We’re drinking, my friend, to the end of a brief episode / Make it one for my baby, and one more for the road. ~ Johnny Mercer

Brian Bergeron was the man who first brought to my attention the horrible contest Capitol and Coldplay put together, which I wrote about here and here. Seems fitting that he’d be the one to close this chapter as well.

To recap, Capitol Records hosted a contest with Live Nation, where bands could submit videos for the chance to open for Coldplay. Turns out, some serious terms and conditions were burried in the fine print. Entering gave Capitol a total royalty-free license to use the entry song for any reason, and the exclusive option of give a contestant a record contract, the terms of which were not negotiable, and quite tilted towards Capitol (even moreso than a standard, first-record contract from a major label). The prize for all of this? 20 minutes of play, with no guarantees that the artist would play in any place of prominence, either physically on the stage or any decent time slot. Payment for this barely would cover the costs of preparing for an arena gig.

While the winning conditions have yet to change, after a couple days of complaints from a variety of places, the terms and conditions changed to remove most of these aforementioned traps. I was cautious at best with these results, however. I stressed that this is an indicator that Capitol wasn’t going to play nice in this contest, although I did applaud them for responding to popular concerns. Many artists, including my friend Brian, took this change as a chance to submit their stuff and see how they could do.

Turns out, my suspicions of Capitol were well founded. Brian reports that the finalists were selected from the contest before the submission period had even ended, effectively ending the contest for all but the finalists.

Bergeron:

I spent yesterday with the band working in Haverhill, MA to throw together a video for the Coldplay opener contest. It looks like they had straightened the rules out and made it fair for the competitors. We scrambled to track an entire song and take plenty of video footage and I spent a few hours with Bob today going over the material and putting together a power-packed four-and-a-half minutes. I committed a full day to make sure this would get done in time.

I should learn to expect this kind of thing from these competitions, however…I logged on my computer to submit it to the contest (entries clos’e at midnight tonight) to discover that the winning videos have all ready been CHOSEN. This is BEFORE the entry period is over and once again, the music industry has acted in an irresponsible and unreliable way.

It takes an extra special sort of gall to put forth a Faustian contest - luring artists with promises of equal chances and big exposure and then stealing the very songs artists live and die with under fine print in back pages of the contest site - and then go forth an not even abscribe to the rules you made in the first place. It’s like challenging a person to a game of Calvinball, clubbing them in the knees, and when they still beat you in a race claiming that “first is the worst and second is the best.”

I see no reason why Capitol, Live Nation, and WFNX felt the need to break the rules here. Perhaps this is a small thing to complain about, but the wanton mistreatment of artists throughout this whole contest is another painful example of how much of this industry is forcing itself into a cutthroat, business-driven “us vs. them” market, and how little is the cooperation of all to bring out the best this very music world has to offer. It’s a sad example of how far from music companies like Capitol Records have gone. I hope Johnny Mercer can’t see his company now.

In spite of this, there are silver linings to be had. I’m nearly certain the nominated bands did nothing wrong and had nothing to do with this strange breaking of the rules. I wish the best for all of them. The contest will bring popularity to some Boston-scene bands, and the rising tide will raise all boats. Second, and closer to Brian’s story, he did put together a solid video showcasing a new song of his. According to the blog, he’ll be back in the studio in August, which is most exciting. I’ve been listening to and performing with Brian for nearly five years, and it’s wonderful to watch an already-unique style such as his mature and grow with the help of a full band. Here’s their submission:

I predict this is the last I will write about this particular situation. I hope Brian’s video helps bring it full circle: back to the music; back to the dream. Mountains like the music industry aren’t scaled through contests and sweepstakes. Most certainly, luck plays a role, but so does the support of fans. Support artists like Brian and all the others entering this contest. Let’s show Capitol we don’t need their graces and large stages to find the next big band. Indeed, we’ll know about them long before they ever come aware.

Roommate, friend, and hot shot movie extra Oscar and I got into a lively discussion a couple days ago about the world and our role in it. Our discussion mainly consisted of me posing hypothetical acting roles for organizations that Oscar may not like, and seeing if he would accept them (e.g. “would you appear in a Blockbuster commercial?” “Would you take a part in a McCain Campaign ad?” and so forth). His answers, as I’m sure he well knows, frustrated me by their neutrality towards all moral compass. He’d either take the gig or take the gig “as a joke.” My pleas of “Wouldn’t you be helping the enemy here?!” were met with “Wouldn’t it be hysterical?” There was no making a stand or sticking to your personal guns in light of monetary gain.

This speaks to how he and I view the world quite differently. At heart, I always feel like a feisty little world-changer, and I consider my actions important signals of my feelings. I’ll pay a little extra to buy something at a local store instead of going to Wal*Mart, as if my dollar is going to make the Walton family turn their heads. I boycott. I protest. I write letters. I get a little outspoken at times. I try to lead to the world as an example, knowing that if everyone did the same we’d be in a much better place. I know full well the world isn’t watching me, but I don’t care. Oscar, on the other hand, laughs at the world as it goes by. He takes the discount where he can get it, jokes and ridicules political absurdity rather than getting up-in-arms about it, and lives mainly for his own gain. I wouldn’t ever say he is any less of a world participant than I, or he is “wrong” while I am “right.” He’s a brilliant man and a wonderful influence on me and the world around him. At heart, he and I just play a different game. He threw a Horace Walpole line at me in our debate that’s been sticking with me since: “Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.”

I think Oscar could learn a lot from me, but I probably could learn even more from him. I’ve been snarking more at the world recently, though I still try and stay the feisty advocate. It’s been a complicated balance, but I think it is working. This morning I found a piece on Crooks and Liars that the advocate in me would be all upset about, but I’m beginning to appreciate as an observer. The Washington Post ran this piece by Dana Milbank, which is pretty good as a read, but really captures its alma as a video. Enjoy.

(Edit: For some reason the player is being a little finicky. See the original post here.)

Now, from an economic standpoint, we’re hurting. This has been a terrible year for many of us, in our industry and in our lives. There’s an active role we can take in considering the economics of the candidates and lobbying for better care taken in the assessment and treatment of our economy.

But it does feel kinda good to laugh about the situation, doesn’t it?

I’m beginning to think so.

Wow. Quite the week here. The top stories:

1. Capitol Records and Coldplay as Mephistopheles (see also the followup: Update: Captiol, Coldplay Remove Forced Record Contract from Contest)
2. Two personal notes.
3. Devo sues McDonalds

More to follow. Right now my roommates and I are enjoying the latest Cinematic Titanic. We’re 20 minutes in and in hysterics.

(image from flickr user garda)

Hello, and Happy Independents Day! To coincide with the national observation of our Independence, Independent record labels across the globe are taking today as a chance to celebrate their role in music. From the official website:

This is the first ever global celebration of independent music, a sector first home to artists including The Beatles, Elvis and Coldplay and still home to the likes of Radiohead, Vampire Weekend, Arctic Monkeys and Bjork.

Coming out of a week of some downright evil maneuvers from EMI subsidiary Capitol Records, it’s refreshing to take a look at those labels that are keeping it small and caring. You too can celebrate by downloading the Independents Day MP3 Album, with tracks from Devandra Banhart (covering Oasis), Dr. Dog, Frank Black (and Hanson and Slipknot…). This album might be worth it for the Banhart cover alone, a rather shuffled version of “Don’t Look Back In Anger.”

Revenues from the sale are split between multiple good people, including A2IM, The Worldwide Independent Network, MusiCares (one of a rare few groups dedicated to the health and welfare of musicians), and a newly formed fund to be distributed to musician programs in Central America, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. In addition to the album, you can also check out their series of EBay Auctions including a shopping spree with DJ Spooky, the chance to be CEO for a day at Shadow Beggars Group, and a Guitar Hero jam session with Dragon Force.

Independent labels are in a tough spot these days. While technology has equaled the battle in distribution, as online sellers like Amazon and iTunes are careful to allow equal treatment of majors and independents (on the front end of the site, at least), the path to total music equality has some serious hurdles. The latest online battleground has come to light after a rather famous Billy Bragg editorial in the New York Times: social networks using music as a feature on their site are now being asked to pay for royalties as these websites become tremendously popular and profitable.

Bragg:

The musicians who posted their work on [social networks] are no different from investors in a start-up enterprise. Their investment is the content provided for free while the site has no liquid assets. Now that the business has reaped huge benefits, surely they deserve a dividend.

What’s at stake here is more than just the morality of the market. The huge social networking sites that seek to use music as free content are as much to blame for the malaise currently affecting the industry as the music lover who downloads songs for free. Both the corporations and the kids, it seems, want the use of our music without having to pay for it.

The claim that sites such as MySpace and Bebo are doing us a favor by promoting our work is disingenuous. Radio stations also promote our work, but they pay us a royalty that recognizes our contribution to their business. Why should that not apply to the Internet, too?

As of now, the major labels have been able to leverage their politcal influence to receive royalties from these companies, but independents have been too small to sit at the table. Lucky for the independents there are unionizing movement afoot. Wired last month ran a great piece showcasing Merlin, a group that represents 12,000 independent artists and labels, growing to represent as large a share of the market as EMI and earning the title of “The Fifth Major” in some circles. Even more impressive is the fact that EMI still has a larger catalog then the Merlin groups, proving to some degree the point that independent labels are better at finding successful music, as they take an equal market share with a smaller catalog. Merlin now is looking to negotiate with music-driven social sites such as Last.FM, MySpace, and imeem. PaidContent has the story.

So while we’re all munching down hot dogs and watching fireworks tonight, take a moment to put your favorite local artist on the stereo (or perhaps the aforementioned mix) and toast one to the labels that haven’t forgotten the music end of the music business.

And Happy Independents Day, no matter how you spell it.

(image thanks to Deviantart user MarcosVolta)

(Note: This is a continuation of the story started here, and has a followup here.)

Once again, thanks to B-Money for bringing this to my attention.

I can’t be sure if this is due to the ever-growing fan backlash thanks to the various Coldplay message boards (some of which linked here too - thanks!), or pressure from Coldplay, or the sudden wakeup from Capitol, but this morning the terms and conditions page for the opening for Coldplay contest I wrote about two days ago are all changed. Let’s take my previous points of contention and see where they are now. Here are the new rules for reference. I had the good sense to archive the page this time around as well - I wish I did last time, too.

• My first point was a minor one (not good persuasive writing, I know). Live Nation and Capitol reserve the right at any time to disqualify “inappropriate” submission, without any veto remedy. This is understandable from Capitol’s angle; they want to be in power here. It’s simply far too easy to envision a truly visionary band being dismissed my companies simply for being too different. Coldplay I’m sure would have some stories about that. I know the Stone Roses do.
• Originally, you granted Capitol an unlimited, royalty-free license to use the work you submitted. This was handy from a promotional angle, but nothing would stop Capitol from, say, licensing it to a campaign ad and collecting the royalties all for themselves. Now the wording has changed to say “each member of the winning band grants permission for Sponsor and those acting under its authority to use his/her name, photograph, voice and/or likeness, for advertising and/or publicity purposes, in any and all media now known or hereinafter invented without territorial or time limitations and without additional compensation.” Totally understandable, and much more of a reasonable condition. Capitol is going to want to promote this show with your no-doubt pretty and/or handsome mugs, right? Were this a negotiation I may want to put a cap on the time limit, but there is no negotiation to be had here. What’s interesting to me is that instead of saying they have an irrevocable license to use your song for promotion, they lay no claim over the right to use your song. Technically, any use by Capitol is unauthorized, but you’d be a bit foolish to go after them for advertising your song for the Coldplay show (if that campaign song thing happens, though, I may want to consider a strongly worded letter).
• All claim that Capitol may, to quote the old agreement, “edit, adapt, composite, mix, remix, morph, scan, duplicate, alter and/or otherwise modify and commercially exploit your submission, in whole or in part, without any restrictions as to changes,” is gone. Chalk one up for creative control.
• Perhaps most interesting of all, all of the language about Capitol holding the exclusive right for 60 days to enter you into a recording contract, the (incredibly harsh) terms of which were all laid out in the old terms and conditions - including such hits as no artist accomidations, total transfer of all rights in the songs, total waiving of all moral rights [which, by the way, you can't do becuase they're inalienable by nature], and vague clauses about this falling under the terms and conditions of a standard recording contract from Capitol without any indication as to what those terms are - all are totally removed from the new terms and conditions. No mention whatsoever.

So, can we call this a victory? Did the online roars of many reach the desks on the top floor of that LA office building? Perhaps. If you make decisions based soley on the actual bounds of the rules I’d say this is a totally fair contest at this point (though I still have some issue with the prize package with forced approval by Live Nation and joke of a cash payment). By the sheer nature of the new terms and conditions this is an okay game to play.

However, if you consider the character of the other party at the table as much as what’s written in the contract, I’d still stay away from this one. Capitol cannot be let off the hook so easily. It was no mistake that the provisions of the contest were so restrictive, controlling, and malicious. Capitol thought in this case they could wave Coldplay in front of your face with the right hand while the left went into your pocket for your wallet. Their changing of the rules was no doubt due to some external influence. In other words, the Devil may offer you a fair deal, but you are still negotiating with the Devil. Be careful.

On the other side of the issue, in as much as they deserve shame for the previous contest rules, FNX and Coldplay and all other parties deserve credit for any influence they had in changing about the rules, and dedicated Coldplay fans deserve some thanks for raising hell about the issue. Thanks to all the new readers as well who came by for this post from the Coldplay boards. Hope you stick around.

Universal Hub highlights today the work of eeka, writer of social justice blog 1 Smoot Short of a Bridge. She wins twice over - once for the name of her blog, and once for today’s post, titled “I’m Liveblogging the Thunderstorm”:

2:18 BOOM
2:19 CRASH
2:20 whoosh, thud, BOOM
2:20 CRASH CRASH CRASH BOOOOOOM

Awesome. Reminds me to tell you guys that there most likely will be another episode (or two) of Endless Feature tonight. The other night we watched Perfume, which is now one of my favorites of the series. Stay tuned.

(thanks for the photo, SoStark. I knew I could count on you)

The Northeastern News, the de facto source for campus goings on, announced today that they are going independent of the University, and instead of licensing the name “Northeastern” have opted to change their name to “The Huntigton News.”

NU Huntington News:

The News has been operating primarily as an independent newspaper for nearly a decade, supporting itself through advertising revenue. However, the publication was a student organization and used university office space.

The move to cut ties with the university was set in motion about a year ago by then editor-in-chief Ricky Thompson and former managing editor Derek Hawkins. The pair said they first seriously discussed becoming independent last summer, when The News was relocated to a smaller space in the Curry Student Center, which is approximately a third of the size of the original space. [...]

Thompson said talk escalated when fear of prior review arose recently, during a time of speculation about the university’s humor publication Times New Roman (TNR) staff’s decision to pull its December 2007 issue and reprint it with modifications.

Although Hawkins said the TNR reprint was a catalyst, The News was already financially self-sufficient through advertising, so it seemed like a good opportunity to go independent.

While I graduated in May, I still work on campus, and still am curious as to how my alma mater is faring. I still have the 2006 newspaper which contained three editorials about me and my selections for Springfest. I’m proud of the News for moving off campus, as I hope this is a signal for them to focus on some of the tabboo issues facing Northeastern that the administration would not allow - case in point: the ongoing pressure to offer NU Janitors a living wage. The issue has been on the minds of active students for more than three years, and only this year has the news reported on the incident, and only in very soft terms. There are adminstration issues, dynamic cuts in student activities, escalating tensions between NU and the Roxbury community, and so many other things the News could go out and get investigative about. I see this as an exciting moment of maturity for the News, and very much hope that they embrace it.

(photo from Flickr user maubrowncow)

(Update: See post here and gripping conclusion here)

“I get so tired of listening to the way everyone treats music. I keep feeling they’re selling out.”
~Johnny Mercer, songwriter, on his founding of Capitol records

And you thought that we were faking
That we were all just money making
You do not believe we’re for real
Or you would lose your cheap appeal?
~Johnny Rotten, songwriter, on Capitol’s owner, EMI

As I mentioned in my previous post, I recently touched base with old friend Brian Bergeron, who brought this story to my attention via the blog post of fellow artist The Everyday Visuals. The story also made grumblings on LemmingTrail today.

Capitol Records has decided to hold a contest to select openers for Coldplay’s latest tour for shows in San Jose, Philadelphia, Chicago, Hartford, DC, and Boston. Bands may submit a video to YouTube of their best song, and the winner gets a chance to take the stage before the headliner and play to no-doubt sold out audiences of tens of thousands, assuredly launching them into superstardom and earning the love and respect of one of the largest rock bands of our time.

Below the cut is the terms and services of this agreement, outlining the very worst contest rules and conditions I have ever seen. Seriously, Faust would be loving this.

The German legend of Faust has always been an easy crossover to American blues, folk and rock music. The idea of making a pact with Lucifer to become the greatest and strongest musician alive has been popular legend since Routes 61 and 49 crossed in Clarksdale Mississippi. The harsh realities of the music industry has made skeptics of us all, and to some extent we should be grateful. Bands are more cautious about signing into pacts for fame, be it with Mephistopheles or Warner. Young adults such as I have been educated in how the industry tries to get to you, and where you can push back. While pacts in blood have been replaced with controlled composition clauses and cross-collateralization, fewer Fausts live among us than did in the early days of Rock ‘N’ Roll.

Still, seems the devils keep coming, and this year’s model bears the name Capitol Records.

What seems like an innocent enough contest bears a burden in the fine print worthy of any deal Robert Johnson may or may not have signed. Here’s what you give up in exchange for opening for Coldplay:

• You are allowed one submission, and “inappropriate submissions” as deemed by Live Nation (you didn’t think a story this bad wouldn’t mention these guys, right?) are immediately disqualified. No user checks, no superseded votes - just the sole discretion of a company. And if there’s anything the history of popular music in the US should illustrate, it’s that companies almost never get it right on the first go-round (think of the Decca audition of the Beatles). But that’s just bad for the vitality of quality rock music - that says nothing of the cruelty of the contest, and is largely understandable from the angle of Capitol.
• You grant Capitol unlimited, unrestricted, royalty-free license to use your submission (and your name, address, and likeness) in any way they deem fit. Naturally, Capitol doesn’t want the trouble of having to find you guys to pay royalties when using your song and likeness to promote the contest or the tour, but nothing here prevents Capitol from doing other things, such as sell all of the contest submissions in a CD and give you nothing, or license your song for a car commercial and pocket the profits.
• The next sentence after you give away your hit song? Capitol can change it. Directly from the terms and conditions, Capitol may, “in Capitol’s sole discretion, may edit, adapt, composite, mix, remix, morph, scan, duplicate, alter and/or otherwise modify and commercially exploit your submission, in whole or in part, without any restrictions as to changes.” Your song becomes not your song. You no longer have input into how it is used. You have lost all control over your work. Now bear in mind the previous point about unlimited use. They can (and no doubt will) remix, sample, modify, alter and change any element of the song that they deem appropriate (or test market as such).

And then we get to the really meaty stuff. Capitol reserves the right, upon entry of the contest, to hold the “irrevocable and exclusive option (the ‘Recording Option’) to enter into an agreement with you (’Recording Agreement’) that will provide for an option on Capitol’s part to record demo recordings with you and/or enter into a long-term exclusive artist agreement with you.  The Recording Option may be exercised by Capitol giving you written notice at any time before the end of the Option Exercise Period.” The Option Exercise Period is 60 days after the end of the contest. For 60 days, Capitol holds the right to enter you into a recording agreement (and, by extension, you cannot enter a deal with another company for 60 days). By entering into the contest, you agree to the terms. And what are the terms? Let’s take a peek:

• You get a fixed budget of either $5,000 (for a demo) or $100,000 (for an album), and are subject to “certain royalty provisions and other terms and conditions commensurate with those contained in Capitol’s standard Recording Agreement for new artists.” These terms will no doubt include recouping clauses, controlled composition clauses, and other forms of old-guard provisions engineered to screw with artists.
• “As part of the Recording Agreement you must agree to and must irrevocably assign and transfer to Capitol, all rights, title, and interest in your submission, including without limitation, all sound recording copyrights therein, pursuant to any demo recording contract as executed between or among the parties, and to forever waive and agree never to assert any and all so-called moral rights they may have or be entitled to in respect of your submission.” I wonder if Snidely Whiplash is their contract attorney. The moral rights part is especially interesting, as by nature they are inalienable, so Capitol could never force you to waive them.
• They don’t even take care of you while you’re out there recording. Once again from the terms and conditions: “Travel to production studio facilities, including all travel expenses, are your sole responsibility, and each of its respective members, and will not be reimbursed to you under any circumstances by Capitol.” Now, I will be one of the first to criticize the “old model” of record contracts, with artists wasting millions in days of gluttonous indulgence forever recouped afterward. But these artists are counting on music for their bread and butter. It’s their job. Travel for work is traditionally covered by work in jobs, especially jobs that have employers making millions of dollars a year.

Oh yes, and what happens if you do in fact shoot the moon and win that opening slot?

The winning band will be given the opportunity to play for up to 20 minutes in the opening slot for the Coldplay concert in their market.  The winning band will also be awarded $2,000 and receive ten (10) tickets to the Coldplay concert in their market for family and friends, to be divided equally among the members of the band.  The winning band is solely responsible for transportation to the concert and must provide their own instruments (24 channel inputs maximum).  Material to be performed by the winning band and all other show elements are subject to review and approval by [Live Nation].

They review and approve your performance. You are limited to 24 Channel Inputs (on boards which can hold easily double that without interfering with Coldplay’s setup). You are not even given the courtesy of a limousine ride. You are given a fee usually reserved for mid-range wedding bands. You play for 20 minutes, with no guarantee as to where physically or on the time line the band gets to play (and with 1-2 other openers, you can be sure it will be within minutes of opening the doors, and long before anyone makes it through security). Oh, and I hope each member of the band wasn’t planning on inviting both their parents and a boy- or girlfriend, as those 10 tickets will go by quick.

All contractual analysis aside, Christopher Pappas of The Everyday Visuals may put it better, playing out the scenario of a winning band a la “Good Will Hunting”:

After they make their record (with the song that won the contest as the new single) the label, in a ’surprise’ move, decides to shelve the record. I mean, did the label ever really intend to release it anyway? Not only that, but they own the rights to the songs – yes, even that song, the hit single, the one that won them the contest in the first place. Now the label sells the song to GM, and between war profiteering and human rights violations, they find time to slip it into a commercial for a new series on NBC. Huge licensing and sync fees abound – all going to the label, with the band sitting at home with nothing left but the phrase: “Hey, did you know I wrote that tune?” (A party conversation starter, at best).

Now, let’s just imagine this song was called “Yellow”.

This is a foul example of how bad our industry has become. This contest disguising as pro-artist is the antithesis. I call shame onto Coldplay and Boston’s WFNX for associating themselves with such a backhanded contest - this Devil’s bargain of a promotion goes far beyond the normal corporate buzz shill; it’s downright evil. I honestly expected better of a station like WFNX. I sincerely hope Capitol records never finds the gall to claim they are “supportive” or “nurturing” of artists ever again. Any thread of decency the late, great Johnny Mercer had when he started the company is gone by the decades of greed and corruption best captured by Johnny Rotten. I strongly advise any self-respecting artist to never enter into a contest like this. I fear some good band out there won’t read the fine print and lose all the rights to their material to a company that clearly is only interested in the business side of music business.

Hey everybody - thanks for waiting, and happy Canada Day. Everyone may remember the War of 1812 and the only invasion onto the continental US soil by another nation’s army (Canadians, as a British colony), but did you know we also fought between Maine and New Brunswick in the Aroostook War in 1838? It was a bloodless war, so I guess no harm, no foul - and I’d forgive Canada on behalf of Americans everywhere, but I’m not altogether certain if my family had moved to Massachusetts from Newfoundland yet, so it’s entirely possible it should be me asking forgiveness of my neighbors. Be it as it may, Canada runs deep in my blood and I hope you can take some time to hug-a-Canuck today.

I’m going to do a quick news brain dump for now, and get into some more quality writing a little later today. Here’s some of the stuff I missed while spending time with some of my favorite people up on Mount Desert Island (the land mass with an identity crisis):

• As a followup to what I wrote in early June, the House Subcommittee on the Courts, Internet, and Intellectual Property approved the Performance Rights Act on Thursday. The act requires radio stations to pay royalties on sound recordings as well as compositions, as does webcasting since 2007’s Copyright Board ruling. Reactions abound from the ruling from the two major parties involved, musicFIRST and the National Association of Broadcasters, and analysis from Coolfer and Ars Technica, where Nate Anderson does an excellent job laying out the issues and showing how the merits of the cases are obscured by strange lobbying and PR tactics.
• Alex Leavitt, a young man I met at Berkman@10, delved into ethnomusicology on Friday with an analysis of enka music mixed with hip-hop. Enka was a popular early-20th-century form of pop music, best known in the US for its frequent inclusion in Tarantino films. It’s an interesting case of East mixing with West, then mixing again, such as what you see in Ghanaian Highlife (and more recently, Hiplife) music. Both enka and Highlife are favorites of mine, and on this balmy humid Boston day Nigeria Special! is one of the only things keeping me cool.
• Public Knowledge signals the importance of today (aside from this being Canada Day and all) as the first day in which Copyright claimants can register online, with a reduced fee. PK is well-known for their backing of the current Orphan Works bill, which inverses my opinion of the aforementioned Performance Rights bill - whereas the latter represents an issue I typically oppose but can appreciate the compromise in the details, the current Orphan Works bill represents an issue I usually support (that is, letting unrepresented works pass into the public domain) that loses my support in the details. Be that as it may, Alex Curtis does a great job showing how an online copyright registry can be opened up with a little API love to help users navigate the records easier.
• Copyright guru William Patry put on his Constitutional scholar cap on Friday and drew some fascinating parallels between the DC Handgun decision and Constitutional interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 - the sentence that gave us copyright. His point, and I heartily agree with him, is to cast serious doubt in the majority’s opinion of dismissing the first part of the Second Ammendment (”Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State,”) as a mere prefatory clause, and cutting to the second part (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”) as the actual “right.” It’s dense and referential reading, but shows quite cleanly that if we are to agree with Scalia that this first part was just fluff, it would be the first time we ever regarded any part of the Constitution as prefatory.
• Aquarium Drunkard gives us their take on a curious release from this year that seems to be slipping under the radar: Stax Does the Beatles. Included in their assessment is a curious anecdote: Did you know the Beatles were originally slated to record Revolver at Stax, but for security reasons the band opted to stay at Abbey Road in London?
• I recently reconnected with an old friend and performing buddy Brian Bergeron. He informed me of his blog, which is now added to the blogroll on right. Today’s post is a deeply personal and excellent read about how the slumping economy is impacting street performers like Brian, who you can see frequently up at Faneuil Hall. Brian also fed me a story that I’ll be writing about a little later as well. Stay tuned.

Read and enjoy, and thanks for sticking around.

Top stories this week:

1. Two personal notes.
2. Oregon Copyfight
3. Devo sues McDonalds

Vacation plans take me up to Bar Harbor this weekend, leaving in an a couple of hours. You won’t see much on the blog until perhaps Sunday night. Until then, stay classy everybody. I’ll leave you with an apropos track by the Mountain Goats.