Chris Castle interviews innovator Alan Graham about blockchain, the Open Music Initiative, smart contracts and solving the online data problems for artists.
Nice to see John Oliver and Last Week Tonight stand up for the rights of songwriters. In the last segment of the show Oliver reviewed the permissionless/unlicensed use of songs by various candidates ending with a spoof music video “Don’t use our songs.” Guest appearances included Nancy and Ann Wilson, Usher, Michael Bolton, Dan Reynolds, Cyndi Lauper, Cheryl Crow, Josh Groban, and John Cougar. The message was unequivocally clear: respect the rights and wishes of songwriters.
And of course there was this:
Michael Bolton: Thank you for not playing me that’s a license you didn’t buy
Josh Groban: If I wanted to sing and not get paid I put my songs on Spotify
While some rights holders are being paid Last Week Tonight is correctly noting the issue with Spotify is that a large percentage of songwriters have not been paid at all.
A heartfelt thank you to John Oliver and the staff at Last Week Tonight.
By Chris Castle
What this comes down to is that you are driving fans to Spotify, Spotify is capturing their identifiable information, scraping that into data categories through pattern recognition and other data mining techniques and then profiling your fans to be resold to brands. It’s hard to believe that Google is not involved with this deal somehow. (Don’t forget that Kara Swisher reported in Re/Code that then Google head of business development joined the Spotify board.)
At least there’s one artist rights organization in the UK that’s NOT controlled by Google! Multi-platinum songwriter and producer Crispin Hunt has been appointed chairman of British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors. Crispin will take over the role from Stephen McNeff who steps down as chairman to concentrate on a major new commission with […]
Can we finally put the most outrageous of the Google funded anti-SOPA canards to rest?
The Department of Justice just shut down the massively infringing KickAssTorrent site. Domains owned* by KAT were seized. And the Internet didn’t break. Due process was not violated. Free Speech continues unabated.
NYAN cat still soars
And ISIS still gets to use twitter and YouTube to broadcast calls to kill westerners. Stay classy YouTube, this is why you will never ever replace television.
YouTube inspiring the next lone wolf attack again!
*The question of whether a domain name is truly owned by whomever has registered the domain is an open question. The US Commerce department gives ICANN “coordination role of the Internet’s naming system.” Among the many powers (derived from the commerce department) it appoints registries for each TLD (Top Level Domain). Things like .com, .org, .sucks etc. These registries then license the use of domain names that are effectively the creation of the US Commerce department through its appointed agent ICANN. The US Commerce Department could change the contract it has with ICANN forcing it to manage domain names in any way it sees fit. It could even replace ICANN with a different entity (Considering the fact that ICANN has essentially become the FIFA of the Internet it’s not necessarily a far fetched idea). Many people in the rest of the world chafe at the notion that the US taxpayers essentially own the internet. But why shouldn’t we? We built it. More than any other country we guarantee the integrity of the system.
And I don’t know about you, but I would much rather have a democratically elected government (however flawed) run the thing, rather than an unaccountable FIFA type international collection of corrupt despots.
Last week, however, under Assistant Attorney General Renata Hesse (a former Wilson Sonsini attorney — Google’s law firm), the DOJ announced that, going forward, it intends to interpret the Consent Decrees to require ASCAP and BMI to only issue licenses for songs they control 100%, up-ending decades of custom and practice. The DOJ’s intention, presumably, is to make life easier for companies like Google, Apple, and Spotify. In doing so, DOJ has created an unworkable solution to a non-existent problem.
From the DOJ website today:
“Copyright infringement exacts a large toll, a very human one, on the artists and businesses whose livelihood hinges on their creative inventions,” said U.S. Attorney Fardon. “Vaulin allegedly used the Internet to cause enormous harm to those artists. Our Cybercrimes unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago will continue to work with our law enforcement partners around the globe to identify, investigate and prosecute those who attempt to illegally profit from the innovation of others.”
Read more here
We begin by stating once again that we strenuously object to the timetable set by the DOJ for the submission of these comments. Unlike the many multi-‐national, billion-‐dollar corporations identified by your Division as “interested parties” concerning this matter (including one of the world’s richest, most powerful and influential corporations, Google), our coalition of music creators does not have and cannot afford to maintain an army of antitrust attorneys and experts to immediately prepare a detailed analysis and refutation of the solely telephonic report we were given by DOJ.
This afternoon, Apple submitted a preliminary proposal to the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board to simplify the way music-streaming companies pay songwriters and publishers. Apple, which has always had a gift for creative simplicity, wants to make this process easier and more transparent, according to a copy of the filing obtained by Billboard. The company’s proposal to the Copyright Royalty Board suggests a simple, “all-in” statutory rate that would be “fair, simple and transparent, unlike the incredibly complicated structure that currently exists.”
Although not perfect this is a step in the right direction. Penny rate instead of an absurd percentage of ad rev calculation.
Apple, in a government filing on Friday, proposed simplifying the highly complex way that songwriting royalties are paid when it comes to on-demand streaming services like Apple Music, Spotify and Tidal.
According to Apple’s proposal, made with the Copyright Royalty Board, a panel of federal judges who oversee rates in the United States, streaming services should pay 9.1 cents in songwriting royalties for every 100 times a song is played. This formula would replace the long passages of federal rules for streaming rates, which often leave musicians bewildered about just how the money flows in streaming music.
But even in this seemingly innocuous proposal, which was not made public but was obtained by The New York Times, Apple’s target is clear: Spotify, its archenemy in streaming music. The proposal would significantly raise the rates that Spotify pays, and the filing includes lines that are clearly directed at Spotify and…
View original post 131 more words