So IMRO is about to kill Irish independant music.

jill_valentine

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/apr/29/irish-music-blogs-under-attack

Irish music blogs under attack over royalties

Amateur websites face closure as Irish Music Rights Organisation demands annual licence fee


Under attack ... Irish music blog the Torture Garden. Photograph: Public Domain

The Irish Music Rights Organisation (IMRO) has moved against several of the country's MP3 blogs, demanding licences that threaten to shut down some of Ireland's most-respected music sites. Sites including Nialler9 and the Torture Garden have been asked to pay hundreds of pounds annually to continue sharing songs – most of which are sent to them by the artists and labels themselves.

So far, IMRO has contacted only three blogs, but it plans to widen its net – requiring licences for any site that offers song downloads/streams and "is made available in Ireland". Both the Torture Garden and Asleep on the Compost Heap are amateur blogs that generate no revenue; they have no ads and are hosted on Google's free Blogspot service. The Torture Garden is particularly well-regarded, with earnest writing and original artwork, interviews with acts like Final Fantasy and Peter Bjorn and John, and its spotlight on emerging Irish talent. Nialler9, maintained by Dublin-based journalist Niall Byrne, is four-time winner of the Irish Blog award for best music blog. That site, while just as sincere in its indie evangelism, does take some advertising.

"Let me get this absolutely straight," Byrne wrote yesterday, "I have no problem paying artists royalties if that is required." But for Byrne, there are two issues. First, that most of the downloads on his site are provided by artists, labels and their PR companies. "Like many I thought that MP3s that were cleared by bands and labels for promo were provided as is – gratis and without any attachments or additional requirements ... Y'know, the same way an entire music blogosphere and a digital PR industry has been allowed to grow up over the course of the last 10 years." In the five years Byrne has been blogging, he says "not one band ... has ever mentioned IMRO or royalties to me when asking me to post their music".

For Byrne, the second issue is that IMRO's blanket licence – the Limited Online Exploitation Licence – "doesn't take into account the size of a blog or site". While a site like his would owe £300-600 per year to continue, even tiny sites must pay at least €150 (£130) annually. "Lumping [in] a music blogger who blogs from home in his spare time ... with a professional company is wrong," he wrote. "It will have a destructive effect on the promotion of music online as many bloggers won't be able to afford these fees and as a result bands will have less of an outlet to promote their music."

IMRO is the organisation tasked with collecting and distributing royalty payments for songwriters, composers and music publishers in Ireland, the equivalent of the UK's PRS and the United States' ASCAP. It is not the same as IRMA, which acts on behalf of Irish labels (like the BPI or RIAA). This distinction is the crux of the problem for music blogs like Nialler9. While many artists and labels grant permission for their songs to appear online – sending them to bloggers by post, attaching them to promo emails, advertising them on Twitter or MySpace – they may not, er, be allowed to do this.

"If the composer/author or publisher of a track has mandated a collection society, ie IMRO in Ireland, PRS in the UK etc, to license and collect royalties on their behalf then this licence must be obtained," IMRO told Byrne. "If a composer has mandated us to license or if a track is published then a composer hasn't got the right to give full permission for use of the track."

So far, this hasn't been a problem. For better or for worse, publishing groups were sleeping giants – leaving spats with music bloggers to the recording industry associations. Now, bolstered by massive licensing deals like IMRO's recent agreement with YouTube, they're awakening to possible revenues – and dispatching the lawyers.

"Most people who operate music blogs (this does not include [illegal album download blogs] who somehow remain untouched)," Byrne explained, "are decent people who want to stay on the legit side of the law." But he says the new licence costs are "prohibitive" to those who want to post MP3s "with permission" from their favourite bands.

"Gardenhead", from Asleep on the Compost Heap, was more direct in his language. "Hey I'm no lawyer," he wrote, "but surely Irish music blogs, tending as they do to host single MP3s and promote gigs rather than encouraging the wholesale downloading of albums, should be nurtured – not slapped with some ****e about a licence fee that is going to cause half of them to quit in confusion and frustration."

If IMRO goes ahead with its plan, targeting music blogs around the world, there will soon be legions of frustrated bloggers. And it will be much worse if other regional publishers follow suit. While the organisations' hearts may be in the right place – looking to buoy a flagging industry – we just hope they are going about it the right way. Will forcing the closure amateur music blogs make songwriters richer? Or precisely the reverse?

I know most of us use at least one of these blogs on a regular basis, and anybody who makes or listens to Irish independant music should be absolutely livid about this.

IMRO's dunderheaded bullsh*t is going to cripple these blogs, kill quite a number of them, and very certainly prevent new ones from springing up in future. I know Old MeedYa and the internet have yet to come to terms in this country, but this is ridiculous. And it's obviously ridiculous - any idiot can see that without the only mass promotional outlet these bands have to get their names out there, they won't do very well. IMRO it seems, have a special brand of idiot all of their own.

Yes, strictly speaking, they appear to have at least some legal basis for this - but for an organisation ostensibly concerned with the best interests of Irish musicians, they're doing their level best to act against them. We're not talking about album leak blogs here - we're talking about blogs who promote a couple of carefully chosen tracks from the bundle they've been sent by artists seeking their stamp-of-approval. I've discovered a tremendous amount of new music through them, and find them a particularly useful resource when it comes to seeking out new bands to see live. The music industry cannot or will not promote independant music themselves, so it falls to folks like the Torture Garden and Nialler9 to do the job for them.

They do so admirably - with real passion, art and dedication to what they do, almost universally without ever getting a penny for it. They do it because they want people to hear the music they love, and they want people to get out there and support the bands they feel deserve it.

IMRO, it seems, wants neither of these things. They're trying to extort these non-profit blogs, in the name of the artists nobody would have heard of without the blogs to make their names in the first damn place. Moreover, most of these artists send the MP3s to the blogs to begin with, believing - not unreasonably - that they have a right to distribute their own music how they please. IMRO has no mandate from these musicians to do this. What it is doing is effectively attempting to enforce a protection racket by shaking down a number of non-profit blogs for a quick buck, with absolutely no regard for the damage they're doing to the prospects of the very artists it claims to represent in the meantime.

Those artists too need to make a noise about this, because they're the people it's going to hurt most. Bloggers are, by and large, enthusiastic hobbyists, but musicians need to know with some certainty that there is going to be an industry here in two years to pay for their next guitar. For too long, these artists have let IMRO throw it's weight around in their name as if they're entirely divorced from it's actions, and that's let it away with murder. Irish artists need to speak out about this, loudly, they need to make it known once and for all where they stand - whether they want their proudest early achievement to be the time they were an award-winning blog's favourite band for a few months, or that one time their cousin asked them to play some Kings of Leon covers at a birthday party in a pub in Laois. They need to clearly, definitively distance themselves from this kind of action now, before IMRO goes even further with it in future with their compliant silence.

Irish independant music doesn't just thrive on the blogosphere - it is absolutely dependant on it. IMRO have taken it upon themselves to strangle the life of it for once and for all.

It is an absurdly wrongheaded action, and it reveals exactly where the Irish Music Rights Organisation's interest lies - certainly not with Irish music.

homerun_homer

It's ridiculous and typical of an authoritive power in this country to ruin something that is doing no harm and that is not corrupt / taking advantage of anyone or anything.

Money, Money, money.

Spiritoftheseventies

Its ludicrous. These sites promote artists along with folks like ourselves. Again this is down to industry's slowness in reacting to the digital age.
Dont see the harm at all in you tube links. Streamed music perfectly acceptable.

whatawaster

It's sick that musicians don't have the right to license their own creations. That it belongs to a record company is horrible

sprinkles

I wonder are they going to start charging us for posting youtube clips on these forums...

dionsiseire

Havnt got an email from IMRO yet, expecting to tho.

i sent them off a mail filling with questions this morning and to see if we were in their targets at all but no reply as yet. i imagine if they do reply half the questions i asked will return as "No Comment"

dionsiseire

sprinkles wrote: »

I wonder are they going to start charging us for posting youtube clips on these forums...

IMRO have said Youtube bought a licence, so your ok to do that

jill_valentine

dionsiseire wrote: »

Havnt got an email from IMRO yet, expecting to tho.

i sent them off a mail filling with questions this morning and to see if we were in their targets at all but no reply as yet. i imagine if they do reply half the questions i asked will return as "No Comment"

Sounds about right. They're good that way. :rolleyes:

By all accounts they're every bit as helpful from the artist-end of things as well. Which leads me to wonder what exactly they think they're for.

Dublin_Gunner

So let me get this straight..

I write / record a song.

I give it to YOU to pop on your blog-site, free of charge, because I want people to hear it.


I am not allowed, promote my OWN music, to which I ALONE have the rights, without you paying a license to IMRO (though the song needn't be licensed, its mine and I GAVE you permission to post it)??

Are they taking the effing pi$$??

dionsiseire

Actually its a little worse than that

According to the information coming out of IMRO, If you run your own band site, and post the music for streaming, you cant do that unless your site has an IMRO Licence (though im sure they would never be stupid enough to actually enforce that)

But yes if i was in a band, and registered with IMRO, i couldnt promote myself on my own blog.

Unfortunately people sign up to IMRO with little to no reading of whats involved and thus have handed IMRO the right to chase up everyone who uses a registered song on their site. So anything ive previously posted including MP3's, anything Nialler9 or 2uibestow or torture garden, thumped etc etc etc have posted with either require a licence or they will have to remove all the content.

The loophole (of kinds) is that you can link or embed music from Licenced site, so for example Youtube have a licence, but nobody is 100% sure if sites like Last.fm, Sound cloud or bandcamp or other music type hosting sites where you can embed media to a blog post are licenced or not. In fact Facebook / Bebo / Myspace may not be licenced and technically bands with these profiles could be breaking the rules supposedly

MikeHoncho

IMRO are trying to push a square peg into a round hole here. Its shocking to think that these people can be so stupid. Its a non profit organisation so it can hardly be greed.

Here is a doozy from their site:

IMRO is now synonymous with helping to showcase emerging talent in Ireland.:rolleyes:

dionsiseire

Ive added a pic to the right hand sidebar of my blog. i wonder how many blogs we could get that onto.

Kristopherus

How the fcuk can a shower of imbiciles like IMRO prevent you from distributing you own music free of charge to whomsoever you wish ? Beyond logic to me. Can a blogger/artist not say in his/her blog/website that they are gifting their music to whoever wants to download a track(s) ?

Spiritoftheseventies

dionsiseire wrote: »

IMRO have said Youtube bought a licence, so your ok to do that

Some record companies I think have a deal with You tube . I have a few songs moved from my playlists though.

Miguel_Sanchez

IMRO continues to adapt with the times I see.

Aridstarling

Kristopherus wrote: »

How the fcuk can a shower of imbiciles like IMRO prevent you from distributing you own music free of charge to whomsoever you wish ? Beyond logic to me. Can a blogger/artist not say in his/her blog/website that they are gifting their music to whoever wants to download a track(s) ?

The problem resides in a clause in the contract you sign with IMRO. "However, musicians can only licence the rights which they retain. If they have joined IMRO, they have entered into an agreement with the organisation. The first substantive clause (clause 2) of that agreement provides that the musician is assigning (ie. transferring) all their performing rights to IMRO." - A Clatter of the Law (you can read the rest of that very informative article here)

nyarlothothep

wow, the people running it have just created a special class of a-hole for themselves. Can bands cancel their licences with IMRO? I'd call for a mass boycott

Spiritoftheseventies

Have read that article again. It's shocking what IMRO are doing.

jill_valentine

It's this bit that kills me:

requiring licences for any site that offers song downloads/streams and "is made available in Ireland"

So, essentially, every website on the internet.

Like they're really going to challenge anybody big enough to defend themselves.

A Disgrace

While not agreeing with it totally, cut IMRO some slack folks. If you're a band, and lucky enough to get radio play, these are the guys who make sure you get royalties.. Same goes for tv stings, and even pub cover verisons of your songs.. I think we're all a little too used to downloading stuff for free and can't see the bigger picture..

Spiritoftheseventies

Its going to backfire badly on the IMRO. The very sites that are promoting these bands are going to punished for providing a service
to quote again

Let me get this absolutely straight," Byrne wrote yesterday, "I have no problem paying artists royalties if that is required." But for Byrne, there are two issues. First, that most of the downloads on his site are provided by artists, labels and their PR companies. "Like many I thought that MP3s that were cleared by bands and labels for promo were provided as is – gratis and without any attachments or additional requirements ... Y'know, the same way an entire music blogosphere and a digital PR industry has been allowed to grow up over the course of the last 10 years." In the five years Byrne has been blogging, he says "not one band ... has ever mentioned IMRO or royalties to me when asking me to post their music

jill_valentine

I've heard a couple of accounts from artists of just what IMRO are like to deal with from their perspective. Lets just say that I am extremely cynical about their commitment to "protecting their artists". When it comes to sharing the wealth, they'd do well to get their own house in order before they start drunkenly swinging a bottle at whoever else is in reach.

A Disgrace - These blogs are posting individual tracks with the permission of the bands, generally as part of a gig review or recommendation. They're not pirates, they're not leakers, they're not costing these bands a single penny by doing so - but doing away with them will cost those bands, their labels and everyone else involved in the industry - including IMRO - dearly.

This isn't a question of "I download music, and it doesn't suit me if IMRO makes that harder." I am very much concerned with bigger picture, because without this free and freespeaking channel available to them, hundreds and hundreds of artists won't be able to reach any audience at all. Or at least, they won't be able to reach an audience without either being bland enough to make it to radio or connected enough to call in a favour from Uncle Hewson.

More than that, IMRO seem to be telling bands that they cannot offer their own songs from their own websites without paying them for the privilege first. I think the lunacy of that speaks for itself.

According to IMRO, if an artist, composer or publisher has registered with IMRO (or PRS in the UK / ASCAP in the US), then the MCPSI-IMRO (LOEL) licence must be obtained. Furthermore, if a composer, artist or publisher has done this, then they do not have the right to give full permission to allow their own track to be downloaded on a site.

As you say, we're used to getting things for free. For better and for worse, there's no undoing this, it's just the face of the internet now. If Joe Bloggs cannot find an Irish MP3-hosting blog that caters to his tastes after this - and make no mistake, there won't be very many of them left - he'll go elsewhere. Where he can get free, legal MP3s, from bands who want to be heard just as much as our own, but don't have to fight their own representatives to do so.

But, while we're on this train of thought... IMRO are targeting "any site that offers song downloads/streams and is made available in Ireland". That includes, as an extreme example, Pitchfork and Stereogum. I can't believe that IMRO are stupid enough to even consider trying to discourage that kind of exposure. I hate to be the one who has to break it to them, but by God, Jools Holland just won't live forever.

This is a massive blow to an arts scene I love, and this will be a dire precedent if they get away with it. I don't know of any artists who support this action, and quite a few who would object. If IMRO follows through on this outdated, wrongheaded philosophy, the effect it will have on the Irish independant music scene will be absolutely catastrophic. They will be hobbling a generation of young bands from ever getting a foot on the ladder, by blindly attacking something that was never a danger in the first place.

These blogs never posed a risk to Irish music - they have done wonders for it, especially in the last three years or so, and I can't stress this enough. But as of right now, I don't think it's in any way overstating the situation to suggest that the biggest threat to he next decade of Irish music is IMRO itself.

I'd ask anybody who's as frustrated by this nonsense as I am to contact IMRO at info@imro.ie to voice their concern. We may not get them to reverse their f*cktardary, but at least they'll know it hasn't gone unnoticed.

maccored

im wondering if this isnt part of a bigger music industry plan to try and kill off the idea of bands using the internet for themselves. As an IMRO member, I've jsut sent an email of complaint. If they dont do something about, I'll leave (not that IMRO will give a toss) as my cheques off them are tiny and arent in anyway as important as being able to distribute music to music bloggers.

Spiritoftheseventies

maccored wrote: »

im wondering if this isnt part of a bigger music industry plan to try and kill off the idea of bands using the internet for themselves. As an IMRO member, I've jsut sent an email of complaint. If they dont do something about, I'll leave (not that IMRO will give a toss) as my cheques off them are tiny and arent in anyway as important as being able to distribute music to music bloggers.

Again thats an interesting point. Who has copyright over your music. I know R.E.M when they signed to WB, signed a deal which gave them a lot of independence and AFAIK it was a deal that was pretty muchrevolutionary at the time.
It's becoming more and more common for bands to stream new singles on line aswell so not exactly sure why IMRO are pursuing the blog companies the way they are.
Bands should have the final say in who distributes their music IMO.

smackbunnybaby

maccored wrote: »

I'll leave (not that IMRO will give a toss) as my cheques off them are tiny and arent in anyway as important as being able to distribute music to music bloggers.

9 cent cheque from IMRO once a year

Versus

10 euro from a fan that went to a gig cus they heard your song on a blog


I suppose as long as Paul Brady is getting his money it's all grand.

Spiritoftheseventies

smackbunnybaby wrote: »

9 cent cheque from IMRO once a year

Versus

10 euro from a fan that went to a gig cus they heard your song on a blog


I suppose as long as Paul Brady is getting his money it's all grand.

Just curious, is any money that IMRO received put back into the industry in terms of the rock schools like the one in Ballyfermot?

dionsiseire

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Some record companies I think have a deal with You tube . I have a few songs moved from my playlists though.

This is specifically for songs covered by IMRO, They trashed out a deal with Youtube a little while back

Aridstarling

From Richter Collective twitter:

"Yeh apparently we do actually need a LEOL to host our bands songs on our own website."

Which is utter madness...

me-skywalker

Would myspace be included in this since it offer streams for free and is available in Ireland? I know.... I know but I would like to see them take on Rupert Murdoch!

wax

We're in the middle of a recession. Anyone unemployed? This is the perfect invite and time for someone to set up an alternative to IMRO!!!

Do it!

dionsiseire

me-skywalker wrote: »

Would myspace be included in this since it offer streams for free and is available in Ireland? I know.... I know but I would like to see them take on Rupert Murdoch!

Yes myspace are included in this, so apparently are all social networks.

Cast of Cheers have pulled out of the IMRO Showcase Best Of tomorrow in protest at IMRO's action against the bloggers

me-skywalker

dionsiseire wrote: »

Yes myspace are included in this, so apparently are all social networks.

Cast of Cheers have pulled out of the IMRO Showcase Best Of tomorrow in protest at IMRO's action against the bloggers

This is opening up a bigger can of worms than I think they realise. I worked with IMRO several times and great people to deal with and there service on paper works but its hard to manage and put into practice I assuem this is jsut another way to try increase their books and margins.

dionsiseire

Indeed,

Nialler9, Shane and Darragh (the 3 bloggers contacted so far) will be meeting IMRO next week.

looking forward to seeing the outcome of that

me-skywalker

dionsiseire wrote: »

Indeed,

Nialler9, Shane and Darragh (the 3 bloggers contacted so far) will be meeting IMRO next week.

looking forward to seeing the outcome of that

Yea very interesting... While straight away people might seem like it looks scandalous and holding back the progression of Irish music im sure tehre is some reasoning behind it and they have consulted some top lawyers on a case like this.

jill_valentine

GOWAN THE CAST OF CHEERS!

FewFew

The implications of this are quite massive. Mind bogglingly so. I'm trying to go through everything and see what extent my music if affected. I don't think Irish musicians want this and it really enforces the point that IMRO owns your performance royalties. In the past I've been a fan of giving permission to sites such as mp3hugger because they do a good job and are respectful of the musician's wishes.

I take it a musician that has never signed up to IMRO is exempt from this stupidity? It would make a strong argument for artists to at least delay signing up to IMRO until they'll make a real gain.

Also, a song that's not yet registered with IMRO, is it also exempt, or do IMRO excercise a blanket ownership over composers that have signed on the dotted line?


I think a key point in this whole thing is the type of people who are on IMRO's board of directors. The vote happened last year or so... not one young writer amongst them and the only name I recognised was Christy Moore. Is it perhaps time that Irish musicians took more notice of this stuff and started getting younger members on the board? I think it's an obvious yes.

Can IMRO members actually "quit"? When you sign on the dotted line it's a contract, just wondering if it's an easy one to break.

Valmont

whatawaster wrote: »

It's sick that musicians don't have the right to license their own creations. That it belongs to a record company is horrible

Are you serious? They do have the right. Have you not heard of a band creating their own record label? The fact is the record companies provide the much needed start up capital bands need to get going. They aren't forced into cooperation, as you would have us believe. I think the record companies are unfairly tarnished by some people so that they can somehow legitimise their "free" downloading.

jill_valentine

Facebook group, in it's very early stages:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=118423761516287

I'd really appreciate your support. With the bloggers are meeting IMRO next week, every little helps.

FewFew

whatawaster wrote: »

It's sick that musicians don't have the right to license their own creations. That it belongs to a record company is horrible

This, for once, is nothing to do with big bad record labels. While record labels often own the copyright to musicians' music (and hence have a problem with free downloads etc), this issue is to do with performance rights, which, unless I'm mistaken, are normally owned by the composers (and sometimes inherited.)

pauliewallie

I get the forms every year from imro about the board and whos on it and what not, most names I dont recognise. I have never taken an interest in the politics of it really, maybe I should have, a matter for another day. One thing I think is that there are not many young Irish musicians anywhere near the board of Imro who may have navigated them away from this contoversial decision. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe what we need to change in Irish music rights not coming down heavy on blogs is a new breed coming through, so instead of Paul Brady, Eleanor McEvoy and Christy Moore deciding what is best for Irish Music we have .... well lets just say, others!

Completely off topic ... Can I just add .. Film School

Fewcifur wrote: »

The implications of this are quite massive. Mind bogglingly so. I'm trying to go through everything and see what extent my music if affected. I don't think Irish musicians want this and it really enforces the point that IMRO owns your performance royalties. In the past I've been a fan of giving permission to sites such as mp3hugger because they do a good job and are respectful of the musician's wishes.

I take it a musician that has never signed up to IMRO is exempt from this stupidity? It would make a strong argument for artists to at least delay signing up to IMRO until they'll make a real gain.

Also, a song that's not yet registered with IMRO, is it also exempt, or do IMRO excercise a blanket ownership over composers that have signed on the dotted line?


I think a key point in this whole thing is the type of people who are on IMRO's board of directors. The vote happened last year or so... not one young writer amongst them and the only name I recognised was Christy Moore. Is it perhaps time that Irish musicians took more notice of this stuff and started getting younger members on the board? I think it's an obvious yes.

Can IMRO members actually "quit"? When you sign on the dotted line it's a contract, just wondering if it's an easy one to break.

JJ

Mia Sparrow have also dropped out of tonight's gig:

http://miasparrowmusic.com/blog/wordpress/?p=99

Is anybody actually going to this gig? It'd be nice if no one showed up (bands and fans) to send a message.

Miguel_Sanchez

JJ wrote: »

Mia Sparrow have also dropped out of tonight's gig:

http://miasparrowmusic.com/blog/wordpress/?p=99

Is anybody actually going to this gig? It'd be nice if no one showed up (bands and fans) to send a message.

Definitely not going now as I only wanted to see Cast of Cheers and Mia Sparrow.

jill_valentine

Hot Press have embarrassed themselves in their attempt to cover this, I must say:

http://www.hotpress.com/IMRO/news/IMRO-to-meet-bloggers-over-licence-row/6494389.html?page_no=2&show_comments=1

The TortureGarden's response covers it nicely.

It's a bad article.

It's unfair and inaccurate. There are a few classic hallmarks of bad journalism in there: the fact that it's written about people who weren't once contacted for comment, the scathing, unfounded and unchallenged remarks from anonymous contributors, the opening assertation that the piece presents both sides of the story.

It opens with the line: "Hot Press has been talking to people on both sides of the online music payment divide." Yet curiously, none of them were the three bloggers contacted by IMRO.

There are a few odd comments inserted throughout the piece. They mention that some sites are ad-free, and essentially run on enthusiasm, but they don't mention that two of the three concerned sites fall into this category, preferring instead to list the ads recently seen on Nialler9. Most notably, two anonymous sources are quoted, making rather contentious comments about blogs and advertising. Firstly, a nameless advertising industry insider describes these ads as "a handy little earner," though they go on to note that "[o]ne of the weaknesses of blogs is that they tend to be frequented by a small number of people who create a disproportionate number of page impressions, so for obvious reasons no one is willing to pay much to be on those kind of sites."

Instead of a quote from me, or one of the other concerned bloggers, who were deemed uninteresting and unessential to the task at hand, we are given this conjecture, which adds nothing to the debate, and is not based on any knowledge of any of our sites. I'm not sure what relevance it has, but it certainly sounds bad. I imagine a lot of readers would like to know what our reservations about the licence are, but I guess the anonymous source was more reliable.

The second anonymous contributor is the one with the best lines, though. Named only as an IMRO songwriter, he declares:

Look, it isn’t exactly a popular thing to say, but the fact is that bloggers are part of the real economy. In lots of cases they're looking for and accepting payment for advertising. And to generate the traffic which attracts advertising they're indiscriminately using other people's music – often international music and often by big name artists.

I’m all for people being able to waive any royalties they might be due, if they want to. I might do it myself. But that’s different from someone deciding they’ll take whatever music they want, and do whatever they feel like with it with no permission from anybody.

This blog does not look for payment for advertising. Neither does Asleep on the Compost Heap. That's two of the three concerned blogs. Any regular reader will have surely noticed that I frequently fall behind on posting, conduct ill-suited to a blogger trying to generate traffic - and when it comes to the "international music" (what? Is foreign music especially popular or something?) and Big Name Artists, well, I may as well not be trying at all.

None of the concerned blogs are known for being the kind to "take whatever music [we] want and do whatever [we] feel like with it with no permission from anybody." The quotation is superfluous, and that unrelated assertation should have been challenged.

Why, if I didn't know better, I'd say maybe they feel a bit threatened to see music journalists doing actual music journalism. Maybe Olaf can write a short story about it? Everyone loves those, right?

FewFew

Poor on the part of Hotpress. I wonder do they pay IMRO a license for their online media content, hidden behind a subscription fee as it is.

They also should have had two sides of the writer/musician point of view, this thread alone displays a number of IMRO members in support of the bloggers.

Miguel_Sanchez

Can't say I'm surprised at the Hotpress article. Their standards have been dropping for years.

Spiritoftheseventies

In all fairness they did contact artists who were not in favour of the IMRO move. Not as biased as some make it out to be

amen

The loophole (of kinds) is that you can link or embed music from Licenced site

I thought you could only link to a site for viewing in ireland if the license has been paid in ireland?

jill_valentine

They let a load of innuendo and a number of blatantly false statements about these blogs, such as the one about them being "a nice little earner" go right though unchallenged. And they didn't even attempt to contact a single one of the bloggers concerned, so the people this whole thing is about didn't get a chance to do it for them. It's not like they aren't available for comment or anything.

Hot Press start out paying lip-service to the notion of journalistic impartiality, and then they let a bunch of "anonymous" IMRO sources take a load of irrelevant and misleading potshots at the integrity of the bloggers didn't even bother their holes to email, before giving their magical fantasy source the - again, misleading and irrelevant - final word on the whole subject.

That strikes me as a transparent attempt to load the dice.

At the very least, it's woefully incompetent journalism; and if that's the case, they've got some nerve letting the bloggers get roasted for their practices and standards.

dionsiseire

Was delighted to hear MIA pulled out too, they have organised a gig in Castlebar as a gig against IMRO's actions

IMRO have published their FAQ on the license, i'll save you some time, its nothing all of us bloggers havnt already confirmed
http://www.imro.ie/imro_article/limited-online-licensing-blog-services-ireland

The hotpress article is an embarassment, the controversial statements are from "Anonymous" sources, they try to imply bloggers are making a mint (there's only one blogger with any kind of advertising revenue and even he has said it really isnt much) the rest of us have next to zero revenue (if not losing money). They imply the music is put up without permission, nothing could be further from the truth and there is no medium upon which to challenge the content or write a comment and the article doesnt even say who wrote it (had i written that i would hide my name too)

jill_valentine

So IMRO are meeting the blog guys tomorrow/today. Best of luck to them, and here's hoping that the whole mess can be resolved to everybody's satisfaction.

turbot

I think that the decision makers in the IMRO should be tested to evaluate their competency with technology.

If they are unable to:

- synchronise their mobile phone with their laptop
- explain what an RSS feed is and how it's meritorious
- use search operators (i.e. + / - / "" ) for better search results in google
- install a plugin in a browser

They should be disqualified from working on the grounds of complete incompetency and lack of awareness thereof, constituting gross negligence.

(Too often, people who's head are stuck in 1996 precepts, are attempting to enforce regulations on a medium they don't understand, because they can't be bothered to update their way of thinking.)