Blake Morgan Explains the #irespectmusic AND I VOTE! campaign and the Importance of @respectcreators at @thebitterend Show in NYC

Originally posted on MUSIC • TECHNOLOGY • POLICY:

On October 14, Blake Morgan and a great line up of performers hosted a sold out standing room only live show for the #irespectmusic AND I VOTE! campaign at the legendary Bitter End in Greenwich Village.  In addition to stellar performances by City of the Sun, Jus Post Bellum, Coyle Girelli and Janita as well as a rousing speech supporting artist rights by Congressman Jerry Nadler that brought the house down, Blake told the story of the #irespectmusic activism and the voter registration campaign.  (See event review here at Doo Bee Doo Bee Doo.)

I highly recommend watching this video of Blake’s inspiring short speech about the evolution of his activism, the voter registration drive and the Congressional Creative Rights Caucus.

Tell your friends, sign the petition and VOTE on November 4!

image

View original

Two Sincere Questions for The Future Of Music Coalition #SFMUSICTECH

trichordist:

Timely questions as the FOMC Policy Summit is one again upon us…

Originally posted on The Trichordist:

We notice that Future of Music Coalition has submitted testimony to congress asking that they “represent” artists in the Copyright Reform process begun by Congress.

So since they’ve  volunteered to represent us.  We feel it only fair that they answer these two questions:

1. Who selects your advocacy positions?  
AFM, AFTRA, NARAS, Nashville Songwriters Assn, and ASCAP all have democratically elected boards who set the organizations’ positions.  Do you have members who vote for leadership?  If not, who is making those decisions?

2. Who funds your organization?
Google is listed as your first sponsor of your primary event.
http://futureofmusic.org/events/future-music-summit-2012

How much money do you get from Google?  Do you think you should be taking funding from a source many artists believe to be opposed to their interests?

FOMC Spondors

View original

The Paradox of Pirate Logic : Music Versus Music Software – Full Post

trichordist:

By simply adding the word “Software” to the word “Music” the rationalizations around stealing labor from musicians falls apart very quickly.

Originally posted on The Trichordist:

by Chris Whitten
(Copyright in the Author, Posted with Permission)

The bottom line for many in the often heated piracy debate is this: “Give us a good product at a fair price, make it convenient and easy to obtain and we’ll buy it”.

There is a digital product that ticks most of those boxes. So by comparing two products I wonder if we can learn anything about the chances of reducing music and movie piracy by making it better quality, more affordable and easy to download?

I’m of course talking about music production software.

About 7 years ago I was involved in creating a virtual drum instrument in collaboration with a Swedish music software producer Toontrack. Our product has been critically acclaimed, is a best seller, but is also unfortunately a favourite with software pirates. The pirate’s ‘advice’ to “adapt or die” appears then to ring hollow. As a performance…

View original 1,628 more words

Shootout At the Fantasy Factory Part 2: What Should Streams Mean for Royalty Escalations?

Trichordist Editor:

If 100 streams = 1 Song Download, why doesn’t the money match?

Originally posted on MUSIC • TECHNOLOGY • POLICY:

As we noted in a prior post, Billboard reported on what might be called the “chart value” of streams compared to downloads.  To the extent that streams are counted in both the Billboard charts and the UK’s Official Charts, streams are valued at 100 streams to one permanent download.  This ratio was touted by Spotify at the recent artist meetings hosted by the Featured Artist Coalition in New York.

When you consider the royalty value of that ratio, however, those 100 streams are rewarded at a much, much lower penny rate than a download, even if you compare 100 streams to the $0.70 price of the lowest iTunes wholesale price of downloads.  As we noted previously, the 100:1 ratio implies a per-stream royalty of $0.007.

What About the Royalty Value?

Experience suggests that this seems high.  Quite high.  So just to confirm what Spotify representatives actually said at the…

View original 1,836 more words

The Return of Brand Sponsored Piracy: Google’s Artist Shakedown Continues But This Time They Really, Really, Really Mean It

Trichordist readers will recall our many posts about how Google uses search to drive traffic to unlicensed sites where Google Adsense or Doubleclick serves the advertising that keeps the illegal site operating.  And turns a nice profit for Google.  This is the principal way Google profits from piracy as far as we can tell.

Today there’s a story in the BBC about Google’s latest charm offensive to try to demonstrate to the world–or at least to the European Commission antitrust regulators–that far from profiting from piracy, Google actually fights piracy.

This is, of course, utter bullshit.  We’re not going to go through the whole song and dance again, but take a look at this screen shot showing Google’s Doubleclick serving an ad to Grooveshark.  That would be the adjudicated infringer Grooveshark:

Google Screen Shot 2014-10-20 at 9.37.22 AM

Here’s what Google told the BBC:

Google has announced changes to its search engine in an attempt to curb online piracy.

The company has long been criticised for enabling people to find sites to download entertainment illegally.

The entertainment industry has argued that illegal sites should be “demoted” in search results.

The new measures, mostly welcomed by music trade group the BPI, will instead point users towards legal alternatives such as Spotify [Google is on the Spotify board so presumably owns shares in Spotify] and Google Play [aka the Genco Pura Olive Oil Company 2.0].

Google will now list these legal services in a box at the top of the search results, as well as in a box on the right-hand side of the page.

Crucially, however, these will be adverts – meaning if legal sites want to appear there, they will need to pay Google for the placement.

The BPI said that while it was “broadly” pleased with Google’s changes, it did not think sites should have to pay.

“There should be no cost when it comes to serving consumers with results for legal services,” a spokesman told the BBC.

Well, allow us to retort:

This is a motherfucking shakedown.

We suspect that’s a more accurate assessment of what the BPI was probably thinking but felt constrained to say.

Combine this with thursdays Digital Music News story and we can only conclude:

Google drives traffic to illegal sites while forcing legitimate sites to pay!  How is this good news?

 

When Iggy Pop can’t live off his art, what chance do the rest have? | The Globe and Mail

But a new reality has tripped him up and it’s the same one shafting artists all across the world: Namely, that everyone wants to listen, and no one wants to pay. This week, Iggy gave a lecture for the British Broadcasting Corp. called Free Music in a Capitalist Society. Artists have always been ripped off by corporations, he said; now the public is in on the free ride, too: “The cat is out of the bag and the new electronic devices, which estrange people from their morals, also make it easier to steal music than to pay for it.”

To keep skinny body and maverick soul together, Iggy’s become a DJ, a car-insurance pitchman and a fashion model. If he had to live off royalties, he said, he’d have to “tend bars between sets.” As I listened to his enthusiastic stoner Midwestern drawl, I thought: If Iggy Pop can’t make it, what message does that send to all the baby Iggys out there? In a society where worth is judged by price, for better or worse, what are you saying to someone when you won’t pay for the thing he’s crafted?

READ THE FULL STORY AT:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/when-iggy-pop-cant-live-off-his-art-what-chance-do-the-rest-have/article21154663/

c3 : DEMONSTRATE TO SUPPORT ARTISTS RIGHTS !

Announcement From c3 (The Content Creators Coalition)

“Google is in the process of systematically destroying our artistic future… if the creative community doesn’t intervene now, and by now, I mean, fucking now — we will be bound to a multigenerational clusterfuck that will take 40 to 50 years to unravel.” - Kurt Sutter Attacks Google: Stop Profiting from Piracy (Guest Column) | Variety

DEMONSTRATE TO SUPPORT ARTISTS RIGHTS
when:  THIS SUNDAY, Oct 19th, at 4:30-5:00pm
where: Google 8th ave btwn 15th and 16th sts in Manhattan)

MARCH WITH US at 4pm sharp from Le Poisson Rouge
(158 Bleecker St., btwn Sullivan and Thompson in Manhattan )
—OR—
MEET US at Kelly Park at 4:15 pm
(W 16th St., btwn 8th and 9th avenue in Manhattan)

This action is sponsored by the c3, the Content Creators Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to the achievement of economic justice in the digital domain.

*  Google: Stop the Attack on Artists’ Rights.
*  Google/YouTube: Pay Creators For All Use Of Copyrighted Materials: When Profit Is Being Made, The Artist Must Be Paid:  Support An Artists Right To Choose: Take-Down-Means-Stay-Down!
*  Google: Stop brokering ads to corporate black market sites.

Please Forward

SUPPORT ARTISTS RIGHTS! #supportartistsrights
Join Us: ccc-nyc.org http://ccc-nyc.org/

c3_NYC101814

Shootout at the Fantasy Factory: What’s the Value of a Stream?

Trichordist Editor:

Chris Castle at Music Tech Policy beats us to the punch on more Spotify shenanigans… if 100 streams = 1 song download, why don’t the economics match?

Originally posted on MUSIC • TECHNOLOGY • POLICY:

The erudite Harley Brown reported in Billboard about Spotify’s artist relations charm offensive in New York that:

[Blake Morgan's] main complaints were manifold, but two were based on the meeting’s central tenets: that the per-stream rate is never going to go up (70 percent of revenue goes to royalties) and 100 song streams equals a sale on the Billboard charts and the U.K.’s Official Charts Company. With regard to the former, both [Mark] Williamson [of Spotify] and [Paul] Pacifico [of the Featured Artist Coalition] stress that Morgan (and a few other malcontents) didn’t pipe down long enough to let Spotify help the uninitiated artists in the room understand their position.

“What I was trying to explain,” Williamson says, exasperation emanating from his voice over the phone, “Is that we’re a revenue share model. How do we increase the amount of revenue — the pot of royalties — which increases the amount we…

View original 233 more words

This Weekend in NYC : Benefit for Content Creators Coalition (c3): Defend Artists’ Rights: Economic Justice in the Digital Domain! w/ Marc Ribot, John Zorn, and friends

A Benefit Concert for c3

Featuring John Zorn, Eric Slick (Dr Dog), Steve Coleman, Marc RibotHenry Grimes, Marina RosenfeldTrevor Dunn, Brandon SeabrookSatomi Matsuzaki (Deerhoof), Amir ElSaffar, and more!

The event will also feature a short screening of highlights from Michael Count Eldridge’s upcoming documentary film “Unsound”.

General Admission: $20 pre-sale (ends at noon on 10/18) $25 at Doors

Special Artist Rights Supporter tickets include reserved balcony seating and access to a one hour meet and greet prior to the show // Doors at 7pm

TICKETS :
https://web.ovationtix.com/trs/pe/9950804

MORE INFORMATION:
http://roulette.org/events/benefit-content-creators-coalition-c3-defend-artists-rights-economic-justice-digital-domain-w-marc-ribot-john-zorn-friends/

 

Safe Harbor Not Loophole: Five Things We Could Do Right Now to Make the DMCA Notice and Takedown Work Better

Originally posted on The Trichordist:

By Chris Castle

There has been considerable discussion about how the DMCA notice and takedown procedures are “broken.”  We don’t think that this is quite true—the procedures are manipulated, misunderstood and abused on a grand scale.  That doesn’t mean that the notice and takedown procedure is “broken” any more than the laws against burglary, theft and tax evasion are “broken.”  No statute can control unethical behavior by those who use the law as a flimsy excuse to get away with bad behavior.

Many Internet companies have interpreted the DMCA to permit bad behavior until the victim of the bad behavior notified the bad actor that they were behaving badly—each time they behaved badly.  This “catch me if you can” interpretation of the DMCA was not at all what the Congress had in mind.  We would go further and suggest that not only was it not what the Congress had in mind, it…

View original 1,188 more words