The Lack of Ethics of Online Advertisers, YouTube, Google, Others.
Read The Blog Post Here:
https://medium.com/@jonathantaplin/sleeping-through-a-revolution-8c4b147463e5
Watch the Full Lecture Here:
Author: Trichordist Editor
Trichordist Editor
Jaron Lanier: The Internet destroyed the middle class | Salon
Jaron Lanier was the first to identify and speak about this issue. We’re glad to see others catching up to him. Here’s a refresher…
“Here’s a current example of the challenge we face,” he writes in the book’s prelude: “At the height of its power, the photography company Kodak employed more than 140,000 people and was worth $28 billion. They even invented the first digital camera. But today Kodak is bankrupt, and the new face of digital photography has become Instagram. When Instagram was sold to Facebook for a billion dollars in 2012, it employed only 13 people. Where did all those jobs disappear? And what happened to the wealth that all those middle-class jobs created?”
“Future” also looks at the way the creative class – especially musicians, journalists and photographers — has borne the brunt of disruptive technology.
READ THE FULL STORY AT SALON:
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/12/jaron_lanier_the_internet_destroyed_the_middle_class/
Silicon Valley Is Not a Force for Good | The Atlantic
We don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water, what we need is fair and ethical businesses.
It’s been a long journey from Google to Snapchat—or to apps that enable drivers to auction off the public street-parking spot they’re about to leave in San Francisco. With a few exceptions, the Valley’s innovations have become smaller, and smaller-minded. Many turn on concepts (network effects, regulatory arbitrage, price discrimination) that economists would say are double-edged, if not pernicious. And while the Web was touted as a great democratizing force, recent tech innovations have created lots of profits at the top of the ladder and lots of job losses lower down. The tech sector itself has proved disappointing as a jobs engine and at times hostile to women.
READ THE FULL POST AT THE ATLANTIC:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/silicon-valley-shrinking-vision/395309/
Streaming “Transparency” and the 70% Black Box Lie… The Solution Is #gettherateright
The argument goes something like this…
Streaming companies are paying 70% of their revenue but artists are not getting paid enough. This must be the result of record labels and rights holders not passing on the right amount to artists.
The first question is, how do we know that streaming services are actually, really paying 70% of their top line gross revenue to rights holders? We know what the revenue of a transaction is on iTunes, because it is factually transparent – it is the list price being charged. We all know this, and we can all verify this. A $9.99 album on iTunes pays out $7.00, or 70%. Same thing for a $.99 song that pays out $.70, that’s also 70% of revenue.
But when if comes to streaming services however we do not know what the revenue is that should be credited to artists and rights holders. This is what is actually of concern. There is a big black box at the top of the waterfall from which all other money flows downstream.
So if streaming services are paying 70% of revenue, what exactly is that revenue? Let us see it. So here we are with the issue of transparency. If we can’t actually see or know what that number is then yes, the low payouts are very much of concern and have very little to do with intermediaries.
We can disagree about how the 70% of revenue is passed onto artists from iTunes and other transactional sales. But one thing is clear, we all understand the transparent economics of how much money is generated on each transaction. This is not so with streaming. So without transparency at the top of the waterfall, everything that follows is suspect.
More importantly, and more to the point, if there are established retail and wholesale rates for each stream, the calculations become immediately transparent in the same way they are with Itunes. See, the issue here is not what is going on downstream, but rather what is happening at the top of the waterfall.
“WE HAVE A MONETIZATION PROBLEM”
The truth is by now (and everyone should be able to agree on this), we know that streaming creates too little revenue relative to the value of the product. In other words the product is being sold to the consumer for less than the cost that it takes to create and produce it, and still remain sustainable.
In simple terms this is expressed as selling a Porsche for one dollar. It doesn’t matter how many Porsche’s you sell for one dollar while paying out 70% of the revenue, there will never be enough money to actually pay for the cost producing the car. Porsche’s, like professional music are expensive to produce. Despite the advances in recording technology, it is he cost of human labor that is the most important in the value chain.
This is the economics of music streaming in a nutshell, but with one added twist. The Porsche may be sold for one dollar one month, and be sold for only eighty cents the next month, and maybe the month after that sold for a dollar and ten cents. This is because of the fixed (and unsustainable) revenue pool that is divided by the total number of plays.
The common sense solution would be to establish a fixed per stream rate at each platform. This is the most simple way to encourage transparency and fairness as the revenue generated per stream can be transparently and easily calculated from top line data – no more black box at the top of the waterfall. The funny thing is, the people shouting the loudest for transparency also seem to be the most opposed to the easiest solution. Why is that?
So, if we are to have conversations about transparency let’s at least be clear about what it is that we actually need to see.
Music Streaming Now Generates Trillions Of Plays — But Are Royalties Keeping Up? | Billboard
A lot of advertising gets slathered on A Trillion Streams, and served to the most highly prized consumer demographic… no wonder Google/YouTube, Spotify and Pandora are so opposed to non-free, subscription based models that could actually compensate musicians and songwriters fairly.
The headline number in the report is 1,032,225,905,640, or 1.03 trillion, the number of song plays on Pandora, Rdio, Spotify, SoundCloud, Vevo, Vimeo and YouTube that the company tracked in the first six months of this year. It’s a startling number, much larger than anything we’ve seen before it.
…
It’s safe to say not all 1.03 trillion plays were royalty-bearing streams. Some had a royalty in the 0.05 to 0.1 cents per stream range typical of subscription services. Many of the Pandora streams had a U.S. statutory rate for pure-play webcasters of 0.14 cents plus a smaller amount for publishers (some Pandora streams had a higher royalty applied to streams by subscribers). And SoundCloud, a new entrant to licensed, monetized streaming, most certainly had many non-monetized streams.
Yes, it’s safe to say not all 1.03 trillon plays were royalty-bearing streams. No kidding. For most musicians and songwriters a trillion streams still means the same thing, a couple hundred bucks, if they’re lucky…
READ THE FULL STORY AT BILLBOARD.COM
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/6663811/music-streaming-now-generates-trillions-of-plays-but-are-royalties-keeping-up
Pay the Band | Memphis Flyer
Brice S Newman of Memphis details why support for the Fair Play, Fair Pay bill is essential for all musicians and creators to support.
There are four parts to the initiative, which includes a comprehensive bill that gives music creators pay parity. First, legislation would establish a process for setting fair-market royalty rates, not some pathetic low royalty rate that is decades old.
Second, the legislation would create a performance right for artists on terrestrial radio in the U.S., so that artists can get paid when their performances are on the radio. This is how it’s done in much of the rest of the world.
Third, this legislation would close a 1972 loophole and would guarantee that veteran performers receive royalties.
Fourth, the legislation would codify royalty payments to producers — the people behind the songs. If we can make all this happen, I am sure we will be paid back many times over in good music that’s been created by musicians who deserve to make a living.
READ THE FULL STORY AT THE MEMPHIS FLYER:
http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/pay-the-band/Content?oid=4073778
YouTube User Account has been terminated because we received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material the user posted.
We’ve been hearing from a number of our artist friends who are getting more proactive about using the DMCA to manage their work on YouTube. They are reporting that there appear to be more account terminations on YouTube in recent months. This would appear to be happening due to a number of factors, not the least of which is that artists, songwriters and creators are finally becoming aware of just how damaging “User Pirated Content” on YouTube really is to their careers.
Readers will note that the account in the screen shot above was terminated due to “multiple third-party claims“. That means the YouTube user is indiscriminately uploading multiple works by multiple parties. Unfortunately this appears to be a very common case with many users.
This is a serial infringer – it is not someone “just sharing their cute cat video.” There are literally thousands upon thousands of YouTube channels that are nothing more than infringement farms where artists get paid a pittance, if anything at all.
YouTube user accounts are subject to a three strikes rule. Yup, that’s it, three strikes – and now it appears more parties than ever before are starting to exert their rights via the DMCA and are sending notices to remove infringing works on the video streaming site.
This is how users, and the general public at large learn about copyright infringement. When an account is terminated the YouTube user is learning about copyright and artists rights. Those users should be directed to the artists YouTube channel where the artist themselves have chosen what material to share and promote.
Some have noted receiving direct emails from the users whose accounts are being terminated stating that the user knew they did not have the permission to upload the infringing content, but are doing so without profit motive. As much as we can appreciate that sentiment by the users, this is not the case for YouTube and Google who profit from a business built on “User Pirated Content” which attracts one of the largest online audiences in the world (thanks to our work!), and is monetized with advertising.
Because an account termination is the result of multiple copyright claims, Google & YouTube seem to forgo the attempted public shaming of rights holders that commonly appears when a video is individually removed.
There could be a few more reasons why there are more DMCA take downs and a rise in account terminations.
First, artists are figuring out that $375 per million views when monetizing “User Pirated Content” is a really, really, really bad deal via Content ID. These collections are generally through a third party taking a percentage of that money like Audiam (25%) or AdRev (15%) as well as Tunecore and CDBaby amongst other aggregators who are also now offering this service. But no matter how you slice it, $375 per million views is just a really bad deal.
Here’s what front line YouTube (artist channel uploads) and Spotify plays look like per million views by comparison, and you can see more [here]:
Second, with the advent of YouTube’s vaporware Subscription Streaming Service (MusicKey) required artists and rights holders to be contractually bound to grant Free Streaming Licenses for their entire catalog of records via auto-generated videos and playlists. Now that every song on every album is licensed for free streaming and ad-monetization it reduces YouTube’s dependency on “User Pirated Content“.
Third, overall YouTube is a serious problem for all creators in their efforts to create and support a fair and ethical marketplace for music and media online. The best illustration is that Jay-Z’s Tidal was launched with the intention of providing it’s paying subscribers with exclusive material. The problem is, everything that Tidal made available exclusively to add value for it’s paying customers and fans was illegally uploaded to YouTube shortly after it was released. It’s hard to build a business on exclusivity when the largest streaming site in the world allows massive, repeat infringement. Thus, aggressive DMCA takedowns are probably leading to more account terminations.
Let’s see how long this lasts before the entire album is on YouTube:
And last but not least, the record industry is once again slow to get out the calculators, but when they do at least they take notice. Last year we reported on several posts during SXSW that highlighted the disparity between market share and revenue noting how much lower streaming payments were from YouTube versus Spotify (and others). Using only a limited data set we concluded that making music available on YouTube is the least profitable way for artists and rights holders to monetize their works.
Digital Music News recently posted a simple info graphic that highlights the problem as simple as it can possibly be detailing that YouTube accounts for 52% of all streams served but only 13.5% of revenues. Bad Deal. See the infographic / chart [here].
Let us be clear, that when users upload infringing material to YouTube containing our works without a license it is because of a business model that uses the DMCA to avoid responsibility for that infringement. Further more, these are not issues of Fair Use as some might like to suggest. The very fact that YouTube is a global commercial business who profits from publicly distributing “User Pirated Content” largely negates many (if not most) arguments for Fair Use.
Responsibly run services such as Vimeo (we believe Vimeo are responsibly run) have made a business by being the indie filmmakers destination for distributing their works, legally and licensed. Vimeo also has a simple and effective password protection function for non-public distribution of works intended for personal use amongst friends, family and small groups for educational purposes. This is not the case with YouTube, but it should be.
Did Google & YouTube just Scam The Entire Record Business into Free Streaming Licenses? MusicKey is MIA…
We Believe The Cellist: Google Smears @zoecello and All Independent Artists
Did Google & YouTube just Scam The Entire Record Business into Free Streaming Licenses? MusicKey is MIA…
Remember all the controversy over YouTube’s ad-free streaming subscriber service, MusicKey? If the words “Google” and “Ad-Free” sound like a complete contradiction, you are not alone.
Ok, so where is it? We tried to sign up, but we’ll be notified later when the service is available.
Remember how one of the requirements was ALL OF YOUR MUSIC also had to be licensed for FREE STREAMING on YouTube or your promotional videos would be blocked or banned from the site?
Did you forget? No worries, here is the recap from Zoe Keating’s blog that brought the issue to light.
1) All of my catalog must be included in both the free and premium music service. Even if I don’t deliver all my music, because I’m a music partner, anything that a 3rd party uploads with my info in the description will be automatically included in the music service too.
2) All songs will be set to “montetize”, meaning there will be ads on them.
3) I will be required to release new music on Youtube at the same time I release it anywhere else. So no more releasing to my core fans first on Bandcamp and then on iTunes.
4) All my catalog must be uploaded at high resolution, according to Google’s standard which is currently 320 kbps.
5) The contract lasts for 5 years.
So, “All songs will be set to “montetize”, meaning there will be ads on them.” That’s one hell of a trade-off to get some subscription money, but maybe it won’t be so bad once that MusicKey money starts rolling in right? YouTube and Google have a HUGE amount of users to convert to PAYING SUBSCRIBERS, right?
Hahahahahahahahahaa. You fell for that gag? Seriously? Here’s what YouTube says about that little side business of PAID SUBSCRIBERS…in an interview between YouTube Senior Exec Robert Kyncl and Music Ally: YouTube Music Key delay ‘nothing too serious’ says senior exec.”
“We’ll always have ad-supported: that’s our core, and we’ll never stop focusing on it. It’s in Google’s DNA to be in the ad-supported business.
Subscription is just an add-on. It’s an adjacent business that we’re building.”
Suckas… You seriously thought Google who has slathered the internet with advertising on “User Pirated Content” across multiple platforms was going to pivot to a paid subscription model to move away from advertising on it’s flagship video streaming site? Really? Seriously?
You saw that five year term, right? So MusicKey is a no show for subscriber revenue but thanks to that five year term the largest streaming service in the world, that pays the least amount per stream now has licenses for the next half decade. As the kids say, LOL.
Don’t worry about MusicKey not showing up anytime soon with that Paid Subscriber Money, in the meantime enjoy your life’s work as a YouTube auto-generated music video and playlist, for free.
Oh MusicKey we would have loved to have known you – now all we have is our catalogs of master recordings being monetized on old-school YouTube for pennies on the dollar of every other streaming service including Spotify. Wow, just wow.
And Speaking of Spotify, guess who has a seat on the board to make sure that their “ad-supported DNA” remains the primary focus of that music streaming service? Three guesses… Yup, it’s Google.
Here’s a trip down MusicKey memory lane…
April 2014 : Exclusive: ‘YouTube Music’ Is Launching This Summer… | Digital Music News
June 2014 : Artists who don’t sign with YouTube’s new subscription service to be blocked [Updated] | Ars Technica
June 2014 : F*&K It: Here’s the Entire YouTube Contract for Indies…| Digital Music News
November 2014: YouTube’s MusicKey Will Cause $2.3 Billion In Music Industry Losses… | Digital Music News
January 2015 : YouTube Is Removing Any Artist That Refuses to License Its Subscription Service…| Ars Technica
April 2015 : If You Don’t Agree to YouTube’s New Ad-Free Terms, Your Videos Will Disappear…|Digital Music News
June 2015 : YouTube Music Key delay ‘nothing too serious’ says senior exec | Music Ally
Exhausting… Why would anyone trust these people? All hail “User Pirated Content“… and if that doesn’t work just come up with a non-existent paid subscriber streaming service that auto-generates music videos and playlists on the free, ad-supported platform. At least that part is working, right?
Let’s talk about transparency for a second. Why is it that YouTube would be excluded from Google’s own DMCA tracking report? It couldn’t be because DMCA notices and takedowns of infringing material YouTube dwarf even the most notorious of pirates sites say like The Pirate Bay? No, that wouldn’t be the reason would it?
Maybe #adbusters and #blackspot really do have it right…
The Digital Ad Business Is Broken, Says Former Forbes.com CEO | Venture Beat
No surprises here, right?
“The onion is slowly and surely getting peeled back.”
…
Last year, Google reported that 56.1 percent of all ads served were not measured viewable by humans.
Last December, the Association of National Advertisers and security firm WhiteOps estimated that up to a quarter of video ad views were fraudulent and resulting from software bots. It also said that as much as half of publisher traffic is from bots. This represents a projected $6 billion-plus in wasted ad spend this year.
Spanfeller sees the current system as a big part of the problem.
No kidding.
READ MORE AT VENTURE BEAT:
http://venturebeat.com/2015/08/08/the-digital-ad-business-is-broken-says-former-forbes-com-ceo/
Over 50 Major Brands Funding Music Piracy, It’s Big Business!
“User Pirated Content” Is Core Internet Advertising Model
Music Artists Take On the Business, Calling for Change | New York Times
The New York Times quotes representatives of the artists rights movement including Blake Morgan of the #irespectmusic campaign, Melvin Gibbs of C3Action.Org (Content Creators Coalition), David Lowery of the Trichordist as well as musicians Zoe Keating, David Byrne and others.
“None of these companies that are supposedly in the music business are actually in the music business,” Mr. Gibbs said. “They are in the data-aggregation business. They’re in the ad-selling business. The value of music means nothing to them.”
READ MORE AT THE NEW YORK TIMES:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/business/media/music-artists-take-on-the-business-calling-for-change.html
The Trichordist 
You must be logged in to post a comment.