poorly-designed, that it potentially threatens all kinds of sites musicians regularly use. And little wonder: a backwards legislation process in the US has locked out the very Internet and tech companies that have until now been glimmers of hope in a stagnant US economy.

The crux of this issue is the impact on legal sites, and democracy and speech online. For an alternative view, the MPAA argument is that existing Digital Millenium Copyright Act safe harbor provisions would continue to exist under the new legislation, thus protecting legal sites – like this one. However, I find compelling the arguments of speech and legal policy advocates who point to differences in the way the enforcement mechanism works here, which could potentially invalidate that safe harbor and shift undue burden to publishers before they have time to respond.

Social networks, file sharing services, and other tools we use (lobbyists, for instance, call out even things like MegaUpload as “rogue”) are endangered.

The presumed answer, that “you’ll be fine if you have nothing to hide,” is the worst kind of defense for what can only be described as bald-faced censorship. Because complaints are guilty-until-proven-innocent, because the legislation is too broadly worded, the net effect is that any site publishing online could be brought down by a simple complaint – even from a competitor or aggrieved party. The history of “snitch”-based censorship of all the worst kinds is littered with cautionary tales of what happens when that’s the standard.

And that’s to say nothing of the potential for higher costs, negative growth, and legal burdens on the entire Internet service ecosystem on which sites like this one depend, not to mention new DNS security chaos triggered by turning the US – still the largest Web consuming country – into something that resembles China, Iran, and Syria.

An alliance of people who claim to speak in the name of musicians, content creators, and copyright holders are right now proceeding on a course that would destroy a lot of the most innovative tools that protect your livelihood. They have some reasonable intentions in mind – a justifiable fear of big sites that flaunt copyright rules to share anything. But they extend that into a policy that unjustifiably expands its reach to legal sites. That’s why:

Google / YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other sites that have helped us spread the word about our music are opposing it, afraid it could shut the entire sites down or usher in a new, more censored, shrinking network. (Heck, even LinkedIn and Mozilla are worried, and a site that shares resumes hardly seems the kind of “rogue” and pro-infringement villain the record industry keeps trying to paint as its critics.)

Kickstarter, the tool that has helped artists fund themselves and do preorder sales, is opposing the bill for fear a single instance of infringement could block everyone’s projects.

Tumblr, a key publishing platform used by many musicians and artists, warned its users via a dashboard that the legislation threatened their ability to express themselves online. Tumblr has a specific call to action.

Democracy activists worry that this silence voices of democracy around the world by blocking the tools they use to get around censorship (ironically, by creating similar censorship in what had been a country with online freedom).

The ultimate irony: because the SOPA legislation would block DNS and not IP addresses, it would do little to stem actual piracy of music and video. Instead, it threatens the freedom of the artists themselves to use these tools.

And again, because you could see an entire website blocked, not just a specific infringement, the legislation threatens to rob artists and musicians of tools on which they rely to promote their own music that they themselves own.

None of this has stopped the record industry lobbyists from remaining full entrenched in their position. For instance, this week, RIAA’s Senior Executive VP Mitch Glazier responded in an article headlines:

RIAA Question To Rogue Sites Critics: What Specifically Is Your Answer?

Glazier’s argument:

The next time you hear a vague, sweeping critique, backed by the platitude that of course intellectual property protections are supported, we encourage you to ask: what specific legislative proposal do you have that would meaningfully address this problem?”

Actually, no. In the event legislation is really, truly insane, it’s not in any way the burden of the critic of that legislation to propose an alternative. Here, let me illustrate:

The Protect Humanity from Deer Ticks Legislation, which proposes to … burn down all the forests.

Critic: I have a proposal. Let’s not burn down all the forests.

See? It’s concrete, it’s specific. Yes, our critique is “vague and sweeping,” because the legislation in question is vague and sweeping and wrong.

It’s absolutely, totally valid to make the concrete, legislative action not voting for a bad bill. The RIAA ought to know that; it’s pretty basic lobbying.

Yet again, though, those organizations let down their labels, who are now struggling to find new growth and revenue, with legislation that hurts those same members. Who is the rogue, anyway?

There’s far better explanation of this legislation than mine, and it’s not too late to act:
http://americancensorship.org/ [Electronic Frontier Foundation, with brilliant infographics and detailed, fair background reading]

Stop the Internet Blacklist Legislation [EFF]

Stop the Great Firewall of America [New York Times op-ed from New America Foundation senior fellow Rebecca MacKinnon]

I need your help–please. Call your congressperson? [Terrific, straightforward editorial from an engineer, Matt Cutts - one who happens to work at Google, but writing on his own time]

SOPA, controversial online piracy bill, gains support as lobbying intensifies [The Washington Post early this morning, which illustrates to me in its quotes from the bills' supporters just how out of touch they are]

Sham of SOPA hearings riles up key internet figures [Silicon Republic on how tech and Internet firms were locked out of the legislation's creation]

Great, clear Lifehacker story on how this works and what to do

Shocklee.com has done a terrific job of covering this story as it evolved, speaking of artists, as well as via their Twitter feed

OpenCongress.org links to information on the bill, full text of the bill, co-signers, actions, supporters and opponents, and even dollar-sign figures on how much lobbyists on each side of the issue (yes, including opposition) have given to elected officials.

From there, you can read the bills, make up your own mind, and if you’re a US citizen, talk to the people who represent you in Washington.

H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act
S. 968, the Protect IP Act of 2011

Among Senate bill opponents, as you can learn from that site – even though the Senate bill is at least a little less draconian – American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, and Human Rights Watch.

If you’re a citizen of the United States, I would ask you to call your Representative now. Tell them calmly (remembering, they may even be on your side, and regardless, they’re your elected representative) what you think.

If you do call your Representative, let CDM know what their office says; feel free to leave that response in comments.

On tablets, on displays, multi-touch control these days is calibrated largely as a software interface – more Starship Enterprise panel than violin. As such, it works well for production tools and exploring compositional ideas. But it falls far short of being an instrument: even on the much-hyped iPad, touch timing and sensitivity is too imprecise, and the absence of tactile feedback and real, kinetic resistance makes you feel like an operator rather than a musician.

Several projects in experimental instrument research seek to change that. But of all of them, the one that has generated the most enthusiasm is Randy Jones’ Soundplane, co-developed with hardware designer Brian Willoughby. CDM shares a conversation today with Randy about his brilliant Aalto synth, and I’m working on a review soon. But wonderful as Aalto is, many of us are still eager to hear more of the Soundplane controller. I chose to wax poetic and optimistic back in December of 2008:
Intimate Control: Multi-Touch, New Models, and What 2009 is Really About

I shouldn’t have put a year on my predictions, though – good things take time. (If I could clearly recall what happened in 2009, maybe my general prediction was correct. The past tends to blur together for me into a continuum in the manner of the modern technologist, a vague assemblage of stuff that happened in the 60s with things that are actually still in the future.)

The good news: Randy continues working on the Soundplane, and Aalto will help.

Continuing our interview, here are the thoughts most relevant to Soundplane — and a glimpse of what it’s looking like as he works on it in the lab.

First, Randy explains his ideas about running a small business, continuing what he had to say in our Aalto story. The basic idea: Aalto’s software will bootstrap Soundplane’s hardware.

I think the whole idea of venture capital is sort of a poisonous one. It’s a little like bands wanting to get signed right away. The first thing you want to focus on is giving up your autonomy, really?

Instead, why not scrape together whatever you can from friends or family and just make something that you can sell right away, however small. I didn’t have enough saved to finish the Soundplane project so halfway through I switched to putting out Aalto as a plan B for paying the rent. Now it’s out and it’s a product I’m proud of that I think reflects where we’re coming from, and it’s going to fund Soundplane development, and it’s letting tons of people know we exist. Just get a foot in the door, do something useful.

He also shares his feelings about patents:

Some people won’t like to hear this, but I applied for a patent on the sensor used in the Soundplane. I know, the patent system is totally broken, and often, if not usually, used in stupid ways. But if there’s one thing I think it is actually good for, it’s to protect small companies like ours that innovate against a bigger entity simply stealing their R&D. This is why it was designed, right? I don’t know if our patent will save the day if such a thing ever happens, but if it does I’d much rather have one than not. It’s a pain to write one but it’s not impossible, you just need a lot of patience. “Patent it Yourself“, Nolo Press, is a good reference.

The patent question raises some additional questions for me – in fact, I’d love to see open source hardware that’s also backed by patent protection, in the same way that the GPL license is made tenable largely through the existence of traditional copyright laws.

But I do tend to agree that in the case of a truly novel technology, which this is, patent protection may be necessary. The question for projects like this will be whether to operate as a conventional, patent-protected design, or whether some sort of open source model with a patent covenant and a copyleft license like GPL will make sense — both preventing exploitation and allowing free experimentation. If there are any IP lawyers lurking around out there, let us know (I have some contacts, too); and definitely let us know if that’s a conversation you’d like us to continue.

In the meantime, the important thing is that Soundplane lives, and using Aalto could help it come to fruition. We’ll absolutely keep you posted.

As proof, though, more shots from the lab:

Also, must-read article from shortly after Jones’ NIME presentation:
Why Soundplane?

The whole article is worth reading, but Jones argues that not only is it likely many people will try to do tactile multi-touch, but it may be necessary. For those of you not all that good at hardware design, you could be just as essential as well to there being any future for these curiosities. The designers need other designers. The hardware needs software creators – lots of them. The software creators need to try lots of ideas. And everybody needs players, composers … users.

It’s all-too-tempting to sit back on the Web and marvel at what everyone else is doing, to take their genius and novelty as an engraved invitation to give up on your own work. “It’s been done before.” “Someone else is already doing this.” It’s probably a topic for a dedicated article, but it’s simply the wrong reaction. “It’s been done before — maybe it’s worth doing. Or doing again. Or doing better. Or doing over and over again.” “Other people are doing this — that means I have someone else to do it with.”

Historically, revolutions aren’t solo pieces. They’re ensembles.

Updated: speaking of work being ensembles, while Randy’s name is most associated with the Soundplane project, credit is due to hardware designer Brian Willoughby, who did the hardware design for the instrument. As he wrote in comments on CDM in 2010, when we covered Roger Linn’s Linnstrument: “For my part, I’ve been deep into the process of designing the analog circuits, DSP hardware and firmware necessary for the product, so it’s nice to poke my head up for a moment and see interest on this site, as well as to hear about other engineers trying new things and inspiring ideas.”

I have no problem with copyrighting music. So I’ll be blunt: my ongoing impression of Creative Commons licensing is that you should either choose a license that allows for commercial use, or opt for traditional copyright and licensing. The popular “non-commercial” restriction is problematic. It does too little to prevent exploitation, and too much to prevent exactly the kind of use that’s the reason you’d choose CC in the first place. That’s not an effective compromise; it’s more like a lose-lose scenario. If you really want people to ask permission to use your work, you can use a standard copyright. (You don’t even have to do anything, under US law.)

Latest case in point: the CBC.

An off-hand comment on the (excellent, by the way) Spark podcast suggested that management had instructed producers to stop using Creative Commons-licensed music. After a blog post by Michael Geist, the story has spread around an angered blogosphere. Some even interpreted a later comment to mean the whole thing was the work of CC opponents, through licensing deals that explicitly forbade CC. (Don’t get excited yet – it seems clear that’s not what happened, and those organizations wouldn’t be able to do that even if they wanted.)

Let’s skip straight to the point. Techdirt’s Mike Masnick got the bottom line of this one, which is that CBC eventually gave up on CC-licensed works because of the prominence of non-commercial restrictions. They note this comment from CBC’s Chris Boyce:

The issue with our use of Creative Commons music is that a lot of our content is readily available on a multitude of platforms, some of which are deemed to be “commercial” in nature (e.g. streaming with pre-roll ads, or pay for download on iTunes) and currently the vast majority of the music available under a Creative Commons license prohibits commercial use.

In order to ensure that we continue to be in line with current Canadian copyright laws, and given the lack of a wide range of music that has a Creative Commons license allowing for commercial use, we made a decision to use music from our production library in our podcasts as this music has the proper usage rights attached.

That seems to me to sum up the story: whatever the wisdom of CBC’s solution, this is a failure of the non-commercial restriction. And that should hardly come as news to anyone who has followed the problems with “NC.” It’s a Saturday, so consider this a hastily-devised rant rather than a fully-researched story. But I’d like to see a more productive conversation start on this whole issue, so I’ll kick it off by sharing my own thoughts on this.

Here’s the problem. The whole idea of Creative Commons licensing is to provide a blanket license before someone has to ask permission. By streamlining the process in this way, the goal is to get wider distribution and reuse of your work. And as everything from samples to Flickr images can demonstrate, it works. Now, naturally, wide distribution will also raise fears about commercial exploitation, and as with any license, you’re the owner – you can provide whatever restrictions you like. People want to share, but they don’t want that sharing to be abused. I think the impulse to look for some sort of “some rights reserved” is a natural one. Unfortunately, using non-commercial restrictions as the solution can create more problems. The non-commercial rules are vaguely worded, implying a very broad definition. It’s never properly defined, and no one really knows what it means. The net result is that works with the restriction attached aren’t free for use. You have to err on the side of caution; if you think there’s any chance you may be violating the license, you shouldn’t use the work.

That’s the crossroads I reached on this very site. Chris Randall of Audio Damage and Analog Industries, who has released a significant amount of CC-licensed music, pointed out to me that CDM was blatantly violating the intent of the non-commercial restriction. Sure enough, I came to the same conclusion, as a survey undertaken by the CC folks found that many of the people using the non-commercial restriction considered use on a site with advertising revenue to be commercial use. CDM readers and Flickr users protested. But it doesn’t matter: I now almost exclusively use works without it, to be safe.

There is more to this story, though.

CBC ought to be able to use CC music. CBC is clearly overreacting if they’re avoiding all CC-licensed work. There is work out there that lacks the non-commercial use restriction.

…but the onus falls on CC advocates to face the non-commercial problem head-on. It seems to me that it’s the responsibility of the CC-using community here to point to work that lacks this restriction, and to build tools that make those works easier to find. (The checkbox pictured here is a great place to start.) It’s also about time to have a serious discussion of the non-commercial restriction, not just in the definition itself but, holistically, why people do want to reserve “some rights,” and how to define those rights. That conversation should be a frank and open one. Commercial exploitation is a real threat. It’s an issue brought up by CC users, by CC advocates, and CC critics alike. It’s something obviously all of us are thinking about. But we should separate the three dimensions of it:

1. A hypothetical problem — the potential exploitation of work in ways that CC users don’t like. (And that means we have to determine what kind of hypothetical exploitation has people scared.)

2. A real-world problem. (There have certainly been instances of what people might consider exploitation, both of copyrighted and CC-licensed works.)

3. A number of potential remedies — of which adding a “non-commercial” CC license is only one, and possibly not even an ample remedy for the kind of exploitation people want to prevent.

Some of the blame I think does fall on CC the organization. They used the non-commercial clause as a way to say, “hey, you can distribute your work for free and get paid by requiring licensing.” You can have your cake and eat it, too — or you can give away your cake, but also sell it. The realities of making that work are much messier than they admitted, and at the same time the organization sent mixed messages. “Here’s the non-commercial clause, which is a remedy to this problem you’re worried about. Oh, but we don’t think you should use it. And actually, we don’t know what it means, so we’ll have to do a research study.”

It’s time to clean up that mess and remedy the problem.

CC users should consider Share Alike. This is a much, much longer conversation, so let me simply quote the plain-English description of Creative Commons’ Share Alike principle:

If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Unlike the description of non-commercial – there’s never actually a detailed description of what constitutes “commercial” use — Share Alike is very clear. Anyone using your work must license whatever work they make.

Yes, this is an issue for open-source hardware, too. I won’t go there today, because hardware incorporates other issues. It’s tangible, and that means legal licensing is different. The problems of interpreting the definition of “commercial,” however, remain, and there’s a threat that open source hardware makers will recreate some of the problems with Creative Commons-licensed media in the hardware domain by modeling their work on the same license. Consider the can of worms opened, but I’ll deal with that in a separate story.

The podcast’s great.

Anyway, go listen to Spark. It’s a fantastic podcast:
Spark October 3-6

And CC or not, speaking as a journalist here: if you want your music shared, send it to media outlets with an explicit license, CC or otherwise, making it clear they can use it however they wish. If publicity is valuable to you, it may be a worthy investment. (I’ve seen what publicists and PR people charge. “Free” publicity isn’t worth zero; that’s for sure.)

Thanks to Myles Ashley Borins for the tip!

Update – for our Canadian readers:
If you’d like to clarify the CBC’s policy, podcaster and producer Lily Mills tells me via Twitter that Canadian citizens and journalists can submit a formal request for information under Canadian law:
Access to Information Act

(CDM, as a US publication, is unable to do so.) If someone would like to volunteer to do so, shout out in comments. I think it would be useful to know the formal policy and reasoning from CBC.

A California ban of the sale of violent video games to minors may not seem relevant to the world of music on first blush. But the music industry, joining everyone from software makers to legal groups to state Attorneys General, feels otherwise. Overzealous restriction of the sale of games, these groups say, is tantamount to an attack on rights of free speech protected by the United States Constitution. And while the California law would make a separate set of rules for gaming, the message from the music industry, as others, is clear: diminish the freedom of one medium, and you diminish us all.

In addition to the National Association of Broadcasters, The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) joins an amicus brief with booksellers, publishers, novelists and writers, music retailers, “amusement and music operators,” and the Recording Academy, jointly filing their protests with the US Supreme Court.

Amongst the authorities cited in that brief: reviews of the game Halo, histories of banned books and laws concerning free speech, violence in Elizabethan England, and Homer and Aeschylus. (Yes, Homer’s Iliad Book 13 sits alongside Grand Theft Auto.) Even Punch & Judy, Tom and Jerry, and Little Red Riding Hood make an appearance. So does the Bible.

Of course, the music industry is sensitive to these attacks, having been at the business end of similar, ill-fated litigation. Books, magazines, newspapers, television, broadcasting, music – there simply isn’t a medium in America that hasn’t had to fight off similar complaints.

There are various arguments for whether or not gaming is reviewed as art, though here, there’s enough legal precedent to assume they are, in the eyes of the law. More telling, however, is the observation that “protection accorded to depictions of violence did not turn on … merit.” (The case cited in the brief protected gory, grisly images and descriptions of crime, which New York law tried to ban in the 1940s. At the time, the Supreme Court conceded it couldn’t understand why you’d want such a thing, but that merit was not the basis for the ruling.)

And that’s the bottom line: free speech is not about merit, or one medium or another, just as this Supreme Court decision is as much about music or words as it is about games.

The precedent, legally, is clear, leaving only the “newness” of the technology as a defense. Here’s the brief’s response to that issue:

California also appears to suggest that the new technologies represented by video games require a reassessment of First Amendment principles. Technological change usually causes fear and uncertainty.

In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, technological change has repeatedly revolutionized entertainment media and communications, as well as the storage, retrieval, and distribution of information. Each of these technological advances—movies, television, the Internet, and now handheld, interactive electronic video games—has brought with it the fear that the new technology would corrupt the young. But there is no reason to permit fear of novel technologies to diminish fundamental constitutional rights such as the First Amendment.

For any artist, for anyone in the business of expression, this is a case to watch, at least in regards to US law.

More reading:
Merit Briefs/Amicus Briefs, Schwarzenegger, Gov. of California v. Entertainment Merchants, Assn., Docket No. 08-1448 [American Bar Association]

At stake in Terminator vs. video games? “The future of media”
[Ars Technica]

The brief cited here:
Brief for the American Booksellers Foundation For Free Expression, Association of American Publishers, Freedom to Read Foundation, the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, Recording Industry Association of America, Amusement & Music Operators Association, the Association of National Advertisers, Pen Center USA, and the Recording Academy in Support of Respondent [PDF]

Mobile devices are here, they’re powerful — get used to them. Now, could they just connect to the rest of your noisemakers and studio rigs? That’s the potential of new iOS SDKs for MIDI I/O and keyboard docking. But aside from some restrictions imposed by hardware support on iOS, what many developers are publicly wondering is whether a different path entirely will be most productive.

Hot on the heels of Line 6′s SDK for their MIDI Mobilizer, a MIDI input and output connector for iOS devices, Akai is courting developers for its own music accessory. The SynthStation 25 is a standard 25-key music keyboard with a dock for an iPhone or iPod touch inside.

The proposition for developers: now your sequencer or controller can connect to MIDI gear (with MIDI Mobilizer), or your synth can actually be inside something that looks like a synth, with a real keyboard.

Changes to Apple’s developer agreement have facilitated just this change. But while this is a step forward for developer flexibility, there are still some limitations on what developers can do, and what they can talk about, imposed by the makers of the accessories. Those restrictions won’t discourage all developers, but they’re worth noting, especially as mobile music gear is in early days.

There’s another discussion brewing among developers, too, which is whether the kinds of hardware assumptions upon which these two products are built even belong in the mobile age.

Here’s a look at where we are and how we got there, whether you’re an intrigued developer or just wish to consider how this fits into a larger picture of music gear in 2010.

Why Third-Party Apps for Third-Party Hardware is Now Available on iOS

In April, I wrote an editorial on the direction of hardware support on iOS, which has been a remnant of Apple’s tightly-controlled iPod accessory program, long before their mobile gadgets became real pocket computers. Line 6′s MIDI Mobilizer was the catalyst for the piece:
Of MIDI, iPhones and iPads, and a Restrictive Future for Hardware?

What hasn’t changed since then: Apple’s Dock Connector is not only a non-standard, proprietary adapter specific to their phones, but one for which you must ask permission if you wish to make your own hardware accessories.

What has changed: because of an adjustment to Apple’s legal writing, you can now let developers write apps for your hardware accessories.

Line 6 and Akai, as Apple developers, are not allowed to comment on Apple’s user agreement. (Insert Fight Club reference here.) But the changes to Apple’s Program Agreement are available publicly.

The old agreement

3.3.24 Your Application may interface, communicate, or otherwise interoperate with or control an iPhone Accessory (as defined above) through Bluetooth or Apple’s 30-pin dock connector only if You have obtained a license for such iPhone Accessory under Apple’s MFi Program.

The new agreement

3.3.25 Your Application may interface, communicate, or otherwise interoperate with or control an iPhone Accessory (as defined above) through Bluetooth or Apple’s 30-pin dock connector only if (i) such iPhone Accessory is licensed under Apple’s MFi Program at the time that You initially submit Your Application, (ii) the MFi Licensee has added Your Application to a list of those approved for interoperability with their iPhone Accessory, and (iii) the MFi Licensee has received approval from the Apple MFi Program for such addition.

Source: Twitter user beweeet

Spot the difference?

Apple is now allowing third-party apps to support those hardware accessories – provided Apple approves both the accessory itself, and via the accessory’s maker, the app.

Requirements for Developing for Akai, Line 6 iOS Hardware

Akai and Line 6 deserve some kudos for mediating between Apple and the third-party developer. Again, these developers are not able to talk about their agreement with Apple. But they were extremely cooperative in sharing their policy for working with developers. (In fact, basically, to get started all any interested developer has to do is email them.)

Line 6

A copy of the developer agreement obtained by CDM reveals what’s necessary to become a MIDI Mobilizer developer. At its most fundamental level, that means proposing an application plan to be approved by Line 6 as compatible (as per Apple’s own requirements), and agreeing to non-disclosure regarding any confidential information with which you’re providing (including documentation).

Marcus Ryle at Line 6 confirms with CDM that an additional requirement is sales reporting, though it appears this shouldn’t be a deal-breaker:

We do request reporting on the unit sales of the applications that use the MIDI Mobilizer. This information is kept confidential, and the purpose is so that we can have visibility into which apps are being most widely used by the MIDI Mobilizer. If we were to make any new versions of hardware in the future, we want to be sure that we can continue to meet the needs of our users by understanding what is important to them, and this requires us to know what is being used. We also understand that for some developers this is information that they do not want to share, and we are happy to discuss this directly with them to come to an amicable resolution.

With the SDK itself under non-disclosure, I asked Marcus what this might mean for someone developing an open source app (several of which have already appeared on the App Store):

We do have some limitations with regard to open source usage in our agreement. Specifically, we do not allow the use of open source if our SDK is used in a way that would cause our code to become part of the open source license obligations (unless we have provided written consent), since this typically results in the requirement that our source code would have to be released publicly. If the open source code can be used in a way that does not cause our code to be connected to the open source licensing, then this would be ok.

Akai

Glen Darcey, product manager at Akai, confirmed to me that the SynthStation SDK has some similar requirements in order to maintain their proprietary SDK. But unlike Line 6, Akai is not requesting any sales reporting.

Darcey also downplays the requirements. “Your product is your product,” he says. “Our code is our code. It cannot be redistributed. It can be in your app… Anyone who wants to add support for our hardware can but they have to go through our developers SDK process which is minimal.”

“There are requirements for adding our logos that say the app is compatible with our hardware,” he adds; that appears to me to come from Apple’s program.

As for the NDA, in this case, says Darcey, it’s nothing out of the ordinary: “The NDA is a standard NDA. It basically states that anything we say will be confident as will anything you say to us.”

Will this discourage developers?

Short answer: no – that is, if the developer has the desire to develop for this SDK in the first place.

Developers I’ve spoken to had some concerns about these requirements, but they also didn’t appear to change anyone’s mind one way or the other. That is, those wanting to develop for these accessories found the requirements workable. Those who don’t care … well, don’t care.

I think these restrictions are a deal-breaker for truly open source development on mobile, but for those projects, support for proprietary hardware accessories is generally less appealing anyway.

(If you disagree, of course, you can make yourself heard in comments.)

More than the issues of restrictions on the platform, though, the conversation I’m hearing is one that’s more fundamental.

Time to Move Beyond MIDI (or Wires)?

Line 6 and Akai each promise some exciting applications. But as comments recently demonstrated, many users and developers alike are treating the announcement with skepticism.

First off, even if the requirements for the proprietary SDK are modest, the issue is their competition. A $200 netbook (or a $400 used Mac laptop, if you like) can plug into a $30 MIDI interface without drivers. A variety of free development tools on any platform can then talk to that interface, or you could write your own – we’re talking serial communication, which is hardly brain surgery. And the reality is, a lot of people who use MIDI gear also own these other devices.

Once you add MIDI gear to an iPhone or iPad, you limit some of the device’s elegance and portability. You can also connect only one device at a time, meaning adding a MIDI Mobilizer gives you MIDI but no external audio – and since there are now things sticking out of your iPad, your laptop is suddenly just about as mobile as it is.

I think some of the skepticism here is undue; I still like the idea of a portable, pocketable recorder for MIDI sketching or library backup. But developers like Christopher Penrose, creator of Cosmovox, aren’t necessarily criticizing the availability of these SDKs. They’re saying that energy could be directed somewhere else. From comments, Christopher writes:

It is important to consider the benefits of Open Sound Control and other alternative communication protocols. I don’t believe the future of music entirely belongs to people who have an interest in protecting and extending their hardware investment. But I will say I would consider supporting the MIDImobilizer in some/all of our iOS products if the demand was significant, the API is well designed enough, and the licensing terms are acceptable. But I think developers should be putting their limited energies into viable communication protocols that extend and enrich the music we can make, rather than being bogged down by outdated, replacement-ripe legacy standards…

For independent developers, it may very well be an either/or situation. Time is finite. I have Open Sound Control support well under way and it works without an additional hardware investment.

The other advantage of wireless communication is that it keeps mobile devices mobile. And incidentally, there’s no reason you can’t use a protocol like Bluetooth to do MIDI, as well as implemented OSC wirelessly over a network. It is possible to achieve accurate timing and low latency wirelessly, too, though that’s a discussion I hope we have in greater detail on CDM, so I won’t do it an injustice by faking it now.

I actually had a dream last night in which I was using Bluetooth to do MIDI, so I’m obviously supposed to be getting on this instead of writing lengthy investigations of Apple developer agreements. And I’ll leave it at that.

In the end, I don’t doubt that we’ll see a handful of interesting apps for the Akai and Line 6 gear. And MIDI hardware is something with which we’ll want to interoperate for a long time to come. The question now is, what’s the best path for the future?

An ASCAP Political Action Committee fundraising letter that seeks to vilify advocacy positions of organizations like Creative Commons has been circulating the Web. As I noted in a separate story, it’s not exactly news that ASCAP has taken issue with the licenses Creative Commons advocates. Now, however, ASCAP’s legislative advocacy arm also argues in the letter that the advocacy organization Electronic Frontier Foundation is also an enemy of artists getting paid. The EFF hasn’t made a public statement about the issue, but in a response to CDM, an EFF spokeperson says the letter “mischaracterizes” her organization.

“They imply in that letter that the EFF don’t want artists to get paid for their work,” says Rebecca Jeschke, EFF spokesperson. “For years, we’ve had a proposal for Voluntary Collective Licensing,” she says, a scheme by which users of file sharing services could contribute to funds for artists. She says the EFF has been working on the issue since 2003. “We’re interested in making sure that there’s a balance, that copyright respects the rights of the creators but also innovators and speakers, and that [the doctrine of] fair use rights [a provision of US Copyright Law] are respected.”

For more on EFF’s proposals on voluntary collective licensing, see the organization’s 2008 white paper. Ironically, the proposal explicitly cites ASCAP and similar organizations as their model for how file sharing collections could work:
A Better Way Forward: Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing

The Precedent: Broadcast Radio
It has been done before.

By voluntarily creating collecting societies like ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, songwriters brought broadcast radio in from the copyright cold in the first half of the 20th century.

What would cause ASCAP to lash out at EFF in the first place? While the EFF advocates on a number of issues unrelated to ASCAP, including privacy, government transparency, and free speech, it conflicts with some ASCAP positions in some of its recent intellectual property work. For instance, in regards to the case of United States of America versus ASCAP, EFF has criticized ASCAP in court battles over whether mobile phone ringtones should be licensed as performances, and thus subject to performing royalty collections. In legal analysis on EFF’s website last year, intellectual property lawyer Fred von Lohmann described ASCAP in harsh terms:

ASCAP (the same folks who went after Girl Scouts for singing around a campfire) appears to believe that every time your musical ringtone rings in public, you’re violating copyright law by “publicly performing” it without a license. This will doubtless come as a shock to the millions of Americans who have legitimately purchased musical ringtones, contributing millions to the music industry’s bottom line. Are we each liable for statutory damages (say, $80,000) if we forget to silence our phones in a restaurant?

ASCAP Wants To Be Paid When Your Phone Rings [EFF Deeplinks]

There’s no evidence I could find that any EFF position is advocating that music “should be free,” and ASCAP isn’t clear in the letter about either what EFF policies it opposes, or even what the legislative agenda ASCAP themselves are advocating – and for which they want money. ASCAP’s legislative site is also vague, with a link to a legislative timeline that’s now 12 years out of date, before the popularity of MP3s, Napster, iTunes, iPods, and so on. Legislative recommendations made in March to the US government range from the finer points of international trade policy and enforcement in countries of China to ASCAP talking about their anti-piracy mascot for 10-17-year-old kids, skateboard-wielding “Donny the Downloader.”

ASCAP had not yet responded to CDM’s request for comment; I will follow up with them. ASCAP does, however, have a record of a advocating tougher intellectual property enforcement, including harsher penalties and monitoring.

EFF policy is clearer, however: mandatory monitoring and penalties for Internet Service Providers and mass lawsuits don’t work, says Jeschke. And, she says, that means they also don’t work for artists. “The way, for example, the RIAA has [litigated] in the name of protecting copyright hasn’t really gotten anybody paid. They gave up their lawsuit scheme. The lawsuit campaign just kept going but file sharing continued unabated.”

The EFF is arguing Wednesday in federal court against mass lawsuits. Despite the fact that the music industry dropped the approach, filmmakers of movies like “The Hurt Locker” are now going the same route:
EFF Argues Against Mass Copyright Infringement Lawsuits in Wednesday Hearing: Predatory Suits Improperly Lump Thousands of Defendants Together

Monitoring ISPs and blocking peer-to-peer file sharing, as a recent call from a number of advocacy organizations including ASCAP advocates, is also problematic, she says. When it comes to ISP monitoring, “There are clearly privacy implications for lots of people, in addition to price implications, if ISPs need to step up their enforcement.” Even worse, she says, are policies that would take away users’ Internet access if they are deemed guilty of infringement. “Most of these three strikes policies are three accusations — not three trials where you’re found guilty of infringement. People get caught in that dragnet all the time. Taking away someone’s internet access is a really big thing, and it shouldn’t happen based on three strikes.”

Since even Jeschke acknowledges that music file sharing continues, though, what about artist income? If enforcement isn’t the answer, what is? Voluntary collective licensing is still the EFF’s prescription, says Jeschke. “There will always be some new technology,” she says. “Instead of trying to put fingers in the dam and styming innovation, we need to find ways of getting artists paid.”

In doing so, though, so long as ASCAP sees the EFF as “Copyleft” advocates who only want “free music,” and EFF analysts see ASCAP as the organization confronting Girl Scouts, it’s hard to see these two organizations collaborating on solutions any time soon.

An ASCAP legislative fundraising letter revealed last week that the American performing rights organization is invoking fears of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, and Creative Commons in order to raise money. ASCAP appears to be repeating, now in the more heated language of fundraising, arguments it has had with the Creative Commons license in the past. For its part, Creative Commons insists most of its licenses don’t preclude performing rights bodies like ASCAP from collecting funds.

In the letter, sent on behalf of ASCAP’s Political Action Committee (PAC), the ASCAP Legislative Fund for the Arts, the PAC argues to its members that that these organizations undermine the value of music:

Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote “Copyleft” in order to undermine our “Copyright.” They say they are advocates of consumer rights, but the truth in these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music. Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.

This is why your help now is vital. We fear that our opponents are influencing Congress against the interests of music creators. If their views are allowed to gain strength, music creators will find it harder and harder to make a living as traditional media shifts to online and wireless services. We all know what will happen next: the music will dry up, and the ultimate loser will be the music consumer.

Attacks on Creative Commons by ASCAP are nothing new. The organization argued in a 2007 essay (and subsequent report) that elements of the license, which is applied to copyrighted works, meant “artists should give up all or some of their rights.” As noted in a rebuttal by Creative Commons’ Laurence Lessig, some of those claims were incorrect. Among other items, ASCAP said that the “licenses ask creators to waive the ability to collect royalties,” which isn’t true of the non-commercial CC licenses.

The claims in the fundraising letter were more bluntly inaccurate. Creative Commons’ licenses are all built on copyright, and as non-exclusive licenses, they do not in any way prevent artists from being paid for music. They don’t even, as the organization observed three years ago, preclude ASCAP license collection – at least not on works licensed with the non-commercial provision.

Creative Commons licenses do reserve fewer rights for the creator, by definition. All the licenses currently in use include provisions to allow works to be freely distributed via peer-to-peer file services, and depending on the license chosen, may open up other possibilities for use and remixing. But nowhere does the letter acknowledge that an artist must choose to license their work; unlike Copyright, CC licenses are not automatic, nor is the CC organization advocating that they should be. Creative Commons spokespeople have previously told CDM that they aren’t even suggesting that CC licenses are the right choice for everyone in every circumstance. As advocates of their own license, on the other hand, they have explicitly said that their hope is that the license will help artists make money, not that all music “should be free.”

The blog ZeroPaid covered the initial controversy and criticized ASCAP’s take on Creative Commons as an attack on creator choice:

Creative Commons is a middle-of-the-road approach when it comes to copyright and enables creators to tell consumers, in plain language, what they can and cannot do with their content. In short, it’s an option for artists. Any attack on Creative Commons is an attack on an artists right to choose what they feel is appropriate for their chosen distribution channel.

ASCAP Declares War on Free Culture

Creative Commons responded on the same site:
Creative Commons Responds to ASCAP

Additional coverage:
ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don’t Actually Believe In Artist Freedom [Techdirt]

ArtsJournal blog Mind the Gap observes that the fictional characters on Glee are in conflict with current US Copyright Law, and expresses surprise that the black-and-white claims of ASCAP’s fundraising letter would target the EFF, Creative Commons, and Public Knowledge. He asks if any card-carrying, royalty check-cashing ASCAP members would share how they feel, and they do – largely to express frustration with ASCAP.
The Right Balance on Copying [Mind the Gap]

ASCAP membership dues can go toward advocacy; only the ASCAP Foundation is a 501c3 charitable organization; the latter supports education and talent development. I’m curious, then, what royalty-check cashing ASCAP members think of these issues, as well.

Thanks to Jason Phoenix for the tip, and incidentally to my friend Mike Rugnetta, whom I was surprised to see pop up in the stories. (Internet: population, one dozen?)

Sampling and online reuse are enormously common in our culture today. But if you really believe in making some of that culture freely accessible, it follows you must also make free licenses explicit. Simply taking something because it’s there isn’t fair to the person who created the content, whose rights should come first, and it doesn’t help advance the cause of free content. If we want content to be more freely accessible, we need to give first priority to those materials explicitly licensed for free use.

All of that is to say, we need to obey the law. And that’s generally been the goal on CDM.

Here’s the rub: while Creative Commons licenses show a lot of promise, they also have occasionally run up against vague definitions or not-quite-airtight license variants. Case in point: the “non-commercial” restriction commonly used by creators. Let’s say you upload an image to Flickr. Adding a “non-commercial” restriction seems logical enough as a way to protect yourself against your image being abused, right?

The problem is, when looking at the actual language of the license, the definition of non-commercial use is not clear. Here’s what the license says:

“You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. “

Source: the current full text of the license (3.0)

Is CDM’s usage of Flickr images with non-commercial Creative Commons licenses a violation of that license? It’s not entirely clear. While the site uses those images for illustrative purposes, and while the site carries ads from which we gather revenue, it’d be a stretch to say the use of the images themselves was directed toward monetary gain.

Ultimately, though, an ambiguous license isn’t good enough. To be able to use images without contacting photographers for their permission, we need confidence that the license is clear. And even if we were on legally good standing – and it’s unclear that we are – we would want to obey the intentions of the content creators.

The question of commercial status and the Creative Commons license led to a prolonged Twitter discussion between me and Chris Randall of Analog Industries and plug-in maker Audio Damage. Unlike CDM, the Analog Industries blog is copyrighted, not under a Creative Commons license, but Chris has used CC licenses in the past for his music. Chris’ argument was, in short, that CDM was in violation of the CC-NC license as the use constituted a commercial use. The obligation lies with me to prove otherwise, and based on the survey results, I don’t think I can.

I’m not the only person bothered by the ambiguity. Creative Commons has conceded that questions about commercial or non-commercial are some of the most common queries they receive. And the situation was ambiguous enough for CC to undertake a full survey of CC users and creators.

The results of this survey were published in September:
Defining Noncommercial

Read through the complete results, however, and the question of non-commercial status is murkier than ever. The most significant question for publishers (and many content creators) is at what point a site with ads becomes a commercial use. You’ll see the answers can vary wildly depending on how the question is asked, and what the respondent understands to be the usage case.

That said, now having fully read through the results, I think I have to change the policy on CDM. Having some people disagree isn’t good enough, and no matter how you ask the question, a significant number of content creators view sites with ads as commercial – no discussion. (Some even would classify sites by non-profits using ads to recoup hosting costs in this way!)

I’ve found Flickr users have actually been really enthusiastic to discover their work on the site; those are the comments I’ve gotten. Unfortunately, I have to balance that enthusiasm against the larger perception of the policy.

In short, if you’re placing images under an NC license, don’t expect to see them on CDM any more.

New CDM policy

From here on out, I will only make use of images that fit one of the following conditions:

• Creative Commons licenses with BY, SA, or ND restrictions, but not NC
• Public domain images
• Images used as implied (such as press images, etc.)
• Images used by specific permission

Videos are, of course, a different story, as the ability to embed these materials is assumed to mean an implied license, and I’ve never seen otherwise. Likewise, it seems that the use of Flickr tag slideshows and badges containing images – even copyrighted images – does not violate Flickr’s terms of service or the wishes of the copyright holder; this is in essence a view of the Flickr site itself, and should not diminish the value of a photographer’s work nor conflict with their likely intentions when they upload to Flickr.

There’s really no way to operate on the Internet without coming across some of these gray areas, but to me the spirit of the law and the intentions of the creators remains paramount.

How to protect your work without Non-Commercial restrictions

This may raise the question, how do you prevent your work from being exploited while at the same time allowing a site like CDM to republish it? One of the “commercial” uses cited in the survey results is the rather nasty scenario of the spam blog re-purposing stories via RSS. There have been cases of CC-licensed Flickr images being used for ads in bus stops. (See the instance of Virgin’s ads, taken from CC-licensed Flickr images. Note, however, the controversy there – aside from whether they actually complied with the CC licenses – was whether they had the rights to the likenesses of people in those images, which is a different legal area.)

My answer, and the answer on which I’ve settled for CDM’s content: use a ShareAlike license.

What makes ShareAlike unique is that it requires any distribution or repurposing of your content to have the “resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.” That means you couldn’t, say, make an ad out of your photo without placing the ad under the same license — effectively preventing some of the more nefarious uses of CC-licensed works.

I do think that Creative Commons needs to present more explicit, clear, legally-binding documentation for the Non-Commercial restriction in the actual license. But until then, if you’re bothered by this ambiguity, you can resort to the more unambiguous ShareAlike license term.

Note that CDM itself is under a ShareAlike license. Because it’s compatible with any of the other CC SA licenses, that also gives us the right to use SA-licensed content – and, incidentally, were we not licensed that way, we should not have that ability.

HELP US!

To bring CDM into compliance with the non-commercial license, I need your help.

Got some regex skills? A regular expression should be able to purge all the images in CDM’s story database with non-commercial CC licenses, because images link to the specific license used. It’s simply a matter of then pulling the img src, anchor, and image caption div code around that license link.

Get in touch or respond in comments.

Got an image you don’t want to see lost? You can search CDM easily by your name and/or Flickr userid and find your image. Then let us know:

Provide permissions for a CC-NC-licensed image [Google Docs form]

Correction: I can actually observe a number of images I’ve used over the years with links back to CDM from the Flickr pages. So this would actually be the worst possible thing I could do, to remove those images. Obviously, the better solution is to wait and see if someone requests that an archived image be taken down. The Creative Commons license itself is non-revocable, but since this falls into a gray area in which we may not even been in compliance with someone’s license, that’s a moot point. And since those images are clearly marked by license, any derivative work based on them could check first if the license permits derivations. (That’s something you’d have to do anyway, as some images on CDM are copyrighted and used exclusively on CDM by permission.)

As a separate note, I’m now going to go through my own Flickr accounts and remove the non-commercial requirement, because my sense is that ShareAlike will prevent the unlikely event of them being abused within the license terms.

Disclaimer: This story is an editorial, an opinion piece. It does not constitute a legal statement (I’m not a lawyer) or official, binding statement of Create Digital Music’s policy. It expresses only the opinions of its author.

The legal wrangling over patents and who owns digital vinyl technology continues. The latest development: the court has dismissed N2IT’s claim against M-Audio, as covered by djtechtools. Before you strike this as a victory in the M-Audio column, it’s possible the parties settled out of court. Based on my limited legal background, I tend to agree with Ean Golden at djtechtools: this does seem to diminish the likelihood of N2IT successfully pursuing a new case against Serato. (In the Netherlands, it’s not possible to buy Serato, because there is would violate Dutch patent law, in the country in which N2IT is based.)

Previously, background on the story:
NI Ends Legal Dispute Over Traktor Scratch; Digital Vinyl’s Twisty, Turny History

Note that NI did acknowledge N2IT’s claims as valid. That would seem to set some precedent for future legal action by N2IT unless were to M-Audio win a countersuit against N2IT, which apparently has not happened.

It is interesting to hear djtechtools readers defending the N2IT patent. That may well have merit, but the basic technique of using an audio signal for control is something fundamental that well predates any notion of digital vinyl.

Technics 1200 Series: Discontinued (or not)?

Updated to reflect conflicting reports.

As digital vinyl presses on, reports are circulating in press and online communities that the the great emblem of the vinyl era is no more. Parent company Panasonic is reportedly discontinuing all remaining Technics 1200-series turntables (including the 1210).

Technics is dead [inthemix.com.au]

Updated: Sources for statements from Panasonic appear to be unconfirmed and/or conflicting. inthemix is where I had read this story; some CDM readers are describing these as unsubstantiated rumors.

It’s certainly possible that this isn’t the common “wild Internet rumors” phenomenon, but the equally common “large global company representatives aren’t on the same page” phenomenon.

The inthemix story, however, should be regarded as incorrect. As reported in the Australian cnet, the Panasonic Australia source has denied saying quotes attributed to him. There’s perhaps a more interesting (if not at all surprising) story here, which is that analog turntable demand is sagging — but apparently that will not result in the immediate end to 1200 sales.

Analog in ‘decline’ but Technics not dead [cnet AU]

Scratchworx tracks various, conflicting statements from different parts of Panasonic. There hasn’t been a formal press release, but then companies usually send press releases when they’re introducing products, not when they’re discontinuing them, so I wouldn’t read too much into that. One possible explanation could be that circulating rumors about the demise of the 1200 may have increased demand. It isn’t hard to imagine Panasonic responding to their reseller channel if lots of vinyl-heads began demanding turntables.

It’s also possible the rumors were incorrect. It’s easy for such a rumor to start, as vendors often don’t instruct resellers (or sometimes even their own global arms) about the status of products. I’ve often had conversations with press representatives of major music tech makers who weren’t entirely sure of the status of a particular product. And with store inventories low during a credit crunch, it would be easy enough for low stock to be misinterpreted as a discontinued product.

Scratchworx also notes that supposedly officially-discontinued models have remained in the channel.

Bringing some sanity to the Technics rumour [scratchworx]

Let me be absolutely clear: I think that vinyl deserves occasional attention from CDM, but I’m not a vinyl expert, and for that I rely on Scratchworx in particular.

If the Technics were discontinued — or, realistically, hen that day finally comes — what might it mean?

“It’s the end of an era” is the general response of the DJ community, but vinyl isn’t really going anywhere. The 1200 will always be remembered as the iconic scratch turntable, and there’s no question these ultra-reliable devices will continue to flourish, played and repaired by loyal DJs. (In fact, the quality of the gear may be partly to blame, in contrast to the planned obsolescence of a lot of newer equipment.) The 1200′s heydey, meanwhile, is long-since past. I personally think that’s healthy.

The golden age of scratch came about only because artists were irreverent and experimental, misusing and abusing equipment in a way that transformed music. It was not a musical movement born of pure nostalgia, and without a certain experimental drive, we’d be robbed of new experiments in the future. Today, abusing circuits and code have supplanted vinyl, a fitting medium for noisemaking, and one likely to last many more years. The Technics will survive, too. The really sad thing that our gear today is unlikely to last nearly as long as the Technics 1200.