Lassiter Tidwell

T.I. said he heard about the situation on the radio and drove to the building to help.Associated Press

Long-time Copyfight reader Eric Anderson has been working for years on the history of copyright within the U.S. with a particular focus on the 19th century. He recently sent me a note to let everyone know that he's put his book Pimps and Ferrets: Copyright and
Culture in the United States, 1831-1891 up on archive.org under a Creative Commons license that makes it free for non-commercial use.

On a personal note, Eric mentioned that he's left academia and we wish him well in all his future endeavors.

drwex

Yesterday, T Bone Burnett was stuck on a plane for five hours and took a moment to respond to just about every single Hypebot reader that mocked him for the somewhat shocking advice that he offered to musicians at the FMC Policy Summit. If you don't recall, he basically said that the best counsel he could offer an up-and-coming artist in today's climate is to, "Stay completely away from the Internet." Don't bother uploading your music to MySpace, because the second that an artist does, they've instantly devalued it. I've taken the time to curate some of his best quotes and hope that I don't misrepresent his views by isolating some of his most interesting insights:

If you are a musician, I am on your side.  I am fighting for a fairer, more ethical future for musicians.  I have been doing this for a long time, and I have to say, in all honesty, that as larcenous as the record companies have been, the internet makes them look like Robin Hoods.  I am fully aware of the possibilities of putting together and managing a database on the Internet. 

The Internet is a powerful tool for sharing information- great for research.  It is, however, an indisputable fact that digital technology does not capture music as fully as analogue technology.  If one can't hear the difference between a tape recording and an mp3, he should not quit his day job.

Digital is not the end of technology.  In my view, for music, it is a detour.  There are better sounding, more stable, more robust technologies to store music available now, and there are many possibilities for the future...  If I were just starting out today, knowing what I know now, I would have nothing to do with the internet... I would not advertise myself... I would not market myself.  I would spend every minute of the day I could playing and listening to music.  Learning.  Getting better...

Musicians deserve better.  The audience deserves better.  If you are a musician, YOUR audience deserves better... The future of music is analogue.  Guitars are analogue.  Pianos are analogue.  Drums are analogue.  Music is analogue.  We are analogue.

I am fighting to make the world sound better. The quality of the sound of recorded music has fallen off close to a hundred percent in the last twenty years, and we all suffer from that reality. Though I would wish it to be so, I do not believe that the internet is ushering in a world of peace and harmony and community.

At the moment it looks most like an advertising platform. The internet, is at this moment, an amateur medium. I trust that someday, this internet, or another one, will turn into something strong and filled with beauty and truth. As things stand, though there are the occasional bright spots, it is fragile and filled with nonformation. We can see this by the defensiveness (and offensiveness) of many of its proponents.

At any rate, by any standards, it is a medium of extremely low quality, as exemplified by the unlistenable mp3 format.

I hope you're right. I hope this internet or another one works out. A lot of people are putting a lot of blind faith in it. For all the good that can come of connectivity in terms of community and shared information and research, there is as great or greater a potential for evil as we must see clearly by even the most cursory examination of the subject. So far... I would say that the internet has failed to deliver on its promise. I have high hopes that that will change. I'm just not counting on it. At any rate, I am not talking about going backward, I am talking about going forward.

I want to assure and reassure you that I am fully alive to all of this.

Onward.

T Bone Burnett

On September 3, 2010, the Board re-designated its decision in In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227 (TTAB 2010) as precedential. The original TTABlog posting may be found here. The Board held that the phrase ONCE A MARINE, ALWAYS A MARINE would be perceived merely as informational and does not function as a trademark for Applicant's clothing items


Text Copyright John L. Welch 2010.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children spend two hours or less at a screen—either computer or television—a day. And, to a large extent, that advice has been supported by studies that show screen time associated with both sedentary behavior and some emotional problems. 

But since screen time is generally associated with sitting still, and most studies have relied on self-reported measures of physical activity and media consumption, teasing apart cause and effect has been challenging. Now, a new study indicates that screen time is associated with psychological issues; sitting isn't.

The authors recognize the challenges of performing this sort of study up front: self-reported measures of any activity, from exercise to TV viewing, tend to be biased, and there are a set of interconnected factors that influence childhood behavior that can be extremely difficult to untangle. However, the UK researchers designed their study to avoid as many of these as possible. The children, aged 10-11, were given a standard test that measures behavioral problems, and the confounding influence of the environment was controlled by using a measure of the economic wellbeing of a participant's postal code (the UK Index of Multiple Deprivation). BMI scores were also obtained, since obesity can influence wellbeing in a way that's distinct from inactivity.

Read the comments on this post

jtimmer@arstechnica.com (John Timmer)063405099673999887280311451725912201905211860469904545435168101697516441832549471563387187526996739609713688653487821059008894688975822618590241269155437315152303004064645352282992

The Supreme Court is refusing to hear a legal challenge by two Americans ejected from a President George W. Bush event in 2005 for having a “no more blood for oil” bumper sticker on their vehicle.

Only two justices voted Tuesday to review a lower court’s ruling that said the pair had no First Amendment right to attend Bush’s 2005 public speech at the Wings Over the Rockies Museum in Colorado. The White House had a policy of excluding those who did not agree with the president from his public appearances.

It was a policy a federal appeals court upheld in January and one Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg blasted on Tuesday. “Ejecting them for holding discordant views could only have been a reprisal for the expression conveyed by the bumper sticker,” (.pdf) Ginsburg wrote. Joining her was Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The other justices did not comment on their votes to reject the petition for review.

Bumper stickers like the one at issue were synonymous with opposition to the Iraq War during the second Bush administration.

The two plaintiffs obtained the free tickets for the event from a local Colorado representative, and sued the government for giving them the boot.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the pair “simply have not identified any First Amendment doctrine that prohibits the government from excluding them from an official speech on private property on the basis of their viewpoint.”

A dissenting judge on the same circuit supported the pair. Judge William Holloway said “It is simply astounding that any member of the executive branch could have believed that our Constitution justified this egregious violation of plaintiffs’ rights.”

According to court records, before the plaintiffs entered the March 2005 event, the Secret Service initially stopped them and told one of the plaintiffs, Leslie Weise, that she would be ejected “if she tried any funny stuff.”

Shortly after Weise and co-plaintiff Alex Young got to their seats, they were asked to leave.

See Also:

• Texting Censorship Flap Settled Out of Court
• Top Internet Threats: Censorship to Warrantless Surveillance …
• Google to Stop Censoring Search Results in China After Hack Attack
• Law Against Police Bumper Stickers Unconstitutional
• Be Careful What Your Bumper Sticker Says

Can the government get a full picture of who you are by friending you on Facebook and monitoring your friends and family? The Department of Homeland Security thinks so, and is apparently willing to pose as that hot girl next door in order to become your friend.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently got its hands on a DHS document titled "Social Networking Sites and Their Importance to FDNS" (PDF) as part of its work on social network surveillance. The document generally details how social networks function and provides a list of popular sites that people around the world like to use, including Facebook, Badoo, Imeem, MySpace, Windows Live Spaces, and others.

Read the comments on this post

jacqui@arstechnica.com (Jacqui Cheng)14879786000134007589

(UPDATED) For the first time ever, the nominees for the American Music Awards were chosen using BigChampagne Media's Ultimate Chart—which gathers data online, as well as, from retail and broadcast sources—not the Billboard 100. It's likely that, due to the wider scope of the data and analytics that the Ultimate Charts takes into consideration, the awards felt that it was the most accurate representation of artist popularity available. Still, this year's nominees won't surprise you:

Lady Antebellum and Eminem have five nominations and Justin Bieber has four.

POP ROCK MUSIC

Favorite Male Artist

• Justin Bieber
• Eminem
• Usher

Favorite Female Artist

• Ke$ha
• Lady Gaga
• Katy Perry

Favorite Band, Duo or Group

• The Black Eyed Peas
• Lady Antebellum
• Train

Favorite Album

• Justin Bieber, “My World 2.0”
• Eminem, “Recovery”
• Katy Perry, “Teenage Dream”

COUNTRY MUSIC

Favorite Male Artist

• Jason Aldean
• Luke Bryan
• Brad Paisley

Favorite Female Artist

• Miranda Lambert
• Taylor Swift
• Carrie Underwood

Favorite Band, Duo or Group

• Zac Brown Band
• Lady Antebellum
• Rascal Flatts

Favorite Album

• Jason Aldean, “Wide Open”
• Lady Antebellum, “Need You Now”
• Carrie Underwood, “Play On”

RAP/HIP-HOP MUSIC

Favorite Male Artist

• B.o.B.
• Drake
• Eminem

Favorite Album

• B.o.B., “B.o.B. Presents”
• Drake, “Thank Me Later”
• Eminem, “Recovery”

SOUL/RHYTHM & BLUES MUSIC

Favorite Male Artist

• Chris Brown
• Trey Songz
• Usher

Favorite Female Artist

• Alicia Keys
• Rihanna
• Sade

Favorite Album

• Alicia Keys, “The Element of Freedom”
• Sade, “Soldier of Love”
• Usher, “Raymond v. Raymond”

ALTERNATIVE ROCK MUSIC

Favorite Artist

• Muse
• Phoenix
• Vampire Weekend

ARTIST OF THE YEAR

• Justin Bieber
• Eminem
• Ke$ha
• Lady Gaga
• Katy Perry

T-MOBILE BREAKTHROUGH ARTIST NOMINATIONS

• B.o.B
• Justin Bieber
• Taio Cruz
• Jason Derülo
• Ke$ha
• Lady Antebellum
• Travie McCoy
• Mike Posner

 

The parties opted for the Board's Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) process in this Section 2(d) opposition to the mark FREDERICK WILLIAM for various types of wine. Opposer Frederick Wildman claimed likely confusion with its registered logo mark shown below, for "wines." Applicant, appearing pro se, conceded priority and similarity of goods, but the Board agreed with him that the marks are so different as to warrant dismissal of the opposition. Frederick Wildman & Sons, Limited v. Frederick William Scherrer, Opposition No. 91191369 (September 30, 2010) [not precedential].


The Board applauded the parties for choosing ACR, "as this appears to be an ideal set of facts for the selection of the streamlined process." The parties agreed to ACR at the discovery conference of October 5, 2009, had a bit of discovery, skipped testimony and notices of reliance, submitted their evidence as attachments to their briefs filed in March and April 2010, skipped oral argument, and received their decision in September 2010.

Applicant contended that Opposer is an importer and distributor of branded wines, which are marked with Opposer's "oval of quality" mark, whereas Applicant is an blender/producer who will use his mark in the name of the wine. This, however, "is a marketplace distinction without a legal difference." The respective identification of goods are legally equivalent.

Opposer's mark has been in use for decades, and sales of its products bearing the mark exceed one million cases per year. However, Opposer did not provide information as to household penetration or market share, or information to show that it has achieved "strong brand awareness and national recognition that would entitle it to be considered a famous mark."

As to the marks, Opposer contended that the design portion of its marks is of little significance and that the word portion is nearly identical to Applicant's mark. The Board, however, found that "Wildman" and "William" have very different sounds, connotations, and commercial impressions."

"Wildman" in this context appears to be a surname (i.e., preceded by a given name and followed by the phrase "and Sons"). By contrast, the name "William," when used with the name "Frederick," sounds like the joining of two given names, as indeed, appears to be the case for applicant. In fact, we find these two marks are so different that the du Pont factor of the dissimilarities of the marks outweighs the other relevant du Pont factors ....
The Board therefore concluded that Opposer had failed to prove its Section 2(d) case, and it dismissed the opposition.

TTABlog note: For all the information you need about ACR, go to the TTAB home page (here).

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2010.

The US Copyright Group (USCG) plays hardball—and not just with the 16,000 peer-to-peer file-swappers it tries to push into settlements. Indeed, the lawyers behind the group are happy to use the same tactics on other anti-P2P lawyers, demanding that a rival firm change its name and settle for $25,000—or risk a court fight.

On October 8, we ran a story on the Media Copyright Group (MCG), a group of entrepreneurial midwestern lawyers who represent pornographers, including "a leading producer and distributor of adult entertainment content within the transsexual niche."

MCG uses a Chicago family law lawyer named John Steele (phone number: 1-800-DIVORCE) to file its federal copyright complaints against those accused of downloading its clients' films, and it presumably intends to follow the USCG business model by asking people to settle up for a couple thousand dollars or risk massive statutory damages (and public embarrassment) by going to court.

Read the comments on this post

nate@arstechnica.com (Nate Anderson)18032350621421042883078485728933695072620088946889758226185910358014246412567749

Recently, I spoke with Benji Rogers, founder of PledgeMusic, a crowdfunding platform for music and creativity. In the first segment of this two part interview, Rogers talks about the difference between crowdfunding and what PledgeMusic does, how the process encourages more active participation from fans, and things artists should consider when putting together a campaign.

How does crowdfunding disrupt the one-size-fits-all paradigm of financing the production of recorded music? Being that it's more democratic in nature, does it fund art that otherwise wouldn't get produced?

Benji Rogers: First, I’d like to speak to the difference between straight “Crowd Funding” and what I consider PledgeMusic does. To me using the words “crowd” and “funding” to describe the kind of intimate and unique direct to fan experience that we focus on is to sell it short. I fundamentally don’t believe that “crowds” or fans for that matter want to have much to do with “funding” anything.

This is why I shy away from the term in the first place. I also am not really a fan of the term “consumer” for the same reason. I’ve never met a consumer, but I have met plenty of fans and I feel that I can safely say that the last thing they want to do is to fund anything.

"Fans crave participation, inclusion, a feeling of belonging and so the wonderful part about having the web as a tool is that you can offer these experiences to your fans from miles away and with no price barrier."

This is another reason we didn’t even look into the fan investment mechanisms that exist as we all felt that fans are also not attracted to the idea of putting money into their favorite artists to make a profit. We tricked out the platform in so many ways to enhance both usability and functionality for artists whilst offering the fans an amazing journey that they can share with their band.

As creative as our artists wish to be in the way in the way which they share their music with their fans is what has lead to us doing so well as a platform, and so we de-emphasize the transaction of “funding” in favor of the much more experiential “Pledge.” We focus on the interaction and not the payment. I have never wanted to fund my favorite artists, but I have always wanted to be a part of what it is that they are. What they sell is a different matter.

But anyway, finally in answer to your question yes absolutely. Artists are no longer subject to anyone’s agendas but their own, and certainly no to the whims of a passing and often fickle gatekeeper or crowd. They can reach out to their fans with the music that they want to make and more importantly they can be more creative than they ever have been able to be in the way in which they deliver this music to the world. Artists are no longer subject to release schedules, trends in clothing, passing styles or genre, pigeonholes or former look or age restrictions and I suppose on the whole are no longer subject to what was.

They are only beholden to what either works or does not.

KB: What the web, the proliferation of digital technologies, and the rise of the networked audience leads to is "pull" marketing.

“Rather than treating producers as passive consumers whose needs can be anticipated and shaped by centralized decision makers, pull models treat [fans] as networked creators even when they actually are customers purchasing goods and services,” John Seely Brown argues in From Push to Pull. "Pull platforms harness their participants’ passion, commitment, and desire to learn, thereby creating communities that improvise and innovate rapidly.”

Crowdfunding utilizes a pull marketing model over the push method. In what ways does this change the level of involvement that fans have in the production process and their commitment to the resulting art?

Benji Rogers: Again I think this speaks to my first point about how we use and define the words “crowd  funding” in this context. To me the whole point is being missed in most cases by focusing on the transaction. If we talk about fans being “networked creators” by merely putting money towards an artists work then this is only speaking to a quarter of the potential at best. The transaction is the least exciting part of the equation as I stated above, but what really makes the fans feel a part of things is if they are actually engaging in the campaign on a deeper level. We developed the tools to share not just what the artist is selling i.e. “direct to consumer” as it is often called but also to share what the artist is doing. From the studio to the stage the fans can be taken along for the ride of their lives.

The artists can grant as much or as little access as they would like to but the principal of the fans themselves being able to share what they are doing, and how they are interacting with their bands amongst their peers is more powerful than just the transaction itself.

"Fans can literally change the course of things
as they are happening, and as the platform is
adaptive when live the very act of creation can be
shared and the maximum inclusion is possible."

This does not mean that all artists have to show every detail but it’s more that they could if they wanted to. We’ve had to check with lawyers and even with health and safety to see whether what certain of our artists wanted to offer was possible, safe and legal.

This speaks more to who the artists we work with are and not just the products that they sell. You can’t steal the experience as that would be missing the point and in essence you can’t buy it after the fact as it’s actually happening in real time nature. The fans’ interaction really does mean that artists can react in real time as well which I think opens an amazing door to what is possible as the platform further evolves. The fact of a charity being involved in each campaign has further increased these levels of not only financial but emotional participation and has led to a “nobody looses” attitude across the whole process.

Does crowdfunding encourage fans to be more active participants in their cultural lives and does it serve to more closely connect fans to the material processes of arts creation and those involved?

Benji Rogers: As I stated above I would argue that “crowd funding” is an extension of that with a few bells and whistles and that why I’m not a fan of it in the musical space. We have had almost zero file sharing of Pledge Artists as the fans that Pledge and who have interacted with their artists would be undermining the point of their Pledge in sharing the updates from “their” artists campaigns.

You will notice that the average “crowd funding” campaign reads in essence: fund my album, there are cool ways for you to buy, and you have 60 days to do so, and when it’s done I’ll send it to you along with what ever you bought.

What’s the fans incentive to buy? They could just wait and get it later? At the time of their choosing. What we help our artists bring into the world is a campaign that would read more like: Pledge here to be a part of the making of our new album and from day one you get access to our Pledgers Only updates page on which we will be uploading, rough mixes, demos, live tracks, video blogs, and youstream live events from the road and from the studio. There are limited exclusives available and 15% of all profits from this Pledge go will go to (for example) Musicians On Call, a charity that we love because…

We have had artists who have done and offered less than this and it’s had some success, but we built the platform with enough of an engine to really let our artists shoot for more and they sure have! Fans have also given us the feedback that the Pledge process is how they wish to receive all their music and band interaction in the future. The idea of just getting a format pales in comparison.

"This is why Pledgers often Pledge on multiple projects and have asked us to make out site more searchable and to better help them identify similar artists for them. We’re working on that by the way!"

KB: The greatest challenges of crowdfunding a record pertain to aligning a project with realistic financial expectations and coordinating the type of incentives that will promote fan participation. The right project with too high of funding needs will fail. So too, if the proper enticements aren't tied to the tiers of contribution; it won't gain traction among the target audience.

This leads to a complex merriment of the project, it's goals, and level of interest it can garner.  The incentives tied to contribution tiers tend to bring backers towards a greater degree of involvement in careers of artists and grant them access to extensions of their fandom that wouldn't otherwise be available to lesser fans.

What are the essential elements of contribution tiers that spur deeper participation among fans and how do they make backing the project, both better than not having the album, but also 'better than free' too?

Benji Rogers: I think I touched on this above. The exclusive packages, or offerings should not be considered the rewards, but should be considered the price of entry to the campaign.

• Offer Must Be Relevant To The Fans: They should be set up sensibly and should be based on items and experiences that are relevant to the fans and to the bands particular style of interaction. 

• Focus On The Experiential Side: They should focus on the experiential side of things, and as a rule anything, personalized, in person, limited in number but not too cost prohibitive and all things that lead to something personalized go the fastest.

• Cost The Pledge Tiers Correctly: We also try and help artists cost these things correctly, i.e. take into account shipping costs and the basic cost of items at the base level so that they can maximize profits.

As for the setting of the target amounts we have an algorithm built into the signup process from which we begin to get a picture of what that target should sensibly be. We hit a 77% success rate in campaigns hitting their target amounts and I think that this was in large part a result of using more than just a face value sign up process when approving projects. Also the majority of our artists do not display the amount of money that they are trying to raise. This is highly encouraged as it further de-emphasizes the financial transaction part of the campaign but also has lead to fans spending more money.

"We have seen that fans Pledge on average
30% more if the target amount is not disclosed"

Another interesting thing we found is that since we started the company only three fans have ever asked what the target amount was. If the campaign is great, and the rewards/updates (not the incentives to buy) are fantastic then fans really don’t care about the fund-raising side of things. Further to this we encourage artists to offer a broad range of exclusive items and we recommend that they not all be cost prohibitive. We focus on limited quantities of rare things at each price point. The ebay model can be seen to be rewarding only those who can afford and not those who just get there first. We’ve also been able to work with partners to save our artists money on things like manufacturing, studio time, mastering and promotion. Unlike a traditional crowd funding site we consider the Pledgers only updates to be the reward for all who participate and so we feel that from the fans perspective, if you Pledge the minimum of $10, €8 £8 then whilst the first few weeks may not show it, the following weeks and months become the most amazing value for money. Fans clearly want choices but we feel that these should never be too cost prohibitive. Strangely enough the slowest moving exclusives are the lowest priced, i.e. the digital download and the straight CD.

It will be high noon over at the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday as the agency proposes new regulations to help consumers cope with "bill shock"—those unexpectedly high monthly statements smart phone users get from time to time. The FCC's Open Meeting Notice says the Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking "seeking comment on rules requiring mobile carriers to provide usage alerts and related information that will assist consumers in avoiding unexpected charges on their bills."

What will those rules say? Not sure, but we can tell you what various advocacy groups would like them to say—something pretty close to what the European Union set up earlier this year:

Read the comments on this post

matthew.lasar@arstechnica.com (Matthew Lasar)00889468897582261859

No one cares what record label paid for an album. Fans are oblivious to whether EMI, Warner Music Group, or Sony Music had their hands on it.  The day is coming when fans might have to care.  Converse plans to build a recording studio called Rubber Tracks in New York City. Bands will be able to apply online and those regarded as enthusiastic and disadvantaged enough will be granted the opportunity to record their album, for free, in the new studio space. Artists keep the ownership rights to their music. Converse says they won't sway the creative direction of the music.

Is this a dream come true for artists or a nightmare in the making?

If an artist wanted to get signed by a major record label or, at least, attract the interest of an indie, they might not change their sound necessarily. But they'd still make the main product—the group—more appealing to their target.

What compromises does an artist undertake to charm Converse? How do they increase the chances of a corporation taking interest in their music?

Corporations have always wanted to integrate themselves with youth culture.

Now, instead of having an indie song played in their commercials, they're paying for the production of the song itself. Brands used to just plaster their names around anything they wanted to associate themselves with. Anything to get teens to think of their products as more hip and representative of their generation.

Converse has always been a part of music, in some fashion; Kurt Cobain wore them and so did the Ramones. They didn't, however, purchase them at Target.

Will fans of up-and-coming bands be more sensitized to the idea that the group wears Converse shoes because they're still grateful that the company provided free studio time for their last record? Or, will they be unable to differentiate between personal taste and corporate intrusion into the cultural sphere?

Fans buy the shoes to identify with the artist who is really paying homage to a corporation. The whole point. Converse takes on a new life; it intertwines with not only with youth culture, but youth and culture. Artists, those usually distrustful of corporations, are increasingly left to rely on whoever will pay the bills. Is this a new ally of the artist or the beginging of the degration of music as we know it?

T Bone Burnett had some choice words to give up-and-coming artists at the FMC Policy Summit last week: “Stay completely away from the internet.” It’s a rather provocative statement. The reason he gives is that once an artist joins the legions of bands on MySpace they’ve already lost. That by uploading their music to the web an artist instantly devalues their work and throws it on top of the growing and excessive pile of music. At his best, he also makes big assertions about the greatest challenge of our time: the affluence of machines and our overreliance on them.

Take A Look At The Video Below The Jump:

Overrun By Machines:

Not a lot of happy Canadians over on the comments page for CBC Radio's program Spark. The producers for the radio show, blog, and podcast on technology issues have disclosed that the program won't be using Creative Commons licensed materials any more.

The mention came after a fan posted that he couldn't locate mention of the Creative Commons music used in the episode.

"I can't find the link?" he noted. "Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place?"

"You're not looking in the wrong place," came a reply. "There's simply no Creative Commons music used in this episode. By management decree, CBC podcasts are no longer permitted to use CC music. Instead, we're using the APM Music library (http://www.apmmusic.com/), which is copyright cleared and fully licensed by the CBC."

Read the comments on this post

matthew.lasar@arstechnica.com (Matthew Lasar)074532557347991172260147106376103550297208060419678676185941

My Morning Jacket will look back at their decade-long career from October 19-23 by performing each of their five albums, in chronological order, over as many nights in New York City. After the gigs, the Louisville, KY, band will continue work on their sixth studio album, and bassist Tom "Two-Tone Tommy" Blankenship tells SPIN.com that the LP is also returning MMJ to their "laid back" roots.

For their upcoming release, expected in early 2011, the band are using a big, raw space near their hometown and are producing the album themselves, rather than work 12 hours per day in a high-tech New York studio with a big-name producer, as they did with 2008's Evil Urges.

"It's worlds apart from what we were doing with Evil Urges," says Blankenship. "This time it's just the five of us; the control room is only separated by a curtain [Laughs]. We're going back to a similar vibe that we had on the first three records. It's definitely more laid back than it's been in a while."

The vibe with the recording sessions is translating to their sound, too: They are revisiting the reverb-drenched, Southern rock sound that launched their career.

"There's a lot, a lot, a lot of bleed going on," explains Blankenship. "It's got that vibe to it where it sounds likes everybody is in the same room. Even if someone is only playing on half of a song, you can still feel their presence."

Blankenship says that My Morning Jacket recorded for two weeks in June and July, and are "a third of the way through" the album. Five songs are completed, including "Circuital" and "Wonderful," which, "we actually recorded a couple different versions of for Evil Urges, but it never worked out."

"All five of those new songs feel distinctly different from one another," Blankenship adds.

My Morning Jacket's special concert series kicks off Oct. 18 at Terminal 5, with a performance of their 1999 debut release, The Tennessee Fire. The run continues with 2001's At Dawn on Oct. 19, 2003's It Still Moves on Oct. 21, 2005's Z on Oct. 22, and 2008's Evil Urges on Oct. 23.

What do you think about MMJ returning to their roots on their next album? Tell us in the comment section!

Matt Kiser

This guest post is by Bob Baker of the music marketing blog The Buzz Factor.

Last week I received an email from a Canadian named John Ioannou. The message opened this way:

"Hi Bob. Here's a true story about a musician, his dream, and proof that opportunity knocks!"

I was on the verge of closing the email to read later, but something prompted me to continue. And I'm glad I did.

I've often reminded aspiring musicians over the years that there are many paths to success. There are no guarantees. What works well for one artist often will not work at all for another.

And some of the things that end up working seem so outlandish (and even foolish) at first glance. Such was the case with John's story.

The message continued ...

"There's a really talented kid named Scotty James who attended high school in Canada and decided after graduation that music would be his full-time job.

"Armed with only a guitar and a dream, Scotty humbly has been going door to door to people's homes busking for cash - ten bucks a song to raise money for his first album."

(Watch this YouTube video clip of Scotty's door-to-door adventures.)

"He came to our house on August 27 late in the evening to play. I was a bit skeptical at first, but gave him a listen and paid the ten bucks. The kid honestly blew me away - unique voice and some of the catchiest songs. I was hooked. I told him I run a music company and admire his hard work."

John met with Scotty a few days later and told him he would be interested in working with him. But ... Scotty had to take on three challenges:

Challenge 1 - Take Nelly's popular hip-hop song "Just a Dream," do an acoustic version of it, and give it the Scotty James sound. Here's what Scotty came up with:

Challenge 2 - Go up to random girls at universities/colleges, sing to them and record it on video. John wanted to see their reaction to Scotty and his music. Here's what happened that day:

Challenge 3 - Go up to random people and sing to them on a city bus.

John continues ...

"On September 23, less than a month after Scotty James first knocked on my front door, we met with a record producer. Scotty is now in the studio recording his debut album, called 'Crazy.' He met all of my challenges and for that I am paying to record his album."

John ends by saying "That's proof that opportunity really does knock!"

What actions are you taking to create your own musical opportunities?

PledgeMusic has partnered with Sonicbids. Artists can now view their fan-funding campaign directly within their Sonicbids dashboard, giving them the ability to find gigs and create and manage a funding campaign in the same place. They'll also have access to the PledgeMusic widget which can be placed on any web page to collect fans e-mails in exchange for a track. PledgeMusic has opted to make the first pledge at $50 for any Sonicbids artists that start a campaign.

Ticketmaster informed its affiliate partners in an email on Thursday that as of October 15 it will no longer pay commissions on affiliate sales.By Glenn Peoples

Just in case you’ve started to develop a soft spot in your heart for major labels and feel at least a bit sympathetic towards their cause, rapper Nas steps in and reminds us all why things probably haven’t changed all that much. In a heated e-mail that got published on the Lefsetz Letter, Nas explains why Lost Tapes 2 isn’t coming out. Mainly, because Def Jam is only willing to put out the album under the circumstances that it doesn’t count against his deal and he doesn’t get any money from it. Yet, the label would still like all the benefits that come along with releasing a new album. Thus, as you’ll see in the e-mail below, Nas isn’t too happy about this; he wants it out:

From: Nas
To: LA Reid, Steve Bartels, Steve Gawley, Michael Seltzer, Joseph Borrino, Chris Hicks
Subject: PUT MY SHIT OUT!

Peace to all,

With all do respect to you all, Nas is NOBODY’s slave. This is not the 1800′s, respect me and I will respect you.

I won’t even tap dance around in an email, I will get right into it. People connect to the Artist @ the end of the day, they don’t connect with the executives. Honestly, nobody even cares what label puts out a great record, they care about who recorded it. Yet time and time again its the executives who always stand in the way of a creative artist’s dream and aspirations. You don’t help draw the truth from my deepest and most inner soul, you don’t even do a great job @ selling it. The #1 problem with DEF JAM is pretty simple and obvious, the executives think they are the stars. You aren’t…. not even close. As a matter of fact, you wish you were, but it didn’t work out so you took a desk job. To the consumer, I COME FIRST. Stop trying to deprive them! I have a fan base that dies for my music and a RAP label that doesn’t understand RAP. Pretty fucked up situation

This isn’t the 90′s though. Beefing with record labels is so 15 years ago. @ this point I just need you all to be very clear where I stand and how I feel about “my label.” I could go on twitter or hot 97 tomorrow and get 100,000 protesters @ your building but I choose to walk my own path my own way because since day one I have been my own man. I did business with Tommy Mottola and Donnie Einer, two of the most psycho dudes this business ever created. I worked well with them for one major reason……. they believed in me. The didn’t give a fuck about what any radio station or magazine said….those dudes had me.

Lost Tapes is a movement and a very important set up piece for my career as it stands. I started this over 5 years ago @ Columbia and nobody knew what it was or what it did but the label put it out as an LP and the fans went crazy for it and I single handlely built a new brand of rap albums. It’s smart and after 5 years it’s still a head of the game. This feels great and you not feeling what I’m feeling is disturbing. Don’t get in the way of my creativity. We are aligned with the stars here, this is a movement. There is a thing called KARMA that comes to haunt you when you tamper with the aligning stars. WE ARE GIVING THE PEOPLE EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT. Stop throwing dog shit on a MAGICAL moment.

You don’t get another Nas recording that doesn’t count against my deal….PERIOD! Keep your bullshit $200,000.00 fund. Open the REAL budget. This is a New York pioneers ALBUM, there ain’t many of us. I am ready to drop in the 4th quarter. You don’t even have shit coming out! Stop being your own worst enemy. Let’s get money!

-N.Jones